7.30: make it stop

Our house has been an ABC-free zone for some time: we just can’t bear it.

But last night I was at my daughter’s and we watched 7.30 – I think because ABC1 just happened to be on.

If this is high quality journalism, I’m a monkey’s uncle (or should that be aunt?).

There were two main items:

The first was by Greg Hoy, who is invariably unreliable.  The segment was, I think, about the reform to the FOFA laws but the story was completely garbled, incoherent and misleading.

It was mixing up all sorts of issues and timing.  It covered the people who lost money by investing in tax-driven Managed Investment Schemes – Timbercorp was the company in question, although at one stage in the story, the tag was Timecorp.  (Honestly, can’t the ABC even get these sorts of things right?)

The fact that the Howard government effectively closed down MIS arrangements was not mentioned.

And to be frank, people who have mortgaged their houses to invest in an obviously dodgy arrangement like Timbercorp can never be helped.  If it were not this investment, it would have been another.

Then there was the mandatory harassment of some accountant/financial adviser who had done something wrong according to the ABC, although we never found out what it was.  The theme of this part of the story seemed to be how dare he declare bankruptcy when he still drives an expensive car and lives in an expensive house.  But what did this have to do with FOFA?  Storm was briefly mentioned but without context.

And then we had the self-serving Peter Collins railing against the FOFA changes and a fumbling Munchenberg from the Bankers’ Association – the producers chose the precise sentence or two in which he misspoke.

And how were those random shots of sullen looking people supposed to help us interpret the messages of the segment?

ABSOLUTELY APPALLING, F-.

The Board of the ABC is simply not doing its job – it is there to maintain the journalistic standards of the corporation and there is no evidence at all that it is doing this.

The second segment was equally bad.  It was about illegal downloads – something at which Australia excels evidently – and focused on Game of Thrones.

It followed two GoT devotees who had paid $70 each to attend some sort of GoT expo and were absolutely thrilled to have had a photo taken with the actor who plays Jaime Lannister (you see, I was concentrating).

But they had illegally downloaded all the GoT episodes because they are too expensive to watch legally – something which the producer of this segment seemed fine with.

Evidently, Choice thinks this is fine too because Foxtel refuses to offer single episode offerings and its packages are too expensive.  So acting illegally is fine by ACA too.  Really? Really? It’s a bit like saying that I think that that Chanel bag is too expensive for what it is, so it’s OK to steal it.

You really have to wonder about the ABC.  Needless to say, A-G Brandis was portrayed in a poor light, heartlessly trying to uphold property rights against all those worthy thieving fans of GoT.

Please.

Can someone do something to stop this appalling tosh being put to air using taxpayers’ monies?  And just don’t get me on to Sarah Ferguson.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

169 Responses to 7.30: make it stop

  1. JC

    And just don’t get me on to Sarah Ferguson.

    If you try to think who would have made a great female politburo member, you couldn’t go past Springer-Jones wife as minister for propaganda.

  2. It tells you a lot about the intellectual standards of the Friends of the ABC.

    And Malcolm Turnbull, for that matter.

  3. Bruce of Newcastle

    This is why the ABC and SBS should not be merged.

    SBS is still reasonably watchable. The ABC is a gangrenous pustulent canker. If you add the one to the other all it’ll do is destroy SBS too, which might be the aim of some people but is not, I think, the aim of Malcolm Turnbull.

  4. Gab

    This is why the ABC and SBS should not be merged.

    SBS is still reasonably watchable.

    There is absolutley no reasonable case for taxpayers funding two (okay, one and a half) broadcasting networks any more in this technological age.

  5. Mr Skeletor

    Evidently, Choice thinks this is fine too because Foxtel refuses to offer single episode offerings and its packages are too expensive. So acting illegally is fine by ACA too. Really? Really? It’s a bit like saying that I think that that Chanel bag is too expensive for what it is, so it’s OK to steal it.

    No, it’s more like saying a Chanel bag is an appalling rip-off therefore it is OK to buy a $25 knock-off from China.
    I DL’d the GoT episode in question. Is it stealing? Sure is. Do I feel bad? Nope. If Foxtel or whoever made them available at a reasonable price I’d buy. But I’m not paying for 3 months’ worth of overpriced Foxtel just for 1 show.
    When the show is released on Blue Ray I buy it – but there is a 9 month delay there. I’m not waiting 9 months (and missing the up being -to-date social fun) when I can download it so easily.

    It’s like music. For years I brought overpriced CDs, and then started downloading them since it was easier and the cost of a CD just wasn’t worth it. But after the music industry got its head out of its ass and started offering streaming services I subscribed to one and happily pay $12 a month for my music to be totally legal.

  6. Mr Skeletor

    SBS is far superior to ABC. Isn’t most of SBS’s funding commercial now?

  7. Econocrat

    I made it to 7.32, then switched to Master Chef.

  8. tgs

    It’s a bit like saying that I think that that Chanel bag is too expensive for what it is, so it’s OK to steal it.

    Well no, it’s more like saying if the Chanel bag is too expensive it’s OK to make a copy of it using a 3d printer.

    Copyright infringement is not the same thing as theft.

  9. Infidel Tiger

    Evidently, Choice thinks this is fine too because Foxtel refuses to offer single episode offerings and its packages are too expensive. So acting illegally is fine by ACA too. Really? Really? It’s a bit like saying that I think that that Chanel bag is too expensive for what it is, so it’s OK to steal it.

    Quite ironic that Choice is an overpriced shit heap of a magazine that makes consumers pay exorbitant fees for product reviews that are invariably based on how the product appeals to Gaia.

    A better business model would be for someone to post all Choices reviews on easily downloadable torrent.

  10. lotocoti

    Isn’t most of SBS’s funding commercial now?

    No, only a bit.
    And when the ad market softens they hit up the taxpayer for the short-fall instead of managing costs.

  11. ar

    Do I feel bad? Nope. If Foxtel or whoever made them available at a reasonable price I’d buy.

    But lucky for you they don’t. Otherwise you’d have no justification for theft…

  12. James

    If Foxtel or whoever made them available at a reasonable price I’d buy.

    Look up how much a HBO subscription is in America. Foxtel is reasonable by comparison.

    But, by all means, go on stealing intellectual property because you are amoral and cheap.

  13. Peter

    Judith,

    Can you also explain to Ashlynne McGhee that meningococcus is a bacterium not a virus.

  14. Helen

    Quite ironic that Choice is an overpriced shit heap of a magazine that makes consumers pay exorbitant fees for product reviews that are invariably based on how the product appeals to Gaia.

    Dead right, I sent them a letter with my cancellation of subscription telling them I wanted a washing machine to wash, not save water, ditto dishwasher. They have gone totally green feral.

  15. Talleyrand

    The ABC – If it wasn’t free, you wouldn’t steal it.

  16. Steve D

    A better business model would be for someone to post all Choices reviews on easily downloadable torrent.

    They’d be much less happy about that. They even go after manufacturers who dare to refer to a Choice article to spruik their product. As if copyright law did not allow reasonable citations of protected works.

  17. rebel with cause

    I was very confused by the ‘Timecorp’ thing too – I actually thought it was another investment scheme that had gone belly up.

    The MIS schemes were setup to encourage investment in forests by allowing people to defer taxation on earned income. Whatever you invested into the MIS you would not pay tax on until the scheme matured. It was basically meant to encourage high income earners to invest in forests instead of shares and property by giving forests a tax advantage. Basically, if you socked $50k into the MIS it would reduce your taxable income in that year by $50k, and instead you would pay tax on that money in 20 years time when the trees matured and you were retired and earning less income.

    So the first question is what were people doing putting their family homes up to invest in an MIS? They were setup to be a tax deferral mechanism, not a good investment.

    The second part of all this is that because the demand for the MIS was manufactured demand via the government grant of tax concession, the people putting their money into the MIS didn’t bother to check whether they were good investments run by experienced forest industry people. By and large, they weren’t. The MIS schemes were mostly run by fly-by-night cowboys who sold the investment on a glossy brochure, took investors money and purchased a plot of land and some seedlings and then proceeded to whack the trees in willy-nilly without a second thought as to how they would be harvested. A number of the sites selected were absolutely incapable of being harvested profitably, you just couldn’t get the machinery in to do it. They then took all the money they didn’t spend and put it to good use on lavish corporate suites and travel, all the time trying to sell more MIS investments to keep the money rolling in.

    So the second question is, did any of these people bother to do even a moments research into the investment vehicle they were dumping their life savings? You’d think that if you were risking your house on it you’d take a close look.

  18. Mr Skeletor

    But lucky for you they don’t. Otherwise you’d have no justification for theft…

    Look up how much a HBO subscription is in America. Foxtel is reasonable by comparison.

    But, by all means, go on stealing intellectual property because you are amoral and cheap.

    I was planning to.
    It would be appreciated if you two Saints would pray for my soul next time you’re in church.

