Australian Government Considering Three Strikes; Consumers Not Considered Stakeholders

from the but-of-course dept

Yet another country is considering a three strikes law, kicking people off the internet based on accusations (not convictions) of copyright infringement. This time, it’s Australia, and as always, the question of who is a stakeholder in this discussion seems to involve the government assuming that it’s one party and one party only: the entertainment industry. They’re the ones “advising” the government on this. And while some ISPs have been invited to be present at a meeting, no one actually representing consumer interests has yet to be invited.

Filed Under: , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Australian Government Considering Three Strikes; Consumers Not Considered Stakeholders”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

If only the people would stop for a moment and think it through.

How hard can it possibly be to boycott entertainment media for a month?
Its asking you to give up alot, but honestly they don’t think you matter and are outright telling you as much.

So why not take your dollars and vote that way?
Boycott every new release.
Let them see what happens.
If you need a reason, you saving your money so when you get 3 strikes you can afford another provider.
Let them suck on all releases flopping to show them how we feel about the plans.

I mean your not important enough to be a stakeholder, maybe your money is more important to them.

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Re: Re: Response to: That Anonymous Coward on Aug 23rd, 2011 @ 7:40pm

They can try to claim that, but I think the theaters and other outlets for their sales would be yelling alot louder.

Its one thing to bow down to big media, it is another when your revenue starts dropping off because businesses are failing and there is a direct line to your policy.

The problem is it is like herding cats, and people would think others will fight for them. That going and getting the new Beiber CD won’t matter in the long run.

They would also have a hard time making the piracy angle stick when very few 3 strikes letters have gone out.

btrussell (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

I’m with you two.

About a decade for me as well. Little longer. It was right after Ottawa said they weren’t going to subsidize farmers, Doctors were to have a $350 000 cap on income, but they were going to add a tax to support the Ottawa Senators Hockey franchise.

I don’t know about anyone else, but I will need a Doctor long before I ever need a hockey player.

I put that at about 120 purchases, minimum from me, they have lost.

Funny thing about that? The government still got their tax dollars from that money.

Theatre pops corn,
and I don’t care…

G Thompson (profile) says:

Re: Re:

What is this think you speak of?

We will have no thinking here! Thinking is wrong! Did you not read the warning labels?

WARNING: Docs after in oldspeak. Untruth, make-ups only. Make-ups make THOUGHTCRIME. Careful. Supervisor rank or not to read. This read warn you. THOUGHTCRIME in docs after. SEXCRIME in docs after. Careful. If self excited, report. If other excited, report. Everything report. Withhold accurate report is INFOCRIME. THis warn you. Are you authorised, if no stop read now! Make report! We know. Careful. Any resemblance, living or dead, is ungood. Make report. If fail make report, is INFOCRIME. Make report. If report made on failing to make report, this paradox. Paradox is LOGICRIME. Do not do anything. Do not fail to do anything. This warn you. Why you nervous? Was it you? We know. IMPORTANT: Do not read next sentence. This sentence for official inspect only. Now look. Now don?t. Now look. Now don?t. Careful. Everything not banned compulsory. Everything not compulsory banned. Views expressed within not necessarily those of publishers, editors, writers, characters.

You did it. We know. This warn you.

[for a printable version of this opening Warning text from ?The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen: The Black Dossier?, written by Alan Moore click here]

E. Zachary Knight (profile) says:

Based on Australia’s experience with the recent R18 video game rating issue, it is no wonder they don’t want the public involved.

Australia recently asked the public if they thought that Australia should add an R18 rating in order to be more inline with movies which have an R18 rating and other countries that have an R18 equivalent. In that request to the public for comment, the majority of submissions from the public were in favor of an R18 for video games. This did not sit well with politicians who do not want it and they have been stalling for nearly a year since they asked for public opinion.

They don’t want to have to go through that again with 3 strikes laws. It is uncomfortable to go against public opinion, especially after you asked for public input.

mike allen (profile) says:

It wont work goes against human rights (united nations).
easily worked around.
another name in tne house would take broadband from another supplier.
ISPs would soon lose customers as any one cut off would immediately stop direct debits (would you pay for a service you are not getting.
as too blocking sites (taking of domains) that don’t work either.
If the MAFIAA had given people what they wanted when they wanted it five or ten years ago they would not be in the war with customers now.

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Re: True Stakeholders ...

We gave them the laws to protect their intellectual properties. They then twisted what was supposed to be a short term benefit into this giant beast and keep the items locked away long after they should have entered the public domain, breaking the original agreement.

