Australian Gov't To Streamline Anti-Piracy Lawsuit Process

daria42 writes "Remember how the mass piracy lawsuits common in the U.S. are now coming to Australia? Of course you do. Well, now Australia's Government has come out backing the legal process which makes them possible — and is even promising to streamline it. Anti-piracy organisations will be jumping for joy — but I'm not sure how popular the move will be with the rest of the population."

Comments

For a few dollars a month

[qxcv]

I can buy a seedbox to bypass all of this nonsense. Even better, I can open up my WiFi for some plausible deniability. Eat your heart out AFACT.

Re:For a few dollars a month

[Pseudonym Authority]

No, unacceptable. That only encourages their behavior. Defiant to the end.

Re:For a few dollars a month

[SuricouRaven]

It's become ideological now. A lot of people got into piracy for the free stuff, but then it became a moral issue - they either object to the business practices often associated with the larger copyright industries, or believe that the benefits of copyright are outweighed by the draconian measures required to enforce it in the age of the personal computer.

Re:For a few dollars a month

[htnprm]

On your second point re: leaving your wifi open, you'll probably find your end legislation looks similar to what we've had put in in NZ, where you, as the 'account holder' are responsible for all activity under your account, so "My wifi was open. It was someone else", won't work.

The seedbox though, yes.

Re:For a few dollars a month

[jonwil]

Hey mr content producer, you start selling the content I want here in Australia (on DVD preferably) and I will stop pirating your content from YouTube and BitTorrent and start paying for it.

I cant find ANY of the Yahoo Serious films on DVD in any local store for example. Nor can I find any seasons of The Real Ghostbusters past season 1. Nor can I find many of the cool documentaries (both film and TV) that I want to buy on DVD (such as those from the History Channel).

Re:For a few dollars a month

[jamstar7]

If people aren't paying for their products AND they're not consuming it, only then will we see the end to these lawsuits and see some real change.

Two words for that - 'bailout legislation'. You honestly think the media companies don't pay enough bribes^Rcampaign contributions to make sure the public doesn't cough up every last dime possible by making sure copyright never dies? Remember what happened when GM went crying to Washington that not enough people were buying their cars and too many were defaulting on those GMAC loans? Remember when the banks went crying to Washington about all those Fannie Mae loans and bad South American debt burned them so bad they couldn't make their dividend checks OR their top tier bonus checks? You really think the so-called national health care here in the States is about keeping the US healthy and not more of the same for the healthcare insurance companies? What makes you sure RIAA et al won't go bitching for a 'bailout'? They paid their campaign contributions, it's their right to get a bail out.

Re:For a few dollars a month

[TheRaven64]

Don't mean to be impolite...but, you could start...paying for things

Actually, you often can't. The content industry has pushed for region coding, meaning that you can't import US DVDs and watch them in Australia. Australia is Region 4 - most DVDs get a Region 1 release, then a Region 2 release a bit later, and maybe a Region 4 release if the content producers can be bothered.

One of the changes that I would love to see made to copyright law is a refusal to distribute count made a valid affirmative defence for non-commercial copyright infringement. Copyright is a bargain between society and the creators giving them exclusive distribution rights (for a limited time) in exchange for publishing their work. If they refuse to publish it, then they should not be given the protection of copyright. This would give the content industry a very strong incentive to start making worldwide downloads available as soon as their work is ready, rather than releasing DVDs in the USA 6 months after a film shows, in Europe a year after, and in Australia eventually (maybe).

Re:For a few dollars a month

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the changes that I would love to see made to copyright law is a refusal to distribute count made a valid affirmative defence for non-commercial copyright infringement.

To make this fully effective, you need to make the legislation quite complex, or there will be loopholes. If it applies only when they fail to distribute it in your region, they'll just release it on Betamax. If they have to release it in a common format, they'll release it on DVD, but crippled somehow: unskippable 30-minute intro, Swahili-language-only, etc.

Two simpler alternative changes to copyright law that accomplish the same goal:

  * Allow commercial format-shifting. So someone can start a business buying US DVDs, ripping and re-burning them as region-free, destroying the originals, and exporting them to Australia. For extra credit, allow modification, so the business can remove unskippable intro sequences, etc.

  * Compulsory licensing. Anyone can start a business selling DVDs of a movie, provided that they give 50% of their revenue to the copyright holder. Album covers already work much like this.

Either of these allow new businesses to bring copyrighted works to untapped markets (which ensures that someone will do it), while still giving the content creators a cut.

Re:For a few dollars a month

[shoehornjob]

Defiant to the end

So what part of disobeying the government rule and doing what this law forbids is NOT defiant? Eventually the government will learn to stop F$%# ing with its' people and stop this stupid crap.

Re:For a few dollars a month

[TheRaven64]

The law wouldn't have to be very complex, it could just specify 'a bona fide effort to distribute in a common format playable on all devices reasonably expected to be able to play media of this form' and leave it up to the courts. Currently, the definition of fair use is pretty fuzzy and there's a lot of leeway for the courts to interpret it. That phrasing would also have the nice side effect that anything that was distributed in a format where DRM blocked format shifting would not count.

the aus government...

[ushere]

couldn't organise a piss-up in a brewery. but they manage to stab each other in the back quite efficiently.

Retards

[labnet]

We the people don't want to 'steal', otherwise KMART would have uzis at the door instead of some bored chick.
Give the people an easy way to download everything at a reasonable price ($5 new release , $1 for back catalouge), and most of piracy will go away overnight.
Making war against the consumer of your product is not a long term business strategy.
Unfortunatley, most of the MPAxx's of the world seem to be run by retards.

