Kim Williams is the chief executive officer (CEO) of News Limited. As the head of Australia’s biggest content creator, Williams is no fan of piracy, and gave a speech this week asking legislators to invent tougher anti-piracy laws while damning the NBN as a piece of infrastructure that will enable the fastest theft of content in our nation’s history.
My subject today is copyright. It’s a topic as potentially dry as a pub with no beer. Its mere mention makes you think of lawyers. And fees. And trademarks. And fine print. So let’s put that all aside for a moment and talk about what copyright is really about.
Picture by Robert Cianflone/Getty Images
Let’s cut right to the chase. Copyright is about enabling the production of great art and great commercial work – hopefully both. It’s about nurturing the creative process. It’s about supporting business cases and employment. About getting the noblest imaginings of the human mind and human emotions into a form that the whole world can see and share.
If you want to know why you should care about copyright, here’s a little exercise you can all do.
Think about the ten greatest pieces of art that you couldn’t live without.
It might be the ten best pieces of music you have ever heard—the ones that really lift your soul. Beethoven’s Ninth perhaps.
Or the ten greatest books you have ever read—the ones that changed the way you view the world like a great piece of history by Barbara Tuchmann or a novel by Jonathan Franzen or Peter Carey.
Or the ten greatest television series you’ve ever seen—the ones that sparked your interests as a child or moved you to tears on the living room couch. Roots perhaps, or maybe Brideshead Revisited. What about Cloudstreet or Bodyline, Underbelly, or Howzat! Kerry Packers War?
Or the ten greatest movies you have ever seen—the most sublime, the most moving, the most hilarious.
Then try to imagine a world in which those ten great works of art were never created. Because that’s what happens when there is no way for creators to enforce their rights.
When there is no way for great artists to make a living from their work, those artists become, well… let’s choose the popular nemisis — lawyers.
And with due respect to all the law school graduates, thank God Anna Funder quit her job as a commercial litigant and wrote Stasiland and her Miles Franklin Award-winning novel, All That I Am instead.
At the risk of turning this speech into a Nick Hornby movie, in which the protagonist reels off lists of his favourite things, I thought I’d give this experiment a go myself. I thought I’d talk a little about my top ten films. Here they are, from one to ten.
Amarcord−−Frederick Fellini−−my all time favourite film. Intensely personal, loving of community and tinged with nostalgia and clarity about people and the cavalcade of human events that affect one’s life rendered with a poignancy that is literally unforgettable.
The Godfather−−Francis Ford Coppola−−quite simply the modern American masterpiece that reinvented epic narrative drama with intense intimacy and grand spectacle whilst capturing a cultural resonance that was wholly original.
The Rules of the Game−−Jean Renoir−−for me a timeless humanist drama which captivates my memory still after 40 years.
Close to Eden−−Nikita Mikhalkov−−the power of the cinema to tell a unique affecting original story like no other medium.
Gallipoli−−Peter Weir−−history rendered exquisitely so that it lives for an audience with power and enduring meaning. It captures the horror of war with all the insight and poignancy of Wilfred Owen. And the stupidity of so many of the generals. And what a line-up of home-grown acting talent, too.
Mad Max 2−−George Miller−−the best modern post apocalypse heroic Greek style drama which is a true Australian masterpiece. George Miller is an Australian artistic genius, no doubt about it.
An Angel at My Table−−Jane Campion−−is for me one of the great story telling creations of the nineties. I shall love it forever.
The Great Dictator−−Charlie Chaplin−−the grandest and most cutting film of all about Hitler and yet it is silent and a brilliant mix of slapstick and satire. Art in the service of democracy, giving the world a reason to fight the Second World War.
Jedda−−Charles Chauvel−−my lifelong Australian cinematic hero who reflects all the best aspects of cheerful Aussie persistence, optimism and true one of a kind originality.
Ten Canoes−−by Rolf de Heer and Peter Djiggir−−indigenous, inspired, funny, fascinating and wholly absorbing. Makes one proud to live here and be part of this country as do Bran Nue Dae and The Sapphires.
And by the way, if I can convince you of nothing else today, see The Sapphires. I guarantee you will thank me that you did.
I should say to you — as a slight digression from my theme — that for someone who loves movies it is terrific to lead News [Limited]. For there is no media company in Australia that does more for movies. That carries more reviews across print and digital. That covers more events. That illuminates our stars and your products better. That connects with millions and millions of Australians. And that is — if I may venture — the best way of getting people into your cinemas. But like I said, I digress.
Ladies and gentlemen, without those ten great films, without ten great songs or poems or paintings or novels, our lives would still be worth living, certainly, but they wouldn’t be the same.
