Netflix to crack down on unblockers

Forums › Online streaming services › Netflix to crack down on unblockers

1 | ... | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | ... | 70

458 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 141

#1473139 17-Jan-2016 13:31

I was mulling over this philosophical question recently when I was watching the previous season of Dr Who. I started watching it on Prime but got so fed up with the ad breaks every 5 minutes, so I switched to watching it on iplayer. Same programme. I'm not paying a licence fee, and would rather have watched it on local tv, but if the supplier makes it almost unwatchable by flogging off long and frequent ad breaks, then I'll go elsewhere.

I now choose to watch programmes available on Netflix US that are running here on terrestrial channels, just to avoid the ad breaks. Both programmes can run on my tv, one from the US the other from NZ. Same programme. If TVNZ et al want my business they have to up their game.

sultanoswing

814 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 160

#1473153 17-Jan-2016 14:06

tdgeek: Fact is the content owners are correct. Its their content they can sell it to whoever they wish, its a free world. If they tell NF to stop allowing workarounds, thats fine with me. Whats wrong with that? ....Or shall we criticise a business for maximising returns?

It's only the current laws that let them get away with being "correct" (a debatable point). Perhaps these laws are incorrect and in fact need to be rewritten to allow digital parallel importing.

And it's not a free (enough) world for consumers, with respect to global markets and artificial regionalization (similar to the Addidas All Black jersey fiasco).

Society balances businesses making a reasonable profit (vs gouging consumers wantonly) all the time through regulations such as monopoly laws and anti trust legislation. As consumers and citizens, I think these laws need strengthening in favor of we the people, not weakened so businesses can screw us over.

So the consumer friendly answer is not to geoblock and border restrict, but to tear down the walls and change the paradigm of how content owners can provide it. They can then maximize profits in that environment.

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 545

#1473154 17-Jan-2016 14:07

SaltyNZ:
tdgeek:
Do you really think that?

Yes, I do. If Disney hypothetically refused to screen Star Wars in NZ because reasons, then they lost 100% of the revenue they could have generated by screening Star Wars in NZ, right there, period. Whether or not some people managed to see it anyway is irrelevant to their revenue levels. It is no different whatsoever from the formally declared legal practice of buying a region 1 DVD from Amazon in the US when there is no region 4 DVD for sale (or even if there is).

I pay for Netflix. Netflix pays for content. Netflix pays the same for that content whether I watch the local library or an international one. Everyone's getting paid. There are no starving Hollywood megastars, or even lowly boom operator's assistants. I therefore feel absolutely no obligation to feel guilty.

Like the man said, 'Shut up and take my money!' If content owners won't take it, they shouldn't complain about not having it.

Whoops. Theres a problem. Netflix doesnt pay the same for that content whether you watch the local library or an international one.
That may be why the global rights for a series (like Gotham for example) arent just called US rights. The global rights are more expensive.

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

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 545

#1473159 17-Jan-2016 14:10

sultanoswing:
tdgeek: Fact is the content owners are correct. Its their content they can sell it to whoever they wish, its a free world. If they tell NF to stop allowing workarounds, thats fine with me. Whats wrong with that? ....Or shall we criticise a business for maximising returns?

It's only the current laws that let them get away with being "correct" (a debatable point). Perhaps these laws are incorrect and in fact need to be rewritten to allow digital parallel importing.

And it's not a free (enough) world for consumers, with respect to global markets and artificial regionalization (similar to the Addidas All Black jersey fiasco).

Society balances businesses making a reasonable profit (vs gouging consumers wantonly) all the time through regulations such as monopoly laws and anti trust legislation. As consumers and citizens, I think these laws need strengthening in favor of we the people, not weakened so businesses can screw us over.

So the consumer friendly answer is not to geoblock and border restrict, but to tear down the walls and change the paradigm of how content owners can provide it. They can then maximize profits in that environment.

The content owners can tear down those walls. They could supply you content directly (ie you buy Disney content from Disney) or they could sell global rights to someone like Netflix. But they cant rescind the current property rights that they've already sold. Excuse me, Mr TVNZ, Disney want their content back. That contract you signed, and the money you paid. Nah. Sorry about that.

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

sultanoswing

814 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 160

#1473163 17-Jan-2016 14:12

ockel:
sultanoswing:
tdgeek: Fact is the content owners are correct. Its their content they can sell it to whoever they wish, its a free world. If they tell NF to stop allowing workarounds, thats fine with me. Whats wrong with that? ....Or shall we criticise a business for maximising returns?

