By not watching the shows at all HBO (or other companies) cannot aggregate consumer demand for their show. If you are interested in watching a show and find it inconvenient then blatant pirating can actually help a cable company quantify the demand for the time and mediums of distribution. (yes those companies track aggregate pirating stats)
Let's look at two scenarios: They both involve a show that 100k people want to watch, but 20k of those people can't/won't watch it using the methods legally provided. (Fuzzy/simple math to illustrate the point.)
In scenario one, those 20k pirate the show instead. This means that the known demand for the show is 100k viewers, 80k using legal distribution, 20k using illegal distribution.
In scenario two (what Marco proposes), the 20k simply don't watch it at all. In that case, the known demand for the show is 80k viewers total, all of which obtained the show legally.
In scenario one, the content providers know there are 100k units of demand, 80k of which they are receiving revenue for - which implies 20% of the viewers want the show, but not for its current price/availability. Thus, they have a semi-accurate view of demand.
In scenario two, the content providers only know there are 80k units of demand. They don't know that the other 20k users even exist, or are at all interested in the product. They have less usable information, and no change is enacted - if they don't know those 20k exist, their absence can't be noted.
In this case, piracy provides an indicator of unfulfilled demand, whereas abstaining from piracy provides no feedback whatsoever. I think the concept of "protest via absence" in this situation isn't going to do anything useful.
In this case, piracy provides an indicator of unfulfilled demand
Only if the content providers actually treat it as an indicator of unfilled demand. They're not; they're treating it as an indicator of criminal behavior.
If piracy is an indicator of unfilled demand, the correct response is to fill the demand by changing your method of distribution. It's not to sue people and try to buy ever more draconian government enforcement.
How does that contradict what I said? I wasn't talking about whether or not the companies have the data; of course they do. I was talking about what they do with the data.
I don't think their outward actions are a reliable indicator of how they're using these data internally. I _do_ think that these analytics can play a big role in which shows get cancelled.
I _do_ think that these analytics can play a big role in which shows get cancelled.
So what? How does that fix the distribution problem that motivates people to pirate? And how does it affect the propensity of media companies to sue people who pirate, instead of fixing their broken distribution system?
The 'so what' is that Marco is telling people to boycott cable companies by not watching their shows, which would most directly hurt the writers, artists, directors, etc, who have worked really hard on their shows.
I don't see how pirating the shows, as opposed to not watching them, is any better for the writers, artists, directors, etc. all things considered. Yes, in the short term, a show might not get cancelled if pirated demand is taken into account. But the global effect is that more and more people hate the media companies because they prosecute ordinary people that just want to watch shows and movies, instead of fixing their broken distribution system.
Sooner or later that is going to catch up with those companies, and when it does, all the writers, artists, directors, etc. who have tied their fates to the fates of the media companies will go down with them. If anything, pirating, as opposed to just not watching, postpones the pain of that happening, which will make it even worse when it finally does.