And without five of them, our nation wouldn’t be the same. Imagine if we didn’t have them. And imagine if we were denied them because their creators were starved out of their trade before they produced their masterpieces. Imagine, I’m saying, if we didn’t have decent copyright laws.
Let’s think for a moment about two of the greatest creative geniuses of all time, certainly two of the greatest in the English language: William Shakespeare and Charles Dickens. If Shakespeare and Dickens were alive today it’s my bet they would either be Hollywood script writers or creating great television drama for HBO. They would be the dons in a profession that has recently boasted names like David Mamet, Sidney Lumet and Dalton Trumbo, as well as our own Andrew Bovell, John Collee and Baz Luhrmann.
Both Shakespeare and Dickens were prolific and famous in their own times. Both men were able to retire comparatively wealthy because they had a means of monetising their art. For Shakespeare it lay in being part of a theatre able to set up a gate and only let in those able to part with a few pennies for standing room or a bit more for a seat. For Dickens it was selling his stories to subscription-only magazines and selling tickets to his popular book readings. The leakage of money would certainly have been there. No doubt a few people jumped the fence at the Globe or borrowed their friends’ magazines. Others perhaps listened to Dickens’ readings through a hole in the wall. But they would not have faced the truly astounding levels of intellectual theft they would face today in the age of digital publishing and distribution.
Imagine if you will, a rival theatre setting itself up across the Thames from the Globe, charging one-fifth the door price to see a rendition of Julius Caesar, using a script they had transcribed from the official performance. Or imagine a free magazine that serialised Oliver Twist, re-typeset without permission from Bentley’s Miscellany the day after the original’s publication. There may have been no Hamlet and no Great Expectations. No literary legends; just a couple of under-appreciated writers starving in their London garrets, now the subjects of literature PhD dissertations, instead of hundreds upon hundreds of movie and television adaptations.
So imagine what we may be losing today. Imagine the great works that are not being produced because the digital bandits are creating virtual pirate Globe Theatres and virtual literary magazines and making off with possibly 65 per cent of the profits.
If you think I’m exaggerating, think again, because the copyright bandits of the paper age of Shakespeare and Dickens had nothing on the copyright kleptomaniacs of the digital age.
And as a result, digital piracy is undermining the business case of cultural production to a greater extent than ever before.
The statistics about copyright theft over the Internet are mind-boggling.
The Intellectual Property Awareness Foundation’s research report for 2012 tells us that more that 37 percent of Australians admit to having downloaded material illegally. Some 60 per cent of persistent downloaders download illegally at least once per week. Usually TV programs and movies.
Some sources estimate that as much as 65 per cent of all material consumed via bittorrent is downloaded illegally.
And these persistent downloaders are far less likely than others to purchase DVDs, download pay-per-view programming, buy content from iTunes or even go to the movies. That’s money out of all our pockets. And culture taken from all our lives. And cultural development taken from our nation.
If you don’t believe the scale of these figures, here’s a little test. Go to one of the more “hip” cafes in Melbourne’s inner northern suburbs −− you know, the sort of place where they make coffee in devices that look like the Pyrex beakers and test-tubes you used in chemistry classes when you were at school. And ask the young people there what they are currently watching on TV.
You might hear responses like:
“Oh, last night’s episode of Mad Men, of course.”
Or, “last night’s episode of Downton Abbey.”
Or, “last night’s episode of Boardwalk Empire.”
They’re not talking about last night in Melbourne, or the latest series bought by Australian networks. They’re talking about last night in New York or London. They’re downloading it free from illegal websites within hours or minutes of it appearing on TV in the US or the UK. The more sophisticated thieves will have watched it live in US or UK time.
If you ask them what movies they’ve seen, there’s a fair chance they haven’t even been released here yet. How many people, I wonder, had already seen Downton Abbey or Mad Men or Bored to Death before they screened here? This illegal viewing is fast becoming the norm in certain circles. And there’s a good chance those latest release movies haven’t been seen at the cinema, but on iPads or on DVDs using a pirate copy one of their friends is handing around.
If you want to know how they manage this amazing feat, you don’t have to go far to find out. I know you are all familiar with the dark horror of it. All you have to do is type words like “download free UK TV” into a search engine and someone will tell you, quite brazenly, how to break the law and steal other people’s property and worse still ad serving technologies will deliver up ads supporting this scumbag theft with real Australian ads for major finance, telco and other products in Australia! They entrepreneur revenues from real advertisers with their ill gotten material blithely indifferent to the economic havoc it occasions.
It’s easy.
You join a pirate torrent site. There are thousands of them. Take your pick of latest release films.
If that doesn’t take your fancy, you can get it direct from the source, on the UK and US television networks’ own catch-up sites.
Of course, you will first have to figure out how to evade geographical IP scanning, which you do by enlisting third parties as proxies, by creating what’s known as a tunnel, and by purchasing software that hides your IP address.
