Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
Disclaimer: The Parliamentary Library does not warrant the accuracy of closed captions. These are derived automatically from the broadcaster's signal.
Big Ideas -

View in ParlView

(generated from captions) but actually it's been
life-changing for us too.

And that's it for today's special
on kids around the world. Hope you enjoyed the program. If you'd like to find out more,
just head to our website. It's at I'll see you next time. Captions by CSI Australia -
Tom Gallagher

This Program is Captioned Live.

# Theme music

Hi, welcome to Big Ideas,
I'm Waleed Aly.

Copyright is dead,
long live the pirates.

Is copyright and copyright law
a battle that's almost lost?

Technological change moves too fast
for laws to keep pace

or to be implemented.

So what is the answer?

There's some brilliant television
being produced

and the trick is download it
as fast as we can illegally -

hundreds of thousands of us
aren't paying for what we view.

We don't wait for a series
to be delivered in the old way.

Traditional book publishing
has taken a massive hit

but there's a boom
in digital publishing

and in pirated books.

Book publishing's been taken
to the cleaners

in pretty much the same way
as the music industry.

So what's going to happen to the very
notion of intellectual property?

Do we just give up?

How can creatives keep pace
with the digital revolution

without being continually outflanked

and in terms of ownership?

Is copyright pretty much dead?

Arguing for that proposition
are Angela Daly, Simon Groth

and Suelette Dreyfuss.

Arguing against it, Michael Fraser,
Lori Flekser and Elmo Keep.

This is an Intelligence Squared

at the Melbourne Town Hall.

It's presented by The Wheeler Centre
and the St James Ethics Centre.

And Michael Williams
is driving the debate.

My name's Michael Williams,

and I'm the director
of The Wheeler Centre.

I'm delighted to chair
tonight's debate.

It's great to have so many
of you here

on a night when I'm sure you've got
a new episode of Breaking Bad

waiting for you at home
at home to watch.

(Audience laughter)

So I thank you for giving us
a bit of your time

before you return
to your illegal downloading.

Ladies and gentlemen,
the proposition before this house

is that copyright is dead.

Long live the pirates!

I invite Suelette Dreyfuss
to address this house

with her arguments
for the affirmative.

Thank you.

(Audience applause)

Good evening.

More than 15 years ago,

a writer in Melbourne
wrote an unusual book -

the first of its kind.

Over the first few years,
it sold respectably,

eventually reaching
close to 10,000 copies,

which for a book in Australia
is a good outcome.

And that would have been
the end of the story.

But something interesting happened.

Her far-sighted researcher,
on the book,

suggested releasing the text
of the book on the internet for free.

At first she was reluctant.

How could she ever make a living,

giving away the book for free on
the internet, in electronic format?

That didn't make any sense.

It is true she was only seeing about
a dollar per sale of every $20 book. But in the end,
how are you going to make money?

But she decided to take the gamble.

Here's what happened next.

In the first two years,
after the book was released for free,

there were more than 400,000

of the entire book.

Not just chapter by chapter.

The author started getting emails

from people who'd never heard
of her work,

but who wanted to buy paper copies
of the book.

A New Zealand artist built
an installation art in a gallery,

based on the book.

Computer programmers
from around the world contacted her

offering to put the book in 21
different electronic eReader formats.

She got a letter from a man - a fan,

who had read all 500 pages on
his hand-held Reader in the bathtub. She got a letter from
a poor blind man in Guatemala,

who wrote to thank her,

saying he had read her book via his
computer speaking the book out loud.

Two movies were made
based on the book

and it was translated
into seven other languages.

And the book has since been
republished many times.

That book is called Underground,
and I am that writer.

The researcher was named
Julian Assange.

The irony is that much
of the success of the book

happened long before Assange became
famous for other things.

The success happened because
he had convinced me

to withhold the digital copyright
from the publisher

and then to free it by releasing
the book for free on the internet.

The idea conceptualised
the end of copyright as we knew it,

It also contributed
to my financial success as an artist

far more than if I had not done this.

Copyright means control.

Controlling society.

Controlling ideas.

And most of all, controlling money.

And that leads to my first point.

Let's not pretend that copyright
exists to protect artists any more.

It doesn't.

In the digital world,

old world companies are just using it
as a way to siphon off money

to protect out of date industries.

Let's talk about bears.

Particularly, Winnie the Pooh.

Winnie the Pooh was first published
in 1926. It was due to go into
the public domain in 2001.

That means that it would have
belonged to all of us,

to all the children of the world.

But the copyright police -

such as Disney and the recording and
motion picture industry lobbyists -

sunk their teeth
into the US Congress' behinds,

forcing them to pass legislation
extending copyright for another 20 years.

So Winnie went back into
private hands for another 20 years.

This is a loss for all societies.

Now the copyright cheerleading squad
over this side,

who you'll hear from shortly,

will argue that we need copyright
to provide an income for artists

to produce more art.

But author of Winnie the Pooh,
A.A Milne,

no longer needs to make a living
from his work

in order to write more books.

That would be
because he has been dead since 1956.

And copyright is about as useful
to him

as a screen door on a submarine.

But that didn't stop Disney
and others

reaching into his grave
to pull the bear out

and run away with it.

So remember -

also, even if there was
no copyright ever,

there are lots of other ways
for artists to make a living

from their creative work.

So musicians can give
live performances,

painters can sell their paintings.

Now to my second argument.

Pirating actually has benefit
for the artist and society as a whole.

It's copyright that's actually
costing us.

Much of the economic evidence

indicates that piracy does not hurt
artists and creators.

You'd think that
if someone pirates a song

that would mean one less sale
of that song, right?

Or so the cheerleading squad
would have us believe. But actually that's not true.

So studies, especially those
lead by Joel Waldfogel,

show that pirating one song will still result in four out of five
people making that purchase, who would have otherwise
made that purchase. So quite substantial. It doesn't do the kind of damage
to the industry that hype merchants say it does. But copyrighting does do damage. It massively reduces both the reach
and social benefit of artists' work. The groundbreaking research
of Doctor Peter Eckersley, a native Melbournian, has measured what is called
'the cost of artificial scarcity.' Copyright makes works of art
artificially scarce. So if you let one person
hear the music, but ten other people
can't listen to it - perhaps because they can't
afford to buy it, then, in fact, there's a social cost. There's also a cost to the artist because fewer people listen
to their work. Doctor Eckersley's research shows
that if music's sharing - pirating - was completely legalised, the value and enjoyment of a
typical piece of music would double. Imagine that. But moreover, if piracy in the music industry
stopped entirely, today, the enjoyment produced
by a typical piece of music would fall by about a third. So quite substantially. Thus piracy can actually
be beneficial to society. Now to my third argument. Copyright kills creativity. Creativity is often iterative. It frequently transforms
an earlier work. Could Radiohead have existed without
the influence of Pink Floyd? Could the Hilltop Hoods have existed without African-American
hip hop fans? No. It's these references that make
things like hip hop what it is. It's what makes it creative. All these artists are pirates
of sorts. They borrow, steal, change,
improve what's come before, yet many creators in this era
of remixing, sampling, mashups and collage art are actually discovering that
copyright makes their art forms effectively
illegal. If you're an independent musician who wants to make sample-based music
in Australia,

it's almost impossible
to do so legally -

and that's because of copyright.

This leads to my final argument.

In the copyright world,
we are all criminals.

The copyright police have turned
our free society

into a police state.

In 2012, a 9-year-old girl in Finland
had her laptop seized

and a court case started against her
for downloading pirating material.

That's just madness.

Someone wanted to write a book
about the eighth dwarf

and the publisher told the author,

'Sorry, you have to get permission
from Disney first.'

And this is despite the fact

that this story of
Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs

is actually an old European fable
from 1812 -

not a modern Californian creation.

Such is the fear
of the copyright police,

it makes me nervous calling
my doctor 'Doc'

and my child 'Sleepy.'

(Smattering of audience laughter)

Copyright has caused us to build

insane counter-productive

to prevent people
from being able to copy things.

Have you ever wondered why you can't
play a DVD you bought in one place

in a DVD player from another?

Have you ever had weird problems
with video cables from one device

being unwilling to talk
to another device?

These problems are often the result
of deliberate and expensive attempts

to prevent technology from working

because some Hollywood executive
flipped out about piracy.

The cause to our economy of building
and suffering with this technology

is in the billions of dollars.

And imagine how many great works
of art that money could finance.

In conclusion, our younger generation
knows these things.

They have twigged that copyright
is now being used

as a means of control, of fear.

But it is gross overreach.
It is over controlling.

It is failing because it is
inefficient - just like the old USSR. So it is collapsing.

Either we all become felons

or the system of copyright
becomes so ridiculous that it fails.

Generation Y has become sick
of being felons

and that means copyright
is destined to fail.

In the information age,
those who favour copyright

believe we should live in a world
where all the information

is subject to grubby intellectual
property grabs.

In their copyrighted world,

your words and ideas
and creative output

will belong to someone -

it just won't be you.

That is why copyright is dead.
Long live the pirates.

(Applause) Michael Fraser.

Copyright is a human right

guaranteed by the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights. Article 27.2 states that,
'Everyone has the right

to the protection of the moral
and material interests

resulting from any scientific,
literary or artistic production of which he is the author.'

An author, an artist, a creator,
has the moral right to respect for their work

and the material right
to be paid for their work.

Writers, artists, creators,

have the right to earn a living
from their creative work.

Recognition of the inalienable rights
of all people is the foundation of freedom,
justice and peace.

So it's essential that human rights,
including copyright,

are protected by the rule of law

and respected and observed
by the people of member states

of the United Nations.

The World Intellectual Property
Organisation, WIPO,

was established in 1967
as a United Nations agency. It is dedicated to protecting
this right and to improve understanding
and respect

for intellectual property worldwide.

The current Director General of WIPO
is an Australian, Francis Gurry.

Its mission is to promote
the use of intellectual property, including copyright and patents,

as a means of stimulating
innovation and creativity

for the economic, social and cultural
development of all nations through a balanced and effective

international intellectual
property system.

Its motto is, 'Respect copyright,
encourage creativity.' Copyright is essential
to the life of our society. Copyright is a foundation
of freedom of expression. Without copyright
there is no freedom of expression.

And if we don't have freedom
of expression

we can't be a democracy. Copyright is necessary
for freedom of expression because it means that authors,

can make a living
directly from their work.

They can sell copies
and online access. When a creator can support herself
by her own work she can survive
by working independently

and express her own views,

her unique vision,
to the world.

When a creator cannot live
by her work, she is silenced.

