Sky blames piracy for lost customers. Sky: it's time to wake up and smell the coffee.

Forums › Sky, Neon, Lightbox › Sky blames piracy for lost customers. Sky: it's time to wake up and smell the coffee.

1 | ... | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57

2031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 545

#1936171 11-Jan-2018 12:39

Rikkitic:

It is somewhat disingenuous to suggest that 'No-one was prepared to stand up to Sky to test it'. Sky purposely and malevolently initiated this lawsuit in the full expectation that no ISP would be prepared to defend it because no ISP had the means to do so. The sole purpose of the lawsuit was to bully ISPs into bending to Sky's will without the case ever having to be heard. The ISPs could not afford to go up against Sky on this. If they had, they almost certainly would have won, because there is no legal basis for prohibiting geo-unblocking.

If Sky or anyone else wants to do this, the proper and only forum for it is the New Zealand Parliament. Sky only has to lobby the government, present its arguments, and have the law changed. Why don't they do so? Because they know they can't. No democratic country in the world would pass a law like this. So they keep trying to find a back door. I think their behaviour is despicable and that is what I am whining about.

It was Sky, TVNZ, Mediaworks and.... Lightbox. So Spark, as the largest ISP in NZ, was a party to the lawsuit filed against Bypass Network Services.

Seems like there was an ISP big enough to stand up to the action but actually was sitting on the sides of the party filing.

Hmmm. Disingenuous much?

Sixth Labour Government - "Vision without Execution is just Hallucination"

networkn

Networkn
32872 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15471

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1936187 11-Jan-2018 12:50

ockel:

Rikkitic:

It is somewhat disingenuous to suggest that 'No-one was prepared to stand up to Sky to test it'. Sky purposely and malevolently initiated this lawsuit in the full expectation that no ISP would be prepared to defend it because no ISP had the means to do so. The sole purpose of the lawsuit was to bully ISPs into bending to Sky's will without the case ever having to be heard. The ISPs could not afford to go up against Sky on this. If they had, they almost certainly would have won, because there is no legal basis for prohibiting geo-unblocking.

If Sky or anyone else wants to do this, the proper and only forum for it is the New Zealand Parliament. Sky only has to lobby the government, present its arguments, and have the law changed. Why don't they do so? Because they know they can't. No democratic country in the world would pass a law like this. So they keep trying to find a back door. I think their behaviour is despicable and that is what I am whining about.

It was Sky, TVNZ, Mediaworks and.... Lightbox. So Spark, as the largest ISP in NZ, was a party to the lawsuit filed against Bypass Network Services.

Seems like there was an ISP big enough to stand up to the action but actually was sitting on the sides of the party filing.

Hmmm. Disingenuous much?

Furthermore, Spark has easily got the resources of Sky NZ, in terms of capital to fight a lawsuit. They were advised by their lawyers that the chances of a win were "uncertain" and if they lost in court it would create a precedent which all Kiwis would be bound by and open a can of worms that only Lawyers and Legal rights holders would win by. The companies who were filed against did a marketing PR release to say they couldn't afford it, to save face. That is the reality. It *wasn't* a cost issue.

As a result of not fighting it, you can still sit there circumventing GEOBlocking and convince yourself you aren't breaking the law or wouldn't be in any trouble if the rights holders acted against you.

[removed as not directly related to the topic.]

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 545

#1936189 11-Jan-2018 12:52

Rikkitic:

networkn:

There has not been a test case in NZ about whether GEO blocking is illegal in this country. No-one was prepared to stand up to Sky to test it, which says something. Until there is one, it's not possible to say definitively, that GEO Blocking is legal.

I note you haven't bashed Netflix for their GEO Blocking efforts, Lightbox for theirs and others such as CBS online and Amazon Prime for this.

You need to stop whining about Sky and whine about content providers.

I think you have misunderstood me somewhat. I am very strongly opposed to all geoblocking, full stop. I am not singling Sky out for this, though they are the ones who keep trying to restrict viewer choice in New Zealand by issuing lawsuits. But beyond that I don't distinguish between Sky, Netflix, Lightbox, CBS, Amazon Prime or any other. I blame the entire content industry for this. I think it is motivated by greed and a dinosaur view of content distribution. I am against it in principle. But this has nothing specifically to do with Sky.

Laws in this country are not created in the courts. Geo-unblocking is not illegal. Full stop. As far as I know, it is not illegal anywhere in the world. Geoblocking is something commercial content providers have introduced for commercial reasons. It is not enshrined in law. It has no legal status. Content distributors are free to employ it, and geo-unblockers are free to circumvent it. From a legal standpoint, they are the same.

It is somewhat disingenuous to suggest that 'No-one was prepared to stand up to Sky to test it'. Sky purposely and malevolently initiated this lawsuit in the full expectation that no ISP would be prepared to defend it because no ISP had the means to do so. The sole purpose of the lawsuit was to bully ISPs into bending to Sky's will without the case ever having to be heard. The ISPs could not afford to go up against Sky on this. If they had, they almost certainly would have won, because there is no legal basis for prohibiting geo-unblocking.

