• Great articles on other sites
  • RSS Great articles on other sites

  • Featured, News - Written by on Friday, July 8, 2011 11:08 - 76 Comments

    AFACT issues BitTorrent warning to ISPs

    ‘Deal with us or else’: The Australian organisation representing film and TV studios in their war against online content piracy has written to local ISPs inviting them to work with it on a solution to the issue — or else it will take action in its own right off the back of precedents set in its lawsuit against major ISP iiNet.

    The organisation, dubbed AFACT for the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft, has been engaged in a long-running battle with the ISPs in an effort to get them to address piracy through their networks, with the most high-profile skirmish being its lawsuit against iiNet, which is believed to be headed for the High Court.

    iiNet has won several legal rounds against AFACT in the case, but in the latest judgment, onlookers commented that a mechanism may have opened up for AFACT to be able to request that ISPs disconnect those illegally sharing files online — if copyright infringement notices were issued in the correct manner.

    This week, AFACT confirmed it had recently approached a number of local ISPs with regard to file sharing. “AFACT has always been open to discussions and negotiations with ISPs,” a spokesperson for the organisation said. “We have always looked to work closely with ISPs to prevent online copyright theft on their networks and promote the distribution of legal content online. The Federal Court agreed with us and found that ISPs have a role to play in preventing online copyright theft.”

    “This is simply an invitation to ISPs to engage with us to fulfil their obligations.”

    In one letter to an ISP seen by Delimiter, the organisation specifically referred to the Federal Court judgement, noting that the court had confirmed that there were steps that could be taken by ISPs in response to evidence from content owners that users were breaching copyright. The letter also referred to the steps that ISPs would need to take before ISPs could be considered to come under the so-called ‘Safe Harbour’ policy within the Copyright Act, which distances them from the actions of users.

    In the letter, AFACT also requested that the ISP respond to its letter within seven days, noting it would proceed with an unspecified action if it did not hear from the ISP within that time.

    Speaking after AFACT lost its first appeal in the iiNet case earlier this year, the organisation’s executive director Neil Gane had signalled that there was a lot in the judgment “take heart from”, with one judge on the presiding panel finding for AFACT, and another stating the organisation was successful on many grounds.

    At the time, Gane also said the judgement today supported the idea that Australian copyright laws are currently out of touch with the state of technology being used. “Outside of Australia, governments and courts around the world have understood, and have legislated, that there is a role for ISPs to play in combating rampant online infringement,” he said, noting that associated legislation had been passed in countries like the UK, France and Taiwan — and was going through the parliamentary process in New Zealand.

    “Courts in Europe have mandated that ISPs must block access to well-known customer websites,” he added.

    One local ISP to receive the letter was Exetel, which in comparison with other ISPs, already has a number of provisions in its agreement with its customers that are favourable to content owners. For example, the ISP has committed to forwarding any copyright infringement notices received to customers. If three or more such notices are received, or if Exetel “reasonably suspects” that a customer is infringing copyright, and the customer fails to provide a valid defence for their activity, Exetel reserves the right to disconnect customers’ connections.

    For his own part, Linton’s response to AFACT was brief and to the point, noting that Exetel would always obey the law and act ethically and responsibly, but stating that his company would “deal with bullies in the only way they deserve to be treated.”

    “I would have thought after the dog’s breakfast your ‘legal advisors’ made of your unlosable lawsuit against iiNet recently, you would have got a higher calibre of legal advice before allowing you to write so threateningly to a company which has always been sympathetic to people whose copyright has been infringed,” he said.

    Image credit: Delimiter

    submit to reddit

    76 Comments

    You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

    1. Posted 08/07/2011 at 11:43 am | Permalink |

      “Outside of Australia, governments and courts around the world have understood, and have legislated, that there is a role for ISPs to play in combating rampant online infringement,”

      Outside of Australia you can also find a distribution model that suits the customer and not the supplier. Maybe AFACT should be working with the industry to get services like HULU over here, now that would cut down piracy.

      “Courts in Europe have mandated that ISPs must block access to well-known customer websites,” he added.

      This to me reads like an attempt to extend the filter beyond the Interpol list, are we already at the stage where blocking is going to be done to suit industry and not “protect the children”?

    2. snerd
      Posted 08/07/2011 at 11:51 am | Permalink |

      lolbitorrent. How quaint.

      Why not try a business model that doesn’t rely on monopolistic license rent-seeking and actually compete for customer attention and money, Mr Horsebolt McStabledoor?

    3. Posted 08/07/2011 at 12:22 pm | Permalink |

      *facepalm*

    4. Brett Haydon
      Posted 08/07/2011 at 1:40 pm | Permalink |

      When I see equivalent services to Hulu, Netflix, and Spotify as 1st class Australian citizens I’ll support cease and desist notices.

    5. Brendan
      Posted 08/07/2011 at 1:44 pm | Permalink |

      AFACT is the spoilt child whom has become accustomed to the high rents accrued through archaic sales models, whom is now desperately trying to extort through legal loopholes.

      They have a broken model. Further, their model doesn’t embrace the consumer – it treats them with contempt. It also ignores the artist that they purport to represent.

      AFACT, like MPAA and RIAA are designed to use “mob” methodologies to extract money, nothing more. They have long since lost any useful purpose. The sooner the industry cuts them lose, the better it is for all.

      • Posted 09/07/2011 at 2:01 pm | Permalink |

        Their model does not embrace the producer either. Their greatest fear is not piracy, but a direct sales model where genuine artists sell direct to their fans and bypass the gatekeeper. All the fuss about piracy is just a smokescreen.

        • another web user
          Posted 19/07/2011 at 7:49 pm | Permalink |

          Agreed entirely, interesting youtube video on music recording contracts to back those claims for you:
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NcwgdB0NltY&feature=youtu.be

          Yes I know that is US based but it is basically the same system used for record contracts in other countries beyond the US (ironically the same ones with very similar copyright laws) by some of those companies AFACT stands to defend.

    6. Posted 08/07/2011 at 1:52 pm | Permalink |

      Of late we are seeing Western governments and big copyright holders moving in unison around the world — a concerted effort.

      Could this be move be related to what’s happening in the USA? Of course it could. In recent days:

      The Content Industry and ISPs Announce a “Common Framework for Copyright Alerts”: What Does it Mean for Users?
      http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/07/content-industry-and-isps-announce-common

      Comcast, Verizon, Others Hop On Board Anti-Piracy “Copyright Alert System”
      http://consumerist.com/2011/07/comcast-verizon-hop-on-board-anti-piracy-copyright-alert-system.html

      Released just minutes ago:

      Center for Copyright Information ISP Copyright Alert System Memorandum of Understanding
      http://publicintelligence.net/center-for-copyright-information-isp-copyright-alert-system-memorandum-of-understanding/

      Center for Copyright Information ISP Copyright Alert System Fact Sheet and FAQ
      http://publicintelligence.net/center-for-copyright-information-isp-copyright-alert-system-fact-sheet-and-faq/

      Get your copy while they’re hot :)

      • Posted 08/07/2011 at 2:13 pm | Permalink |

        Center for Copyright Information ISP Copyright Alert System Fact Sheet and FAQ
        http://publicintelligence.net/center-for-copyright-information-isp-copyright-alert-system-fact-sheet-and-faq/

        “We anticipate that very few subscribers, after having received multiple alerts, will persist (or allow others to persist) in the content theft, and that most will instead turn to one of the many legitimate entertainment options.”

