back to article Turnbull to Big Content: Let your movies RUN FREE ... for a fair price

Australia's communications minister has scolded Big Content for not making more efforts to make digital content easy to access. Turnbull last night delivered a speech to mark the release of the federal government's consultation paper on online piracy. In those remarks and an interview with ABC Radio he made more or less the …

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Some thoughts...

    If you already own a movie on DVD and you're legally entitled to a backup copy, is it illegal to download a copy to get your backup rather than going through the effort of ripping a movie yourself?

    How do you define ownership of your Movies? Is it owning the DVD? I have had a lot stolen over the years. Is it owning the receipt? I know nobody that keeps all their movie receipts.

    If you download a movie, watch it once and then delete it, surely the only company who could complain would be the DVD rental store who would once upon a time hired it to you.

    1. LaeMing

      Re: Some thoughts...

      The DVD rental store still pays a per-hire fee to the rights holder, so, yes, the rights-holder still has a loss. A very small one, but still a loss.

      As I have said before. What I want is to be able to purchase - for a reasonable price - a business-card-sized* plastic chit which licences me to hold the content in any form I wish. I get the media in the format that suits my playback equipment (a Linux box at present, but may change ongoing) and the rights-holder gets paid (which, if the media is worth me having, I would like to pay /reasonable/ fee for if only to encourage more media of that type to be made!).

      *Business-card-sized means conveniently-small but not misplacably-small and also wallets/boxes for storage are readily available.

    2. Fluffy Bunny
      Angel

      Re: Some thoughts...

      "own a movie on DVD and you're legally entitled to a backup copy" - I don't think you have that right in Australia. Europe, perhaps, but not in Australia.

      1. dan1980

        Re: Some thoughts...

        @Fluffy Bunny

        No, I'm pretty sure you do have that right is Aus, the barrier is that you can't break the encryption, which makes it a somewhat moot point.

  2. dan1980

    Piracy* is illegal and it does hurt the industry (how much is up for debate). BUT, I just can’t find my way to accepting that it qualifies as theft.

    Games/software/movie/music companies claiming this are doing a classical cake-and-eat-it-too. EULAs make it very clear that you are not buying a movie (or game, etc...) but in fact buying a limited license to use that content, with certain restrictions. Whenever arguments of EULAs and/or copyright come up this same point is repeated over and over. People claim they bought it so should be able to do whatever they want with it, but the producers say that that is NOT the case: you only bought a license to use the product under specific circumstances.

    I can appreciate that – after all it’s not fair to use a song in an advertisement broadcast to millions of people just because you bought the CD. Of course, that contrasts with other ‘normal’ products; you can, for instance take a car you already own and use it in a movie without having to pay any more money.

    I’m not suggesting this is odd or unreasonable, just that there is clearly a difference between content – like movies or music – and ‘real’ products.

    And so, if there is such a difference, might this not also be matched by a difference in how unlawful acquisition of said items is treated? I’m not saying it shouldn’t be illegal to download a pirated copy of a movie, just that I don’t feel it really deserves to be treated the same as if you went into a store and physically stole a copy.

    The real question is, when someone downloads 'pirated' content, what is being ‘stolen’? If there are 10 DVDs and you steal one, then there is a physical item that has been taken. But, if it is all digital**, what, really, has been taken? You might say that rights have been appropriated, BUT, as IP that is able to be duplicated infinitely, how do you calculate the value of any given copy?

    To think of it another way, you would assume that the license only become real when sold to someone. If a ‘copy’ of the content has any intrinsic value, you could claim that you have infinite assets by virtue of the fact that you have the ability to make infinite copies.

    Yes, yes, that's a semi-facetious - but not so much as it might seem.

    The concept of 'theft' is well defined, philosophically, only in it's relationship to 'property' and 'ownership', terms which themselves are not as firm as might be thought. The only real, concrete definition of theft that is available without resorting to definitions by fiat is that it is the unjust deprivation of property from one person by another person.

    A key concept of this is what it means to 'own' something in the first place. Possession is relatively easy to define but, as ownership is really only a bundle of rights agreed upon by social convention, theft must be defined as the removal of those rights. So what rights does a 'pirate' remove?

    If someone steals my car, my right to drive it has been removed. Also my right to hit it with a golf club, paint it purple and jump up and down on the bonnet. But, if someone copies a movie, no rights have been removed from the 'owner'.

