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

  • Intellectual Property, Internet, News - Written by on Tuesday, July 17, 2012 17:20 - 60 Comments

    Pirate Party Australia fails election rego again

    news For the second time in two years, Australia’s division of the Pirate Party has failed key registration requirements determining its elegibility to contest major elections, with the group noting this week that it had fallen short of required numbers for the Australian Capital Territory’s upcoming poll.

    The Australian division of the Pirate Party is based on the European parties with the same name which originated in Sweden and have since enjoyed a modest degree of electoral success in several jurisdictions, notably in Sweden and in the European Parliament.

    However, in a statement distributed this morning, the Pirate Party Australia noted that it had not succeeded in its attempt to seek party registration status for the ACT’s upcoming election. Pirate Party Australia’s ACT branch formed in early June 2012, and planned to compete in the October Legislative Assembly election with their name on the ballot as a fully registered party,” the group noted.

    ‘Yesterday morning the ACT electoral commission released a statement rejecting the application on the grounds that it was not satisfied that the Party had 100 members who were electors at the time the party’s application was submitted. 16 of the 110 submitted were not on the electoral roll under an ACT address, meaning the Party fell short by six electors.”

    In a statement, ACT Electoral Commissioner Phil Green said: “The Pirate Party ACT submitted its application on Saturday 30 June 2012, just before the party registration deadline of midnight 30 June.”

    “However, the application has been refused registration, as my delegate is not satisfied that the party had 100 members who were electors at the time the party’s application was submitted. As the application to register the party was received very close to the deadline, there was no time for the party to resubmit the application with the names of more members before the deadline passed. This is an unfortunate consequence of leaving the submission of its application to the last minute.”

    Pirate Party ACT registered officer Glen Takkenberg noted the group was “disappointed” that the party missed out on registration by “a small margin” and would amend its application, with the expectation that it would be registered “as soon as possible”. The party will contest the election with independent candidates listed in the ungrouped section of the election paper.

    The party was optimistic about its recent efforts in the ACT, however, and will hold its first territorial congress in the coming weeks to elect office bearers and select candidates to run in the ACT election. “Getting to 110 members – a more than 300% increase in membership – in the month leading up to the June 30 cut-off date is evidence of the ACT’s strong support for the Pirate Party,” said Takkenberg. “This number continues to swell daily.” Additionally, last week Pirate Party Australia held its third national congress in Melbourne. In recognition of the recent efforts in Canberra, it will host its next national congress in Canberra during July 2013.

    Its failure this week is not the first time the Pirate Party has been rejected in its attempts to contest Australian elections. In July 2010, the Pirate Party had to abandon its stated aim of contesting the then-imminent Federal Election due to election regulations, as it had not registered as a party before the election was called.

    It has been a gradual process for the Pirate Party to get established in Australia since it was established in Australia in late 2009, although the party has publicly made its view known on issues such as the internet filter policy, the ACTA trade agreement and the expanded surveillance powers currently being examined by the Federal Government. The party appears to share most policy ground with the Greens, and in general has policies differing sharply from either of the two dominant political groupings, Labor and the Coalition.

    opinion/analysis
    I have only one message for the Australian Pirate Party: Get your shit together. If the party wants to be taken seriously by Australians it shouldn’t be trying to frantically cadge together the required member numbers minutes before cut-off dates for elections. Such an effort smacks of an amateur approach. This is twice now that the Party has missed election cut-off dates. I am sure its members will not be impressed if this happens again. And I don’t think the problem is a lack of interest from members — I think the problem is a lack of organisation.

    Just a reminder: The next Federal Election is expected to be held in 2013, but an election could be called at any time due to the knife edge parliamentary margin which the Gillard Labor government enjoys. I expect to see the Pirate Party on the electoral rolls next time around.

    submit to reddit

    60 Comments

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

    1. Karl
      Posted 18/07/2012 at 4:37 am | Permalink |

      “Get your shit together.”

      a-men

    2. GongGav
      Posted 18/07/2012 at 9:04 am | Permalink |

      “Get your shit together.”

      +1

      Come on guys, there are plenty that WANT to support and vote for you, but you arent exactly making it easy.

      With the abnormal makeup of the ACT, this would have been the perfect opportunity to make your mark, and now its all but missed. Standing as independants isnt going to cut it.

    3. muso1
      Posted 18/07/2012 at 9:41 am | Permalink |

      According to my interactions with party members (even on Delimiter), they claim to hold a different platform to their similarly named affiliates in other countries. So maybe people don’t know what they really stand for?

