| As I understand it, the only organisation that can block the streaming websites without collateral damage is Cloudflare, and they have not chosen to do so. The situation is a bit irregular, as the streaming providers set up a new website for each game, and the legal system isn't fast-moving enough to issue a court order banning a website within the 90 minutes of a football game. Instead La Liga got a 'dynamic blocking injunction' so they tell ISPs what to block, and ISPs have to block it. |
| |
| ▲ | jopicornell 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | That makes LaLiga look as if they were the victims, but they are not. They don't want to notify Cloudflare nor have done it any time since they started blocking it. LaLiga says that this blockings affects "hundreds" of people, and that they a rightful by doing that. Truth is, they are abusing their power and the spanish legal system to do whatever they want, as usual. Cloudflare is not ignoring LaLiga and they are open to collaborate, but LaLiga refuses to do so, and are battling legally over it. | |
| ▲ | jowea 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The next question is, why doesn't cloudfare cooperate instead of suffering disruption?
Or why doesn't laliga ask cloudfare to cooperate if that's the issue? Surely cloudfare could block their own users more effectively. | | |
| ▲ | hsbauauvhabzb 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | Cloud flare have a pretty long history of not acting as the Internet police, including kiwifarms. That’s a GOOD thing. A private company is not responsible for acting in that way, and when they do it results in fascism. VISA and Mastercard have recently threatened steam over games a bunch of Karen’s didn’t like, and have also put pressure on onlyfans and pornhub. VISA and Mastercard have no business telling other companies what they can and can’t do, that’s the job of police and the courts. Otherwise, how long until visa, Mastercard, cloudflare etc give in to pressure and stop doing business with websites deemed ‘unacceptable’ by some invisible party. Abortion advice? Lgbtiq health issues? Options which dissent from government? Legal/‘illegal’ protests? |
| |
| ▲ | Foivos 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I imagined a solution where authorities would notify the hosting company of the IPs that are streaming. It should be obvious for the hosting company which customer is using these IPs for streaming illegal content just by studying the traffic pattern, no need to actually look inside the packets. Then they can just ban this customer. That way the authorities will not have a reason to ban IP ranges affecting the other customers. | | |
| ▲ | regularjack 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | Wouldn't the traffic pattern be similar to watching Netflix? | | |
| ▲ | Foivos 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | I think live video has a bit different pattern than video on demand. But aside from it, it should be very obvious: A) you are notified by the intellectual property holders that somebody is streaming pirated content, B) a specific customer or set of customers, who are not a known streaming service, are serving tens or hundrends of IPs with video and C) these customers do not have much activity during other times. | | |
| ▲ | joseda-hg 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | So not Netflix, but Twitch? Plenty of people stream commentary to matches without showing the game itself, so that would flag as guilty too | | |
| ▲ | Foivos 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | These are not peer to peer connections. These people would send a single stream to twitch and then twitch, a known streaming service, would stream it to their viewers. In theory someone might rent a server and do the streaming directly to his viewers, without using a known platform. This would be a legitimate false positive as you describe. But this would be so expensive I doubt anyone would do it when the alternative is a free platform with built in community and monetisation tools. |
|
|
|
|
|
