Batten Down The Hatches, There Is An Australian Piracy Crackdown On The Way

Gizmodo is reporting that a government-led piracy crackdown is incoming, based on a three strikes and you're out policy. Out meaning your internet service will be suspended. Perhaps more worrying (or more insane) is the suggestion that ISPs take down websites hosting pirated content.

Basically this suggests that ISPs become some sort of elite internet police. Logistically, it's not going to happen.

There's a real disconnect here. We all know piracy is a problem, and we all know it runs rampant in Australia, but we live in a world where the laws have yet to catch up to the way in which we navigate our online, digital worlds. These things are important, but every time I see an 'uploader has not made this content available in your country', or a game gets delayed for months in Australia, or I'm forced to sign up to a ridiculous Foxtel plan in order to watch one single show — these are moments when piracy begins to feel like a justifiable, subversive act.

There's a solution here, and I feel it's within reach, but this is not it.

Read the full story over at Gizmodo.


    Yeah, would be nice if the focus was on putting better systems of content in place first

      The MPAA won't allow it. Or anyone associated with them.

      They want everything to be like the 1920s and earlier where there was full control over the distribution and screening of movie content.

      When home media was first released, many movie studios actually challenged the idea because they assumed it will kill the industry.

      And they are right, it is killing the industry: by them not properly embrasing it!

      Last edited 14/02/14 4:23 pm

    Sounds like Lord Rupert is still fretting about his floundering Foxtel subscriptions despite disembowelling the NBN. I'm sure his Abbott puppet will have that fixed up shortly. All hail the great Australian firewall.

      Three things:
      1. The Coalition scrapped the NBN because it was a Labor invention, (cost was only a very minor reason, if someone else invented the NBN it might have stayed).
      2. News Corp is a part owner of Foxtel, Telstra is the other half (who had the most to lose if the NBN ever reached its real potential because it would have rendered copper 110% worthless).
      3. Murdoch is not in control, (we Australians voted and if some used the paper as their sole source of information then that is a problem for the individuals).

      Abbott is not a puppet to Murdoch. That joke is dead now let it lie.

      Despite their advances (NDS, the schools programs, insulation scheme and what stands of the NBN) near the end they were a shell that served no function (constant infighiting and letting Rudd gut them in the election as revenge for removing him as Prime Minister). Thus Australians (not Murdoch) decided it was time to go.

      And before anyone accuses me of Liberal bias, I tore the Coalition to pieces (both professionally and personally) in another thread, and will do it to the Greens and Palmer if the opportunity arises (there is no polical party I won't tear apart).

      I don't take sides I stand on the fence make my mind up in each election.

      Also remember, Foxtel is here because of both News Corp *AND* Telstra teaming up to provide the capita needed to run such a service.

      These measures are not going to help Foxtel, they will cause subscriptions to drop. And if Murdoch really is paying attention (I personally think he has not seen a News Corp office since 1961) it is only a matter of time before he sees this investment is going no where and will force News Corp to pull out.

      These measures (GoT exclusivity, loss of NBN, etc) are not beneficial to News Corp (and by association, Murdoch). They are beneficial only to Telstra who have the near (if not, whole) monopoly over all telecommunications here. If not them, then the copyright holders/distributors who (via Foxtel) set the price of their programs which then get passed on via Foxtel subscription fees.

      See case in point, the former CEO Sol Trujillo.

      Last edited 14/02/14 3:49 pm

        Murdochs not in control?




        But I digress.





        And now I'm done.


          Hold up. You left your cylinder of NOX here.

          Laugh all you like. It's not going to change the fact Murdoch did not decide the election nor that he decides things here.

          Because if he was, then we also have to give him credit for the good things the did happen under Labor. The NDS, the insulation scheme (before it went awry), the schools program (before some of the projects we found to be hiddiously over costed) and (via the inherited surplus) surviving the GFC.

          You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you are going to imply Murdoch is in control then you have to give him credit for both the good and the bad. You cannot be selective otherwise your claim cancels itself out.

