Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

My interpretation was that they had a budget of $x to run their servers with from y paying customers. $x in no way could provide the services that y+z needed (z being the number of pirates) regardless of infrastructure or efficiency of code. Instead they decided to cut losses and refund without finding a way to block z or monetize it.

I think you're trying to read between the lines of what the article stated.

Really? That's exactly what I got out of the article as well. They have to pay for the bandwidth somehow.

I think you're jumping through hoops trying to rationalize piracy as having no negative effects.

I didn't say that anywhere. Piracy obviously resulted in lost revenue, but that's not what this article is about - it's about bad server software.

"Piracy obviously resulted in lost revenue"

Previously on HN: "No harm, no foul."

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact