Foxtel Is Upset That You Pirated 'Game Of Thrones', Writes Open Letter To Pirates

Foxtel had to know this was coming, right? Right? When Foxtel signed the papers with HBO to shut out iTunes and Google Play from carrying Game Of Thrones, they had to know that people would pirate the show by the shipload. Despite what should have been an obvious wave of incoming pirates, Foxtel is still upset that you did it, and now it's shouting about it in a new open letter.

Published on media site Mumbrella, Foxtel's head of corporate affairs, Bruce Meagher, took pirates to task for downloading the show, first of all criticising those who couldn't afford to get the show with the old "you wouldn't download a car" argument:

The criticisms relate both to price and the Foxtel business model. Some even conclude that unauthorised downloading is justified because of these objections...that’s like justifying stealing a Ferrari on the basis that the waiting list is too long or the price is too high (maybe it’s because you don’t want all of the features). You only have to state the proposition to realise how absurd it is.

Hoo boy.

Moving on.

Stealing Game Of Thrones also can't be justified because illegally downloading the show doesn't give money back to the show's creators, cast and crew:

Another argument that is sometimes made is that you’re only making a digital copy, not actually stealing an object. Try telling that to the actors, extras, writers, camera crew, make up artists, editors, special effects teams and the many others who make Game of Thrones. The artistry and skill they bring to the production has real value and deserves to be rewarded.

Look, that's almost true. Everyone who worked on the show has now been paid. Sure, there may be some people waiting for a cut of the show on the back end but there's no doubt that this is the biggest show in the world right now, and they'll most certainly get their cut.

The only way that stands up is when it comes to future seasons for the show. Ordering new seasons is based on demand, and demand is measured by who is watching it on the platforms HBO sell it to. If everyone steals it, there won't be any reportable data to say that they should keep making it. So there's that.

He continues, adding that people should watch Game Of Thrones on the $35 per month package offered through Foxtel Play which is reportedly:

...the best comparison to iTunes and similar services.

The problem you get here is that content on Foxtel's services eventually expires. With Play and iTunes, you're left with files you can actually keep and rewatch, even if you cancel your ongoing season pass before the season run has finished.

There are certainly merits to Foxtel's Play service, as Bruce points out (like the ability to register on three devices at once and watch on two at once, no lock-in contract and the ability to kind of choose the channels you want), but there are also drawbacks that people will object to.

Foxtel's very upset with you. Go to your room.

Read more here.

Image credit: Mike Wrobel

WATCH MORE: Entertainment News


    Do they even read the internet?

      yeah...foxtel can go suck a bag of d**ks.

        How do you suck a bag of dicks? I mean is it one at a time and you just throw them on the floor or is it more sucking the whole bag at once or the outside of the bag? I need more information!

          I'd imagine it's the same way you'de eat a bowl of dicks. With a spoon.

            one dick at a time

              Instructions weren't clear enough I got my dick stuck in the fan

          That's a very good question - does one suck the bag of dicks itself? Or the individual dicks contained within said bag?

          Last edited 11/04/14 3:12 pm

          how do you suck a bag of dicks?
          STEP 1: Start a cable TV company in Australia
          STEP 2: Charge of fortune for primary shitty reality shows and reruns
          STEP 3: Take the best show on TV and sign an exclusive deal so that everyone has no choice but to buy your piece of crap service or resort to P2P downloads
          STEP 4: Whinge like a little bitch because no one wants to play your game
          STEP5: Start sucking

      Do they even internet?

        do they even?!?!

          do they?!?!




                  Hahahhaa.. this is the best comment thread ever. All of you guys made my day!

                  @Trackiedaks: Kudos for entering the empty post.

                  Just a question though, how did you do it? I tried even with shift+Return so there would be at least one character in the post but it didn't work, :(

                  @wisehacker Giz supports a bit of html in their comments. I just typed in the html code for non-breaking space (half way down the page). There's probably some sort of hack that could be done there, but their CMS does a pretty good job of stripping harmful code.

                  I don't think it supports images for example:
                  Edit: nope - they dont.

                  Last edited 11/04/14 5:34 pm

                  @trackiedaks: Gah! I didn't think to do that assuming it would have been stripped out to prevent exploits.

                  Anyhow, thanks. I hope I get the chance to do that myself in the future. Situation permitting, :).

        Oh man.... oh my gosh.... *sigh*. I just picked myself up off the floor, because the comments on here are hysterical. Im laughin while ill write this. May I just say, if you read the comments as fast as you can - it almost plays out like a conversation. Oh man. Thanks for making for Friday freaking funny!!! You guys are cool!!! :-D

      The internet doesn't exist and there is absolutely no threat to his newspaper empire or Foxtel's exclusive content.


        Totally agree. Why does foxtel not listen to their potential customers.. people want on demand.. not random crap from the 90s

        oh and for a reasonable price..

        Last edited 10/04/14 9:38 pm

          So basically people don't want foxtel.

      This is a really important point, and one that I would hope at some point maybe shareholders might ask for an answer to.

      I mean, I've laid out time and time again the perspective that piracy vs legality is an issue of competing on: availability, reliability, quality, and price.

      We've seen two other digital industries (music and games) confront the piracy issue and make significant gains by improving quality, reliability, and availability, and reducing the degree at which price is a factor. It has been largely successful. (Not completely because the simple fact is that you can't eliminate all crime forever. It's idiotic/naive to ever believe you can. It's why we have a standing police force and always will. )

      But the TV/movie industries are way behind the 8-ball on this effective solution in almost every possible way. It beggars belief how far behind they are.
      * Lower-quality product (fixed format, reduced resolutions, lack of portability, ads)
      * Reduced availability (expiring licences, artificial US-to-Aus delay, reduced number of sources pandering to monopolistic distributors)
      * debatable equal reliability (torrents can have issues long-term with lack of seeders, but up-front on release, they're arguably better able to withstand demand than a fixed distributor - plenty of reports of Foxtel Play unable to keep up)
      * And not even TRYING to close the gap on price. (Seriously. A few dollars per episode on iTunes, but $70/month Foxtel, which only gives you roughly 4 episodes per month? HEY FOXTEL. YOUR PRICING IS DIFFERENT TO YOUR FORMER COMPETITORS BY NEARLY AN ORDER OF MAGNITUDE. What did you think would happen?)

      They can't be ignorant of these issues and solutions, these factors and how they compare. They can't be. No-one can be that stupid and getting paid 6-7 figures for it. So really, it's just hubris. Or greed.

      Last edited 10/04/14 9:08 pm

        Buying the Blurays on release will cost half of what Foxtel want, and would purge most peoples guilt over pirating it.

        Also the book medium is still several seasons ahead.

          I have foxtel and still download it for my digital collection, is it still wrong?

            Downloading it WITHOUT Foxtel still wouldn't be wrong. Because, Foxtel...

              won't let me up vote you more than once. :(

            Technically it is wrong if you do not acquire it from a legal source, the issue is that you don't have the right to view the show whenever you want or in whatever format you want, even if you purchase the right to view it one way, it does not extend the right to any other way unless explicitly allowed. So if you get foxtel, that does not entitle you to a digital copy of the file, you only get to watch it live, record it on to the foxtel IQ or stream it using the app, none of these is a digital copy of the file that you can keep indefinitely, by getting one off of torrents etc, you're still bypassing what foxtel allow and are in a 'grey area'. And this is the problem, people think they're buying the right to watch the show when they want, but they're not and there's no option to legally buy the right to watch the show when they want. Instead companies give you confusing restrictions and are really selling you the right to watch the show at certain times, for a certain amount of time and on certain devices.

          Another argument that is sometimes made is that you’re only making a digital copy, not actually stealing an object. Try telling that to the actors, extras, writers, camera crew, make up artists, editors, special effects teams and the many others who make Game of Thrones. The artistry and skill they bring to the production has real value and deserves to be rewarded.

          crock of shit
          Artists and employees already been paid

          Every digital copy bought only benefits one party: The distributor

          i.e. FOXTEL

            Stop kidding yourself. It IS stealing. The "artists and employees" only get paid because people pay for HBO (or currently Foxtel). If EVERYONE pirated TV shows, then there would be NO money to pay the "artists and employees". Face it: the reason that we pirate is NOT because of availability or price. It's BECAUSE WE CAN AND IT'S FREE.

              I registered just to tell you you are wrong. I pay for NetFlix and have stopped pirating a lot of stuff because it is on there. If Game Of Thrones was on NetFlix I would just watch it on there and not pirate it.

              I pay for NetFlix because it is good and cheap.