          I put the question to you now, Weresmurf. Assuming we have to blame Murdoch for the loss of the NBN, does this also mean we have to give credit to him for the NDS and other advices instead of the Rudd/Gillard government?

          Last edited 14/02/14 4:14 pm

            Uggghhhhhh what? Murdoch has and always will be pro-liberal party. Everything good that came out of the last government had ZERO to do with Murdoch. So no. No credit.

              In 2007 the News Corp papers were not. They were pro-Labor. And Murdoch around that time even dined with Rudd and described him as making a good Prime Minister.

              And seriously, if Murdoch is to be blamed for the Coalition getting then it has to be assumed he is calling the shots and there for also has to be given credit for the NDS,etc. There is no isolation here: either give full credit where its (both the good and the bad) or don't give any.

              Last edited 15/02/14 7:14 am

            I don't think Murdoch particularly sides with either party. I also don't think he actually passes legislation to do with little things such as insulation etc, that was a completely different issue. When you're talking such a thing as the NBN which goes towards communication, can impact the sales of newspapers etc, he's going to take a vested interest.

            However, history has shown us that the media quite often has had its horned head in politics, controlling which way the parties go. Kerry Packer for instance, began his career by character assassinating Gough Whitlam and was instrumental in his removal. Without his direct input, Good ole' Whitlam would have had a clean run as Prime Minister. Constant character assassination articles in the papers at the time, articles against the man, were used to sway public opinion against him, when he was removed finally, it w

            While I'm no Labour or Liberal supporter, I don't like either party personally, they're both lying scum, it was apparent in the last election Murdoch wanted Rudd *gone*. In a collection of every Courier mail leading up to the election over six weeks, including 'sunday mails' and 'saturday editions', a large percentage had negative labour articles about Rudd. Abbott only ever had positive articles appear about him.


            Given it was an independant study that was undertaken to look into that, there is credibility behind it.

            This tactic was used in Whitlams day, it worked then and it was used today and it worked now, it sways public opinion. Of course the public has the right to make up their own mind of course, but as we know the general public are swayable buffoons made up of A Current Affair and (ex)today tonight watchers...

            But, I understand, you want hard cold facts that has Rupert standing up saying 'I AM THE POWER BEHIND THE THRONE, I AM JOFFREY, I AM VADER, I AM THE BASTARD SON OF A THOUSAND MANIACS!'

            Unfortunately he won't do that and he never will.

            Just as the Unions and Corporations swayed a lot of Gillards decisions, Rupert Murdoch, Gina Reinhardt and co. sway most of Tony Abbott and co.'s decisions. To think they don't, to think that Australia's members, who practically *fund* this country, who just miraculously got granted:

            * The right to mine the shit out of the Great Barrier Reef.
            * The right to harvest a previously world heritage listed National Park in Tasmania

            Those two alone go right to the heart of the mining and logging industry, two of who surprise surprise, are his own little friends.

            Just as corporations control America these days, so do they control Australia. We may have a Prime Minister, we may have politiciains but money talks and bullshit walks, but when the money walks, the politicians fucking well walk after it on hands and knees.

            Last edited 14/02/14 4:57 pm

              last election Murdoch wanted Rudd *gone*.

              So did the majority of Australia. News Corp went by the old rule, give the people what they wanted. So the papers printed headlines that rediculed the current government. End result, more paper sales, which I'm certain was the original plan.

              But, I understand, you want hard cold facts that has Rupert standing up saying 'I AM THE POWER BEHIND THE THRONE, I AM JOFFREY, I AM VADER, I AM THE BASTARD SON OF A THOUSAND MANIACS!'

              Unfortunately he won't do that and he never will.

              That's because he isn't behind anything besides a wall of money and 17 layers of executives thus insulating himself from reality (and what his own companies are really doing).

              Just as the Unions and Corporations swayed a lot of Gillards decisions, Rupert Murdoch, Gina Reinhardt and co. sway most of Tony Abbott and co.'s decisions.

              No, Labor favor the unions and don't call them task. The Coalition while able to manage money is incapable of releasing it later for actual projects.