  19. H B Bear

    Watching the appalling, drab Mrs Snowcone droning on I almost feel sorry for Snowcone ($355,789). Until I remember what a supercilious, condescending prick he is – and then I feel sorry for me and fellow taxpayers.

  20. entropy

    I knew as soon as the torrent issue was mentioned the thread risked getting derailed. But then, we all know the ABC sucks, as does regional/ country based copyright laws in a digital global world that allow local distributors to charge a lot more for no purpose other than they can.

    But complaining/ranting about the ABC is at best cathartic, it won’t amount to anything more than roo skit while Lord Wentworth is Minister.

    But back to the derailment: If the GoT producers were really concerned about illegal downloads, they would not set up exclusive deals with foxtel and they would make the episodes available for download/streaming on iTunes at the same time it screened on foxtel, or at most the day after it screened. But that might risk DVD BD sales at Christmas time with all that lovely excessive local mark up.

  21. RB

    Thanks for the rave Judith, it’s similar to the one I make if I inadvertently tune in to just about anything on the ABC.
    I was brought up in a home in the fifties where the ABC was the only radio station we were allowed to listen to. By the time my father was in his sixties he no longer watched the ABC; he was disgusted with just about everything about it, from the presenters to the material to the unashamed political bias. At the time I thought he was a bit over the top but since the last election and the subsequent torrent of unbalanced political bile, I have also stopped watching the ABC.
    Most programs are unwatchable. Or irritating (particularly the endless sagas of quaint English folk renovating ghastly old mansions or smug twee English folk building clever houses, or Stephen Fry doing anything). Considering the funding the ABC receives it is an endless puzzle to me why it relies so much on so many boring repeats of BBC shows. News 24 (1-2% audience) should be shut down and the money used to produce some quality Australian drama, or at least import some quality US drama.
    The news is mostly not objective news but opinion with two or three nightly segments of moaning, unfairly treated, disadvantaged, vulnerable, beaten-up, badly-treated cheated people waving their begging bowls at us.
    And that’s not counting the regular religious breast-beating about the weather.
    The taxpayer-funded ABC is a disgrace. It’s mind boggling that the bloke supposedly running the show is being paid what he’s being paid, especially as he never seems to know what’s going on at his ABC. And as for the chic who reads the news getting what she gets paid (more than many doctors, airline pilots and so on) for reading the news it’s a joke.
    What can be done?

  22. And to be frank, people who have mortgaged their houses to invest in an obviously dodgy arrangement like Timbercorp can never be helped.

    Translated – never give a sucker an even break.
    Obviously commerce is inoculated against moral relativism (in Judith’s world, at least).

    Foxtel refuses to offer single episode offerings and its packages are too expensive.

    It’s called price gouging, Judith.
    Again, in Judith’s world, the morality of this practice can be forgotten if you label it a commercial transaction.

    Liberty quote – In the name of the almighty dollar, every knee shall bend.

  23. Duncan

    Evidently, Choice thinks this is fine too because Foxtel refuses to offer single episode offerings and its packages are too expensive. So acting illegally is fine by ACA too. Really? Really? It’s a bit like saying that I think that that Chanel bag is too expensive for what it is, so it’s OK to steal it

    For someone who is usually economically sound your complete and utter lack of understanding here is mind blowing.

    Taking a copy is not the same as stealing a physical item. The original isn’t taken or stolen: it still remains in the ownership of the company that is offering it.

    But herein still lies the problem: the company that owns it is NOT offering it for sale like a handbag either; you can’t buy a standalone episode of GoT. In a free market you should be able to, and not offering it for sale is nothing more than monopolistic practice that encourages illegal copying.

    Choice can tend to be left wing at times, but on digital distribution it is completely right.

  24. Infidel Tiger

    Choice can tend to be left wing at times

    If that leftist rag ever did a product review on socialism vs. capitalism I think we know where they’d put the 5 stars.

  25. Andrew

    It’s called price gouging, Judith.
    Again, in Judith’s world, the morality of this practice can be forgotten if you label it a commercial transaction.

    For a moment I thought the scumbag communist traitor was talking about the confiscation of tens of billions of dollars of our money to be handed to “green” (sic) “electricity” (sic) generators who for some reason get to charge 4-10x more for their vastly inferior product (magic electricity) than the stuff made reliably 24/7 the conventional way.

  26. john constantine

    torrents rule.

    game of thrones is derivitive, and only by being more explicit with skin and violence can it cover up the debts owed to the greats of sword and sorcery that have gone before it.

    because a fair slab of thrones owes itself to the common literary canon of the west, i could torrent it with clear conscience.

    all work made for hire is fair torrent bait i reckon.

    maybe something like dave sims ‘cerebus’ where the owner /creator risked his own capital to make a living from his talent, and sale of the back stories fund his retirement deserves protection, but the pressure got to poor old dave in the end [although after 25 years, cerebus finally died, alone, unloved and unmourned--as promised.]

    with a 12 dollar a gig wireless broadband being the only option out here, i trade with my mates in town, on disability pension to get the torrents. good firewall. big bag of illegally home processed lamb chops for a portable drive of torrents.

  27. cuckoo

    Taking a copy is not the same as stealing a physical item.

    Riiight. So if you ever develop a piece of proprietary software and put it on the market, you’ll be okay with me making/buying a bootleg of it. A lefty friend of mine felt this way about expensive software she really, really wanted – for her, stealing from a corporation isn’t really stealing.

  28. brc

    I think the ABC is price gouging.

    They take over a billion dollars of public money and spend it in rubbish that nobody watches.

    That’s the ultimate in price gouging, right there.

    It’s not price gouging for Foxtel to make it expensive to sign up for a series. They’re free to price it however they like. It’s not like it’s an essential service – I do without even knowing what the Game of Thrones thing is even about.

    Not sure why you can’t DL on iTunes though – no doubt some sort of stupid licensing rule.

    If you have cable you either are fabulously wealthy or act as though you are, and value for money doesn’t enter the equation. For the tiny bit of TV that I watch, FTA plus TiVo works for me.

  29. Roger

    Needless to say, A-G Brandis was portrayed in a poor light, heartlessly trying to uphold property rights against all those worthy thieving fans of GoT. You just don;t understand, Judith: property is theft (except when it’s Leftists property, then they get strangely attached to it).

    And just don’t get me on to Sarah Ferguson. Or “Matron”, as she is known in our house.

  30. Rabz

    Needless to say, A-G Brandis was portrayed in a poor light

    I’m shocked – shocked, I tells ya!

  31. Dr.Sir Fred Lenin

    I was amused ,the $ 4.8 million a year CEO of government owned Australiapost,announces a $218 million loss,he receives $2.0 million “performance”bonus,he donates bonus to muslim supporters of Terrorism and imans of no loyalty to his Employers! Wonderfull stuff ,fiction writers culd not write stories like this,they would consider it too faepr fetched! Get off your ass Liberals,Do something ,before it is tto late.

  32. Rabz

    I have no sympathy whatsoever for Foxtel or the proprietors of GoT.

    I still haven’t seen a frigging episode of the most recent series – the deal that was stitched up to prevent for example, Apple TV selling episodes of the latest series was an absolute act of bastardry – and I have a Foxtel subscription, FFS.

    If they could show the most recent season of The Walking Dead on FX, then why not GoT?

    Absolutely bloody disgraceful. :x :x

  33. Diogenes

    And here the free trade argument falls down. I wish to purchase direct from the manufacturer based in the US but am stopped from doing so.

    In the past I have purchased all seasons of GOT (and other series I am interested in) from ITunes and was happy to do so, and then purchased the DVD. This time I have taken the attitude – stuff HBO – if you won’t let me buy your product I won’t – and reread the books instead.

    To quote one of my year 11s – “I wouldn’t steal a car , but I would download one”. :-)

  34. Supplice

    My two cents: I torrent, and I’m fine with it. Most things I’ll pick up have no commercial release in Australia to date and have virtually nil prospect of commercial release in the future. Thanks to DVD/Blu-ray region encoding, and the PAL/NTSC divide, I couldn’t watch those programs even if I did import legally. But in the extremely rare case that something I’ve torrented has been licensed and sold in my region/format I’ll delete and purchase a nice disc copy (I can count the number of times that this has happened on a carpenter’s hand and have fingers to spare).

    Here’s the question: have those of you who oppose torrenting as stealing ever recorded a program with a VCR? Because its the same thing – a program, purchased once, and then distributed via airwaves and copied without permission.

  35. Rob

    Malcolm Turnbull is the minister responsible for “our” appalling ABC and he has done ……………… ?
    Today, Jon Faine on ABC774 was at great pains to blacken the Royal Commission into union corruption.
    Faine’s desperate attempt follows years of denial during which the question marks hanging over his heroes have gotten bigger, heavier, and more disturbing.
    Whose side is Malcolm on?

  36. Mr Skeletor

    You’re missing out Rabz, GoT season 4 was the best yet!

