Seven joins court action to stop piracy
Updated: iiNet responds (see below).
A major legal case by the the Australian film and television industry against iiNet is set to become a test case in the battle against downloaded movies and TV shows.
Channel Seven is one of several companies to file action in the Federal Court against one of the country’s biggest internet service providers, along with Village Roadshow, Universal Pictures, Warner Bros, Paramount Pictures, Sony Pictures Entertainment, 20th Century Fox and Disney.
Adrianne Pecotic, executive director of the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT), said the action followed a five-month investigation by the industry.
“We identified thousands of infringements of copyright by iiNet’s customers and we provided iiNet with about 18 separate notices of those infringements and, unfortunately, iiNet did not do anything to address that copyright infringement,” she told The Age.
Pecotic said she would not rule out further action against other internet providers. But she was not interested in targeting individual downloaders at this stage.
The companies are seeking a ruling that iiNet infringed copyright by failing to stop users from engaging in illegal file sharing over BitTorrent networks. They want an order forcing iiNet to prevent its customers from engaging in copyright infringement over its network.
Mark White, chief operating officer of iiNet, said he was unaware of the legal action when contacted today.
Internet providers have argued that the courts already provide adequate remedies for copyright holders and they should not be forced to police their users.
“This is a very important test case for the internet industry in Australia,” said Peter Coroneos, chief executive of the Internet Industry Association.
“It will test the effect of the safe harbour provisions that were introduced with the US free trade agreement, which provides immunity for ISPs in certain circumstances such as transmission, hosting, caching and referencing activities.”
The case will be back before the court on December 17
Source: The Age
Press Release (iiNet):
iiNet (ASX:IIN) will vigorously defend the Federal Court action filed today by a selection of film and television industry organisations alleging that iiNet has encouraged customers to download films illegally.
iiNet’s Managing Director Michael Malone said iiNet does not in any way support or encourage breaches of the law, including infringement of copyright.
“In reality, iiNet has been leading the industry in making content available legally through our Media Lounge, including agreements with iTunes, ABC iView, the West Australian Symphony Orchestra, Cruizin’, Macquarie Digital TV, NASA Television, Barclays Premier League football, Drift Racing 2007 and classic highlights of golf’s four Majors,” Mr Malone said.
Mr Malone said iiNet had not breached any laws and had repeatedly passed on copyright holders’ complaints to law enforcement agencies for investigation.
He said iiNet had advised the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT) that their complaints had been forwarded to law enforcement agencies and that they should follow the matter up with them.
iiNet’s Customer Relations Agreement clearly spells out that customers must comply with the law and that our service must not be used “to commit an offence or to infringe another person’s rights”.
“iiNet cannot disconnect a customer’s phone line based on an allegation. The alleged offence needs to be pursued by the police and proven in the courts. iiNet would then be able to disconnect the service as it had been proven that the customer had breached our Customer Relations Agreement,” Mr Malone said.
- Previous post: Hamish & Andy to TEN’s rescue
- Next post: Rhys wins Supermodel
Oh dear, they obviously have no idea just how large the number of people torrenting tv shows is in this country. They are the ones forcing people to bypass them, they are the ones who can immediately change their deceitful ways to regain credibility. They are shooting themselves in the foot with late starts, fake season finales, shows weeks or months out of date, chopping and changing shows, the list goes on. These are driving people to tv piracy who would otherwise generally oppose piracy, myself included. Don’t treat the symptom, treat the cause. They will lose, I can guarantee that.
Perhaps if Ch7 showed their viewers some respect they may not have to resort to downloading.
Crosses iinet off list of potential future ISPs.
I have to wonder how they can stop it?
Years after Napster was closed it’s still happening more than ever. They only way to stop it is to provide a decent low cost downloading service and for networks and studios to has TV and movies shown with little delay in this country.
Benno, I would suggest that this is driven more by studios as it states above… “Village Roadshow, Universal Pictures, Warner Bros, Paramount Pictures, Sony Pictures Entertainment, 20th Century Fox and Disney” Seven was the only network mentioned.
The Networks are probably going to jump on board more to back the studios and share the cost as it then in-turn protects their long term deals/relationships.
Aussie Networks generally put episodes online for free if they aquire the rights to do so…ie. Aussie shows, or in the case of Supernatural… so use of BitTorrent isn’t as big an issue unless the content is well out of date and international.
Please make all these episodes of US and UK shows we want to watch available for us to “pay to download” from the overseas network websites at a minimal fee and we will happily do so … otherwise, make them freely available for us to see free-to-air without abuse of time slot and continual interruptions of screening flow through a complete season …
If an Aus Network decides to buy a show … they should be forced to show it at a reasonable time and for the entire season’s run … or not be allowed to buy it at all … giving it to another who will … (which stupidly means that they will all end up on Foxtel …damn!) .. of course, that will never happen!
A recent episode of Smallville … which supposedly does not rate here .. reportedly had 15000+ people downloading it at 1 time!!! And a recent episode of Desperate Housewives had over 35000 downloaders at 1 time … that is a lot of people to prosecute … so going for the ISP is an easy way … I have heard that Warner Bros are particularly nasty about downloads and logging on to torrent sites as a fake file sharer to find them …
Jack!
Hey channel Seven! Build your own version of ABC’s iView and I’ll quit the torrents tomorrow. And not some lame half arsed attempt, build a quality service where I watch most if not all of your programs for Free. Place some ads in there if you must, but just get with the times.
As much as I’m against piracy, the TV networks really only have themselves to blame for the ever increasing amount of people looking into other methods. Most TV series seem to be stuffed around by the (free to air) TV networks at some point, and late changes to TV Guides are becoming far too common.
Kids programs (especially cartoons) often get the worse treatment by (free to air) TV networks, so it is any wonder that kids look to other methods early on?
In particular I’m tired of Nine letting the rights to TV series (ie many Warner Brother’s cartoon series, Taken) simply expire, before all episodes are shown, or before they are shown at all.
You’d expect piracy on an ISP who’s name is pronounced “aye-aye net”…
If the networks played shows out without taking them off air after 1 week or if the film industry were to release movies simultaneously to cinemas around the world, the number of people obtaining them illegally would drop dramatically
Sorry, but there’s just one thing i don’t understand.
They all say that downloading music/movies/TV shows is illegal. Then how come they don’t shut down those programs that allow this. I’m sure if you go to Google and type ‘free movie/music downloads’, there would be a lot of results. This includes lime wire… etc
If its such an offense - then how come they haven’t shut down all those programs? It just doesn’t make sense.
How exactly do you measure this so-called “revenue loss” from this kind of “piracy”?
How can an ISP be responsible for something that doesn’t tangibly affect their bottom line?
Why haven’t they learned yet that the fundamental way to solve this issue is not to send innocent parties to court, but to provide entertainment in a timely manner and without all the interruptions, immediate cancellation, changing of start times, and general all round buggering about, which is sending their audience to other outlets?
And what of the fact that many of these so-called “pirates” subsequently buy DVDs, giving production companies actual real money, which is arguably better than intangible and unmeasurable advertising dollars anyway. Personally I think this is the kind of revenue stream they ought to concentrate more on, and shift away from the advertising model.
For those who say they download because the networks take shows off, networks would probably say they could leave them on if people watched them on air instead of downloading.
The debate continues.
@ Seriously
There are many legal ways to use torrent software, such as freeware, peer created content etc. Using torrent software in itself is not illegal, but downloading copyrighted material is.
I’m confused about why ch7 is even involved with this. (Unless it’s just arrogance, which wouldn’t surprise me). Surely the number of people downloading content owned by ch7 is minimal? Unless they’re going to include Lost, Heroes etc because ch 7 has broadcast rights in Oz… hmm
7 would be better off investing the millions they’ll spend on legal fees in making their product more attractive to viewers and in learning how to harness the internet better. Users are way ahead of the big media dinosaurs (who still seem to be operating on a model that worked in the 80’s) in this regard. If we had to wait for them to embrace technology we’d be waiting forever. I don’t download much, just occasional things that are hard to get here but I’m actually glad others do because it forces the networks to get off their backsides, be less complacent and move forward.
As for iinet…. their service wouldn’t be viable commercially if it was overly constrained. You can’t expect them to sabotage their own business by kicking off people for using torrent sites. Those people won’t stop downloading, they’ll simply give their money to another ISP. I’d also like to know what the response of Bigpond was. Oh wait, Bigpond has deals with some of those companies listed. Better not sue them.
It won’t work anyway, just as the Kazaa case didn’t scare people away from music downloading. In fact, it will just piss most people off.
itsross agree totally. If the comercials started their own I-View then it will solve a large part of the problem.
Or do what thedailyshow.com does and have the full episodes available for streaming (not downloading) and have ad’s throughout just as though it was on TV.
The network still gets revenue, we get to watch the show and it’s all 100% legal. If they don’t want to show it during primetime then it’s the best way to do it.
Sure there’s copyright issues with O/S networks to get over but hey, if Dr Who can be shown on i-View then I don’t see a major problem….
Good luck iiNet. As has been said, the networks and content providers need move into 2008. Broadband is here. The shows are out there, they are simply not being televised by the networks. Take The Daily Show and Colbert report. Both extremely popular. Both making tonnes of money. Both available free Worldwide…
iinet’s response sounds reasonable to me, not that common sense or reason necessarily gets you anywhere in court cases.
I’m sure they know some users are breaching copyright but you need to prove it before you can disconnect someone, and proving or prosecuting it isn’t their job, nor should it be. They’ve covered themselves with their agreement, it seems to me. Yes there are filters and the like but how do these work? Are they foolproof? Can they tell the difference between legal and illegal? I bet they’re clunky and buggy and do more harm than good.
Going after a internet provider! The TV and Movie Houses are nuts. If you think court action wil work, you are sadly mistaken. I will not stop what I do, because there is no quality TV service out there. And if they do win, well everybody will go elsewhere, and iinet will lose customers, which in the end, isn’t that what the court case about to being with - the loss of viewers from tv? Then iinet should sue them for loss of business!
Either way, the TV and Movie Houses arn’t making any friends here!
Except the (free to air) TV networks were already stuffing around TV programs, long before downloading via bitorrent or kazza was widely available (2001?). Science Fiction shows would be a perfect example.
I really think the (free to air) TV networks would be shocked, if they really knew how many people have turned off the TV. But they use small samples for TV ratings in each area, while continuing to claim ‘x’ amount of people actually watched their TV shows.
iView is mediocre. We’re still years behind. I’d be in love if Hulu was made available to Australians.
Personally, the way I get around it, and still stay okay legally (for the most part), is by using the US iTunes store. I’ve probably spent hundreds on it (buy the gift certificate through eBay), and don’t have to feel guilty when watching downloads. Luckily, as I’m on iiNet, downloads from the store are off-quota (I thought it was only for the Aussie store, but I’m sure not complaining. Saved me 30 gig of downloads last month).
BTW, remember when Seven used to *advocate* piracy?
1) Not the full (TV) picture?
2) But Anna, why was he even there?
3) Media Watch attacks TT ‘piracy story’
Remember that it was Seven that said a year or two ago that people downloading their shows was “a lovely problem to have”
AFACT also stated clearly in an article in The Age that they have no interest in pursuing TV show downloaders.
I only download shows that have been killed by the FTA networks such as
Smallville
Psych
Fringe
Jericho
4400
When my favourite programs are shown respect, I will happily return to TV viewing, and same my $$ on the bandwidth.
When I think about it, there’s silver lining to this: The same thing happened in the US a few years back, where there was a spate of lawsuits over illegal downloading. But once that furor subsided, the FTA networks were basically forced to put up most of their primetime shows streaming for free (plus ads) on the net. It may be bad for the next little while, but maybe this will bring around that paradigm shift in FTA networks attitudes towards the net that we’ve all been waiting for?
If stations like 7 actually bothered to put any effort into screening series properly, more people would watch them on TV. But viewers have been d****d around sooo much in the past few years with shows being heavily promoted, screened once or twice or six times, then taken off, or moved to late late time slots. And those fake season finals are just insulting.
TV stations have fallen behind just like the music industry did 10 years ago, and then they bring out the lawyers. Same old bull***t. Sue your customers. Great idea…
Streaming TV shows isn’t going to work in this country until we get download caps higher than we currently get here. We get 12 or 24 GB; in the U.S. and elsewhere it’s 250 GB - for less dollars per month, go figure.
Here is an interesting quote i found on ABC:
Mark Pesce: Unless the broadcast networks can legislate the internet out of existence, there’s no way they can stop this. What they can do is they can make the situation worse for themselves by trying to block it. Here’s the thing: Australian broadcasters have used their monopoly position to be able to force the audience to do what they wanted, all right? Well the audience has found some degree of freedom, and you know what? They like it. And the degree to which the broadcasters’ attempt to block that freedom, it will only make the audience angry. The audience is bigger and far more powerful than the broadcast networks are, and so if the broadcasters try to fetter this, or slow this down, what they’ll find is that the audience will be outwitting them at every turn. But if the broadcast networks are smart, they’ll find ways of seducing the audiences into a relationship with them, which is going to be a different relationship than the relationship they already have. They’ll be founded more on live broadcasting, probably more on interactive, the kinds of things they will be very good at in the future, rather than just trying to block them from enjoying their own experiences.
