Funny video: What happens when you ask people from OTHER professions to work for free ;)

Its an interesting paradox. Software costs a lot of money to make the first copy. Then essentially nothing for every subsequent copy.

 

That's because software can be effortlessly duplicated infinite number of times and doesn't follow rules of material goods, while when somebody's time is spent, you won't ever get it back. So, in general, most of the people would want every developer that worked on the project to get paid BUT they might decide to pirate the product those developers created if they feel it costs too much. If you're a developer, it is your job to ensure that people don't have those kinds of doubts.

There are also huge price differences between regions. $100 in USA is not the same as $100 in some not very well developed country and people that want your product but can't afford it, may decide to pirate it. For example, imagine that you earn the same amount of cash as you do right now, but everything costs 10x or 20x times more. That'll give you decent idea about price differences in other regions.

Opensource movement is another way of tackling that issue, by the way.

Software development is similar to inentions and patents. You spend a lot of time figuring out how to do something, then you have lower cost of duplicating that technology.

Getting back to the topic of working for free...

Here's a video that talks about work motivation.

 

I think the main reason people actually just take it is that they can. The rest is just a justification and they will use whatever is convenient. If others things were as easy to just take without consequences, they would take that also.

A similar thing happens with open source. When I worked at a larger game studio I had to fight tooth and nail to even be able to submit back patches to an open source project. Their employment agreement effectively barred me from contributing to projects on my own time. They were fine with taking what others made but had all sorts of excuses for why they couldn't contribute back. Of course they are under no legal obligation in that case, but I see it as the same type of behavior. In fact a much more common thing that a number of companies have been caught doing is trying to use GPL software in a commercially distributed product. That used to happen a lot until people started to notice. And it was only when they did notice that companies stopped doing it so widely. In other words once there were consequences.

 

Pretty good.

But I don't agree on the criticism on giving up the rights. If you pay someone to make something then it should be yours. Simply as that.

An artist working at Blizzard doesn't get to keep the rights to Diablo just because their concept art was used.

 

I disagree with that.
Piracy indicates a problem with your product.
Lack of perceived value or inconvenience. If your software costs 6 monthly salaries in that region, people will pirate it. If you refuse to sell it in this region, people will pirate it. If you have roundabout and complicated delivery method, people will pirate it. And all of that will be your fault.

Services like gog and steam work well against piracy. Using those services is MORE CONVENIENT than pirating, so if you make a game, put it there, and people still pirate it, it is definitely your fault.

Look, opensource (FSF foundation version of it) is a pipe dream. It is also highly hypocrytical.

The direct consequence of GPL is that you cannot earn a lot by making a program. You can earn your salary, but you have no financial incentive to invent new stuff.

People that run OpenSource project tend to be people with petty ambitions and silly ideas. So even if you submit a patch, chances are you'll have to fight with core group of devs till they "accept" you "as one of their own" and only then they'll look at your patch. It is ridiculous. It also encourages wasting time. Because instead of having someone who knows ins and outs of the codebase fix an issue in 5 seconds the preferred approach is to make unpaid volunteers study the codebase and waste days and weeks fixing stuff. I think this approach stinks.

Speaking of your experience, your company has no obligation to submit anything back and even under GPL they have no obligation to redistribute their modified code. Companies are also allowed to use GPL in commercially distributed products, because thee's a big difference "commercial" and "proprietary", and if you care about opensource to begin with, you must be aware of that difference already.

 

Plenty of people pirate games they can afford.

 

The important question is how many of those would buy that software if they couldn't pirate it.

Many people buy games, and as far as I know, the idea is to make sure that your company is earning money, not to fight the piracy to extinction.

 

I don't want to derail this thread TOO much, but my problem with all the justifications for piracy is this:
The creator of something should have the final say in what happens to it. Piracy completely ignores that, and gives that say to someone who had absolutely nothing with its creation.

 

Well, it's tangentially relevant in a way because customer expectation is that digital goods should be free, or close to free. It all connects, I guess. Of course, since customer expectation is that digital art should be free, or close to free, then it follows that digital art – of any kind – isn't of any worth. So, that's why we keep getting offers to work for free, for exposure.

Piracy has several detrimental effects on digital goods:
a) it propagates a myth that 'because digital files doesn't cost anything, it should be cheap'
b) propagates the myth that 'the market for a digital file is infinite'
c) it destroys the necessary undergrowth where new and inexperienced artists, whether they be painters or musicians or writers can get experience without malnutrition and starvation.
d) It forces artists, musicians, writers to make money doing things that take time away from what they should be doing. They have to become marketers rather than artists, writers, or musicians.

