Researchers find Megaupload shutdown hurt box office revenues(thenextweb.com)
thenextweb.com
Researchers find Megaupload shutdown hurt box office revenues
http://thenextweb.com/insider/2012/11/24/researchers-find-megaupload-shutdown-had-a-negative-effect-on-box-office-revenues/
40 comments
Haven't read the paper, but just based on the article I'd be curious to see the affect on blockbusters compared to say, their rotten tomatoes scores (or whatever). It'd be interesting to see whether the opposite of the reasoning applied for the smaller movies people may not have heard of ("I saw xxxxx, it was great you should see it") applies to the blockbusters with a lot of publicity and promotion behind them ("Yeah, I downloaded xxxxx, it was dreadful..").
If this was true (and I'm dubious of the "find"), it should be something for movie makers to consider when it comes to distributing their movies.
What this shouldn't be used for, though, is the default excuse by pirates when stealing intellectual property. "My theft actually helps, see?!?!?" Even if there is some financial gain, more is lost when the fundamental IP rights are stolen.
What this shouldn't be used for, though, is the default excuse by pirates when stealing intellectual property. "My theft actually helps, see?!?!?" Even if there is some financial gain, more is lost when the fundamental IP rights are stolen.
I refuse to acknowledge the word "steal" as appropriate here. "Intellectual property" stealing was known for ages and described the process of depriving someone of attribution of his work. I can steal a poem if I recite it as my own. This is stealing, theft, and was recognized as such since really long ago.
OTOH, if I print, or make a handwritten copy of this same poem, preserving the name of the author, I'm not stealing. It may be debatable what I actually did, but I did not steal.
Every time I see well defined concept being reused to mean something different than it meant for hundreds of years I'm cautious. I think everyone should be.
OTOH, if I print, or make a handwritten copy of this same poem, preserving the name of the author, I'm not stealing. It may be debatable what I actually did, but I did not steal.
Every time I see well defined concept being reused to mean something different than it meant for hundreds of years I'm cautious. I think everyone should be.
If one prints copy of "this same poem" and sells it or distribute if for free (and there is no free lunch) then one stole the printing rights that the author granted (for a sum of money or a regular paycheck) to the official printer (the one who has a contract with the author). Regarding books, ideas are more or less free, the materialization of that work of thought into our physical realm (be it dead pieces of cellulose or bits on magnetic support), however, is not.
Kant wrote a bit about it.
Kant wrote a bit about it.
"Stealing" still not be the proper term, but the grandparent posting was not talking about stealing IP, but about stealing fundamental IP rights.
>Even if there is some financial gain, more is lost when the fundamental IP rights are stolen. //
Apart from your failure to demonstrate an understanding of the difference between unlicensed duplication and denial through theft this bit still doesn't quite make sense to me.
Are you saying that the IPR are worth more than their direct fiscal benefit and that this benefit is some how reduced even if more money is made by the rights holders?
Could you expand on your reasoning?
If the findings are correct then for some tortuous infringer's then yes it would seem the most likely causality is that their unlicensed use of the material is of benefit [in promulgating the cultural worth¹ and] in bringing more financial benefit to the industry. If.
- - -
¹ but who cares about that!
Apart from your failure to demonstrate an understanding of the difference between unlicensed duplication and denial through theft this bit still doesn't quite make sense to me.
Are you saying that the IPR are worth more than their direct fiscal benefit and that this benefit is some how reduced even if more money is made by the rights holders?
Could you expand on your reasoning?
If the findings are correct then for some tortuous infringer's then yes it would seem the most likely causality is that their unlicensed use of the material is of benefit [in promulgating the cultural worth¹ and] in bringing more financial benefit to the industry. If.
- - -
¹ but who cares about that!
Sure, I'll expand on my reasoning, but only since you ask. :) I don't and won't debate IP here, but I'll try to give more details behind that short post.
Intellectual property rights, themselves, are more important than the monetary gain. The right to own the product of your work is incredibly important to the creator's life. If you make something, whether it be a wood carving, a sandwich, or even a computer program or piece of music, that thing is yours. To take that something from someone without consent is theft.
When it comes to intellectual property, the only way to control the thing is to control its distribution. If the creator has no ability to set the terms by which the book, song, software program, etc. can be used, then there's no such thing as ownership of the created work.
