Badmovies.org Forum

The Australian government is considering a treaty with the US to police internationally illegal music downloads by checking your ipods and laptops for pirated music of commercial quantities.  What amount that means, I don't know.

I am absolutely incensed that my government is even considering this, let alone spending one braincell or tax dollars on this venture.

Surely there are better ways to regulate an obviously out of control industry than such draconian measures!

 :hatred:

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,,24090220-5003421,00.html (http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,,24090220-5003421,00.html)

Considering this is a treaty getting written up at the moment, I imagine it's something the US is considering.  I don't see the Australians doing this on their own.

Oh and a side note, I tried to post this before, but the cat jumped on the keyboard when I hit post.  Had a quick scan and it looks like it disappeared, but if it is around somewhere, can a mod promptly delete the less interesting version? :lookingup:   :thumbup:

How will they know if your music is illegal?

My argument has always been that if you have at some point in the past bought a legal version of the song then you are allowed to possess that song in any format, the music company owns the rights to the song, not the format. So if I bought Alice Cooper's Killer on LP in 1972 then I can have it on mp3 today because I've already pay for the rights to the song for personal use.
Why isn't it illegal to record a song off the radio, or dub a tape, or record a movie off TV ... where is the stink over that?

This crap of having to buy a new format every time ones comes out is a racket. Buy it on 45 then LP then 8-track then Cassette then CD now mp3 ... I don't think so. I'll buy one license for the song not the format.

Personally I think government should have better things to do with their time. What if you have sensitive classified information on your computer, like business files, medical files, military files, trade secrets ... should any Tom, Dick or Harry working for minimum wage for TSA be allowed to peruse your files looking for a illegal copy of song?

I don't think so.

I'm not sure how they would know a song is illegal.  You can legally make copies of something as long as you don't sell the copy (Like buying a PC game and copying the CD/DVD for the sole purpose of having a back up in case the disc fails, is stolen, damage, etc).  Sorta like the example of sports events.  I can record a baseball game, or a hockey game and watch it later since I may not be around to see it.  However though I can't make a copy of the game then turn around a sell it to someone or show it in public.
 

Gay, just gay.

In the states you can't even make a "legal" backup copy anymore I don't think do the the digital copyright protection act. And just you try to get a damaged disc replaced by the studio. These has caused much uproar with many people and the music and movie industry in their desire to "protect" their work is doing nothing but ticking people off and as a result their sales have fallen through he floor. Basically they've created a self fulfilling prophecy of declining sales with their collective attitudes.   

It is my understanding that somehow the whole "Keep a backup of my own stuff" idea has been circumvented as far as games and DVDs are concerned, because it is illegal to break any copy-protection scheme. I do not know if this is true or not, but I've heard it a bunch, and I admit I'm not 100% up to par on these issues. It was my understanding that you can not legally copy a copyrighted DVD, since to do so you have to circumvent the copy-protection measures. Totally sucks to me. What's worse, is that they're not one bit interested in moving to a less fragile media format, because if you can't back the info up, your only recourse is to buy the item again when it gets damaged.

Welcome to the wonderful world of Capitalism...

 :smile:

True, but as a result, a while back THEY got welcomed to the world of Peer to Peer networks.

There has been a lot of talk in the news for a while now about how to deal with music downloads.  The issue is more that it is so much easier to download music now than it ever was by taping off a cd etc, and even the average joe has taken it up, that of course sales are going to slow.

The public has voted with it's feet, and what they have voted for is for cheaper alternatives.  And since there is zero responsibility and accountability it is nigh on impossible to police, since let's remember, it is ILLEGAL to download for free.  I of course download my fair share, but remember programs such as Itunes and it's kin have had a rise in sales, because people want the ease of downloading or only getting singles etc.

Personally I think the whole industry needs a shake up.  People will be willing to pay a little for the privelage of it not being illegal, but I think it's gotten to the point where if it's so easy to get it for free, why don't they?  Companies need to offer something MORE.  But hey, instead of coming up with valuable alternatives to at least stem the flow a little, they choose to punish the consumers and continue the cycle of hate.

I imagine in this case they are looking for improperly labelled songs but I severely doubt anything will come of this particular case.

I don't understand how they can possibly tell what's "illegal".  Even if they have copy protection on the CD, how do they know that you didn't legally download the songs from Amazon or iTunes?  And how can a person have a "commercial quantity" of music?  You just need one copy of it, then you can make as many as you want.  You don't need to have 5,000 copies of a song on your iPod.  Or is anyone who bought a large iPod because they wanted to have a large quantity of music on it automatically assumed to be a bootlegger?  Are the customs agents supposed to go through 3,000 songs, asking for receipts for each and every one of them, from the tourist as they sit in the airport, to discover which are legal and which are not?

This is just getting more ridiculous by the day.  Customs agents, who are supposed to be checking for drugs and keeping terrorists out of the country, screwing around with people's iPods for something that's doesn't make any sense whatsoever.  These record companies have just got to got bankrupt and out of business.  The quality of music they put out is down the toilet, and they're spending all their resources  suing people to get them to buy more of it.  How in the hell can they possibly stay solvent?

