'Piracy Will Turn The Souls Of Australian Communities Dark'

Village Roadshow is no stranger to colourful language in its anti-piracy submissions to government. The last time it submitted one, it compared film pirates to paedophiles and terrorists. Now Village Roadshow is back with another rant-filled submission, and it's loaded with amazing quotes.

Here are some of our favourites.

On job losses:

Village Roadshow has always argued that increased piracy rates would erode the Australian film industry and put thousands out of work. Now the studio argues that piracy will turn vibrant Australian communities into post-apocalyptic wastelands...

In real-world terms, continued rampant online piracy means...the Australian film and television drama production industry would be shut down. Without copyright protection there is just no business model.
Australian families and kids whether it be in Frankston, Parramatta, Ararat or Launceston have the cinema as the social hub of their communities. If the product is stolen there will be no viability and not only will there be massive job losses but arguably the soul of communities will go dark.

Pirates sell drugs to kids:

It's all about the kids this time. On arguing against the business model of pirates, the submission wanders into allegations of drug dealing...

Pirate websites are widely reported to be run by criminal gangs who make millions of dollars by selling advertising. Unlike free or pay TV they create no content and provide no entertainment. They are leeches living off stolen product. Additionally pirate sites are a sleazy neighbourhood which our children go to and they are selling hard-core pornography and scams such as party pills and steroids.

ISPs are full of shit:

I don't even...

Village considers that ISPs established a great business but, like a factory spilling effluent into a river, the unintended consequence of their business is piracy, with its damning effects on our people, our culture and the economy.

The war for Hearts and Minds:

I want to live in Village Roadshow's utopia...

The main thrust of the Code is to educate people and win over the hearts and minds. This will be accompanied by a series of TV, on-line, newspaper and cinema ads reinforcing that piracy is theft and wrong. Just like people no longer smoke in restaurants and we have “tidy towns” there is no doubt we can win hearts and minds.

Hooo boy.

You can read the full submission to the Government's site-blocking legislation inquiry here (PDF).

WATCH MORE: Tech News


Comments

    Can we not give Burke any more oxygen? He's this decade's Michael Atkinson and deserves no further attention.

    On top of that, I think his claims are actually intentional. He keeps talking, the real issues get distracted from, people get overly emotional and have a go at him, he turns around and says "See the kind of people that opposes us?"

    Wouldn't surprise me if he's doing this baiting so his own fictional claims look better by comparison.

      He's Jack Thompson-ing the hell out of this debate. Throwing in spurious allegations and complete fictions on what is going on in reality is a devious way of distracting from the real issues.

      I have a feeling that Village knows they don't have any facts or evidence to support their claims so they're doing the equivalent of throwing crap at the wall in the hope that something sticks. The wall in this case being the government and the general public who I don't have confidence in knowing when they're being fed hyper-sensational, shock-jock level of misinformation.

      Last edited 21/04/15 1:05 pm

        I forgot about Thompson and wish I had as he's a better fit than Atkinson.

      If we don't mention names like Tony Abbott, Malcolm Turnbull and George Brandis alongside works like this submission from village roadshow can't possibly be believed and the reality in no way matches with their fanciful and factually incorrect submission, then Tony, Malcolm and George will never see posts like this because media monitors will never give it to them.

      Without intelligent members of the public talking down Village Roadshow's ridiculous submission as a joke, the politicans have no choice but to believe that everything Village says is 100% true.

        Government doesn't get advice from the media. The get their advice from inner party advisers who do "research" and accept submissions including those from Burkes.

        Both sides don't care for the media. Abbott has described Social Media as "digital graffiti" (and in a lot of cases he's right, mind blown) and Gillard during her time waved of opinion polls saying they weren't a reflection yet said otherwise when they were in her favour.

        On both sides, the figure heads only act on the advice of the advisers and if the said advisers choose to not exercise due diligence (the structure of Burke's submission alone is irruptive thus warrants rejection) then it is their fault for mis-informing the Prime Minister, etc.

