BitTorrent CEO sees danger in AFACT vs iiNet
Listen to the market signal
Australia will set an unwelcome precedent if it capitulates to the movie industry in its legal fight with iiNet, warns BitTorrent CEO Eric Klinker.
Last month the Australian High Court allowed the Australian Federation against Copyright Theft (AFACT) to appeal the decision of the Full Federal Court handed down in February this year over the long-running copyright dispute with iiNet, a leading ISP.
In that case, iiNet secured a landmark ruling against a consortium of movie studios and AFACT, which meant it was not liable for the illegal downloading of filmed content by its users.
The revived case should be heard later in the year.
BitTorrent usage is at the heart of AFACT’s woes, but Klinker says the matter goes back to keeping up with changing market dynamics.
"It is a market signal, the whole ecosystem (of file sharing) is a market signal. If you can’t embrace that signal and use it to guide your content efforts then you are missing out on an opportunity," he says.
He adds that one solution could fall back to the government for better laws. “That’s certainly what the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) would like to see. Stronger copyright, more enforcement. I think it’s a balance. You always want to balance two things, against the public good, that copyright is meant to foster in the first place but you always want to balance it against the interests of innovation. You would not want to stifle ongoing innovation with burdensome IP rights or copyrights.”
Klinker is following the iiNet vs AFACT case and views it as ‘picking on the small guy’. Why didn’t they go after Telstra, he asks.
“I’m sympathetic to the content rights holders as they have a great challenge. They don’t have an easy, cost effective way to enforce it, but the act of infringement is where it needs to be policed. The first time it’s published, the first time it’s leaked. How does it get there that’s the point of attack. Every technology provider - whether you're providing an ISP service or writing software - needs to be able to preserve the ability to operate their business and continue to innovate.” ®
Reality TV and other cheapo popular crap is what has killed Sci-fi.
When TV companies can get higher ratings for shit like Big Brother at a fraction of the cost they are obviously going to go with that.
Blaming it on BitTorrent has no basis in reality.
BT my arse!
Cheap and cheerful shite, shovelled out by TV and movie studios for the dumb-down masses to consume! That's what's killed decent programming.
Simple economics. Making cheap, safe shite TV at a fraction of the cost, using cheap labour and dirt cheap writers knowing it will sell and with it the ad-space in between or take a chance on new exciting ideas with fresh talent that encourage people to think? You tell me which one ensures the TV execs get a nice new, shiny Bentley every year and £1M gaff in the country?
All this shit TV has had the opposite effect on me, thank God. I haven't watched broadcast TV for years, I just start moaning about the shite advertising and turn off. I now spend most of my time out and about taking photos or just country walking. If everyone started turning off they'd have to start seriously looking at the crap they pump into our homes and make half decent programmes.
Valid point, to be promptly ignored
I liked the point about chasing how this stuff gets into the public domain. So much is available before it even hits the mainstream cinemas that choking it off at that point would be a lot simpler, but of course the studios would have to foot the bill for that option wouldn't they.
That should be an argument the ISPs are making and I can think of a number of suitable parallels in real life where the originator would be expected to show they had made all reasonable efforts before they could hassle the end of the chain but I shan't feed the trolls as they all fail if taken to extremes .