Is Australia Too Entitled About Tech And TV?

Australia's a funny place. We're currently occupying the largest island in the world with but a handful of people by comparison, and yet when it comes to technology like tablets and smartphones, and TV shows like Game Of Thrones and The Walking Dead, we expect to have them at the same time and at the same price as our US counterparts. Are we being too entitled?

Perhaps it's the fact that our popular culture is so heavily influenced by that of the US that we feel like the poor cousins that miss out on nice things meant for North Americans. We see what they're getting and pout when we can't have it immediately.

Or perhaps we're not entitled at all, and it's ridiculous to think that with something as pervasive as the internet we still have to wait a week and a day for Game of Thrones to appear locally online without the stigma of piracy nor should we think it's special that we only have to wait 33 hours for the next instalment of The Walking Dead?

What do you think? Are we too entitled when it comes to tech and entertainment?

Image: Tantrum by Ryan Boren, CC 2.0



    I think it's this. Australia has had enough of the high prices, the taken advantage of and the second rate treatment from companies around the world. We are tired and sick of it and we are now starting to act upon it. So I say give us what we wish for and if you don't, then we'll keep downloading it illegally.

    The ball is in your court now, not ours as you put us into this position (more or less)

      Boo-freakin'-hoo. Grow up. If you asked your neighbour if you could borrow his car to go to the shops and he said no, would that entitle you to wait for him to go back into his house so that you could take it anyway? Of course not and if he called the cops you'd be charged with stealing his car. This situation is no different at all. The companies that make this stuff have every right to decide how and when you or I or anyone else gets to see it. OTOH, none of us has the moral or legal right to circumvent their wishes and take matters into our own hands.

        You wouldn't steal a car?

        But what if I was able to miraculously make a copy of his car. So that we both could drive around to our hearts content? Would that be wrong?

          You mean making an illegal copy of something? Yes, yes it would be wrong.

            Because it's illegal or because it's morally or ethically wrong? Please explain your reasoning.

          no it wouldn't nor illegal, car enthuisants regularly do this, though it's not magic, anyone can make a ferrari, lotus,etc from scratch they just need the materials and know how to do so
          also to the people complaining that software piracy and cars are totally different, generally i agree with you but there are many similarities, also consider that the government did use that example first
          you wouldn't steal a bear? woukd you?

          One day, soon, 3D printers will be complex enough to make this a real possibility.

        Legality alone isn't sound reasoning - I'm not saying your wrong, but you analogy and thinking are a bit confused.

        You need to compare like with like, and "borrowing a car" / "stealing a car" is not like. In fact it's something idiotic industry groups would like us to think, without actually thinking about it. And that IS wrong.

        The Free Market, bless it, is there to respond to the real world - what people do, how people do it and when they do it. It is not fair to ask people to be invaded upon or have certain rights eroded simply to police low-grade "victimless" crime. (You think the are victims? There is enough evidence to suggest privacy and free media encourage sales. It's wrong to assume every copy made is a potential customer lost. Again: responding to the real world, not vice versa.)

        Just my 2 cents, a bit off topic.

          "You are" contraction disaster s above, apologies. And it reads like I'm implying MotorMouth implied some sort of policing issue, which was not my point.

          Compressing the argument that companies need to adjust their business model if they want to stop illegal copies, and that law and order arguments are pretty much invalid in terms of appropriate or reasoned responses to the issue (which is a non-issue if you want to believe some studies looking at piracy, purchasing and how they're intertwinined).

          Also: derp. Why did I go there?

        Think it's you who should grow up, people have been making illegal copies of things since the cassette tape, only reason companies are upset now is because of the internet making it easier to share stuff around. Companies are just going to have to face facts that it's a sign of the times and adapt. Get with the real world dude.


    Honestly I rolled my eyes when someone in that previous thread said something along the lines of, only if it's free, in HD and available two hours after the US.

    I am honestly curious as to how they expect the show would make money.

    If you're going to pirate material at least be honest about why you do it, don't set the bar impossibly high and pretend to be surprised when it isn't reached.

    The guy who suggested the US iTunes account though was super helpful, could giz have a look at the costs involved with that please?

      A US itunes account will cost you between 5 and 10 bucks ontop of the cost of the card for administration. Prices on a us itunes account are pretty reasonable.

      It is my first point of call now when I want us content as most of the shows are up an hour or so after they air in the US. Also their back catalog is pretty awesome...

