5 ms·

Is it really so far-fetched that closing down a major piracy site would increase legitimate downloads by 4-6%?

by waterlesscloud 14y ago

salman89 14y ago
Not so far-fetched, but I do feel that it will be very difficult to have conclusive evidence to prove as such.
tptacek 14y ago
Yes. It is IMPOSSIBLE TO BELIEVE.
- badgar 14y ago
  We all know that piracy increases sales, if anything, because [personal story about buying something].
  - ihuman 14y ago
    [Reference to gaming legend agreeing with this]
    - anigbrowl 14y ago
      [Snooty takedown wrapped in silky false humility]
      - L0j1k 14y ago
        [comment about doing it better in haskell]
andrewfelix 14y ago
No. Quite interesting looking at the comments here furiously looking for flaws in the study. If the results had found the opposite, I doubt the study's legitimacy would have been so vigorously questioned.
- skcin7 14y ago
  As kevinwuboo said in this thread: There are a few points from this publication that are suspicious: 1. There's no mention of funding sources for this study. 2. It's a small sample size of "two major studios". 3. Most importantly, this study isn't peer reviewed.
- jeremyswank 14y ago
  I don't think it would work very well if it were the people who agreed with a study to somehow also have the obligation to point out its flaws. Could we believe that they were being thorough in finding problems if the conclusions supported their own beliefs? It works better, I think, if the challenger takes an adversarial, but not actually hostile, position. And, of course, for both sides to have open minds, but I realize that is often too much to ask.
  - anigbrowl 14y ago
    Well, that actually happens a lot with scientific studies where people are interested in the result but want to point out the limitations of the study so that it doesn't get over-hyped and lost in a backlash. I much prefer a qualified conclusion.
- JoshTriplett 14y ago
  I apply a higher degree of skepticism any time the results of a study funded by an organization with a viewpoint support exactly the conclusion you'd expect for that viewpoint; if nothing else, I'd expect a high degree of selection bias, if not a predetermined conclusion in mind during methodology selection and data collection. I'd strongly question the results of a study funded by The Pirate Bay that said the ready availability of downloadable films increased movie sales.
- Kurtz79 14y ago
  "If the results had found the opposite, I doubt the study's legitimacy would have been so vigorously questioned." Maybe because they would have made more sense ?
DanBC 14y ago
... and only for the 18 weeks, and 2 major studios, that they studied. Well, that sounds okay. But I'd like a statistician to look at the numbers. (especially their model and their scatter plots.)
drawkbox 14y ago
No, but is it reality to think that people that would steal begin paying? Most pirated content is content that would have otherwise not been paid for in the first place. How much did it affect the promotion of movies though if people weren't talking and looking for it more? I actually think it ends up benefitting in the end or close to even. Exhibit A: The success of Windows Exhibit B: The success of Photoshop. Both gained a foothold via piracy initially. Piracy gets them hooked then later they buy or they buy it with budgets at work. Is it worth recovering 1-2% for losing 98% of a user base? Does that eventually lead to more sales? It is a tough problem.
- Evbn 14y ago
  Movies have less network effect than software, and most is not all. Why does MPAA need a bunch of people watching movies but not paying? These viewers aren't tastemakers, mass market advertising is taste maker.
  - sophacles 14y ago
    Yeah, no one has ever gone out and bought or rented a movie because "all my friends are talking about it, better keep up".
  - drawkbox 14y ago
    People watching more movies gets them interested in actors, series, artists, directors etc, this later does lead to sales and is directly a network effect. It is advertising and content is being consumed, if the content is good it has a lasting impact. Same effect it has on software in some cases. These are also people that have the time to pirate and were never going to buy right now. Later when they have no time and more money they will buy products, they weren't buying if they were taking the time to pirate it. So is it better for an artist or piece of content to be seen/heard or not? $10-$20 for a movie is cheap compared to the time it takes to get it at a certain point and is more convenient. Compared to software prices, music and movies have it locked up in the convenience factor if prices are low and content is actually available. Users will choose convenience and have on those types. Piracy will be won via convenience, not against the current. Yes it can never be legal or the whole system breaks but it will never go away, use it. Piracy is a 10x+ modifier on user base (freemium is a response to this).
D_Alex 14y ago
It seems far fetched to me, because the shutdown did little to limit the access to pirated material. I imagine the next stop for someone who found himself unable to use Megaupload was another similar site, not a legitimate download site.
res0nat0r 14y ago
If this study found that MU had positive effects on sales most of these comments doubting the voracity of the study wouldn't be posted, they'd be believed without any questions asked.
- pimentel 14y ago
  Yeah, but no MPAA funded study would reach that conclusion.
- Semaphor 14y ago
  The study posted in favor of MU (or at least neutral effect) got pretty much no comments at all. Might have been because it was a post linking a 3rd source (secondary source being Torrentfreak and primary the study on SSRN).
- pyre 14y ago
  The truth of the conclusions, and the level of rigor in arriving at them would be unaffected by whether or not people would be pointing them out, or looking for issues with the paper.
just2n 14y ago
Yes, I really think it is. The presence of amazing startups finally punching through the incredible awkwardness and extreme hassle that is consuming content legally is certainly the driving force behind increased sales. I've never understood why people think piracy is some form of theft. It makes more sense to think about it as a form of advertising/marketing. You see, media companies NEVER have sales. The closest you'll get is watching 20 minutes of ads per hour on cable TV while footing a pretty intense bill in addition. For over 100 years, it's been sound business sense to give things away to increase market penetration and drive increased sales. Sales bring buyers who also tend to make other purchases, which leads them to advertising to their friends. Giving things away to people who broadcast the products to a large audience is advertising 101. Loss-leading is a modern strategy that is working very well for expensive electronics. It works by essentially giving people technology so that they can consume more easily, expecting them to compensate you for the difference over time. This is all identical to how I have actually seen piracy affect the media industry. It's literally just marketing. People who pirate stuff typically aren't people who would buy it anyway. I really do not see a negative impact whatsoever. There's so much evidence to the contrary that I find someone making a claim that "piracy made more difficult, content sales up" is anything other than a context-free juxtaposition of facts absolutely inane. Piracy is easier today than it ever has been. For < $200 in hardware you can have your own personal Netflix but with all the latest movies and TV shows. Yet sales continue to rise, and the failed and hassle-filled pre-internet business models are falling away, leading to a minimal-cost sampled environment where the need for something like piracy is growing smaller all the time. Then there are some industries that are devolving and paying for it severely. Remember demo disks when we were all kids? I could, every week, get a demo disk with all the latest games on it. Maybe I got to play 10% of the game, but I didn't have to go pay $60 to see if I liked it. Now that digital purchases are non-resellable, fewer and fewer companies offer demos of their games to people so they can try before they buy. Piracy is useful here, and still tends to be an advertisement rather than a hindrance. And these companies want us to buy into always-on, in-your-face, and anti-consumer DRM? They're making it harder to consume legitimately! That's the exactly wrong thing to do! I haven't pirated a game in a long, long while. But I haven't bought any either (except a few indie games and the humble bundles) because the industry seems to be incapable of making any good business decisions. So yes. It really is so far-fetched that closing down a "major" (what, <5% of all piracy?) piracy site would increase legitimate downloads by even 1 sale.
Kurtz79 14y ago
It is. There are so many alternative sources of pirated content, that thinking that someone that normally downloads movies would simply switch to buying it if just one of these sources shuts down it's just naive.

