The Australian arm of the Pirate Party late yesterday opened fire on the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft, accusing the group of “strong-arm tactics” and “extortion” in its renewed approaches to local ISPs over the past few weeks on the issue of online copyright infringement through file sharing services such as BitTorrent.
AFACT has been engaged in a long-running battle with 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.
In a recent letter to ISPs, AFACT requested that talks be opened on file sharing, noting it would proceed with an unspecified action if it did not hear from the ISP within a week. However, the Pirate Party, which broadly advocates for intellectual property legislative change and digital rights in Australia, isn’t impressed with AFACT’s move.
“These veiled threats are nothing more than intimidation tactics that once again clearly display the extent that Big Media will go to in their failing attempts to protect their flawed business models. Extortion is a new low even for AFACT.” said Pirate Party Australia acting secretary Brendan Molloy in a statement issued by the party yesterday.
“It is completely inappropriate to have closed-room discussions even before the iiNet court case has concluded, and even more inappropriate to make veiled threats to begin yet another court case for not attending these ‘voluntary talks’.”
Countries such as New Zealand and the US are implementing graduated response mechanisms to online copyright infringement by Internet users, which sees a number of warnings or ‘strikes’ given before action is taken. However, Molloy said such a scheme would not be implemented in Australia “without a fight”.
“Pirate Party Australia condemns this blatant example of legal strong-arm tactics, a reflection of the corruption and desperation at the heart of an industry that is refusing to embrace reality,” the party’s statement said. “ISPs have no obligations to take any action over unproven allegations of infringement by AFACT.”
“AFACT itself is known for sending legal threats based on nothing more than a recorded IP address. This practice blatantly ignores the realities of the average household, where the Internet connection is shared by parents, children, families and friends. Given the prevalance of home offices and work-at-home parents, if AFACT’s scheme were to be implemented, families could see their livelihood taken away when any person commits an act of copyright infringement using their home connection, proven or otherwise.”
The Pirate Party did appear to have made a factual mistake in its statement; incorrectly stating that AFACT’s letter had detailed a seven day response time for customers to respond to online infringement notices send to them through ISPs. In fact, the seven day response time referred to the period which ISPs had to respond to AFACT and initiate discussions with the organisation on a graduated response scheme.
“We can’t respond to extreme views based on misunderstanding and incorrect facts from the Pirate Party,” said an AFACT spokesperson in response.
Image credit: Penny Mathews, royalty free
Seeing as the Pirate Party (the original, not the Australian arm) once called for the legalization of child pornography in order to stop online filtering I would question anything they say.
Their agenda is to allow copyright infringements online, no matter what the cost to society in other ways, in other words they are a waste of time.
True, but AFACT is equally extremist in their views and opinions at the other end of the spectrum. So the question is who is promoting a rational, balanced opinion that we could listen to?
Cannot comment on what other arms with the name do, but you appear to be misinformed of their actual agenda. Copyright and IP reform are their main platforms, which is what is seriously needed when you look at how the current market is.
My personal problem with the current system and how Big Media see it, is it is guilty and punished before proven. That and they cannot make up their mind what they are selling us. A license to watch/listen to stuff or a copy to own. If it is a license then great, replace broken copies and allow them to be used on any of my devices. if it is a copy to own, they stfu and let me USE it. Just look at the statements made about format shifting etc.They just want their hand in my wallet and not give me a product.
Cannot comment on what other arms with the name do, but you appear to be misinformed of their actual agenda. Copyright and IP reform are their main platforms, which is what is seriously needed when you look at how the current market is.
I understand that is the basic premise of the Pirate Party, I also understand the goal is to meet that agenda with no consideration to the rest of society.
As boj said above, the Pirate Party is one extreme end of this issue, meanwhile AFACT are at the other, personally I take each side with a grain of salt and prefer to listen to the real debate in the middle, Michael’s post is exactly what I’m talking about.
Well one wants to take away all our rights and the other one doesn’t. I know which one I’m supporting.
That’s a fairly simplistic view of it.
The copyright holders have rights, just as consumers of their content have rights also. On both sides of that coin, the “default” positions might be considered fair and reasonable.
The copyright holders have every right – (ever wondered why the word “right” appears in the word “copyright”?) – to protect current and future revenues they can derive from the content that they have paid to own and/or produce.
Their problem is that they haven’t kept up with technology. They are still stuck firmly in the 20th century.
For the public, their choices for a popular film might be $35 for a “legit” DVD from the film studio, or a little bit of downloading time for zero cost – (or a small bandwidth charge, depending on your plan).
They get zero for it – (unless they sue your ass) – and that’s not fair. They have a right to earn their production costs back, and make some money on top.
What the movie companies have done – (in their greed) – is price themselves out of the market.
If they dropped their price to $5 or $10 – they’d sell a great deal more of their DVDs, and people would be more likely to just buy it, and not go to the trouble of downloading it.
Getting $5 or $10 from it is better than getting $0 from it.
If they want to stop piracy, they just have to be more realistic with their pricing.
“Their problem is that they haven’t kept up with technology. They are still stuck firmly in the 20th century.”
Exactly. I don’t know anyone who goes out and buys DVD’s anymore. If they set up an online service where they sell their products then many would but they legally rather then have to download them.
Many good TV shows are just never shown in Australia, yet the companies complain that they are being stolen from.
Look at the Success of Steam. It has games at lower prices and sells well. It provides a modern service for a modern community unlike the Movie/Tv show companies who are still living in the 20th century.
They also assume that if someone downloads something then that’s as if they were definitely going to go out and buy it, when that is simply not true. Many people download movies that they would not have gone out and bought if the didn’t download it. The movie industry seems to forget this.
+1
What the movie studios need to do is make it easier to download something legally than it is to pirate it, as Apple and Valve have done.
I bought stacks of games during the recent Steam sale. I’m sure many ppl here did the same. I pay $29.95 for QuickFlix every month because they deliver to my door and I am time-poor.
What Prada and Louis Vitton have done – (in their greed) – is price themselves out of the market.
If they dropped the price of their handbags to $50 or $100 from $500 – they’d sell a great deal more of their handbags, and people would be more likely to just buy it, and not go to the trouble of shoplifting it.
Getting $50 or $100 from it is better than getting $0 from it.
If they want to stop shoplifting, they just have to be more realistic with their pricing.
Are you really directly comparing an up market designer product with a mass market product?
your question contains its own answer.
by selling media content in fancy packages at high prices, the producers of the content are trying to position their product as “premium products” (or “up-market, designer” to use your term).
by ripping expensive BDROMs into *.mkv’s and then distributing them all over the internet for “free”, pirates are subverting the marketing intentions of the content producers and turning them into “mass-market” products.