Without copyright, she is silenced. A creator who is silenced
is imprisoned.

Of course, there are some other ways

that creators can put bread
on the table.

They can make an income
as employed creators -

employed by a corporation
or government department.

They can attach advertisements
to their work,

or use their work as an ad.

Some creators get grants and prizes
for their work

from the state or the Church or from
wealthy corporations and foundations.

These are other ways for an author
or artist to get an income

without copyright.

But all these other ways
all depend on patronage and support

by the wealthy and powerful,

and they support
what is in their interests.

If we want freedom of expression there must be a space for individual,
independent creators and producers to make a living,

so that they can go on working

and producing their own original
creative work for us.

We need copyright so that creators
have a secure market

where they can sell copies
of their work -

physical and digital copies.

If people are interested
and buy copies,

the independent creators
and producers can make a living

and continue working.

They can go on.

Dedicated to creating their own
original work for us.

Without copyright,

independent professional
creative work is unsustainable. Without copyright, the diversity
and the range of expression

in our society

would be limited to work
that is supported by patronage

and amateur work.

Without copyright, we do not have
full freedom of expression. That is why totalitarian
and fascist regimes

don't recognise copyright.

They don't let independent creators
support themselves in the market

by earning money
from their own copyrights.

They like to decide
who gets to be an author.

Without copyright,
there is no freedom of expression.

Copyright is a pillar of our society.

We are a society of laws.

In our society, we respect the right
to have property.

Real property -
your house or your apartment,

personal property -
your watch, your vehicle,

and there is intellectual property,
which protects works of the mind. Copyright is a property right.

A creator's work may have cultural
or aesthetic value

but it is copyright law that gives
economic value to their work. It is the creator's right to decide
to sell copies of their work

It is not the consumer's choice.

The consumer is not entitled
just to copy it.

That right belongs to the person
who made it.

(Bell rings)

The creator deserves respect
for her work

and for the value of her work

just like anyone else.

Copyright protection gives
creative people

the confidence and incentive

to invest their time,
their talent and their work,

and copyright gives publishers
and producers

the incentive to invest their capital
into making quality,

professional, creative content
for sale,

because they can get a reward
for their work.

Of course creators and publishers
and producers love their work,

but we should not ask too much
of love.

Copyright works are the most valuable
commodity in the world today. Trade in our copyright, cultural,
education, information,

knowledge and entertainment products
and services online

is the greatest opportunity
for Australia since Merino sheep. At the moment, the world is telling
us to shut up and keep digging.

The Chinese love our rocks.

We dig 'em up and ship 'em out.

But what will we do
when we've dug up all our rocks

and shipped them to China?

With strong and secure copyright
to drive innovation and support the market
for original creative work,

I back Australians' creativity
and imagination

and our creative industries

to generate our prosperity

in the 21st century
information society and beyond.

That will happen if we respect
and value works of the mind. Let's build up our culture
and a creative economy.

We are creative people.

Let us respect our own creativity

and respect the creative work
of others.

Let's agree to get permission
when we copy.

So long as copyright lives,

individual freedom of expression
can live.

While freedom of expression lives

our democratic society
can live and grow.

(Audience applause)

Simon Groth.

Good evening.

Is copyright dead?

In my day job, I explore the future
of the book.

And so I maintain
a healthy skepticism

towards premature declarations
of death.

Since 1894, when Octave Uzanne
published possibly the first of innumerable hyperbolic elegies,

the book has been declared dead,
dying, on life-support,

or simply off on a huff somewhere
and uncontactable for the time being.

Death is attention-grabbing
and dramatic.

But it's also kind of nihilistic.

It's a collective shrug,
an admission that we're out of ideas.

It's a pretty sorry state of affairs.

And sometimes what looks like death
is actually kind of something else. And anyway, does the real
or perceived demise of copyright

automatically lead to a victory
for pirates?

What is piracy anyway?

Maybe it's like porn.

You know it when you see it.

Dodgey DVD-Rs for sale
at the local flea market.'s pretty clearly piracy.

Is unauthorised copying
via the internet the same thing? Or is it something different?

If there's wrongdoing in copying
then where is its locus? In the access to the content?

In the replication of the data?

Or in the consumption of its content?

OK, so turning back the dial
on the polemic a little bit.

We arrive at a notion

that something deep within
our existing concept of copyright,

as we understand it
and apply it today,

is in a bit of trouble.

Regardless of how it was initially

and for whom it was initially
intended to benefit -

which I might add was -

you know, copyright was an invention
of the print age.

Modern copyright has evolved
into a mechanism

that's intended to allow authors
to benefit from original works

by granting them control
for a period of time.

can expect fair compensation
and acknowledgement

when their work is bought and sold,
adapted, referenced and so on.

So of course copyright is about more
than just a set of rules

governing the ability to make copies
of a given work.

But here's the thing. To my mind, the notion of the copy
is absolutely central

to the disruption
of traditional copyright

at the hands of digital media.

So copyright was created
with the medium of print in mind.

It's an invention of the print age.

To create a print copy
of an existing work

takes dedication, resources,
time and money.

Copyright is an effective system
in the physical world

because for an audience,

the path of least resistance
to obtaining a creative work

is to buy it.

Or borrow it - but we won't go into
that can of worms.

Even with modern home-scanning
and printing technology,

no-one wants to go through
the interminable process

of copying anything -
be it Freedom or Fifty Shades -

or Fifty Shades of Freedom,
whatever floats your boat. The pay-off is not worth the effort.

