Big Content Australia just blew a big hole in its credibility The Australian Home Entertainment Distributors Association (AHEDA) yesterday released “independent research” claiming that “Australia has the lowest average price in the world when looking at new release high definition digital video on demand films”. The news arrived in a breathless press release in which AHEDA “announced …
The sad part is, the methodology may actually be fine. But because they won't tell us what it is, we'll tend to assume the worst.
So why aren't they telling us what it is?
Well, one obvious explanation is that it's all a sham and they're hiding the true results. But in my experience (15 years of tech journalism), that's actually pretty unlikely: people seldom put out press releases they know to be bollocks, because they know they'll be called on it sooner or later. So I tend to a different explanation: they're dumbing down the results to "keep the message clear and simple".
Some people are afraid that if they release too much information, people will start nitpicking and bickering over it. And not a few are so insecure in their own analysis that they honestly think that they're correct, but also can't quite rid themselves of the lurking fear that, given the chance, someone else will prove them a complete muppet.
There's a fundamental conflict between "making your point as clear and forceful as possible", and "treating your audience like grownups and showing them your work". The simple way to resolve that is to release different sets of information to different audiences, but that's frankly beyond some of these people.
"The simple way to resolve that is to release different sets of information to different audiences, but that's frankly beyond some of these people."
No, the real problem is that there's no way to reliably confine the information to just those two sets of people. Especially in today's interconnected, hyper-communicative society, there's bound to be both crosstalk and "misses" (giving the wrong information to the wrong group on a case of mistaken identity). All it does is lead to more confusion, more nitpicking, and more than a few accusations of favoritism.
You don't have to "confine" it, that's the whole point.
If someone is actually asking for the detailed information, then they should automatically be bundled into the group that gets the detailed information. If someone asks for the Janet & John version, then that means they're in that group. You don't decide how people are categorised, they do.
It's like the difference between publishing a story like this as a standalone feature, like El Reg just did, and publishing it with a link to the source material. People can decide for themselves whether or not they want to follow the link, but at least you can make it easier, rather than forcing them to Google it themselves.
People don't put out press releases that contradict everything they are trying to say therefore if it's a press release put out by big content providers at best it's cherry picked, at worse a total fabrication.
Choice on the other hand isn't a content provider and isn't a pirate so has no incentive to skew the results.
Content providers could kill piracy overnight if they wanted. Yes you can give the content away for free. Youtube doesn't charge. Free to air TV doesn't charge.
Imagine all content with the same ad breaks as TV streamed on demand. Free content, creators get paid and pirates cease to exist.
For an extra monthly fee ads are removed.
Problem solved.
Even if someone waved a wand and all digital content was available to all Australians under exactly the same circumstances as in the US*, the boat has largely already sailed.
Australian's have had to deal with being treated as second rate customers for too long and that has contributed to the level of 'piracy'.
There are breaches of copyright in every market; you therefore have to ask yourself why Australia has a higher rate of piracy than the US? It's not because of some inherent 'entitlement' or disregard for the content providers' rights. Nor is it some kind of cultural thieving mindset (whatever our history may imply).
The most likely reason is that people who might otherwise have acquired content legally started obtaining it illegally when they either couldn't get it or found it was priced far higher than other markets. They may have even tried to get it from those other markets and been rebuffed by geoblocking and credit card restrictions.
Now, these can be gotten around but I think most ordinary people would ask themselves why they should have to work harder to gave a company their money so as to purchase their goods.
None of this excuses the behaviour, it's just a bit of a note as to why simply showing that average prices are equivalent now doesn't really change anything. Or at least won't have a large effect immediately.
What we need is a generation growing up with content widely and easily available under simple, fair terms, without undue delay and at reasonable prices. The generation that grows up under those circumstances will obtain far more of their content legally than a generation having to pay more for less.
* - Which includes connectivity considerations such as latency, bandwidth and download limits as well as selection considerations, such as available content and release dates. In addition, we must look at things that are available free to watch online in the US (faree 'catch up' services of some shows) but not in Australia due to geoblocking.
"has contributed to the level of 'piracy'"
One of the problems with the piracy debate is the fact that big content equates alternate distribution systems with piracy. If I go into Dymocks and buy a book, I am paying a high price because I have gone through "official" channels. On the other hand, I can go to an American book store and purchase books directly, at the American price. Even accounting for the shipping cost, I make a big savings.
It's called parallel importing, but big content tries to block this at every stage, from lobbying Parliament to ban it, preventing resellers from distributing content outside of America, to describing it in the same way as if it was actual piracy in it's public statements.
Until big content stops doing such ludicrous and self-serving things, it is hard to see how anyone should, let alone could, take anything they release seriously.
I actually have to disagree that the horse has bolted so to say.
Music is the perfect example, 10-15 years ago it was all about music piracy, I personally downloaded ALOT of MP3's then they created new services that made the music available online and on demand, and new releases are released globally, not regionally with huge delays. (Spotify, grooveshark, ITunes are a few examples of the services now available) Instead of downloading music, I probably spend $30-40 a month on music now, my issue was never the cost, it was the lack of accessibility. My current issue with Film/TV is no different. My sister works for Telstra/Foxtel, and told me that if I want to watch Game of Thrones on foxtel, but have 0 interst in anything else, I have to sign up for a $500 (over the life of the contract) package. $500 for a single season or 10 episodes of a TV show.
And then the film makers wonder why people pirate?
Fix accessibility and piracy will (mostly) fix itself. just like it did with the Music industry, Just like it did with the gaming industry (Steam)
I have to agree with the OP here. When it comes to hearts and minds the battle is over. Setup netflix with prices and content the same as the US and I think you may tempt future generations but the current crop are done with big content. It's a shame in some ways but it's the road they chose to travel down. When DVDs can be picked up for a few pounds in shops like Tesco in the UK and yet for the same movie they wish to charge $20+ in Australia with around $40 for the blu-ray the battle is over. When they decided to rip-off the Australian people by overcharging and making everyone wait longer all they did was pull forward future earnings. Now we have gotten into things digital being largely free and without advertising. Too little, too late. Whilst I'm on the topic of advertising, Murdoch and his shitty cable channel can GGF if they think I'm going to pay hundreds of dollars per year to still have to sit through adverts.
Other companies still try to rob Australians but because they're dealing with physical goods life hasn't been so harsh to them. Yet.
It's actually getting worse, the major audio and video software companies have increased their relative Australia tax or introduced it where none existed previously.
For example the very popular Native Instruments Komplete 10 which used to sell at the US price in US dollars here now has a specific Australian price 35%-40% higher depending on version. It's below the GST collection threshold so it's all extra profit to them. When questioned why they responded with the usual guff that came down to 'we do it because we can and screw you'.
Seems that with the change of Government last year all the useful moves towards some pricing parity have been thrown away in exchange for probably sadly small 'party donations' (and that hasn't been a source of corruption has it NSW Liberal Party, has it?)
So expect this report to become accepted by the Feds as a document of fact, they know who they work for.
"Seems that with the change of Government last year all the useful moves towards some pricing parity have been thrown away " - what useful moves? The previous government was completely in the pockets of big content. More so, even, than the current one.
A film with an August cinema release doesn't appear on Blu-ray/DVD until Christmas. How many people with a desire to buy and cash on the hip will wait that long?
Make content available in a timely manner, at an affordable price, with no device-limiting encumbrances and people will buy it.
"A film with an August cinema release doesn't appear on Blu-ray/DVD until Christmas. How many people with a desire to buy and cash on the hip will wait that long?"
Do you know it's been this way since the days of the videotape? This is normal for any mainstream release, even in the US. Movies always get released on a specific staggered schedule (theaters first, then airplanes and other confined venues, then pay-per-view/on-demand, then home videos, and finally mainstream television), and they're not going to deviate from the schedule because it's very carefully calculated to maximize the revenues from each step before going on to the next one. Cardinal rule of publishing: don't introduce a new distribution stream until you're sure the effect it will have on your existing revenue streams (ex. you don't release home videos while the movie's playing at the cinema; otherwise people stop going to the cinema) are minimal enough to take.
it's very carefully calculated to maximize the revenues from each step before going on to the next one.
The film is no longer in the cinema. Anyone that wants to see it will have to either a) wait until December or b) download an iffy copy. That's a big window of lost revenue. It also denies customers the option of not sitting in a sweaty cinema alongside noisy, popcorn-eating morons that fuck around with their mobiles for two hours.
It's our money we're spending so why not make the experience as good as possible?
"The film is no longer in the cinema."
Not at the first-run cinemas, but you forget all the second-strings like cinema cafes, airlines, prisons, hospitals, etc. All of these locations will pay good dollar to host content that's not available elsewhere at this time. And remember, this is all for view-once venues. The distributors won't go for one-and-done sales (videos) until they exhaust the oppotunity for view-onces since they still stand the chance of getting a double-dip until then. Which means they won't release discs until it has its day with On Demand/Pay Per View, either. Besides, for them, video release day acts as a second wind when it comes to advertising, so they're not too worried about people not remembering the movie.
"For decades bands have had merch stalls at concerts so you can buy CDs, tee shirts and other memorabilia."
Barring a phenomenon franchise like Harry Potter or The Hunger Games, loyalty for any one movie tends to pass over time. People go on to the next one. To movie companies, once the movie goes out on home video, that's about it as far as they're concerned. People will buy it or not at their choosing, and time usually won't affect the sales that much, as people who want the movie will be willing to wait (ask any diehard Apple fan).
"Not at the first-run cinemas, but you forget all the second-strings like cinema cafes, airlines, prisons, hospitals, etc."
Oh OK then I'll just head to prison, take a long-haul flight or get a hospital stay in order to watch the movie rather than PAY to see it in the comfort of my own home. Seriously, that's the most piss-weak argument I've ever heard. This is the reason piracy exists and from your level of understanding I can only assume you work for big content who think that because they pissed away $100m on a movie with a shit script and overpaid undertalented eye candy that means that is what it is worth (minimum).
