iiNet’s piracy authority is only half a solution

69

opinion I have a confession to make: Like most outwardly normal middle class Australians, I have a dirty little secret that I can’t seem to expunge, despite my best intentions and numerous attempts at breaking its filthy addictive hold.

It’s a hidden problem which I have only admitted to my closest friends and family, something which keeps me up at night, moaning about ‘my precious’, wondering whether I will ever get free of its vice-like grip, or whether I will remain slave to its dominating power for ever, locked in thrall and unable to escape.

Yes, it’s true. I am absolutely addicted to cruising Valve’s Steam service looking for bargains on games which I will probably never have enough time to play.

As I’m sure many of you fellow addicts out there well know, Steam is a digital platform which lets you download video games to play on your computer. But it’s not just any digital platform. In fact, it is nothing less than a massive repository of almost every sort of PC video game that has ever been created, and publisher Valve is constantly adding both new and old titles to its library.

There are two reasons the service is so addictive.

Firstly, it appeals to the pack rat in me. Valve has an immense back catalogue of games listed in Steam — if you loved a PC game in your childhood, odds are the company has already added it to its list, or is talking with the game’s publisher to do so. And many of these titles regularly go on sale, especially around Christmas time, when, like a cackling evil Santa Claus, Valve conducts a massive series of sales designed to bankrupt every PC gamer and fill its pockets with fat stacks of diamond-encrusted thousand dollar bills.

Because you know the games on Steam will only be on sale for a brief period, there is a huge incentive to pay for it right then and there and keep it installed on your computer … even if you will never actually play it.

The second factor is just as dangerous for the addictive personality.

Valve regularly lists upcoming titles on the front page of its disgustingly attractive online store. What this means is that for months before a game actually goes on sale, you will log in every day to see screenshots of that game staring at you in the face, glistening like a vision of honey-coated perfection. You don’t want to pre-order them, because you don’t even know if they’ll be that good. But you still will — often for a paltry 5 percent off their cover price — because after staring at a game promotion every day for months on end, you always end buying it.

I narrate this story to demonstrate why iiNet’s compromise proposal yesterday on the issue of internet content piracy is only a halfway solution.

On paper, iiNet’s solution makes sense; by setting up an independent authority to handle copyright infringement disputes and dole out minor punishments the same way traffic police dish out speeding fines, both ISPs and film, movie and music studios get a more reliable way to tackle internet content piracy — an activity which is, after all, against the law — despite the fact that that law is completely unenforceable.

And the actual customers won’t have their internet disconnected for offences which are, after all, relatively minor in modern Australian society, earning themselves mere slaps on the wrist instead.

However, the problem with iiNet’s scheme is that its ‘traffic police’ analogy is far from apt for the situation which Australians find themselves in with respect to watching TV and movie content.

Motorists who speed, cross double white lines or commit any other traffic offence don’t have to do so. If they want to avoid fines or even losing their licence, they can simply obey the law — drive safely, within the speed limits, signal correctly and don’t talk on their mobile phone while simultaneously eating a Big Mac and overtaking a semi-trailer.

But what legal option do Australians currently have if they want to get the latest TV shows and movies as soon as they are released overseas? Very few.

As iiNet notes in its own paper, film and TV studios use “staggered release dates and queuing distribution channels” to make sure that Australians always get the latest content later — sometimes six months or more later — than our US or European cousins.

In addition, when the content does arrive, often it’s only broadcast through certain TV channels at certain times; times when you may — imagine! — have to work or carry out some other responsibility, and thus be prohibited from consuming it. Sure, you might be able to digitally record the broadcast, if you knew it was on, but I’m not sure whether even that common practice is completely legal.

As iiNet noted in its paper, this approach creates “a frustrated and unsatisfied market” — and one that is often resigned to simply bulk-renting DVDs six months after their favourite TV show has hit the US, if they want to keep within the boundaries of the law. Online DVD rental service Quickflix is thriving for a reason.

The same frustration is currently felt by other content sectors … as the scores of Australians who cannot quite get the eBooks they want will attest.

If a piracy authority is established, but the gates of content are not opened and geographical restrictions erased, this frustration will exponentially increase. Australians will be unable to get the content they want in a timely manner — legally or illegally — and will make that frustration known. The current safety valve which exists in the BitTorrent peer to peer file distribution system will cease to let off the nation’s steam.