              The main reason they are there now (besides Labor being incapable) is to put the budget right. Once Australia is happy, they'll be voted out to start projects again.

              This is the cycle in Australian politics and the two party system we are stuck in. To start projects, Australia votes Labor. When the debt gets too high, the Coalition is put in. Rince and repeat.

              And until there is a third party with the size needed to from government (be it on its own or via another coalition with one or more parties) we are stuck with Labor or the Coalition (Liberal and National).

              Regardless, if what you say is true then any influence Murdoch has means credit is to go to him for the NDS, etc. If you are going to assume corporations are in control, then you need to accept the credit for advances also goes to them.

              Again, you can't have your cake and eat it too. If blame is to be laid then so to is credit.

              Last edited 14/02/14 5:32 pm

                /edit holy crap! scuse the wall of text! /edit
                I agree with both you and @weresmurf to some degree. Politics is just a shit storm of people being influenced (or attempts at influencing at least) by both media and business.
                While I don't like the idea of 3 strikes and you're out, in some ways, I'd prefer it to that Labour fuckwit (Con..something or other) implementing his firewall to block access to shit at the govt's discretion. While it might be safer for the end user, and result in only kiddy porn freaks being locked up or banned, at least with a strike system, we still have some element of freedom. Anyone who's technically minded will still find ways to find what they want without being caught no matter which system is implemented, but at least with the strike system, it's likely that there'll be a massive influx of innocent (and or claiming to be innocent) people being unfairly banned by the system, and wasting the courts time, and eventually it'll probably be deemed too much trouble and be trashed. Fingers crossed anyway.
                The govt is stuck between a rock and a hard place really. They can't be seen to be doing nothing about the issue, but they can't just blanket ban everyone, so they travel the long and troublesome road of compromise. Nobody wins except for the govt in the short term, because at least they're seen to be doing SOMETHING, which to the MPAA and others who want action, has got to appear better than any form of inaction. Really what the govt should be doing though, is taking the issue back to the complainants, and saying, we can't just go round willy nilly banning people and wasting our already strained govt resources, how about you implement some changes in your business model, and if it's not something you can do alone, then get in contact with the people you need to sort out licencing deals and such, so that people don't NEED/WANT to pirate in the first place.
                Generally these days, the main reason I hear people pirating things for, is because it's not available in the country due to bullshit licencing issues, or the "australia tax" that gets lumped on to things by the distributors (and most of the time it's not their fault either - they have to make a profit, but profit margin on already insane prices just does nothing for anyone. The other one I commonly hear is, I just want to see if it's any good before I purchase. I know I'm guilty of downloading illegal software before due to there being no demo available, but once I've tried and decided it fits my needs, I purchase the software, because having worked as a dev for a number of years, I know how important it is that the devs get what they deserve!

                Last edited 14/02/14 6:21 pm

                Can we stop using this tired rhetoric such as "The Coalition, while able to manage money... ? This goes for people talking about how Labour are all left wing and socially progressive.

                Labour, last term, ran the economy better than 90% of governments around the world, and got us through the GFC. It wasn't pretty, but it was better than most places. Link:

                And what is it with Australia and the "Chuck this mob out" mentality? Look at some policies, otherwise you're cutting off your nose just to spite your face.

                Liberals had bad policy, but the country was distracted by the media circus around Labour and now they're crying injustice when they got what they voted for.

                  Labour, last term, ran the economy better than 90% of governments around the world, and got us through the GFC

                  Thanks to the bumper suprlus they in herited from the prior Howard Government.

                  And it was only a 10% media circus. Labor was disfunctional and the majority of Australian's decided it was time to replace them before they (along with the Greens) put the whole country into dire straits.

                  And what is it with Australia and the "Chuck this mob out" mentality? Look at some policies, otherwise you're cutting off your nose just to spite your face.

                  Like many others, I did and saw the flaws. Case in point, the fact that the Carbon Tax reduces itself at leat twice.

                  It remains to be seen if the 8 Billion it raised is before are afer the household assistance packages and carbon credits are deducted from it.

