Ian Morris, over at Forbes.com, argues that Sony could have made far more than they did from the release of 'The Interview'
The numbers are in — you can read Paul Tassi’s piece on this for more — and Sony’s controversial film “The Interview” made a reasonably modest $15 million via its digital release. That’s after the movie cost $44 million, something we know because the Sony hack contained detailed information on the budget.
From a technological point of view, Sony’s big mistake here was one so common in Hollywood — ignoring the rest of the world. Of course there are some contractual reasons that make it hard to globally release a film. As a rule, Sony might be in charge when it comes to the US and Canada, but other companies may be involved when it comes to the global release. In this case though, Sony or Columbia do have the rights in a large number of countries.
But even so, the lesson is that preventing users from legally downloading drives at least some of them to torrent sites. So while Sony made $15 million on the movie, by my calculation that means only 2.5 million people paid to see it. According to various sites, BitTorrent downloads on public trackers were at nearly 1 million viewers after 24 hours. Those numbers exclude private trackers and places like newsgroups, IRC and “locker” based copies (those hosted on Dropbox or similar sites). Factor all those in, and it’s plausible that more people pirated the movie than paid.
Of course, you’ll never stop piracy, but blocking the film from being watched in other English-speaking countries is just foolish. Sony could, perhaps, have doubled its money if it had allowed non-US residents to watch the film. And even if this had penalties with distributors, it feels like this might be the ideal time to try the model out anyway.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 30 2014, @02:12PM
Now that Americans have proven their support for freedom of expression by forking over $15M to Sony, how about Sony steps up and puts their money where their mouth is and donate a couple million of that to charities working to free people from North Korea? [vox.com]
(Score: 2) by nyder on Tuesday December 30 2014, @03:23PM
the movie cost $44 million to make, Sony has taken in $15 million so far.
While I'm not a Sony fan, they have lost money on this film, sort of the point of the submission here.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 30 2014, @03:45PM
That $44M includes $8.4M for Rogen and $6.5M for Franco (which we know thanks to the files that the hackers exfiltrated). Whether it comes directly out of Sony's pockets or they apply pressure to Rogen and Franco to spend their piece of the pie, there are still millions available.
Also, that $16M is just the first week domestic only release (also sort of the point of the submission). Come back in a year and see how it did.
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Tuesday December 30 2014, @03:52PM
From my perspective, Sony lost 44M$ because of bad security, the movie has little to do with it. If they don't learn their lesson from this, it'll happen again as well.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 30 2014, @09:27PM
But that will be a problem for Freedom, not Sony.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday December 30 2014, @03:38PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 30 2014, @03:47PM
Huh?
Did you mean to post that to all of the people hating on the movie for being an average stoner comedy?
(Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday December 30 2014, @03:51PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 30 2014, @04:31PM
I don't see any hate there, but I do see tons of it in the posts by people who think their subjective opinion that The Interview wasn't the next "pineapple express" or "this is the end" is worth sharing with the world, especially in the form of invective.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday December 30 2014, @08:07PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 30 2014, @09:41PM
Uh, both?
Sony has now benefited from their suffering, seems like there is a karmic imbalance.
If you think I was ignorant of the conditions in the DPRK before this, I can only say that I read this [archive.org] when it was first published. Not that I was unfamiliar before that, but mentioning movies like Bidan Gudu, Silmido and Gongdong Gyeongbi Guyeok JSA is less meaningful since they are lighter and you can't just watch them, but you can read that.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday December 31 2014, @12:52AM
Sony has now benefited from their suffering, seems like there is a karmic imbalance.
Not quite. The PR is bad and they're nowhere near break-even. So the reason to want them to pay, but not ask others to submit their own donations, is that you want Sony to suffer. Which is fine... except there's never a finish line. Originally the criticism is that they didn't release the movie. Now that they have released it the criticism is that they shouldn't profit at all and instead throw money at a cause that you didn't care about until the hack happened. What's next? They donate the two million, but they didn't donate the entire proceeds?
Hate means never-ending hunger.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 31 2014, @01:06AM
> Not quite. The PR is bad and they're nowhere near break-even.
Rogen and Franco are very far ahead.
> So the reason to want them to pay, but not ask others to submit their own donations, is that you want Sony to suffer.
That's a variation of the if you can't help everybody you shouldn't help anybody fallacy.
> Now that they have released it the criticism is that they shouldn't profit at all
Now you are making up random stuff.
