In a perfect world, copyright owners would actively encourage people to enjoy watching or listening to their products on multiple platforms through multiple devices, all for a reasonable cost. But this world ain’t perfect.
Which means your “innocent” downloading of a movie or album is not just a thorn in the copyright owner’s side, but also against the law. Gus over at Lifehacker does a great job of busting through many of the myths around Copyright infringements in light of the recent ISP five strikes proposal – it’s a great read, and well worth debating in the comments. [Lifehacker]
More:
- New Aussie Piracy Rules: How The Five Strikes Work
- Google Adds Torrent Sites To Search Blacklist
Image: Uncle Catherine
Blake
Wednesday, November 30, 2011 at 2:17 PMThey don’t care. Why should I?
Jason
Wednesday, November 30, 2011 at 2:55 PMJust because something is against the law, doesn’t mean it’s wrong.
Laws sway more to protecting multi-billion dollar corporations then they do the people.
cayal
Wednesday, November 30, 2011 at 4:11 PMNot sure if serious…
adam
Wednesday, November 30, 2011 at 4:12 PMI hope he is serious because he is 100% correct.
cayal
Wednesday, November 30, 2011 at 4:49 PMHe’s not even close to being 100% correct.
I mean, even in this issue, we (the 99%) are protected against movie, music etc industry with the Privacy Act.
Ghazarios
Wednesday, November 30, 2011 at 4:17 PMToo true, being lawful doesn’t always go hand in hand with doing the right thing.
cayal
Wednesday, November 30, 2011 at 4:54 PMDoes anyone have any specific examples of unlawful things that aren’t wrong?
By the very definition, right and wrong are defined by law.
david
Wednesday, November 30, 2011 at 5:44 PMSure, travelling on a 115 kmp/h on a dead straight multi lane highway, in the middle of the outback with not another car in sight.
Want another one? A 17 year old taking a naked photo of themselves for their own enjoyment. As soon as the 17 year old turns 18 they are holding illegal child pornography.
Brizeycon
Wednesday, November 30, 2011 at 5:56 PMWeed
Perri
Thursday, December 1, 2011 at 12:42 AM+1
Maniacal
Wednesday, November 30, 2011 at 6:00 PMit doesn’t become child porn when someone turns 18. its child porn regardless of the age of the pictures owner.
olearymo
Thursday, December 1, 2011 at 12:42 PMJust as beating the shit out of someone is still a crime after they’ve recovered.
Your point?
olearymo
Thursday, December 1, 2011 at 12:43 PMplease retract my comment I didn’t read it properly. Yes I’m an idiot.
cayal
Wednesday, November 30, 2011 at 6:26 PMWhat planet do you live on when a 17 year old takes a photo of themselves for their own enjoyment?
What? They’re going to masturbate over a picture of themselves?
Weed might be the only logical thing that someone has said, based on my knowledge of the subject.
me
Thursday, December 1, 2011 at 11:29 AMYou missed the part where they are also producers of child pornography..
olearymo
Thursday, December 1, 2011 at 12:46 PMI don’t agree with the highway one. But, quite sadly, a 17 year old taking a naked photo of themselves is illegal as soon as they do it, not once they turn 18. It is one of the strangest and scariest things about our legal system. I heard a news story of a girl (younger than 17) doing this and she was actually being tried for it in a court. She’s both the perpetrator and the victim. The mind boggles.
This alone is the best example (and only one I agree with) in these comments of something being illegal that morally shouldn’t be.
Sorry for my comments below and filling up this thread too much!
bryan
Thursday, December 1, 2011 at 1:14 PMCountry roads have high single vehicle death rates because of that “logic” You’re an idiot who literally can’t see the road for the trees. As for the child porn example, the law clearly protects the vulnerable. To uphold it as an example of a bad law because of a bizarre scenario once again high lights your idiocy. I look forward to your Darwin Award application.
