and so "it is possible to calculate an upper bound for the relative sales loss of total film views per channel and per country." |
The IPKat is curious to hear more about this
interesting work, and has asked the authors, Joost Poort and João Quintais, to provid readers with some details.
Here’s what Joost and João say:
The research team conducted
consumer surveys among nearly 35,000 respondents,
including over 7,000 minors, in 13
countries: France, Germany, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain, Sweden,
Brazil, Canada, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan, and Thailand. The survey deals
with the acquisition and consumption of music, films, series, books and
games through legal and illegal
channels. Illegal channels studied are downloading and streaming
from illegal sources (including via dedicated technical
devices), and streamripping. Comparative
legal research was performed on the basis of questionnaires on the
legal status of online copyright infringement and enforcement, completed by
legal experts in the 13 countries.
The study was financed by Google and
builds on previous studies by IViR and Ecorys for the Dutch
Government and the European
Commission. In the latter, a comparable survey was used in six European
countries, as a result of which time trends for these countries can be studied
and there is the unique opportunity to follow respondents over time.
Legal analysis
Despite some legal uncertainty, the majority of acts studied are
qualified as direct copyright infringement by users or give rise to liability
for intermediaries. Moreover, ISPs are often subject to injunctions and duties
of care even when they benefit from safe harbours. On the whole, copyright
holders have a vast arsenal of legal enforcement measures to deploy against end
users and ISPs. There is a trend in many countries toward copyright enforcement
through civil or administrative measures aimed at blocking websites that
provide access to infringing content. Notices to infringers and to platforms
hosting or linking to infringing content with the aim of removing/blocking such
content are likewise regularly used, the latter in the context of
notice-and-takedown systems. Criminal measures are less popular.
Still, despite the abundance of
enforcement measures, their perceived effectiveness is uncertain. Therefore, it
is questionable whether the answer to successfully tackling online copyright
infringement lies in additional rights or enforcement measures, especially if
these will not lead to additional revenue for copyright holders and risk coming
into conflict with fundamental rights of users and intermediaries. Instead, it
might be sensible to search for the answer to piracy in the provision of
affordable and convenient legal access to copyright-protected content.
Growing markets
Sales data reveal that across all content types and formats, per
capita income is an important driver of expenditures. However, above an annual
income level of € 30,000 per capita, this relationship no longer seems to apply
and national and cultural preferences dominate income effects. Despite a
decline in physical sales, the increase in digital sales led to net growth for total recorded music,
audio-visual content, books and games between 2014 and 2017 in the
majority of countries. Expenditures on live concerts and cinema visits are also
growing.
Survey outcomes
Online piracy is most prevalent in the internet populations of
Indonesia, Thailand and Brazil, followed by Spain and Poland.
As a
percentage of total population, Spain, Canada and Hong Kong are the top three
countries for piracy. Between 2014 and 2017, the number of pirates decreased
in all European countries except Germany.
It might be tempting to argue
that an increase in the use of certain enforcement measures against obviously
illegal platforms has contributed to the decreasing number of pirates in
Europe. However, a lack of evidence concerning the effectiveness of most
enforcement measures and the strong link between piracy and the availability
and affordability of content suggests otherwise: at a country level, online
piracy correlates remarkably strongly with a lack of purchasing power. Higher per capita income coincides with a lower number of
pirates per legal users.
Moreover, pirates are also legal
users: demographically, pirates resemble legal users quite closely, although on
average they tend to be somewhat younger and more often male. More importantly,
for each content type and country, 95% or more of pirates also
consume content legally and their median legal consumption is
typically twice that of non-pirating
legal users.
Sales displacement
This study confirms earlier studies in finding statistical evidence
that illegal consumption of music, books and games displaces
legal consumption. For live concerts and music festivals, however, a
positive effect
is found. Separating these results between minors and adults suggests that
displacement occurs for adults and not for minors.
Using time-structured data for blockbuster
films, an average displacement rate was found of –0.46
of first legal views by first illegal views. The largest effect
occurs on cinema visits. From these estimations, it is possible to calculate an
upper bound for the relative sales loss of total
film views per channel and per country. Overall, a maximum of about 4.1%
of all legal blockbuster views is displaced by illegal views.
Longitudinal analysis of
individual changes in consumption for respondents in six EU countries between 2014 and 2017 reveals
positive
correlations. Apparently, substitution effects – ‘Shall I buy or
shall I pirate?’ – occur on the spot. Over a longer time span, improvements in
the availability from legal channels are dominant and changes in personal
preferences affect legal and illegal consumption alike."
'Piracy down, legal sales up' says new IViR study
Reviewed by Eleonora Rosati
on
Wednesday, August 01, 2018
Rating:
No comments:
All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.
It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.
Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html