        However, I will admit there are some cases where the advisors are not even consulted nor the party in general (Abbott knighting Prince Phillip, the idiot).

        Anyhow, I'm gonna wrap up my side of the discussion here as I'm becoming guilty of the same issue as I've pinged Burke for in my own post further down.

        Last edited 22/04/15 12:42 pm

          That's what they say in public. All sides of politics pay media monitors to provide them with reports of everytime their name was mentioned in talk back radio (which is why you should call your local station) and social media and what it was about.

          (Abbott knighting Prince Phillip, the idiot).
          This was clearly an act of genius intended to put the stake in the heart of the Monarchist movement.

          The current Government is not one to let a few facts get in the way of bad policy.

      Giz was literally promoting them the other day, via a competition they were sponsoring. I don't get it.; hang shit, promote, hang shit...

    Their share price doesn't seem to match their rhetoric.

    https://au.finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=VRL.AX#symbol=VRL.AX;range=my

    The cinema is the heart of the community? Now, I don't go to the talkies much these days, but I'm fairly sure the heart of society is no longer, nor ever was, the cinema.

    Now, back to the laughing....

      I want to know what they are tripping on! Must be good stuff... just look at the visualization!

    Incredibly poorly written and also outright deceptive. Comparing ISP revenue ($4b) to cinema box office takings ($1b) when it suits, then saying cinema AND television production adds $5.8b to the economy when they want a bigger number to throw around.
    Also if they think the social hub of Frankston is the cinema, they may want to actually go down there and have a look for themselves. They'd also find most Frankston youth get their drugs at the station, not from a piracy website.

    Village need to face facts, people do not want to pay to see movies at overcharged cinemas any more. The old distribution model is broken. And idiots like you blaming everything/one else but your inability to movie with the times is just a joke. Content providers are the true reason why piracy is a thing. If I could buy to watch the upcoming movies and watch it in my home cinema set up with five of my friends that dose not involve paying over $100 just for a ticket and 30 min of ads, then I will. But you lot are blind to the true reason. Death to Village.

      It's because there's no place for them in the 'new system', so to speak. There's really no way for them to adapt, so they're just going to go out swinging.

    went to village at Know on the weekend.
    Que'd in the confection line for 25 mins to get tickets cause the ticket booth was unmanned. when i came out of the movie ticket counter was open but less than half staffed and the Que was longer. and they can't understand why i download.

      Why didn't you download your ticket? I thought everybody got movie tickets online now?

        Because you pay the ticket price PLUS a booking fee per ticket. It's more expensive to do it online.

          WHAT?! I haven't been to a village cinema in about 10 years and it was never that bad.

          Just shows how fast it is racing to the bottom.

          i can not understand that, im making their job easier and i have to pay them a booking fee ???

            Same at Coles and Wollies. The pricing is the same if you use the self-checkout or the staffed check out. But if you order online, the prices are a bit high as they claim they need to pay staff to fetch the items.

              That's different. Someone actually goes and picks your order.

              The cinema (and concert tickets for that matter) is just utter bullshit.
              They claim they have to pay for the website, but they need one of those anyway.

              Booking fees are the devil. It's why we can't have nice things. Charging me extra for a digital, print at home ticket is bloody extortion.

                Nah, still the same. If they have to pay staff to fetch the goods, why is there no discount if I do the checkout myself at their self-checkout?

                  Apple costs $1
                  You go get apple and take it to check out. Someone serves you. Apple costs $1
                  You go get apple and take it to self serve. Apple costs $1, you don't have to talk to anyone, you get out quicker.
                  You order online (for pick up). Apple costs $1. Someone has to go get it from the fruit section. Apple costs $1.10.

                  Self serve is different because the benefit there is not cost saving (although you can have one staff member for multiple checkouts) but mainly a time saving. Quick in and out, pay by card. Great for low number of items.
                  I never saw self check out as a cost saving (even though it is), it's more of a convenience thing.

