The head of News Ltd's Australian outpost has urged for an overhaul of copyright laws to take on the “copyright kleptomaniacs” and “digital suckers” that are robbing the Australian economy of AUD$1.37 billion annually in pirated film and TV content. Addressing the film industry at the Movie Convention, News Ltd CEO Kim Williams …
Tell him to go fuck himself.
I've put up with loads of shit TV for 40+ years - all masquerading under the nom-de-plume of 'local content' to satisfy the local regulators. Big Brother. X-Factor. And many more.
And now this guy wants to copyright that crap?
Is HE smoking crack?
People who shout loudest about this usually have their hands in the till, or have an ulterior motive, again it's usually about money.
Re: Tell him to go fuck himself.
"And now this guy wants to copyright that crap?"
Er, it already IS copyrighted. Copyright applies automatically. That's the guy's point.
The problem is, and remains, enforcement of copyright law. A 10% crime rate is just about acceptable, but a 90% crime rate? Not so much. Anyone working in any industry even tangentially related to intellectual property—and please note that copyright and IP laws are not limited to mere entertainment products; patent laws also apply to pharmaceuticals, factory automation systems, electronics, and even construction machinery, for example. Copyright applies to every document produced in every corporation in the western world.
The GNU and FOSS communities also rely heavily on the existence and enforceability of IP laws too: without Copyright, none of the various versions of the GPL and its relatives are worth the liquid crystals used to display them. You might as well be placing your work in the Public Domain. Bye-bye Linux!
Copyright laws do need to be updated to take new technologies and media distribution into account, but the notion that we should simply throw it all out—as you appear to be implying—is utterly idiotic. Our very economies rely on the notion of being able to own stuff we can't see or touch. Just look at the banking industry if you don't believe me: the current account you have with your bank is just a bunch of numbers on a computer's hard disk(s). It's a piece of digital property you own precisely because those IP laws exist. Without them, there's no basis for electronic banking systems. We'd have to revert back to cash economies and the gold standard.
(Except, of course, that without copyright, there's no legal impediment to just counterfeiting as much cash as you need, is there?)
If you don't have a better alternative to Intellectual Property laws, you're part of the problem, not the solution.
Also, I haven't owned a TV since 1996; what the hell is your excuse? Seriously, 40+ years and it never occurred to you to find the "Off" switch?
@Sean Re: Tell him to go fuck himself.
You started off fine, then ....
"...the current account you have with your bank ...... It's a piece of digital property you own precisely because those IP laws exist .......Without them, there's no basis for electronic banking systems...."
The principles and laws regarding ownership of money and the record keeping of that ownership have been practiced for thousands of years. It's called 'accountancy', as practiced by banks, which have been around, in various forms, for thousands of years. This has nothing to do with copyright or IP laws.
"Except, of course, that without copyright, there's no legal impediment to just counterfeiting as much cash as you need, is there?"
Yes there is, due to very old laws against ....... counterfeiting.
"If you don't have a better alternative to Intellectual Property laws, you're part of the problem, not the solution."
If you don't have a better understanding of Intellectual Property laws and their relationship to reality and existing laws and economic/social processes ...............
Re: Sean Timarco Baggaley
If we make it illegal t breath, we also get at least a 90% crime rate.
If I were to say post this post, what power do I have to recall that post if I think others should pay me for the privilege?
PS, by reading this post you have willingly accepted a service off of me. This post is no different from paid for and copyrighted news, music or film. One I deem valuable to the sum of £1000. Please send payments via paypal. Failure to pay will result in 5 years in prison for copyright infringement. I have not given you permission to view this on your computer unless you pay me. Now do you see a problem with that? If I cannot force or insist for a payment for my postings, why can News International? Or Sony Music?
I agree it's nice to pay performers and artists, but it's not something that we (artists) can force by violence. We have to find the goodwill of the customers and users and audience. Like Kickstarter or Humblebundle where artists get paid irrespective of copyright and piracy!
Re: Tell him to go fuck himself.
Right now copyright laws are a big problem. First of all, all copyrights on movies have been extended to 120 years by lobbying by Sonny Bono. A massive amount of old movies will never be heard from again because of this. I tried downloading a movie from the 1920's and the site reported that this movie was removed due to copyright violation. That movie will never be seen again. It used to be that copyrights were generally good for 20 years. It was assumed when a work was put into public domain, it would be preserved for all. Now the entertainment industry, like Apple, Samsung, etc, want to own it all.