That is the thing isn’t it. You can say that it is an upper market like product, but it ISN’T marketed like that. It IS marketed to the masses however, so that makes it a mass market product. Look where the upper market brands advertise and how, and then compare DVD’s etc. When did you last see a designer handbag in Target or K-mart? Or your local supermarket? So, on that front your argument is a sieve.
I doubt that anyone is arguing that they have no rights to recoup losses/expenses, however they do not pass on the savings they garner. Once upon a time DVD’s WERE upper market and VHS was mass market, but now they are just greedy and say, “Well, they paid it last year and with inflation they will pay more for the same product next year, so lets charge it even though our costs are through the floor now.” I read a good article on a similar base principle the other day, if I find it I will link it. Was to do with those in charge of companies and who is thriving and who is not. And let me say, it isn’t those with business degrees as their main that are in any industry.
*You can say that it is an upper market like product, but it ISN’T marketed like that*
well, whether the “product” is sold in an exclusive flagship store on Martin Pl or Collins St is irrelevant. the analogy isn’t perfect – but the underlying point is that, as the producer and owner of the content, i can sell the “product” wherever i like at whatever price i like. for example, i could make a fantastic remake of LOTR in 3D and choose to only exhibit it in theatres in Tanzania and only release the DVDs in Zimbabwe. nobody has a right to tell me how i should market my own proprietary product. justifying piracy is like justifying rape – in both cases, you have a “desired object” and no “consent” has been granted.
*I doubt that anyone is arguing that they have no rights to recoup losses/expenses, however they do not pass on the savings they garner.*
look, as with every other field of endeavour, people point at the most successful and then try to smear them with this jaundiced view of “unfairly gotten gains” or “easy lazy money”. sure, successful Hollywood actors and producers make shitloads. but, for every Tom Cruise, Angelina Jolie, Roland Emmerich, Aaron Spelling, Harvey Weinstein, etc, there are many obscure participants who drift in and out of the industry, struggle in obscurity or experience major financial or career failures. people who make it Hollywood mint millions because it’s an intensely-competitive industry and the big rewards naturally go to the most successful.
also, film-making or game-creation is a very risky and capital-intensive business. it’s hard to predict what audiences will pay to watch or play. hence, the (sometimes) large returns appropriately compensate investors for this risk.
*… but the underlying point is that, as the producer and owner of the content, i can sell the “product” wherever i like at whatever price i like. for example, i could make a fantastic remake of LOTR in 3D and choose to only exhibit it in theatres in Tanzania and only release the DVDs in Zimbabwe. nobody has a right to tell me how i should market my own proprietary product.*
absolutely agree. im sure Big Media agrees too.
however, you missed one key point…
you call it piracy, and that may be so according to law and ethics, but it is beyond hypocrisy to then pull out claims such as ‘piracy is destroying my profits’ when as you said “nobody has a right to tell me how i should market my own proprietary product”.
if you alone control what, how, where and when your mass-produced, low-cost product is created and distributed, then you are responsible for adjusting those variables for maximum gain. so far so good, and still sounds fair?
consumers of these products will always want good value for money, and the consumer has the choice of whether to buy or not.
disregarding factors outside your control, the consumer will seldom buy something they know is cheap to make and overpriced – last i checked, for example, the cost of manufacturing dvds is peanuts compared to the shelf price. ignoring the value of the product itself, your only excuse for loss of sales in this case would be your affirmation (that only you choose how to market it) preventing you from adjusting your marketing strategy to lessen one factor of profit to increase another (insignificantly less per item = significantly more volume sold).
the creator of this product is entitled to their profit, sure, but make no mistake – the profit comes voluntarily from consumers (as it is a choice to buy). if you piss off the consumer by what i can only describe as ‘teasing’ (eg, movie release dates varying sometimes substantially across western countries alone, price gouging, region locking), then you should expect less profit, simple as that. Marketing strategy is one thing but a stubborn approach to marketing isn’t marketing – its dictating the market, something only consumers are in the position to do.
it should come as no surprise that consumers turn to piracy when they’re disillusioned by the so called ‘strategy’ of rotating utter tripe for an excuse for movies of late across country and medium with little regard for convenience to the consumer (at times the exact opposite, getting in the way of consumerism), just to ensure a steady revenue at the expense of consumer trust and expectations… the greed i’m portraying is likely exaggerated, though inescapably the motive behind this disgusting neglect to the consumer, and frankly, insulting to the ‘intelligence’ of the consumer’s ability to sort winners from wankers.
again, i dont agree with piracy and sympathize with artists who get screwed over (by Big Media and piracy, often hand-in-hand), but to expect anything else to happen with heavy-handed marketing at the consumers expense is sheer insanity…
my 200c
G
*you call it piracy, and that may be so according to law and ethics, but it is beyond hypocrisy to then pull out claims such as ‘piracy is destroying my profits’ when as you said “nobody has a right to tell me how i should market my own proprietary product”.*
actually, i’m not passing any moral or ethical judgments at all – i’m neither personally condemning pirates or AFACT. all i’m saying is that the behaviour of pirates and AFACT are both rational. from the POV of filesharers, why pay for something that can be downloaded for “free”? from the POV of AFACT:
(i) much of broadband traffic consists of unauthorised trafficking of proprietary creative content. it’s logical for content producers to look at the growth in “internet revenues” (be it broadband subscriptions, online ad revenues or filehosting) and see that much of the value creation in that sector is riding on unauthorised use of their content. youtube is an excellent example – they have taken down a lot of popular US TV network content but there’s still a lot of unauthorised copyrighted content available for free.
(ii) of course, not every download is literally a lost sale. conversely, this doesn’t mean that piracy doesn’t result in lost sales. AFACT is an advocacy group – it’s natural for them to exaggerate the impact of filesharing. this is somewhat similar to a civil suit where a legal advocate files a huge ambit of claims some of which are struck down during the course of the trial or a public prosecutor who brings a long list of charges against the accused criminal only to fail on some counts. yes, AFACT makes ridiculous claims – but it’s a merely a political or legal strategy. they’re a lobby group, not an impartial arbiter.
