We are increasingly rich in choices for book, video, and audio alternatives.
Having replaced a VCR tape recorder several years ago with a 250GB hard disk drive with a DVD recorder, I have accumulated a large number of videos that are of interest to me and that I can watch when my schedule allows (good luck - they increase faster than my time to watch them). The History Channel, Discovery, How To, etc channels on Austar and FoxTel have many compelling choices.

But regarding your comment about "All this free content has been making us wonder about whether we should keep up our paid subscription to www.audible.com.", I have no problem with my decision to download digitial audio books to my MP3 device as we plug it into the jack in the car and listen to it in on our frequent short 1-hour each way trips.
It is a great way to get through a book and get the contents into your brain via your ears rather than your eyes.
And the price, especially if you have discovered that you get a discount by going first to www.amazon.com to find a book and then clicking on the audible version and then are re-directed to the Audible site and a less expensive price for the same book.
The Amazon linked price was US$15.73 (AU$17.25) for the last digital audio book I bought/downloaded (“The Audacity of Hope” by Barack Obama) which was less expensive than the Hardcover price.
Going to the Audible site directly shows the List Price: $29.95 Our Price: $20.97
Paperback - Nov 6, 2007 Buy new: $14.95
Hardcover - Oct 17, 2006 Buy new: $25.00
Audio Length: 6 hours and 10 min. Version: Abridged

There is a wealth of information/knowledge/entertainment available in a format that is well-suited to the traveler.
Some of the choices I have made and downloaded from Audible include:
o From the series “Books That Changed the World”, “On The Wealth of Nations“ by P. J. O'Rourke and
o “Darwin’s Origin of Species” by Janet Brown
o “A Briefer History of Time” by Stephen Hawking
o The 19 ¾ hour “The Story of Britain by Sir Roy Strong”
o And “Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman! (Adventures of a Curious Character)”
o “Angels and Demons” and “Deception Point” by Dan Brown
o Old Western Tales by Louis L’Amour and
o Have Gun - Will Travel ("A gourmet and connoisseur of fine wine, fine women, and Ming Dynasty artifacts, Paladin would quote Keats, Shelley, and Shakespeare with the same self-assurance that he brought to the subjugation of frontier evildoers." (Peter Orlick, The Museum of Broadcast Communications)
Publisher's Summary - Have Gun - Will Travel was already a hit on television when it made its CBS Radio debut in in 1958. John Dehner starred as the mysterious, cultured gunfighter known only as Paladin. He lived in a San Francisco hotel, dressed in black, left calling cards, and used the chess knight as his symbol. More than 100 episodes were broadcast before the program went off the air in 1960)

Looking forward to your aforementioned “interesting topic for future research” when it turns into a column.

Regards, Steve

For your next column you may want to address the consequences of following your advice, for example:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/security/crackdown-on-illegal-downloaders/2008/03/20/1205602537856.html

You seem quite happy to direct people to website where they can DL heaps of illegal files, so the least you could do is warn them of the consequences.

It's fascinating that the gatekeepers whose interests you clearly represent, "hello", built their industries on the theft of other people's ideas. The motion picture industry ripped off Thomas Edison. Walt Disney stole shamelessly.

Not content with manipulating copyright laws to provide themselves with rich pickings at the expense of the public - in the process upending the purpose of copyright, which was to prevent monopolists taxing the people - the gatekeepers now propose to have governments shut down the channels rather than have to go to the effort of using them to build new business models. They use illegal methods of surveillance to terrorise members of the public. They use their resources to bully and scapegoat people who are completely defenceless against these outrageous tactics.

You seem to be firmly on the side of the gatekeepers.

Far from pointing the finger at people like me, you should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself. It is you, and people like you, who serve immorality.

cw, what are you on about?

I just pointed out that people downloading with BT from the sites you mentioned run the risk of getting kicked off their ISP.

Where the heck did you get that I was representing the interests of anybody except the people who follow your advice and could get caught out? You yourself acknowledge (and I agree with you BTW) that their methods of monitoring are pure bullying and most people won't have a recourse if they get in trouble. Yet the column doesn't mention that - why not?

Download what you want, I don't care at all. But when you use a respected newspaper to point people to website where heaps of illegal content is available for download, the least you can do is point out that they can get in trouble for doing just what you suggest.
Whether you think it's wrong or right that they get in trouble is immaterial, if they get caught they'll still get disconnected from their ISP, and I don't think the "I read it in The Age" argument would be any defence against that threat.

And next time direct your rants at people who actually represent "the gatekeepers", not people who just point out the shortcomings of a column.

Don't take it personally. You're just "hello" to me, with an anonymous email address and a comment that did, possibly, leave room for misinterpretation.

I acknowledge your intention, but I'm not sure your assumptions are entirely accurate. Can you point me towards any criminal law that declares all these downloads are illegal in every circumstance?

It would surely be presumptuous of me to assume that all of my readers were breaking the law by downloading all or any of this material. And they'd be foolish, would they not, to imagine that a newspaper article gave them legal carte blanche?

In my view, it's my duty to make people aware of opportunities these technologies present, allowing them the chance to resist having them removed by legislators doing the bidding of copyright holders.

I'm glad we agree that the actions of copyright holders are morally indefensible.

Your own example about the UK series, that do/will have a commercial DVD release, show that BT was used to download the shows not because people here would never be able to watch them, but just to satisfy one's pure greed and need to have everything now instead of waiting for the DVD to be available (not to mention they'll probably end up on the ABC anyway).

And whilst you could have had a leg to stand on with regards to legality with your example of UKNova banning shows that will be released on DVD, you lost it when you linked to mininova, where basically everything is available.

So the moral high ground was pretty much given away never to be seen again in this column, it's a bit late to try and reclaim it.

I am not a lawyer, so I can't quote laws, but everybody knows that copyright holders can go after anybody, and have done so repeatedly. Even if some people do fight them, not everybody has the time/resources to do so, and IMO the least you can do is warn your readers of the potential consequences of following your advice.

We agree on the actions of the copyright holders, but I note you avoid mentioning the morality of downloading copyrighted material. Do you think we all should be able to download all the music/TV shows/movies we want for free?
If no, where do you draw the line? Is it OK to download metallica, but not so OK to download your local band? At what level of income do you decide that it suddenly becomes OK to download for free instead of supporting the artist by buying their CDs/DVDs?

In short, there is not enough clarity in your columns and responses as to what exactly you are trying to promote. Is it using BT/Usenet to download everything for free just because you can? Is it to prevent legislators from banning p2p? But for what reason - just because that would stop people downloading all they want for free? Do you just want TV shows available at a decent price online or on DVDs so you don't need to use p2p to download them? Do you want a change to copyright policies?

Admittedly, whilst I read your Green Guide columns regularly, I haven't read all this site, so maybe you have already posted about your exact position on copyrights, copyright holders, payment, etc - let me know where it is and I'll check it out.