Legality and/or morality of geoblocking

Forums › Online streaming services › Legality and/or morality of geoblocking

1 | ... | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | ... | 21

17344 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6349

Lifetime subscriber

#1474245 18-Jan-2016 22:44

tdgeek: Ok, I know the $2 is arbitrary, so lets run with that. 2 bucks for Breaking Bad. I don't watch it, but I pay for it, ouch. Thats leaves $11 left, for say 5 other great shows. The $1 thats left, that covers the other 5000 titles on NF USA? Rights payments are high, they subsidise the cheap as chips SVOD. NF does DVD's too but they wont let you watch this titles via stream. That will change as its no rights payments now? Nothing wring with changing things but it has to add up. Methinks what will have to happen is rights payments continue (as you allude to) by subscriber. So all the huge dollars paid for rights will be paid by us. Otherwise, your removing large revenue streams.

Well I don't know much about it but I can guarantee this is not how the economics work or are calculated. It is so far off it is just silly. Some of the legal/illegal claims are getting really silly as well.

tdgeek

29819 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9155

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1474247 18-Jan-2016 22:51

hashbrown:
NonprayingMantis:
hashbrown: Decreased revenue and therefore volume of production isn't necessarily catastrophic. Online streaming decreases costs and exposes content to more people. It's possible that if we kept current production rates up we'd end up with too much content.
Weeds, Dollhouse, Firefly and Person of Interest are all shows I missed on their terrestrial run, but picked up on Netflix. Under the old model these would have been wasted product, like sending good food to a landfill.
This is a bit dated and has been posted here before, but Kevin Spacey on the benefits of producing for Netflix

Those could all be shown on legitimate streaming services in NZ without requiring breaking geoblocks

I'm pretty sure that weeds and firefly are both on lightbox - which requires absolutely no geoblock busting to watch. Not sure about the others, but what you are talking about is the benefits of on-demand vs broadcast - and I dont think you'll find many people who think on-demand is a ' bad ' model.
I was replying to @tdgeek's comments that $13/month Netflix is not sustainable, and the observation that revenues were likely to fall in the same way they have for the music industry. Maybe we need to spend a little more, but a lot of the gap between $13 and a Sky subscription can be met by the cost savings of the new model.

$13 and the Sky sub are so unrelated.

Some seem to feel that its an SVOD world. Its not. The vast majority of media playback is not streaming, yet. Its linear, its ads, its exclusivity, premium prices, premium ads, added value for Pay tv. This allows SVOD of old stuff to be on the cheap shelf, $13 for thousands of titles. When rights holder pay the big bucks, that helps the $13 service. If everything went to SVOD, all the lost revenue streams die. They then have to be lumped into SVOD subs. Why isn't the latest movies like Starwars on SVOD the same day? Rights issues in order to maximise revenue. But you want rights payments to end. Not quite that simple. Its in the math. What will it gross? Or is that ok to have rights?

hashbrown

463 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 131

#1474250 18-Jan-2016 22:54

tdgeek: Decreased revenue as in income currently received from rights owners. That's nothing to do with volume of production. If you remove rights payments you need to replace it with other revenue. Thats will be the NF subscription, and everyone else's subscription. User pays instead of right owner pays

Profit is what matters. Take costs out and revenues can decrease in a sustainable manner. They don't need to be replaced 1 for 1.

JimmyH

2891 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1541

#1474252 18-Jan-2016 23:05

ockel: [...] The law hasnt changed so you've accepted the argument that it currently breaks the law. Its illegal. There need to be law changes - amendments to the Copyright Act putting media, software (and other intangibles) on the same footing as physical goods as covered by paralell importing.

You keep asserting that this breaks the law, and that he has accepted this fact. But as far as I can see from this thread, he hasn't and it doesn't.

We aren't on a Napoleonic legal code where the law needs to say that you can do something before you can. Under the English system, which we are based on, it's more a case of you can do what you want unless the law says that you can't.

So, if you really believe that the law is being broken, please cite the name and section of the relevant statue that you consider is being contravened.

