[Akronymus]

In the words of Gabe Newell:

"We think there is a fundamental misconception about piracy. Piracy is almost always a service problem and not a pricing problem," he said. "If a pirate offers a product anywhere in the world, 24 x 7, purchasable from the convenience of your personal computer, and the legal provider says the product is region-locked, will come to your country 3 months after the US release, and can only be purchased at a brick and mortar store, then the pirate's service is more valuable."

I personally find going to an archival site to be MUCH easier than signing up for a subscription. Also, most news outlets don't provide a way to do one time donations, so I can't throw money their way if I read some amount of articles.

So, no, for me it isn't the goal to not pay, but rather to have it be convenient.

[Bakary]

I can agree to some extent with Gaben's take. In fact, Steam has been instrumental in changing my habits because it's more convenient than the alternative.

However, once you have a paid service and an unpaid service with otherwise identical convenience levels, the act of paying will always introduce that much more friction.

Let's say we have that donation system with online publications. Even if it's one-click, you still have to think about your balance, have the negative emotion of spending money, when the archival site is just a click away. Let's say you have a very simple DRM-free bookshop, reduced to the most convenience possible of search, click, buy. You'll still have Libgen just a click away as well. At this point, the determining factor is the propensity to not pay for labor.

[Akronymus]

I personally go out of my way to throw at least some money at services I use a lot assuming there are one time payments in some form. Or sometimes throw money at something I pirated before. For example, I have a lot of pirated epubs of light novels, as it's more convenient. Some authors have a donation option somewhere, where I throw some money their way, if I've enjoyed the books. I absolutely get that some friction for such things is inevitable.

Not gonna claim that I have some moral highground for my opinions/actions though.

[Bakary]

To be clear, I'm not trying to assign blame here. I am pretty stingy myself. My point is simply that the argument that piracy exists or stops existing for convenience's sake makes sense in an asymmetrical situation where the legal option is less convenient or conversely becomes more convenient (Spotify, Steam, early Netflix)

In a symmetrical situation with all other things being equal, the guiding principle of piracy will be the desire to compensate the creator.

[Akronymus]

Oh, gotcha. It seems I didn't quite tead your previous comment correctly.

I would add the personal feeling of doing the right thing to the symmetrical case, which IMO is distinct, as it's a negative incentive (I am amoral for pirating) rather than a positive (I am gicing the creator money)

But that could be considered splitting hairs.