                  At the end of the day, the money coming out was not higher than the money coming in. It is OK in the short term but it had been running too long and with no end in sight.

                  Labor had good ideas but had no idea how to implement them nor ensure the books stayed balanced.

                  Those who voted or preferenced the Coalition did so knowing there would be cuts and various projects shut down to put the budget right. Those who did vote and are crying fowl need to mute themselves as they cannot have it both ways.

                  Last edited 17/02/14 9:14 am

        My comment was 90% facetious and I used Rupert as a strawman on that basis. While I don't wholly agree with your views it was far more thought out than my lame joke. Anyway, we'll see what the face of Australian media looks like once Abbott has completed his efficiency study into the mean old ABC that only says mean things (facts) about his time in office instead of opinion pieces running as headlines that constantly tongue-bathe his balls.

          While I don't wholly agree with your views it was far more thought out than my lame joke

          My apologies, Matthew K, I didn't notice when I (there is no other word for it) tore into your comment.

          Again, I am sorry for my actions.

          we'll see what the face of Australian media looks like once Abbott has completed his efficiency study into the mean old ABC that only says mean things (facts) about his time in office

          The irony is not lost on me. I don't know if anyone remembers this but Labor also had a go at the media as well during its time. It didn't matter what media company it came from (News Corp, Fairfax, Independents), if it didn't suit them then there was unfair bias.

          The problem with the ABC is it lacks balance. When covering events, it is either extremely to the left or to the right. It's hard to remember when it reaches the middle ground outside satire (see Shaun Micallef's Mad as Hell or The Roast, statire but the only things that cover both sides evenly and ironically are less comical than the real world version).

          At the same time though, Abbott is a joke of a PM but that is not why he got there. It is his party that got into office via votes (direct and via preferences) and he is there because the party put him there.

          To use a modification of his own quote (I support fair use), his team is indeed ready but he certainly is not.

          Last edited 14/02/14 4:40 pm

            I can't help but feel that this Liberal Party isn't ready to rule... but the next one, when they see what this one did, will be a much better, much more in touch one. Same goes with the next Labour party. I think they're both having their own little 'fuckup periods' in terms of ruling times.

              No government here rules. When a party is voted into office, they govern. To say rule means we are following the old medievil days where a monarchy reigned over the citizens.

              Anyhow, in terms of governing the inner core of the Coalition appears intact. It's the figure heads that need a good lesson with a block of wood to the gums.

              Abbott: Can't even say his own name without rehersing for at least half an hour infront of an auto cue and is quick to fire back at any critisim aimed at him. Basically Kevin 3.0.

              Hockey: Needs to park his head in a freezer and chill instead of biting back when the Opposition has a go at him.

              Morrison: Needs to admit the blackout looks bad but needs to be done (like how the police force keep details under wraps so the targets don't get the upper hand) instead of the "Holy than thou" attitude he give to those that question the process.

              Pyne: Needs to learn the shut the f**k up when it's not his turn to talk. See his behavior in question time and the recent interview on Today. When someone speaks in oppositing to him, he chants out his pros and his opponents cons from the other side.

                Pyne: Needs to learn the shut the f**k up when it's not his turn to talk

                I'd add - "and also when it is his turn to talk". The guy's raised being punchable into an art form.

                Christopher Pyne's first cousin is an associate of the Hell's Angels.

                LOL Australian politicians.

        1. The Coalition scrapped the NBN because it was a Labor invention, (cost was only a very minor reason, if someone else invented the NBN it might have stayed).

        I'm curious, can you please explain the other reason? During the whole election campaign, liberals stated it was costly, i have not seen any other reasons they have listed, beside the "“[We] are absolutely confident that 25 megs is going to be enough, more than enough, for the average household.” -

        Abbott is not a puppet to Murdoch. That joke is dead now let it lie.
        Please have a read at this
        without Murdoch's assistance, there could have been a chance for labor to win, as many people read the paper/internet which is own by news corp.

