• Study Suggests: Hollywood Revenue down due to closure of Megaupload
    148 replies, posted
Google translation: [quote] [B]A new study concludes that the controversial closure of the biggest File Hoster Megaupload in January 2012 yielded no higher movie revenues - the contrary.[/B] The study was produced by the Copenhagen Business School and the Ludwig-Maximilians University in Munich and observed 1,344 films in 49 countries. It was found that the revenue generated by films for productions that do not have a large marketing budget, have fallen considerably since the end of Megaupload. Big blockbuster however showed no effect, however. For the researchers, this is further evidence that illegal file sharing is not harmful, but indirectly the film industry even advantages. Movie fans who have only a low or no willingness to pay and therefore illegal filesharing service serve, therefore, especially in small film production as a source of information for consumers with a high willingness to pay. Several studies had similar conclusions from their results, for example, that Internet users who illegally obtain music via P2P sharing clay belts buy, at the same time significantly more music than the average. In addition, many music fans are, according to some researchers attention in this way to artists who might otherwise have never discovered. This is similar to the results of the current study for the area of ​​the smaller film productions. [B]Update:[/B] The Society for the prosecution of copyright infringements eV (GVU) contradicts the results of the study, according to information not known, however, the data of the study itself. However, the figures for Germany would occupy loud GVU that movies with 200 or fewer copies in theaters in the first half of 2012 attracted more visitors than in the previous two years. It is therefore interesting to see how the authors of the study found a causal link between the closure of Megaupload and the income of the cinemas. Finally, not sales per se, but the number of visitors would be decisive. [B]Update 11/28/2012[/B] In an interview with the Süddeutsche Zeitung, the two researchers have referred to the criticism of their study position. According to this research have film fans who do go to the movies almost, but downloading movies illegally, with great influence on friends recommendations. Due to the closure of Megaupload would disappear this word of mouth, but just rely on the smaller movies were. Moreover, the effect was also known that there are file sharers who are watching a film in this way before they spend money. The published study was to "provide neutral science" and "a factual basis", in which the two researchers have their opinion also made a mistake. The shutdown of Megaupload and the subsequent reactions of many other file hosting services were unexpectedly and took advantage of the study, which takes into account total numbers from 2007 to 2012. Effects such as an economic crisis or big blockbusters like Avatar are eliminated in arriving quite simple, and that although the effects are individually detected for isolated countries like the U.S. and Germany. After the theatrical market, the researchers now want the effect on your home theater, watch.[/quote] [url=http://www.gamestar.de/hardware/news/internet/3007068/megaupload.html]SOURCE[/url] The study: [url]http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2176246[/url] [U]In summary: [/U] - Science proves by numbers that after Megaupload went down, less people bought/watched movies and related products. - Copyright protectors say this can't be true and that they disagree albeit never doing any counterstudy - Scientists respond with confidence in their numbers They are reasoning that people who pirate movies are one of the driving forces behind people willing to pay for the products as they influence them heavily. Also many people are trying out the products first, buying them afterwards. Note that stuff like recession, inflation and so on is already calculated.
Piracy is another form of advertisement. :v: Try before you buy.
The guys behind the study: [img]http://polpix.sueddeutsche.com/bild/1.1534034.1354010566/640x360/filesharing-studie-megaupload-wissenschaftler.jpg[/img] [editline]28th November 2012[/editline] What's interesting: The effect mainly was on smaller movies, blockbusters were unharmed. So in the end the FBI hurt smaller, creative studios while keeping the big ones in position.
Piracy 2, DRM 0. For the record, first point is because original product not being stolen, but copied, leaving the original product 100% intact. Second is this. If product turned out to be crap, well at least you weren't ripped off that 50 bucks.
[QUOTE=Killuah;38623641]What's interesting: The effect mainly was on smaller movies, blockbusters were unharmed.[/QUOTE] This is a very important distinction due to the audience and nature of indie media
Ironic.
Oh, the irony. Ninja'd
Right at this moment, the media companies have the upper hand as Blu-Ray is literally the most efficient medium to deliver high quality with ease. Unless you're willing to spend upwards of £70 a month on internet for 120MB broadband, you'll be out of hope to get that quality for another 10 years when ISPs get their act together (e.g. Virgin) Think about it... unless people are able to STREAM at 20 megabytes a second, they won't be getting the highest quality. Even DVDs stream at about 6 megabytes at a second, I highly doubt 1% of the population can download at that speed...