Otherwise, any dispute is between the subscriber and Netflix in respect of Netflix's terms and conditions. If they think you are contravening their T&Cs they can cut you off, and if they think you have caused them harm they can try and sue for damages. But the law hasn't been broken.

I don't regard this situation as any different to (say) the Warehouse paying Levi Strauss $5 million for the exclusive right to sell their jeans in NZ and as the only supplier pricing them at $125, while Walmart sells them for $19.95, and NZers consequently ordering from Walmart rather than the Warehouse en masse. Yes the Warehouse would be losing their benefit of their exclusivity and probably a lot of money given what they paid for the nebulous rights. But nothing is being stolen, and I would feel no particular sorrow for the Warehouse that their commercial bet hasn't paid off and they have lost money.

If Levi Strauss can't make enough money at the unit price they are selling to Walmart to say in business then that's Levi's problem. Not mine. They should set their selling price higher or go out of business, and not expect to be able to segment and price gouge different markets. As Adidas found out with All Black jerseys not so long ago, and the theatres when people could buy DVDs from the US before they started screening a film forcing them to advance their screening dates.

So why do people seem to think that films are different to jeans, or DVDs, and that NZers shouldn't be able to have the same purchasing options and price as people in other countries?

And regarding the fruit tree example, if my neighbour decided he was going to sell the fruit to blue-eyed people for $10/kg and green-eyed people for $2/kg then this is legal and he is entitled to do so. And I don't think that entitles me to steal the fruit. But I don't have a problem with paying a green-eyed person $2.50/kg to buy the fruit for me, even if the neighbour writes "it is a condition of sale that this fruit is not on-sold to blue-eyed people" on the bag. Good luck with that one in court!

tdgeek

29819 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9155

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1474253 18-Jan-2016 23:06

SaltyNZ: Even Members of parliament recognise geo-blocking to be a possible problem. Mojo Mathers says that a lot of deaf people are forced into it as Netflix is the only accessible option for them. I doubt anyone in parliament would openly condone something they believed was illegal. Indeed, she - like everyone else on the pro side of this discussion so far - appears to believe it is in need of explicit protection.

http://parliament.govt.nz/en-nz/pb/debates/debates/51HansD_20151208_00000020/taxation-residential-land-withholding-tax-gst-on-online

And although the debate in question was primarily in regards to GST for online goods, you'll note that nobody calls her out on it and tells her it's illegal.

It was about accessibility, that NF has captioning, and no on here does. Termed as a legitimate use, which implies, not for the purpose of covertly agreeing to a contract then breaking it. Which implies illegal.

tdgeek

29819 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9155

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1474255 18-Jan-2016 23:10

So, when rights payments cease for the industry, and all content will exist on various SVOD's. Not all on one, but all will be there for us globally.

What will I pay for Netflix? And why?

tdgeek

29819 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9155

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1474262 18-Jan-2016 23:32

hashbrown:
tdgeek: Decreased revenue as in income currently received from rights owners. That's nothing to do with volume of production. If you remove rights payments you need to replace it with other revenue. Thats will be the NF subscription, and everyone else's subscription. User pays instead of right owner pays
Profit is what matters. Take costs out and revenues can decrease in a sustainable manner. They don't need to be replaced 1 for 1.

Take what costs out? Are you referring to the lower costs of distribution via streaming as compared to other businesses in the media? This thread isn't about costs to run an SVOD service vs others. Unless you want media playback services to only be streaming?

AliExpress

Shop now on AliExpress (affiliate link).

