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.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Well, then
OK, it's completely fictional, but I defy anyone in Australia to claim that it's less accurate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well, then
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Well, then
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Well, then
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
Why would we assume that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
www copyhype com/2011/03/how-much-more-evidence/
Of course, you're not interested in evidence, are you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is 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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
http://www.copyhype.com/2011/03/how-much-more-evidence/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Missing the Point: Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
"Intellectual Property" violates my physical rights. Guess which one I care about more?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
Oh! I'm a criminal!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
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?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
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."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
Neither are your intellectual property rights. Or, to be more correct, they shouldn't be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
You are, of course, correct that the word "right" appears.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
And those would be gained sales.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
http://www.copyhype.com/2011/03/how-much-more-evidence/
Even the pirates admit their piracy is leaching hundreds of millions from the market.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
- 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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
Doesn't that seem a bit....hypocritical to you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
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
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
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?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
Well, there's also a fair amount of support of piracy here (at least among commenters).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
How is that "supporting piracy" rather than simply realizing an obvious truth?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
If you didn't notice you are not paying attention.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: His "business models" generally depend on piracy being there
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
old.
stupid.
refuted repeatedly.
please go find a bridge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
K thx.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
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."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
Thank you for clarifying. I'll agree with your view that there are a fair amount of commenters who support piracy, me included.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: 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 here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
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?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
The buyer's remorse folks?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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. 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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
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?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
"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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
"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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Marketing 101
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
http://www.copyhype.com/2011/03/torrent-crime/
.torrent = .crime is my IP and he did not ask permission to use it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
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 320x240 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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
You are just a dumbass shill, that probably is getting paid to write those things, people should throw your ass in jail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
Classic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
So... just what does it mean to you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
I'm surprised to see what amounts to the definition of a "pun" or "sarcasm" as the #1 definition in some references.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
"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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
That doesn't exactly disprove the lost sale theory.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I believe we've seen this before.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh, wait; hadn't thought that far ahead, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Ironically I tend to pay for local music/films much more happily.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I thought it was just common knowledge
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nation of Pirates
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Helpiong the economy
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).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Helpiong the economy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Helpiong the economy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Australian Movie Piracy info
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Update on above
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."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Update on above
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Update on above
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]