UK ISPs To Start Sending 'Piracy Alerts' Soon (torrentfreak.com)

Beginning next year, internet service providers in the UK will send email notifications to subscribers whose connections have been allegedly used to download copyright infringing content. In what is an attempt to curtail piracy rates, these alerts would try to educate those who pirate about legal alternates. TorrentFreak adds: Mimicking its American counterpart, the copyright alert program will monitor the illegal file-sharing habits of UK citizens with a strong focus on repeat infringers. The piracy alerts program is part of the larger Creative Content UK (CCUK) initiative which already introduced several anti-piracy PR campaigns, targeted at the general public as well as the classroom. The plan to send out email alerts was first announced several years ago when we discussed it in detail, but it took some time to get everything ready. This week, a spokesperson from CCUK's "Get it Right From a Genuine Site" campaign informed us that it will go live in first few months of 2017. It's likely that ISPs and copyright holders needed to fine-tune their systems to get going, but the general purpose of the campaign remains the same.

Comments

And clued-in users. . .

[Salgak1]

. . . will continue to use VPNs and selective IP blocking to bypass it. I got particularly peeved when I got a nastygram from ComHell, because I was using BitTorrent to download Linux distro. . .

Re:And clued-in users. . .

[Salgak1]

When the notice states that the "infringing file" was a Ubuntu ISO image. . . . . This was years ago, but I routinely use a VPN when getting images ever since. . .

Re:And clued-in users. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm surprised more people don't use VPNs. One can use one in a neighboring country for dirt cheap, and it not just is useful for keeping the alleged notices away when fetching that Linux ISO, but also keeping ISPs off your browsing history and connections, as well as making things like Phorm useless.

Of course, there is always the next step, and doing like Pakistan where it is 20-life to be caught using a VPN...

Re:And clued-in users. . .

[jandersen]

Well, of course, but this is not about making it impossible to do naughty things; they just want to make sure that you can't hide behind "I didn't know". And of course, everybody already knows that you know what you are doing is illegal, but this way it has a chance of standing up in a criminal court.

Re:And clued-in users. . .

[Computershack]

These are pretty much the main reason piracy even exists: a simple lack of service issue.

What a load of crap. People do it because they can get stuff for free with little chance of being caught, plain and simple. If it was a lack of service issue then why is piracy of movies available on Netflix/Amazon still as rampant as ever? If it was about DRM why is piracy of stuff on iTunes etc which is DRM free still as rampant as ever? Stop trying to come up with ever more tenuous reasons as to why people do it and just be honest. Trying to claim that X million people pirated a track that is both available DRM free on iTunes or Spotify free "because of service issues" just makes you look retarded.

Re:And clued-in users. . .

[sit1963nz]

Well you see, there is a great big world out there that is NOT part of the USA (i.e. 96% of the worlds population) There are also a LOT of languages spoken by people in this great big world that are NOT english. So for example if you have Polish Immigrants living in Australia, they are blocked from being able to watch News and programming that is the most applicable to them. Or in US terms, think of it if you only had access to the News from your State and you were not entitled to see any news articles from any other state. That is how restrictive this crap is. Or if you want to put it another way, how would you feel if the ONLY TV you could watch came from China, with no translations. My bet is within a day or so you would be illegally downloading/watching content that you could understand. Also, Netflix in other countries is NOT the same as the US, there is a massive amount of content missing, because they are only the rights holders for that content in the USA. Also a lot of content you may have been watching on Netflix can disappear because they have had their rights to show it removed. And as for Channel "bundling " would you accept it if that same process was used at your supermarket, yes you can buy bread, milk, cheese, but only if you buy baby nappies, extra hot chillies, fish food, and a map of Puerto Rico, and you agree to this each week for 12 months. I DO NOT watch channels, I watch programs, Put Big Bang Theory on Channel 1, I watch it on Channel 1, put it on Channel 37, I watch it on Channel 37. So, I pay for Netflix, happily. I get to watch programs with no adverts, and can binge watch a whole series, multiple times if I so choose. HOWEVER, the studios don't want this, they want channels , lot of channels full of crap you are forced to pay for, they want repeat programming, they want adverts, they want you to watch when they play it not when you want to watch it. My response was to cut the cord and I will NEVER go back. I buy DVDs because it is cheaper to buy the DVD of a movie in New Zealand than it is for 2 people to go to the movies. So I no longer go to the movies. Big media has simply become too greedy.