I couldn’t be bothered doenloading but I will boycott 7 on principle. I can see why people do it when you see how 7 stuff around TV shows.
ISP’s will never block their customers from downloading illegal tv/movies/music.
If they did, they would be seeing a lot of money disappear as all of us pirates pack up & ship off to another ISP.
IMO with the number of free and pay channels now in this country there is no reason why shows can’t be aired within a reasonable time, maybe a week or so? House, Supernatural and a few other shows this season I’ve waited for to save my data limit bt as soon as they “rest” a show (aka Fringe) I know where to find it! Like others have said make them available in a common standard (350Mb avi for 45min drama) for a nominal change or free.
BTW I’m with BigPond, I wonder if they will go after the countries biggest ISP?
Ticky your spot on and who would need a 25 or 60gig download allowance otherwise?? They’ll (the isps) will lose a ****load of $$$ if downloading is wiped out.
And fred, Seven are by far the worst offenders but there’s nothing much i watch anyway on that ch so boycotting is useless! If it were 9 or 10 that would be a huge problem.
“Ticky your spot on and who would need a 25 or 60gig download allowance otherwise?? They’ll (the isps) will lose a ****load of $$$ if downloading is wiped out.”
Yes and now there are some at 200Gb, that’s more than 6Gb per day or 18 350mb files, really who needs this limit for normal web surfing even if you spend hours each day gaming or on YouTube or Google Earth.
ISP will loose money if they can’t sell these high plans plus it could push the price for lower plans up and they are already too high, especially for those of us on wireless because Rudd hasn’t got the country wired for ADSL yet.
An RMIT funded report had this to say, which wasn’t what the govt wanted to hear:
“Findings from recent NetAlert research into the use of filters in the broadband environment confirms that accessing the Internet through a content filter at the Internet Service Provider (ISP) level leads to a significant reduction in network performance. The research shows that network performance was reduced by 18 per cent for the best performing filter and almost 78 per cent on the worst performing filter. The research also demonstrated variable filter performance across the different categories of restricted content. Even the most effective filter in terms of accuracy, only blocked 76 per cent of the selected list of potentially offensive URLs used in the testing. The research also demonstrated that the technical challenges for ISPs would be significant. …“
There’s no way in hell customers will put up with filtering. We have enough problems with broadband in this country. And they shouldn’t have to when it is… a. inaccurate / b. reduces connection speeds
C’mon 7, wake up! Knee jerk litigation is just going to bit you on the ass. Use the technology to your advantage, think outside the box, start listening to what people actually want, stop freaking out because you can’t control everything. There are plenty of ways to integrate the internet into your business model, there are new avenues to be exploited if you’re panicking about falling ad revenue. Urgh, this is such a dumb move.
haha. god they’re idiots. just like with napster, kazaa etc. they come in years too late. bittorrent is so 2004. most of us have moved on to faster and more reliable means of downloading shows/movies.
the studios will never keep up.
Why aren’t they suing google.There is thousands of cached direct download links of TV shows on their servers. Aren’t they supporting piracy too?
I fail to see how there’s even a possibility this could be successfully litigated. It’s just them trying to scare ISPs into doing what they want them to do.
They should all be suing themselves, they drive people to acts of copyright. I for one do not download movies, if i don’t think its worth the $15 (or $10 on tightass tuesdays) i wait till DVD and rent it. TV shows are more problematic, if i miss an episode, the show isnt accessible, it runs overtime (i will abandon any show that runs overtime causing me to miss the start of another), starts/finishes at an obscene hour, they axe it (like with fringe), or fall behind the states on some shows i will do what it takes so i can be up to date when i go to the states and inevitably watch TV there.
Suing, especially a frivolous suit like this one, is a desperate act, meaning they are out of ideas (with the only one they have tried being a half assed attempt at fast tracking).
Instead they should be doing things like asking the downloaders, “What would it take to make you stop downloading ?”. Which makes me think they don’t want it to stop they just want to cash in. If i were the judge i would laugh at them, then kick them out the door with a big boot.
AFACT don’t want to pursue individual downloaders as court costs would be massive - given the number of people that download. Legal experiences in the US have been very messy and bad publicity for all involved. Software like Limewire and Bit Torrents are not illegal, it’s what people on there to share that is. That’s why they can’t close down Limewire and co.
TV execs have got to realise things have moved on - people don’t buy newspapers, dont watch the 6pm news and everyone wants programs when they want them. Put up a legal website and people will come!