Nick
Wednesday, November 30, 2011 at 3:13 PMAnd companies justifications for not allowing certain content in Australia are also invalid. >.<
Nathan
Wednesday, November 30, 2011 at 3:26 PMThe government doesn’t allow all content either. No R18+ rating for games.
Also there is this,
http://www.montrealgazette.com/entertainment/movie-guide/Gossip+Elvis+Costello+doesn+happy+over+cost/5786284/story.html
Joseph
Wednesday, November 30, 2011 at 3:19 PMNick, the blocking of content in games that i believe you are referring to is because of Australia’s lack of an R 18+ rating for video games. That is the only reason that certain games get nerfed prior to becoming available on the Australian market. With the content unblocked they do not fit into the MA15+ rating, and hence would not be aloud to be sold legally in Australia.
Nick
Wednesday, November 30, 2011 at 4:19 PMWas actually referring to TV shows, and some music. I’m well aware of our government’s disapproval of R18+ ratings for games.
Marrowmaw
Wednesday, November 30, 2011 at 5:04 PMWe do now actually have a R18+ rating for games.
However we also still have a RC.
Lolz
Thursday, December 1, 2011 at 12:15 AMYou stupid or just ignorant? We don’t “now” have an R18+ rating and we won’t for quite some time. One has just been agreed upon it is not in action…
RooBoy
Wednesday, November 30, 2011 at 3:21 PMIn the early days of Napster, I always pondered why record labels didn’t just give in and provide unlimited MP3 access for a monthly fee.. back in ’98 the music industry had a chance to get on board with the new digital technologies and decided to play hard ball.. oops… their loss and they can suck it.
Mark
Wednesday, November 30, 2011 at 3:29 PMI counter-argue with this: http://delimiter.com.au/2011/11/29/self-interest-is-ruling-australias-piracy-debate/
Leon
Wednesday, November 30, 2011 at 3:44 PMRevolutions are always illegal with the ruling party setting the laws, yet where would the world be without them
Entilzha
Wednesday, November 30, 2011 at 4:12 PMTelll you what when a Movie studio goes 9 months without a franchise reboot I’ll reconsider my views of video liberation
Prashy
Wednesday, November 30, 2011 at 4:41 PMSome of the commentors say, doing the lawful thing isn’t necessarily doing the right thing. I’m not sure what their points are. You are essentially stealing something from someone, who has used their own money to make that product in the hope you will enjoy it.
Sicarius123
Wednesday, November 30, 2011 at 5:54 PMIf they hope that I enjoy it they should be happy I’m enjoying it.
If they block me from obtaining it in my country then they clearly don’t give a shit about what I want, and I don’t give a shit what they want.
Jon
Thursday, December 1, 2011 at 8:39 AMfor Some reason… i think the content so that everyone can “enjoy it” is no longer there. it’s all about the big bucks and advertising…
they don’t give a shit of the content.. they just want the product to produce a lot of money and even if it means charging people from Australia 5 times more to see a movie in a cinema, so be it.
Cost a lot more to have a 2 Movie experiences (including the popcorn,etc.) in a month, than say… the internet bill for a month.. go figure. not everyone can afford that.
cayal
Thursday, December 1, 2011 at 10:14 AMIf you can’t afford it, don’t go. Doesn’t give you the right to steal it.
Iain
Thursday, December 1, 2011 at 11:43 AMAlways an interesting debate, especially in regards to legality.
We have a number of laws in Australia that are no longer enforced (adultery, sodomy, etc) because society has changed but laws cannot. But the question of social acceptance shouldn’t apply here, mostly because if we download we know it is either illegal or within the greyer areas of the law.
Saying that the music and movie industry have a lot to answer for in the smear campaign they are operating. There aren’t to many “successful” artists and certainly not producers going hungry, the industry takes care of itself. Reports of billions lost to piracy are hype, as they assume people would buy albums at full price if they couldn’t acquire from other sources and this simply isn’t true.