Secondly, I have serviced many computers over the years. And guess what? I found copyrighted material on about 95 percent of those computer's hard drives! MP3's, video, pictures, aricles, etc. When society starts throwing every copyright violator in jail, there won't be enough people out of jail to act as prison guards!!!
Re: Sean Timarco Baggaley @Anon Coward 2012-08-21T08:32
"If we make it illegal t breath..."
Then amanfromMars inherits the earth.
STOP GIVING HIM IDEAS.
Re: Tell him to go fuck himself.
"Our very economies rely on the notion of being able to own stuff we can't see or touch."
Well that's fine for those people who say that this ephemeral 'stuff' that they assert a claim to has a value defined by them and that everyone should pony up for it on a piecemeal basis. It's also fine for them as long as they can assert control over the reproduction and distribution of said stuff. In your world everyone just needs to play along nice!
In reality copyright law is (in some contexts) justifiable and workable in a world of physical products and distribution networks. In your quote however you unwittingly touch upon the game changer. Electronic products are by their very nature capable of being infinitely reproduced and distributed for a cost that tends towards zero. You, and the banger in the article, need a reality check as everything has changed and the genie is not going back into the bottle. The social and economic costs of enforcing old school copyright law in this Brave New World simply isn't worth it. Instead of asking for copyright laws to be applied to the information age, this guy should be exploring alternative ways of exploiting the biggest opportunity since the industrial revolution.
Re: @Sean Tell him to go fuck himself.
"Yes there is, due to very old laws against ....... counterfeiting."
You do realise that "counterfeiting" IS an Intellectual Property law, right? I'm half-Italian. Italy is the country that invented banking—one of Italy's banks has been around since 1472. And no, that's not a typo. The concept of Intellectual Property has existed for a very, very long time.
Money has value solely because a government says so. Otherwise, it's just some fancy paper and pretty tin coins. The more digital our economies become—the more reliant they are on computers and virtualisation of that physical currency—the easier it is to "counterfeit" that money. After all, if I simply add more numbers to my bank balance, I'm not "stealing" anything. I'm just changing a field in a database record.
Who am I "hurting" by doing that? What physical, tangible damage am I causing?
Accountancy practices are the financial world's DRM. They exist to make damned sure I can't just change that field in that database record without someone noticing and giving me hell for it.
(Although, no matter how good their "Accountancy" DRM is, it's not 100% reliable. Just ask Nick Leeson.)
My point was that the very concept of Intellectual Property is a cornerstone of our cultures and societies. It goes way beyond mere Copyright. The moral right for authors to be credit for their own works has existed for centuries—long before modern Copyright Law existed.
That corporations have repeatedly twisted democratically elected governments' arms to extend their copyright protection coverage is neither here nor there: every law can be abused. The correct solution is to stop that abuse, not to throw away an otherwise perfectly good law.
A key part of the counterfeiting problem in the entertainment industries is that it's just so much easier than trying to buy a lot of the stuff legally. Not that the likes of iTunes and Google Play don't exist at all, but they're often having to operate with one hand tied behind their back due to the onerous contracts imposed on them by the media conglomerates. Territoriality is a major issue, for example. I can fly (or drive) to any EU country—and even Switzerland—and walk into a store. In that store, I can buy any DVD or BluRay disk I want. I can buy any music CD I want. But can I open up the French iTunes store from my home here in Italy and do the same thing? Nope!
The only way I can watch Doctor Who here is on the BBC's iPlayer Global app. But that only has archive material—and surprisingly random choices of it at that, such as Season 4 of the "new" Doctor Who, but none of the other seasons!
No wonder many Europeans resort to torrents. Most of them learn English in school anyway, so it's not as if they don't understand what's going on.
But NONE of the above has ANYTHING AT ALL to do with Copyright Law, or the concept Intellectual Property itself. It has EVERYTHING to do with stupid, conservative, terrified CEOs and politicians making very dumb, idiotic decisions that will only do them more harm than good.
Again: explain to us why Disney's desire to extend Copyright for their products is the fault of the law itself and not the lawmakers in Washington D.C.? (Seriously, have you seen some of the morons currently trying to get elected in November? I didn't think anyone could top G. W. Bush for staggering incompetence and wilful ignorance. Clearly, I was very, very wrong.)
A law is a tool. It can be used for good. It can be used for ill. The law does not make that choice for you. If a law is being abused, blame the politicians who are abusing it.