tdgeek

29819 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9155

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1474264 18-Jan-2016 23:35

JimmyH:
ockel: [...] The law hasnt changed so you've accepted the argument that it currently breaks the law. Its illegal. There need to be law changes - amendments to the Copyright Act putting media, software (and other intangibles) on the same footing as physical goods as covered by paralell importing.
You keep asserting that this breaks the law, and that he has accepted this fact. But as far as I can see from this thread, he hasn't and it doesn't. We aren't on a Napoleonic legal code where the law needs to say that you can do something before you can. Under the English system, which we are based on, it's more a case of you can do what you want unless the law says that you can't. So, if you really believe that the law is being broken, please cite the name and section of the relevant statue that you consider is being contravened. Otherwise, any dispute is between the subscriber and Netflix in respect of Netflix's terms and conditions. If they think you are contravening their T&Cs they can cut you off, and if they think you have caused them harm they can try and sue for damages. But the law hasn't been broken. I don't regard this situation as any different to (say) the Warehouse paying Levi Strauss $5 million for the exclusive right to sell their jeans in NZ and as the only supplier pricing them at $125, while Walmart sells them for $19.95, and NZers consequently ordering from Walmart rather than the Warehouse en masse. Yes the Warehouse would be losing their benefit of their exclusivity and probably a lot of money given what they paid for the nebulous rights. But nothing is being stolen, and I would feel no particular sorrow for the Warehouse that their commercial bet hasn't paid off and they have lost money. If Levi Strauss can't make enough money at the unit price they are selling to Walmart to say in business then that's Levi's problem. Not mine. They should set their selling price higher or go out of business, and not expect to be able to segment and price gouge different markets. As Adidas found out with All Black jerseys not so long ago, and the theatres when people could buy DVDs from the US before they started screening a film forcing them to advance their screening dates. So why do people seem to think that films are different to jeans, or DVDs, and that NZers shouldn't be able to have the same purchasing options and price as people in other countries? And regarding the fruit tree example, if my neighbour decided he was going to sell the fruit to blue-eyed people for $10/kg and green-eyed people for $2/kg then this is legal and he is entitled to do so. And I don't think that entitles me to steal the fruit. But I don't have a problem with paying a green-eyed person $2.50/kg to buy the fruit for me, even if the neighbour writes "it is a condition of sale that this fruit is not on-sold to blue-eyed people" on the bag. Good luck with that one in court!

For the umpteenth time, the word illegal doesn't mean the Crimes Act or any other Statute. If you and I agree that you build me a deck, and you don't or you take off halfway through, you wont find that in the Statutes. Its Torts, Civil Law. Rule of Law. I'll sue you, as you breached the contract. Law.

hashbrown

463 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 131

#1474290 19-Jan-2016 06:42

tdgeek:
hashbrown:
tdgeek: Decreased revenue as in income currently received from rights owners. That's nothing to do with volume of production. If you remove rights payments you need to replace it with other revenue. Thats will be the NF subscription, and everyone else's subscription. User pays instead of right owner pays
Profit is what matters. Take costs out and revenues can decrease in a sustainable manner. They don't need to be replaced 1 for 1.

Take what costs out? Are you referring to the lower costs of distribution via streaming as compared to other businesses in the media? This thread isn't about costs to run an SVOD service vs others. Unless you want media playback services to only be streaming?

Read my original post. SVOD means less content needs to be produced because the back-catalogue is more accessible. Producing less content equals less cost. See also the article I linked on the money wasted producing pilots etc for network TV.

tdgeek

29819 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9155

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1474292 19-Jan-2016 06:59

gzt:
tdgeek: Ok, I know the $2 is arbitrary, so lets run with that. 2 bucks for Breaking Bad. I don't watch it, but I pay for it, ouch. Thats leaves $11 left, for say 5 other great shows. The $1 thats left, that covers the other 5000 titles on NF USA? Rights payments are high, they subsidise the cheap as chips SVOD. NF does DVD's too but they wont let you watch this titles via stream. That will change as its no rights payments now? Nothing wring with changing things but it has to add up. Methinks what will have to happen is rights payments continue (as you allude to) by subscriber. So all the huge dollars paid for rights will be paid by us. Otherwise, your removing large revenue streams.

Well I don't know much about it but I can guarantee this is not how the economics work or are calculated. It is so far off it is just silly. Some of the legal/illegal claims are getting really silly as well.

Course its not, talk to the person who proposed a series is billed at $2 per subscriber

tdgeek

29819 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9155

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1474294 19-Jan-2016 07:03

hashbrown:
tdgeek:
hashbrown:
tdgeek: Decreased revenue as in income currently received from rights owners. That's nothing to do with volume of production. If you remove rights payments you need to replace it with other revenue. Thats will be the NF subscription, and everyone else's subscription. User pays instead of right owner pays
Profit is what matters. Take costs out and revenues can decrease in a sustainable manner. They don't need to be replaced 1 for 1.