      • Schreiber
        Posted 18/07/2012 at 11:15 am | Permalink |

        Pirate Party Australia will hopefully be improving access to their policies as soon as possible. Pirate Party Australia are currently undergoing leadership elections and policy updates, the results of which will be known in about a week’s time.

        • muso1
          Posted 18/07/2012 at 11:51 am | Permalink |

          Good to know.

          • Joakal
            Posted 18/07/2012 at 12:29 pm | Permalink |

            To also add, there’s some similarities with international Pirate Parties because there’s no rigid structure yet. They’re working on an international organisation called: Pirate Parties International https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_Parties_International It’s a bit tricky due to different cultures, languages, etc.

            Both the international organisation and local pirate party are pretty young. Give it time.

    4. Posted 18/07/2012 at 10:00 am | Permalink |

      Pull your finger out ladies !

      You’re giving copyright holders ammunition!

      • muso1
        Posted 18/07/2012 at 10:07 am | Permalink |

        The PP Australia support continuing copyright!!!

        • Joakal
          Posted 18/07/2012 at 12:26 pm | Permalink |

          It’s really pretty weird for PP Australia to support copyright reform instead of abolishing it.

          • GongGav
            Posted 18/07/2012 at 1:34 pm | Permalink |

            Not necessarily. Copyright law needs reform, if only to get up to date with how the world has changed in the past 40 years.

            The differences in opinion are HOW it needs to change. I believe the content providers (not the artists like muso1, but the conglomerates) are going about it in completely the wrong way. Their idea of reform is to strengthen the laws and stifle change, whereas The Pirate Party is about recognising that a digital world means the laws as they were originally intended have limitations.

            Example: iTunes songs. Can you trade them or not? RIAA says no, when every common law suggests yes. RIAA fights tooth and nail to stop them being traded, knowing that it means more revenue for them. Copyright laws were never written with a digital world in mind. TPP, EFF, and every other pro-digital group out there is simply looking for reform that allows common law to apply equally in a digital world as well.

            muso1 will probably disagree with that. Personally, I’m very much anti-RIAA/MPAA, but its not because I like piracy, its because I dislike their narrowminded stance on change. They want the good parts of a digital world, without accepting there is a price to pay. They dont want to change their business model, and are doing everything they can to keep it the way it is.

            Other problem is that much of the focus with copyright laws are on the entertainment industry, when it goes much much further. You cant just up and rewrite copyright laws for one industry, when they are only one player amongst many.

          • Posted 18/07/2012 at 1:40 pm | Permalink |

            There is no way that copyright is going to be removed any time soon as a concept ;) The Pirate Party’s policy of seeking to have it substantially modified in legislation is the only way that it will realistically be changed for the foreseeable future.

            • muso1
              Posted 19/07/2012 at 9:39 am | Permalink |

              Yes, I 100% support democratic moves to discuss copyright and change it if it is deemed necessary.
              You might be surprised to know Radiohead (often cited as champions of the new music economy, often cited as anti corporate, anti mainstream music business) have recently gone public saying they don’t think current copyright protects their rights well enough!.
              So, this could go either way.

    5. Joakal
      Posted 18/07/2012 at 12:25 pm | Permalink |

      They are trying to get organised, and so far, are doing well on that. The reality is within, that 99% of the work is done by ~20 individuals, 80% by ~2 people. Yes, the trouble is lack of active people willing to help. They’re trying many ideas such as this: http://pirateparty.org.au/positions/

      You’re welcome to drop by in IRC for a friendly chat: http://pirateparty.org.au/irc/

    6. muso1
      Posted 18/07/2012 at 12:38 pm | Permalink |

      Maybe people are more motivated by access to free entertainment, than the politics of entertainment commerce?
      I’m constantly told ordinary people are furious with copyright holders, but I never meet any. I meet lots of people who love watching YouTube and downloading music and movies.
      The ‘pirate’ word is a big issue for me, as a ‘pirate’ benefits financially from exploiting ordinary creative people. The Pirate Bay certainly benefits financially. So if they could have used a different name, one not synonymous with ripping off other innocent people, I’d feel more supportive.
      *However, I applaud the Pirate Party for entering the democratic fray*

      • GongGav
        Posted 18/07/2012 at 2:58 pm | Permalink |

        You’ve met one in me muso1. Maybe not furious, but disgusted in their lack of desire to change.

