ASTRA predicts piracy traffic could halve after new laws despite ‘concern’ over VPN loophole

“The threat of virtual pirate networks (VPN)”? Seriously?

Using machine guns to shoot rabbits! Nick might be right about that one site but nobody has provided credible evidence to prove that ‘piracy’ is anywhere near rampant enough to justify such heavy handed measures and nowhere has site blocking proven effective in the long run. They just set up another site. The answer is to make the content easily available and at comparable prices. Get rid of gouging through geo-blocking and discriminatory pricing by territory.

Hi Nick,

You seem to be conflating piracy with people purchasing products from legitimate rights-holders overseas. Do you not understand the difference, or is it just easier to pretend they’re the same thing so that you can avoid engaging the second issue?

For the record, I fully support you (and other rights holders) protecting their IP, but you have a very long, hard road ahead of you.

Just love this Freudian slip!

……..The combination of new piracy regulations, …… will help offset the threat of virtual ****pirate **** networks (VPN) being used to illegally access content on pirate websites, pay-TV industry body ASTRA has said.

Probably a fair bit of truth in the slip, as private networks are increasingly being viewed as being synonymous with ***pirate**** networks, I guess.

I wonder why nobody bothers to “pirate” Australian made content …. reality cooking and DIY home renovations…. YAWN. Yet, they use this as an reason for the policy to protect “Australian” jobs. Also, I believe the new models with Netflix, etc. are better, but none of the TAX stays in Aus…. so that argument is also faulty.

Let the few million people who download in Aus at least enjoy something that is not over priced and heavily taxed fr change.

Hey Nick

Are you sure the revenue you’d get from that overseas site if they did license your content is more than it will cost you to go to court to have them blocked?

“It says a lot about who is actually pulling the strings in Canberra when the previous attempt to introduce a web filter to block child pornography failed. But when it comes to introducing a web filter to protect Rupert Murdoch’s financial interests, it gets bipartisan support from both of our utterly corrupt major parties.

Presumably the lesson we’re supposed to take from this is that Rupert Murdoch not getting the return he wants on his Foxtel exclusivity deal for Game of Thrones is a bigger problem for our politicians than child porn?”

Taken from another site, and fair credit to the user, but pretty spot on.

Phew – now the Aussie TV industry can get back to the business of making episodes of Games of Thrones…

Ridiculous comments about bit-torrent costing local production jobs.

There’s only one thing worse than having people download your productions via bit-torrent, and that’s not having people downloading your productions via bit-torrent – because that means nobody’s watching your show to begin with.

BT = global distribution and global audience opportunities at zero cost.

It’s almost time to cut out the toll gates (ie Foxtel and the like) and start selling content directly to viewers who will only be too happy to reward good content with payment.

Internet freedoms are under attack from both sides of politics in this country. But what concerns me most is that none of these measures have been in anyway effective in neutralizing piracy, just look at the UK. The words VPN and Seedbox will become household terms before the Abbott Government is through. I looked at some VPN’s yesterday at http://www.reviewmyvpn.com and I will be looking into a Seedbox as well before season 6 of GoT starts

It would be good if Nick Murray could clarify what he means when he said the Government should tighten regulations around using VPNs to access content held overseas. Are you talking about people obtaining and paying for Geo-blocked content via VPNs (American Netflix or Hulu) or are you talking about people masking their activity on torrents by using a VPN?
Personally I think Geo-Blocking should be outlawed Globally, it has no place in the modern world, it’s a ridiculous discriminating practice that only encourages piracy.

Penguin Alert, you say “You seem to be conflating piracy with people purchasing products from legitimate rights-holders overseas.”.

PA, you seem to be conflating partial rights-holding with global rights-holdings.

No-one is stopping Australians from accessing overseas services which legitimately hold global rights or sub-region rights that include Australia.

Accessing overseas services and side-stepping distribution rights (and the subsequent royalties) via a VPN requires breaking EULA conditions either in Australia or said overseas services’ country.

Dear Candace, after how Murdoch executed Rudd at the last election are you all that surprised this trivial policy received bipartisan support?

Meanwhile the idiotic of an excuse for a prime minister we have in this country ignores the real issue of climate change. Generations in time to come will look back at this self centred leader and ask the question…”why?”

“criminal ways”, “theft”, “stolen” – all part of the spin machine of rights holders. Copyright infringement is a civil matter, it is NOT criminal or theft.