      That being said. a US itunes account does not give you everything. And I for one am not going to sit around waiting for someone get around to selling me something

      As for entitlement, I don't think that's a fair branding. Things got to the way they are because content creators and especially distributors took our geography for granted. Its a childish argument but it still applies... THEY STARTED IT!!!

        You can get credit cards without international charges like the 28degrees Mastercard, formerly Wizard Mastercard.

      i agree free is pretty ridiculous, but at least 2 hours after and in HD is easily doable, many streaming and piracy have it up at least within the hour of the show airing. a fair price probably similar to the amount the US or EU pays would be fine, but as for now i prefer stay up to date with the shows as they come out

    For me, it has more to do with the fact that we have the technology to make this happen, but it's not been used (legally anyway) and the fact that the "big wigs" get on there high horse over how unfair it is to the industry.

    Quite frankly, they can suck it up or get with the program.

    If they can beam sports, live, in real time around the world, they can make available programs and movies simultanous. It just isn't as hard as they make it out to be.

    They are simply protecting our of date licensing and distribution markets, which if the chose to, they could circumvent and go direct to the consumer for a remarkably small price with very little difference to there bottom line.

    The other problem is that the legal avenues for obtaining this material are usually more of a hassle then they are worth (looking at you itunes)

      No, they are protecting the income that allows them to make the programmes in the first place. Do you have any idea how hard it is to make enough money to pay for a full-blown drama like Game of Thrones or The Walking Dead? Do you have even an inkling of how few TV dramas are ever popular enough to make it beyond a pilot episode at all? Companies invest millions in TV programmes in the hope that one or two out of ten will make enough money to justify the expense of all the others.

      Why do you think shows like Big Brother, Survivor, Master Chef The Block and Australia's Got Talent are taking over the airwaves? Its because they are cheap to make and they are largely immune to all these issues. So every time you decide to steal an episode of your favourite show, you should realise that you are just making it so much easier for network executives to sign off on the next season of The Farmer Wants a Wife and to decide not to bother negotiating the next deal with Fox in the US because no-one can make any money from it any more. Then realise the knock-on effect when the US companies that make these shows miss out on those multi-billion dollar deals. Which shows do you think they'll cut first? The shows that get downloaded more than watched on broadcast or the ones loyal viewers tune into every week?

      Your sense of entitlement has already destroyed diversity within the music industry, I would have thought you'd learned by now that you have to support the things you like if you want them to remain viable.

        How would they be destroying their income if they made shows available online for a fee? They would be increasing it vastly. Sure, people would still pirate but how many more people do you think would happily download the latest episode of any blockbuster show if it was available near-simultaneously for a couple of bucks? In these cases I would highly doubt that lack of income is the main reason why people pirate.

          "Your sense of entitlement has already destroyed diversity within the music industry", please turn off your distorted reality field. The music industry has more diversity in it today , then its ever had in its entire history, its been liberated from the super close tight distribution and music channels and radio station ties ins to direct markets between the audience and the musician, your comments are completely base less, unfounded and uniformed. I feel you only comment to troll, like others have suggested.

          Yeah, right. You'd happily pay for it if you cold torrent exactly the same thing for free. The reality is that you would complain that they are charging too much and they are ripping you off and you'd steal it anyway. All the reasons you put up are just justifications, none of them are valid. As I said above, the owners of the shows have every right in the world to do whatever they like with them and nothing gives anyone else the right to circumvent their decisions on that. Its is just your sense of entitlement that makes you think you can do whatever you like if they won't do exactly what you want.

          You really are drinking industry kool-aid.

          You mentiothe music industry: an industry that was in trouble before Napster, and was so addicted to a monopolized money stream that they thought just by digging on their heels and refusing to see the writing on the wall, then none of it would happen.

          But it was already happening, and "illegal downloaders" are often the same people who are there supporting artist-led online distribution, DRM-free [paid] downloads and iTunes and the record store. Not all of them, but if you want someone to blame for the toppling of the music "industry" (not the majority of artists, either, let's not forget) the you should turn around and go chat with the labels themselves.

          Can you believe less than a decade sits between us and labels refusing the sell higher bite rate music with or without DRM on iTunes at a rate comparable with CDs, if at all?

          Now excuse me while I go get a few sources to cite....

        Do you really think piracy has ruined the music industry?
        This is a bit off topic, but music would still continue to be made regardless of payment.