Not when the local bookshop
has good coffee

and Amazon has a 'Buy it now' button.

Under a system predicated on
physical objects, readers buy books, and some of that money
reaches authors.

Now, as Suelette has pointed out,
it's anything but perfect,

but it kind of does the job.

Things are very, very different in
a networked world of ones and zeros. Consider this.

Although it's most certainly not
a series of tubes

the internet is an excellent system
for copying content.

That's part of its design.

To view a single page of web content,

a reader requests data
from a remote server.

The information is carved up
into tiny little packets

which wind their way
through the network

to reach the reader's computer,

where everything is reassembled
into something intelligible -

or a lolcat.

Along the way, each packet of data
passes through a series of routers,

computers whose job it is
not only to direct internet traffic

but to copy everything
that passes through them.

Though such copies are not held
in perpetuity

and they represent only a fraction
of something meaningful,

these are copies.

This is copying that happens.

When the transmitted data
is then reassembled as content on the viewer's screen,

the web browser automatically copies
information from that page

to a local cache on your device.

The cache holds that information

in the event that you would want
to go back to that site.

When you load the front page
of The New York Times,

unless it's your very first visit,

you are compiling it from data
stored locally on your device,

alongside new stuff.

OK, one more example.

I'm sure we've all sent
an email attachment, right.

So, let's count the number of copies
of a file -

complete copies of a file -

created in that
most humble of tasks.

You open a message

and drag the file
to your message window

where a copy is stored
in your messages system.

You hit send

and the file is stored
to your IMAP server,

it's then sent through the tubes
to the receiver's end

which is then downloaded
onto their email client

which they may then save
to a specific location

in their own hard drive.

And that doesn't take into account
the fact

that many of us access email
on a number of devices -

each device needs a new copy.

Nor does it acknowledge
that devices are -

or at least should be -
backed up regularly.

More copies.

So in the transfer of one file
from one person to another person,

a bloom of copies results,
sometimes across the world.

Copying is essential
to a functioning internet.

A fact which feeds into a fundamental
feature of digital media

that began long before
even personal computing.

Today, making a copy of any given
set of data is not just easy, it's as natural and unconscious
as breathing.

In such an environment

the trading of unauthorised copies
within the audience

has become just as natural.

And this, for me, at least,

is the essence of copyright's digital

In this environment,

making a copy has become
the path of least resistance.

I recently has a really spirited

with a member of the Board
of the Copyright Agency,

who felt that existing copyright law
was flexible and adaptable enough

to protect rights holders, in both
the physical and digital world. Now, we agreed on a lot of things,

but this seemed to be the point
on which we fundamentally diverged. You cannot pick up a set of rules

that govern property
in the physical world

and dump them, stretch them,
squash them, grind them
into a digital environment.

This is the kind of thinking

that results in the overreach
of rights holders,

and Suelette has already mentioned
some of these.

Placing artificial geo-blocks
on content,

placing punitive restrictions

on how content can be stored
and accessed,

restrictions that have no parallel
in the physical world.

Treating an audience
as criminals first

and as readers, listeners or fans,

Audiences are not dumb.

They know there's a difference
between shoplifting

and unauthorised copying.

Even if they accept
that both of these things are wrong -

and many do not.

They know that digital media

is fundamentally different
to physical media.

And although there's not a lot
of love for copyright holders,

the broader community regularly
expresses support for artists,

authors and other creative people.

A question of whether copyright
is drowning or waving

is beside the point.

Traditional copyright never had
a chance in the digital world.

And maybe it's time
we stop pretending

that things haven't changed.

Part of my job - and it's a part
that I take seriously -

is exploring how readers and writers
find each other.

Ideas that I hope will inspire
and fuel sustainable connections

into the future.

It's exciting work,

but sometimes it's a little unclear
what success looks like.

But I take heart from the words
of John Lennon...

(Smattering of laughter)

..who said that, 'Piracy is
the unauthorised spreading of media

where the creator may lose
cultural control

but gain cultural value.'

OK, that was actually Henry Jenkins.

But, his point is a salient one.

Our starting point
is to change the way we think

about how content travels.

Thank you.

Lori Flekser.

Good evening.

Thank you for letting me
speak to you tonight

about why the reports
about the death of copyright

have been much exaggerated

and why there should be
no celebration of the pirates

who are largely responsible
for its ill health.

Starting a little behind
the eight ball,

if the Twitter feed
that I've been reading is correct,

it's going to be jokes,
rather than logic,

that might leverage votes tonight.

And this is a subject
I take fairly seriously,

having made my living for 20 years
from making and selling content.

An alarming report
was released last week

estimating that in January
of this year

432 million people

used the internet to access
copyright infringing material.

In January.

Nearly a quarter of all internet
traffic can be attributed to piracy,

in spite of the growth
of legal channels

for accessing entertainment online.

Copyright's not yet dead,
but it's not looking very healthy.

For the past five years,

IPAF, the Intellectual Property
Awareness Foundation,

has undertaken independent research
into the attitudes and behaviours

of Australians in regard to piracy.

We do this to inform the debate,
like these,

and to expel some of the myths
and preconceptions

that exist around this issue.

The research is done via anonymous
online polls through Newspoll,

where participants can be truthful
through anonymity. Our most recent research
was in June this year

and I want to share with you
the three key reasons

that pirates give
for their online activities.

