Hacker News Reader

Comment by Mathnerd314 | Hacker News Reader

Research from the University of Amsterdam’s IViR “Global Online Piracy Study” (survey of nearly 35,000 respondents across 13 countries) found that 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.

View on HN

Fun fact, this study was financed by YouTube to create a legal shield.

In 2017/2018, they were in the position where MPAA and RIAA were saying: "Piracy costs us billions; Google must pay" + they had European Parliament on their ass.

Google financed that 'independent' study to support the view "Piracy is not harmful and encourages legal spend".

So the credibility of "independent" studies, is something to consider very carefully.

My real world observations agree with the direction of the study, so I don’t entirely dismiss it as fake based on its funding source.

I am cautious about the conclusion, though. It seems clear there is a spectrum from “unscrupulously pirate everything” to “consume legitimately after pirated discovery”, and quantification is necessary.

Doesn't make it false.

Why do you think this contradicts anything? Heavy users hit a budget limit and continue consuming more via pirating.

You really need something way better than some shoddy survey to counter the obvious fact that price matters

Yeah but if a pirate would have not paid the full price why care? It is by definition not a lost sale, the most likely outcome is just an increase by one the player count

Because the price isn't binary? Also, the total spend isn't fixed either, it depends on how easy it's to pirate. So it's by definition still lost revenue, even if later/at reduced price

Consider the two cases

A: I pirated a game 25 years ago and played it after school

B: I didn't

which cases do you think will make me more likely to buy more versions of that game later?

Consider reality instead, you can make any fantasy case you want:

C. You didn't pirate, but played because your friends were deeply into it, so you skipped buying lunch to save money and pay for the game (pirating was hard for this specific DRM). You bought it at a discount on sale (remember, the price isn't fixed?). That feeling of overcoming hardship and friendship fused into a very positive experience, making it 10 times more likely for you to buy the next version than in A. or B. The overall likelihood still was tiny because now you have a family and don't have time to play, so that and

D. Considering the amount of uncertainty (your game company will go out of business in 25 years) the value of your "more likely" is $0

Not paying full price is not a "lost sale". People unwilling to pay full price wait for a discount or price reduction. Look at how popular the seasonal Steam sales are. Pirating the game very likely means they never purchase it at any price, which _is_ a lost sale.

It's only a lost sale if that person would otherwise have purchased it. At least in my personal experience that was _never_ the case.

I never paid for games as a kid (starting with 8 years and first PC). We didn’t have the money until much later. Other friends and uncles had games, we copied it all. Eight years later (with 16) I bought two game compilations for birthday and Christmas. Around 40 games, no more than 2 or 3 years old. I had fun for years.

And then much later being a university student, I had money of my own and have bought games I liked. Never pirated to save money. And you know, GOG came along, and I was thrilled having the old games from my childhood again as digital legal copy. With manuals and addons. I bought 20+ old DOS games I already knew. Better late than never.

There is more to this RE: perceived value of respective sides.

Edit: missed a word

It contradicts the post it was replying to, which was saying, effectively, that people don't want to spend any money on stuff.

I don't think it's required to be making some universal point when you clearly respond to the argument put forward in the post you reply to, do you?

No, you misunderstood the comment, it said that paying nothing is compelling, not that paying something was inconceivable or something; it was a response to a comment with a common misconception that pirating is only some "service problem"

I agree with your earlier comment (GGP) and feel like you're contradicting yourself here. "Too expensive" is either a service problem or at least directly adjacent to it. It's distinct from "well if I can get away with piracy then I'll do it". To say that free is a compelling price is to imply the latter as opposed to the former (at least imo).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com