        For background, my DVD/blu ray collection is insured for $25,000. I’m not someone who downloads a movie just to get it for free, but given the RRP for many movies is $50 plus, I want some sort of guarantee that its worth dishing out that sort of money.

        I have a 3D TV. If I want a 3D copy of a movie, there arent many places that stock them, and of those, none that I’ve seen discount the prices. Look around, standard price for one is $45 to $50.

        Before deciding whether thats worth it, isnt it fair that I know if I like the product?

        The heavy copyright penalties the industry imposes were intended to be applied to business like groups, copying movies and selling them for profit. Not individuals that have adapted to the times.

        But instead of the companies adapting as well, they simply claim that because torrents work as a swarm, thats enough to be business like behaviour, and try to get as much out of them as they can.

        Its THAT attitude thats wrong. The sad thing is, there is no middle ground with them. They dont care about adapting their model, they care about squeezing their customers for as much as they can.

        All it would take would be for Flixster and Hulu to be rolled out in Australia, and both time and the NBN would take care of the rest. Get packages rolled into ISP plans, do blanket marketing in NBN ready areas, things like that. If the people that pirate have access to the product, piracy goes away.

        Yet thats too hard a concept for the industry to accept.

        For the music industry, Spotify is a great example of how to adapt to the digital world.

        • Joakal
          Posted 18/07/2012 at 4:09 pm | Permalink |

          +1, copyright had been perverted to be about making money at expense of others. No longer about creation and innovation. No longer about respecting property/consumer rights, liberties, etc.

          Piracy being used as an economic bogeyman is not acceptable reason for refusing to adapt to new technology or demanding oppressive laws.

          • GongGav
            Posted 18/07/2012 at 5:57 pm | Permalink |

            A link worth reading: http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/no-copyright-law-the-real-reason-for-germany-s-industrial-expansion-a-710976.html

            On one side, you have England. The most advanced country in the world at the time, huge proponents of copyright law. On the other, you have Germany, a rural country at the time, well behind the technical prowess of England. They had no copyright laws.

            Copyright law got in the way of progress, and England paid the price – their position of strength was lost in a relatively short period of time.

          • muso1
            Posted 19/07/2012 at 9:46 am | Permalink |

            As an actual creative person I disagree totally with your characterisation of copyright. It absolutely does encourage3 more creativity.
            Talking of bogey men, you really can’t get past the propaganda that millionaire businessmen are abusing the public to make more money, which is the way people excuse as ‘acceptable’ the ripping off of ordinary creative workers.

            • GongGav
              Posted 19/07/2012 at 10:47 am | Permalink |

              I cant get past the propaganda that 1 person uploading 24 tracks is worse than organised crime selling 100′s of thousands or illegal copies around the globe.

              If those people were the ones making the news, I have no problem. THEY are who copyright laws are designed to penalise. Someone selling cheap knockoffs has a clear intention to make money from the process, and THATS wrong. But they arent. Someone sharing files peer to peer isnt making money, yet the industry as a whole deems them to be just as bad. And given they are easier targets, worth chasing for more money.

              Where is 24 songs being shared worth $1,920,000 or 30 songs worth $675,000? Where is it even worth $1000, a number I’ve seen bandied about as a flat penalty. The whole approach has been an assumption of guilt, and be damned with the evidence. Get money any way possible – use shyster lawyers to extort money, or use sympathetic courts to get results, things like that. There’s nothing fair about the industry’s approach.

              I’ve said before that I’m sorry you’re stuck in the middle of this, but the industry’s extremeist position is no answer. Its just as damaging as any piracy, perhaps worse. Read the link I put in above, its an interesting look at copyright vs non-copyright, and how copyright stifled progress.

              The entertainment industry is going down a similar path now, with their intent seemingly destined to stifle competition. Its not just the entertainment industry, the technology industry is doing the same, but both groups are doing it in the name of copyright and patents.

              I understand you have a biased view, and thats fine, you deserve it. But please understand that its not all about getting something for free, and that the extreme stance some industries are taking is hurting everyone. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but in 10 years when you cant sing Happy Birthday without a permit, you might look back and wonder how it happened.

