As a result of this, as well as Australia's protectionist laws, books are often much cheaper to import via Amazon than purchase here. For example, Greg Egan's new short story compilation "Oceanic" costs $35 in Borders in Melbourne, but can be imported from Amazon UK for under $23, including postage. The cost is similar importing from Amazon USA.
Similar things can be noted when looking at iTunes. A song is usually US$0.99 on iTunes USA, 79p from iTunes UK while it is $1.69 in Australia.
I've always concidered the main reason that non US citizens cannot purchase from iTunes USA has been non-global contracts.
But perhaps part of the problem is global currency markets.
Right now, it is cheapest for Australians to buy from iTunes USA at around AUS$1.10 per song.
If we could buy from iTunes USA, we would, as would probably the rest of the world.
What does that do to our local economy? While shipping costs inflate the costs of imports it is less of a problem, but in the digital economy where there are no shipping costs (ignoring bandwidth costs...) currency markets could be everything.
Is that "globalisation"?
A lot of the 45,000 fans at the show seemed to be early-to-mid 30s, which means they were teenagers when Pearl Jam's first album was released in 1991. A young fellow standing next to me, Chris, said he was yet to be born when that album came out. This was his first Pearl Jam show. A few times during the show I caught a look of elation on his face, and I envied him not his youth but all the great musical discoveries that lie ahead for him.
I have been looking forward to observing the musical tastes of my nieces and nephews as they grow up. I hope to help them discover all of the "great musical discoveries" I had, although I fear that my music tastes will be immediately ignored simply due to my age, as I was guilty of doing to the advice given by the generation before me.
I had never considered the idea of going to a gig with them, always assuming they would consider me the older generation and would rather be seen dead than next to be at a concert.
Perhaps not.
As a side point, tt terrifies me that someone could be born in the 90s and be able to have a considered conversation with me about music.
It won't be long before people born in this millennium become teenagers.
While not anywhere near any description of "old", I'm starting to feel like my generation has moved on.
Cory Doctorow's recent Guardian article discusses why streaming will never stop downloading.
His point is that streaming doesn't exist. "Streaming" is a version of "downloading" that is typically optimised for speed rather than accuracy and where the final product is not saved. But otherwise, it's still downloading. There is nothing other than a tiny bit of easily ignored code stopping you saving the stream.
Streaming has a place. It allows me to listen to the start of a song to decide if I like it before downloading it. It allows the same for video. It saves you downloading the full quality entirety of some media before having decided if you even want it.
But it can never replace downloads.
I didn't buy a Tivo it needs to always be connected to the internet to work properly (if you argue that a Tivo is useless without it's electronic program guide). "Always on" internet has never sat well with me.
Cory's best point is on that exact issue:
Streaming is an implausible and inefficient use of wireless bandwidth. Our phones and personal devices can be equipped with all the storage necessary to carry around tens of thousands of songs for just a few pounds, incurring a single cost. By contrast, listening to music as you move around [...] via streams requires that you use the scarce electromagnetic spectrum that competing users are trying to get their email or web pages over.
The TV industry seems to be very excited about moving toward streaming instead of broadcasting but the idea fills me with dread.
The internet will soon be filled with high quality TV streams, clogging up the bandwidth for everyone else. When I'm watching this new internet TV, the net will clog and the image will pause while it "buffers" or the quality will drop out, or I'll lose sound, all while I'm paying bandwidth costs just to see it... hey, the DVD of this whole series is only $30...
Perhaps if the move is quick enough could get rid of TV completely and use the empty spectrum for internet instead, but I can't see that happening when the move to digital broadcasts has taken so long and caused so much debate.
I've never liked streaming as anything other than a precursor to the downloading process.
I simply can't imagine paying for it.
The idea of buying access to a stream could only come from the US, where unlimited bandwidth plans are the norm, where they complain when they put "arbitrary" limits of ten trillion terrabytes a month on their accounts.
In Australia, where it would cost you $25 in bandwidth to watch an HD movie (7Gb on a typical $50 monthly plan), the idea sounds ridiculous.
I'm talking about live concerts.
For that money I could buy around five new release CDs that will last much longer, and if I don't like them I can sell them again.
It's not like I'm doing one or the other. I'm going to the concert, and buying many CDs.
I'm going to the concert because a great gig is worth far more than five great CDs.
But still, I think $100 is too much. I'm surprised we (consumers) are so happy to keep paying it, baring in mind the old excuse was that the Australian dollar was doing badly. The Australia dollar is worth much more than it was a few years ago. That $100 is worth a lot more to the performing artist than it used to be.
If the Aussie dollar wasn't doing well, would we be paying $150+ for our concert experiences?