If these were true,

I would concede right now
that piracy - that copyright is dead.

Happily, our research
lays bare some statistical truths and shatters some preconceptions.

The first one is
that everyone does it.

Or, 'It's as natural as breathing',
Simon says.

'Simon says' -
I want that noted as humour.


That will be it, pretty much.

One of the research participants
said, 'It's acceptable

because every man and his dog out
there is doing it, plain and simple.' 'Why should I have to be the sucker
that has to pay

for what everyone else
is getting for free?' said another.

In fact, the research shows that 75% of Australians
over the age of 18

do not illegally download
content online.

That's a really important statistic. The idea that everyone is doing it
simply legitimises the behaviour.

People see piracy as a social norm. These Australian stats
are not an anomaly.

They reflect those
of many other international studies,

including the UK
and other European territories.

The majority of the population
respect and uphold copyright.

Piracy's not the dominant behaviour.

It's still the behaviour
of a very noisy minority.

However, that doesn't mean
that there's not a problem.

One in four adults are regularly
downloading and streaming

pirated movies and TV programs.

Can you imagine
your own business surviving

if one out of four
of your clients or customers

wasn't paying
for your goods or services?

Let's look at another
of the prevailing myths about piracy

that the IPAF research challenges. 'There's no other way
to get content.'

Many of the online research
comments about piracy

suggest that people would like
to pay,

but are not given the opportunity
to do so.

However, more than 70% of both
12-17 year olds and over 18 year olds acknowledge in the IPAC research

that there are an increasing number
of legal options available.

Comparisons of our 2012 and 2013 data

show that illegal behaviour amongst
Australian adults remains static.

It's true that the downward trend

of traditional viewing
of film and TV continues, but legal access to online content
is statistically significantly up.

The number of adults

who would choose a paid online
version over the free pirated version

increased from 36% last year
to 54% this year.

It's really important to emphasise
that the IPAF research year on year,

confirms that the vast majority
of people download content

because it's free,

not for any of the other reasons
that are often given

as rationalisations and excuses.

Simply because it's free.

'Why pay, when you can get it
for nothing?'

was the catchcry from several
of the research respondents.

Another said, 'For me, personally,

money pretty much above all
is what controls my decisions.'

When infringing sites
are shut down or blocked,

legitimate purchases increase,

as happened in 2012,

with international blocking
of super-site Megaupload,

leading to a healthy uptake
of legal content access.

Over 70% of the IPAF research
respondents would cease to pirate if their ISP threatened to suspend
or slow their internet access.

Legislation allowing content owners

to obtain court orders
blocking access to illegal websites that solely profit
from pirated content

is now present in over 15 countries

including Denmark, France, Germany,

Italy, Spain and the UK.

Although it's early days,

the indications are that this
is having a really positive effect

on legitimate sales.

And who would've believed that anyone
could build pay walls around news

after so many years
of getting news for free?

But last week, News Limited reported

that annual revenue had grown due
to a rise in subscription revenue.

Copyright is alive and kicking back.

Let's move on to the third reason

given for why freeloading
online content is OK

and another illustration

that copyright is not yet
in intensive care

but breathing on its own,
expected to make a full recovery.

Distribution models are archaic

and the people who make films
and television programs are too rich. A quote from a research participant

'I think, "Good on the people

who know how to watch free movies
or TV shows.

I believe stars get paid
way too much

so do not see why we have to pay
for it."'

It's very clear from our research

that the public either do not
or choose not to understand

that the victims of piracy
are not simply studio executives,

music companies and high-profile
actors and musicians.

Blaming the business model
is a lame justification,

while expressing reluctance

to enrich the industry mandarins
and overpaid celebrities - a little disingenuous in the face
of the obscene profits being made

by people who have nothing to do
with the creation of the content.

Only yesterday,

Foxtel unveiled its subscription
movie streaming service

with a monthly all-you-can-watch fee,

another obstacle
to the pirates' argument

about the lack of services
in Australia.

There's no doubt

that content creators
and internet service providers

share a responsibility

in providing reasonable,
legitimate avenues for people to access their content

Similarly, changes to legislation

must respond to how we access content
in this digital age and will also play an important role in changing the nature
of this debate.

However, the expectation
of getting something for nothing

should not be an acceptable
by-product of the internet.

Notwithstanding the attempts
to devalue content

and promote the philosophy of piracy, copyright is not yet dead,

despite what my learned opponents
might tell you.

Remember, 75% of Australians

are accessing legal - only legal -
content online.

We also know for certain
that copyright is not dead

because in 2010, 2011...
(Bell dings)

..over 900,000 people were employed
in the copyright industries,

representing 8%
of the Australian workforce.

Copyright industries generated
an economic value of $93.2 billion,

the equivalent of 6.6%
of gross domestic product

and the copyright industries
generated just over $7 billion in exports.

Not bad for a dead industry!

World-renowned filmmaker
and public figure Lord David Puttnam

advocates we should, as a society,
become more focused

on the idea of digital citizenship.

He argues that
while there's wide discussion

about the freedoms desired
by those who use the internet,

there's scant debate
about what sort of responsibilities

one should take when going online.

If we don't defend the value
of creative content,

it will be difficult,
if not impossible,

to establish a cost for content.

So my team and I are here tonight
just doing that -

defending the value
of creative content.

