Slashdot Mirror


Cloudflare Doesn't Want To Become the 'Piracy Police' (torrentfreak.com)

Cloudflare is warning that far-reaching cooperation between copyright holders and internet services may put innovation in danger. From a report: As one of the leading CDN and DDoS protection services, Cloudflare is used by millions of websites across the globe. This includes thousands of "pirate" sites, including the likes of The Pirate Bay and ExtraTorrent, which rely on the U.S.-based company to keep server loads down. Copyright holders are not happy that CloudFlare services these sites. Last year, the RIAA and MPAA called the company out for aiding copyright infringers and helping pirate sites to obfuscate their actual location. [...] In a whitepaper, Cloudflare sees this trend as a worrying development. The company points out that the safe harbor provisions put in place by the DMCA and Europe's eCommerce Directive have been effective in fostering innovation for many years. Voluntary "anti-piracy" agreements may change this. [...] Cloudflare argues that increased monitoring and censorship are not proper solutions. Third-party Internet services shouldn't be pushed into the role of Internet police out of a fear of piracy. Instead, the company cautions against far-reaching voluntary agreements that may come at the expense of the public.

63 comments

  1. No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They clearly want to keep making money off of those sites. That's all.

  2. I'll bet they don't by 110010001000 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That would cut way into profits if they had to vet everything. Similar to Youtube, they would rather not curate anything.

    1. Re:I'll bet they don't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That would cut way into profits if they had to vet everything. Similar to Youtube, they would rather not curate anything.

      Exactly - it makes no economic sense for them to be subsidising the film industry's enforcement efforts. I can't see why anyone would even consider this an option.

    2. Re:I'll bet they don't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plus, imagine how fucked they will be if they did cave. That would probably lead to the DDoS attack to end all DDoS attacks. Long story short, their reputation in tatters takes another hit as they themselves are knocked offline. Forcing them to do this sort of censoring could literally end their business due to all the damage it does in various ways.

    3. Re:I'll bet they don't by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      I am sure the copyright holders would consider it an option.

    4. Re:I'll bet they don't by pr0fessor · · Score: 4, Informative

      It would take teams of lawyers to verify that all the content that goes through their service is either fair use, the entity has rights, or is the rights holder. Not everything infringing is a torrent and not every torrent is infringing it's also used for backing up/syncing files and software updates. Cost aside there are already plenty of false positives and rights holders that have been harassed with take down notices by riaa or companies that use some flaky algorithm to determine infringement. Cloudflare and any other service can't have the reputation of being the one making false accusations based on a bad algorithm.

    5. Re:I'll bet they don't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am sure the copyright holders would consider it an option.

      Nah, the copyright holders would rather hide behind the likes of the RIAA and the MPAA while they focus on selling their anti-establishment songs and individualist movies.

    6. Re:I'll bet they don't by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 0

      I am sure the copyright holders would consider it an option.

      I am sure the world would be a better place if enforcement of regulations were to be cut off when in favor of anyone or any group making as much as they do.

    7. Re:I'll bet they don't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A lot of rich people already hire bodyguards, security, etc. You just want to make it official--no police protection for the rich or their property?

    8. Re:I'll bet they don't by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      the copyright holders unionized behind the likes of the RIAA and the MPAA. That is why they created those organizations. They are industry unions that play the same role as any other trade group.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    9. Re:I'll bet they don't by Jason+Levine · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Which is why safe harbor rules were made. This doesn't just affect CloudFlare, but any site that takes user content. Even Slashdot. Suppose I were to type a few dozen pages of text into my comment that happened to be from a copyrighted book. That could be a copyright violation and Slashdot might be sued. However, maybe the text comes from my own book which I own the copyright to. Or maybe the author placed the book in the public domain so anyone can post it online. How would Slashdot be able to identify that the text is copyrighted and whether the poster is able to upload said text. For a very large organization, this might be difficult but doable. For smaller companies (or hobbyist websites), it would be impossible and they'd find themselves one lawsuit away from being shut down - even if the lawsuit was groundless.