              • muso1
                Posted 19/07/2012 at 11:13 am | Permalink |

                Two wrongs don’t make a right. I don’t know why any of you industry critics can’t separate the upper end of the mainstream from the real harm that is being done to ordinary creative people?
                Anyway, we don’t need to keep rehashing that old arguments. I applaud the PP Australia for going the route of democratic change, rather than the alternative which is to make up your own laws to suit your own agenda.
                Oh and i see Madonna just cancelled her Australia tour, second tour Down Under she’s cancelled in a row. She last toured Oz in 1993.
                So I guess for Madonna AND her Aussie fans, touring is not going to replace albums!

                • GongGav
                  Posted 19/07/2012 at 12:12 pm | Permalink |

                  Look, at the end of the day this has turned into a black and white issue, when it clearly isnt. Neither side of the argument is right, and there isnt much chance of either side voluntarily changing their opinion.

                  Copyright law has its place, I dont think many argue against that. But when you’re imposing 300 year old laws in ways they were never intended for, something has to change.

                  Do you stop progress, or do you adapt the laws to reflect the changes going on around it? Copyright holders want to stop progress. And thats not just the entertainment industry either.

                  You raise good points. I personally have never said you didnt. I simply dont believe the answer is to make the rules MORE restrictive, when those restrictions simply wont work anyway.

                  Good example is Game of Thrones. In Australia, its hidden behind TWO paywalls. That means its viewer base is something like 500,000. Why should someone be forced to pay $100 to watch that show, when there are free LEGAL alternatives that the controlling companies refuse to roll out?

                  Streaming has been shown to be a massive industry in the US, making up over half the net traffic. With Hulu and NetFlix, piracy has dropped. Why is it so hard to expect that same option around the globe?

                  • muso1
                    Posted 19/07/2012 at 12:49 pm | Permalink |

                    They aren’t 300 year old laws. Copyright was really firmed up in the 20th century and many major revisions to copyright law were undertaken between the 60′s and 90′s.
                    But yes, I fully support modification to copyright where necessary.
                    But I think the public mistake changes to copyright meaning virtually 100% access to virtually zero cost entertainment.
                    That can’t/wont happen.

                    • GongGav
                      Posted 19/07/2012 at 1:36 pm | Permalink |

                      Best infomation I have is that copyright law was established in 1710 in England, hence 300 years. Sure, there have been changes made along the way as you say, but the base laws ARE 300 years old. it was just a throwaway comment anyway.

                      Real laws we’re dealing with are roughly 40-50 years old, as you say. And its those that need changing. As far as I know, the 90′s changes didnt really do much, only extend the post-death ownership laws, and a couple of minor tweaks that werent reform as such.

                      The point stands that they are woefully inadequate to deal with the modern world. The internet has effectively made borders redundant, and the world is a much smaller place. No customs check on digital data, and travel is easier than ever before.

                      At the end of the day, I think we pretty much agree on what needs changing, but coming at it from separate sides. And thats a good thing :) You dont want one side or the other to dictate the changes, which is probably the basis of my whole viewpoint – until now the whole ‘reform’ has been controlled by just one side of the debate, which is never a good thing.

                      Over the past few weeks we’ve butted heads on this numerous times, but your comment here says to me that you actually get the need for change, which is more than I can say for a lot of anti-piracy commenters.

                      Like your comment about people expecting 100% free, the opposite side has an equally isolated view – anything higher than 0% piracy is unacceptable. Both extremes are unreasonable, so the answer HAS to be somewhere in the middle.

                      As for 100% free, well no, thats not an answer, but a PERCEPTION of 100% free might be. Services like Spotify, Hulu, and NetFlix give the content in a very easy way. There’s a fee at various points, but if you use the ISP’s as the collection point nobody would care.

                      Would be like paying all your bills at the Post Office – the convenience makes it a very handy service.

                      Slap on an extra $5 for Hulu and Spotify, $10 for Netflix, and suddenly you have all those options for a simple cost. Wont completely get rid of piracy, but it cripples it AND brings in income. Win/Win for the industry, and lets the focus go on to the real problems, like where and how piracy effects people like yourself.

                      Flipside is if you educate people to move away from piracy, it isnt such a natural act, and in years to come the next generation may simply buy the product as a natural act, instead of torrenting like they do now.

                      I see far too many people just complain about the problem, from one side or the other. Few actually think the problem through and suggest solutions.

                      • muso1
                        Posted 19/07/2012 at 1:44 pm | Permalink |

                        Just to be clear, I didn’t say 100% free, I said 100% access. And i added ‘virtually zero cost’.

