Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Australia Piracy Your Rights Online

Aussie Government Brings Back Piracy Talks 114

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the flog-the-messenger dept.
joshgnosis writes "The Australian Attorney-General's department is set to hold a closed-door meeting with internet service providers, film lobby groups and consumer groups over proposals to reduce piracy on Thursday. The meetings were at a stalemate after sources said that neither the ISPs or the film groups could see eye to eye on the best proposal but the department confirmed that the meetings will go ahead and will this time include consumer advocate groups, who were previously excluded from the meetings."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Aussie Government Brings Back Piracy Talks

Comments Filter:
  • Surprising (Score:5, Funny)

    by multiben (1916126) on Monday June 04, 2012 @10:09PM (#40215883)
    I didn't know Thursdays were particularly bad for piracy
  • by GoodNewsJimDotCom (2244874) on Monday June 04, 2012 @10:12PM (#40215901)
    Calculate both the price of piracy enforcement and the price of piracy honestly, and see which costs more.

    You don't even need to calculate the benefits of a society with free access to all the works of man, where poor people have just as much access to culture as wealthy individuals. For if you start calculating the benefits for a society to have free educational books, and as much culture as it wants, a more educated populace far outweighs a kings ransom. You start getting into the realm of,"While we'd need to rework compensation, we can't discount that a better educated populace would have the ability to create superior works."

    So yeah, there's untold wealth to be gained for limited copyrights, but lets just focus on the cost of piracy vs cost of enforcing piracy. The cost of enforcing piracy according to PIPA and SOPA is freedom of speech. Wait, you're saying we'll give away everything that matters to us just so a couple people could hold onto an antiquated profit model of limited distribution channels? Well I guess it isn't really calculating societal costs at all, but just making sure the select few continue to be catered to.
    • by Darkness404 (1287218) on Monday June 04, 2012 @10:14PM (#40215919)
      What really needs to happen is we, as a society, need to realize that intellectual "property" is not property at all and we should stop treating it as such. IP and property have nothing in common.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by bhlowe (1803290)
        1. Monetary investment and man-hours go into making things--be they widgets, houses, software, photos, or movies.
        2. Stealing physical property is "wrong" and usually "illegal".
        3. Someone who invests in the creation of a product has some right to expect to be able to sell their works for a profit.
        4. Massive downloading and viewing "pirated content" deprives the creators of some financial return.
        5. This lost revenue could impact every aspect of the creative process--from salaries and jobs to taxes coll
        • by Anonymous Coward

          1. Monetary investment and man-hours go into making things--be they widgets, houses, software, photos, or movies.
          2. Stealing physical property is "wrong" and usually "illegal".
          3. Someone who invests in the creation of a product has some right to expect to be able to sell their works for a profit.
          4. Massive downloading and viewing "pirated content" deprives the creators of some financial return.
          5. This lost revenue could impact every aspect of the creative process--from salaries and jobs to taxes collected.
          6. Governments, creators of content, and ultimately consumers have an interest in preventing mass piracy.

          Non-sequitur in regards with the interest of consumers - the consumers interest is still "get me my consumption at the lowest price possible".

          • by Necroman (61604)

            Non-sequitur in regards with the interest of consumers - the consumers interest is still "get me my consumption at the lowest price possible".

            For the individual consumer that actually pays for content, it is in their best interest to get other consumers to pay for content. The more people that pay, the more money that goes to the creators, so they can hit their break even point and then make a profit. If producers can guess they will have more people purchasing their product, the initial price may be lower.

            • Or higher. If they could completely prevent piracy, the prices would probably rise. After all, there would be no competition.

            • by Anonymous Coward

              If producers can guess they will have more people purchasing their product, the initial price may be lower.

              Nope, this assumes competition. Companies will always work to maximize profits, without competition the price factor will be determined at what point people will stop purchasing the product.
              At this time the music industry is organized in an anti-competitive way. This means that the only price regulation that occurs is where customers decides that the risk of getting caught for piracy is less than the cost of the product. (Yes, the kind of music we are talking about here is a production rather than a work of

            • by mcgrew (92797) *

              The more people that pay, the more money that goes to the creators, so they can hit their break even point and then make a profit.

              Yeah, piracy really hurt The Avengers, didn't it? Funny how they release it world-wide at the same time and break box office records, isn't it? The industry you work in suffers from extreme stupidity. Nobody that stupid deserves a damned dime.

            • by P-niiice (1703362)
              I have yet to see that argument work in real life, but the opposite has (monopoly has increased price and/or reduced service) .