If we prematurely bury
the concept of copyright,

and celebrate the freedom of piracy

without reference to rights,

legitimate revenue
to the copyright holders,

we will have done all
creative industries

and the hundreds and thousands

of talented and dedicated
creative artists

a great disservice.

And to those of you who love content,
you may have loved it to death.

Thank you.


Angela Daly.

Thank you.

Ladies and gentlemen,
esteemed colleagues,

as the third and final speaker
for the proposition

and as a lawyer of sorts,
an academic and activist one anyway,

I thought I would focus specifically
on the legal aspect of this issue,

by which I mean how copyright laws
come into being

and operate in practice.

In fact, it is my contention
that these very processes of how the law is formed, enforced,
and, as it turns out, disobeyed, are the nails in copyright's coffin.

Indeed, it's the flawed
and undemocratic ways in which these processes
are happening that are turning people to piracy
and letting the pirates win. So, firstly, turning to
the formation stage of copyright law.

Recent sources of changes
to our copyright laws in Australia

have mainly come from
international treaties, whether those specifically
about copyright

such as the WIPO Copyright Treaty

or trade treaties such as the
Australia-US Free Trade Agreement.

However, the problem with copyright
law originating in such treaties

is that these treaties
are often negotiated in secret

and, on their conclusion,

presented to the general public
and parliament as a done deal.

A case in point
is the Trans-Pacific Partnership

currently under negotiation

between Australia and various other
countries around the Pacific Rim, including the US. The Trans-Pacific Partnership includes a chapter
on intellectual property with provisions on copyright and has also been negotiated
in secret. The general public
and even parliament do not know its precise content. However, corporate lobbyists, such as the Motion Picture
Association of America have had privileged access
to drafts of the text

while consumer groups
have effectively been locked out. As a result of processes
such as these,

perhaps unsurprisingly,
we end up with copyright laws

that reflect the interests
of big corporations

rather than the interests
of normal Australians,

such is the extension
of the scope of copyright

and the increased length
of copyright terms.

These kinds of restrictions

are definitely not
in the best interest of Australians,

especially since Australia
is actually a net importer

of intellectual property,

according to statistics

from the Australian Intellectual
Property Report 2013.

This kind of law formation
through the back door of treaties

can represent what is known
as policy laundering.

This means pushing through
unpopular laws

that may not withstand
democratic scrutiny

in extra parliamentary ways,
such as treaties.

In the context of trade agreements
as well,

laws on something like copyright
might be presented as a trade-off

for something else that would seem
completely unrelated otherwise, such as, for instance,
Australian agricultural products

being allowed to enter
the US market.

However, in any event,
the overall benefits to Australia

of free trade agreements with the US
have been somewhat dubious.

Specifically, on the issue
of copyrighted content and software, they have not stopped rights holders,
often US-based,

a huge amount more
for content and software

compared to their American

as we have seen in the Australian
Parliament's IT pricing report

released earlier this year.

So the formation of copyright law
these days often takes place

via these somewhat unaccountable
and transparent means where it seems that corporations
know much more about what's going on

than members
of the Australian Parliament.

It's no wonder
that the law it produces

is favourable to these
corporate actors

and that it doesn't garner
much legitimacy

in the eyes of the general public.

But it's not just how copyright law
comes into being where corporations have had a hand.

Corporate lobbying
has also influenced

how copyright law is enforced.

In some countries, such as the UK,
due to this corporate pressure,

websites and peer-to-peer
file-sharing services

accused of facilitating
copyright infringement

have been blocked
by internet service providers.

This is even though

that many of these websites
and peer-to-peer services

have a least a dual purpose

of facilitating infringing
and non-infringing uses.

Although I've not come across
examples of this so far in Australia,

and despite the best efforts
of big content

to hold internet service provider
iiNet here

liable for its users' behaviour,

Section 313
of the Telecommunications Act

which states that carriers
must do their best to prevent their networks
and facilities

from being used to commit offences,

could potentially be used here
in the name of copyright enforcement.

This somewhat obscure
provision of law

only came to prominence
after it was used earlier this year

to block over 1,000
mainly innocuous websites,

including that of the
Melbourne Free University.

As it stands, no court order,
or other judicial oversight,

is required before this law is used.

In the name of
copyright enforcement too,

we're seeing increased mass
surveillance of internet users,

carried out by internet service
providers and cloud operators,

including monitoring users
who are acting totally legally,

presumably on the off-chance

that they might be caught
infringing copyright at some indeterminable point.

Apparently there are plans

to implement a scheme like this
in Australia

via what we have seen
from the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

In spite of the
Australian Federal Government

abandoning a similar mass-filtering
and surveillance scheme last year.

We have also seen the Megaupload
fiasco in New Zealand

which has turned out to be an example
of illegal overreach

by law enforcement agencies there
in the name of copyright enforcement.

This saga has included
the New Zealand anti-terrorism police

being sent to read Kim Dotcom's

which seems to me, at least,
a somewhat over-the-top reaction,

as well as the New Zealand law
enforcement agencies

being found to have acted illegally
in conducting the raid

and sending material
out of the country to the FBI.

In any event, for the general public
there is very little information

about what all of these surveillance
and law enforcement measures

actually cost,

the extent to which they're
successful in policing copyright

and what the overall benefits
of them to society actually are.

To me, anyway,
it seems a huge amount of resources

are being directed
to policing copyright.