    Just hit the torrents and join us in criminal land.

    True story – my place of employment where there was the most swapping of illegal movies and TV shows by far was at Victoria Police Forensic Centre (True blood was massive at the time.)

  37. Pickles

    big bag of illegally home processed lamb chops
    “Where’s that jolly jumbuck…”

  38. Brian Fingerton

    “It’s a bit like saying that I think that that Chanel bag is too expensive for what it is, so it’s OK to steal it.”
    Actually, it’s a bit like saying that I think that that Chanel bag is too expensive for what it is, so it’s OK to buy a copy bag, which I think it is.
    To pretend downloading is the same as stealing is just propaganda. Most people who download TV shows, movies & music wouldn’t buy them, so the producer has not lost a sale. Moreover, the producer has not lost the goods, as the nature of the items being sold is qualitatively different to physical products.
    I don’t have much sympathy for movie & TV studios whose execs and main actors are paid far in excess of most people’s wages.
    If Foxtel don’t want people seeking out an alternative way to view the show, then offer what consumers want, at a price they are willing to pay. The music industry has been forced to change its business model in response to consumers saying: “Why pay $30 when I can get it for free?” Now more people are paying, bec it’s $1 per song. TV channels need to do the same.
    But of course, large companies only believe in economic freedom when they get to do what THEY want.

  39. Mr Skeletor

    I fully expect Jon Fane to go on a hunger strike next week in protest of the RC.

  40. Roger

    Here’s the question: have those of you who oppose torrenting as stealing ever recorded a program with a VCR?
    No (but not, I confess, just because I was virtuous; I never could work out the timer on our VCR).

    Because its the same thing – a program, purchased once, and then distributed via airwaves and copied without permission.
    Precisely.

    But I echo Diogenes – this is where free trade falls down?

    Btw, did you know A-G Brandis is looking to require ISPs to suspend the accounts of repeat illegal downloaders?

  41. Walter Plinge

    I stopped subscribing to Choice 35 years ago because of its anti-business attitude. If I really need to check a test I can take pics of the copy on my local municipal library. But, as a reader pointed out earlier, the environmental slant these days is annoying. Product effectiveness is what I’m interested in, not whether something going to save my children’s children from drowning.

    Meantime, the Synology NAS on my desk is quietly and subversively at work ;-)

  42. Mr Skeletor

    Btw, did you know A-G Brandis is looking to require ISPs to suspend the accounts of repeat illegal downloaders?

    If he can’t even get 18-C through he has bugger all chance of getting the public to support that one.

  43. Supplice

    Btw, did you know A-G Brandis is looking to require ISPs to suspend the accounts of repeat illegal downloaders?

    Yep, and the nuclear milkman before him. Toughening up rules along those lines just pushes it further underground. But anyone with a static IP is a mug anyway.

  44. Supplice

    Heh, Roger, my old man told me once that’s why he had kids, to figure out the VCR for him!

  45. Token

    Quite ironic that Choice is an overpriced shit heap of a magazine that makes consumers pay exorbitant fees for product reviews that are invariably based on how the product appeals to Gaia.

    4 years ago I bought the right to view Choices data on electronic goods & found they were 14 months out of date.

    5 minutes on whirlpool & the crowd sourced solutions & references provided infinite detail the Choice article did not come close to address.

    Why pay for a generalist journalist instead of a specialist subject expert?

    Why pay for the ABC or Choice?

  46. Infidel Tiger

    People should steal from Hollywood at every opportunity.

    It’s immoral not to.

  47. Walter Plinge

    Btw, did you know A-G Brandis is looking to require ISPs to suspend the accounts of repeat illegal downloaders?

    Easily defeated. Whirlpool has a thread on this at present and everyone is sniggering in their sleeves. I guess Brandis hasn’t heard of seedbox.

  48. Supplice

    People should steal from Hollywood at every opportunity.

    To derail the topic even further, when was the last time Hollywood had an original idea that was any good?

  49. Big_Nambas

    And just don’t get me on to Sarah Ferguson.

    No I’ll leave that to Snowcone, poor bastard!
    The ABC is totally out of control, totally in denial and lost. A new board and new CEO is the only chance for change.

  50. Infidel Tiger

    Hollywood spends it whole life lobbying for tax relief and stealing ideas.

    Fuck them.

    I only buy DVDs from Asian street vendors.

  51. Uh oh

    The other interesting thing about last night’s show was that Sarah Ferguson had a slight trace of a smile on her face when she signed-off.
    I think its the first time I’ve ever seen anything other than that bland, expressionless look from her.

  52. Joe Goodacre

    It’s not enough for Brandis that he’s made a mess of the sell on section 18C.

    No – let’s push another problem and suggest we’d consider cutting users off from the internet to protect an extremely wealthy group of mostly foreign based individuals.

    On a separate issue – is it reasonable for other taxpayers to fund additional police and courts because people won’t lock their door. If movie studios aren’t willing to spend money to prevent their product from being copied (i.e. sabotaging files that people want to download, or investing money in developing distribution models that are difficult to copy), why should taxpayer funds go to protect what they won’t protect themselves?

    I understand the argument for protecting intellectual property when it’s meant to stimulate investment in technology. Why that argument applies to have taxpayers pick up the protection bill so Brad Pitt can earn $30m per movie instead of $20m is less clear.

  53. alphonse

    I am a lurker at the Cat and a film director, I make IP for a living. It isn’t called intellectual PROPERTY rights for nothing. J-B Say on property rights:

    “It is the province of speculative philosophy to trace the origin of the right of property; of legislation to regulate its transfer; and of political science to devise the surest means of protecting that right. Political economy recognises the right of property solely as the most powerful of all encouragements to the multiplication of wealth, and is satisfied with its actual stability, without inquiring about its origin or its safeguards. In fact, the legal inviolability of property is obviously a mere mockery, where the sovereign power is unable to make the laws respected, where it either practises robbery itself, or is impotent to repress it in others; or where possession is rendered perpetually insecure, by the intricacy of legislative enactments, and the subtleties of technical nicety. Nor can property be said to exist, where it is not matter of reality as well as of right. Then, and then only, can the sources of production, namely, land, capital, and industry, attain their utmost degree of fecundity.”

    When you steal my IP you steal my property. No amount of moral yoga and self justification excuses this behaviour. You are a thief, shame on you.

  54. Joe Goodacre

    Here’s the question: have those of you who oppose torrenting as stealing ever recorded a program with a VCR? Because its the same thing – a program, purchased once, and then distributed via airwaves and copied without permission.

    It’s not the same thing. The same thing would be making a million copies of the VCR and sending it around.

    Maybe not all would have paid to watch the movie or show, but some would.

    I don’t think that there should be intellectual property protection for these items – your reasoning wouldn’t get me there though. I figure that if anyone who leaves their front door open shouldn’t have the protection of their property subsidised by taxpayers. They could spend millions paying people to infect fake torrents with viruses, or only distributing the product in a format that can’t be copied. They choose not to because the ‘cost’ of piracy is less than the costs that they would pay to protect their own property. Meanwhile singers and actors pocket millions so they aren’t doing too badly out of it. Every dollar of tax payer funding that goes to protecting what they won’t protect themselves is foolish in my opinion.

  55. areff

    I’ve just posted at Quadrant Online a short item on the very same episode of 7.30. The item notes that the ABC simply made up the quote about Choice supporting piracy and that there now appear at the foot of the transcript some weasel words to explain that the intro was amended to better reflect Choice’s stance.

    Amazingly, the footage the ABC did air had the Choice spokesperson recommending and explaining an entirely legal way to get around Foxtel’s rip-off charges — and they are a rip-off — by signing up to Netflix. (How much of a rip-off? When resident in Manhattan, I paid Time-Warner Cable $44 a month, from memory, for all the cable stations, including HBO and Cinemax, plus high-speed broadband. The same package of services here costs me $173 every month)

    The item is under the Essential Reading heading on the right-hand side of the home page.

    https://quadrant.org.au/

  56. tgs

    They could spend millions paying people to infect fake torrents with viruses

    That wouldn’t be legal. However, studios do engage companies who track torrent users through the public trackers and then send cease and desists to the users’ ISPs. This is largely ineffective in jurisdictions where the ISPs have no obligation to do anything with these requests such as Australia.

    or only distributing the product in a format that can’t be copied.

    Practically impossible. Every single DRM system will be cracked eventually.

  57. ProEng

    A few have commented that SBS is OK but it seems to also have gone the way of the ABC.
    The last few times I have watched the news there was Ms Chin talking about warming or climate change; how Obama was saving the world with his pronouncement about climate; how good are the EU in backing Ukraine; how bad is Russia and Putin; but the terrorists in Syria are OK; deriding Abbott; then on comes a band of unsporting looking commentators banging on about soccer and what the (3rd rate) Australian team was doing for the next half hour. If it is not soccer it is some obscure bike race. The hour of news on SBS is a waste of time and money.
    Both the ABC & SBS should be merged and privatised. Then get rid of the limits on press, TV and radio ownership.
    Lucky I get the Australian delivered so I can read Judith’s articles in peace and quiet. Even Cassandra Wilkinson’s articles are worth reading.