It's only the current laws that let them get away with being "correct" (a debatable point). Perhaps these laws are incorrect and in fact need to be rewritten to allow digital parallel importing.

And it's not a free (enough) world for consumers, with respect to global markets and artificial regionalization (similar to the Addidas All Black jersey fiasco).

Society balances businesses making a reasonable profit (vs gouging consumers wantonly) all the time through regulations such as monopoly laws and anti trust legislation. As consumers and citizens, I think these laws need strengthening in favor of we the people, not weakened so businesses can screw us over.

So the consumer friendly answer is not to geoblock and border restrict, but to tear down the walls and change the paradigm of how content owners can provide it. They can then maximize profits in that environment.

The content owners can tear down those walls. They could supply you content directly (ie you buy Disney content from Disney) or they could sell global rights to someone like Netflix. But they cant rescind the current property rights that they've already sold. Excuse me, Mr TVNZ, Disney want their content back. That contract you signed, and the money you paid. Nah. Sorry about that.

Going forward, 'tis a dream I have, regardless of the sins of the past and the tribulations of the present

tdgeek

29819 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9155

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1473180 17-Jan-2016 14:34

sultanoswing:
tdgeek: Fact is the content owners are correct. Its their content they can sell it to whoever they wish, its a free world. If they tell NF to stop allowing workarounds, thats fine with me. Whats wrong with that? ....Or shall we criticise a business for maximising returns?

It's only the current laws that let them get away with being "correct" (a debatable point). Perhaps these laws are incorrect and in fact need to be rewritten to allow digital parallel importing.

And it's not a free (enough) world for consumers, with respect to global markets and artificial regionalization (similar to the Addidas All Black jersey fiasco).

Society balances businesses making a reasonable profit (vs gouging consumers wantonly) all the time through regulations such as monopoly laws and anti trust legislation. As consumers and citizens, I think these laws need strengthening in favor of we the people, not weakened so businesses can screw us over.

So the consumer friendly answer is not to geoblock and border restrict, but to tear down the walls and change the paradigm of how content owners can provide it. They can then maximize profits in that environment.

I agree. We are in transition. A long standing business model that works and the new age of global. This can't be switched on at 6pm tonight as the transition involves the masses. There are many global customers. There are many many more that are not global.it will happen but it won't happen overnight ( thanks Rachel)

tdgeek

29819 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9155

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1473183 17-Jan-2016 14:36

ockel:
SaltyNZ:
tdgeek:
Do you really think that?

Yes, I do. If Disney hypothetically refused to screen Star Wars in NZ because reasons, then they lost 100% of the revenue they could have generated by screening Star Wars in NZ, right there, period. Whether or not some people managed to see it anyway is irrelevant to their revenue levels. It is no different whatsoever from the formally declared legal practice of buying a region 1 DVD from Amazon in the US when there is no region 4 DVD for sale (or even if there is).

I pay for Netflix. Netflix pays for content. Netflix pays the same for that content whether I watch the local library or an international one. Everyone's getting paid. There are no starving Hollywood megastars, or even lowly boom operator's assistants. I therefore feel absolutely no obligation to feel guilty.

Like the man said, 'Shut up and take my money!' If content owners won't take it, they shouldn't complain about not having it.

Whoops. Theres a problem. Netflix doesnt pay the same for that content whether you watch the local library or an international one.
That may be why the global rights for a series (like Gotham for example) arent just called US rights. The global rights are more expensive.

Exactly.

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

tdgeek

29819 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9155

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1473185 17-Jan-2016 14:39

sultanoswing:
ockel:
sultanoswing:
tdgeek: Fact is the content owners are correct. Its their content they can sell it to whoever they wish, its a free world. If they tell NF to stop allowing workarounds, thats fine with me. Whats wrong with that? ....Or shall we criticise a business for maximising returns?

It's only the current laws that let them get away with being "correct" (a debatable point). Perhaps these laws are incorrect and in fact need to be rewritten to allow digital parallel importing.

And it's not a free (enough) world for consumers, with respect to global markets and artificial regionalization (similar to the Addidas All Black jersey fiasco).

Society balances businesses making a reasonable profit (vs gouging consumers wantonly) all the time through regulations such as monopoly laws and anti trust legislation. As consumers and citizens, I think these laws need strengthening in favor of we the people, not weakened so businesses can screw us over.

So the consumer friendly answer is not to geoblock and border restrict, but to tear down the walls and change the paradigm of how content owners can provide it. They can then maximize profits in that environment.