(Also: "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance", etc. Before getting into bed with Google, who would love nothing more than to abolish Copyright entirely, perhaps you should make damned sure you have all the information you need to make a genuinely informed decision.)
Give it a rest
It's not theft. Meanwhile capitalism is completely out of control and democracy is circling the plug - I guess that's all OUR fault as well?
Re: Give it a rest
Actually, yes, it is OUR fault. The majority have the power to stop it but choose not to.
The people who run the world have become quite adept at pitting people against each other so they don't notice who the real enemy is.
The illusion of left vs right politics is a prime example of this.
And as usual...
...a figure is plucked from the air - in this case, AUD$1.37 billion - which is presumably based on the totally and utterly flawed assumption that every illegal download is a lost sale.
Some thoughts for Mr Williams
1) Give consumers access to the content they want at the time they want it - ie at the same time as our friends in the US and UK get it
2) Give consumers access to old content - ie old TV shows etc - that they still want to watch.
3) Make pricing of aforementioned content realistic
4) Make copies of aforementioned content legally transferrable to DVD so that consumers can look at it several times if they so desire.
5) Read some of the online forums about you and your practices - really, people hold you in contempt. You can change that by the way by actually listening to what people want rather than bitching and complaining that an old business model is not working.
I'll wager that if you and your media mates do this, not only will you sell lots - read here shitloads of money to you - but there will be a massive reduction in illegal downloads.
No, you will never achieve that nirvana that you dream of in which all content is paid for, but that has not existed since reel-to-reel tapes came on the market.
Re: Some thoughts for Mr Williams
1) You are not entitled to dictate when, how and in what formats the fruits of others' labours are to be distributed. That's the creators' prerogative. It's called "Copyright" for a reason; look it up. (Hint: the clue's in the name.)
2.) Good luck finding all the contact details for the estates of actors, producers, directors, etc.—many of whom will have died long ago—and getting the necessary waivers and permissions to do this. You don't get to just rip up a contract unilaterally just because something happened that your lawyers didn't predict 30-40 years ago.
There's also the small matter of paying to convert it all to the required formats. DigiBeta tape players aren't exactly easy to find, nor is the restoration work needed to bring a lot of older archive material up to reasonable standards. Have a good read of this site. The amount of work they put into restoring archive material is astonishing—including the development of reverse standards conversion software, video emulation software and even recolouring tools, to restore grotty old recordings of Doctor Who episodes.
Restoration work might seem over the top, but remember: good quality video compresses a hell of a lot better than bad quality video. Same goes for film recordings.
And, yes, the BBC have publicly stated that they really do intend to put all their own archive material online over the next few years. But, of course, they haven't been producing all their own programming since the 1990s, when John Birt screwed the BBC over and forced them to broadcast content produced by outside companies. (This is why many programmes the BBC make today have idents from production companies like Hat Trick, Celador and Endemol. The BBC have NO rights to put those programmes up online; they're just the broadcaster, not the content owner.)
3.) Define "realistic". I've seen 79-cent applications for Android devices on BitTorrent sites. Everyone wants great stuff for free. Do you prefer subscription? A pay-per-view model? The iTunes pay-per-programme model? What? And how much is a "realistic" price for you? Some people may be happy to pay £1.99 for an episode of, say, Tom Baker-era Doctor Who, but others might not be interested in paying more than £0.79 / episode. Who's right? And who are YOU to decide what is "realistic"? Bear in mind that just hosting all that content is going to cost a serious amount of cash. ISPs don't just give their bandwidth and server space away for free, you know.
4.) Why the hell would you want to be able to transfer content to an obsolete optical disk format? This is hardly a common use case. Many people will just stream it to their internet-connected TV by the time this kind of content is finally made available.
5.) Many content creators hold you, the faux-entitled, in contempt too. Artists and producers are people too, you know. The managers of corporations like the BBC, Sony Pictures, Disney, etc., are legally obliged to do what their shareholders / owners tell them to. They don't get to choose NOT to make a profit.
And, in case you hadn't noticed, [b]iTunes exists[/b], and has done for years now. The BBC has their iPlayer / iPlayer Global apps (as well as a firm commitment to release their own archive material). Even Amazon, Hulu, Netflix, etc. have been offering music, videos, movies, etc. for [b]legal download[/b] and streaming for some time. Hell, I live in Italy and can trivially access, say, Comedy Central's "The Daily Show" videos online quite legally, directly from their own website. It's not THAT hard to find legal options for your entertainment needs. So those managers and fat-cats you're whining about ARE trying to change their business models, you self-righteous dick.