              Cable tv, air travel, healthcare, etc. Music went down in price, because the music companies got spanked in court. There must be a basis in fact for that argument to be repeated so much, and I'd like to hear it.
          • > Non-sequitur with regard to the interest of consumers - the consumer's interest is still "get me my consumption at the lowest price possible".

            After all if it works for major supermarkets.

            Ah, wait...

            But not for producers for supermarkets

            Ah, wait...I see your point

            Supermarkets sell plastic discs, that cost pennies to produce, for pounds. Whereas they pay farmers pennies for produce that is really useful.

            This is far too difficult for me. What I need is a government committee to sort it all out.

        • by tbird81 (946205) on Tuesday June 05, 2012 @02:18AM (#40216849)

          3. Someone who invests in the creation of a product has some right to expect to be able to sell their works for a profit.

          Not true at all. (Well, what you've said is techinically true, they have a right to expect profit, not to make a profit.)

          If I go around making balls of dust from the vacuum cleaner bag, I don't have some entitlement to make money from that. Even if I worked really hard to make them, and even if I hired staff to help me make them. It's something no-one wants and it's something people can make themselves, so I'm not going to make money.

          If I paint my fence outside my house, I can't expect people to have to pay to view it. Even though mucheffort went into it.

          In short, there's no inherent reason why anyone should be paid for writing a song. There's some rules that governments have made to get these guys money - but now they've forgotten that, and they expect to earn millions for doing nothing.

        • by rtb61 (674572) on Tuesday June 05, 2012 @04:27AM (#40217255) Homepage

          1. Normal people often do stuff for free and even pay for the privilege, be it sports, hiking, handicrafts, or making music or being in plays. Why should the community pay for some else's hobby?
          2. Copying is not stealing it is copying. If you want no one to copy it 'shh' keep it a secret, we wont care.
          3. No one is taking your work from you, you still have your copy and you can sell it.
          4. We don't believe you about massive downloading, you always lie, always. You lie about the quality of your content. You lie about the value of your content. You pay off politicians to lie for you. You sell advertisements which most often are lies. You infected news which now sells lies as news. You are lying liars that always lie.
          5. So what? Get a real productive job to subsidise your hobby just like everyone else. You lie about the taxes, yet another lie. Money not spent on your content will be spent elsewhere in the economy, often with far better social returns and, still generating taxes, liar.
          6. Yet another lie. Consumers for a start would be far better off spending that money on better quality food for example rather than on dubious quality often anti-social content. Besides when do we have enough content, there is already more than any one person can consume in a life time. Why should an artificial creation of value continue when it supplies something we already have to an excess.
          7. All your points are distorted PR=B$, lies for profit and greed. It is what you do. To further the 'USEFULL' arts and sciences, an 'ARTIFICIAL' opportunity to profit was created, when that work fails in that regard it is not entitled to that artificial monopoly, when that work is not 'TESTED' to ensure it meets that requirement it is not entitled to that artificial temporary monopoly.
          8. You are your industry are not a benefit to the economy it is a parasite upon the economy, that can only be afforded when the economy produces as surplus. Right now global economies are tightening due to increasing population and depletion of resources, guess where that places you parasitical industry versus food, clothing, healthcare, transportation, education, energy production, potable water provision, heck you're even way below refuse disposal on the requirement scale.

          • by bhlowe (1803290)
            1. Consumers want and expect excellent quality entertainment. Hobby level Tosh-0 content has some good stuff, but it isn't what most people want.
            2. That is like a crook who steals and justifies it by the weak weak security system in place... So I guess you would be in favor of stronger anti-piracy technology added to digital media?
            3. Anyone who doesn't pay for something because they can get it for free has stolen the creators ability to sell it. Yes, some people could never afford to buy a movie legitimat
        • by mcgrew (92797) *

          Someone who invests in the creation of a product has some right to expect to be able to sell their works for a profit.

          Yeah? Tell that to someone with an underwater mortgage, or who bought faceBook stock.

          Massive downloading and viewing "pirated content" deprives the creators of some financial return.

          Fallacious. When Lou and Randy in Britain want to see the latest Big Bang Theory and they pirate it because its simply isn't available there, how are they costing the producers any money? If they download a movie

        • 3. Someone who invests in the creation of a product has some right to expect to be able to sell their works for a profit.

          Licencing is not selling. Selling would be granting an exclusive licence and giving up your own rights to the product in question. Even people who don't think that IP is baloney hesitate when the argument is made that you should be able to profit forever from a work.

