$900m piracy report author defends conclusions

 

But annual losses only a "ballpark".

The author of a controversial Australian content industry report to Government that claimed $900 million a year was lost to piracy has defended his analysis but acknowledged the losses were only indicative.

Economic analyst and former adviser to past NSW Premier Nathan Rees, Emilio Ferrer, said the spread of the National Broadband Network would accelerate losses to piracy even though the content industry grew over the past four years as broadband proliferated.

Ferrer defended the report’s conclusions that 8000 to 40,000 jobs a year could be lost, based on the average of five countries from a European report written by researcher TERA.

The Australian report that was commissioned by content makers from music, software, publishing and copyright collection industries under the banner of the Australian Content Industry Group came to light recently when Attorney General Robert McClelland mentioned it in a speech. Nether major group that represented film and TV industries, the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft and the Australian Home Entertainment Distributors Association - were members of the commissioning group.

It has since been criticised by Pirate Party Australia and the blog TorrentFreak, which branded it a "direct translation of one of the most questioned piracy reports that has ever been published."

“I’ve applied the methodology to countries that yield the highest and lowest level of impact,” Ferrer said.

“There are variables that are difficult to measure but whether you apply to the lowest country or the highest country the impact is between $500 million and $2 billion.”

But Ferrer said such “technical” analysis was indicative only of a “ballpark” figure.

“When you apply business modeling and the average and end up concluding the impact was $900 million, of course the answer is not $900 million but we try to deal with that by looking at the range.

“The conclusion is there is a significant loss to economic activity and therefore jobs as a consequence of internet piracy.”

The study posited that $190 million a year was lost to Government coffers but did not consider the impact of transfer pricing that reduced foreign content industries' tax liability, Ferrer said.

The Social Science Research Council criticised the TERA report from which Ferrer in part drew his study for ignoring the effect on the economy of spending diverted from paying for content.

“Domestic piracy may well impose losses on specific industrial sectors but these are not losses to the larger national economy,” council researchers wrote.

“Within any given country, piracy is a reallocation of income, not a loss.”

The council said such substitutive analysis was “very complex” and none had been done but in its view “these alternative uses are more productive, socially valuable, and/or job creating than additional investment in entertainment goods”.

And it raised the prospect that legal sales may harm a nation’s economy because for countries such as Australia that were net importers of content, “legal sales represent an outflow of revenue from the national economy”.

“The piracy of IP imports represents a welfare gain in the form of expanded access to valuable goods,” the council wrote.

The council pointed to a 2009 Dutch Government study that found CD piracy added €100 million ($A142 million) a year to that country’s economy.

NBN mecca for pirates

Although he held no view on whether the broadband network that got federal Labor across the line at the election should be halted, Ferrer said the consequences of the rollout were clear and dire for Australian content industries.

“The message you’re getting out of this is that the impact is significant and the second message you get out of this is that it is the baseline that’s significant and that with the potential impact of the NBN and you will see these numbers grow pretty largely in future,” Ferrer said.

“What is clear is that the NBN has the potential to make this issue much more important because what it will achieve is greater speed and what we know is greater speed gives greater opportunity to undertake this activity [for piracy].

“And I think that’s pretty undeniable.”

He said that although jobs and economic activity grew over the past four years even with competition from illicit downloads, they grew at a slower rate than what they may have and that by 2016 they could go into reverse.

“And that’s a real pity in an industry that with the NBN and other things happening should be growing dramatically because there’s more opportunities than ever,” he said.

“It’s becoming more of an issue because 10 years ago how long would it have taken me to download a DVD or video? It would have taken me a long, long, long time.

“With speeds now you can do it an hour or faster sometimes.

“So the other thing that deterred people was you needed a fast computer but now you can do it very quickly - it's instant gratification – so this is to do with technological change.

“Those industries are now realising its affecting their ability to protect their property.”