          Music will be made but I'd wager there are far fewer sheeple making a living from it today than there were 10, 20 or 30 years ago. I know a few who used to make quite a bit of money doing remixes but where does money come from to do that if no-one can make any money to fund it? These days they do remixes as favours or to keep their own profile high in the hope of selling a few more songs on iTunes. Gigs were another way to make money but that has become much harder these days, too (not the internet's fault).

          I'm not suggesting there haven't been plenty of other factors at play but I know my genre, which was thriving through the 1990's, has now all but been crushed by the inability to sell music or get noticed on-line. We got to tour Europe in 2005 on the back of an album release and pretty much broke even thanks to an advance from our label (which they re-couped on sales). Today our label can't afford to give us an advance at all and can only release our next album because we do everything ourselves and their only expenses are manufacturing and marketing. We suggested a digital-only release but they reckon the sums don't add up. i.e. They couldn't even re-coup the marketing money from digital sales (which account for 10-20% of our royalties most quarters). Given that we get more coverage and better reviews with each release, you'd expect sales to improve but our last album sold less than half as many copies as the one before it and I really can't see any other factor to explain it.

            You're blaming this on piracy, but from the looks of it, your albums aren't being heavily pirated either (at least on any of the public trackers and major private music trackers). As you yourself said, your genre just isn't as popular as it once was. You can't really extrapolate that to the entire music industry -- the music industry today is more diverse than it ever has been before, and plenty of artists (and indeed, entire genres) *are* thriving.

            Don't keep using piracy as a scapegoat.

          It's a bit dire to say that it has ruined it. It has reduced an earning revenue however.

          Bands pretty much rely on touring now to make money.

        you are an idiot! why do you even bother posting, every post is just an embarrassment. TOTALLY ROFLing at this comment... not even worth commenting on what you had to say! TROLL some where else!

          OK smart-arse, if everyone illegally downloads every episode and no-one watches it on TV, where does the money come from to make the next episode/season? You only get to have your cake and eat it to because the rest of the world is a little less self-absorbed. Did you ever stop to wonder why Game of Thrones and The Walking Dead are only on cable and not on FTA? Could it be, at least in part, because they are heavily pirated and commercial TV isn't willing to gamble on them covering costs?

          Do you think TV networks are gold mines? I work at Ch. 9 and it is the worst paying job I've had in 12 years. They actually had to reduce wages a couple of years ago to remain operational and its not much better at 7, where I worked last year until budget cuts saw my position axed. There is far less work around, most departments are doing the same work they were doing 5 years ago with half the staff they had then. The equipment is all much older and we don't get software upgrades like we used to. Broadcast TV is really struggling and it wouldn't surprise me if one of the networks disappeared in the next few years.

            >Could it be, at least in part, because they are heavily pirated and commercial TV isn’t willing to gamble on them covering costs?


            >I work at Ch. 9


            >Broadcast TV is really struggling and it wouldn’t surprise me if one of the networks disappeared in the next few years.

            And nobody would care. Why? Because we're getting our entertainment on the net - legally AND illegally. Maybe if the networks cared about the viewers, they would lift their game.

            Piracy is a symptom, not a cause. We pirate or turn to other legal streaming services rather than free to air because they HAVE THE SHOWS WE WANT TO WATCH. Trying to blame the lack of good shows on Aussie TV on piracy is a completely void argument. The Titanic sailed into the iceberg, not the other way around.

            Also mate: use the word "sheeple" = people skip to next comment.

        It's not always about the money. is a perfect example of a service I happily pay for, because it's streaming all NBA games live or whenever I want to watch them. You can pay for individual games, the playoff series, by month, whatever -- no contracts...

        If there was a similar service like this, or like netflix in the States, for TV and movies, I'd happily pay for it...

          But as there is not, do you then believe it is OK to steal it? That's the definition of a sense of entitlement. I fully understand all the complaints, it is just the way most here seem to deal with it that disgusts me. If you can explain why it is not OK to wait your turn, why you absolutely must se the show the same day as everyone else, I might gain some understanding but I've discovered that watching an episode of Top Gear from 2008 for the first time, one that I missed at the time, is just as entertaining and enjoyable as watching one three or four days after it goes to air in the UK, and that's a show that is far more time-sensitive than any drama.

            Copying is not stealing, they're completely different things. If you want to participate with anything online, you really need to be on the same timetable as the US. There is no reason why we should not get content the same time as overseas. In its current state, the pirates are just an untapped market. Also i would be very surprised if the amount of viewers here had any effect on the renew/cancellation, and consequently the profits of a show. Piracy, overseas not in the US, if anything probably increases the chances, due to he increase of exposure online.

