Italy's Piracy Shield just blocked one of Google's CDN
mil04s43-in-f1.1e100.net
mil04s43-in-f1.1e100.net
As it is, I have to explain to people regularly that clicking on "sponsored" links, or whatever Google calls them, doesn't work because we have to block "googleadservices.com" due to their hosting of malicious Javascript payloads. Certain very large companies that are very, very privacy and security focused insist on blocking known malicious Javascript hosting services, and Google is no exception.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Right, but they don't. That's the point.
> It's clear the Coca Cola company made it's decision there.
The question is to what extent was that decision based on real research and data, versus being influenced by being taken out for a nice lunch by some admen and because "that's how we've always done it".
> Word of mouth for product 1.0 doesn't matter if the single dev can't afford to get to product 2.0.
Piracy isn't going to impact that reality at all.
> Thars how "pirates spend the most" work Survivor bias is playing a huge role here, and most pirated services doit survive.
There's no bias, nor is this speculation. This is a topic that has been researched for more than 20 years at this point and consistently shows that pirates spend more and lead to an increase in sales.
> And "we'll pay you on exposure" is just as insulting to hear from a pirate as it is from a conglomerate.
Only in the context of certain expectations, which people can't accept were wrong and maybe shouldn't have been ingrained into them.
People rewarding what like, especially in the context of art, is how humanity has done it for the vast majority of history. You could say, perhaps, that sharing and rewarding is more in line with human nature.
I don't really have a problem with the involuntary shareware situation pretty much every dev has been forced into. I don't believe it's ultimately harmful at all.
> 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).
I mean, most software these days that home users use tends to be open source with a donation button anyway.
Any software developer heavily dependent on commercial sales of a first version software product would likely already have some sale contracts in place, because it would be foolish to take out loans or be wasting money for something that might not sell.
> Small businesses can't sit on rent or debt anywhere near as long.
Then they shouldn't have ventured into software if they were unaware of what the market is like. This has little to do with piracy, unless you assume every pirated instance would be a loss sale, which is obviously never the case.
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!"
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.
I'm about to pick up piracy again so I can watch good shows that I like
I can absolutely see where piracy surges again as people fight back against the onslaught of YASS (yet another streaming service).
Trying to shut down piracy is playing whack-a-mole with one hammer, 10,000 moles and 100,000,000 holes.
> The legal actions against free streaming sites
The only people using those are people too scared or lacking in knowledge of how to download.
That's most people.
Also, most laws aren't perfectly enforced; part of the reason for disproportionately high penalties is to create that fear.
That aside though, there isn't any chance of stopping piracy with the way the current internet is. SO all they do is spend disproportionate amounts of money, i.e. throw that money down the drain, just to take down a website here and there, and maybe, comparatively rarely, get a few people thrown in jail here and there.
That isn't deterring anything, not remotely, so it just seems like revenge.
Likewise.
I think that as we've already developed the technological capacity for mere organised crime to build a surveillance system that would make the actual literal Stasi jealous, it's important for the legal system to catch up, and move to the combination (because neither would work in isolation) of (1) penalties that are much much smaller and directly match the offence with (2) so much surveillance that basically everything is caught.
Now, is there a way for this to avoid falling into a horrific dystopian nightmare? Because it's one thing for an internet pirate getting an illicit copy of one episode of Space 1999 getting dinged for $0.99, and quite another if the same capabilities are used to interfere with or supress political opponents a-la the Watergate scandal.
> That isn't deterring anything, not remotely, so it just seems like revenge
I know what you mean, I think that's also part of it, and that kind of attitude in parts of the legal system also interfere with the thing I've just suggested.
Sometimes it does feel like the pirates did lose. At the very least it seems almost impossible to casually pirate something like you used to in the late 2000s. Now it feels like you don’t have a homelab setup with plex/jellyfin/arr/arr/arr and a network of private trackers and god knows what else the. You’re not really going to be able to find much.
It feels like piracy morphed from being like stealing a pack of gum at a gas station to being more of a time and equipment intensive hobby.
It may be obvious to you what the right release groups and software are but this isn’t how it used to be. You used to be able to just search for torrents, and find high quality ones for just about anything. It’s not the case anymore. Even going to TPB and searching there feels like I’m missing something because of how poor the catalog and average health is.
And don't forget a good VPN like proton VPN
> it’s almost impossible to achieve an even half-decent experience without significant knowledge and research now.
The thing you have to learn is how to find resources at short notice. That skill is adaptable and should never require significant knowledge and research. Most of what you learned as as 12 year old should still apply.
