As MPAA Insists TV Piracy Is So Harmful, Breaking Bad Creator Explains How Piracy Helped
from the but-of-course dept
At this point, it's amazing how tone deaf the MPAA remains about the impact of people downloading TV shows. Just a few days ago, the MPAA posted a silly blog post arguing that people getting copies of The Walking Dead from unauthorized sources demonstrated how "content theft is a complex problem... that needs to be taken seriously." Except, a day or so later, the creator of AMC's other super popular show (now concluded) Breaking Bad, Vince Gilligan, explained how piracy really helped the show build its base and become so popular:"[It] led to a lot of people watching the series who otherwise would not have."Of course, at this point, this shouldn't be surprising. Folks behind Game of Thrones have more or less said the same thing. Of course, they also try to hedge their claims. Gilligan, for example, followed up his statement above with the following:
"The downside is a lot of folks who worked on the show would have made more money, myself included, if all those downloads had been legal."Except, that's wrong. Or, rather, it's fantasy-world. If people hadn't pirated it, Breaking Bad would have had a much smaller audience, and likely a much shorter run. Recent interviews with the writing staff suggested they expected the show to be cancelled many times throughout the run. If it wasn't getting more and more viewers, it seems likely that it would have been canceled much earlier, and Gilligan's reputation and brand wouldn't be as wonderful as it is currently. It seems quite likely that it would have resulted in him making less money both from Breaking Bad itself and from future projects, where he'll now be able to command a much larger paycheck, given this success.
The MPAA is right that it's "complex," but the constant drumbeat that it's a problem that needs to be fixed seems to ignore the reality that those who have embraced much more widespread distribution and the benefits it provides, have found that it's not necessarily a problem at all. It's only a problem for those who fail to capitalize on it (and, we should note, that "failing to capitalize on new opportunities" is sort of a trademark of the MPAA).
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: attention, breaking bad, piracy, the walking dead, vince gilligan
Companies: amc, mpaa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
There's no real, conclusive data here. The little data we have is cherry picked by each side to support their narrative.
My opinion is that Copyright has outlived its usefulness. In a world where everything can be copied - even physical objects, with 3D printers - giving one person an exclusive right to make copies is beyond nonsensical.
I concede that this notion certainly shakes the foundations of some industries. But that's really not society's problem. They had decades to read the writing on the wall*. Their failure to prepare themselves for the inevitable is their fault alone. Why should society bear the cost of their failure?
* And the software and games industry did, mostly switching away from charging for software directly to charging for access to services.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That country is the UK. And in a globalised economy, it is poor business sense to claim that there is only One True Way, as the MPAA does constantly.
You are right that the issue is more complex than simple yes/no questions can answer, however.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Consider that the price point to get those people to watch through piracy was less than the offered selling price. Somewhere between less than Cable and 0. Those options aren't available. One can conclude that in a world without piracy they would likely not have seen the show.
Logically it follows that the show would not have reached the peak it's at now. The hype would not have been as big, less viewers, less word of mouth, etc.
At the end of the day the only clear result is that all the viewers he has now, would not have all paid. His statement of everyone paying would have made the creators richer is true, but it's pure fantasy.
I think the big takeaway point is not that piracy is justified. It's that the net effect of piracy is far less than what is being pushed by lobbyists. It's not a pure loss, it's entirely possible in some cases that it profits the creators. It's also entirely possible it hurts them. Personally i see it as the market response to the one sided contracts copyright provides content makers. Producers say you will consume as we dictate. Consumers are saying no... we won't. Where producers work with consumers... they are likely to make money. Where they try and screw them over, they will in turn be screwed.
When the only negotiating tool you have is to do something illegal, often something illegal is done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Cases in point Louis C.K. and Amanda Palmer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Buzz Buzz
It's far better to tolerate some mooches than to fade into obscurity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Buzz Buzz
It's far better to tolerate some mooches than to fade into obscurity."
DING! This is THE fundamental truth about all creative endeavors that result in some kind of income/money.
Piracy is INSIGNIFICANT a problem compared to OBSCURITY. If you don't think so, then you have no business running a Big Media studio or trying to earn a living from creative efforts. You certainly don't get to bitch about it (hi ootb!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Buzz Buzz
the artist's biggest problem (after actually creating good art, of course) is not "piracy", but obscurity -- once the author manages to find an audience, getting compensation for their work, from their audience, is a much smaller problem. That audience is, by definition, already interested in the artist's work. He wrote a series of editorials on the topic:
Salvos Against Big Brother
http://www.ericflint.net/index.php/2011/09/26/salvos-against-big-brother/
He continues to make his work available, and many authors have emulated his actions, and found doing so to be [i]profitable[/i].
Baen Books
http://www.baen.com/default.asp
Baen Free Library
http://www.baenebooks.com/c-1-free-library.aspx
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who do we believe?
Or the organisation that makes money off other people's work?
MMMMmmmm, tough choice. NOT!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OR, if people had paid for it, would have had much longer run.
