3 ms·

> “Are you trying to tell me that people who can barely pay their bills should not be able to show support for your product if they so choose?” This is laughab

> “Are you trying to tell me that people who can barely pay their bills should not be able to show support for your product if they so choose?” This is laughable. I’m an avid torrentor, but I don’t delude myself into thinking what I’m doing is good for the copyright holder.

thomaslord 6y ago
I mean HN probably skews towards people who could easily afford the subscription, but it could be a legitimate benefit to the UFC brand to maintain the engagement of fans who can't afford to pay. Those people may lose interest if they can't watch at all, but they might be able to afford the subscription in a few years. High school/college students are one demographic that comes to mind, but this could easily apply to adults trying to escape poverty as well. I don't know which way the balance swings in terms of people who can afford to pay and choose not to vs. people who can't afford to pay, but I think with something like the UFC that relies to some degree on fan culture for its appeal there's a clear benefit from having more people watch it even if those additional viewers don't pay.
- TedDoesntTalk 6y ago
  Aren’t there pubs or restaurants that air these for non-subscribers, like they do for soccer/football?
  - tyingq 6y ago
    There are, but it's pretty expensive for the bar. $1200 for a single event, 8 years ago: https://www.bloodyelbow.com/2012/8/10/3233243/new-light-shed-on-closed-circuit-ufc-broadcasts-at-bars https://www.bloodyelbow.com/2012/8/10/3233243/new-light-shed...
kyboren 6y ago
It very well might be good for the copyright holder. There is obviously a benefit to buzz around your content, and piracy helps generate that buzz all the same. It's not cut and dry. What's more, brands like UFC have other ways of generating revenue than just licensing fees. A person may not be able to afford a subscription, but they might still be eager to buy an official UFC T-shirt. "We find movies with prerelease piracy are associated with lower revenues despite the [Word of Mouth] effect. Critically, however, we show a positive correlation between postrelease piracy and WOM volume, and we extend the field by finding that the presence of postrelease piracy is associated with an approximately 3.0% increase in box office revenue. We also note the impact of a raid by the Swedish Police that temporarily took down The Pirate Bay website in December 2014. The period when the site was down experienced a decline in WOM volume and revenues, consistent with the effect of lower postrelease piracy predicted by our models." Does Piracy Create Online Word of Mouth? An Empirical Analysis in the Movie Industry Shijie Lu, Xin (Shane) Wang, Neil Bendle DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.2019.3298
happytoexplain 6y ago
This seems like an unnecessarily absolute (and needlessly insulting) statement. There are reasonable arguments for piracy benefiting the producer in the given case, where the likelihood of a sale having been lost is theoretically low.

thomaslord 6y ago

I mean HN probably skews towards people who could easily afford the subscription, but it could be a legitimate benefit to the UFC brand to maintain the engagement of fans who can't afford to pay. Those people may lose interest if they can't watch at all, but they might be able to afford the subscription in a few years. High school/college students are one demographic that comes to mind, but this could easily apply to adults trying to escape poverty as well. I don't know which way the balance swings in terms of people who can afford to pay and choose not to vs. people who can't afford to pay, but I think with something like the UFC that relies to some degree on fan culture for its appeal there's a clear benefit from having more people watch it even if those additional viewers don't pay.

TedDoesntTalk 6y ago
Aren’t there pubs or restaurants that air these for non-subscribers, like they do for soccer/football?
- tyingq 6y ago
  There are, but it's pretty expensive for the bar. $1200 for a single event, 8 years ago: https://www.bloodyelbow.com/2012/8/10/3233243/new-light-shed-on-closed-circuit-ufc-broadcasts-at-bars https://www.bloodyelbow.com/2012/8/10/3233243/new-light-shed...

kyboren 6y ago

It very well might be good for the copyright holder. There is obviously a benefit to buzz around your content, and piracy helps generate that buzz all the same. It's not cut and dry. What's more, brands like UFC have other ways of generating revenue than just licensing fees. A person may not be able to afford a subscription, but they might still be eager to buy an official UFC T-shirt. "We find movies with prerelease piracy are associated with lower revenues despite the [Word of Mouth] effect. Critically, however, we show a positive correlation between postrelease piracy and WOM volume, and we extend the field by finding that the presence of postrelease piracy is associated with an approximately 3.0% increase in box office revenue. We also note the impact of a raid by the Swedish Police that temporarily took down The Pirate Bay website in December 2014. The period when the site was down experienced a decline in WOM volume and revenues, consistent with the effect of lower postrelease piracy predicted by our models." Does Piracy Create Online Word of Mouth? An Empirical Analysis in the Movie Industry Shijie Lu, Xin (Shane) Wang, Neil Bendle DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.2019.3298

happytoexplain 6y ago

This seems like an unnecessarily absolute (and needlessly insulting) statement. There are reasonable arguments for piracy benefiting the producer in the given case, where the likelihood of a sale having been lost is theoretically low.