Copyright © SC Magazine, Australia


$900m piracy report author defends conclusions
Piracy costs Australia $900m a year - or does it?
"marcusg wrote Would a fee / tax / levy be appropriate on your monthly ISP account allowing you to download anything you want? What about all those who don't & are not interested in downloading ..."
By grump3
 
 
 
Comments: 25
scooter
Mar 17, 2011 1:49 PM
These study's are the worst example of lies, damn lies and statistics.
The majority of download piracy is undertaken because the person is unwilling to pay anything for the product. If you waved a magic wand and eliminated piracy overnight that would not result in increased sales. People would just no watch or listen to it.
They are also saying it is impacting jobs. If I legally download the product from an overseas server, how does this increase Australian jobs? People who download want the product in that format. They are not going to buy a CD or DVD. Yet another flaw in the study.
The evidence I have is that people who download something often buy the legal product for the better quality and extra's so it is a marketing tool not a revenue loss.
I wonder if the dead heads in Canberra swallowed the BS?
M1-A2
Mar 17, 2011 1:56 PM
Faster broadband = more piracy........ Yeah, yeah. Yawn, yawn.

More piracy may happen only because these distributors are locked into the old physical media distribution method that makes them big fat profit margins that the public (da customers) simply do not want to wait or pay for. They are not willing to move to a digital distribution method that the public actually wants to receive and wants to pay for.

Case in point, these distributors wanting to stop the BlockBuster movie distribution system connected via Tivo to be prevented from distributing movies until 3 months after the physical media was released!

NBN = faster internet which does mean a movie could be downloaded in just a few minutes......that much is true - which means that a Movie on Demand model with very small capital and ongoing physical medium costs is now a real reality - with a real time revenue model......idiots!

I guess the online distribution system needs to be proven in the real world for the Distributors to get on board.......they might if we could get that iTuney internet thingee to work........

Total eggs! Deny the internet distribution channel at your peril kids.....I give you Borders and Andersons as a case in point.

anonymous
Mar 17, 2011 2:14 PM

@scooter, you ask if the dead heads in Canberra swallowed the BS?

Since the content corporations were cunning enough to pay a consultant who apparently has impeccable political connections to the present government, the answer to your question may be obvious.

Always follow the money, and did you mention political donations by any chance?
Graeme Harrison (prof at-symbol post.harvard.edu)
Mar 17, 2011 3:12 PM
I agree with the view that people may have bought only 10% of what they downloaded, had downloading been prevented. In other words, that you can't extend 'copies in existence' times 'store-price' to calculate lost sales. Anyone with credibility in financial modelling would realise that.

And I find that Ferrer's statement "now you can do it very quickly - it's instant gratification – so this is to do with technological change" in respect of downloaded copies. But it is amazing that Ferrer does not draw the opposite inference from his insight. The fact that consumers want 'instant gratification' in respect of their media needs confirms that content owners have generally failed to meet this need. By keeping to store-bought CD and DVD sales, they are intentionally refusing to meet the 'timeliness requirement' of their customers... thereby disenfranchising themselves from much of that customer base. The content owners have also generally refused to price their product to reflect the removal of manufacture, packaging, shipping, retail, stocking etc costs - unnecessary elements for which the modern customer is not willing to pay. Only those content companies which have (a) a 'buy now & play now' offering, (b) valid for as many plays as buying the original media (ie not one-time nor device-specific), and (c) priced to reflect removal of all physical media costs; - can complain that people are downloading their material, instead of purchasing an electronic version of the media. Any other analysis is a fairy-tale of seeking to comparing horse-drawn carriage use with high-speed rail.
btone
Mar 17, 2011 7:34 PM
'former adviser to past NSW Premier Nathan Rees'... This guy has a shining cv to recommend him then...
BigAussie
Mar 17, 2011 9:28 PM
It must be the weather in Canberra that causes these clowns to only ever look at what is wrong with everything.

The NBN should be seen as an opportunity for our Content Creators to get their wares out there. Instead of letting the existing (usually overseas controlled) publishers control everything which enters or leaves these shores; the Government should be getting behind the many small production companies (by way of tax relief or other incentives) trying to eeek out a living.

Some form of Australian "Portal" where authors of music, video, eBooks etc could sell their wares in digital format. An assault on the world by all things Aussie and digital. If we put our "stuff" out there (@scooter..marketing tool) the world may realise we produce more than just "Prisoner" and "Neighbours".

