Slashdot Mirror


Netflix May Be Losing $192 Million Per Month From Piracy, Study Claims (techcrunch.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from TechCrunch: As many as 1 in 5 people today are mooching off of someone else's account when streaming video from Netflix, Hulu or Amazon Video, according to a new study from CordCutting.com. Of these, Netflix tends to be pirated for the longest period -- 26 months, compared with 16 months for Amazon Prime Video or 11 months for Hulu. That could be because Netflix freeloaders often mooch off their family instead of a friend -- 48 percent use their parents' login, while another 14 percent use their sister or brother's credentials, the firm found. At a base price of $7.99 per month (the study was performed before Netflix's January 2019 price increase), freeloading users could save $207.74 over a 26-month period. At scale, these losses can add up, the study claims.

The report estimates Netflix could be losing $192 million in monthly revenue from piracy -- more than either Amazon or Hulu, at $45 million per month and $40 million per month, respectively. Millennials, not surprisingly, account for much of the freeloading. They're the largest demographic pirating Netflix (18 percent) and Hulu's service (20 percent). But oddly, it was Baby Boomers who were more likely to borrow someone else's account to access Amazon Prime Video. According to the study, 59.3 percent said they would pay for Netflix (or around 14 million people), contributing at least $112 million in monthly revenue, if they lost access. And 37.8 percent, or 2 million, said they'd pay for Hulu; 27.6 percent, or 1 million people, said they'd pay for Prime Video.

11 of 252 comments (clear)

  1. Again this rubish? by LavouraArcaica · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Again this bulshit-study where it is assumed that every pirated-material would be purchased if piracy wouldn't be on the table?

    That's so 90's...

    1. Re: Again this rubish? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In addition to that, by what bullshit definition is watching something owned by a friend or family member considered piracy?

      I agree, this study is utter rubbish.

    2. Re:Again this rubish? by smooth+wombat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is the same bullshit when people say New York lost 25,000 jobs because they didn't want to subsidize Amazon. The jobs were never created so nothing was lost.

      Just like these people would never have paid for the content so nothing is lost, right?

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    3. Re:Again this rubish? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Just like the magic $3 billion that Occasional-Cortex claimed Amazon left on the table to be distributed to her favorite welfare recipients.

    4. Re: Again this rubish? by azcoyote · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, and if I remember correctly, Netflix actually encouraged sharing at least at one time, and simply set limits on simultaneous streams. So if Netflix has allowed it, then in no way can it be considered piracy.

      --
      Incipiamus, fratres, servire Domino Deo, quia hucusque vix vel parum in nullo profecimus.
    5. Re:Again this rubish? by pr0fessor · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Netflix doesn't just charge by account but also each tear of service has a different number of max streams 2 for the standard account and 4 for the premium. It's not really piracy if someone is paying extra for more streams?

       

    6. Re:Again this rubish? by Junta · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is true and should be recognized.

      Of course self-reporting is likely to be incorrect:
      -When it's purely academic, you assume yes, but then you actually look at your budget or perhaps notice that Hulu is cheaper, maybe you don't get netfilx
      -A policy change to clamp down on moochers creates negative PR, souring people's opinion of netflix
      -There are probably some people that don't care about Netflix that much, but still pay for it because they have a friend/family member mooching and it's worth the small amount of money to not inconvenience that friend/family member. So there may be some losses of those not surveyed.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
  2. Faulty assumption by bigHairyDog · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This assumes that 100% of the moochers would have paid for an account if they didn't mooch. I don't know what proportion of people would actually have paid for an account, but I'm guessing more than 10% and less than 50%? Still a lot, but the presence of that glaring error in the conclusions makes me wonder how much the study authors are biasing their assumptions to make the most headline-grabbing number possible, rather than engaging in a good-faith effort to find out how much money these companies are really losing.

    --

    foo mane padme hum

    1. Re:Faulty assumption by apoc.famine · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The way Netflix works is that you have to buy multiple seats, so ofcourse when you legally buy them, and then actually use them.. That shouldn't count as piracy, but now apparently does..

      And it doesn't factor in all those people who bought the extra seats and then didn't use them either. Pure profit for Netflix! If you're going to count "piracy" losses, you need to count the "bought but didn't use" gains against that, since the two are very much related.

      If there was only one login available at one time, you wouldn't have much "piracy", but you wouldn't have all that bought-but-didn't-use revenue either.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
  3. Watching together by religionofpeas · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I wonder how much money they are losing because family members watch a movie together, instead of each streaming to their own account ?

  4. Account sharing is piracy now? by cmdr_klarg · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Bullshit. I have the Netflix sub that allows for 2 screens and HD. I use one, and my son at college uses the other.

    If they don't want account sharing then charge for each screen. Probably not a good idea, as that would very likely piss off customers.

    The study is fucking stupid for implying piracy.

    --
    THE SOFTWARE, IT NO WORKY!!!