I am only using Sky as an example. I think it is an appropriate one because if I did want to watch GOT, it actually might be cheaper to fly to America.
I have no idea how much it would cost if everything was available here. I do have a pretty good idea how much it costs if I view it elsewhere, and it isn't all that much.
Networkn has put his finger on the crux of the matter, which is the rights issue. I guess content owners (or distributors) do have the right to put something out on the market and then say some people are not allowed to have it. At least they have that right as long as the people who are not allowed are not black, or Jewish, or female, or other recognised minorities. And I guess I feel, like a lot of other people, that I have an equal right to use whatever means are available to me to pay for that content and access it anyway. People seem to keep overlooking the fact that it is not actually illegal to do so. The real issue here, which Networkn has identified, is how such rights, and the concept of property itself, are defined, and that is the underlying issue that we disagree on. He sees such rights as absolute, others don't. An example: In America the property your home is on is sacrosanct. You have the right to defend it against trespassers by shooting them. You do not have that right in New Zealand. We have a different concept of property here. My concept of intellectual property is that people have a right of ownership, a right to profit from it, and a right to have that profit protected. They do not have a right to determine who can buy it, or under what circumstances. If I sell you a watermelon and you have paid for it, it is yours. I do not have the right to tell you how to eat it, or who you can share it with.