Re:And clued-in users. . .

[Maxo-Texas]

Actually, many people did stop pirating when it was easy to legally get the content for a reasonable price. I stopped pirating music years ago for example.

People are as ethical as they can afford to be.

Re:And clued-in users. . .

[AHuxley]

It depends on the IP seen and the VPN.
By escaping logging the UK could invoke legal issues with VPN providers set up in EU and NATO member nations.
Legally a few EU nations have to help the UK police with their legal internet investigations. As the users of interest are only from the UK and are under legal UK investigation they get few of the strong national protections often expected in some EU nations.
Tracking would quickly find the original UK ip.
The US has "Rule 41 makes life easier for Feds, cops to target Tor, VPN users ..." (30 Nov 2016)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...
"...to hack any suspect who's using Tor, a VPN, or some other anonymising software to hide their whereabouts, in order to find the target's true location."
Expect the UK to allow such authorisation for equipment interference on the VPN to find the UK IP and ISP.

Re:And clued-in users. . .

[rtb61]

It is the same old crap, in one breath they talk about downloading a file, ohh ahh scary stuff and in the next they actually talk about reality, file sharing, nothing to do with downloading files and everything to do with uploading. I am not responsible for anything any media company does when distributing content, I watch and ad and watch content and thats it, what they do beyond that is their responsibility.

So not 'Downloading' but uploading and the ass hats are just trying to throw in scary language. A billion web sites containing trillions of bit of copyrighted information, every page and every image on that page and every paragraph of text on that page, all of it subject to copyright laws and what, they claim you the down load are meant to what, verify the legality of all of it, what a load. When they talk file sharing, they are talking about uploading but then again a product like this https://www.cnet.com/au/produc... would technically infringe copyright because it broadcast content upon request.

Re:And clued-in users. . .

[SuricouRaven]

It used to be a lack of service issue. When piracy first florished, it was a time when you just could not get very much popular media online legitimately. It took four years between the launch of Napster, the first practical p2p file sharing network, and the iTunes store. Even then the early music purchasing services were crippled with DRM that made it very difficult to actually use your purchase, limiting customers to listening only on one PC and the mobile device the store supported. It wasn't until 2009, ten years after Napster, that the labels finally allowed the iTunes store to go DRM-free.

A great many pirates who got into it back then have now been lured away by the convenience of Netflix, iTunes and Steam. Others continue because piracy is about more than free stuff now - it's a hobby, a community, and a political cause.

Alternatives

[Anonymous Coward]

"You appear to have tried to download episodes of [popular series which is not available on your country due to retarded geo-locking policies] from kick-ass torrents. Since there's no legal way for you to obtain this due to the short-sightedness of the copyright holders, may we suggest that you use the pirate bay instead?

XOXO, your ISP"

Re:Alternatives

[TapeCutter]

Thing is, it's the UK, downloading pirated material is not illegal, that's why they send you a cheesey leaflet instead of a demand for money and a summons.

Re:Alternatives

[gweihir]

Matches my experience. Fortunately, where I am this is actually legally tolerated they cannot make it fully legal, as that apparently violates some copyright-anti-terrorism-treaties), as they looked at the actual problem before making laws (rare for lawmakers) and found that there indeed were no legal alternatives and that it did not harm but help domestic content producers. Of course the country where I live is on the US watch-list for states allowing piracy now. The amount of extreme stupid expressed in this is staggering.

When I meet a copyright owner

[Anonymous Coward]

which is fitting its quid pro quo for their rights, then I'll start to respect theirs.

Until they stop gaming the system to get unearned rights AND THEN RENEGE ON THEIR RESPONSIBILITY, I couldn't give a rat's ass if "their stuff" is copied wantonly around the planet.

Re:When I meet a copyright owner

[tepples]

Case in point: What "legal alternatives" would it recommend to someone caught pirating the TV series Spartakus and the Sun Beneath the Sea or the film Song of the South?

Re:When I meet a copyright owner

[Anonymous Coward]

A personality transplant?

Re:When I meet a copyright owner

[thegarbz]

You owe me a new keyboard and a cup of coffee.

And a bandaid because this also caused cat scratches down my leg.

Re:When I meet a copyright owner

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

I have some sympathy with this argument when it's applied to Big Media who chase grannies with no Internet connection for settlements or who supply their content with system-destroying broken DRM systems or activation measures that don't work and stop someone enjoying what they paid for.