[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;38623693]This is a very important distinction due to the audience and nature of indie media[/QUOTE] I can understand it though. Smaller productions have lower budget so their marketing reaches less people. Now piracy kicks in and BAM lots of people suddenly know about your movie. Of course some of those "free views" are gonna be in your initial marketing group, but as long as the purchases coming from the "free viewers" and their friends outweight those, everybody profits. The problem I see with it: Ironically the effect relies on the movies still being illegal to pirate. If studios read this and say "ah well lets make the movie pay-what-you-want then, ythey remove two things: - The piracy for the sake of pirating as a free-for-the-content-creator channel of distribution: after all, pay-what-you-want is your own channel again - The payments of "outside-of-initial-marketing-group" people who buy/watch by recommendation of "free viewers" So the maximum irony: The "pirating illegal" status quo is still best for the movie industry. And kowing that, the raid of Megaupload was kind of necessary to keep the draperies hanging.
[QUOTE=Nitro836;38623684]Piracy 2, DRM 0. For the record, first point is because original product not being stolen, but copied, leaving the original product 100% intact. Second is this. If product turned out to be crap, well at least you weren't ripped off that 50 bucks.[/QUOTE] No you don't understand. It's still stealing. Whether or not the actual is being 'duplicated not removed' is irrelevant. You're stealing the experience of watching the film, which is what you get charged for when you go to the cinema or buy a DVD. It's about the [B]service[/B] you receive from the DVD, not the physical plastic disc itself. If you sneak in to the cinema without paying, you're stealing. If you download a movie without paying, you're stealing.
[QUOTE=Killuah;38623729]I can understand it though. Smaller productions have lower budget so their marketing reaches less people. Now piracy kicks in and BAM lots of people suddenly know about your movie. Of course some of those "free views" are gonna be in your initial marketing group, but as long as the purchases coming from the "free viewers" and their friends outweight those, everybody profits. The problem I see with it: Ironically the effect relies on the movies still being illegal to pirate. If studios read this and say "ah well lets make the movie pay-what-you-want then, ythey remove two things: - The piracy for the sake of pirating as a free-for-the-content-creator channel of distribution: after all, pay-what-you-want is your own channel again - The payments of "outside-of-initial-marketing-group" people who buy/watch by recommendation of "free viewers" So the maximum irony: The "pirating illegal" status quo is still best for the movie industry. And kowing that, the raid of Megaupload was kind of necessary to keep the draperies hanging.[/QUOTE] Word of mouth is the key to making a movie a success commercially. As for independant movies, I don't think they're all in it for the money.
[QUOTE=AK'z;38623726]Right at this moment, the media companies have the upper hand as Blu-Ray is literally the most efficient medium to deliver high quality with ease. Unless you're willing to spend upwards of £70 a month on internet for 120MB broadband, you'll be out of hope to get that quality for another 10 years when ISPs get their act together (e.g. Virgin) Think about it... unless people are able to STREAM at 20 megabytes a second, they won't be getting the highest quality. Even DVDs stream at about 6 megabytes at a second, I highly doubt 1% of the population can download at that speed...[/QUOTE] The time it takes you from the point of the decision to buy a blu-ray to the point where you have it in your drive is EASILY longer than the download time for high-res files.
[QUOTE=Maloof?;38623731] If you sneak in to the cinema without paying, you're stealing.[/QUOTE] What waffle are you on about now... That's like saying "Watching other people's TVs is stealing their cable." It's the cinemas fault for letting you sneak in.
[QUOTE=Maloof?;38623731]No you don't understand. It's still stealing.[/QUOTE] Oh boy here we go
[QUOTE=Killuah;38623747]The time it takes you from the point of the decision to buy a blu-ray to the point where you have it in your drive is EASILY longer than the download time for high-res files.[/QUOTE] and even then, there's literally no availability of proper high-res files for sale. Unless you really want to call Itunes HD, high definition...
[QUOTE=AK'z;38623742]Word of mouth is the key to making a movie a success commercially. As for independant movies, I don't think they're all in it for the money.[/QUOTE] ♫♪ Nobody was say-hing that ♪ ♪ ♫ [editline]28th November 2012[/editline] This is not a "piracy is right" debate thread please stop. I'd much rather discuss its effects without judging it.
[QUOTE=Maloof?;38623731]You're stealing the experience [/QUOTE] oh my...
You know what really damages revenues? All those kiosks that sell the pirated films/movies for a buck a piece.