What, you were maybe expecting every one of these media companies to just push some big, red, magical button that converts every frame of celluloid, every DigiBeta tape, every 2" videotape, and every other damned archive storage medium into crisp digital MP4 files overnight? This is a transitional period. Transitions take time. Give them a bloody chance!
Unfortunately, despite the existence of all these perfectly legal sources of entertainment, people STILL insist on claiming that BitTorrent and file lockers are their only viable source. As if the world owes them every piece of entertainment ever made, right now, this instant.
Get a sense of proportion, for crying out loud. There are people DYING out there, of hunger, of violence, of any number of nasty diseases. There are any number of far more important things to worry about right now. Yet you and your ilk are crusading against this? How old are you? Twelve?
Re: Some thoughts for Mr Williams
Quite. As long as you're putting “copyright kleptomaniacs” and “digital suckers” in scare quotes, you should also be applying them to "robbing the Australian economy of AUD$1.37 billion annually".
@Tim Re: Some thoughts for Mr Williams
The herd do not get to decide where they are grazed or when they are milked.
All I can assume is you've been lied to by your publishers and distributors or you have trouble reaching out to an audience. Right?
If you communicate with your audience and customers better, fee up a lot of those points you want to restrict them from doing in your post, you'll probably make more money!
"You are not entitled to dictate ..."
"... when, how and in what formats the fruits of others' labours are to be distributed."
Excuse me? Of course I am, I'm the customer!
You can labour all you want but if you want to get paid for it, too, you can bloody well pay lip service to what format your customer wants to "consume" your oh-so-intellectual works. Simple example: Had you laboured long and hard to write that comment in tagalog, nobody here would've read it. They *wouldn't* have gone out to learn to read it just for you.
Of course this is hyperbole, but it doesn't change the point. Suppose I want to view some film from down under. Am I also to buy another dvd player from there just so the regions match? What utter rubbish. I'm paying for the disc and the right to view it, so play already, damn skippy.
The rest of your diatribe, meh, I've got better things to do. The thing about copyright is that it isn't, never was ment to be, an absolute right. It's a legal trick to make rather nebulous "intellectual property" behave like real property for a while; so that the creator has an easier time getting paid. It's been stretched beyond all reason and now used for control instead of remuneration. So people defy the controls. Who's in the wrong, the rights holders or the pirates defying the control? Who cares? The point of the vehicle is lost. That's what's wrong.
Re: Some thoughts for Mr Williams
To sum up: Would the content makers prefer to have *some* money or *no* money?
Considering the crap they produce they are lucky to get anything at all.
Re: Some thoughts for Mr Williams
Hi Timarco Baggaley
>> You are not entitled to dictate when, how and in what formats the fruits of others' labours are to be distributed. That's the creators' prerogative. It's called "Copyright" for a reason; look it up. (Hint: the clue's in the name.)
If you want me to part with my cash, then yes I will dictate the terms in which I will do it - it's called Commerce (the clue is also in the name)
> >Good luck finding all the contact details for the estates of actors, producers, directors, etc.—many of whom will have died long ago—and getting the necessary waivers and permissions to do this. You don't get to just rip up a contract unilaterally just because something happened that your lawyers didn't predict 30-40 years ago.
Fortunately I don't have to, these rights from the actors, producers and directors have already been purchased by the studios who now are milking the rights for their own purposes. If the rights haven't been sold then where are all the royalties going? I would assume if a contract exists one simply needs to follow the money.
>> The amount of work they put into restoring archive material is astonishing—including the development of reverse standards conversion software, video emulation software and even recolouring tools, to restore grotty old recordings of Doctor Who episodes.
Ironically a lot of episodes of Doctor Who were thrown out or lost by the BBC - fortunately fans who recorded these shows [note: "illegally"] (in some cases audio only on cassettes) have been used as the only surviving sources (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_Who_missing_episodes) I guess for this example the BBC should be thankful of those 1960 pirates.
>> Define "realistic". I've seen 79-cent applications for Android devices on BitTorrent sites. Everyone wants great stuff for free.
