Regardless this just goes to show that the problem can be mitigated by making the legitimate route less painful than the illegitimate one. I used to pirate most of my music collection but now I use Apple Music because the friction of maintaining the library across multiple devices is so much lower.
Imposing restrictions and hoops to make your product harder to pirate is vastly inferior and in many cases entirely ineffective in than designing the product to be a superior experience to pirating it.
The ability to do so is going to vary wildly by the product itself, but that is the better way to achieve the goal.
There are people who will always pirate things, whether out of principle or out of economics. However there are plenty of people who would gladly cross the line if the legitimate route was significantly better, either by ease of use or design.
DarrenDev says there are no lost sales. However, I pay for Disney plus because I don't have access to invite-only torrent sites where the latest movies can be found but I'd still like to watch them. If I had access to those torrent sites or someone's Plex, I could cancel Disney plus.
A good portion of their user base got started using cracked copies of the software, as the price of something like the CS6 Master collection was well outside of the affordability of the average hobbyist.
But some of those teenage hobbyists grew up to go to college to expand on their Adobe tinkering to becoming professionals that sneer at people who use non-adobe products because of the price.
Businesses buy the software because that is what the talent is trained on. The difference between calling what Adobe has on the market a monopoly and an actual monopoly is probably only technicalities at this point.
Sure, most of this comes from the fact that their software really was the best of the best for the longest time, and their lead in technology and namesake is so far ahead of any of their competitors that it is laughable. their software was pirated obsessively because it was so good and so expensive, just like Waves $2,000 Mercury VST plugin suite.
There are other softwares, many of which are free or very affordable, that do 95%+ of what anything adobe or Waves does. But when you edit a photo with Gimp people will still instinctively say that you photoshopped it, and few people will ever care what plugins you used on an audio track if it's not autotune.
Its completely unaffordable to the student or hobbyist, the "home edition" is too limited to be useful, so everyone starting out uses a cracked version because its been the de-facto industry standard tool since forever for reverse engineering.
Later when those people get jobs, they become another paying (through work) licensed user of IDA Pro.
What's slowly fucking IDA now is finally there are alternatives, the NSA open sourced Ghidra which can replace IDA to some extent - so smaller customers (who were always treated poorly anyway) are moving away from their product.
Would you still pick Netflix over torrents if it cost €100/month?
When I was a young teenager I used to rip CDs from the local library (who could get almost any CD in a week if ordered).
Now I spent a fair chunk of money on both digital and physical (vinyl) supporting artists - because I can afford it.
Then they (the record companies) started suing their customers, and I stopped buying CDs. I've been listening to the same set of songs ever since, or stuff on youtube.
Never again will I feed that monster.
I've heard this before but I'm not convinced this is actually true. Why? Because I use Netflix instead of torrent sites, and just accept the limitations of that format. Programs are tools vs of entertainment, but I don't know that the human psychology actually changes.
A neat trick they did was to introduce downloading as a feature. Now search results for "Netflix download" all talk about the built in feature as opposed to teaching how to rip the DRM off the downloaded file.