 

Nope. In reality, lots of people are jerks and will pirate because they can get away with it easily, even when they know better. The idea that every pirated copy is a lost sale is wrong, but it's at least as wrong to blame piracy entirely on the content creator.

--Eric

 

Yeah I don't think there is any justification for stealing something. And that is what pirating digital products of any kind is. Stealing plain and simple. Well okay... I actually don't see it that black & white because if it came down to a choice of my only options were for a child to starve to death or me to steal some food I'd probably see the stealing as justified in that case and I'd be doing it regardless. The stealing would still be wrong. And I'd know that. But the purpose for doing so would certainly be something any rational person could understand and relate to. However, stealing games and other software is a far cry from such a situation.

People come up with all kinds of excuses as to why pirating is justified the same way people come up with excuses for why they steal physical goods. In the end the simple fact is it is an act of theft. We would all be much better off if people just accepted that fact.

I might feel that a Dodge Charger, Ford Mustang or for that matter a Lamborghini Aventador is way overpriced. My opinion of it being way overpriced doesn't give me any right to steal one. I might feel that certain 3D modeling programs are way overpriced that also doesn't give me the right to steal one. Simply because I want one doesn't give me the right to steal one. That should be common sense.

It is irrelevant that the product is digital or physical. The simple fact that a product is digital doesn't give me any right to steal a copy. What it does give me a right to do is (a) go without it, (b) settle for something else that I can afford or (c) try to save and take on debt to purchase it. Those are the only options that I have without performing an act of theft.

Honestly, I find it hard to believe that people actually try to defend these kind of practices. There is no other factual way to look at it the practice other than people are stealing. No matter how much that may offend some people it doesn't change things. They are taking something they have no right to take simply because they can.

 

It is because there are a lot of selfish jerks, services like steam and gog wins - because purchasing a game legally involves less effort and less risk than pirating it. So even without moral reasons, it is just more convenient.

I'd expect content creator put reasonable effort into delivering the product to the consumers and making it accessible. If they fail to do that, consumers will pirate the product in order to use it, and that will be developer's (or publisher's) fault. Generally, if content creator put the product on steam/gog, they've done their job, unless they also pulled some stunt.

In case of games the most common problem is improper handling of regional lock and localization. Some companies have a nice habit of making english (or original language) version unavailable in non-english region. As in - "there's no legal way to get it, or it is extremely complicated" (as in, you'll have to buy your product overseas and wait it to be delivered within 2 months by mail, which may get lost, and when you'll receive it it will refuse to activate in your region, and you'll have to pay double amount due to shipping fees).

Piracy will always exist, but people who are trying to use "moral" arguments to condemn it simply fail to realize that it is a symptoms of some issue with their product.

The common sense should be that pirating is not stealing.

The closest thing to piracy is copying a book. You borrow the text book from friend and xerox it.
That is pirating. Your friend still has the book, and you get the copy.

Also, I can guarantee that if you lived in region with significantly lower average salary (waay lower than usa/eu level), you would pirate half of your software, because many companies do not adjust their prices based on regional income. So you may get into unpleasant situation where you're required to own a piece of software for your job, but its cost is prohibitively high, and taking a loan is financial suicide.

It is very relevant. Digital and physical rights are handled differently and treating digital goods in the same way as digital goods is intentionally misleading people. For example, you do not own your software. You only purchase the right to use it. A real world car is different story, because most of it belongs to you.

 

I can guarantee that if I lived in such a region I would not pirate half of my software. There are and have always been many software products I would like to have. If I wanted to, and could afford to, spend the money on the products then I got them. If not I did not get them. Simple as that. It's like MP3s. I have hundreds of them on my computer and every single one was purchased through Amazon or other marketplaces. Are there more that I would like to have? Sure. But I only spend so much money on that stuff. If I don't have or want to spend the money then I do without.

The kind of views you are describing seem very odd to me. They make no sense. Whether I am copying a friend's book or copying a software product in both cases it is pirating. Obviously, in both cases I am making a copy of something that does not belong to me. In both cases I am getting something I have no right to have.