The argument that artists are supported by album sales is also a myth. Unless the artists has writing acknowledgement they are the last stop in the monetary river and are in no way guaranteed any of that money. Artists from shows like Idol have acknowledged it is better to leave in 5th or 6th place rather than win as they are not contractually obliged to the producers of the program at that point. Truly the artists are usually getting screwed as hard as the fans by the music industry when it comes to record sales.
If you want to support the artist attend their concerts where 30-60% of the ticket goes to the artist compared to record sales which usually amount to 0.01%-1%. Become a fan of their webpage where they can control cash flow more proactively, although most leave it to managers and deserve the price gorging they get.
The huge problem faced is the stupidity and variation of copyright law, most of which is still unwritten and/or untested (which pretty much amounts to the same thing) that is nation dependent. If you travel to America with you iPod filled with music and leave the CDs at home you are breaking their present copyright laws. In Australia at present copying music to your iPod was the illegal stage as fair use laws are in such a state of flux. In this global environment there needs to be international copyright laws written for the new paradigm that recognize ownership by artists and end-users, that haven’t been written from a corporate greed model.
I am sure that many people download material for legitimate use (the biggest torrenter in Australia is the medical field as they share patient information) would desire a model that allowed them to access content as they desired and generally wish to do the right thing.
Unfortunately the same people that are spending millions to stop us are the causes of our initial frustration and should reflect on the fact that they are a service industry that customers are rejecting because they are not supplying an adequate service. Perhaps if they changed the paradigm they could make their profits legitimately and maintain their audience. The horse didn’t get to sue the car, it had to change and so must they.
Rick
Wednesday, November 30, 2011 at 4:50 PMIt seems like a no-brainer for one/all of those companies to adapt a new business model suiting the way people obviously want to consume content.. but no, lawsuits and threats work better amirite?
Nick
Wednesday, November 30, 2011 at 5:10 PMYou know what? I’m perfectly happy buying my content. You know what pisses me off? Not being legally able to watch or listen to that content on other devices despite the fact I’m the same person.
If I buy it, it’s mine and I should be allowed to choose how to consume it.
Greg
Wednesday, November 30, 2011 at 7:22 PMdownload a song from itunes-7mb
download a song illegal-3mb
why?
deadnotsleeping
Thursday, December 1, 2011 at 9:09 AMbecause Itunes Uses ACC compression which generates larger files at the same bit rates, but better quality. It’s not a conspiracy to get you to buy more HDDs
Blackbeard
Wednesday, November 30, 2011 at 6:37 PMI paid for three tickets to take me and my kids to see Thor, I downloaded a copy so we could watch it while waiting for the Bluray to come out, and when I can buy the Bluray for under $40 freaking dollars somewhere I will buy it.
For me, being an Australian, piracy is a way of seeing the movies I want before I buy them or after I see them at the movies but before I get them on Bluray. If they released movies on Bluray in Australia as soon as they did in the rest of the world I wouldn’t need to download them.
Paul
Wednesday, November 30, 2011 at 7:27 PMIf the labels saved the money they spent on layers fighting piracy, their content would be cheaper and there would be less of a need for piracy.
Sam
Wednesday, November 30, 2011 at 7:34 PMAnd here it is, welcome the generation of d-bags that all think they are owed something for nothing. Good luck with life.
Paul
Wednesday, November 30, 2011 at 8:42 PMhaha i expect you will get flamed, but +1 to you!!
Jimmy
Wednesday, November 30, 2011 at 8:46 PMGood luck to you too, sir.
Adam
Wednesday, November 30, 2011 at 9:10 PMIts simple.
Itunes charges $2 a tv show for people in the US and $3 for us Aussies. That’s completely unfair. The prices Australians pay for movies, music and tv shows is way too high.
Why should I support a system which is ripping me off?
smurfydog
Wednesday, November 30, 2011 at 9:37 PMIt’s interresting that in an online discussion like this, so many people will not only freely admit to downloading media, but justify it with a dozen different reasons.