I think the idea was to check laptops for commercial amounts of illegally downloaded music.

Kind of like having weed vs having a lot of weed 'intended for sale' etc.


Still it's freakin' ridiculous either way.  As it stands we have one of the longest customs procedures as it is [it takes a while to enter the country because of a lot of quarantine issues...]

Still, Australia has always been reasonably free of all this copyright nonsense that I know those in the states have copped, and I can't help but think this is all a bit of 'country to country' PR.

 :thumbdown:

As others have pointed out, this idea is unworkable because it's impossible to distinguish legally owned materially from illegally pirated material.  The administrative burden of checking people's property would be ridiculous, and pirates could easily circumvent it by changing file names on their laptops.

I suspect this is one of those cases where someone's brainstorming memo got leaked, and although no one took it seriously, the press found it and presented it as if it were being actually proposed.  I see it as similar to the "plan" to have the flying public wear those bracelets that would shock passengers if they became violent on flights.  I have a nearly infinite faith in the stupidity of government bureaucrats, but some ideas are SO stupid you have to conclude that even the most out-of-touch, pencil-pushing government official couldn't take it seriously.

For all the effort that has been put into beating the customer into submission, how much has the industry actually put into trying to take full advantage of technology and fulfilling the public's expectations?

What we get are downloaded songs that we can't change from one format to another, that stop working when our subscription runs out, and that cost far too much for what we get.

Legal song downloads seem like a good deal compared to CDs, but basically, you're only buying the intellectual property, without the material goods and the overhead that goes with them. Once the song is recorded and mixed, they can sell all they want without any added cost besides royalties. There's no disc, no jewel case, no liner, no raw materials, no factories, no printing, pressing, packaging, shipping or retail space. Just a bit of storage and bandwidth. The price should reflect that, and the format should allow all the same permanence and flexibilty we've enjoyed with everything from vinyl to cassettes to CDs. Until that happens, it is the industry that's stealing.

C'mon, AndyC.  Offering a product in a format that you don't like at a price you think is too high isn't "stealing".  Taking someone else's labor that is offered for sale without paying anything for it is stealing. 

I don't think this is at all what you are saying, but there is a certain segment of the population that tries to justify digitally shoplifting their music by complaining about the recording industry's practices.  Downloading music without paying is stealing, plain and simple, and the fact that its easy to do and the product didn't cost much to produce doesn't change that.     

Oh, I don't begrudge them a fair price for their product, but the prices don't reflect what it actually costs when no physical medium is required. I wouldn't even object if the artists got more, but it is the labels who are reaping the benefits. I'm not defending illegal copying by any means, but I am criticizing the industry for their hypocrisy and their apparent inability to adapt, not to mention that they seem to put more effort into holding everyone else back than they do into catching themselves up.

Now, you remember econ 101, right?  Price isn't determined by cost, although profit is.  And the labels aren't entirely evil.  They give bands and artists studios to record in, physical media to press their discs, and marketing and distribution, all the while knowing there's a 90-95% chance they will lose money on the deal. 

I find it remarkable that there's so much righteous indignation against the recording industry for their clumsy attempts to deal with the problem, and so little worry that an entire generation seems to be growing up thinking its OK to steal if its done with the click of a button against a faceless corporation.  It seems to me that somehow the good guys and the bad guys got switched around in the public debate.

I think it has more to do with the fact that for years, even decades you could record cassettes, movies, albums, 8 tracks etc with no ill, no foul, no sin and now in the digital age all of the sudden it wrong, wrong, wrong. Well why wasn't the industry calling foul on double deck dubbing cassette recorders or VHS dubber? Precedents had been sat.

Not saying they should charge less than people are willing to pay, but to me, the cash value of the intellectual property itself cannot be more than the cost of a CD minus all of the overhead that goes with producing and selling a physical object. And I don't think the terms of the purchase should be any different than if I had bought the physical object. I should be able to pay once to use it in any music player I own in perpetuity. Now, obviously most people are going to think the cost of an album is the cost of an album, and that's fine. I look at the same thing and see a significantly greater profit for the company, while the consumer gets a product hobbled by DRM. It might be sound business practice, but it's also not entirely honest. And personally, I don't think it is sound business practice. I think it encourages stealing while earning little sympathy from the public, and all of the legal action and political lobbying wastes resources that could be better used in adapting themselves, rather than beating everyone else into submission.

Cheeze, I don't think that they're worried about people making duplicate mp3 copies of legally purchased music for their own use.  (I know some have said that they are against it, in principle.  That's definitely a strategic blunder).  With a dual tape deck, you couldn't make hundreds of copies of a track almost instantly and send them to strangers around the world with a few clicks of a button.