  58. Perth Trader

    A company or a individual cannot own a ‘idea’ in any form, intellectually or materially. The profits in a idea are made from how the company or the individual market that idea. If the internal combustion engine was patented , what then? If the wheel was patented , what then? If asprin was patented? Electricity? When a idea becomes reality , that reality can be sold but the idea is still only a idea and can be made better , faster or cheaper by anyone or we are beholden to the individual who first thought of said idea.

  59. Supplice

    Record labels do put out fake torrents of new albums; you used to see them coming out a few days before street date so they were pretty obvious. Its been that long since I bothered with music though so they might be harder to detect before dl’ing nowadays. Have seen this a bit with TV shows recently too. There’s almost always a telltale, and chances are if there’s a problem with that individual torrent someone will report as such.

  60. tgs

    Record labels do put out fake torrents of new albums; you used to see them coming out a few days before street date so they were pretty obvious.

    This is different from knowingly infecting peoples’ computers with viruses though. Making fake torrents isn’t illegal, neither is tracking downloaders via publicly available information from the public trackers.

    Easy way to get around that is use private trackers.

  61. Rabz

    then on comes a band of unsporting looking commentators banging on about soccer

    Yes, including that staggeringly unfunny, bog Irish dullard Jimoin, who looks as though he has imbibed and ingested way too many intoxicants, such that he is now effectively incapable of stringing a sentence together – which leads me to ask – why is the imbecile even on the telly?*

    Another one of life’s little mysteries. :?

    *Rhetorical.

  62. Burke & Wills

    The Abbott Bashing Collective don’t give a stuff what we think & nor does Malcolm X.
    ” …Complain to the ABC directly”…. he writes to tell me….. because quote “….I am unable to interfere in their Operational Matters”. I will never forgive his timid response to them after the C. Kenny dog skit, when he should have demanded an instant apology & even a few heads. Unless the PM gives the portfolio for Communications to a Minister with balls, we will continue to be dragged through the Left/Green slush by the short & curlies.
    The fact that this tax-payer funded monolith ( & SBS) needs two very highly paid twits to read the News tells us much. That is tantamount to stealing.

  63. Infidel Tiger

    then on comes a band of unsporting looking commentators banging on about soccer

    I caught 3 seconds of that show the other day. Out of the 4 panelists were 2 lesbians?

  64. Joe Goodacre

    That wouldn’t be legal.

    Is it legal to have a guard dog that bites?

  65. Pickles

    Two of them (plus one) is a quorum IT.

  66. Joe Goodacre

    Practically impossible. Every single DRM system will be cracked eventually.

    The rest of us have to continue to spend money buying locks, putting in lockout shutters or employing private security in the case of businesses.

    Some of us pay more to own an apartment on the second floor instead of the ground floor.

    Credit card companies are continually charging more to keep their systems secure.

    Everywhere we look people spend their own money to protect their property.

    So yes they may have to keep updating their technology to keep ahead of the pirates. Welcome to what the rest of us have to do.

  67. MartinG

    They borrow money using their house as collateral. Invest it in some dodgy scheme. The dodgy scheme goes wrong and they want the lender to pay for their stupidity.

    Stock market bubbles are made of such mug punters. The market has been going up so they invest some savings in some stock that someone has told them is a sure fire thing. They know nothing about the company but the market goes up as does their ‘sure fire thing’. Their ‘someone’ tells them they could make even bigger profits if they ‘invested’ more money in the ‘sure fire thing’. They leverage by borrowing money and buy more SFT .

    The market goes up and their gonna get rich because so does the SFT. Come the day the market falls their ‘someone’ tells them it’s a buying opportunity. They borrow more money using the house as collateral and dump it in the SFT. As if by magic the market goes up again and they convince themselves that all they have to do is keep borrowing money and dumping it in the SFT every time the market falls. They do this because they are now expert investors and they know the market will go up again so all they have to do is find more money on each dip.

    Now comes the blow off. Down goes the market in goes more money but the market goes down again. No worries it’s an even better buying opportunity they throw everything they own at it. There then comes what is known as the dead cat bounce. The market starts to rise and our expert investors start popping the champagne corks. Others however see the dead cat bounce is a opportunity to get the fuck out of there.

    SFT has no intrinsic value. It’s propped up by mug punters pumping money into it and when it is drained of all funds it is a worthless bankrupt shell.

    Soon our mug punters are on the 7.30 report crying about how wicked the banks are for expecting them to honour their debts.

    Fuck them of out of it. They can always find somewhere to rent.

  68. I can relate to this post.
    Once I never missed an episode of 7.30 report or Lateline.
    Now they’ve slipped in standards so much that I can’t remember when I last watched either, perhaps 2 years ago?

  69. Grigory M

    ABC should be privatized/sold off – I , and others here, have said so many times.

    As for SBS – Sex and Bloody Soccer – nothing wrong with them – and specific foreign languages news produced in other countries. Anything else is already available on the commercial TV channels.

  70. Ubique

    IT: I caught 3 seconds of that show the other day. Out of the 4 panelists were 2 lesbians?

    Spare a thought for the poor denizens of Greece’s 3rd largest island, Lesbos. These real Lesbians took court action against the misappropriation of their name by the pretenders in 2008 but, sad to say, they were unsuccessful.

    If I were a native of Lesbos I’d be upset too.

  71. mareeS

    ABC1 is going to be in an interesting situation post-July re new BBC product. Aunty apparently took it for granted she would have first refusal on new-season programs, but Foxtel got in underneath and negotiated first rights in Australia, hence a new BBC channel starting on Fox in August in addition to UKTV. How many more repeats of Stephen Fry and Grand Designs can the ABC’s 15% of the viewing population tolerate before volunteering for ECT?

  72. Tom

    Sorry for continuing the derail, but this topic is pretty interesting—otherwise-law-abiding citizens are breaking the law in order to, following confession of poster above, be adequately informed on a T.V. show, lest social interactions dry up.

    I have a few stupid questions: Is there any indication A-G. Brandis is looking to Make An Example? Would an Example curb piracy or piracy penalties? How does stealing US-produced entertainment affect the AU economy?(Likely too broad a Q; any refinement is permitted) Is stealing from a foreign company ipso facto stealing from the company’s country?

  73. johanna

    As others have mentioned, IP breaches are not theft. And they mostly happen because the IP marketplace is about as far from the notion of free trade as is possible. It is rigged against consumers every whichway.

    For example, US copyright laws now extend to 70 years after the death of the author or creator. What on earth does this have to do with protecting the livelihood of authors and creators? It’s just a protection racket for their heirs.

    Years ago, the industry used to moan about how people recording vinyl discs and later CDs onto tapes, plus recording TV programs onto videotapes, was ruining their business. Today they whine about downloading for the same reasons. Well, as someone with a long family tradition of music retailing, I can tell you that while the majors were charging punters $30 for records and CDs that cost at most a couple of bucks to manufacture, they were on a hiding to nothing. The same applies today with overpriced Foxtel packages and the like. It would be called illegal price fixing and third-line forcing in any other industry.

    And, they are always pressuring governments to police their extortionate practices, instead of banning them and prosecuting the perps as they would for any other industry.

  74. Yon Toad

    While “Their ABC” continues to exist in its present form Abbott et al are failures.

  75. His Omniscience

    A-G Brandis, and now Sloan it seems, needs to explain how making Australians who currently watch GoT and other material pay for what they currently consumer for free, so that its American producers can be enriched, will improve Australia’s welfare.

  76. Aristogeiton

    Joe Goodacre
    #1351590, posted on June 18, 2014 at 4:43 pm
    [...]
    I understand the argument for protecting intellectual property when it’s meant to stimulate investment in technology. Why that argument applies to have taxpayers pick up the protection bill so Brad Pitt can earn $30m per movie instead of $20m is less clear.

    Tell your boss that after you quit and steal his client list. What role should ‘taxpayers’ have in enforcing your fiduciary duty or the employer’s restraint of trade clause? He’s rich enough already, right? Besides, he should have been more careful with his IT security, so it’s really his fault.

    Big fucking surprise that big-state Joe doesn’t believe in property rights for ‘rich’ people.

  77. blogstrop

    Our house has been an ABC-free zone for some time: we just can’t bear it.

    Yep. Used to watch it and report so others didn’t have to. But the mental cost is steep, and the relief of not watching/listening is so good.

    Plenty of others have trod this brambly path. Even the late Frank Devine. Most have retired hurt or at least fatigued. Just as there is no way of reforming the ABC, there is no easy way of deleting it. Taxpayer funding must be stopped, or at least directed exclusively to far-flung regional areas that lack other sources of contact with our (formerly cohesive) society.