Yet a discussion on the topic IRL typically has a very different tone.
I was talking with a friend about torrenting only last night, and he told me he knew what he was doing was wrong and just didn’t care.
He says he’s grabbing whatever he can now while the going’s good (much more content than he could possibly consume in the near future – we’re talking dozens of terrabytes) because he knows that it’s gotten out of hand and he predicts a huge legal crackdown in the near future.
Downloading is so prevalent these days that an aquaintence of mine – a guy who used to do the rounds of popular shopping centre and pub carparks selling pirate DVDs has gone out of business.
Not because he got busted, but because there’s just not enough business these days for him to justify the risk. People would rather download it themselves than pay him $5 for a disc. (His discs were top quality too. So I’m told.)
Anyway – I’m not sure what my point is or even if I have one, other than that reading comments in online discussions of downloading yeilds very different responses to what I expect are peoples real reasons for the practice.
Thespian_overestimation
Wednesday, November 30, 2011 at 10:19 PMWhen moronic movie companies agree to pay actors $10′s of millions of dollars for one single role, I really do not feel the need to repay this idiotic outlay to them. There is no actor who is so amazing, that I want to see so badly, that that amount can be justified. Simply employ someone cheaper; if they can act I will cope.
The fact that some actors can command that much money for one single role is totally ridiculous. They can hardly spend it, they aren’t saving any lives, they’re rarely leaving something significantly valuable to the world. Admittedly, they do participate in educating the masses; how they sometimes do that does remain questionable. Others get paid similarly disgusting amounts for doing not much, but we aren’t easily able to steal any back from them.
Want to recoup your outlay and make some profit movie people? Don’t make stupid agreements, and pay ridiculous fees to simple thespians.
We have no similar excuse for stealing music, although remain unimpressed with paying all the costs of middle management in that industry who often contribute little to my enjoyment of a song. Finally, perhaps once a musician can be reported to have made $20 million or have $12 million in the bank, they should be banned from objecting to sharing of their music.
Yes, that brings up the question of ownership against sale of or passing on of intellectual property. Little is simple.
james
Wednesday, November 30, 2011 at 10:28 PMThere is a couple of reason why i torrent stuff
1) cant get it in Australia in a timely manner/if ever because of Geo-blocking
2) when the Aus dollar was better than then the US we were still paying in excess of 30% more than the US
3) i torrent music because i don’t want to be locked into an Ipod/Itunes format because one day they will bust/new format will happen and then all those songs are unplayable.
4)id gladly pay for all my music if i knew it went to the actual band instead of 1 cent of every dollar .
5) i dont buy PC games anymore BECAUSE of all the DRM and must be online to play single player (Reg-keys are fine tbh) i don’t even torrent games, never really did, way to much dicking about with cracks to get it to work.
6) because 90′s sci-fi is stupid hard to find on DVD.
7) 2TB;s of movies/music/Tv shows is a lot easier to move than dvd’s
Michael
Wednesday, November 30, 2011 at 10:53 PMTo be honest when I pirate, if I enjoyed the content I’ll buy it, if it wasn’t that great I move on.
Somebody
Wednesday, November 30, 2011 at 11:19 PMI would love to pay for Netflix. I have even considered proxies to be able to subscribe. But here in Australia I can’t. I wish I could but I cannot.