              Nobody is kidding anyone. Piracy is infringement, not stealing.

              The cast is paid during the production of the show. Income that comes after can be a wage if further seasons are ordered or they contracts stipulates royalties from broadcasts or home media purchases.

              The cast does not work for free and gets paid later. There are laws in some countries that forbid that and America is one of them.

              If anything, this current bout is piracy can be considered a protest against Foxtel.

                Piracy is stealing whether you like it or not. Just because it is a digital copy doesn't change the fact that it is a form of theft.

                As for the money involved, yes, the cast is paid at the time of their work, but that money is recouped from selling the work they create. If no one buys the work (in the form of TV subscriptions, DVDs etc), then there is no money to make the show (well, future seasons at least).

                I agree that Foxtel is offering a bad deal, and I understand the reasons why people pirate content in lieu of getting a cruddy Foxtel subscription.

              Uhh no mate

              As all the other comments have shown, its not stealing. You're buying into the crap that the studios and distributors are feeding you.

              Digital IP is not analogous to physical goods.

              Once you steal a physical good, its gone and irreplaceable. There may be many others like it, but that particular one is gone. So its not like stealing a ferrari at all.
              With digital goods, there is an infinite supply, and as the law of supply and demand dictates, the higher the supply, the lower the price should be.
              So the only way to jack up the price in this situation is to hold a monopoly and charge a minimum of $35/m for at least 3 months for the whole season. Streamed at a delay and not allow reviewing at a later date beyond a few months to basically create artificial supply constraints. And force customers to stream instead of download, on our slow National broadband network.

              The real truth and analogy isnt so sweet and simple as "You wouldnt steal a car" is it

              And its more than just "oh i dont want to pay for it, so ill just steal it". There are so many more aspects to this issue causing people to pirate the show.

              Like for example. With a car, if you cant afford a ferrari, you have the option of excluding features to lower the price or find another dealership or even buy a different model or brand altogether

              With foxtel. Nup

              "pay us an overprice bundle. You cant get rid of extras. You cant pick and choose. Its a subscription so more than 1 payment over a period of time. And Oh, did I mention that you dont have a choice anymore since we own a monopoly now? Btw when you do buy it, it might be shipped to you a bit late because we're going to tow it to you using a toyota camry, and when you get it, it may be missing some essential parts like the engine, because it was too heavy for the camry to tow. But eventually you'll get the show.
              And if you dont buy it from us, you're never allowed to experience a ferrari until its out of season, but dont try to steal it from us, because we have all these employees and engineers who have already been paid for their work, but we like to say that they will go hungry and starve because if you dont buy the ferrari, our stock price will fall."

              So alot of people will just boycott in protest. Alot of these people would genuinely pay for it, had it been available easily, affordably and fairly.

              and FYI, i have an overpriced Foxtel subscription and downloaded it anyway cause it was higher quality and faster and more convenient than Foxtel

              And i could watch it on the bus on the way home

              Last edited 12/04/14 12:36 pm

                Uhh yeah mate. The other comments have shown nothing. Piracy is stealing whether you like it or not. That a particular item is a digital copy or not is irrelevant to the concept of theft. I am not "buying into the crap that the studios and distributors are feeding you", I'm talking about it from a simple moral and ethical point of view. I'm not saying I agree with the way copyright has been bastardised by the media industry (primarily driven by the US) and distorted from what it originally was, but the fact remains that you are taking something that does not belong to you.

                If someone has something (HBO/Foxtel) that they offer for sale (Game of Thrones), it is under the same protections that you are afforded (well, theoretically anyway). It doesn't matter whether the item in question is digital or tangible (to draw a comparison), the underlying actions are the same. And I agree with the "You wouldn't steal a car" ads (in theory at least as even I pirate Game of Thrones).

                You're correct that supply and demand should lessen the price, but it doesn't in a digital marketplace because there is an unlimited supply. However, new market rules are needed in that situation, as by your analogy since the supply is unlimited, the resulting product should be free. However, that's not the only thing that determines prices. There's also the people who worked on the show, the equipment etc. Foxtel has maneuvered themselves a monopoly (for which HBO should be ashamed), and have only created more of an issue for themselves.