        Also this video would support that argument ^

          I'm curious, can you please explain the other reason? During the whole election campaign, liberals stated it was costly, i have not seen any other reasons they have listed, beside the "“[We] are absolutely confident that 25 megs is going to be enough, more than enough, for the average household.” -

          While there is some truth that cost was a small factor, the real reason it went was because it was a Labor invention. It happens with both side: one side invents something good and the other seeks to tear it down.

          Please have a read at this
          without Murdoch's assistance, there could have been a chance for labor to win

          What assistance? The News Corp papers simply echoed what the majority of Australian's had already decided on.

          In the last election, the Coalition never won. The Coalition simply did not lose it. Kevin Rudd ran about and effectively threw the election as revenge onCaucus for removing him as Prime Minister.

          as many people read the paper/internet which is own by news corp.

          News Corp doesn't own all the papers. There are other outlets, such as Independents and Fairfax.

          Also, the Internet, last I checked, is an open communication network and it is not owned by News Corp by any means.

          Last edited 15/02/14 7:22 am

            People have a very limited appreciation of their main source of news and confidence in the body politic from their representatives.

            You have to fully grasp that news is the only way most people understand how politics works. So, when and if the 4th estate decides that a government has failed, It has failed.

            You can quibble over who pulled the trigger, but Australia is very much a mob ruled by simple emotional manipulations. As citizens, you're completely hemmed in by this simple manipulation by the charismatic and simple-minded, because there's not enough time in the day to learn the truth or the lie, just the story.

            The news agencies that influence radio and television networks, they create that power, and nations of people, as a mob actively follow and devour stories. not truth, stories.

            Fiction is truth, because it can be. because it's there. the truth has to compete with narrative all the time in the news, because it's not truth that gets into people's minds, it's the story. it always has been.

            We might put the power in the hands of a single person for venality, but it's unreal, The singular power of a murdoch or abbott or rudd, is entirely a creation in the mind of the simple and feeble.

            One person's wishes aren't that powerful, but they can impress 50 other people who will follow that idea. so it's a cruel shortcut to call the roughly 300 people involved in creating and reviewing the entire diversity of the news structure of Australia of 20 million people, are always going to be short-sighted and loyal to divergent allegiances.

            In short, it's not entirely corrupt and despotic, it's made that way by the design of the television and news networks over time in Australia. there's not enough size and diversity, and the people in the population don't spend a lot of time fighting the issues for the media to stop and really pay any attention to them.

            So i have no problem with believing the NBN is fully capable, because i'm not an idiot, I know that if the newspaper industry was going better, they would also back up the NBN in the face of flagging political support and entire groups of people trying to prop up the corpse of malcolm turnbull's credibility.

            I'm not impressed that there's the appearance of independence in media, because it's a shallow truth. I see no reporting of events beyond the press releases of corporate and government agencies, to help signpost events and launch new campaigns.

            It's not that i follow political agendas, i just have no confidence that anyone in politics should run a country, let alone the future of a nation, because they're at best, well groomed children pretending they run the entire house, and a nation, when it's the parents and friends who make all those decisions and influence them. As it always will be in politics.



    *In fairness, I never really pirated much and I don't pirate at all any more. I've actually taken the stance that if companies don't want to sell me their content in a timely manner then I'm not going to bother consuming it at all. There's a chance I might miss something remotely good but frankly I've survived quite well without seeing the latest episodes of Game of Breaking Gear of S.H.I.E.L.D. and I'm beginning to suspect that I'm substantially better off for it. On the extremely unlikely chance that I see clips of something that catches my interest, I might wait until I do one of my quarterly large orders from UK Amazon & grab it on DVD if I remember at the time. If not, meh, fuck em.

    Last edited 14/02/14 2:32 pm

      Basically this. If I can't torrent game of thrones week by week then I'll buy the blu-ray and watch it, instead of watching it then buying the blu-ray.

      Nicely said.