Many typical deluded comments . Well played by the government on this legislation.
If everyone ripped game of thrones from BitTorrent or pirate bay, there would not be any game of thrones, and all the single, socially retarded deviants would have to go back to stalking the neighbours with a pair of binoculars rather than paying a couple of measly dollars to watch a world class cultural phenomenon

@Benross

That’s a bit rich, considering that the original Game of Thrones was only available to HBO subscribers in the US. The only way I ever found out about GoT to begin with was because of all the American non-HBO subscribers wanting to watch it.

Piracy built that show as a cultural phenomenon. If Piracy didn’t force HBO’s hand, it would have stayed as part of their exclusive server, and Australia wouldn’t be watching it for another 6 months when Foxtel bought hand-me-down rights.

Don’t be so short-sighted.

The best side effect of this legislation will be increased use of VPNs by home users and hence greater privacy for their web browsing. Harder and harder for spy agencies.

JG: I’m not referring to “legitimate” global rights-holders at all, because there’s no discussion to be had around that arrangement. Everyone agrees that what’s happening there is right and good. I think there should be more of it, a lot more.

Given that many of these EULAs are largely unenforceable, and the parties involved have considerable incentive NOT to enforce them anyway (but must appear to, a little bit), is your solution really to lobby for government intervention (effectively network tampering)? To enforce a single clause of a EULA that neither party to the EULA wants or believes in?

Perhaps we should turn off the internet to protect the newspaper industry as well?

Only reason I use VPN is that FTA local TV is dumbed down and ad saturated beyond unwatchable. I don’t think that means I am a pirate (aaarrrr!) more of a culture migrant. Perhaps I should be sent offshore or stripped of the citizenship I could apply for.

Penguin Alert wrote >> Perhaps we should turn off the internet to protect the newspaper industry as well?

Love this comment. #mademyday Permission to use it everywhere I can please?

Hi Penguin.

No that is not my proposed solution. I didn’t offer one up so those are your thoughts and not mine.

Clearly there is no ‘solution’ otherwise it would be implemented. What is needed is some way to ensure that the people that produce the content are fairly remunerated. Basically they need to make a quid out of it (assuming it is popular) so that they can invest in further content. If they don’t there will be no ‘quality’ content to argue about! We’re already seeing video (and audio) production collapse around the world – which no-one in their right mind wants.

Back-stepping, the existing model is based on (i) someone pitches an idea (ii) backers put up money – shitloads of it (iii) a production company makes it (iv) a distribution company (or companies) handles the distribution – cinema release, broadcast, pay TV, online, DVD etc.

Most often these deals are geo-based (as old-style physical distribution was not universally well handled by any one distributor). Of course online is universal which is the source of the current problem as dollars are leaking out of the system, so clearly the system needs to change or those that make the content go broke.

I can see two ways.

First is that online streaming rights are added into the financial model. This would be best handled on a non-exclusive basis. So (say) Disney could sell its global rights to (say) NetFlix, and sell the US right to (say) ComCast and that would not be in breach. They could also sell their Australian rights to (say) Presto. None of these agreements would be in breach of the others. Same goes for every other jurisdiction in the world.

Localising it, such a model would mean that a consumer in Australia could access Disney streaming content via either NetFlix (local or US) or via Presto.

But Foxtel would probably want to jump in and have the Pay TV rights (cable/satellite via STB) in Australia and also have streaming rights (Foxtel Go). If Presto had those rights on an exclusive basis in Australia – then tough shit. In essence streaming companies could choose to pay a premium upfront for exclusive streaming rights (as happens with broadcast and cinema and often with cable). I think this is not a good model especially for online, and that an open market with a PAYG revenue stream (pardon the pun) is the way to go as it doesn’t exclude new entrants and new technology. If Foxtel streams twice as much as Presto they pay twice as much to Disney.

There is an inverse model to ‘tidy up’ the current mess. That streaming companies be required by law (in every country – which is well nigh impossible) to ensure that the subscriber actually resides (e.g. has a credit card) in that country thus entitling the business to sell to them and not be in (inadvertent) violation of the geo-based distribution agreements. Clearly this model is way too easy to get around (viz. the current VPN and fake US address solutions) and it pretty useless pursuing.

All the law does it make it harder to search for pirate websites, but you can’t find them on a simple search anyway now.

