Researchers: movie studios sold more after Megaupload was shut down

Study examines sales in 12 countries from two studios before and after closure.

Read the whole story

 

[Chuckstar]

In other words:

People prefer not to pay for things when they don't have to. Details at 11:00 pm.

 

[nomadofnorad]

Well, the fact that they don't show their actual methodology means there's no real proof they didn't simply make up their numbers, or doctor the results in some way to give the results they wanted to find.

 

[Carbon Fibre]

How much traffic was Megaupload sharing movies before shutdown? Perhaps not much enough to impact revenue. I call bs study endorsed by MAFIAA.

 

[Heapmalloc]

So they only looked at data from September to May and that's indicative of a trend? Wouldn't it make more sense to take a larger sample of before and after to see if this wasn't an anomaly? Why didn't they look at the sales data for a year before it was shut down and a year after? With such a small sample size I question the validity of their results. Heck it would have made more sense if they compared the same time period before and after...

 

[flash__]

Yes but pro-piracy people can never admit that they are doing wrong, because that would mean that, in fact, they have been hurting people, and thus, by extension doing evil.

On the other hand, a lot of the logic that anti-piracy groups use is just foolish. Representing piracy as lost revenue- as if it were money that would have otherwise gone into their pockets- is pretty much nonsense. It seems obvious, at least to me, that many people who pirate will download the content when it is free to them, but they would never actually pay for it. It's not necessarily justifiable, but to call pirating blockbusters "doing evil" is a laughable mischaracterization in my eyes.

Now, if you claimed the MPAA was "doing evil" in various ways, I would wholeheartedly agree with you, but that's a topic for another time.

 

[deet]

Where's the paper showing how many movies were even available on a legitimate service prior to that date and after?

My recollection seems to be that even not long ago, studios were still haggling over licenses with iTunes and Netflix and the rest for anything worth watching, and you couldn't get it officially even if you tried.

 

[VulcanTourist]

I want to see the report ten years from now that tracks the occupational history of Danaher and Smith. I hear the faint whoosh of a revolving door.

 

[superscott]

I guess maybe I'm in the minority, but I don't recall using Megaupload for anything?

Maybe good movies that people wanted to actually buy came out after Megaupload was shutdown?

 

[Blue Adept]

Is it just me or does a 6-10% difference of a single event sound like a value that is indistinguishable from noise?

 

[gimfred]

<snip>
Yes but pro-piracy people can never admit that they are doing wrong, because that would mean that, in fact, they have been hurting people, and thus, by extension doing evil.

<snip>

I agree it is wrong, but not so sure that it is hurting anyone, IF it is unavailable by other means.

It is like insulting people without anyone to listen to you. You are only "hurting" yourself.


... (Actually, the last one only makes sense, I don't know if it is true for unheard insults.)

 

[deet]

I hate it when I see this.

Not all of these movies (and TV shows) are available in every market around the world in a legal, digital format.

This is not a justification for piracy.

It is a RATIONALIZATION for piracy.

It is still wrong.

Watching Thor is a priviledge, not a right.

In other words:

People prefer not to pay for things when they don't have to. Details at 11:00 pm.

Yes but pro-piracy people can never admit that they are doing wrong, because that would mean that, in fact, they have been hurting people, and thus, by extension doing evil.

How much traffic was Megaupload sharing movies before shutdown? Perhaps not much enough to impact revenue. I call bs study endorsed by MAFIAA.

MU was one of the top sites on the internet prior to its death. Seeing significant damage done is not surprising.

You don't have to be "pro-piracy" to call bullshit on vacuous argument. Moreover, not everyone calling bullshit is necessarily -doing- anything, much less anything evil.

This kind of guilt by association is a major drag on productive discussion.

The point I think these folks and I are trying to make is, the claim in the paper could easily be flawed simply by overlooking the fact that legitimate availability has increased in the time MU has been shut down, in such a way that people -may- be buying more simply because they -can- now, when they couldn't before. Understandable?

 

[nomadofnorad]

In any event, it is obvious that you're wrong. People don't download tons of stuff they're not interested in; that has never really matched what I have seen of piracy. Rather, people download stuff they are interested in - why would you spend the time downloading something you don't care about?

It is obvious that people DO ascribe non-zero value to said content.

Some years ago I saw a reference that there were many, many of those that downloaded pirated software who tended to download lots and lots and LOTS of it, most of which they never even used. They simply wanted to be able to say, "I have X number of pirated programs..."

I suspect it might be the same for pirated movies.

 

[gigaplex]

Yes but pro-piracy people can never admit that they are doing wrong, because that would mean that, in fact, they have been hurting people, and thus, by extension doing evil.

I pirate games because I've been burned too many times paying $80-$100 or so (I don't live in USA) for a game that turns out to be utter crap. If I like the game after pirating it, I'll buy it. I also buy all the Humble Bundle packs for roughly $10 a pop to support the business model even though I don't play the games. It's not black and white, good vs evil.