      The Wolverine Blu Ray is the perfect example. I want the directors cut so I go into the store with my money. But oh wait, the extra 13 minutes of footage isn't available on the 2D version, you have to buy the 3D blu ray to get the extra 13 minutes of footage, but 3D gives me a headache so I'm not willing to spend the extra money on something I that hurts me to get what I want. But lo and behold, in the 3D version, only the 2D disc has the extra 13 minutes of footage, so why can't they sell that to me?

      But, you know where I can get the version with the 13 extra minutes? Pirate bay. So I put my wallet away and went home and pirated it.

      I signed up for netflix via a vpn site that UNBLOCKs things for US at will. 14 bucks a month is fair for pretty much everything released except for hbo, and you can get that via a service they have in europe that does not require an existing cable account.

      Seriously, it's like 6 bucks a month to get past Ruperts wall of copyright control and be treated like a citizen of the western world. You can add a 0 to the start of your postcode and it will be recognised correctly under international post code formatting rules for bank software and sign up for anything like netflix, hulu+, or just watch shit like Arrow off of the US channel's site.

        I'm sure its entirely viable but if they want my money they can come to me. Why pay a ferryman to get me across a crocodile infested moat when they could simply build a bridge?

          Do you want netflix to send someone over to your house and fill in your registration form for you when that barrier disappears?

            No, I'm just saying that if they want my business they can make it so I don't have to use workarounds to get in the door by simply offering their business here directly. They don't, they either can't for contractual reasons which is a business mistake or they don't care to which is a business mistake. Either way, their offer is more work than its worth for me so they lose out.

            I thought they also wanted to make getting around Geo Blocking illegal so you would still be breaking the law.

    Oh well. At least this crackdown (if it actually happens, there's been sabre-rattling in the past which came to nothing) will bring business to the VPN providers.

      I've already given up pirating in favour of VPN style solutions - cuts out the infuriating middle man


      I have the sudden temptation to invest some money in a VPN provider and see if I get a good return if this crackdown goes forth.

      Last edited 14/02/14 5:53 pm

    First of all I admit to using torrents a lot, mainly for convenience. 90% of content I watch is on a tablet while on the bus to and from work. Given a choice other then $100+ a month for foxtel I'd certainly take it. I know many say this and most think "Sure sure that's an easy way to justify what you're doing"
    I have gone to great lengths in order to pay for content at a reasonable price. In the past few months I have paid for:
    VPN @ $5 a month
    Netflix @ $8 a month
    HBOGO @ $8 a month
    This has all the content I need with the exception of sport. I will continue to pay for it but this and hopefully we will get these options in Aust soon and I can drop the VPN costs but I won't hold my breath (maybe if Rupert holds his breath this would be over)

      I Agree, this is the problem right here.

      For australians it's too hard to get the shows that we all love (game of thrones, walking dead etc) and seeing as the services we need can't be provided to us the means most people know to do this is torrents. Kotaku/Gizmodo needs to do a write up on what Robbo77 has done so we all know how to do it.

    How is kicking alleged pirates off of the internet going to help me get access to legitimate content at a fair price?

      Why would you think they want that for you?

      Last edited 14/02/14 3:27 pm

        I know, it's weird. It's like they don't want my money. Oh well.

          Oh they want your money. It's the government that allows Rupert to stop you from paying them directly for it.

    I'd be happy if ISPs paid lisencing fees to content producers in a similar way that cafes and stuff pay APRA for the right to play music in their establishments. I'm sure there are some negatives to this but I don't know what they are, it looks like a win/win to me.

    Another option that some stakeholders have raised with me is to provide the Federal Court with explicit powers to provide for third party injunctions against ISPs, which will ultimately require ISPs to ‘take down’ websites hosting infringing content.

    I presume that means "if they are hosting that content". Which will just move it all off-shore (to be fair, most of it already is, anyway). My response is the same as it has always been:

    Treat the cause, not the symptoms.

    You conducted a lengthy inquiry that told you almost everything that was causing such high piracy in this country. Do something about that! Give piraters a viable alternative, and stop using stopgaps that they'll just gleefully sidestep.