The Baby Boomers, Generation X and other older generations may put up with this, more or less. But the simple reality is that Generation Y will not. The younger generation (well, I say younger, but some of them are almost 30) will howl with rage if they cannot get what they want, when they want it.

This war will not be unlike the constant series of running battles the video game industry is fighting with the Federal Government over the need for an R18+ rating, or the seething discontent that Communications Minister Stephen Conroy created with his internet content filter project.

Going back to where we began, the irony is that the TV and film industry has a way to get around this potential public relations and political nightmare. It can simply create a platform like Steam, where new and old content is constantly added to an easily accessible online library instantly accessible by anyone in the world from any device.

It can even charge a premium for such a service. Packrats like me would pay to collect all of the episodes in dozens of series, and many directors’ complete cinematic back catalogue … just in case we might watch it one day.

Especially during those demonic Christmas specials.

Image credit: Andronicus Riyono, royalty free

69 COMMENTS

  1. I used to get all my PC games from ways that didn’t require me to pay for them. As soon as Steam took off I’ve been buying all my games from there.
    As Renai said, I’ve bought allot of games from Steam that I’ll never play but wanted to buy because they were there.

    • I know a number of people that have said the same thing. The easy availability of games on Steam — it’s just painless — means that it’s actually more effort, and the risk is not worth the return, to pirate games through BitTorrent or any other method.

  2. It’s a wonderful idea, but in Australia there are too many cooks stirring a very small pot. The networks control the content, both old and new. They pay for territorial rights rather than medium rights, meaning that even if Warner Bros or Sony wanted to sell shows streamed over the internet to us they would be unable to do so, Seven, Nine and Ten have all the rights locked up tight and are in no hurry to disturb the cash cow that is network television. You can already see friction around ownership and control on Hulu, and that is a joint venture with 3 of the biggest producers in the world.

    The US Studios should start selling OTA broadcast rights only, and reserve the online rights for their exclusive use. Then create an international site (with CDN mirroring in different countries), price the content accordingly and watch the cash roll in from around the world. The local networks would cry foul, but there is little they could do, where else will they get their content from?

    Normal people everywhere are crying out for a solution like this. It will happen in one form or another, it’s just a matter of time (and downloads). Who pirates music anymore? I had to the other day because iTunes Oz didn’t have the new release I wanted, and it was a PITA. Simplicity and low cost wins every time.

  3. No doubt you’ve noticed this Renai, but I have to point out that Steam enforces the same territorial content restrictions as anyone else. Pricing is tiered, with Australia getting the blunt end of the stick, but games themselves are often restricted by region at the publishers’ request.

    Every time there is a Rockstar Games sale, we can’t get it because GTA: Vice City is not sold here and until recently neither was GTA3 or San Andreas. Left 4 Dead 2 that is available to Australians is a censored, inferior version and games like Prey, Silent Hill Homecoming have all been banned to us for 6-18months after their US Steam debut.

    Just saying an ecosystem like Steam for other media wouldn’t be the cure all we need until publishers are prevented from enforcing these kinds of arbitrary restrictions.

    • It is a step in the right direction though and I think once its started and seen how profitable it is, it’d only grow.

      Also your complaint about censored/banned games have nothing to do with what was being discussed in this piece.

      • This article proposes a solution to the film & TV availability issues iiNet identified, namely “staggered release dates and queuing distribution channels”. How is Silent Hill taking 12 months to become available to Australians on Steam any different to a TV show taking 6 months to find a legal avenue to the Australian market?

        A central platform like Steam was held up as the possible answer to content availability issues. I’m pointing out that Steam often suffers from those same issues.

    • Oh, I completely agree with regard to Steam’s restrictions, Cameron — they are unnecessary and unwanted. And yes, pricing can vary between regions.

      However, there is a general rule of thumb which applies which says that it is likely you will be able to get most of the games that you want through Steam these days, if you’re a PC gamer, and that the platform ‘just works’ in terms of allowing you to re-download games, play them on multiple PCs and so on. Valve has designed a solution which sits in the middle between game publishers and game players, and it works very well — well enough that I have spent quite a bit of money on it :)

      I just wish there was something similar for the film and movie industries. iTunes comes close — but not close enough. Plus iTunes sux on Windows ;)

  4. About time someone highlighted the fact that the reason why australians are the biggest pirates is because we are the most screwed when it comes to release schedules. in the past i have ‘aquired’ every episode in the stargate saga. However when SciFi (AU) decided to release it ont he same schedule to the US, (well its 36 hours later) i decided i wouldnt turn to other activities such as bit torrent and just record it on my foxtel.

