'Six-Strikes' Anti-Piracy System ends after Failure

[Ink]

"The MPAA and RIAA are throwing in the towel for their so-called ‘six strikes’ initiative. The program — formally known as the Copyright Alert System — started in 2013 as a partnership between ISPs and copyright holders designed to scare off internet pirates.

It didn’t work.

"The [Copyright Alert System] structure was simply not set up to deal with the hardcore repeat infringer problem,” Fabrizio says.

Currently, there’s no plan to replace the failed system."

____________

How would you tackle Piracy on a global scale?​

 

[nclr11111]

Well, my amateurish mind tells me that if Netflix, HBO, Spotify etc has contributed in decreasing the piracy then maybe there ought to be a similar approach for softwares too!? It´s def the way to go!
I dont think they will ever be able to eradicate piracy as a whole and i´d rather see them be inovative in new services and release all new movies at the same date world wide!
I for one havn´t downloaded or streamed (illegally) a single movie or music song since Netflix and Spotify was an option for me. But it comes down to internet speeds and what movies/series made available.

More inovative thinking and less rigid businessmodels are my 5 cents! Oh, and stop calculating and sue pirates of those fantasy amounts! It´s just counterproductive and shows a lack of adaptation to the reality in which we live!

 

[Ink]

Piracy is booming right now, faster internet than a decade ago and in more places, means you can take copyrighted movies, music videos with you.

Only stating the facts.

 

[Paul123]

Think scammers and hackers probably contributed more to anti-piracy than anyone. By knowing that if you download a piece of pirated software its 99.9% certain to contain some trojan or malware theyv'e probably put more people off pirating software and games than any lawyer, or copyright initiative (Add to that they have spawned a whole industry - antivirus, anti malware etc dedicated to stopping them which makes millions every year).

Funny old world, Still hate them though.....hate lawyers too

 

[sudo -i]

Center for Copyright Information | STATEMENT ON THE COPYRIGHT ALERT SYSTEM
OP's source lacks the official statement found in the link above.

 

[Andytay70]

The pirates bay was closed down a few times but re-incarnated.
Whatever the industry does piracy wont go away.

 

[BugCode]

Be pirate or not, Piracy is here to stay!

 

[Balrog]

The main thing is for some people acquring software it is not a option. They don't have enough money for that. They don't have enough money for food, so...

 

[Cohen]

As the internet advances, it is only going to get easier to get away with pirating. I believe there will never be a foolproof way to combat piracy. The way governments, ISPs and many copyright holders have gone about it is absolutely terrible and inefficient.

The best way to combat piracy would probably be to follow what Spotify is doing. The CEO and co-founder of Spotify were also CEO of uTorrent. The majority of people would much rather pay $10/month for almost any song they could think of at their fingertips than having to search a torrent site for a good-quality album, download it, move it to their phone and have to re-do that every time they want to listen to music.
Netflix and other services have also figured this out. Netflix's new ability to download movies and episodes of shows for offline viewing on the mobile app is great. When Hollywood finally gets the hint, hopefully at least a few networks can strike a deal to have new episodes of shows put on Netflix not long after their initial release. Hollywood is going to continue to lose money until they make their movies and shows much easier to access.

The main reason I've come across for people pirating software is how expensive some of it is. If developers want to make it harder for people to patch/crack their software, it's up to them to make it harder.

To summarise my stance, it is up to creators to make their work more accessible to minimise the the number of people who pirate their work and maximise the legal consumption of their work. This reply is just my stance on it; I'm hoping to see opposing opinions on this topic.

 

[Ink]

The main reason I've come across for people pirating software is how expensive some of it is. If developers want to make it harder for people to patch/crack their software, it's up to them to make it harder.

Commercial software is expensive, but for home users it is cheaper now than 5 years ago. Some examples; Adobe Creative Cloud, Student Discount for Amazon Prime, Student Licence available for AutoCAD.

I bet a lot of YouTube reviewers using VMware Workstation Pro are pirated copies, at £200/$300 for a single license.

 

[Paul123]

The main thing is for some people acquring software it is not a option. They don't have enough money for that. They don't have enough money for food, so...

You dont starve if you dont have software, but if piracy is too high of a product the developer does starve (of funds) and the product dies. In economics its called the free rider principle.
Free rider problem - Wikipedia

Theres lots of things I'd like, but can't afford, but that doesnt justify my taking them. Also the high cost is often due to the high piracy of the product; companies offset the cost of piracy by raising the price to legitimate users.

Protection against piracy often makes the product harder for the legitimate user too - take DRM on music and films for example, preventing you from listening to it on multiple devices.

Piracy is tempting (and I'd be a liar if I said I'd never done it), but its never justified.

 

[Balrog]

You dont starve if you dont have software, but if piracy is too high of a product the developer does starve (of funds) and the product dies. In economics its called the free rider principle.
Free rider problem - Wikipedia

Theres lots of things I'd like, but can't afford, but that doesnt justify my taking them. Also the high cost is often due to the high piracy of the product; companies offset the cost of piracy by raising the price to legitimate users.