You may need other software to convert what you have downloaded into watchable formats, or a format which you burn to a disk or USB device to share with friends.
With the most sophisticated pirate software you can even illegally watch TV live, with the benefits of fast forwarding, rewinding and even skipping commercials.
All, supposedly, for free. But is it really free?
Of course not. As we all know, with the exceptions of friendship, sunshine and the air we breathe, nothing comes for free.
First of course there’s download charges from your ISP.
Then, there’s all the illegal downloading software you have to buy—and the fact that the only way to buy it is by giving your credit card details to someone called Ivan who lives in a quaint little village on the Russian steppe. Or to a criminal with a fake name living in New Zealand.
And the cost of the new hard drive you’re going to need if the Russians crash your computer, and you lose all your family photographs and movies, including that footage of your youngest child’s very first steps that you forgot to copy to disk.
Not to mention the cost of all your time watching the stuff downloaded. 1 per cent. 3 percent. 5 percent…… And so on, and so on, Only to find it’s such poor quality it’s unwatchable.
And all those sleepless nights, knowing you’ve done the wrong thing, realising you may have cost your uni friends potential jobs, and wondering if, one day, you’re going to be prosecuted for it.
It’s all so cool, isn’t it, being part of the digital underground. Actually, there’s nothing romantic about it at all. The perpetrators are digital suckers, not digital freedom fighters. But even though the costs are much greater than you think, the costs to society are far greater.
In reality, what these sorts of sites do is help you steal. Morally it’s no different from telling you where the keys are to the local DVD store, what times the shop is left un-attended, how to switch-off its and electronic alarm system. All with a catalogue of the current best-sellers all thrown in.
Stealing from shops has always been illegal, and so should stealing from HBO or Fox or Harper Collins or small Australian film makers.
Last year we saw outrage at ill-educated young rioters in London throwing bricks through shop windows to steal pairs of expensive new training shoes. Well, digital content, whether it be in the form of books, music, movies or TV programs, is a new hot consumer item, and illegally downloading it is the equivalent of smashing a window and taking it. But the scale of this theft makes the London riots of last year look like children stealing a lolly from a shop. Put simply theft is not cool — never has been never will be.
It may be hidden from view, ladies and gentlemen, but internet piracy has become the biggest heist since Ronnie Biggs took an interest in trains. One estimate, states that piracy of movies cost the Australian economy $1.37 billion million last year2. And that’s just movies. In the music business 28% internet users globally regularly access unlicensed sites that contain copyrighted music according to the music industry.
I think that’s likely to be a big underestimate.
It is getting worse and will get even worse still once everyone in Australia has access to super-speed broadband through the National Broadband Network—Some say internet traffic will quadruple between now and 2016.
So, the big question: What should be done?
In the most general terms all of us — content providers, media companies, ISPs and especially legislators — need to recognise that we live in a new era. We live and do business in the digital age, but our copyright laws continue to exist in the analogue era and the paper age. Our mind-set for dealing with this problem simply has to change. Digital property isn’t just a quirky add-on to our economy any more—increasingly it is dominating our economy, and it’s time we recognised its importance to our future prosperity. We have to protect it. Protecting it is not only fundamental to sustaining today’s creative industries and everyone they employ, but it’s fundamental to ensuring that we can build the bold digital companies of the future that politicians so often talk about.
And this change in our view—from an analogue to a digital mind-set—must be reflected in new copyright framework.
Today on behalf of large media companies like mine, on behalf of the movie companies, on behalf of musicians, actors, writers, photographers, and production specialists who work long hours, often for modest salaries and with poor job security, all the way down to the gaffers and grips and lighting technicians, the people who work for the mobile canteens that serve out-door production shoots, and all the future entrepreneurs and creators in as yet unformed digital companies, I am asking for a new set of copyright laws that protect our work from theft.
T-H-E-F-T.
Theft. Robbery. Stealing. Pilfering. Larceny. Shoplifting. And plain pinching.
And I’m asking for copyright laws that will also protect the singers of songs, writers of books and producers of games.
What the Australian production and distribution industry needs are renovated legal underpinnings that acknowledge the primary right of copyright owners to exploit their work in the certain knowledge that theft will be prevented and punished equally. Without that core commercial underpinning the outlook for our industry−−the digital entertainment industry−−is grim indeed.
Whilst there is endless talk about the NBN there is yet to be any formal acknowledgement that the legislative and enforcement frameworks are disastrously outmoded and defective to sustain any relevance in confronting a modern high speed digital delivery world.
Without immediate and wholesale makeover we are condemning our nation to relentless criminal rip-off and plunder of original IP on an unprecedented scale which will make the current 65 percent rate of consumption being of stolen material look like a pathetically modest nun’s picnic.
