This week AFACT (Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft) shut down pirate websites that were allowing people to download the television series The Slap - including a Dutch torrent website diwana.org. It's a huge step in the fight against piracy, but it does start to raise some interesting questions.
There seem to be (broadly speaking) two types of pirates when it comes to illegal downloads; those that are tight and refuse to spend money going to see movies at the cinema or buying DVDs; and those that want to watch their television programmes as soon as possible. Now if everyone fell into the first category, then we'd have big problems with the movie industry as distributors would effectively fold (and remember that it's actually the distribution companies who suffer from piracy, not actually the production companies - though, of course, if a distributor collapses it has a severe impact on the production companies as well).
I don't really hold with illegal downloads for the sake of saving money. They are a product, after all, and if you would pay to see them normally, then you should. However, I do wonder if you can get away with justifiable homicide, then can you get away with justifiable piracy?
For those pirates who don't do it to save money, the reason piracy takes place is because the distribution companies do their job quite poorly, particularly when it comes to television programmes. The Walking Dead, for example, is now into it's second season in America and has yet to be broadcast in Australia. Indeed, only recently has an Australian network actually bothered to pick the programme up. The rating figures for Australia's broadcast of The Walking Dead will be pitiful, because you can now legally purchase the DVD. This is the perfect example of a distribution company (in this case a television network) dropping the ball and opening the door for pirates. The Walking Dead, as a genre programme, is also one of those programmes where illegal downloads will be very high because geeks like to get their television as soon as possible.
Despite the ABC's desire to "fast track" Doctor Who, it still ends up getting broadcast a week after the English broadcast. That's a week too late for a lot of computer-savvy fans who want to really see it fast tracked. There are a huge variety of excuses trotted out by television networks as to why they can't broadcast their television any sooner, but all of these reasons are bollocks when programmes like The View, The Late Show With David Letterman or The Late, Late Show With Craig Ferguson can be broadcast within twenty-four hours of their original broadcast. Glee proudly boasts broadcasting six hours after the American transmission.
Equally, downloading television programmes tends to feel like a victimless crime insofar as you don't pay to watch those programmes on television anyway. Commercial networks may argue that they need the viewers because they are funded by advertisers, but in situations such as The Walking Dead, when you wait so long that the DVD is legally available, you've already shot yourself in the foot. The ABC don't have an advertiser's excuse, so downloading a programme that appears on that network genuinely is a victimless crime.
Television networks (and I believe this is true not just of Australian ones), treat television shows appallingly. They find it virtually impossible to show a season consecutively in the same time slot; seasons are interrupted by repeats when the ratings period is over, and should the programme not rate as well as they want it to, it is shuffled further and further back in time until it ends up trying to edge out Letterman for the 11.30 slot. If you're a fan of a television programme, watching it on tv is not an attractive option thanks to the networks. Of course, in some cases they simply just cancel it after three episodes...
Movie companies are really in much the same boat. Worldwide releases for movies are possible and have been done. But when distributors choose not to do that, geeks in particular, go straight to the net to see their movie because they don't want to wait. You'll never get money from those that don't want to pay, but by distributing your movies in a timely fashion, you will get most of those that are downloading for time reasons away from their computers.
In the AFACT case this week, the website diwana.org has lodged an official protest because, they argue, programmes like The Slap and also Packed To The Rafters are not broadcast in the Netherlands and as such, diwana.org is the only way the Dutch can see the programmes that they love. I am in a similar position - the English game show Never Mind The Buzzcocks has never and will never be broadcast in Australia. As I'm unable to access the BBC iPlayer and there are no DVD releases of each series, how do I watch a programme that I think is brilliant?
The BBC, however, is actually progressing by attempting to open up their iPlayer to the entire world so they can access the content at the same time as Britian, which is naturally upsetting foreign networks who feel this will bite into their ratings (though they should probably have realised it won't - the people who will go to iPlayer are the people who are currently illegally downloading the programmes anyway).
Whilst I applaud AFACT for doing their job so effectively, it's time to start looking into reasons why this problem is occurring, and for the distribution companies to actually address those, rather than hunt down downloaders to fine them.
