Australian Media Company CEO Accuses iiNet ISP Of Piracy 'Lies', Says Illegal Filesharing Is Theft

from the elegant-explanations dept

Fri, Jun 20th 2014 8:57am — Glyn Moody

For many years, Techdirt has been covering the dogged efforts of the Australian ISP iiNet to stand up for its users against bullying by the copyright industries. After Hollywood lost its big lawsuit against iiNet back in 2012, things went quiet until recently, when the installation of a new government in Australia has led to years of careful research in the field of copyright being thrown out, and a return to dogma-based policy-making that has no time for the facts.

An interview by Luke Hopewell in Gizmodo Australia with Graham Burke, co-CEO of the Village Roadshow Australia media company, provides further evidence of how Australia is stuck in the past when it comes to copyright. It's striking how it trots out just about every tired and discredited argument in favor of harsher punishment for those allegedly sharing unauthorized files, along with the repeated claim that iiNet is lying:

"What iiNet are saying to govt is 'oh, let's just have everything available at the same time, cinema and everything and the [piracy] problem will go away. They know that's a lie because of the music industry. In June alone there was 1.2 million illegal downloads of music, and that's released at exactly the same time everywhere," Burke said.

Nobody claims that making everything available at the same time will make piracy go away completely. That's partly because the "piracy problem" in Australia as elsewhere is often more a problem of poor service, as this story from TorrentFreak last year makes clear: News Corp owns 50% of pay television company Foxtel, the outfit with the rights to show Game of Thrones in Australia. At last count during August the company had around 2.5 million subscribers, but despite the show being legally available to them, the News Corp CEO said that 20% of Foxtel customers still chose to watch the show illegally.
This shows that even when they have access to the legal services, a significant number of people turn to illegal downloads, presumably because they are more convenient -- a pretty damning verdict on the state of the commercial offerings. Making everything available immediately won't solve that problem -- only offering well-designed legal services will -- but research shows that easy availability through legal services does cut down the level of illegal filesharing, which is presumably what iiNet is trying to get the Australian government to understand.

Next, Burke comes out with a favorite trope of the copyright maximalists:

Piracy produces less of a financial burden for the music industry, according to Burke. Producing an album only costs around $300,000 at the top end, whereas the cost of making a film in the studio model starts at $5 million, and ranges right up to $200 million for epics like Skyfall, Man of Steel and Avatar to name a few.

Of course, that makes the huge and unjustified assumption that such $200 million "epics" are an indispensable part of cinema. In fact, one of the exciting developments in recent years has been the democratization of film-making through high-quality, low-cost video technology that lets people make films for thousands, not millions, of dollars. As Burke himself points out, piracy isn't really a problem for such productions -- another argument in their favor.

He then moves on to another discredited idea -- three-strike schemes -- plus some more name-calling:

"It's sad that to forward their case, [iiNet] use what they must know is a fabric of lies. They're saying that there's no proof that graduated response works. They're instancing a number of countries where graduated response was frustrated by lobbying and the power of Google, which pays little to no tax in Australia and creates nothing," he said.

Graduated response was not "frustrated by lobbying", it failed because it is an inherently flawed idea, based on fear, not fairness. And it's telling that Burke tries to distract attention from this by introducing Google and its irrelevant tax affairs here, even going so far as to say that Google "creates nothing". Since people use its free services, and in vast numbers, they presumably see value in them, which means that it most certainly does contribute to Australia, just not in the form of making films or music, say. Bizarrely, Burke then goes to accuse iiNet of the same sin: They [iiNet] are also demonstrating the fact that their business model is predicated on selling time, and of course they want the present regime to continue. [Pirates] have a smorgasbord of content online that they are accessing, and paying iiNet for the systems to do so. This is a company that has produced nothing in Australia."
But iiNet is not a production company, it's an ISP. It provides access to the extraordinary, multi-faceted riches of the online world, of which unauthorized content forms a very small and unimportant part, despite the copyright industries' obsession with this particular component. The amazing possibilities that access opens up to its customers is what iiNet "produces", and it arguably provides rather better value than money spent buying -- sorry, licensing -- a film or two.

Burke saves the best for last:

"If people are given elegant explanations of why [downloading content] is theft, the bulk of people will be reasonable."