                        I also don’t particularly need any changes to copyright. I understand other people feel differently, and I’m prepared to listen (genuinely).
                        As a consumer myself I think iTunes is sh**ty, Amazon mp3 is barred (grrrr), and prices for less popular music (non top40) are still too high.
                        I just don’t think pirating all the content you want, whether it was created by a mega corp, or an indie musician (and one person software start up) is the right thing to do… or even a good thing to do.
                        In my conversations with at least one Pirate Party member, they ask what’s wrong with music becoming a cottage industry or maybe even mainly part time.
                        I don’t think consumers would be happy, but I think that’s the way we are headed if the PP have their way.

                      • GongGav
                        Posted 19/07/2012 at 2:55 pm | Permalink |

                        Fair enough. As I said, from how we’ve gone today, I can see that we might be trying to get to the same point, from opposing viewpoints. Devil is in the details, so to speak.

                        I dont come here as a pirate, wanting a free ride for as long as I can, I think my $25,000 of movies is testament enough to that. I want that middle ground where I can get a good enough copy to make my mind up whether to buy a copy or not, without being extorted along the way.

                        I really dont mind buying a movie to add to my collection, what I dont like is doing so blind for a $50 investment. Right now, that may mean downloading a copy of something so I can make that informed decision.

                        You seem to want the middle ground where the honest effort gets an honest reward. There’s no reason both cant happen, and no reason that a solution cant get the pirating generation accustomed to doing the legal thing.

                        Is $100-$200m a month to the RIAA and MPAA an acceptable compromise?

                      • muso1
                        Posted 19/07/2012 at 3:06 pm | Permalink |

                        Yes, you’re comments are appreciated.
                        I’m trying to keep the discussion relevant to the topic, The Pirate Party however.
                        I don’t know what their new policy will be, but their last copyright policy was aimed at protecting copyright from commercial infringement only.
                        If a free for all situation was allowed, NO ONE would pay for entertainment and entertainment would therefore become a part time, local industry, or peppered with intrusive adverts for Pepsi and KFC.

      • Hubert Cumberdale
        Posted 18/07/2012 at 5:11 pm | Permalink |

        “The ‘pirate’ word is a big issue for me, as a ‘pirate’ benefits financially from exploiting ordinary creative people.”

        Let’s talk about who is actually exploiting who. I want a 1kg bar of gold. Gold is not an infinite resource, you cannot make infinite copies of 1kg gold bars without actual gold. The price for gold is currently $1535 that means this 1kg is worth and would cost you about $54000. Gold is not only not an infinite resource but it is also rare that is why it is so expensive. Hypothetically if someone found reasonable sized deposit of gold it would be worth much less than it is now. Now if you could make infinite copies of gold bars with little or no effort required to yourself gold becomes almost worthless. Welcome to software. If you put a piece software (film, song, program etc) on the market and you make more than say 10x what it cost you to produce it you should consider yourself lucky, you have been able to fool many people and exploit them for $$$ as you can make infinite copies of your product without any great effort on your part. You have not sold them a product that is finite you have sold them a product that can be duplicated infinitely until the end of time. It is pretty much worthless. Any money you get beyond what it cost to produce consider gravy. The internet has made this all of this possible yet content producers are refusing to get with the program so people are quite rightly paying what they choose for the content rather than being exploited by greedy sellers. It is a buyers market.

        • muso1
          Posted 19/07/2012 at 9:43 am | Permalink |

          Sorry Hubert, I produce both music and music software. I’m not making ANYTHING LIKE the profit you claim. How do you prove those claims by the way.
          When people download my music and my software without buying it, they ABSOLUTELY are exploiting an ordinary creative worker.
          I’m sorry these are the facts.
          All the chest thumping about evil corporations and greedy businessmen are not a good enough excuse to make up your own laws and exploit other ordinary workers in society.

          • Hubert Cumberdale
            Posted 19/07/2012 at 11:28 am | Permalink |

            “I produce both music and music software. I’m not making ANYTHING LIKE the profit you claim.”

            Get off your high horse. I was giving an example I never explicitly said you were making that amount.

            “When people download my music and my software without buying it, they ABSOLUTELY are exploiting an ordinary creative worker.”

            False.

            “I’m sorry these are the facts.”

            False.

            “All the chest thumping about evil corporations and greedy businessmen are not a good enough excuse to make up your own laws and exploit other ordinary workers in society.”