I think that's a worse loss than any temporary financial gain that could be had by the loss of IP rights, as those IP rights are everything to the creator. If a creator doesn't own what he creates, and he can't trade his creation on his own terms, how can he succeed in life? Where's that pride of knowing that what you made is YOURS and you can control it?
Imagine a situation where an accomplished, proud artist spends years painting what he considers his life's masterpiece. Then the next evening, a thief runs off with painting, but leaves a stack of $100 million in cash with a note that says "SOLD!". Was the artist justly compensated? Would there be articles written about how art theft could leave artists with more money than on the market?
Intellectual property rights, themselves, are more important than the monetary gain. The right to own the product of your work is incredibly important to the creator's life. If you make something, whether it be a wood carving, a sandwich, or even a computer program or piece of music, that thing is yours. To take that something from someone without consent is theft.
When it comes to intellectual property, the only way to control the thing is to control its distribution. If the creator has no ability to set the terms by which the book, song, software program, etc. can be used, then there's no such thing as ownership of the created work.
I think that's a worse loss than any temporary financial gain that could be had by the loss of IP rights, as those IP rights are everything to the creator. If a creator doesn't own what he creates, and he can't trade his creation on his own terms, how can he succeed in life? Where's that pride of knowing that what you made is YOURS and you can control it?
Imagine a situation where an accomplished, proud artist spends years painting what he considers his life's masterpiece. Then the next evening, a thief runs off with painting, but leaves a stack of $100 million in cash with a note that says "SOLD!". Was the artist justly compensated? Would there be articles written about how art theft could leave artists with more money than on the market?
But nobody stoled anything. The author voluntarily sold a copy of the work, which the buyer then proceed to use as he pleased, including sharing it with others.
If the painter wants to control his painting, he has to give up on selling it, yet somehow authors of digital works get to control the stuff after they sold it.
If the painter wants to control his painting, he has to give up on selling it, yet somehow authors of digital works get to control the stuff after they sold it.
The author voluntarily sold a copy of his work, but with strings attached. The buyer accepted those limitations as a condition of the sale, and when he duplicated and distributed the contents, he violated the mutually agreed upon terms of the sale, and can be sued.
The idea that you should not _be able_ to sell a copy of a book without also selling distribution rights to that book strikes me as anti-capitalist.
The idea that you should not _be able_ to sell a copy of a book without also selling distribution rights to that book strikes me as anti-capitalist.
> The idea that you should not _be able_ to sell a copy of a book without also selling distribution rights to that book strikes me as anti-capitalist.
I'm not with you on that one. "distribution rights" in this context would have to be artificially enforced by government, since it doesn't exist naturally in a market place.
I'm not saying that government shouldn't enforce these distribution rights (I don't think anybody should for instance burn pirated movies to blank DVDs and sell them on the street).
But to call it "anti-capitalist" because of lack of law and regulation on the governments side strikes me as kinda ironic. Wouldn't it be the exact opposite, more capitalistic if every individual can sell and buy without interference?
I'm not with you on that one. "distribution rights" in this context would have to be artificially enforced by government, since it doesn't exist naturally in a market place.
I'm not saying that government shouldn't enforce these distribution rights (I don't think anybody should for instance burn pirated movies to blank DVDs and sell them on the street).
But to call it "anti-capitalist" because of lack of law and regulation on the governments side strikes me as kinda ironic. Wouldn't it be the exact opposite, more capitalistic if every individual can sell and buy without interference?
Distribution rights can arise naturally as a contract or condition of sale. I will sell you this data if you agree that you will never give a copy to someone else.
The government's role is limited to enforcing contracts, and government interference is in limiting what contracts can be established between parties.
The government's role is limited to enforcing contracts, and government interference is in limiting what contracts can be established between parties.
> To take that something from someone without consent is theft.
But it has not been taken. Hence the reason why a whole new category of law was invented to restrict copying, as it was specifically not covered by property law (and still isn't).
> If a creator doesn't own what he creates, and he can't trade his creation on his own terms, how can he succeed in life?
The vast majority of people who create copyrighted works never make any money from it, much less make enough to live off. Being able to live of the revenue from works you created is something only a tiny little sliver of those who create can do. So your claim is hyperbole at best. Some people depend on copyright for their success and income, but most do not. Arguably most works are never even widely distributed.