I think we need to ask ourselves,
as a society,

whether this is really the best use
of these resources

and whether copyright is really
the most important area of law

to attempt to enforce.

The third and final point about
the law I want to make is this one -

maybe the underlying problem
with all of this

is just that the law does not really
reflect social practice and norms.

Basically, what people are doing
in reality.

In practice too,

copyright in the digital realm
cannot fully be enforced

as pirates have proved
one step ahead, technologically.

I don't think there is any
technical protection measure

or digital rights management

created to protect copyright

that has not been
successfully hacked and broken.

So, as a result there is a big gap
between the law in the books

and the enforcement of that law
in the digital reality.

Also, copyright law and enforcement

tries to prevent the widespread and
very much normalised social practice

of people sharing stuff
with each other.

In fact, I jut read this morning

that the US Center
for Copyright Information,

a partnership between various
industry bodies

and five large ISPs in the States,

is introducing a program
of copyright education

or perhaps could be seen
as indoctrination, in primary schools in California,

presumably to get to people
while they're young.

Since their research among adults,
in the US anyway,

has showed that most consumers

simply don't understand
or appreciate copyright.

It seems just not to fit
with their view of the world

and how things work.

The corporate infiltration

of copyright law formation
and enforcement as well

means that people just don't really
feel that bad

about not paying for content.

As we know here in Australia,
prices are high

and the popular perception at least,

is that not enough of this money

is actually going
to the original creators.

(Bell dings)

And so, ladies and gentlemen
and right on time, in concluding,

I would like to leave you
with one simple message

as to why copyright is dead
and why the pirates are winning.

Namely, it's the law, stupid.

It's the law,
whose formation is done in a way

that panders to copyright rights
holders and their lobbying dollars

and bypasses democratic oversight.

It's the law that goes way beyond
what is protected by copyright

and is dangerously over-the-top

and heading towards
a state of super surveillance.

It's the law too,

that doesn't reflect what's happening
in reality with technology

and with what people are actually
doing with digital content.

The lack of legitimacy of the law, as
well as its practical enforceability, coupled with mass disobedience
by literally millions of people,

mean that whether we like it or not,

the system sucks
and the pirates are winning.


Elmo Keep.

Ladies and gentlemen,
esteemed colleagues.

To start, let's zoom out a little

and imagine the world
without copyright.

All things are free,
so royalties aren't paid,

permissions aren't paid,
advances aren't paid to authors

because no one buys books anymore
as they're now free.

No one pays for television shows,

so advertisers don't take out ads
in the middle of them,

so no money and no new shows.

No one buys music from record labels

and record labels,
not that they exist in this future,

don't invest in artists.

So there is no new music.

Movies are free, somehow, despite how
vastly expensive they are to make.

And so you can see where the flaw
in this vision is, if there's no revenue
generated in these fields

because the goods are free,

then how will these goods,
which are actually cultural artefacts

be created in the first place?

They won't be,
because culture is not free.

To even say that it is possible
to create something from nothing

is a proposition so ludicrous
it actually defies physics.

It costs money to make money.

To create anything takes time.

If you don't value your time

in labour costs
that you are owed to be paid

then you are either an amateur,
an anarchist or a fool.

'Information wants to be free',
we so often hear,

without hearing the second part
of that quote,

which is, 'Information also wants
to be expensive.'

That tension will not go away.

How can creativity continue to pay?

first, let's look at who did benefit
from the first wave of piracy

when Napster emerged
in the late 1990s

from the bedroom
of an American teenager.

In the 15 years since its emergence,

the global record industry's profits
have halved.

Piracy meant that music
was suddenly worthless.

It was, in consumers' eyes,

worth literally
no financial transaction whatsoever.

The baseline was lowered to free.

When Apple decided to open
its iTunes music store

in order to boost sales
of its iPod hardware,

Steve Jobs set the price
of a single song at 99c.

99c was attractive,
it's a small price to pay.

Compared to zero,
it is not a huge leap.

What this did, once Apple asserted
market dominance over digital music,

was to drastically devalue
all digital goods.

Apple can afford to do this,

because MP3s are a loss-leading
product for them.

it is in the business of selling
the vastly more expensive hardware

upon which those MP3s are played.

Apple sets very punitive sales terms

with labels and networks
that sell through its store.

It sets the price that your content
will be available at

and there is no negotiating
that price.

You either agree to their terms or
you don't sell through their store.

Apple then takes its 30%.

It has provided nothing more
than a server

for people to sell
their wares through.

Yet, it has profited enormously
from making those wares so cheap

that no competitor can viably emerge.

Digital goods stay cheap.

Apple's market cap is hovering
at around US$500 billion.

The money it has reinvested
in the creative industries is zero. Similarly, Amazon sells
a loss-leading product in eBooks.

eBooks are vastly undervalued,

as anyone who gets an email alerting
them to an entire back-catalogue

at $1.99 a book can attest.

Amazon is not in the business
of selling eBooks,

it is in the business
of selling Kindle eReaders,

crushing its competition through
rock-bottom pricing and free shipping

that being, brick-and-mortar stores
and other online retailers

who cannot compete with it.

Amazon's sales conditions
are as punitive as Apple's

And recently, Amazon CEO just bought
The Washington Post newspaper

for $250 his own cash.

Neither of these monolithic
multi-billion dollar companies could exist at their dominance today

without the devalued digital goods

made of other people's
intellectual property,

on top of which they stand.