    But lets not get all user pays on this. The industry gets it money from advertisers. What would stop them from having them FREE to download from THEIR sites, and simple inject adds into it, shorter than free to air, but whats to stop them from being in a corner that stays there. It is almost subliminal advertising as it is there, your brain will process it, but you will be watching your favourite tv show/movie.

    At the end of the day if the studio’s and TV channels (programming is mainly tv channels and not studio’s) got their act together and aired them at a much closer schedule to overseas why would anyone waste their precious download quota on something they can watch in a few hours???

    My biggest gripe being a SciFi fan is the stupid times that 7/9/10 air the scifi shows, how they only air 1/2 a season and randomly cancel it, or air it out of sequence. Stupid stuff like this will make me go to the internet. Reducing their advertising profits, increasing the number of pirates on the net.

    If the tv channels air is 1,3,6,12 months later, the ratings ARE so low BECAUSE of the delay, anyone who cares about the show, wants to see it, has already downloaded it. its time for the studio’s and TV channels to get their act together and get into the 21st century.

    • “But lets not get all user pays on this. The industry gets it money from advertisers. What would stop them from having them FREE to download from THEIR sites, and simple inject adds into it, shorter than free to air, but whats to stop them from being in a corner that stays there. It is almost subliminal advertising as it is there, your brain will process it, but you will be watching your favourite tv show/movie.”

      I highly agree with this — I just cannot understand why the studios don’t do this. In addition, I agree with what you’re saying about science fiction shows — it just seems like the Australian TV channels don’t really ‘get’ why people like sci-fi and will simply shift shows and programming around to suit themselves, rather than the audience.

        • Unfortantely no, its on foxtel. i think its even a part of their basic package. But i dont like to watch sport anyway so i would alreayd have foxtel.

          one thing i did forget is how a scifi show will start at 8 or 8:30 on FTA, then its 10:30, then 11:30, then 4am, then cancelled due to lack of ratings. well no kidding at 4am!

          • *sigh* I remember staying up past midnight (my parents didn’t know) in high school to watch Star Trek. TV channels just don’t understand how much people care about this stuff.

          • Even GO! trips up. Especially now with Fringe, which has been taken off air some reason. Presumably to show V for Vendetta and other movies they showed 2 months ago.

            Why was fringe shown in 2 hour blocks for 2-3 consecutive weeks, then taken off air while episodes are still showing in the states?

            Channel BT for me it seems….

          • I was more making the point that they have three-times as much air-time these days with three channels to spread their content around – shows like ST-TNG – (which had its first run in Australia between 1991 and 1995 on Channel Nine, mostly in the 11pm to 12am timeslot) – might now find itself in a more appropriate 7:30pm or 8:30pm timeslot, given the extra scheduling space they have.

  5. Brilliant idea. You have to ask yourself why they haven’t done it.

    I have to admit my household has a Steam addiction. We have multiple accounts on Steam and I think the poorest account has 15 games. The richest over 80. When you can pay $8 or even less for a game why bother. Even better my ISP has free content if you download from their servers (as it is a steam mirror). Ha Battlefield 2 bad company Christamas special it was $15. We bought 4 copies.

    Classic recent case why Steam is awesome. My son wanted this single player game last week and said could I search for it on Isohunt. We found it immediately and I went this is a really old game as it had a date of over 100 weeks ago. We checked Steam. It was $11. As we were close to our monthly 200GB limit I went just buy it. We did. This scenario happens often as we prefer our games in the Steam menu than having to frig around in the startmenu opening up things plus steam is always open anyway as my kids chat with online mates there.

    These idiots in Movie/TV World really have to get with the program.

    • I know, it makes incredible sense — for $11, you get a game which has been setup to work perfectly in Steam out of the box, even going to the extent to install any background Windows drivers such as DirectX which you may need. You could spend hours searching around on the internet for it … but why bother?

      This sort of thing works well in iTunes for many old albums. They have such a big back catalogue (although it is by no means complete), so you can just go on and easily buy scores of your favourite childhood tracks, for a pittance. I think it would also work perfectly in the TV show/movie world. All they need is a decent platform for it.

  6. “It can even charge a premium for such a service.”

    I’m sorry, but paying a premium is the last thing we need. What we need is a complete library that is dirt cheep.