It’s definately a new era for TV viewing, especially for US shows. When their was no internet people were really unaware of how far behind we were here with top rating US shows. Now with websites giving you up to the minute information and spoilers on shows it’s all changed. The Australian networks should have reinvented themselves a lot earlier and also pushed for a new way to provide ratings for TV shows. They also need to do away with this primative Oztam system which is only in a small percentage of households across Australia, just because it’s always been done that way, doesn’t mean that it is the best way. Surely their could be a device that is inserted into every TV that could be plugged into a line which would provide data on everybodies viewing habbits, also programs could be incripted to send the info on what show they are watching, whether it was recorded the night before or even a 10.30pm at night, which seems to be where a lot of the best U.S shows are ending up.
Gone are the days where people just put up with what the networks are providing, we live in a age where we can choose for ourselves. I’m prepared to wait a week for a show that has already screened in the US, even a couple of weeks but I won’t wait for six months. Last night for example I sat and watched The Amazing Race but after it I put on my dowloaded copy of the lasted episode of Survivor Gabon. If the programmers can’t see this then they are in the wrong industry and need to go and start mowing lawns for a living because they aren’t doing their job at present. Oh and by the way, tonight I will be watching Hero’s from the other night, wouldn’t be included in the ratings but I’m still a viewer.
Tim, completely with you on that. I don’t download movies, because high-quality copies are on sale very quickly. And movies I’ve never had any complaint with when it comes to reasons for downloading.
TV, however, that’s a no-brainer. As I’ve said for a while now, if they treat me with contempt, I show them the same level of contempt right back at them, and I’ve got the power to control what I watch too.
Gil, the pursuit of individual downloaders (of music, mainly ) has become something of a sport for industry bodies in the USA. They sue, they ask for unpayable damages and imply massive court costs, then they offer a still-crippling “settlement” to let the accused off the hook. In the US it is both a PR exercise and grand larceny.
One would hope that AFACT or any of the other local industry bodies never gets that cocky. Though I doubt they would, since they know all too well that they’d get their proverbials cut off quick-smart in Australia.
Heres the thing, sure TV networks may take us for a ride sometimes but Seven always intend to show the bulk of the US shows in February. If Seven and the other networks were to bring all the US shows here now when they start airing in America there would be no room for Packed To The Rafters, City Homicide, All Saints and others or the hit US shows would end up at 10:30pm or later. I am sorry but i think people ask too much of our networks. Seven seem to be the best network here is Australia because most of the shows they put on the air will always be played out and we always know that most of them are here early in 2009.
Channels 9 and 10 on the other hand the same cant be said about them. Channel 9 pulls shows as quickly as they put them up, they also had promised to show shows like Pushing Daisies and Chuck in 2008 and we are yet to see them at all. This is why TV is being given a bad name in this country and its primarily channel 9’s fault. They are the ones who treat viewers the worst and its like a flow on effect.
I am against all this downloading crap because it is wrong and they are committing a criminal act. Its in the laws. Sure i would like to see some of my favourite shows now but hey its impossible to do so.
Seven and Co. are bastards for suing iiNet. How can you sue the internet, or providers of the internet?? In the end, it is up to the individual to take responsibility for their own actions.
I don’t download tv shows, on principle. Obviously, if we all downloaded our shows illegally and did not watch tv, then the studios would not bother to make these shows in the first place.
Personally, I think the Oztam rating system needs to be taken into the 21st century. I am positive that Network TEN have a lot more viewers than what the ratings suggest. Their target audience is young, single, out and about, and I’m sure half of the tv they watch is recorded or downloaded.
The point in all of this isn’t whether downloading copyrighted material is morally wrong (it is illegal, the moral justification of this is irrelevant). Similarly, the need for networks and other organisations to modernise to reach new audiences is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether iinet ‘authorised’ the infringement of copyright that its users undertook. Firstly, I’d imagine, the networks need to prove in some way that iinet users have infringed copyright and then if that’s established, that iinet authorised this infringement. It’s a bit of a stretch but not impossible.
The last TV show I downloaded via BT? : Heroes
When? : a couple of weeks ago. Why? : Because 7 put it back an hour without hardly telling anybody, and the PVR missed it.
The last movie I downloaded via BT? Day Watch
When? : A year or so ago. Why? Because the local distributor held it back for several months, all the while advertising it as ‘coming soon’ at several local cinemas, before eventually releasing it for a 1-week run at a single cinema.