      This is why we have safe harbor (possibly the only good part of the DMCA). If the RIAA/MPAA spot a pirate site using CloudFlare's service, they send a DMCA notice to CloudFlare. CloudFlare turns off the service and sends the notice to the site. If the site challenges the DMCA notice, CloudFlare turns their access back on. Then, it's a legal battle between the RIAA/MPAA and the site accused of piracy. CloudFlare is completely out of it (unless the court orders them to turn off access for good).

      The MPAA/RIAA wants websites to be the piracy police so that they don't have to do any work. They want the benefits of the DMCA without any of the "costs" (needing to seek out copyright violations). It's pure laziness coupled with greed.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    10. Re:I'll bet they don't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nor should they have to.

    11. Re: I'll bet they don't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the RIAA and MPAA aren't unions like the WGA. They're trade groups made up of studios.

    12. Re: I'll bet they don't by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      A distinction without a difference.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    13. Re: I'll bet they don't by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So... they're unions of corporations?

      In my country we call those "cartels".

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    14. Re:I'll bet they don't by Solandri · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Let me repeat what I said in the last article about safe harbor provisions. The entire premise behind copyright is that by granting an artificial temporary monopoly, it fosters the creation of more value in creative works than the market left alone would foster. In other words, the economy as a whole has more productive activity (makes more money) with copyright than without. The moment the cost of enforcing copyright exceeds the economic benefit of copyright, that premise is no longer true, and the rationale for copyright existing vanishes.

      Safe harbor provisions exist to insure that this condition of copyright's existence is not violated. Safe harbors make sure the cost of enforcing copyright is borne by the entities benefiting from copyright. The IP holder is making money off copyright. If they're also responsible for paying for enforcement of copyright, then it becomes a simple subtraction problem. If the amount of money they make from copyright exceeds the cost of enforcing copyright, then it's worth having copyright. If the cost of enforcing it exceeds the money they're making, then the entire rationale upon which copyright is based is no longer true, and the economy would be better off simply eliminating copyright.

      If the IP companies are allowed to eliminate safe harbor provisions and shift the cost of enforcing copyright onto other companies, then this subtraction is no longer so simple. The profit shows up in one entity, the costs show up in another. We could wind up in a situation where copyright is a drag on the economy (enforcement costs exceed economic benefit), but we'll never know it because the profit goes to the IP companies while the enforcement cost is borne by the ISPs and data services companies.

      If the IP companies want ISPs and data services companies to enforce copyright, the proper way to do it is for them to pay for enforcement. This will result in the market determining the cost of enforcement. Couple this with the market determining the value of selling copyrighted material, and the annual account balance of the IP companies automatically tells us whether copyright is still worth it, or whether technology has made copyright economically unfeasible.

    15. Re:I'll bet they don't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > The moment the cost of enforcing copyright exceeds the economic benefit of copyright, that premise is no longer true, and the rationale for copyright existing vanishes.

      We're went past that point a long, long time ago. Rightsholders are simply trying to shift the costs of protecting it onto others because meaningful enforcement of it would require a ban on private communication, which is far too high a cost.

    16. Re:I'll bet they don't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      bodyguards, security, etc. =/= police

    17. Re: I'll bet they don't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Film industry should be forced to pay services to police their content. How realistic is it to ask every company to police the work of everyone else in the world?

    18. Re: I'll bet they don't by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      In Japan, they are Keiritsu, everywhere else "mob"

    19. Re:I'll bet they don't by cfalcon · · Score: 1

      This is an absolutely excellent analysis, thank you.

    20. Re:I'll bet they don't by Agripa · · Score: 1

      The entire premise behind copyright is that by granting an artificial temporary monopoly, ...