If our creators are to stand strong and develop commercial destinies they deserve then the law must change.
Australia needs a louder conversation about this issue. And I believe that conversation should start with these two broad principles:
- the need for responsibility for stopping piracy to lie where it should; and
- the need for mitigations that actually dissuade people from stealing other people’s intellectual property be it effective action by ISPs against inveterate illegal down loaders or laws that work in the digital age.
This is an issue for which few want to say “I am responsible for my own behaviour”. The main perpetrators, whilst usually acknowledging the illegality of what they do, want to put the blame elsewhere.
Some don’t care, having no moral code at all, or kid themselves that they’re modern-day Robin Hood heroes. Robbin, yes. Hoods, yes. Heroes, no!
Others say it’s a victimless crime, although thanks to public education efforts, including the excellent work of IPAF, that mistaken view is turning around.
Seven out of ten illegal downloaders say they download illegally because there are few legal alternatives. I guess they mustn’t have heard of catch-up TV, or iTunes, or Foxtel, or DVD rentals, or taking their girlfriend out to the movies.
Individuals must take responsibility for their own illegal behaviour—and greater education campaigns will assist that. But Internet Service Providers must take responsibility too to tackle the problem of repeat offenders who use their networks.
IPAF consumer research has found 73 percent say they would stop if that notification came with a threat to slow down or halt downloading if their illegal downloading continued.
To my mind this constitutes a powerful and effective deterrent that Australia should now be contemplating. And it meets the second principle I mentioned just now−−that any approach to digital copyright protection needs to capture all forms of piracy on the net and have effective mitigations and penalties.
I believe this is no different from the idea of fast food providers doing their bit to tackle obesity. It’s about responsible industries earning their social license to market their products by recognising the damage that inappropriate consumption can cause.
One other organisation must also, logically, take some of the responsibility for stopping illegal downloading. That’s the National Broadband Network. It’s about to become our public digital super-highway. Whilst everyone who rides on a highway has a duty to drive responsibly, the highway owners also have a duty to drivers to keep their roads safe and in good condition. The same principle applies
Especially because it is a public system, I believe the NBN has a special duty of care to provide a safe super-highway for our digital economy.
Just like a Solicitor-General is expected to act as a model litigant in the legal system, a publicly-created NBN should be expected to act as a model digital network—setting the ethical, legal and commercial standards for all else to follow. Given the speed with which piracy is growing and the way in which it morphs into other forms, I believe it would be appropriate for the NBN to be included in any code and be obligated to take reasonable steps to stop piracy.
Now of course it’s easy for us in the digital entertainment industry to gather here and expect our legislators and our distributors to do all the work for us. After all, it’s we who stand to gain from a cleaned up industry, so we have a duty to act too.
Market research tells us that the two excuses most commonly used by illegal downloaders are that they didn’t know that what they were doing was in fact illegal, and that there are a lack of affordable and legal alternatives to see recent release movies and television programs.
We have to counter this in two ways.
First, by continuing the public education efforts already underway. But I think we can do better.
And second, by meeting the hunger for more digital content.
I reject the assertion that there is any sort of shortage of digital content. Even if there were, it constitutes a very poor defence.
“Your honour, I did smash that window, and I did steal that piece of jewellery, because the shop was shut, and anyway they were asking too much for it.”
My response is an unequivocal: “Take him down, constable.”
The fact is, more and more legal content is going on line every day. And there are more sites offering legal content, more easily and at lower cost to you computers and mobile devices. And cinema releases increasingly are dated worldwide as you all know all too well. And Foxtel provides a profusion of fresh available content —including the most recent episodes of the hippest TV dramas and comedies, and the latest pay-per-view movies on Foxtel On Demand and Foxtel on Xbox 360.
You can also now get movies from some two-dozen sites for just $2.99 each. More such sites are being added every day.
You can now get just about any new release book in eBook form. Fifty Shades of Grey is selling 50 percent in electronic form. Interestingly it started on line and has now moved to print. For the record I have not read it. Yet!
So there are no excuses for behaving illegally. And more reasons to behave legally every day.
Ladies and gentlemen, the film industry has faced a great many changes in its more than century-long history. We’ve seen it change from silent to talk, black-and-white to colour, cinema to VHS, and chemical tape to digits on a chip.
At each stage, the grand idea of the motion picture, including its original conception as something that happens communally in theatre houses, has managed to fight back. Those of you old enough will remember that when video came and everyone predicted the end of cinemas, they came back with Dolby Surround Sound, Sensurround, wide screens, and now 3D.
No challenge has yet beaten the great artists of the screen. Technical invention has always come to their aid.