That gives all the information media companies need to know in order to dramatically reduce piracy. Stop dicking everybody around, and most will stop downloading stuff.
“… I think people ask too much of our networks.”
I ask nothing except that they don’t f**k me around; basic decency, if you will. If they can’t even manage that - say, by starting shows within 5 minutes of the advertised time, or not cutting in an extra 2 or 3 ad breaks per hour - then I don’t see why I should show them any respect.
Good point Pondie. I suspect what it hinges on is whether ISPs are responsible for what users do with their broadband access, whether the ISP is expected to monitor and take action against such. iiNet claims it passed the info on to authorities.
There are lots of illegal activities conducted via the internet.
“haha. god they’re idiots. just like with napster, kazaa etc. they come in years too late. bittorrent is so 2004. most of us have moved on to faster and more reliable means of downloading shows/movies.
the studios will never keep up.”
I give it until 2010 before they “discover” me & everyone else are using rapidshare.
Gary, downloading TV shows is not a “criminal act”. Believe it or not, it is not a crime.
It is a civil offence.
You’ll notice that nobody has ever been arrested for downloading TV shows. Nobody ever will be.
That’s why I was somewhat amused by iiNet stating that they passed on complaints from rights holders on to the “State Police”. They very well might have, but the police would look at the complaint and toss it in the bin. It’s not their job.
The bottom line in my view at least is whether ISP is required to monitor users activities. The internet use is getting totally out of hand for politicians and they would like to get back into control what people can and cannot do using internet. Kevin Rudd’s attempt to introduce filters is a perfect proof and it is usually suggested by people who have absolutely no clue what an impact this is going to have on a future use. These are the same politicians who are trying to guaranty us a NBN with at least 12MB/s of bandwidth. How many incompetent politicians we still need to elect? This piracy issue is no different. There is still probably the law that forbids us to tape TV shows on VCR (remember that?). It was devised in the 80s and never enforced. This will go the same way, unless they make internet completely unusable.
I work for Roadshow, and my home internet provider is iiNet. Talk about being torn in two directions in regards to loyalties! But no - it really is hard to say to what extent someone is responsible for something; in this case how responsible an internet provider is to what their customers do with the service. On the one hand; if iiNet was provided with notices or whatnot telling them that a lot of their customers were using their service to download stuff illegally, then they should do something about it. But also, shouldn’t it then be the responsibility of the government/law enforcement agencies to actually enforce this? I don’t personally download any TV shows, movies or music, simply for the fact that it takes too long, is bad/unknown quality, and I don’t really feel like getting into illegal activities to save a couple bucks (or whatever the reason is for downloading). But I can see why people do. If TV was programmed better, and not so late in arriving in Aus, and if movies didn’t get released so late or had such expensive ticket prices, I think a lot of the downloading would stop. As someone on the side of the studios pointed out to me today, sure, “watching a TV show or movie ‘right now’ is not a necessity of life. And if you are so upset with late/expensive/etc TV & movies then just don’t watch them, don’t then go off and download it”. But if people really took this sentiment to heart, who would be left to watch it all? But ultimately I don’t think suing iiNet was the answer. Surely the biggest ISP (ahem-Bigpond) would then have a bigger percentage?
While I agree its a situation of what came first the chicken or the egg, I think the idea that networks would put newer material on TV if people stopped downloading is overlooking the fact that they are expecting miracles from a market that distrusts the practices of Australian TV networks. I mean how is that Channel 9 is continually allowed to practice late starts to most of their prime time shows. Many nights I find that Two & a half men not starting for between 5-15 minutes after its scheduled start. Shows being regularly yanked off after 1-2 episodes at ungodly times. The list goes on.
Last year they tried the fast tracking format only to have the writers guild strike put any progress they made on hold. I think it was a mistake to scrap it because I know my interest in Prison Break went up as it fast tracked and then nothing. They even got at one point almost day to day with the US being the MLB playoffs were going on which delayed it in the US.
My point is that highlighted the long, long delays viewers have in getting many shows. Its one thing when one or two shows are delayed but the amount is getting to breaking point. Scrubs is only half way through season 7 which is months after its us screening. Shown at irregular times, in the late night graveyard shift and given no publicity or chance to flourish. The situation for Monk is even worse. The fifth season has not even seen the light of day on Australian TV even on TV1. That is now halfway through the seventh season. Add to the list of unappreciated, American Dad, Family Guy, King of the Hill, Nip/Tuck, New Adventures of Old Christine, Law & Order and so on and so on.