If the Government (doesn't matter which one) spent the budget from the Schools Website on promotion of local content producers; then we could start creating jobs.

marcusg
Mar 17, 2011 9:42 PM
We all state the obvious (me included) when piracy is mentioned. We all know the ridiculous nature of the current situation.

So what is an alternative? Would a fee / tax / levy be appropriate on your monthly ISP account allowing you to download anything you want?

What are some other ideas? Please comment. We need a solution to push.
Ace
Mar 18, 2011 7:07 AM
Brilliant idea @marcusg. And while we're at it, let's introduce a carpark tax so we can go and take whatever we like out of the supermarket. And maybe a weather fee so I can take whatever clothes I want from the shop.

It's not up to ISPs to decide anything. It's up to law enforcement and people companies who have stuff taken to do something about it. Can you imagine the queue of people and companies lining up to get a slice of your fee? Every news media organisation in the world, every person who ever produced a movie, every person whoever wrote a book and got it digitised by Google...to name just a few.

Ridiculous? You bet.
DazzaJ
Mar 18, 2011 8:19 AM
A lot of people I know will download something to try it out. If they like it or want to keep it theyll buy it.
The biggest problem in Australia is there is very limited access to many programs and content.
To obtain some games you have to either buy or download from overseas anyway because of Australias restrictions.
People who just pirate are not going to spend any real money buying the item.
On the other hand many items I have bought such as PC gmes, music etc are a result of friends or others lending me or giving me a copy of theirs to try out. A lot of my purchases then are a direct response from so called "Pirated" content.
Piracy increases sales?????
marcusg
Mar 18, 2011 12:52 PM
@Ace

You're been to a smorgasbord right? You pay insurance on your car, house, etc even though you may never need it? Different distribution / payment methods based on market / product need.

I can go into the nitty-gitty of the ISP fee idea, but Ace it was designed as a talking point. What's your solution? What is your 'something'? And don't just state 'law enforcement' because that's worked so well so far.
tallguy
Mar 18, 2011 8:23 PM
@marcusg: Why do we need a solution to a problem that most of us don't have? If you are not a content owner and you are not a downloader of copyrighted works, then where is the problem?

We live in a market economy. Eventually the market will fix your 'problem'. Just maybe not as fast as you want...
Ace
Mar 19, 2011 12:30 AM
As I said @marcusg, the problem is not with the ISP. I don't think you understand how the internet works. Just because you browse to some web site, or download some file via your ISP, it doesn't mean your ISP owns those files or web sites. It's probably not the appropriate place to go into it, but the internet is full of stuff owned by all kinds of people who are not your ISP, and you can still access it. Your ISP is just providing a 'gateway' to this stuff. Cool eh?

Hopefully you can see this is nothing like a smorgasbord (which is owned by one restaurant) or insurance (I can't even think how you came up with that one).

Law enforcement is all there is, which is why people like AFACT are trying stuff in court. There is no other solution. And what's more, there is no reason for one - as @tallguy said.
marcusg
Mar 19, 2011 6:13 PM
@Ace and @tallguy