        This is where AFACT is failing badly, in the US, yes, I can appreciate that people breaching copyright should be turning to the wealth of available services that they could get it legally from. But here in Australia we don’t have those options.

        Give us those options AFACT and people for the most part will stop pirating, it’s not that complicated.

    7. Posted 08/07/2011 at 2:17 pm | Permalink |

      Well … just because a business model doesn’t suit you, that doesn’t give you the right to rip-off content. I support AFACT and what they’re doing .. but then again I’m in the industry.

      • Posted 08/07/2011 at 2:29 pm | Permalink |

        You do realise that if the distribution model more suited the end customer then people would be less inclined to pirate meaning revenues would increase right?

        That’s Economics 101.

        • Posted 08/07/2011 at 2:41 pm | Permalink |

          You do realise that film distribution is an unwieldy beast that has evolved over 60 years with a totally fragmented yet commoditised distribution chain that is going to take time to change?

          • Posted 08/07/2011 at 2:43 pm | Permalink |

            Since services like Hulu, Netflix, etc exist today, that argument is totally flawed.

            It’s not that it’s difficult for the industry to make the change, it’s that the industry doesn’t want to make the change at all.

            • Posted 08/07/2011 at 2:53 pm | Permalink |

              Not quite. The distribution chain I mention is *global* which unfortunately also means globally fragmented. Hulu and Netflix are regional (although Netflix is just starting to expand beyond it’s base region).

              • Posted 08/07/2011 at 2:57 pm | Permalink |

                So you’re saying that a “fragmented” (or cut down to suit the region we’re in) version of Hulu would be a viable distribution model?

                • Posted 08/07/2011 at 3:08 pm | Permalink |

                  I’m saying to distribute content here, Hulu must address the vested interests of all those companies that have built their livelihood and secured the rights for distributing the same content to the Australian public. That can cover dozens of companies which at the end of the distribution chain is fragmented beyond belief. That fragmentation has worked in that it gets available to you, a DVD copy of an amazing range of titles into your local JB (or video store) for a princely sum of $30 – but it’s an absolute bitch to negotiate with and assemble to work as one cohesive group. I can’t tell you if it’s viable. I certainly hope so, because clearly – it’s gotta change, but it’s going to take time.

                  • Posted 08/07/2011 at 3:25 pm | Permalink |

                    The same could be said in the US though, it’s not like they have a single distribution channel either and the vested interests of all of them needed to be met for a model like Hulu or Netflix to work.

                    The bottom line is AFACT always give the perception that it doesn’t want to and has no intention of ever changing, and the only thing they want to do is sue the end customers (those same customers who are screaming out for the distribution model change).

                    • Posted 08/07/2011 at 3:41 pm | Permalink |

                      In the US .. Hulu is within arms reach of both content creators and the existing distribution network. They’ve also 300 million people within that regional system so that at their current 1 million members (a massive .3% adoption rate) that should make it on track to be viable to do all the leg work, tech, legals, buy-outs. Try a .3% adoption rate here in AU and you’ve got a dead-in-the-water business (just ask Reeltime.tv that went bust a few years ago).

                      As for AFACTs message or tactics. Perhaps it could be better. But AFACT are just supporting the rights of content creators not to have their work ripped off. I support that.

                      • Posted 08/07/2011 at 4:17 pm | Permalink |

                        As for AFACTs message or tactics. Perhaps it could be better. But AFACT are just supporting the rights of content creators not to have their work ripped off. I support that.

                        The thing is though if AFACT really wanted to support the content creators then they should be working towards getting the content creators the most revenue and getting their works as widely distributed as possible, that’s exactly what they are not doing.

                      • Posted 08/07/2011 at 5:54 pm | Permalink |

                        Our marketplace is littered with failed online initiatives that have tried to deliver what you want. Even so, there are still companies plugging away in that space – eg bigpondmovies, apple, xbox live. You want AFACT to just add another one to the mix? None of these services make any money, perhaps one day they will. In the meantime, we live with piracy on a massive scale that hurts not only content creators, but those also trying to offer a legal online service. The ‘market failure’ argument is a straw-man. Pure and simple. I bet 99% of those that put that forward have never even tried a legal download option. Oh wait .. there will be a reason also why bpmovies, apple, xbox live isn’t good enough. Nothing is good enough when you get your content for free.

                      • Posted 08/07/2011 at 6:14 pm | Permalink |

                        Our marketplace is littered with failed online initiatives that have tried to deliver what you want. …. The ‘market failure’ argument is a straw-man.

                        umm.. if the market failure argument is a strawman, why did you bring it up?

                        Regardless, I am a Quickflix’s subscriber and have a large (according to other people who have seen) collection of DVD’s and Blueray’s (about 250 or so) on the shelf, not to mention about 1000 original CD’s.

                        It’s not like I haven’t been using (and still are using) the legal method.

                      • Posted 08/07/2011 at 6:22 pm | Permalink |

                        yes .. my last post did descend into a bit of a rant! By the way, Blu-ray is brilliant. If there ever was an argument against ripped DVDs it’s watch Blu-ray and realise what you’re missing.

                      • GeronimoBill
                        Posted 08/07/2011 at 8:07 pm | Permalink |

                        Tezz: “The thing is though if AFACT really wanted to support the content creators then they should be working towards getting the content creators the most revenue and getting their works as widely distributed as possible, that’s exactly what they are not doing”

                        I think you miss the point of AFACT. AFACT exist purely to prevent/mitigate/lobby for copyright protection.

                        My understanding is they have nothing to do with distribution. Each studio/content creator would be responsible for their own distribution.

                        AFACT, purely from an anti-competitive law point of view, representing mulltiple studios, would never be allowed to push a certain distribution path. They work within a limited scope.

                        I, like Simon work in the industry, and I support their work. People should have to pay a prce for getting access to content which they have no right to. Make no mistake, this is not a debate whether “information should be free”. This is about entertainment being a product people have no right to unless they pay a fair price. If they believe the price is too high, they have the legal right to refuse to buy it – not the right to get it for free.

                      • Posted 08/07/2011 at 8:40 pm | Permalink |

                        Hate to burst your bubble here but there are two things you seem to miss about the whole online piracy debate:

                        1) Entities like AFACT have constantly and with surprising regularly overstated the amount of damage piracy actually causes to the entities they represent.

                        2) Entities like AFACT continue to push for means that interfere with the right to free (free as in unregulated, not free as in cost) and private communication, in the name of curbing online piracy.

                        I’m all for supporting the works of creative individuals and ensuring they don’t lose their livelihoods to people who want a free lunch but I do not believe the current actions of AFACT actually do that, or that the costs in terms of lost privacy for individuals, are justified.

                      • Posted 08/07/2011 at 9:19 pm | Permalink |

                        I, like Simon work in the industry, and I support their work. People should have to pay a prce for getting access to content which they have no right to. Make no mistake, this is not a debate whether “information should be free”. This is about entertainment being a product people have no right to unless they pay a fair price. If they believe the price is too high, they have the legal right to refuse to buy it – not the right to get it for free.

