(Replying to PARENT post)
But they have a "moral model", which is to present copyright itself as a moral proposition. Everything about why it is hard for us to stop the never-ending creation of new laws and international treaties that attack freedoms of computer use and internet use is due to this moral model.
It follows that empirical studies proving the "harmlessness" of piracy are largely irrelevant.
(Replying to PARENT post)
(Replying to PARENT post)
(Replying to PARENT post)
If the movie does ok, then that is more evidence for the investors to ok the massive marketing spends. But if their trial marketing fails (and their 10 different versions of it), then the movie will be released changed or released in one of the spare slots; the slots that they need to fill in the movie theatres to keep their quadmopoly(if they don't take up the screens with some crappy movie then some independent might get a shot at a screening instead).
(Replying to PARENT post)
(Replying to PARENT post)
Study tries to find out if piracy has a larger effect in foreign box office returns the longer the length of time between the domestic and foreign release. Answer: Yes.
(Replying to PARENT post)
I mean, they are fighting the various P2P sites and users for years, spending large amounts of money on various legal fights and lobbyists. The wouldn't do this if it really didn't hurt their sales.
People can say "they are doing it because they are stupid". Well, maybe they are, but they also have far better statistics than we have. They know far better what is hurting their sales.
I am not really arguing for copyright industry here, but I am just saying - if it didn't hurt them, they wouldn't be fighting it so hard.