        • Every single property system be it capitalism, communism, etc. relies on the one defining characteristic of property: it can only be used to its fullest one way.

          For example, neither me and my neighbor can get 100% enjoyment out of one car. If I want to take the car and drive to Canada and my neighbor wants to take the same car and go to Mexico at the same time, we can't. I cannot have a piece of land and grow beans on it and someone else put a parking lot on that same land. I cannot have a DVD and play
          • by bhlowe (1803290)
            How about counterfeiting a $100 bill? That way you and your neighbor can both use it.

            There are plenty of examples of intangible "property" that cannot be legally (as defined by the US courts) copied. You seem awfully passionate about how you and your ilk are entitled to see commercially produced creative work without having to pay for it. Get off your wallet, you tightwad.
            • First, a $100 bill is worthless and represents nothing. If we had a sane monetary system, that $100 bill would be $100 worth of gold, but that is beside the point.

              Secondly, if we had a sane monetary system, that $100 would be the same thing as a check and while you should be able to legally copy it, it should not be able to be used as a $100 bill because there is not $100 extra worth of gold in the treasury. In the same vein, you're free to take a copy of my check and to take as many copies as you'd lik
      • by Dan541 (1032000)

        What really needs to happen is we, as a society, need to realize that intellectual "property" is not property at all and we should stop treating it as such. IP and property have nothing in common.

        We don't recognise it as property, and the copyright industry acknowledges this. They argue that more than half of all Australians pirate content.

        The copyright industry is the most powerful organisation on earth, they don't need to side with the majority.

      • You missed a really good opportunity for the 'common sense is not that common' application there.

    • by CanEHdian (1098955) on Monday June 04, 2012 @10:54PM (#40216099)

      Calculate both the price of piracy enforcement and the price of piracy honestly, and see which costs more.

      But that's the whole dirty, nasty trick. It's totally irrelevant which costs more. The point is that the costs of piracy enforcement are assumed by the tax payer, not the beneficiaries. The call for an Intellectual Property tax is in part to offset these costs.

      You don't even need to calculate the benefits of a society with free access to all the works of man, where poor people have just as much access to culture as wealthy individuals.

      For sound recordings, the 'works of man' start to become interesting with the advent of the vinyl sound recording (and not many people appreciate mono recordings, stereo was introduced later). Can you guess how many vinyl LPs have passed into the public domain?

    • by AHuxley (892839)
      Calculate both the price of piracy enforcement and the price of piracy honestly, and see which costs more.
      The problem for Australia is the US always has some gun boat diplomacy hidden away.
      If Hollywood goes back to the State department and reports that they tried in good faith to 'reason' with Australia...
      Australia has its good named ruined up and down the US gov
      No more cheap jets, cheating on crypto, weapons systems other 'export' allowed nations can only beg for, code to older systems Australia ends
    • It is very difficult to quantify the effects of piracy. A download does not equate to lost sale, and even if it did the glazier's fallacy must be accounted for.
  • So let me guess... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Darkness404 (1287218) on Monday June 04, 2012 @10:12PM (#40215909)
    So let me guess, media companies are going to complain about all the "lost" revenue due to "piracy" and completely ignore the fact most of the highest grossing films have been in the internet age....
    • by hashish (62254)

      That's because the population and ticket prices are larger. Monies made and tickets sold at box office has never been a good metric to measure a film.

      Back on topic, I am not happy that my internet charges will go up to implement and police a system that will not fix the problem.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        Don't forget that if you buy a DVD and then invite a friend over to watch it with you that constitutes an unpaid viewing the the movie industry's opinion since your friend didn't pay them anything to see it.

    • by vanyel (28049) *

      Yes, they "lost revenue" when I bought legend of the seeker, sea patrol and a couple of other dvd sets after torrenting the series because it was the only way to get them (at the time) or just to see if they were any good... foot meet gun

      • Don't you know? If you hadn't pirated those shows, you would have bought *two* DVD sets!
        You clearly cheated the industry out of a few hundred bucks just from those examples.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 05, 2012 @12:06AM (#40216429)

        At least you had the option to buy... in the arse end of the world, (Australia according to most media types) I have had literally no choice but to Pirate some shows as they were unavailable by any other means. I literally went to 3 shop,s and tried online to buy the TV series Felicity before giving up and heading to The Pirate Bay, where I had all 4 series available within 3 days. This was a few years ago so the situation may have changed, but they did loose $100+ of sales that day.