                        GeronimoBill, unless you’re implying I pocketed all those DVDs, BlueRays and CDs, then I’m missing your point.

                        At no stage has anyone here argued the material in question should be free, at no stage has anyone here said they don’t support the artists, content creators, etc, and said they shouldn’t be given fair compensation for their work.

                        The argument is that the current content distribution model doesn’t match what the consumer is demanding, and as I said above this it’s basic economics, you give the consumer something they want at a reasonable price and they will pay for it, it’s not that complicated.

                        And then of course there is what Nightkhaos said, the losses generated by piracy as calculated by AFACT are massively overstated, if you actually look at the figures movie and music revenues have been increasing even with all this piracy going on.

                      • Glenn
                        Posted 08/07/2011 at 10:47 pm | Permalink |

                        “This is about entertainment being a product people have no right to unless they pay a fair price.”

                        But who decides what a fair price is ?

                        The purpose of copyright is to grant a monopoly to the creator, how can fairness come from such a one sided negotiation.

                        When consumers hear about actors being paid tens of millions of dollars, and movies raking in billions, can you understand that a lot of people think the industry is taking too much from society.

                        Its pretty arrogant of the music and video industry to jump up and down and expects action because its product is now easy to copy, software piracy existed long before bittorrent, it hasnt destroyed the industry.

                        b.t.w. Im a computer programmer who has contributed to a project that has had its license violated by these set-top box makers (i suspect one case involves over a hundreds millions units) so i see it as pretty hypocritical that the movie distribution industry cries about their copyrights and ignores there own violations.

                        Face it, its all about greed.

                      • Posted 09/07/2011 at 3:14 am | Permalink |

                        > 1. AFACT overstate the damage piracy causes.
                        That may or may not be true, however I run a local video store (http://applebox.com.au), I also deal with local film makers. Theoretical statements of impact are irrelevant to me, as I see first hand the impact piracy has on my business and that of the local film industry. It is very real.

                        > 2. AFACT and the rights to free and private communication.
                        When those rights are widely abused to rip off content, we have a dilemma. I clearly side with the rights to protect IP. ISPs have full visibility of where you browse – so no privacy there already. Take content that’s not yours, then there are repercussions. I speed too often and my right to drive a car is revoked. The model of handling that repercussion? Well AFACT are banging their heads against ISPs who don’t want to talk about it. And granted, it’s a difficult discussion, but world wide that discussion is starting to happen.

                        > if you actually look at the figures movie and music revenues have been increasing even with all this piracy going on.
                        Believe me I have, and this is one of the biggest bits of pro-piracy FUD circulating. For every stat you find that says piracy hasn’t constrained growth, I’ll shoot back to you 3 that say the opposite. As I mentioned up front, I materially feel the impact first hand.

                        > But who decides what a fair price is ?
                        Consumers decide by either buying the product or not.

                        > But actors and filmmakers make too much money anyway, so it doesn’t bother me
                        I actually think this is the guts of the problem. Models that tap popular entertainment (film/music/print) at one end can make squillions of dollars and we see actors/directors/artists/studios indulge in all sorts of excess that leaves me a little hard to empathise on their lost earnings from piracy. Unfortunately, the impact of piracy doesn’t stop there. It is heavily felt at the other end of the spectrum where smaller endeavours live on the breadline. The value of renting or buying a DVD is so devalued, that those that aren’t in the mainstream have huge problems making a living from it. The number of talented people I know that struggle to earn from, and get their work published is disheartening. Case in point. I created a short film (http://applebox.com.au/#/change) with a fantastic director, professional actors and a crew that are all dedicated to their art. Each can tell you first hand how hard it is to make a living from what they do. Does piracy impact them? You betcha, as to make a movie they’ve got to pitch for financing and good luck on working up decent ROI figures for that.

                        Arguing against methods to limit piracy are hard in this forum, as most people here have no connection to the industry and are completely isolated from it’s impact. Gather a bunch of film makers and actors trying to make their living locally, and you might get a different picture.

                        I think the studio and distribution system needs change. No doubt. But by allowing content to be so readily pirated devalues the end-product which makes life very hard for a lot of people.

                      • Posted 09/07/2011 at 11:11 am | Permalink |

                        That may or may not be true, however I run a local video store (http://applebox.com.au), I also deal with local film makers. Theoretical statements of impact are irrelevant to me, as I see first hand the impact piracy has on my business and that of the local film industry. It is very real.

                        A quick look at Applebox shows it’s a video rental store with an online search/reserve function. I’ve go no doubt your bottom line is being affected, but that’s primarily because the delivery (having to physically go to the video store to get the product) isn’t what people want, and people are using other methods to get their movies.

                        I speed too often and my right to drive a car is revoked. The model of handling that repercussion? Well AFACT are banging their heads against ISPs who don’t want to talk about it. And granted, it’s a difficult discussion, but world wide that discussion is starting to happen.

                        If you speed too often you still have pay your car rego, and your car is able to be driven by other people. What is being proposed is to have someone’s internet connection cut off (I presume for X amount of time), during that time no one can use the internet connection and I can only presume the user can’t be expected to pay the ISP, so does the ISP just miss out on revenue, will AFACT pay, what? Because using that theory it looks like you’re just shifting the revenue hit to the ISPs.

                        Believe me I have, and this is one of the biggest bits of pro-piracy FUD circulating. For every stat you find that says piracy hasn’t constrained growth, I’ll shoot back to you 3 that say the opposite. As I mentioned up front, I materially feel the impact first hand.

                        First off, it isn’t pro-piracy FUD, it’s to show that it’s the loss figures AFACT provide are anti-piracy FUD. Secondly it would be very easy for you to pull figures saying video rental stores, store sales, etc, are dropping, because that is not what the customer wants. As previously stated I rent my movies via Quickflix, by your reasoning I’m impacting the industry because video store rentals are dropping, when really it’s exactly the same thing just done a different way,. And then you’ve even got movies on demand through BigPondMovies, where you don’t even need a physical product.

                        Case in point. I created a short film (http://applebox.com.au/#/change) with a fantastic director, professional actors and a crew that are all dedicated to their art. Each can tell you first hand how hard it is to make a living from what they do. Does piracy impact them? You betcha, as to make a movie they’ve got to pitch for financing and good luck on working up decent ROI figures for that.

                        Your short film is a promo for Applebox, saying it’s a change but ultimately still just a video store with a search/reserve internet function (no offense). As for the people having to pitch movies, so does everyone else in the world, they always have, and not all movies make money, that has never been a guarantee either.

                        I’m sorry, but all I’ve read in your post is pro-AFACT FUD, and the pushing of the failings of specific distribution methods (ie. the video store) when the customers have been moving away from this model.

                        The distribution model needs to change, end of story.

                      • Posted 09/07/2011 at 11:31 am | Permalink |

                        That may or may not be true, however I run a local video store (http://applebox.com.au), I also deal with local film makers. Theoretical statements of impact are irrelevant to me, as I see first hand the impact piracy has on my business and that of the local film industry. It is very real.

                        Look, lieing about the impact of Piracy is a shit of a thing to do, even when an impact does exist. That’s like the media saying the entire city was burnt down when a few houses catch fire. It doesn’t help anyone and it creates panic.

