No Info Can Be Found About Mysterious Report Claiming Australia As A 'Nation Of Pirates'
from the into-the-ether dept
A few weeks back, there was a lot of buzz about a highly questionable report, commissioned by an anti-piracy group, that claimed Australia was a “nation of unrepentant pirates,” that had cost the entertainment industry $900 million. We didn’t write about it at the time, because the article announcing it was pretty vague, and the details were lacking. We figured eventually the actual report would come out and we could discuss it at that point. Except… no one seems to want to provide the report. In fact, TorrentFreak has been trying to not only track down the report but also the organization that wrote it and is having trouble coming up with any info. No one wants to provide the report, and there seems to be no significant evidence that the company that wrote the report is a real company. There are vague connections to a real estate company, which also doesn’t seem to have much to prove that it’s a real company.
What’s really troubling here is that apparently many in the Australian government are relying on the information in this “report” to make decisions on changes in copyright law. Based on a phantom report put together in complete secrecy by a company that can barely be found? Even the reporter (a freelancer) who first put up the original story at The Age, Neil McMahon, never even saw the report, but apparently reported on it based on what someone — he won’t admit who — told him about it. The whole thing seems amazingly sketchy. In an era when so many such reports have been debunked, it’s scary that the government seems willing to rely on one that clearly hasn’t been even remotely vetted by those who understand these things.
Comments on “No Info Can Be Found About Mysterious Report Claiming Australia As A 'Nation Of Pirates'”
Well, then
I have a report here on my desk that details how the copyright industry is constantly isolating Australia from current shows/movies/games/whathaveyou.
OK, it’s completely fictional, but I defy anyone in Australia to claim that it’s less accurate.
Re: Well, then
It’s actually their ratings boards refusing classification that does the isolating.
Re: Re: Well, then
Well, it’s the ratings board and region locking (which is a copyright issue.)
Re: Re: Re: Well, then
region locking is a big one. (in that NZ and australia are in the same region but NZ’s ratings board equivilant is a lot less restrictive)
and the issolation is from Current stuff. i’d say that months long (sometimes years long) delays on stuff shown on tv and ‘sorry, this (freely available at no cost) material is not available in your country’ type internet pages are more significant.
of course, Sometimes we get stuff delayed here because it actually makes sense to only make one shipment to Australasia rather than two… which means that when there’s a dedicated australian release of something we get that (as opposed to the usual practice of giving us american PC stuff and european console stuff)… which would be fine except that such releases are usually months delayed.
i got well off topic there.
Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
Even if you assume the minimal standard of 1/5 or less pirate copies as lost sales, the economic losses are dramatic.
Try:
www copyhype com/2011/03/how-much-more-evidence/
How much more evidence will it take to show piracy is damaging? Obviously it doesn’t matter. People like those on this site aren’t interested in listening either way.
Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
Even if you assume the minimal standard of 1/5 or less pirate copies as lost sales…
Why would we assume that?
Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
Because the evidence suggests far more.
www copyhype com/2011/03/how-much-more-evidence/
Of course, you’re not interested in evidence, are you?
Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
the evidence suggests nothing of the kind
What evidence there is, and I wouldn’t bet much on it, suggests that the minimal standard is something between 1/20 and 1/100 pirated copies equals one gained sale.
Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
I really love the google adds on the side of that site pointing me to torrent sites.
Now to read the information there…
Now that I have read it and found out who this “Doctor” they used to do it, http://www.piracynetwork.com/tag/george-barker
?Our review of existing econometric studies suggests that P2P file-sharing tends to decrease music purchasing,? said the study. ?However, we find the opposite, namely that P2P file-sharing tends to increase rather than decrease music purchasing.?
The study angered the Canadian Record Industry Association (CRIA) which has fought a bitter battle to discredit, so far unsuccessfully, the study ever since.”
“Dr. George Barker, director for the Centre for Law and Economics at the Australian National University”
I wonder if THIS is where the report in Aussie land came from…makes you kinda wonder hmmm? Thanks AC for pointing this article to me. Maybe this will help Torrentfreak find what he needs.
Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
I am, and it would help if your link worked (I’m guessing there’s some sort of DRM scheme there.)
Having (finally) parsed them (why do copyright maximalist seem to love PDFs?,) I’m not impressed. Asking someone who has already downloaded a song what they think it’s worth is adding value after the fact. The trick is that until you do, you have no idea (unless you’ve heard it already.) So, it’s a retroactive response.
I note that nobody was asked if they’d purchase merchandise/turned out for a live show/etc. That’s where the majority of musicians make their nut. This reads like an industry screed about how they’re going to be able to skim the cream going forward.
Re: Re: Re:2 Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
Try adding a ‘dot’ between www, copyhype, and com.
http://www.copyhype.com/2011/03/how-much-more-evidence/
Re: Re: Re:3 Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
Try reading past the first paragraph.
Re: Re: Re: Missing the Point: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
While some will argue there is no harm, I don’t think that ANYONE will argue the impact that Napster had on the recording industry. Before Napster, record companies controlled music DISTRIBUTION, and by colluding on price, they forced the price of physical media up, where if this was a free marketplace, the price would be lower.
When a new distribution model was invented (the internet), and digital music production massively reduced the costs of creating music, the record companies sought to keep the same or continue to increase the prices of music, even though their costs dropped astronomically (you don’t even have to pay for travel/hotels anymore, email music files around).
What I’m getting at is that since the dawn of digital distribution, record companies CANNOT maintain the same business model. Yes, online piracy changed things. BUT – the cat is out of the bag. These businesses can moan and complain and pay for legislation, but it won’t change the fact that an entire generation grew up thinking that paying $20 for 10 songs is stupid. THEY WILL NEVER COME BACK. Its like taxes, once they go up, they’ve gone up. Kids will never see the value of an album at the price point RIAA wants.