On the other hand, I'm part of a team running a small library of original online content, which is produced with considerable work and at considerable cost by enthusiasts who don't make any seriously money from the membership fees. I think a lot of the anti-copyright people around these parts might be amazed at the excuses and rationalisations that people will give you for blatantly trying to rip off your whole library, even if you just send them a friendly message to make it clear that you know what they're doing and remind them politely that it's not allowed.

I've seen someone literally sit at their computer for several hours a day for several days in a row, downloading large numbers of files they couldn't possible be using normally, only stopping each time our rate limiter kicked in and blocked further downloads for a while. I've had someone tell me that if we don't want people to download and share our stuff, we should supply it using DRM, and if we don't then it's our fault and they don't see anything wrong with what they were doing.

Fortunately, most people are quite honest, at least with a little site like ours. We in turn have never liked the idea of using technologies that might accidentally spoil a legitimate customer's enjoyment of the library, and we still don't. Up to a point, we can just ignore the attempts at ripping us off the same way you might ignore anyone else you don't approve of or like very much.

But the kind of person who not only thinks it's OK to come along and just blatantly rip off original content that a few people spent a lot of time and money creating, but who is also then totally unrepentant or even aggressive when called out on it, is enough to make blood boil. I will truly have no sympathy the first time we get frustrated enough to throw the legal book at one of those people, and they're crazy if they don't think we would have an open-and-shut case against them. Under the kind of punitive copyright laws that exist in a lot of countries now, we'd probably make a lot of money from the damages in some of these cases, too.

In that context, some sort of official "No, really, you should understand that this would be illegal and if you're doing it there might be consequences" mechanism might actually be better even for the offending parties than leaving the rightsholders no middle ground so they jump straight into call-the-lawyer territory. The problem comes when such a system isn't just a friendly(ish) warning but has more serious consequences like causing ISPs to reduce service to repeat "offenders" even though the notifications are only based on suspected or alleged infringement.

Re:When I meet a copyright owner

[laughingcoyote]

Okay, I was with you for a little while (especially on sympathy for the little indie guys, even if you don't have to, throw a couple bucks in their hats if you like their stuff), until you made clear that they're downloading it from you, presumably the authorized distributor.

Especially this piece:

I've seen someone literally sit at their computer for several hours a day for several days in a row, downloading large numbers of files they couldn't possible be using normally, only stopping each time our rate limiter kicked in and blocked further downloads for a while.

So...they downloaded exactly as much as they're allowed to, and then once allowed again, started again? Didn't hack your system, didn't go off to torrent it instead? And they're doing...what wrong again? How do you know how they're using it and if such use is "normally"?

Why on Earth does your system let people do that, if you don't want them to do that? And if they're paying you for some kind of "all you can eat" service, you don't then get to tell them "Well...I meant all you can eat, unless you're REALLY hungry." If they're paying you for that service (presumably they are, I doubt you'd be terribly upset if you were giving the stuff away to start with), just be glad you're being paid. It's cash in the hat. And with how widespread pirate content is, they don't have to throw in a nickel. A similar mistake was made with DRM--you get more grief from the legal option than the illegal one! (Whoever made the statement to you about DRM is a moron, it's not effective anyway and would drive away your users.)

Now, by all means, if you want to go find out who's uploading your stuff somewhere, and go after them, I won't have a bit more sympathy for them than you will, especially if you explicitly told them not to and they turned around and told you to fuck off. But attack that end, not your users. When it comes down to it, you can't know why anyone downloaded such and such thing.

Re:When I meet a copyright owner

[tepples]

I should have been more specific that I was referring to the English-language dub, titled Spartakus and the Sun Beneath the Sea, not the French-language original, titled Les mondes engloutis.

Re:When I meet a copyright owner

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

until you made clear that they're downloading it from you, presumably the authorized distributor.

No, we are the people who create the content in question, and who run the library site providing access to it. No-one else is involved here or taking a cut as a distributor.

So...they downloaded exactly as much as they're allowed to, and then once allowed again, started again? Didn't hack your system, didn't go off to torrent it instead? And they're doing...what wrong again? How do you know how they're using it and if such use is "normally"?

It's a subscription model for online browsing of the library. (Think Netflix, Spotify, and so on.) Downloading for permanent storage and offline viewing is not allowed. This is all clearly and explicitly stated in our terms, and I suppose that real-time element is our version of an "all you can eat" restaurant bringing you your eighth course on request, but politely refusing you a doggy back to take leftovers home with you.

A small number of people join the library, and then right before the end of their first billing period, they start going down the index and grabbing everything they can, in order, until they're blocked, at a rate many times faster than any normal user navigates. The outlier here is very, very obvious -- we're talking orders of magnitude. And -- here's the kicker -- at that rate, they would have to be consuming the audio/video content at several times its normal speed just to keep up. And they're doing this for extended periods, and trying again after each time they get blocked, for say the last week in the quarter. Now, if you still think those people are accessing the content of the library online, I know a Nigerian price with a great deal to offer you.

As for why we allow people to do that, well, the alternatives to the limits we do impose would mostly use some sort of heuristic to identify suspicious behaviour more aggressively and throttle it earlier and/or supply the content via some sort of DRM scheme. Obviously either of those might screw genuine users if something went wrong, and put simply, we don't want to risk doing that.

Why on Earth does your system let people do that, if you don't want them to do that? ... (Whoever made the statement to you about DRM is a moron, it's not effective anyway and would drive away your users.)

The person who made the statement about DRM to us may have been a moron, as you put it, and DRM may or may not be effective, but this is the reality that a small content provider faces on the web today. So if someone like the original AC I replied to here wants to come along and claim that they'll start respecting copyrights when the quid pro quo is honoured, I'd like to know what they think about a situation like ours or how they think what we do justifies what other people try to do to us. Or, y'know, it could just be that some people say that because they want to claim anyone with a business model involving copyright deserves to be abused, as apparently a small but noticeable number of people who join our library do.

When it comes down to it, you can't know why anyone downloaded such and such thing.

See, that's the thing. In cases like this, the rip-off behaviour is so obvious that we really can.

As a final point, please consider that the position you've taken and the incorrect assumptions you've made in your post here and in particular casually dismissive comments like "just be glad you're being paid" are exactly why larger content providers routinely use obnoxious DRM schemes and file aggressive legal actions and lobby for punitive copyright laws.

I think it's fair to say that we're about as reasonable and transparent as you could possibly be for a site that provides content and charges for it. We do a lot of work because it's something we care about. The money coming in basically covers the operating expenses and it's a fraction

Re:When I meet a copyright owner

[laughingcoyote]

Alright, I get that. (By the way, I'm taking your invitation in your sig to post any disagreement, I agree that "-1 I disagree" is absolutely not a valid mod.)

I just got done setting up a new OS on this machine tonight. And of course, I installed Steam. It asked for a couple of verifications, but after that, it validated and set itself up. And I can start downloading the games I want. Downloading.. I can play them offline for up to 30 days after downloading them. That's relatively sufficient.

I have no problem paying for things. I've bought hundreds of dollars worth of games on Steam and a couple hundred more worth from GOG, both legitimate, authorized services. Because they don't try to restrict me, Steam much, GOG at all. (GOG is totally, 100%, DRM free.) But they don't try to restrict me the way you're trying to, to "streaming only" or the like. If they did, I wouldn't buy from them. I want download, I want offline usage. Anything without that is hamstrung.

There's a good reason for that. I also pay for a Spotify subscription. And most of the time, I use its streaming service, since I'm either using it at home or at work on wifi. So that works fine. But it allows for download for offline use. And when I was planning a drive through the Rockies in Wyoming and Montana, and then through north Idaho, I needed that, because cell reception would be spotty at the very best. So I needed to create a downloaded, offline playlist, or else be stuck with AM talk radio. So I downloaded a ton of stuff from Spotify onto my phone for the trip.

Now if they'd been monitoring me, that would have looked nothing, nothing at all, like my normal usage pattern. I don't hardly download anything, because I'm usually somewhere that streaming would work just fine. All of a sudden, I'm downloading tons of stuff. I'm planning something nefarious, right?

Well, no. I'm planning nothing more nefarious than a road trip. I just want music and comedy for it. And I don't know exactly what I'd want to listen to, so I downloaded more than I actually needed or could listen to during the trip.

If your viewers can see something, they can save it and record it locally. Let them, and ideally, help them. Ask them nicely not to abuse the privilege by giving it to others, and most will respect that. Try to place shackles on it, and some will break them just for the pleasure of breaking them.