            Sorry, but this is your own fault for not taking future technologies into consideration, it is easier and cheaper for everyone in the chain meaning you dont have to spend as much to distribute & produce that means it is cheaper (or should be) for people to buy but if you still want the same amount that’s called exploitation and greed. No one is making up laws either.

            • muso1
              Posted 19/07/2012 at 11:54 am | Permalink |

              Dude, you really don’t know what you are talking about.
              The cost of distributing music software has and is miniscule. The major cost is in R&D and creation. My product expensively records many drum kits in the world’s best studios. Explain to me how modern methods changes anything in that cost to me?????

              Funny that you accuse me of being on ‘my high horse’. I’m actually just speaking from very real personal experience, which is rare in this debate.
              The company I work with has less than 20 employees. All very young, none are wealthy businessmen. the distribution method is not an issue. People taking the product without paying the RRP is the issue.

              • Hubert Cumberdale
                Posted 19/07/2012 at 12:14 pm | Permalink |

                “The cost of distributing music software has and is miniscule. The major cost is in R&D and creation. My product expensively records many drum kits in the world’s best studios. Explain to me how modern methods changes anything in that cost to me?????”

                We are at a point where trying to stamp out all piracy is going to be impossible. It’s time to adapt or choose a different career. You can still be profitable you just have to be smart and less greedy about it.

                • muso1
                  Posted 19/07/2012 at 12:53 pm | Permalink |

                  How do you know I’m ‘greedy’.
                  I COULD choose another career, but then if we all did that, there would be no drum sample products…. and there is a great hunger for these products. It’s just that a minority believe they are entitled to the product free of charge.
                  One of the major slights of hand in the debate is this statement you’ll never stamp out piracy completely. We know that.
                  You’ll never stamp out drink driving completely, or tax evasion. It doesn’t mean giving up the effort to persuade people to do the right thing.
                  In the end, it’s easy for people like you to sit at home proclaiming creatives should adapt or give up their careers…… because you are a consumer, not a creator.

                  • Hubert Cumberdale
                    Posted 19/07/2012 at 2:24 pm | Permalink |

                    “How do you know I’m ‘greedy’”

                    You brought up “exploitation”. We disagree about who is exploiting who etc…

                    “It’s just that a minority believe they are entitled to the product free of charge.”

                    So most people pay the full price? Why are you complaining?

                    “It doesn’t mean giving up the effort to persuade people to do the right thing.”

                    You finally said something sensible. So how do you do that without exploiting consumers and making content producers happy? What is your solution? Lower prices or make copyright laws more draconian?

                    “In the end, it’s easy for people like you to sit at home proclaiming creatives should adapt or give up their careers”

                    That’s right and so it should be. It’s capitalism at it’s finest. Make room for those more capable of adapting. There are always other options for both buyers and sellers.

                    • muso1
                      Posted 19/07/2012 at 3:07 pm | Permalink |

                      Taking entertainment that has a fee attached without paying that fee isn’t capitalism, it’s anti-capitalism.
                      What is your experience of entertainment commerce, or content production that makes you so sure of your facts and figures?

                    • Noddy
                      Posted 19/07/2012 at 3:41 pm | Permalink |

                      OK, lets follow your logic. Don’t uphold the law, drop the price on content so people won’t steal. Solved.
                      People being shot, don’t enforce the law, make bullets inaffordable, solved. World hunger, sell the food to them cheaper, solved. How about you get a pay rise to make the songs more affordable? No, stupid idea, but no stupider than yours. Your idea only makes any sense with your fairy tail everyone is rolling in money scenario you use to justify taking someones hard work for nothing.

                      • Hubert Cumberdale
                        Posted 20/07/2012 at 2:55 pm | Permalink |

                        “Don’t uphold the law, drop the price on content so people won’t steal. Solved.”

                        I didn’t say anything about not upholding the law, I’m talking about adapting, that is what content producers have to do and are failing at. That is why piracy exists.

                        “No, stupid idea, but no stupider than yours.”

                        Except your idea is actually stupid.

                        “Your idea only makes any sense with your fairy tail everyone is rolling in money scenario you use to justify taking someones hard work for nothing.”

                        Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. 1. I don’t think “everyone is rolling in money” at all. 2. This isn’t about “taking someone’s hard work for nothing” I believe you should pay for content, the QUESTION is what price. That is my argument.

                      • Noddy
                        Posted 21/07/2012 at 5:27 pm | Permalink |

                        OK, so when a musician and a games programmer tell you there isn’t much profit in it and they are usually make a loss on games you cried BS, copying is cheap.
                        Well who do you think knows? Two people who have been in the industry for 20 or more years or the consumer who has little idea of the cost by the looks.