 

[sPOiDar]

How is it that you can still get more content, in better quality, faster, illegally than you can legally? If the MPAA/RIAA/etc would put the millions they funnel into fighting 'piracy' towards content delivery services, with truly global distribution, they might get a better return on their money than a few percent for a couple of months. It's just good business sense.

 

[harteman]

Yes but pro-piracy people can never admit that they are doing wrong, because that would mean that, in fact, they have been hurting people, and thus, by extension doing evil.

On the other hand, a lot of the logic that anti-piracy groups use is just foolish. Representing piracy as lost revenue- as if it were money that would have otherwise gone into their pockets- is pretty much nonsense. It seems obvious, at least to me, that many people who pirate will download the content when it is free to them, but they would never actually pay for it. It's not necessarily justifiable, but to call pirating blockbusters "doing evil" is a laughable mischaracterization in my eyes.

Now, if you claimed the MPAA was "doing evil" in various ways, I would wholeheartedly agree with you, but that's a topic for another time.

These studies prove that you're wrong.

In any event, it is obvious that you're wrong. People don't download tons of stuff they're not interested in; that has never really matched what I have seen of piracy. Rather, people download stuff they are interested in - why would you spend the time downloading something you don't care about?

It is obvious that people DO ascribe non-zero value to said content.

These studies are now fact? I thought it said the methodology was not revealed? Far from fact in my mind.

 

[akurczyn]

I would like to see a comparison against the use of bitorrent at the same time. My gut feeling is people who won't/can't afford buying a movie just switched methods to get it elsewhere. Also interesting would be to see how this compares against studio's own improvements done on providing customers with digital access and timely worlwide releases.

I live outside of the US and I can definetly see improvements with better access to import media and better release dates (sometimes weeks before the USA date).

In this digital age, restricting access to digital content by means of physical media, regionalization or high prices is the gun used by media companies to shoot themselves in the foot.

 

[AutisticGramma]

I wonder what the requirements to even get the data. Besides how its vetted or the methodology involved. But is anyone surprised? Media companies release to the media results that support their position. In other news the American association of tall men release results indicating taller men are better lovers and fathers.

 

[jkplummer]

Let's assume the numbers do show this trend. I remember hearing long ago.. Correlation does not imply causation.

Without methodology, this report is about as useful as saying.. Since I bought an ipad mini, the dow jones has increased by a factor of X.

Sure that may be an accurate statement, but the two events may be unrelated.

 

[thesorehead]

How is it that you can still get more content, in better quality, faster, illegally than you can legally? If the MPAA/RIAA/etc would put the millions they funnel into fighting 'piracy' towards content delivery services, with truly global distribution, they might get a better return on their money than a few percent for a couple of months. It's just good business sense.

Totally agree. Also, the asking prices for current offerings are absolute rubbish - usually it costs *more* than the equivalent DVD, without DVD extras or commentary tracks (which I personally love) and at a noticeably lower quality. All of which I have the privilege of using a substantial amount of my internet quota to obtain.

 

[bigdrew172]

So they only looked at data from September to May and that's indicative of a trend? Wouldn't it make more sense to take a larger sample of before and after to see if this wasn't an anomaly? Why didn't they look at the sales data for a year before it was shut down and a year after? With such a small sample size I question the validity of their results. Heck it would have made more sense if they compared the same time period before and after...

I'm going to take a stab at answering your question. It all has to do with what their initial question was. If the hypothesis was, "if you take away one of the most popular piracy avenues people will start paying for the content." The longer you go out the more confounding variables you start introducing. I.e. different sites become better known. The raid on dotcom has a lot of... complications... that may turn people against media companies etc. That's just my guess.

 

[jimbles]

So... they call into question one paper's answers because of untrackable methodology, but don't provide studio names of the subjects whose numbers they utilized for independent verification?

And that's not the pot calling the kettle black?

Uh... Seriously?

 

[Fearknot]

Well, the fact that they don't show their actual methodology means there's no real proof they didn't simply make up their numbers, or doctor the results in some way to give the results they wanted to find.

Where did you get this "fact" from? I haven't read the paper in detail, but at a glance it does go into detail about their methodology. Looks like it isn't them who's simply making stuff up.

 

[trevnorris]

Lack of methodology provides no way to verify their claims. Thus the study cannot be peer reviewed or proven to have any validity. This is true for any study, in any field. Their disclosed small date range and their undisclosed number of controls point to cherry picked data. Month to month comparisons are useless. At the very least the comparisons would need to show trends of the same month from previous years.

 

[Sixclaws]

You know why I pirate movies and TV series? BECAUSE NETFLIX FOR THE CARIBBEAN IS A PIECE OF GARBAGE. THE EARLIEST RELEASES THEY HAVE TO OFFER ARE FIVE YEARS OLD.

