4 ms·
The headline seems misleading: > The results show a displacement rate of 40 per cent which means that for every ten recent top films watched illegally, four fe
by suddenclarity 4y ago
The headline seems misleading:
> The results show a displacement rate of 40 per cent which means that for every ten recent top films watched illegally, four fewer films are consumed legally.
Remember that absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence. The study seems to point at the first one. I don't care enough to be bothered with reading a 300 page report but if you consider taking it as truth, I would recommend you to read and analyse the method before drawing conclusions based on the headline.
- bee_rider 4y agoAlthough, it is easy to misinterpret your quote because of the removed context. > The only negative link the report found was with major blockbuster films:“The results show a displacement rate of 40 percent which means that for every ten recent top films watched illegally, four fewer films are consumed legally.” This is only true for a subset of films, “major blockbusters.” (Of courses, this is where the “top” in your quote comes from, but it seems easy to miss).
- nomel 4y agoThat seems significant, for Hollywood. What am I not understanding here? Why is this wrapped in a "the only" phrasing?
- bee_rider 4y agoHollywood isn’t in the EU. Maybe they didn’t care about big US style blockbusters so much. Serving their constituents and whatnot.
- dmbche 4y agoThis is accounting for piracy of games, music and movies - in total, having only one place where sales are affected is quite minimal - and looks like an anomaly if everything else is unaffected.
- ketzu 4y agoThey call it out directly, citing > [it means that] the statistical analysis does not prove with sufficient reliability that there is an effect