5 ms·

> Companies like Google and Cloudflare just really don't care that they host malicious content and have stopped taking meaningful action to take down reported c

> Companies like Google and Cloudflare just really don't care that they host malicious content and have stopped taking meaningful action to take down reported content. Honestly I find it incredibly silly companies are still sending out notices to take down copyrighted content. Give up already. The battle is lost and now it's purely a waste of time and money.

dr_kiszonka 2y ago
Malicious doesn't mean copyrighted.
- ruthmarx 2y ago
  True, but the submission refers to something called 'Piracy Shield', so copyrighted material seems pretty relevant.
johnnyanmac 2y ago
As long as the potential impact exists (and that impact can be huge), they have the time and money to do those takedowns
- ruthmarx 2y ago
  I don't think the impact has ever truly been huge, although it is almost always overstated.
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    It's huge enough risk that they still choose to invest in fighting it. Overstated or not in public, that's all that matters to a business. I don't know why when it comes to piracy that suddenly we forget that companies have entire wings (or hire entire companies) dedicated to figuring out how much piracy is occurring and what's most profitable. Will it put them out of business to ignore it? Probably not. But clearly they determined it's cheaper to fight than let it go rampant.Even if "cheaper" means "give executives and shareholders peace of mind so they throw more money at them". And for small businesses and projects it absolutely hurts them. It's not even worth much debate there. A few thousand sales can make or break a decision to keep supporting a small business compared to going back to a normal job. But they lack the funds to fight piracy so it's a damned of you do... Situation for those people.
    - ruthmarx 2y ago
      > It's huge enough risk that they still choose to invest in fighting it. It's not a risk though. Movies still make over a billion dollars regularly. All it is is greed and ignorance. > But clearly they determined it's cheaper to fight than let it go rampant. This is due to poor decision making, like companies like Coke continuing to pay for advertising at the scale they do. > And for small businesses and projects it absolutely hurts them. It's not even worth much debate there. It doesn't hurt them like you might think. It's well established at this point that pirates are the group that spends the most on content, and also frequently leads to an increase in sales.
      - johnnyanmac 2y ago
        >Movies still make over a billion dollars regularly And if they make a million more fighting piracy rather than not then they'll do it. It's a risk to their expenditures. Risk is obviously relative. Hacked movies don't kill anyone, a hacked game server of cheaters can kill the entire game. >companies like Coke continuing to pay for advertising at the scale they do. Honestly that's such a discussed topic with so much literature that I don't have more to add. It comes down to how fast you think people would forget about coke of they stopped, or how quickly the next generation would pick a new coke. Remeber that advertising includes making sure soda machines have coke on the front, as well as plastic cups with the same label. It's clear the Coca Cola company made it's decision there. >It doesn't hurt them like you might think. It's well established at this point hat pirates are the group that spends the most on content, and also frequently leads to an increase in sales. Word of mouth for product 1.0 doesn't matter if the single dev can't afford to get to product 2.0. Thars how "pirates spend the most" work Survivor bias is playing a huge role here, and most pirated services doit survive. And "we'll pay you on exposure" is just as insulting to hear from a pirate as it is from a conglomerate. But again. Most small businesses don't have much choice because they can't chase needles in haystacks full time. Giving away your 1.0 for free works at the scale of Microsoft or Adobe where you can reel them in later (by shutting off the very piracy they benefitted from). Small businesses can't sit on rent or debt anywhere near as long.
        2y ago
jazzyjackson 2y ago
The pirates lost, I know one other person besides me that collects movies to watch offline outside of subscription services. The legal actions against free streaming sites prevents any serious competitor to Netflix, Disney-Hulu etc, which are hugely valuable properties.
- dxbednarczyk 2y ago
  >The pirates lost I believe this is not mainly due to big companies and/or governments cracking down on piracy, but a massive loss in knowledge and shift in perspective about piracy, especially in younger generations. It's true that piracy numbers have been declining, but this largely comes as a result of "piracy is dangerous, don't do it! you'll get viruses!!1!"
  - leoedin 2y ago
    I can only speak for myself - but the convenience and relatively low cost of Netflix killed piracy for me. It wasn’t really a moral reason, or a fear of prosecution. But Netflix is truly easy, and the cost isn’t significant. Spotify did the same for music piracy. I just stopped bothering with files. I think as others have said, the increased balkanisation of the tv streaming world might change that.
    - drekipus 2y ago
      Netflix has the worst quality and selection that I've seen. I'm about to pick up piracy again so I can watch good shows that I like
      - dylan604 2y ago
        It does now. Back when it was the only streaming service and all of the different studio's content was on it, it was the best fight against piracy. Now that the streaming ecosystem is so fragmented requiring subscription upon subscription, Netflix' selection has atrophied to the realm of mediocrity with the occasional gem like every other studio out there. I can absolutely see where piracy surges again as people fight back against the onslaught of YASS (yet another streaming service).
LaundroMat 2y ago
It's also a question of IP valuation. Media companies have IP as an asset on their books. Battling piracy is a means to defend the valuation they attach to that IP.
- ruthmarx 2y ago
  It's wasted money though. They're literally just losing more money on whatever money they think they lost due to piracy.
  - smallnix 2y ago
    Depends on where you fight it. Got it removed from most Google page 1's? -> probably worth it Trying to take down all torrents? -> probably not worth it
    - ruthmarx 2y ago
      Google's been removing torrent links for years now. People share these links in Discord, Reddit, Telegram etc - companies are not taking them down anytime soon. It's literally an unbeatable hydra.
  - LaundroMat 2y ago
    Well, maybe. You can maintain or increase the value of your IP (and therefore tour company) by _showing_ you're investing in the protection of your IP. After all, the value of IP in your books is subjective. That perceived value increases if you can report you've "removed thousands of links to pirate versions of our content". So in that regard, battling piracy is money well spent.
  - immibis 2y ago
    There's money and there's "money". You know when a crypto grifter mints a billion tokens, sells a thousand for $1 each and then claims to be a billionaire? Then borrows half a billion from a bank, using his almost-billion "$1" tokens as collateral? This is like that.
behringer 2y ago
I get what you're saying but I don't think it's true at all. Except for my tech friends, literally nobody I know is aware of how to pirate content if it isn't on Google or YouTube.