    There is no need for the ABC to service cities of over 10,000 population. They will get plenty of attention form the various platforms. The ABC should be solely a “last resort” or “market failure” service. They have cacked in the nest too often and too widely to be given the “national broadcaster” mantle without – dare I say – circumcision?
    They seem to think they’re there to counter the 2GB types, but in fact most of the commercial stations are not like 2GB, and most of the commercial TV stations are not unlike the ABC.

  78. Aristogeiton

    Joe Goodacre
    #1351627, posted on June 18, 2014 at 5:26 pm
    That wouldn’t be legal.

    Is it legal to have a guard dog that bites?

    It’s illegal under the laws of the land; you know the ones you seem to feel justified in flaunting because you find them inconvenient and/or hate rich people? Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) Pt. 10.7.

  79. custard

    The ABC needs to be massively reduced in size and reach.

    Here in WA we have two great things with the ABC not found elsewhere. I struggle to think of any other redeeming feature other than these two…..

    Eoin Cameron former liberal member for Stirling and the number one rated radio breakfast program in Perth.

    And Pamela Medlen the sexiest news reader in WA and possibly Australia.

    Cheers

  80. Di

    Copyright infringement is not the same thing as theft.

    I really disagree with this. I believe that it is theft.

    I could have gone the illegal download route, but no, I chose to buy the PS3 to get Foxtel in remote Aus without waiting months for an installation, and signed up.

    There is honesty, and then there is dishonesty & that is all there is to it.

    Might be old fashioned, but that’s what I think.

  81. cynical1

    Cassette tape made bootlegging easy in the ’70′s.

    Same old, same old….

  82. Dan

    When you steal my IP you steal my property.

    I pay for content via spotify, Apple TV, Kindle store and iBooks.
    But it is reasonable to point out that if someone just wants to watch GOT, a two year subscription to Foxtel for hundreds (?thousands) of dollars is a crazy way to have to do it. It seems to me that each single viewer out of millions paying a couple of dollars for an episode would be a reasonable income for the content creators and it is unfortunate this can’t happen.
    Sadly I pay for a Foxtel subscription too for the other half and it is a gruesome waste of money. Need to sort out a netflix account (should I feel guilty about that?)

  83. Ubique

    Eoin Cameron former liberal member for Stirling and the number one rated radio breakfast program in Perth.

    Eoin is absolutely meticulous in eschewing anything that sounds like politics, political comment or so much as the barest hint that he might have some conservative views. You’d never know from the program that Eoin had had a previous life as a Liberal MHR. His life at the ABC would otherwise be made unbearable and untenable. He’d be openly treated as a pariah; his coffee would be spat in and dead rats would be hidden in his car.

  84. johanna

    But it is reasonable to point out that if someone just wants to watch GOT, a two year subscription to Foxtel for hundreds (?thousands) of dollars is a crazy way to have to do it

    It would be illegal in any other industry.

    It would be like wanting to buy a carton of milk at the supermarket, and being given only two options – either buy 30 other items you don’t want/need, or buy a crate of cartons of milk some time down the track.

    That is why your average punter, who might never dream of really stealing something in the criminal sense, has no respect for the IP scams.

  85. Aristogeiton

    Dan
    #1351764, posted on June 18, 2014 at 7:48 pm
    When you steal my IP you steal my property.

    I pay for content via spotify, Apple TV, Kindle store and iBooks.
    But it is reasonable to point out that if someone just wants to watch GOT, a two year subscription to Foxtel for hundreds (?thousands) of dollars is a crazy way to have to do it. It seems to me that each single viewer out of millions paying a couple of dollars for an episode would be a reasonable income for the content creators and it is unfortunate this can’t happen.
    Sadly I pay for a Foxtel subscription too for the other half and it is a gruesome waste of money. Need to sort out a netflix account (should I feel guilty about that?)

    I wonder what the economics of this are. The content owners get mucho dinero from cable providers and FTA. Most individuals still buy DVDs (sorry, BluRays) for their content that they like. A large sector of the market will not download illegally. Would selling digital downloads cannibalise the future physical format sales?

    And yes, Netflix can be done with a fake Alaskan address and a very cheap VPN account. I know people who swear by it.

  86. Aristogeiton

    johanna
    #1351772, posted on June 18, 2014 at 7:55 pm
    [...]
    It would be illegal in any other industry.

    It would be like wanting to buy a carton of milk at the supermarket, and being given only two options – either buy 30 other items you don’t want/need, or buy a crate of cartons of milk some time down the track.

    The owner of the content can choose to sell it however they want. I don’t believe that this contravenes competition law. Milk is a poor example as a given litre of milk is infinitely fungible. You cannot substitute ‘Game of Thrones’ for ‘Mists of Avalon’.

  87. Infidel Tiger

    Eoin Cameron former liberal member for Stirling and the number one rated radio breakfast program in Perth.

    Nice guy, but his political views are wetter than a fat chick’s bike shorts after a sauna.

  88. Andrew

    Amazing to see people queueing up to be on the same side of a moral debate as the resident communist scum.

  89. Aristogeiton

    Andrew
    #1351789, posted on June 18, 2014 at 8:11 pm
    Amazing to see people queueing up to be on the same side of a moral debate as the resident communist scum.

    I take it ‘scum’ is plural, and meant to refer to Bloviacre and Numbers.

  90. johanna

    You have missed the point, A. You have to buy stuff that you don’t want in order to buy stuff that you do want. Car dealers used to make their purchasers use their brother-in-law’s finance company – this is now illegal – it’s called “third line forcing.”

  91. Tel

    You really have to wonder about the ABC.  Needless to say, A-G Brandis was portrayed in a poor light, heartlessly trying to uphold property rights against all those worthy thieving fans of GoT.

    And what would Libertarians do without a big government to invent new and interesting types of property right to impose by fiat… gosh, they would have to fall back to boring natural rights instead.

    I demand that government gives me ownership of picking noses. From now on anyone who picks their nose owes me ten bucks a day. You all support me in this because I homesteaded it (no one else claimed ownership) and property rights are good mkay?

  92. Tel

    I wonder what the economics of this are.

    Well at least one guy is thinking along sensible lines, sadly it stopped pretty quickly.

  93. Aristogeiton

    johanna
    #1351792, posted on June 18, 2014 at 8:13 pm
    You have missed the point, A. You have to buy stuff that you don’t want in order to buy stuff that you do want. Car dealers used to make their purchasers use their brother-in-law’s finance company – this is now illegal – it’s called “third line forcing.”

    If you could enter into a contract directly with the content owners, and you were forced to enter into a contract with Foxtel to view the content that you have just purchased, then that may be third line forcing (Cf. Castlemaine Brewers). What you describe is not third line forcing. You cannot force the content owner to contract with you, a party to your contract cannot force you to contract with a third person (put very simply).

  94. Aristogeiton

    Castlemaine Tooheys Ltd v Williams & Hodgson Transport Pty Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 395.

  95. Infidel Tiger

    I wonder what the economics of this are.

    Without “illegal” downloads GofT would have remained a very niche show for people who dress up as dragons and log on to chat rooms.

  96. Aristogeiton

    Infidel Tiger
    #1351806, posted on June 18, 2014 at 8:25 pm
    I wonder what the economics of this are.

    Without “illegal” downloads GofT would have remained a very niche show for people who dress up as dragons and log on to chat rooms.

    It’s shit.

  97. AP

    The Choice business model is so 1960. Who on earth pays for this rubbish and prosletysing? All I ever use now is productreview.com.au, and only usually believe the ratings for products with more than a handful of reviewers. It has never let me down.

  98. custard

    Ubique,

    Jeez your hard. I just find it amazing that the number one rating presenter on any ABC radio program anywhere in Australia is an ex fucking Liberal member of parliament on the left wing biased fucked out ABC and you still kick him.

    I think he’s great.

  99. Aristogeiton

    Infidel Tiger
    #1351806, posted on June 18, 2014 at 8:25 pm
    I wonder what the economics of this are.

    Without “illegal” downloads GofT would have remained a very niche show for people who dress up as dragons and log on to chat rooms.

    Right. And I would never have had to hear the mongrelised Anglo-Saxon names of characters I didn’t give a fuck about, conceived by a hack author and parrotted by breathless dullards who would have better spent the time getting a root or cutting their wrists. Big fucking loss there.

  100. Gab

    And I would never have had to hear the mongrelised Anglo-Saxon names of characters I didn’t give a fuck about, conceived by a hack author and parrotted by breathless dullards who would have better spent the time getting a root or cutting their wrists. Big fucking loss there.

    Never seen anyone so worked up about a TV show. Have another angry pill.

  101. Tel

    Have another angry pill.

    He’s been like that lately, maybe time to find another bottle shop?

    Perhaps a sign that interest rates are about to go up?