    I’m currently playing about $74 per month for Optus PayTV and IQ1. If that’s not expensive enough ($888 per year), if I want to get all the movie channels as well then that’s $112 per month ($1,344 per year).

    Sure, the upgrade may LOOK cheap at JUST another $1.26 per day but it all adds up.

    I get enough repeats, repeats, repeats, repeats, repeats on my current package, and I’m not about sign up for more of the same. I’m already paying a PREMIUM.

    And if I wanted to buy an on demand movie from their box office then that’s another $6-$7 per movie (or whatever it costs now). That is a PREMIUM when I can get it for $2 at the video store.

    I’ve bought plenty of old TV series on DVD because they were dirt cheap (mostly from US/UK) and because I know I will never see them on Pay TV/Free To Air in this country.

    So if there was a I’m sorry, but paying a premium is the last thing we need. What we need is an extensive library that is dirt cheep.

    We don’t need more PREMIUM services.

    • “What we need is a complete library that is dirt cheep.”

      Sorry, but that’s not going to happen any time soon. I understand you already have pay TV, but most young people don’t — the notion of paying for content which isn’t on-demand is somewhat alien to many of us ;) At the moment we just need a complete library. Specials and discounts will take care of the pricing later on.

      • “I understand you already have pay TV, but most young people don’t — the notion of paying for content which isn’t on-demand is somewhat alien to many of us”

        You missed my point, its the fact that we are already paying a premium for an inferior service. I’d love to be able to get the stuff I want on demand, but if the prices are still at a premium then you will change little.

        There is little difference in waiting for content to arrive 6-12 months later now, then having to wait 6-12months or more for a big enough special/discount to be able to afford it. Its still a wait, its just for a different reason.

          • Correct, and I’d dump it in second, but Renai thinks we should pay a premium for an on demand service.

          • No, I don’t think we should pay a premium, what I said was prices shouldn’t be the priority right now — the priority should be getting decent on-demand video services available at all.

          • Like just about any product – the market will eventually find “the price”.

            Too high, people don’t buy your product.

            Too low, you don’t get a decent return on investment to create your product.

            The market finds the happy medium.

            The problem with the record and movie industry in particular, and the gaming industry to a lesser extent, is that the producers of the material invariably price things too high, and don’t listen to the market.

            Along comes something like Steam, with a different model, and they show you can make the money without overpricing stuff.

            The content producers – (whichever industry) – don’t seem to realise that people “pirate” their material because they over price it. If it were lower, they’d sell more of them and make their money on volume, rather than on unit price.

            Ask yourself how many DVDs you have in your collection. Ask yourself what percentage of them you’ve watched more than 10 times. Suddenly paying $30 or $35 for that DVD seems like a pretty dumb idea – did you get value for that purchase?

            Nope.

            As long as the content producers think that’s a reasonable price for a new release DVD, people will download it.

          • $2 to produce? Are we talking about blank DVDs here?

            Watch this argument turn around as soon as anyone posting here creates any content of any value and has it stolen and distributed because they didn’t price it at 50c.

          • http://ijk.com.au/branch/ijk/product_info.php?cPath=34_377&products_id=106736
            30cents from a retailer for a DVD case
            http://www.tecs.com.au/shop/lg-dvd-r-16x-pk50-spindal-printable.html
            spindal of 50 DVDs that can be printed on $15 which works out to be 30cents a DVD from a retailer.

            Now as a company that’d print/produce the movies on DVDs they would not be paying retail costs. But lets just say the are.

            Thats 60cents for the DVD and case. Then you have the paper sleeve that the cover is on, I’m gonna guess at 5cents for the paper, and 10 cents for the ink. Printing on the disc 10 cents.

            So we are currently at 75cents to produce the package as a whole. I would expect it to be less than this.

            Then we get the disc publisher http://www.primerastore.com/bravoxrp this one is $4,995 and can hold a 100 DVDs at a time. I would expect something a bit more heavy duty used, but you see where I’m going.

            It can easily be produced for $2 or less per movie. (and cover costs of everything thats required to get it made)

            Of course you then have to add in shipping and retailers cut.

            But I would expect if the price was lower then they’d move more and then make more money.

            People go nuts when Target/Big W/kMart have there cheap DVD sales, so it shows that people wanna buy cheap DVDs

          • $2 to produce? Are we talking about blank DVDs here?

            I think you’re confusing the cost of making the movie in the first place, and the cost of reproducing the movie. $2 per DVD is probably on the high side for the cost of pressing DVDs, which I’m sure you know.