But even if we accepted this claim, it is irrelevant: Society does not owe you a guarantee of success. Copyright is a restriction added largely for the purpose of promoting creation by offering the governments support in the creation of an artificial monopoly. It is a grant by society for the gain of society, not to guarantee you success. And it is ours to take away.
> Where's that pride of knowing that what you made is YOURS and you can control it?
Why do you need control to be able to be proud of what you created? There's no connection.
But it has not been taken. Hence the reason why a whole new category of law was invented to restrict copying, as it was specifically not covered by property law (and still isn't).
> If a creator doesn't own what he creates, and he can't trade his creation on his own terms, how can he succeed in life?
The vast majority of people who create copyrighted works never make any money from it, much less make enough to live off. Being able to live of the revenue from works you created is something only a tiny little sliver of those who create can do. So your claim is hyperbole at best. Some people depend on copyright for their success and income, but most do not. Arguably most works are never even widely distributed.
But even if we accepted this claim, it is irrelevant: Society does not owe you a guarantee of success. Copyright is a restriction added largely for the purpose of promoting creation by offering the governments support in the creation of an artificial monopoly. It is a grant by society for the gain of society, not to guarantee you success. And it is ours to take away.
> Where's that pride of knowing that what you made is YOURS and you can control it?
Why do you need control to be able to be proud of what you created? There's no connection.
If you are arguing that IPRs matter more than money, read up on moral rights. Most USA-centric copyright discourse seems to act like the don't exist.
Is this why the most pro-IP people conflate copyright violation with plagiarism?
In my experience, pirates don't plagiarize. They simply don't do it. Attribution is always preserved.
However, I've heard many times on HN that piracy means stealing a work and not giving credit. They rattle on about how terrible it is to have people out there removing your name from your work.
I know plagiarism does happen, but I've never seen a plagiarized work on the Pirate Bay, or Usenet, or any of the other places where you can download copyrighted material for free.
In my experience, pirates don't plagiarize. They simply don't do it. Attribution is always preserved.
However, I've heard many times on HN that piracy means stealing a work and not giving credit. They rattle on about how terrible it is to have people out there removing your name from your work.
I know plagiarism does happen, but I've never seen a plagiarized work on the Pirate Bay, or Usenet, or any of the other places where you can download copyrighted material for free.
So content creators should be happy that their content is being distributed online for free against their will, just as long as the author attributition is still intact?
No, but we have to accept it, much like the painter has to accept seeing the buyer of his painting burn it down. After you sell it, it's no longer yours.
Do you just accept GPL violations? Once you've given me the source code, it's no longer yours!
I accept them just fine if it's by someone who rejects copyright of his own works. I don't accept if it's done by hypocrites.
> Do you just accept GPL violations?
It's hard to violate the GPL without plagiarizing.
It's hard to violate the GPL without plagiarizing.
I thought plagiarism was an issue of false attribution? If my product gives attribution to the original authors, but I do not release my source code, then I am in violation of the GPL, but I am not a plagiarist.
> I thought plagiarism was an issue of false attribution?
Yes, that's precisely what I've seen people get annoyed about when the issue of copyright violation comes up.
> If my product gives attribution to the original authors, but I do not release my source code, then I am in violation of the GPL, but I am not a plagiarist.
I thought the GPL allowed binary-only distribution as long as there was a link or similar in the program to somewhere the source was available, but apparently not.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#UnchangedJustBinary
"The general rule is, if you distribute binaries, you must distribute the complete corresponding source code too. The exception for the case where you received a written offer for source code is quite limited."
Yes, that's precisely what I've seen people get annoyed about when the issue of copyright violation comes up.
> If my product gives attribution to the original authors, but I do not release my source code, then I am in violation of the GPL, but I am not a plagiarist.
I thought the GPL allowed binary-only distribution as long as there was a link or similar in the program to somewhere the source was available, but apparently not.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#UnchangedJustBinary
"The general rule is, if you distribute binaries, you must distribute the complete corresponding source code too. The exception for the case where you received a written offer for source code is quite limited."
I really wish HN had a rule against blogspam like this. How about the original post: http://torrentfreak.com/megaupload-shutdown-hurt-box-office-...
