Pundits And Politicans Very Quick To Blame Video Game & Movie Violence For Newtown

Aussie ISP: We Won't Be Hollywood's Copyright Cops If Hollywood Won't Fix Its Own Business Model

from the hollywood,-heal-thyself dept

Mon, Dec 17th 2012 1:54pm — Mike Masnick

You may remember iiNet, the Australian ISP that Hollywood attacked (with support of US State Department officials) after they decided that it was too small to fight back, but big enough that people would notice. They guessed incorrectly, and iiNet not only fought back by taking a strong pro-consumer view, but won in convincing fashion. Even more importantly, as we noted, the courts made it clear why it's silly to expect third party service providers like ISPs to be copyright cops, since establishing infringement "is not a straight 'yes' or 'no' question," but rather involves going through a lot of evidence and evaluating it.

Since then, Hollwyood has continued (via the Australian government) to pressure ISPs to step up to become copyright cops anyway, and iiNet has participated in those discussions. But late last week it walked away from the discussions after Hollywood folks kept demanding a system similar to the US's in which ISPs would send along notices to people they accused of infringement. iiNet gave a bunch of good reasons for walking away, but the basic message was that piracy is a problem that the entertainment industry could solve itself by making all of its content available more conveniently and at better prices. Until it does that, it's silly to rope in third parties to try to hold back the tide.

A broken record

The conversation has failed to move on. The rights holders are still insisting ISP's should perform work on their behalf instead of addressing what we have always said is the root cause of the infringements – the limited accessibility to desirable content and the discriminatory and high cost of content in Australia. Infringements are a symptom – access is the problem.

Data retention proposals

iiNet won't support any scheme that forces ISPs to retain data in order to allow for the tracking of customer behaviour and the status of any alleged infringements against them.

Collecting and retaining additional customer data at this level is inappropriate, expensive and most importantly, not our responsibility.

It's not iiNet's job to play online police

We've been over this before. The High Court spoke loud and clear in their verdict when they ruled categorically that ISPs have no obligation to protect the rights of third parties, and we're not prepared to harass our customers when the industry has no clear obligation to do so.

It's time to find a new way

We believe that timely, affordable access to legitimate content is the best option for reducing unauthorised sharing.

The problem, of course, is that the entertainment industry still doesn't understand what's happening. They flat out reject the idea that piracy might be due to their own unwillingness to embrace the internet and provide more content, in more convenient ways at better prices. So, instead, they believe that everyone else should be responsible for fixing the entertainment industry's own mistakes. It's nice to see iiNet call them out so directly.

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

Filed Under: australia, copyright, isps, liability
Companies: iinet

59 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Michael Dee, 17 Dec 2012 @ 2:11pm

Other industries have learned to give the customer what they want. This isn't something new.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2012 @ 2:14pm

I think we have the entertainment industry's strategy all wrong. They're planning to use the dirt from the hole they're digging to push back the tide!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2012 @ 2:21pm

I flatly reject the ideas that the copyright maximilists present. I honestly don't care and hope they fail to reach a solution as the results of that will be the cratering of their business model. If I were to find said groups in a wooden barn, I would happily burn it to the ground in hopes that the phoenix that arose would be better than what we have now. (figuratively)

There is a reason piracy exists. It's the failure of those same pushing copyright insanity that does not match with public expectations. It's like the old artist touring with the 'Remember me'? hope for recognition. They've made enough racket I don't want to remember them but when I do, a parallel feeling comes with it; one of hate and resentment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Robert (profile), 17 Dec 2012 @ 2:22pm

Too bad for Canada
Too bad our ISP's don't feel the same.

It's obvious that piracy indicates a demand and the industry has full knowledge of economics and understanding lower the price, to a certain point, will increase sales.

They are not stupid [despite what their behaviour indicates].