                        I feel for you struggling with your business, but Simon, you also call cry “piracy!” everytime you have a slow month. Do you not remember the GFC? Did you not not notice that other small business are struggling as families have less disposal income because their employer didn’t pay out bonuses, reduced salaries, or worse, laid people off?

                        Did you also note that the price of buying DVDs and BluRay legitimately over the last few years has come down significantly, to the point that it is sometimes cheaper to buy than to rent?

                        Did you notice that the likes of iTunes are now offering movies legitimately for cheap and that customers may actually be going there to buy and rent?

                        The fact is there are many number of things that could be going against you, and piracy is only one of them.

                        ISPs have full visibility of where you browse – so no privacy there already.

                        No they don’t. They are not legally allowed to intercept communications over their network without a court order. This is why ISPs have to be notified by third parties monitoring BitTorrent for infringement at current.

                        l AFACT are banging their heads against ISPs who don’t want to talk about it.

                        If you mean iiNet vs AFACT you should understand that they are actually legally required to protect their customers. By AFACT attempting to bypass the courts in order to request confidential information about an ISPs clients they are not only avoiding due process, they are also arguably performing and illegal interception. Would you like it if your phone provider handed over phone records to a third party?

                        For every stat you find that says piracy hasn’t constrained growth

                        Stop that! Misrepresentation of impact does not mean there is no impact.

                        Consumers decide by either buying the product or not.

                        That’s not how trade works. If your price is too high, you reduce it. You don’t just sit there and the cry foul when people find other means to acquire a similar product, or in some cases, the same product.

                        I want to charge a million dollars for my car but no one will pay that much for it. So I will consider reducing my price. Fox wants to sell that Blu-Ray for $30 but customers have already paid $20 to see it in a cinema, $50 on some merchandise, and are told that it has made $200 million in profit at the box office. So Fox might consider reducing their prices.

                        I actually think this is the guts of the problem.

                        So tell them. Don’t blame pirates when the problem is actually greed at the top of the food chain. Culling online piracy won’t stop you from struggling to make ends meet if you’re losing out to the studios.

                        The value of renting or buying a DVD is so devalued, that those that aren’t in the mainstream have huge problems making a living from it.

                        That’s not JUST because of piracy. That’s because of other, cheaper, distribution models coming in and eating your market share. iTunes, Amazon, etc, all eat into your market.

                      • Posted 09/07/2011 at 11:42 am | Permalink |

                        Each can tell you first hand how hard it is to make a living from what they do.

                        I’m sorry but the creative arts is a hard life. Removing piracy completely will not change this. Home many musicians do you know who can live of their talents before they are signed, how many artists do you know who don’t work a second job?

                        Look. It’s not that we don’t care, it’s that, unfortunately, piracy isn’t the thing that is killing you, it is AFACT and the studios they represent and their greed. Not only do they charge consumers arms and legs they create consumers resentment, which hurts you. I would love to support those passionate about the industry like you, but unfortunately, all my disposal income I can spare goes to the big boys.

                      • Posted 09/07/2011 at 5:09 pm | Permalink |

                        @Tezz:

                        > people are using other methods to get their movies.

                        Markets change – I’m good with that. My point was that I know the industry which has come from a mixture of physically operating within it, to following all the analysis and developments within it. I don’t expect others to have that exposure (or interest). I see the impact of people pirating as one of the factors of a changing marketplace, and can see it in the mix of inputs that makes todays marketplace very different to what it was 5 or 10 years ago.

                        > First off, it isn’t pro-piracy FUD

                        The implication is that piracy has no material impact on the rental and retail markets. That’s just plain incorrect.

                        > it would be very easy for you to pull figures saying video rental stores, store sales, etc, are dropping, because .. You’ve even got BP movies where you don’t need a physical product.

                        My ability to analyse local store volumes in the context of a broader changing market is a little more nuanced than that. Yes I know BigPondMovies doesn’t deliver a physical product.

                        > no offense
                        non taken

                        > pitch movies, so does everyone else in the world

                        Agreed. What I should have been clear on is the impact of piracy on the change to the health of the local film industry over the last 10 years. There’s a whole white paper on that, but my observations are anecdotal from direct contact with the industry. Perhaps Renai should try and solicit a response from an local film maker about piracy, rather than AFACT.

                        > The distribution model needs to change, end of story.

                        I agree and have never said otherwise. In fact, new online models will benefit my business as my members are already online and I’m ready to give them access into a download service or keep renting them DVDs when that suits. My initial comments to you were that this industry has a legacy that is fragmented on a global scale to a degree most people have no idea of. I tried to show how hard change will be. One of the biggest regional centres in the World (the USA) is only getting started on delivering new models of distribution, and yet you felt it should be rolled out here on the same timeline. Looking from the outside it’s a fair question to ‘why can’t we just do a Hulu here?’ Economics 101 surely. I say there’s a whole bunch of reasons why. In the meantime, piracy is real and it is happening unabated. I support the rights to protect the works of content creators.

                        @NightKhaos

                        >I feel for you struggling with your business, but Simon, you also call cry “piracy!” everytime you have a slow month .. did you notice?

                        Thanks for you empathy, but don’t confuse me with your regular video store. I’ve got a very different model and a very different outlook. I don’t cry piracy on a slow month, and I see the market changing for a whole bunch of reasons. I’m happy with video stores not getting the results they had 5-10 years ago. The world has changed around us and unless we adapt we disappear (and a lot of them are). Having said that, piracy still has it’s impact and a nudge-nudge-wink-wink ‘one word – tor’ attitude is oblivious to the impact piracy has and I will oppose it.

                        > not legally allowed to intercept communications over their network

                        ok. However, iiNet have proposed their own means of dealing with IP breaches, which they’ve only done following AFACTs action on them. They’ve been forced to acknowledge that perhaps there is something they can do to protect IP, and that IP is worth protecting. This is a start, and once again, only resulting from AFACT action.

                        > .. cry foul when people find other means to acquire a similar product .. the same product

                        Hmmm .. sounding very neutral there. No mention of stealing content, of piracy. Imagine if that translated to all commerce? ‘Gee Officer, sorry but I felt Holden were asking too much for a commodore, so I found a means to acquire it off the back of the transport shipping their product around.’

                        > That’s not JUST because of piracy.

                        Piracy is the illegal component of a composite of reasons that have lead to a market change. It is every content creators or content distributors right to oppose it.

                        > piracy isn’t the thing that is killing you

                        My statement is that piracy is illegally taking a component of my income and a component of the film maker’s income that we have every right to protect. I’m just a voice from local business, a small player, but if you think I don’t have a right to protect that income, then so be it.

                      • Posted 09/07/2011 at 5:33 pm | Permalink |

                        You’re doing it again Simon. You’re turning our arguments to their extremes.

                        I do not think that the actions AFACT are attempting to take and the powers they are attempting to acquire over our free and private communication are just.

                        They want ISPs to monitor everything we see and do just in case we’re infringing. They want to have the power to remove someone from the Internet with very little legal oversight and ability to appeal.

                        I don’t care if you are unhappy with a few individuals who pirate content and eat into your livelihood, I will not stand for what AFACT represent. I will not stand for the loss of my free and private communication.