            I think most people are okay with it for the same reason that they would never steal a physical DVD from a store, but would be happy to burn a copy of a mate's DVD; burning or downloading is like taking a photograph of the Mona Lisa, then printing it out and sticking it on a noticeboard to enjoy. There's no inherent deprivation of the actual object from anyone's possession. Add to that the fact that most TV shows are broadcast to the public for free; in many ways how is it different from recording those shows when they are broadcast to watch later?

            Of course, at the end of the day you are costing the production company in potential DVD sales - but then again, these companies aren't losing money by making these shows, they're still making multi-million or billion dollar profits. Just perhaps slightly less than otherwise when you take pirating in to account. So it's extremely hard to feel sorry for them, or to recognize that you're doing any actual harm.

            Add to that the fact that they COULD be mitigating that loss easily by using reasonable distribution methods, but they CHOOSE not to. So after all that, why should we care?

          People pirate it BECAUSE its on pay TV. Not everyone wants an expensive pay TV package for only a couple of shows. If I could just pay for the 3 or 4 channels I wanted individually instead of paying for a bunch of channels I will never watch, then I would. But they wont do that.

          If they made shows avaialble legally on the internet for a reasonable price, people would buy them.
          There will always be people who pirate no matter how cheap shows are, but I would be willing to bet piracy would take a significant dive.

        In australia, the charge to the consumer (in the form of advertising ) for a tv show is generally between 20 -60 cents. This is much less than what current digital distribution channels charge. If you take aussie itunes as an example, even after apple takes its 30% the publisher, rights holders, etc. still receives $2 per show . This is more than what they get from TV distribution. I might offer that even if the cost decreases to US prices, a simple, reliable, trustworthy digital distribution service would both help negate piracy and provide a sizable revenue stream.

        Protecting their income is a bad argument. Its like saying that a department store wont let people under 5'8" in their store because they don't think shorter people would pay good money for their sports equipment.

        These fools don't get that if you are not in the market, your giving it away in the free market. Why cry foul on a game you aren't even playing?

        The real problem is the distribution market. In a world where media is distributed digitally, local rights holders are not only unnecessary, they are a blood sucking hindrance to the industry. They are the unwanted middle men that undervalue good television.

    its not a question of entitlement, its a fact that the world via the internet is a global market. To have release of content, be it musical, software, movies or TV shows, restricted by "middle men" hanging on to old tired out dated forms of distribution based upon a geographic region shows how little the TV segments have moved on from the old days of the distributors being the gate keepers of content.

    If you asked who the customers are of the TV networks 10 years ago, they would have all said the advertisers. These days its the viewers. Some networks don't understand this relationship, and distributors of the content are trying to hang on to old models of making income.

    Instead there needs to be a direct relationship between the content creator and the viewer. If they don't, then the land of BT downloads will keep growing (napster lessons anyone?), for the most part the music industry learnt this years ago.. and now gives content cheap and easy access via iTunes etc. It seems to the TV industry is yet to do the same.

    For every time the distributors of this content restrict the release, delay it, will be missed revenue for them, they will continue to miss revenue streams until they change.

      All these points are completely valid, although I'd suggest that it is not really possible to differentiate between viewers (ratings) and advertisers, but none of them makes it OK to steal. That's what the whole sense of entitlement issue is about - not what the situation is but what you feel it is OK to do about it. Your sense of entitlement is that you believe your right to see a show the moment anyone else does supercedes the right of the owner to decide when it is made available to you.

      An item the other day shows why the iTunes example you give is the best reason ever for producers to stick with existing models. It showed graphically that in order to earn the minimum wage in the US, an artist needs to sell 1100 CDs a month or 14,000 songs on iTunes or get nearly 5,000,000 plays on Spotify. And you wonder why they cling to the old ways of doing business, the ones that never allowed a TV show contestant to have any songs in the charts. The new way is worse for everyone and it beggars belief that you can't see that. The reality is that you don't want to see it because then you'd have to admit that there is no excuse for stealing.

        But aren't you completely ignoring the reduced cost of distribution and the massive increase in potential customers?

        MM - you also ignore the changing consumer patterns which mean that consumers are happy to pay for songs they like, but generally wont pay for a whole CD with just one or two good songs. So while 14 000 songs seems like a lot, it isn't much when you consider the average album has 10-12 songs, meaning that 1100 in cd sales is not that far off 14 000 songs (12 x 1100 = 13 200).

