Italian Authorities Shut Down $3.2 Billion-a-Year Pirate TV, Streaming Ring (ft.com) 44
A piracy ring that gave 22 million subscribers in Europe cheap access to content stolen from international streaming services has been shut down by Italian authorities after a two-year investigation. From a report: The criminal enterprise used a complex international IT system to "capture and resell" live programming and other on-demand content from companies including sports broadcaster DAZN, Netflix, Amazon Prime, Paramount, Sky and Disney+, prosecutors said in a statement on Wednesday.
Authorities estimate the operation generated revenues of roughly $264.3 million a month [non-paywalled link], or $3.2 billion a year, and caused combined damages of more than $10.6 billion to the affected broadcast companies. "The rate of profit you get from these illegal activities with lower risk is equivalent to that of cocaine trafficking," Francesco Curcio, the criminal prosecutor who led the investigation, told reporters.
Authorities estimate the operation generated revenues of roughly $264.3 million a month [non-paywalled link], or $3.2 billion a year, and caused combined damages of more than $10.6 billion to the affected broadcast companies. "The rate of profit you get from these illegal activities with lower risk is equivalent to that of cocaine trafficking," Francesco Curcio, the criminal prosecutor who led the investigation, told reporters.
That’s literally (Score:5, Insightful)
This is money the streaming services just left sitting on the table for someone else to come and pick up. What a business fail.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
False. It's because people believe they are entitled to whatever they want. If you don't like the price, don't buy it/watch it/whatever.
Re:That’s literally (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually true it's an access issue. The real question is Why the authorities are wasting taxpayer money pursuing these criminals and Not the criminals at the Studios/Streaming companies who have created an Anti-consumer distribution monopoly where Particular videos are tied to a particular streaming service and other streaming services can't offer them.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know about Italy. In the US the answer is legal bribes in the form of 'lobbyists'.
Taxes (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually true it's an access issue. The real question is Why the authorities are wasting taxpayer money pursuing these criminals
The authorities collect taxes from people paying for streaming from legit streaming companies, and on the profits of the streaming companies themselves [euronews.com].
It's not a waste of taxpayer money to go after those evading taxes.
Re: (Score:2)
authorities collect taxes from people paying for streaming from legit streaming companies, and on the profits of the streaming companies themselves
Wdym? You think the rogue services don't collect pay taxes on their profits?
If that were the case: they would have been quickly taken in for tax evasion, and not this.
Even the hard criminals know they still have to collect and pay tax on their illicit operations, or they'll be caught within the year.
They probably ended up paying more Tax to the Italian governmen
Re: (Score:2)
Italy's largest network is state owned. The government is in direct competition with the people offering these alternative streaming sites. Sports broadcasting is the part of television that people are willing to pay for. Even in the affluent U.S. Apple is having a hard time getting people to pay for its serial programming. Sports fans, on the other hand, will pay what it takes to watch their team. That's actually the interesting bit about this particular story. People were actually paying actual mone
Re:That’s literally (Score:5, Insightful)
It’s not false, you’re both right. Because a lot of people have no problem with pirating the services need to temper their pricing accordingly. If it’s too high people will pirate, that’s just the way it is regardless of what you think of it.
In that sense piracy is a good thing as it helps keep prices in check.
Re: (Score:3)
Or people got tired of being fooled into buying something that was no longer available at the whim of the company.
Re:That’s literally (Score:5, Insightful)
False. It's because people believe they are entitled to whatever they want. If you don't like the price, don't buy it/watch it/whatever.
22 thousand people, can be called arrogant thieves who feel they are entitled to whatever they want.
22 million? That’s called a customer base. One any legitimate company would be jealous to have. Parent is right.
Re: (Score:2)
To add to this, somet of those 22 million probably had no legal access at all to some of the content. That's a service fail, not entitlement.
There's also an argument to be made that piracy is a form of protest. Art and entertainment are a necessary part of the human experience. Producers definitely deserve compensation and accolades; those that "manage" access deserve some too but hardly all they're scraping now.
Re:That’s literally (Score:5, Insightful)
It's actually false because not all of those people would have paid to stream from those services. The claim that they lost x billion dollars in sales due to privacy is always bullshit, and only idiots ever believe them.
Re: (Score:2)
Among consumers, only the uninformed believe those claims. Among authorities, they are not idiots. It serves them well to believe the numbers. What's the quote? It's really hard to convince someone of something when their livlihood depends on their not believing it.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with you that it is a false broad claim.
But it is also a false claim that those pirating would pay if the prices were lowered/much lower/whatever. We all know that some huge number of them would not pay, regardless of price...
The reality is that probably most broad statements we make are just not going to express the complexity of the reality of what is happening. Every person is going to judge what the service is worth to them, and it will vary greatly for each person depending on how much they w
Re: (Score:2)
But it is also a false claim that those pirating would pay if the prices were lowered/much lower/whatever. We all know that some huge number of them would not pay, regardless of price...
I think what would happen is that they would pay approximately what they pay now, but they would have fewer services. They wouldn't mostly be paying more, though perhaps a few would. I have known people with money for expensive subscriptions who had cloned satellite cards and so on. But most of the people in poorer countries just don't have more money to spend anyway. And people in lots of countries are getting poorer...