                        I sympathise with you, I understand the need to protect artists. So I am not pro-piracy. So stop trying to convince me that piracy is “rampant” and hear me: AFACT and organisations like the RIIA MPAA have taken this issue far beyond the realms of justice.

                        If you think that means I don’t understand your plight, or believe you have rights to protect your income, I apologise, but that is where I stand. And I regret that you have such a poor opinion of me, I was hoping to get you to understand where my, and others here, objections with AFACT lay.

                        I was hoping you would, armed with this knowledge, attempt to find more creative solutions to the problem that don’t cost our freedom.

                      • Posted 09/07/2011 at 6:05 pm | Permalink |

                        > I do not think that the actions AFACT are attempting to take and the powers they are attempting to acquire over our free and private communication are just.

                        Well .. that’s a good concise objection I can work with. This discussion is broad ranging and takes a bit of work to whittle down to the key point(s). I’m happy to put aside the question of business models and IP rights and focus on the best mechanisms to support IP protection. Admittedly .. I need to be better informed. The AFACT model vs overseas models, protecting IP vs infringing privacy rights.

                        In any case, the only progress on this front has come from AFACT pursuing a hard line. Perhaps thats the nature of negotiation. We’ll see where it all goes.

                      • Posted 09/07/2011 at 6:19 pm | Permalink |

                        Agreeing with everything Nightkhaos but just had to add one thing.

                        Simon you said earlier about Strawman arguments, you do realise that’s what you’re doing right? As in you are continually giving the impression that anyone who doesn’t agree with what AFACT are doing is pro-piracy, while really this isn’t the case.

                      • Peter Piper
                        Posted 11/07/2011 at 11:49 am | Permalink |

                        Can I add something to this arguement. I download movies yes, but don’t end up watching most. I also download and watch some that I wouldn’t have bothered with if I had to pay. Often I do this without paying full attention when doing something else like making a model. If recording the number of units I downloaded is used to calculate loss, then it will be wrong, very wrong (in the order of 80% too high) as I would cut back a hell of a lot if I had to pay. There is some I would aquire by other means (hire & buy), that would calculate as a loss, but it is much much smaller and be limited to a small number of titles (many older too, and therefore not as high a cost , also i would look for specials and look at cheaper online options to buy). If this is cracked down on, I would watch much less movies, and play more games (that I buy) with my time.

                        So just saying that a cut in downloads won’t mean a rise in profits of equal measure.

                      • Steve
                        Posted 11/07/2011 at 12:53 pm | Permalink |

                        I will be watching my LOTR EE blu-ray rip tonight.

                  • Comrade
                    Posted 11/07/2011 at 11:43 pm | Permalink |

                    $30 for a DVD at JB HiFi? Are you nuts? Try another legal method of only paying a few dollars for ordering that DVD/Blu-ray from the UK or US. The best bit is reselling it locally on ebay for a small profit :)

      • Mick
        Posted 09/07/2011 at 1:56 pm | Permalink |

        LOL well guess what its the customer that gives you a job….. we dont like the way you do it we go else where and you make no money SIMPLE as that So keep your model then and ill keep pirating it works 2 ways mate

    8. Dean
      Posted 08/07/2011 at 2:18 pm | Permalink |

      I love Linton’s response to AFACT! Exetel have always had a pretty copyright-holder-friendly policy, I don’t really know what AFACT would want them to do in addition to what they already do.

    9. Matthew
      Posted 08/07/2011 at 4:29 pm | Permalink |

      How does AFACT prove copyright infringement atm they are breaking the law by participating in file sharing or engaging in illegal intercepts. Australian courts have already ruled out evidence obtained by illegal action in past I’m sure they will do it again. Also by engaging the file sharing to trap these connection at they authorising the copyright infringement.

      • Genesis
        Posted 11/07/2011 at 9:41 am | Permalink |

        “Also by engaging the file sharing to trap these connection at they authorising the copyright infringement.”

        Always a loophole:
        bittorrent’s protocol can be taken advantage of here since connections to peers are separate from detecting said peers, hence it’s possible for them to monitor a selection of ip addresses actually ‘infringing’ (ie, seeders) while not downloading anything themselves.

        granted you wouldn’t be using a stock BT client for this, but it’s definitely possible… ill stay clear of the accuracy of ip address monitoring this way or its implications…

        G

        • PeterA
          Posted 11/07/2011 at 7:48 pm | Permalink |

          I’ve heard of trackers inserting fake IP addresses. If I were going to be hosting a bit torrent tracker I would do this.

          The only way to be sure someone is uploading (the only thing they really care about from a legal perspective) is to actually download from them.

          In effect; it isn’t illegal. The people doing the downloading in this instance are authorised by the copyright holders to download or traffic in the copyrighted material. I suspect they also don’t upload, only download.

          Overall, this isn’t illegal evidence. Though, there is a grey area in that if the uploader knew who they were uploading to, they wouldn’t have done it. There can be something to be said for “illegal computer access”. I believe it is actually illegal to interfere with peoples computers, even if it is wide open and unprotected. It would be interesting if someone tried suing AFACT for this, I suspect no one wants to take the risk however (effectively admitting to distributing copyrighted material, which is a hefty fine). Maybe someone who settles for the copyright infringement should do this … (hoping they haven’t signed a “do not sue the copyright holders” agreement).

    10. KC
      Posted 08/07/2011 at 4:42 pm | Permalink |

      It’s like a private security agency blaming the RTA for crimes happening on the roads they constructed.

    11. Glenn
      Posted 08/07/2011 at 10:25 pm | Permalink |

      “inviting them to work with it on a solution to the issue”

      A solution would be for content to be made available within hours of its first global TV showing at a nominal fee, about the same price as a tv studio would get from a tv station per add watching free to air viewer, i.e. maybe 5 cents per hour.

      But the truth is AFACT and its equivalents overseas dont want solutions, they want to try and drag us all back to to the pre-internet days so they could argue about tape-to-tape pirates instead.

      • Posted 09/07/2011 at 2:14 pm | Permalink |

        A solution would be for content to be made available within hours of its first global TV showing at a nominal fee, about the same price as a tv studio would get from a tv station per add watching free to air viewer, i.e. maybe 5 cents per hour.

        You’ve just hit the nail on the head.

        iTune currently sell TV episodes for $2.99 an episode, that is a bloated price, and it would benefit highly if the price was cut to say $1.

        Why? Because right now when someone downloads a whole season they are looking at around $70-80, which is more than the cost of buying the series on DVD/Blueray, plus of course once you’ve spent all that money you don’t want to have to go out and spend more if you want it on DVD/Blueray.

        If the cost was $1, a season would be around $20, this would have a two fold effect, people would be more encouraged to legitimately pay for it since the price is more realistic, and it isn’t too high a price for people who want the series on DVD/Blueray to discourage them from also buying it in that format.

    12. Posted 09/07/2011 at 3:58 am | Permalink |

      AFACT could be another reason for small ISP are selling really cheap.

