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

from the elegant-explanations dept

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+


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 20th, 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...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    icon
    Geno0wl (profile), Jun 20th, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Jun 20th, 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!"

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    icon
    techflaws (profile), Jun 20th, 2014 @ 9:31am

    So, because of piracy a 200 (?) m dollar movie like Avatar could not be produced let alone turn a profit. Convincing.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 20th, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 20th, 2014 @ 10:16am

    Show of hands, who here respects copyright law? (Note: I'm not asking who infringes, only respects.)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    icon
    ltlw0lf (profile), Jun 20th, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    identicon
    Ruben, Jun 20th, 2014 @ 10:21am

    Re:

    If only.

    The world would be a better place without Cameron shitting all over the place.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 20th, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    Baron von Robber, Jun 20th, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 20th, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    bobby b, Jun 20th, 2014 @ 10:48am

    I love the morality of thieves:

    "It wasn't a very good lock, so I'm not really stealing."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    Baron von Robber, Jun 20th, 2014 @ 10:52am

    Re:

    What thieves? Who was deprived of their property?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    icon
    James Jensen (profile), Jun 20th, 2014 @ 10:56am

    Re:

    I love the morality of maximalists:

    "I want a monopoly, so I'm going to call it property."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    icon
    James Jensen (profile), Jun 20th, 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++...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    icon
    Geno0wl (profile), Jun 20th, 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".

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 20th, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    identicon
    Michael, Jun 20th, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    icon
    James Jensen (profile), Jun 20th, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    identicon
    Michael, Jun 20th, 2014 @ 11:26am

    Re:

    The problem is that the bulk of people are reasonable and it is unreasonable to view downloading content as theft.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 20th, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    icon
    Bergman (profile), Jun 20th, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    identicon
    Ruben, Jun 20th, 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."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    icon
    Bergman (profile), Jun 20th, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 20th, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    identicon
    Graham Burke, Jun 20th, 2014 @ 12:03pm

    "For the record, I'm not a dingo"

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 20th, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    identicon
    Baron von Robber, Jun 20th, 2014 @ 12:44pm

    Re:

    Do you have a signed certificate from a zoologist that states "I am not a dingo"?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    icon
    That One Guy (profile), Jun 20th, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 20th, 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

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 20th, 2014 @ 1:46pm

    Re: Re:

    Well you got part of the argument right.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32.  
    identicon
    Baron von Robber, Jun 20th, 2014 @ 1:55pm

    Re: Re:

    For Sherlock then? Aye.

    The 40 year max?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33.  
    icon
    Sheogorath (profile), Jun 20th, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34.  
    identicon
    Zonker, Jun 20th, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35.  
    identicon
    Kronomex, Jun 20th, 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!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 20th, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 20th, 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?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 20th, 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!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  39.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 20th, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  40.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 21st, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  41.  
    identicon
    observer, Jun 21st, 2014 @ 8:32am

    Re:

    ACS:Law did a better job of pretending it stood for local content providers, and that's just sad.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  42.  
    identicon
    observer, Jun 21st, 2014 @ 8:47am

    Re:

    I love the morality of straw men.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  43.  
    identicon
    observer, Jun 21st, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  44.  
    identicon
    Yoshord, Jun 21st, 2014 @ 2:43pm

    Re:

    No, it's because of Hollywood Accounting that no movie ever could produce a profit.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  45.  
    identicon
    Anon Unknown, Jun 21st, 2014 @ 6:17pm

    Re: I wish Steam would share numbers

    Agreed. Steam has made it easy to get the games that I want.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  46.  
    identicon
    Zonker, Jun 23rd, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
Advertisement
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Support Techdirt - Get Great Stuff!

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.