        On the other hand, Spotify's revenue model does not differ greatly from the revenue model of radio. While both are admittedly blood sucking freaks, the only real difference is the technology.

        Also, any band that only earns its money from CD or online sales is a band with a bad manager. The 'living' is in live music, but even then you only get more than the minimum wage if you go the absolute hard slog, as you'd appear to be aware from your own music experience.

        What people generally fail to recognise about the music industry is the parallels with sport, acting and art. There are plenty of people who are very good at their chose field of endeavour, a very small percentage who make a decent living from it, and a tiny minority of that small percentage who make it big. Digital distribution, piracy etc don't change that equation.

        I'm not defending piracy, but I think the music and movie industries focus on it has more to do with the disruption of their standard business model (with which they are incredibly comfortable) than any concern for artists. Kinda like the Tobacco industry worries about our freedoms and the poor tobacco farmers.

        @MotorMouth - Stealing is bad... MmmmKay!
        But sitting around waiting for these industries to change did nothing for decades. The world changed the music market forever when distributors realised that they were no longer selling the same product they had been for over half a century. Music distribution is still not quite there yet but it is light years ahead of television.

    I wouldn't call it entitled... I want a fair go and no longer accept 'distance' as a fair conclusion to the price and availability argument.

    We live in a connected world now and there is no doubt that Australia may be geographically isolated but we are nowhere near being culturally isolated. Be it because we are a westernised first world nation or just because we soak up what we like as a consequence of being multi-cultural, we are connected to everything and want to enjoy it on the same terms as other in the world we feel a cultural kinship with, ie US and Europe (UK especially) first and also Japan and India.

    What we lack is any kind of true consumer competition. Especially we regard to who is allowed to profit from media in this country. Because of laws or under the table deals, we aren't allowed to have things like Netflix and Hulu unless it goes through someone here who can 'profit' from it. I know very little about the structure but it doesn't feel very open to change or competition.

      "I want, I want, I want". Well pal, I want the world to end in my lifetime, just so that I can watch the suffering of sheeple like you. But you know what? Grown-ups understand that we can't always get what we want (The Rolling Stones even wrote a song about it). Learn some patience.

        @MotorMouth - To quote another great artist "You've got to fight for your right, to PaRRRtaaYYY!"

        As for calling us sheep... That was a dickish thing to say, not to mention entirely incorrect. Its the sheep that only take what is given, it is the sheep that are subservient to their masters. The sheep never say "Hell no! I'm not following your stupid pointless rules, you work for me asshole!". No, the sheep are patient (and apparently in this case listen to the classics).

      This, also. Distance is no longer an acceptable reason whatsoever.

      In regards to middle men making profit, I say sure, go ahead. We live in a capitalist system; that's how things are produced. People need to make money in order to have incentive to create things. My question is why aren't they? There is a massive market, both here and many places outside the US for services like Hulu. Why aren't companies taking advantage of this?

      From what I have read it seems to be copyright laws. Ironically, the same laws which production companies are fighting so hard to tighten in order to stop piracy. Rather than make money from new distribution models, they try the 'sustained release' method to increase their profits. To me, it seems as if they are just artificially bottlenecking their profit.

      tl;dr - "Hello mister TV show producer, millions of my friends and I would like to give you money to watch your TV show online at the same time it's released in the US!"

      "No, piss off, we don't want your money. But we will try and sue you if you pirate it."

    I think you need to go back to the dictionary and look up entitled.

    Here I've copied a link for you...

      What don't you understand? It is being used correctly. From your link - "qualified for by right according to law". So, can you tell me where/how you have the "right according to law" to steal a TV show, simply because someone else gets to watch it before you do? Because I'm not seeing it.

        Do you think it's morally wrong for an average citizen to watch a video for free, while a millionaire misses out on that extra $1 from you that they don't get from you paying or watching ads?

          Yes, of course it is. Why? Because that millionaire runs a business that keeps hundreds, maybe thousands of good sheeple, just like you and me, in work. If his millions are threatened, do you think he is going to risk them or is he going to wind up the business and put all those honest, hard working folk out of work? I asked the question above but I'll ask you - if you asked that millionaire I you could borrow his Ferrari and he said no, would that entitle you to sneak into his driveway and take it for a joyride anyway? Of course not - it is his Ferrari and he has every right to decide who can drive it. Why do you think it should be any different with the TV programes he has bought and paid for in the same way?