Yes, it's the old favorite "filesharing is theft" argument, which is not just wrong, but so widely known to be wrong, that not even "elegant explanations" could ever make it right. Indeed, it's partly because people like Burke continue to make this ridiculous assertion -- as well as casting slurs on anyone that dares to challenge their purely self-interested view of the Internet -- that the general public holds the content industries in such low esteem.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

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, graham burke, isps
Companies: iinet, village roadshow

47 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 20 Jun 2014 @ 9:01am

That CEO should be charged with theft for those completely unorignal comments made without attribution.

After all, if it's supposedly good for iiNet...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Geno0wl (profile), 20 Jun 2014 @ 9:13am

I wish Steam would share numbers
I wish we could somehow get at "hard" numbers for Steam. Really look at the impact making it available on Steam itself(maybe look at the effect of lowing the price) has on PC gaming piracy.
I would take a guess that the safe and easy access to games Steam has allowed has done way more to stop piracy than any DRM ever has.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 20 Jun 2014 @ 9:18am

It bears repeating
Those legal offerings that keep getting cited tend to be awful to the point of uselessness. I can't help but wonder if that's not intentional -- set up legal access that is so awful that nobody will actually use it, then point to that and say "See? Legal options don't affect piracy rates!"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
techflaws (profile), 20 Jun 2014 @ 9:31am

So, because of piracy a 200 (?) m dollar movie like Avatar could not be produced let alone turn a profit. Convincing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Jun 2014 @ 9:52am

I read on this topic earlier and there is one false argument you've forgotten that they throwed in.

The claim that the copyright companies support local artists and local businesses. Only the artists that are supported for the music side is anything but local; the examples being used were Rihanna and Lady GaGa.

Iinet's response I rather liked...

�Finally, if this is all about protecting 906,000 Aussie jobs why is it that not one single example of Aussie content ever gets a mention. It�s always about American movies, music and TV,� Dalby said.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Jun 2014 @ 10:16am

Show of hands, who here respects copyright law? (Note: I'm not asking who infringes, only respects.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ltlw0lf (profile), 20 Jun 2014 @ 10:20am

Re: It bears repeating
Those legal offerings that keep getting cited tend to be awful to the point of uselessness.

The DRM alone kills most of them. I don't want to purchase something I cannot watch whenever I want, wherever I want, and on whatever I want.

Nevermind the fact that they have fractured everything to the point you need to search to find what you want from a number of sites only to find that none of the sites have what you are looking for.

Netflix works because it is a single place to go, and for the most part, it works on all my devices. I even managed to get Netflix working on my Linux devices, but it is kludgy. If they could release a Linux client, I'd be peachy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ruben, 20 Jun 2014 @ 10:21am

Re:
If only.

The world would be a better place without Cameron shitting all over the place.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Jun 2014 @ 10:26am

...the power of Google...
One of these days I've got to get an unmedicated industry shill to tell me exactly why they have such a hard-on for Google.

It's unfarthenable...unfathominable...it's baffling that these people seem to be confusing a pointer to something with the actual thing, but that's sure what it looks like.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Baron von Robber, 20 Jun 2014 @ 10:33am

I don't. The copyright laws are not respectable. That Conan Doyle's estate still gets a monopoly on Sherlock Holmes? Seriously?! 40 years max. Then my respect will start.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Jun 2014 @ 10:39am

When you have to try and strong arm customers into accepting service on your terms, rather than the customers terms, there is something wrong with your whole approach to business. When it also results in you declaring war on other businesses to try and strong arm them into forcing their customers to accept your business model, it really is time to rethink your whole approach to gaining and keeping customers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
bobby b, 20 Jun 2014 @ 10:48am

I love the morality of thieves:

"It wasn't a very good lock, so I'm not really stealing."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Baron von Robber, 20 Jun 2014 @ 10:52am

Re:
What thieves? Who was deprived of their property?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
James Jensen (profile), 20 Jun 2014 @ 10:56am

Re:
I love the morality of maximalists:

"I want a monopoly, so I'm going to call it property."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
James Jensen (profile), 20 Jun 2014 @ 11:00am

Re:
...it's baffling that these people seem to be confusing a pointer to something with the actual thing, but that's sure what it looks like.