Now they want more powers to “protect” their business model, not the content. Never confuse the 2. The business model being used frustrates people who want to pay them money, and they then seek other alternatives because the content holders refuse to make it easy. This is a failure to understand what consumers want, and impose what the business model from the 1950’s demands be done.

Rather than behave like parents who insist on yet more laws to wrap the planet in nerf to protect their precious snowflakes, maybe it is time we tell them No. You lie about your losses, you lie about the damage, you get no more. Its obvious to everyone at this point that the content holders have no interest in joining the rest of the world in embracing the internet, so why give them another law to cling to a business model that no longer is viable as being used.

Jay (profile) says:

Re: True Stakeholders ... Please stand up.

“What have consumers ever contributed to the value of Intellectual Property?”

Remixing music, movies, and games.

Spending untold amounts for collections and spreading news about good series of books.

Demand for sparkling vampires to stand beside the first Nosferatu.

Expanding on age old myths and legends by making current equivalents.

Inspiring younger generations of movie goers, storytellers, and content creators to find what works in making a compelling novel, music for a new generation, and entertainment that they come to enjoy.

Shout outs to the content creators that came before (Trope Warning)

Far greater media output than one segment of the industry can put together in a year.

Larger distribution channels based on six degrees of separation.

I could continue this all day. The question is, what has Intellectual Property laws done for content creation?

I believe we both know the answer to that.

darryl says:

Consumers Not Considered Stakeholders

Wow, that might be because consumers ARE NOT Stakeholders.

there are 3 relatively simple options here:

1) you do not understand what a ‘stakeholder’ is
2) you do not understand what a ‘consumer’ is;
3) you do not understand what either stakeholder, or consumer is!

A ‘stakeholder’ is someone who holds a ‘stake’ in the business, it from the gold mining days, where you “stake a claim”, making you a ‘stakeholder’, it is a simple term, but the person who the stakeholder, is not the same person that stakeholder sells the gold he has mined.

That is a “consumer”, the stakeholder is a ‘producer’.

The stakeholder is the one who has taken on the risk of buying a ‘claim’ and has to try to make a profit from his staked out claim.

The consumer, is just the consumer, he does not have to buy the gold (or product) off that stakeholder, and has assumed no risk.

So for someone or a group to say that the consumer is not a stakeholder is totally correct.

Do I need to explain the difference between ‘producing’ and ‘consuming’ ?

It’s not rocket science !!!

Richard (profile) says:

Re: Consumers Not Considered Stakeholders

Once again Darryl you are wrong. A stakeholder is anyone who has a valid interest in a business or trade.

To quote Wikipedia
“a person, group, organization, or system who affects or can be affected by an organization’s actions “

Thus, for a (tenancy) corner shop, the stakeholders would include the landlord, the shopkeeper, the suppliers and the customers.

I agree it’s not rocket science – so why do you get it so wrong?

If you don’t agree with the Wikipedia entry you can of course try editing it – and see how long it is before you are reversed.

G Thompson (profile) says:

Re: Consumers Not Considered Stakeholders

Darryl, for your education I think you should head on over to the Australia Post website and read exactly what they refer to as a stakeholder, since it is highly relevant in this sort of situation.

[here’s a quick summary for you too]
Australia Post’s stakeholders include government (local, state and federal), regulatory bodies, customers, suppliers, industry bodies, community and environmental organisations, the media, our workforce and key opinion leaders.

Now, imaging Australia Post as the Government, since the Federal government in this case is the one that enacts and codify specific legislation/statutes that would be required under this wanted action by the Entertainment Industry [AFACT].

Now as an Australian citizen like myself (I’m assuming here that you are eligible to vote too) you are not just a stakeholder but a primary stakeholder since anything the government enacts will fully and specifically effect you in some way, shape or form.

As for your strange assumption that a consumer/customer is not a stakeholder, that is absolutely not correct in any way. Did you actually go to school? finish your HSC or even School/Leaving Certificate (dependant on State)?

If so, think back to whom your commerce teacher was, remember their name? now Look in the White pages, if you find their phone number, please call it and tell them that they failed dismally in teaching you any basic economics whatsoever.

Or are you somehow confusing your school studies about the Victorian Goldrush and “staking a claim” to the word stakeholder to its modern business/legal definition?

