Sorry for the confusion. Stepping back to my initial reply, you asked: > That's a very generic conclusion, is it related to this article somehow? And I intend

Sorry for the confusion. Stepping back to my initial reply, you asked: > That's a very generic conclusion, is it related to this article somehow? And I intended to answer the question with how their statement is related to the article by pointing out that this statement is written at the start of the article: > New research from piracy tracking firm MUSO shows that movie piracy is strongly linked to box office revenues. When pirated downloads peak or slow down, movie theater visits show a similar trend. While this may sound counterintuitive, the finding is actually quite obvious. Correlation is not causation and pirates are people too. I didn't understand your point when you responded by saying: > Thanks I read the article. From the study: >> Thus there is a very strong, statistically significant, positive correlation between Box Office revenue and unlicensed consumption What is the significance of the statement you quoted as a reply to mine? That's what I don't follow. (Thanks for the time you've taken so far with your replies!)