READ THIS: Five Spanish tech startups to watch

Village Roadshow no-show for online piracy forum

Topic: Piracy

Village Roadshow no-show for online piracy forum

Summary: In a strongly-worded email to Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull, Village Roadshow Co-CEO Graham Burke has said the company will not attend an upcoming public forum on copyright infringement because it will be dominated by "crazies".

Josh Taylor
SHARE:
TOPICS: Piracy, Government, Government AU, Australia
15

As Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull sends out invitations for a public forum looking at ways to reduce online copyright infringement, one noticeable absentee will be outspoken Village Roadshow Co-CEO Graham Burke, who told the minister the forum would be dominated by "crazies" only interested in "theft of movies".

The government last month released an online copyright infringement discussion paper that outlines potential changes to legislation to compel internet service providers to intervene and deter their customers from downloading infringing TV shows, films, and music — or be found liable for their users' actions.

At the time of the announcement, Turnbull indicated there would be a public forum held for the industry and consumer groups to make their thoughts known on the proposal, and invitations were sent out today for the forum, to be held in Sydney on Tuesday September 9.

Read this

Three-strikes anti-piracy law 'doesn't deter piracy'

Three-strikes anti-piracy law 'doesn't deter piracy'

Turnbull will host the event, and there will be a panel discussion involving a figures from across the telecommunications and content industry, and consumer rights groups.

At the event will be iiNet CEO David Buckingham, Telstra executive director Jane Van Beelen, Foxtel CEO Richard Freudenstein, APRA CEO Brett Cottle, Choice CEO Alan Kirkland and writer/producer Peter Duncan.

One noticable absentee from the event is Village Roadshow's Graham Burke, who has in recent times ramped up his calls for the government to crack down on Australians downloading copyright-infringing TV shows and films online, stating that the impact on his business, behind such films as The Lego Movie, would be devastating.

"We make AU$2.6 billion-worth of films in Australia. If the piracy thing is not nailed, it's over mate. O-V-E-R," Burke told ZDNet in June.

Burke today told ZDNet he would be overseas at the time of the event. However, in an email obtained by ZDNet sent from Burke to Turnbull and other CEOs and industry figures including executives at Telstra, Optus, iiNet, Foxtel, News, the Communications Alliance, and ARIA invited to the forum earlier this month, Burke said his company would not be attending the event due to the "crazies" dominating such an event:

Dear Malcolm.

My company is not prepared to participate in the forum. As expressed to you previously these Q and A style formats are judged by the noise on the night and given the proposed venue I believe this will be weighted by the crazies.

What is at stake here is the very future of Australian film production itself and it is too crucially important to Australia's economy and the fabric of our society to put at risk with what will be a miniscule group whose hidden agenda is theft of movies.

Sincerely.

Graham.

Burke confirmed to ZDNet that he sent the email to the minister and the other executives.

Village Roadshow has been a participant in discussions over copyright infringement in the past, and is one member of the Australian Screen Association — formerly known as the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft — the litigants that took iiNet all the way to the High Court and lost.

The proposals put forward in the government's discussion paper would seek to undo the High Court ruling that iiNet did not authorise its users' copyright infringement by not taking actions against customers alleged to have shared infringing TV shows and movies online.

Village Roadshow has donated close to AU$4 million to both the Labor and Liberal parties since 1998.

Topics: Piracy, Government, Government AU, Australia

About

Armed with a degree in Computer Science and a Masters in Journalism, Josh keeps a close eye on the telecommunications industry, the National Broadband Network, and all the goings on in government IT.

Google+ Contact

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

15 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion

  • .

    So even their own backers are are defying, even though they funded.

    That is why you cannot trust private companies when donating to political companies.

    Though, being labeled as "crazies" is no different to Coalition Party labeling asylum seekers to "illegals" in the mind of this CEO.
    DanielZenno
    Reply Vote

    • Exactly

      "That is why you cannot trust private companies when donating to political companies."

      Exactly right, all companies expect a return on an investment, they don't give money away for nothing...
      Tinman_au
      Reply 1 Vote

  • Who is Crazy?

    We all understand that the film industry has a very reasonable concern about the damage that file sharing does to their bottom line. What amazes me is that they then spit in everyone's eye who might be in a position to help.

    Don't they understand that they totally destroy their own credibility (and therefore any sympathy) when they blatantly construct BS numbers and insult everyone, including the Minister, in this way. So now we have the consumers labelled as thieving criminals, ISPs are apparently destroying the fabric of society and the Minister is lumped in with 'noisy crazies'.

    Brilliant tactics.
    Dalbs
    Reply 13 Votes

  • Nice one Mr Burke

    Sticking your fingers in your ears and going "La, La, La, I can't hear you!!" is kinda unhinged in it's self...
    Tinman_au
    Reply 2 Votes
    • No, it's actually very, very clever.

      If you have been a big political donor with equally big expectations, that is.
      anonymousI
      Reply 1 Vote

  • Confirms what I thought

    Its about maintaining profits and stuff the consumer. I look at something like Dr Who on the ABC. It used to be heavily downloaded, but now the ABC show it the Sunday night (it screens in the UK on Sunday morning our time), I imagine illegal downloading of this show has dropped dramatically. In fact they are even showing it at 4:50am in simulcast. I guess there are no advertising dollars at stake so they can do it. A commercial entity would never do this.

    I'm not condoning pirating, but its pretty obvious when there are plenty of facts indicating that when an industry stops being stubborn and protecting their old world model and moves into the present with distribution channels enabling a much fairer and quicker access, that pirating goes down.