The record companies can spend BILLIONS of OUR TAXES to try to maintain their model, or they can find another way to do business. Right now, they are focusing on #1. We’re still fighting the war on drugs, so they will probably likewise continue to send YOUR TAX MONEY down the drain trying to fix their profits for the rest of your lifetime.
Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
Piracy violates creators’ rights
“Intellectual Property” violates my physical rights. Guess which one I care about more?
Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
Please explain your wild claim.
Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
Please explain your wild claim.
Please explain your wild claim.
Oh! I’m a criminal!
Re: Re: Re:2 Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
Haha, I went for the step by step approach, but think I like your version better. 😉
Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
I own a piece of paper (physical property right).
You own a piece of paper (physical property right).
You write down something on your piece of paper.
Now, through “intellectual property”, I am forbidden to write the same thing on my piece of paper. The mere fact that you have done a thing with your physical property has precluded me (under the threat of imprisonment or financial ruin) from exercising my physical property rights in the same manner.
To that notion, I say: No. I’ll write down what I want, and twiddle the bits on my hard drive as I wish.
Re: Re: Re:2 Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
This assumes you have the “physical right” to do whatever the hell you want with your piece of paper. That assumption is fallacious.
You have no right to use your piece of paper to violate another’s rights, whether those rights happen to be IP rights or otherwise. For example, you have no “right” to stuff your piece of paper down another’s throat. You have no right to set fire to your piece of paper in a manner causing another’s building to catch fire. Etc., etc.
Re: Re: Re:3 Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
why are you mixing things up again?
Of course i do not have any special right to assault anyone, burn down buildings and so forth. You are making a ludicrous statement by comparing copy monopoly license (which you mix up with Rights) to these physical acts.
The question is why does your supposed imaginary property right have more weight then my own physical real property rights?
Why can someone claim to own a series of marks on paper, and anyone else who makes those same marks (or similar) with their own paper, pencil, hands and time is somehow breaking a law?
Re: Re: Re:4 Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
I’m not “mixing things up.” I’m just illustrating that your physical property rights are not absolute.
Now, if you don’t value IP rights, that’s fine. But the previous poster seemed to act as if they are some sort of logical inconsistency simply because they interfere with supposed physical property rights. That’s just the way different people’s rights work, and is not peculiar to IP rights.
“Why can someone claim to own a series of marks on paper, and anyone else who makes those same marks (or similar) with their own paper, pencil, hands and time is somehow breaking a law?”
Well, your description of IP laws is inaccurate. But, putting that aside, the answer is because the Constitution authorizes Congress to make such laws, and Congress made such a law.
If you’re referring to some other country’s laws, I suspect the answer is similar, but I don’t really know.
As to “copy monopoly license” and “rights,” I’m really not sure what you’re getting at, but the constitution and the copyright act refer to exclusive rights. If you have some idiosyncratic definition that is inconsistent with standard English, that’s fine I guess, but you shouldn’t expect others to adhere to that definition.
Re: Re: Re:5 Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
Exclusive rights are a monopoly are they not smart ass?
Re: Re: Re:6 Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
That is not a common definition of the term monopoly. For example, I have exclusive rights to possession of my bass guitar. I don’t think most English-speaking people would call that a monopoly.
At any rate, if you’re saying they are the same, that would seem to contradict the prior poster’s assertion that you shouldn’t “mix up” rights with “copy monopoly license.”
Re: Re: Re:5 Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
The constitution also says for limited times and the spirit of that was to be for a short period, clearly we crossed that bridge a long time ago, also by the discussions the forefathers had they understood that imaginary property was something that could be abused like it is being abused now.
You don’t like people complaining about copycrap move from the U.S. because according to the constitution I can complain all I want and you can’t do nothing about it.
Imaginary property is an assault on the intelligence of people and on common sense. Trying to justify such abomination is just immoral.
People should be free to use ideas and share them, they should be free to communicate and don’t have unduly restraints on it.
How can people respect something that harms them?
How can people respect such a concept that have thrown in jail mothers, and kids which the only fault of them was wanting to listen to something or share something, how can that be illegal?
Why the f. sharing is illegal?
Because some idiot got a monopoly on something?
F. him, F. the law and F. anybody who supports that crap.
Re: Re: Re:5 Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
“I’m not “mixing things up.” I’m just illustrating that your physical property rights are not absolute.”
Neither are your intellectual property rights. Or, to be more correct, they shouldn’t be.
Re: Re: Re:6 Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
Agreed, although I’m not sure what that has to do with the prior commenter’s “physical rights” logic.
Re: Re: Re:3 Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
This assumes you have the “physical right” to do whatever the hell you want with your piece of paper.
Correct, as long as I don’t violate someone else’s physical property rights.
For example, you have no “right” to stuff your piece of paper down another’s throat. You have no right to set fire to your piece of paper in a manner causing another’s building to catch fire. Etc., etc.
All physical property rights.
The only way you can get around this inherent conflict between the rules of intellectual property law and physical property rights is if you:
1. Establish “intellectual property” as an actual right (it is not a right recognized by the US constitution).
2. Place this newly-found imaginary “right” above physical property rights, so that it therefore trumps them in a conflict.
I don’t much care how industry shills and apologists stammer and complain about their imaginary rights. My hard drive, my very real rights, hands off.
Re: Re: Re:4 Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
“1. Establish “intellectual property” as an actual right (it is not a right recognized by the US constitution).”