Andy, maybe I'm not so outraged about the DRM and lack of portability between machines because it's never occurred to me to shop at itunes.  There are DRM free alternatives out there (Amazon, for one).  The market already responded to that complaint.  But I don't think that the kids who are stealing music thought "oh, I'll pay for it now that the DRM is gone" once Amazon opened its store.  They're not stealing music because its overpriced or they don't like the product (which in itself would be no justification).  They're stealing it because its easy to do, and because they want stuff without having to work to earn it.  I am stunned by how people I meet who are otherwise quite ethical don't think twice about taking music without paying for it.  This to me is a much greater social problem than the arrogance of the recording industry: stealing has become acceptable in our society, as long as its done on a small scale.  I wish the focus was there instead. 

And I think to get the focus onto the stealing, people need to have sympathy for the victim. As long as the music industry is viewed as greedy and powerful and without sympathy themselves, people aren't going to care. So far, they've been trying to prevent copying with measures that undermine the legal use of material, overcharging, influencing governments to pass some pretty draconian copyright laws, and pointing their lawyers at everybody they can, all the while claiming to be the helpless victim. This approach has made them look like the bad guys.

Yes, people who download for free are, more or less, looking to get something for nothing, and the justification is usually that it doesn't actually cost the company anything. Not true, of course. They would have sold more music otherwise, although I never agreed with their loss estimates that suggest everybody who downloaded would have otherwise bought the same amount of music. That's just as false.

The point is, the recording industry isn't going to win this battle in the end unless they can get more of the public on their side, and that is not going to happen if people continue to get the impression, right or wrong, of a big, greedy corporation that picks on kids and manipulates governments to pass oppressive laws. Stealing from them almost seems like an act of rebellion against tyranny in that light.

The best approach I ever saw to fighting piracy was reflected by a little PSA that the movie industry stuck in with the trailers a few years back. Some unknown stuntman talking about the movies he's worked on, the risks he's taken and how much he cares about his work. No lecture, no whining, just a working guy telling us how unfair it is that people can reap the benefits of his hard work without giving something in return.

A softer approach is the answer. That's all I'm saying. People are always going to find ways to circumvent copyright protection, and there will always be people willing to commit petty crimes if there is little chance of being caught. If the recording industry took a more honest and cooperative approach it would be more difficult to justify.

And if they came halfway, that would also help. By all means, make the music harder to steal. At the same time, make it more attractive to buy. Give people a good deal, and they're going to do a little cost/benefit analysis and come to the conclusion that the money saved is not worth the trouble. And since the music industry is entering a time when they can almost do away with physical media and the associated costs, it might be time to reevaluate how they price their product.

But as long as they keep trying to push people around, right or wrong, they can't win.

Any time I have downloaded a song by any artist (for free), it's only been one song, usually one that came out 20 years ago & I then go and buy whatever album it's off, if I don't already own it. I hate having copied discs, I much prefer to have the real product. Alot of people I've spoke to do the same. Just fileshare mp3's of one or two songs. This whole thing is ludicrous, just another way to get money out of people. They'd have a field day in the town where I live as there is only one record shop, so nearly everyone is rippin' files, copying and sharing I assume.

Right you are, Circus. I think a lot of people would much rather have the real product than a bootleg.

I think back to the 80s, when my friends and I used to put our VCRs together and run off copies of movies we wanted. At the time, video movies were still priced for the rental market, not the private collector. Even the small selection available in stores were pricey. But within a few years, the industry recognized the potential of marketing the tapes directly to the public at affordable prices. From that point on, I collected nothing but store-bought tapes. The quality was better, they were easier to get, they looked better on the shelf, and the selection was growing all the time. I don't think I've copied a copyrighted movie since the early 90s.

Not everybody is after a free lunch. Sometimes it's about the availability of what you want, and how much it's going to cost you to get it.

I think any artist who goes with a record company is being plain stupid these days. Anyone can make their own recordings with a small investment in equipment.

 The record industry is being very disingenuous saying they are protecting the artists. The RIAA is routinely sued by artists trying to get the money they are owed.  The American recording industry has consistently ripped off the artist they purport to be protecting.  They have basically been blackmailing people with these lawsuits and when the courts start turning against them they start lining the pockets of those in congress to do their enforcing for them.

This is all because these idiots can't figure out how to sell music over the internet.


Like Andy said they need to stop pushing their customer base around and maybe people would feel a little guilt about stealing their product.

They should be concentrating on the real bootleggers in Asia and other places that turn out counterfeit products by the truckload.  In the mean time don't be asking me to feel sorry for these a***oles.

Did you know that for every blank cassette or video tape you've ever bought that a surcharge is included in the price that goes directly to the RIAA or MPAA. Anyone in the IT field should know what a DAT is . Digital Audio Tape, originally designed to carry audio recordings, but in the US they have been relegated to computer backups. Why you may ask, the record industry got Congress to ban the recorders from being imported.

They should be concentrating on the real bootleggers in Asia and other places that turn out counterfeit products by the truckload.  In the mean time don't be asking me to feel sorry for these a***oles.

Who knows how many artists have had their work stolen by these guys. They should be concentrating on the real bootleggers in Asia and other places that turn out counterfeit products by the truckload.  In the mean time don't be asking me to feel sorry for these a***oles.

Sorry about the rambling, but I get a little worked up over this (and not because I think people should be able to steal intellectual property).