    A content owner has the right to sell their content but a pirate has not impacted that right.

    None of that is to say that piracy shouldn't be illegal, but theft is a criminal offence and to equate the two is ignorant or, worse, deliberately misleading.

    * - Used for convenience, not accuracy.

    ** - Again, used for convenience - I realise that DVDs and CDs hold digital data too.

    1. Steven Roper

      "Of course, that contrasts with other ‘normal’ products; you can, for instance take a car you already own and use it in a movie without having to pay any more money."

      Actually, you can't. Product placement in movies, TV shows and video games is subject to agreement with the brand or trademark owner. Car designs represent an intellectual-property factor as well. This is why you see notices in movie credits like "Vehicles provided by Ford" or similar, and why every single car you see in a movie (even ones incidentally parked or driving in the background) are all from the same manufacturer. It's why, when you see a movie character drinking a can of Coke, you can bet that Coca-Cola has had some say in its inclusion.

      Any display, or even mention, of any recognisable product or brand name in a movie, TV show or video game, constitutes commercial use of that trademark, and if done without the trademark owner's permission, can render you liable for infringement action. This is why, for example, Quentin Tarantino uses his own made-up brands in his movies, like Big Kahuna Burger or Red Apple cigarettes.

      Because of this, it would be almost impossible to make a live-action movie set in any inhabited area without inadvertently including a trademarked product or brand and thus having to contact the relevant trademark owners. CGI or animation is about the only way you could guarantee to avoid this exposure.

      1. Dagg Silver badge
        Devil

        Actually, you can't. Product placement in movies, TV shows and video games is subject to agreement with the brand or trademark owner.>

        I think you are actually wrong here. The only reason you ever see "vehicles provided.." is because they got them free.

        I really don't think that Reliant ever gave Rowan Atkinson permission to do what he did to those Robins.

      2. dan1980

        @Steven Roper

        I appreciate the reply but I am pretty sure this is just not the case. Fair use is just that.

        A brand could mount a case that use of a trademark in a film/ad/TV show was particularly disparaging and thus qualifies as 'trademark tarnishment' but I think it would have to be a fairly blatant and harsh depiction. Simply having (e.g.) a Ford car in a crash would not do it. Nor would having a particular brand of Alcohol being a drunk's favourite*.

        The fact is that you just don't need permission to use a brand in a movie or TV show.

        Where you see brands removed or blurred out, what you are seeing is the studio looking for product-placement dollars. If you want McDonalds to pay to have their restaurants used in your film, you will be careful not to show Burger King.

        Look at Transformers. All the 'hero' (Autobot) cars were fromt he GM stable. Note, that the evil car (Barricade) appears to be a Ford Mustang - the classic rival for the Camaro (Bumblebee), much the same and Commodore vs Falcon. BUT, it isn't a Ford, it's a Saleen. Small difference but Ford didn't want their car to be a villain, coming off second-best to the hero GM and so, while Bay could have used one anyway, he couldn't have milked any money out of Ford. Hence the Saleen.

        As for Quentin Tarantino making up the 'Big Kahuna Burger' because "any display, or even mention, of any recognisable product or brand name . . . can render you liable for infringement action", well, I am not 100% sure about that! Personally, I suspect that he just didn't want to come off looking like he was doing product placement because they were talking about them being good. Actually, if you watch the scene, you'll see that they actually mention "McDonalds", "Wendy's" and "Jack In The Box" - all real fast food chains.

        * - See 'Flight', where Denzel Washington's character drinks Budweiser beer and Stolichnaya vodka. The producers didn't get permission from these brands. The brands complained about it but they couldn't force Zemeckis to remove the brands and can't seek compensation after the fact.

  3. aberglas

    Copyright only for available content

    They should make copyright only apply for works that are reasonably available for sale. The point of copyright is to promote creative work, if it is not for sale then it does not deserve protection.

    That would apply to out of print books. But it would also apply to video content that cannot be accessed on line for reasonable and non-discriminatory terms.

    And it would put a rocket up providers.

    Pity that our head office in Washington would never agree.

    1. Fluffy Bunny
      Devil

      Re: Copyright only for available content

      " non-discriminatory terms" - here is the big problem. Big Media wants to charge Australians through the nose because they can get away with it. It is why their lobbyists are constantly going on about how evil parallel importing is...because it reduces the obscene profit margins they are making off Australians.

