Panel: Canberra to grapple with online piracy in 2011

 

But legal community expects no end to lawsuits, yet.

Legislation that deals with internet piracy is expected to be on the political agenda next year, but appears unlikely to gain traction until rights holders exhaust their options in the courts, according to a panel of copyright lawyers.

Speaking at the Communications & Policy Research Forum last week, Truman Hoyle partner Mark Vincent said that a "legislative response" to content piracy was required.

But he also warned that such a response would not stop rights holders from suing ISPs and individuals for alleged infringement of their works.

"We think [a legislative response] will be on the agenda for next year," Vincent said.

"[But] I think it would be difficult to get legislative reforms before [the iiNet case] process is finished."

Perth ISP iiNet is being sued by the film industry for allegedly authorising copyright infringement on its network.

The landmark case is on appeal before the full bench of the Federal Court after the film industry lost its initial case. Either party could escalate it to the High Court depending on the outcome of the appeal, which was rumoured to be delivered shortly.

Vitriol and emotion

The panel of lawyers at the forum last week spoke about the level of "vitriol" that accompanied the issue of content piracy on the internet as they explored ways the issue might be dealt with in the future.

"There's a whole lot of emotion and vitriol in this debate that I just haven't seen before," said Gilbert + Tobin partner Peter Leonard.

"I've practised law for 30 years, and even in the good old days of Telecom Australia versus the rest, there was never the vitriol that [exists] in this debate."

Truman Hoyle senior lawyer Nick Hart said he was also "struck by the extent of passion and vitriol" surrounding the copyright debate.

Some of that passion was related to the rights holders' choice of litigation target, according to Leonard.

"How you deal with intermediaries has given rise to a lot of the emotion in the debate," he said.

"They feel they are wronged because they're a convenient person with deeper pockets standing between a pirate and copyright owner, while copyright owners feel intermediaries are profiting from piracy by turning a blind eye [to it occurring on their networks]."

The convenience factor was also highlighted by Vincent.

"BitTorrent is harder than ever to stop," he said.

"One reason is that the underlying code necessary to facilitate BitTorrent sharing of files around the world is now open source so there's no target [to sue].

"The open source licensing model means the code base is open to any proprietor to use and incorporate as long as they comply with the license model.

"The vulnerable people in the BitTorrent model are the trackers who provide a search engine-like service. There's been some litigation against those parties.

"Other people that may have a problem are ISPs and end users, although we haven't seen the latter in Australia."

Vincent acknowledged that the mismatch in timing between the legal process and the rate of change in technology made it harder to address infringement in the court system.

"Every time you get legal authority to shut down one model, another turns up," he said.

"It's why we argue that it's inevitable that people will look to a legislative response because merely getting lawyers to go around the world suing people is proving to be too slow."

Technological change could also make suing ISPs redundant.

"I've heard from the UK [legislative] examples that it's not necessarily an answer to users who are now moving over to encrypted file sharing," Vincent said.

"The technology might continue to move to a point where even ISPs can't help stop infringers."

However, rights holders were still likely to keep legal action in the mix of enforcement tools.

"This process of suing people... is not over," Vincent said.

Hart added: "[Litigation] does increase awareness in the public about the copyright infringement issue and the more public the legal issues around a case are, the more consumers might think twice before infringing."

Hart said there was "absolutely" a non-financial basis for suing alleged internet pirates, despite a recent leak of Record Industry Association of America (RIAA) financials that purportedly showed a major imbalance in the amount the industry spent and recouped from litigation.

"You have to ask the question of what would you do if you were representing copyright owners or controllers," Hart said.

"Do you just sit there and let it all happen or do you take what steps you can within the law?

"I think it's a multi-faceted approach [that's required] - a combination of new legitimate commercial models being rolled out plus changes in legislation and using existing laws to do what you can to stem the flow."

Copyright © iTnews.com.au . All rights reserved.


Panel: Canberra to grapple with online piracy in 2011
"So tell me, if the movie industry is so against piracy, why does Bali always get movies released before Oz? Don't they see the irony of realeasing content to the place most Australian's tend to ..."
By Ezy2Confuze
 
 
 
Comments: 9
Cham
Nov 22, 2010 7:37 AM
Hart added: "[Litigation] does increase awareness in the public about the copyright infringement issue and the more public the legal issues around a case are, the more consumers might think twice before infringing."
Except that doesn't seem to be the case, as infringement rates are ever increasing. Infact suing people has the opposite effect, especially in high profile cases with plenty of media attention. It alerts people who had no idea about file sharing to the fact that it exists and at the same time normally portrays the situation as a giant corporation (or group of corporations) going after single mothers or grandmothers. Surely neither of these things are appealing to the content producers, however they keep doing it.
I am still yet to see the logical reasoning that makes the leap from suing people to getting them to buy something.
Bourkie
Nov 22, 2010 8:38 AM
Precisely Cham... I found out about The Pirate Bay from a front page article in The Age about 8 years ago!

Streisand Effect much?!
marcusg
Nov 22, 2010 9:44 AM
A copyright owner or publisher has every right to expect a fair return for their product. The problem here is that the owner / publisher no longer controls the distribution of digital based product. The official distribution channel provides over priced product and poor product selection. I still don’t understand why I can pick up a copy of Die Hard 2 DVD (Special Edition), for $12.95, but have to pay $16.99 for the soundtrack (iTunes) or over $30 for an import. According to industry sources a movie soundtrack costs around 8% of the total cost of a movie. That would make a soundtrack worth about $1.36!!

