Accidental piracy?
Nice to see that The Intellectual Property Awareness Foundation has commissioned this ad from The Furnace featuring comedian Dan Wyllie and highlighting accidental piracy.
And no doubt any copycatting of Chris Lilley is indeed accidental.
Hilarious irony aside, if they want people to stop illegally downloading things they should call it something less cool.
Who doesn’t want to be a pirate? ARRRR!
User ID not verified.
Te err is human, to arr is pirate.
User ID not verified.
Are The Furnace still going?
User ID not verified.
@Intentional Pirate
That actually came up at a big meeting of copyright enforcers a while ago. This isn’t the article I first read about it, but it talks about it.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-po.....olders.ars
“We should change the word piracy. To me, piracy is something adventurous, it makes you think about Johnny Depp. We all want to be a bit like Johnny Depp. But we’re talking about a criminal act.”
User ID not verified.
Somewhat patchy …. aaargghhhhhhhhh!
User ID not verified.
They don’t have a peg to stand on. Oooharrrr…(cough)
User ID not verified.
That statistic cannot be right.
User ID not verified.
Fair comment about being a pirate… “It’s better to be a pirate than to join the Navy.” said Steve Jobs, as quoted in Odyssey : Pepsi to Apple (1987) … and then quoted again by Adam Morgan in The Pirate Inside…
But the main point here is that there is never enough acknowledgment of why we shouldn’t steal and who really loses out. It just states that there are lots of pirates. I hope there is a follow up to this campaign. First awareness then call to action.
User ID not verified.
Zac, I suspect your are correct. One-in-three is probably too low if the definition is “have ever illegally downloaded ….”.
User ID not verified.
Hi PC Fred. The Furnace is definitely alive and well thanks – although having a name similar to The Foundry (bought out by Smart in June this year) was an unrecognised weakness in the original business strategy!
Nathan – you’re right, there is plenty of debate about the actual term ‘pirate’ and whether it should be used for pro-copyright campaigns. However, for the ‘Blind Actives’ group that this particular campaign is targeted at – a group who morally don’t agree with piracy but actually do it without really realizing – research showed that there isn’t really any of the Johnny Depps about it. They think pirates are bad and don’t want to be labeled one at all (hence the softening with the term ‘Accidental’).
Zac – I had the same initial reaction to the figures, but the stats are correct and come out of research conducted by Sycamore research – you can find out more at the IPAF website http://www.ipawareness.com.au/Facts/
Cheers
Tony
User ID not verified.
Let’s assume that study is not riddled with inaccuracies…
The correct number should be 53% of Australian’s are pirates.
And that study does not at all address the concept of “accidental” piracy.
User ID not verified.
Hi James, couldn’t agree with you more about this only being the start of the journey – fortunately we have a client who’s bought into a longer term strategy and this is just the first part of an overall campaign.
John – the ‘1-in-3’ (34%) number is for those who have committed piracy without really knowing it, i.e. ‘accidentally’. The total piracy figure is, as you suspect, higher (but getting to the point where highlighting it might actually have the opposite effect and make it feel like an acceptable activity!)
Cheers
Tony
User ID not verified.
Hi Zac, the 34% is for the Blind Active group – the target for this campaign – not the total penetration of piracy.
User ID not verified.
But Tony, just because someone doesn’t consider them self a pirate doesn’t mean they’re accidentally pirating.
User ID not verified.
Thanks Tony. I didn’t tweak to that – apologies. That proprtion accords with data I have seen and read about.
I also agree that using the “total ever pirated” number would lead to ennui/acceptance about piracy. One could say ‘dangerous waters’.
Mind you, I am getting regular emails from a large international software company advising me to ensure that I have a legitimate copy of their fabulously well known graphics software package. Fair enough … except I don’t have a copy of it and have never downloaded it! Does that count as spam then?
User ID not verified.
Hi Zac – true there is a slight jump in there, but it doesn’t seem like an unreasonable one.
And John, good luck with your stalker international software company – it’s amazing how bad their databases can be!
User ID not verified.
