Whilst piracy can sometimes be about "market failure" I don't see that being the case here.
The content in question is available world-wide via pluralsight. The author has set a price for his content and it's up to consumers to choose whether they wish to pay for this content or not.
Someone who bypasses this and chooses to pirate the content has made a moral choice not to pay the author for their time as requested.
There is no large corporate here restricting access to content, this is a person who has put in work to create something and released it at a specific price.
If no-one is willing to pay for content then how will content producers be able to afford to make more?
Personally I try to pay content creators wherever I can for the content they produce. I subscribe to patreon for several webcomics and youtube series I enjoy and buy technical books where available for topics I'm interested in.
I'm absolutely capable of going and getting all my content for free to but choose not to do so, because it seems obvious to me that if everyone does that, the content I like will no longer be available, or will have to have other monetization means (e.g. advertising) that I'm not a fan of.
For me the rampant piracy problem is a classic tragedy of the commons. People like the content but would rather others paid for its production.
> There is no large corporate here restricting access to content, this is a person who has put in work to create something and released it at a specific price.
Hope I've understood this sentence of yours correctly. Actually in this case, Pluralsight, which the author of the blog post has published courses on, is a large corporate in the software/technical training domain and has acquired many other training companies in the last few years. Pluralsight is highly restrictive in that it does not allow downloads of course videos (just a limited offline cache using its proprietary DRM restricted player) or moving them to a device or system of the paying user's choice. Compare this to DRM free publishers like O'Reilly, Packt and many others (see my other comment elsewhere on this topic), Pluralsight is terribly restrictive for users (IMO).
the author of the blog isn't pluralsight, it's Troy Hunt.
Troy isn't an employee of Pluralsight and it's his content that he publishes via their platform.
It's his choice as content creator where to publish the content he creates.
Obviously if users don't like the platform he's chosen, they can choose not to consume his content, this isn't some situation like a Marvel movie say, where only one company can produce that type of content.
There are many other options for security courses.
The content in question is available world-wide via pluralsight. The author has set a price for his content and it's up to consumers to choose whether they wish to pay for this content or not.
Someone who bypasses this and chooses to pirate the content has made a moral choice not to pay the author for their time as requested.
There is no large corporate here restricting access to content, this is a person who has put in work to create something and released it at a specific price.
If no-one is willing to pay for content then how will content producers be able to afford to make more?
Personally I try to pay content creators wherever I can for the content they produce. I subscribe to patreon for several webcomics and youtube series I enjoy and buy technical books where available for topics I'm interested in.
I'm absolutely capable of going and getting all my content for free to but choose not to do so, because it seems obvious to me that if everyone does that, the content I like will no longer be available, or will have to have other monetization means (e.g. advertising) that I'm not a fan of.
For me the rampant piracy problem is a classic tragedy of the commons. People like the content but would rather others paid for its production.