It's very simple: If a product physical or digital is for sale and I have a copy I did not pay for then I have a stolen copy unless someone else paid for it on my behalf or the product creator and seller gave it to me. There are no ands, ifs or buts to it. If a product is completely free and I have a copy then I do not have a stolen copy.

Living in certain regions. Making a little money or a lot of money. The product being digital or physical. None of those things make any difference at all in the act of grabbing a product that is for sale without paying for it. They are irrelevant.

If the product is for sale and I get a copy of it from an unauthorized source bypassing actually paying for the product then it is pirating. It is stealing the product.

The simple acid test is: Is the product for sale? Do you have the product? Did you or someone else pay for the product (including the product creator and seller giving it to you absorbing the cost)? If yes then you are a paying customer who has a right to the product. If no then you are not a paying customer and have no right to the product. It is not my right, yours or anyone else's except for the creator and seller of the product to share the product for free. Just because I may want it gives me no right to take it completely bypassing the wishes of the product creator and seller. I just don't understand how people cannot get that.

 

You don't seem to understand that people pirate stuff because it's free, and they're not too concerned about risks. Certainly services like Steam made inroads by making legit buying convenient, but it takes some effort to ignore the reality: some people just want to rip stuff off and not pay, it really is that simple. Don't try to rationalize it away. (And even Steam isn't immune; I was with a group of people once and their conversation turned to how to buy stuff on Steam and then do something or other to get your money back while still keeping the game. This was a few years ago, before the refund thing was implemented.)

That's objectively wrong in most cases.

--Eric

 

The most pirated game at the moment is most likely Witcher 3. The reason is that it is DRM free, and not region locked. It's easy to package for torrent distribution. The pirates don't have to sweat any. CD Projekt Red has gone to great lengths to make it DRM free on their own platform. Obviously, they don't have the same control on Steam.

Very few pirates the films of Peter Popzlatev, the Bulgarian filmmaker. They pirate popular stuff because they don't want to pay for popular stuff. And they'll rationalise pirating popular stuff with anti-DRM stances, anti-Publisher stances, whatever. Most people I know who've pirated simply did it because it was free.

 

You don't seem to understand that there are multiple reasons why people pirate stuff.
While there are guys that will pirate even if they were swimming in money, there are other reasons too, and those other reasons are under your control.

You cannot claim to know "objective" truth as a human being, sorry, because you only have access to subjective viewpoint.

The views make no sense to you because you have not lived in the region with significntly lower average salary and have not encountered singificant issues with official/legal distributions. Until you experience living in such region, the views won't start making sense to you. That's all there is to it.

It is very easy to ride moral high horse when you're living in USA/EU where most of software prices is a fraction of your monthly salary.

 

Ha ha ha! I think you are so focused on justifying piracy you simply keep looking past the basics and are just not thinking about it overall or thinking too narrowly.

Surely you must realize that even in the USA (and I would imagine the EU as well) there are a massive amount of people who are extremely poor. I suppose to some people living in certain regions of the world they may hear people over here are making over $7 per hour and think "holy crow they must be rich!" Well that is a very ignorant view. All of these people making minimum wage or less (there are loads of waitresses who don't even make the minimum wage many months) are lucky to be able to stay afloat. They literally live paycheck to paycheck. Often they are just one tiny disaster (such as their vehicle breaking down) away from spiraling into ruin. There are way too many people here who can barely even make it from month to month just to survive. They try to save every penny they can. They "rob Peter to pay Paul" this month and next month they do the opposite. They don't get any luxury items (such as games) unless they find them very cheap or free or receive them as gifts. So this is one myth that needs to go away. Anyway, just because they would love to get a game for their old computer but cannot afford to buy the one they really want does not justify them pirating the game.

It's the very same for me. Piracy has been going on for the past 30 years. Back in the C64 days the rampant piracy drove developers away from the machine to the Amiga and IBM PC & compatibles. Developers labored for months on products and the crackers had it out on BBS's within days of being released. The lack of reasonable ROI drove the devs out of the C64 market to other markets where the piracy was not so common.

There were hundreds of programs I wanted for my C64 and could not afford at that time. Heck there were hundreds (maybe thousands) that I knew I would probably want but didn't even know about them! I was just scraping by living paycheck to paycheck and I was one tiny disaster away from ruin. I saved every bit I could for months. At one time I worked 4 jobs in the same week. Working. Saving. Unfortunately, I was only able to do that for about 4 months because I kind of turned into a zombie. Dark circles under my eyes. At nearly 22 years old a section of the hair on the front of my head turned partially white. I actually went to a doctor who asked me "are you a complete idiot?! You are literally working yourself to death. Lose some of the jobs!" So I had to give up 2 of them and just keep 2 jobs. Anyway, I chose what to spend my money on. There were many cool games and other software products that I wanted and simply could not have. That is just life. No big deal. You cannot have everything you want. And these things are luxuries not necessities.