Or maybe the paper itself? http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2176246
Or maybe the paper itself? http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2176246
I am too lazy ... ummm busy to read the paper right now, but well, is it really causation, or some very, very weak correlation?
For massive blockbusters they do find a negative effect, the positive impact is mainly for lesser-publicized movies without the massive advertising budget funneled into them.
It's always hard to tell with statistics, but I don't think it's a stretch to suggest that the extra publicity from file sharing outweighs the negative effects for those smaller movies.
It's always hard to tell with statistics, but I don't think it's a stretch to suggest that the extra publicity from file sharing outweighs the negative effects for those smaller movies.
I imagine that most of the people who would want to see a blockbuster will know about it due to the overwhelming marketing. At the other end of the marketing budget spectrum the movies probably rely on word of mouth which would probably get a boost from file-sharing.
Even so I want to believe the story, it smells a lot like the typical correlation = causation story. These things are so easy to construct, i.e. the pirates & global warming correlation [1].
There could be a lot of other factors that were leading to this development, e.g. studios concentrating more on pushing blockbuster movies, generally a weak indie/strong blockbuster movie season, etc.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster#Pirate...
There could be a lot of other factors that were leading to this development, e.g. studios concentrating more on pushing blockbuster movies, generally a weak indie/strong blockbuster movie season, etc.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster#Pirate...
Why don't film makers put the first 10 minutes of a film on Bittorrent a week or month before release? This could offer many of the advantages and still allows them to earn direct revenue. I know some have tried similar models and other studies have shown leaks help the success of a film.
Well, they already make trailers and put them to every videosharing site possible.
If you add all footage from the trailers, it can be about 10 minutes, maybe more.
If you add all footage from the trailers, it can be about 10 minutes, maybe more.
Movie trailers are awful now. They generally show you all the important points of the movie and all the best SFX. Sometimes the movie is worse than the trailer. First 10 minutes sounds great - you'd know if you want to see more or not from that but it wouldn't [in most cases] give the whole plot away.
A few months ago I began finding my seat in theaters, hanging out with my friends, and leaving as the trailers began to stand in the lobby listening to music till the trailers ended before coming back in. Avoided all internet/tv trailers too.
I enjoy movies orders of magnitude more now not already having seen the set piece scenes / heard the important lines.
I enjoy movies orders of magnitude more now not already having seen the set piece scenes / heard the important lines.
Agree. I assume some of the trailers of the movies are automatically generated. There are these groups in my university conducting research of generating trailers / sound effects / background music. Choosing the best scenes in the movie automatically and combined them in a good way.
What inputs are they using to chose the best scenes. Is it based only on the movie? Audience reactions at screenings? Sounds interesting.
You could presumably then tailor trailers to particular groups to emphasise desired attributes.
Downside to that is that if you sit through a few trailers you could literally have seen a-third of the movie before you go to watch it.
You could presumably then tailor trailers to particular groups to emphasise desired attributes.
Downside to that is that if you sit through a few trailers you could literally have seen a-third of the movie before you go to watch it.
funny thing is - trailers are today revealing much less than in the past.
If you have seen the movie True Grit - either the old or the new one - compare the trailer to the 1969 version, which essentially gives out all the plotpoints - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tN-j4GDqjv4 - and the trailer to the 2010 version - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUiCu-zuAgM .
If you have seen the movie True Grit - either the old or the new one - compare the trailer to the 1969 version, which essentially gives out all the plotpoints - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tN-j4GDqjv4 - and the trailer to the 2010 version - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUiCu-zuAgM .
I suspect the first 10 minutes could give people a dis-insentive to watch many movies. Once you've paid and you're there, they've already got your money. I would scan lots of 10 minutes, and decide movies I wouldn't pay to watch.
Note, I don't go to movies because I normally leave disappointed.
Note, I don't go to movies because I normally leave disappointed.
Studios would much rather a terrible cam copy gets on the internet, so people get pissed off and go to the cinema.
It has been proven that once people have an inferior version of something they are more willing to pay full price for a good version.
It has been proven that once people have an inferior version of something they are more willing to pay full price for a good version.
The story's title is different, but I guess it doesn't fit on HN?
Someone more statistical than I can correct me on this, but by using on average 21 observations per movie (presumably for different weeks), aren't they creating dependence between observations which will artificially increase the p-values and r-squared?