Popular shows are popular, but if don't make money, won't last.
When your arguments are trivially reversable, and you've NO actual evidence just biased assertions, then it's no wonder you're not taken seriously.
Despite actual evidence for FIFTEEN years, you keep on as if any day now entire industries will come crawling to you for advice to get out their slump.
Maybe today items won't be so feeble as yesterday, but you're off to slow start.
Masnicking: daily spurts of short and trivial traffic-generating items.
02:08:00[c-65-0]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OR, if people had paid for it, would have had much longer run.
Oooh this is new. Where is that evidence? Not the bull that is refuted quite easily such as "every download is a lost sale" or "nobody ever buys anything if it's available for free". 15 years worth of evidence? Stuff that's not been debunked ad infinitum or consists of lies, strawmen and misdirection? Go on, link to it.
"Maybe today items won't be so feeble as yesterday"
Don't worry, trolling a blog will always be the feeblest activity one can partake in online, so your position at the bottom of the barrel is safe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OR, if people had paid for it, would have had much longer run.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: OR, if people had paid for it, would have had much longer run.
Good God man, don't confuse him with basic economics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: OR, if people had paid for it, would have had much longer run.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: OR, if people had paid for it, would have had much longer run.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OR, if people had paid for it, would have had much longer run.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: OR, if people had paid for it, would have had much longer run.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OR, if people had paid for it, would have had much longer run.
and if an executive dont like a show even if it is popular and makes money it wont last
and your point is...?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OR, if people had paid for it, would have had much longer run.
Jeebers, do you even read what you write to make sure it isn't just plain stupid?
The TV formula is simple: Popular = ratings = advertising income = it will last! By definition, popular shows get renewed. Shows don't become popular just by being good, plenty of good shows have been cancelled due to lack of popularity. Shows become popular because lots of people find out about it, watch, and decide to keep watching. Only an idiot would deny piracy contributes to that popularity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I Would love to pay for shows
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I Would love to pay for shows
Well, there's your problem. There are ways to do this, but they are far more expensive than what you just mentioned (UK iTunes has episodes of Breaking Bad for £1.89 each or £18/season), not to mention all the crap surrounding geo restrictions, DRM, etc. That's another example of how people often overvalue their digital product. I've certainly never bought a TV show through iTunes, not worth the asking price.
But, Breaking Bad actually became a good example of how to make things available in the last season. Rather than forcing people to wait silly lengths of time, UK Netflix had episodes streaming the day after the US transmission. Not as lucrative as individual purchases perhaps, and I don't know what overall effect it had on illegal downloads of the show, but you'd have to be a moron to suggest that everyone streaming it would just have waited 6 months or paid full price for the episodes had that legal option not existed.
"i would have to stop my (you are a pirate) BBC TV licence fee"
That's not what the licence fee is. You might object to it and its mandatory nature, but it's got sod all to do with piracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I Would love to pay for shows
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I Would love to pay for shows
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Make more money??
Thanks to Hollywood accounting, only a moron would accept any sort of pay deal based on viewership/profitability.
Besides, every TV show I've worked on (be it for Comedy Central, G4, BBC or Channel4) I've always been paid WAY before it airs, most of the time before I'd even left the filming location (nothing quite like being handed a cheque for thousands as you're checking out of the hotel...)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Netflix streaming wouldn't exist if it weren't for piracy, but both are treated very similar. Netflix would be shut down if they could argue a case for it, but thankfully piracy isn't going away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Advertising and Piracy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Advertising and Piracy
It is therefore piracy at its soul and advertising is a sideeffect along with fanbase increase and better future potential.
Just seeing piracy as something positive is naive and what cause creators to not trust the pirate parties.
Btw. viewing piracy as only bad, is just as stupid. MPAA is not doing themself a favour by trying to drum up the piracy apocalypse myth. They should be moving towards cooperating with the technology industry to create platforms both can stomach.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Advertising and Piracy
Plenty of people /do/ pirate for many reasons, including test sampling, or because they can't afford to - or because it's just more convenient. As long as they end up buying some stuff and tell people about what they like, it's free advertising. You know, the stuff that companies throw money away to do, because it makes them money. Is everyone who sees an advert but doesn't buy the product a 'lost sale'? Only in terms of not having managed to appeal to them!