And that is another thing. We are talking about games and software products here. None of these things are necessities. Do you honestly feel the Witcher 3 and other games are a necessity people cannot live without? I don't have the Witcher 3. I do like RPGs. I will get it one day a year or two from now when the price drops down to $20 or less (eventually GameStop will have a used copy of it for $5). I've done that a lot. A good deal of my game collection is from yard sales and GameStop used games. And these days money is not a problem but from long ago when lack of money was a very big problem I just got into that habit. I didn't buy things the week they came out. I learned that if I waited just 6 months to a year a game that cost $60 at release would drop to $15 to $20. Wait another year and it'd be even less.

I lived in a small rural area and literally the only way to get the majority of the software available for the C64 and Amiga would have been through illegally downloading it from BBS's. I didn't do that because I knew it was obviously wrong. And I didn't need that stuff anyway. I just wanted it. There is a huge difference between need & want and I think that is what most people justifying piracy are completely overlooking.

It's not just me though. And I also don't think only people in the USA and EU have high morals as you are suggesting. In fact, I can tell you there are certainly plenty of people in the USA who do not have much if any morals at all. Such people lie, cheat and steal almost habitually. Sure they have a lot of excuses such as "can't afford it", "sending a message/taking a stand against" and so forth. But that is all they are... excuses. Excuses do not change anything. Excuses do not make it right. I might be completely wrong but I am sure there are people in countries other than the USA and EU who also do not lie, cheat and steal. Who don't just take things simply because they want it and cannot afford it or because they feel like they are on some "holy crusade" to stand against developers making "too much" money.

 

No, that's exactly what I'm saying. Your claim is that if someone pirates, the only possible reason is that there's something wrong with the thing they're pirating. That's a factually incorrect claim, and therefore objectively wrong.

--Eric

 

I don't pirate stuff. That is something immature people, and children do. Kids on the internet today and even a decade ago pirate stuff because their parents wouldn't/couldn't buy it for them. I'm not saying that's every reason in every case. I'm saying what some people have said here about not pirating things is a case of maturity. What Neginfinity is saying is its a case of circumstance. Let me add that if I can't afford something, I save up for it, wait for a sale, or just plain ole' don't get it.

If you decide to pirate something when you could or could *not* afford it regardless I see that as being immature. "I can't afford it therefore I'm gonna go out and steal it anyway because people have enabled me to do so".

Its more of a philosophical question, and by that I mean there is no right answer. Some arguments are easily disproven while others are more difficult. One could argue against the companies which don't sell things for a smaller price in poorer countries. They might make *more* money by doing that then overpricing it for the region, at a reduced profit per unit but still.

One could literally argue that because of the cost of reproducing a copy of some software, they can afford to sell units at a reduced markup.

Just some thoughts....

 

Isnt this how lite versions of assets for instance work? You give a free package and if you like it you buy more?

 

Sometimes assets don't have a PLE/lite version. More often than not, even.

 

I know, my point was that so many companies use free samples. And a free sample is what the guy is asking in this video. His choice of words might be odd, but the question remains the same: can I have a free sample.

 

You bring up a great point I excluded from my last post because it was already rambling on long enough.

Another great option I have used many times is to spend hours searching for alternatives. I don't know how many times I have searched online and tried out free or lower priced alternatives to software products. It is the reason I used Anim8or and Blender when I was doing 3D modeling instead of using Maya, 3DS, Lightwave and so forth.

There are far more freeware and budget-priced options than there have ever been. Some people may be unable or unwilling to spend the money to buy Witcher 3 and that is fine. There are many other RPGs including free games those people can get. Sure the games might not be as big or as good as Witcher 3 and that is kind of the point. You're exchanging some quality or scale or whatever in exchange for not spending the money required to buy Witcher 3.

It seems like many of these people supporting piracy look at it like "they deserve" to get everything without having to spend a dollar despite the fact that if we all did that most of these products wouldn't even be around. And I think that is what annoys me the most about the practice. It is just another case of certain people trying to get something for nothing. "Let others pay" but not them.