            The point is, do you sell 1,000 DVDs at $30 each, or do you sell 10,000 DVDs at $5 each? In the first case, you’re making a “profit” of $28 each. In the second, your “profit” is only $3 per DVD. But you’ve already made more money ($30,000 vs. $28,000) just because more people have purchased it.

            Even better, putting movies up for sale on the internet is basically free: no manufacturing costs at all. Sell the DVDs online for $3 a movie and I’m certain you’d get a fantastic response.

            Of course, such arguments are easy to fudge because we’re just pulling numbers out of thin air, but that’s the problem: nobody even seems willing to give it a go, so it’s impossible to get real-world numbers.

          • Watch this argument turn around as soon as anyone posting here creates any content of any value and has it stolen and distributed because they didn’t price it at 50c.

            By the way, as a software developer, I know what it’s like to create something that thousands of people enjoy. In fact, the software that I write is literally given away for free, so I don’t really understand the argument about creating things only because you’re hoping to run into a fat paycheck.

          • I think you’re confusing the cost of making the movie in the first place, and the cost of reproducing the movie. $2 per DVD is probably on the high side for the cost of pressing DVDs, which I’m sure you know.

            Think you’re forgetting that DVD aren’t the only place they make money.

          • And the usual argument applies…. Lamborghinis are very expensive and I really want a Lamborghini – do I steal one, or simply accept I don’t want to (or can’t) pay that sort of price for a car?

            I have trouble seeing how something being “over priced” justifies it being stolen? Surely it only justifies it not being bought at that price.

          • I didn’t say it justifies anything.

            I’ve also never seen someone download a Lamborghini – I’m sure if that were possible, people would be doing it.

          • I’m sorry, but you did. Near the end of the article you state:

            “It can even charge a premium for such a service. Packrats like me would pay to collect all of the episodes in dozens of series, and many directors’ complete cinematic back catalogue … just in case we might watch it one day.”

          • It does when you immediately follow it with a statement like “Packrats like me would pay to collect all of the episodes in dozens of series, and many directors’ complete cinematic back catalogue” .

            If you had said that that is what you would do if/after a discount then I would agree with you, but the way you stated it implies that you would still be a heavy buyer at the premium prices.

  7. Sorry, I am going to have to grab this bit and see if it makes more sense in isolation than it did in your story:

    ===
    Motorists who speed, cross double white lines or commit any other traffic offence don’t have to do so. If they want to avoid fines or even losing their licence, they can simply obey the law — drive safely, within the speed limits, signal correctly and don’t talk on their mobile phone while simultaneously eating a Big Mac and overtaking a semi-trailer.

    But what legal option do Australians currently have if they want to get the latest TV shows and movies as soon as they are released overseas? Very few.
    ====

    What about… they “don’t have to do so”… “they can simply obey the law”?

    • If I want to watch certain TV shows, then I have no choice but to do so illegally – there is no legal option. Sure, I can choose not to watch it at all, but if there is no legal option to buy the content anyway, then it’s not like the studio is losing money.

      • Is this just a Gen Y thing? Since when does “want” mean that you can trample over other people’s rights?

        “Need” could be the start of an argument, but “want”?

        • certain TV shows never make it to Australia from the US or get here a year or so later.

          Are we supposed to wait around until one of the broadcasters here decides to get the TV show?

          • “Another would be for them to stop treating consumers like idiots”

            Exactly. The way they act you could be forgiven in thinking that consumer love to have new show play for 2/3 episodes before a break in the schedule, or moving time slots, or starting late.

            After all, it keeps happening, so consumers must like it. They would never do things that consumers don’t like would they?

        • No, it’s not just a Gen Y thing. For a start, I’m not Gen Y.

          My point is not about the legality or the morality of downloading things illegally. My point is simply that if there is no legal option for me to buy the content, then the studio is not losing any money if I download it instead. If the studio wants to make money off their content, then the first step is to provide a legal means for me to purchase it.

  8. AFACT likes to complain that theft is killing the industry it purports to represent.

    That same industry constantly fights and resists online distribution. Even when someone like Apple comes along, they *still* try to squeeze every last penny. But that’s not really the issue.

    The industry has forever tried to apply physical copyright and distribution models to online. They are very slow to embrace, because they have always carved up the market into “controlled” spaces.

    That means you can define who gets content, when, and with highly granular levels of exclusivity. It’s a cash cow. When you’re addicted to something, it’s inordinately hard to part with it.