It's true that you will never eliminate piracy, no matter what you do or how much you charge it will never (read never) go away, some people for many reasons will not pay, not always because they are evil, some honestly don't have the money (even for that 79 cent application - as it still requires access to a credit card) -what you can do is make it less common by charging less for it, introducing alternative payment methods (Android is about to drop a pre-paid play store cards - this will reduce instances of piracy for sure - but it won't eliminate it completely).
Back in the day I pirated my copy of Doom 2, I didn't have the cash and it was easy to get. But I've just purchased the entire Doom series on Steam (even though I won't play it again) - my way of paying it back (although late admittedly)
>> Why the hell would you want to be able to transfer content to an obsolete optical disk format? This is hardly a common use case. Many people will just stream it to their internet-connected TV by the time this kind of content is finally made available.
Why the hell couldn't he, if he purchases the content he should be able to transfer every frame to a photo album if he wants, it should be his to do what he wants with.
>> Many content creators hold you, the faux-entitled, in contempt too. Artists and producers are people too, you know. The managers of corporations like the BBC, Sony Pictures, Disney, etc., are legally obliged to do what their shareholders / owners tell them to. They don't get to choose NOT to make a profit.
That's his entire point, they do hold their customers in contempt, it's not good service to hold customers, potential or otherwise, in contempt is it.
>> And, in case you hadn't noticed, [b]iTunes exists[/b], and has done for years now. The BBC has their iPlayer / iPlayer Global apps (as well as a firm commitment to release their own archive material). Even Amazon, Hulu, Netflix, etc. have been offering music, videos, movies, etc. for [b]legal download[/b] and streaming for some time. Hell, I live in Italy and can trivially access, say, Comedy Central's "The Daily Show" videos online quite legally, directly from their own website. It's not THAT hard to find legal options for your entertainment needs. So those managers and fat-cats you're whining about ARE trying to change their business models, you self-righteous dick.
I call bullshit, I don't know what it's like in Italy - I don't live there. But this article is by about a situation in Australia, come here and try and get content from the BBC, Amazon, Hulu or Netflix. In the markets these services are in there are outstanding examples of success, hell Netflix traffic outstrips that of Bittorrent - so there is proof that there is a desire for cheap easily accessible content - and people will pay.
But in Australia THAT IS NOT AVAILABLE TO US, we are barred from these services and can only get them if we purchase costly and poor performing VPN services and figure out how to get a US credit card.
Re: Some thoughts for Mr Williams
"It's not THAT hard to find legal options for your entertainment needs."
Name me just ONE legal way to get TV and film content onto my Linux + XBMC based HTPC. Just ONE.
Maybe they could try selling something...
Observation: from Seven West Media's 2011 annual report, Channel 7's revenues was $225 million last year. They are by far the most profitable, so if you combined Channel 7, Channel 9, Channel 10, and Foxtel, I doubt their yearly revenues would hit $1B/year.
Put your hands up if you would be willing to pay $20/month for 150 hours of video content (ie 5 hours/day), without ads. If every house the NBN passes did that, the total would be $1.4 Billion - ie more than they are making now, and being legit would be far easier than pirating it! See - it doesn't take much imagination to fix the problem and make money.
PS: Where did Kim pull that $1.37 Billion figure from? (That is purely a rhetorical question - I have a fair idea where it was pulled from.) He appears to be claiming TV's would be more than double what they do now if only piracy was stopped. Yeah, right.
I'm not against copyright
But I am against the insanity that it has become today. I buy my games and books and music(for those that I don't get legaly free by the producers). I pay a cable subscription so I am paying for the stuff I "consume" through alternate means(and that's really TV shows that at the best case will be shown here 10 years AFTER they are shown anywhere else or anime that I'll never see here at all). I don't go to movies or watch movies(frankly a book has greater value). But frankly most of my money goes towards books and games.
At most I use alternate means to get a sample before I buy because frankly nobody will return my cash if I don't like a book or music.
I to the best of my ability try and respect copyright within the moral limits that it should cover(meaning I will recompense you for your work if I consider it worth adding permanently to my collection). Until I can get a sample of what I'm buying(you know... like game demos, or how smashwords offers a % of the book for free so that you can read it and see if it's good or not) and am not restricted what I can do with that after I buy it(no DRM) I'll have to rely on alternate distribution channels to try before I buy.
They have been using wrong data, on purpose or not. " A report from the BI Norwegian School of Management has found that those who download music illegally are also 10 times more likely to pay for songs than those who don't."
