Italy's Piracy Shield just blocked one of Google's CDN

the source is in italian, couldn't find one in english that describes how it works but you can just translate it and it's more or less readable, from the source (google translated):

"On the platform, those who hold the rights, for example Sky and Dazn for football, upload the IP addresses or the Fully qualified domain name (Fqdn) , i.e. an unambiguous domain name that allows an online resource to be identified without a doubt, pirate sites that are broadcasting content without authorization , together with forensic evidence certifying the violation . Those who make the request have a few minutes to correct any errors, after which Piracy Shield generates a ticket and includes the report in the list of incriminated sites. Telecommunications and network operators draw on this, and have 30 minutes to block them. The process can also be automatic.

In the case of the Aiip trial, for example, the association has developed an interface, which it will provide to its members, which connects regularly, with a frequency of 1-2 minutes, to Piracy shield , checks the update of the list of sites to be blocked and, if there are new ones, executes the request. The platform also contains a white list of resources that, on the contrary, must not be reset. Piracy Shield is located on the Microsoft Azure cloud and can be reached by accredited operators only via VPN (virtual private network). At the moment the project aims to tackle piracy of sports content"

Right, but they don't. That's the point.

> It's clear the Coca Cola company made it's decision there.

The question is to what extent was that decision based on real research and data, versus being influenced by being taken out for a nice lunch by some admen and because "that's how we've always done it".

> Word of mouth for product 1.0 doesn't matter if the single dev can't afford to get to product 2.0.

Piracy isn't going to impact that reality at all.

> Thars how "pirates spend the most" work Survivor bias is playing a huge role here, and most pirated services doit survive.

There's no bias, nor is this speculation. This is a topic that has been researched for more than 20 years at this point and consistently shows that pirates spend more and lead to an increase in sales.

> And "we'll pay you on exposure" is just as insulting to hear from a pirate as it is from a conglomerate.

Only in the context of certain expectations, which people can't accept were wrong and maybe shouldn't have been ingrained into them.

People rewarding what like, especially in the context of art, is how humanity has done it for the vast majority of history. You could say, perhaps, that sharing and rewarding is more in line with human nature.

I don't really have a problem with the involuntary shareware situation pretty much every dev has been forced into. I don't believe it's ultimately harmful at all.

> Giving away your 1.0 for free works at the scale of Microsoft or Adobe where you can reel them in later (by shutting off the very piracy they benefitted from).

I mean, most software these days that home users use tends to be open source with a donation button anyway.

Any software developer heavily dependent on commercial sales of a first version software product would likely already have some sale contracts in place, because it would be foolish to take out loans or be wasting money for something that might not sell.

> Small businesses can't sit on rent or debt anywhere near as long.

Then they shouldn't have ventured into software if they were unaware of what the market is like. This has little to do with piracy, unless you assume every pirated instance would be a loss sale, which is obviously never the case.