I mean... the EU did a study very recently that showed an overall negligible effect of piracy on overall copyrighted content revenue. It's a good read, if only for the abstract and results.
https://cdn.netzpolitik.org/wp-upload/2017/09/displacement_study.pdf
There's also an interesting Forbes article on the matter. Although it's from 2012 (and doesn't actually cite any studies), it does bring up an interesting point: piracy stems from people's aversion to traditional business models.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikka...-think-about-economic-frontiers/#2029a82330d5
If people are only going to listen to one song, why buy the whole CD? Similarly, if people are only going to play three hours of a sixty hour game before exhausting all enjoyment from it, why would they have to pay the same price as someone who will play and enjoy all sixty hours? Similarly, many people are lashing back at COD:Blops4. They now have to pay 60 dollars for less content, plus they have to buy the whole season pass rather than buying map packs and content drops individually. It becomes the same issue. If companies would be up front and honest, and provide adequate demos and options for refunds, piracy would be SIGNIFICANTLY lessened, then DRM would not be needed. David from Wolfire Games has his thoughts on the matter documented here:
https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2010/05/wolfire-programmer-poor-pc-ports-not-piracy-hurt-business/
In fact, doesn't the very usage of DRM like Denuvo, who were the self-proclaimed "uncrackable DRM", encourage people to try and crack said DRM?
I also see no issue with removing DRM entirely. A company that builds up good repertoire with their consumer base can still make a great deal of revenue from a distribution system without traditional DRM (this meaning one can download their games from a singular hub, and copy them DRM-free, OR submit to other DRM like Steam), or without DRM at all. They exist, and are largely lauded for it.