Copyright protection without the court action

Copyright protection without the court action

Summary: Will new business models cut down the amount of people breaking the law, reduce the market for pirates and remove the need for litigation?


Will new business models cut down the amount of people breaking the law, reduce the market for pirates and remove the need for litigation?

Last week on Twisted Wire we looked into the legal battle between AFACT (Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft) and iiNet. AFACT's Adrienne Pecotic said copyright theft was threatening the emergence of online business models for the distribution of movies. She says you can't compete against theft.

This week we ask whether it's actually the other way round.

Nic Suzor, the chair of Electronic Frontiers Australia, says there's nothing new in copyright owners going after the deliverers of a new technology.

Peter Coroneos gives the views of the Internet Industry Association (IIA) ahead of Synergy 2, its second Content Provider/ISP Collaboration Workshop that will look for win-win outcomes in the distribution of compelling, accessible and lawful content to internet users in Australia.

Mike O'Donnell, the CEO of iCopyright in the US, explains how copyright can be self-policing provided everyone knows where they stand.

We hear from Microsoft's Jeremy Hinton, Group category manager for Xbox in Australia and New Zealand, who says people won't contravene copyright if material is easily available.

What do you think? Is the movie industry being paranoid? Will availability reduce piracy? Add your views in the Talkback section at the end of this post.

Topics: Telcos, Government AU, Legal, Tech Industry


Phil Dobbie has a wealth of radio and business experience. He started his career in commercial radio in the UK and, since coming to Australia in 1991, has held senior marketing and management roles with Telstra, OzEmail, the British Tourist Authority and other telecommunications, media, travel and advertising businesses.

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


Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Why do we steal?

    Because we cannot afford it. we are bombarded with marketing messages to buy stuff, however for those who cannot afford to buy will steal, which will encourage piracy.
    In the old days those who could not afford a loaf of bread did the same thing, steal to stay alive, these days, it is steal to simply be in touch with the latest and greatest.
    Make it cheaper, do not be too gready, else people will find away around to survive, be it bread to stay alive or other stuff to be cool.
  • Finally Cheep = No steal

    No one except the morons will steal soft ware if it is fairly priced and not seen to be ripping every one off. Take Microsoft stuff you have had to pay over $400 in the past for a bunch of $1.50 disks produced. yea yea I herd about the cost of development - Rubbish- look at the number they produce and how much profit they make even with the illegal copies. It plain profiteering. Copies of most software should be well under $100 each.
  • people will buy it

    People will buy media and software if its sold for the right price.
    Why would people trawl bit torrent websites looking for the latest episode of something, wait days for it to download, when they could pay a few $$ and buy it.
    The same with software. Valve have already shown price points work.
    I'm sure Apple has shown it works also. $39 for OSX upgrade vs $200+ for Windows 7 upgrade. I wonder which one people would pirate more.
  • Right idea, but a retarded arguement.

    So books should be sold for the cost of paper?

    It is true that most software has inflated pricing in Australia however that viewpoint is just ridiculous.

    Whats also ridiculous is being able to import software retail from overseas (legitimately from the US) and have it work out cheaper than the wholesale price here.
  • Not necessarily

    One of the main reasons people pay for things at all is that they are forced to. It's a fairly fundamental law of human nature that people prefer to pay as little as possible and, preferably, nothing at all. When Radiohead released their album In Rainbows a couple of years ago, they asked people to name their price. Although people who download the album from Radiohead's website generally paid something for it, most people got the album from file sharing sources and paid nothing for it. So making something convenient and reasonably priced doesn't guarantee people will pay for it if there's another alternative that has no or minimal adverse consequences attached. Apathy, ignorance and self-interest play a big part.