Protection against piracy often makes the product harder for the legitimate user too - take DRM on music and films for example, preventing you from listening to it on multiple devices.

Piracy is tempting (and I'd be a liar if I said I'd never done it), but its never justified.

Well, you're talking about starve and... do you think all the software is used for bussiness? Well, no. There some students that used for school. They don't have enough money for food, for clothes, for living. But they need to study in the hope to have a better life.

Please, try to consider not only the scope from where you lived. We are not talking about luxury stuff, where are talking about software that it is necesary for school. Here in my country the economical perspective is very complicated. We have a bad goverment.

I'm not saying that getting movies or games illegally in the web is good or fair. Certainly no. But the piracy covers a lot of things.

It's ridiculous that Microsoft Office costs so much. It is software that many companies need for compatibility with their customers and suppliers. If they are faced with acquiring licenses for all the software they use, they would not make a profit. They could not survive and sources of employment would be lost.

Some years ago i was taking a course in a public school. We need to use Siemens Step 7, and the school doesn't have licenses for that. We ask the distributor and they said no...

 

[Paul123]

Well, you're talking about starve and... do you think all the software is used for bussiness? Well, no. There some students that used for school. They don't have enough money for food, for clothes, for living. But they need to study in the hope to have a better life.

Some years ago i was taking a course in a public school. We need to use Siemens Step 7, and the school doesn't have licenses for that. We ask the distributor and they said no... .

The problem is that often the things that are pirated are from small developers. Big developers can afford the costs of protecting systems, and the loss from piracy and lawyers to protect their copyright. I am a developer myself and Ive been hit a few times by doing work which I never got paid for. One group I was in got destroyed, by a company that strung us along, basically promising us a major contract if we did some pre work for them for it, after we'd done most of the work they dumped us, without recompense, and I was the only one who survived since my skills enabled me to move to another group - the others (mainly graphic artists) weren't so lucky and were made redundant. For every person who gains a job by piracy, there's a person in some company, or even a company itself, that gets destroyed by it.

Many companies like Microsoft often give 180+ day trials of commercial software, giving plenty of time to learn it, they also offer discounts to students, and schools, MSDN etc. Maybe Siemens and Rockwell are mean. If so its their loss, they need people to learn their products and the more who know it, the more they are likely to recommend it when they are in a job.

I do understand what you are saying though.

 

[Balrog]

The problem is that often the things that are pirated are from small developers. Big developers can afford the costs of protecting systems, and the loss from piracy and lawyers to protect their copyright. I am a developer myself and Ive been hit a few times by doing work which I never got paid for. One group I was in got destroyed, by a company that strung us along, basically promising us a major contract if we did some pre work for them for it, after we'd done most of the work they dumped us, without recompense, and I was the only one who survived since my skills enabled me to move to another group - the others (mainly graphic artists) weren't so lucky and were made redundant. For every person who gains a job by piracy, there's a person in some company, or even a company itself, that gets destroyed by it.

Many companies like Microsoft often give 180+ day trials of commercial software, giving plenty of time to learn it, they also offer discounts to students, and schools, MSDN etc. Maybe Siemens and Rockwell are mean. If so its their loss, they need people to learn their products and the more who know it, the more they are likely to recommend it when they are in a job.

I do understand what you are saying though.

You're right. And it is very unfair.

I have a client who has good income monthly. Even so, it does not invest in licensing or in equipment. He just does not see it as a necessity. I do not understand, I think it's stupid.

In cases like this there is simply no reason not to pay for licensing. Maybe you could think of me "and why do you work with that customer?". I just can not afford to lose a client.

 

[Fritz]

I'm really split about this topic. No, they won't ever stop "piracy". Yes, I have used unlicensed material in the past. Not any more.

Thing is, it's such a multi-faceted mess and there are many sides contributing to it.

1. It's not piracy. The word was merely cleverly chosen to dramatize the subject in order to grab attention and put it in a simple, little drawer where it doesn't fit in. The act of piracy would have you take away an object, continously depriving the original owner of its use, generally accomplished by violent means. Neither one is the case. Yes, it's wrong. But it's not piracy.

2. A licence is a pretty arbitrary concept. Up until 100 years ago, a musician would sing songs. Who cares where they were from. He sung, and that's what he was paid for. If you wanted more money, you would sing more often. Nowadays it's 2 months work plus 2 weeks in a studio and a musician expects to be paid until the cows come home. Of course, artists prefer the latter concept, and I can't blame them. It's also the law, but I just want people to consider things from different perspectives.

N.B.: I do see the difference in software products where there may be many years involved and need to covered by selling that work as piecemeal, it's rare one entity could or would pay for that work.

3. There's several kinds of people who use unlicenced products. Those, who'd buy if the price were considered reasonable and those who wouldn't spend money, no matter what. Netflix, Hulu, iTunes et.al. clearly show, that the former can be convinced. For the latter? It won't change a thing. I conclude, that rights holders could profit more from calming down, saving the legal bills and watching the $$$ roll in that'll surely follow acceptable deals.

