The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
ABC news blog: The Case For Piracy
Old 21st October 2011
  #1
Gear Addict
 

ABC news blog: The Case For Piracy

The case for piracy - Blog - ABC Technology and Games (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

I found this to be an interesting article. The title of the piece is something of a misnomer; the author isn't actually presenting a case in support of piracy. Rather, he enumerates several reasons why otherwise perfectly law-abiding and reasonable individuals turn to unauthorized channels of distribution for lack of legal options in their region.

Is part of the battle against piracy necessarily the adoption of distribution policies that better account for the currently underserved markets around the world (no pun intended)?
Old 21st October 2011
  #2
Gear Nut
 

Good read, unfortunately he offered no solution, just another way to look at it.
Old 21st October 2011
  #3
He mentions almost in passing that the most affected industry is music, but most of the article is about not being able to access the content you want, and this mostly with regards to movies and television.
Hardly surprising when theblog is from a national broadcaster and written by one of their employees.
Old 21st October 2011
  #4
Gear Addict
 
frawnchy's Avatar
 

ABC news blog: The Case For Piracy

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso
He mentions almost in passing that the most affected industry is music, but most of the article is about not being able to access the content you want, and this mostly with regards to movies and television.
Hardly surprising when theblog is from a national broadcaster and written by one of their employees.
Of course it's hardly surprising.
In how many threads have you participated where you've waxed as lyrical about the movie industry and Microsoft getting rode (by the Chinese especially) as you have about the music industry?
You may have mentioned them in passing, but you have vested interests. It's understandable that the music industry worries you more.
Vice-versa for this guy. The fact that he's giving out about what people like his bosses enforce is brave, I think, and shows a well-maintained level of transparency at ABC.
Are you going to dismiss anything he actually wrote, or just allude to a lop-sided bias toward the industry he works in, which you also have?
Old 21st October 2011
  #5
my time is split between the film business and record business so I see first hand how these issues effect both industries. many in the film business see the record business as the canary in the coal mine.

but here's the bottom line, there's no excuse for piracy, and better legislation and enforcement is the only real solution.

the fact that people can't get what they want, when they want it, is a non-starter in the conversation. the film business works on the principle of release windows, which is why DVDs are not made available for sale of movies currently in theaters for obvious reasons.

just because consumers WANT to be able to see a film at home that is in it's first run of theaters does not give them the RIGHT to steal it.

that's the bottom line - all the talk of WHY people steal isn't really the discussion... From my experience all thieves rationalize their behavior.
Old 21st October 2011
  #6
Quote:
Originally Posted by frawnchy View Post
In how many threads have you participated where you've waxed as lyrical about the movie industry and Microsoft getting rode (by the Chinese especially) as you have about the music industry?
Errr, I can't think of any. If you can find them, quote me.
The most I've commented about movies is that the movie industry has more muscle when it comes to persuading government to act against piracy.


Quote:
It's understandable that the music industry worries you more.
Vice-versa for this guy.
Are you going to dismiss anything he actually wrote, or just allude to a lop-sided bias toward the industry he works in, which you also have?
You completely miss my point. Why am I not surprised.
Most of his text and just about his main point (excuse) for piracy, is lack of access to legal content, which is something you can't level at the music industry. He talks about horrible advertising in popular shows, unexplained breaks in a show's transmission, shows being held back, forcing fans to watch downloads as the shows are aired in the US and UK.
None of which are factors in music piracy.
That was my point....... actually nothing to do with personal bias, just a factual analysis of his blog.
Old 21st October 2011
  #7
Gear Addict
 
frawnchy's Avatar
 

ABC news blog: The Case For Piracy

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso
Errr, I can't think of any. If you can find them, quote me.
The most I've commented about movies is that the movie industry has more muscle when it comes to persuading government to act against piracy.
"You completely miss my point. Why am I not surprised."
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso
Most of his text and just about his excuse (main point) for piracy, is lack of access to legal content, which is something you can't level at the music industry.
He did bring up the dwindling costs of creating and distributing music nowadays (many times less than half what it used to cost) in comparison to the cost of the product (half the cost).
Old 21st October 2011
  #8
Quote:
Originally Posted by frawnchy View Post
"You completely miss my point. Why am I not surprised."
Well, safe to say you can't just make up criticisms to throw at people.
I've never waxed lyrical about the movie industry. Certainly never about Microsoft.
I think you are confused.