OK, so according to you two there is no problem, but the ‘problem’ will be fixed by either the market or the law. Great, let’s go with that then.
Graeme Harrison (prof at-symbol post.harvard.edu)
Mar 20, 2011 3:53 PM
@marcusg,
Ignore the ignorant detractors. I've posted here some years ago that it is not simply an issue for the courts to decide, on a one-by-one 'theft' basis.
The issue is that the same media companies have already agreed to a flexible rough-volume-basis royalty for use of 'softcopy' to which they hold IP rights. All retail stores using music (broadcast within store) in ways that cannot be measured pay a fixed annual licence of a nominal sum to go to copyright owners, with an industry body doing the 'divvying-up', according to popularity of songs. That same mechanism should be used for honest internet users to pay $50/yr for up to 1GB of (otherwise) unlicensed media on their hard drives, $100/yr for up to 20GB, and $150/yr for more (limited to personal/family use). That would fully offset the real losses (net of costs associated with distribution/retailing of physical media), measured properly.
All that needs to happen is for media companies to agree to the small store model being extended to home usage.
Indeed, I've thought for a long time that if the ISPs simply offered to collect such monies and passed them on to APRA, then it would be up to media companies to decide whether to 'accept' such payments from APRA for their proportionate rights. Most media companies would feel compelled to receive (rather than forego) such amounts if in the millions. Then the media companies would not have a leg to stand on in court in any dispute against anyone who had elected to pay such optional royalty contribution. The judge would say "But the consumers of Australia made an offer, which your company elected to accept, in respect of foregone royalties... so you have no further claim against those families which paid." So, in fact the issue does not need the media companies to do anything... we the community at large, or via the ISPs, could elect to do something which nullifies any further claims.
And would the media hacks please stop using the term 'piracy', as since the Ethiopians again took to the seas to capture ships for ransom, one can no longer use such colourful term, in an attempt to make the crime seem more outrageous." All the media execs and lawyers who claim they want to fight piracy, should be shipped off to the lawless Ethiopian coastal communities, to see how they go in their desired pursuit.
The words 'theft' and 'piracy' imply the removal of use of goods by others (and in the case of the latter, cruel loss of life)... whereas downloads don't take away from others.
Until such time as the US appropriately pays annual amounts to Mesopotamian descendants for the rights associated with the original design of the wheel, or the Scots for the use of the engine, I don't know that Hollywood can legitimately claim that everyone else should reimburse them for an improper copying of IP.
Ace
Mar 21, 2011 2:10 AM
Who are the media companies you refer to @GH? Movie, music, news, photography, software, graphic, font and whitepaper publishers, fiction and non-fiction writers, etc etc? Or is just the one represented by APRA who get a cut? I can't imagine why you think media companies would feel compelled to 'accept' the payments you outline. Wouldn't this action destroy their ability to sell DVDs, or even get bums on seats at the movies? Or to take action against content copiers?

I do agree with you on two things. 1) Theft is theft, no matter what term is the latest newspaper term for it, and 2) ignorant detractors should always be ignored.

People stealing stuff online is a very difficult thing to combat mostly because it's widespread at low volume. Who do you go after? Making it socially unacceptable behaviour would probably have some effect - but that would require government support. If the major companies for movies moved to an App store style model, with some kind of rentable media similar to what you get in hotels, or perhaps go after much wider distribution at lower media cost via an App store, they may be able to reduce the theft of their wares. At the moment their distribution model seems to be tied to physical product (film/dvds etc), when it it probably should not be any longer.
Graeme Harrison (prof at-symbol post.harvard.edu)
Mar 21, 2011 11:29 AM
@Ace, no I don't think an APRA type fund should be limited to any particular type of unpaid-for IP, though generally people would prefer it be for 'media' (film, songs etc) rather than software (eg Microsoft claiming it should receive a huge slice). APRA already uses sampling techniques to determine how to slice the pie for the 'improper use' of media IP by those who pay for the general licence.

The report claims on a fraudulent basis that the 'lost sales' in Australia is $900m, or perhaps as little as $500m pa. As noted this is plain wrong, as most people downloading would have elected to NOT pay 'physical media retail price' for such items, if given only that choice.

Of 8m households in Australia, let's say 25% decide (or are morally pressured) to contribute for their downloads. The average payment would be $8/month, as the optional tick-box on their ISP bill. That generates a 'pure profit' of $200m pa to go to the media companies. This is more than the profit lost on $500m of retail sales. So my system might well pay more than they claim to be losing.

However, let's be clear that having movies available on DVD did not close down all cinemas. Some people still elect to pay a premium to see a movie in a cinema environment ('a night out'). Similarly, having people able to reimburse (generally) for IP on their hard drives, will not kill CD, DVD or Blueray media sales, as some people will still want physical media. It will not stop airlines paying for recent release films to show on planes. And my plan offers NO protection to companies, only households for private use. But technology does slowly change markets. Should Telstra and Western Union have a claim for the lost cost of a telegram at $2.50 each, for every SMS sent? Technology reduced the cost of such transmission to around 20cents, and on some plans now, the implicit cost of an SMS is less than 5cents. We expect technology to drive these costs down, but we also need to recognise that the near-instantaneous nature of an SMS is not the same as a 24-hour telegram. So one can't look at what is downloaded and suggest that people would have paid the retail price for store-bought media.

