news Attorney-General George Brandis last week confirmed he could not remember having met with consumer organisations with respect to the development of the Government’s new Internet piracy policy, and appeared to state that he viewed the public interest in the matter primarily through the lens of the creative industry.
Before the election, Brandis refused to confirm whether the Coalition had a policy on online copyright infringement. However, in February this year, the new Attorney-General gave a major speech in which he re-opened the issue of Internet piracy. And in a subsequent interview, the Attorney-General subsequently upped the intensity of his discussion on the issue threatening to introduce legislation to deal with the issue of Internet piracy in Australia unless the ISP and content industries can agree on a voluntary industry code to deal with the issue.
Several weeks ago other elements of the content industry intensified its public pressure on the issue, telling media and marketing site Mumbrella that all options for dealing with Internet piracy were on the table, from court orders to target pirating users, to ‘three strikes’ mechanisms for cutting off the Internet access of alleged infringers and website blocks.
The renewed debate on the issue has come after previous talks on the issue held by the previous Labor Government and involving the ISP and content industries collapsed, with ISP iiNet stating that the content industry was unwilling to budge from its hard-line stance on the issue. Consumer groups were initially explicitly blocked from the talks but eventually allowed in.
Last week Brandis was questioned on the matter in a fraught session of Senate Estimates by Greens Senator and Communications spokesperson Scott Ludlam.
In the talks, Ludlam directly asked Brandis whether he had met with consumer groups such as CHOICE on the issue. Under the previous Labor Government, consumer groups were initially explicitly excluded from talks held by the Attorney-General’s Department between the ISP and content industries, although they were eventually allowed in after pressure from the media. The full video of the session is available online on YouTube.
Brandis said he could not tell Ludlam whether his office had met with CHOICE or another consumer group, the Australian Communications Consumer Action Network (ACCAN). “I cannot remember whether I have done,” the Attorney-General said.
The Liberal Senator merely noted that he and his office had met with many different stakeholders in the Internet piracy issue. “I have been involved in this debate for several years and over those several years I have met with numberless stakeholders from all points of view, so I imagine I have but it may have been a while ago,” he said.
However, Brandis was able to recall having met with other stakeholders in the process as recently as last week. This directly implies that the Attorney-General and his staff have not met with the consumer representatives at least in as regular a fashion as with industry representatives.
At one point, Ludlam referred to CHOICE and ACCAN as being representative of the “public interest”, rather than commercial interests as both the ISP and content industries represented.
However, Brandis appeared to object to that definition.
“You identify the consumer and the public interest as if it excluded the right of content creators and people in the creative industries to protect the fruits of their intellectual and artistic endeavour, and I challenge that entirely,” the Attorney-General said. “There is a very strong public interest in Australia doing that. That is an interest that the government is very concerned to protect—not just to protect those individuals but to protect the public interest of all Australians in having a thriving, creative sector.”
Brandis also revealed further details about how the issue is being tackled by the Attorney-General’s Department and what topics it is discussing.
The Attorney-General and the Secretary of his Department, Roger Wilkins, revealed that there was a team of four people working on the issue within the Attorney-General’s Department. The group did not have a name yet, but it is considering issues such as the graduated response scheme which is being used in some other countries internationally.
Wilkins revealed that the group had not formally rebooted the industry talks held by the previous Labor Government, with Brandis noting that some ISPs had proven reluctant to discuss the Internet piracy issue in the wake of iiNet’s successful High Court defence on the issue against the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT).
However, some ISPs have proven more willing to come to the table. “For example, only earlier in the month I had a very long conversation with Mr Thodey and Mr Shaw from Telstra and, if I may say so publicly, I think Telstra’s contribution to this issue and their willingness to work to find a solution to the piracy issue, which is really unaddressed in Australia, has been very commendable,” said Brandis.
It had been reported that Brandis had been ready to take proposals to Cabinet on the issue. However, Brandis denied this in Senate Estimates last week. “I have taken no submission to that effect,” he said.
Brandis also noted that he personally views the Internet piracy issue as one of high importance.
“As we said at the time of the election last year, as a matter of fact, the government is of the view that there does need to be reform to copyright,” Brandis said. “One of the issues— but it is not the only issue which has been exercising my mind—is piracy. Unlike the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Canada, the United States, France and many other comparable countries, Australia lacks effective protection against online piracy.
“Australia, I am sorry to say, is the worst offender of any country in the world when it comes to piracy, and I am very concerned that the legitimate rights and interests of rights holders and content creators are being compromised by that activity. You were not here for the Arts estimates, [Senator Ludlam], but I should tell you that of all the communities who were most concerned about this none is more concerned than arts practitioners—singers and film makers, people in those industries who see the fruit of their creative endeavours being stolen through piracy. So we want to do something about that.”
