A victimless crime?

[blybo]

there is in terms of responsibility for the government to step in and act. Copyright infringements is more towards personal nuisance with economic value attached than society violation classified as a crime, so in my view it is a HUGE different.

 

Huh? Sounds like another excuse to me. Taking something of value without paying is a pretty straight forward crime.

[RockandorRoll]

Im not suggesting that it forced my hand to download it illegally. I watched it through perfectly legal means. It was a bloody great movie and should be seen by more people.

 

I just worry for the industry, the only way that movie made it to my house was through a chance encounter on Foxtel one late night. What chance do they have when their target audience (mid 20 somethings with disposable income) sees the movie by luck.

 

It might be an American way to do business, but sometimes you have to spend money to make money. Wheres the advertising and promotion?

[henry218]

Huh? Sounds like another excuse to me. Taking something of value without paying is a pretty straight forward crime.

 

this is how the current stand on copyright infringement legal perspective anywhere in the world. its not my view.

 

i don't know if you notices, when AUST and USA agreed on the FTA, USA demands for longer expiration of copyrights protection than what it was before. and guess which have bigger imports value on copyrights?

[blybo]

Im not suggesting that it forced my hand to download it illegally. I watched it through perfectly legal means. It was a bloody great movie and should be seen by more people.

 

I just worry for the industry, the only way that movie made it to my house was through a chance encounter on Foxtel one late night. What chance do they have when their target audience (mid 20 somethings with disposable income) sees the movie by luck.

 

It might be an American way to do business, but sometimes you have to spend money to make money. Wheres the advertising and promotion?

 

I guess it is more a sign of the times where the cinemas are national or multi national corporations and only want to take safe bets in regards to what is on the screens. I've just bought a BD copy of Mud yet never heard anything about it prior to DVD/BD release, I'm not even sure it had a mainstream release, I can only see Cinema Nova or Palace release dates online.

 

As the article about TV stated, pay TV series are now often better than major movies because of a lack of risk to distribute the independent movies. I'd just like to get lossless sound with Foxtel HD movies, maybe then I'd pay for the channels. The only FTA tv I watch now is the Formula 1 telecast, and even then I wish I could ffwd through the reality TV ads.

[zog]

I paid good money to see "47 Ronin" in the cinema. Whoever let this one out the door deserves to lose money, with nobody to blame but themselves.

[blybo]

I paid good money to see "47 Ronin" in the cinema. Whoever let this one out the door deserves to lose money, with nobody to blame but themselves.

 

You've got to be pretty wary of anything with Keanu Reeves in it... The Matrix actually suited his incredibly wooden acting so call that the exception to the rule.

[Gee Emm]

Let's be honest here.

 

Irrespective of perceived quality, distribution models, timeframes, how you feel about a company, etc...

 

If you take something without paying for it, without the owners permission, that's stealing.

 

We are all guilty of it. The only difference is quantity.

 

Hi, my name is Graham, I have on occasion downloaded for stuff for free when I didn't have the owner's permission to.

 

Last time I checked, porn is free

[zog]

get independently verified numbers first - lots of these claims from the movie/music industry have been found to be based on vastly exaggerated, or just plain wrong numbers when held up to any independent scrutiny.

 

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/01/internet-regulation-and-the-economics-of-piracy/

As a rough analogy, since antipiracy crusaders are fond of equating filesharing with shoplifting: suppose the CEO of Wal-Mart came to Congress demanding a $50 million program to deploy FBI agents to frisk suspicious-looking teens in towns near Wal-Marts. A lawmaker might, without for one instant doubting that shoplifiting is a bad thing, question whether this is really the optimal use of federal law enforcement resources. The CEO indignantly points out that shoplifting kills one million adorable towheaded orphans each year. The proof is right here in this study by the Wal-Mart Institute for Anti-Shoplifting Studies. The study sources this dramatic claim to a newspaper article, which quotes the CEO of Wal-Mart asserting (on the basis of private data you can't see) that shoplifting kills hundreds of orphans annually. And as a footnote explains, it seemed prudent to round up to a million. I wish this were just a joke, but as readers of my previous post will recognize, that's literally about the level of evidence we're dealing with here.

 

older,  but still:

 

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2008/10/dodgy-digits-behind-the-war-on-piracy/1/

But enough theory and speculation; here is what we can say for certain: the two numbers that are invariably invoked whenever Congress considers the need for more stringent IP enforcement are, at best, highly dubious. They are phantoms. We have no good reason to think that either is remotely reliable.