    The motion picture and music industries are addicted to control. It’s really that simple. While they refuse to kick the habit, consumers (whom are also, forever, treated as criminals) will lose out.

    The Internet has allowed distribution models to flourish, in spite of any attempts to control. Instead of realising this as a massive untapped market, the industry has come to the party late, with a 1980’s deployment model and a death grip on content control.

    That is the antithesis of what the Internet basically serves to function as. An open repository of information. Ultimately, this is supply and demand. If demand exists, supply will occur. Regardless of what the industry wants.

    Steam is actually a good example, Renai did well. Yes, there is some degree of control, still. Yes, there is some degree of regionality. But.. the key here, is that it’s a reasonable middle ground.

    It strikes a rough balance between access and control. If sales are to be believed, it has revolutionised the way games are consumed. That same kind of model can and does work just as well for media.

    But, until the industry accepts that control has to be relaxed to a degree, that ‘piracy’ will exist for as long as they choke supply, or refuse to provide a distribution model that allows simultaneous consumption across the globe (not to mention treat the end consumer as a litigation target) the problem will largely persist.

  9. Over a period of five years I purchased the boxed sets of a popular tv series for several hundred dollars. The 132 episodes have been sitting on my bookshelf and occasionally watched on tv or pc. The amassed issues with poor dvd playing apps, repeated warnings about piracy before each episode, the need to load dvds and the technically illegal process of trying to overcome the drm to allow me to make my own highlights package of episodes finally did my head in. I obtained playable copies of each episode from ‘another source’ and can now happily watch the series as I wish to on my pc.

    If the so called entertainment industry had made my path easier I would not have needed to use an alternate method for doing exactly what an old vcr allowed me to do in the late nineties – play and edit my recorded content as I wished purely for my own entertainment. The fact that it was pathetically difficult and time consuming to do the same thing with my purchased (at an exorbitant price of over $700 ten years ago) product is an example of why some will regard the ‘rights’ holders as nothing more than disrespectful, greedy carpetbaggers.

  10. Markets are all about efficiency, about finding the most efficient means to get products and services to the end user. The market will cause companies to become more efficient or die. In terms of piracy, piracy is the most efficient means of distribution, and that is the problem here. The industry needs to compete with the efficiency of piracy, and how exactly are they going to do that?

    Few methods:

    – Instantly available, released as soon as possible with no delay.
    – Cached locally, or added to an ISP’s freezone so that bundling can exist between the ISP’s products and the content.
    – No DRM, content is available in the scenes preferred format. I cannot be clearer on this point.
    – No price tiering, if you sell it cheaper oversea, you sell it for the same price here.

    It’s because I don’t see any of the above, let alone all of the above occuring, which means that I don’t see myself switching from my current methods.

  11. a certain portion of the isp monthly bill, should go towards downloading premium media content, not just some shitty quota free page with nothing on it, but a big huge library of drm free movies and shows in 1080p
    ffffffffuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

  12. No it’s not a Gen Y thing at all. I am 42 and have no hesitation in downloading TV I know that will either never make it here or if it does it won’t be for a very long time. How else would we have seen BSG In Australia. I think 7 or 10 showed the pilot and then..well not much else. Has anyone shown Caprica?

    I have Foxtel but even then I don’t keep track of every show that is on. I rarely if ever watch FTA TV so if something is on Go I’m probably not going to know about it. Do the major networks even show new programming on their extra channels? I have no idea.

    Would I pay for new content if I could get it right away? very possibly if I thought it was reasonably priced, the problem with that is in Australia at least it never will be so it’s kind of a moot argument.

    I also have a Steam account and have games I bought that have been on sale that I thought I would like but hadn’t bought for retail because I had read bad reviews. Picking up Alpha protocol for $5-6 on Steam is hell of a lot better than $30-40 retail for a game that by all reports is very buggy and not that great but at that price I am willing to take that risk.

    Everyone valus content dfferently whether it be TV or games on Steam and pay what they think it is worth. At the moment it appears in Australia most people are “pirating” TV shows not because they like free goods but because it’s not available by any other means. Once networks and movie companies realise that is why Australia has one of the highest rates of piracy of TV programming in the world then the more likely it is to arrange a pricing structure that would enable people to pay for that content. I don’t believe everyone will pay, that’s naive, but a lot of people will and that is a start.