Of course it is. Or, rather, the U.S. constitution gives Congress the power to pass laws securing such rights, “the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”
You don’t like it. That’s fine. But pretending such rights are not recognized by the Constitutiona and the law is just silly.
Say you don’t like it. Say they are rights that only exist at law and have no independent moral justification. Say Congress has done a terrible job limiting such rights.
But don’t pretend they don’t exist.
Re: Re: Re:5 Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
I meant “right” in the sense of “moral rights”. The constitution does not enshrine or recognize the moral rights of a content creator; merely a limited time monopoly to “promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts”.
You are, of course, correct that the word “right” appears.
Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
Hi there, irony.
Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
If the product would have never been purchased in the first place, how is it a loss? Remember, copyright infringement is not theft. Theft happens when something is taken and no one else has a chance of using it. Copyright infringement is when something is copied without others losing the ability to use that product.
Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
“If the product would have never been purchased in the first place”
Why assume that? Certainly, it is unlikely that *every* infringer would have paid for the copy they obtained illegally, but it seems just as likely that some percentage of infringers would have done so if it were the only means of obtaining a copy. Those are lost sales/profits.
I’m not sure how the theft v. infringement distinction is relevant to that.
Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
And certainly some downloaded copies turn into sales that never would have happened, either through word of mouth, a desire to support the artist, or a want of the physical among other reasons.
And those would be gained sales.
Re: Re: Re:2 Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
A legitimate point, but it’s hard to know what the net is.
Re: Re: Re:3 Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
And since it’s hard (or next to impossible) to truly know what the net is, you can’t assume anything.
Assumptions are made based on bias and misperceptions. They open the door for those making them to see what they want to see – whether they are conscious that this is what they are doing or not.
Saying, “there likely are…” is worth as much as saying, “there likely aren’t…”
Without evidence, there’s no point in fiercely defending a claim.
Re: Re: Re:4 Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
But there is evidence.
http://www.copyhype.com/2011/03/how-much-more-evidence/
Even the pirates admit their piracy is leaching hundreds of millions from the market.
Re: Re: Re:5 Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
Betting the farm on people saying they “would” buy something in a survey has been out of favour since the Edsel did so well.
Re: Re: Re:6 Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
In other words:
– you aren’t interested in what pirates say about what they would buy if not for piracy
– you aren’t interested in correlation studies between digital piracy in a given market and loss of jobs/revenue.
– you aren’t willing to concede that any percent of piracy could ever represent a lost sale (even despite the fact that pirates themselves say many of them do).
Like I said, you’re not interested in evidence any more than most on this site. You’re just looking for justification for your piracy and uninformed, pro-pirate opinion.
Re: Re: Re:7 Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
Anyone can pick and choose.
In the Blackburn study,
http://www.katallaxi.se/grejer/blackburn/blackburn_fs.pdf
back in 2004 we get
“In particular,
new artists and ex ante relatively unknown artists are seen to benefit from the existence of
their songs on file sharing networks, while ex ante popular artists suffer for it.
And while the average effect across artists is essentially zero, the average effect on sales
is not zero, as more popular artists not surprisingly tend to have higher sales.”
So, while he is saying that there has been a negative effect on sales for the most successful acts(which would be the tiny minority), he is also saying that there are major benefits for relative unknowns (the vast majority).
Even if we were to accept that as true, then what is the IP maximilism for?
To help confine the sales to only the “top” artists?
But we don’t accept this understanding to be true, the surveys and studies are all over the place, implying loss or demonstrating gain, leaving us with the only thing we know to be true, that which our own behaviour tells us and that is if we like someone’s creative product we want to support them and we tend to do so financially by buying product, attending performances and encouraging others to get into it too.
Re: Re: Re:8 Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
Wait. Isn’t there supposed to be a comment from A/C here?
Re: Re: Re:5 Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
I’m in the middle of reading your link, but I’m already doubting Dr Barker’s analysis. He seems to think that when someone doesn’t spend money on music, they burn it instead. File sharing doesn’t hurt the economy. I’ll allow that it may hurt an industry or a company, but unless copyright infringers are destroying the money they saved by file sharing, that money is still circulating in the economy and bringing in tax revenue.
Re: Re: Re:6 Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
but unless copyright infringers are destroying the money they saved by file sharing, that money is still circulating in the economy and bringing in tax revenue.
Actually even if they do burn the money it isn’t a loss (except to them). If they burn the money then the value of all other money just goes up a little bit in proportion!
The problem is that large scale economics is very (almost spookily) different from your household finances. Most people don’t understand this point – and politicians pander to their misconceptions – resulting in many bad decisions across the whole of economic policy.
Re: Re: Re:3 Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
So, it’s OK to assume that every instance of piracy (or at least some instances) lead to a lost sale, but it’s not OK for anyone to assume that an instance of piracy can lead to sale that wouldn’t have occurred with the piracy?
Doesn’t that seem a bit….hypocritical to you?
Re: Re: Re:4 Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
“So, it’s OK to assume that every instance of piracy (or at least some instances) lead to a lost sale”
I only think it’s sensible that some instances lead to a lost sale, not all instances.
“but it’s not OK for anyone to assume that an instance of piracy can lead to sale that wouldn’t have occurred with the piracy?”
Says who. My post, which you responded to, states that this is a legitimate point, but it’s hard to know what the net result is when taking both lost and gained into account (because it’s hard to know how many are lost and how many are gained).
“Doesn’t that seem a bit….hypocritical to you?”
Absolutely. Luckily, nobody seems to be proposing that viewpoint.
Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
Let me summarize this in a succinct way for everybody.
Known: some people who download stuff would have bought it if they couldn’t have pirated it
Known: some people who download stuff buy stuff (either the thing they downloaded or something related to it or the creator of it) they wouldn’t have bought if they couldn’t have downloaded the original thing
Not conclusively measured: the ratio of the two
Re: Re: Re:2 Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
word.