                As for the rest of your post, I don't disagree. I understand why people pirate TV shows. I pirate TV shows because I can and it's free. I'm just not so lazy as to pretend that it's not theft.

                  i dont disagree that its not theft. But i dont entirely agree that its so blatantly clear as being theft
                  There is a different
                  I just think its not so black and white.

                  Which is why im saying its completley wrong to use a physical good like a car to oversimplify it as an act of stealing

                  Just like how digital goods have inheritly different properties differentiating it to physical goods. (i.e. physical good can be locked up in a garage or cabinet to prevent theft, and is difficult to be replicated/duplicated by the end user for sharing, but a software can be transmitted, duplicated, copied and shared completely easily)
                  THis alone has spawed different laws and protection methods (e.g. IP patents and EULAs vs a physical good actually being able to locked up in a garage or cabinet to prevent theft etc.

                  For the same reason you cant simply saying that what you do to one results in the same impacts as the doing it to the other.

                  I wont argue if it is right or wrong, im simply saying its not black and white. Because you cant truly argue that you have lost anything if i make a copy of a digital IP you own. If i steal a car, thats alot of loss that can be attributed to specific parts and labour.
                  But something that can be copied infinite number of times with little (or not cost assuming user is using private storage and p2p networks) to the content owner will have a hard time saying that i lost a "Potential' $7 per episode and now my cameraman and his wife and three kids are going to starve
                  You cannot prove that i would have bought it otherwise. This is a conundrum that isnt required to be proven for physical goods so much (it may be, but theres reliance on it given that a more obvious loss can be derived using physical parts)

                  If I steal a car, i can say that i would never have bought one otherwise anyway, but you wuld still have lost something
                  If i steal food, i cant honestly say i wouldnt have bought it otherwise, because its a necessity, but you would still be able to derive an actual loss incurred.

                  But If i copy a tv show, i can say i would have never have bought the show anyway and you cant prove you actually lost anything.
                  This is the conundrum. Whist stealing is stealing, but what have you actualy lost? So i wouldnt say its black and white. And i wouldnt say its grey either

                  Its more like 80% dark grey? or light black?

                  Also on the same topic of proving loss. Saying you need to pay employees is bullshit whether youre the content creator or distributor (even more bs if you are the distributor like Telstra). You have employeees and contractors. You are bound to those salary payment contracts by law. Your obligation is separate to the distribution and performance of your business. And by no means is the end user ever responsible for that obligation.
                  So what if you have people to pay? Thats a business risk you took upon. Even if there was no piracy, are you going to blame end users for not buying enough so you can sue them for not being able to pay your own bills?
                  The other problem is, for the same reason you have this existing obligation regardless of piracy, these people should have already been paid, unless youre telling me a significant portion of PEOPLE (not equity holders, becuase employees are technically creditors) have their remuneration tied to the profit and performance of the show?
                  The director and producer maybe. But 90% of your staff would be on predefined wages or contracts with defined payment dates. They would have already been paid by the time show is released. And if not, then its your obligation to pay, and if your show didnt profit, then that was a business loss you have to wear.
                  Even if piracy contributed to that loss, at the end of the day, the employees have nothing to do with it, becuase they didnt and never will incur a loss, unless you as the owner went bankrupt.
                  But with all productions, they are given a budget and pool of funds to pay for the production of the show. So this will never happen

                  Basically, any losses incurred will be by the distributor or content owner. So whilst they are not wrong that they MAY or may not be losing money due to piracy. Bringing up bs about their employees not being able to be paid is a piss poor manipulative excuse that isnt even true. So i am just arguing about this component of their statements

                  Additionally, when i talk about unlimited supply, you also need to consider that Supply Vs Demand has 2 components. If supply is unlimited but demand is not. Infinite Supply will drive it towards zero cost, but finite demand will at the same drive up the cost.
                  The point i was trying to make is that equilibrium should be a low affordable price, given easy distribution and sufficient demand to reach economies of scale
                  So the complaint is that the pricing and monopoly by telstra is just greed.

                  So my main points are:

                  i dont disagree there is a level of theft, i just dont believe its that black and white
                  and also, i completely disagree with their justifications and basis of their arguments using invalid analogies and dragging in sob stories about unpaid workers, that are completely untrue as well. Whether or not their argument is valid, is unrelated to the justifications they are using to back it up to create empathy based on lies.

