Will 2015 Be The Year Piracy Dies?

The Pirate Bay is up. No wait, down. Try this one instead. Kickass Torrents had its domain seized. Oh wait it's over here now. Demonoid isn't as good as it used to be after it came back. People are being prosecuted and the government is really coming for us. Is 2015 the year that widespread piracy finally dies?

Indeed, it's getting harder and harder in 2015 to download content free and easily over BitTorrent. The Pirate Bay was raided and taken down for over a month. Kickass Torrents had its domain seized and there's an anti-piracy scheme underway inside the bowels of the Government.

Sure, you say, despite these hiccups there are still ways to get your pirate fix. There are open-source copies of The Pirate Bay popping up all over the web, a re-positioned version of Kickass Torrents living at a new address and the slow but certain return of Demonoid, but there's no doubt that the latest salvo from Johnny Law has put a dent in the digital skull and crossbones.

But consider that these resurrected sites are attracting whispers and rumours. Onlookers are warning that they're honeypots for the FBI and other law enforcement agencies.

Now Read: How Aussie ISPs Will Start Busting Users For Piracy

Even without Australian anti-piracy laws in place (which are definitely on the way), studios and producers are still doing what they can with existing legislation to bring pirates to justice.

The studio behind Dallas Buyers Club is currently fighting a legal battle with iiNet (the only ISP that stood up against the studio) to produce email and home addresses of people who pirated the Oscar-winning film.

The case is surely being watched closely by other studios keen to prosecute pirates for lost revenue in the hundreds of millions, and with the backing of our Government looking to crack down on copyright infringement, it's only going to get harder to torrent a film and get away with it.

Of course, piracy is not a victimless crime. It may be a way for you to stand up to the Man charging you through the nose for tickets and popcorn before charging you again for a Pay TV service that takes too long to bring content to Australia, but it's genuinely hurting some smaller filmmakers in our own backyard.

The cast, crew and producers of the awesome Aussie zombie film Wyrmwood made their masterpiece on a deferred payment basis. That means they've foregone being paid for their hard work until after the movie turns a profit, and now that it's being widely pirated the proverbial pie is shrinking. Actually, scratch that: the real pie is shrinking too.

"Just need fans to pay to see it so we can eat," one of the actors tweeted last week. For them, the struggle against piracy is real.

Another Aussie artist is also struggling to make ends meet thanks to piracy. Buried in the submissions to Government over the proposed anti-piracy scheme, a musician revealed that his work had been uploaded to YouTube by a third-party and played millions of times.

Thanks to that back-door streaming option, it had only been purchased a few hundred times on iTunes, meaning that he saw very little real revenue from it, despite the song's popularity.

His submission was heartbreaking, too. It simply read: tell me how I stop this so I can get some money.

Will piracy survive beyond 2015? Good question. An even better question is: should piracy survive beyond 2015? The answer is simple: absolutely not.




      +1 there will always be a movie, TV show or song that is simply not available "legally" in Australia.

      The big names continue to pump out "apps" that work on a handful of very specific device models while other models (sold in the millions) are forgotten and ignored. Netflix and quickflix will be the only 2 services that can happily run on any device.

      The issue with music especially is that you spend all this time creating a great playlist, only to to find that one day one of your favourite songs has dropped off the list because of a licensing change. It's this sort of shenanigans that keep music piracy going.

      Offline music players also don't like tracks with obstructive DRM and of course can't access paid online services.

      It's still pretty "free and easy" to download content using private trackers. I wonder where they fit in to the government's plans, where the site and tracker both use SSL?

      Last edited 23/02/15 11:45 am

      Might be the year that torrenting dies (although very unlikely), it'll just be pushed further underground or people will start taking up SSL/VPN services instead to avoid being tracked and monitored.

        Back to the IRC and FTP sites!

          haha exactly, when I read "The piratebay is down, will piracy disappear"..... I can't even begin to laugh at how pathetic that is.

            Indeed, SSL private trackers for the win. Try snooping on me now.