        BTW Legend of the Seeker was another series incredibly difficult to buy here for a long time.

    • by Lord_of_the_nerf (895604) on Monday June 04, 2012 @10:39PM (#40216021)
      They could also bring in the struggling artists, technicians and producers that piracy really hurts like James Cameron, Joel Silver and Joel Silver's coke dealer?
    • by Dunbal (464142) *
      They will claim this is irrelevant, you see, because they _could_ have made more...
    • by Wowsers (1151731)
      Things are SO bad in Hollywood, that all those big blockbuster films actually make a loss. All those "poor" multi-millionaire actors, directors, producers can't make any money?!? Hollywood Accounting [wikipedia.org] Why this outright fraud is allowed to continue is anyone's guess. Must have the politicians around the world in media companies back pockets.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04, 2012 @10:40PM (#40216025)

    Please tell the content providers to stop attempting to control my life.

    If there was a reasonably priced method of getting my movie, music and gaming fix online, but without any kind of DRM, I would happily use it.

    Without the channel for getting these items legally at a reasonable price online, I am left only with stupidly over priced CD/DVD/BlueRay (why is a BR so much more expensive than a DVD when production cost is almost the same?), paying a pay tv provider to watch ads, or piracy.

    Without the channel being free of DRM, I am left only with piracy. If I have some new or innovative way to watch or use my music and movies (they are mine, I bought them), then I have to break the law to do so.

    For now, I wait for the movie on TV where I use a PVR with ad skipping to watch it. I only listen JJJ for my music (No ads!), or purchase from something like bandcamp. I only buy the humble bundles for games.

    Content providers - you do not control me. You have lost. Wake up and change, or go bankrupt.

    • by Dunbal (464142) *
      Oh they don't want to control your life - they just want to control your computer.
    • by balzi (244602) <matthew.awma@au@com> on Monday June 04, 2012 @11:07PM (#40216179)

      "then I have to break the law to do so."

      I don't pirate because the people who created media have expressed their wishes quite clearly;
      If I value it, then I'll pay the price they ask.

      However, suggesting that you are forced to break the law is absurd. There is no real threat to your well-being by having the latest music/TV/movies/software. Even if you argued that your quality of life would suffer without your favourite show or game (a BIG stretch), there's plenty of other crap to choose from.

      Do I think the typical media owner is driving people away with DRM measures? Absolutely.
      Do I think there's a happy medium where everyone could be happy? Yep.
      Do I feel entitled to anything? No.

      This argument gets very heated, and from my armchair it makes both sides look like spoiled brats! You can continue for my [free] entertainment as long as you like. :)

      Matt out.

      • by xenobyte (446878) on Tuesday June 05, 2012 @02:48AM (#40216953)

        "then I have to break the law to do so."

        I don't pirate because the people who created media have expressed their wishes quite clearly;
        If I value it, then I'll pay the price they ask.

        However, suggesting that you are forced to break the law is absurd. There is no real threat to your well-being by having the latest music/TV/movies/software. Even if you argued that your quality of life would suffer without your favourite show or game (a BIG stretch), there's plenty of other crap to choose from.

        Excuse me, but... bullshit!

        Why should I have to wait/live without while John Doe can get everything, just because he lives in a different place than me?

        I have money in hand - I want to pay! But they don't want to sell.
        I find it perfectly reasonable that if they refuse my money I'll just steal the stuff instead. After all, it's their choice that it is so.

        • by Pieroxy (222434)

          I find it perfectly reasonable that if they refuse my money I'll just steal the stuff instead. After all, it's their choice that it is so.

          Rest assured, you didn't steal anything, you didn't deprive anyone of anything. There was nothing you would have done to get it from them, so they cannot claim you deprived them of anything.

          Wait...

      • by Uberbah (647458)

        it makes both sides look like spoiled brats!

        Uh huh. But what's the functional difference between someone who downloads a product without paying for it and someone who respects copyright but would never pay for it?

  • by Eskarel (565631) on Monday June 04, 2012 @10:59PM (#40216121)

    The Greens won't go along with anything they decide, the opposition will support anything the government tries to do when hell freezes over, and so no one has the numbers to do anything. Copyright issues barely even get a blip on the radar here so the government isn't going to expend a whole lot of energy on it. They'll talk about it, try to make the content people feel they care and then do nothing much at all.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Consume only those works for which you can pay the artist directly, and absolutely ignore everything else.

    If everybody followed that rule for a year, we could be rid of this backroom deal piracy enforcement nonsense.