      And that temporary monopoly is finite but unbounded according to the court so what is the practical difference between the current statutory time limit and infinite time? Nothing, they are practically the same.

  3. Vetting is time and money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But, Cloudflare will eventually be forced to, or they will have to give up their logs so a third party can do it.

    Download what you can while you can! The Wild West of the internet is ending.

    1. Re:Vetting is time and money by Dins · · Score: 1

      Download what you can while you can! The Wild West of the internet is ending.

      The Wild West of the internet has been ending for about 20 years now, but it's still alive and kicking.

    2. Re:Vetting is time and money by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

      The Wild West of the internet is ending.

      Only while we remain tethered to the ISP. Some day, hopefully, the internet will become truly P2P, where no one can interfere

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    3. Re:Vetting is time and money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But there is cost to making it happen, and profit in interfering. That should be enough to destroy all hope.

    4. Re:Vetting is time and money by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Of reversal of fortune? Never!

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    5. Re: Vetting is time and money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then everyone in the US gets sued under the DMCA?

    6. Re:Vetting is time and money by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2

      Only while we remain tethered to the ISP. Some day, hopefully, the internet will become truly P2P, where no one can interfere

      Right. The special irony here is that CloudFlare benefits from the massive centralization of the Internet that its creators hoped to avoid but the regulators have seen to.

      A decentralized acceleration engine would have your neighbor down the street holding his recent copy of a website asset and your computer would find it with a proximity-sensitive and cryptographically-secure DHT algorithm and pull it from there. That would be cheaper for everybody involved, even if that request netted your neighbor a micro-satoshi.

      In the real world, the ISP's ban any such "servers" and the PUC's protect them from competition, so we have CloudFlares who work to get one of their caches as close to you as possible.

      Between the **AA and CloudFlare, it's still no contest who the good guys are.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    7. Re:Vetting is time and money by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I let you in on a secret: No one can interfere.

      But we learned from our earlier mistakes. We don't tell the masses how to do this. That way the corporations think that they say where the content goes.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    8. Re:Vetting is time and money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But rebellions are built on hope!

    9. Re:Vetting is time and money by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      The "wild west" was always moving. Westwards. Frontier never stays as frontier - after a while towns would get bigger, sheriffs would get access to more resources, and it would no longer be possible for an outlaw to shoot a few people in the middle of town then ride out again in safety. The internet, too, is always moving - the havens of copyright infringement get closed down, and occasionally a whole distribution system may get wiped out, but there is always somewhere new they can go. Bulletin boards gave way to usenet binaries, gave way to FTP dumps, gave way to websites, gave way to the first crude p2p file sharing in Napster, gave way to the fully- or partially-distributed services that followed.

    10. Re:Vetting is time and money by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      In the real world, the ISP's ban any such "servers" and the PUC's protect them from competition

      Which is why I said they are weakest link, the tyrants. Everything depends on getting around them.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  4. Piracy is not that big a deal by ZorinLynx · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Media companies are making bigger profits than ever, with no signs of it slowing down. Why are they so concerned about the tiny amount of piracy taking place?

    1) Most piracy is done by teenagers and people who are broke and cannot afford to watch content legitimately anyway.
    2) Piracy is a pain in the ass. Paying a few dollars for content is far easier, so that's what most people will do.

    If they want to reduce piracy further, the best way is to make watching content as easy and simple as possible. For example, FOX recently yanked a bunch of their shows from Netflix because they're starting their own streaming service. Most people don't want to pay for multiple streaming services! Their greed is probably going to result in more piracy, as people go "Damnit Firefly is no longer on Netflix. I'm just going to torrent the rest of the episodes." So now instead of making some money, they make none.

    And despite all this, like I mentioned earlier, the industry is more profitable than ever. They're basically yelling "THE SKY IS FALLING!!" on a clear, calm day with blue skies and sunshine.

    1. Re:Piracy is not that big a deal by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      2) Piracy is a pain in the ass. Paying a few dollars for content is far easier, so that's what most people will do.