Re: (Score:2)
False. It's because people believe they are entitled to whatever they want. If you don't like the price, don't buy it/watch it/whatever.
The MAFIAA wants to control your search results. They want to censor your DNS records. They want to ban consumer VPNs. They actively spend huge sums lobbying to try to reduce my freedoms. They are the enemy. Full stop.
If downloading their shit (and most of it really is shit anyway) is the only way I can try and fuck them back, then I'll work with that. Still feels good.
Convenience (Score:2)
The problem with the streaming industry is that it's an industry rather than a single provider. Netflix can lower prices, the whole industry could, but it's still less convenient than having a single source for stuff to watch.
22 million subscribers, $3.2 billion a year (Score:2)
Means they've been paying $150/year each for access. Which is on a par with most streaming services.
Why do I doubt these numbers?
Re: (Score:2)
If most services cost $8-13 per month EACH, paying $150/year for EVERYTHING isn't a bad deal. You may be correct that the numbers feel off, or the subscription cost for the service is different based on what you "sign up for".
Sounds like the damages are inflated (Score:2)
Re:22 million subscribers, $3.2 billion a year (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I seriously doubt 22 million people subscribed to a pirate service just to get "Serie A". Or that anywhere near a majority of 22 million people could even tell you what it is.
Your personal experience does not define a universal truth, and the plural of anecdote isn't data.
Re: (Score:3)
No, that sounds about right. Sports access is what moves the needle at all of the streaming services (besides Netflix). That's why Amazon's $1 Billion a year for Thursday Night Football is a better much better investment than the $20 billion that Apple has spent on serial television. Amazon routinely gets as many viewers for a single game (and on a Thursday to boot) as Apple TV has subscribers.
Sports fans will pay what it takes to watch their team play in a way that normal television viewers simply wil
Re: (Score:3)
Frankly, we don't even know how many users knew the "pirate" service they were subscribing to was illegal.
There's the real crime! (Score:4, Insightful)
Did you watch the multi-million dollar Jake Paul vs Mike Tyson boxing match on Netflix?
That's the real crime -- all hype, no delivery.
If streaming services want our money they need to lift their game.
Re: There's the real crime! (Score:2)
That's just wrong on multiple levels.
Much like referring to a retired boxer whose father was Jamaican as an "African American actor".
Re: (Score:3)
No. Why would anyone? Tyson retired almost 20 years ago. Paul is a punk playing pretend pugilist. Who's he going to "fight" next? The ghost of Joe Frazier? What a joke.
all hype, no delivery.
What did you expect? Paul is just an attention whore pretending to be a boxer. You'll find a better fight in any random schoolyard. Stop paying attention to him and he'll go away.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The scary thing is we don't even seem near reaching peak stupid yet.
Sports Fans (Score:5, Interesting)
One of the things that the television industry has learned in the last few years is that live sports programming really moves the needle when it comes to subscriptions. Apple has spent over $20 billion since 2019 creating Hollywood style programming. Most critics and fans agree that they even have some really good stuff. However, they don't have anywhere near the impact viewership wise as Amazon's $1 billion a year investment in Thursday Night Football. It's not even close. Thursday Night Football is the worst football possible, and it still gets nearly as many viewers each week as Apple TV has subscribers. I actually suspect that, assuming that Apple continues to try and compete with their Apple TV service, that they will simply start outbidding their competitors for access to sporting events. They definitely have the money.
For whatever reason, sports fans are compelled to subscribe to whatever services they need in order to watch their favorite teams. Serial programming, even ridiculously popular serial programming, simply doesn't have that kind of draw. Even better, at least for streaming platforms, there is no way to binge watch sports seasons. No sports fans are willing to wait until the end of the season and binge watch the whole season in a month. So instead of people that sign up for a month once a year to watch whatever new stuff you have, you end up with customers that sign up for at least a sports season. If they are fans of several sports, and you have a lot of sports to offer, then you probably end up with a customer that is willing to stay signed up year round.
Which is why anyone in the content business, and that includes many governments, is paying attention to illegal sports streaming. The Italian government cares about this, because RAI is owned by the government and sports programming pays the bills for all of the other programming. No one gives a crap about most of their other programming, but Italians are definitely willing to pay to watch Football (soccer). Of course, Italians aren't idiots. The illegal sports streamers are actually better than the competition. Not only do they always work, but they also have all of the games that you want. You pay one fee, and you get access to all of the games you want, and you don't have subsidize all of the other television that sports fans have been supporting since the dawn of television. The Italian government probably wouldn't get involved, but in this case they are the competition, and they need a way to pay for all of the other programming that they currently make.
Even if you are not a sports fan this sort of stuff matters. Chances are good that at least a portion of the programming that you actually care about is funded by sports programming.
Re: (Score:2)
>"For whatever reason, sports fans are compelled to subscribe to whatever services they need in order to watch their favorite teams."
And in a similar manner, those who don't give a "F" about *any* sports are forced to subsidize those who do. A huge amount of cable TV fees (and streaming lineups), for example, are to cover exorbitant "sports" fees.
It would be a shocking concept if consumers were willing to just pay only for what they actually watched and priced accordingly. But we have learned that cons
Nature abhors a vacuum (Score:2)
Grassroot sport (Score:2)