      I agree - there has been some signs that Hollywood and govts have got more co-ordinated, but as long as VPNs, trackerless peer to peer and a bunch of other stuff continues to be available, piracy will not only be technically possible but will thrive

    That "Aussie artist" is falling victim to the entertainment industries biggest failing. Provide it how we want it, or we'll get it. If he chucked it up on youtube with ads then he'd have revenue from those millions of views he would not normally get = profit.
    It's hardly "back door" .. put in a youtube copyright claim.. jeez..

    Who is the "Aussie artist" ?????????

    Last edited 23/02/15 10:28 am

      Doesn't youtube have a facility to report a copyright violation and regain any of the ad earnings from the people who were putting it on Youtube without permission? Although I think the facility to redirect the earnings may only be available to BIG players in the industry if I remember correctly, and if that is the case then there is a big part of the problem right there, indie artists miss out again.

      Except a lot of people block ads on YouTube because they hate watching them, so clearly advertising revenue isn't the answer either.

      Are you serious? The no. 1 thing that would drive me to piracy, assuming I was so lacking in moral fibre that I would stoop so low, is ads on YouTube, especially since when you are listening to music you get one ad before every song, which makes it worse than the radio. I reckon my use of YouTube has dropped by at least 90% since ads became pervasive.

        TIL: copyright is a moral issue, not a legal construct granting anticompetetive licence.

      Profit requires revenue > costs. With a few cents per view on YouTube, anything costing serious money to make is NOT going to make a profit from YouTube views alone.

      This is why paid streaming services exist.

      Adding it to the aforementioned streaming services makes more, but involves jumping through MANY more hoops.

      Someone who doesn't sell any records, but thinks they totally would if it wasn't for those dastardly kids/youtubes/etc

      I couldn't figure it out, after reading through the submissions. The only thing close to it is Mark Holden whinging about spotify not buying him a house.

      Last edited 24/02/15 3:03 pm

        Yup. I wish more artists could make money selling records but I also find the attitude of "if only piracy didn't exist I'd be making money" a bit weird. Sure in some cases that is true, in others, maybe your band just sucks? Remember when all those bands were whinging because Triple J didn't play their crappy follow up album?

    Piracy will never die. If anything, johnny law should be hoping it stays to torrents because torrents are trackable and easier to control. They need to hope more people don't discover another less trackable method that's already put there.

      What like usenet? Anyone who thinks newsgroups aren't being monitored by the copyright cartel is being naive IMO.

      SSL traffic can already be sniffed and monitored and in corporate (work) and school networks this is already happening, so it's only a matter of time before the government/AFP start it on a national scale.

      Streaming services (and "over the top" apps like showbox, tv portal, etc also fall into this category) are also a target of the cartel, the aim there is to stop the uploaders and the sites they use from operating.

        Sure they can sniff SSL traffic across networks, that's never in doubt, what they can't do however is inspect the stream so they never know what it is you're downloading. The only thing they can see is that Party A initiated a secure connection with Party B, and a transfer occurred.

          Actually this CAN be sniffed with a corporate setup. Basically the firewall gateway stages a man-in-the-middle "attack" by handing a fake key to the browser on the LAN (which has been configured on the browser to be always accepted) while separately negotiating a connection with the server.

          This does require some setup on the part of your IT team but it's a standard thing with standard instructions for how to do it. The (supposed) purpose is to permit filtering of content and viruses.

          An ISP or random third party can't do this because they don't control your browser. Don't gamble any large sums on the US Government lacking a similar level of control.

            Yes, on a corporate network, but how many people here would be using a corporate network to torrent? That's absolutely stupid, so easy to find where the traffic is going to and stomp on the employees ass.

              A terrifyingly large amount... Naive people are naive.

              Yes but the point is that as soon as George Brandis & Malcolm Turnbull finds out these man in the middle attacks are possible on corporate networks, they will introduce new legislation to make it happen at ISPs across Australia.

              I just hope we have another election before that day comes, otherwise they will just ram it through with the support of labour.

                How naive of me to have not even considered the current government would actually consider this, I'm actually embarrassed! I guess I just have at least some faith or an optimistic outlook on things sometimes ;) The thing that frightens me about all this is that Abbott has always been the peoples champion on freedom of speech, however between him and Brandis, nothing is off limits these days. Not particularly worried about man in the middle attacks though if you know what you're looking for......