    13. jon
      Posted 09/07/2011 at 2:04 pm | Permalink |

      Oh sod off AFACT

    14. nonny-moose
      Posted 09/07/2011 at 2:39 pm | Permalink |

      “The Australian organisation representing film and TV studios in their war against online content piracy has written to local ISPs inviting them to work with it on a solution to the issue — or else it will take action in its own right off the back of precedents set in its lawsuit against major ISP iiNet.”

      i read that as not a warning, but a threat. ‘you do this, or else’. if AFACT want people to respect copyright they could start by being a bit more respectful of the customers and distribution channels (ISPs) than they have been.

      As for Bittorrent, do they need to be reminded (again!) that it is a legitimate content distribution system as well? go after illicit content by all means but namedropping bittorrent as a basis for ‘further action’ whatever that will be is just further AFACT idiocy convincing people they are unable be dealt with. iinet has already proposed an isp industry forum with content owners and so far as i know they havent taken up on the offer… theyd rather stay with being a bully than actually solving the problem so far as i can see. Is it any wonder they get the response they do?

    15. R
      Posted 09/07/2011 at 4:44 pm | Permalink |

      Simon, i beleive you downloaded something illegal from the internet and i order your ISP to disconnect you.
      Doesnt seem fair does it? Thats right, thats what AFACT do.
      AFACT are not the law. they dont have that right. If they followed the correct procedure (get a court order)in the first place, the court case would never have happened. Why didnt they? because they believe that the burden of cost for policing their own clients IP belongs to someone else. namely ISPs.
      Thats AFACTS main problem. They dont think they should have to pay for anything and everyone else should pay instead. If they werent so stupid, this would currently be a non issue.
      internet providers should not be policing the internet. and they should not be paying for doing it either. If afact wanna do it, and lets be honest, they get paid by all those multi billion dollar companies to do it, then they can bloody well pay for that themselves.

      • Rob
        Posted 09/07/2011 at 6:36 pm | Permalink |

        ^^ This ^^

        Even before iiNet vs AFACT the entertainment industry already had legislation in place that they themselves wanted to combat piracy. Then they decided the laws they wanted and got were too hard.

    16. Cookie
      Posted 09/07/2011 at 9:01 pm | Permalink |

      Just curious, can anyone link me to a single unbiased study on the real effect of piracy?
      I don’t think I’ve ever seen one, not sure if they exist.

    17. Corsair
      Posted 10/07/2011 at 12:22 am | Permalink |

      AFACT is nothing but a foaming at the mouth rabid dog.

      AFACT should spend more time working with the US to get them to open up services like Hulu, Netflix, etc to the broader International – if not Australian at least – audience.

      For crying out loud the Internet is a global infrastructure. Why the heck does the Industry insist on using outdated business models? Sigh.

      The only way to stop piracy (which, in actual terms, is really not having a lot of effect on their profit margins at all – its got more to do with the fact they are releasing crappy movies, etc. and how they are spending their money) is to actually provide legal mechanism where people can get their content.

      The industry is not doing that. So as far as I am concerned AFACT – you can get stuffed.

    18. ben
      Posted 10/07/2011 at 3:51 am | Permalink |

      I haven’t got much to say on the argument of content distribution. All this time I have been thinking: Isn’t it fair to say the power of online distribution is growing at the same rate as accessibility to pirated material, and in reality piracy is just a natural side effect of the growing online age?

    19. maryc
      Posted 10/07/2011 at 12:18 pm | Permalink |

      interesting how AFACT ignore the fact they lost the case but instead threaten ISPs as if they won. the case didnt say ISPS have to do what AFACT want no matter how much chest beating they do.

      somebody should B-slap AFACT already in to following the law themselves.

    20. film buff
      Posted 10/07/2011 at 10:44 pm | Permalink |

      simon you said you work in teh industry
      then how come the big movie houses forced the closure of small
      movie theaters that wanted to show main films
      huge costs,outdated models
      yet these people afact are reporting to represent
      but the victomise the little movie theater just because they cant pay teh big bucks to distributers
      so they close down
      lest clean house here first before they go on a oh that movie didnt make money must be pirates that caused it
      no simple some moies dont make money because they are CRAP!!!

      • Posted 11/07/2011 at 4:40 am | Permalink |

        > cant pay the big bucks to distributers

        From my angle this isn’t the cause of smaller theatres closing down. I don’t see victimisation but maybe you’ve info I haven’t. The theatre market is changing as the Internet continues to force a re-adjustment for all businesses involved with entertainment. Specific to theatres, tech wise they’re on a slower upgrade cycle for their exhibition equipment than what the rest of the market is moving at (projectors, sound and still using film stock). The boom in home theatre is putting them under pressure and they’re less able to take advantage of ‘tentpole’ offerings (tentpole being flicks that earn the biggest and support the cinema for the rest of the time). Digital distribution is being introduced but the cinemas need to re-kit for digital projection (=$$$).

        Personally, I’m sick of a blurry theatrical experience, so I hardly go anymore. I watch my flicks on Blu-ray at home with a pristine picture and great sound. If a cinema advertised they projected with 8k (or even 4k) equipment I’d be back. But the chains have pushed 3D (digital) and not focused on HD.

    21. film buff
      Posted 10/07/2011 at 10:48 pm | Permalink |

      what gets me is when it is released on dvd
      tuesday is 1 dollar day
      so i wait to get it rather than go to teh movies spend shitloads money for what
      these days teh advent of home theater systems peopel would ratehr watch at home than in a cinema
      constrained to a small chair and no rewind

    22. chugs
      Posted 11/07/2011 at 9:20 am | Permalink |

      as much as I find these articles interesting the ensuring discussion about the pro’s and con’s of internet piracy is is as interesting as watching paint dry.

      people, no one cares about your smart opinions, really, i read the first couple, skipped a few pages, read a few, skipped few pages and found the same people arguing and trolling about the same crap.

      1. AFACT doesn’t care and won’t care about the internet and judges until its clients/stakeholders (read money) do care.

      2. Pirates and proponents those who argue against your points of order will never change. This argument is as intracicable as the Northern Ireland conflict (perhaps worse).

      On the article itself, as much as I hate John Linton (he wrecked many of the companies I have worked for) I have to say that AFACT were extraordinarily stupid by sending the maddest junkyard dog in the industry a letter like that.

      Perhaps its a sign of things to come; “AFACT sends threatening letter to itself”

    23. film buff
      Posted 11/07/2011 at 11:30 am | Permalink |

      no not really the movie industry was having trouble long before the advent of internet p2p
      and small theaters where being forced to pay big bucks for movies
      to the destributers
      hence closing them down or they show movies weeks afetr they have run or films that are avont gaurd or international just to survive
      people download because of the cost today nothing more
      tv stations have rubbish on not catering for everyone lest teh scifi fan or those that want new series not 6 months later
      what is the point of tv showing series that will be avaiable on dvd in some cases 6 months before tv
      whos teh bad guy the person downloading or the destributer for making it aviable montsh before you tell me
      first run movies cost a fortune you always hear how badly its down and they blame pirates
      yet if it makes millions not a work
      always the pirates
      could it be that soem movies are just rubbish
      take mr poppers penguins goign to se it soon
      take the grandson he likes the penguins
      again aimed at a kid market wont make a great deal so blame the pirates
      i personly thing the movie will be rubbish and wouldnt go but grandson(hes 6)
      wants to go so off we go

    24. film buff
      Posted 11/07/2011 at 11:31 am | Permalink |

      appologies for spelling

    25. Barry
      Posted 11/07/2011 at 4:47 pm | Permalink |

      I used to pay 2-3K a year on music, despite the fact I could download all that for free. I didn’t like screwing the industry, because, well I can afford to pay.