(iii) to the extent that piracy (which is illegal) results in lost sales, then it’s subverting the marketing strategy of the content owner. no hypocrisy there.
if the lobbying by groups like AFACT ends up resulting in a “great firewall” or “global internet filter”, of course, that will be a catastrophe for “internet freedom”. at the same time, it’s silly for pirates to attempt to take the high moral ground vis-a-vis the content producers whose proprietary content is being “stolen”. i can understand the massive “social benefits” of selling unauthorised generic drugs to the Third World poor… but “cultural access” to movies and music? gimme a break…
*disregarding factors outside your control, the consumer will seldom buy something they know is cheap to make and overpriced – last i checked, for example, the cost of manufacturing dvds is peanuts compared to the shelf price.*
the cost of “replicating” digital content on DVDs is indeed cheap (for both film studios and pirates). but, the real cost is in “producing” the digital content. movies are highly capital-intensive and can cost hundreds of millions of dollars to produce. not every movie makes back its initial investment. many movies make a modest return relative to the risk borne. musical acts cost money to develop and promote. high-end recording studios cost thousands of dollars to rent. look at Lady Gaga’s recent international concert tour – after all the hard work of performing in various countries around the world, she actually ended up losing money on the concert series.
*ignoring the value of the product itself, your only excuse for loss of sales in this case would be your affirmation (that only you choose how to market it) preventing you from adjusting your marketing strategy to lessen one factor of profit to increase another (insignificantly less per item = significantly more volume sold).*
well, then you’re implying that most of these highly-paid and experienced marketing executives (whose remuneration is probably tied to sales goals) are incredibly incompetent in their jobs.
*if you piss off the consumer by what i can only describe as ‘teasing’ (eg, movie release dates varying sometimes substantially across western countries alone, price gouging, region locking), then you should expect less profit, simple as that.*
mate, trust me… TV and movie release dates in Australia used to be MUCH WORSE than at present. so-called “price gouging” is just maximising revenue. don’t most people accept the highest payng job offer? when you sell something on eBay, do you accept the 2nd highest bid? do you invest in stocks with the highest dividend yield (or earnings growth prospect) or are you happy to settle for less? do you search for sellers of products that are the second cheapest on staticice? region-locking is to prevent circumvention of regional price discrimination by parallel importation. goods are sold at a higher price in Australia because the potential volumes are much smaller. the same way fresh food is cheaper in a wholesale market than at your local corner shop with small turnover.
*it should come as no surprise that consumers turn to piracy when they’re disillusioned by the so called ‘strategy’ of rotating utter tripe for an excuse for movies of late across country and medium with little regard for convenience to the consumer (at times the exact opposite, getting in the way of consumerism), just to ensure a steady revenue at the expense of consumer trust and expectations…*
you’re referring here to the Oz commercial TV networks and the umpteenth repeat of “The Wedding Crashers” or “Love, Actually”? lol…. well, just imagine, as the eyeballs migrate to private viewing of pirated content, the TV audience will only shrink further.. meaning lower ad revenues and less money to spend on new programmes… a vicious cycle. the business models will change gradually, but it sure ain’t gonna happen overnight. will “piracy” in its various forms (incl. youtube) and other legit forms of media consumption (iView) accelerate the pace of change on the margin? of course.
Yup, spot on.
sorry for implying your argument was charged, didn’t intend to.
it’s an awful cycle for the industry and consumer (piracy -> less revenue -> harsher protections -> more piracy) but my main convoluted point was simply that the industry surely contains the power to turn it around (admittedly it isn’t easy to do), and their seemingly techophobic and legislatively protective attitude doesn’t serve them any good.
their best approach would be to embrace the insatiable demand for media content rather than legislate ways to enforce their current methods, and i do realize that a large part of this appearance of the industry (to the public) is due to exaggerated efforts of, predominantly, anti-piracy lobbying groups (ie, afact).
All in all, it simply does not help their case (in both image and result) to whine about piracy only to (until the last few years afaik) refuse to negotiate (meaning compromise) with ISP’s and distributors towards distribution and production models that are unappealing or difficult to pirate, hence unappealing to pirates.
it’s possible to argue (but i wont try to) that the only reason movie release dates have come closer together is because the industry couldn’t curb the piracy opportunities presented – though it is probably a sign that they’re prepared to change their approach if push comes to shove imo.
not trying to blast the industry for being stubborn or incompetent, just pointing out the habberjab of footbullets caused (mostly) by their lobbying groups stifling technological progress if only to give themselves time to adapt.
PS. nice to see some levelheaded arguing from the industry’s perspective for a change, mostly what i see is either ‘piracy is bad’ or ‘artists are robbed of their earnings’ or other 1-liner arguments.
by selling media content in fancy packages at high prices, the producers of the content are trying to position their product as “premium products” (or “up-market, designer” to use your term).
They’re trying to entice people to buy them by providing extra features (behind the scenes, etc), but they’re still not up market.
The whole point of an up market product is something that not everyone can afford, and is of good quality, and is something that people notice you owning. If the price of those items dropped then they would loose their appeal.
And when it comes to DVDs/Bluerays I’m yet to see anyone standing in awe as you walk out of KMart with the latest Harry Potter movie.
Simplistic views are usually the best.
these silly moral presumptions that every Joe Blow has some God-given “cultural right” to consume entertainment product produced by private, profit-making entities is basically a form of “digital Marxism”.
in many ways, much worse than classic Marxism – instead of “man is entitled to the fruits of his labour”, you have “man is entitled to consume popular culture produced by others in whatever manner he finds convenient at whatever price he cares to pay to whomever he chooses to pay”.
lol @ ‘digital marxism’
The truth is that that there is nothing that human society craves more than new ideas. In this sense, ‘entertainment’ is a misnomer. What we are really after is brain food to stimulate our overpowered noggins. Anything which gets in the way of this incredibly powerful desire – be it an economic structure like IP ownership, a technological structure like DRM or a legal structure such as enforcement action — will eventually be routed around. This is what the Internet does best.
The only weapon that content owners have against this is convenience. Sure, you could mass-copy articles from delimiter every day. But it’s easier just to come here and read them: and look at the ads along the way.
(and yes, you can ad-block, but there’s ways around that too)
The only weapon that content owners have against this is convenient. Sure, you could mass-copy articles from delimiter every day. But it’s easier just to come here and read them: and look at the ads along the way.
A comparison to this would be if someone completely copied all your articles and put them on another site, they wouldn’t make money doing it but in the process would deny you revenue from ads and the like.
*The truth is that that there is nothing that human society craves more than new ideas.*
i thought the hierarchy of needs was:
1. food
2. clothing
3. shelter
4. delimiter
5. sex
.
.
.
10. “new idea” (featuring an exclusive with Olivia Newton-John!)
but, on a serious note, none of these “pop culture” products are properly classified as “brain food”. “intellectual (noggin) stimulation” is reading Ulysses. watching movies and listening to contemporary pop is “sensual stimulation”, i.e. visual and aural stimulation on a superficial level.