Quote:
He did bring up the dwindling costs of creating and distributing music nowadays (many times less than half what it used to cost) in comparison to the cost of the product (half the cost).
Where?
I've read the whole thing a few times now, concentrating especially on the music section and can't see it.
Old 21st October 2011
  #9
Gear Addict
 
frawnchy's Avatar
 

ABC news blog: The Case For Piracy

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso

Well, safe to say you can't just make up criticisms to throw at people.
I've never waxed lyrical about the movie industry. Certainly never about Microsoft.
I think you are confused.
My "how many times have you..." was rhetorical. I even stated after that the most you did was mention it in passing. Point being, of course he's focussed on his industry more. Like you, but inverted.
Quote:
Where?
I've read the whole thing a few times now, concentrating especially on the music section and can't see it.
Now THIS bit I fantasised/extrapolated *puts down whiskey*.
But he does mention fairer, i.e. lower, prices as an imperative.

Sorry for putting your nose out of joint.
Old 21st October 2011
  #10
My nose isn't out of joint, but it turns out the two things you leveled at me you made up.


Incidentally, I read the comments....
The sad thing is the comments are the same old rail against 'big corp' and greed. People think if they pirate they are thumbing their nose at corporate greed.
But the main victims are individual employees - musicians, indie film makers etc.....
And no one ever seems to link the huge profits at Apple, Google and the Telco's to their download history.
Old 21st October 2011
  #11
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by rack gear View Post
just because consumers WANT to be able to see a film at home that is in it's first run of theaters does not give them the RIGHT to steal it.
I agree. The lack of legal options doesn't justify using non-legal sources.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rack gear View Post
the fact that people can't get what they want, when they want it, is a non-starter in the conversation.
But I have to disagree here, insomuch that you call the subject a non-starter. I don't think it's smart to entirely discount the motivation that drives law-abiding, intelligent people, who are willing and able to pay for content when available toward unauthorized channels. In a world where mere individuals can send communications across the globe in under 250 milliseconds, I think it's worth reconsidering how valuable staggered release windows and similar artificial distribution limitations are for any modern content industry.

Effort toward reducing casual piracy is well-spent. But I can't see it as anything other than a critical misstep not to equally resolve toward better serving those currently underserved by the legitimate market.
Old 21st October 2011
  #12
Gear Addict
 
frawnchy's Avatar
 

ABC news blog: The Case For Piracy

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso
My nose isn't out of joint, but it turns out the two things you leveled at me you made up.
I didn't make up the first thing, as I've explained. I was stating that you rarely wax lyrical about movies and software the way you do with music. Which is understandable. How do you keep missing (ignoring) this?

"In how many threads have you participated where you've waxed as lyrical about the movie industry
and Microsoft getting rode (by the Chinese especially) as you have about the music industry? [i.e.you haven't]
You may have mentioned them in passing, but you have vested interests [in music]. It's understandable that the music industry worries you more."

How have you managed to mistake what I've said multiple times?

I don't see me levelling a second anything at you, unless you mean my attribution of thoughts to the author that he may not have meant but I think are inherent when talking about the cost of music, which he did.

On a slightly-related sidenote, have any of you watched PressPausePlay?
It's a lot like this forum, with the back-and-forths, but hopeful nonetheless. Good watch.
I dare say you'll find a hero in Andrew Keen.
Old 22nd October 2011
  #13
Quote:
Originally Posted by aroundtheworld View Post
But I have to disagree here, insomuch that you call the subject a non-starter. I don't think it's smart to entirely discount the motivation that drives law-abiding, intelligent people, who are willing and able to pay for content when available toward unauthorized channels.
Well, you don't seem to understand the economic models at work. Again, there is a reason that DVDs are not available the day a film opens. There is a reason that $200 Million Dollar budgeted films are not shown on TV for free before they open in theaters.