Maybe in future, lots of households will have hundreds of movies and thousands of songs on their hard drives, and the older movie studios will be actively promoting why "Gone with the Wind" ought be among your collection, as that share of the electronic rights payments system will give a far longer 'tail' to the trailing royalty stream, long after DVD sales stalled. Bring on such a new world. We will still pay to have for new entertainment brought to us, and the most pressing future issue may be to limit how much of the royalty stream goes for old/dead artists, to ensure a living for newer artists... but that is a separate argument. And the APRA-style royalties (commensurate with popularity) may well favour self-publishing artists, as new music groups may not need to go via a publishing house, but may achieve a reasonable income from self-promotion via the internet and live gigs.
Vezayar
Mar 21, 2011 1:19 PM
Solution: Australian Netflix.
marcusg
Mar 21, 2011 4:20 PM
Thanks for the comments @GH I think you’re on the right track. Currently there are many different ways of getting payment for goods and services. Why can’t the same be for digital creations?

I don’t believe we can lump the monetisation of all digital creations into one solution. Digital versions of movies, TV shows, songs and books are different from other digital media. They are unique, in high demand, easy to duplicate and are usually produced by a company monopoly. This way you don’t get 15 different versions of the King’s Speech to choose from to watch.

A website, or an image, or font, or a whitepaper is not the same as a movie or TV show. They simply don’t have the volume, and / or the uniqueness, or in the case of a website, the format necessary to become easily downloadable. Sometimes there is a trade off, in the form of personal information, for you to get access to a whitepaper. News websites provide valuable advertising space but are generally tasters for their physical counterparts. Plus if I don’t like a particular news site I can go elsewhere like to abc.net.au as I’ve already paid for that one.

As for games and software, they are unique too but the installation procedure allows for security DRM to be incorporated. While not perfect, it is better than nothing and getting better all the time.

There can be no accurate assessment of previous or indeed current payments due. There simply is not the data available. So where does that leave us?
1. Digital creations are easily duplicated, leaving the original intact.

2. Rights holders are not getting paid accurately for their digital creations.

3. I can’t watch, listen or read what I want to when I want to. Yet the technology enabling me to do this has existed for years.

4. Distribution has changed. For example, music distribution is handled by a few huge multi-national corporate entities determining when, where and how we consume music. This has suited them well for over 100 years. But with easily copied digital music, overly expensive physical CDs, regional pricing and distribution contacts, restrictive range the old distribution method is no longer working. Consumers are bypassing this model and doing so illegally.

5. The rights holders want to use the law to protect their business model. I don’t deny that that is their right. But so far the law has failed them. They have gone after the individual – failed, gone after the torrent websites, in some cases – success, but it took 10 years to shut down Limewire and the Pirate Bay still exists. Now they want to go after the ISPs.

I’d like to capitalise on your idea @GH, as ISPs are the gateway, so it is logical to have them involved. Should they be policing the net? No it is not their function.

But they can provide a monitoring platform or a collection platform. As you suggest @GH, a blanket fee could be introduced on all ISP accounts.

But it would take the industry to come to the party as well. Imagine this scenario for music:

Sony Music opens the Sony Music website or licenses other websites to provide their music. Every single song, soundtrack and album ever produced by Sony Music would be available for download - DRM free.

As an internet user, I’ve already paid for this with a levy as part of my monthly ISP bill. This allows me to download, play and keep any music I want.

To divvy up the levy money either the ISP, but more likely Sony Music, or a separate third party, would be able to capture exactly what is being downloaded and by volume. This would dovetail nicely into charts for a complete picture of popularity. Since you could download what you want, when you want and you’ve already paid for it, why would you use anything else? Both the licensed and Sony sites could contain ads for further revenue raising. Live concerts would still exist as well as all the merchandising. CDs would be a dying concept, but there will still be those who wish to purchase the physical article – if it were fairly priced.