        Ummm I don't thik there's such a thing as 'too entitled' - you're either entitled to something or you're not. So this article doesn't make sense... Maybe it should say something like "is Australia too precious about being entitled to get the latest tech and tv like other markets"..?

    No. With the internet and current technology there is no excuse for any of this BS. 99 percent of the devices that are overpriced in Aus are devices that are created specifically for keeping us connected to the rest of the world. They are making billions from us already so why should we be ripped off just for living in a different country. These are worldwide connected devices, so it is ridiculous to charge exceptionally different prices from country to country.

    As for TV shows, the industry should have had a plan about distributing content internationally years ago before the pirates even had as foot in the door, They can catch up and stomp out 95% of pirating if they pull their finger out, but instead they would rather bitch and moan while not giving customers what they want.

      Nobody needs to make or offer any excuses. The companies that make the product can do whatever they choose with it and all you can do is respond. It is how you respond that is the subject of the article.

      But if you must know "why should we be ripped off just for living in a different country", the answer is simple - its a different country. The average wage in Australia is $62,000, in the US it is $26,500, and the minimum wage here is more than double what it is in the US. So you cannot simply look at a price on a website and make a comparison, because even though something might cost 50% more here, it is actually much more affordable for the average Australian than it is for the average American. The question you should really be asking yourself is whether you would be happy to take a 50% wage reduction if it meant you could buy everything at US prices. I think it becomes pretty obvious that we have it much better than they do.

    so what did you have to do to that kid to get that shot? :p

      its a google image

        so what did the original photographer of that googled image have to do to that kid to get that shot? :p

          It's an American kid who's just been told he has to wait until next week to see the latest Wiggles episode from Australia due to restrictive release arrangements he can't understand.

            And it's GOLD GOLD GOLD to "Just This Guy"!

    No, we're not too entitled at all. We have the technology to do it, and some live shows in the US get shown live here as well. There's no excuse to be waiting a week, or in the case of one of my favourite shows 6 months, to see them here. And until that changes I'll happily keep on pirating with no sympathy at all for any networks who pull this BS on us.

      told him that had to pay more for his tech cause he was moving to australia, and that he couldn't watch game of thrones :)

        Your username...I've seen it on failblog...are you by any chance the same person? =P

      i tend to agree with most of that comment. i don't expect shows to air at the same time as the US. i think within a few days, even a week later is fine. none of the shows that i currently watch are screened within a reasonable time frame. so, i do the same. i download everything that i want to watch. what really surprises me, is movies that don't launch here at the same time. especially when the US get it on DVD and BluRay before it hits our cinemas.
      i think because of the "connected" nature the world lives in, i don't really care when or if things air here. everything is available for the cost of your data.
      i did, however, get a laugh from the comment in the walking dead article stating 33hrs too long to wait due to it being available on torrent instantly after airing in the US.

        I think waiting 33 hours is perfectly acceptable, and I'd just wait for it to air locally instead of download it. But I just don't understand why some shows I watch air as little as 3 or 4 hours after they do in America, yet another show from the same network (Comedy Central) takes 6 months!

      This comment has been deemed inappropriate and has been deleted.

        Seriously, just piss off. If you're going to make comments like that then you're not even welcome here.

    I think we should get them at the same time and price, or at the very least close to the US release dates and pricing without the awful 'Australia tax'

      Would you be amenable to a 50% wage reduction, the end of public health care and free education to facilitate that?

        Nice of you to also take into account the differrence in tax rates as well (we pay more to get those health services)

        Seriously mate, you get Netflix in the USA for like $10 a month, anything you want to watch. They wouldn't be selling it for that in the usa if they couldn't make a profit on it. Is it too much to ask that we get the same deal?

        I'm more than happy to stop downloading if the same deal and content was made available in Australia. I figure they are robbing me with how much more I have to pay.

        Derp. Because our Public healthcare and free education are paid for by the profits of overseas media and technology conglomerates.

    I have no expectation of something being made available to me. At the same time content producers/distributors should have no expectation of me paying for their content if they don't make it available to me. It's pretty simple, if you treat me like shit, I'll do the same back.

      Well said.

    It'd be a valid complaint from america's executives if it cost them a great deal of money to have it available everywhere at the same time.
    It's not a valid complaint.
    It'd be a valid complaint if there was ethical or moral reasons to not have it available everywhere at the same time.
    It's not a valid complaint.
    There is no real reason why you can't do global distribution.

