Respect for Film says fighting movie piracy would increase UK economic output by £614 million, protect the jobs of thousands employed in the film industry, and create some 7,900 jobs.
No piracy studies make me laugh as much as those commissioned by the entertainment industry. For the basic premise usually is that one illegally downloaded movie equates to a lost ticket sale. With last year’s the “Dark Knight” raking in hundreds of millions in box office sales despite being the most pirated movie of all time, one can see that it’s not necessarily the case.
So now we have another movie piracy study to chew on, this time it’s from a UK group called Respect for Film. “Great Expectations,” a report on the economic opportunities for the UK film sector, concludes that a series of anti-piracy proposals would bring extra gross revenues of £268m ($370m USD) to the audio-visual industry, £310m ($427m USD) in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) would be generated across the entire UK economy, while £155m ($213m USD) would be generated in added govt revenue.
In this report the author’s peg a “raw” estimate that roughly 58% of all viewings of pirated films (and 21% of pirated TV series viewings) actually count as lost revenues. These raw estimates, in turn, are further downweighted to allow for the fact that many of those who say that they would have paid to watch copyright material in response to survey questions would not, in fact, do so in reality.
Altogether, the report claims, fighting piracy would increase UK economic output by £614 million and protect the jobs of many thousands of people employed in the film industry, as well as creating some 7,900 jobs in the wider economy.
“Given the current state of the economy, these recommendations are a quick win for the Government given the positive impact they would have on the economy,” Lavinia Carey, Chair of Respect for Film. “Our sector isn’t asking for a handout, but targeted legislation to reduce copyright theft and deliver over £600 million and support employment to the benefit of the UK economy.”
According to the study, for each of the following anti-piracy measures enforced the corresponding economic benefits to the industry can be achieved:
· Making camcording illegal in cinemas (£26.1m) ($36m USD)
· Regulating car boot sales and other markets (£6.3m) ($8.7m USD)
· Introducing legislation to tackle illegal file sharing in the long term (£141.7m) ($195.6m USD)
· Creating an effective damages regime (£94.0m) ($129.7m USD)
Yet, for all the hassle to consumers that these legislative proposals pose, the study notes that only a total of £268 ($370 USD) million in direct AV industry losses could be recovered. This equates to only 50% of industry losses, in part due to a conservative approach taken by the study’s authors.
I think that short of monitoring every individual in the UK it’s pretty much impossible to determine what the actual figures are. The report thankfully addresses the fact that a single illegal download doesn’t mean a single lost sale, but to even peg it at 58% seems contrived and based on conjecture. More importantly, no effort seems to be made to determine what percentage of that 58% eventually go out and buy a movie or concert ticket, nor acknowledge that piracy can spur economic interest in other areas.
In short, when can we expect a study from the like of entertainment industry lobbying groups like Respect for Film that focuses on devising ways for it to satisfy the needs and desires of consumers rather vice versa?
jared@zeropaid.com
Related Posts
- China film piracy ‘costs $2.7bn’
- MPAA Argues Fighting Piracy Saves US Jobs
- Study: Piracy hits L.A. biz community
- RIAA VS The Economy
- And Just Like That, Bogus Piracy Stats Become Fact
Loading ...
You are being too nice to the author Soul there are many more holes the study does not touch on. They mentions that 58% would be willing to pay for the content they download but how much of their budget would they spend on that content how much do they spend now? Its great and all to reveal that 58% would pay for movies based on asking them what would they do if pirated sources did not exists but its meaningless unless you understand their financial ability to do so. The actual figure is definitely lower than the 58% and clearly that has to be revised in his study.
Furthermore they do not have cross referenced sources he uses a single Ipsos study and mentions MPA statistics for all his data on piracy and how much it affects the industry. Without additional supporting studies by unbiased 3rd part sources his study is essentially useless as his data isn’t verified. Which the guy even mentions throughout his report he keeps pointing out that the data is lacking in all his supporting arguments. Which is a better indicator at the fact the industry data is lacking and useless than the fact the industry can gain millions from fighting piracy.
This study also seems geared towards increasing the British economic force. So it should also take into consideration the loss to industries in the event of a lock down on copyright laws. These include ISP revenue Electronics manufacturers Computer hardware makers the pirates themselves Blank media etc. They also neglected to factor in the sociological affect a lock down on piracy would create this could include shifts in smaller markets drop in spending by consumers in other markets due to the need to allocate to entertainment funds as well as a possible drop in exposure of British artists to foreign markets through the social circles currently created by copyright.
This is at best an attempt by a grad student to gain some cred in the copyright industry. At worst its the work of a professor with half a brain who is in charge of teaching students at Oxford. Either way your assessment was right that the report is utter crap.
oops “currently created by piracy”.
Philip Copeman here from the TruboCASH Accounting project http://www.turbocash.net
We have been dealing with this kind of logic for years in the open source software business. Leaving aside the copyright or legal issues the economic logic is completely flawed. It is the same logic that got the UK into the current mess with respect to China. The idea that it is a business to import Eastern goods at a deficit just because it created retail jobs is illogical. So where down the line the import bill has to be paid.
After all is counted the UK is a net importer of movies and every movie paid for is ultimately a cashflow to the US. Now this may be unfair on US companies but that is another argument. The argument that paying royalties offshore helps a local economy is ridiculous.
The real disruptive technology is the distribution network. Here we have a bloated old fashioned brick and mortor business fighting for its life. As we are a few years ahead of the curve in the software business I can offer them a glimpse of the future. Business software has all but dissappeared from physical retail. Gaming is disappearing from retail faster that a Virgin at a school dance.
The film producers should be embracing the fact that they can free themselves from the ditributors. When you take out the ramped up costs of distribution it becoems a lot simpler to produce movies. Expect to see disruptive film companies emerging. I am looking forward to films that are openly free.
I’ve lost track at the number of industry studies that make the wildest claims on how the industry is oh so hurting from file-sharing. After reading through (well skimming for sources on their key points) I’ve concluded over and over again that the studies in question often don’t cite proper sources. If I wrote an essay with the kind of fact checking that the industry does and expect to be treated with total respect I think there would be a teacher or two that would beat me with a stick for not being one bit credible.
The fact-checking on these studies have time and time again bordering on pathetic. No serious acedemic intellectual would say you are credible when you merely say something like “The sources I wrote before agrees with my findings now. The sources I wrote before were numbers I made up on my own so that makes me my own source.”
…then again what do you expect from propaganda pieces aimed at people who create laws who practically say “Interwho? Softwarewhat? You mean there is this thing called the internet?”
It isn’t difficult to see that there is some truth to these studies. Problem is I don’t care. “Taken” was available in DVD quality before it even was in theaters and so I watched it from my living room. Theaters are for dates nights out or taking your kids to see the next hairy potter. Stream the content directly to my TV and I might just pay for that too. Otherwise the convenience factor is more compelling to me then the money factor.
It is their own fault. They don’t undestand basic economics. 10-15 quid for a film that a consumer will probably only watch once is not a good business model. And most of the movies are rubbish anyway. If they really want to stop piracy? Cut the selling price to 5 quid a disc and watch sales soar…