The traditional media channels are beeing more and more digitalized and is now offering the consumers access to the content anywhere, anytime. There are indications from different researchers that this could lead to a fragmentation of the media audience. This could be because the content is beeing more and more specialised to different demographic groups of people. With this paper we sought to find out if we could get any indications on if the development tend to continue regarding on demand-services. Does the media audience think they will continue their subscriptions to the services, and if so - why? If not, how will they consume media if not via on demand-services? We conducted an online survey where 243 individuals participated and found out that our respondents indicated to continue their subscriptions because of the quantative content the service offers. Although our result indicated that the people who now are subscribing on an on demand-service will continue to do so - the majority of our respondents showed that they would turn to illegal filesharing and streaming if they, for any reason, would cancel the on demand-subscription.

In this modern day and age where internet reigns supreme and the digital age is neigh, there are many ways to copy and illegally acquire software. It is called online piracy. The “crackers” crack the software code which then is illegally distributed online, giving the ability to other users to download the software. Ever since game industry exploded on the market, there has been a “cat-and-mouse game” between game developers and online pirates. Game developers trying to stop the pirates from cracking their products, while pirates finding ways around the code. This is an eternal battle and today we are in a situation where there seems to be a common belief that the protection software affects the performance of video games. By taking a deeper dive in to the game industry, we have concluded that in fact, generally video games that use a 3rd party protection are the most affected in terms of performance. To say that this is non consumer-friendly is an understatement, whereas in this situation people who buy the video game gets the version with worse performance than a pirated copy. This results in clash of developers thinking they are saving themselves some money by stopping the pirates, but, pirating does not necessarily have a bad impact on sales. If sales are not affected, then why would you release a software with protection which performs worse than their counterpart, only for it to be sold less through bad performance and negative feedback from community? We conclude that these kinds of security are far too drastic. It does not matter what level of protection there is, with time anything will be broken down. As we have noted the pirates have too low of impulse control, which is the biggest reason why they are downloading. We say that a protection that inflicts minor to non, performance dips is the right way to go. Give the consumer good reasons to buy the video game, rather than forcing them to purchase a product with performance issues.