                  At the end of the day its just about greed not profit or loss

          Illegal digital downloads is how I know I want to buy the entire season on blu ray when it is released. They would otherwise not get my money.
          I'd happily watch it streamed on an official website with adds, provided the adds didn't break my browser window when switching from episode stream to commercial stream like Nine's shitty "Jump-in" thing.

            i agree
            and i think he agrees with you as well
            His argument is more to do with the fact that its still stealing.

            But see my arguments above

        And for the love of everything that's holy, ON DEMAND!!!!
        How on earth do you justify a streaming service that still operates like a normal TV channel???
        It's like an Xbox only letting you play Titanfall between 7 and 8pm on Tuesdays.

          Which I am still shaking my fist at Blizzard for, on Diablo 3. Tuesday AND Thursday night maintenance? For a game I'm playing single-player? Bastards.

            Gotta say, apart from expansion launch week, I've never noticed a diablo maintenance.
            That being said, I'm not home Tuesday nights so it doesn't bother me

        And with Itunes, Google Play and the like you get to keep it and rewatch it whenever you want add free...

        They can't be ignorant of these issues and solutions, these factors and how they compare. They can't be. No-one can be that stupid and getting paid 6-7 figures for it. So really, it's just hubris. Or greed.

        I think they just don't have any other option but to stay the course and insist that they're still relevant right up until they collapse. For now they're making some money, but long term they couldn't be in a worse position. There's no way out and I think they know it. TV costs a lot to make, which means it costs a lot to get the exclusive rights a system like Foxtel requires. Alternative distribution methods are also costly and they're competing with something that will always beat them (piracy) or better, most established, services (iTunes, Netflix, etc). They let it get to a point where they practically forced people to pirate and you can't un-ring that bell. People have tried the better option. They can get all their TV from one website right after it airs and then watch it on a system that makes free to air look restrictive.
        They're not in a position to make Foxtel more appealing either. The reality TV/cheap TV boom wasn't compatible with syndication, a thousand episodes of Big Brother don't go as far as a season of X-Files, so they've got nothing to pad out the 167 hours a week that aren't a new episode of Game of Thrones. Game of Thrones fans can subscribe to Foxtel for one, maybe two shows, and a handful of junk they wouldn't pay to watch but watch because it's on.
        They're in a hole. It isn't the fault of any one group but that doesn't change the fact that HBO can't bail them out of it with a half dozen shows a year. Even if they wanted to Foxtel can't afford to produce enough content to fill a schedule. They struggled with it coming off the back of the 90's and that was a golden age of filler content.

        About the only thing keeping it afloat long term is sport. Even then sport is becoming less and less relevant considering how our entertainment options have expanded over the past decade or two. Not only do I have a hundred more entertainment options as far as video games and internet go, but Sport, Television, Music and News aren't the only topics normal people are allowed to talk about. I mean would it really negatively impact your life if you could literally never watch TV again?

        I try to think of potential solutions and all I come up with is a list of reasons why it's a terrible idea to invest in a subscription television network. =P

          I think the solution is what they're already putting feelers out for.

          As you eloquently described, their TV model is unsustainable and on the current course they're just cowering in their bunker, waiting for The End. No-one's actually going to put up with that. They're trying to continue their hybrid advertiser/content-based finance model and wring the last out of it that it'll support.

          There's still a future for TV as we know it, but it'll be a leaner beast, and likely a secondary, supporting role. I agree with your assertion that there's not enough good new TV to sustain them as they are, but they could trim back the number of channels. 5-10 channels of good shit is better than 200 channels of just shit. They'll always be able to reserve a half-dozen channels for 'conventional' TV to get subs/advertising double-whammy out of the luddite sector. Or even ditch the ads to separate themselves from the pack of otherwise-identical Free-to-Air channels. Then there's sports, and then there's the 'premium' channels, of the new content purchased from the US. If they trim that down, it'll be a leaner, meaner service.

          But what they REALLY need to do is something they're already making tentative moves toward with Go/Play. Aside from piracy, their LEGAL competitor in terms of service Australians want/expect, is Netflix. A foreign company who blocks access from Australia but somehow nonetheless has hundreds of thousands of Australian credit cards paying for subscriptions. That's hundreds of thousands of customers who weren't advertised at, who had technological and legal barriers thrown up in front of them, desperate to fork over their money. Extrapolate that number out to less-savvy, more gullible markets, and you've got a rub-your-hands-together recipe. If they have the clout to shut Apple out of TV's hottest new thing, they should have enough to mimic Netflix's range.