  102. johanna

    No, A., because you do not have any options at all for getting a single episode of GoT except buying a lot of unrelated material that you don’t want. In my grocery example – they are all groceries, but you cannot be forced to buy a bunch of other groceries just because you want a carton of milk.

    The only reason they get away with it is because the IP scamsters have convinced governments that they are special.

  103. Aristogeiton

    Gab
    #1351815, posted on June 18, 2014 at 8:32 pm
    [...]
    Never seen anyone so worked up about a TV show. Have another angry pill.

    Don’t follow the Q&A threads here?

  104. Gab

    You’re so correct, Aristo. I should have said:

    Never seen anyone so worked up over a TV series of the fictional genre.

  105. Tel

    johanna: much though I think IP law is largely a product of vested interests and rent seekers, you can’t be forced to buy anything you don’t want to. Think about this, if you pay $100 for GoT plus some other crap in a bundle and you didn’t want the other crap then obviously you must thing GoT is worth at least $100, thus, you paid what it was worth. I’m open to sensible arguments, but what you said happens not to be one.

    Foxtel may be losing subscribers by using this strategy (i.e. not making optimal profit) but that’s their business, and overall Murdoch is known for getting his business model better tuned than anyone else can do. I might also point out that in a subscription business, complexity is a deadweight cost to all concerned.

  106. Aristogeiton

    johanna
    #1351820, posted on June 18, 2014 at 8:37 pm
    No, A., because you do not have any options at all for getting a single episode of GoT except buying a lot of unrelated material that you don’t want. In my grocery example – they are all groceries, but you cannot be forced to buy a bunch of other groceries just because you want a carton of milk.

    The only reason they get away with it is because the IP scamsters have convinced governments that they are special.

    Sorry joanna, I like you but you’re wrong at law; see the above links/references. This would render much present commerce unlawful. You can’t force somebody to contract with you directly. The problem here is the good (GoT) is non-fungible, so your options to purchase are limited. It is not groceries. The mischief third line forcing fixes upon is being forced to contract with another party. Your grocery example, provided that it involves only one party, is just bad business dealing. Chrisco, in fact, run a business on this very model.

  107. Aristogeiton

    Gab
    #1351826, posted on June 18, 2014 at 8:42 pm
    You’re so correct, Aristo. I should have said:

    Never seen anyone so worked up over a TV series of the fictional genre.

    I don’t know. You probably remember who killed JR, for example. My time series is truncated.

  108. Denise

    Yon Toad
    #1351673, posted on June 18, 2014 at 6:34 pm

    While “Their ABC” continues to exist in its present form Abbott et al are failures.

    +1

  109. Gab

    You probably remember who killed JR

    What’s a JR?

  110. jupes

    Richo on Sky just interviewed a bloke who blamed not only Bush but Winston Churchill for ISIS.

    Seriously.

  111. .

    Gab
    #1351837, posted on June 18, 2014 at 8:50 pm
    You probably remember who killed JR

    What’s a JR?

    I have seriously never heard of Game of Thrones or Dallas.

  112. johanna

    The products in the Chrisco package can be bought separately – it’s not the same at all.

    Say you wanted to buy a particular brand of football from a sporting goods store, and only one store stocked that brand. It would be illegal to force you to also buy a basketball, cricket pads and a South Sydney jersey in order to buy that football. Say you wanted to buy a Chanel bag, presuming that they are only sold in Chanel Shops. It would be illegal to force you to also pay for perfume and a scarf. Comprende?

    It is only in areas covered by IP that this skulduggery is allowed. There have been some massive legal battles with outfits like MicroSatan over this kind of issue. Mostly they get away with it because their “market” is regarded by gullible governments as unique – every rent-seeker’s dream.

  113. Infidel Tiger

    Richo on Sky just interviewed a bloke who blamed not only Bush but Winston Churchill for ISIS.

    Seriously.

    I blame the softcocks who called off The Crusades.

  114. Aristogeiton

    johanna
    #1351866, posted on June 18, 2014 at 9:08 pm
    The products in the Chrisco package can be bought separately – it’s not the same at all.

    Say you wanted to buy a particular brand of football from a sporting goods store, and only one store stocked that brand. It would be illegal to force you to also buy a basketball, cricket pads and a South Sydney jersey in order to buy that football. Say you wanted to buy a Chanel bag, presuming that they are only sold in Chanel Shops. It would be illegal to force you to also pay for perfume and a scarf. Comprende?

    johanna, this is just wrong. It is not illegal. You cannot buy the products from Chrisco separately from Chrisco. They sell hampers. The thing that is confusing you is the fungibility of the goods that you are referring to. GoT is not fungible. You cannot force HBO to contract with you. They can make the program and never release it. Or release it in a ridiculously limited edition run costing a small fortune (a la Matthew Barney’s ‘Cremaster’ cycle). They own it. It is their right. Third line forcing it is not. Read the Castlemaine case above.

  115. Rich

    I do get surprised at the amount of people who seem to think a business model should be resistant to technological advances, I’m sure I don’t even need to cite an example of a former model that can no longer function

    If Foxtel and big studios can’t force people to pay the way they want then they either learn to adapt to the market, or they go bust

    If all the shows we get come off places like Youtube for free, so be it, no more big budget flops at least

  116. custard

    @rich

    You don’t need a technological advance to ruin a business model.

    I’m a used car dealer of 10 years standing operating in the internet space (the only space) and it’s rooted . I’m out.

    30 years in this business and as a one man dealer who turns over $2m a year I can’t make it work.

    Recession on the way……..

  117. johanna

    You keep missing the point. The fact that something is not fungible is not an excuse for forcing people to buy other products in order to obtain it. Except in the world of IP.

    In the Christco example, people can go elsewhere to buy the product. They do not have to buy the whole hamper to get the ham.

    Of course authors and creators don’t have to release the product at all, in which case the whole thing is moot. But in a free trade environment, either everyone is allowed to bundle products, or no-one is. What we have now is a special set of rules for one market segment. No doubt Mallesons’ interpretation of the law is correct. My point is that the law is wrong.

  118. Aristogeiton

    johanna
    #1351909, posted on June 18, 2014 at 9:41 pm
    You keep missing the point. The fact that something is not fungible is not an excuse for forcing people to buy other products in order to obtain it. Except in the world of IP.

    In the Christco example, people can go elsewhere to buy the product. They do not have to buy the whole hamper to get the ham.

    You have to buy the whole hamper to get that ham.

    Of course authors and creators don’t have to release the product at all, in which case the whole thing is moot. But in a free trade environment, either everyone is allowed to bundle products, or no-one is. What we have now is a special set of rules for one market segment. No doubt Mallesons’ interpretation of the law is correct. My point is that the law is wrong.

    Well you are of course free to think that. What you are proposing, as I understand it, is an extraordinary limitation upon the ability of producers to contract freely. You would be effectively forcing HBO to contract with you directly, by Government diktat, and further for HBO to create a distribution channel which does not exist in order to achieve this goal.

    Products, I will remind you, are ‘bundled’ constantly through the chain. These stages of bundling are called manufacture, distribution and retail.

  119. johanna

    Bullshit. There are thousands of suppliers of ham.

    You keep ignoring my central point. If a product is offered on the retail market, people can choose to charge whatever they want for it. What they cannot do (under current arrangements) is to force you to buy separate things that you do not want as a condition of purchase. Except in that “special” market (hallelujiah and saints be praised, say the participants) covered by IP.

  120. Aristogeiton

    johanna
    #1351923, posted on June 18, 2014 at 10:04 pm
    Bullshit. There are thousands of suppliers of ham.

    There are thousands of suppliers of television programs. You want that ham; Chrisco brand ham (for the purposes of example). You further want to dictate the terms upon which you buy it. Would the bureaucracy make a determination of whether there was an equivalent ‘ham’? They may decide you are just as well watching ‘Twilight’ or ‘Bananas in Pyjamas’ in any event.

    What they cannot do (under current arrangements) is to force you to buy separate things that you do not want as a condition of purchase. Except in that “special” market (hallelujiah and saints be praised, say the participants) covered by IP.

    This is wrong as a matter of fact, and wrong as a matter of law. Products are packaged all the time. Perhaps your exclusively sold desktop computer comes with a mouse, keyboard, monitor and balaclava you don’t want? Perhaps it comes with a copy of Windows 8 and you want Linux? Perhaps your internet comes with a bundled phone service? Generally, you do not get to dictate the terms upon which you trade with others aside from in the exercise of free choice.

  121. johanna

    Your examples have just illustrated my point. The all are covered by the protective IP laws, which do not apply to anyone else.

    No, I do not have a full range of choices in computer software. But, I can buy my lounge from one shop, my carpet from another, my wallpaper from a third.

    Things covered by “creative” IP are arbitrarily excised from the competition laws. Why are you defending this tremendous victory for one segment of the economy at the expense of consumers?

  122. johanna

    Amendment – “at the expense of consumers and competitors?”