As with everything else, the physical article would become less prevalent. The movie industry is based on timing so I’m not sure how that would work with the current theatre release / DVD/BluRay release / rental release / Special edition release / bargain bin release / cable release / TV release / TV repeat. But certainly the DVD rental stores would eventually die out. But that is happening already in the US and I don’t see the movie industry rushing to prop up Blockbuster’s recent collapse. Instead the movie industry is licensing NetFlix to download movies on demand.

Of course we can’t get it in Australia – yet @Vezayar.
tallguy
Mar 21, 2011 8:22 PM
@GH: In my ignorance, I will assume you were referring to some other ignorant detractor ;-)
Graeme Harrison (prof at-symbol post.harvard.edu)
Mar 23, 2011 1:06 PM
@tallguy, isn't everyone getting a bit testy over just one word ("ignorant")? Nothing you had said was ignorant.

My words were only meant to be supportive of marcusg, not adversarial to any others.

The only 'ignorance' I was obliquely referring to was the general idea that these extra "copies" (downloaded copyright material) is best handled via the courts. I agree with putting money back to our creative people. My proposal puts money into a royalty stream.

I've been an independent expert on some of Australia's largest IP cases in Federal & Supreme Courts, and can say that the courts are a bad place to resolve such issues. The court cannot decide some new fair basis to apply (that is for the parties to agree, or for legislation). The courts can only decide things according to existing laws, and as the AFACT case failures have shown, the current laws do not really deal with the current problem.
Ace
Mar 23, 2011 4:47 PM
Ah, I cans ee where you got confused @GH. People like the BSA consider pirates to be people who sell illegitimate copies of software, escpecially when done on a larger scale. The movie and music industry are calling anyone with an illegitimate copy of their wares a pirate. In the BSA version, courts are quite good at dealing with cases, and cases are much easier to pursue. In APRAs case, they need the opposite of a class action to have any effect. I imagine the courts are not keen on the idea of 10,000 small claims cases choking the system. There failures to date are because they have not pursued the individuals accused of theft. Those chose to pursue a company who as far as we know have not stolen anything. It's was always going to to be a dodgy prosecution when it it was based on what they thought was ethical responsibility.

Perhaps APRA should be doing what the BSA are doing. I'm not sure, because I assume this would require collection of statistics from ISPs that may be difficult to obtain in a format suitable for court.

If your plan 'protects home users', then surely you would expect illegal downloads to get nearer to 100%? Wouldn't that blowout the estimates you quoted? And if you believe the movie industry, illegal downloads do impact heavily on the movie and DVD sales. And when you point out that DVDs "did not close down all cinemas", you should also point out the reason - and that is because DVDs for current movies at cinemas are not available for sale.
BigAussie
Mar 24, 2011 7:53 AM
Instead of worrying about DVD sales, and how they can lock down access to any movie by geographical region; what about a total rethink and allowing people access to a movie online the same day it is released in cinemas. In a similar quality.

I for one prefer to watch a movie in the comfort of my own home, without being charged insane prices for a drink and a confortable chair to watch said movie.

I have no problem at all paying for a movie, when I want to see it, without advertising -- at a reasonable price. It is the reasonable price which continually blocks my purchase (as well as geographical blocking currently).

I have an online business providing video streaming in high definition. I know the costs involved for distribution; and we are only in a small niche market. The cost of creation of a product plus the digital distribution when divided across a typical hollywood sized market is very small.

This is why services like NetFlix in USA are able to offer movies using a subscription model. They divide up the money received with those content owners who were viewed. If you produce a good product, you get paid. Produce rubbish, you starve. Darwin theory at its most pure. Survival of the fittest :p
anonymous
Mar 24, 2011 1:51 PM

@Big, survival of the fittest and smartest, how true.

But we should remember that 73 million years ago the dinosaurs of that era were pretty vindictive about anything that got in their way, too.