I doubt that even digital piracy will defeat the artistic urge that drives the great film- makers we all love. Imagine Fellini or George Miller or Francis Ford Coppola giving in to pasty-faced late-night video thieves. Our industry will live on. But it won’t do so with the vigour and vitality it has enjoyed until now if the damage done by illegal copyright breaching isn’t tackled and tackled vigorously. Too many creative opportunities will be lost.
Right now, on the brink of a new era of digital uptake through the establishment of the NBN is the time to act to strengthen our digital copyright laws and bring them into the digital age. If we all speak out together to protect this great industry—this great art form—that we love, I’m certain we will succeed.
Republished with permission.



















tl;dr
Exactly. tl;dr. I got bored at about the end of the 3rd paragraph. OP is an idiot. I fully understand what copywrite is about and for the most part, I wholeheartedly agree with it. However when it comes to my ability to legally obtain material because some dick head in america or some corporate sales and marketing prick doesn't want Australia to have it, then that's where I draw the line and say a very big "F*** you" , go forth and download the content, not sparing a single thought to the lined pockets I have denied a cash injection from me doing so. Get bent.
His underlying point is that artists need to be paid somehow, which I think most of us will agree with. However, the other points he attempts to make are so far off the mark, they're just comedy gold:
* "Works of art are never created when there is no way for creators to enforce their rights": See Patronage. It's how Beethoven wrote his Ninth, after all. See also Advertising, Web Releases and Kickstarter.
* His description of torrent downloading is hilariously far from the mark.
* "Piracy of movies cost the Australian economy $1.37 billion million last year": 87% of our GDP! Hah!
* T-H-E-F-T: Piracy is illegal, but it is not theft. Nor is it fraud, larceny, extortion or kidnapping (no, it's far worse than those, judging from the penalties). Smash & grab analogies, really? That's like saying photographing the Mona Lisa is exactly the same as walking out the door with it.
* NBN's responsibility: Right, and the RTA should "obligated to take reasonable steps" to stop getaway drivers using their roads.
* Legal alternatives: Didn't he just say further up that people were downloading shows before they ever reached our shores?
Sorry Kim. Filing this one next to Jack Valente's "Boston Strangler" comments about the VCR.
1.7 billion million dollars? So with 30 million people in this country each man women and child would have each spent $56,000 or $243,000 per family with 2.3 children.
This is the bullshit argument given against piracy, that this is the lost sales when in reality a family can probably only afford to spend around $2000 per annum on this type of content. Seriously, get rid of regions, and bring on Netflix at $15 a month and let spotify let us play ALL of the music. Piracy SOLVED.
And another thing, why should these artists be paid millions upon millions of dollars? Why is what they do. So much more special than say an engineer, or a doctor? Selling stuff is a job, if they are earning $200,000 a year that is very comfortable life and if they love the art so much, then job satisfaction would be enormous.
If my top 10 songs were never written I would be blissfully ignorant of them and have an alternative top 10 and would never have know what I missed. Much like the point he was trying to make. And if a pirate wants to pirate, they are NOT going to pay for software to mask their IP, they will pirate that as well. I understand what he was trying to say and he has a very valid point, but he executed it so poorly.
Your comment about how a pirate would just steal IP masking software reminds me of old posts regarding how you could pirate the full version of limewire using the trial version, which I guarantee anyone that used limewire for piracy would have done.
Ummmm, you can't really pirate software that masks your IP.... pirating a VPN isn't possible.
"I doubt that EVEN digital piracy will defeat the artistic urge that drives the great film- makers we all love. " how is not profiting from something can possible kill artist in people .... at most it will kill urge to be a businessman who promotes talent less people with pretty faces ... but thats a whole new topic here
at the end of the day everything comes down to $ vs quality.... I hardly go to the movies lately because it ends up to be price of one Blue ray disk per ticket (almost) and majority of movies that are came out lately is pointless sequel of successful movie, just to get more $$$ out of the consumer
personally i love youtube videos called "everything is the remix"
Piracy does not damage the artist, it damages the middle-men. That is what this is really about, not protecting the creative drive of artists. Content conveyors and those that stand to make money from whoring on artists are the real voice against the so-called evils of piracy.
+1
+2
One positive that has come from pirating is that musical artists now tour more than they did in the 90's a medium in which a higher percentage of the dollars goes into the artists pockets.
Also it's interesting that the article does not talk about what profit is being made form the corporations that support the artist not does it talk about duplication whereby some of what is downloaded from torrent sites is a duplication of something already owned (i.e people downoading older movies that they already owned on an out of date format such as VHS).
Australian copyright law doesn't care if you own it on one format already. For example, If you have a vinyl record and you copy it to a cassette tape for personal use you are still breaking our laws. In the US you are allowed to do this. That's where lots of the confusion comes from regarding this practice, I think.