      I have given up on that now though, I have actively stopped supporting the industry. There are too many whiners and honestly me purchasing music only seems to support lobbyists for anti-piracy who won’t rest until all our liberties are taken away.

      Well done AFACT, there is another 2-3 you will not be getting from me this year.

    26. Posted 11/07/2011 at 11:00 pm | Permalink |

      You’ll notice something nice here…:

      A fair % Of our gaming customers use Steam as a value for money legitimate way of obtaining online purchases..
      Why? It’s quick, easy, convinient.. most ISP’s host the data meaning you get the content faster and it’s cheap!

      Well done Valve your changing the industry.

      A fair % Of our customers use bittorrent or other P2P mean’s to obtain TV / Movie content because it’s quick, easy, convinient and free…

      Games are free via these means but who can be bothered when its so much easier to get a copy instantly with updates and tech support and no cracks crap or glitches?

      Whats needed? The exact same model for the Movie & TV industry.

      • Stewart
        Posted 12/07/2011 at 2:23 am | Permalink |

        Daniel

        Whats needed? The exact same model as steam ?

        Isn’t that the Itunes store? Movies and music sold for instant download.

        • Posted 12/07/2011 at 3:33 am | Permalink |

          Stewart,

          Itunes is a good concept…

          It only has a couple of different file formats and at last check doesn’t support FLAC / WAV / PCM downloads. Add to that the vested interest Apple has in it’s own products over compatability with all media players and you’ve got a floored system.

          For an audiophile or someone interested in actually obtaining any audio of atleast a reasonable quality Itune’s is not a option..

          I’ll stick to cd’s for the moment but here’s hoping some investment in distributing quality digital downloads on an open system will be built..

          • Stewart
            Posted 12/07/2011 at 12:06 pm | Permalink |

            Daniel

            The mp3 support and AAC are pretty good now. They are quite indistinguishable from CD quality (which some argue are not as warm as vinyl). For 99.9% of users its quite sufficient. I have one friend that stores his music totally uncompressed because he is fanatical about quality. This is definitely not for him but as I said the vast majority of users are fine with the quality.

            The audio is DRM free so doesn’t matter what hardware you have for music it will work (in mp3 format). AAC needs to be converted for some players (loss) but still way above what most people can detect.

            Video on the other hand is hopelessly tied to apple hardware. As soon as they remove that restriction I will be buying video just as I buy music from itunes now. Not to mention the pricing is high and the quality is lower than bluray. But its on the way. Apple is not stopping this its the record companies.

            My original point is that Itunes is the same as steam. It provides music and video just as Steam does. Convenient quick and easy. Steam has DRM on most of their content so the iTunes is actually somewhat more open than steam.

    27. Stewart
      Posted 12/07/2011 at 2:22 am | Permalink |

      I love all the intellectual arguments brimming with stats that come up on these discussions. AFACT are lying about the impact. Then AFACT argues the pirates stats are wrong because blah blah. They are all irrelevant.

      People who copy movies/music/software without permission are stealing. It doesn’t matter if the product is worth 1c or 1million dollars its theft pure and simple. You can rationalize it as much as you want by saying people who own the content are charging too much for it (if its too expensive don’t buy it) they will soon get the price signals and adjust accordingly. The arguments here are the same as if I said that drug dealer has lots of money and he is a bad man so its ok for me to go rob him for his money. Doesn’t matter how evil the owner is, its theft.

      Now normally when someone points this out there is always someone else who goes but there owner has lost nothing because there is no loss on their part. (Again an irrelevant argument akin to victimless crime arguments by white collar criminals). There is a loss. Each copy floating around for free diminishes the value of the property they own as they are effectively competing against free copies in the open market when they attempt to sell.

      Let us call a it what it is. Theft of someone else’s property.

      Disclaimer: I am in IT not in entertainment business but I can see their side of the argument. Personally I have thousands of movies I have bought legally because i feel I want to support the studio’s who are making them. Its just a pity they don’t respect me (especially with the latest trick of making you watch ads at the start of some dvd’s which is annoying the hell out of me).

      • another web user
        Posted 19/07/2011 at 10:07 pm | Permalink |

        Copyright infringement is not theft, it is the infringement of the rights of a publisher to make and distribute as many/few copies of an intellectual property they own a license to as they wish to make.

        Theft would be me taking and depriving them possession of their original copyright license and all supporting materials that go into the production and distribution of authorised copies of the product (or pinching a disc off the store shelf, depriving the store of the disc for a simpler example).

        In someone downloading an unauthorised copy of a film/music track and so forth; they produce a copy of the work which infringes on the rights of the copyright holder (again: the right to produce as many/few copies of their product as they wish) hence the term ‘copyright infringement’ (it’s not a mistake that it is called as such nor that it falls within civil law).

        Both are very different things in the eyes of the law which tells a far different tale than AFACT (etc) would have you believe (You wouldn’t steal a car…).

        • Stewart
          Posted 19/07/2011 at 10:36 pm | Permalink |

          Exact argument I just said that pirates and their supporters make. They try to hide the fact that they take something that DOES NOT BELONG to THEM by making all sorts of legalistic statements of dubious quality. Ignoring the legalese, morally you are taking something that does not belong to you.

          By any reasonable measure that is theft.

          Put it another way. If you invested significant money (and effort) on making a creative composition be that a painting, software, music, movie or tvshow don’t you have the right to sell/license it anyway you want?

          If you don’t agree with the price or the morals of the owner of that creative production then don’t buy it. Protesting by not buying it does not give you the right to steal it. Or in your legal terms infringe on its copyright.

    28. Posted 13/07/2011 at 1:18 am | Permalink |

      Hollywood and the music industry are designed around controlling the masses. Anyone who studies the mind and subconscious communication immediately sees evidence of subliminal subconscious targeted manipulation and at the core of these industries is a dark purpose. Many artists have spoken about this, some have been killed, but the main thing to remember is that it is a good thing to deny evil revenue

      • Dean
        Posted 13/07/2011 at 6:57 am | Permalink |

        I hope your tin foil hat is on securely…

    29. Stewart
      Posted 13/07/2011 at 1:55 am | Permalink |

      Fair point and if you feel strongly then you definitely should deny them revenue. However, your objection doesn’t mean you can download the material illegally.

    30. another web user
      Posted 21/07/2011 at 1:11 am | Permalink |

      ‘They try to hide the fact that they take something that DOES NOT BELONG to THEM by making all sorts of legalistic statements of dubious quality.’

      I fail to see what was dubious within my previous post, kindly point out the error within my post or the little clause I may have missed from my brief reading of copyright laws in Australia (or America if you take into account the Aus-US FTA concluded in 2004).

      ‘Ignoring the legalese, morally you are taking something that does not belong to you.’

      You can not argue morals as they are subjective to the person behind them; much like laws (and the usually appropriate sentences applied to those who break them) are subjective to the countries in which they apply (adultery – Afghanistan – stoning, ring any bells?).