 

http://boingboing.net/2008/01/22/mpaa-admits-to-lying.html

The MPAA study that showed that students were responsible for 44 percent of film downloading? A big old lie. And now the MPAA has admitted it:

 

etc etc endlessly

 

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080718/1226541724.shtml

A detailed explanation of how the BSA misleads with piracy stats

 

http://boingboing.net/2013/10/16/mpaa-asks-judge-to-exclude-evi.html

In a crowded field of talented practitioners, MPAA piracy figures are standout examples of misleading, silly, outright BS. No wonder then, that the MPAA has asked a judge to exclude any data on losses due to piracy from its lawsuit against Isohunt.

[davewantsmoore]

So what is the answer? Is it better education, serious penalties for online piracy? 

What do members think? Any suggestions to solve this problem?

 

I have what might be considered a harsh perspective on this ?!

 

 

Imagine if the banks left all the doors unlocked and completely unguarded all night.   How many people would go and steal money?    More than the police could ultimately catch?   Almost certainly....   Do we think that it would be acceptable to restrict the freedom of the person walking the street so that he didn't rob the bank  .... while at the same time, allowing someone with more sophisticated means (for example he owns a helicopter) to continue robbing the bank?   I doubt it.

 

 

Distribution of digital content is broken... because it is unable to protect the holder of the rights to the content.    Technology exists whereby this could be rectified.... but distributors of digital content have not succeeded in deploying this technology yet to their advantage.

 

Once upon a time the movie industry  (nearly 100 years ago now)  was at the pinnacle of modern technology and vertical integrated distribution model (cinemas)    .......  They have now fallen behind as the world has moved on.... they could have reinvested some of their (enormous) profit into the distribution model, and been a leader who was inventing new technology like they used to.    It was their choice not to do this.

 

 

 

I'm not trying to say that copyright infringement shouldn't be illegal .... just that there is a limit to how much the world is going to be willing to change for you.... if you choose to leave all your toys out on the front lawn at night    (unfortunately it is human nature for some to steal if they know they will not get caught).

 

 

I don't like a lot of what our current government says.... but I do have a nod for Malcolm Turnbull when he says that "rights holders MUST be prepared to defend and protect their content"

 

 

As someone who works in computer security (previously for an ISP), I can tell you that the rhetoric around solving the problem by blocking sites, and banning users, is a game of whack-a-mole that will only catch the stupid and cost a lot of money.   (It is next to impossible to block or filter the internet without removing basically all freedom and privacy)

 

.... the reality is that the ball is in the content holders court.

 

 

If I were an actor, I'd be upset at someone for pirating a movie.... but I'd be more upset that the owner of the movie had seemingly done little to protect it.

 

Perhaps they are closer than it seems to coming up with a way to protect their assets.    We can only hope.

[davewantsmoore]

My point was that...

 

You make it very well.

 

If I had of bothered to read your post first ... I probably wouldn't have bothered writing mine --- and having everyone suffer reading through my drivel  

[Chopsus Maximus]

I don't see where I "endorsed" theft:

 

 

My point was that copyright holders need to take steps to secure their own property, just as every other individual does ... the current push from the big studios is that it is the Governments responsibility to write a law to make it another businesses responsibility (ISPs) to police and secure their property.

 

Apparently these same conglomerates actually own large proportions of the companies that house and store the pirated material (ie: the Usenet Service Providers) yet they are not making serious attempts to get them to do their policing for them.

 

At the end of the day the Law is in place for them to use and copyright infringement has generally been pursued via civil means ... I really don't think it is reasonable for a Multi-Billion Dollar industry to require government to provide a customised service at the tax payers (and another industry's') expense ... especially considering the current Government's Budget problems.

 

Seems like blaming a victim of theft for not having a burglar alarm. No thought on the act of the burglar?

 

Not really ... leave your wallet on the bar in the pub, walk away and then ask the police to investigate it once its gone missing (or house unlocked or car unlocked) ... see what sort of reaction you get from them.

 

It is every individuals responsibility to secure their property, not the government and not some other hapless business owner. The copyright act is very clear about this.

 

The real criminals are those who take copyrighted material and place it in a public domain (ie the Internet). These are the people that the law and the copyright owners should be pursuing, not trying to force the government to write laws that force someone else (ie: ISPs) to have to spend money to protect their property.

 

It's the equivalent of expecting the Main Roads Department and City Council to install CCTV on your house because the "thieves" used their roads to get there LOL!.

 

I've been involved with a major textbook that is routinely photo-copied by local and overseas businesses and sold to students ... local authorities are not interested in prosecuting them at all, even though the publisher has all the evidence to do so ... their response is that it is not their concern (from a resource perspective) and they consider this to be a "civil issue" rather than criminal and the publisher should pursue them civilly given it is a case of financial damage.

 

This is the way it has been for copyright holders for as long as I can remember, but now there is a powerful industry in the game that want to force the responsibility for protecting their copyright onto another business/industry/person ... I don't think this is fair, nor reasonable ... it would be the equivalent of me expecting all photo copiers and printer manufacturers to somehow stop people copying a textbook.