Take what costs out? Are you referring to the lower costs of distribution via streaming as compared to other businesses in the media? This thread isn't about costs to run an SVOD service vs others. Unless you want media playback services to only be streaming?

Read my original post. SVOD means less content needs to be produced because the back-catalogue is more accessible. Producing less content equals less cost. See also the article I linked on the money wasted producing pilots etc for network TV.

So you produce less and rely on old stuff. In a few short years, the reduced production of content equals less old stuff, and so on.

The issue of rights isn't about producing content. Its about taking that content and maximising revenue by selling rights. Then when its old and grey dumping it on SVOD as its low value, been watched and makes for a large back catalogue.

hashbrown

463 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 131

#1474304 19-Jan-2016 07:39

TV currently gets shown head-to-head in prime time meaning consumers must either choose or master a DVR and kill the ad revenue for the show. If your 5 episodes in and a friend recommends a show you're stuck playing catchup, or hope you spot the 11pm re-run when it comes around. This product isn't old, it's wasted.

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 545

#1474329 19-Jan-2016 08:48

JimmyH:
ockel: [...] The law hasnt changed so you've accepted the argument that it currently breaks the law. Its illegal. There need to be law changes - amendments to the Copyright Act putting media, software (and other intangibles) on the same footing as physical goods as covered by paralell importing.
You keep asserting that this breaks the law, and that he has accepted this fact. But as far as I can see from this thread, he hasn't and it doesn't. We aren't on a Napoleonic legal code where the law needs to say that you can do something before you can. Under the English system, which we are based on, it's more a case of you can do what you want unless the law says that you can't. So, if you really believe that the law is being broken, please cite the name and section of the relevant statue that you consider is being contravened. Otherwise, any dispute is between the subscriber and Netflix in respect of Netflix's terms and conditions. If they think you are contravening their T&Cs they can cut you off, and if they think you have caused them harm they can try and sue for damages. But the law hasn't been broken. I don't regard this situation as any different to (say) the Warehouse paying Levi Strauss $5 million for the exclusive right to sell their jeans in NZ and as the only supplier pricing them at $125, while Walmart sells them for $19.95, and NZers consequently ordering from Walmart rather than the Warehouse en masse. Yes the Warehouse would be losing their benefit of their exclusivity and probably a lot of money given what they paid for the nebulous rights. But nothing is being stolen, and I would feel no particular sorrow for the Warehouse that their commercial bet hasn't paid off and they have lost money. If Levi Strauss can't make enough money at the unit price they are selling to Walmart to say in business then that's Levi's problem. Not mine. They should set their selling price higher or go out of business, and not expect to be able to segment and price gouge different markets. As Adidas found out with All Black jerseys not so long ago, and the theatres when people could buy DVDs from the US before they started screening a film forcing them to advance their screening dates. So why do people seem to think that films are different to jeans, or DVDs, and that NZers shouldn't be able to have the same purchasing options and price as people in other countries? And regarding the fruit tree example, if my neighbour decided he was going to sell the fruit to blue-eyed people for $10/kg and green-eyed people for $2/kg then this is legal and he is entitled to do so. And I don't think that entitles me to steal the fruit. But I don't have a problem with paying a green-eyed person $2.50/kg to buy the fruit for me, even if the neighbour writes "it is a condition of sale that this fruit is not on-sold to blue-eyed people" on the bag. Good luck with that one in court!

I'll refer you to the Copyright Act 1994. Section 131 (1) and 133. There is a case to be argued that Netflix and its officers are in breach of the law - criminally. Liability could include a prison term of up to 5 years. However it would be difficult for the Crown to justify that pursuing criminal proceedings is in the public interest and it may be difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the company is in breach of S131.

However the civil proceedings on such a case only need to show on a balance of probabilities that the company and its officers were in breach. The activities with respect to this law are untested. Just because no prosecution has been brought to date does not mean that there hasnt been a breach of the law.