Anyone with the time and inclination to pirate now will have no difficulty in getting past the limitations.

@22/JG:
You’ve nailed it. ….. It really isn’t rocket surgery, is it?

The only obstacle to making content available instantly and globally is stupidity and greed.
The internet is a level playing field and the established content creators and distributors coulda out pirated the pirates, but they were too bloated, stale, and complacent. A decade or so down the track they now wake up and cry like wet-diapered babies.
Too late, business as usual won’t cut it. Hey- why don’t the pirates get hold of the distribution licences and show the Big Boys how to really rake it the $$$$$.

Good to see the single-issue libertarians are out in force. “If I can’t have it right now, why should I pay for it?”: Rand’s rational self-interest or the infantilisation of the consumer? A cute quip from a recent novel by Steve Toltz: “Did you know we might see the actual end of patience during our life times?”

Canned – many of those contracts are very long term, some terms are in decades. it was probably stupid to sign such a long term contract – but that is with hindsight and at the time it was probably a sage business decision.

The other issue is that most of the agreements have different end times. That is just the way it is – neither stupidity or greed.

And neither of those obstacles should mean a great light to piracy.

By the way in my long post, in the ‘localising’ part I failed to include that accessing (say) ComCast in the US from Australia would be illegal as they wouldn’t have the rights outside of the US.

@evan,
I don’t condone the pirates.
But now the delivery mechanism has changed, and the ticket clippers are no longer able to price gouge and control “territories”. When goods arrived in Australia by sailing ship, yes a price premium was required for the treacherous sea voyage A premium was paid by the Colonials to get their cargo here. But in a digital age it costs no more to deliver to Australia or Azerbaijan. There is no reason to charge an “Australia” tax. Content creators and licence holders will have to adjust their business models, just as wheelwrights had to a century ago. Immediate, multi channel delivery globally.

JG: Apologies for the strawman, and thanks for the considered response. I agree with almost all of it.

However, it isn’t illegal or unethical to purchase something from an overseas provider. Despite the exclusivity deals in place, I can buy genuine Honda motorcycle parts from a warehouse in North Carolina for 1/2 the price of the same parts locally. The exclusive Australian importer doesn’t like it, but that’s not my problem, is it?

Why should I care about those parties’ agreements with their suppliers, and why should the film/TV industry be different? My money is going to whoever offers me the best deal and service.

Hi Penguin.

I agree it is not illegal or unethical to purchase from an overseas provider. I do it all the time myself.

But there is a pertinent distinction between your Honda example, and streaming.

If you North Carolina warehouse was licensed as a genuine Honda parts warehouse – but for domestic US sales only – then the law has been broken. If there is no restriction it as all hunky-dory. If there is a restriction then the onus is on the parts dealer to ensure compliance with that contract. That is, you as the unwitting purchaser, is not culpable.

But the difference is that virtually every piece of major film and TV content is subject to some form of geographic licensing (whether you or I like it or agree with it).

In my proposed model I would be putting the onus on the streaming provider – not the consumer – to ensure that the recipient of the stream is within the terms and meaning of the streaming distribution contract. This could easily done by requiring a validated financial transaction a la PayPal (its pretty easy to find where an account is based). If the distributor ‘trades’ with someone (knowingly) outside the region they have rights to, then they are liable. If the consumer has misled with false account information then the consumer is responsible for providing fraudulent information.

@Cannes(d)
I agree, distribution rights should and surely will become universal. It should be admitted though that this will challenge Australian creators who, unless they can tap into a wider markets, will continue to pay the Australian cost of living while earning the American minimum wage, metaphorically speaking. Globalisation has winners and losers.

My comment was more about the tone of the piracy debate. Piracy advocates tend to sound like toddlers losing their shit in a lolly shop, and I find this a disturbing cultural trend.

The wheelwright analogy has been flogged to death (so many horse metaphors) and is faulty unless you see the product as the medium rather than the content (art is not itself an obsolete product).

I know I’m late with this reply, but here are my 2 cents seeing everyone is giving theirs.

Everyone acts like piracy is new, in days gone by before the famous days of Napstar, people were already sharing movies and shows in private chat rooms using text bots and text commands. Even back then done with encrypted p2p connections. No web sites, no torrents, no fancy software. The only reason things have changed is convenience for the layman and efficiency of distribution. All these new laws just keep politicians, lawyers and news reporters employed.