The content owners can tear down those walls. They could supply you content directly (ie you buy Disney content from Disney) or they could sell global rights to someone like Netflix. But they cant rescind the current property rights that they've already sold. Excuse me, Mr TVNZ, Disney want their content back. That contract you signed, and the money you paid. Nah. Sorry about that.

Going forward, 'tis a dream I have, regardless of the sins of the past and the tribulations of the present

You nailed it. We are in transition. One day a new business model will embrace globalisation. Countries will only be known as countries when you look at a map or travel.

Benoire

2811 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 627

#1473201 17-Jan-2016 15:37

SaltyNZ:
networkn:
Err I hate to break it to you sport, but you are depriving them of something they value considerably, that would be INCOME!

You're not depriving anyone of income when copying something they refuse to sell to you in the first place.

If, and its a big if as you're still not paying to access the licensed content, the content is NOT available through a local provider e.g. NZ Sky, NF, lightbox etc. then this has a wee bit of merit but you're still in breach of the owners rights (do you feel this is justified, breaking the rights of someone else?)... When a local provider has this content but you're still not accessing it, you're effectively depriving the local content distributer of their justified fees, ergo you are depriving someone within your locality of the income they have rights to.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18726 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15570

Lifetime subscriber

#1473202 17-Jan-2016 15:38

I used to work for some big companies in Europe. Part of my job was interviewing various top people for company publications. I remember well how excited the CEOs were about the move towards globalisation and the benefits that would bring. Harmonisation of standards, legislation and tax law were cited, as well as the removal of trade barriers. This is also what TPP is supposed to be about, except on a much bigger scale. The thing is this: corporations are quite happy to push globalisation as long as it benefits them. But when consumers ask for the same treatment, for example, by getting rid of artificial regional and national boundaries and creating a single world market for creative content like movies and TV, suddenly words like 'piracy' and 'theft' start getting bandied about. My message to the content owners would be that globalisation works both ways, and if they want the one, they had better get used to putting up with the other.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

TeaLeaf

6347 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1206

#1473239 17-Jan-2016 16:10

anyone noticing issues accessing USA through DNS service, the end is near :-)

unsubscribed.

networkn

Networkn
32446 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 14982

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1473249 17-Jan-2016 16:14

jmh: I was mulling over this philosophical question recently when I was watching the previous season of Dr Who. I started watching it on Prime but got so fed up with the ad breaks every 5 minutes, so I switched to watching it on iplayer. Same programme. I'm not paying a licence fee, and would rather have watched it on local tv, but if the supplier makes it almost unwatchable by flogging off long and frequent ad breaks, then I'll go elsewhere.

I now choose to watch programmes available on Netflix US that are running here on terrestrial channels, just to avoid the ad breaks. Both programmes can run on my tv, one from the US the other from NZ. Same programme. If TVNZ et al want my business they have to up their game.

OK, but you understand that the content has to be paid for by the local group and they do that by advertising it. You could of course get a Sky Subscription and only half half as many ads :)

Same thing with GZ really. If you want no ad's you subscribe, otherwise you have ads.

To my mind using an adblocker is theft.

TeaLeaf

6347 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1206

#1473253 17-Jan-2016 16:19

networkn:To my mind using an adblocker is theft.

damn, i leave the same local newspaper in my secure apartment hole each week so they know not to put another one in. im a thief for not reading the adds and likely douche bag advertising flyer in the middle :-)

has anyone else got issues with netflix?

networkn

Networkn
32446 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 14982

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1473271 17-Jan-2016 16:19

TeaLeaf:
networkn:To my mind using an adblocker is theft.
damn, i leave the same local newspaper in my secure apartment hole each week so they know not to put another one in. im a thief for not reading the adds and likely douche bag advertising flyer in the middle :-) has anyone else got issues with netflix?

No, that is NOT the same thing.

TeaLeaf

6347 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1206

#1473272 17-Jan-2016 16:25

networkn:
TeaLeaf:
networkn:To my mind using an adblocker is theft.
damn, i leave the same local newspaper in my secure apartment hole each week so they know not to put another one in. im a thief for not reading the adds and likely douche bag advertising flyer in the middle :-) has anyone else got issues with netflix?
No, that is NOT the same thing.

was joking. i find adblockers a PITA, especially as they fail on most sites they are useful for and most sites now say they wont play the content unless u unblock it. again, i think netflix has enacted its geoblocking today. oh well too bad, much to watch on the net, like the cricket in australia via a legit account.

edit:nope just netflix being glitchy can access NF NZ just fine :-)

1 | ... | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | ... | 70