    • Then we obviously need more severe laws because it can only be because of copyright infringement that people don't buy, because as everyone knows you die if you don't get the latest rubbish from Hollywood.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Come on people lets be serious, do you really think the Australian Gov. can actually do anything??! There is only one poly in the whole system who can organise a root in a brothel...

  • by ColonelZen (837294) on Monday June 04, 2012 @11:15PM (#40216211)

    Can we *stop* calling unautorized use of information "piracy".

    It rather by definition cedes criminal conduct when in many casesm however draconian laws are worded, proving criminality is way beyond plausible.

    Most "piracy" is at a civil matter and usually of dubious merit, not murder, and theft on the high seas.

    Call it what it usually is. Retrieving information without a license. Enjoying a film or song without having paid a corporation for the privilege.

    -- TWZ

    • by Mashiki (184564)

      Arrrrr.

      Just remember the jackholes are trying to make it criminal instead of civil in a lot of countries. Arrrrr...now where's me swag and parrot-cat.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/television/mad-mens-most-shocking-twist-yet-spoiler-alert/story-e6frfmyi-1226384383310

    We are bombarded with information from FB and News sites. Why should we be left behind the rest of the world. I read so many times about "what outlandish thing jermey clarkson has said now" weeks before we can watch it and see that the joke was actually funny

    • Want to have it worse? Imagine you're from a country that isn't speaking English but is also a large enough market that they don't simply subtitle but actually dub shows. Then you know what pain really is about.

      It is virtually impossible to get any original shows over here. Not 3 months after release. No even the year after release when we finally get to see the butchered (aka dubbed) show. Not even on DVD. Recently I went to Amazon to see what I could get in form of the shows I like to watch. Well, first o

  • Just be handin' o'er tha booty, and ah'll be on me way!
  • by Sasayaki (1096761) on Monday June 04, 2012 @11:46PM (#40216343)

    I'm an Australian author with two novels, seven short stories and a couple of other things under my belt (sequel's out, woot woot http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0080XLF2Q/ [amazon.com]). As a natural born citizen and rights holder, I'm sure that the people at this conference would love to hear my voice as a representative of local grown IP, especially one distributed digitally and therefore quite prone to copyright infringement. I look forward to being able to give my piece -- that, in summary, the best way to combat copyright infringement is to:

    - Produce a better product than pirated copies (so DRM/FBI warning/copyright warning free)
    - Which is easy to obtain (Amazon's 1-click buy process)
    - With sufficient safety nets (7 day no questions asked return policy)
    - Cheaply (my novels are $5, shorts $0.99)
    - In a timely fashion all over the world (Australians are used to waiting 3-6 months for TV shows they can bittorrent the day they're broadcasted in the US)
    - And with sufficient protection for derivatives and fan-works (a Creative Commons, CC-BY-SA-NC licenced universe bible is due out as soon as I apply the last of the polish and hit submit).
    - Without alienating people who do pirate it anyway (some people, even if it's cheap, readily available, DRM free, timely, safe and reasonably free-as-in-freedom, will not pay and attempting to coerce those people into being customers is not only pointless but detrimental since it makes you look like an arse and writers trade based on their reputation)

    I eagerly await my invitation to this discussion which I'm confident will not be dominated by direct representatives of Hollywood insisting we DRM the universe and filter all aspects of the Internet, all in the name of protecting foreign interests to the detriment of domestically produced IP.

    • I foresee a band of crazy warriors chasing you down the Australian road to keep you from making a statement. One suggestion don't break the deal...

    • I mostly agree with you, but a seven-day-no-questions-asked returns policy for content which can be completely experienced in the space of less than three hours (e.g., most movies) is a bit over the top. I'm definitely in favour of more consumer rights but that policy is just asking for trouble. Would you expect to get a refund at a cinema just because you ask for one?

      • by Sasayaki (1096761) on Tuesday June 05, 2012 @02:28AM (#40216889)

        It's interesting, but that's what Amazon has. It actually really relies on what I wrote about purchasing being easy and cheap; to buy is easy, just a 1-click process, but to return you have to go to "My account" / "Manage my Kindle" / "Books" / Scroll down to the book in question / Click / Apply for refund / Enter refund reason / Click go.

        For 99c, or $5, or whatever, it's just not worth it for some people. That said, there are a number of people on readers forums who boast that they've never paid for a book because they always just return it when they're done reading it, or return it then buy it again if they want to "keep" it for another 7 days.