      They are perfectly valid complaints. On the first point, how would they make the same amount of money if they didn't sell to TV networks who can leverage advertisers to recover costs? Do you think anyone makes as much money from a banner ad as they do from a 30 second TV ad in prime-time? On the second point, nobody needs any ethical or moral grounds, beyond what is already done, to make decisions about how their business runs. They have every expectation that the law will be followed. You would certainly expect action to be taken if they were found to be stealing from you because they didn't think you paid enough up-front for their product, wouldn't you? Yet somehow you believe it is OK for you to steal from them.

    The only time this occasionally affects me still, is when I am wanting to watch something on Youtube and I get a message saying it is not yet released in my country. Wtf is this bs, I thought we left this behind? So instead of at least getting the ad revenue from my click, I’ll just download it elsewhere.

    What are our choices? Wait for FTA shows to be broadcast locally to only be moved a week later or cancelled for more NCIS reruns. Or pay through the nose for PayTV through our sole provider adding on package after package to get that one show you want to watch?

    It's no wonder we expect more these days.

      Or rent or buy the programme on DVD. There are plenty of legal alternatives that ensure that everyone gets a fair deal and a viable return on their investment.

    I would love to watch Game of Thrones on free to air playing in 720p...but unfortunately I like to watch the season in a marathon run, so I don't have to wait each week for a new episode and be left in epic suspense. mwahaha

    The internet has no borders. There are no additional costs to companies using this mode of delivery, why should we pay more when purchasing items this way? As for physical items, I can understand a small difference in price, but some companies take this to the extreme. I'm happy paying an extra $50 for my N7 16g over my US counterparts, but many companies charge an extra $3-4-500. This, I am not happy to pay and will source overseas and utilise a remailing centre.

    Definitely not, because other countries (the United States included) would kick up a stink should they not get things at the same time as us.

    There is also the problem of what format we receive it in. Fine, 33 hours for the walking dead is pretty good as long as you are paying for an exorbitant foxtel subscription. A week for Game of Thrones is nice but what if you don't want to purchase an Apple TV since your current home setup is not compatible with iTunes.

    There is too much content locked up with greedy distributors, that is where the problem is. I am sure that the makers of the product would love to get it out to as wide as possible audience as quickly as possible but that would mean the multi-million dollar deals made with Foxtel, the free to air channels and Apple would be meaningless.

    Get rid of the artificial barriers to access such as geoblocking and restrictions to where content can be payed from and then all the services can compete. Speaking as a happy Australian Netflix customer I can say I would happily pay for access to Hulu+ and other channels if I was able to.

    Technology isn't the problem. I'm even happy to pay a little extra because I understand the cost of data delivery over such vast distances for a relatively small population is expensive. What shits me is that it's corporate policy that prevents me using the tech, starting with DRM (I don't like to be told where and when and on what device I may or may not watch something I paid for) to plain old restricted availability.

    Australian free to air tv seems to be incapable of playing a tv series regularly in the same time slot, on time, and in order, which really messes up those of us that work regularly and therefore record shows to watch later.

    Delivering content based around maximizing advertising revenue or sales revenue to sell the same thug three times to the same person, instead of listening to what consumers want will drive customers away.

    Being told I can have any shape size and colour I want, provided it's red square and medium at a price premium compared to the rest of the world, and not being happy about it, is not a sense of entitlement. It's my right as a paying consumer to get the advice I expect for the corresponding remuneration.

    Same as I wouldn't be happy buying groceries and told that this week I'm only allowed to have green beans, provided I promise to only steam them in a 30cm pot for. I more than 5 minutes in Sunday afternoon.

    when it comes to content from the US or UK etc, i dont think its entitlement at all, the world is globally connected and there is no big effort required to get the content into a form ready for the australian audience, ie the language is already english etc, in the worst case a conversion from NTSC to PAL is the most that would be needed.

    the illegal pirate networks prove exactly how easy and fast it is to get content into a global friendly format and distribute it and they dont even have access to the originals or the power big companies do.

    the whole issue here is thats its very much in the realm of possibility to setup and utilise a global distribution system that gets content released globally at the same time and for the owners to still make money, its just that nobody seems willing to drop current practices and make it happen

    and there is two reason for that firstly the current system makes them so much money why bother changing and secondly there are so many BS laws ans hoops to content with its not funny, the fact it takes so much effort for an american company to be able to sell a single mp3 here in australia is ridiculous

    its only going to take one company to finally do it and the rest will either follow or die we just have to wait


    The quantity of people is irrelevant.