      #2 has been the case for nearly two decades now, in spite of technology and bandwidth advancements. The only real difference between then and now is that getting legit content by way of streaming or for-purchase services (iTunes, Amazon, whatever) is drop-easy and dirt-cheap for most folks... so, as you said, most folks don't bother.

      Then again, the MP/RIAA have to remain relevant *somehow*, no?

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    2. Re:Piracy is not that big a deal by the_B0fh · · Score: 1

      Media companies are making bigger profits than ever, with no signs of it slowing down. Why are they so concerned about the tiny amount of piracy taking place?

      1) Most piracy is done by teenagers and people who are broke and cannot afford to watch content legitimately anyway.
      2) Piracy is a pain in the ass. Paying a few dollars for content is far easier, so that's what most people will do.

      If they want to reduce piracy further, the best way is to make watching content as easy and simple as possible. For example, FOX recently yanked a bunch of their shows from Netflix because they're starting their own streaming service. Most people don't want to pay for multiple streaming services! Their greed is probably going to result in more piracy, as people go "Damnit Firefly is no longer on Netflix. I'm just going to torrent the rest of the episodes." So now instead of making some money, they make none.

      And despite all this, like I mentioned earlier, the industry is more profitable than ever. They're basically yelling "THE SKY IS FALLING!!" on a clear, calm day with blue skies and sunshine.

      This needs to be a +6

    3. Re:Piracy is not that big a deal by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Media companies are making bigger profits than ever, with no signs of it slowing down. Why are they so concerned about the tiny amount of piracy taking place?

      1) Most piracy is done by teenagers and people who are broke and cannot afford to watch content legitimately anyway. 2) Piracy is a pain in the ass. Paying a few dollars for content is far easier, so that's what most people will do.

      If they want to reduce piracy further, the best way is to make watching content as easy and simple as possible. For example, FOX recently yanked a bunch of their shows from Netflix because they're starting their own streaming service. Most people don't want to pay for multiple streaming services! Their greed is probably going to result in more piracy, as people go "Damnit Firefly is no longer on Netflix. I'm just going to torrent the rest of the episodes." So now instead of making some money, they make none.

      And despite all this, like I mentioned earlier, the industry is more profitable than ever. They're basically yelling "THE SKY IS FALLING!!" on a clear, calm day with blue skies and sunshine.

      Part of the problem is the media company's see each pirated copy as a lost sale; even if that is not true. Online piracy is relatively simple to go after compared to bootlegs; especially if you can offload responsibility to block them to others. You don't have to send out agents to buy bootlegs, find the supplier, get local law enforcement to cooperate, etc. Even if bootlegs represent a larger real revenue loss, going after an easier target is appealing. I guess teh argument would be even if we only get 10% of the piracy numbers in sales that's 10% more than we get now; and we don't have to do much heavy lifting to block a site so why not go for it?

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    4. Re:Piracy is not that big a deal by future+assassin · · Score: 1

      They're basically yelling "THE SKY IS FALLING!!" on a clear, calm day with blue skies and sunshine.

      You forgot one thing. The people with open ears that will listen to the media companies are also the same people who have open pockets to be lined with donations and those people also make the political/legal decisions, not the consumer ie you or us. SO it doesn't matter who in your face stupid things are said by the media companies they bring the cash for donations.

      --
      by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
    5. Re:Piracy is not that big a deal by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Then again, the MP/RIAA have to remain relevant *somehow*, no?

      Do we got to vote on that?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    6. Re:Piracy is not that big a deal by retchdog · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it's a beautiful day outside but what good is that when you can't afford a new solarium for your summer home?

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    7. Re:Piracy is not that big a deal by Kjella · · Score: 2

      Media companies are making bigger profits than ever, with no signs of it slowing down. Why are they so concerned about the tiny amount of piracy taking place?