              I knew one guy who did use a corporate network to torrent. He was an idiot. Secure HTTP is a different matter - how many people occasionally check their bank details from work because they think it's safe from snooping?

              I'm more worried about backdoors in clients in general - are you that certain of the codebase of your torrent client that it isn't whispering in the US Government's ear? Are we completely certain that Firefox and Chrome don't have backdoors for the DHS?

              My general point is: be careful what software you are trusting, especially if it was installed by somebody else and/or is not open source.

              [Edit] Actually, I can think of another guy who torrents from a work network. He's the head of his company. I advised him it was a bad idea, but some people refuse to be convinced.

              Last edited 24/02/15 10:00 pm

        But they don't know what's being downloaded. Only that SOMETHING is being downloaded. World of difference especially from this particular perspective. User details also aren't legally obligated to be handed over either.

          Exactly. As far as I'm aware authorities require a warrant to be able to inspect an encrypted stream, and by the time they get one in order to try to view the content of a particular stream, if it's a movie or tv show someone is downloading, the stream will have well and truely ended.

            Unless new legislation is passed - see my reply to muntedewok above

    The studio behind Dallas Buyers Club is currently fighting a legal battle with iiNet
    Which is a bit ironic seeing as its a movie about smuggling/piracy

    No, piracy will never die, this isn't a perfect world. The one thing that fighting piracy will do is force pirates underground so that piracy is much more difficult to enforce.

    Surely the government must realise that pirates are smarter and always two steps ahead of them.

    everything will be streamed requiring online access to play, piracy wont die out, it will just become obsolete

      You're definitely on the right track!
      Instead of fighting piracy, threatening lawsuits - absurd money or jailtime... just make piracy become the "dinosaur" way of obtaining media. Consumers currently want to download media at their pleasure because the current distribution method is obsolete, evolve the distribution method so that piracy becomes what is considered obsolete instead.

      Staying ahead of the game is what should win out, not lawyers and draconian laws.

        Exactly what I was thinking, if online access was how "we" envisage it, Piracy would become obsolete.

        if there was a platform for on demand downloads (in HD), people would use it.

          here here - Piracy in its current state is just too fast and convenient - Make a hub that is at least equal without annoying pop-ups even at a few cents a stream or a subscription base and you're already ahead.

          You should check out Popcorn Time

        Most people who pirate do it due to access and pricing issues. This isn't a new idea that providing new affordable and easily accessed content will kill piracy, it is literally the only way to kill it.

        Only once the masses can access it equally to the rest of the world, will then prosecuting the remainder be acceptable.

        hear hear!
        The real solution is not technical, its legal.
        Allow parallel importing for movies (and music and books and technology) and competition will do the rest.

    i mean it sucks but god damn it people either get a VPN or use one of the many other ways to aquire content that isnt bit torrent. People seem to think its the only way to get things these days.

    On sep one i will have to return to my roots of a paid HTTP account and just copy and paste links into my download manager and all will be well.

    Why can't I buy and download from Producers when movies get released? DVD/Blu-ray are so 2000's... now everything is downloaded. We need more Gen-Y's thinking of how to distribute to the masses at a reasonable cost... not the 1960's methodologies most companies still try to work on... and the fossils thinking this is still viable. (I'm Gen-X, but most of my group still work on the "must go to shop to buy")

      It's powerful people (distributors) that leech off the creativity of others. The internet has the ability for content creators to interact directly with their audience with no need for the middle men (distributors). It has them concerned their going to be irrelevant going forward and rightfully so.

    If you need people to pay to see it then make sure that they CAN pay to see it!

    Until the arbitrary release delays between cinema release in different countries and between cinema and home media are removed then piracy will remain a thing.

      Exactly. It's absurd that people in the middle east are watching a movie on their at home pay tv box at the same time it's being released in a cinema in the US, and Australia might have to wait another 2 months to see it in the cinema here (and another 18 months to see it on pay tv boxes)

        And it's also absurd to charge us Aussies (I'm actually an Ausmerican) 4 times the going rate in the US for the same show. US rate was something like $20 a season for NCIS and it was the current episodes (I'd pay that). Over here it was $79.99 a season! WTF!? It's broadcast TV nonetheless which to me cannot be pirated. I just have a VCR/DVR in the US with a big telescope and stethoscope over the Internet. Internet time-shifting...yeah we know it didn't work for Aereo but still piracy especially for TV (forget movies and full licensed stuff that people buy less often and thus shouldn't pirate) where you introduce someone to a show and want to get all seasons in the past to get caught up and might just get low quality versions and trash them after done, is a real thing.

