it would be based on the size of the market, not subscriber numbers. Otherwise one could startup your own streaming business and get all content for virtually nothing by way of having no subscribers.
There is a very good reason that the rights holders have these separate region deals - it makes them more money. Anybody undermining the regional deals means they make less money. If you think they make more money by letting Netflix sell globally you are just plain wrong. If they did, they wouldn't even be placing the geoblocking restriction on Netflix in the first place!
Up until now, the numbers using Netflix outside the regions have been so small as to not be worth chasing.
But with major ISPs promoting it (slingshot is third largest in NZ), you can bet your bottom dollar that they will start coming down on them.
And if they let slingshot get away with it in NZ, how long before iiNet do it in the states, or even other countries?
I'm pretty sure Sky UK, owned by the giant Newscorp, would be pretty miffed if other ISPs in the UK started promoting access to the vastly superior US netflix instead of the pretty average UK netflix, and taking $$$ away from Sky UK who has to pay big bucks to the studios for the exclusive content rights to stop UK Netflix having it.
I would be very surprised if global mode lasts more than 6 months now it is being promoted heavily above the line.
Can't you see how you're contradicting yourself? You say licensing costs are based on market size, not subscriber numbers, then you say that the rights holders lose money if consumers circumvent the regional restrictions? Only one of these statements can be true!
OK, explain to me, if Sky NZ pay X dollars for a market size of A, and Netflix US pays Y dollars for a market size of B, what difference does it make to the rights holder if one, 100 or 1000 customers switch from Sky to Netflix?
This is purely SkyNZ protecting their cosy little monopoly. Well, news-flash Sky, the internet doesn't respect cosy geograpical monopolies. You might need to become competitive
To illustrate what I mean, imagine if it were the other way around, and Netflix was an NZ company, paying for rights based on the size of the NZ market (i.e. just a few million dollars) but were able to sell to the US market freely.
The US companies would be pretty aggreived. They are paying billions for US rights, whereas NetflixNZ is only paying millions, yet is still able to sell with impunity within the US because they are happy to breach their contract with the rights holders.
With the current situation, Sky is paying $$ for NZ rights. Netflix is not paying anything for NZ rights. If Netflix is knowingly selling in NZ without paying for the rights (because Slingshot has enabled it), then I can see how that harms Sky and why Sky would be aggrieved.
I'm not saying it's 'right' or 'wrong' but I can see why Sky are annoyed about it - they have paid big bucks for the rights, and for someone else to come in over the top means they have basically wasted their money.