So, basically he is telling something that is not correct, knowingly or not. Pirates will buy stuff 10 times more likely then those who do not download anything. It is not a permit to go and pirate stuff, but let's put thing into context.
The only digital suckers...
...are the guys who would listen to this moron.
Tell the Aussie to Go Fuck Himself
They can't even deliver broadband, or Medal winning athletes thus they can GFTS.
I hoped that they meant an overhaul that meant that paperback books weren't $35 (£20) each or that DVD's and Blu Ray's weren't twice the price of Europe or America. My mistake.
Keep buying from Amazon UK then I guess.
Australian economy probably a net benefactor of piracy
Yes, there is an Australian media industry, but I'd hazard a guess that if we converted all the infringing downloads into paid-for downloads, a great deal of cash would be leaving Australia for the US.
What's good News Corp is probably not good for Australia.
I am unsure what the phrase "cultural production" means
in an Australian context
Re: I am unsure what the phrase "cultural production" means
See: The Shire
NBN will make things worse?
Williams warned that the deployment of Australia's National Broadband Network and the quadrupling of internet traffic by 2016 will make matters even worse, undermining the business case of cultural production to a greater extent than ever before.
This is obviously bollocks. Who has to time to consume more than they do now? Example, if you currently download one film per night and watch it that's about two hours of your life gone. Add that to all your other daily time usage such as sleeping, eating, shagging, gaming, gardening, working, commuting, etc, and you don't have many, if any, hours left. Having a faster connection doesn't magically create a 26 hour day.
And as I'm sure others have said above, the Australian content industry doesn't make anything worth watching, let alone stealing
Do we sue roadbuilders ?
If people break the law on the road, are the road builders responsible for policing the road ? No. Those whose laws are broken (the government) does the collection of evidence and hands it to the courts to consider/prosecute.
The same should apply to the interwebs pipes - those who allege someone is breaching their copyright should collect the evidence before asking the authorities to prosecute, not ask the ISP to do their job for them.
Nerds think that everyone that isn't a nerd should work for free
If you need to put bread of the table and you are in any industry that involves the creation of intellectual property, it's time to bail out. Nerds believe that they are entitled to the result of your effort without providing you with compensation. You can't argue with them about it. They'll tell you that being paid for art is an aberration and that you should be entertaining them for free.
An audience that doesn't pay isn't an audience. Either find a non-nerd audience (like SyFy is) that will actually pay for content, or get out of the game.
Re: Nerds think that everyone that isn't a nerd should work for free
I think you will find the majority of 'nerds' will pay a reasonable amount for easy & safe access, The most vocal freetards are in the minority (as are the copyright-at-any-cost believers).
Even El Reg's most pro-copyright journalist AO has often produced articles showing this to be true. What gets on most folk's nerve is the out of date attitudes of regional coding, format locking and dictating what and where you can enjoy stuff.
Music downloads are on the increase because they are generally cheap and DRM-free now, hence they do what honest folk expect - you pay for it and use as you please, PC, car, ipod, etc. A lesson for the movie industry perhaps?
Re: Nerds think that everyone that isn't a nerd should work for free
You offend me sir!!
I am a nerd/geek and I understand IP concepts fine (I have a pending patent application - where I was the sole inventor).
The IP in everything we have and use these days was created by nerds and geeks (like the hardware and software you used to post your offensive comment).
In fact it's only in the last century that the technology (created by the nerds and geeks you so despise) has enabled music and movies to be distributed efficiently - without which the movie and music industries wouldn't exist.
Given the amount of IP nerds and geeks create, their views are just as valid as those in the entertainment industry.
Whan a law is an ass
then it gets widely ignored.
If enough people are ignore a law then it behoves the regulators to change the law to be somewhat less of an ass, or wipe it off the books.
It is extremely dangerous to start selectively enforcing it, or to make an even bigger ass of a law.
At some point this copyright stuff is going to blow up nastily in the face of "big media" and the politicians they control.
What's in it for him?
Well, what would you expect a mouthpiece of News Ltd to say? (apart from 'I can't recall ...')
Bottom line is that News Ltd is a media company, and would dearly love to push the responsibility and cost for policing copyright onto someone else. They'll be regularly serving up 'statistics' drawn from studies done by tame consultants, based on all manner of carefully selected assumptions. Then the News Ltd echo chamber will get busy as its various organs breathlessly cite this, and others' reports as to how awfully bad the situation is, and how struggling media moguls might just be able to hang on (in the public interest, of course) if Parliament would only pass a few little laws etc.