Also I disagree with one of the biggest assumptions about pirating. That if they couldn’t pirate it they would buy it. Lets say someone torrents Adobe Master Suite. That’s about $4500. Would they then pay for that if piracy was not available. No. The whole idea that piracy is losing money for publishers is based on people buying everything they would torrent. This is a flat out lie. And while a big chunk of it may be broken down to this it is not the majority of downloads.
jamall
Thursday, December 1, 2011 at 2:22 AMcayal: if the law says you should stone someone to death for adultery or heresy, does that make it right? What about laws that discriminate on the basis of sex, skin colour, or religion? Think before posting buddy. The reluctance of big content to embrace new forms of distribution in the late 90s is the reason we are having this discussion. Even Blind Freddy could have seen that faster computers with better media capabilities coupled with exponential growth in storage capacities and internet bandwidth meant that the days of the CD and DVD were numbered. Instead of innovating, big media lobbied and litigated. I have no qualms paying a dollar for a song I like, and I quite often do, but for quite a while there that wasn’t an option. I had ripped all my CDs to SoundJam MP and abandoned physical media long before the iTunes Music Store launched (highly illegal at the time mind you). You’d think that after having seen their music business caught unawares so badly, they would have taken advantage of the time it took for the internet to reach speeds that threatened their movie business to develop new ways of doing things. Instead it was just more of the same. I have downloaded several movies which I enjoyed, and to which I ended up taking friends to the cinema to see. A good movie is always made better with a big screen and a $100,000 sound system. I have also downloaded some complete crap – movies that would have left a very bitter taste in my mouth had I actually paid to see them. I will not risk the cost of admission to the cinema to be disappointed yet again by more Hollywood drivel on the back of a slick trailer. Every movie I download isn’t a lost sale for the artist(s) – if I can’t see what I am getting before I go, then I simply won’t go at all. To those who accuse me of wanting something for nothing, I will provide another example. The other night I switched on South Park just in time to see Indiana Jones being raped by Steven Spielberg and George Lucas in a scene straight out of Deliverance. Naturally I wanted to watch this again, but on the official South Park site where episodes are provided free of charge to Americans, I was greeted by a message informing me that Australians cannot gain access for legal reasons. It was just on free to air TV 20 minutes ago for fuck’s sake, but I need to use BitTorrent to see what anyone in the States can see legally.
/end rant
cayal
Thursday, December 1, 2011 at 10:26 AMJesus Christ, that is a nice slab of text.
I’m not reading it all because I have no idea who you are referring to, so I will answer this part:
“cayal: if the law says you should stone someone to death for adultery or heresy, does that make it right? What about laws that discriminate on the basis of sex, skin colour, or religion? Think before posting buddy.”
You do realise that the basic of “most” laws are based on religion and in most, if not all, religions Adultery is a sin.
Personally I think stoning is wrong, however this is no different to any other sort of Captial Punishment, killing is killing no matter how it is done. However do not mistake morally wrong with lawfully wrong.
Laws dictate what is right or wrong, no matter what we think. What we think is wrong is different person to person.
What laws discriminate based on sex/skin colour/religion? And why do we have the Anti-Discrimination Act?
jamall
Thursday, December 1, 2011 at 10:48 PMYou’re not being very objective. Right and wrong have nothing to do with legal and illegal. Just because something is legal doesn’t mean it is right, and vice-versa. Modern law as we know it developed in Europe in the middle ages and in many instances countered the authority of organised religions. I don’t care much for the religious, and I certainly don’t need a prehistoric mythical text to know right from wrong. Your cosy little corner of the world at this particular point in time isn’t the experience of the vast majority of humanity. Slavery, then segregation in the US, apartheid in South Africa, the almost universal exploitation and abuse of indigenous people around the world by colonial powers, the lack of women’s basic rights across Africa and the Middle East, laws banning same-sex marriage in most parts of the world, and capital punishment. These are just a few examples of legal behaviour that is far from just or proper. Laws change, right and wrong don’t.
jay
Thursday, December 1, 2011 at 3:38 AMLegit yeah i MAAYYY have torrented a movie or two but id be happy to pay for netflix.. if that was an option -.-
also can someone tell me is it illegal to download a TV show? Pretty sure it is but i don’t see why couldn’t i just record it? haha
cayal
Thursday, December 1, 2011 at 3:00 PMI think recording it is illegal as well.