“Their problem is that they haven’t kept up with technology. They are still stuck firmly in the 20th century.”
Exactly. I don’t know anyone who goes out and buys DVD’s anymore. If they set up an online service where they sell their products then many would but they legally rather then have to download them.
Many good TV shows are just never shown in Australia, yet the companies complain that they are being stolen from.
Look at the Success of Steam. It has games at lower prices and sells well. It provides a modern service for a modern community unlike the Movie/Tv show companies who are still living in the 20th century.
They also assume that if someone downloads something then that’s as if they were definitely going to go out and buy it, when that is simply not true. Many people download movies that they would not have gone out and bought if the didn’t download it. The movie industry seems to forget this.
*“It is completely inappropriate to have closed-room discussions even before the iiNet court case has concluded, and even more inappropriate to make veiled threats to begin yet another court case for not attending these ‘voluntary talks’.”*
since when are “out-of-court settlements” or extrajudicial dispute mediation discouraged by the legal system?
pirate party is full of shit.
the media industry (via AFACT) is correct in going after the ISPs.
there was a point in time during the dotcom boom when Telstra was considering bidding for PBL because they thought they needed “content” to lure subscribers into spending more on “broadband”. as it turned out, they didn’t have to.
the emergence of Napster, Limewire, BitTorrent and the whole global filesharing phenomenon meant that ISPs are able to ride the boom in broadband revenues on the back of “free content”. in actuality, a significant % of these ISPs’ broadband revenues really belong to the copyright-holders because the real value subscribers to high quota plans pay for lies in the media content that these content producers generate.
i can’t speak for others – but, personally, i would have absolutely zero use for 200GB of monthly quota in the absence of filesharing. i’d manage just fine with 20GB and save quite a lot of money.
Wow. Just wow. Do you troll professionally? Or are you just that blind?
To say that the internet is used by consumers only for piracy (which you have just done) is plain out wrong. And short sighted. I use on average 150GB/month. And I don’t pirate a thing. Ever. So, what does that say? Just that I do more data intensive things than you do via the internet, not that I am a filthy pirate which you imply.
AFACT is wrong to go after ISPs and was rightly told so by the judgements AGAINST it in the court of LAW. So, how do you get around that one? say the law is wrong and judges have no idea? Because that is what AFACT et al probably think.
The day that movies etc go the way of books, the better. I’d LOVE to be able to have a library-esque system free and open to the public. I do not know how it would be set up, restrictions etc, but it is a good idea. I mean, they already have DVDs there, music etc and they are allowed legally to. It just needs expanding, even if it is to only be content 5+ years or more old.
*To say that the internet is used by consumers only for piracy (which you have just done) is plain out wrong.*
i didn’t say that. obviously, internet access is used for lots of purposes including P2P activities. however, various reports show that P2P traffic accounts for a huge chunk of network traffic. most broadband subscribers have engaged in filesharing at some point or another.
*And short sighted. I use on average 150GB/month. And I don’t pirate a thing. Ever. So, what does that say? Just that I do more data intensive things than you do via the internet, not that I am a filthy pirate which you imply.*
what do you do? copy entire websites? [see response below.]
*Wow. Just wow. Do you troll professionally? Or are you just that blind?*
just blind – pls educate.
*AFACT is wrong to go after ISPs and was rightly told so by the judgements AGAINST it in the court of LAW. So, how do you get around that one? say the law is wrong and judges have no idea? Because that is what AFACT et al probably think.*
i was making an economic argument, not a legal one.
“i can’t speak for others – but, personally, i would have absolutely zero use for 200GB of monthly quota in the absence of filesharing. i’d manage just fine with 20GB and save quite a lot of money.”
So the only supporter of AFACT in the comments admits they pirate…. Yah for you and your creditably, let alone talk about your moral compass.
Sorry but you are just a hypocritical tosser really…..
Go do some reading on the creation of “copyright” its intended purpose…. And if you can come back and honestly say you support AFACT and the current copyright laws i will be truly amazed… What we have today is in no way shape or form the spirit/intent that copyright was created and is a disgrace to it in fact.
I support the right of a person to profit of the intellectual ability…
I do not support their right to profit off it perpetually…. Their grand kids to profit off it… etc etc etc. As that was not the original intent of copyright laws.
Copyright as it exist today, is not protecting the artist and their rights… It is about protecting the profits of a few large companies.
There needs to be huge changes…. For one in the “Fair Use” department which is basically none existent now days as “rights holders” have eroded it down to nothing to protect their “rights”.
ok i better stop ranting now or i never will.
I do not support their right to profit off it perpetually…. Their grand kids to profit off it… etc etc etc. As that was not the original intent of copyright laws.
It would be a fair call to say what is being copied isn’t the older material but rather the newer stuff, so it’s not like the grand kids profiting off 1950’s music or anything like that.
I agree with Michael above, the problem is the price point, they are trying to sell these things as massive margins, if they reduced the price of DVDs etc and/or provided an online subscription based streaming service then people would pay for them. They are just putting the price point too high.
*I agree with Michael above, the problem is the price point, they are trying to sell these things as massive margins, if they reduced the price of DVDs etc and/or provided an online subscription based streaming service then people would pay for them. They are just putting the price point too high.*
but, you have to appreciate that these “streaming revenues” (iTunes or Steam) are additional to what music and games publishers earn by selling hard copies at prices higher than $1 or $2. in other words, the revenues that these “online models” currently generate are additional to the much greater revenue streams earned from traditional distribution channels.
there’s no guarantee that:
(i) a greater sales push on online platforms (in terms of product quality, etc) won’t result in increased cannibalisation of revenues from traditional platforms, or
(ii) a complete substitution of an “online (commoditised) distribution model” for the current “mixed regime” will be revenue neutral for video, music or games publishers. if you drop the price of a product from $30 to $5, that’s an ~80% decline in price… how likely is it that it will trigger a corresponding ~80% increase in sales volumes (just to maintain constant revenue)?
it’s not that simple.
the key to maximising profitability is market segmentation and extracting as much pricing premium as possible from every customer. that’s why you have COD Collector’s Edition, Limited Edition, with night-vision goggles, etc. if you just dump your product on an online portal and price it at a “plain vanilla” or commoditised fashion of $2/unit along with everything else on the catalogue, you’re just screwing yourself.
but, you have to appreciate that these “streaming revenues” (iTunes or Steam) are additional to what music and games publishers earn by selling hard copies at prices higher than $1 or $2. in other words, the revenues that these “online models” currently generate are additional to the much greater revenue streams earned from traditional distribution channels.
