[Mathnerd314]

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.

[rvnx]

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.

[fn-mote]

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.

[scotty79]

Doesn't make it false.

[eviks]

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

[danaris]

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?

[afiori]

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