    There is also the very valid argument that piracy actually helps a shows popularity. If Game of Thrones wasn't downloaded so much, I doubt it would be as popular at least not in Australia. Foxtel are deluding themselves into think they are losing money on GoT, because people are refusing to pay for Foxtel and also the movie package. Their model is also very inflexible and cumbersome thus turning many subscribers off. They need a cheaper entry price and more flexible channel packaging and they'd get more subscribers too.
    Justin Watson
    Reply 4 Votes

  • Can't stand the heat...

    ... so runs out of the kitchen like a spoilt child... what's the matter, emperor scared the kids might see he's wearing no clothes? Pathetic...
    btone-c5d11
    Reply 1 Vote

  • Destroying the fabric of society...

    That's a bit melodramatic. I don't think the Australian fabric of society would even notice if the Aussie film and TV industry collapsed overnight considering the crap they produce.

    Was planning on going to pay to see Gaurdians of the Galaxy at Village cinemas today. Might now wait and download just so I can become one of those crazies.
    deanzdnet
    Reply 2 Votes

  • ISPs cannot be liable.

    It is illegal to harass or threaten a person over the telecommunications network in Australia. The person doing the harassing or threatening is the responsible party when it comes to prosecution, not the carrier.

    By the exact same logic, the downloader is the responsible party for "piracy" not the Internet Carrier.
    Treknology
    Reply 1 Vote

    • In the same way..

      In the same way that the roads department or car makers are not responsible for the transportation of drugs or weapons... Or in the same way Pyrex is not responsible for the manufacture of drugs.
      Imagine if they trashed a car for hooning and then fined Holden because they are the makers and responsible for that car.. dumb.
      Rexel99
      Reply 1 Vote

  • Piracy - Protecting Traditional Profits

    Stake holders are simply attempting to protect their traditional profit methods not create profits by providing a service to consumers.
    What are the traditional profit methods in the Australian Media? - Tie-up all external media using copyright legislation. Then provide Australian consumers only legitimate access to a fraction of the movies, TV Programs and print material available overseas. Then charge exorbitant prices "because we can' and you have no legitimate alternative avenue for the media". However technology and the internet has changed all this.

    These 'Stupid' Stakeholders and I mean 'Stupid' Stakeholders are putting all their energy and money towards politicians to create new laws in an attempt to hold back the flood of new technology which makes the maintenance of Tradition Profit Methods unsustainable.

    What they should be doing is taking note of Google, Netflix and the Apps industry, which demonstrate daily small profit margins per item attract customers and can lead to huge profits at the end of the day. (I don't see many 50c and $1.00 apps being pirated!!!)

    For example suppose Channel 10 charged 50c per TV Program aired by CBS in the USA and not presently aired in Australia. Suppose also only as few as 5,000 downloads occurred a week - then Channel 10 would earn $125,000 per year from product they paid for the Australian copyright, yet made no income from because these programs were never aired.
    To take this example further, Channel 10 could sell advertising spots and possibly more importantly, statistics on downloads would indicate what programs were more popular to Australian audiences and could be transferred successfully to normal free to air programming.

    Also remember there are now more 2nd and 3rd non-uk generation persons in Australia who have an interest in their parents and grand parents homeland - particularly following sports teams etc. These consumers are not catered for by our commercial media and once they learn how to get programming overseas it is only a simple step to also get more commercial programs the same way.
    Bowen125
    Reply 1 Vote

  • Who is the Crazy?

    What is it with these companies and their ridiculous attitude, like as though the government owes them an apology?? Just because they have their entire revenue tied up in one particular business model, (which may have worked stupidly well in the past), doesn't mean they now assume some kind of right to do business the same way for the rest of eternity.

    In the free market you either innovate or you perish. No business model is so special, that government must protect it with SUCH might, that it must even costs us our civil liberties. There are simply more important issues right now, like privacy and Great Firewalls and mandatory data retention. Copyright privileges simply take a back seat to these other more pressing issues. And that is true even if you invoke the the sacred "A" word, aka "Artist" which is supposedly now so sentimentalized it wins all arguments. No it doesn't.

    Artist have a state-enforced special printing monopoly that lasts a limited time of originally 14 years (among other usages), after which the service of reproduction goes back to the hands of the free market, where it normally would have been. They are not Omnipotent.
    Kanaka12
    Reply 2 Votes

  • Mad people.

    The only crazies are Brandis and his buddies.
    Lastofthegoodguys
    Reply 2 Votes

  • Bend Over

    Our scumbag politicians can't bend over fast enough when Uncle Sam asks.
    The last lot were just as bad.

    The question is why should we spend our tax dollars protecting foreign multinational companies, especially when they dodge tax here and in the US?
    lehnerus2000
    Reply 2 Votes

  • Attn: Graham Burke

    The Crazies for which you are avoiding are your potential and actual customers. These are the people you should be working with and understanding to enable solutions. Your attitude and actions show why the alternate methods of downloading your content happen, because you are quick to marginalise and demonise them rather than understanding and helping provide solutions.. Because you restrict access to your content and deliver it in a staggered and drip-fed way and refuse to provide content on a global scale for the customer in a price affective fashion.
    The flow of media will find its natural path, like water you should harness it rather than trying to divert and work against it - one method can work for everybody and the other will be a waste of time, perhaps then yes, your way will ensure it is O-V-E-R - at least for your two-dimensional, outdated and profit-only focused ways.
    Rexel99
    Reply 1 Vote