                  With ordering online, you're actually paying for someone to go shop for you. Again you're paying for convenience. It's not making the job easier for the store... Unlike online tickets.... which do make it easier for the cinema/concert venue.

                  Last edited 22/04/15 11:32 am

                  Nah, very different situation as already mentioned. It can take me an hour or more to fill a shopping trolley, you are basically paying a premium to get someone else to do that for you. It takes a check out operator just a couple of minutes to process a cart full of goods, however Im guessing it would take considerably longer for a worker to fill it for you. At some point I guess the pickers may be replaced by a robotic system which will speed things up considerably (similar to how some pharmacies are now dispensing scripts).

          I went to the movies on the weekend because I had a couple of free tickets. When we went to redeem them online rather than in person, we found that we'd still have to pay the booking fee.

            I recently did the exact same thing. I had a couple of free tickets, found I still needed to pay a booking fee. Went down to the cinema the next morning, did it all in 5 minutes, even saved a few bucks on the tickets that needed to be paid due to being on a concession (so $17 instead of $20... $3, what a saving!) thanks to the girl on the counter who put them all through under my name and concession, unlike some who will only do 1 ticket per concession card.

          Its sad how that happens, not just for movies, but other things too. It costs less to get a paid employee do it for you than going online and doing it yourself....

          I think the worst thing I have seen is a concert ticket that you paid extra for if you opted to be able to print a digital copy of the ticket instead of going and collecting it from a booth at the venue

    The statement that artists (such as Bethoven) would never have created symphonies because they could not lock in royalties made me laugh the most. Art for art's sake...NEVER!

      It's almost like... some people LIKE making music... weird.

    Wow, I can't even...

    Shows how backward they are that they equate piracy to the run off / pollutants created by the internet industry.

    Make your product valuable to consumers and you will thrive - look at Steam. Before Steam I pirated games, now I can't even remember the last time I did that. Don't lock us out under draconian DRM (if you must have DRM it must be permissive, like Steam's), give us top quality streams (no SD crap) at a price that is not Australia taxed to all hell.

    If the Cinema is the heart of some communities, why do Village owned Cinemas make it prohibitively expensive to attend?

    Last edited 21/04/15 12:58 pm

    Every time I see Village Roadshow complaining about Piracy I just go look up their profits for recent financial years... $58m, $60m, $75m, $1.2b.

    Yeah, when they are posting a profit that would wipe out Australia's debt in one or two hits... Sorry, not buying the "movies are dying due to piracy" bullshit.

      It's not only that. There's hardly any staff in the stations so there are long queues. The buildings don't look like they are being maintained anymore, and the last time I went the theatre was small and filthy!

      Seriously, it made a metro tram in Melbourne look pristine!

    Close the cinemas. See if I give a damn. In fact it would be better for everyone if cinemas closed. Then we wouldn't have to wait so long before the movies get released on DVD.

    Australia should just be the first country to legalize piracy and see what happens. Hell the government could make their own site and make money off the adds. What is village gonna do invade us?. that would be a good movie plot, a bunch of b grade actors invading a country half the size of Europe.

      There are quite a few countries that have not signed any of the international copyright agreements, including Afghanistan, East Timor, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Iran, Iraq... and a few others.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_international_copyright_agreements

    With movies like Fast 7, Avengers, star wars and batman vs superman coming out I don't think they will be at a loss. Crowds of people will come the cinemas to watch them and pay for those over priced tickets.
    Instead of bitching about piracy offer us a good product. Obviously Australians like getting their content in a different way or think it's too expensive or don't get the content soon enough. Go with the market or their business will die. Basic business right there.

      > Go with the market or their business will die.

      Funny that. The entertainment industry can do whatever they want, and the government will bail them out/bend over and take it in the arse, but any other industry does that, and "Too bad so sad"

    After reading the linked document, I can honestly say that I have only seen better fiction masquerading as fact during federal elections.
    I also loved how frequently the supporting features included within that document contradicted each other.