These economic models assume a fair and legal marketplace, whereby the creators can develop economic models that allow for the recoupment of their investment.

If you throw all that out the window, then you through it all out the window. You can't throw out the ROI and expect the investment to remain the same, as we have been seeing in the record business.

Bottom Line - People can want what they want, but it's absolutely no excuse to steal it. None. Zero. Nadda. Period.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aroundtheworld View Post
In a world where mere individuals can send communications across the globe in under 250 milliseconds, I think it's worth reconsidering how valuable staggered release windows and similar artificial distribution limitations are for any modern content industry.
ok then, now you are the expert? how about YOU run the numbers on the ROI and let me know how that works out?

the truth is, I know many of the best and brightest, some of whom are at the highest levels of the industry. we meet both socially and professionally over lunches and dinners, we work on many projects together... the math doesn't work, it just doesn't.

you are going to see some experiments with VOD releases timed closer to, or with theatrical release dates, but if the audience does not support paid, and the numbers are just not there, then it doesn't work.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aroundtheworld View Post
Effort toward reducing casual piracy is well-spent. But I can't see it as anything other than a critical misstep not to equally resolve toward better serving those currently underserved by the legitimate market.
They are not underserved. Thieves are not an underserved demographic. Sometimes people just have to wait, period. If people are willing to pay for a new Xbox or Ps3 but are also willing to steal one before it's commercially available I doubt you'd be making the same argument.
Old 22nd October 2011
  #14
Quote:
Originally Posted by frawnchy View Post

How have you managed to mistake what I've said multiple times?
Probably because it was awkwardly worded?

Quote:
I don't see me levelling a second anything at you, unless you mean my attribution of thoughts to the author that he may not have meant but I think are inherent when talking about the cost of music, which he did.
In other words you made something up to back your argument that was never mentioned in the blog. There is nowhere in the blog the writer claims music is much cheaper to produce and distribute now.
The overwhelming point of the blog is to explain movie and tv piracy on the grounds of availability.
The same criticism can't be leveled at the music industry, and the criticism is rather shaky towards tv. Television companies ration and reschedule international content to protect their home made content.
If you could watch whatever you wanted, whenever you wanted to, in other words if television borders didn't exist, we'd all be watching endless re-runs of 'Real Wives of Orange County' and this ABC Australia blogger would have been replaced by a tech head writing from Mumbai.
Old 22nd October 2011
  #15
Quote:
Originally Posted by frawnchy View Post
On a slightly-related sidenote, have any of you watched PressPausePlay?
It's a lot like this forum, with the back-and-forths, but hopeful nonetheless. Good watch.
I dare say you'll find a hero in Andrew Keen.
I hung out with andrew for a few hours at SXSW this year. We didn't agree on everything, and I think he's off base on a couple of topics within the argument, but generally a fine fellow with good ideas.

core to his belief, is that piracy disrupts the true potential of the digital age by not allowing individual creators to work on their own terms, and let the marketplace work properly.
Old 22nd October 2011
  #16
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by rack gear View Post
They are not underserved. Thieves are not an underserved demographic.
That's a very dogmatic perspective you're offering. Would you consider the Australian market presented in the topic article to be adequately served by the authorized channels? Does the legitimate market meet the consumer demand? No, I'd say the answer is that it plainly does not; it is an underserved market.