Pathetic
Why pathetic? For decades bands have had merch stalls at concerts so you can buy CDs, tee shirts and other memorabilia. A friend of mine in a popular band of the 90s said they made more from concert tickets and selling merch than they did from record company income. If they had told the fans that they'd have to wait months to buy the product they would have been a bit daft.
Make the sale when you're fresh in peoples' minds, not six months down the track when other distractions have come and gone.
"Make the sale when you're fresh in peoples' minds, not six months down the track when other distractions have come and gone."
I'd of walked out of the cinema and bought a copy of Guardians of the Galaxy straight after.
Maybe I should download a dodgy copy since I've already given them my money once already.....
This is true, but there's no reason it has to be. With all the IP treaties and international negotiations going on (all intended to protect the big content providers from any kind of competition, of course) we should have been pushing for standardised licensing. But, of course, we didn't. We just extended the copyright on "Steamboat Willy" and let it go at that.
GoT is a great example of why Big Content has to pull their finger out of their arses to deliver content in a timely and affordable manner.
It used to be available on iTunes and Amazon for about $8/episode, until Foxtel tied HBO up with an exclusivity deal. Now, in order to get GoT on time, you are forced to subscribe to Foxtel for about $80/month. That equates to paying more than double compared to what you previously paid per episode.
Sure, you will also get another 30 odd channels (I refuse to count the +2 channels, as they're just repeats), but most of those channels you will not watch, as who needs another Impulse Buying Network, or endless re-runs of The Golden Girls, or Nazi Aliens in Spaaaaaaaace (History Channel), or Storage Wars (insert redneck state here), Vapid Housewives of (insert another state here), and the list goes on.
Unfortunately, that's part of the power of copyright. If HBO feels Foxtel's deal rakes in more money than any potential loss of customers due to the bundling, that's for them to decide and no one else. The only way you can counter is to offer a sweeter deal, but you can still be outbid.
"Unfortunately, that's part of the power of copyright. If HBO feels Foxtel's deal rakes in more money than any potential loss of customers due to the bundling, that's for them to decide and no one else. The only way you can counter is to offer a sweeter deal, but you can still be outbid."
If you've taken piracy into consideration and still given exclusive rights to Murdoch then you can't bitch about piracy then can you?
AHEDA: Piracy harms sales
Sharwood: Bleat! Whine! You didn't send me data. You are lying evil scum, Big Content!
AHEDA: Here's the data
Sharwood: Oh. Well I'm still right because you didn't count the Long Tail, which I will assert, without giving any evidence, is far more valuable than the Big Head.
When you're in a hole, Sharwood, it's a good idea to stop digging.
I'll agree that I couldn't see any validity to the Long Tail argument. If you're comparing across regions then it is only right to compare the prices of what people are largely watching than what they clearly aren't in any meaningful numbers unless you are specifically doing a long-tail study. Timeliness and price of major blockbusters is always going to be the key comparison area. After all that is what is complained about with iTunes pricing too.
What I have noticed, since living here, is that there is a huge culture of entitlement in Australia. People feel that it is their right to do whatever they want to do and that their needs and desires are the only thing that is important.
This is coupled with very high salaries. My girlfriend is a 1st year primary school teacher. In the UK, she would earn about 25K GBP. Here, she earns the equivalent of about 40K GBP. So salaries are almost double the UK (and also the US). However, the Aussie culture of entitlement leads people to believe that they should be paid at Aussie rates, yet buy goods and services at US rates. This is obviously tricky to achieve for the vendor of said goods and services, so in the case of media, people go ‘well, sod you, it is my RIGHT to have this at the price I want, so I will pirate it’ Which in my view is actually not cool.
What is inexcusable from a big media perspective though is the delay in releasing content in to the Aussie market. Regularly, Australia has to wait months before content is released via official channels (New Girl episodes in the case of said teacher girlfriend). This pushes people to look at how they can get their hands on the content earlier and VPN/Piracy is the only real option. I still have an issue with Piracy here, but using a VPN service to access say Netflicks in North America and paying US prices to watch the stuff seems fine to me. Big Media could sort this problem out if they wanted to by actually releasing stuff faster in Aus. This is a problem that they have created.
The problem they create when they give exclusive deals to Murdoch to try and force people to sign up for his expensive crap cable tv network.
Piracy could be killed off overnight if the retards abandoned their antiquated distribution and licencing system and actually embraced technology
Even the Warner Archive DVD-R movies are being sold in shops for $40 each. They are "play only" DVDs. The Looney Tunes box set was not available in Australia, they only way to get it was to pay $20 for each DVD without extras.
It is easy enough to import multi-region discs so "different classification restrictions" and PAL do not cut it for an excuse of putting less on a DVD or Blu Ray these days.
If it's too expensive or the content is too crap. And it is on both counts... just do something better! Like anything outside! Get fit and meet people, make new friends and have a blast.
It's a lot of fun and there is no mandatory advertising that actively blocks your time...yet. I hear you can even meet members of the opposite sex and everything...
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