Good treatment of a pretty tough sell: copyright infringement is neither stealing nor theft irrespective of how many Australians “see” it as such, and in the case of the target group is not a criminal act.
User ID not verified.
Cam, interesting POV. Can you refresh me as to which law school you graduated from?
I’d just like to make sure that if needs be in the future, I don’t retain the professional services of any alumni.
User ID not verified.
@John Grono
How disingenuously droll.
Theft, in plain english, is defined as the dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive. Stealing is the act of theft.
Copyright infringement is not theft, although some copyright infringement is criminal. In each case the remedies are different.
My point remains that this is a good treatment of a tough sell, particularly so given the difficulty with nomenclature.
User ID not verified.
Does The Intellectual Property Awareness Foundation abide by it’s own rules?
You have a big fat T logo at the bottom of your page, which I doubt you have permission for – do you?
Twitter Rights
All right, title, and interest in and to the Services (excluding Content provided by users) are and will remain the exclusive property of Twitter and its licensors. The Services are protected by copyright, trademark, and other laws of both the United States and foreign countries. Nothing in the Terms gives you a right to use the Twitter name or any of the Twitter trademarks, logos, domain names, and other distinctive brand features. Any feedback, comments, or suggestions you may provide regarding Twitter, or the Services is entirely voluntary and we will be free to use such feedback, comments or suggestions as we see fit and without any obligation to you.
No didn’t think so…but it’s different isn’t it – why’s that? because you are promoting Twitter? Or because it’s okay and everyone else does it. It’s as different as me recording a song off the radio onto a tape and promoting it to my friends in my car.
User ID not verified.
Copyright is dead, adapt or die Hollywood.
You really should stop wasting your dwindling resources on financing marketing and legal vultures, and start investing in innovations that may just allow you to survive.
Piracy has been normalised and all the flashy add campaigns and school resource kits won’t roll back history.
User ID not verified.
Cam, your first post says “copyright infringement is neither stealing nor theft irrespective of how many Australians “see” it as such, and in the case of the target group is not a criminal act.”.
Your second post says “Copyright infringement is not theft, although some copyright infringement is criminal.”
If the infringement is accidental or incidental it is not a criminal act – correct? If the infringement is willful, deliberate, considered or for gain then it is a criminal act – correct?
Can you please confirm or clarify?
User ID not verified.
@John Grono
The two statements are logically consistent:
A.1) Copyright infringement is neither stealing nor theft
B.1) Copyright infringement is not theft
A.2) And in the case of the target group is not a criminal act.
B.2) Some copyright infringement is criminal.
It stands that copyright infringement is not theft and that “blind actives” as defined by the research have almost certainly not committed a criminal act, although some copyright infringement is criminal.
*If the infringement is accidental or incidental it is not a criminal act – correct?*
Not necessarily – this requires much more elaboration than I care to give here.
*If the infringement is willful, deliberate, considered or for gain then it is a criminal act – correct?*
Without recounting the entire act: If a person offers an article for sale or hire, or by way of trade offer or exposes an article for sale or hire, or imports an article into Australia with the intention of distributing for trade, sale, hire etc. or distributing it to an extent that will affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright they may have committed a criminal act. The act allows for strict liability offences.
Again, not necessarily.
User ID not verified.
Thank you Cam.
User ID not verified.
The Australian Ratings board viewed this video.
they have rated it Arrrrrrr
User ID not verified.
using Cam’s definition of theft, i still don’t understand why you can’t call copyright infringement theft. When you purchase a DVD you are buying a license to watch the content. When you pirate a DVD you are effectively stealing a license to watch the content. intangible items like licenses are property too.
the fact that we even need to have a legal technical discussion proves what we know already – from a moral perspective, piracy is thievery. It’s just quick and rewarding and easy to hide. But it’s still dishonest.
User ID not verified.
Sven,
Piracy does not deprive anyone of a legitimate copy or the license to view it.
User ID not verified.
HAAAAAAA Dan Wyllie SRSLY one day when I have the money I am going to use you.
User ID not verified.