Slashdot Mirror
Aussie Film Industry Appeals ISP Copyright Case
schliz writes "The Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT) has appealed a Federal Court judgement that this month exonerated ISP iiNet for its subscribers' copyright-infringing activities. In the widely publicised case, AFACT sought to penalize iiNet for its users having made 100k illegal downloads. A judge ruled that 'mere provision of access to internet is not the means to infringement,' but AFACT now claims the judgement 'left an unworkable online environment for content creators and content providers' and 'represents a serious threat to Australia's digital economy.'"
Anyone besides me ever wonder why Sony sells blank CDs and DVDs, then complains about infringement?
I'm guessing that the blank DVDs are intended to be used to burn your home videos shot with Sony video cameras to disc, not to copy commercial and CSS-protected content.
I'm not a fan of stupid copyright arguments or Sony, but this argument is disingenuous. You may as well wonder "why do they sell blank paper, yet complain about the counterfeiting of currency?"
... and then they built the supercollider.
To be honest the internet is a threat to the digital economy --------- of the middle men, those that contribute nothing but, hmm, bullshit.
Contribute nothing? Perhaps, but consider the following (selected at random from the US Chamber of Commerce website):
So yeah, you could make an argument that such companies contribute nothing, or make nothing, but you'd have to agree there's an awful lot of money and jobs (and corresponding political influence) tied up in those numbers, and without those companies doing the nothing that they do so well, a chunk of the economy goes poof.
Because these are the only types of content available.
Uhhh, I don't recall saying anything like that.
God forbid other people make stuff and they love it when you burn it on a DVD to show it to your friends.
Indeed.
Your honor, the defence rests.
What exactly are you trying to argue? I didn't say Sony's intentions were just - I was just trying to explain what Sony's intentions probably are.
... and then they built the supercollider.
Well, I'm pretty sure the US government isn't selling THAT particular paper, nor the dyes or security strips.
Irrelevant. Plenty of forgeries are made on normal paper.
Not only did Sony push for the general acceptance of the format, but then they went on and became the world's top seller of portable cassette tape RECORDERS.
Right. So how does that mean they support the copying of copyrighted content? There are many other uses of tape recorders.
Once again, a poor argument. Knives can be used for murder. This doesn't mean knife manufacturers advocate murder.
... and then they built the supercollider.
That money is not created, it is bled from the rest of the economy ... please do not confuse the exploited creators with the exploitative publishers ... profit and greed is what you claim as their one saving grace ...
LOL. I don't know whether you're a troll, having a bad day, or just can't read. In no way did I claim anything, or espouse any point of view. I merely pointed out that the sum total of what you find so easy to dismiss represents a huge and growing chunk of the economy (i.e., real money and real jobs). Anybody living in the real world knows that when there's money at stake, people sit up and listen to the stakeholders.
My sentiments are inline with yours, but I'd be a fool, as you would be, to think that anyone in power gives a damn about advancing noble causes or has time to listen to vague, handwavy notions of participitory experiences. Their responsibilities are, for better or worse, to maintain things the way they are because everyone is depending on it. And those figures and words I cited? Those are echoed all the way up the food chain. The conversation you're trying to have is just background noise.
You know what else represents a good chunk of our economy? Financial services. Those folks don't make anything either. So if you want to rail against real exploitation, that would be a good place to start. Good luck with that, too.
Of course. I was more referring to the legislative branch, and the courts having to uphold the copyright laws on the books.
Thank you for tripping me up on some simple wording, and ignoring my point.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
But counterfeiters don't need to use that paper.
... and then they built the supercollider.
Certainly not. There's no demand for people smiling, or at least, not for paying people to smile. That's the primary reason for there being no smiling business. There's no case of an in-demand product not being delivered, so government intervention would be pointless.
These two issues are related, so I'll respond to them both here.
We already have copyright laws on the books, and we already have a system that is kind of working. That's not to say that the copyright laws couldn't be improved, just that government has already stepped in and intervened. Now, thanks to piracy being illegal, there are enough people actually paying for media to keep Big Media going. Indie artists have to work really hard, and Big Media has to focus more on the mainstream money-earners, but essentially, we're making do. It works, but we could be doing much better.
However, even though we are OK at the moment, we are actually not in a stable position. Piracy rates are extremely high. As more people gain speedy and high bandwidth internet access, this will only go up. It makes a good deal of sense to address the piracy issue now and to at least counter the effect of pirates indoctrinating other pirates, even if Big Media is currently doing OK.
You have to remember that piracy is still illegal. If every person had the opportunity to do what pirates are doing (and we like to think of ourselves as equal opportunity people), then every artist and publisher's days of selling copies of their work are over (the copies being the in-demand product here). The government is supposed to address the enforcement of the current laws, specifically if the law is being broken by too many people too frequently. It's the courts' job to uphold these laws as much as possible. Even if things are chugging along nicely at the moment, the government and the courts are supposed to be improving the rate of success of the laws.
Finally, there's the issue of fairness. It doesn't matter just how much Big Media is earning, only that their profits are appropriate to their demand, like in other industries without the piracy back door. Their profits, of course, are nothing to shake a stick at, but for their contribution to society, for the popularity of their work, for the number of people currently using and enjoying their work, those profits should be higher.
Every pirated copy of their work is a potential lost sale. Every copy reduces the chance of a sale being made to essentially 0. Each is a non-zero expected loss for the company, and a gain to a pirate who definitely is not entitled to it. As an analogy, if we all started stealing small amounts of money out of their bank account, would you consider that to be fair? Does the fact that a person or company is very rich morally allow stealing on a massive scale?
We do actually. The fact that nobody has managed a serious attempt at any other business models is evidence that nobody has found a superior business model. If
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
It sounds like a good plan, but I'm a little fuzzy on the details. How do you propose they sell DVDs, when people can download and burn them practically for free?
Actually, there is always a position for others to displace them while they're still running. The problem is that nobody seems to have a better plan for success than they do.
I just wanted to add a quick note before I finished: this whole thread was not so much about the Australian film industry, so much as it is a general comment of the roles of government and courts in propping up business models. That's why I haven't addressed anything too specific.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.