            • Noddy
              Posted 19/07/2012 at 11:55 am | Permalink |

              “False.”

              How about an acceptable reason why this is false? I do not feel muso1 is trolling. I worked in an industry that saw sales drop hugely yet more people were using the product. On PC there was like 10 people using the software for every one sold. This is not the only reason the company went broke and all the employees lost their job but it was a contributing factor.

              • Hubert Cumberdale
                Posted 19/07/2012 at 12:12 pm | Permalink |

                “How about an acceptable reason why this is false? ”

                Sure. “they ABSOLUTELY are exploiting an ordinary creative worker” Is an opinion. Not a fact.

                • muso1
                  Posted 19/07/2012 at 12:59 pm | Permalink |

                  I’m an ordinary creative worker, living on an average wage. My music software products are downloaded illegally. How is that an opinion????? (amazing)

                • muso1
                  Posted 19/07/2012 at 1:06 pm | Permalink |

                  Ali Perc is an extremely underground, independent, self releasing electronic artist.
                  “it should be up to the creator/copyright owner to decide how to package it and how much to charge or whether they want to give it away. That is the thing that bugs me the most about piracy. Whether you like it or not we live in a capitalist society and if I want to give my music away for free that is my choice and if I want to charge two pounds or even two hundred pounds for an mp3 download then that is also my choice. Piracy removes that choice for the creator and forces a whole new set of circumstances on a label.”

                  http://www.electronicbeats.net/music/interviews/10-x-4-perc

                • Noddy
                  Posted 19/07/2012 at 3:20 pm | Permalink |

                  Why has taking a unauthorised copy of his work, which is protected by copyright law, become opinion if he is being exploited? What is subjective about that? They are taking and using the works he has created without his permission.

                  • Hubert Cumberdale
                    Posted 20/07/2012 at 3:01 pm | Permalink |

                    “Why has taking a unauthorised copy of his work, which is protected by copyright law, become opinion if he is being exploited? What is subjective about that?”

                    Someone “taking a unauthorised copy of his work” = a fact
                    Calling it exploitation = an opinion.

                    Hope that helps.

                    • Noddy
                      Posted 21/07/2012 at 5:45 pm | Permalink |

                      No, not really. He said when someone downloads his stuff and doesn’t pay for it he is exploited. Fact.
                      Are you saying he doesn’t know how he feels when someone does that? That it is subjective as to if he really has the feeling he has been exploited?

        • Noddy
          Posted 19/07/2012 at 12:10 pm | Permalink |

          “, you have been able to fool many people and exploit them for $$$ as you can make infinite copies of your product without any great effort on your part”

          What is important in the product is demand, not supply. There is not infinite demand for the product. Therefore your limiting factor us people who want it. If most of those people take it for free you can copy it cheaply as much as you like it won’t make a difference. Also the cost of the product isn’t in is distribution and copying, it has very high creation costs that are spread across the expected users. A product may be sold at a loss, and it’s loss funded by another product that sells many copies and makes a profit. In the end, at least in the industry I worked, it was a roller coaster, a few years of being close to broke, get a hit product, it funds further work that may or may not make a profit.

          • Hubert Cumberdale
            Posted 19/07/2012 at 12:26 pm | Permalink |

            “There is not infinite demand for the product.”

            You’ve missed the point completely. What ever demand there is can be filled 100% by the product supply. It’s software.

            “it funds further work that may or may not make a profit.”

            That’s what I love about this debate some people believe even when they dont make a profit that it’s all because of the downloaders. If someone is making crap music or films people are not going to download or buy it regardless.

            • muso1
              Posted 19/07/2012 at 12:58 pm | Permalink |

              Again, you are making stuff up. No one is saying they aren’t making a profit. They are saying some (in demand) products aren’t sustainable with heavy amounts of illegal downloading. Also, that music software profits get reinvested into future products. No (or less) profit, no (or fewer) future products. I’ve already witnessed this in real life, personally.
              What is your experience in music retail, or music software production?

              • Hubert Cumberdale
                Posted 19/07/2012 at 2:42 pm | Permalink |

                “What is your experience in music retail, or music software production?”