 

I have nothing against any copyright holder exercising their right to ownership (and profit) from their creative work, what I disagree with is the expectation that they should be able to legally require someone else to do it for them.

Edited August 26, 2014 by Chopsus Maximus

[wolster]

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/01/internet-regulation-and-the-economics-of-piracy/

As a rough analogy, since antipiracy crusaders are fond of equating filesharing with shoplifting: suppose the CEO of Wal-Mart came to Congress demanding a $50 million program to deploy FBI agents to frisk suspicious-looking teens in towns near Wal-Marts. A lawmaker might, without for one instant doubting that shoplifiting is a bad thing, question whether this is really the optimal use of federal law enforcement resources. The CEO indignantly points out that shoplifting kills one million adorable towheaded orphans each year. The proof is right here in this study by the Wal-Mart Institute for Anti-Shoplifting Studies. The study sources this dramatic claim to a newspaper article, which quotes the CEO of Wal-Mart asserting (on the basis of private data you can't see) that shoplifting kills hundreds of orphans annually. And as a footnote explains, it seemed prudent to round up to a million. I wish this were just a joke, but as readers of my previous post will recognize, that's literally about the level of evidence we're dealing with here.

 

older,  but still:

 

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2008/10/dodgy-digits-behind-the-war-on-piracy/1/

But enough theory and speculation; here is what we can say for certain: the two numbers that are invariably invoked whenever Congress considers the need for more stringent IP enforcement are, at best, highly dubious. They are phantoms. We have no good reason to think that either is remotely reliable.

 

http://boingboing.net/2008/01/22/mpaa-admits-to-lying.html

The MPAA study that showed that students were responsible for 44 percent of film downloading? A big old lie. And now the MPAA has admitted it:

 

etc etc endlessly

 

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080718/1226541724.shtml

A detailed explanation of how the BSA misleads with piracy stats

 

http://boingboing.net/2013/10/16/mpaa-asks-judge-to-exclude-evi.html

In a crowded field of talented practitioners, MPAA piracy figures are standout examples of misleading, silly, outright BS. No wonder then, that the MPAA has asked a judge to exclude any data on losses due to piracy from its lawsuit against Isohunt.

 

The fact that piracy figures are exaggerated does not change the illegal nature of downloads. 

[wolster]

 

If I were an actor, I'd be upset at someone for pirating a movie.... but I'd be more upset that the owner of the movie had seemingly done little to protect it.

 

Perhaps they are closer than it seems to coming up with a way to protect their assets.    We can only hope.

 

I liked that bit

[RockandorRoll]

Wheres the Australia version of Netflix?

 

That seems to have curtailed the issue in the US. Netflix is now so self sufficient that it can afford to fund its own programming (House of Cards)

 

So why isn't the Australian industry doing this? Whats Foxtel doing about it? They seem happy to stop Itunes distributing Game Of Thrones but they wont buck up some coin to keep the industry alive.

 

The problem is this - the industry is run by idiots with no idea on how content is actually delivered these days. Bunch of dinosaurs need to retire

[Gee Emm]

The problem is this - the industry is run by idiots with no idea on how content is actually delivered these days. Bunch of dinosaurs need to retire

 

And/or,

the industry is run by powerful rich people who know how to lobby lazy governments.

[Guest Muon]

Let's be honest here.

 

Irrespective of perceived quality, distribution models, timeframes, how you feel about a company, etc...

 

If you take something without paying for it, without the owners permission, that's stealing.

 

We are all guilty of it. The only difference is quantity.

 

Hi, my name is Graham, I have on occasion downloaded for stuff for free when I didn't have the owner's permission to.

 

Last time I checked, porn is free

I think you are joking, Happy..............but I would never download that stuff, those sites are like walking into a cyber version of Hells Kitchen...in ya' underware.

 

I like a clean PC.

[zog]

The fact that piracy figures are exaggerated does not change the illegal nature of downloads. 

 

I have a download from:

http://www.mybloodyvalentine.org/Musicdetail.aspx?rid=599&fid=20&brid=5

and own lots of MBV physical CDs as well -

but according to http://pitchfork.com/features/interviews/8809-kevin-shields/

"you know, we've never been paid one penny from the United States from any of the records we've ever made."

 

according to the band themselves the CDs could be illegal (mine are AU releases I suppose so I dont know the royalty situation compared to their complaints about the USA releases) and the download is not.

[davewantsmoore]

Wheres the Australia version of Netflix?

 

http://www.quickflix.com.au/

[RockandorRoll]

http://www.quickflix.com.au/

I remember when i had a trial of this on the Xbox.

 

Its just not the same as whats available with Netflix. The range just isnt there

 

It might have changed, but after having a quick look at whats 'currently streaming', i dont think so

[davewantsmoore]

I remember when i had a trial of this on the Xbox.