How can creativity continue to pay in
the age of piracy and free culture? It is a two-step process

that begins with changing
consumer perceptions.

As consumers, we have to accept
that this is actually wrong.

We have to accept that 2.99
for a book

or 3.99 for an hour of scripted
television is too cheap.

That 99c is really not enough
for a song.

That digital goods may be,
in some ways,

more ephemeral than physical objects,

the cost, in labour time,
in serving them,

hosting them, digitising them,
promoting them

to the human beings that created
them, who wrote them, who composed them, who filmed them,
edited them, acted in them, is the same. And to think just a little
into the future and to do some very basic maths, digital goods have already eclipsed
the sake of physical ones. As they are soon to be the dominant
vessel of all cultural goods, the corrosive, cumulative effect
of their devaluation is obvious, even to someone with a tenuous grasp
on maths as a writer, such as myself. These things are really,
really cheap. They're soon to be all that there is. They generate far less revenue.
It's very simple. Yet, through the architecture
of the internet, our behaviours have been primed
to the point where we want what we want
and we want it immediately and if it's too expensive
or not available right now, then we're just gonna take it. This is an immoral stance. Piracy is theft. To download a file
is to make a copy of it. Goods are not just - cultural goods cannot be reduced
to ones and zeros. It's copyright infringement. There are many conative tricks
that you can play to convince yourself
that what you're doing is fine, that it's justified,
it's a victimless crime, everyone does it. But you can see,
with not much difficulty, that that is the sign which enables
the cycle in the first place. Which, in turn, enables
the devaluation of digital goods to continue unchallenged, because still in people's minds
they equate digital with cheap, with ephemeral,
with worthless, with free. The first step is to realise
that this assumption is false and to make the ethically sound
decision in your own life to pay for whatever you consume through whichever legal means
are available. The problem with those legal means
currently being too cheap is what I will come to now. The problem with those legal means
currently being too cheap

is what I will come to now.

For the creative industries
to recover

from the destructive chaos wrought
upon them by free culture evangelists

creators need to take
their content back

from these third-party tech giants

and sell it straight
to audiences themselves.

There is, so far, one light
on the hill and that is Netflix,

a web-based production company
that creates its own content

and sells it straight
to its subscribers

and there is no middle man.

But for smaller players
to be able to do this,

to recreate those structures,

think what they're going to need -
a very large injection of capital.

We are going to have to pay more

because most creators are not giants
like Apple and Amazon

who can operate at a loss on goods
and reap giant profit elsewhere.

Small players' intellectual property
is no loss-leader,

it is the entirety of their business.

Copyright does not stifle creativity,

copyright and creativity
have fruitfully co-existed

for over 300 years

and I would defy anyone who argues

that creativity has somehow suffered
in that time,

or been prevented from flourishing,

to look around you in the world -
it's everywhere.

What does stifle creativity is an
inability to make a living from it.

Increasingly, this is the most
difficult time to be an artist, precisely because
revenues in the digital age

are shrinking to minuscule

and we have the free culture movement
to thank for that.

The free ride is over. If we don't come to accept that

and make personal decisions
to consume ethically,

then someone is always going
to be getting rich somewhere.

(Bell rings)

Make sure that it's not you
lining the pockets of billionaires

with your lazy habits of consumption.

Think of where your money is going

and what kind of world
you want to live in,

where profits and power

continue to be concentrated
in the hands of the very, very few

for our convenience,

or where we pay more
for what art is actually worth,

so that art can continue to be made.

I want to be in a world
where artists' rights are respected

and continue to be enshrined
by copyright law.

That is how we fuel innovation,

by protecting the abilities
for artists to make a living.

In the end,

I think you'll find that we're the
ones who need to think different.

You wouldn't steal a car,
you wouldn't steal a handbag,

you wouldn't steal a television.

I think what we can agree

is both sides have made me
feel really depressed

about my Apple products,
that I love so much at home.

That's a by-product of this evening
that I hadn't anticipated.

Big thank you to our marvellous
panel of speakers:

Suelette Dreyfuss, Michael Fraser,

Simon Groth, Lori Flekser,

Angela Daly and Elmo Keep.

Another big round of applause
for all of them.

Tonight, you were all pre-polled
on the stairs

and in the foyer on the way in.

The results there - 24% of you
were undecided on the way in, and fairly even
37% were against the proposition

and 39% were for the proposition.

After the debate,
only 15% were left undecided.

36% of you
were against the proposition and with an overwhelming majority,
49% for the proposition,

I find the motion passed.


You can take another look
at that debate on our website,

where you'll also find a bunch
of other Intelligence Squareds

that we've recorded
over the last year or so.

The issues do exercise your brain
and also challenge your prejudices,

which is very important.

That's it for this edition
of Big Ideas,

I'm Waleed Aly,
we'll see you next time.

# Theme music

Captions by CSI Australia

Today - soaring temperatures and high winds. Firefighters battle the worst possible conditions. This Program is Captioned Live.

A blunt message to residents - if you don't have a plan, leave the mountains now. Also today - former foreign minister Bob Carr quits politics. And smashing stereotypes. Women now the main breadwinner in a quarter of all homes. High winds, scorching temperatures, low humidity and huge fires already burning. Fire authorities in NSW say conditions today are about as bad as they get. About 60 fires are burning across the State but the blaze causing the most concern is the massive fire front between Lithgow and Mount