SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard
For the past several years, copyright holders in the US and Europe have been trying to reach out to file-sharers in an effort to change their habits.
Whether via high-profile publicity lawsuits or a simple email, it's hoped that by letting people know they aren't anonymous, they'll stop pirating and buy more content instead.
Traditionally, most ISPs haven't been that keen on passing infringement notices on. However, the BMG v Cox lawsuit seems to have made a big difference, with a growing number of ISPs now visibly warning their users that they operate a repeat infringer policy.
But perhaps the big question is how seriously users take these warnings because – let's face it – that's the entire point of their existence.
Sixty-five thousand five hundred thirty-five but if they sent one more I'd start again.
Source: https://torrentfreak.com/how-many-piracy-warnings-would-get-you-to-stop-180422/
(Score: 4, Insightful) by bzipitidoo on Tuesday April 24 2018, @06:25AM (1 child)
No, I don't think so. If you're not a shill, you are brainwashed, and you'd do well to listen humbly and try to understand. You might even thank us.
Surely you've heard the "copying is not stealing" argument? No one said they didn't want to compensate the artists. When you suggest people "don't want to pay for things", we all understood that you are calling everyone a bunch of thieves. Use of that disingenuous, flamebait line is what has me thinking you're a shill. It is only the mercy of the public, the sincere desire to compensate artists, that keeps the copyright model alive in spite of the bad manners-- the terrorism, legal lynchings, propaganda, and histrionics-- the industry has practiced. But no one appreciates being asked to pay for waste.
McDonalds is hurt whenever someone eats at Burger King instead, but that's not theft, nor illegal, nor immoral.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 24 2018, @08:15AM
I've noticed an interesting thing with the younger generation: They can see that copying is not actually stealing, so it becomes copying is just like stealing, except it's not. Stealing is illegal. Which ends up with the conclusion that copying is just like illegal, except it's not.
Because the narrative is focused on teaching people that copying is like illegal, rather than teaching about copyright law, the younger generation is starting to believe that copying is NOT actually illegal. If it was illegal, you wouldn't need propaganda pretending that copying is just like illegal.