    I would throw my hat in with the rest saying it'll go on forever, but I think piracy as we know it is eventually going to take a serious hit from something we haven't considered. I mean think of it this way, in 1995 piracy was knowing someone who sold pirate copies of movies or owning a stereo that can record CD to tape, then over the past two decades the tech grew into something huge. Right now piracy is so quick and efficient that it's hard to beat it with legit technology. Even if the various digital services were free they'd still lose business to piracy.
    This leaves us feeling like it's unstoppable, Pirate Bay goes down and two more take it's place, but is it really that crazy to think that anti-piracy technology could experience a similar breakthrough? It seems like it's only a matter of time before the legal side of it and the technical side of it get their act together and create an efficient semi-automated system.

      They'd have to redesign the internet and abolish encryption. I'm not over exaggerating. What ever they come up with to combat torrents someone will go out of their way to make another distribution method immune to it and once its out there they can't stop it - the process starts over again. If anything they most likely don't want a new distribution platform to take popularity as it would be designed with privacy in mind. At least with bittorrent they can track downloads.

        That's what I tend to think but there's an absurd amount of processing power out there now. It's making a lot of extremely impractical solutions work. Couple that with the flaws of torrenting and there's the potential to take torrenting down. Right now we're seeing waves being created by the push against major tracking sites.
        Obviously the end of torrents wouldn't mean the end piracy, but like I say piracy as we know it could take a hit. We could see it pushed back into the realm where only people who have proper technical knowledge of what they're doing even try to pirate. Remember when people actually paid for pirate movies? Anyone could do it but there were hurdles that prevented it from being done so casually. Getting consumers back to that would be a big win for anti-piracy groups.

    With Netflix launching here soon and now we have Stan, Presto, Foxtel Play & iTunes I believe we will see piracy becoming less needed for content. Piracy will not stop completely. There are still people that will do it for a multiple of reasons. But we now have and are getting a better choice of ways to watch content legally

    If you ask me this story's title should be called 'Will 2015 be the year FTA dies?'.

      The problem with the streaming services is that we will have Stan, Presto, Netflix, Foxtel Go, Quickflix, and whatever other services pop up, each with their own exclusive content deals, which means if you want to watch everything, you will need to pay for each service.

      Couple that with either slow internet speeds, or prohibitive download quotas, I would guess that piracy might decrease, but not die.

        Even more of a problem is our infrastructure. I get around 3Mbit/s on a good day, so content streaming is just a joke unless its in 144p.

        ... each with their own exclusive content deals, which means if you want to watch everything, you will need to pay for each service.

        Stan + Presto + Netflix combo will give you access to more content than Foxtel could ever offer and still ends up being cheaper than Foxtel's cheapest plan. Plus there are no lock-in contracts either.

      And then we'll end up with Seasons 3+ on one services, 1 on another, and 2 not available because it's not licenced in Australia. And after getting into a show, you may find the catoloigue is being removed because of a licence despute, or an exclusivity deal. And in the end you'll be spending $250+ per month for all of these services, and still wont have all of the content on time because of geographical licence models.
      You'll need an Apple TV, a Chromecast, an Xbox One, and xbox 360, an Ipad/iphone, and a PS3/4 to view things on a TV. And then some you might not be able to if your TV doesnt support HDCP, or something.

      And then you'll get ads because Samsung.

        And then we'll end up with Seasons 3+ on one services, 1 on another, and 2 not available because it's not licenced in Australia.
        And in the end you'll be spending $250+ per month for all of these services, and still wont have all of the content on time because of geographical licence models.

        $250? What the actual f**k? This is not Foxtel. There is no monopoly.
        I understand what you're saying about content being spread out across multiple services but you are extremely over-exaggerating the costs.

        A Stan + Presto + Netflix combo will give you access to more content than Foxtel could ever offer and still ends up being cheaper than Foxtel's cheapest plan. Plus there are no lock-in contracts either, pay month-to-month and cancel any time.

        There's an even cheaper method which only requires subscribing to a single streaming service as well as a SmartDNS or VPN service and that would be Netflix. Netflix accounts work worldwide and if there's a TV show you can't find on Netflix AU then you can just use a VPN or SmartDNS to change your IP region to a UK, USA, Canadian, Mexican, Dutch, etc IP and I'm 99% sure you'll find what you're looking for.

      FTA won't die because over 90% of the population still watch it several times a week, despite what people on this website might think, that's the reality.

      However it is also a reality that most people watch FTA for the news and reality TV - when you look at the official ratings news & reality are pretty much the entire top 20.

      Over half of the adult population also watch catch up TV online though, and it's this slice of the market that stan/presto etc hope to get paying for more content than what FTA gives them.

      Source for the numbers: http://www.acma.gov.au/theACMA/engage-blogs/engage-blogs/Research-snapshots/Supply-and-demand-Catch-up-TV-leads-Australians-use-of-catch-up

        Over half of the adult population also watch catch up TV online though

        Lol... I'd like to know how exactly the figures were calculated as to determine each 'view' for catch-up TV - Web page loaded? Pressed play? Initial ad shown? Minimum 3 secs watched? Min. 2 mins watched? At least 50% watched?

        Half the adult population is quite a lot more than I expected so I'd be interested in finding out how they calculate/determine it. Especially since each time I try to watch a video on catch-up I need to jump through 20 hoops until it finally plays correctly...
        Press play. Ad plays fine, then nothing.
        Reload page. Ad plays fine, then nothing.
        Ctrl+F5. Ad plays fine, then nothing.
        Clear cookies. Ad plays fine, then nothing.
        Clear cache. Ad plays fine, then actual video starts playing for 2 seconds before freezing... and then nothing.
        Restart browser. Ad plays fine, then nothing.
        Switch browsers. Ad plays fine, then nothing.
        Repeat all the initial steps in new browser. Each time: Ad plays fine, then nothing.
        Restart computer. Ad plays fine, then nothing.

        And it's definitely not just me. Just check out any comment section that is enabled and you will see everyone complaining. The comments are eventually removed so the devs are obviously aware of the issues but continue to do nothing about it.

    I remember when Napster was taken down and people couldn't get free music anymore. Oh, wait..

      haha. That actually made me laugh out loud.

      Last edited 23/02/15 12:09 pm

    I just fail to see how they can take every pirate to court. That would just be stupid.

      They will most likely go for a range of people from different backgrounds to "prove a point", for example: students, city professionals, housewives, pensioners, etc etc. All in the hopes it will scare everyone into submission.

        In the iinet court case, the copyright cartel have already stated that when the new copyright code comes in, they won't target people who will give them bad press which include: students, pensioners, people with disabilities, and (for some reason) military officers.

        However I still wouldn't take that as a license to pirate whatever using your real IP address.

          That military personnel thing probably comes from US political correctness, where if you mention anything about defense personnel you're begging to be labelled a 'murica-hater.

        More likely they will send a letter to any people they catch saying that they will sue them if they don't pay an out of court "settlement" rather than risk the consumer backlash they will receive if they take anyone to court

    Of course, piracy is not a victimless crime. Hmm, this again. Can we stop trotting out this obviously flawed statement?

    I admire artists (content creators), but saying that they are a victim every time someone downloads their work is not correct. It's faulty logic - download != lost income. Take your example Wyrmwood. Many people are going to download it, but who's to say, if they couldn't, they would have gone out and bought it or paid to see it at a cinema? Further, what if they've downloaded it after paying to see it or buying it on DVD/Blu-ray?

    Let's face it, the hue and cry about piracy is not because the artists that created the work are not being rewarded (and for those artists who say piracy is hurting their sales, maybe your product just isn't as good as you think it is - or you need a different method of getting your work out there), it's because the old-world media empires see their profit margins shrinking and don't realise it's because their pricing and distribution models, etc are out-dated and out-moded.

      Further, what if they've downloaded it after paying to see it or buying it on DVD/Blu-ray?
      I would like to see more protection for format-shifting, but given in the US they have been known to go after mobile networks for royalties on ringtones... I don't hold out much hope.

      "Don't answer your phone, this is an awesome song that I will never pay for legally"

    Also I would like to add - We really shouldn't be "hunting pirates" either - these people are more then likely incredibly skilled programmers that should be looked at being hired by distributors to improve their systems
    - Could you imagine a Pirate bay that was subscription based had none of the shoddy pr0n banners and had reliable updates when movies/tv shows were released -people would flock to it like crazy (TPB was just used as an example but fill the blank with your own preferenced streaming or downloading site) I think this is more of a viable path instead of trying to prosecute people who outsmarted the old business models.

    - If only there was a way to make torrenting properly and formally legal is what I'm trying to say.

      I'd be happy to pay popcorn time a hundred a year to use it. Main reason I use it is for ease and all the movies are on one place and the movies are there as soon as the cinemas have finished their run in America.

    and before the pirate bay, there was mininova... before mininova there was supernova...

    if they shut one down, everyone flocks to the next best thing, and it will grow to be as good/better then the original.

    I wonder when we're going to stop calling it "Piracy".
    I've never murdered the crew of a maritime vessel and taken possession.
    I also don't intend to do so any time in the future.
    I'm not a pirate.

      You're missing out on so much fun then.........

        Yeah. Apparently yelling "Yo Ho Ho" on the high seas can get you into substantially less trouble that if you yell it out the car window in a city street.

          BRB, Hyde Park is literally 2 blocks away from me.........

    Youtube + ads = literal profit. Literal.

      Not really. Adblockers do stop ads which killed ad revenue. Plus Youtube is taking more and more of a cut from the generated revenue while reducing how much gets paid per ad each time.

      I've got almost 50,000 views on my channel, but a whole $8 in ad revenue.

      I've got friends who run Youtube channels for the last 7+ years. Once upon a time with 10,000 views per video they'd make a good $500-$600. But now for the same amount of views they are barely scratching $300.

        For the record, it's not always about views.

        Subscribers, likes vs dislikes, duration of video watched, number of videos uploaded, the type of advertisement, demographic and click vs impression also make a huge difference. I've had videos/ads with AdSense for the past 4 years and have not noticed much change in payment.. but I think that your payment now is dependent on quality not just quantity.

    I got the WWE Network and I have 99% of what I want wrestling wise on there (Except live RAW & Smackdown due to US licencing agreements) for $14 a month. I'm happy to pay that. I haven't torrented anything wrestling related in almost a year (since I got the WWE Network). Now if we only had an all-in-one system for TV and Movies in this country that cost $10-$15 a month, then I'd stop going to the dirty pirate waters for my TV shows and movies.

      WWE isn't wrestling. Not anymore.
      What about NJPR, AAA, Lucha Underground, ROH, Chikara, Dragon Gate, PWG etc?

        NXT is surprisingly good compared to the WWE world.

      $14 a month to watch well-muscled guys strip down to their undies, oil up and roll around on top of each other? That's cheaper than a cab to Oxford St.

      (WWE is actually one of those content providers that seem to get the whole 'provide content at a decent price, in a non-retarded way, in a timely fashion' really right. Which is weird, considering the hustly, shilly nature of the industry)

    I purchase my Blu-Rays and go to the cinemas. I have to ask the real question here though: Would the people pirating the content actually purchase it if the pirating option wasn't there?

    It's all well and good to say "(x) movie has lost (y) amount of dollars, we know because of (z) amount of downloads", but I have to wonder, if there was no way to get something illegally for free, would they bother purchasing it? For some people they would, for most though I would think it would not be the case. When something is free (in someone's mind) then the barrier to entry is extremely low. When someone has to pay something (even $1 or so), people start to stop and think if they really want to spend that money.

      Not always, no.

      I frequently download movies and then go buy the Blu rays of the ones I enjoyed and delete the ones I wasn't impressed by. More than 50% of those that I download, I didn't have a huge interest in prior to watching, and never would have paid for it to start out with. Most just get deleted and I feel glad that I didn't waste money on trash, some others have turned out to be gems that I've loved, bought and told everyone I know how awesome it is and highly recommend that they too go and buy it.

      The point is, in my case they lose nothing from me pirating (wouldn't have paid anyway, I'd have just not watched the movie), and they gain money and word of mouth advertising for the few items I was exposed to that I really enjoyed.

        It might be anecdotal but thats my thoughts on it as well. In the odd case i'm surprised by something that i thought would have been terrible and they actually ended up with a sale out of it. In that case piracy actually got them a purchase. How prevalent this is i have no idea but surely there must be more people out there like me. Obviously the media corps would never do a study on it.

        Ohh not to mention the times i've downloaded something enjoyed it purchased it then mentioned it to friends as well who've gone and bought it on my recommendation (whether its games, tv movies or music) in that case one download has become more than one sale.

    I understand artists need to be paid for their work, but this "Please stop stealing my stuff" arugment is tired and old. Merchandise is where they make money. I don't pay for music I listen to once or twice and don't like. But music and bands I do like I'll support by buying their merch. $40 for a Tshirt and another $20 for the music? Nope.avi.
    Movies and media will always be an Issue in Australia because of slow content delivery, lack of quality, media monopolies and release delays.

      Word. I'll always buy shirts/tickets when my favourite artists' tour, but I'll always download an album first - if it gets multiple listens, I'll buy it. I'm not going to fork out $20-$40 for 12 tracks when I might only like one or two of them.

    I have some issues with legit purchases of some content. Firstly I have been a DVD, CD, Blu-Ray collector over the years and loved going to the store and finding a new DVD and adding it to the collection, that's half my issue now is that it isn't enjoyable any more, there is no fun or feeling the money is deserving to the product. I still buy some movies and music not as often as before, I still buy comics and feel it is very deserving and enjoy my comic trip.
    I just don't feel it is how it used to be where the purchasing of the product is as enjoyable as it used to be, which is part of my issue.
    The next part rolls into this is justification on price. Eg: Frozen made a lot of money, and is now is over a year old. That movie hands down made its money back and then paid for every ones kids for years to come, but for some reason to buy the blu-ray at JB it is $44.. why ? because they know you still will be buying and even if you are unhappy about it, it doesn't matter because you have to. Again this helps the product just loose any joy in its purchase.
    Lastly the artists are complaining about they aren't seeing the money either, especially in music. So if I'm paying and I don't have any money and they aren't who is ? So why am I paying for something that is getting them no where.
    All of it I feel comes down to business has put all there hands over it and are unhappy with its returns and people aren't stupid they can feel when we are peddled crap and tried to be force fed it.
    .... this all might just be me

    "Buried in the submissions to Government over the proposed anti-piracy scheme, a musician revealed that his work had been uploaded to YouTube by a third-party and played millions of times. Thanks to that back-door streaming option, it had only been purchased a few hundred times on iTunes, meaning that he saw very little real revenue from it, despite the song’s popularity."

    1. Create your own YouTube account and upload your video with monetization options turned on as well as links to the iTunes download on the video/description.
    2. Report the other video to Youtube for copyright, it will be taken down quickly but you will still enjoy the free publicity you received from the other video.
    3. Profit.

    What a crybaby.

    Last edited 23/02/15 2:53 pm

      Even if he uploaded it to Youtube... youtube videos get copied and uploaded to other youtube accounts and to other sites including Facebook that also have user-ad revenue

      Popular Youtubers are having issues at the moment that their advertised funded content is being copied, stripped and dumped onto Facebook feeds where they see none of the hits or revenue. Its called Facebook Freebooting.

      Even if they do get a DMCA claim on any youtube/facebook video... they dont see any of the money or get any of the publicity, as all funds raised on a DMCA takedown video goes straight to the Google / Facebook. All you get is an apology email from the website saying they took down the video, sorry for the inconvience *as they count the money they dont have to payout*

    You guys wouldn't have an agenda would you :)

    For those not familiar with StreamCo, it’s the joint venture between Nine Entertainment Co and Fairfax Media. In the interest of disclosure, Fairfax owns Allure Media, which publishes Gizmodo Australia.

      Nope. That's why we include that disclosure!

      Honestly, there's no money under the table or anything here. We're perfectly up front about advertising and advertorials when they happen (and they're written by a third party, not us). We write just as much about Netflix and Presto and Foxtel Go as we do Stan or any other streaming service.

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now