          That should be a fucking signal flare in the desert for these fuckers. And it looks like they're making moves towards it, but they also seem to be fucking incapable of making any kind of move anywhere which doesn't involve fucking the customer as hard as they can. They could extend their reach so much farther if they dropped the mindset of what they're providing as a premium service, a high-end luxury, and instead tried to hit the right price point to put it in EVERY AUSTRALIAN HOUSEHOLD so that no-one even wants to pirate anymore...

          But they can't let go of the 'premium' illusion. (And it IS an illusion - there is nothing high quality or exclusive about what Foxtel provides if you have an ounce of technical savvy.) Their Ferrari analogy is a pretty good sign of that. Not to mention their reliance on their friends in the government who are going to try and legislate their problems away.

          It's pretty reprehensible. They could embrace the year 2015 and provide an outstanding product to the Australian people which is as yet unmatched to anything in the local market... or they can dig their heels in and bitch and moan about how the world is changing and they don't wanna.

          Last edited 11/04/14 8:48 pm

            "waiting for The End"

            I just pictured that video of Hitler losing his shit. Quick someone do that.

            they also seem to be fucking incapable of making any kind of move anywhere which doesn't involve fucking the customer as hard as they can.

            Hmmm. Maybe we're coming at this wrong. Maybe instead of telling them how they can save themselves we should point out how badly you can screw customers over with our ideas. From where they're sitting all they hear about Netflix is praise so they probably think they won't be able to get their fix of fucking people over down that path.
            Instead of selling them on the merits of a good system that makes them money just be like 'hey, you know you could make an extremely good, reliable, cheap service... then geoblock the majority of the planet, infuriating entire continents of people'.

          From the movie "Other Peoples Money":

          Obsolescence. We're dead alright. We're just not broke. And you know the surest way to go broke? Keep getting an increasing share of a shrinking market. Down the tubes. Slow but sure.
          You know, at one time there must've been dozens of companies making buggy whips. And I'll bet the last company around was the one that made the best goddamn buggy whip you ever saw. Now how would you have liked to have been a stockholder in that company?

          Replace buggy whip with Foxtel, and see if this makes sense to you.

        Umm they are THAT STUPID.
        And the supporters of FOXTEL are even STUPID-ER.
        Based PURELY on PRICE alone, why would I pay SEVERAL DOLLARS for a MOVIE, when I can download one relatively FREE, or lets be Conservative and say ONE DOLLAR - based on a ISP monthly fee.

      If stealing a ferrari was as easy as downloading GOT I would need more garage space.

        Have you seen the picture of a guy that 3D prints a toy car?

        "Would you download a car?"
        "Just a you f&&king wait"

        It totally throws a spanner in the works of that piracy ad :D

          Would you download a car, then purchase a $3000 printer to print it?

            If I could buy a $3000 printer that printed out heaps of cars I would totally buy that printer.

              Have you seen the price of 3D "ink*"?

              I have no idea what to call the material a 3D printer uses. 3D Ink is my best guess.

                Plastic. Rough equivalent would be the plastic in cheap Bic ball-point pens.

                Some advanced users even recycle the plastic, melting it and re-forming as a filament.

    But Foxtel belongs to Murdoch, and that means I'd be paying someone I despise. Quite frankly I wouldn't give Murdoch the hair from my scrotum.

      Actually it doesn't. News Corp has a 50% stake and Murdoch (if my reasoning is right) can derive an income via shares he has in News Corp and him being a chair of the board.

      The other half is taken by Telstra. The irony is if it weren't for Telstra, News Corp and a third company, this discussion would not exist because Pay TV in Australia would have effectively died with the collapse of Galaxy.

      Back to the topic. Technically, no-one owns it because no entity has that 51% or higher stake. We only have two majority stake holders but no technical owners.

      Last edited 10/04/14 6:08 pm

        So because Murdoch is 1% shy of absolute control, everything's dandy?

        The point of all of these Murdoch/NewsCorp complaints isn't the precise meaning of whether he "owns" something, wholly or otherwise, it's a) his undeniably enormous influence over 70% of Australian newspapers (and abuse of same), and b) largely because of this, we just don't want any of our money to end up in his pockets.

          his undeniably enormous influence over 70% of Australian newspapers

          News Corp's paper ownership percent sits in the 40s (the 70% Rudd calmed is actually based on the number of news papers in circulation) and the "Kick this Mob Out" comment was something Australian's were already saying months before that cover came out.

          largely because of this, we just don't want any of our money to end up in his pockets.