I try to be reasonable. You seem you're trying it, too. But when someone does something blatantly anti-reality, like "You can't save this locally!" when you in fact easily can, it's maddening. Just instead say "Please don't put this on file sharing sites." Magnatune's been around for over a decade, and they actually can't even legally enforce that request, since they use the Creative Commons license with the noncommercial requirement--file sharing isn't commercial sharing, so I could legally put their whole catalog up on a file sharing site and there wouldn't be a damn thing they could do about it unless I made money from it. But I don't, because they ask me nicely not to, and because I like them and want them to succeed. So I pay for my membership there and don't put their stuff up for download, even though I quite legally could.

So, that's what I ask. You be reasonable, and I will too. You don't demand I not do things that improve my convenience and in reality are dead easy, and in return, I'll follow your reasonable requests not to put it out there for the whole world. Or you be unreasonable, and I'll be equally so in turn.

Re:When I meet a copyright owner

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Just to follow up on a couple of the points you mentioned:

Downloading some things from our library for use off-line is actually one of our most frequently asked questions, and again it's something where we generally take a pretty liberal approach and always have. We want people to enjoy the material. That's why we make it!

What I'm talking about is people who don't just download a few bits and pieces, but blatantly try to download everything right before the end of their subscription. These aren't people who are going on a trip and want something to listen to on the train. These are the people who would sign up to Spotify and then try to run scrapers on a mass of cloud-hosted machines to download literally every song on Spotify for their permanent use. Somehow, I would be rather surprised if the facility you mentioned for downloading content for offline use extended to providing a 100% DRM-free copy of Spotify's entire library, or if their ToS said that was OK, or if they would take no action if they caught someone doing it.

As for what is reasonable, I'm not sure I understand your position here. We're not offering (or in any way pretending to offer) a permanent copy of our works for someone to keep. We work on a subscription basis, and we offer subscriptions at a price that makes sense for that arrangement. I don't see how it's any different to saying you used to go rent a movie from the video hire store, but you paid a much lower price than buying your own copy and you had to return it. Offering the movie for rental didn't give customers any automatic right to buy a copy, at the same or any other price, nor did renting it out give customers the right to make their own copy to keep forever or share with their friends.

In the same way, I don't see how it is reasonable to expect us to provide access at a fraction of the per-user cost it would take just to produce the material, let people sign up for the minimum period, and then let them download as much as they can before it runs out even though it's clearly not being used on the terms we offered. Sure, you can just download the web pages or audio files or whatever from our site, and up to a point we'll be understanding about why you might want to even though that's not really part of the deal, but you basically seem to be implying the same as DRM guy: if we don't want people to abuse our openness, we should actively stop them, which brings us back to limitations and DRM of one kind or another.

Or maybe I've misunderstood and you were just saying you only like payment models where you get permanent ownership of your copy of the content? If so, that is fine and your choice, but it's not the deal we're offering and so joining our library wouldn't be a good option for you. Apparently it's also not a deal that would be economically viable in our case (we know, we did plenty of research to find out), which means if we were required to offer such terms if we were offering our material at all, then we simply wouldn't be producing and sharing that material, and again everyone who does currently enjoy it and find our current pricing plan acceptable would lose out.

Did that say classrooms?

[Anonymous Coward]

The copyright powers that be are welcome to play whatever games they want as they play whack-a-mole with the roughly ten billion methods there are to download copyrighted content (and I say this speaking as an author whose books have shown up on pirate websites), but now this crap is in the classrooms? When the f*ck did that become part of the common core? I mean, sweet Jesus, at my engineering firm I can't find a kid out of college to hire who can add two numbers in their head if the result is beyond single digits, but we're going to take time out of the school day to expound the virtues of respecting intellectual property laws?

Re:Did that say classrooms?

[avandesande]

Teaching kids about condoms and vpns is a parent's responsibility.

They'll get what they always get

[Anonymous Coward]

Told to get rid of region restrictive bullshit like the rest of the media industry at large.
Fuck all of you.

There are things I would pay for IF I WAS ALLOWED TO.
Beyond that, I pay for pretty much everything I consume.
I WANT to pay for your content.

Re:They'll get what they always get

[gweihir]

Indeed. There is quite a bit of content you cannot actually buy in most of the world. They should stop whining and actually make those mythical "legal alternatives" a reality.

Hey

[110010001000]

Don't copy that floppy: 2016 version. Look, I posted again!

Email'd Where

[Bigbutt]

I couldn't tell you the last time I logged in to my Comcast email account. It's been quite a few years. Last time someone had given my email out as part of some family or friends listing and were posting all sorts of nonsense.