      So no, head office in America* will never agree to parallel importing in any form whatsoever.

      *-and I don't mean Washington here. I mean Big Media.

      1. P. Lee

        Re: Copyright only for available content

        +1

        Given that physical distribution of media is almost defunct with the loss of video rental shops, simply ban geo-location pricing and limitations for Australia, (force access to US pricing and markets) under pain of "we're really not that interested in prosecuting torrent users."

  4. John Tserkezis

    “is to make your content available globally, universally and affordably.”

    Yeah, good luck with getting that to work. Part of that is available now, except the affordable bit, and he forgot to mention the absolutely crippling DRM bit which prevents any mere mortal human from watching it practially.

  5. Fluffy Bunny
    Angel

    Less nuanced

    "Less nuanced". That's a really polite way to say hard-line, bigotted even.

  6. Urh
    Facepalm

    Content Availability

    Well Mr Turnbull, maybe content would be more readily available if our telco infrastructure were up to snuff and we weren't at the mercy of that monopolistic motherf***er Rupert Murdoch. Good thing that the NBN will fix this problem once it's finished, eh? Oh wait, you've been sabotaging the NBN ever since you've entered office.

    1. GrumpyOldBloke

      Re: Content Availability

      Lets not forget the classification scam the government runs in order to keep us all safe and thinking good thoughts. While big content has many problems universal and timely access is not as simple as Turnbull would have us believe. Like so many other problems in Australia, federal government ticket clippers are right there in the middle of it.

  7. cracked

    Mitigation and Stealing something before it is made

    Because piracy can be mitigated against - by increasing the price to legitimate customers - it doesn't appear to be working as a tactic in getting changes to how media companies make back money having financed the production. Well, having their finance bods arrange for it to be ... financed ...

    It does not appear to work because no one really loses (regardless of who one thinks might be winning). The director/author still gets watched/read; media rights holders end up getting paid (with a bit of lag while prices are adjusted to cope with piracy etc) and customers get to watch what they want.

    What would work is if people stopping watching stuff not available in the way they want - and watched other stuff instead. But I guess people want the stuff they want ... So it will all just keep going around and around and around and - really - no one will care ...

    Daft really, when you think about it.

    *

    Stealing something before it is made

    ... I almost wrote a little story ... so say thanks! ;-)

    Say, one day, they invent a way of plugging a USB thumb drive (scanned for common colds) into the back of your head.

    Say the write speed of the device and the quality of the cable and connectors alters, quite substantially, how fast you can save what you think.

    Say that everything and anything that is saved is classed as published (whether for sale or not) and so protected under "copyright law" - But that anything not saved is not classed as published and so not protected at all.

    So what if your neighbour hacked into your cable, and diverted - down a slightly faster cable - your thoughts, to a faster writing drive that he owned?

    In the future will authors be the people with very, very fast drives? Or will authors live on mountain tops and shoot at any climbers they see headed their way?

  8. Tim Roberts 1

    eg Game of Thrones

    My students come to class telling me about the latest edition of GoT that they have downloaded. If I ask them why they don't buy it the answer is almost invariably because they can't, and won't be able to get it on DVD for another year.

    So it seems bleeding obvious to me that if it was available in OZ at the same time as other places, there are people who would purchase it rather than downloading it "for free". Of course there will always be the freeloaders, but at least the producers would get some rather than no return.

    Any media.company that is too thick to realise that a small sale is better than no sale gets what they deserve.

    1. Diogenes

      Re: eg Game of Thrones

      I am doing piracy with year 9 at the moment & we looked at Google & the World Brain which was on the ABC recently. Interestingly the kids see nothing wrong. - I find myself having to defend copyright - and I have in previous years always purchased GOT through the iStore - this year I waited until it was legally available via means other than Foxtel - THEN I downloaded from channel BT just to make a point.

  9. russsh

    Free trade?

    From the discussion paper: "Australia is obliged under its free trade agreements with the United States, Singapore and Korea (not yet ratified) to provide a legal incentive to ISPs to cooperate with rights holders to prevent infringement on their systems and networks."

    In tandem with cross-border enforcement rights for providers, it seems fair to also ensure consumers have the right to purchase content/services at internationally equivalent prices (taking into account any taxes or distribution costs).

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like