> throw money at a cause that you didn't care about until the hack happened.
More making up random stuff. I can tell that you haven't read that article either.
When one person has to resort to making up random stuff that is not in evidence that's the equivalent of admitting error, so I will consider this debate over.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday December 31 2014, @01:38AM
Rogen and Franco are very far ahead.
Moving the goal-posts. ;)
That's a variation of the if you can't help everybody you shouldn't help anybody fallacy.
Wrong. It's an observation of your motivations. You did ask me to explain why I used the word 'hate'.
Now you are making up random stuff.
Whatever.
When one person has to resort to making up random stuff that is not in evidence that's the equivalent of admitting error...
"Your honor I object, it's devastating to my case!" Whatever. I called you out for your motivations. We were never having a debate. I didn't take a position, I just offered you some useful criticism. You'd have more credibility if you weren't actively trying to disguise your Sony hate as some altruistic call to help an impoverished people. You're like those idiots that keep ranting over Apple's factory conditions who claim to want to help the workers, yet as soon as Apple made some changes they went quiet. And now, three years later, they're being abused by Apple again. All that noise about hitting the biggest target and no progress was made. That's what happens when your motivations are insincere.
so I will consider this debate over.
I hope the indignity of this conversation doesn't last long and that some time in the future you mature enough to genuinely want to help somebody instead of using altruism as a weapon against an entity you despise.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Tuesday December 30 2014, @08:19PM
how about Sony steps up and puts their money where their mouth is and donate a couple million of that to charities working to free people from North Korea?
That would make them a target of North Korean hackers!
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday December 30 2014, @02:23PM
something we know because the Sony hack contained detailed information on the budget.
I've heard about hollywood accounting all my life where the numbers are manipulated to no movie ever makes any money, so people paid a cut of the profit never get any money.
I wonder how this data dovetails into that situation.
Of course fake accounting could happen in many places other than the aggregate sum of expense reports.
As a side issue I haven't (yet) downloaded any of the Sony stuff. Is it only this exciting, or is there anything actually interesting in there? I get the impression its just a couple random gigs of stuff. I assure you a couple random gigs of stuff from my workplace would be an excellent insomnia cure for the general public, because they're an excellent insomnia cure for me. Maybe the Sony stuff is better?
(Score: 2) by Alfred on Tuesday December 30 2014, @10:42PM
(Score: 2) by fadrian on Tuesday December 30 2014, @02:26PM
You didn't miss anything worthwhile.
The best thing to come out of Seth Rogan this year was the turd he crapped out Christmas morning, not the one Sony crapped out later Christmas day.
That is all.
(Score: 2) by arashi no garou on Tuesday December 30 2014, @03:37PM
I won't watch it specifically because he's in it, as I just find him to be terribly unfunny and annoying. I watched that movie he made with Adam Sandler, and it was painful. I tried to watch his version of the Green Hornet, and it was so bad that it made me angry. I simply don't understand how he is still employed as an actor. Then again, people used to watch Pauly Shore movies too, so who knows.
As for the digital release, $15 million doesn't sound like much but I bet if the theaters hadn't balked on the initial release it would have made a lot more. $15 million is actually quite respectable for a DRM-infested release; I wonder what the stats are on torrents of it, compared to the legal sources?
(Score: 2) by tibman on Tuesday December 30 2014, @07:35PM
Didn't like the green hornet?! I died laughing. The part when he accidentally shot himself in the face with the gas gun. The part when the only weapon he could find was the bottom part of a computer chair (swinging it around by a caster). When the bad guy just wanted to be seen as scary so desperately that he joined the stupid and donned a costume as well. He was so excited when his gas mask worked against the green hornet. Sort of proved he was an actual villain or something. Killing people wasn't enough, he needed more.
>I died laughing.
RIP in peace OP.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 2) by arashi no garou on Tuesday December 30 2014, @08:26PM
Just a personal preference, I guess. His brand of humor is lost on me. Maybe it's also because I enjoyed the original Green Hornet as a kid and find that it doesn't translate well to modern times. I also didn't care for Will Ferrell shitting all over Land of the Lost, taking something that was campy and absurd in a funny way, and rendering it just awkwardly absurd and unfunny.
And don't get me wrong, I enjoy a good spoof. Blazing Saddles, The Princess Bride, and Galaxy Quest are all great spoofs of specific genres. I think the problem stems from unfunny people like Rogen or Ferrell attempting to spoof a specific property and inevitably falling on their faces.