[John]

Re:uk piracy alerts

[Anonymous Coward]

TFA mentions the subgroup behind this is called Securely Using Content Reliably. Their full name is CCUK-SUCR.

Two alleged infringements in Emacs

[tepples]

When the notice states that the "infringing file" was a Ubuntu ISO image. . . . . This was years ago

Was this around July 2011, when Emacs was discovered to include copyright infringements? Or around June 2012, when certain falling block games were ruled to infringe copyright, with M-x tetris in Emacs possibly next on the hit list of a video game developer who thinks free software should never have existed because it destroys the market?

Yessir!

[PPH]

I'll be sure to download all my public domain content from a Genuine Site in the future.

This year...

[tomxor]

The end of the UK internet, first legislation f^&*ing encryption and legalising mass surveilance and now the copyright mob are poking their fingers in. Time to pipe everything through another country. Also don't use any services with the end point in the UK which you expect to be encrypted.

Re:uk piracy alerts

[LifesABeach]

Malware that identifies itself? Brilliant!

just wait for them to flag windows update bittorre

[Joe_Dragon]

just wait for them to flag windows update BitTorrent like system as an piracy system.

But in market streaming of live sports with your tv package is nice even more so when your provider is having an issue with the TV feed on there side or with rain fade.

Is this so bad?

[dhaen]

If I get a notice, it will just mean I have to be more careful to switch to my VPN. I don't always remember.

As soon as we get a legitimate source like Netflix

[Maxo-Texas]

They descend on it like wolves, divide the content, and raise the prices by 1000%.

To get what you got on netflix just a few years ago, you'd need to subscribe to a half dozen services which are really overpriced for the content they provide.

There is room in the market for Netflix vs Amazon but not netflix vs a dozen other services.

Re:Legal standing

[AHuxley]

The legal costs to cover searches, linking an IP to an account get pasted onto the ISP customers.
Thats funding that could have gone into better networking, peering, new staff, expansion, profits, advertising.
Great for the new legal teams who have to ensure every letter is correct.
Users will just buy into really great VPN's well outside the UK, NATO and EU so the UK gov cant ask to log their VPN internet usage under color of law.

Re:As soon as we get a legitimate source like Netf

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

You say that, but annual fees for the services we subscribe to in my household work out far less than the cost of buying all those shows and movies on DVD would have been a few years earlier. The gap is even wider once you take into account the not-sure things that you could try because they were on a streaming service and it wouldn't cost you any more if you gave up ten minutes in.

I still buy a load of stuff on DVD/Blu-ray, but those are the things I want to keep, because I don't trust the likes of Netflix not to renegotiate some licensing deal and remove a show I'm enjoying in the middle of a season. In terms of financial cost, for the kinds of shows and movies I'll probably only ever watch once anyway, the streaming services are still way cheaper for frequent viewers even if they have to sign up for a few different ones.

So there are "legal alternatives"?

[gweihir]

I currently only download stuff, where there are none (no, I do not think badly dubbed versions 3 years later and only on DVD are an "alternative").

Re:Legal standing

[gweihir]

Symptoms of a country in decline: There is no connection anymore with what the government thinks is real and actual reality. You can do that for a few decades and watch the lawyers getting fat, but eventually this always backfires badly.

Re:As soon as we get a legitimate source like Netf

[Maxo-Texas]

What you are saying and I am saying are not contradictory.

Netflix was $10 and included DVD's.

Netflix (from $7.99 per month) ...
Amazon Instant Video (from $8.99 per month) ...
Hulu (from $7.99 per month) ...
Showtime (from $10.99 per month) ...
HBO Now (from $14.99 per month) ...
Starz (from $8.99 per month) ...
CBS All Access (from $5.99 per month)
Warner Movie Service (From $10.00 a month)
Sling TV (for Disney) is $20+ a month

For people with less money (college students?) the difference between $10 a month and $50 a month is sufficient to spur piracy. It feels silly to pirate for $10 a month and take the legal risks. But $100 for the content now fenced off in the services above (and more- some things not streamed or even legally available for purchase) is more tempting for people of limited means.

Re:As soon as we get a legitimate source like Netf

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Right, but most people aren't students, and $10/month for access to a library the size of Netflix is still vastly cheaper than buying everything a typical subscriber might watch there the way you had to before the streaming library services were around.

I might also wonder what anyone who is watching enough stuff to need $60+/month of subscriptions to that many different services at once is actually doing with their lives, but that's a different question.