Re: Re: Re:2 Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
Don’t tell that to Mike, it blows his entire world view off the map.
Re: Re: Re:3 Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
Wow… You have a rather myopic view of Mike, don’t you? Picking and choosing what you think he believes….
Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
Now all you have to do is show a system in which buying a copy is the only possible way of consuming the content. Perhaps some kind of DNA-tagged super-encrypted stream beamed directly to your personal retina/timpanic membrane on a pay-per-view basis with concurrent memory wipe to stop you repeating it?
Not that I’m claiming in any way that copying never results in a potential sale vanishing, but that was a pretty silly statement. It makes it appear that the whole decision process is a single factor, single decision position and that’s just funny.
No, those are lost opportunities to sell someone something. A lost sale is if they buy it and then return it. until they hand over money it’s only a potential sale. And no profits are lost as no money is removed from the company.
If I went around suing companies for loss of earnings because they’d given a job I’d applied for to a less qualified candidate because they’d work for less money I’d look pretty silly wouldn’t I?
Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
Why are you spamming a broken link?
Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
the link given works if you add periods in the spaces. its an interesting read from a site run by the RIAA of Canada with quotes from a doctor in Australia. Sadly this doctor knows little about actually researching things and just looked at numbers fed to him.
Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
Of course. We wouldn’t want to be infringing that site’s copyright by post the real link.
Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
The site is a blog run by an American lawyer (Terry Hart). What are you talking about?
Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
Start from the premise that piracy can’t be stopped.
1. Music publishing, motion picture distribution, etc. need new business models.
2. The money spent trying to stop piracy is wasted.
3.DRM only inconviences legitimate customers which results in lost sales.
4. Draconian copyright laws also inconvence legitimate customers.
Those are the points that are usually made here, not the support of piracy.
Also: people do not want to buy plastic disks any more than the want to buy 8 track tapes. It’s a digital age.
Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
“Those are the points that are usually made here, not the support of piracy.”
Well, there’s also a fair amount of support of piracy here (at least among commenters).
Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
What does “fair amount” mean? can you provide some data? maybe a pie chart? I mean it’s a bit subjective and I’m much better with percentages and numbers.
Re: Re: Re:2 Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
fair amount? Actually, almost unanimous amongst the site supporters. Mike is in favor of piracy, without really wanting to admit it. His “business models” generally depend on piracy being there and there being a wide free distribution network of P2P to make it happen.
So pretty much all of the techdirt people, plus most of the name posters support piracy in one form or another, either directly or in support of their general world views.
Re: Re: Re:3 Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
His “business models” generally depend on piracy being there
How is that “supporting piracy” rather than simply realizing an obvious truth?
Re: Re: Re:3 Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
I don’t know about the others but fair use shouldn’t be called piracy.
My rights to watch what I paid for in any format I want shouldn’t be called piracy and me wanting to share something with somebody shouldn’t be called piracy either, but since you insist who gives a damn, I’m a pirate and will continue to be till the day I die.
Re: Re: Re:3 Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
Well there is a fair amount of support for piracy in any website you go going from science blogs and websites to recipe ones.
If you didn’t notice you are not paying attention.
Re: Re: Re:3 His "business models" generally depend on piracy being there
Like saying that somebody?s ?business model depending on gravity being there? must mean they?re in favour of people dying from falls.
Re: Re: Re:3 Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
“Actually, almost unanimous amongst the site supporters”
I see where you’re confused.
What is fairly unanimous amongst supporters of this site is the understanding that there are no technical measures currently existing or conceivably in the pipeline that can halt the availability of copyright infringing material online.
They also hold to be pretty self evident that there are also no legal measures, no matter how draconian, that would impact on online copyright infringement short of shutting down the internet.
If you could understand that, then you could understand why the concentration is then on how businesses need to respond to survive, and having survived how to make profit and having made profit how to increase said profit.
As others here have pointed out, dealing with the reality of the existence of gravity is no more supportive of people falling or being thrown to their deaths than dealing with the reality of the digital world where copyright infringing behaviour, exists and will continue to exist whether people think it is a bad thing or not.
Re: Re: Re:4 Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
Amen Brother.
Re: Re: Re:3 Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
this argument right here?
old.
stupid.
refuted repeatedly.
please go find a bridge.
Re: Re: Re:3 Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
Can you please stop the ad hominem attacks?
K thx.
Re: Re: Re:3 Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
So that would be a “No, I can’t provide what you’re asking for. I can only provide my feelings and assumptions of what other people want or support, because they disagree with me.”
Re: Re: Re:2 Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
Absolutely subjective and vague. Not sure what kind of data you want, but I note that no one asked for data or pie charts supporting the prior commenter’s unsupported assertion about what’s “usually” stated here.
Re: Re: Re:3 Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
What exactly you are referring to?
Because claims that piracy actually doesn’t hurt sales have many, many studies including ones done by academics and governments.
Claims about the impossible task to stop all unauthorized or even reduce the practice can be verified by anyone who tried to copy anything.
There is even studies showing that overall piracy stimulates the market.
Envisional studie showing music piracy was reduced dramatically and still no increased sales materialized.
http://documents.envisional.com/docs/Envisional-Internet_Usage-Jan2011.pdf
RETI study
http://www.rieti.go.jp/en/publications/summary/11010021.html
Showing that piracy actually increases sales.
The Norwegian Music Industry in the Age of Digitalization. (Richard Bjerkoe, Anders Sorbo)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/37406039/Thesis-Bjerkoe-Sorbo
The study shows that the music industry in Norway is growing despite piracy claims to the contrary.