The Pirate Party of Australia immediately criticised Brandis’ comments.
“The vague responses and misdirection by Senator Brandis confirm that the process of developing an anti-infringement strategy is being hidden from the Australian public, and further to that offer no confirmation as to whether there has even been any consultation with consumer groups,” said Simon Frew, President of Pirate Party Australia, in a statement published last week.
“Senator Brandis’ personal opinion regarding the matter is in line with those presented by the Australian Screen Association and other industry representatives. His attitude when answering questions during Senate Estimates suggests that he believes industry interests are the same as consumer and public interests, despite being unable to confirm or deny he had even spoken with consumer groups.”
“The influence of the copyright industry, in particular organisations such as the Australian Screen Association, over the direction of policy is concerning but unsurprising considering the amount of money and support flowing from members of this industry to the Liberal Party,” Frew continued. “Village Roadshow donated more than $300,000 to the Liberal Party in the previous financial year and the relentless campaigning for the Coalition from the Murdoch-owned press in the lead up to the election show that the Coalition is beholden to ‘old media’ companies such as Foxtel and major US movie studios.”
“The Attorney-General’s approach is yet another example of the Coalition being a government of luddites, protecting the industries of yesterday at the cost of innovation. A graduated response scheme will be ineffective, as will be censorship. Both regimes have been tried in multiple countries and have been demonstrated to fail. The proposals being put forward here are likewise doomed. If the industry wants to reduce piracy, they need to make content accessible, convenient and affordable in a timely fashion, not attacking users with backward and draconian laws,” Frew concluded.
opinion/analysis
Well, this is pretty much what we knew already. A shadowy group within the Attorney-General’s Department is actively consulting with the ISP and content industries about how to deal with the issue of Internet piracy. Consumer groups are being implicitly excluded, despite the fact that proposals are being considered which could see Australians actively cut off from their broadband access if a flimsy amount of evidence can be produced by the content industries to show that they have pirated content online one too many times.
And we have a conservative Attorney-General who — much like the previous Labor Attorneys-General — mainly views the issue through the lens of industry and doesn’t even seem to acknowledge that consumers, too, have rights and a legitimate interest in the issue. Meanwhile, Labor is avoiding the issue like it’s the plague and we only actually have the information we do through Senate Estimates because of the efforts of the Greens.
Great.
Image credit: Parliamentary Broadcasting
I’m so tired of this issue (and basically anything else to do with Copyright). The solution is staring them RIGHT IN THE FACE and yet they won’t do it simply because they are greedy, luddite fools who refuse to accept that circumstances have changed in the 21st Century. Brandis is just another Copyright industry stooge who understands the internet just about as well as he does the concept of consumer rights.
As has been stated 100s if not 1000s of times, you make content in this country easy to access and fairly priced and 80-90% of the piracy falls away. You will never, ever get rid of it 100%, but you can reduce it to the point it is almost a non-issue. But that just isn’t good enough for these people. Unless they’re making 100% of the money, they turn rabid and frenzied, beating their chests and screaming about how much money they’re losing and how unfair life is.
In any case, let Brandis and his merry band of Copyright Cut-throats bring in their 3 Strikes rules and their website blocker. It will do Sweet F. A. to reduce piracy in this country. All it will do is waste millions of taxpayers dollars and likely lead to higher internet costs – after all, do you really think that the media corporations are going to pay ISPs to do their dirty work for them?
Steam is a perfect example of how to get it correct.
But as far as politics, the fact that the same problem in exactly the same form persists through multiple governments hints at an underlying issue that needs to be resolved – the AGD.
Steam, while a good distribution platform, still falls foul of regional pricing with massive differences (AU$90 vs US$40 for the exact same digital product from different steam country stores).
I have used Steam since its inception and have a decent library of games .I have never seen a price difference as large as quoted by you.
Steam is an excellent example of how making a product easily & promptly available cause a massive decline in game pirating.
This issue is like so many with the coalition , they don’t have a clue and that will be their undoing.
I purchased Elder Scrolls Online for AU $48 from an American reseller. AU$90 on steam if you purchased in Australia (was US$60 for the US)
Here you go, an easily searchable up-to-date database of the current steam regional pricing ripoffs.
http://www.steamprices.com/au/topripoffs
The only saving grace is that they allow gifting across regional boundaries, so as long as you can befriend someone in the US or EU you can generally get them to gift you a game if you paypal them the coin.
I’ve been an unashamed pirate for years, but I’ve recently been buying a bit of content here are there – because (for those items) it was easier than pirating it.