Its just not the same as whats available with Netflix. The range just isnt there

It might have changed, but after having a quick look at whats 'currently streaming', i dont think so

 

Oh, you mean....   http://www.netflixaustralianow.com.au/

 

 

In all seriousness... The rumours are that Netflix can't conqueror Australia, as they do not have the rights to enough content here.   More symptoms of a broken distribution / licensing model, of the industry's own making.

 

Like most people I've read some pretty disturbing stories about movie/music/tv industry .....  hopefully the solution is waiting in the wings, just around the corner.... the ebay of content distribution?   <shrug>

[betty boop]

On Friday, I heard a very interesting interview with veteran Australian film director, Bruce Beresford on the ABC.

He was discussing the current state of the Australian film industry and expressed his concern that the biggest issue facing the industry is not lack of scripts or talent but lack of financial backing for new movies.

The reason for this is not lack of funds to invest but the increasing problem of online illegal downloading of movies. Companies are just not willing to invest in movies that may not make profits as a results of online piracy.

 

This, of course results in less movies being made and, consequently, less employment for talented actors, directors, editors, cinematographers etc. We have highly talented youngsters graduating from performing art colleges around Australia who will struggle to get work as a result of their 'mates' frequenting torrent sites and downloading any movie or TV show they may want to watch. Hence the title of this thread.

I guess the problem also applies to the music industry to some extent.

 

So what is the answer? Is it better education, serious penalties for online piracy? 

 

What do members think? Any suggestions to solve this problem?

 

wol I have a bit of family involved in the arts and film, even my dad has acted in the odd film hehe. unfortunately where its at though, its not a great living. our youngest family member entering is studying at the VCA which is very highly regarded. as a back ground when he was a teenager he was working on some of the block buster musicals. even now going through his studies at the VCA he is still flat out working, hardly ever does he have a weekend off. and it pays a pittance. over 18 now he cant afford to buy a car. which I could the same age working as a shop assistant. he literally just gets by.

 

he is appalled when he hears friends of his (not in the industry) whom talk of illegal downloads etc. he's told me before none of his friends buy music. so begs the question if no one buys...what will pay for the artists to produce their next album ? a leap of faith from some studio ? they'll only do that so often. 

 

atleast the industry he is involved in....live theatre...you cant download...you have to go see it ! but movies its too easy for piracy. I know friends and people at work whom tell me they just watched a movie, and you know its not even released in this country, let alone on disc. so obviously illegaly downloading. and its very common place. it just kills the industry here and bumps up the price for everyone else that does pay for it.

 

its stealing and will remain stealing no matter how you cut and dice it. people will try brush it away with excuses. ie oh no I'm just trying it see how I'd like it and if really do like it will buy it honest. bull dust I say. if want to try it go rent it and pay the due. taking something for nothing is stealing. no ifs no buts no maybe's 

 

ps am not too sure how fair the digital distribution model is either when comes to artist. have seen plenty of photos from artists on the royalty paid. its a pittance. not sure how sustainable a model that is either.

[LogicprObe]

Because I'm a musician, I don't pirate music.......................but I have no problem pirating (if that's what you like to call it) movies and TV.

There's a lot of hypocrite in all of us.

[Chopsus Maximus]

Yes, Piracy is theft, but the Film Studios haven;t exactly bathed themselves in credibility given some of the tall tales they have tried to use to stop it:

Movie Piracy funds Terrorism!

I really can't see how that is the case when there is no money in the act of uploading copyrighted material, nor does it cost to download it ... or were they referring to those shady characters at the Markets selling bootleg movies?

Somehow I doubt they were making millions of dollars to fund some sort of Jihad ... more likely making enough money to support their family while waiting for a refugee visa LOL!

Edited August 30, 2014 by Chopsus Maximus

[Saxon Hall]

There is a bloke at work always bragging about having seen the latest movies at home before they are released. The latest blockbusters on his little TV at home. He has a young son that he shows all the kids animated movies to, so I asked him if he ever takes him to the cinema. He said no because it hurts his ears or some cock and bull or other. He was always pestering me to watch his illegal downloaded movies so to shut him up I took home a copy of Inglorious Basterds (a while back). The picture and sound quality was rubbish and the movie was impossible to follow. English and German dialogue and Chinese and Russian subtitles on screen. People actually watch these movies that the director has crafted in a particular way and then it is destroyed by being presented this way. No thanks, I would rather buy the DVD or Blu Ray or wait till the movie comes on at a decent cinema (not a rotten overpriced Multiplex Cinema).

For all the illegal down loaders, you reap what you sow. When the Multiplexes have been overrun with teen gross out movies and adult orientated movies are extinct , then just cop it on the chin

[LogicprObe]

I wait until the DVD comes out...................then download it.
Screeners are rubbish.