Now with 10+ streaming services gatekeeping their content piracy is likely to be back on the rise
Streaming has reduced the need for piracy a lot, and that's probably a good thing, but it hasn't made it completely obsolete, because of silly models that media companies still enforce.
It is funny listening to podcasts with billionaires who have unlimited financial resources but can’t watch a show recommended to them because they haven’t downloaded or subscribed to a particular streaming service.
Media companies have IP as an asset on their books. Battling piracy is a means to defend the valuation they attach to that IP.
Got it removed from most Google page 1's? -> probably worth it
Trying to take down all torrents? -> probably not worth it
People share these links in Discord, Reddit, Telegram etc - companies are not taking them down anytime soon. It's literally an unbeatable hydra.
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.
This site is full of proof they're biased and incompetent, why are you so prepared to give them rights that belong to governments?
Which, obviously, leaves only the largest companies able to play the mercenary police.
Demanding you throw out the meth seller has absolutely nothing to do with "giving them rights that belong to governments". It's your right of house rules to throw him out. And it's your responsibility as the party host.
But who am I telling this... A Freedom-troll will never understand...
It's not that at all. If you report phishing / malicious content to them, you have a right to expect them to take action in a reasonable amount of time - not weeks, and certainly not never. This isn't a "right", this is a reasonable way to work on the Internet that's worked since the '80s.
Do they have a "right" to just ignore abuse complaints and host whatever they want, even if it's illegal, malicious or that violates someone's copyright, and to ignore all requests to take appropriate action?
the source is in italian, couldn't find one in english that describes how it works but you can just translate it and it's more or less readable, from the source (google translated):
"On the platform, those who hold the rights, for example Sky and Dazn for football, upload the IP addresses or the Fully qualified domain name (Fqdn) , i.e. an unambiguous domain name that allows an online resource to be identified without a doubt, pirate sites that are broadcasting content without authorization , together with forensic evidence certifying the violation . Those who make the request have a few minutes to correct any errors, after which Piracy Shield generates a ticket and includes the report in the list of incriminated sites. Telecommunications and network operators draw on this, and have 30 minutes to block them. The process can also be automatic.
In the case of the Aiip trial, for example, the association has developed an interface, which it will provide to its members, which connects regularly, with a frequency of 1-2 minutes, to Piracy shield , checks the update of the list of sites to be blocked and, if there are new ones, executes the request. The platform also contains a white list of resources that, on the contrary, must not be reset. Piracy Shield is located on the Microsoft Azure cloud and can be reached by accredited operators only via VPN (virtual private network). At the moment the project aims to tackle piracy of sports content"
Google addresses started show up about 4 - 6 months ago; their IPv6 addresses. So I prominently mentioned in those bitcoin abuse reports that google should make any effort at all to secure their servers and notified their NOC/security email addresses. I also mentioned their addresses would appear in those public bitcoin abuse reports.
After a couple of months the google addresses stopped appearing as sources.
NOTE: I used a honeypot email address to snare these emails.
Warning: Potential Security Risk Ahead
Firefox detected a potential security threat and did not continue to mil04s43-in-f1.1e100.net
Error code: SSL_ERROR_BAD_CERT_DOMAIN
I have to add exclusions for some google-owned network ranges just so my auto-blocking setup doesn't break some basics critical to just web browsing.
Though the term "Piracy Shield" is very editorialised. Shouldn't we just call it the Firewall? Eg what we call China's system.
The piracy shield is terribly implemented of course and does a lot of harm to things it wasn’t necessarily meant to target. Part of this is because the law itself is rather terrible and has already undergone multiple changes and amendments, but part of it is also that Italy has a rather tough “no fucks” policy toward major tech companies.
Lol no, on a deeper level it is to preserve mafia's profits in the soccer business.
OpenDNS is not operating in France and Portugal, for example. There are many other cases.
Sometimes it's because of piracy, sometimes it's because of terrorism, sometimes it's because it allows voters to post comments about immigration or vaccine policy, or criticism about certain Western allies committing war crimes and ethnic cleansing, etc.
Pardon my language, but fuck you Google. If you want to implement mail filtering rules, do it fairly and equally.
This already happened with a Cloudflare CDN before. https://community.cloudflare.com/t/blocking-of-my-website-vi...
HTTP sure they can happily MITM and redirect, but with HTTPS you need a valid cert.
This is not a DNS block, the IPs are owned by Google, Italian ISPs are forced to forward the traffic of a blocked IP to AGCOM's servers.