    Hey, Village Roadshow and co:

    You may be able to tell, but customers are not happy with propping up your archaic business model. The world has changed. It will not stay static just because you don't like the changes that are happening.

    Consumers are not going to settle for being a second-class region in a global marketplace, nor should they. Now might be a good time to accept that with technology as it is, the consumer has the power. Your lobbying of government for their intervention has proven ineffective, because they are unfortunately just as technologically inept as you are.

    You can not force the consumer. You can not guilt the consumer. There is precious little guilt to be felt in wronging someone who institutionally treats you with such contempt and disrespect. The consumer is a tidal wave. And you can stand your ground in the face of it, but you'd be better served either getting out of the way or trying to ride the wave.

    I offer this: If your provably-false rhetoric is to be believed and this state of affairs is ruinous to you, then the onus is on YOU to change. Not try to keep consumers locked in your favourite period of status quo.
    Learn to work around our demands. As a hint: you can do this by pleasing us.
    This is deceptively simple.
    You can do this by offering services which we value highly instead of services you abritrarily declare to be 'high value'.

    Look to other industry leaders (such as Steam, Good Old Games, or Netflix) for ideas. Hell, steal their ideas. We'll fall over ourselves to shower you with money, gleefully tweeting about how bankrupt we're going to make ourselves, and sharing amusing pictures about the same idea.

    Your insistence on railing against the inevitable is sad, desperate, and harming the industries who rely on you for their income. Swallow your pride and adapt.

    Be. Better.

    Last edited 21/04/15 1:47 pm

      If I may make one suggestion, how about making mention to GoG.com? It's thriving and it's DRM free.

      Its funny how there are countless jokes about Steam Sales that will bankrupt people. It just shows how powerful digital distribution coupled with a fair and reasonable price will drive people to madness in their frenzy to get their hands on it.

      I have at least 20 games in my library that I have played less than 2 hours of, because it was a good price and I gave it a go. 2 hours of entertainment for $5 is a hell of a lot better than a trip to the cinema to watch some crappy movie.

        You aren't doing Steam sales correctly. I've got hundreds of games I haven't even installed yet.

          yup. if the pile of shame doesn't grow, then shame on you...

          Two business models. One results in a situation where a staggering number of people cheerfully consume the product and don't pay for it. The other results in a staggering number of people cheerfully paying for the product and not consuming it.

          Even a complete fucking moron can see which of those business models is getting a better result. But not Burke.

    Utter rubbish, they need to wake up and smell the coffee. Start distributing the films direct to the end user. I won't take my kids to the movies and get ripped off on tickets and overpriced popcorn. I am however more than happy to pay for a movie I can watch at home on my perfectly good 4k TV on release day. There are stupid people running the village bicycle....

      The reason Village dont want to disrupt their business model is that they have a finger in the pie at every turn.

      Lets have a look at the new Mad Max movie.
      Village Roadshow Pictures are co-financiers.
      Village Roadshow distribution handles the movie in Australia (at least).
      Village Cinema's screens the film.
      Village Roadshow Home Entertainment distributes the DVD
      Village Roadshow distribution (again) Handles the TV rights.

      As a result, they get a cut at every point in the business. Why would they want to change that.

      The fact is their model is changing and they dont seem to want to change with it.

      Furthermore, Burke claims that changes in copyright laws will hamper local production. Well, local production has been doing a pretty good job of hampering itself over the past years. The truth is, make good product and we will pay to see it, it doesnt matter what medium we choose to view it with.

      Netflix pay around $4 - 5 million dollars per episode on shows like Orange is the new black or House of Cards. If we developed, produced and shot a show of that quality for a WORLDWIDE audience here in Australia, Netflix are likely to consider it. Developing product people want to watch consistently, allows us the freedom to produce the quirky product we seem obsessed with here.

      Last edited 21/04/15 4:05 pm

    I like how they keep claiming that piracy = theft even though it's clearly, legal stipulated to be different.

