We aren't reducing the argument to your simplistic depiction which is misleading at best.
We have businesses investing legally in producing and securing rights to content. We then have internet ads businesses incentivizing unverified actors to convert any impressions to hundreds of thousands of dollars in payouts even if those impressions occur on stolen content. How is this fair?
The legitimate businesses are losing their ability to re invest proceeds into their business thus permanently impairing them since who's to say the high price of streaming and linear TV is not a consequence of stolen revenue thanks to these illegal streams?
We will never know since society has turned a blind eye and has decided "Just too bad, let those assholes die, it's not my problem" while Ad networks and criminals laugh their way to the bank.
I think there are other remedies that would be more palatable. Perhaps making it illegal for ad networks to advertise on stolen content and let Rogers and Bell sue the ad networks that do so. Perhaps requiring Rogers and Bell to sue the pirates directly?
But the solution of turning off parts of the internet by blocking I.P.s which could block large parts of the internet if for example a pirate uses cloud flare is unacceptable.
It’s also problematic that it could end up blocking all kinds of locally hosted content from any number of ISPs using dynamic IPs. Your IP could end up blocked and other ISPs would prohibit video games from connecting to you because someone else used the same I.P. for some type of content piracy earlier.
I . .agree. I opened my comment with the line “What’s the recourse, then” for precisely this reason.
I’m calling the rogue elements of the internet, ie ad networks that behave in a scummy manner with zero transparency, integrity and self regulation , as the bad nodes. I don’t advocate for the blocking of IPs , I advocate for legal challenges that provoke a wider response (regulatory, policy, etc). The judicial system staying largely silent instead of issuing rulings in favor of the plaintiff that at least find the Content to be of a stolen and illegal nature while dismissing the petition to block the IPs , gives them some recourse in law. . .right now, the status is ambiguous , so allowed. Which is really pathetic of us as a society.
We have businesses investing legally in producing and securing rights to content. We then have internet ads businesses incentivizing unverified actors to convert any impressions to hundreds of thousands of dollars in payouts even if those impressions occur on stolen content. How is this fair?
The legitimate businesses are losing their ability to re invest proceeds into their business thus permanently impairing them since who's to say the high price of streaming and linear TV is not a consequence of stolen revenue thanks to these illegal streams?
We will never know since society has turned a blind eye and has decided "Just too bad, let those assholes die, it's not my problem" while Ad networks and criminals laugh their way to the bank.