So I still dispute the opinion that no law has been broken - criminal or civil.

Please feel free to refute by referencing other statutes or sections of this statute.

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

MikeB4

18464 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12124

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1474333 19-Jan-2016 09:08

ockel:
JimmyH:
ockel: [...] The law hasnt changed so you've accepted the argument that it currently breaks the law. Its illegal. There need to be law changes - amendments to the Copyright Act putting media, software (and other intangibles) on the same footing as physical goods as covered by paralell importing.
You keep asserting that this breaks the law, and that he has accepted this fact. But as far as I can see from this thread, he hasn't and it doesn't. We aren't on a Napoleonic legal code where the law needs to say that you can do something before you can. Under the English system, which we are based on, it's more a case of you can do what you want unless the law says that you can't. So, if you really believe that the law is being broken, please cite the name and section of the relevant statue that you consider is being contravened. Otherwise, any dispute is between the subscriber and Netflix in respect of Netflix's terms and conditions. If they think you are contravening their T&Cs they can cut you off, and if they think you have caused them harm they can try and sue for damages. But the law hasn't been broken. I don't regard this situation as any different to (say) the Warehouse paying Levi Strauss $5 million for the exclusive right to sell their jeans in NZ and as the only supplier pricing them at $125, while Walmart sells them for $19.95, and NZers consequently ordering from Walmart rather than the Warehouse en masse. Yes the Warehouse would be losing their benefit of their exclusivity and probably a lot of money given what they paid for the nebulous rights. But nothing is being stolen, and I would feel no particular sorrow for the Warehouse that their commercial bet hasn't paid off and they have lost money. If Levi Strauss can't make enough money at the unit price they are selling to Walmart to say in business then that's Levi's problem. Not mine. They should set their selling price higher or go out of business, and not expect to be able to segment and price gouge different markets. As Adidas found out with All Black jerseys not so long ago, and the theatres when people could buy DVDs from the US before they started screening a film forcing them to advance their screening dates. So why do people seem to think that films are different to jeans, or DVDs, and that NZers shouldn't be able to have the same purchasing options and price as people in other countries? And regarding the fruit tree example, if my neighbour decided he was going to sell the fruit to blue-eyed people for $10/kg and green-eyed people for $2/kg then this is legal and he is entitled to do so. And I don't think that entitles me to steal the fruit. But I don't have a problem with paying a green-eyed person $2.50/kg to buy the fruit for me, even if the neighbour writes "it is a condition of sale that this fruit is not on-sold to blue-eyed people" on the bag. Good luck with that one in court!
I'll refer you to the Copyright Act 1994. Section 131 (1) and 133. There is a case to be argued that Netflix and its officers are in breach of the law - criminally. Liability could include a prison term of up to 5 years. However it would be difficult for the Crown to justify that pursuing criminal proceedings is in the public interest and it may be difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the company is in breach of S131. However the civil proceedings on such a case only need to show on a balance of probabilities that the company and its officers were in breach. The activities with respect to this law are untested. Just because no prosecution has been brought to date does not mean that there hasnt been a breach of the law. So I still dispute the opinion that no law has been broken - criminal or civil. Please feel free to refute by referencing other statutes or sections of this statute.

I am no expert I just had to read endless Statutes to interpret them for decisions and reviews but I think 131 (2) and 131 (3) seems relevant. Any lawyers on here would be best placed to comment

tdgeek

29819 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9155

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1474348 19-Jan-2016 09:21

At the end of the day some people just wish to be honest, but flout the law when it suits. Whether its piracy or geoblock bypass. To ignore the reasons why some content is protected to maximise returns. To blindly say that the many and various means to view content are outdated. Then to say that streaming lowers production costs of content. (Streaming is a transfer mechanism not a production mechanism) and that streaming will reduce the amount of content produced and will allow good sized back catalogue of old content. Thats hardly a vision. I'd be happy to see all global blocks removed and all rights payments ceased. Apparently the loss of revenue is no real issue. Dreamland.

1 | ... | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | ... | 21