Yeah exactly, the artists are getting paid peanuts even if we did buy everything the studios and labels rammed down our throats. Cut the middle man out by using the internet to distribute, charge a small fee no one minds in paying, and the artist will get paid more, it will lower the bar for artists to create (meaning more content) and we wont get ripped off.
Why bother publishing this complete and utter BS? Stop giving these people credence by repeating their lies.
We all know the problems, none are addressed in this article. In fact there was an article the other day pointing out the complete and utter lies with this.
+1
He'll likely be dead before they finish the NBN so it's really not his problem :)
The very real fact is that he's an ageing, creaking old codger who refuses to acknowledge the current global digital social realities. He's defending out dated business models instead and advocating that they learn to adapt to take advantage of the new opportunities.
He briefly acknowledges some changes that've been made to accommodate current practise, but only as an aside- a defence of the old ways and an excuse not to adapt and embrace change. Basically, his speech is fatuous and he's a joke. Reminds me of that old Bod Dylan song- "the times, they are a' changing". Time for him to "get out of the way".
While most of the arguments outlined in this article are technically correct, the article itself glosses over the primary cause of piracy. That of availability. People download TV shows because we are held hostage by the TV networks and can only view those shows when it's considered most profitable for the networks. Part of the problem is that TV has failed to keep pace with the digital age. People know when a show has aired in the US or the UK thanks to the world wide web, yet the networks expect us to wait until they can make money from those shows before we are allowed to watch them.
The TV industry relies on hopelessly outdated ratings systems to determine when to show programs. If TV shows were available to watch within 24 hours of their first airing in their native country, few people would waste their time downloading them.
Too say that copyright laws need to be enhanced to fix this problem is a complete copout. It's just about protecting the outdated business model. If you want people to change their habits then the industry must be prepared to make changes to. If you try to solve the problem with legislation, the pirates will simply find new methods. It's time to evolve.
How about we meet you half way.
MD
P.S. I personally couldn't be bothered downloading movies or TV shows, but I understand why people do it.
I personally never watch free to air, or adhere to any other kind of pre-scheduled content. Piracy is a means for me to manage my own playlist, from the comfort of my own entertainment environment.
when i want to watch something, I will. I will answer to nobody but my own personal whims.
+1
I dont pirate stuff but I understand why most people who do it do
If I go to the movies and watch the Avengers or something great, but not everyone has the time, or maybe its too much hassle to go out or maybe I'd just like to see it again but its not showing anymore. I'd have to wait 3-4 months for a dvd/blu-ray release.
In this age thats just not good enough and people will pirate and companies lose money
Steam has shown us that people will spend money if the service makes content readily available and affordable
Only reason I would consider pirating is because of the ridiculous prices AUSTRALIA has been given for buying a single song or a single tv show compared to U.S. almost double the price in most cases. No service in Aus that is actually good spanning across multiple operating systems (android, IOS, MAC, WIN, XBOX, PS3, Smart TV), that are decently priced. I hate paying $7 to hire a HD film where I have to use the quota of MY internet to download it with. In comparison I could walk up the road and hire a bluray for $2. Kind of weird. Pretty sure hiring a movie online should cost $1 - $2. Pretty sure more people would hire then pirate then. Most of of the people I know who pirate only watch the movie once anyway.
Too right, if the studios and labels stop stealing from us, we will probably stop stealing from them.
Its inetersting as I often use various networks catch-up television services. Now whilst these services are still below par in a general sense for those shows that I do watch I don't mind the adverts. If they got of their bums an offered a service like ABC's iview I'd be more than happy to watch their ads and therefore they will still get their revenue. I bet the people who run the networks online services are equally as frustrated.
Great post MD, agreed entirely.
I was under the impression that watching it on American TV catch up sites would still give money to the Television station through advertisements either on the site or during the videos?
The internet is a global community. What Kim and the rest of the media conglomerates seem to acknowledge is that they should turn their businesses into a truly global business as well.
If you want people to talk about Mad Men after watching it on FTA or PAYTV, then show it the same day as the US. Its not that hard and its a simple result.
Look at "the avengers". we were in the unusual situation of having the movie open here before the US. Do that more often and you take away one of the key drivers of piracy.
What BS if i had access to the good SiFi tv show here on TV i wouldnt download them.
Our TV is full of rubbish most of the time and when a good show comes on they remove it at the last minute or put it back to some ungodly hour.
I go to the movies and i rent BD movies but i also download many TV shows and concidering how much Actors get paid i dont think they can complain...
Pirates are cooler than you Kim.
"Then, there’s all the illegal downloading software you have to buy—and the fact that the only way to buy it is by giving your credit card details to someone called Ivan who lives in a quaint little village on the Russian steppe. Or to a criminal with a fake name living in New Zealand."