      In my many years of observing governments they almost always try to attack the symptoms

    Well Spotify has already made my listening choices easier, No longer do I have to obtain music by other means. If only they offered a day1 TV/Movie service like it :)

    If only there was some way to legally distribute TV and movies to the masses via the internet, something with a vast catalogue of media that could be enjoyed for an affordable price...

      If only a new player would enter the market, one with a sizeable embedded userbase, perhaps coupled with a recent push into being a large screen entertainment provider with dedicated hardware and a proven infrastructure for handling massed downloads. Maybe something powered by the heating of water until it evaporates...

      Last edited 14/02/14 3:30 pm

        Valve let publishers play the geo-blocking and regional pricing game, so why do you think we'd be any better off with Steam as the distribution method?

        Yeah here is the problem. Rupert buys the australian distribution rights to pretty much everything. He is the one locking it away from you. No one can have a service like that here because they would have to pay him as much as he charges us before they can stream it here. John Howard encouraged this to happen when he changed foreign media ownership laws in this country so Murdoch could keep his empire when he renounced his australian citizenship and became american so he could buy US tabloids.

    You know how that game of thrones thing is exclusive to foxtel for the 4th series? I just had a quick look and its on their showcase channel which is only in their platinum package. With the cost of the subscription and initial setup fee, that's $1638 for the first year for foxtel.

    Now they're using this as a reason you should subscribe, if for some reason you felt so impatient yet were simultaneously so law abiding as to subscribe to a paytv service to get a single show in a timely manner (which I suspect is a legitimate form of madness), game of thrones series 4 would cost you $163.80 per episode...

    The laws currently don't exist for this to have any kind of proper effect atm and any such measures would be a monumental undertaking.

    As far as I'm aware the laws about monitoring specific persons traffic are quite specific in that the user must first be notified of any snooping before it can take place and in such an event there are measure to get around it.

    So they would have to have rather huge changes in laws across the board for them to implement anything of substantial impact. On the other hand however they are going about this the wrong way.

    Piracy is not the problem, it has long been proven that people want convenience at a reasonable price. Look at the huge drops in piracy in places where netflix quickflix hulu etc start up buinsess. The real problem is the bullshit backwards foxtel model monopolizing the entire market, price gouging at bare minimum 10x its actual worth WITH ADDS and is the very opposite of user friendly or "on demand".

    The state of entertainment in this country is so bad i would go out of my way to pay to pirate things before i ever paid foxtel or its ilk.

    Last edited 14/02/14 3:41 pm

    Dear Australians,

    We in NZ have had this kind of policy in effect for a few years, and piracy hasn't even slowed down at all - it has made zero difference. The only strikes that I know of were people downloading Rihanna tracks from whatever cesspit is the current Limewire. You'll be fine (unless you like Rihanna).

    New Zealand

    brb downloading entire tv series now so I can stock up.

    I’m happy to pay a reasonable price for a good service that encompasses what I want. But we don’t have that in Aus. Hell, I even pay for NBA League Pass, which is over $200USD per season and I do it happily because I can access every single game throughout the entire season plus special filters if I just want to watch highlights of games etc.,
    Give me something like that for tv series and movies and I’ll do it.
    Till then I’ll just keep doing what I’m doing. They start trying to track us down, I guarantee we’ll find a way around it.

      And even then we're ripped. I get the NFL and NBA league passes each year, and this year I also got the NHL pass. Happy to do so as they are quality services, but when you're selling the NBA pass to me for $260 and to other countries for $100 you can bet I'm using a VPN to purchase the exact same product at the cheaper price.

        Am I crazy or did the price jump up significantly this season?

          Yep, seems 10 to 15% each year. The biggest joke was when the raised it by 10% in the lockout season!!

    Much like the Australian Classification Board, the government is yet again failing to understand what we have to do for positive entertainment experiences. One day I hope they'll get their stuff together and learn that there are many other avenues they can take to stop us pirating tv entertainment.

    I swear, South park has been apologizing to me with Russel Crowe's face on their website for years. Sure I could use a proxy or whatever, get through that way. Or I could use other more convenient means. And i think, really, that's a problem as well.