Re:Retards

[MysteriousPreacher]

We the people don't want to 'steal', otherwise KMART would have uzis at the door instead of some bored chick.
Give the people an easy way to download everything at a reasonable price ($5 new release , $1 for back catalouge), and most of piracy will go away overnight.
Making war against the consumer of your product is not a long term business strategy.
Unfortunatley, most of the MPAxx's of the world seem to be run by retards.

The physical shop is a poor analogue for piracy. Most people know that stealing an object is wrong, and through good character or fear of consequences they don't steal. Downloading is different. I wouldn't dream of stealing from a shop, even if I knew I could get away clean; I do however occasionally grab a torrent.

Making stuff conveniently available and cheap (seriously, 10 euro for a 10 year old album?) will help but will not eliminate most piracy. The major downloaders I know have decent jobs, and could easily buy the shit cheaply in town or via iTunes; they just choose not to. These are otherwise ethical people who see no consequences or serious issues in downloading. Yes, record companies completely mismanaged to transition away from physical media. Through their refusal to make their goods available in formats their customers want, they have driven them to illegality. It's bullshit that the DVD I pay money for is deliberately designed to not be ripped and played on my Apple TV or my iPhone, when I could instead fine a free torrent that will be a far better product. If I have to go download a rip because my DVD is copy protected then is it any wonder that some people skip step 1?

Re:Retards

[Dhalka226]

You're right, of course. There are some people who could easily buy things but still choose to pirate them, and there always will be. The proper response to those people is to ignore them. We just established that they will not be turned into customers, so the only other choice is to turn them into criminals -- which may feel good, but not only reflects badly but probably costs far more than it ever returns.

Rather, the people a company needs to reach are the ones who want to buy the product but can't, either because of some artificial limitation (region issues, as one example) or because of price. Region issues are easy to solve but still complicated, because it usually involves a situation such as where a company sells the rights to merchandise a particular product in a particular market. Short of stopping that, which has its own complications, the solution isn't obvious, at least to me.

Price, though, is relatively easy. I think we're very close on MP3 pricing. I'd say we're still just a touch high, and as evidence I would say that most places still offer a discount for buying a whole album versus buying each of the songs on an album, which says to me there's still a premium for not buying music you don't like. But in any event, it's damn close and it's doing pretty well. Movies, though, still feel expensive. They're very often similar or the same price as a physical copy. It's even worse with e-books. They tend to be the same price as a paperback, and yet without the benefits of one such as the ability to loan it to your friends and family. (Some companies graciously allow you to lend a book exactly one time -- thanks guys, that changes everything!) Games are on one extreme or another; there's the so-called AAA titles that are still extremely expensive, and then games like Magicka priced at impulse-buy levels, so there's lots of room at least on one side of the spectrum.

In other words, there is still a ton of room to turn pirates into customers. One will never get them all converted and shouldn't waste the effort on trying, but there's still a lot of room to play on that old price-demand curve for most products.

Re:Who do the AU government represent

[DarwinSurvivor]

How do I get Aussies to riot.

Replace all their beer with Coors.

Re:Who do the AU government represent

[cbope]

That would be really low, maybe even borders on cruel and unusual punishment and probably violates more than a few human rights laws in several countries. Don't do it.

Re:What else is the NBN for?

[SuricouRaven]

I suspect part of the NBNs political purpose is to make it easier to justify government-imposed filtering. It's much easier to argue that something needs to be tightly regulated if tax money is being spent on it.

Re:Who is this government?

[Anonymous Coward]

You might want to read up on Australian political history and how the system works.

The current Labor government having support of the Greens and the Independents to govern is perfectly legitimate. Add up the primary vote for Labor, the Greens, and the 3 Independents and you'll find it totals to over 50%. The Labor party generally supports bigger government than the Liberal Nationals. And finally, the alleged "carbon tax" that is coming in is actually an Emissions Trading Scheme. Which Labor has had a policy for all along.

Completely agreed on the supporting corporations bit, but then, I don't think the Liberals are any better.

Re:Who is this government?

[dbIII]

Welcome to America!

You are actually right - one of the conditions of the mostly one sided "free trade" agreement with the USA was to let some of the broken US copyright laws in.
I don't hate the USA, I just hate that Australian IP disputes are now subject to what happens in East Texas.

Re:Who do the AU government represent

[jamstar7]

How do I get Aussies to riot.

Replace all their beer with Coors.

We want them to riot not start World War 3!!!

The Model is broken

[Stonefish]

The copyright model is broken and has been massaged by large corporations into a licence to print money. Copyright should only apply to individuals and for limited periods of time. Nothing created while my father has lived has ever gone into the public domain which was one of the key reasons why copyright was granted. How does 25 years for individuals and 5 years for companies sound? That way the price that they pay for copyright protection is and end date to protection, if the corporations don't like it they can use proprietary mechanisms and once they're broken they can't claim copyright. It would also force companies to licence copyright management from individuals rather than buying them outright.

Re:Who is this government?

[jamstar7]

I've always supported the 'two term' theory of politics: 1 term in office, 1 in jail.

Re:Who is this government?

[thegarbz]

That's very last year thinking. With key independents and the greens against the idea, and an opposition who wouldn't be caught dead voting for an idea raised by the governing party there's no chance in hell they're going to build their great firewall.

Right now its at the point of voluntary filtering by two ISPs who quite frankly offer the least competitive products on the market anyway.