As Australian downloaders queue up the latest episode of Game of Thrones tonight, HBO is issuing thousands of copyright infringement notices, urging alleged copyright infringers to pay for the mediaeval epic — the most pirated show in history. This is the largest attempt to crack down on online piracy since the Dallas Buyers Club owners initiated a claim against iiNet to obtain the details of 4726 IP addresses used to download illegally and share copies of the film through BitTorrent.
HBO’s actions put piracy back in the spotlight and now raise questions about Australia’s capacity to cope with what is considered a modern-day scourge. The ensuing debate around piracy isn’t new; we’ve seen rights-holders mount the same arguments against recorded music, the photocopier and the VCR. But rights holders are misguidedly trying to address a business problem with a legal solution.
To properly address this issue, we first need to understand why people pirate media content.
People typically infringe copyright when content is unavailable in their region, or available at a price they are not willing to pay. For streaming movie and TV, Australians pay a premium price for less choice, and in some instances, 400% more than US and UK viewers.
Rights holders respond and incorrectly characterise illegal downloading as “theft”. Characterising piratical behaviour as “theft” assumes a zero-sum game wherein what the consumer gains, the rights holder loses. But who can say whether these particular consumers would have paid the purchase price originally? And if not, has the rights holder really lost anything?
It is also increasingly difficult to persuade viewers of piracy’s ills when Game of Thrones director David Petrarca admitted that piracy isn’t a bad thing. It may do “more good than harm” as it contributes to generating a cultural buzz that the show depends on.
Irrespective of where you stand on this issue, it’s ultimately a commercial question. If rights holders pursue litigation as their primary strategy, they run the risk of hurting their future business by alienating themselves from viewers. The smarter approach is to recognise that the most profitable solution requires a more innovative business model, rather than biting the hand that feeds you.
Another thing to recognise is that the internet has changed how people access content and Australia’s distribution model has yet to adapt. Foxtel dominates the market for pay TV and operates through an outdated business model that fails to account for changes in consumer habits. The law can’t prevent the ordinary operation of product cycles. Nor can the law make it an offence for consumers not to purchase a particular product, like a DVD.
In 2014, then-communications minister Malcolm Turnbull expressed support that rights holders should focus on making content available to consumers. He went on to say that the minute Game of Thrones aired, it would be “available globally”. Waiting for content isn’t an option; after its release, viewers will go on Twitter, Facebook and Snapchat and write responses to the episode. Rights holders would then benefit from releasing content simultaneously on pay TV, the iTunes store or other platforms.
It took 12 months to resolve a preliminary discovery application involving Dallas Buyers Club and iiNet. Dallas Buyers Club ultimately abandoned the matter in an anticlimactic end. Presumably basing their decision on the cost-effectiveness of administering 4,726 letters for a comparably lesser compensation than first sought.
Rather than filing a lawsuit, the appropriate response to piracy should be to change pricing and business models to reflect new consumer habits and defeat services in the marketplace. Attempting to sue streaming services out of existence isn’t feasible; neither is threatening legal action against fans trying to access content. A simpler and more effective solution is to offer a better service.
Consumers now have a reasonable expectation that they can access content on demand and free. Why? Because every other industry provides information for free, irrespective of location and device — this includes lawyers, journalists, brokers and artists.
Alternatively, they offer their services through a “freemium” model whereby consumers only pay for the premium offering. Businesses using these platforms empower copyright holders to monetise a larger audience than ever thought possible, such as Swedish startup Spotify. The music-streaming service has 15 million paying users and another 45 million who listen to its free, ad-supported service. Spotify typically charges listeners $11.99 monthly for premium ad-free access to more than 30 million songs. Listeners can also curate and share their playlists — providing greater exposure to little-known artists.
Australians circumventing geoblocking restrictions to access Netflix indicate a willingness to pay providers and development for content; it’s just not through the channel that exclusive licensees want.
In short, we’ve all seen this episode before: rights holders defend their outdated business model against new technology; legislators yield to the interests of powerful rights holders at the expense of consumers; rights holders eventually adapt and profit from a revised business model. If we could fast-forward before season seven, that would be great.