          Well, you will be hard pressed because News Corp has hundreds of companies under it's belt.

          For example, News Corp bought 20th Century Fox off it's current owner (the other felt the authorities) when the studio faced enormous financial issues so to avoid money going to Murdoch (via the elaborate chain of companies) you have to avoid seeing any movies by Fox Studios or buy any DVDs from Fox Home Media (which royalties eventually make their way to Fox Studios and subsequently News Corp and then Murdoch).

          And you will also have to avoid books by Harper Collins because that too is owned by News Corp and eventually some money will go from the publisher to News Corp and then Murdoch.

          If you don't want any money going to Murdoch, you are going to have to look at the Web of all companies that are owned by or have significant investments from News Corp and avoid purchasing any of their goods and services.

          Last edited 10/04/14 5:49 pm

            > the "Kick this Mob Out" comment was something Australian's were already
            > saying months before that cover came out.

            To be clear, 45% of Australians on polling day expressed a preference for *not* kicking that mob out. The two-party preferred vote almost always falls between 45% and 55% on both sides.

            Characterising almost any statement as the universal opinion of all Australians, or even of a substantial majority, is rarely accurate.

              Fair call. I should have said the majority of Australians were asking for Labor's removal.

              Last edited 10/04/14 7:23 pm

                Murdoch had been showing breathtaking bias against labor for a long time prior to that, with almost no scrutiny or criticism of the coalition.

                Many people believe what they read in the papers without much questioning, or are not really concerned at all.

                Newscorp had no problems at all with completely making up stories, or placing a warped bias on them, he had been crafting anti-labor sentiment for a long time with all guns blazing.

                Many of the reasons I heard from people as to why we should "kick this mob out" were fairly paltry & rudimentary for any government, whereas the successes of the Rudd & Gillard governments were many.

                They were, however, constantly lambasted by Newscorp as some outrageously insane regime that had wrecked the country, and were constantly attacked with a base, gutter level of argument.

                Long story short, on many levels they were pretty competent governments who passed a large amount of legislation even in a close to hung parliament.

                If people were as you say calling for the "mob to be kicked out" for months before that headline, I would argue it was largely due to Murdoch's direct interference & social engineering as per usual.

                And just look at the Reptile in power these days who he fully backed to the hilt.

                Murdoch, the mining giants & large corrupt corporations will decide for us all who should achieve government thank you very much.

                  The Green Left Weekly had been showing breathtaking bias against the Coalition for a long time prior to that, with almost no scrutiny or criticism of the Greens.

                  Which only goes to show that newspapers pander to the views of their consumers...

                  Last edited 11/04/14 1:56 am

                  Totally wrong. The Newscorp media backed Kevin 07 over Howard. That was just over 6 years ago. Hardly a generation of bias against labor. Murdoch also backed Hawke in his day and even as far back as Whitlam. Christ, he even put money into the "It's Time" media campaign. Murdoch is an opportunist, nothing more, and he generally reflects what the majority feel.

                  Murdoch can think what he likes (we all have that right), but guess what? We have the choice. People don't make up their minds to support a political party based on what they read on the front page of a newspaper. 85% of people have already formed their view beforehand. They are not blind sheep.

                  You seem to be targeting your anger in the wrong direction. It isn't Murdochs fault labor got a trouncing, its the labor party itself who's to blame. Hell, how many leaders got knifed and how many members jumped ship? Ever wondered why? They abandoned their core supporter base and were rightfully given a kicking for it. Yet they and many of their blind supporters just don't get it. They were shite.

                  So instead of looking for scapegoats, write to your local ALP member and tell them to get back to being the party they once were, not a rabble of union hacks and crooks running the joint. Hell, the rank and file members voted overwhelmingly for Albo to be leader, yet it was totally ignored. They can't keep stumping up the same old union hacks to bring the party back to life, they need REAL people. Ignoring these facts will see them out of government for a decade at least.

                  So don't shoot the messenger.

                  First, it is not Murdoch that writes the articles, it is the editors.