    This sphere is actually a cube... trust us, you can totally poke your eye out with that sharp corner...

      it does undermine their argument immensely, as they just come off as ignorant.

        It's the principle of the "big lie" - if you lie loudly and long enough, people will start to believe you.

        There are really people out there who don't know they copyright infringement and theft are two different things.

    If the product is stolen there will be no viability and not only will there be massive job losses but arguably the soul of communities will go dark.
    How long has movie piracy been around? 10-15 years for digital downloads? Even longer if you count TV recording and DVD/VHS copying. I'm curious as to how many cinemas have closed down as a direct result of this?

    This will be accompanied by a series of TV, on-line, newspaper and cinema ads
    I hope they're willing to send some of that advertising money to those "criminal gangs" because if everyone is pirating, the only place they'll see the ads is on the piracy sites!

      ...cinema ads reinforcing that piracy is theft and wrong. Just like people no longer smoke in restaurants and we have “tidy towns” there is no doubt we can win hearts and minds.
      This seems to be the most idiotic thing I've yet to see. The thrust of it SEEMS to be that they can evangelize to the converted to whip them into a peer-pressure machine of anti-piracy fervor similar to anti-smoking.

      I doubt this is the correct way to do it, though. I recall being in a cinema when one of those ads actually played twice (by error or design I don't know). I was so frustrated that when I growled out angrily, "Oh for fuck's sake, why are you telling us this shit? Everyone here already paid way too much to be here!" a number of people nearby actually clapped. Sometimes you can agree with someone in principle but be inclined to disagree simply because they're being fucking pricks about it.

        Sometimes you can agree with someone in principle but be inclined to disagree simply because they're being fucking pricks about it.

        So true. I would argue that content owners might fall victim to this kind of contrariness too. If one posed a simple scenario as: would you prefer very few people saw your film at all, or that very few paid to view your film but many watched it? They'd properly pick the former, even if the financial benefit is the same in both cases. The second case might even have the extra benefit of increased exposure leading to more opportunities for the future.

        or fast forwarding through:

        HAVE

        YOU

        GOT

        WHAT

        YOU

        PAID

        FOR

    Yes but we could do with getting rid of Australian made movies and TV Shows because they are all so groan worthy.

      Watched "Son of a Gun" last night. Really enjoyed it. Recommend you watch it.

    OK, now that my head has cooled off, let’s take a look at this submission.

    And for once, I’m going to be full on serious and not deviate into Looney Tunes style, hyperbolic exaggerations as I often do. And sorry in advance if a lot of this is common knowledge.

    Burke’s front matter

    The Australian film and television drama production industry would be shut down. Without copyright protection there is just no business model.

    OK. So if there is no protection then why don’t vendors and/or providers (such as Village-Roadshow) look at the environment and put in place a non-invasive yet effect means of allowing easy access to content while at the same time protecting the intellectual copyright of the creators?

    A good example of this is Nintendo when it started out in the gaming industry. They looked at other markets such as America, etc., (this was back when they still made collector cards for the likes of Disney, etc), and saw that piracy was an issue.

    So rather than be passive, they proactively did some research and created the NES10 lockout chip. This ensured that even if the cartridge was copied, most cases still needed the chip to authenticate with the console and boot.

    In effect, this is a two way street. It’s all fair to claim works need to be protected but at the same time the creators themselves have to be proactive before they start making demands of the market.

    If the product is stolen there will be no viability and not only will there be massive job losses but arguably the soul of communities will go dark.

    This is confusing. By stealing, does Burke mean the actual negatives for RCA style projectors or media containing the digital files for the modern projectors?

    As repeatedly pointed out, piracy is not theft as the item being sought is never actually removed. It is copied.

    Back to the point, people’s lives do not revolve around movies. It is a form of entertainment and (to use Burkes own words) the soul of communities was just fine even before the Lumiere Brothers made their first projector.

    Of course strong action against piracy means there is a benefit to the United States studios and to their feature film release program but this is secondary to the benefit to Australia and Australians.