I guess the piracy supporters are releasing all of the games & other works they create... for free. And they plan to release every game and other work they create for free, right? It seems only reasonable considering they believe they should be able to get every product regardless of whether they pay for it or not. If they really believe that then surely they will simply give all of their own work away for free to begin with. Kind of setting an example for the way they believe all of the other software developers should act.

 

Back when I had an Amiga, I had basically no money, and got really good at bodging together working solutions with free software. I'm quite sure this helped my problem-solving abilities as a developer.

--Eric

 

All I was saying that you should consider alternative viewpoints.

I don't share that view. Americans have nice tradition of putting themselves into dept and suicidal healthcare fees. So, you are not rich if you live in USA.

The problem here is that despite that wage difference matters. If a minimum wage in region is $80 per month, you won't be buying zbrush, which costs about $500. With USA-level wage you have a chance to save up. However, if you go significantly lower than that, than there's no chance at all. And then people will pirate it.

Those with higher moral standards will pirate it, learn it, get a job where the software is used, and then pay for it.

Are you trying to move goalposts here? For the games, people can save up. I was talking about software.

 

Disclaimer: I'm not advocating piracy. Just sharing some thoughts on the issue.

Software piracy is an interesting issue. I live in an country and culture where small scale piracy for personal use isn't considered a crime*. Everyone does it. No big deal. Who really cares if some faceless American firm lost out on a few dollars of profit? They are well known for dodging out of taxes in our country anyway. And rorting prices to take advantage of their monopolies. And <insert whatever general anti-American sentiment is popular at the time>

The attitudes are slowly changing as the country itself is starting to produce more and more digital products. There are now a few laws that mean in rare edge cases an individual can be prosecuted for piracy. But our laws are still very much targeted at big time players and corporate piracy. Chasing after the individual at home is almost impossible.

I think the ultimate solution is to change the business model. Companies like Microsoft, Apple and our own Unity Technologies are trying a different approach. Give the software aware for free to home users and rely on corporate clients to pay for development. The free to play market in mobiles is another experiment in trying to combat piracy by giving stuff away for free and picking up money through micro transactions.

I don't know if these experiments will work. But the practice of increasing prices to legitimate users to make up for lost sales due to piracy doesn't work. In the end it just incentives more piracy.

* Crime in the sense that you could be successfully prosecuted.

 

The cost-wage argument is a fallacy. If you can afford the hardware you can afford the software. Its not starving children in Africa who are pirating software.

 

I'm very much in favour of copyright reform. I think copyright should be equalized with patents. You get 25 years, and that's it. Copyrights were never intended to be a catch-all thing - which is why there are lots of exceptions to it like 'fair use' and so on. I think a lot of problems with piracy comes from a general over-the-top attitude toward it. I mean, why on earth should it be life plus seventy years?

But I'm unconvinced that copyright infringement shouldn't be equalized with theft.

 

This all depends on how much original IP your country is producing. If your country produces a lot of IP, then if makes sense to treat IP violations as theft. On the other hand if your country doesn't make a lot of its own IP, then keeping IP laws looser is a way to kick start many of your own industries. A lot of US companies got their start with stolen IP from Europe. Now we are complaining that China is attempting to do the same thing.

The moral implications of IP laws can be phrased either way. Is it better for the creator of the IP to own it and exclusively profit from it? Or is it better for the IP to be used by as many people as possible to create the most public good? IP law is always about striking a balance.

 

No, because hardware gets cheaper with time and can serve longer than software (which usuall goes through rapid update cycle). Software, generally, gets more expensive as more features are added to it (and older versions are taken down routinely). Also, you pay for hardware once, and now there are companies who push very hard towards subscription-based model when it comes to software.

It shouldn't be. Each transgression has its own definition, and treating piracy as theft makes as much sense as treating theft in the same fashion as murder. Saying "piracy is theft" is intentionally lying to people, and saying that for "moral reasons" is hypocrisy.

Which just shows that there's no such thing as objective morality and all of it is subjective.

I think that it is generally better if as many people as possible use software. That way potentially talented people won't be locked out of efficient tools by paywalls.

 

People will believe what they want to believe regarding piracy. It gets pointless discussing it after a while. For a brief diversion you may enjoy reading about this Amiga. Very much alive, well and entrusted with an important job in 19 public schools.