This is all about control; the industry wants to eliminate competition. Once they have their full monopolistic control they can jack the prices up again and squeeze the artists even more. The biz-nez section of the entertainment industry really is amazing, they can force two different groups to bend over, as they've been doing for decades before the Internet came along.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jay (profile), 17 Dec 2012 @ 6:00pm
  
  Re: Too bad for Canada
  The industry doesn't understand economics. That's the problem. If they did, they would understand how their own actions only increased piracy.
  
  The artists don't like being considered economic slaves to their labels. Neither do actors, directors, or DJs like being tied to people that only believe they are entitled to make ever increasing profit in a crony capitalist system.
  
  Economics tells us that if you provide a good service at a decent price, people will support you. Subsidies won't do much in creating more goods nor does out help our liberal markets flourish. Yet, because these people are in positions of power, with millions in the bank and access to politicians to "convince" them of their plight, they can freely corrupt markets and engage in gunboat diplomacy to force their economic view on the world.
  
  That isn't a special kind of knowledge or access. It's stupidity of the highest order and it doesn't last long when the economics of piracy take over.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- azzy, 17 Dec 2012 @ 6:24pm
  
  Re: Too bad for Canada
  Bravo to that last paragraph. The democratising of film is something that's long overdue and is finally leaving the hands of the elite.
  
  But Canada being Hollywood's bitch is really no surprise. A lot of productions are moved to Canada for tax breaks bringing in plenty of employment, growth and tourism. It only makes sense that Canada plays nice.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
John, 17 Dec 2012 @ 2:26pm

On the topic of making content available immediately on reasonable terms..

I was very impressed to discover that the UK film distributor dogwoof now puts their entire catalogue on their site to stream.

Many are online even while simultaneously at cinemas too.

I wish the big incumbents would do this.

http://dogwoof.com/watch
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- drew Roberts, 18 Dec 2012 @ 7:02am
  
  Re: dogwoof
  Sorry, this film is not available from Dogwoof TV at your geographic location.
  
  seems they do not stream everywhere.
  
  drew
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Franklin G Ryzzo (profile), 17 Dec 2012 @ 2:36pm

Hmmmm...
Perhaps we should send the execs for all of the US ISP's down to Australia and let them talk about this down under for a bit. My guess is that level headed thinking like this stems from the increased blood flow to the head from being upside down...

Cheers to iiNet! It's refreshing to see a provider push back against the propaganda and so blatantly call them out on their own failures to service their customers. If you ever decide to expand to the states I will absolutely throw my money at you!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2012 @ 2:48pm

There seems to be a bit of a philosophical difference between iiNet and the major ISPs in America.

iiNet seems content to be a "dumb pipe" - in America the ISPs are paranoid of becoming said utility.

It's tougher to be Comcast, owning NBC, and have a stance of doing nothing for competing content piracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- G Thompson (profile), 18 Dec 2012 @ 1:56am
  
  Re:
  iiNet and our Other ISP's are not allowed to own major media content, though Telstra does own Foxtel to some extent due to our media ownership laws.. ie: You cannot own newspapers AND TV one or the other!
  
  Though things like FetchTv, BoB, being publicly listed, having ties with New Zealand and other international partnerships don't in anyones opinion make them a 'dumb pipe'
  
  Though the major philosophical difference between iiNet (and the majority of Aussie companies) and American counterparts is "Trade practices', Equity, Customer service, and good old plain common sense.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

out_of_the_blue, 17 Dec 2012 @ 2:55pm

Strictly a commercial matter, Mike.
From the link, emphasis added:

"Allow me to re-state, for the record that iiNet has always maintained that it�s not OK to download or share movies and stuff via peer-to-peer networks, like torrents. As we said after this year�s High Court decision, iiNet does not condone piracy; we just didn�t agree with the studios that it was our job to do their work for them."

First, Mike, what part of that don't YOU get? This guy says THAT because any other position is illegal -- at least in his position where he could actually be held liable for infringement.