    If it is secondary then why it is being mentioned? Also where does this fit with the submission as a whole?

    Pirate websites are widely reported to be run by criminal gangs who make millions of dollars by selling advertising. Unlike free or pay TV they create no content and provide no entertainment. They are leeches living off stolen product.

    Widely reported does not mean a wide norm. Not all online sites (such as Torrent Trackers before the advent of Magnet Links) are run by criminal organisations.

    While it is true that torrent sites don’t offer entertainment, one cannot say so in one breath and then claim leaching off a stolen product in the next.

    In their classical form, Torrent sites only hold indexes of .torrent files which are then used to retrieve the actual content from peers (until the advent of Magnet links and DHTs which rendered such files obsolete). Given that the actual file is not there, it’s not possible to claim leeching of a stolen product as (semantics of the word stolen aside) the product in question is not actually there.

    Site blocking has been or will be implemented in 37 countries around the world, including 32 countries in Europe, and is working successfully.

    Implemented, yes. But as basic research shows their effectiveness is questionable at best. The Pirate Bay (now calling itself The Magnet Bay) has been repeatedly blocked and until recently has always kept coming back.

    If the effectiveness of the leaving torrent target is questionable at best, what does it say for other sites?

    Village considers that ISPs established a great business but, like a factory spilling effluent into a river, the unintended consequence of their business is piracy, with its damning effects on our people, our culture and the economy.

    Unsavoury comparison aside, if this claim is to be taken as truth, then can it not also be said (by extension) that the continued sale of kitchen utensils has knife crime and murder as a consequence of their own business model?

    The problem is not with the service itself (in this case the ISP). The problem is with the consumer of the service thus leading to the bigger and oft overlooked question “What is about the environment leading the user to this path?”

    The ISPs in Australia gross $4 billion, while the cinema box office totals $1 billion. Ignore the scare tactics about the Code raising the cost of the ISP service as for the large ISPs, it is likely only a few extra low-level employees and minimum costs will be incurred in the scheme of things.

    If the cost is minimal, then why is it fair that ISPs should be made to front the costs and not content providers such as Village Roadshow?

    Village accepts and understands that people want to get product at the same time as the rest of the world and at low prices. Village is using its influence to ensure that films are released into cinemas in Australia at the same time as the rest of the world.

    While it is good that village is recognising the timing issue but the passage is more self indulgence than anything else.

    At the end of the day, Village-Roadshow is just one provider. There are others and Village-Roadshow is not the be-all and end-all in the movie going market. There is Reading, Event, and various independents.

    This will be accompanied by a series of TV, on-line, newspaper and cinema ads reinforcing that piracy is theft and wrong. Just like people no longer smoke in restaurants and we have “tidy towns” there is no doubt we can win hearts and minds.

    It needs to be pointed out that such measures are already in place and the idea has been tried numerous times. Some worse than others.

    Some time ago, there were anti-piracy trailers that appeared at the start of movies and even purchased DVDs saying that piracy is stealing.

    Besides the fact that piracy is not stealing, the ad itself caused controversy when it turned out the producers of the ad did not have a valid license for the music track featured. In effect, the anti-piracy ad itself was a form of piracy.

    That aside, it was also the model in which it was delivered (a problem that persists today). If a user purchased the DVD, then why is the user subjected to this ad? It’s more detrimental then educational.

    News Limited Attachment

    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.

    For the most part, the description is actually correct. However, copyright is not actually about supporting a business.

    What the content creator *does* with the rights bestowed is the business. The copyright is a grant of exclusive rights in the publication and distribution of created content.

    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.

    No actually that is giving more importance than appropriate to copyright. Again with reference to Nintendo when it started out in the console gaming market.

    Even though copyright laws existed, the laws themselves are only be exerted when a crime is committed. The copyright laws themselves do not proactively prevent the violation.

    That is for the creator of the content to do. They need to be proactive and not lie on their backs and expect legal systems to prop up their business for them.

    In fact, the following passages support this idea.

    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.