You might be shocked to find out iTunes sells TV shows at a cost far greater than buying a DVD set, and that includes shows from years ago.
(ii) a complete substitution of an “online (commoditised) distribution model” for the current “mixed regime” will be revenue neutral for video, music or games publishers. if you drop the price of a product from $30 to $5, that’s an ~80% decline in price… how likely is it that it will trigger a corresponding ~80% increase in sales volumes (just to maintain constant revenue)?
it’s not that simple.
Actually it is that simple, why didn’t you pick a reasonable price point instead of one that is obviously too low?
the key to maximising profitability is market segmentation and extracting as much pricing premium as possible from every customer.
Absolutely, and besides “limited editions” how exactly is the industry doing that now?
*You might be shocked to find out iTunes sells TV shows at a cost far greater than buying a DVD set, and that includes shows from years ago.*
well, on iTunes, you’re purchasing single episodes, right? when you buy a DVD set at BigW, you have to buy all the episodes (they’re bundled), right?
*Actually it is that simple, why didn’t you pick a reasonable price point instead of one that is obviously too low?*
well, at the end of the day, these content producers depend on third-party distribution channels to market their product. (just off the top of my head) i’m guessing they don’t want to completely undermine the sales at brick and mortar stores by rushing online in an indiscriminate fashion. if i was a chain store owner like JB-HiFi and i realised that film and music studios are planning to completely migrate their sales online, i’d be changing my business model at once, ditching CDs/DVDs and looking for new products to push immediately. the risk for the content producers is that they lose their established distribution channel before their online strategy has time to fully develop and mature. so, they have to do things in a measured fashion.
there are other possible explanations, but, my underlying point is that there’re rational reasons why the film and music industry are selling their product in the chosen fashion. as opposed to “oh, they are just old and slow and out of touch with modern consumer trends and requirements”. these are billion dollar industries with astute private stakeholders – the people running these businesses are not clowns.
*Absolutely, and besides “limited editions” how exactly is the industry doing that now?*
different format releases, DVD, BDROM, “director’s cut”, “extended cut”, “+ digital copy” (whatever that means), “2 disc edition”, “box set”, “plain single”, “single with 3 different remixes”, “plain album”, “album with bonus live concert cd”, “special greatest hits compilation”, “digitally remastered”, paperback, hardback, leatherbound volumes, new edition with new author’s intro, “collected works”…
well, on iTunes, you’re purchasing single episodes, right? when you buy a DVD set at BigW, you have to buy all the episodes (they’re bundled), right?
Since when did iTunes stop selling whole seasons? Did they change their business model since I looked an hour ago?
I’m assuming you’ve never actually looked at iTunes.
my underlying point is that there’re rational reasons why the film and music industry are selling their product in the chosen fashion
They are selling it in the current format because that’s the way they get the highest per item profit margin.
different format releases
Couple of things here, the fact that something is released in multiple formats is not an enticement to buy it, nor is extra features, behind the scenes, etc (honestly do you even watch most of these).
What you’re really arguing is that people should be paying high prices because they’re getting all these extra features, even though most of the time people really only want the product and really couldn’t care less about these extra features they’re forced to pay for.
*Since when did iTunes stop selling whole seasons? Did they change their business model since I looked an hour ago?*
no, my point is that on iTunes you can buy single episodes but you can’t buy single episodes in hard-copy DVD? do you get a discount if you buy an entire season on iTunes in “one transaction” or do you pay the same price per episode?
*They are selling it in the current format because that’s the way they get the highest per item profit margin.*
excellent… which is the point…. so their behaviour is rational after all.
*Couple of things here, the fact that something is released in multiple formats is not an enticement to buy it,*
the point is that they create different pricing/value points for the consumer. if you’re feeling rich or are a mad Tolkien fan, you might fork out extra for a Blu-ray instead of DVD. same if you’re a mad Harry Potter fan, you might wish to have the more expensive hardcover editions than paperback just for the sake of collecting. you might only like one particular song by an artiste, so you buy the single; a dedicated fan might buy the entire album to listen to the B-side singles as well.
no, my point is that on iTunes you can buy single episodes but you can’t buy single episodes in hard-copy DVD? do you get a discount if you buy an entire season on iTunes in “one transaction” or do you pay the same price per episode?
You pay the same per episode price, which is higher than the physically DVD/Blueray boxed set.
excellent… which is the point…. so their behaviour is rational after all.
By that logic they should sell DVDs at $200 each and get even more profit. Would that be ok with you?
the point is that they create different pricing/value points for the consumer. if you’re feeling rich or are a mad Tolkien fan, you might fork out extra for a Blu-ray instead of DVD. same if you’re a mad Harry Potter fan, you might wish to have the more expensive hardcover editions than paperback just for the sake of collecting. you might only like one particular song by an artiste, so you buy the single; a dedicated fan might buy the entire album to listen to the B-side singles as well.
That logic would work if you had the option of buying DVDs without the extras, which is rarely the case for movies which are released with extras.
Regarding the books, yeah, you get a choose, but that is not the media that is being discussed here, what is being discussed here is visual/audio which either is extremely delayed in getting to Australia, isn’t released at all, or is extremely overpriced. Books are pretty standard with their pricing models and released just about worldwide simultaneously.
As for the music, well yeah, except for the fact a lot of single B sides aren’t on the actual album.
*You pay the same per episode price, which is higher than the physically DVD/Blueray boxed set.*
a-ha! so DVD sets are cheaper because there’s a bundling discount. you’re purchasing the entire season in one shot. the iTunes delivery model is streaming one episode at a time. the same way that the cost of purchasing an 8-track album is cheaper than purchasing 8 copies of a released single.
*By that logic they should sell DVDs at $200 each and get even more profit. Would that be ok with you?*
they wouldn’t do that because their revenue would be lower as the higher price per unit is offset by a larger fall in sales volume. why is it okay for Prada to sell handbags at $500 a piece but not okay for a film studio to sell a DVD at $50 a piece? they are both “leisure” products and the unique results of “creative effort” – why do you have a right to set the price on other people’s ingenuity and talent?
*That logic would work if you had the option of buying DVDs without the extras, which is rarely the case for movies which are released with extras.*
but you have the option of choosing between a cheaper DVD and a more expensive blu-ray release. in the past, you could choose between VHS, DVD and laserdisc.
*Books are pretty standard with their pricing models and released just about worldwide simultaneously.*
actually, book lovers have been complaining about the price of books in Australia for over a decade due to the ban on parallel importation (on a commercial basis, not private purchase through Amazon).