      Generic lesson on morals aside, I do not commit this offence however for every negative argument (propaganda in my opinion) that has been presented on ‘piracy’ (as AFACT et al call it to IMVHO deliberately mislead public perception of the offence via association of Somalian piracy) has always been revoked or even proven false once the truth has been presented.

      As such I would sooner trust those who have been truthful in their arguments with regards to piracy (and the little harm if any it actually causes) than those whom lie and falsify reports and studies with a vested interest in their results.

      ‘Put it another way. If you invested significant money (and effort) on making a creative composition be that a painting, software, music, movie or tvshow don’t you have the right to sell/license it anyway you want?’

      I’m not arguing that someone doesn’t have the right to sell their work, however that nor the law provides with it a guarantee that your work will become profitable.
      Just because someone spends $x on production of a media product (and I sincerely hope copyright infringement is implemented within the risk management of digital goods developers prior to project commencement) or any other good/service doesn’t mean it will make enough sales (copyright infringements are not the only reasons for poor sales, it can come down to not enough people liking the product to purchase it) to turn a profit.

      ‘If you don’t agree with the price or the morals of the owner of that creative production then don’t buy it.’

      Indeed I don’t buy those products nor steal them, I can have my cake and eat it too if I really want thanks to friends who loan me copies of their items (and freeware alternatives when it comes to software).

      ‘Or in your legal terms infringe on its copyright.’

      Those are not my legal terms (if I had a say on the matter I’d legalise it so we could put the money wasted on fighting this losing battle to better use) but are those of the Australian Government:

      http://www.ag.gov.au/agd/WWW/rwpattach.nsf/VAP/%28CFD7369FCAE9B8F32F341DBE097801FF%29~Copyright+Law+in+Australia+-+A+Short+Guide+-+June+2005.pdf/$file/Copyright+Law+in+Australia+-+A+Short+Guide+-+June+2005.pdf

      Copyright Act of 1968 (and subsequent amendments)
      http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1968133/

      • Stewart
        Posted 21/07/2011 at 1:52 am | Permalink |

        >Dubious.
        I was referring to the point that people use legal definitions to obscure the argument that they are committing copyright theft.

        >Morals
        Yes I can we are referring to Australian law/ISP’s here. Australia being a western country subscribes to judea christian concepts of right and wrong. One of which is if you take something that doesn’t belong to you its theft.

        >AFACT rants.
        I agree they (and their overseas equivalents) use every trick in the book to make out that casual piracy is evil incarnate. In hong kong they tell you that you are supporting the hong kong triad. In the UK that your supporting terrorism. Makes me think of the IT Crowd piracy ad. I think we can agree that they are being ridiculous.

        >Paid for work
        I am not sure what your saying. But my point is valid that if you spend the money/effort you should expect that you will get paid for it. If you make the mistake of making something crap that no one likes that is just a risk of doing business. You shouldnt receive income on it. Still does not mean people can have it for free.

        A point on the term theft. Quite often copyright infringement is called copyright theft. In many legal settings the two are considered equivalent. (except the USA which specifically by precedent says they are not the same). However, I do take your point that they are not strictly the same. Both have criminal as well as civil penalties.

        Regards.




    Get our 'Best of the Week' newsletter on Fridays

    Just the most important stories, one email a week.

    Email address:


  • Enterprise IT stories

    • Super funds close to dumping $250m IT revamp facepalm2

      If you have even a skin deep awareness of the structure of Australia’s superannuation industry, you’ll be aware that much of the underlying infrastructure used by many of the nation’s major funds is provided by a centralised group, Superpartners. One of the group’s main projects in recent years has been to dramatically update and modernise its IT platform — its version of a core banking platform overhaul. Unfortunately, the $250 million project has not precisely been going well.

    • Qld’s Grant joins analyst firm IBRS peter-grant

      This week it emerged that Peter Grant, the two-time former Queensland Whole of Government CIO (pictured), has joined well-regarded analyst firm Intelligent Business Research Services (IBRS). We’ve long had a high regard for IBRS, and so it’s fantastic to see such an experienced executive join its ranks.

    • Westpac dumps desk phones for Samsung Android mobiles samsung-galaxy-ace-3

      The era of troublesome desk phones tied to physical locations is gradually coming to an end in many workplaces, with mobile phones becoming increasingly popular as organisations’ main method of voice telecommunications. But some groups are more advanced than others when it comes to adoption of the trend. One of those is Westpac.

    • Ministers’ cloud approval lasted just a year reverse

      Remember how twelve months ago, the Federal Government released a new cloud computing security and privacy directive which required departments and agencies to explicitly acquire the approval of the Attorney-General and the relevant portfolio minister before government data containing private information could be stored in offshore facilities? Remember how the policy was strongly criticised by Microsoft, Government CIOs and Delimiter? Well, it looks like the policy is about to be reversed.

    • WA Govt can’t fund school IT upgrades oops key

      In news from The Department of Disturbing Facts, iTNews revealed late last week that Western Australia’s Department of Education has run out of money halfway through the deployment of new fundamental IT infrastructure to the state’s schools.

    • Turnbull outlines Govt ICT vision turnbull-5

      Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull has published an extensive article arguing that the Federal Government needed to do a better job of connecting with Australians via digital channels and that public sector IT projects needn’t cost the huge amounts that some have in the past.

    • NZ Govt pushes hard into cloud zealand

      New Zealand’s national Government announced a whole of government contract this morning for what it terms ‘Office Productivity as a Service’ services. This includes email and calendaring services, as well as file-sharing, mobility, instant messaging and collaboration services. The contract complements two existing contracts — Desktop as a Service and Enterprise Content Management as a Service.

    • CommBank reveals Harte’s replacement whiteing

      The Commonwealth Bank of Australia has promoted an internal executive who joined the bank in September after a lengthy career at petroleum giant VP and IT services group Accenture to replace its outgoing chief information officer Michael Harte, who announced in early May that he would leave the bank.

    • Jeff Smith quits Suncorp for IBM jeffsmith4

      Second-tier Australian bank and financial services group Suncorp today announced that its long-serving top technology executive Jeff Smith would leave to take up a senior role with IBM in the United States, in an announcement which marks the end of an era for the nation’s banking IT sector.

    • Small business missing the mobile, social, cloud revolution iphone-stock

      Most companies that live and breathe the online revolution are not tech startups, but smart smaller firms that use online tools to run their core business better: to cut costs, reach customers and suppliers, innovate and get more control. Many others, however, are falling behind, according to a new Grattan Institute discussion paper.

  • Blog, Enterprise IT - Jul 5, 2014 13:53 - 0 Comments

    Super funds close to dumping $250m IT revamp

    More In Enterprise IT


    Blog, Telecommunications - Jul 5, 2014 12:12 - 0 Comments

    What should the ACCC’s role be in guiding infrastructure spending?

    More In Telecommunications


    Analysis, Industry, Internet - Jun 23, 2014 10:33 - 0 Comments

    ‘Google Schmoogle’ – how Yellow Pages got it so wrong

    More In Industry


    Blog, Digital Rights - Jun 30, 2014 22:24 - 0 Comments

    Will Netflix launch in Australia, or not?

    More In Digital Rights