It's like a toll road owner expecting people to still use and pay for travel on it when there is a perfectly good, free road running right next to it. People using the free road still pay tax on petrol, insurance, licensing, servicing and tires and question why they should continue to shell out more for an overpriced product.

For over 100 years the music industry has kept a largely unchanged distribution model. Instead of realising the changes in technology and addressing them, they decided to sue. Look at Kodak. They knew the end was near for traditional film and re-tooled their company to concentrate on digital cameras but still produced quality photo paper for printouts.

It's time a new model was worked out. It took the industry 10 years to shut down Limewire. Clearly, as it states in the article:

"Every time you get legal authority to shut down one model, another turns up." Too true, Limewire replacements have already gained ground. And for all the money spent, little victory has been achieved.
Daveh
Nov 22, 2010 10:17 AM
Marcusg makes some good points but missed the big one.

"A copyright owner or publisher has every right to expect a fair return for their product."

Whats fair and to whom does this fairness apply?

Copyright laws existed before the internet was even a concept and now the incumbent providers need to react or face losses (See: Law of Incumbents). This is reaction #1 in the law of incumbents use their existing muscle to make the world stop changing and suit them.
Redrover
Nov 22, 2010 11:35 AM
This reminds me of a vitriolic discussion I had with someone recently regarding the pricing of computer games. I was angry that when I tried to purchase a game via an online digital distribution service I discovered the publisher was enforcing regional pricing via region fixing the multiplayer aspects of the game. As an Australian consumer I was expected to pay approximately double what an American consumer was for the same product. I was told (by the person I was discussing it with) that the pricing point was determined by what people were willing to pay and if I wasn't happy then I should register my objection by not purchasing the game and let market forces do the rest. Heh.
I find it amusing that the situation with ubiquitous illegal downloading of movies, tv and music could be construed as a situation where consumers have declared that they're not willing to pay the prices the publishers/distributors want and the market is going to be forced to adjust. The fact that the masses have been "forced" to resort to something illegal to correct the situation is a little worrying on a social level though.
My own two cents worth regarding illegal downloading is that we have a situation where mass media has exploded ... there's just so much of it ... but the price point has remained relatively static (adjusting for inflation). By that I mean that publishers still want to charge similar prices for every movie or album that they could when there was significanly less content available, and they also want to charge appreciably for older content. It seems to me a top heavy model that must inevitably crash down around them. I don't know what model will work better so that copyright owners can earn a living, hopefully we find it soon.
anonymous
Nov 22, 2010 12:01 PM

@Ry, great subhead: "But legal community expects no end to lawsuits, yet."

And if they do, they'll soon create a whole raft more.

More seriously, the news and content corporations (and their many legal advisors) have never understood the Bad Law principle.

This is that if most of the public perceive a law as being unjust or unconscionable, then they will not feel an obligation to support or observe it. As comments from Redrover and others show, we now seem to have reached that point.

Perhaps somebody should tell the content corporations.
marcusg
Nov 22, 2010 12:02 PM
@ Daveh

I understand the motivation of the incumbent providers. They are entitled to react as they see fit, but they are not winning either in the law courts or in the court of public opinion. I’m interested in how they think they are going to win and stamp out piracy to protect their current business models. They are unwilling to alter these models despite the world changing around them.

“Whats fair and to whom does this fairness apply?”

It is difficult to determine what a fair price is as these industries are essentially monopolies. But a basic law of economics is the lower the cost of an item; the more of that item will be sold. Digital items don’t take up physical space, don’t have traditional transport costs therefore should not be costed the same as their physical counterparts.

@Redrover

Region coding is just another way to rip the consumer off. As a consumer you have three distribution channels: buy it physically, buy it digitally or pirate it. While the last is repugnant and hurts the creators/owners the other two are equally nasty when it comes to screwing the customer.

As a solution perhaps an ISP tariff would work. ISPs could monitor what is being downloaded and distribute the percentage of the payments to the appropriate owners / copyright holders.
Bourkie
Nov 22, 2010 3:16 PM
@marcusg

Good idea regarding the distribution of profits. I think if content owners can prove (not allege, but prove) infringements have taken place on an ISPs network then they are entitled to claiming a percentage of ISP revenue.

But it gets back to AFACT versus iiNet - AFACT seems reluctant to 'prove' their allegations before demanding cash!

I too find market segmentation (e.g. region coding) abhorrant. If the entertainment industries were actually serious about piracy they would abolish this satanic-spawn ideology and overnight it would remove half the motivation people have to pirate.
Ezy2Confuze
Nov 22, 2010 5:38 PM
So tell me, if the movie industry is so against piracy, why does Bali always get movies released before Oz?

Don't they see the irony of realeasing content to the place most Australian's tend to get their pirate movie DVD's from?

Why do we always have to wait up to 3 month to see a movie everyone else has seen?

Don't they understand that we want a choice in the matter, otherwise we will do what's necesary to see what we want when we want?
Comments have been disabled for this article.
 
 
 
Top Stories
Australian miners send drones to work
In-depth: Unmanned aerial vehicles in the resources sector.
 
The New Zealand telco problem
Opinion: Could Telstra save Kiwi telcos?
 
IT price probe to 'name and shame' gougers
Industry ducking the issue, committee claims.
 
Sign up to receive iTnews email bulletins
   FOLLOW US...

Latest VideosSee all videos »

Latest Comments
Polls
Should the Government enact new legislation to protect copyright holders in the digital age?

   |   View results
Yes
  20%
 
No
  80%
TOTAL VOTES: 507

Vote