I'm not making excuses for what anyone does as a result. We rightly condemn those who make use of unauthorized distribution channels. But to claim that there are no underserved markets is comparable to plugging fingers in your ears.
Old 22nd October 2011
  #17
Gear Addict
 
frawnchy's Avatar
 

ABC news blog: The Case For Piracy

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso

Probably because it was awkwardly worded?
Not if you read the sentence that resolved the awkward rhetorical question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso
In other words you made something up to back your argument that was never mentioned in the blog. There is nowhere in the blog the writer claims music is much cheaper to produce and distribute now.
He states that music prices should come down to something "fairer". I gave him the benefit of the doubt and presumed he meant it the only way he could mean it rationally.
If I went the opposite way, then when he said "fairer" I could have thought (negatively) that he meant "Waaaah, I want it cheap!!!". Sure, a lot of people on the net are just cheap bastards...
Benefit of the doubt, though. Presuming the worst is a bad way to be.

As for the TV border-destruction destroying local TV. Maybe that could happen. But the shows I love tend to be on HBO, AMC or BBC, and I have no access to the first two through legal channels.
Also, local TV helps to kill local TV (Irish television is diabolical. Go to YouTube, search Fair City. This is our version of Coronation Street. I apologise in advance).
Old 22nd October 2011
  #18
Quote:
Originally Posted by aroundtheworld View Post
That's a very dogmatic perspective you're offering. Would you consider the Australian market presented in the topic article to be adequately served by the authorized channels?
it doesn't matter. the market provides what it feels is best for it's business. consumers get to vote with dollars and buy or not buy the product or service. they don't get to steal the product or service they wish they could get... it just doesn't work that way. sorry.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aroundtheworld View Post
Does the legitimate market meet the consumer demand? No, I'd say the answer is that it plainly does not; it is an underserved market.
it is not an undeserved market - of course people want stuff cheaper or for free, duh! of course people don't want to wait for things. too bad. there is a reason why - and you obviously don't want to acknowledge the economic models at work.

again, you can't just make the rules you want, if you remove the ROI you also remove the investment. the market works the way it does to sustain itself.

there are other legal ways for these consumers to get the content, but the truth is that it is expensive and they don't want to pay for it, so they use that as an excuse for stealing. sorry, it still does not fly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aroundtheworld View Post
I'm not making excuses for what anyone does as a result.
it certainly appears that you are!

Quote:
Originally Posted by aroundtheworld View Post
We rightly condemn those who make use of unauthorized distribution channels. But to claim that there are no underserved markets is comparable to plugging fingers in your ears.
It is NOT an underserved market, period. It's just people who don't want to pay the cost to explore other legal means, or just don't want to wait. Time and Money are the issues here, not an undeserved demographic.

sorry.
Old 22nd October 2011
  #19
Quote:
Originally Posted by rack gear View Post
Time and Money are the issues here, not an undeserved demographic.
This is too true.
I read the same in the comments section of the blog.
One writer complains they want to watch a programme, but they don't want to pay for cable to watch it.
One of my favourite shows is the British made 'Grand Designs'.
It generally airs in the UK in September, in Australia we get to see it the following July/August.
It ain't a date specific programme. Episodes from ten years ago are still being aired and enjoyed.
So what's the justification in viewing it illegally, except "I can't wait"?
Old 22nd October 2011
  #20
Quote:
Originally Posted by frawnchy View Post
the shows I love tend to be on HBO, AMC or BBC, and I have no access to the first two through legal channels.
Also, local TV helps to kill local TV
As usual the argument seems to come down to subjective things like personal taste.
Personally I would rather not have locally made documentary, arts and political shows torpedoed by ratings winners like 'Jersey Shore' and 'Dancing With the Stars U.S.'
Because they are popular they get shown anyway, but the local content laws allow more varied content that suits all viewers to be protected.
Old 22nd October 2011
  #21
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by rack gear View Post
there are other legal ways for these consumers to get the content, but the truth is that it is expensive and they don't want to pay for it, so they use that as an excuse for stealing. sorry, it still does not fly.
Do you see a difference between excusing an action and discussing [some of the catalysts to] an action? Because I do. If you don't, it would explain why you are so determined to conflate the two.
Old 22nd October 2011
  #22
Quote:
Originally Posted by aroundtheworld View Post
Do you see a difference between excusing an action and discussing [some of the catalysts to] an action? Because I do. If you don't, it would explain why you are so determined to conflate the two.
I'm not conflating anything, I know the difference and so do you. Does it matter why someone commits a crime? Does it really matter the rationalizations people use to steal? No, not really.