      Because they're trying to sell us on the idea that IP is property. They don't want you to think about it like a free seat at the cinema, they want you to think of every pirated copy as money stolen from them. If they want you to believe it, they have to act like it whether or not they actually think they could have made a sale or not. Even among the people who use subscription services for convenience they are struggling to convince people that sharing is wrong.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    8. Re:Piracy is not that big a deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Piracy is a pain in the ass. Paying a few dollars for content is far easier, so that's what most people will do.

      I don't know how to break this to you... but that's just plain not true. It might have been true 15 years ago, but now? No way. For TV and movies, at least, piracy is far easier than paying (and it has nothing to do with the money). The automation is better, you can play the files on anything, you get a unified UI regardless of the source (e.g. no separate "apps" for Netflix vs HBO vs Amazon vs NBC vs BBC), and there are no ads.

      If you are averse to hassles, or if you simply want the best quality and best experience, piracy beckons as a common-sense upgrade. The only reasons that not everyone pirates are: 1) education (not everyone knows how) or 2) desire (people are willing to make quality-of-experience sacrifices because they want to pay, to incentivize creation) or 3) fear of getting caught.

      And that fact is also why your first point is pretty iffy; piracy is not limited to the young & broke; it's the best option if you're old and lazy. I don't know the actual demographics of pirates, so maybe not many are old and lazy yet, but it's a sure bet that the old & lazy share will continue to increase (from whatever it currently is).

      You're right about the solution to piracy, though. If pay services can make themselves easier, and adopt standards, that would fight piracy. Just sell standard mp4 or mkv files and make sure stores have easy-to-use APIs for people who want to automate. That would make piracy obsolete. Right now, though, piracy is on top; it's the best and if you're not pirating yet, you're missing out.

      Anyway, their profits are higher, but their future is more uncertain than ever. Just a little bit of spreading education could very quickly cost them a significant fraction of their customers. It's an unstable situation.

    9. Re:Piracy is not that big a deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Best quality and experience doesn't seem too important. Low-bandwidth streaming from servers across the globe and garbage tiny files like YIFY are worse than legal options, and way more popular than the actual high quality encodes. For the highest quality, if you don't get a TV episode or movie right when it comes out, half the time maybe someone will upload it again sometime in the next decade, and the other half of the time you're SOL. Save for maybe the 1% most popular things, where it might even find it around for 6-12 months. Then all that remains is DVD quality or lower.

  5. You can't.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..stop the signal, Mal.

  6. I don't want to go to work by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 1

    >> Cloudflare Doesn't Want To Become the 'Piracy Police'

    But they will for a price.

    In other news, I didn't want to go to work this week, but I decided I would so I could continue to feed my family.

    1. Re:I don't want to go to work by sims+2 · · Score: 1

      More like they are being allowed the privilege to continue to not be sued out of existence but complying with these people usually only buys a little time then they sue you out of existence anyway.

      --
      Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
  7. They don't have to be police by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They just have to respond to takedown requests of illegal content in a timely fashion. Just like their precious Safe Harbor provisions require.

  8. Luckily they have a solution! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They just dump your data out at random in a way that gets cached in Google, so someone else can investigate your piracy.

  9. Re:It's very simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You don't even

  10. Re:It's very simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    The media companies are the lazy ones. They want someone else to do all the work for them.
    When someone commits a tort against you, you hire your own lawyer and pay for your own investigation and court costs. You could sue the defendant to cover those costs, but you don't get to force third parties to foot the bill.
    They go after ISPs and hosting companies because they're big and have deep pockets, unlike the pirates themselves.

  11. commentsubject by Falos · · Score: 0

    Yelling at whoever's nearby when the problem isn't is something children and stunted adults do.

    Yelling at an irrelevant person when your car is towed. No, I don't mean literal "yelling", use your brain.

    Yelling at an employee when the vendor did something wrong.

    Yelling at the police when some teenager vandalized your stuff.