Is it really so far-fetched that closing down a major piracy site would increase legitimate downloads by 4-6%?

salman89 14y ago

Not so far-fetched, but I do feel that it will be very difficult to have conclusive evidence to prove as such.

tptacek 14y ago

Yes. It is IMPOSSIBLE TO BELIEVE.

badgar 14y ago
We all know that piracy increases sales, if anything, because [personal story about buying something].
- ihuman 14y ago
  [Reference to gaming legend agreeing with this]
  - anigbrowl 14y ago
    [Snooty takedown wrapped in silky false humility]
    - L0j1k 14y ago
      [comment about doing it better in haskell]

andrewfelix 14y ago

No. Quite interesting looking at the comments here furiously looking for flaws in the study. If the results had found the opposite, I doubt the study's legitimacy would have been so vigorously questioned.

skcin7 14y ago
As kevinwuboo said in this thread: There are a few points from this publication that are suspicious: 1. There's no mention of funding sources for this study. 2. It's a small sample size of "two major studios". 3. Most importantly, this study isn't peer reviewed.
jeremyswank 14y ago
I don't think it would work very well if it were the people who agreed with a study to somehow also have the obligation to point out its flaws. Could we believe that they were being thorough in finding problems if the conclusions supported their own beliefs? It works better, I think, if the challenger takes an adversarial, but not actually hostile, position. And, of course, for both sides to have open minds, but I realize that is often too much to ask.
- anigbrowl 14y ago
  Well, that actually happens a lot with scientific studies where people are interested in the result but want to point out the limitations of the study so that it doesn't get over-hyped and lost in a backlash. I much prefer a qualified conclusion.
JoshTriplett 14y ago
I apply a higher degree of skepticism any time the results of a study funded by an organization with a viewpoint support exactly the conclusion you'd expect for that viewpoint; if nothing else, I'd expect a high degree of selection bias, if not a predetermined conclusion in mind during methodology selection and data collection. I'd strongly question the results of a study funded by The Pirate Bay that said the ready availability of downloadable films increased movie sales.
Kurtz79 14y ago
"If the results had found the opposite, I doubt the study's legitimacy would have been so vigorously questioned." Maybe because they would have made more sense ?