“a-ha! so DVD sets are cheaper because there’s a bundling discount. you’re purchasing the entire season in one shot. the iTunes delivery model is streaming one episode at a time. the same way that the cost of purchasing an 8-track album is cheaper than purchasing 8 copies of a released single.”
So? What does that have to do with anything?
“they wouldn’t do that because their revenue would be lower as the higher price per unit is offset by a larger fall in sales volume. why is it okay for Prada to sell handbags at $500 a piece but not okay for a film studio to sell a DVD at $50 a piece? they are both “leisure” products and the unique results of “creative effort” – why do you have a right to set the price on other people’s ingenuity and talent?”
Prada has a reputation for quality, and have marketed themselves as an “exclusive” item. Ie people buy it, so that other people in the know can go “oooh you have a Prada bag”. They are technically not buying the product, they are buying the name. The product being quality is a bonus. The point is I can choose to buy a $50 handbag for my wife instead of the Prada bag. It doesn’t have the name attached, but it may still be a quality bag.
The equivalent example in DVD world would be a “Special edition” movie with lots of extras and stuff that I as someone in the know can go “ooh you have the special edition”. As opposed to a generic dvd that just purely contains the film.
But this anology misses some key factors.
1 timing. One of the major reasons for Piracy in Australia is that the pirates have a better distribution methodology. We sometimes wait 6 months to a year before stuff comes available over here. Why? Explain to me why that is the case? In todays digital world there is no reason a release can’t be done worldwide.
2 Austalian retail price is exagerated. The cost of purchasing the exact same item in Australia vs US is ridiculous. with at least a 40% markup. That markup comes from the production and distributors. It does not come from the Retail stores. This means that Australia is being gouged.
3 Quality. I am not going to pay that much for a movie that is tripe. If I like it a lot, I will pay the extra for the spec ed and the box so I can put it on my DVD library shelf. Otherwise I am not going to spend $30 for some rubbish that I don’t want on my shelf.
4 Convenience. I don’t have a DVD player with me at all times, whereas I invariably have some sort of media format (USB key or portable HDD). How much easier is it to have a digital copy than a physical Disk.
“but you have the option of choosing between a cheaper DVD and a more expensive blu-ray release. in the past, you could choose between VHS, DVD and laserdisc.”
I don’t have, nor do I want a Bluray player. This logic is flawed, you are talking about the media here, not the thing you are purchasing. I can get a digital copy of a film that is just as high quality as a Bluray disc. The media is not a purchase point.
“actually, book lovers have been complaining about the price of books in Australia for over a decade due to the ban on parallel importation (on a commercial basis, not private purchase through Amazon).”
Indeed and as a result the Australian book industry like the movie industry is suffering, because they haven’t woken up to the realities of the digital market.
a-ha! so DVD sets are cheaper because there’s a bundling discount. you’re purchasing the entire season in one shot. the iTunes delivery model is streaming one episode at a time. the same way that the cost of purchasing an 8-track album is cheaper than purchasing 8 copies of a released single.
First off you don’t stream off iTunes, you download, and secondly when you purchase a season you don’t purchase X number of individuals episodes, you click on the “buy season” link, so you are buying it bundled.
Please stop arguing the merits of a distribution method you can’t even be bothered to look at.
they wouldn’t do that because their revenue would be lower as the higher price per unit is offset by a larger fall in sales volume. why is it okay for Prada to sell handbags at $500 a piece but not okay for a film studio to sell a DVD at $50 a piece? they are both “leisure” products and the unique results of “creative effort” – why do you have a right to set the price on other people’s ingenuity and talent?
Because as Woolfe said they are an exclusive item, yes the products types they product is mass market, but they are an exclusive brand within those product types. Do you think the handbag Jessica SImpson’s fiance bought her would have been mentioned if it as a KMart handbag and not a Hermes Birkin bag (valued at $15000)? I doubt it.
If you don’t understand the difference between an up market product and a mass market product, again, please stop going this line of arguing.
but you have the option of choosing between a cheaper DVD and a more expensive blu-ray release. in the past, you could choose between VHS, DVD and laserdisc.
The value of a digital product has nothing to do with the number of formats you can get it in.
actually, book lovers have been complaining about the price of books in Australia for over a decade due to the ban on parallel importation (on a commercial basis, not private purchase through Amazon).
Which has nothing to do with the topic at hand, the topic at hand has to do with digital distribution. So you might include ebooks in that, but physical hard copies of books? No. Remember the whole point is that no physical items are being exchanged, just digital copies.
Honestly I don’t know if I can be bothered replying to you again on this topic, all you’re doing now is trolling, and it’s frustrating to argue a topic with someone who can’t even be bothered to have a basic understanding of what is being discussed.
@Tezz
*First off you don’t stream off iTunes, you download, and secondly when you purchase a season you don’t purchase X number of individuals episodes, you click on the “buy season” link, so you are buying it bundled.*
well, there are other possible explanations as to why buying the physical DVD set is cheaper than downloading the entire season off iTunes. for example, if the average iTunes subscriber shares his “digital purchases” with 10 other people while the average purchaser of a physical DVD set shares it with 3 people, then the relative pricing of the two formats has to reflect the “revenue leak” on the digital platform vs the traditional platform.
*If you don’t understand the difference between an up market product and a mass market product, again, please stop going this line of arguing.*
the underlying point is that content creators have a right to distribute, market and price their creative products however they see fit. if you price your DVD too high, this will restrict the potential market for your product and make it relatively less “mass-market”, less affordable to many and, hence, more “exclusive”. this is no different from Jimmy Choo shoes or a Dyson air-conditioner. of course, it’s easier for both the content producer and a pirate to replicate and redistribute a “digital product” than a pair of shoes or handbag. but that doesn’t change the fact that content creators have a proprietary interest in their creative efforts, be it the design of a briefcase or visual multimedia.
*The value of a digital product has nothing to do with the number of formats you can get it in.*
the point is that under the traditional sales channel of selling physical media, film studios are able to price discriminate or create different consumer value points by offering different versions of their proprietary content, i.e. DVD vs bluray, thereby maximising revenue from a product line. most consumers will pay more for a 1080i blu-ray version of a movie than a crappy NTSC or PAL DVD. it’s harder to do this on an online platform. for example, take the US which is most advanced in terms of offering online download sales. with the boom in real-time entertainment over the internet, the telcos are already considering introducing download caps especially if you want to maintain net neutrality. if i was a film studio, i would absolutely be in no rush to jeopardise my traditional sales channels and migrate all my sales online when the broadband infrastructure isn’t up to scratch to deal with near term growth in network traffic.
well, there are other possible explanations as to why buying the physical DVD set is cheaper than downloading the entire season off iTunes. for example, if the average iTunes subscriber shares his “digital purchases” with 10 other people while the average purchaser of a physical DVD set shares it with 3 people, then the relative pricing of the two formats has to reflect the “revenue leak” on the digital platform vs the traditional platform.