  13. It’s not just new shows, old series of some shows are impossible to get legally too, especially reality shows.

  14. “In addition, when the content does arrive, often it’s only broadcast through certain TV channels at certain times; times when you may — imagine! — have to work or carry out some other responsibility, and thus be prohibited from consuming it. Sure, you might be able to digitally record the broadcast, if you knew it was on, but I’m not sure whether even that common practice is completely legal.”

    The TV channels themselves are encouraging us to go elsewhere by continually changing days and times, and by (deliberately?) making their programs start anything up to half an hour early or late.

    If this is all the respect they have for viewers, I will show my (lack of) respect for them by not watching their channel. It is easy enough to get programs that you can watch when you want to and without ads.

    The TV stations, by their behaviour, are making themselves pretty much irrelevant, then complaining about it.

  15. A well written piece that states the real cause of a lot of piracy and what needs to be done to fix it. But will anyone listen? I doubt it.

  16. Not to mention, when we do fork out for content on places like iTunes, we get slammed with increased costs, when our dollar is pretty much at parity. why should i pay 70% more for a song by rhianna than someone in america? or for a movie or tv show if and when it ever shows up in the australian store?

    Hulu international has been “in the works” for about 5 years now. and it’s gotten nowhere. in fact, the poster child for distribution of tv content, US Hulu, is dwindling, as networks hog content for their own distribution services on their own websites.

    Australia has Quickflix, but it costs a lot more than Netflix in the US, and we pay more for our internet on top. Quickflix finally has unlimited access plans, but still uses physical disks rather than doing it all via the internet, and is movies only, with no tv shows offered.

    When will studios and networks wake up and realise that whilst their funding may come from one country, tv and movies are considered a global commodity, and that it is considered our right to watch US tv within hours of it screening there. this is why Hulu international was such a great concept. stream it online, and have ads for your region. or pay for a monthly subscription and get little or no ads. but of course, australian networks want a piece of the pie that is the ratings superstars of american hit tv shows. if it airs online 6 months before they air it on tv, what money is there to be made in selling the advertising spots?

    by all means, have channel 7 etc buy the rights, put it on their “channel” online and control the advertisements, but someone, please put the content out there legitimately before it’s too late. it’s not just gen x and y torrenting now. boomers etc are doing it for themselves, or asking their kids/grandkids to do it for them now.

  17. Always a good read, Renai, you always manage to restore my faith in common sense…

    I usually stay out of discussions, but theres something worth mentioning i havent seen raised at all. By the way, Im no expert on the matter, and this is just from my memory.

    If i recall correctly, “theft” in legal terms means (or is supposed to mean) something like “to take without permission in a manner such that the owner no longer has control or rights to the item(s)”. Before the DMCA, technically, it wasnt theft if you duplicated a copyrighted work provided you attributed the owner/creator – you weren’t taking their control or rights, but making an exact copy, and even going so far as to show where it came from.

    In pre-DMCA terminology, “copyright theft” would mean more to take the copyright itself and not necessarily the actual item(s) (again, could be wrong here). If that is correct, then all the DMCA did was extend the definition of theft into the realm of minority report: duplicating a copyrighted work without affecting the copyrights themselves is theft under DCMA so long as the intent is remotely suspect of being out of line with the copyright holder’s views.

    I’ll stop here since i could go on for a while about this. For the record, i’m not advocating one view or another, just making an observation that this argument hasn’t shown up much and i’m stuck wondering why…

  18. I am always amused by people’s assertion of their moral right to download [insert series here], but I get the pressure that makes people want to watch it when everyone else is.

    No isp wants to be the only one cutting off their users so it will be interesting to see what happens with the fast tracked iia code of practice. Reading between the lines in the announcement it suggests they are admitting they might be liable to be sued if nothing at all happens, otherwise why bother with a code if there is no legislation to enforce it.

    I’m actually not unhappy if we get some code of practice that slows people’s access. At the moment the people with the buying power are the ad supported Free-to-air and Foxtel, so even though services like itunes are there, the buyers of local rights either don’t put it on itunes or put it up behind their own schedules. Interestingly though in the US, Netflix, who have over 60% market share for downloads are now aggressively buying content which means the balance is beginning to shift away from the traditional channels, but obviously no-one is bothering with the Australian market yet, but Apple is in the box seat for this if they cared.

    I believe that services like itunes will begin to have a bit more clout if people can’t download with impunity, because content producers are demonstrably competing with other forms of entertainment and other programs. They have this delusional fantasy that by controlling the market they will be able to channel all those pirates directly into their revenue stream at a timing of their choosing when in fact all but the best content is going to have leakage as people like me just won’t bother.