Jailhouse Frocks: Locating the Public Interest in Policing Counterfeit Luxury Fashion Goods
∘ http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/content/50/6/1094.short?rss=1
∘ http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1649773
This article seeks to locate the public interest in policing counterfeit luxury fashion goods by separating it out from the broader debate over safety-critical counterfeits such as aircraft parts. Meaning to stop wasting resources trying to protect something that doesn’t need protections like luxury fashion goods.
There are many more.
Re: Re: Re:4 Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
I’m referring to my prior statement that there is a “fair amount” of support for piracy among commenters on this site.
It’s a subjective and vague term and not intended to refer to any specifically quantifiable number of posts or commenters who support piracy.
I’m just saying that, in addition to the people who don’t necessarily support piracy but recognize it’s a part of life, there are commenters who say outright that they aren’t going to pay for movies, songs, etc. and that others shouldn’t or at least shouldn’t feel like they have to. There’s even 1 or 2 in this thread.
Re: Re: Re:5 Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
“they aren’t going to pay for movies, songs, etc”
Do you mean ‘aren’t going to pay for some movies, songs, etc.’ or ‘aren’t going to pay for any movies, songs, etc’? It’s an important distinction.
Re: Re: Re:6 Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
I don’t think it’s an important distinction in the context.
I’m not referring to people who say they’ll only use songs that are legitimately distributed for free by their authors, etc.
Re: Re: Re:7 Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
“I’m not referring to people who say they’ll only use songs that are legitimately distributed for free by their authors, etc.”
That wasn’t what I was getting at. It’s an important distinction because people who don’t pay for some things potentially spend more on what they do pay for. Plus, I rarely see anyone on Techdirt who claims to never pay for anything (but plenty on TorrentFreak) and as you mention there being some in this thread, I would be grateful if you could point them out.
Re: Re: Re:8 Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
I only said there’s support for piracy, not necessarily support for piracy in exclusion to any other form of consumption.
Such people may in fact use their money in a very productive way, but that’s irrelevant to whether they support piracy.
An example in the comments for this article would be the guy saying:
“Yes we are pirates, and proud of it!…By pirating music and videos, I can instead spend the money I have on true blue aussie products and services. In this way I am improving the Australian economy.”
Re: Re: Re:9 Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
“I only said there’s support for piracy, not necessarily support for piracy in exclusion to any other form of consumption.”
Thank you for clarifying. I’ll agree with your view that there are a fair amount of commenters who support piracy, me included.
Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
I’d assume the minimal standard of lost sales would be 0/5, until shown otherwise… troll harder, please.
Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
Really? You don’t think a single person who obtains a copy in an infringing manner would have paid to obtain a copy if it were the only means of obtaining a copy?
Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
Most of the kids wouldn’t, they don’t have access to $10 let alone $168.
Re: Re: Re:2 Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
relevance of $168?
Re: Re: Re:3 Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
The link said that each pirate would spend $168 if they couldn’t get music from file sharing.
Re: Re: Re:4 Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
Ah, ok. Anyway, I think “kids these days” may have more money available to them than you think.
Re: Re: Re:5 Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
or less, if reality is included in the calculation.
Re: Re: Re:6 Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
What is the utility of that comment? Seriously?
Re: Re: Re:7 Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
Have you not paid attention to the economy? Seriously?
Re: Re: Re:8 Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
First, I have. I don’t see how that is relevant to the usefulness of his comment in furthering our discussion, or why you would interject yourself here if you don’t have a responsive answer.
Re: Re: Re:5 Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
And more ways to spend it than you think.
Re: Re: Re:6 Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
What makes you think that? I’m sure there are countless ways to spend money I’ve never even imagined.
Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
I will give you the benefit of the doubt of a single person globablly. 1/global population is very different to 1/5. If you want more than that you’ll have to provide some sort of evidence.
Re: Re: Re:2 Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
I’m not trying to claim any particular number is accurate. But why assume “nothing until proven otherwise” if you don’t actually think that’s accurate.
We’re not in a court of law here.
Re: Re: Re:3 Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
We’re not in a court of law?!?!
Then why do you insist on reading what a lawyer writes about things like domain name seizures, etc etc?
The judge is about to get steamed, and order you to his chambers, F. Fud Bailey.
Re: Re: Re:4 Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
I have no idea what you’re talking about.
Re: Re: Re:5 Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
Actually you will find no one here saying that absolutely no one who ever downloaded anything without paying would definitely not have purchased it otherwise.
What you will get, is people pointing out that there is a corollary, people who downloaded infringing content who went on to buy it and other works.
People who downloaded infringing content having already purchased the work but wanting it in a more convenient format.
Such as with music that you might have on vinyl, tape or cd but which you want to play on an mp3 player or games that you want to play without having to have the dvd in the drive or a movie that you would like to watch in whatever room you are in, in the house without having to go find the dvd.
While you are going, see there’s one person that we might have had money from if not for piracy, you blithely ignore the 20 people that the industries got money from because of piracy and the 100 people who they had already received money from, who also downloaded technically infringing material for convenience.
Re: Re: Re:6 Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
Was that supposed to be a response to me?
Re: Re: Re:7 Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
given that, in threaded view, it is a responce to you, and makes sense in the context of a reply to your statements, i’m betting on yes.
Re: Re: Re:8 Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
How is that responsive to my prior comment, which was a response (to another commenter) saying I didn’t understand his comment?
Re: Re: Re:6 Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
Could you turn that into a triple, maybe double negative? I have trouble reading quadruple negatives smoothly.
Re: Re: Re:7 Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
How kind of you to compare me to Chaucer.