                Oh I was just waiting for a ridiculous statement like this. I am not a musician, I am a consumer. As a content producer it is up to you to price your product that consumers will tolerate. New advances in technology (the internet) have made it possible for producers to make infinite copies of their product and distribute them easily without relying on the physical media of yesteryear. Instead of exploiting consumers they should exploit those technologies. As a consumer one has to take all of this into consideration and it’s understandable why so many are resortign to piracy rather than paying for it. If content producers are refusing to pass on their savings to consumers of course they will pirate.

                • muso1
                  Posted 19/07/2012 at 3:10 pm | Permalink |

                  LOL, sorry, that’s funny.
                  You are telling us all that content creators are greedy, over charge, that costs are greatly reduced. Then you reveal you are a consumer and have no experience in making and selling content.
                  So where does your confidence in your dreamed up facts and figures come from?

                  • Hubert Cumberdale
                    Posted 20/07/2012 at 3:06 pm | Permalink |

                    “Then you reveal you are a consumer and have no experience in making and selling content.”

                    Right, so you have to be a content producer to have a valid standpoint on this topic. Noted.

                    “So where does your confidence in your dreamed up facts and figures come from?”

                    OK, so you think costs to produce and distribute content is more that what is used to be with physical media? LOL.

                    • muso1
                      Posted 23/07/2012 at 1:11 pm | Permalink |

                      Costs to produce haven’t dropped to near zero. The biggest factors in production are skilling yourself and the man hours it takes to creatively produce.
                      In real terms, music is cheaper than it was 10 to 20 years ago. So prices have come down.
                      The number one mode of distribution is still the music CD by the way.

                • Noddy
                  Posted 19/07/2012 at 3:23 pm | Permalink |

                  Sorry HC, you seem as bad as the anit NBN campaigners. You keep insisting this content should be cheap because copies cost very little. They do. You are totally ignoring however the initial cost to create that content.

                  • Muso1
                    Posted 19/07/2012 at 5:39 pm | Permalink |

                    Right.
                    Some costs have gone down, other costs have gone up.
                    In reality, most music and music software products are a lot cheaper to buy than they were 5 years ago even.

                  • Hubert Cumberdale
                    Posted 20/07/2012 at 3:16 pm | Permalink |

                    “Sorry HC, you seem as bad as the anit NBN campaigners.”

                    I could say the same for you so stick to the topic please. Shaming tactics like this have no place in these debates.

                    “You keep insisting this content should be cheap because copies cost very little.”

                    That’s right. The key word here is adapt.

                    “You are totally ignoring however the initial cost to create that content.”

                    No. I am not. You clearly do not understand my comments. What I am saying is rather than try to milk consumers with disproportionate prices for essentially worthless products, price them so that it allows you to recover your costs and make a bit of profit.

                    • muso1
                      Posted 23/07/2012 at 1:13 pm | Permalink |

                      It’s you who don’t understand something. The reason is because you don’t produce any entertainment yourself. So your perceived ‘worthless products’ that are ‘over priced’ is all guess work on your part.

                      • Noddy
                        Posted 23/07/2012 at 2:22 pm | Permalink |

                        Actually in games it has been common to do projects and be paid below cost. Because you are better off getting some money that have people sitting there non productive.

                    • Noddy
                      Posted 23/07/2012 at 2:09 pm | Permalink |

                      You are clueless if you think people are being milk. In some cases yes, generally no, games struggle to even break even.
                      How about you find out what this stuff costs before you arbitrarily say lower the price? Don’t you think they aren’t already using a price that gives them the best return on investment? Most still make a loss. Sure you can point to this and that where they have made huge profits, in most cases they aim for 10-15% and don’t even break even.

      • tom
        Posted 18/07/2012 at 5:47 pm | Permalink |

        How am I supposed to feel any sympathy towards the recording industry if they refuse to let me purchase their content? There’s a huge amount of content on iTunes Music Store that is unavailable to Australian people, and the entire Amazon MP3 store is off-limits to Australians. I’m surprised about this, because digital distribution has extremely low distribution cost (in comparison to selling CDs through a brick and mortar store), and is no different whether I’m in Australia or USA.

    7. bob
      Posted 19/07/2012 at 1:11 am | Permalink |

      Jesus christ. I’ve managed to put together a supporters group for a football team with over 400 members in about 2 months.

      Sort your shit out.

    8. Posted 07/03/2013 at 6:15 pm | Permalink |

      It’s awesome to pay a quick visit this web page and reading the views of all friends regarding this article, while I am also zealous of getting know-how.
      mor info in my web site ملا عب




    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