The only catalyst to the action here is selfish greed, poor impulse control and a lack of consequences.

You keep avoiding the issue of the economic models at work, and the foundation of a market economy, why is that?

If you think there's a better business model, lay it on us... run the numbers, describe the ROI... go ahead. I'll be waiting... there's a reason why things are structured this way, and one more time, you can not selectively change the model, if you change the revenue model, you have to change the investment model... which you are either unwilling, or unable to discuss.

there's no money fairy that's going to compensate for the revenue model changing... just because some people justify stealing when they are selfish and impatient.
Old 22nd October 2011
  #23
Quote:
Originally Posted by aroundtheworld View Post
Do you see a difference between excusing an action and [i]discussing
I agree with 'rack Gear'.
We are discussing the issue.
We're discussing the fact the ABC blog puts out a bunch of excuses for piracy which we don't agree with.
Fine, the ABC's technology editor has had his say, we're now entitled to ours.

Yes, let's discuss it.
Is it right to download a tv programme illegally because you don't want to purchase cable? Is it right when you can watch the programme freely and legally a few months after it's aired on it's home network?
There are lots of annoying things in life. The question is, do you rewrite the laws to suit your personal situation, or abide by the laws while lobbying for change.
The ABC accepts viewer feedback, and also has an active viewer panel advising the broadcaster on how it runs.
Old 22nd October 2011
  #24
Gear Addict
 
frawnchy's Avatar
 

ABC news blog: The Case For Piracy

Quote:
Originally Posted by rack gear
The only catalyst to the action here is selfish greed, poor impulse control and a lack of consequences.

You keep avoiding the issue of the economic models at work, and the foundation of a market economy, why is that?

If you think there's a better business model, lay it on us... run the numbers, describe the ROI... go ahead. I'll be waiting...
Well, obviously there is a better model, because they're moving towards it: simultaneous broadcasting, or close to. What was the point in Ireland's national broadcaster paying huge sums of cash for shows (Lost, Desperate Housewives, etc) people weren't watching on their station (negating the adverts), because they'd already downloaded it once the Americans had shown it?
So, our broadcaster said "Bring the lead-time down, or we can't afford to keep it.", and so they did. We get Desperate Housewives a few days after the Americans, and Lost had a two-day turnaround time.
This happened because people made it happen. Which, apparently, you think is unjust and unworkable.
Also, this consumer demand is precisely what the free-market is based on.
Demand---> Supply---> Happy Customers
Demand---> Don't Supply --->Jobless.
Old 22nd October 2011
  #25
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by rack gear View Post
If you think there's a better business model, lay it on us... run the numbers, describe the ROI... go ahead. I'll be waiting... there's a reason why things are structured this way, and one more time, you can not selectively change the model, if you change the revenue model, you have to change the investment model... which you are either unwilling, or unable to discuss.
This is your opinion. You think that nothing can change unless everything changes. In all likelihood, you are wrong, because changes are already happening -- slowly. As frawnchy points out just above, the delay between regional releases is already shortening in a number of locations. The producers of Lost and Desperate Housewives didn't have to completely reinvent their distribution and financing model; their Irish distribution partners just made clear that the program rights-holders would make more money (in that they would otherwise no longer continue licensing the show) if the artificial delay was reduced.

