Is it stealing? Some people arguepirating is not stealing because it doesn't involve obtaining a physical object and preventing the rightful owner from selling it. Copyright owners argue it prevents them from earning money from their sales. Copyright infringement is a civil wrong and people who download copyright material without paying for it are liable to be sued by the copyright owners. What's the big deal? Copyright owners such as artists, film studios and record labels have been trying to stem the loss of profits from pirated content for years. Audio file-sharing site Napster famously had its P2P service shut down in 2001 and was forced to pay out tens of millions of dollars to copyright owners after a successful legal challenge. But the practice has grown with the emergence of torrenting, and the difficulty in tracking down and prosecuting individual pirates.

In July, the federal government launched a public consultation and discussion paper on online copyright infringement in Australia. It attracted hundreds of submissions from publishers, content creators, rights groups, lawyers and internet service providers. What's on the table? The government's discussion paper outlined three proposals for tackling piracy. Each would require internet service providers (ISPs) such as Telstra, Optus and iiNet to take an active role in policing copyright infringement. Under one proposal, ISPs would be liable for breach of copyright on behalf of a customer. Other options are giving copyright owners legal avenues to force ISPs to block piracy websites and terminating or slowing down offenders' internet connections. Will it work?

Opponents of the proposals have been quick to point out that blocked sites can still be accessed using a virtual private network (VPN). A VPN securely connects your computer to sites via a server in a foreign country, bypassing geographical restrictions and preventing ISPs from recording the sitesvisited. other tools available online to conceal and distance the pirate's real identity. Even those who broadly support government action on piracy have raised concerns over much of the detail. Another sticking point has been the question of who will pay to monitor an anti-piracy scheme. ISPs such as iiNet argue it should be content owners who pay as they are the ones who stand to lose or gain. Whichever way it falls, it is likely consumers will end up paying higher prices for their internet service and for content. What are the alternatives?

Consumer advocates say tackling the cause of piracy is the most effective solution. They say content owners need to give Australians a better deal on the range and price of content available. The latest season of theHBO series Game of Thrones, which set a record for illegal downloads, was not legally available in Australia unless viewers were willing to pay for a 12-month Foxtel subscription. In contrast, US video-on-demand service Netflix, which currently costs $10.50 a month, and Swedish music-on-demand service Spotify, which has both free and paid options, both claim to have reduced piracy in the markets in which they operate. Netflix plans to launch in Australia in March next year. It can currently be accessed using a VPN. Other suggestions include rewriting Australia's archaic copyright laws to better reflect the nature of content consumption in the digital age. I'm one of the millions of Australians who have downloaded content without paying for it. Will I get caught?

The Australian Performing Rights Association estimates between 3 million and 3.5 million Australians use torrent services at least once a month. It's little wonder that Attorney-General George Brandis labelled Australia the worst pirate nation in the world. As of June this year, lawyers for the movie Dallas Buyers Club had filed 66 copyright infringement lawsuits in the US, targeting more than 1000 alleged pirates and pursuing settlements of up to $5840. They are now pursuing in the Federal Court iiNet, its subsidiaries and other ISPs for details of alleged pirates so that they can go after them individually. While iiNet is challenging the case, defending its customers' privacy, similar cases overseas have seen ISPs comply with such requests. In an unrelated case in 2012, the High Court ruled iiNet was not liable for copyright infringement on behalf of its users. Beyond the courts, rights holders have sometimes engaged in "speculative invoicing" - sending a letter to an alleged infringer to give a warning or demand they pay a fee. What now?

Attorney-General Brandis and Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull are reviewing the public consultation submissions and are expected to present their recommendations to cabinet in coming weeks. Fairfax Media understands they are likely to recommend that ISPs be forced to forward to customers letters from rights holders regarding alleged infringement, as well as endorsing the blocking of certain websites if a rights holder seeks an injunction.