      +1... exactly!

      Aus does NOT have a large enough population base to "demand" equal pricing.. if you can't understand that you too stupid to be online.

    If it cost more, and that extra money went towards the people that installed and maintain the infrastructure that brought the tech/movie/music here, then perhaps we shouldn't complain. Instead, it costs more because apparently those electrons aren't cheap to push across the world and the industry in America has to pay to push those electrons. I can understand shipping. That's fine. But not on things that aren't 'shipped' but transmitted.

      Do you think satellite time is free? Do you think the internet has enough spare bandwidth to stream every TV show the day it airs in the US?

        Ah yes, plenty of bandwidth there! Only needs one file to transfer to a server farm in Australia to support!

        If there's enough bandwidth to do so illegally, there's enough bandwidth to do it legally.


    Quite simply it's a supply and demand thing, there's next to no supply where there's strong demand that the studio's have created. Doesn't make an excuse for piracy. As to entitlement, Australians want to remain part of the conversation, there's thousands of blogs, forums, social media sites all driven around the content created. Hell, all the shows listed in this story have facebook fan pages run by the creators themselves.

    In a way it's kind of like a banned book would have been 200 years ago, just because it wasn't made available doesn't mean it wasn't to those who knew how. It's part of human nature to try and get the things they want and if it's the talk of the "town" then you need to see/read it to remain relevant in the conversation. THe last things as Australians that we want to appear as is not relevant or partaking. Technology made it easy, but the studios are just not adapting quick enough and Australian media outlets and their existing contracts just make it worse for everyone.

    With all that's going on in the world part of the entitlement aspect is coming from the idea that the only reason we're not seeing what we want is corporate greed.

    Long story short, are we entitled,? no, but I think that's almost the wrong question as part of a strategy by studios to re-frame what's really going on in terms of entertainment delivery in this country.

    A little over an hour ago, Season 5 Episode 1 of Breaking Bad was aired in the US. The only way I can legally access this is either wait for it to come out in a box DVD set. I support the show, I buy the DVD's, I like the facebook page, but I know it will contain spoilers, so I want to watch the show now.

    This is why I'm torrenting it as I write this.

    As for the price of technology? I don't have a problem with it. Given the differences in Income (especially minimum wage) between the US and Australia, paying 20% more for the same technology is acceptable to me.

      +1 Breaking Bad.

      I would happily pay a TV licence fee (as in the UK) if it meant that we could see these shows on terrestrial TV. Within a week is no issue.

      I'm not up on the licencing and international fee's etc you all are talking about, nor am I an expert on international distribution and live streaming and infrastructure required for viewing these shows.

      It does slightly miff me though that buying, for example, Breaking Bad Season 2 from iTunes Australia is $2.99 per episode (In SD) or $41.86 for the entire season buying episodes individually - yet $19.98 for a physical DVD from JB; Which (the DVD) has had to have been physically created, packaged, distributed by air/road and stacked in expensive warehouses and then finally in stores is more than 50% cheaper. Even if you buy the whole season from iTunes for $19.99 you still only get SD format.

      America's iTunes lists the same season in HD at the same rate (for the sake of this argument, I'm ignoring tax and economic differences). I'm better of using an IP blocker and using a US iTunes login and downloading it from there. This (with the strength of the Aussie $) would work out cheaper AND I'd get it in HD.

      I don't do this, I buy the DVD's, but it's darn tempting sometimes to flaunt the law.

      It just doesn't make sense. It's still digital media. It's still distributed by the same supplier, but we have our media 'stunted' as we are in a different geographical location.

    If you don't understand WHY it's this way, it doesn't make it wrong.
    When you're complaining about "Australia tax" you look just like the boy on photo that wants it NOW and CHEAP just because he wants it.

      No, we want things to be fair.

        Fair? Really?
        Try to buy your iPad, iPhone, 2 cars and home even 20% cheaper having 500$/month (average income in eastern Europe)
        How fair is that?

        Dig deeper and you might understand that 20% Australia tax protects your lifestyle.

          I can deal with 20% and understand why it is necessary, but 50% or more is excessive. The main issue IMO is availability, distribution methods and DRM which is where the industry needs to stop the bullshit.

            America has a bigger consumer market than Australia, that's why they get things first.

Join the discussion!