DanBC 14y ago

... and only for the 18 weeks, and 2 major studios, that they studied. Well, that sounds okay. But I'd like a statistician to look at the numbers. (especially their model and their scatter plots.)

drawkbox 14y ago

No, but is it reality to think that people that would steal begin paying? Most pirated content is content that would have otherwise not been paid for in the first place. How much did it affect the promotion of movies though if people weren't talking and looking for it more? I actually think it ends up benefitting in the end or close to even. Exhibit A: The success of Windows Exhibit B: The success of Photoshop. Both gained a foothold via piracy initially. Piracy gets them hooked then later they buy or they buy it with budgets at work. Is it worth recovering 1-2% for losing 98% of a user base? Does that eventually lead to more sales? It is a tough problem.

Evbn 14y ago
Movies have less network effect than software, and most is not all. Why does MPAA need a bunch of people watching movies but not paying? These viewers aren't tastemakers, mass market advertising is taste maker.
- sophacles 14y ago
  Yeah, no one has ever gone out and bought or rented a movie because "all my friends are talking about it, better keep up".
- drawkbox 14y ago
  People watching more movies gets them interested in actors, series, artists, directors etc, this later does lead to sales and is directly a network effect. It is advertising and content is being consumed, if the content is good it has a lasting impact. Same effect it has on software in some cases. These are also people that have the time to pirate and were never going to buy right now. Later when they have no time and more money they will buy products, they weren't buying if they were taking the time to pirate it. So is it better for an artist or piece of content to be seen/heard or not? $10-$20 for a movie is cheap compared to the time it takes to get it at a certain point and is more convenient. Compared to software prices, music and movies have it locked up in the convenience factor if prices are low and content is actually available. Users will choose convenience and have on those types. Piracy will be won via convenience, not against the current. Yes it can never be legal or the whole system breaks but it will never go away, use it. Piracy is a 10x+ modifier on user base (freemium is a response to this).

D_Alex 14y ago

It seems far fetched to me, because the shutdown did little to limit the access to pirated material. I imagine the next stop for someone who found himself unable to use Megaupload was another similar site, not a legitimate download site.

res0nat0r 14y ago

If this study found that MU had positive effects on sales most of these comments doubting the voracity of the study wouldn't be posted, they'd be believed without any questions asked.

pimentel 14y ago
Yeah, but no MPAA funded study would reach that conclusion.
Semaphor 14y ago
The study posted in favor of MU (or at least neutral effect) got pretty much no comments at all. Might have been because it was a post linking a 3rd source (secondary source being Torrentfreak and primary the study on SSRN).
pyre 14y ago
The truth of the conclusions, and the level of rigor in arriving at them would be unaffected by whether or not people would be pointing them out, or looking for issues with the paper.

just2n 14y ago

Yes, I really think it is. The presence of amazing startups finally punching through the incredible awkwardness and extreme hassle that is consuming content legally is certainly the driving force behind increased sales. I've never understood why people think piracy is some form of theft. It makes more sense to think about it as a form of advertising/marketing. You see, media companies NEVER have sales. The closest you'll get is watching 20 minutes of ads per hour on cable TV while footing a pretty intense bill in addition. For over 100 years, it's been sound business sense to give things away to increase market penetration and drive increased sales. Sales bring buyers who also tend to make other purchases, which leads them to advertising to their friends. Giving things away to people who broadcast the products to a large audience is advertising 101. Loss-leading is a modern strategy that is working very well for expensive electronics. It works by essentially giving people technology so that they can consume more easily, expecting them to compensate you for the difference over time. This is all identical to how I have actually seen piracy affect the media industry. It's literally just marketing. People who pirate stuff typically aren't people who would buy it anyway. I really do not see a negative impact whatsoever. There's so much evidence to the contrary that I find someone making a claim that "piracy made more difficult, content sales up" is anything other than a context-free juxtaposition of facts absolutely inane. Piracy is easier today than it ever has been. For < $200 in hardware you can have your own personal Netflix but with all the latest movies and TV shows. Yet sales continue to rise, and the failed and hassle-filled pre-internet business models are falling away, leading to a minimal-cost sampled environment where the need for something like piracy is growing smaller all the time. Then there are some industries that are devolving and paying for it severely. Remember demo disks when we were all kids? I could, every week, get a demo disk with all the latest games on it. Maybe I got to play 10% of the game, but I didn't have to go pay $60 to see if I liked it. Now that digital purchases are non-resellable, fewer and fewer companies offer demos of their games to people so they can try before they buy. Piracy is useful here, and still tends to be an advertisement rather than a hindrance. And these companies want us to buy into always-on, in-your-face, and anti-consumer DRM? They're making it harder to consume legitimately! That's the exactly wrong thing to do! I haven't pirated a game in a long, long while. But I haven't bought any either (except a few indie games and the humble bundles) because the industry seems to be incapable of making any good business decisions. So yes. It really is so far-fetched that closing down a "major" (what, <5% of all piracy?) piracy site would increase legitimate downloads by even 1 sale.

Kurtz79 14y ago

It is. There are so many alternative sources of pirated content, that thinking that someone that normally downloads movies would simply switch to buying it if just one of these sources shuts down it's just naive.