Now extend that to the other 95% of stuff out there….
So, tell me – would you consult with criminals over criminal law?
People who don’t breach, or don’t intend to breach, the rights of content creators should not be affected by any measures put in place to protect the rights of content creators.
As always, if you think rights holders are over-pricing, or over-restricting, access to their product then punish them by not purchasing their product. If enough people do that then they will change how they market their product. Stealing it is not an appropriate response.
You cannot pick and choose the rights you wish to defend.
Nice to have you on the site, Mr Brandis!
Oh, wait, you’re far more likely to be a sock puppet of the entertainment industry, or at least someone who’s been deceived by their propaganda.
For starters, if you’re interested in reforming copyright to reduce piracy rates, why not talk to the people who will be affected by the laws, rather than taking as gospel the word of the people who stand to gain the most from the proposed tightening of those laws? You don’t think there’s a vested interest there, that may lead to less-than-truthful discourse?
Secondly, numerous studies have shown that easily available content, at a reasonable price, decreases piracy rates. As others have mentioned, Steam has made buying legitimate copies of games so easy & convenient, who’d bother to pirate them? Netflix, Hulu, Spotify, Pandora & the like have had a similar effect on piracy of media in the US. Some people will always download the ‘free’ version, but millions more will jump at the chance to purchase it legitimately.
Thirdly: what evidence is there that people spend any less on media now, than they did before the days of filesharing? Studies exist that clearly show some of the biggest downloaders are also the biggest spenders. Cracking down on ‘piracy’ by fining users will only reduce their available budget for entertainment spending, not increase it.
So simple Guest – nice one – problem gone. Next!
Just as an aside – I find it interesting that he uses the word “stolen” – I thought one could only infringe on copyright?
I like the way he preaches about ‘content creators’ when all the companies he represents are actually aggregators and middlemen, simply stealing the the lions share of the money from the artists they claim to represent.
‘Guest’ – you are a mercenary voice of an immoral system, perhaps you need to contemplate exactly how you help humanity because I sure can’t see it. (It’s an extreme response but then corruption of government by companies warrants that.)
Or they could change their business models and do whatever Steam does. But, no, that’s too hard. Let’s legislate ourselves into continuing a century old business model forever, that’s bound to be the solution.
Are you really suggesting that groups such as CHOICE and ACANN are solely advocate groups for criminals?
“People who don’t breach, or don’t intend to breach, the rights of content creators should not be affected by any measures put in place to protect the rights of content creators.”
I agree wholeheartedly. They shouldn’t. But similarly – and conversely – Content creators should not put measures in place that will affect people who don’t breach, or intend to breach, the rights of content creators.
Are we really to ask the content creators to fairly and reasonably consider both sides of the matter before presenting their case? Or perhaps somebody else, such as, oh, the A-G… maybe he should hear both sides of the matter.
Stealing means deprivation of property, which does not happen here. This is not stealing, it’s an infringement. And it’s not criminal either, it’s a civil one. Thanks for trying though.
¨You cannot pick and choose the rights you wish to defend.¨ Which is why I support our Right to have our elected representatives listen to, and act in the best interests of, the electorate. It is a denial of our rights to have elected officials refuse to meet with their elecorate.
Well, if you want to redefine what theft is, then copyright is theft from the public domain, and “the copyright industry” are thieves of the proceeds of the artists they claim to represent. Copyright terms of life + 70 years is nothing short of a scam. Royalties of less than 10% is nothing less than extortion.
Piracy is an appropriate response in the absence of an appropriate industry solution. I would go so far as to say that piracy has become a duty for consumers, so that they may protest both the current industry’s stubborn failure to provide content quickly, affordably, and conveniently, as well as the current industry’s heavy-handedness with alleged pirates.
Pirate more, pirate often.
“People who don’t breach, or don’t intend to breach, the rights of content creators should not be affected by any measures put in place to protect the rights of content creators”
Excellent…so if the Governing Body of this proposed law penalizes someone by mistake, they will happily pay any compensation required (including any slander, or business downtime)?
Might get expensive…but I’m sure your methods are perfect, so no worries.
Oh…. so what your saying is every “legal consumer” is also a criminal?
So all this time I’ve been forking out for the real deal at an over priced rate I’m a “criminal”? Why thank you very much for clarifying the “industrie’s stance” on the “consumer”.
Just for the record consumer groups /= pirates.
But hey if we’re all going to get bunched up and treated as criminals even though everyone who does the right thing is literally at a bigger disadvantage than the one’s who for the shadier route… why exactly should we be “supporting” said industry again?