        I get probably 3-5 returns per 100 sales so I just don't really worry about them and I'm guessing Amazon isn't either, or they'd start tightening the return policy. The only main issue with a lot of returns is if you get a flood of returns all with the same reason ("copyright issues", "poor quality", "typos/editing issues", etc) you can get your book pulled for review.

        Look at it this way. If you were at a cinema watching a movie and, at any point for 7 days after watching a film you could stand in line and fill in a short form to get an immediate refund... would you? And we're not talking about $13 or $14 here, it's $5. Or $0.99. Most people can't be bothered.

        Some people will, some people will even if they make you fill in a mountain of paperwork, but they'd probably just pirate it anyway. I don't think the 7 day returns policy affects sales much and it's a definite selling point. "Try my book!" I say, "If you don't like it, 7 days, no questions asked return policy, even if you read the whole thing."

        • by Kjella (173770)

          Look at it this way. If you were at a cinema watching a movie and, at any point for 7 days after watching a film you could stand in line and fill in a short form to get an immediate refund... would you?

          There's a floating scale:
          - Hell no, it was the best movie since sliced bread
          - Good movie and money well spent
          - It wasn't memorable but worth the money
          - I wouldn't have paid for it again, but okay
          - Give me my money back
          - Give me my money and my two hours back
          - Give me my money and restitution for two hours of torture

          I'd never go for the "Hell I loved the movie but if I can get my money back I will" though.

          And we're not talking about $13 or $14 here, it's $5. Or $0.99. Most people can't be bothered.

          Yeah, there's a few things though - then you can only sell things that sell for "can't be bothered" mone

        • by mcgrew (92797) *

          That said, there are a number of people on readers forums who boast that they've never paid for a book because they always just return it when they're done reading it, or return it then buy it again if they want to "keep" it for another 7 days.

          I use the public library for that. I only buy books I've already read, and know I'll want to re-read them.

          The only main issue with a lot of returns is if you get a flood of returns all with the same reason ("copyright issues", "poor quality", "typos/editing issues",

    • I am also an Australian, but I do not produce anything, I consume. And when I consume I do it the most efficient way possible regardless of local customs and traditions, and I agree with everything you wrote. How does one qualify as a "consumer group"? I am a consumer unit so all I need is some more consumer units and we can then form a group? Is that how it works?
    • by mcgrew (92797) *

      Interesting, I'd like to read some of your stuff, is it in the public library? Because I won't buy a pig in a poke. Those two dozen Asimov volumes wouldn't be on my shelf now had I not read a few of his other books checked out from the library, and I wouldn't have those two Doctorow titles on my shelf if he didn't give them away as free downloads from boingboing.

  • by heretic108 (454817) on Tuesday June 05, 2012 @12:29AM (#40216523)

    Framing the discussion as "piracy reduction" is long obsolete. Might as well call it a "reduce gas diffusing in a vacuum" conference.
    They need to restart with a premise of "finding ways for content creators to be rewarded for their works". Then we might start getting some workable and relevant ideas.

  • It seems to me the prudent thing for the government to do is to do nothing until some other country figures out a viable solution to the problem. I don't see why we in Australia should be the guinea pigs for the latest hair brain scheme proposed by the content owners. Let some other country find a solution that works for everyone, and we should wait on the sidelines until that happens.

    • by tbird81 (946205)

      It seems to me the prudent thing for the government to do is to do nothing until some other country figures out a viable solution to the problem.

      New Zealand is being used as a guinea pig in regards to Kim Dotcom. We've also rushed through a "three-strikes" Iaw under urgency during the Chch earthquake. Guess Aussie's going to be a guinea pig for some other idea.

  • Start out by halving the term of all existing & new copyright licences.

    If, after a year that seems to be working, halve it again. Recursively.

    Copyright is theft. And it is just not true that creative work would stop in the absence of copyright.

    Motion picture companies make their money in theatres. DVDs etc are a trivial offshoot.
    Musicians can make a living playing live. Recordings would be free or cost 99c from their website, (See Apple)
    Artists could sell the original painting. Copies would be fre

  • You know, in the good ol' days, we used to have law propositions that were introduced and sponsored by some parties, and depending on whether it got a majority or not, it was brought into law, or it simply wasn't.

    Not so today. Today, what will become law has been decided long ago. This will become law. If it gets shouted down (again), it will just resurface in a few months, waters will be tested and if it gets shot down again, we'll see it again. And again. And again. Until finally enough people got tired o

White dwarf seeks red giant for binary relationship.

Working...