It's just that the content corporations haven't realised yet that if they don't quickly adapt to the digital world, they'll go exactly the same way as all those other dinosaurs.
Pilotyoda
Mar 27, 2011 9:52 PM
There are so many problems and few good solutions. As @GH suggests the cost of the digital content is substantially less than the physical product as there is no manufacturing component (inc raw materials), no cover pics and liner notes, no warehousing & transport, no retail space and inventory costs, etc. The source material is supplied to them in digital format (except for most movies) so no huge studios to operate and the list goes on. And the cost of using the digital content is wholly born by the consumer. Computers and accessory costs, modems, storage media and the ongoing cost of the Internet connection (even when the speed is s-l-o-w). If you want to view the "covers, liner notes or lyrics" you are either tied to the screen (small on notebooks) or faced with the further costs of printing.

Do the movie houses, authors and musicians get more money from the exorbitant retail price charged for the digital version? Is the digital version of the music or movie the same high resolution as the CD/DVD/BD? (Usually not!) Do the production companies give more time to the small scale, independent performers or suburban movie makers? Yet the CD/DVD shops would have you believe the "pirates" are putting them out of business.

The biggest issue is the pirate downloads are probably detracting from the for-sale digital downloads, not the physical product. I-tunes has just released the whole Beatles collection in lo-fi digital format for what seems to a higher price than buying the CDs and DVDs from the shop. Now that's a rip-off. And the kids and their parents know it.

By the way, @GH, should you have to pay a fee for the "unlicensed content" on your computer, the prices would have to be no more than 50cents/GB, not $50 (a single compressed movie would be less than 1GB and the picture quality is simply not as good as the same thing on DVD/BD and a single BD movie would be from 10-25GB. The movie houses would hardly be getting more than $0.50-S1.00 per disc sold, regardless of the format and file size.
grump3
Jun 3, 2011 3:26 PM
marcusg wrote

Would a fee / tax / levy be appropriate on your monthly ISP account allowing you to download anything you want?

What about all those who don't & are not interested in downloading "unlicensed content"?
Are we also expected to pay this fee per GB for our downloaded emails, purchased content & web surfing?
Bit hard to differentiate between the two if encryption is used.
Comments have been disabled for this article.
 
 
Top Stories
ATO commits to complexity
Greater demand, fewer apps.
 
Photos: AusCERT 2013 day two
The second day of the Queensland security conference.
 
The illusion of cognitive computing
Opinion: IBM's Watson is a marketing success.
 
 
Piracy costs Australia $900m a year - or does it?
Sign up to receive iTnews email bulletins
   FOLLOW US...

Latest VideosSee all videos »

