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 | ... | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57

4089 posts

Uber Geek

#1936006 11-Jan-2018 09:30

I like where you're coming from but would the average NZ sport viewer? In 2014 (the last decent stats) the average Sky Sport viewer watched ~265 minutes of sport per month. At $70/month that means you're happy to pay $15/hour to watch sport. Really? You think Joe Public is with you on this?

i watch 12 hours a day of sport a day on a bad day, so $30 or so a month i find very good value.

Common sense is not as common as you think.

TrendMicro

Best TrendMicro deals for antivirus and malware protection(affiliate link).

trig42

5604 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#1936033 11-Jan-2018 09:52

ockel:

trig42:

Correct, and where it gets messy, is more than one vendor.

In Rugby alone, SANZAR sell the rights to SuperRugby and the Rugby Championship (not Tri Nations anymore).

NZ Rugby sells the rights to NZ Domestic rugby, and domestic (in-bound tours) internationals (ABs June tests, Womens, Maori, U23 etc.)

World Rugby (I think) sell the rights to the Sevens.

The RFU sell rights to inbound England tours, the WRU to Welsh ones and so-on.

I'd assume Sky has to bid for ALL of these (and the agents must put together packages for European Rugby etc.)

We could potentially have a situation (if Sky went broke) where different providers bid and win different competitions. You may need Amazon for Super Rugby/RC, BEIN for European games (ABs northern tours) and something else (Lightbox? TVNZ?) for Domestic games/tests. I'd wager that IF that happened, it would cost more than a Sky Sport sub currently costs (over and above the IMO falsely inflated Sky Basic price).

And that is just Rugby.

Do you think that its a concept that even a Herald reporter could understand? Or is it too complex to put into words for the average reader so instead we'll just rely on headlines and clickbait fodder?

No, unfortunately, I've long given up on Stuff/Herald for being anywhere near accurate on these sort of things.

tdgeek

28618 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1936036 11-Jan-2018 10:00

Yep. End of the day, no one is rorting anyone, about all that could be argued is the price of providers buying sport content, but the popularity is certainly there, its the best reality TV

Rikkitic

Awrrr
17245 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1936053 11-Jan-2018 10:16

tdgeek:

Far points. I still see the ONLY issue is the $100 per month. If the arrogant bully refers to taking on those who bypass rights illegally, I dont see an issue with that. I see someone the other day was billed GBP80,000 as they streamed some event on FB. Thats a bully for sure, but it was streamed to thousands of users

I have no viewpoint on issues specifically affecting sports but I do care about TV broadcasting in general in this country, regardless of the technology or provider. Sky launched a lawsuit demanding the right to dictate what overseas sites people are allowed to browse, amongst other things. If that is not bully behaviour, I don't know what is. Sky (along with others) also killed Global Mode by threatening a lawsuit no-one could afford to defend, even though geo-unblocking is not illegal.

Sky is not taking on those who bypass rights illegally. It is taking on everyone it can who it thinks is cutting into its profit margin, regardless of whether or not the activity involved is breaking any laws. Along the way, it is also trying to rewrite any laws that it doesn't approve of. This is the bully behaviour I oppose.

People keep conflating the bypassing of rights illegally with the use of alternative methods to view content. Piracy is illegal and it should not be tolerated. If someone got sued in Britain for distributing content that didn't belong to them, it was their own fault. They should keep their hands out of other people's cookie jars.

This is not the same as viewing content that has already been distributed, but is blocked by artificial barriers to protect exclusivity agreements, even when people are prepared to pay for it. The result of that system is that people in small countries like New Zealand are often denied the possibility to access content at all. It is not a question of payment and therefore, not a question of piracy. It is a question of choice, and combating geographical discrimination. I wish people would quite confusing these things.

I am against piracy. I am for geo-unblocking. As far as I am concerned, Sky can go get screwed.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

tdgeek

28618 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1936055 11-Jan-2018 10:23

Rikkitic:

tdgeek:

Far points. I still see the ONLY issue is the $100 per month. If the arrogant bully refers to taking on those who bypass rights illegally, I dont see an issue with that. I see someone the other day was billed GBP80,000 as they streamed some event on FB. Thats a bully for sure, but it was streamed to thousands of users

I have no viewpoint on issues specifically affecting sports but I do care about TV broadcasting in general in this country, regardless of the technology or provider. Sky launched a lawsuit demanding the right to dictate what overseas sites people are allowed to browse, amongst other things. If that is not bully behaviour, I don't know what is. Sky (along with others) also killed Global Mode by threatening a lawsuit no-one could afford to defend, even though geo-unblocking is not illegal.

Sky is not taking on those who bypass rights illegally. It is taking on everyone it can who it thinks is cutting into its profit margin, regardless of whether or not the activity involved is breaking any laws. Along the way, it is also trying to rewrite any laws that it doesn't approve of. This is the bully behaviour I oppose.

People keep conflating the bypassing of rights illegally with the use of alternative methods to view content. Piracy is illegal and it should not be tolerated. If someone got sued in Britain for distributing content that didn't belong to them, it was their own fault. They should keep their hands out of other people's cookie jars.

This is not the same as viewing content that has already been distributed, but is blocked by artificial barriers to protect exclusivity agreements, even when people are prepared to pay for it. The result of that system is that people in small countries like New Zealand are often denied the possibility to access content at all. It is not a question of payment and therefore, not a question of piracy. It is a question of choice, and combating geographical discrimination. I wish people would quite confusing these things.

I am against piracy. I am for geo-unblocking. As far as I am concerned, Sky can go get screwed.

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

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

As regards rights, Sky doesnt own any content, it buys the rights to air them in NZ, the rightsholders own the offshore rights.

I am for geo-unblocking too. As long as its legal and paid for, that is up to the content owners to offer international rights, but they dont seem to do this. I am not sure 100% why, especially for say a TV series. Its not like anyone will hop on a plane to see it, so there is no intervention across borders to fight.

Edit The choice you mention, I doubt Sky is involved in that. They buy content and no doubt there are rules attached. Its in Skys or anyones interest to play something more current than it often is, thats not their choice, take it up with the content owners. Sky (and others) just distributes. Its a virtual warehouse, not the factory

Rikkitic

Awrrr
17245 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1936064 11-Jan-2018 10:47

tdgeek:

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

Quit obfuscating. What it's like is saying I can't find the car I want at any local dealership so I will buy it overseas. It is not getting it for free. It is paying someone else.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

langi27

611 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1936076 11-Jan-2018 11:02

I wonder if Sky is considering getting their own nano satellite so they can reduce their large OPEX costs. (might require re-alignment of everyone dishes or maybe they can position it close to OPTUS D1).

https://www.calcalistech.com/ctech/articles/0,7340,L-3728941,00.html

The field of nanosatellites has developed significantly in recent years and the number of launches doubles annually,” said Avi Blasberger, the Israel Space Agency’s director general. “The development and launch costs of such satellites are significantly lower than those of conventional satellites. In the near future, we can expect networks of thousands of nanosatellites that will fly above the Earth and enable high-speed Internet communication at significantly lower cost than today.”

tdgeek

28618 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1936078 11-Jan-2018 11:05

Rikkitic:

tdgeek:

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

Quit obfuscating. What it's like is saying I can't find the car I want at any local dealership so I will buy it overseas. It is not getting it for free. It is paying someone else.

You need to blame the content owner, not the distributor. No provider owns any content that I am aware, they all distribute. NF is no different. I guess thats MGM and ilk? Ask them to run their business like a car dealership

tdgeek

28618 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1936082 11-Jan-2018 11:10

langi27:

I wonder if Sky is considering getting their own nano satellite so they can reduce their large OPEX costs. (might require re-alignment of everyone dishes or maybe they can position it close to OPTUS D1).

https://www.calcalistech.com/ctech/articles/0,7340,L-3728941,00.html

The field of nanosatellites has developed significantly in recent years and the number of launches doubles annually,” said Avi Blasberger, the Israel Space Agency’s director general. “The development and launch costs of such satellites are significantly lower than those of conventional satellites. In the near future, we can expect networks of thousands of nanosatellites that will fly above the Earth and enable high-speed Internet communication at significantly lower cost than today.”

In a past thread we looked at transmission costs. I think it was 90 odd million, and thats not just satellite, its also local broadcasting truckrolls etc. Probably commentators, here and in overseas events. If it was 70 mill that's only $7 per month per subscriber. If they halved that its less than $4 a month saving. Plus setup costs

networkn

Networkn
30223 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1936084 11-Jan-2018 11:10

Rikkitic:

tdgeek:

Far points. I still see the ONLY issue is the $100 per month. If the arrogant bully refers to taking on those who bypass rights illegally, I dont see an issue with that. I see someone the other day was billed GBP80,000 as they streamed some event on FB. Thats a bully for sure, but it was streamed to thousands of users

I have no viewpoint on issues specifically affecting sports but I do care about TV broadcasting in general in this country, regardless of the technology or provider. Sky launched a lawsuit demanding the right to dictate what overseas sites people are allowed to browse, amongst other things. If that is not bully behaviour, I don't know what is. Sky (along with others) also killed Global Mode by threatening a lawsuit no-one could afford to defend, even though geo-unblocking is not illegal.

Sky is not taking on those who bypass rights illegally. It is taking on everyone it can who it thinks is cutting into its profit margin, regardless of whether or not the activity involved is breaking any laws. Along the way, it is also trying to rewrite any laws that it doesn't approve of. This is the bully behaviour I oppose.

People keep conflating the bypassing of rights illegally with the use of alternative methods to view content. Piracy is illegal and it should not be tolerated. If someone got sued in Britain for distributing content that didn't belong to them, it was their own fault. They should keep their hands out of other people's cookie jars.

This is not the same as viewing content that has already been distributed, but is blocked by artificial barriers to protect exclusivity agreements, even when people are prepared to pay for it. The result of that system is that people in small countries like New Zealand are often denied the possibility to access content at all. It is not a question of payment and therefore, not a question of piracy. It is a question of choice, and combating geographical discrimination. I wish people would quite confusing these things.

I am against piracy. I am for geo-unblocking. As far as I am concerned, Sky can go get screwed.

As part of securing rights, Sky has an obligation to protect the copyright of those rights, which it would agree to do, not just because they must, but because it also protects their revenues, and by ertension it's employees and shareholders. You seem under the illusion that Sky operates to make you happy, it's job is to provide a return for it's investors and shareholders. You are full of "good" ideas on how to make Sky better, but don't grasp the complexity and restrictions they are working under and with.

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.

kingdragonfly

8796 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1936095 11-Jan-2018 11:24

langi27:
I wonder if Sky is considering getting their own nano satellite so they can reduce their large OPEX costs. (might require re-alignment of everyone dishes or maybe they can position it close to OPTUS D1).

https://www.calcalistech.com/ctech/articles/0,7340,L-3728941,00.html

The field of nanosatellites has developed significantly in recent years and the number of launches doubles annually,” said Avi Blasberger, the Israel Space Agency’s director general. “The development and launch costs of such satellites are significantly lower than those of conventional satellites. In the near future, we can expect networks of thousands of nanosatellites that will fly above the Earth and enable high-speed Internet communication at significantly lower cost than today.”

Looks like the size of a desktop tower

http://www.space.gov.il/en/research-and-development/1077

langi27

611 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1936098 11-Jan-2018 11:34

I'm sure there's a lot of other things you can do with your own satellite, upsell your business model e g 4K video, sell services to the island nations, internet to the hard to reach places, leasing out capacity to other businesses.

tdgeek

28618 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1936106 11-Jan-2018 11:38

langi27:

I'm sure there's a lot of other things you can do with your own satellite, upsell your business model e g 4K video, sell services to the island nations, internet to the hard to reach places, leasing out capacity to other businesses.

Very good point. No idea what they cost, but if it can help reduce costs, add value, its a good idea. But it will still be 1980's tech according to the anti Sky brigade. It also makes CDN type OD hard to swallow as thats a lost cost, if it adds expenses but garners no new revenue

Rikkitic

Awrrr
17245 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1936158 11-Jan-2018 12:24

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.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

tdgeek

28618 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1936163 11-Jan-2018 12:29

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.

Geo blocking is not in the Statutes, agreed

So if you use a legal means to obtain content, but contravening copyright laws, where does that leave anti geoblocking practices?

1 | ... | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57