dr_kiszonka 2y ago

Malicious doesn't mean copyrighted.

ruthmarx 2y ago
True, but the submission refers to something called 'Piracy Shield', so copyrighted material seems pretty relevant.

johnnyanmac 2y ago

As long as the potential impact exists (and that impact can be huge), they have the time and money to do those takedowns

ruthmarx 2y ago
I don't think the impact has ever truly been huge, although it is almost always overstated.
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  It's huge enough risk that they still choose to invest in fighting it. Overstated or not in public, that's all that matters to a business. I don't know why when it comes to piracy that suddenly we forget that companies have entire wings (or hire entire companies) dedicated to figuring out how much piracy is occurring and what's most profitable. Will it put them out of business to ignore it? Probably not. But clearly they determined it's cheaper to fight than let it go rampant.Even if "cheaper" means "give executives and shareholders peace of mind so they throw more money at them". And for small businesses and projects it absolutely hurts them. It's not even worth much debate there. A few thousand sales can make or break a decision to keep supporting a small business compared to going back to a normal job. But they lack the funds to fight piracy so it's a damned of you do... Situation for those people.
  - ruthmarx 2y ago
    > It's huge enough risk that they still choose to invest in fighting it. It's not a risk though. Movies still make over a billion dollars regularly. All it is is greed and ignorance. > But clearly they determined it's cheaper to fight than let it go rampant. This is due to poor decision making, like companies like Coke continuing to pay for advertising at the scale they do. > And for small businesses and projects it absolutely hurts them. It's not even worth much debate there. It doesn't hurt them like you might think. It's well established at this point that pirates are the group that spends the most on content, and also frequently leads to an increase in sales.
    - johnnyanmac 2y ago
      >Movies still make over a billion dollars regularly And if they make a million more fighting piracy rather than not then they'll do it. It's a risk to their expenditures. Risk is obviously relative. Hacked movies don't kill anyone, a hacked game server of cheaters can kill the entire game. >companies like Coke continuing to pay for advertising at the scale they do. Honestly that's such a discussed topic with so much literature that I don't have more to add. It comes down to how fast you think people would forget about coke of they stopped, or how quickly the next generation would pick a new coke. Remeber that advertising includes making sure soda machines have coke on the front, as well as plastic cups with the same label. It's clear the Coca Cola company made it's decision there. >It doesn't hurt them like you might think. It's well established at this point hat pirates are the group that spends the most on content, and also frequently leads to an increase in sales. Word of mouth for product 1.0 doesn't matter if the single dev can't afford to get to product 2.0. Thars how "pirates spend the most" work Survivor bias is playing a huge role here, and most pirated services doit survive. And "we'll pay you on exposure" is just as insulting to hear from a pirate as it is from a conglomerate. But again. Most small businesses don't have much choice because they can't chase needles in haystacks full time. Giving away your 1.0 for free works at the scale of Microsoft or Adobe where you can reel them in later (by shutting off the very piracy they benefitted from). Small businesses can't sit on rent or debt anywhere near as long.
      - 2y ago