    In this passage alone, not only do we see that Dickens and Shakespeare put a lot of effort into the creation of the works, they both also took the extra yard and looked at how they first could ensure they made a profit before resorting to the the law statues to recover lost income.

    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 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.

    This makes absolutely no sense. If a content creator chose not to create because laws were not in place, then it is the fault of the creator. Again with Nintendo and now Shakespeare and Dickens in the mix. In all three cases, the law only address the aftermath of an infringement and all three took proactive measures to minimise said aftermath by looking at the very market they intended to distribute their creations.

    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 percent of persistent downloaders download illegally at least once per week. Usually TV programs and movies.

    Once again, the main question is not being asked. In fact, the tone of the attachment also appears to be rushed in flow as if to avoid people thinking for too long and actually ask the question “What is the motivation of pirates? What is the cost of the same content locally? What is the access like on the local distribution channels?”

    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.

    Last time I’m raising this in this very post. There is a difference and the morality is also different. Purely because there is no theft committed. The object (in this case a binary file) is still there. A license can still be sold to view at object which oddly enough is copied anyway so the user can view said content on their own device.

    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 ... But Internet Service Providers must take responsibility too to tackle the problem of repeat offenders who use their networks.

    Once again another elephant in the room is ignored. What we have are legal avenues but they either do not have the content the user is after or the content does but it is either at an excessive price, the accessibility is overly restrictive, the quality is sub-par or a mix of all three.

    And the later part is unviable as if ISPs are made responsible for their users, then the president will extend to all avenues. Home wares stores will be made liable if consumers use recently purchased knives commit murder. Cleaning outlets will be liable if bleach was purchased and thrown deliberately on someone else.

    Ironically even Foxtel and Stan would be liable if viewed watched material akin to Breaking Bad and found a way to fill in the gaps to cook their own recreational drugs.

    At the end of the day, it is not for the service providers to be made more liable. The service providers (like Nintendo, Shakespeare and Dickens) need to be proactive and see what their own actions are doing.

    All up, this attachment is a sorry reflection on an industry that once saw the law is only an after thought and only careful research is needed to ensure a profit. But now, while technology has advanced, the delivery of modern content is still done so in a retrofit of an ageing distribution method.

    And finally, it reflects how some content creators, their distributors and even both have regressed to a sense of entitlement where they think if they make it, the law will collect the profit for them without lifting a finger.

    To that I say, “I think I’ll get another book by Dickens as he put a lot more effort in the delivery back then than HBO is now.”

    Australian Screen Association Attachment

    Nothing much to say really. In fact it can be asked why it is even there as it only serves almost like a tourism flyer in showing not only the size of the film industry but goes against the prior pages so far and indicates is still grows and is in a healthy state.

    Remaining Attachments

    Mostly infographics that at best can be described as being taken out of context and have not in any way been tied to the aim of the submission.

    Last edited 21/04/15 4:47 pm

    Can we just boycott all Village Roadshow films at the cinema in protest of their hyperbolic bullshit?

    #VillageRoadshowBoycott #OccupytheInternetnotthecinema

      Or just pirate them. That seems to be what gets their attention most.

      I've been boycotting the cinemas for years. Or not really boycotting, I just don't feel the need to go and spend $60 just to see a movie, so I don't. heh.

    Surely most people have access to $10 tickets or similar with their mobile provider or health insurance or similar product they pay for?
    I just bought a bunch of $10 Hoyts vouchers which I'll be using to see Avengers. No booking fee either with these vouchers.

    Either use vouchers, or sign up to the loyalty programs and watch the movies when they become the movie of the week for $11.

    People are silly if they are paying $20+ these days to go to the cinema when there are options out there to get cheaper vouchers (even direct from the cinema itself - in bulk).

    The movie industry keeps crying about loss in profits, yet every year they post record profits and like to spend $250M on one movie. There's a bunch of huge movies coming out in the next couple of years (Marvel, DC, Star Wars etc) so I'm sure the movie/cinema industry will be fine.

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now