  123. Andrew

    So let’s take as read that you don’t like the IP laws. What’s that got to do with arguing that it’s moral to steal the property instead? I don’t like QANTAS – doesn’t mean I can sneak in, steal a plane and fly myself to Perth.

  124. Aristogeiton

    johanna
    #1351934, posted on June 18, 2014 at 10:21 pm
    Your examples have just illustrated my point. The all are covered by the protective IP laws, which do not apply to anyone else.

    No, I do not have a full range of choices in computer software. But, I can buy my lounge from one shop, my carpet from another, my wallpaper from a third.

    Things covered by “creative” IP are arbitrarily excised from the competition laws. Why are you defending this tremendous victory for one segment of the economy at the expense of consumers?

    The first example is of hardware. The monitor, the keyboard and the mouse are all physical products. Why should I be forced to buy them together? Maybe I want to buy them separately?

    Of course, what I am effectively doing is forcing the retailer, or probably more specifically the manufacturer, to create a different ‘component’ distribution channel to satisfy me. This is expensive. Why should I be able to do this?

    Same goes with Castlemaine. Why should I be forced to accept the delivery from their logistics provider? Because why should they create a distribution channel just for me? They would have to change their fitout/security e.t.c. to accommodate me. Why? They are selling delivered beer. I don’t get to dictate the terms of my contract.

    Here you want a new distribution channel just for you to watch GoT. This is, it will not surprise you to learn, expensive to create. You want the government’s help. Why? You can wait until the BluRay comes out, or buy Foxtel (which is, as you note, a poor deal). Vote with your feet and the producer/distributor will hear or the retailer will fold. You don’t get to dictate the terms (or in this case existence) of your contract.

    Also, consider this. What if the cost of a single early GoT episode is set as high as a year’s Foxtel subscription? Do you want more help from the government then?

  125. john constantine

    i only threw in the line about ‘illegal home processed meat’ not because it was waltzing matilda style illegal, but [and i haven't checked this year] the australian taxation office always demanded payment for every sheep a bloke butchered to feed his family. illegal without paying.

    also illegal in australia to do farmgate sale of farmgate processed meat. illegal to give your mates a lamb roast without inspection stamps and paying the tax office for the privilege.

    see what the yanks do in ‘the omnivores dilemma’–you can get it off the torrents.

  126. AndrewWA

    My recommendation is to merge Your ABC (no way that it’s mine!) and SBS.

    Give the merged entity about $400M per year so that it can keep the shows that I like.
    That results in about $1 Billion pa saving.

    Do a TOTAL cleanout the Board and Senior Management as well as news, current affairs, environmental, comedy (??) and political coverage and start again with some degree of balance.
    I’d be happy to help with the cleanout and final selection of which programs should stay.

    Get back to showing Australia as it is and what it could be rather than the crazy place that the current team believes it should be and constantly attempt to force this view onto our senses.

  127. .

    i only threw in the line about ‘illegal home processed meat’ not because it was waltzing matilda style illegal, but [and i haven't checked this year] the australian taxation office always demanded payment for every sheep a bloke butchered to feed his family. illegal without paying.

    They also reckoned they could tax incomes made in second life.

    Delusional twerps.

  128. Gab

    and start again with some degree of balance.

    Why? What possible reason is there to keep forcing taxpayers to fund a TV conglomerate?

  129. john constantine

    the future of the taxpayer funded social activist abc reformer-reporter should be like the future of opera singers. minimal bit of taxpayer funding, much loved within their niche, but their time was in the past.

    kids sit with youtube, not the abc [okay they click like on facetwit for' our abc' memes, but nobody actually watches the wealthy wrinkly whiteys of the abc delivering their full lectures.]

  130. johanna

    Bored with your continuing, deliberate evasions. Bye.

  131. Too Cheap to Meter

    Was reluctant to post on Piracy since it is OT but I invoke the floodgate justification. I have pirated many thousands of dollars of product on offer from The Teaching Company. I need that stuff to sleep, to operate a motor vehicle in the outback, to stay sane and to remain a functioning human being in a high information environment.

    ~hands up~ I am a flat out thief.

    FWIW When I do have some money I buy courses that I have already pirated and listened to. I have probably given them 10c in the dollar.

    GoT is a not essential to functioning as a human being.

  132. johanna

    GoT is a not essential to functioning as a human being.

    No worries, then. All trade should be regulated accordingly. By people like you.

  133. Joe Goodacre

    What a surprise – no response to the argument.

    Every day people spend money protecting their property; property which when stolen actually decreases their standard of living. Someone steals their car, they have no car.

    They could spend less on protection (cars without locks, GPS tracking, or engine disablers). If they spent less on protection, they would have been able to afford a car that had better features in other aspects.

    Entertainment IP is not the same. When a busker plays to a crowd, they supply of their product into the public domain. They theoretically have a large income potential – everyone who walks buy, hears them and enjoys their performance has the potential of recognising the busker’s efforts and rewarding it. They are not poorer however because people listen to the music, enjoy it but decide that they don’t want to pay. They’re not a victim because they have chosen a distribution model that had a high income potential, but a less certain income. Now the busker could lobby government to provide security guards to force people to pay a certain fee if it looked like they were enjoying the performance. Taxpayers could foot the bill to turn more of that income potential into actual income.
    The entertainment industry is no different to the busker, only they are better at crony capitalism. Extending the IP regime to entertainment IP is getting taxpayers to foot the bill to provide security to protect their income potential. As is shown with Google – IP and transfer payments or sales into differing tax jurisdictions in effect minimise their tax so others pay for the enforcement of their income potential.
    Fundamentally actors and musicians could sell their product in way that was very head to steal – by holding concerts or performances on private property and restricting access to paying customers. This would vastly limit their income potential. So they choose a busking model instead that relies on digital technology to distribute their performance into the public domain into other people’s homes and they rely upon crony capitalism to fund the enforcement.
    I haven’t downloaded anything for years. My wife and I really enjoy GOT –but have watched it on DVD to date and will wait for season 4 to come to DVD. Any movies we want to see, we watch in the cinemas. That’s a personal choice because I think their performance is worth rewarding and we’d put money in a busker’s hat as well if we stopped and listened. We can do all these things and still recognise that IP protections with enforcement paid by taxpayers is just another form of crony capitalism – one you’re okay with it seems.

  134. JeffT

    Back to Sarah Henderson.
    A dead ringer for Rosa Klebbs (From Russia with love).

  135. Grandma

    My home has been an ABC-free zone for many years except for one thing – Warwick Ryan and Grandstand Rugby League. I used to mute the idiots on Channel 9 and listen to Wazza and the team instead. Not any more! Thanks for spoiling State of Origin for me, Mark Scott! I want my taxes back!

  136. Demosthenes

    Now the busker could lobby government to provide security guards to force people to pay a certain fee if it looked like they were enjoying the performance.

    Ooka Tadasuke in the Case of the Stolen Smell.

  137. MT Isa Miner

    Aristogeiton

    #1351881, posted on June 18, 2014 at 9:21 pm

    johanna, I posted this above:

    http://www.mallesons.com/publications/marketAlerts/2005/Documents/8201946w.htm

    It’s pretty good.

    how does that work, then,Aristo?

    1. Typical third line forcing scenarios

    The classic third line forcing scenario occurs where a supplier forces the purchase of a second product or service from a nominated supplier. For example, where a lender of finance insists that a borrower use a particular insurance company to insure a loan or where a car dealer selling a car requires the purchaser to obtain finance from a nominated finance company. Third line forcing also commonly arises where several suppliers of products or services participate in a co-promotion (for example, supermarket discounted petrol promotions) or a membership or loyalty program (for example, a credit card rewards program that offers reward points when members make purchases from nominated suppliers).

    How can the unions force people into their super funds then?

  138. .

    This is how (from my guest post, Is Superannuation a socialist plot?)

    http://catallaxyfiles.com/2012/05/15/guest-post-is-superannuation-a-socialist-plot/comment-page-1/#comment-481069

    Sinclair cut this out, papa, after I quoted Leard and his quote of the ALP conference;

    Now if we look at section 32C(6) of the amended Superannuation Guarantee Administration Act 1992 (Cth):

    A contribution to a fund by an employer for the benefit of an employee is also made in compliance with the choice of fund requirements if the contribution, or a part of the contribution, is made under, or in accordance with:

    (a) a pre-reform certified agreement; or

    (b) an AWA; or

    (c ) a pre-reform AWA; or

    (d) a collective agreement; or

    (e) an old IR agreement; or

    (f) an ITEA; or

    (g) a workplace determination; or

    (h) an enterprise agreement.

  139. Joe Goodacre

    Ooka Tadasuke in the Case of the Stolen Smell.

    I think so.

    Actors and muscians could charge for their visual effect and sound by ensuring that they only performed on property where they can control access.