ICYMI: Internet Australia applauds Productivity Commission ‘geoblocking’
report and repeats call for the end of the Site-Blocking Law.
Internet Australia, the peak body representing Internet users, has applauded the Productivity
Commission’s recommendation that ‘geoblocking’ must go.
“We have consistently argued that geoblocking is fundamentally wrong and that it has resulted in
unfair price-gouging of Australian consumers for decades”, said CEO Laurie Patton.
IA used the Productivity Commission’s report to again call for the repeal of the Copyright
Amendment (Online Infringement) Bill 2015 – the so-called “site-blocking law” – that was passed
by Parliament in the middle of last year, following a concerted lobbying campaign on behalf of
overseas content rights holders.
“International experience has found site-blocking is more effective as a PR stunt than a real
solution. You close them down and they reappear in no time on another site and/or with another
name – it’s called ‘whack-a-mole’. What’s more, anyone with a modicum of technical knowledge
can always find a way to access what they want, lawfully or unlawfully. So we are going to
inconvenience ISP’s and probably see everyone’s Internet access fees increase as a consequence
of the costs of implementing site-blocking, all for a bit of PR?”, Mr Patton added.
IA believes that the best way to reduce unlawful downloading is to make content available and
easily accessible at reasonable prices comparable with similar markets overseas. This view is
supported by Prime Minister Turnbull who, according to ZDNet, said last year that, “Rights holders’
most powerful tool to combat online copyright infringement is making content accessible, timely,
and affordable to consumers”.
“It would be in the best interests of content creators if we all accepted that the main reason why
most people unlawfully download is that they can’t get what they want through legitimate channels.
There is ample research evidence that people are willing to pay if they can get the content they’re
after. Some surveys have shown that the people who ‘pirate’ are also among the most active legal
downloaders”.
Netflix has enjoyed considerable success since entering our market last year, and two local SVOD
platforms – Presto and Stan – are both signing up reasonable numbers of subscribers. “This tells
you that there is pent-up demand for the very content that, otherwise, is subject to unlawful
downloading”.
“We maintain that it is time to accept the pointlessness of current strategies to deal with unlawful
downloading of video and audio content. We commend the Productivity Commission on its very
sensible recommendation to dump geoblocking”.
Australia should also make its own content more broadly available overseas rather than limiting access through geoblocking and region coding.
From time to time I’m one of the million-plus Australians living and working overseas. If you think getting hold of Game of Thrones is hard, try getting some Aussie telly, movies or music when you’re in Europe or North America.
Piracy is indeed a cultural issue and Pirate parties are starting to get quite a lot of parliamentary seats in Europe. Piracy is now seen as part of a broader cultural and political movement primarily amongst younger people, looking for free access to knowledge and learning processes.
Quote: “People typically infringe copyright when content is unavailable in their region, or available at a price they are not willing to pay. ”
Quote: “Rights holders respond and incorrectly characterise illegal downloading as “theft”. Characterising piratical behaviour as “theft” assumes a zero-sum game wherein what the consumer gains, the rights holder loses. But who can say whether these particular consumers would have paid the purchase price originally? And if not, has the rights holder really lost anything?”
======
Are you really suggesting that if the consumer takes an item that they would not have paid for, that it is not theft?
Have you thought about testing this theory in a supermarket by only taking things that you would not have paid for?
Quote: “Consumers now have a reasonable expectation that they can access content on demand and free. Why? Because every other industry provides information for free, irrespective of location and device — this includes lawyers, journalists, brokers and artists.”
I would suggest there is a difference between providing information for free and providing product for free.
I agree with the general thought that business models need to adapt to changing circumstances, but the way you have gone about justifying this in this particular circumstance, is mostly a load of codswallop.
Just what all players in this game consumers & rights holders needed. A balanced logical analysis & structure for a solution to all of us. To support his point back in the day when I had a PC (some four years ago now) I too torrented Game of Thrones. Now I have only an iPad torrenting isn’t an option, copyright crusaders that Apple are. Now if I want a show or movie. Guess what? I pay to stream it from a site that I think has reasonable prices & a good catalog. Who would have thought? Well this guy I guess & like him I don’t think I’m alone in this type of action. Right…. Peace CD