Then again, it's Seth Rogen we're talking about. The guy reminds me of Joe Piscopo's attempt at stand-up in that Star Trek episode where he mentors Data on comedy. It's physically painful to experience.
(Score: 2) by tibman on Tuesday December 30 2014, @08:44PM
Land of the Lost was really rough. I think the only scene i remember liking was the mosquito one. Princess Bride is fantastic (i've yet to meet someone who didn't like it). Galaxy Quest is a great documentary : ) I completely agree with you about Will Ferrell. He seems to try way too hard (Tropic Thunder problem?).
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 30 2014, @10:08PM
I enjoyed the original Green Hornet as a kid
WOW! [wikipedia.org]
...and I thought *I* was old.
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 30 2014, @02:36PM
Even if it was available in my English speaking country, I still wouldn't pay to watch it. I won't even download it to watch it.
I think Sony knew it was a steam pile if crap and created the controversy around it to try and boost numbers.
Fuck them
(Score: 2) by RobotMonster on Tuesday December 30 2014, @03:33PM
I've seen it (for free), and it's not entirely a steaming pile of crap. I expected much worse given the people involved. It is definitely low-brow, not that funny, and while the plot has a good heart it doesn't achieve the insightfulness that the best of South Park combines brilliantly with ribald depravity.
I would give it maybe 4 out of 10, and I probably wouldn't have bothered seeing it without the month or more of free publicity that it got on all the news networks.
I find it hard to believe that this was a guerrilla marketing campaign by Sony -- the soap-opera-farce of hacks, leaks, threats, and posturing had a way more interesting plot than the movie.
Sony: You can make a lot more money from The Interview by making a really good movie about the real-world-drama surrounding The Interview, and then making that available for a reasonable price to everybody simultaneously.
Also, you should actually pay the licences for the music you use [sbs.com.au].
While I'm giving free advice: The money you're spending on trying to censor the internet would be better spent on figuring out how to not treat your customers like criminals, and while you're upset you accidentally funded piracy by paying for advertising on file-sharing sites [torrentfreak.com], that's probably a good way to explain to your potential customers that you've seen the error of your ways and are ready to offer a good deal for consumers and artists alike.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 30 2014, @04:53PM
They gave it away for a few days on youtube. More than likely they are playing a serious hollywood accounting game here.
It looked like a crap movie. It eneded up with a bunch of hype. But hype does not fix crap...
They now think it is worth 7-15 bucks on youtube. Overpriced for what it is.
What kills me is the people making it know its crap and yet still do it. You can see it in the emails.
Sony needs to split back into 2 companies. Columbia and Sony again. Columbia pictures is killing Sony all in chasing the bottom dollar. The chairman of Sony has taken a light touch on Columbia but I think he needs to clean house. They are an unmitigated disaster who is making the rest of the company look like retarded fools.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 30 2014, @05:13PM
> They gave it away for a few days on youtube.
That is false. There was no free version officially published on youtube.
It was published on Youtube Movies [youtube.com] which is not the same thing as youtube in general.
The price from the very beginning was $6 to "rent" and $15 to "own."
(Score: 2) by BradTheGeek on Tuesday December 30 2014, @03:24PM
Sony does not give a shit.
Like many corporate behemoths, especially in media and pharma apparently, their business model is a barely restrained version of this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKMNPQ35OUc [youtube.com]
(Score: 2) by gallondr00nk on Tuesday December 30 2014, @03:27PM
I did wonder when blazing headlines streaked across the media sky about the withdrawing of the cinema release whether the entire thing would be wrapped in an American flag and turned into some absurd proxy about supporting freedom and apple pie against totalitarian aggressors. I wondered if that alone meant it would rake in a fortune.
Instead, another mediocre movie falls on its ass. Perhaps there's some hope for the world after all :)
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 30 2014, @03:42PM
sony could've made a lot more money if it hadn't fucked its customers
never forget, never forgive
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/sony_rootkit [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 30 2014, @04:04PM
(Score: 2) by arashi no garou on Tuesday December 30 2014, @04:05PM
I don't see the correlation between the rootkit and this movie release. Granted, Sony probably did lose a few customers permanently over the rootkit fiasco, but no more than a rounding error when you figure in all the pies they have fingers in. Hell, one of my favorite indie bands had their indie label bought out by Sony, so now I have to send money to Sony to buy their future albums (and I will, because I want to support the band and get their music legally, even if it means feeding the beast).