Bankwest builds continuous delivery capability
Bankwest builds continuous delivery capability
To automatically deploy test/dev sandboxes by mid-year.
Veterans' Affairs sets sights on modernisation
Veterans' Affairs sets sights on modernisation
Data safe with Human Services, CIO says.
Citi Australia drops platform customisations
Citi Australia drops platform customisations
Technology chief shifts focus from building to leveraging systems.
VicRoads restructures IT team
VicRoads restructures IT team
Department moves to align with industry benchmarks.
Zurich Australia extends IT team offshore
Zurich Australia extends IT team offshore
Malaysian staff served from Australian data centres.
Leigh Berrell - Utilities CIO of the Year
Leigh Berrell - Utilities CIO of the Year
Yarra Valley Water CIO Leigh Berrell accepts his Benchmark Award for Utilities CIO of the Year.
Wayne McMahon - Retail CIO of the Year
Wayne McMahon - Retail CIO of the Year
Domino's Pizza CIO Wayne McMahon accepts his Benchmark Award for Retail CIO of the Year.
Inside Perpetual's ongoing IT transformation
Inside Perpetual's ongoing IT transformation
CIO Jenny Levy discusses how outsourcing will help the firm "simplify, refocus and grow".
Managing Complexity - Defence's Daniel McCabe
Managing Complexity - Defence's Daniel McCabe
Daniel McCabe, Assistant Secretary of Australia's Department of Defence, provides the audience at the iTnews Data Centre Strategy Summit with a deep dive into the organisation's data centre consolidation program.
How Facebook designed the data centre from scratch - Marco Magarelli
How Facebook designed the data centre from scratch - Marco Magarelli
The full keynote by Facebook data centre architect Marco Magarelli at the Australian Data Centre Strategy Summit. Magarelli details the design considerations behind the social network's Prineville, Oregon; North Carolina and Luleå, Sweden data centres.
Modernising Legacy Data Centres - Telstra's Jon Curry
Modernising Legacy Data Centres - Telstra's Jon Curry
Telstra general manager of managed data centres Jon Curry guides the audience at the iTnews Australian Data Centre Summit through the build of the telco's Clayton, Victoria data centre.
NSW Government launches NABERS data centre rating tools
NSW Government launches NABERS data centre rating tools
Matthew Clark from the NSW Department of Environment guides facilties managers through the details of the new NABERS data centre energy rating tool at the Australian Data Centre Strategy Summit.
NABERS launch panel: Australian Data Centre Strategy Summit
NABERS launch panel: Australian Data Centre Strategy Summit
Matthew Clark (NSW Dept of Environment), Greg Boorer (Canberra Data Centres), Glenn Allan (National Australia Bank), Mike Andrea (Strategic Directions) and Bob Sharon (Green Global Consulting) discuss the impact of the NABERS data centre rating.
Judges notes: Fortescue Metals [The Benchmark Awards]
Judges notes: Fortescue Metals [The Benchmark Awards]
iTnews' panel of judges discuss Fortescue Metals 'New World of Work" project, one of three shortlisted finalists for the Industrials category of the CIO Benchmark Awards.
Judges notes: Retail [The Benchmark Awards]
Judges notes: Retail [The Benchmark Awards]
iTnews' panel of judges discuss the shortlisted finalists for the Retail category of the CIO Benchmark Awards.
Judges notes: Pacific Aluminium [The Benchmark Awards]
Judges notes: Pacific Aluminium [The Benchmark Awards]
iTnews' panel of judges discuss Pacific Aluminium's lightning fast service desk refresh, one of three shortlisted finalists for the Industrials category of the CIO Benchmark Awards.
Judges notes: Domino's Pizza [The Benchmark Awards]
Judges notes: Domino's Pizza [The Benchmark Awards]
iTnews' panel of judges discuss Domino's Pizza's shift to hosted services, one of three shortlisted finalists for the Retail category of the CIO Benchmark Awards.
Judges notes: McDonald's Australia [The Benchmark Awards]
Judges notes: McDonald's Australia [The Benchmark Awards]
iTnews' panel of judges discuss McDonald's Australia's new self-service portal for employees, one of three shortlisted finalists for the Retail category of the CIO Benchmark Awards.
Judges notes: ING Direct [The Benchmark Awards]
Judges notes: ING Direct [The Benchmark Awards]
iTnews' panel of judges discuss ING Direct's 'Bank in a Box', one of three shortlisted finalists for the banking and finance category of the CIO Benchmark Awards.
Judges notes: Yarra Valley Water [The Benchmark Awards]
Judges notes: Yarra Valley Water [The Benchmark Awards]
iTnews' panel of judges discuss Yarra Valley Water's insourcing project, one of three shortlisted finalists for the Utilities category of the CIO Benchmark Awards.
Latest articles on BIT Latest Articles from BIT
Work in a restaurant, café, shop? This familiar to you?
May 24, 2013
If you work in cafe, restaurant or a shop, you might relate to this video. Take a look.
Can your tablet do this? The Dell Latitude 10's removable battery
May 24, 2013
Press a small button on the back of the Dell Latitude 10 and it does something not all tablets ...
HP's ElitePad 900: how it's different to the Surface Pro
May 23, 2013
Buying a tablet to use at work? These photos show why the HP ElitePad 900 G1 is an interesting ...
eftpos to trial "mobile wallet"
May 17, 2013
eftpos, the operator of Australia's most widely used debit card system will soon start a mobile ...
New iiNet 4G phone plans include free calls between phones on same account
May 16, 2013
iiNet's new 4G mobile business plans provide free calls between handsets on the same account as ...
Latest Comments
Polls
Do you prefer the Coalition's NBN policy?

   |   View results
Yes
  19%
 
No
  81%
TOTAL VOTES: 1742

Vote