Please understand that I'm merely trying to shine a light on things. I do not condone or excuse the use of unlicenced materials. I just think that the whole concept and it's legal measures are partially a bit silly.

This leads to situations like a few years ago, where they almost raided a kindergarten because the kids were singing "Happy Birthday" without a proper licence. I kid you not.

 

[nclr11111]

This is not an easy subject. In one way or another i think most of us is split about this topic.
I gladly pay for Spotify and Netflix. If there were a similar service for sofware i´d gladly pay for that too but as it is i find it hard to pay for all software i use from time to time.
One could say i should use free software instead. The problem with that is that you want to keep on using the software you´re used to from school and/or work which is familiar and supports all extentions you need.
Antoher problem is that a number of companies now starts implementing yearly subscriptions where a one year subsciption costs in the vincinity of what you used to pay for the complete software with support year after year. Examples of softwares that goes in this direction and that i personally must have are M$ Office, Adobe Photoshop, Adobe Aftereffects and Adobe Media Encoder.
The yearly cost of those softwares are quite hefty for a single user w/o any discounts..... No wonder PS and Office are on the top 10 of the most pirated softwares out there.

 

[Paul123]

Another problem is that a number of companies now starts implementing yearly subscriptions where a one year subsciption costs in the vicinity of what you used to pay for the complete software with support year after year. Examples of softwares that goes in this direction and that i personally must have are M$ Office, Adobe Photoshop, Adobe Aftereffects and Adobe Media Encoder.
The yearly cost of those softwares are quite hefty for a single user w/o any discounts..... No wonder PS and Office are on the top 10 of the most pirated softwares out there.

I think a lot of the issues have been that anti-piracy has been done so badly, and I think the reason for this is it was done by lawyers, who dont understand people, just money. Netflix, Hulu, iTunes are a step in the right direction.

Most anti-piracy at the moment hurts the legitimate use. You take DRM, that is a disaster. If I buy a legitimate piece of music I can only play it on one machine and often need specialised software to play it (such as audible.com books), if I get the pirated music I have no limitations. If I buy certain software I have to enter a 50+ character licence key, and if I fail (as is often the case) its locked, and involves calling a premium call number and getting frustrating automated response. If the software is a yearly licence after a year it stops working, if its pirated it lasts forever. They give users no incentive.

I think they really need to give the legitimate user advantages, rather than try an hurt the pirate. I remember for example in the early days of software and music most products came with extras. Pink Floyd's dark Side of the Moon came with stickers, posters, postcards etc, software came with manuals, badges and 'a support centre that was actually useful'. I remember one game 'AutoDuel' which had an accompanying map which without it, you couldn't really play the game. Elite came with a star map and story and a chance to win a badge (infocom used to call them feelies). You thus got extras for buying the product rather than copying it. To a certain extent this does go on with collectors editions, and I doubt they are pirated as much. This requires creativity, and I think is why the lawyers made such a mess of it.

I still think though piracy cannot be justified. If you use a product or service you should pay for it. I know a lot do it (even if its just copying music off the radio), and Ive done it myself in the past. But when Ive done it Ive done it in the full knowledge what I'm doing is wrong.

 

[jamescv7]

In the topic of piracy issues, it needs not only intellectual but logical thinking.

Songs/Music: If you purchase a song like in Itunes then it's one to one ratio which no need for multiple copies. (One song for one user account). I don't think so that you are already violated once you obtain a copy for your smartphone and other devices.

As the fact, you purchased it so the proof of billing is existed.

--------------------------

Software:

There are so many considerations as long you meet like the number of PC to install.

Unfortunately some software have loopholes which does not follow on the terms and conditions hence the license key is still validated.

--------------------------


The failure of the organization to stop piracy is not on the system itself but how encouragement and response to take down.

The ways to determine those intruders are already existed by using the technologies yet leaving on the huge gap because of failure actions.

 

[Paul123]

In the topic of piracy issues, it needs not only intellectual but logical thinking.

Well on the grounds of what I previously said about scammers and hackers, the most effective anti-piracy would be to add vulnerabilities to Music and Movies that they could use. Within a few weeks media would be so contaminated nobody would download pirated media. The old saying 'set a thief to catch the thief' would work here. However, that's pretty unethical, and also its way too late to do this (though I seem to remember Sony years ago trying this) as people can just convert to the secure media.

Piracy of music is problematic (it went on long before digital media). Sharing music, is actually a way music becomes popular, and ultimately I think increases sales. You may give someone a copy of a tune you like by a new artist, and by them listening to that it persuades them to buy the whole album. I'm not sure artists want their music 100% protected, it actually works against dissemination.

It will be interesting once 3D printers become mainstream, how copyright will be handled on physical objects that can be printed. Essentially you'll need some way of copyrighting the template, but like music there will be ambiguity in objects similar too, or based on the object.