I love this “shaming” game that supposed industry supporters like to leverage on the average consumer when for all purposes in a proper capitalist enivronment such avenues would be gone and extinct.
This Country was founded on IP Piracy. Look at the history of the Marino Sheep and how that genetic stock came to be in Australia. Australia didn´t just ride a sheep’s back to prosperity we did it whilst waving a pirate flag. Brandis does´t know history and is unAustralian.
If you think *Australia* was founded on piracy of IP, just look into the history of the US publishing industry… in fact all of their industries.
There’s a story that Mr Hershey travelled to Europe to learn how to make chocolate. The European manufacturers, familiar with how American firms operated, refused to give him any information at all, so he went how to try to figure it out, and never could, but sold the result anyway – explaining why American chocolate tastes so horrible compared to European stuff!
It was only some time later that the secret of waterfalls in the chocolate making process was revealed. Damn, now I can’t get that song out of my head.
IMO – until Content Providers are willing provide the same rich user experience that is enjoyed with storing, accessing and viewing downloded content – the issue is not going to be resolved.
Why just get rid of geoblockers mr Brandi’s aka guest
That’s will solve 95% of problems but it will piss off uncle Murdoch
They have made the same mistakes as the music industry and have partially looked to game industry for the solution but have still failed to see the right path out of the mess they have created. The music industry made it difficult to access content in the way consumers wanted to use it, the opened the door for alternate methods that offered a better experience. The problem for the music industry is that these better experiences deflated the value of what they offered. Why would you pay a price premium for content you can use how you want. So when they evidently adopted a legitimate market offer a similar or better experience the value of what they offered had deflated. This was compounded a bit with the MP3 market rapidly opening up but the only options being restrictive walled gardens.
The games industry largely avoided this for a number of reason not least of which was the alternative methods were hard. Technology blockers worked which meant more often than not the alternate source couldn’t offer a better experience only a cheaper one. Although some aspect of pirated game user experience was an improvement but it was more effort to get to that point. Steam came along and was able to build up momentum by improving its product and make sure it was better than the alternatives by adopting some of the best aspects of both. The other advantage steam has is that while it is a walled garden in its own way, it is a walled garden that was able to be used on any of the platforms that the content could be consumed on.
The problem the video content industry has is it is trying to replicate the success of steam without understanding how it was able to get to that point. They tried the technology blockers but due to the nature of the content they don’t work well and in many cases have made the experience worst customers paying the price premium. They adopt walled gardens, however they tend to chose restrictive options that allow content to be used where you would normally expect to be able to use it. The entire time the value of what the offer is deflating in the eye of the consumer and what we expect to be able to do with that content is increasing. It seems they idea of how to offer a better experience than what the pirate gets is to try and make the experience of the average pirate worst instead making the experience of what they offer better.
There is also another issue facing the content industry and many other industries is the expectation of consumers to pay the same no matter where we are, particular for products that don’t have local cost component. The is for a few reasons pricing information is more readily available, some users are already taking advantage of the global market place. We also see big business taking jobs out of Australia and other countries to take advantage of the global marketplace and yet we see these same business try to restrict the consumer, so naturally we rebel against what we see as unfair.
Of course the next wave is already coming and some areas already adopting rapidly, and unless they adapt the current middle men are going to fall. There is still some room for a middle man but it isn’t as big as it once was. They are no longer the gate keepers and rent seekers that once where and long to continue to be, they will end up as facilitates and aggregators pointing us to content we might be interested in or enabling the try creatives to find a market.
Sorry for the long post every time I write one of the these I move one step closer to starting my own ranting blog.
The music industry closed the door to discussion, and paved the way for Napster and other peer to peer actions. Apple (and at a later point Spotify) benefited by giving the customers what they wanted – access in a reasonable way.
The game industry closed the door to discussion, and paved the way for ftp transfers, the Gamez scene, and so forth. Valve came along and benefitted by giving the customers what they wanted – access in a reasonable way.
Now we’re seeing the same thing happen with video. The industry has closed the door to discussion, and paved the way for torrents and peer to peer transfers. Where its available, Netflix and Hulu are giving customers what they wanted – access in a reasonable way.
Where its not available, piracy continues to increase.
All 3 times the controlling industries have refused to include the consumer, and in the two times there has been a resolution so far, the industries have lost control. Do the TV and film makers think it will be magically different for them?
For me its simple. They make content which by its existence is there to be watched. Because of that they are providing a service and they need to guarantee that service is giving what it should. And they arent.
Its a symbiotic relatonship, and they need to look after the other side of things or they will lose out.
If you desire to obfain a good deal from this article then you have to apply such methods to your won webpage.
Comments are closed.