Sounds like they need a class in C/C++...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Geno0wl (profile), 20 Jun 2014 @ 11:21am

Re:
It really isn't hard to understand why they have a "hard-on for Google".
Its because they think that if Google didn't point to said content, then literally nobody would be able to find said content.
Basically it would be like if suddenly map makers started marking Drug houses on maps. And instead of going after said drug houses they instead went after the map makers because "nobody could find drugs if they didn't know what house to go to".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Jun 2014 @ 11:24am

"If people are given elegant explanations of why [downloading content] is theft, the bulk of people will be reasonable."

It is fairly obvious that he would like this elegant explanation to be delivered by a judge during sentencing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Michael, 20 Jun 2014 @ 11:25am

Re:
It's a typical shakedown tactic.

Google has lots of money and if you rattle them a bit they may give you a little to go away.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
James Jensen (profile), 20 Jun 2014 @ 11:26am

"If people are given elegant explanations of why [downloading content] is theft, the bulk of people will be reasonable."

If these explanations existed they would have been offered a long time ago. As in two or three centuries ago. Instead the copyright lobby has always gone straight to special pleading and laughable legal theories -- and that's when they don't just stick to dogmatic assertions.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Michael, 20 Jun 2014 @ 11:26am

Re:
The problem is that the bulk of people are reasonable and it is unreasonable to view downloading content as theft.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Jun 2014 @ 11:40am

Re:
Hell, I'd be happy with an unelegant explanation, so long as it didn't involve stupid car analogies, flaming baboons or impossible logical transformations.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bergman (profile), 20 Jun 2014 @ 11:41am

Re:
Theft is the unlawful taking of property, thereby depriving the owner of its use.

For illicit copying to be theft, the people making the copies would have to have stolen the master recording from the studio, thereby denying its use to its owner.

The idea of theft breaks down when you have a post-scarcity business model. The owner of that master can make unlimited first generation copies, and someone making a second or third generation copy doesn't deprive the owner of his property.

If illicit copying is theft, then every time you walk past a bakery or restaurant, smelling their food but not buying anything you have also committed theft -- you enjoyed the smell of the food without paying for it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ruben, 20 Jun 2014 @ 11:43am

Re:
Actually, it's more along the lines of:

"These guys are a bunch of dicks, so I don't respect them."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bergman (profile), 20 Jun 2014 @ 11:47am

Re:
One of these days, I'd love to see a studio actually suffer a copyright theft. They scream about copying being theft of their copyrights so much, it would be ironically hilarious if they actually experienced such a theft, in order to find out what theft actually is.

After someone breaks in and steals every master recording the studio has and takes or destroys all their production footage (so they can't reconstruct the master recording short of re-shooting the entire movie), they might discover the difference between unauthorized copying and actual theft.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Jun 2014 @ 11:51am

Re: I wish Steam would share numbers
As someone who used to pirate games, I agree. Steam makes it so cheap and convenient I just don't feel the need any more.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Graham Burke, 20 Jun 2014 @ 12:03pm

"For the record, I'm not a dingo"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Jun 2014 @ 12:11pm

Re: Re:
What would be a real copyright theft would be to take and destroy all the artists contracts as well, so that they could not prove what content they actually owned.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Baron von Robber, 20 Jun 2014 @ 12:44pm

Re:
Do you have a signed certificate from a zoologist that states "I am not a dingo"?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 20 Jun 2014 @ 1:18pm

Re:
Simple explanation: he's not worried about the jobs of local content creators, he's worried about the jobs of him and his fellow Hollywood bootlickers. Don't do enough sucking up to his paymasters and they might find someone more eager to dance when told after all.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Jun 2014 @ 1:30pm

Re:
Then your respect should start. A recent court ruling has destroyed the Conan Doyle Estate arguments that the newer works on Sherlock Holmes are part of the whole. Sherlock Holmes is now public domain.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140616/11410827596/appeals-court-says-sherlock-holmes-is-still-p ublic-domain-no-matter-what-conan-doyle-estate-believes.shtml
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Jun 2014 @ 1:46pm

Re: Re:
Well you got part of the argument right.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Baron von Robber, 20 Jun 2014 @ 1:55pm

Re: Re:
For Sherlock then? Aye.