But really, what is the conclusion you are trying to draw here? Because I don't see it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 30 2014, @04:15PM
> (and I will, because I want to support the band and get their music legally, even if it means feeding the beast).
Why not send money to the band directly? Or just buy more of their swag (assuming Sony doesn't get a cut of that). Or buy an extra and unused ticket for one of their performances? Why does the legality matter? You yourself acknowledge that you are feeding the beast by doing so. Is it just a belief in the rule of law regardless of who writes the laws?
(Score: 2) by arashi no garou on Tuesday December 30 2014, @06:22PM
I can, and have done all of the above. I sent them money when they did a crowdfunding drive for their latest album, and the CD I got at my contribution level had Sony's name on the back. They likely don't have a choice in the matter.
As for why I buy actual CDs, it's because I want a lossless hard copy that will last a generation, and I love the artwork; they are more than just musicians, they design all of their own artwork and logos. I also buy the digital download of the same album (again, to legally support them as opposed to torrenting, which I'm not opposed to on a whole, but for a band I care about, I won't torrent for personal reasons).
Is it just a belief in the rule of law regardless of who writes the laws?
I realize that SoylentNews is a bastion of Libertarian and Anarchist thinkers, and so I understand the need to throw that accusation at anyone who even hints at not breaking the rules 24/7. But to use it as an ad hominem attack is tiring. I'm a member of this community because I believe in the same principles as many of its members. That said, I'm an old man, not a fresh young college student, and I'm old enough to realize that breaking the law for the sake of breaking the law is not the badge of honor you may think it is. Yes, there are laws that suck, there are laws that need to be changed or broken or beaten to a bloody pulp. Most, if not all, lawmakers are corrupt self-serving assholes who, if forced to live by the rules they set, would kill themselves out of the sheer weight and absurdity of it all.
But, complete anarchy is not the way. There has to be a balance, and so there is room in my life for following the law when it's appropriate, and bending or breaking it when it's called for. In this case, I choose to "do the right thing" by the record label -- and by extension, my favorite musicians -- by legally obtaining their music instead of torrenting it, especially since it benefits me. It wouldn't hurt me to torrent it, but it just might hurt them, and I don't want to do that just to "stick it to the Man".
(Score: 1) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 30 2014, @10:28PM
You seem to think it means "chaos".
It doesn't.
Anarchy means "without rulers".
Anarchists hold that government be as local as is possible and should truly be by the people.
You can easily extrapolate from that that gov't should also be small and democratic (small d).
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 30 2014, @10:48PM
That said, I'm an old man, not a fresh young college student, and I'm old enough to realize that breaking the law for the sake of breaking the law is not the badge of honor you may think it is.
It's not about being a rebel, piracy is just a hell of a lot easier than not-pirating. Not just immediate convenience, but privacy benefits too because unless you want to make the effort and take the time to drive to a local brick and mortar store and pay with cash, your purchase goes on your permanent record. You were talking about going out of your way to help "the beast" so I stand by the question. However the unwritten answer seems to be force of habit more than anything else.
(Score: 2) by mmcmonster on Tuesday December 30 2014, @05:35PM
The rootkit fiasco generated a lot of ill will against young tech-inclined individuals at the beginning of a technological revolution.
The people they turned off were the people making buying decisions for a lot of their friends and families (and companies) for the last twenty years.
The only company to generate worse feelings at the time was Microsoft and there was (and still is) no real viable alternative to Microsoft products as a whole. Sony has tonnes of alternatives on their hardware side. And that's where they're taking the hit. Not on entertainment where the problem arose.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Tuesday December 30 2014, @07:47PM
Not entirely true (though I admit largely). Sony's actions have fed into and reinforced my refusal to buy anything supported by the MPAA or the RIAA. I will readily grant that this is not entirely based on Sony's actions, as my initial decision was based on the MPAA buying the Sonny Bono copyright extension. (I usually call it the "Sony Bono...", but I wanted to make clear that I *do* know and acknowledge the difference.) It was reinforced by the DMCA. Every time my intention starts to weaken one of the media companies, frequently Sony, does something to reinforce the original decision.
It's gotten to the point where I almost don't care that the studios rip off the artists, as I'm starting to consider even the artists to be accessories. Nobody with their eyes open can avoid seeing what monsters the media companies are, and willingly signing up to do business with them is itself a reason to suffer. It isn't as if they don't have a long history of ripping off the artists that anyone without their eyes glued shut can't avoid seeing.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.