If Sky or anyone else wants to do this, the proper and only forum for it is the New Zealand Parliament. Sky only has to lobby the government, present its arguments, and have the law changed. Why don't they do so? Because they know they can't. No democratic country in the world would pass a law like this. So they keep trying to find a back door. I think their behaviour is despicable and that is what I am whining about.

So you will be making a submission on the review of the Copyright Act? And you will make sure that your voice is heard, in person, at a MBIE meetings and, if necessary, at Select Committee hearings?

You know that every vested interest will be making a submission to make sure that their voice is heard - from content producers, distributors and everyone in between. If you want to make change you'd better stop bellyaching and do something about it.

We understand that you have a strong view on geographical restrictions, you want clarity on the legality and yet you invite "bully boy" tactics and when someone wants to test the legal position with respect to content and copyright you complain.

Rather than inviting legal action you need to agitate for change - and in the best case vote with your feet by not consuming the content at all so that content owners realise that their position of maximising revenue through exclusivity is wrong.

Sixth Labour Government - "Vision without Execution is just Hallucination"

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16318

Lifetime subscriber

#1936192 11-Jan-2018 12:58

networkn:

I have no doubt in my mind, that even if it was passed as law, you would continue to do it, because you don't really care about the law as much as you care about your moral indignation that how dare stop someone stop you doing something that YOU justify to yourself is ok. Don't worry, you aren't alone in that, lots of people do it, but I am saying, at least be honest about your reasoning.

I disagree with your other arguments but I don't disagree with your right to make them. However, you are going too far here. You have no right (and no knowledge) to make pronouncements about my behaviour in respect to the law. This is defamatory and it is unnecessary.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

networkn

Networkn
32872 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15471

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1936194 11-Jan-2018 13:01

ockel:so that content owners realise that their position of maximising revenue through exclusivity is wrong.

Let's clear this up a little. It's brilliant if you are a shareholder, or investor, employee of the company etc. It's only "wrong" in the eyes of certain consumers. Some companies manage to ride the balance between keeping consumers happy and investors happy.

What continues to be a theme in these discussions is the righteous indignation of some, that companies don't comply with their desires based on limited view and understanding, when in reality, companies exist to maximize returns for their investors and share/stakeholders.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16318

Lifetime subscriber

#1936195 11-Jan-2018 13:02

ockel:

So you will be making a submission on the review of the Copyright Act? And you will make sure that your voice is heard, in person, at a MBIE meetings and, if necessary, at Select Committee hearings?

Yes I will. Why wouldn't I? That is what democracy is all about. I have made submissions on other issues dear to my heart and I will do so on this one.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Geekzone support

Support Geekzone with one-off or recurring donations Donate via PressPatron.

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 545

#1936218 11-Jan-2018 13:32

Rikkitic:

ockel:

So you will be making a submission on the review of the Copyright Act? And you will make sure that your voice is heard, in person, at a MBIE meetings and, if necessary, at Select Committee hearings?

Yes I will. Why wouldn't I? That is what democracy is all about. I have made submissions on other issues dear to my heart and I will do so on this one.

And if there is legal clarity in any amendments to the Act such that your current activities are deemed illegal, you will cease like a good law-abiding citizen? Given the outcome of the democratic process?

Sixth Labour Government - "Vision without Execution is just Hallucination"

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16318

Lifetime subscriber

#1936256 11-Jan-2018 14:30

I respect the law. Why do you assume I don't?

People are always making assumptions about me that simply aren't true. For example, I have never used marijuana in this country, or anywhere else for about 50 years now. But I think official attitudes about it are stupid and it should be decriminalised at the least, and probably just legalised. Also, I have never illegally torrented anything. I follow developments because I like to know what is going on, but I don't do things I believe are wrong. I also don't view pirate streams. I had some trouble with that when I first became interested in Kodi because it was almost impossible to avoid them, but since the crackdown things are much easier. I use Kodi for public access television, which shamefully doesn't exist at all in New Zealand, and other content that is either free or on subscription, also unavailable here.

I have stated in the past that I believe in civil disobedience. I think citizens of a democratic country not only have a right, but an obligation, to ignore evil laws that damage society. An example would be past race-based laws in America and South Africa. Would I regard a law prohibiting geo-unblocking the same way? I might. That would depend on the law. If it limits my free access to information I would have a real problem with it. But I don't believe such a law would be passed here. I would be very disappointed in the intelligence, sense, and morals of our politicians if it was. In any case, I will cross that bridge when I come to it.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

networkn

Networkn
32872 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15471

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1936257 11-Jan-2018 14:33

Rikkitic:

I respect the law. Why do you assume I don't?

Umm see the below

I have stated in the past that I believe in civil disobedience. I think citizens of a democratic country not only have a right, but an obligation, to ignore evil laws that damage society. An example would be past race-based laws in America and South Africa. Would I regard a law prohibiting geo-unblocking the same way? I might. That would depend on the law. If it limits my free access to information I would have a real problem with it. But I don't believe such a law would be passed here. I would be very disappointed in the intelligence, sense, and morals of our politicians if it was. In any case, I will cross that bridge when I come to.