Re: Re: Re:7 Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
People really are getting less educated with time. A thousand years ago nobody speaking English had any problem understanding triple and quadruple negatives.
Re: Re: Re:8 Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
Um…citation?
A thousand years ago, only a small portion of the English-speaking population (to the extent we’ll call that “English”) could write. How do we know what the rest (the majority) could comprehend?
Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
I think the people who would have paid but don’t balance out the people who wouldn’t have paid but did.
Re: Re: Re:2 Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
I downloaded Halo 1. I never would have bought it outright, I thought it was just another over hyped FPS. Now I own all three, the movie, the books, and a little RC Warthog. How does that play into the ratio of people who won’t pay because they can pirate to people who wouldn’t pay if they couldn’t pirate?
If we’re going to group these people can we label the groups? I propose:
White Hat Pirate – People who download and then buy (or people who buy then download)
Red Hat Pirate – People who would never pay if they could download or not
Black Hat Pirate – People who will never pay as long as they can pirate
Red Hats are a zero sum game. They nether add nor subtract from the overall. Black Hats detract from the overall. White Hats add to the overall. It’s logical to assume that Black Hats and White Hats cancel each other out. Though by my own experience, one White Hat adds more then one Black Hat subtracts.
Re: Re: Re:3 Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
Nice point Chrono T.
The Trailer Park Boys(no connection)downloaded the whole 7 seasons and three movies after seeing 4 or so episodes on demand. Truly enjoyable stoner humor. Guess what… I purchased it as well. 99 bucks. So I guess by the industries logic, there was no sale because i pie-rated one -1, and bought one +1 = 0.
Sorry but the only logical way they could claim a lost sale is if I purchased it then returned it and bought something else.
If I never purchased it, nothing was lost. If I pie-rated it and didn’t buy it because it was crap, the sale was still not lost as I would have made some excuse to return it, which would have truly been a lost sale.
Re: Re: Re:2 Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
“the people who wouldn’t have paid but did.”
The buyer’s remorse folks?
Re: Re: Re:3 Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
So now they pay for it and you still think they’re to blame? Epic!
Re: Re: Re:4 Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
What are you talking about? I was trying to clarify who he was referring to.
Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
So provide a way for them to get the things they want, the way they want them, when they want them and at a price that makes sense.
For every report that proves p2p could be beneficial there is another that proves it isn’t… somewhere in the middle is the truth, meanwhile more music/movies are made every year and so do the profits posted by the entertainment industries. CD sales are dead, it’s moved online, industries need to deal with that, just like the cart manufactuers had to deal with the invention of the horse carriage.
Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
gggrrrr… should read “horseless carriage”.
Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
I’m kind of tired of this argument that more music and art is made today. I think it’s true that more art is *distributed*, but I don’t see how anyone can prove that “more” art and music is made these days.
There was a time when nearly every single person could play rudimentary songs on a piano. There was a time when the only way cavemen could communicate was through painting. I’m not sure anyone can absolutely say that we produce more art now versus an unrecorded past.
I’m not trying to attack or debunk, I just hear that sentiment expressed a lot, and I don’t see how anyone could possibly prove it.
This sentiment/idea-meme bothers me in the same way that a person will argue that money and IP protection aren’t true incentives to make art, but out of the other side of their mouth they claim that Youtube takedowns are ‘stifling creativity!’ (General quote, not something I’m attributing to you).
I don’t think money or copyright truly incentivizes creativity, and I don’t believe that distribution does either. The entire notion of a piece of art having global reach outside of a small community is so new that it can’t possibly explain why people made art for centuries upon centuries without the chance of it being seen/heard by anyone other than their immediate community.
I think people create art simply because they enjoy creating art. It is its own reward.
Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
“There was a time when nearly every single person could play rudimentary songs on a piano.”
Wait, what? When was this magical time, when “nearly every single person” could not only afford a piano but knew how to play on it?
Re: Re: Re:2 Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
He’s only counting real people. We all know the common man is basically just a trained monkey.
Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
“I’m kind of tired of this argument that more music and art is made today. I think it’s true that more art is *distributed*, but I don’t see how anyone can prove that “more” art and music is made these days.”
“I think people create art simply because they enjoy creating art. It is its own reward.”
Actually I agree, when people talk about more art, music etc being created, they do pretty much mean that more created works are being distributed, who knows what levels of creation people do in private.
And, yes, at least most artists would create art even if they had to do it in their spare time. However, thanks to the wonders of the post industrial age a great many people can make a living creating what they want to do and thanks to the wonders of the digital age and internet distribution that possibility is opening up to ever greater numbers of people.
Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
Those record box office numbers really show how much piracy is hurting the movie business huh.
Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
I don’t think the movie business makes the majority of its money at the box office anymore.
Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
Well they certainly didn’t make their money through the VHS market. That thing strangled the industry!
Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
So where do they make the money then? oh they don’t make any money anymore, the 15 year olds downloading CAM rips of Paul are putting them all out of business!
Re: Re: Re:2 Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
Well, they certainly make a fair amount through box office revenue, but I think things like DVD, streaming, licensing for TV and other uses makes up a majority these days.
Re: Re: Re:3 Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
and given how hard the industry fought against the vcr
“the boston strangler” of the movie industry, it was a bloody good thing for them they lost that battle, the suggestion you hear occasionally from people on this site is that embracing the new technology in the case of the internet and digital distribution may be just as beneficial to them as vhs and dvd market became. But while they are fighting it tooth and nail they run the risk of doing themselves massive harm.
Re: Marketing 101
customers willing to pay = market
customers not willing to pay != market
if market >= cost to produce product then product = valid
if market < cost to produce product then product = invalid
You won’t make any money wishing the market behaved differently, and the standard industry response of seeking-rents to increase their revenue has become ineffective.
Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
Terry Hart stole my intellectual property:
http://www.copyhype.com/2011/03/torrent-crime/
.torrent = .crime is my IP and he did not ask permission to use it.
Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
Not music related, completely, but my own anecdote:
1) I got to watch the first episode of The Walking Dead on AMC’s website. I liked it so much (and I was about 2 or 3 weeks behind at that point) that I downloaded every single episode of the show. There were only 6 that season.
I like them all SO MUCH that I bought the first three comics (more money directly to the author/publisher, so that he can make more of the source works), got 2 people at work into it, one of whom bought all the episodes on Amazon AND has bought at least 6 of the comics AND planned to purchase the DVD when it became available.
I plan to buy the entire comic book series. I also have the DVD which my GF bought for me.
There’s not a lost sale in that bunch anywhere. In fact, the act of my downloading cause considerable buying.
2) There was a time when Twin Peaks Season Two was never going to be made available in the US on DVD. Well, I’m not going to buy a VHS copy cause.. I don’t WANT it. So i got all the episodes in some shitty 320×240 format with awful visual quality. I wait and I wait. Now that it is out on DVD I BOUGHT IT. Another download that turned into a sale (Keeping count, we’re up to at least 3 on 2 aggregate downloads)
As far as music goes? Well, whats the take on people recording off the radio? Recently, I have mostly purchased my music (King of Limbs from Sandbag, Royksopps Junior from Amazon, Daft Punk Discovery from Amazon, etc.) So, if there’s a song I like, and I play it on the web stream, and then record it, how is that different than recording it off the radio? And typically, if theres stuff I want to here at that moment, I search it on Youtube and listen to it there with the browser minimized. Am I infringing?
I have lots of albums on cassette. I downloaded a few here and there. Since I already paid, am I infringing?
I’d say obscurity is worse than piracy.
Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
first it is not 1/5 to get close to any resemblance of real it should be something like 20/100 and even then it is being optimistic, since most pirates wouldn’t buy it even if there was no other way which leads me to another point, you don’t even know who is pirating anything you assume is the kids, but most people going to jail for uploading things are people above 30 so they are part of the group, now care to show us in a pie chart how much each class of individuals and their earnings correlate to sales and piracy?
You are just a dumbass shill, that probably is getting paid to write those things, people should throw your ass in jail.
Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
“first it is not 1/5 to get close to any resemblance of real it should be something like 20/100 …You are just a dumbass.”
Classic.
Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
Once again, we see that someone is saying that piracy is a loss to the economy. Can you please give evidence showing pirates burning money on the corner, or burying their savings in chests on remote islands?
Every dollar not spent on music, while it is a loss to the big labels, is still spent somewhere in the economy and GST is still levied against it and wages are still paid from it.
Piracy is never a loss to the economy, only to the labels and other assorted middlemen.
Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
I’m assuming you are the same coward that always posts on these stories. Why don’t you create an account so we know who you are? Afraid to have an account name displayed with your rhetoric?
Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
ironic, no?
Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
No, irony is the use fo a word other than its literal intent. Like Loitering Within Tent, an actual show performed by most of the Pythons.
Re: Re: Re:2 Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
“irony is the use fo a word other than its literal intent.”
I generally refer to that as a “pun,” but I guess that’s an acceptable definition for “irony” as well (although I’ve never heard it used that way.) Then again, “irongy” is a notoriously hard to define word.
Anyway, I was using it in another acceptable definition: “an outcome of events contrary to what was, or might have been, expected.”
In this case, an anonymous commenter criticizing someone for commenting anonymously.
Re: Re: Re:3 Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
“irongy” is indeed hard to define – I drew a blank in every online dictionary.
So… just what does it mean to you?
Re: Re: Re:4 Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
sounds like an adjective to describe rusty iron
Re: Re: Re:3 Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
‘Anyway, I was using it in another acceptable definition: “an outcome of events contrary to what was, or might have been, expected.”‘
That’s an odd one to pick. Out of the list you’re looking at I would suggest:
6. “the incongruity of this.”
8. “an objectively or humorously sardonic utterance, disposition, quality, etc.”
Nevertheless, it’s a legitimate use of the word.
Re: Re: Re:4 Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
I think of “an outcome of events contrary to what was, or might have been, expected” or the related “the incongruity of this” as the primary meaning for “irony.”
I’m surprised to see what amounts to the definition of a “pun” or “sarcasm” as the #1 definition in some references.
Re: Re: Re:5 Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
‘I think of “an outcome of events contrary to what was, or might have been, expected” or the related “the incongruity of this” as the primary meaning for “irony.” ‘
“an outcome of events contrary to what was, or might have been, expected” is usually referred to as situational irony and is the type most used in the Alanis Morrisette song people love to criticise. Situational irony is a relatively new definition and probably the most contentious.
“the incongruity of this” is probably closer to dramatic irony than situational irony, as it would seem to apply to the idea of an observer seeing something an actor is ignorant of.
‘I’m surprised to see what amounts to the definition of a “pun” or “sarcasm” as the #1 definition in some references.’
It’s probably considered the most used definition. Socratic irony has the best pedigree but is definitely not the most used definition.
Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
1/5 or less pirate copies as lost sales – Are you serious? I bet the number is more like less than 1/1000 or 1/10,000. If kids can’t get it free, they do without or they wait till someone they know gets it and they tape/copy it (like they have been since the 70’s), no lost sale at all. Nice troll though..
Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
Wait “if kids can’t get it free, they do without or they wait til [they can get it free].”
That doesn’t exactly disprove the lost sale theory.
Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
Yes it does. It shows they only want it for free and are not willing to pay for it. Any price. They’ll wait till they hear it on the radio and tape it first. Nowhere is there a lost sale. If there never was going to be a sale, it couldn’t have been lost.
Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
How much more evidence will it take to show piracy is damaging?
First of all, if you want people to actually read your link, put in the periods.
I’m still reading his article. I will post more about it later, if I have time. On first glance, however, he appears to make a few fundamental mistakes: he relies almost entirely on hardly-impartial studies funded by the industry, he slightly misrepresents some of the reports he cites (e.g. the Gee and Strumpf 2010 report), and he ignores the fact that the “debunking” of some studies has, itself, been debunked. See e.g. Birgitte Andersen’s response to the “debunking” of the study she co-authored.
I’m sure there’s more. I’ll get back to y’all.
Well, it did start off as a prison colony, so there’s that.
My money is this is just about getting that $900 million dollar number into the news. Then it will get pushed through several ‘news’ (they will be mainstream, but not doing their job) organizations and the original publication will be obscured. Then it will just be ‘fact’ that can’t be argued against because there is nothing there to argue against but a number.
I believe we’ve seen this before.
I think it makes perfect sense to criminalize 5,000,000 people in order to save 8000 jobs.
Re: Re:
Yes, just think of all the new jobs in the prison business that will be created as a result…
99% of copyright infringers started in life by drinking milk. Therefore if someone really want to stamp out copyright infringement they would start a movement to feed babies something other than milk as a child.
So you want to criminalise 5 MILLION people on an island with a population of a little over 15 million. Who’s going to pay for the prisons? Or the staff? OR the bills?
Oh, wait; hadn’t thought that far ahead, right?
Re: Re:
26 Million, but yeah. Fuck you, America. As long as you export shit films and movies we aren’t paying for it.
Ironically I tend to pay for local music/films much more happily.
I thought it was just common knowledge
“Australia is entirely peopled with criminals, and criminals are used to having people not trust them, as you are not trusted by me, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you.”
Nation of Pirates
Aaaaaarrrr, matey! A nation of pirates we be! Founded by whores and thieves and convicts, and our only currency is RUM! Arrrrrh!
Helpiong the economy
Yes we are pirates, and proud of it!
It’s called “doing our bit for the country”. Most of the media that is purchased in australia is made in the USA, so a significant portion of the money goes back to greed americans. By pirating music and videos, I can instead spend the money I have on true blue aussie products and services.
In this way I am improving the Australian economy.
(yes, it is all self interest and justification, but so
is the argument on the otherside as well).
Re: Helpiong the economy
Does Rupert Murdoch not pay Australian taxes?
Re: Re: Helpiong the economy
Nope, he’s a non-dom.
Let’s assume that Australia is a nation of pirates. If a whole country doesn’t respect a law, that says a lot more about the law than it does about the people.
Re: Re:
actually (being aussie) I think it says great things about the people too!
So where is this journalistic integrity and arduous fact checking that copy’right’ is supposed to help facilitate?
Australian Movie Piracy info
I am not sure why the Government would listen to the report given that AFACT, just this year released this document: http://www.afact.org.au/pressreleases/pdf/IPSOS%20Economic%20Consequences%20of%20Movie%20Piracy%20-%20Australia.pdf detailing basically the same kind of information
Here for you entertainment is the actual 16page (yes a wopping 16 pages /sarc) of statistical mismanagement and eroneous conflation and causations that I have ever had the displeasure to read.
http://www.bsa.org/country/~/media/Files/Research%20Papers/enAU/piracyimpact_australia.ashx
The author (who was once an Economic advisor to a State premier – think governor in the USA) just doesn’t understand basic maths, and statistical modelling.
Though I think the disclaimer on the 2nd page (down bottom) says it all.
There is so much wrong with this information it is hard to know where to start and I can guarantee the rebuking of it will go way over 16 pages. For one population of Australia does not take into account adult population but ALL population from 1yr old to death. [Adults 15 to 65+ are 82% of population]
It does not take into account basic “number of actual households (residential dwellings) [there being estimated 10mill only]” which would then totally destroy the figures they are trying to conflate.
I’m sorry.. this report is well…. My brain hurts now!
Re: Update on above
Bernard Keane over at Crikey (a brilliant ozzie eZine) has, even though there was a 87.3% statistical chance (as long as he resided in Europe) that his brain may implode from reading irrational logic to the nth degree, written a good rebuke of the major reason why this ‘report’ [and I use the word loosely] on “The Impact of Internet Piracy on the Australian Economy” [from now on called IIPAE – pronounced I-pay 😉 ]
bernard, like anyone else with any common sense, has stated that the major problem (though there are many more) with the whole thing is that it has taken the old report from TERA which was written specifically for Europe, using European data,and applied that to Australia to calculate costs, job losses, economic losses, and tax losses.
Oh and for those not familiar with the BASCAP report called TERA.. both the SSRC and Tom Koltai provide positive proof of why TERA is totally bogus.
Bernard probably summed up the whole ‘Australian’ Piracy report best
“In short, it?s consistent with the usual quality of internet piracy reports.”
Re: Re: Update on above
Won’t someone please think of the statisticians!!!!!!
Re: Re: Re: Update on above
Does thinking harshly of them count?
laughed at this. Ya think Australians pirate stuff? Really?
No shit.
Here’s how you create a nation of pirates
Step 1: Make all media players region locked so they can only play media sold in that specific region.
Step 2: Charge 30%-50% more for that media in a certain country.
Step 3: Delay release of that media for months and months at a time with no explainable reason.
Step 4: Bitch and moan when you see people in that country downloading your stuff off the internet cause they’re a bunch of no good filthy pirates.