Because the current and common sense definition nowadays means “any group or individuals that have an interest in and/or are affected by a business, government, or other organisation”

darryl says:

Re: Re: Consumers Not Considered Stakeholders

yes australia post is a publicly shared company, and if you purchase shares in that company you become a stakeholder, yes alot of people who consume a product of service decide to BECOME stakeholders, but purchasing a “stake’ of that holding.

So again, if I have “a stake” in that holding, I am a stakeholder, but I do not have to be a stakeholder to be a consumer or customer.

I can own MS shares, and be a stakeholder of Microsoft, or I can buy Microsoft’s products and be a consumer of MS’s products.

Or I can do both, but if you are only a “consumer, or customer” you are not a stakeholder.

Got it yet ?

G Thompson (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Consumers Not Considered Stakeholders

“Got it yet?”
I get that you have absolutely no clue about the basic concepts and fundamental common sense about good/service providers, government, communities at large, share markets, nor actually anything having to do with business.

Whether you are an internal, external or primary consumer of services/goods of any entity or/and those services/goods could conceivably effect you in some reasonable way then by definition you are classified as a STAKEHOLDER.

NOt only that but the whole context for this article is that a Government, you know the one we currently have in Federal Parliament headed by Ms Gillard, is doing this and therefore the public by the principal that the Government is a service and a servant of the people/citizens, then the public (all public) is a stakeholder in any decisions or talks that the government partakes in.

But I suspect that trying to convey this concept to you, and how you are actually wrong, is like masturbating with a cheese grater, an amusing concept but ultimately futile and extremely painful.

Ron Rezendes (profile) says:

Re: Consumers Not Considered Stakeholders

Darryl, Darryl Daryl, and your other brother Darryl,

Eventually, all content is SUPPOSED to end up in the Public Domain. So, consumers are very much a stakeholder despite your opposition to such a claim. You see, the content is only to be controlled by the creator for a set amount of time. Then, the content becomes part of our shared culture. The creator can still sell it if they desire but so can others. However, the monopoly is over and now we ALL OWN it!

Reality bites hardest when you try to ignore it!

daryl says:

Re: Re: Consumers Not Considered Stakeholders

all content is SUPPOSED to end up in the Public Domain.


Ok so if I write you a letter, at some point you have to make that ‘content’ public domain ?
If I take a photo, and keep it in my bottom draw, when do I have to make it available in public domain ?

you appear to believe ‘content’ is ‘EITHER” public domain or copyrighted !!!.

When the fact is MOST content is NEITHER.

again,,, its not rocket science (which you Americans cannot do either anymore) !!!

ThatAVGuy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Consumers Not Considered Stakeholders

I could be completely wrong, but my understanding is this

If you take a photo and keep it in your bottom draw you still own that photo and get the copyright of that photo instantly upon taking that photo.
even if you never publish it or do anything with it you are granted a copyright of that photo anyway.
If that photo is found in the future and they decide to publish it(lets say you moved and forgot to take the photo with you), when you took that photo matters to if its in the public domain or if you still have legal rights to it.

again don’t flame me here – I may be completely wrong, but this was my understanding of it and I’m happy to be corrected.

jimbo says:

it’s about par for the course. the public are always left out of opinions when companies and governments could easily be affected. what is always ignored as well is that without the public, the companies would cease if their product isn’t bought and governments can be replaced at elections when the wrong decisions are made that adversely affect the public. the 3 strikes will still come in tho’, just as it has in other countries. once the damage it does is recognized, it will be too late to change things. just what the ‘industries’ want. that will, in their eyes, keep people buying plastic disks. nothing like embracing new technology, and this is nothing like it!

grumpy (profile) says:

DoS, anyone?

Having a system based on accusations only is a fine old recipe for DoS’ing whoever put it in place. And how about swamping the complaint handlers with baseless accusations – wouldn’t that DoS the entire system?

To me a system like this looks like having a “Kick me!” sign on your back when groups like Anonymous go on rampages at the drop of a hat.

Donny (profile) says:


Now I know real life’s not so simple and naive, but aren’t the public represented at these meetings by, uh, y’know, their politicians? Isn’t that the idea of a representative democracy?

There’s no need to have a bunch of consumers advising the government because the government are (/are representing) the consumers already.

abc gum says:

In these media industry inspired kick you to the curb pipe dreams, is it considered breaking the contract when they cut your service? I would think so, but has this been tested in court anywhere? I assume that the early termination fee would not be collectible in this case.

I assume that there is a list of approved accusers which are allowed to accuse, everyone else is ignored – they are not stakeholders after all. Also, there is probably a list of those who can not be kicked to the curb. I would like to see such lists.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...