Next: "We�re still holding out for a commercial solution that will work for ISPs, the rights holders and our customers and that improves the supply of legitimate content but it�s clear that this is not going to be the outcome of the current talks."

Translations from 'strine (Australian): THEY WANT MONEY TO DO THE POLICING.

A special talent: where the ordinary person would write "adverse publicity" and be understood...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
Mike "Streisand Effect" Masnick makes you take a link and spend a minute JUST to learn HIS term!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2012 @ 3:05pm
  
  Re: Strictly a commercial matter, Mike.
  "We've been over this before. The High Court spoke loud and clear in their verdict when they ruled categorically that ISPs have no obligation to protect the rights of third parties, and we're not prepared to harass our customers when the industry has no clear obligation to do so."
  
  What part of the High Court ruled catergorically that ISP's have no obligation to protect the rights of third parties do you not understand. Could it be that the ISP's don't have to protect the rights of the entertainment industries because you so want the ISP's want to protect the entertainment industries rights. That is not going to happen until the High Court rules otherwise and you are not above the High Court are you.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - anon, 17 Dec 2012 @ 3:30pm
    
    Re: Re: Strictly a commercial matter, Mike.
    Obvious troll, please ignore
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- anon, 17 Dec 2012 @ 3:20pm
  
  Re: Strictly a commercial matter, Mike.
  Sorry , say again, did you not read the article, it said nothing about supporting or not supporting piracy, at the most is said that one of the reasons a very largr part of the population does pirate is that there is no legal reasonably cheap way to access the content that is available all over the internet much cheaper than it is if or when it is available in Australia.
  
  Now when you can learn to read and comprehend what you read, then come back here and write a reasonable comment that we can discuss instead of people like me having to come on here and correct your accusations and who thinks you are nothing more than a troll, trying to get a response from someone famous on this site to make you feel like a big man on the internet.I suspect you and your comment are irrelevant to both the commentors and Mike.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2012 @ 3:21pm
  
  Re: Strictly a commercial matter, Mike.
  Translations from 'strine (Australian): THEY WANT MONEY TO DO THE POLICING.
  
  ...and why shouldn't they ask that those requesting the enforcement not pay for it? I find Hollywood to be highly hypocritical in this area, consistently trying to avoid legitimately paying for a considerable amount of things, including the costs of enforcement of the current laws.
  
  They keep telling us that the infringers are lazy thieves who just want free stuff. The irony is that they want free enforcement and are too lazy to, y'know, provide their content conveniently, cheaply, and at-will.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Donglebert the Needlessly Obtuse, 18 Dec 2012 @ 2:37am
  
  Re: Strictly a commercial matter, Mike.
  Lovely way you've entirely misrepresented the sentiments of what they've said. One day, you should learn to read. The day after that, you should learn to comprehend.
  
  We�re still holding out for a commercial solution that will work for ISPs, the rights holders and our customers and that improves the supply of legitimate content but it�s clear that this is not going to be the outcome of the current talks.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- G Thompson (profile), 18 Dec 2012 @ 4:40am
  
  Re: Strictly a commercial matter, Mike.
  In the Aussie vernacular, you mate are a complete and utter drongo who couldn't tell his arse from a hole in the ground.
  
  And I'm absolutely convinced that you have not one but a whole flock of cockies and a few kangaroos loose in your top paddock ie: Nucking Futs!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 18 Dec 2012 @ 10:36am
  
  Re: Strictly a commercial matter, Mike.
  Oh dear. Crawled out of the woodwork again, I see. Does Mr. Blue ever sleep or is he constantly on the keyboard, conjuring up his vitriol, which I suspect is just attention-seeking. Perhaps a psychiatrist would be in order?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Will, 17 Dec 2012 @ 2:58pm

Let's examine in minute detail the business practices of the entertainment industry companies going back decades, particularly in regard to copyrights. Of course, that would mean the companies would have to be completely co-operative in opening up all their record books to us, the buying public. Oh, the stories that would be found!

Well done iinet for not succumbing to the octopus and for not being persuaded to engage in breaches of privacy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
silverscarcat (profile), 17 Dec 2012 @ 3:12pm

Irony...
Hollywood wants AUSTRALIAN ISPs to POLICE the internet?

Maybe they should remember that Australians were, originally, criminals?

After all, the British had to put their prisoners SOMEWHERE in the world...

So, they're basically asking the descendants of criminals to become cops...

Talk about ironic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- bigpallooka (profile), 17 Dec 2012 @ 4:57pm
  
  Re: Irony...
  Oh the real irony is that the British sent 50000 convicts to North America (that's a third of the total sent to Australia) long before any arrived in Australia. They were the ones doing the work on plantations that a quarter million African slaves had to do in the century after the American Revolution. We Australians like to say we are descendant from convicts but the truth is most of us are the children of much later immigrants.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - bigpallooka (profile), 17 Dec 2012 @ 4:59pm
    
    Re: Re: Irony...
    Oops. I meant three quarters of a million African Slaves.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - silverscarcat (profile), 18 Dec 2012 @ 6:15am
    
    Re: Re: Irony...
    SHHH! Don't let the people below know that you know that I'm joking.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2012 @ 7:27pm
  
  Re: Irony...
  how is that ironic? you fucking moron.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - silverscarcat (profile), 18 Dec 2012 @ 6:12am
    
    Re: Re: Irony...
    Obviously you don't understand satire.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2012 @ 9:35pm
  
  Re: Irony...
  Way to get it wrong.
  I know this is a little off topic but not every Australian is a criminal. Some of us came over here as free settlers.
  Ya know, one of the things about being on the Net is you can put down the lube and tissues and now google things so you don't sound stupid.
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Australia_(1788%E2%80%931850)#Convicts_and_free-s ettlers
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2012 @ 10:16pm
    
    Re: Re: Irony...
    Sarcasm filter down today ?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Get a clue, 17 Dec 2012 @ 10:19pm
  
  Re: Irony...
  Not every person sent to colonize Australia was a criminal.
  
  And a significant portion of the 'criminal' element sent to Australia were for crimes such as stealing bread, being a political dissident, or other 'crimes' of a petty nature.
  
  So it's a standard stereotype, but it's not entirely accurate. Your 'irony' is really just a bigoted display of sheer ignorance on your behalf.
  
  Perhaps you should refrain from commenting where people can read it and keep to your diary in future.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - silverscarcat (profile), 18 Dec 2012 @ 6:14am
    
    Re: Re: Irony...
    Satire...
    
    Look it up.
    
    If you can't figure out that I was joking, then you fail.
    
    In fact, most of the people who replied fail simply by taking it too seriously.
    
    Even though Australia WAS a penal colony, even I know that not everyone was a criminal. Sheesh. *Rolls eyes*
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Smarter than the guy above, 17 Dec 2012 @ 10:30pm
  
  Re: Irony...
  Idiot.
  
  You hurt my brain.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - silverscarcat (profile), 18 Dec 2012 @ 6:13am
    
    Re: Re: Irony...
    Look up satire and maybe you'll understand.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 18 Dec 2012 @ 2:49am
  
  Re: Irony...
  The Brits sent criminals to what is now the USA before they sent them to Australia. Those criminals became the worlds biggest slavers.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chris Sherlock, 18 Dec 2012 @ 4:04am
  
  Re: Irony...
  Why do I feel I'm reading the prose version of an Alanis Morrisett song?
  
  Really though, that's about as ironic as Puritanical Founding Fathers' descendants having created the largest porn industry in the world.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - silverscarcat (profile), 18 Dec 2012 @ 6:15am
    
    Re: Re: Irony...
    "Really though, that's about as ironic as Puritanical Founding Fathers' descendants having created the largest porn industry in the world."
    
    Exactly!
    
    It's not like that would ever happen!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Troy, 14 Jan 2013 @ 7:10pm
  
  Re: Irony...
  lol
  
  Let me guess, clueless American?
  
  Australian was not colonised by criminals. Those criminals are not the basis for our bloodline, you idiot. The overwhelming colonisation of Australia was simply from British and other immigrants.
  
  In fact, some entire states did not even HAVE criminals and were not colonised at all for the purpose of a penal system.
  
  The "Australians are criminals" is called - a misnomer.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Aussie, 14 Jan 2013 @ 10:59pm
  
  Re: Irony...
  I find that offensive being a first gen Aussie
  Only a hand full of original British where sent 70-90 percent now come from Europe after the war
  Besides the British descendents where the crimes not Australians :)
  So it doesn't pay to say Aussies where crimes when most where english
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
anonymouse, 17 Dec 2012 @ 3:27pm

Business models
The problem is not just that they do not want to put the content up, it is that once they do that they lose the power to intimidate and demand from people. If they supply what people want and piracy goes down they will have no more need for the middlemen, the middlemen will become obsolete. And that is there greatest fear , that they become obsolete,
With everything being complicated, and licences being complicated they can skim a large chunk of the profits, when everything is simple and controlled in one place they lose the ability to hide there theft with there crazy accounting methods.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 17 Dec 2012 @ 3:58pm

You mean that even after AFACT paid Dtecnet to upload and seed infringing material to offer as evidence in court, they are still allowed to demand anything?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- G Thompson (profile), 18 Dec 2012 @ 1:49am
  
  Re:
  Look for Steve Dalby's comments (the lead counsel for iiNet) in this article's comments about exactly same thing as here.
  
  I myself had a few comments to the whole thing. [though disregard the last ones ;)]
  
  http://delimiter.com.au/2012/12/10/iinet-pulls-out-of-anti-piracy-scheme/#comment-537440
  
  I especially like his response to Daniel
  
  *waves at Steve who I know reads TD and wishes him and Micheal and all the other nutters at iiNet ;) a brilliant Chrissy!*
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Steve Dalby, 18 Dec 2012 @ 4:05pm
    
    Re: G'day
    * waves back.
    Thanks GT. MCaHNY.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Michael, 17 Dec 2012 @ 4:03pm

A broken record
A broken record

You cannot really blame them on that one. In the past, it often meant another sale.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mesonoxian Eve (profile), 17 Dec 2012 @ 5:00pm

Over the weekend, I took a spin at Amazon.com's instant movie section.

Expect piracy to be around for a very long time. Perhaps someone in Hollywood needs to realize something: with no overhead of plastic, paper, and shipping, there's no way I'm paying those prices to rent.

YouTube and I are going to be very good friends for a long, long time.

Awww... look at the cute kitty going after the fishy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ben, 17 Dec 2012 @ 5:38pm

jeez why would Australians ever pirate movies like Wreck It Ralph, Cloud Atlas, The Hobbit, Paranorman etc...

oh that's right CAUSE THEY STILL HAVEN'T BEEN RELEASED HERE.

Go fuck yourself holywood.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That Anonymous Coward (profile), 17 Dec 2012 @ 7:48pm
  
  Re:
  but it is very costly to load up a ship to brave the uncharted waters, past the sea monsters drawn on the map to deliver the movies.
  
  they could just transfer them over the internet, but the machine that turns all of the pictures upside down is currently broken...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2012 @ 11:49pm
    
    Re: Re:
    So their eyes are broken?
    
    ...It's more likely than you think.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 18 Dec 2012 @ 7:45am
  
  Re:
  And of course darryl defends all this bewildering behaviour. One thinks he's probably an escaped convict from the MPAA fantasies as opposed to an actual person.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jake, 17 Dec 2012 @ 6:32pm

"We believe that timely, affordable access to legitimate content is the best option for reducing unauthorised sharing."

No truer words have ever been spoken. Maybe one day they'll wake up and listen. In the mean-time I'll keep playing violin while their business model sinks beneath the waves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
nfg Dan, 17 Dec 2012 @ 7:07pm

Ultra Violet
I was at a seminar (in Melbourne) when a representative from Warner Brothers talked about this.

They decided that it was smarter to make it easier for consumers to purchase content at good prices cross platform. Partly because some of the pirates are still massive consumers with DVD or Blu-ray collections yet download digital copies to take with them on tablets.

Will be interesting to see how Ultraviolet rolls out here down under.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That Anonymous Coward (profile), 17 Dec 2012 @ 7:49pm
  
  Re: Ultra Violet
  Just look at the cluster f__k it was here... sorry to dash your hopes.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 18 Dec 2012 @ 10:34am
  
  Re: Ultra Violet
  Ultraviolet is terrible and doesn't really accomplish the goal of making content more accessible.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dave, 17 Dec 2012 @ 10:08pm

Criticism for the MPAA and Hollywood
Dear Hollywood,

I want you to know that your attempts to undermine piracy is a complete failure. While you have had the opportunity to recognize what the music industry did you choose to do nothing. You rely on Itunes and netflix and do little to support those options with more content. You limit access from people in other parts of the world too. This is very shortsighted and like the Music industry had to learn to adapt you will also. Have you also considered that with respect to Hollywood the major blockbusters you push are either sequels or remakes of succesful movies? There isn't sufficient time in-between these to warrant a new movie. It's time for a moratorium on sequels. Sequels should take 3 years in between or the original movie should be 4 hours long. Same with remakes except you should have to wait 35 years to make one as even in the realm of science fiction the new CGI technology doesn't warrant a remake of starwars or spiderman. There should be a referendum if a bad movie can be remade. Batman was a great franchise tarnished by the Michael Bay era however Chris Nolans efforts have been redeeming of the capabilities of big studios.
In closing I want to congratulate you for ensuring your failure and one day you will hear of directors and actors doing stories out of their pocket than whatever hollywood is and it will all have been your fault.
Goodnight
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That Anonymous Coward (profile), 18 Dec 2012 @ 12:36am
  
  Re: Criticism for the MPAA and Hollywood
  Micheal Bays next blockbuster...
  Care Bears
  
  http://wellthatsjustgreat.tumblr.com/post/184472839/theduty-via-bringtheruckuss-michael-bay
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2012 @ 10:23pm

Here's an example from my own life. I watch American shows like South Park, Big Bang Theory and Two and a Half Men. None of these are shown by local TV channels (well, old seasons of Men are shown, but I've seen those). I can't pay for episodes on Netflix or iTunes, because according to them it is unprofitable to offer their services in such a small country. Guess where I download the episodes from.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2012 @ 11:50pm
  
  Re:
  Ooh! Ooh! I know this one!
  
  ...A pirate ship?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That Anonymous Coward (profile), 18 Dec 2012 @ 12:32am
  
  Re:
  is your tv ez?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Dec 2012 @ 2:17am

the title says it all, really. why should anyone be expected, at their own expense, not just in paying out terms but also in loss of customer terms as well, to help someone who refuses to help themselves? everyone knows what needs to be done, what has to be done, including the entertainment industries themselves, but they refuse to accept it and act on it. 'none so blind as those that will not see', as the saying goes. all that is happening is that many more people and companies are getting to despise the industries and are refusing to bail them out. wake up and smell the coffee, before you are left out on a limb by yourselves!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 18 Dec 2012 @ 10:39am
  
  Re:
  This is what I don't get. The major companies appear to think that ISPs have some kind of moral responsibility to fix the content companies problems. Given that ISPs aren't causing them and having nothing to do with them, it's baffling as to how they can argue some kind of responsibility.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kordjul, 18 Dec 2012 @ 11:40pm

I'm so sick of reading about the ancient MAFIAA Cavemen waving their clubs around and threatening to hit people over the head. It's time for MAFIAA to evolve. It's the 21st century!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]