Make easy, legal and cheap options available, and people will use them instead of a lot of pirating. And the real moochers would never have given you a penny anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Advertising and Piracy
If the maximalists get to wax hypothetical about all the money they would have made if people had paid (when they may not have been willing or able to), then you have to accept the reverse scenario as well in which some downloaders would have wanted their money back if they had paid for it or they might not have even actually watched more than 20 minutes of what they downloaded. If a download is a lost sale, then paying to see a movie in advance that turns out to subjectively be crap without offering a refund is "theft" or "fraud." (It's not actually theft or fraud, and a download isn't actually a lost sale.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Advertising and Piracy
Well that's a pretty fundamental misunderstanding right there. Downloading doesn't devalue the product for that particular individual; the individual has already decided on the product's value to them when deciding to download it or obtain it through some other unauthorised manner. They have already decided that they do not believe the product is worth paying the asking price for. They may decide that there initial judgment of its value was correct, or they may decide it is in fact worth paying for. Their perceived value of the creator's other products might also increase or decrease as a result, hence the assertion that piracy is a form of (free) advertising.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Advertising and Piracy
I mean, after all, this was a staple of the music business for decades, and everybody understood how this increased exposure to "free" music boosted music sales. It was soooo unfair when the feds stepped in and put a stop to it. But the internet is comparatively an unregulated wild-west.
Maybe those ISOhunt guys (the ones who were just forced to shut down their torrents search-engine site, because it was supposedly illegal) could get the RIAA and MPAA to employ them as "promoters" getting the Big Studios products more "exposure" on the remaining torrent indexing sites.
After all, even if that *is* illegal, it doesn't seem that the executives at the big labels would have any real problem with it. It would be their own clever "marketing and promotion", rather than some dirty outsiders "pirating" their stuff and stealing their product.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
/rhetorical.
For those who practice Hollywood accounting, the 10% paying provide 10 time the Income, not a loss of 90% of your income.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Indeed. Netflix now has more subscribers in the US than HBO...
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/oct/22/netflix-40m-subscribers-global-growth
The MAFIAA have a very long and detailed history of shooting themselves in the foot every chance they get.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's sort of speculative. However, we can say with certainty that piracy expands the potential audience.
With a bad show, such expansion will not help. However, for a quality show, it will increase the number of viewers/fans. It's up to the producers to monetize that growth. It appears that in the case of Breaking Bad, they did a pretty good job in that respect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The problem is now all these creators have alternative ways of advertising and distributing their content. They no longer rely as heavily on the entrenched incumbents (as the title of this demonstrates) and the MPAA is not happy about that.
The MPAA does not care about creators they only care about maintaining their position as the middlemen (at the expense of both creators and the public).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
but the point is that the MPAA wants the success of the show to hinge more heavily on them and their (stolen) distribution channels (ie: the ones that they have more exclusive access to thanks to govt established broadcasting and cableco monopolies). What this does is it offers content creators a competitive distribution channel which takes away the bargaining power and influence the MPAA have and they don't like this.
IP law is not and has never been about the authors. The parasite middlemen have been the ones to lobby for it (behind closed doors as in SOPA) and to get disproportional representation (through campaign contributions and revolving door favors) and it exists to serve them at the expense of both authors and the public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Except you forgot the most important part of the quote
“The downside is that a lot of folks who worked on the show would’ve made more money, myself included. But you know, like with most things, there’s two sides to the coin,” he said.
“We all need to eat, we all need to get paid, and I get paid very well, I can’t complain.”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If I like it I buy it
Heck if I like a show I tell my friends at work about it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'd give it a try if it was free, maybe, but otherwise I'll just go watch something else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
on the other hand, Dodd, the MPAA top knob, is an ex-senator, has numerous friends who are still in Congress that are bribed rotten by Hollywood and the entertainment industries, who openly threatened to withdraw funding from Obama, he lies like a pig in shit, having had plenty of coaching whilst in Congress. why would they not be believed?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If years of lobbying congress doesn't reap additional revenue, and the creators of the content are saying "more people watching our stuff is better, even if it's not all paid for" then eventually the method that makes the most money is going to win.
You can argue all day about how much MORE money they could make if this happened or that happened, but in the end, they're going to find the way that makes the most money in the current system.
Fighting piracy with lawsuits and lobbying to protect revenues will eventually cost more than it brings in (if it doesn't already).
The easiest way to fight piracy is making their content as cheaply and quickly and easily available as possible all over the world.
Anything that makes content more expensive, makes you wait for it, or makes it difficult to access increases piracy - and a balance will be found where a certain amount of piracy will be tolerate for the amount of revenue they can bring in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As MPAA Insists TV Piracy Is So Harmful...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, it's you who are wrong on at least one point. Future syndication drives the number of episodes more than anything else. A show needs five seasons or more to command top dollar. If a program is getting decent ratings, generally the company will push it out five seasons to increase its value down the road. As far as whether BB would have had a much smaller audience, that's debatable. And as Gilligan said, if the downloads would have been legal, he and the cast and crew WOULD have made more money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
/obvious
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Generally speaking it takes 5 full seasons and 100 episodes for this, not 5 short seasons totaling 62 episodes like Breaking Bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
A would be game? That's fun, I'm in:
If the show WOULD have been available everywhere almost simultaneously, for a fair price with no DRM, the cast and crew would have made more money.
Your turn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's like saying...
Yeah guy - economics don't work that way. Long before you would have gotten rich, someone else would have priced a similar product lower than yours because they're offering what people want at a price they're willing to pay.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To sum up Gilligan's response
[ link to this | view in chronology ]