                  And if News of the World is anything to go by, he pays no heed to what they do. He only cares about paper sales (at least I assume he pays attention to at least that) and depending on the editor what is printed is either fact (it does happen contrary to the popular conspiracy) or the personal political views of the editor in question which all papers here are guilty of at some point.

                  And it's not just papers, any form of media is guilty of this. Even the much trumpeted ABC where the presenters are either of the extreme left or the extreme right and the only people who are unbiased are the comedians.

                  Second, similar bias was present in the lead up to the 2007 election.

                  So there is nothing new here. It only got additional attention because Rudd falsely claimed Murdoch owned 70% of news papers and his fan base jumped on it as fact. Again, the fact is News Corp has ownership somewhere in the 40s while the circulation is 70%. And that is assuming individuals only buy one paper. The number maybe different if it factored in Australian's who purchase multiple papers.

                  Finally, Abbott is there because the Coalition got the majority of the vote after preferences. Not because an Australian-born US Citizen willed it. If individuals believed everything they see in print then the problem lies with them and not the publications of News Corp.

                  In the end, it was Australia that decided who got into office first and preferences second.

                  Anyhow, this is the last I am saying of off topic. The real topic here is the behaviour of Foxtel not someone a fair ways up the ownership chain.

                  Last edited 11/04/14 7:20 am

                  Keep telling yourself all that, WiseHacker. Rupert Murdoch sets his stall out with deliberate bias, influencing politics, and had a large part to play in the woeful Tony Abbott being elected without a policy in site. If you believe a newspaper doesnt have influence you are a fool, and the reason Murdoch has such wide ranging power is that he continues to buy media companies, even lobbyig previous governments to change media cross ownership laws that were designed to prevent this exact abuse.

                  @wisehacker - the only ones who are unbiased are the comedians?!?!?!?! You've got to be joking? I don't have a problem with them being biased (they are comedians after all) but definitely biased.

          Lol whos reads newspapers anymore

          do you even internet bro

          @namarrgon they don't own 70% of the newspapers published, but rather they have a 70% market share (and this is only in print not taking into account the wealth of online alternatives) meaning 70% of newspaper consumption is for their papers.


    "best comparison"?

    $35 per month. show runs for 10 weeks. that's ~$105.

    get it from iTunes for a one off payment of $35. foxtel are full of it.

    Edit : also, they've already paid HBO for the licence, so the addition downloads aren't hurting HBO, just foxtel.
    HBO aren't idiots. the fee Foxtel paid them must've been enough to cover the losses from removing the iTunes sales & covered any anticipated increase in piracy. the only company losing out here is Foxtel. that's why they're bitching & moaning rather than competing.

    Last edited 10/04/14 2:59 pm

      This. Give me my iTunes option back. Or better yet give me a digital version i can then play in my XBMC setup!

        There's a digital version on The Pirate Bay ::)

        You're welcome.

      Don't forget that the iTunes option would have given you substantially better quality picture and sound.

        I'd be interested to know if iTunes is actually better quality. After watching the first two seasons on bluray I bought the third season on iTunes and the quality is crap. They shouldn't call it hd, or at least offer a real hd version for those that want to watch on a larger tv.

          I have the first 3 seasons on Itunes and have now setup an subscription through foxtel play for season 4. and I can tell you that itunes has much better quality the Foxtel.

          Foxtels Play must have the worst developes behind them as the application on PC has many issues.
          1. The quality really sucks. were talking resolutions to rival only those that have re-encoded the video 10 times over. with blotches and ghosting present through the whole show.
          2. When you open a game on a second screen it actually kills the feed to the shows. and the only way to get them back up is to close the game down and select a different channel and then go back to GoT only to have the feed start again.

          So far I have not had my moneys worth and will be complaining to have my money returned to me for such worthless junk.

      This. Thanks Foxtel, you paid HBO on behalf of all the pirates in Australia. That's how exclusivity agreements on a popular show work! HBO no longer care, you wanted to pay them more money so they didn't have to worry about how many people bought it from iTunes.

      Last edited 10/04/14 4:22 pm

      It's a lot like trying to buy a Ferrari and being told you can't buy it outright, you can only rent. And not by itself, you have to pay for an entire fleet of economy shitbox cars you don't want and will never drive, the cost of which takes the monthly price to about quadruple the price of buying a single new ferrari outright, Also only 3 named people can be a passengers, and only 2 of those at a time.