    Yelling at whoever you CAN find when your target is ghosts.

    I'm being nice to assume they're incompetent, since the alternative is being knowingly wrong outright. I imagine it's lawyers who will get flak from above if they aren't seen doing something, so much like a web browser shuffling the GUI around because an art developer wants his paycheck, here's a bunch of meetings and phone calls with cloudflare even though the actual effects on piracy will be between zero and fuck all. Because it's billable hours, because it looks nice on your quarterly report, because you can then tell studios "we prevented 100 billion dollars of losses. raise plz."

    It's a scaled up version of typing loudly when the boss walks by.

  12. Re:It's very simple by Holi · · Score: 1

    Tell that to the Post Office, or UPS and Fedex.

    --
    Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
  13. Buying the wrong thing by cart_man4524 · · Score: 0

    They obviously arent buying the right politicians. I mean they arent donating to the right campaigns

  14. DDoS attacks? by matbury6017 · · Score: 1

    Are the RIAA and MPAA planning DDoS attacks on websites that they can't take down by legal means?

  15. Re:It's very simple by Qzukk · · Score: 2

    and you do nothing

    Except that every time CloudFlare has been notified, they have disabled the content that they were notified about, as required by the DMCA, unless you have evidence that they are not complying with the DMCA (which the MPAA and RIAA don't or they'd have marched straight to the courthouse to put an end to it rather than paying people to whine about it online).

    Look, I get it, the MPAA/RIAA bribed the fuck out of the Democrats to get the DMCA and now you feel like the law they bought isn't working and they should get a refund. But guess what! It's the law until it's replaced.

    Now, the question is whether you think you can replace the law with one where they should use psychic power to determine whether or not a given file would be found to be infringing by a court and block that file if so. If you think a law like that is going to fly, well, I'm sure the Democrats have their donation slots WIDE open for 2018.

    --
    If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
  16. Re:It's very simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You don't know because you haven't and can't verify every uploader and every downloader (the people, not the IPs), any promotions or private contracts from the copyright holder, and the laws in every country and county the uploader, downloader, and copyright holder are in. It's legal for people to put their own content into torrents and let people download them. Even the media companies have sometimes released things over torrents (and then they send themselves takedown notices and occasionally sue themselves).

    If you can figure out how to do all that, I'm sure the media companies are willing to give you a low paying job for a year before you're laid off. (Don't forget, the entire industry was built on privacy. Hollywood exists because the media companies ran to the west coast to be out of reach of the east cost's patent and copyright laws)

  17. I block cloudflare addresses in my router by Kazoo+the+Clown · · Score: 1

    For no reason of copyright, I block some cloudflare address ranges in my router, because I was getting persistent hack attempts from them. My tolerance for that sort of thing is low. Never might the piracy, it's the script kiddies & other ne'er do wells that I want to see shut down.

  18. I'm doing my part... by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 1

    When it's all set up next week I'll have an open WiFi for whoever needs it, a TOR server to help push that system. And I appreciate what cloudflare is doing.

  19. Centralization by mars-nl · · Score: 1

    There should not be just one company doing the whole internet's caching. Make it an easy target for censoring loving types.

  20. Can't afford to be the piracy police? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tell everyone you'll be taking a week off to upgrade your servers. See what the copyright holders think after a week of being DDOSed by angry script kiddies...

  21. Piracy reduces government tax take by orin · · Score: 1

    People and organizations that create and distribute IP almost always legitimately earn and report income. This is because it all goes through banks and can be audited. Sure there can be "hollywood accounting" - but the average person working on the creation of intellectual property earns an income and this income is taxed. Piracy reduces that tax take because it reduces the income made from the creation of material. With automation taking almost every type of job except the creative ones, is it much of a surprise that governments have decided to step in to protect one area of the economy that will be difficult to automate?

  22. Re:It's very simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    by your argument toll roads are liable for stolen cars traveling their road. you're an idiot.