Kroo
Thursday, December 1, 2011 at 7:58 AM1) The television programmers stuff around with shows and end up putting things we enjoy, on at 11 o’clock or worse, drop a series right in the middle. ie: Dexter. (Yeah channel 10, I’m talking about you)
2) If I have to go to the movies and put up with someone else’s brat children running around the cinema one more time I will kill someone, (so I torrent). The movie chains in Oz charge the highest ticket prices in the world, so why would I pay a premium to have a shitty experience and be out of pocket over $100 just to see a movie with my kids?
When the paying public are treated with some kind of respect, I might change my ways.
Jon
Thursday, December 1, 2011 at 8:31 AMi couldn’t agree more with both statement… especially the movies ticket today… is COMPLETELY ridiculous… just to see a movie cost people more than a meal itself…
I don’t think piracy will ever die even with 5 strikes policy… because it’s a system where every one feels that they r treated unfairly.
Michael
Thursday, December 1, 2011 at 9:59 AMI actually know someone who works for Village, as a whole they don’t make much of a profit off the tickets, that’s why the candy bar is so expensive because that’s where their profit lies.
Blame the production companies and distributors for high ticket prices, the cinema’s are keeping up with them on that front.
James
Thursday, December 1, 2011 at 1:35 PMThe Major Media Companies, could set up a torrenting system, If some guy with a DVR and some computer equipment can do it……..Why the hell cant a studio ?!
I/we hardly torrent movies anymore, as they are usually fair shite in quality but we will torrent TV shows we enjoy, as its a much more reliable source than Free to Air tv, and i can watch it when i have spare time, or watch 3 eps in a row, or get up at 4 am and watch it.
In this day and age, it seems almost counter productive to try and limit the ways a consumer chooses to enjoy their product. I for one, would love to see a studio, say MGM set up a website that for 5 Bucks a month i can D/L all the shows i want and if i choose to, i can pay a premium ontop of the membership to get an entire series online minus DRM or time outs on the file. They can recoup some of their other production costs, with online adverts .
I would much rather cough up the 5 bucks, eat a few adverts, and KNOW im getting quality shows, minus the Piracy Issues, and other assorted problems associated with Illegal torrenting, such as fakes and spyware etc etc.
I think we need a new media revoloution………………….
Sam
Friday, December 2, 2011 at 12:06 AMThere is one interesting point that has not been mentioned at all so far…
Television shows gain their revenue by being sold to networks to distribute who make their money from selling advertising space they then cram into said shows. Movies and music do not have ads (obviously until they hit the small screen) so rely on PAYING customers to gain revenue which in turn pays for making the content. Piracy has meant that you are seeing more branded content (really crap stuff!) so they can gain advertising revenue to fund the production and more cheap shows to sell to TV, think the millions of crap cheap reality tv shows. Feature films are a tough one as they rely heavily on ticket sales and then DVD sales, if you are big enough then that is fine (think US studios) but piracy is killing independent films because they don’t have the studio funds and have to finance from distribution pre-sales etc (which btw DVD pre-sales to Asia do not exist at all as piracy is so prevalent).
Fine you say, well yes it is a free world and it is not everyone’s god given right to make a buck doing what the want, however as people have mentioned over and again they are sick of the hollywood dribble, well let me tell you, it will get worse. So enjoy keeping up with the Kardashians plenty more to come. As for music it’s fine for touring artists as their recordings have become ads for shows rather than a money making exercise on their own. That said there is a whole generation that have no idea what a CD is and think that music should sound like and MP3 playing through headphones! They are missing out. In all of this Films really are the hardest hit and things are changing (apple tv etc). But people, all things said, stealing is stealing there is no debate in that, try walking into your local bakery and walking out with a loaf of bread without paying and see how happy the baker is? “but I have to eat” you say?
Somebody
Sunday, December 4, 2011 at 4:54 PMPiracy is not the same as property theft. Property involves effort and cost replacing. Piracy does not. What your saying is the equivalent of stealing a DVD.