 

The flip side is that people are less likely to develop unique IP with out the financial incentive. Why should I develop complex software if I won't get paid for it.

Like I said its complex and any IP law requires balance between public good and private incentive.

 

@neginfinity and @BoredMormon
I think BoredMormon (kinda) has a point...

If you can afford computer upgrades, chances are you can afford software. Its kind of a package deal, because without software (definitely without an OS, with the excetion of free alternatives) you don't have much use for the hardware. Hardware and software advance in their capabilities and respectively their demands all the time.

I think we should all read some philosophy textbooks before we argue any further.

We all ought to examine each others points for their merits and acknowledge them rather than arguing rather fruitlessly about them. Seriously, all I see is a bunch of people iterating on why piracy is good or bad and nobody is being swung in either direction. I get it, discussion especially regarding something you're passionate about is rewarding. Yet nobody is being convinced either war, its all kind of pointless!

 

Neither of the popular licenses is perfect right now.
Proprietary encourages people to develop flashy ui and mark it as "new version" for a quick grab cash.
Opensource encourages people to fool around on fun stuff and get carried away with various political nonsense, while forgetting to fix long standing bugs and leaving software in sorry state.

I think the one approach that could work is something akin to unreal license.

For example:
Free use for non-commercial purposes.
For commercial purposes you either pay royalties (when you actually manage to earn something) or pay significantly higher one-time fee.

That way you'd get easy entry, large audience and would have financial incentive for improving your product.

--------

I have impression that people underestimate price differences between regions, which is why I don't agree with his points. You should also understand how cheap older hardware can get. I think the cheapest computer I ever managed to build (just wanted to test how cheap I could get) cost $100. That included price of the monitor and computer case.

In some areas buying a pc can be akin to buying car and may require bank loan. And that's not bleeding edge PC. Throw licensed professional software in that and instead of one "car", you'll need to buy six of them.

Frankly, I don't see the point in that.
"Philosophical" debates on the internet tend to go like that: people equip their favorite dictionaries, pick up their favorite definitions for some words, then argue to the death using those definitions. For example, they may attempt to agree on definition of morality , definition of crime/good/evil/piracy, etc, and then argue within that context. And reach "conclusion", using "logic".
The thing is, the moment they narrow down the problem they efficiently create a strawman that does not encompass entirety of original problem, but instead a small subset of it, thus, conclusion reached through such debate may not necessarily apply to the entire original issue and as a result may be invalid when applied to entire original problem while being valid within bounds of established/agreed upon definitions.
It is pointless, also it can devolve into sophistry. Logical approach may not guarantee correct conclusion either.

I would prefer human-to-human communication instead of "logical" approach (because I'm dealing with computers all day, they're logical and that stuff gets old quickly). Just try to see other guy's point and see where he/she is coming from. No point in bringing philosophy here and no point in trying to win.

I have not ever seen anyone being convinced about anything in the internet argument. People usually want to win, not to change their opinion.
So the best course of action is to have fun (by having interesting discussions) and see if other people have interesting points of view. Imagine that you're in bar talking to people while sipping beer/coffe/tea/whatever. Or something.

 

Except for maybe some forum stalkers that are reading but not commenting about it...

The discussion here and elsewhere about piracy highlights one thing. There's a problem but no-one really knows how to deal with it. New things are being tried - tougher laws, more personal accountability, free to play, giving software away for free and charging corporate users etc. It mainly just comes down to time...many different approaches are being used and eventually one will shine out as the most practical, most effective method.

I, like many in my country (Australia, the land of pirates - yarr!) engage in some amount of piracy on a regular basis. I do it much less than when I was younger, (I have money now, go figure) but I still do it regardless. I rarely pirate games now unless I'm really on the fence about something and want to try it before I justify the purchase or look elsewhere but as I said this is a rare case. Mainly it's movies/series because going to the cinema is too expensive when you have kids and a mortgage and I'm either too lazy or it's too difficult to find a service that offers me the products I want in a convenient package for a reasonable price. Netflix has made it to Aus but at present its not really worth it, they've been handicapped by the licencing and it'll take a few years until they really get going.

So basically I see my own personal piracy ending in a few years time, but at present I'm not satisfied with the services that are available because they're still playing catch up. If those services had pushed themselves into existence at the same time that piracy and peer to peer sharing became popular then no doubt piracy would be a much smaller concern. They're fighting an uphill battle now though and it'll just take time to win out.