WTF?
There are real issues with piracy, but you really start to question the statistics when people in the media espousing this kind of crap. I agree with Cameron.
Here's a question for you Kim: How can I watch the programs you air without a TV?
Because I don't own one. And I don't want to. I do everything on a laptop. Everything is pushing into the online space these days, and considering we can't access Hulu here in Australia, what choices does that leave me with?
TV tuner.
/facepalm
People like this idiot are so out of touch with reality. The reality is global release, streaming content, on demand.
I DON'T WANT TO WAIT FOR YOUR FUCKING NETWORK TO SHOW GAME OF THRONES 5 YEARS TOO BLOODY LATE
Get with the times or die dinosaurs. Your days of drip feeding me "art" are over. I will choose what to watch, when I want to watch it. If you decide to hold back, then I will work around your archaic system, and screw you out of $$ I would happily spend if it meant viewing content on my own terms.
To Kim Williams,
Please please please
Stop
Just stop
68% of statistics are incorrect.
75% of people know that.
Instead of blaming people for circumventing a broken and outdated system, maybe you (as head of News Limited) can actually start changing your business model for a new era, you need to move past the last 50? 80? 100? years of business and understand this, the Internet has changed publishing, it has changed copyright, there is nothing you can do about it except change with it. The internet isn't full of people trying to rip you off, it’s full of people trying to fulfil a need, a need that 20 years ago your company may have filled, but because you have stayed 20 years in the past, people’s needs have changed and you no longer fill them.
Your numbers are about as relevant as my hair colour (which is black by the way) and do nothing except to attempt to scare Jo Q Public into thinking you won’t be able to feed your family if nothing changes, and that the internet is full of fake named criminals (who may live in New Zealand, or Russia) who want to steal money from you, from me, from everyone. You mention that Australians have many ways to legally obtain the content they are pirating, and offer a few examples, the problem is those examples don't account for the majority of the pirated content you described, and you only need to look into the uptake of services such as Spotify to notice that people will pay for a legitimate way to access media as opposed to pirating it.
Also, just because someone downloads a TV show just after it airs overseas, does not mean they will not purchase the show once it is available in Australia, or watch it once it airs on Australian TV, please stop pushing the old "if 30 people pirate this movie, that’s 30 sales we lost" trumpet because it simply doesn't hold true, you couldn't even give a statistic showing the amount of people who pirated a movie and bought it legally.
It is not an easy task, but piracy can indeed be curbed, it wont be elimanated, and that isn't the internets fault, nor the NBN, as you explained in your story, copyright theft has been around before the internet, and it is the place to lay blame. Media companies need to stop living in the past, they need to start innovating, changing their business model, negotiating with others to help improve the consumer and artist experience, not sending lawyers at people for trying to fill a need, not trying to cripple the way of the future to save your bottom line.
Thanks
Todd
I don't know if you will bother to read the comments of this article, or if you even care what people think of your story.
Thank you for the republishing of ridiculous propaganda Gizmodo. If piracy is so harmful why are all these content industries still turning record profits? Studies that aren't bought and paid for by the industry themselves say that piracy can be beneficial to these industries as it increases exposure. How are these people still drawing comparisons to theft of physical property. they have an unlimited supply of 1's and 0's, if someone illegally downloads Mad Men or Game of Thrones because there is no reasonable way to view it here then HBO and AMC are no worse off then if someone hadn't downloaded it. I'm sure we are all sick of these content companies claiming that every download is lost revenue. It is not. A large number of those downloaders never would have purchased it anyway. You've lost nothing but you have gained a potential word of mouth advertiser.
Kim says our IP laws are still in the analog age. However it seems to be Kim who is living in the dark ages. He badmouths the circumventing of geoblocking to watch content direct from the source. Well Kim, in a modern world, with our ubiqituous connection via the internet there should be no geoblocking. The internet should be global, not locked down depending on where you live. But then how could companies like yours figure out how to screw people in other countries right? It is the content companies who are living in analog ages. With region specific licensing deals and not simply serving us all as the worldwide market that the internet allows us to be.
"Or to a criminal with a fake name living in New Zealand" - This is pathetic. We all know who you are trying to imply and he has not been proven a criminal. On the contrary the case against him is falling apart more and more day by day and is being exposed as the act of bullying that it is. A government in the pocket of the MPAA and RIAA putting unprecedented pressure on an individual despite legislation being in place to protect individuals in those exact situations. That case was never about Kim Dotcom's supposed illegal activity. It was about scaring other filesharing companies. Saying "we don't care if we lose in court but we'll certainly disrupt your finances and business for a long time".