So my comments weren't so much defamatory as possibly correct, but maybe not, depending on how much you "feel" your "rights" have been impinged upon?

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16318

Lifetime subscriber

#1936264 11-Jan-2018 14:40

No, they were absolutely defamatory and I find them offensive. You have no business making these kinds of statements about me.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 545

#1936268 11-Jan-2018 14:48

Rikkitic:

I respect the law. Why do you assume I don't?

People are always making assumptions about me that simply aren't true. For example, I have never used marijuana in this country, or anywhere else for about 50 years now. But I think official attitudes about it are stupid and it should be decriminalised at the least, and probably just legalised. Also, I have never illegally torrented anything. I follow developments because I like to know what is going on, but I don't do things I believe are wrong. I also don't view pirate streams. I had some trouble with that when I first became interested in Kodi because it was almost impossible to avoid them, but since the crackdown things are much easier. I use Kodi for public access television, which shamefully doesn't exist at all in New Zealand, and other content that is either free or on subscription, also unavailable here.

I have stated in the past that I believe in civil disobedience. I think citizens of a democratic country not only have a right, but an obligation, to ignore evil laws that damage society. An example would be past race-based laws in America and South Africa. Would I regard a law prohibiting geo-unblocking the same way? I might. That would depend on the law. If it limits my free access to information I would have a real problem with it. But I don't believe such a law would be passed here. I would be very disappointed in the intelligence, sense, and morals of our politicians if it was. In any case, I will cross that bridge when I come to it.

I dont assume anything regarding your approach to the law. I just asked a direct and pertinent question. If, as a result the democratic process, the legality regarding geo-unblocking and copyright was spelt out in a statute passed by our democratically elected Government whether you would abide by it as a citizen.

And your answer was: I might. As in if it suited me I might. If the outcome of the process didnt fit my personal views then I may or may not choose to abide by the law. Thats essentially what you are saying. To say someone has defamed you - I suggest you employ some bully boy tactics and test your position in a court of law. Unless of course the outcome would disappoint your intelligence, sense and morals. Which is probably. Right?

Sixth Labour Government - "Vision without Execution is just Hallucination"

Geekzone support

Support Geekzone with one-off or recurring donations Donate via PressPatron.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16318

Lifetime subscriber

#1936270 11-Jan-2018 14:51

This has become a senseless discussion. The two of you are just looking for things to bash me with. You can believe whatever you like. I have made my feelings about the subject at hand clear. It is time to go do something else.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

networkn

Networkn
32872 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15471

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1936271 11-Jan-2018 14:55

Rikkitic:

No, they were absolutely defamatory and I find them offensive. You have no business making these kinds of statements about me.

I respectfully disagree, but as you already pointed out, this has become more heated than it should, partly on my part due to frustration over assumptions people make about things they don't understand and won't try to understand.

I'll retract my comment for what it's worth, as it's not really adding anything to the topic.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16318

Lifetime subscriber

#1936272 11-Jan-2018 15:00

networkn:

I'll retract my comment for what it's worth, as it's not really adding anything to the topic.

Thank you for that. It is very decent of you. I am now unsubscribing from this topic. I don't think I or anyone else has anything more to add to this sub-thread.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

JimmyH

2898 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1554

#1937293 11-Jan-2018 16:16

tdgeek: They just protect their business, its that simple. Should NF get screwed too as they geoblock?

Insofar as geoblocking is concerned, in my view yes. I have no issue with someone evading geoblocking and purchasing a Netflix package from another jurisdiction.

So, its not ok to illegally distribute copyright content but its ok to bypass systems to access copyright content? Thats like saying you cant steal cars them sell them, but you can steal them for yourself

No, it isn't. It's like saying you can't steal cars/books/shirts, but you can buy them from a (legitimate) overseas vendor if you don't like the excessive price the NZ distributor is charging. Just like when I buy a book from Amazon because it's less than half the price a NZ bookstore is charging.

Parallel importing, whether of digital or physical goods, isn't stealing. Not even remotely, irrespective of what a NZ distributor, who may have paid handsomely for the exclusive NZ rights to sell something may claim. A case in point being the Adidas shirt debacle in 2011, where Adidas tried to charge more than twice as much here for All Black Jerseys than in other countries, and tried to use geographic licencing (setting lawyers on worldrugbyshop.com etc) to try prevent jerseys being shipped to buyers here at the world price, to protect it's price structure in NZ. I had no issue with people wanting to source jerseys from overseas, and have no issue with them trying to source cheaper digital product either.

There was widespread anger and contempt directed at Adidas (condemning Adidas was one of the few things that Phil Goff and John Key publicly agreed on that year, joined by a cast of NZ luminaries such as Colin Meads) over this. This was appropriate. And Sky's attempts to prop its business up by undermining parallel importing of digital content are worthy of the same anger and contempt in my view.

1 | ... | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57