jazzyjackson 2y ago

The pirates lost, I know one other person besides me that collects movies to watch offline outside of subscription services. The legal actions against free streaming sites prevents any serious competitor to Netflix, Disney-Hulu etc, which are hugely valuable properties.

dxbednarczyk 2y ago
>The pirates lost I believe this is not mainly due to big companies and/or governments cracking down on piracy, but a massive loss in knowledge and shift in perspective about piracy, especially in younger generations. It's true that piracy numbers have been declining, but this largely comes as a result of "piracy is dangerous, don't do it! you'll get viruses!!1!"
- leoedin 2y ago
  I can only speak for myself - but the convenience and relatively low cost of Netflix killed piracy for me. It wasn’t really a moral reason, or a fear of prosecution. But Netflix is truly easy, and the cost isn’t significant. Spotify did the same for music piracy. I just stopped bothering with files. I think as others have said, the increased balkanisation of the tv streaming world might change that.
  - drekipus 2y ago
    Netflix has the worst quality and selection that I've seen. I'm about to pick up piracy again so I can watch good shows that I like
    - dylan604 2y ago
      It does now. Back when it was the only streaming service and all of the different studio's content was on it, it was the best fight against piracy. Now that the streaming ecosystem is so fragmented requiring subscription upon subscription, Netflix' selection has atrophied to the realm of mediocrity with the occasional gem like every other studio out there. I can absolutely see where piracy surges again as people fight back against the onslaught of YASS (yet another streaming service).

LaundroMat 2y ago

It's also a question of IP valuation. Media companies have IP as an asset on their books. Battling piracy is a means to defend the valuation they attach to that IP.

ruthmarx 2y ago
It's wasted money though. They're literally just losing more money on whatever money they think they lost due to piracy.
- smallnix 2y ago
  Depends on where you fight it. Got it removed from most Google page 1's? -> probably worth it Trying to take down all torrents? -> probably not worth it
  - ruthmarx 2y ago
    Google's been removing torrent links for years now. People share these links in Discord, Reddit, Telegram etc - companies are not taking them down anytime soon. It's literally an unbeatable hydra.
- LaundroMat 2y ago
  Well, maybe. You can maintain or increase the value of your IP (and therefore tour company) by _showing_ you're investing in the protection of your IP. After all, the value of IP in your books is subjective. That perceived value increases if you can report you've "removed thousands of links to pirate versions of our content". So in that regard, battling piracy is money well spent.
- immibis 2y ago
  There's money and there's "money". You know when a crypto grifter mints a billion tokens, sells a thousand for $1 each and then claims to be a billionaire? Then borrows half a billion from a bank, using his almost-billion "$1" tokens as collateral? This is like that.

behringer 2y ago

I get what you're saying but I don't think it's true at all. Except for my tech friends, literally nobody I know is aware of how to pirate content if it isn't on Google or YouTube.