EU paid for, then suppressed, study that says piracy doesn't harm sales

I pirate(d) a lot of stuff. If I like that stuff, I buy it. Partly to support it, partly because I'm a huge quality fanatic and it's harder to find uncompressed BluRays on the intertubes, though it is sometimes possible.

With software, I pirated it because I couldn't afford it as a kid. When I became an adult with a decent job, I thought "hey, I should really pay this dude for his good software I've been using for 10 years that doesn't cost much".

The only software I pirate now is Adobe Creative Cloud, because paying them hundreds for something I dick around with would be ridiculous. Now if there was a £30 per year non-commercial dicking around option, I'd go for that. They get some money, I get to mess around with the software and not make any money from it.

Other stuff that gets pirated is stuff that's essentially impossible to find. Or stuff I already own a copy of on DVD, because hey guess what, I've paid for that "license" remember? I'm not paying you £20 to go from DVD to Blu Ray. If it was a £1 "upgrade to BluRay" option, cool. Paying a load of money for a few more pixels when I have already paid for a legitimate version on DVD, providing revenue to the creators and publishers, is a shit proposition. There may be some exceptions to this such as the Star Trek TNG remasters which took huge amounts of effort (not that I had them on DVD already, but the point is I'd have paid again).

Illegal football (soccer) streams? Availability. Provide a good service and people will pay. Just because the people in charge are Luddites who want to drag their heels instead of making a load of money. How many other fans would be prepared to pay for a non shit reliable stream? Bucket loads.

Good products at reasonable prices get money. Your DRM-laden shitfest where you make customers take it up their anus unsurprisingly causes people to look elsewhere.

/r/KotakuInAction Thread