    Entertainment IP is the open publication of an arrangement of 1′s and 0′s that will be read by a computer in someone’s home, that computer then generating visuals and sound. In that sense they are trying to charge for a stolen smell.

  140. tgs

    Is it legal to have a guard dog that bites?

    No, but your analogy is almost criminally stupid and irrelevant. It is illegal to knowingly infect or distribute malicious software including viruses.

    I really disagree with this. I believe that it is theft.

    It’s not theft. It is copyright infringement. They are not the same offence, they are two separate offences.

  141. tgs

    I really disagree with this. I believe that it is theft.

    It’s not theft. It is copyright infringement. They are not the same offence, they are two separate offences.

    (quote tags fixed)

  142. tgs

    Every day people spend money protecting their property; property which when stolen actually decreases their standard of living. Someone steals their car, they have no car.

    They could spend less on protection (cars without locks, GPS tracking, or engine disablers). If they spent less on protection, they would have been able to afford a car that had better features in other aspects.

    Physical security is not particularly comparable to digital security.

    It becomes a cost/benefit exercise – does the cost of increase security through DRM systems outweigh the benefit provided by how easy those DRM systems are able to be circumvented. Additionally, DRM tends to adversely affect the use experience of paying customers (for example not allowing them to use material they have paid for on different devices, restrictions on format changes, etc).

    As recent history shows many companies have realised that ever more costly DRM systems are not worth the effort as they continue to be circumvented easily by consumers. See Apple’s removal of DRM from itunes.

    Some persist with DRM systems such as Ubisoft and Amazon (re: ebooks).

    But your assertion that they just need to keep engaging in an arms war with pirates to make their DRM harder and harder to crack is simplistic and doesn’t reflect the realities of the modern digital marketplace. I’d expect that sort of argument to be attractive to someone who doesn’t really know much about software and computers.

  143. Joe Goodacre

    No, but your analogy is almost criminally stupid and irrelevant. It is illegal to knowingly infect or distribute malicious software including viruses.

    Of course the analogy is relevant. If people can protect their property in a manner that may injure the person taking that property in one sense, why are they not able to do it in another sense which is by many measures, a less brutal form of protection.

    Laws preventing malicious distribution of software are unecessary regulation in my view. Market would attach a premium to reliable software providers. Even amongst pirates they would establish a means to trust a source. It happens already. I think if you’re releasing a product that can be easily copied, you can protect that by creating substitutes that may damage anyone who wants to enjoy your product without paying. Seems fine by me and would probably fine to most people who don’t intend to download files that they don’t intend to pay for.

  144. Joe Goodacre

    But your assertion that they just need to keep engaging in an arms war with pirates to make their DRM harder and harder to crack is simplistic and doesn’t reflect the realities of the modern digital marketplace. I’d expect that sort of argument to be attractive to someone who doesn’t really know much about software and computers.

    You haven’t addressed the argument.

    If you can’t own the smell that comes from your cooking that’s not on your property, why can you own the visuals and sounds generated by a computer on someone else’s property.

    The answer is you shouldn’t be able to, but entertainment providers choose a higher piracy distribution model like buskers because the income potential is greater, regardless of the fact that some people will obtain the arrangement of ’1′s and ’0′s without paying.

  145. tgs

    Laws preventing malicious distribution of software are unecessary regulation in my view.

    That’s cute, but they exist and as such my statement was 100% correct. If a copyright holder was to deliberately distribute viruses under the guide of torrents that contain their copyrighted material that would be a crime. You can bang on about how it shouldn’t be a crime, but right now it is.

    If you can’t own the smell that comes from your cooking that’s not on your property, why can you own the visuals and sounds generated by a computer on someone else’s property.

    This is a complete non sequitur.

    The copyright holder doesn’t own the sound waves and photons emitted by the computer. They do own the copyright over the data that provided the computer with the information to create those soundwaves and photons.

    You are really, really bad at analogies. Try making your point without them, they seem to confuse your thinking.

  146. tgs

    If you can’t own the smell that comes from your cooking that’s not on your property, why can you own the visuals and sounds generated by a computer on someone else’s property.

    This is a complete non sequitur.

    The copyright holder doesn’t own the sound waves and photons emitted by the computer. They do own the copyright over the data that provided the computer with the information to create those soundwaves and photons.

    You are really, really bad at analogies. Try making your point without them, they seem to confuse your thinking.

  147. Aristogeiton

    Also, tgs, Fuckacre never explained why duties of confidence, and fiduciary duties should be enforceable.

  148. Joe Goodacre

    The copyright holder doesn’t own the sound waves and photons emitted by the computer. They do own the copyright over the data that provided the computer with the information to create those soundwaves and photons.

    Whether the data should be property is the issue.

    It’s not an answer to say that because they own the data, they should be able to own what flows from the data.

  149. Joe Goodacre

    To the question as to whether the data should be property.

  150. Rabz

    If you can’t own the smell that comes from your cooking that’s not on your property, why can you own the visuals and sounds generated by a computer on someone else’s property.

    I knew I’d end up regretting blundering onto this thread. :x

  151. Joe Goodacre

    That’s cute, but they exist and as such my statement was 100% correct. If a copyright holder was to deliberately distribute viruses under the guide of torrents that contain their copyrighted material that would be a crime. You can bang on about how it shouldn’t be a crime, but right now it is.

    You’re always arguing about how things which are currently the law shouldn’t be.

    So yes, I’m saying it shouldn’t be illegal to infect a file someone is trying to download for free, just like their shouldn’t be IP protection for these forms of entertainment.

  152. tgs

    It’s not an answer to say that because they own the data, they should be able to own what flows from the data.

    Wow.

    Nobody (but you) is talking about “owning what flows from the data”. That is a really, really stupid concept.

  153. Joe Goodacre

    You’re always arguing about how things which are currently the law shouldn’t be.

    So yes, I’m saying it shouldn’t be illegal to infect a file someone is trying to download for free, just like their shouldn’t be IP protection for these forms of entertainment.

    Forget this one – it’s just a distraction.

    The question is…

    If someone chooses a distribution method for their product that increases the potential market, but is insecure, why should taxpayers subsidise that deficiency?

  154. Joe Goodacre

    Nobody (but you) is talking about “owning what flows from the data”.

    Except people don’t watch or listen to ones or zeros.

  155. Joe Goodacre

    100101001011000010001001001000000001110110101111010101011110

    You just heard 3 seconds of Vivaldi – how was it?

  156. Steve D

    Terrible. Please increase the sampling rate!

  157. Joe Goodacre

    The point illustrates that what is owned by the artist is their performance.

    They can choose to restrict their performance to those within visual or hearing distance and collect fees for that by charging a fee to access the property where the performance is heard.

    Or they can distribute their performance into people’s homes (other people’s property), however once the performance is converted into ones and zeros, it’s no longer their property, but an opportunity to expand their source of potential income outside of the property they occupy to perform. There’s a downside with this method – they can’t guarantee that everyone who accesses the data will decide to pay for it, in the same way a busker can’t force people to pay for it. You haven’t provided a justification for why taxpayers should pick up the tab for them.

  158. tgs

    Or they can distribute their performance into people’s homes (other people’s property), however once the performance is converted into ones and zeros, it’s no longer their property,

    It’s almost like you fundamentally don’t understand what copyright is and the rights that a copyright holder has over the use and distribution of IP.

    I give up.

  159. Leo G

    You just heard 3 seconds of Vivaldi – how was it?

    You can actually hear an undersampled infrasound concerto?

  160. Aristogeiton

    tgs
    #1352559, posted on June 19, 2014 at 2:04 pm
    Or they can distribute their performance into people’s homes (other people’s property), however once the performance is converted into ones and zeros, it’s no longer their property,

    It’s almost like you fundamentally don’t understand what copyright is and the rights that a copyright holder has over the use and distribution of IP.

    I give up.

    He’s like that with constitutional law as well. I think he has an LLB. I can’t believe they graduate people like this these days.

  161. Joe Goodacre

    It’s almost like you fundamentally don’t understand what copyright is and the rights that a copyright holder has over the use and distribution of IP.

    I give up.

    Would have thought it’s pretty simple if you had one, to provide a reason why taxpayers should fund the protection of the particular distribution method that Hollywood employs.

    So far your reasoning is – ‘because they should – it’s copyright’.

  162. Joe Goodacre

    Ari – you still haven’t given a simple explanation as to how people aren’t choosing the laws that they live under when no one is forcing them to stay.

  163. Aristogeiton

    Joe Goodacre
    #1352627, posted on June 19, 2014 at 2:46 pm
    Ari – you still haven’t given a simple explanation as to how people aren’t choosing the laws that they live under when no one is forcing them to stay.

    You were answered by myself and AussiePundit on the other thread. You just chose to ignore it. Fuck off blowhard. You are less interesting than m0nty.

  164. James Barlow, NT

    Wait? People are still watching/listening to ABC news and current affairs?

Comments are closed.