Mr Williams is trying to disguise blatant self interest as public interest. it's part of his job.
The BBC is a huge content producer, but they steal photos from other people without paying for it.
Australian Intellectual Content?
>> Kim Williams called for an immediate push to combat the “truly astounding levels of intellectual theft”
The words "Australia" and "intellectual" in the same article? Now I have seen everything. Wait, I was forgetting about the University of Woolloomooloo :-
its hard to tell whats worse - thieving corporations with their 'legal' momopolies ripping everyone off or another generation of thievin dog punters who believe that its their right to steal anything that can be copied. the nbn will increase piracy no question, but if regulated by the capitalist lap dogs the corps will reap. imagine if the physical world was like digital media... oh shit hollywood is already in charge
Re: thieves unite
Actually if the corps control it, the corps lose out.
The three strikes policy in France has dropped the rate of piracy but it has also dropped the legit sales.
As for the people who think the corps can't let people watch it for free, we do now. I can turn my TV and watch a show now for free. The show is paid for by ads. Streaming on demand can still contain ads which pays for the content. The NBN would just allow me to watch what I want, when I want, not what they want to play at times they feel like.
What streaming will kill is DVD sales.
Money is not lost from the economy
That $1.37B is not disappearing from the economy, it's being used elsewhere in the economy. Just because it's not going to the media companies doesn't mean it no longer exists...
Re: Money is not lost from the economy
In the vast majority of cases, it IS being lost from the economy - the US economy
re: Money is not lost from the economy
Nor does it mean the money ever existed in the first place.
Some proportion of it does, but there's about as much relation between the realisable value of the media and the claims made about its worth as there is between street/wholesale value of illegal narcotics and what organisations such as the USA's DEA claim the value of a drugs bust is.
If a backstreet pirate can stamp out knockoff DVDs at a rate below retail pricing and make a profit, there's room for retail pricing to be set low enough to eliminate most of that profit, yet still turn a profit for the genuine content producer . At some point punters will say "ah sod it" and buy the genuine article.
Media industries are attempting to hold onto models which are no longer viable - and if it were any other industry those business models would almost certainly result in prosecutions for cartel behaviour.
AUD$1.37 billion annually in pirated film and TV content.
$1.37 billion MY ARSE!
We must be awful at mathemamaticalisms down 'ere in Austfailia, as the News Ltd. usually reports about some dealer being picked up with 20g of cocaine with a street price of $eleventy trillion gazillion dollars.
Austfailia - the clue is the name.
I'm sorry we didn't have Murdoch strangled at birth, I really am.
My solution to copyright violations
Any thing that is put up to help stop download of copyrighted will be circumvented within days. This has been show again and again. It is not something you can stop and it is useless trying
However, if we look closely at the issue then we can see that the people who do illegal downloads usually do it for 3 main reasons
1. They don't have any money and they would never have brought the content anyway
2. They have the money but they do not have the ability to purchase because of regional restrictions
3. They want to "try before they buy"
So my solution would be the following:
Every new Movie should be released immediately for free (or almost 0 cost) download on "low format". It would be a lower res edition missing unimportant scenes, stereo sound not dolby (maybe mono). Enough for the punter to say they have seen the movie. There would be no nag screans but there may be some advertising. The ads can be skipped if desired
Incentives for you to see the Movies in the cinema would be for "THE BIG MOVIE EXPERIENCE" with the full scenes and sound track
DVD release would be universal, and at the same time the same content would be available for download at a cost (pay per view and own outright) owning outright or purchasing the media would be given extra incentive though added value items such as making of etc..
Why do these things?
OK, so if you make the content legally and easily available even in a lower format, this will dramatically decrease the demand for peer to peer file sharing programs. If demand is lowered then the usefulness of these programs decreases. It will be harder to do and make the idea of paying for the content more attractive.
Make it easy and legal.
- 'Kim Kardashian snaps naked selfies with a BLACKBERRY'. *Twitterati gasps*
- Pics Facebook's Oculus unveils 360-degree VR head tracking 'Crescent Bay' prototype
- Crawling from the Wreckage THE DEATH OF ECONOMICS: Aircraft design vs flat-lining financial models
- Bargain basement iPhone shoppers BEWARE! eBay exposes users to phishing vuln
- Something for the Weekend, Sir? Oh God the RUBBER on my SHAFT has gone wrong and is STICKING to things