    • “I believe that services like itunes will begin to have a bit more clout if people can’t download with impunity, because content producers are demonstrably competing with other forms of entertainment and other programs.”

      Choking one kind of supply does not automatically mean an alternative supply will see an uptick. In fact, that actually encourages renegade behaviour.

      Steam, as exampled in this article, is control of content via distribution, sure.. but rather than penalising the end user. It treats them as a consumer, not a thief. If I can pay $30 for a title, install it and have the only requirement be an active steam member, then I will happily do that.

      I have Foxtel, and FetchTV services. I pay (quite a bit) to access content. So I am happy to pay for services. That’s not really the problem though.

      The ‘other’ methods fill a space the industry refuses to enter beyond lip service. They bypass ridiculous and outdated regional models that have no place in a ‘borderless’ broadband world. Further, they allow access to content that either won’t screen here (as there’s no distribution rights) or is delayed for (often) years.

      It’s easy to “blame” pirates as the problem. If they stopped consuming then we’d see the industry going nuts in the internet/ broadband space, right? Wrong.

      Because you still have the issue of control, regionality and exclusivity, which have become the narcotic of choice.

      I understand what you’re saying. But you’re assuming the industry is against theft. Technically it’s not the theft they give a crap about. It’s the lost revenue share; it’s why the industry targets content sharing, not content consumption.

      The industry demonises the consumer, because it allows it to continue to cling to a distribution model that has barely changed since the advent of silent cinema. A model that has seen it profit considerably by strangling the market.

      The market has changed. The way people consume, and share that content has changed. Social media has, for it’s part, taken consumption, discussion etc into a shared space. This isn’t the 1920’s any more. The industry either has to adapt (as it’s consumer base has) or perish.

  19. Not that I condone copyright infringement but clearly this issue needs to be understood under a wider umbrella of disciplines if people want to debate about intelligibly. I’ve done a lot of research into this area, and short of writing a thesis on it (as I ended up writing on a different topic) here’s some views to broaden the discussion:

    First – copyright infringement should (at least) be understood for its legal, sociological and [what i’ll tentatively call] psychology aspects.

    Second – legally: in terms of private personal use, its not a crime. Its still breaking the law but its not a crime. If you want to equate it to ‘theft’ so therefore it should be viewed as a crime then you misunderstand the historical background of it. To be dangerously brief, they are laws aimed at protecting publishers against other naughty publishers. It was always intended to be a commercially oriented piece of legislation. Whether you believe this ethically-neutral law should be changed is your opinion.

    Thirdly- sociology: I think what most of this opinion piece and comments refer to is this component. In our age of information accessibility etc. etc. how can anyone justify having to wait for content? Further one should note the fact we often cannot gain timely/any access in Australia to content is often attributed to a handful of powerful companies looking out for themselves. Also anyone who uses the market forces argument in this debate should be cautioned since its a unrealistic application of something occurring in perfect situations to what really is an imperfect market- copyright is viewed as the antithesis to ‘market forces’ in some lines of thought.

    Finally- psychology: so is it ‘theft’ in the traditional sense? Yes and no. Yes because it is fundamentally stealing but then what? Murder is fundamentally wrong but we know too well there are a myriad of exceptions. It really depends on how one views/interprets ‘theft’ of intellectual property. What do YOU fill the concept with? Is it a moral concept? Or just a practical one in order to keep social order? Or some mixture etc. We all ‘feel’ its wrong but there seems to appear excepting circumstances.

    These are just remnants of my research into the major issues in dissecting copyright infringement. Just to ensure I don’t create the impression I support infringement and cause disrespect to authors/creators of original content, I want to note I had approached my research from the mindset of exposing the ‘piracy dilemma’ not furthering it. Unfortunately the strongest arguments against piracy for private end-users is a moral one, yet putting aside the social fragmentation of unified moral standards, the strongest argument for copyright protection is a commercial one. My conclusion: go find commercial solutions- like Steam!

  20. You must learn to take responsibility for your self and learn to take responsibility for your role played
    in all of your life dramas with various characters.
    The introduction part in Nigerian marriages is often done by the
    two fathers, the father of the guys introduces his.
    So the two frogs went to Mississippi River to look for Odie mother-in-law, which ask her to help untie the spell both of them.

    My site Angola Porno

Comments are closed.