Exactly a lot of the people that pirate, wouldn't of bought it if they couldn't pirate it (not rich enough, or other priorities), but now they can still run around saying how good i t was. I know personally i have been exposed to many great shows and songs i never would of seen or heard if i had to pay $40 a season or whatever; and if you ask an artist would you prefer no one watched your show, or a lots of people watch it for free, they would choose the free option every time.
I think Kim needs to go read this (And anyone who hasn't read it alread)
And then check out the services we have here in Australia where we dont even get these options.
http://theoatmeal.com/comics/game_of_thrones
the oatmeal
always spot on
Stopped reading when I got to blatant lies.
"And these persistent downloaders are far less likely than others to purchase DVDs, download pay-per-view programming, buy content from iTunes or even go to the movies. That’s money out of all our pockets. And culture taken from all our lives. And cultural development taken from our nation."
Media companies discovered the exact opposite when they funded a study. Of course they kept it pretty quiet when the results didn't match up with what they were expecting.
I used to pirate lots of stuff. I now have a large DVD collection and a decent and growing Blu Ray collection. I have a Wii, 3DS and will be getting a Wii U (lots of games). I would say that the majority of my 'pocket money' is spent on media (small amount on fast food).
Kids grow up and pirate and expect almost instant entertainment. Then they have money and find it is just as easy to buy a game or movie and have it in lovely Hi Def etc.
What I want is a system like Steam but for movies and TV shows. This program would have inbuilt streaming software to allow me to broadcast it from my PC and onto my device of choice. I should be able to access my media on that go and have it always ready for me to watch.
I want to be able to subscribe to different seasons of TV shows and pay something like $15 a month to watch the entire collection of my favourite show or pay an outright fee of $5-$7 to have a movie unlocked forever for me to access digitally.
It baffles me as to why no one has created a Netflix for the entire world to use.
iTunes kind of performs a little of that functionality, but I agree. There needs to be a unified digital distribution service for TV & movies. One that's not tied to a single device, like iTunes or Zune.
What an outdated way of thinking.
Also, this is the idiot that said that you have to pay some cyber criminal in Russia to download a bit torrent client and that you have to also factor in the price of a new hard drive when you get hacked.
WTF?
Douchebag.
Followed closeley by Gizmodo's latest article:
"How To Unblock The Pirate Bay"
http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2012/08/how-to-unblock-the-pirate-bay/
Great artists like Beethoven, Shakespeare, Michelangelo... did not depend on royalties dolled out by middlemen. Their works were either commissioned (paid in full on delivery) or the audience paid them a fee per performance. There was no copyright.
Exactly. The first premise of the OP's argument is that without copyright there would be no art. Absolute rubbish. Arguably, without artists, there would be no art (if you consider natural beauty as art, then *art* can exist without artists). I know plenty of artists who create for the sake of creation not because they are planning on raking in the huge bucks. Seriously, does the OP really know one single, real-life artist (not some soul-sucking media baron)? Copyright doesn't protect artists or inspire them to create the art we all enjoy; all it does is lines the pockets of the greedy fat cats pulling the levers on the machine that chew up and spit out those very same artists they say they are protecting.
Piracy is an entirely different issue - clearly copyright has done nothing to affect that either. Move along.
Good point!
If copyright was a factor it's likely those works would never have been made famous and we'd never have heard of them- People wouldn't be able to perform Shakespeare's plays freely, there's be almost no images of Michelangelo's works, and few people would play Beethoven.
Yet more reasons why Kim is a tool with no reason to have his idiot old man ramblings given such a wide forum.
The greatest works I cannot live without, are fiction written by amateur authors, who write in their free time and publish online for no profit or gain.
These Authors amaze me, their work is exceptional.
Of published books? i have many that I have liked, enjoyed and adored. But none I could not live without.
Many short films I rate highly, as high as some of the best hollywood movies. These short films are generally made at the creators cost.
The best music I've listened to? things that I'd never want to see missing? The Piano Guys, the group who created a kickstarter to fund the creation of their album. I funded that album. That's right, I liked the stuff that they did for free so much I paid so that they could create more. And I most definitely did NOT pay to get that album.
I look at you saying Copyright, Copyright, Copyright and I shudder. I think to myself... Fuck, You.
I look at companies or people who are not allowed to research cures for cancer because the genes they want to look at are copyrighted by other companies. I look at the apple vs samsung copyright cases and curse that Apple is trying to maintain a global monopoly instead of fostering innovation (even if competitors limit it by staying fairly close to the baseline) I look at 'Trusts' which have (Still) the copyright of people long dead and buried. And I see all that money going into pockets which it shouldn't belong to.
The only point your article is correct about is the outdated laws which aren't going to cover the changes coming into our society.
TLDR; Copyright stifles research, production and maybe innovation.
Just look who intellectual property benefit's, the super rich, it's a drain on the pocket of everyone else - wealth extraction from the poor to the rich.