[QUOTE=AK'z;38623750]What waffle are you on about now... That's like saying "Watching other people's TVs is stealing their cable." It's the cinemas fault for letting you sneak in.[/QUOTE] What sort of justification is that? 'It's Walmart's fault for letting me carry that TV out without paying for it'
[QUOTE=Killuah;38623759]♫♪ Nobody was say-hing that ♪ ♪ ♫ [editline]28th November 2012[/editline] This is not a "piracy is right" debate thread please stop. I'd much rather discuss its effects without judging it.[/QUOTE] I didn't say a thing about piracy, I wasn't actually directly replying to you. :-) [editline]28th November 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Maloof?;38623775]What sort of justification is that? 'It's Walmart's fault for letting me carry that TV out without paying for it'[/QUOTE] Being somewhere is not the same as taking goods. Just like how being on a plane without a ticket, it's the airlines fault.
[QUOTE=AK'z;38623771]oh my...[/QUOTE] what's wrong with that sentence? It's entirely true. Why else would they get you to pay to enter a cinema?
[QUOTE=zombojoe;38623774]You know what really damages revenues? All those kiosks that sell the pirated films/movies for a buck a piece.[/QUOTE] You could argue that providing files while taking the add revenue is selling for a buck-a-piece too in some way. Police recently raided the bigest German Streaming-Content-Aggregator. Turned out they made over 8 million bucks within 2 years and even after everything was over they stil sold their database for 0.5 Million afterwards.
[QUOTE=AK'z;38623777]I didn't say a thing about piracy, I wasn't actually directly replying to you. :-) [editline]28th November 2012[/editline] Being somewhere is not the same as taking goods. Just like how being on a plane without a ticket, it's the airlines fault.[/QUOTE] pretty sure you get in big trouble for sneaking onto a plane without paying mate, and I'm not talking about being a security risk.
[QUOTE=Maloof?;38623787]what's wrong with that sentence? It's entirely true. Why else would they get you to pay to enter a cinema?[/QUOTE] The cinema provides a service, if someone manages to sneak in, the cinema's security has lapsed and their image gets degraded when people notice it happening. You're now arguing with pointless morals, "you're stealing photons of light". [editline]28th November 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Maloof?;38623798]I'm not talking about being a security risk.[/QUOTE] The airline and airports security has lapsed, they'd get bad press on a much worse scale than some guy managing to get a seat for free.
This is incredibly surprising.
When are people going to realize that in the world we live in, Digital Media is free information the instant it's released and they should just go ahead and factor that in when they project sales, because it won't go away. Besides, how can you count something as a lost sale if a sale never took place. It's a cop out argument that pads their own stats. Oh well we sold This many, but we would've sold [b]THIS[/b] Many if we had sold that many, is basically what it means.
I still have no idea what Maloof is trying to argue about. Digital medium to me... is not a medium. That's why they don't sell it, except itunes. Netflix provides a good service to stream them. Home recordings are morally sound, I can record a high definition film off the TV and make copies of it for my family to watch. You're arguing that this is wrong and I should instead overpay for a medium I don't require. I have already endorsed the fact that blu-rays and dvds are a fantastic medium.
[QUOTE=AK'z;38623806]The cinema provides a service, if someone manages to sneak in, the cinema's security has lapsed and their image gets degraded when people notice it happening. You're now arguing with pointless morals, "you're stealing photons of light".[/QUOTE] What are you talking about now? Listen A cinema makes money by charging people for a service; that service being the entertainment of watching a film. In the same way that a circus charges for the entertainment of the show or a builder charges for the service of fixing your house. By downloading a film you enjoy that service of watching a film but without paying. Therefore, you're stealing the revenue that the cinema and filmmakers would have received. In the same way that not paying your builder is stealing the money they would have recieved for their time and work.
[QUOTE=TheTalon;38623823]When are people going to realize that in the world we live in, Digital Media is free information the instant it's released and they should just go ahead and factor that in when they project sales, because it won't go away. Besides, how can you count something as a lost sale if a sale never took place. It's a cop out argument that pads their own stats. Oh well we sold This many, but we would've sold [b]THIS[/b] Many if we had sold that many, is basically what it means.[/QUOTE] The study suggests that the "lost sale" is actually 1/part-th of a sure sale.
[QUOTE=Maloof?;38623832] By downloading a film you enjoy that service of watching a film but without paying. Therefore, you're stealing the revenue that the cinema and filmmakers would have received. In the same way that not paying your builder is stealing the money they would have recieved for their time and work.[/QUOTE] "by downloading a film you enjoy that service" that doesn't make sense, I can make a copy of a DVD and watch it on my laptop rather than having to put the disc in all the time. If I want to share that file with a friend, it's not morally wrong. Stop arguing about "media companies losing revenue", you're feeling sorry for moaning billionaires.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.