    As everyone has mentioned above, the problem is availability. And if it is available, the exorbitant price attached to it.

    Personally all I download is 1 show that airs solely on Foxtel and new subbed anime, which only a few are available through Crunchyroll. If I like a show, I'll buy the Blu Ray when it comes out. They should look into the correlation of pirating to uptake of Blu Rays sold of the show.

    I think what every politician ever doesn't understand (because they're all completely blind to how all of us citizens live) is that not all of us earn the same as amount of money as they do to splash about on things, nor their mass amount of perks and retirement packages when we vote them out.

    Wait wait wait....

    Just so I get this right.... we had a long protracted legal case between a major ISP and the legal representatives of the RIAA and whatnot over here. After a few years of counter appeals and exhaustion of the legal system it was ruled that a "3 strikes your out" system was NOT LEGAL because an ISP IS A SERVICE PROVIDER AND THUS IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT PEOPLE DO WITH THAT SERVICE as it is tantamount to saying Sydney Water should keep tabs on who uses their water because Water is a critical part in making poisons should a terrorist make a poison attack!

    .... and after all of that our great and esteemed politicians and governor general say. Oh that law isn't right! Time to toss it out the window and make a better one!

    Honestly..... I'm not one prone to the whole big brother crap. But goddamnit people IT WAS A FSCKING LONG ASS COURT CASE AND YOUR GONNA TOSS IT OUT "COZ PIRACY BAD MMKAY!" What the fsck happened to due process and governing *FOR THE PEOPLE* in this country?!

      For anyone curious about this case here is a brief article on gizmodo: and a more in depth case discussion here:

    "Forced to sigh up for Foxtel" oh really, do the Spanish Inquisition turn up at your door and do a little torturing?

    There is no way that I'm buying any Murdoch products, He could offer me a hotel chain, and I still wouldn't sign up.

    I think that the government needs to wake up and realise we are in a global market, and let the market manage itself instead of trying to protect Foxtel and commercial networks.
    At the end of the day, the market will eventually work out that international content delivery, free of 'middle man' distribution agreements and timing are no longer relevant. They will work out that the internet is their best means of making more money than they have ever dreamed of. They simply have to embrace it and pull their heads out of the 20th century. And stop chasing those quarters down the stormwater drains when they fall out of their pockets, and see the big picture.

    This is ridiculous. Over the years, it has been demonstrated that the onus to eradicate piracy doesn't fall on the shoulders of government or interested associations of corporate owners; in fact they've proven to be massively ineffectual while garnering a huge backlash in the would-be consumers and a loss of goodwill. Steam, Crunchyroll and the iTunes store, among many others have proven that the only effective way of combating piracy come from the content producers and distributors themselves. These markets have not only greatly diminished piracy IN GENERAL, they have also become very financially successful.

    I hear that the main piracy issue in Australia are TV shows. Well, that seems to me like a problem for the content distributors, such as Netflix and Hulu that have neglected making their service legally available in these shores for a model that has already proven successful in America.

    If it does happen and people lose their internet.. Well you can't complain, you had 3 warnings and didn't work around it, I'm not inclined to feel sorry for them.

      You should use that thing between your ears to think about the possible issues with this situation.

      Perhaps read a few of the comments here before posting yours.

      The key thing being that in places where this is already implemented they get a lot of false positives because a person is not an IP address.

      The second point is why should we the consumer foot the bill for this invasion of privacy?

        There are many issues with this government, the first was that they got in, we have been paying the second abbot got elected, but my point was if its implemented and you get caught i wont feel bad, same with people and speeding fines.

          Who's in charge of what is considered a strike?
          These people aren't what you would call transparent.
          So, my mother should lose her internet because she trusts my nephew when he says he's not doing anything on the internet and goes watch something illegal on youtube.

          Or Mrs Smith who bought a wireless router because she was told she just has to plug it in gets fined and cut off without any refunds because that modem didn't come with wireless security enabled as a default for easy use (yes they exist).

    What about the porn though?

    All those shops that sold porn in their dingy back rooms have gone out of business...

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now