Seriously, it is as if they don't want my money.

 

[deviltry]

Bulls***.

In my country I don't know anyone who used megaupload to pirate movies. It's always torrents.

 

[iamwhoiam]

Yes but pro-piracy people can never admit that they are doing wrong, because that would mean that, in fact, they have been hurting people, and thus, by extension doing evil.

If what people are downloading isn't available to them at all, how is downloading hurting anyone?

When people are saying, "Here's my money, take it already.", and studios are refusing, I really have no sympathy for these so called losses due to piracy. You can't lose money on something you're not selling.

 

[Pit Spawn]

These studies prove that you're wrong.

"Controlling for country-specific trends and the Christmas holiday"
"the post-shutdown sales unit change was 2.5 percent to 3.8 percent higher"

Vague methods of controlling for data over such large amounts - 2.5% sounds like a margin of error.

Not to mention they should be controlling for ratings differences during the period too. If this period had releases with higher rating than the previous period it would make sense that sales would be higher. I'm sure there are other nuances which would need to be accounted for too before anything is "proven".

 

[nomadofnorad]

Well, the fact that they don't show their actual methodology means there's no real proof they didn't simply make up their numbers, or doctor the results in some way to give the results they wanted to find.

Where did you get this "fact" from? I haven't read the paper in detail, but at a glance it does go into detail about their methodology. Looks like it isn't them who's simply making stuff up.

I was referring to the last paragraph of the article here that pretty much said as much, but I now see it says that was about an earlier paper from the same bunch. That said, unless the paper provides ALL the data in a form where someone can independently examine it, it will be highly suspect regardless of what the numbers say.

 

[TechGeek]

Isn't 3-4 % the natural growth rate, or close to it, for the industry? After all, the movie industry posts record incomes from the box office every year. I wouldn't be surprised if the MU take down had actually NO affect on movie sales.

 

[netblaz]

Ummm... has the popularity of streaming services like Netflix been taken into account before delivering these "dramatic" figures? It's no fair to consider MegaUpload's impact in a complete vacuum, when you also have The Pirate Bay, etc. along with streaming services that provide serious value relative to buying everything on disc. Shock, surprise -- watching "Enough" on Netflix once was "Enough" and I felt zero desire to buy the DVD. Horrible for their bottom line, I know, but that's reality for you

 

[sidg11]

Yawn .... Piracy is a response to the monopoly that is the MPAA. Give people reasonable alternatives and they will most certainly take them. Shutting down Megaupload may work for a little while, but unless the underlying causes are solved, they are just gonna resurface. You cannot police the internet, consumers are not your enemy, get that into your thick skulls

 

[Heapmalloc]

So they only looked at data from September to May and that's indicative of a trend? Wouldn't it make more sense to take a larger sample of before and after to see if this wasn't an anomaly? Why didn't they look at the sales data for a year before it was shut down and a year after? With such a small sample size I question the validity of their results. Heck it would have made more sense if they compared the same time period before and after...

I'm going to take a stab at answering your question. It all has to do with what their initial question was. If the hypothesis was, "if you take away one of the most popular piracy avenues people will start paying for the content." The longer you go out the more confounding variables you start introducing. I.e. different sites become better known. The raid on dotcom has a lot of... complications... that may turn people against media companies etc. That's just my guess.

I can see that as a justification in that there would be more variables to account for it they looked at a larger dataset. But their contention is that shutting down MU caused a sizable sales increase. If they wanted to prove that, why didn't they compare the same time period? I wouldn't compare the number of tickets issued at the end of Feburaury versus the beginning of January and then state that the data shows a trend. That's like saying there are more people who register for license plates at the end of the month versus the beginning of the month.

 

[TechGeek]

I pirate games because I've been burned too many times paying $80-$100 or so (I don't live in USA) for a game that turns out to be utter crap. If I like the game after pirating it, I'll buy it. I also buy all the Humble Bundle packs for roughly $10 a pop to support the business model even though I don't play the games. It's not black and white, good vs evil.

This is, again, a rationalization.

You DON'T have the right to do this. Only new games are $80-100; older games are less expensive. Even I don't usually buy new games. You don't -have- the right to new games. Or any games at all.

Indeed, by doing this you prove your lack of morality. You claim "Oh I do this for X or Y", but the truth is that ultimately, it is because it is free and you don't think you're likely to be caught or punished. The rest is just rationalization layered over it.

T Actually morality IS a rationalization. Gigaplex defines how he views the world. Just because his morals don't line up with yours, doesn't mean he is wrong or evil. I could consider you evil and morally wrong because of the way you treat other posters on these forums. That doesn't make me automatically right. You need to get off your high horse and take a wider view of the world, at least IMHO.