So your argument that the price is higher on iTunes is due to the potential that someone “might” share a copy of the show? Come on, seriously?
the underlying point is that content creators have a right to distribute, market and price their creative products however they see fit. if you price your DVD too high, this will restrict the potential market for your product and make it relatively less “mass-market”, less affordable to many and, hence, more “exclusive”. this is no different from Jimmy Choo shoes or a Dyson air-conditioner. of course, it’s easier for both the content producer and a pirate to replicate and redistribute a “digital product” than a pair of shoes or handbag. but that doesn’t change the fact that content creators have a proprietary interest in their creative efforts, be it the design of a briefcase or visual multimedia.
You’re right, they can distribute, market and price how they see fit, but if you’re putting a DVD in the same level of product as designer fashion you’re delusional.
the point is that under the traditional sales channel of selling physical media, film studios are able to price discriminate or create different consumer value points by offering different versions of their proprietary content, i.e. DVD vs bluray, thereby maximising revenue from a product line. most consumers will pay more for a 1080i blu-ray version of a movie than a crappy NTSC or PAL DVD. it’s harder to do this on an online platform. for example, take the US which is most advanced in terms of offering online download sales. with the boom in real-time entertainment over the internet, the telcos are already considering introducing download caps especially if you want to maintain net neutrality. if i was a film studio, i would absolutely be in no rush to jeopardise my traditional sales channels and migrate all my sales online when the broadband infrastructure isn’t up to scratch to deal with near term growth in network traffic.
So what you’re saying is when the NBN is rolled out online distribution will be a viable option and the industry will have no excuse not to use it?
@Tezz
*So your argument that the price is higher on iTunes is due to the potential that someone “might” share a copy of the show? Come on, seriously?*
i’m serious about trying to understand the rationale behind the adopted business and pricing models. look, any attempt to foist a “global internet filter” by AFACT or others to foil piracy is a massive danger and should be resisted at all costs. at the same time, i don’t take the arrogant attitude of some (i’m not referring to you specifically) that the highly-paid people working at Viacom, Disney, Paramount, etc are closed-minded, ignorant, incompetent, unsophisticated, stone-age dipshits who don’t realise that they can double sales revenue and their year-end bonuses by making a more aggressive push into online “download” sales. there are rational reasons why people engage in illegal filesharing. there are also rational business strategic reasons why film and music companies are only gradually moving towards online sales. and if the majority of piracy is conducted over the internet, of course you’re going to go after the ISPs. it’s all perfectly logical. that’s all i’m saying.
but, back to “sharing of downloaded content”… i believe there are ebook piracy distro groups out there who source their content from US public libraries which allow you to log on to their website and download legitimate ebooks “on loan”. obviously, they find some way to crack the DRM, slap on their distro group logo and share it over the internet. so, my suggestion for the rationale of higher iTunes pricing is a plausible explanation. sure, it doesn’t take very long to rip a physical DVD, but depending on the DRM tech, you still need to purchase good DVD-rippers like AnyDVD (or pirate it ;)). also, the differential pricing may reflect “self-select” behavioral characteristics, i.e. people who purchase TV shows by downloading them (as opposed to old-fashioned purchasers of DVDs) are, as a “group”, younger, more sophisticated and more likely to engage in filesharing, etc resulting in greater “revenue leakage”. so, you price the risk accordingly and try to “recover” a little bit more.
*You’re right, they can distribute, market and price how they see fit, but if you’re putting a DVD in the same level of product as designer fashion you’re delusional.*
all analogies are flawed but are still useful. the relevant similarity between DVDs and designer goods (or any other goods) is that demand is sensitive to price (after all, you guys are whinging about $30 DVDs!) and this means that if you raise the price above a certain level, the volume loss will swamp any unit price gains, and if you lower the price below a certain level, the unit price loss will swamp any volume gains. ultimately, the armchair critics of an overly-slow migration to online sales are implying that the cut-throat, shrewd executives running these billion dollar businesses full of competitive egos are somehow stupid and incompetent at their jobs. okay…
*So what you’re saying is when the NBN is rolled out online distribution will be a viable option and the industry will have no excuse not to use it?*
first of all, Netflix took off in the States and Canada because ISPs in these countries do not impose download caps. right now, only a tiny % of Americans watch movies on Netflix. imagine if everyone migrated onto Netflix, the fixed-line networks in the US would grind to a halt (at least during peak hours). net neutrality is actually a bad idea. in the future, if you were to start rationing network capacity by pricing different classes of traffic, i suspect that Netflix would have to bump up their charges substantially to account for higher bandwidth costs. imagine if you were on an island all by yourself, you can fish and feed yourself without having a significant impact on the fishing stock. if you were to dump a whole load of people on that same island, you’d have to start issuing fishing permits to “ration” the limited fish stocks to prevent over-fishing (thereby, encouraging other activities such as foraging, hunting land-based animals, etc).
there should be plenty of traffic capacity under the NBN… but the question is, can consumers AFFORD to pay for the capacity at $20/Mbit? assuming that the NBN is built to completion and the CVC charge magically disappears (swiftly followed by the Second Coming of the Messiah), then “platform delivery” is no longer an active constraint on the further development of online distribution. but, there are still many other factors to consider. for example, if many physical outlets are currently barely generating enough sales to justify the “floor space”, then a bigger push to online sales may “tip them over” and media companies may be forced to concede greater retail margins to the surviving distribution outlets to keep them afloat. and then, there’s the issue of broadband take-up. right now, 60% of the population has access to broadband (it will get more expensive under the NBN), but i’m sure more than 60% of the population passes by a music or video store on a regular basis in the course of their working day. i have probably only touched on the tip of the iceberg in terms of the challenges and viability of “online migration”.
Ok, two things.
1/ In order for the price analogy to be true it must be true across all products iTunes sells, it isn’t, music tends to be cheaper on iTunes.
2/ I have never made any direct insults against the industry, I have said they have a poor pricing point, that is all. If part of your argument is to even hint at accusing me of calling them all those things then I’m sorry, but I’m no going to discuss it with your further. Once someone delves down that path all rational is lost.