The 40 year max?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sheogorath (profile), 20 Jun 2014 @ 2:46pm

Really?
the cost of making a film in the studio model starts at $5 million, and ranges right up to $200 million for epics like Skyfall, Man of Steel and Avatar to name a few.
Cool! Let the fuckers cost themselves out of the market while I continue to watch indies.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Zonker, 20 Jun 2014 @ 3:15pm

Google is little different from the MPAA/RIAA when it comes to "creating nothing" and paying little to no tax in Australia. They are publishers (e.g. YouTube) of artists content with access to large distribution channels (i.e. Internet). So really the same argument could be made against the MPAA/RIAA as is being made against Google in the interview. Or rather, Google and the Internet are direct competitors of the MPAA/RIAA.

However, unlike the MPAA/RIAA, the Internet allows independent artists to publish and distribute their works, so at least that is one way in which they differ.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Kronomex, 20 Jun 2014 @ 3:51pm

I'll bet that Burke and family and other hangers on don't have to wait weeks or months to see new films. Probably gets to have private viewings (and no doubt brings the rest of his tribe) of upcoming films or they drop, what in any parlance could only be described as pirated copies, a stack of DVD's on his desk so he can watch them at home. Wanker!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Jun 2014 @ 4:13pm

Re:
They are publishers (e.g. YouTube) of artists content with access to large distribution channels

Google are distributors, but not publishers. That is they provide a distributions service to anybody who wants to publish their own work. Unlike publishers, they do not choose what to publish, or demand assignment of copyright. The traditional publishers would like to classify Google as a publisher, because they would then be liable for the content on their services, but Google has chosen not to become a publisher.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Jun 2014 @ 7:37pm

I can't really make sense of this assertion:

...but despite the show being legally available to them, the News Corp CEO said that 20% of Foxtel customers still chose to watch the show illegally.

If the show is legally available to them, how can them watching the show be illegal? They are paying for access to the show; why does it matter that they chose to watch it in a different way?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Jun 2014 @ 9:32pm

one of the biggest failings is the lack of publications and reporting of those who have the opposite views to Burke and have the facts and figures to back up their views. as soon as someone with Burke's view wants it published or stated in the media, every effort to do so is made. that has, mainly, to do with most media and publication interests being owned by companies that have their fingers in the music and movie industries, so instead of 'fair reporting', anything they dont like, especially of this nature, is kicked right out! the problem with people like Burke is he knows exactly what is correct but have to state the opposite because it's the orders from above. they know there will be no boost to income, but it gives them satisfaction that they have kept control. the fact that they have bankrupted people and families, as well as breaking them up and putting people in prison, all over a movie, gives them nothing but satisfaction and a greater feeling of control. i can just imagine how a meeting sounds when the top industry people get together!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Jun 2014 @ 10:40pm

Re:
I don't believe that anarchy is the right way to go, but more and more I'm convinced that it's better than what we have right now.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Jun 2014 @ 8:13am

Turn that around...
"This shows that even when they have access to the legal services, a significant number of people turn to illegal downloads, presumably because they are more convenient"

This also shows that even when people have access to free pirate sources as well as legal services that they have to pay for a significant number of people turn to the legal services anyway such that the providers of those services still make a considerable amount of money.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
observer, 21 Jun 2014 @ 8:32am

Re:
ACS:Law did a better job of pretending it stood for local content providers, and that's just sad.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
observer, 21 Jun 2014 @ 8:47am

Re:
I love the morality of straw men.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
observer, 21 Jun 2014 @ 10:55am

Re:
I don't infringe much, simply because Amazon and Steam are so much more convenient, but it's done precisely nothing to earn my respect.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Yoshord, 21 Jun 2014 @ 2:43pm

Re:
No, it's because of Hollywood Accounting that no movie ever could produce a profit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anon Unknown, 21 Jun 2014 @ 6:17pm

Re: I wish Steam would share numbers
Agreed. Steam has made it easy to get the games that I want.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Zonker, 23 Jun 2014 @ 10:55am

Re: Re:
I stand corrected. Google and most of the Internet allows self-publishing, which is direct competition for the major publishers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Alex (profile), 4 Dec 2018 @ 1:30am

It's not good and this shows that people have accesses pirated sources. This is wrong even iiNet is very popular in Australia for more info about this http://iinet.technicalhelpaustralia.com/blog/how-iinet-isp-became-popular/
[ link to this | view in thread ]