ockel:

 

And that is exactly whats at issue here.  The owner of the property rights in NZ is asserting to the vendor (Discovery) - hey, you sold us exclusive rights at this price $Z/mth/sub, unless you want to renegotiate the contract to $Z-x/mth/sub you'd better enforce your rights as the vendor to prevent someone from watching.  When vendors are willing to accept lower revenues from non-exclusivity then you'll start seeing more multi-platform content.  But if content is king and service operators want exclusivity to drive $ and eyeballs then we're all st out of luck.

 

The multi-year agreement between Sky and Discovery was signed in 2015.  So its probably up for renewal soon (typically 3 year terms) and if Discovery are happier with a lower price then you may get your wish.  But if Discovery choose to maximise profits then there is every chance nothing will change for you.

 

Which is why we need legislative reform. Big companies (particularly multinational and US ones) will never accept lower profits until governments beat them into it. I've previously mooted, and still support, the government simply stepping in and ending exclusivity and requiring FRAND like distribution, with the non compliance penalty being they lose copyright to the works.. E.g. They supply Sky, Netflix, Lightbox with all their content, get paid on a Spotify like consumption model, or their works lose all copyright in New Zealand and people are free to do what they want with it.