@Tezz
just at random:
http://itunes.apple.com/us/tv-season/the-city-season-2/id367465543
$17.99 for the set? cheaper than buying all 13 episodes separately at $1.99?
http://www.amazon.com/The-City-Season-2/dp/B003IWYOEA
$22.49 for the DVD boxset.
tosh, stop trolling.
Seriously, I mean that, there has been enough discussion on the price discrepancies between the US and Australian based iTunes stores, and now you’re using the US one (and Amazon, another US based sales point) as the key example for your price points.
I give up, there is no way to argue with flawed logical.
@Woolfe
*1 timing. One of the major reasons for Piracy in Australia is that the pirates have a better distribution methodology. We sometimes wait 6 months to a year before stuff comes available over here. Why? Explain to me why that is the case? In todays digital world there is no reason a release can’t be done worldwide.*
i presume that domestic US rights or options (financing) on expensive TV productions are secured for the first couple of episodes before full season shooting even begins. however, territorial rights in foreign markets are separately negotiated much later. also, the planned season will only be shot in entirety if the US networks opt to carry the show for the full season. it’s hard to sell the international rights for the full season when you’re not yet certain that the show won’t get canned in the US (hence, terminating production).
also, even for TV shows that are carried for a full season, the US market is probably being used as a initial barometer to test audience reception or gauge ratings performance, on the back of which the value of international rights are subsequently negotiated. a TV series that has been successfully tested in the US market will attract higher bids from foreign broadcasters.
@Tezz
Tezz: “You might be shocked to find out iTunes sells TV shows at a cost far greater than buying a DVD set, and that includes shows from years ago.”
Tezz: “You pay the same per episode price, which is higher than the physically DVD/Blueray boxed set.”
http://itunes.apple.com/au/tv-season/sex-and-the-city-season-2/id278982348
$19.99 for the set of 18 episodes. $2.99 per episode purchased separately = $53.82
http://www.dvdwarehouse.com.au/sex-and-the-city-season-2-9324915087361.html
$28.45
http://www.ezydvd.com.au/item.zml/818202
$32.97
http://www.jbhifionline.com.au/dvd/dvd-genres/comedy/sex-and-the-city-season-2-new-packaging/640909
$30.99
http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Sex-and-City-Season-2-New-Packaging-DVD-NEW-/170665843704?pt=AU_Movies_Movies_TV_Shows
$26.00
http://www.borders.com.au/video/sex-the-city-season-2/23304864/
$21.95
http://www.dvdorchard.com.au/
$39.95
Sorry tosh, you got caught in the spam filter temporarily, it does that when you post more than a few links in any one comment. I’ll be monitoring it tonight to make sure it doesn’t screw up again. Any more problems just email me at renai@delimiter.com.au.
@Renai
*it does that when you post more than a few links in any one comment.*
oic – will keep that in mind in the future. thanks for fixing it :)
No worries! Akismet has been very over-zealous recently :(
*And if you can come back and honestly say you support AFACT and the current copyright laws*
i didn’t say i “support” AFACT or any specific laws. i was just arguing that from an economic perspective, a lot of the “value generation” in broadband comes from media content being illegally shared.
*So the only supporter of AFACT in the comments admits they pirate…. Yah for you and your creditably, let alone talk about your moral compass.*
i also speed in 60km/h zones but i don’t go on internet forums arguing that i have a moral right to do so.
*I do not support their right to profit off it perpetually…. Their grand kids to profit off it… etc etc etc. As that was not the original intent of copyright laws. Copyright as it exist today, is not protecting the artist and their rights… It is about protecting the profits of a few large companies.*
Ownership v authorship
“The ‘life plus x years’ model is tied to the life of the author of the work – for example a novelist or songwriter – and is unaffected by changes to the ownership of the copyright. When an investor buys the copyright from an author, for example, the ‘life’ remains that of the author – not that of the investor. That prevents the sort of perpetual copyright protection alluded to by Clemens, with authors transferring ownership to their grandchildren, who in turn transfer it to their great-grandchildren and … ”
*Sorry but you are just a hypocritical tosser really…..*
it’s better to be “immoral” than “amoral” ;)
Hopefully much of this will be moot once the NBN and VOD rolls out. Content providers would be silly not to offer cheap-on demand- content streams of all their stuff. Hopefully this will reduce piracy AND the costs to consumers at the same time.
Then again, their lack of adaptability so far has been dissapointing.
“We can’t respond to extreme views based on misunderstanding and incorrect facts from the Pirate Party,” said an AFACT spokesperson in response.”
REALLY!? Are you kidding me AFACT? That’s your entire job!!! That’s what you do for a living!!! You spread lies and misinformation, and exaggerate the effect of your lies to beyond belief!
I remember a “study” done by AFACT or one of those groups claiming that in the past 10 years piracy has cost the music industry more than it’s earned for it’s entire existence. Does that sound like misinformation and exaggeration to you AFACT?! Well?
“I remember a “study” done by AFACT or one of those groups claiming that in the past 10 years piracy has cost the music industry more than it’s earned for it’s entire existence. Does that sound like misinformation and exaggeration to you AFACT?! Well?”
Like i said before. Those studies are not accurate. They assume that everything someone downloads is them losing a sale. A high percentage of the things people download they would not have gone out and bought at full price if they couldn’t download them. They just assume this to make their argument seem better.
I would also like to point out that there is a difference between stealing and copying.
toshP300 said ” i could make a fantastic remake of LOTR in 3D and choose to only exhibit it in theatres in Tanzania and only release the DVDs in Zimbabwe. nobody has a right to tell me how i should market my own proprietary product.”
If someone outside those areas downloaded the movie then there is no loss to you.
If they want less piracy, how about letting us pay for content via spotify and netflix? While DVDs and Blueray disks may be of interest to some, where is the Australian video on demand service such as neflix? If people in the states can pay less the $8AU a month, why can’t we. The internet gives everyone a global delivery ability you can’t use the tired old argument that we are a smaller market so it costs more to deliver here. iinet has been trying to engage Afact on these issues, but Afact (as a representative of the media companies) would rather sue then fix their shitz.
http://www.spotify.com
https://signup.netflix.com/global
I am still struggling to understand how, when someone is accused of what I believe is a criminal act, that of copyright theft. that our courts would even entertain allowing a corporation to use ISP’s as a personal police force. A police force I might add that is bludgeoned into co-operating by threats of legal action against themselves.
The correct and only way to deal with copyright theft is to turn the evidence over to law enforcement.
Why the courts haven’t sent afact packing is a mystery.
Who still uses BitTorrent anyway? If you’re still using that you deserve to get your connection shitcanned ;)
Comments are closed.