From the paper: "Box office revenues of movies shown on the average number of screens and below were affected negatively, but the total effect is not statistically significant. For blockbusters (shown on more than 500 screens) the sign is positive (and significant, depending on the specification)."
How can you claim an effect is present when it is not statistically significant? The paper seems to undermine its own "findings." I'm not sure anyone expects torrentfreak to be concerned with accuracy, but it's pretty blatant to have a misleading article title while still quoting the paper as finding the negative effects "insignificant."
I actually understand the passage as such that the effect is significant for the negative impact on the subset of movies shown on less than 500 screens but the overall effect on all movies is not significant.
Without access to the whole paper it is hard to tell though.