These don't have to be fundamental, structural changes that the topic article is advocating for. He simply wants to buy a DVD in Australia earlier than months later from the American release. He wants to watch television shows when they are most culturally resonant, and that means not weeks or months after their original release. He wants to watch the Olympics live. You can call him selfish, greedy, impatient, and an apologist for criminals. I can call you shortsighted.
Old 22nd October 2011
  #26
Lives for gear
 
AwwDeOhh's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by frawnchy View Post
I didn't make up the first thing, as I've explained. I was stating that you rarely wax lyrical about movies and software the way you do with music. Which is understandable. How do you keep missing (ignoring) this?
Not to speak for Chris, but this IS a music forum...
Old 22nd October 2011
  #27
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by aroundtheworld View Post
This is your opinion. You think that nothing can change unless everything changes. In all likelihood, you are wrong, because changes are already happening -- slowly. As frawnchy points out just above, the delay between regional releases is already shortening in a number of locations. The producers of Lost and Desperate Housewives didn't have to completely reinvent their distribution and financing model; their Irish distribution partners just made clear that the program rights-holders would make more money (in that they would otherwise no longer continue licensing the show) if the artificial delay was reduced.

These don't have to be fundamental, structural changes that the topic article is advocating for. He simply wants to buy a DVD in Australia earlier than months later from the American release. He wants to watch television shows when they are most culturally resonant, and that means not weeks or months after their original release. He wants to watch the Olympics live. You can call him selfish, greedy, impatient, and an apologist for criminals. I can call you shortsighted.
As long as everyone gets paid, it's a model. If not, it's an exercise in futility.
Old 22nd October 2011
  #28
Quote:
Originally Posted by aroundtheworld View Post
He simply wants to buy a DVD in Australia earlier than months later from the American release. He wants to watch television shows when they are most culturally resonant, and that means not weeks or months after their original release. He wants to watch the Olympics live. You can call him selfish, greedy, impatient, and an apologist for criminals. I can call you shortsighted.
That's great. I want it to.
In the meantime I'm not making up my own laws and acting illegally, but each to their own I guess.
The couple of examples given are easy to fix, bring forward scheduled broadcasts and release DVD's closer to their U.S. release date. Great, no problem.
You don't mention the fact people are annoyed by adverts, and watch illegal streams so they can avoid advertising. Comments to the blog complain they can't play government banned computer games. Any quick fix for those?
Huge sporting events are paid for by partner broadcasters and advertising.
If the BBC or ABC pay big money to show the Olympics, it's then their choice what they show, when and where. If people are watching the event illegally, they're punching a hole in the current licensing and funding model for sporting events.
Any quick fix for that?
You say 'shortsighted', I say practical reality.
Old 22nd October 2011
  #29
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
That's great. I want it to.
In the meantime I'm not making up my own laws and acting illegally, but each to their own I guess.
The couple of examples given are easy to fix, bring forward scheduled broadcasts and release DVD's closer to their U.S. release date. Great, no problem.
You don't mention the fact people are annoyed by adverts, and watch illegal streams so they can avoid advertising. Comments to the blog complain they can't play government banned computer games. Any quick fix for those?
Huge sporting events are paid for by partner broadcasters and advertising.
If the BBC or ABC pay big money to show the Olympics, it's then their choice what they show, when and where. If people are watching the event illegally, they're punching a hole in the current licensing and funding model for sporting events.
Any quick fix for that?
You say 'shortsighted', I say practical reality.
Well said and accurate.
Old 23rd October 2011
  #30
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by aroundtheworld View Post
This is your opinion. You think that nothing can change unless everything changes. In all likelihood, you are wrong, because changes are already happening -- slowly. As frawnchy points out just above, the delay between regional releases is already shortening in a number of locations. The producers of Lost and Desperate Housewives didn't have to completely reinvent their distribution and financing model; their Irish distribution partners just made clear that the program rights-holders would make more money (in that they would otherwise no longer continue licensing the show) if the artificial delay was reduced.

These don't have to be fundamental, structural changes that the topic article is advocating for. He simply wants to buy a DVD in Australia earlier than months later from the American release. He wants to watch television shows when they are most culturally resonant, and that means not weeks or months after their original release. He wants to watch the Olympics live. You can call him selfish, greedy, impatient, and an apologist for criminals. I can call you shortsighted.
There is a global economy and the internet, is there any reason he couldn't buy the american release off the internet and have it shippied? Or encourage his local shops to carry imports? Wanting to watch the olympics live is fair, but I didn't read the article so I don't know the context.
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump