Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.
Filter this topic showing only the reply marked as answer View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5
3362 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1837

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 2097423 27-Sep-2018 12:13
Send private message quote this post

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.





Information wants to be free. The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it.


706 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 206


  Reply # 2097429 27-Sep-2018 12:27
2 people support this post
Send private message quote this post

All I can say is yay for geounblocking abilities of some providers. I happily pay to a chosen organisation to watch content that they have the rights to distribute. The fact that my backside is located in NZ and not in some far away country does not negate the fact that I am paying for the content I consume. Joyfully its not even considered breaching copyright here in NZ thanks to s226 of the copyright act. There aren't 2 of me, 1 who will pay in foreign country and 1 who will pay here. If local distributors provided a better experience for viewing their content, I would happily pay them, but they don't, so I don't.

 

 


1396 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 201


  Reply # 2097434 27-Sep-2018 12:42
Send private message quote this post

Lias:

 

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.

 

 

And the legislation in many other countries allows the content owner to force the ISP's to block access.  Our legislation is silent on this and why Sky filed an injunction last year to ascertain and enforce its rights.  I'm suspecting that this "study" is going to be used as evidence to support the injunction (along with the NZOnAir report).

 

Copyright reform may actually be more specific and consistent with other countries.  Beware the vested interests of big companies.


2698 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 688


  Reply # 2097554 27-Sep-2018 14:57
One person supports this post
Send private message quote this post

Really? I don't agree with that at all. Short of opening the can of worms about the use of unrewarded IP being theft... it's morally questionable at best.

 

 

 

it is the only power the consumer has got to get Big companies to lower prices. If  i only want to watch 1-2 games  then i am not paying $200 to do so, that is stupid but if i and other consumers have to go elsewhere, ie not legal in NZ, then maybe the company will get the message and if they want to survive then they will lower the price, it's basically what people are telling Sky.





Common sense is not as common as you think.


1396 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 201


  Reply # 2097597 27-Sep-2018 15:37
Send private message quote this post

vexxxboy:

 

Really? I don't agree with that at all. Short of opening the can of worms about the use of unrewarded IP being theft... it's morally questionable at best.

 

 

 

it is the only power the consumer has got to get Big companies to lower prices. If  i only want to watch 1-2 games  then i am not paying $200 to do so, that is stupid but if i and other consumers have to go elsewhere, ie not legal in NZ, then maybe the company will get the message and if they want to survive then they will lower the price, it's basically what people are telling Sky.

 

 

If you only want to watch 1-2 games then you PPV.  The NBA has a price for that.  You have the ability but choose not to based on the globally set price by the vendor of the rights.  Its not that you cant do it, its that you choose not to do it.  Its not that the content is not available in a timely fashion, just the price that the NBA wants is too high for your utility.  How is choosing to pirate the content sending the message to the NBA?  


2698 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 688


  Reply # 2097639 27-Sep-2018 17:23
One person supports this post
Send private message quote this post

ockel:

 

vexxxboy:

 

Really? I don't agree with that at all. Short of opening the can of worms about the use of unrewarded IP being theft... it's morally questionable at best.

 

 

 

it is the only power the consumer has got to get Big companies to lower prices. If  i only want to watch 1-2 games  then i am not paying $200 to do so, that is stupid but if i and other consumers have to go elsewhere, ie not legal in NZ, then maybe the company will get the message and if they want to survive then they will lower the price, it's basically what people are telling Sky.

 

 

If you only want to watch 1-2 games then you PPV.  The NBA has a price for that.  You have the ability but choose not to based on the globally set price by the vendor of the rights.  Its not that you cant do it, its that you choose not to do it.  Its not that the content is not available in a timely fashion, just the price that the NBA wants is too high for your utility.  How is choosing to pirate the content sending the message to the NBA?  

 

 

 

 

well i would just use a VPN and go to India where it is $15 a year i guess that is morally wrong as well , but you would be stupid not to.





Common sense is not as common as you think.


1396 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 201


  Reply # 2097660 27-Sep-2018 18:01
One person supports this post
Send private message quote this post

vexxxboy:

 

well i would just use a VPN and go to India where it is $15 a year i guess that is morally wrong as well , but you would be stupid not to.

 

 

$15/yr, $1/yr, $0/yr.  Whats the difference?  Their all morally equivalent.  Too many people arbitraging price differences will result in a global price in the home nations currency.  In this case it'll end up with everyone paying in USD.  Same price globally with no regard for affordability.


3362 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1837

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 2097751 27-Sep-2018 20:50
One person supports this post
Send private message quote this post

ockel:

 

$15/yr, $1/yr, $0/yr.  Whats the difference?  Their all morally equivalent.  Too many people arbitraging price differences will result in a global price in the home nations currency.  In this case it'll end up with everyone paying in USD.  Same price globally with no regard for affordability.

 

 

You make that sound like a bad thing, whereas I view that as an absolute goal that our government should be actively working towards. If they can sell it for $1 in India, I expect it to be $1 here, and I expect the government to bloody well do something if it's not. Like pass legislation saying that any digital content sold in NZ must be priced no higher than the lowest price it's offered anywhere in the world or it loses copyright, and if they refuse to offer into NZ because of those terms, it also loses copyright and people are legally free to obtain said content any way they wish.

 

 

 

 





Information wants to be free. The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it.


13429 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2428

Trusted

  Reply # 2097754 27-Sep-2018 20:58
Send private message quote this post

Lias:

 

ockel:

 

$15/yr, $1/yr, $0/yr.  Whats the difference?  Their all morally equivalent.  Too many people arbitraging price differences will result in a global price in the home nations currency.  In this case it'll end up with everyone paying in USD.  Same price globally with no regard for affordability.

 

 

You make that sound like a bad thing, whereas I view that as an absolute goal that our government should be actively working towards. If they can sell it for $1 in India, I expect it to be $1 here, and I expect the government to bloody well do something if it's not. Like pass legislation saying that any digital content sold in NZ must be priced no higher than the lowest price it's offered anywhere in the world or it loses copyright, and if they refuse to offer into NZ because of those terms, it also loses copyright and people are legally free to obtain said content any way they wish.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fair enough. So, its goodbye Rugby. And other sports here and globally.  Its also goodbye movies. Someone mentioned that movies should be on Spotify. I'd be into that, pay another $2 per month to have unlimited top movies. And its goodbye movies, cinema only. Maybe less than $2 as when Netflix raised its prices by $2 the world ended.


21459 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4362

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 2097758 27-Sep-2018 21:01
Send private message quote this post

It's only entertainment, there are plenty of sources of it so no big deal if some of them decide that its not worth continuing.

 

People said that streaming would kill the music industry off, yet there is still a lot of new music being made. Someone must have got something wrong.





Richard rich.ms

13429 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2428

Trusted

  Reply # 2097767 27-Sep-2018 21:16
Send private message quote this post

richms:

 

It's only entertainment, there are plenty of sources of it so no big deal if some of them decide that its not worth continuing.

 

People said that streaming would kill the music industry off, yet there is still a lot of new music being made. Someone must have got something wrong.

 

 

Muso's will always make music. Streaming kills their revenue, so they have to tour more. It was bad enough with $27 CD's they still got ripped off by ticket clipping, now they have to be part of a $12 per month service with everyone else, and music 50 years old. 


273 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 120


  Reply # 2097830 27-Sep-2018 22:38
Send private message quote this post

vexxxboy:

 

Really? I don't agree with that at all. Short of opening the can of worms about the use of unrewarded IP being theft... it's morally questionable at best.

 

 

 

it is the only power the consumer has got to get Big companies to lower prices. If  i only want to watch 1-2 games  then i am not paying $200 to do so, that is stupid but if i and other consumers have to go elsewhere, ie not legal in NZ, then maybe the company will get the message and if they want to survive then they will lower the price, it's basically what people are telling Sky.

 

 

 

 

Taking something because you don't think it's worth paying for isn't the only power a consumer has. If consumers thought that the $200 was too expensive and no one paid (and hence didn't watch it) then that sends a message. 


1613 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 171

Subscriber

  Reply # 2097852 28-Sep-2018 06:33
3 people support this post
Send private message quote this post

I feel SKY are just paying lip service to Spark, trying to get brownie points with the digital services minister and simply making token 'noise' to satisfy what they told their content rights holders when smooshing them to get access to their content.  

 

 

 

Someone call the beautician, cause they looks like they are needing more lip gloss for their pig. 

 

 


31 posts

Geek
+1 received by user: 7


  Reply # 2097926 28-Sep-2018 08:36
One person supports this post
Send private message quote this post

Goosey:

 

I feel SKY are just paying lip service to Spark, trying to get brownie points with the digital services minister and simply making token 'noise' to satisfy what they told their content rights holders when smooshing them to get access to their content.  

 

 

 

Someone call the beautician, cause they looks like they are needing more lip gloss for their pig. 

 

 

 

 

Totally concur, as it is my belief that Sky has created the situation in NZ over a few decades where their greed has forced those less well off to seek quality programming elsewhere.

 

Most of would happily pay for this quality programming at Netflix type rates.

 

Same as rugby...I would willingly pay a fair price as would most kiwis, rather than the absurd charging we have had to pay up until recently. 


1396 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 201


  Reply # 2097959 28-Sep-2018 09:09
Send private message quote this post

Bluntj:

 

Goosey:

 

I feel SKY are just paying lip service to Spark, trying to get brownie points with the digital services minister and simply making token 'noise' to satisfy what they told their content rights holders when smooshing them to get access to their content.  

 

 

 

Someone call the beautician, cause they looks like they are needing more lip gloss for their pig. 

 

 

 

 

Totally concur, as it is my belief that Sky has created the situation in NZ over a few decades where their greed has forced those less well off to seek quality programming elsewhere.

 

Most of would happily pay for this quality programming at Netflix type rates.

 

Same as rugby...I would willingly pay a fair price as would most kiwis, rather than the absurd charging we have had to pay up until recently. 

 

 

Whats a fair price?  A regular season NBA game is NZD$10 for the casual subscriber.  That'd be the equivalent of a Super15 game.  A weeks worth of NFL (and realistically you'd probably only watch your team so one game is likely) is USD20 (NZ30).

 

Fanpass used to be $15 for a day and $20 for a week.  People didnt want to pay $15 to watch an All Blacks test - and didnt want to pay $20 for a Super15/18 round.  No demand at the price = withdrawal of product.  People voted with their wallet and it went away.

 

So whats a fair price for 90 minutes of entertainment - at Super 15 level, at test level?  Would you pay $5/hr, $10/hr?  Bear in mind that you can pay $4-7.50/hr for a new release movie at the theatre - and its not time critical like live sport is.  What premium would YOU put on live rugby?


1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5
Filter this topic showing only the reply marked as answer View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic

Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.