There seem to be (broadly speaking) two types of pirates when it comes to illegal downloads; those that are tight and refuse to spend money going to see movies at the cinema or buying DVDs; and those that want to watch their television programmes as soon as possible. Now if everyone fell into the first category, then we'd have big problems with the movie industry as distributors would effectively fold (and remember that it's actually the distribution companies who suffer from piracy, not actually the production companies - though, of course, if a distributor collapses it has a severe impact on the production companies as well).
I don't really hold with illegal downloads for the sake of saving money. They are a product, after all, and if you would pay to see them normally, then you should. However, I do wonder if you can get away with justifiable homicide, then can you get away with justifiable piracy?
For those pirates who don't do it to save money, the reason piracy takes place is because the distribution companies do their job quite poorly, particularly when it comes to television programmes. The Walking Dead, for example, is now into it's second season in America and has yet to be broadcast in Australia. Indeed, only recently has an Australian network actually bothered to pick the programme up. The rating figures for Australia's broadcast of The Walking Dead will be pitiful, because you can now legally purchase the DVD. This is the perfect example of a distribution company (in this case a television network) dropping the ball and opening the door for pirates. The Walking Dead, as a genre programme, is also one of those programmes where illegal downloads will be very high because geeks like to get their television as soon as possible.
Despite the ABC's desire to "fast track" Doctor Who, it still ends up getting broadcast a week after the English broadcast. That's a week too late for a lot of computer-savvy fans who want to really see it fast tracked. There are a huge variety of excuses trotted out by television networks as to why they can't broadcast their television any sooner, but all of these reasons are bollocks when programmes like The View, The Late Show With David Letterman or The Late, Late Show With Craig Ferguson can be broadcast within twenty-four hours of their original broadcast. Glee proudly boasts broadcasting six hours after the American transmission.
Equally, downloading television programmes tends to feel like a victimless crime insofar as you don't pay to watch those programmes on television anyway. Commercial networks may argue that they need the viewers because they are funded by advertisers, but in situations such as The Walking Dead, when you wait so long that the DVD is legally available, you've already shot yourself in the foot. The ABC don't have an advertiser's excuse, so downloading a programme that appears on that network genuinely is a victimless crime.
Television networks (and I believe this is true not just of Australian ones), treat television shows appallingly. They find it virtually impossible to show a season consecutively in the same time slot; seasons are interrupted by repeats when the ratings period is over, and should the programme not rate as well as they want it to, it is shuffled further and further back in time until it ends up trying to edge out Letterman for the 11.30 slot. If you're a fan of a television programme, watching it on tv is not an attractive option thanks to the networks. Of course, in some cases they simply just cancel it after three episodes...
Movie companies are really in much the same boat. Worldwide releases for movies are possible and have been done. But when distributors choose not to do that, geeks in particular, go straight to the net to see their movie because they don't want to wait. You'll never get money from those that don't want to pay, but by distributing your movies in a timely fashion, you will get most of those that are downloading for time reasons away from their computers.
In the AFACT case this week, the website diwana.org has lodged an official protest because, they argue, programmes like The Slap and also Packed To The Rafters are not broadcast in the Netherlands and as such, diwana.org is the only way the Dutch can see the programmes that they love. I am in a similar position - the English game show Never Mind The Buzzcocks has never and will never be broadcast in Australia. As I'm unable to access the BBC iPlayer and there are no DVD releases of each series, how do I watch a programme that I think is brilliant?
The BBC, however, is actually progressing by attempting to open up their iPlayer to the entire world so they can access the content at the same time as Britian, which is naturally upsetting foreign networks who feel this will bite into their ratings (though they should probably have realised it won't - the people who will go to iPlayer are the people who are currently illegally downloading the programmes anyway).
Whilst I applaud AFACT for doing their job so effectively, it's time to start looking into reasons why this problem is occurring, and for the distribution companies to actually address those, rather than hunt down downloaders to fine them.
0 comments:
Post a Comment