Legality and/or morality of geoblocking

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

1 | ... | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21

Awrrr
19065 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16305

Lifetime subscriber

#1475881 21-Jan-2016 08:58

tdgeek:

Bullies, outdated, old technology, way of the future, thats all been said, with zero detail.

Plenty of detail. Regionalisation of streaming content is a dinosaur business model and it will go the way of DVD regionalisation. It doesn't matter whether unblocking is moral or not, or even legal or not. The artificial barriers are being broken down by technology and will largely disappear in the future. It will happen whether you agree or not, and whether you like it or not. I applaud this development. That is my argument and that is what I believe.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1528

#1475888 21-Jan-2016 09:07

SaltyNZ:

NonprayingMantis:

When you say 'could get for free' I assume you mean piracy, right?

That seems a pretty weak argument "I could steal this DVD but instead I bought a bootleg copy from a guy in the pub"

Netflix is essentially selling you bootleg content. Content it has no right to sell to you.

(And it's just the same as bootleg in the sense of who gets paid. The bootlegger gets paid, but the Rights holders don't.
When Netflix sell you content in a region it doesn't have the rights for, and you pay Netflix, but the studio isn't being paid for your watching privilege.

*Sigh* No... it is nothing like bootlegging. If I buy a bootleg DVD, the content creator doesn't get paid. If I watch Netflix out of region, the content creator gets paid. And yes, when I say 'could get for free' I do mean piracy. Piracy is easier and more convenient than dodging geo-blocks. But I dodge the geo-blocks instead because I support the content creators being paid.

If you watch a bootleg DVD, the content creator got paid for the original DVD. But they don't get paid for the copies the bootlegger sold, because the bootlegger has not paid for the rights to sell copies.

If you watch 'bootleg' Netflix USA, the content creator got paid for customers in the USA, where Netflix has bought the rights., but Netflix has not paid for customer in your region.

In other words, when you watch Netflix USA, the content creators aren't, in fact, getting paid.

It is very much like bootlegging.

(and simply because you have paid some amount for something, doesn't somehow make it 'right' - especially when the business does not want to sell to you at that price.

If I walk into a porsche dealer, throw $100 on the counter then grab a key to a 911 and drive it out, it is just as much stealing as it would be if I didn't leave any money at all. - and if I tried to justify it by saying something like

"but porsche still got paid!

"but I saw this celebrity got sold a porsche for only $100 so I should be enititled to the same deal!"

then my argument would, rightfully, be laughed out of court

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80653 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41045

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#1475890 21-Jan-2016 09:08

Earbanean:

Or (yet another) interesting angle to ponder on this. As I read this thread, a big bright banner ad from UnoTelly sits at the top of the page. Geekzone has a well known and long standing business relationship with a geo-unblocker. UnoTelly gets advertising here and GZ users get special deals at UnoTelly.

Now, a few posters on this thread seem adamant that geo-unblocking is either illegal and/or immoral. But at the same time they are avid GZ users. I wonder how they reconcile that and what, if anything, they're doing about it. Obviously they're not quitting GZ - and I'm not implying they should. Are they maybe sending messages to the GZ admins to stop this behavior? Or are they turning a blind eye, whilst lecturing anyone who'll listen that it's all so wrong?

I fail to see the relevance. Unless the service is breaking the law or advertising the service is illegal (for example online advertising of international gambling services) then it's not up to anyone else to say who can or can't buy space here.

Referral links: Quic Broadband (free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE) | Samsung | AliExpress | Wise | Sharesies

Support Geekzone by subscribing (browse ads-free), or making a one-off or recurring donation through PressPatron.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1475891 21-Jan-2016 09:10

SaltyNZ:

NonprayingMantis:

When you say 'could get for free' I assume you mean piracy, right?

That seems a pretty weak argument "I could steal this DVD but instead I bought a bootleg copy from a guy in the pub"

Netflix is essentially selling you bootleg content. Content it has no right to sell to you.

(And it's just the same as bootleg in the sense of who gets paid. The bootlegger gets paid, but the Rights holders don't.
When Netflix sell you content in a region it doesn't have the rights for, and you pay Netflix, but the studio isn't being paid for your watching privilege.

*Sigh* No... it is nothing like bootlegging. If I buy a bootleg DVD, the content creator doesn't get paid. If I watch Netflix out of region, the content creator gets paid. And yes, when I say 'could get for free' I do mean piracy. Piracy is easier and more convenient than dodging geo-blocks. But I dodge the geo-blocks instead because I support the content creators being paid.

As someone stated today. GoT I think it was or HoC, is not available here on NF, but it is on another service. Thats why the rights payment was paid here. But you bypassed that and watched it on a service you already pay your $13 for. So you didnt pay the contect creator as you didnt pay the rights owner in NZ. The rights owner in NZ paid the creator. So, its really about saving money

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19065 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16305

Lifetime subscriber

#1475893 21-Jan-2016 09:13

tdgeek:

Thats correct. Discussion, banter, debate is good. But when its anger words to push the point, with zero detail, and no reposnse to any facts put forward by the opposers, except posts like that, it's not really a discussion. Ive asked many times about how does the reveu gatheriong chnahes when it all goes global and no restrictions, so any service can purchase any content. I think tjhe best I got was its an old business model LOL.

I'd prefer an active discussion on the pros and cons of both. How a move to unrestricted content (yes, even you Netflix) would change the way we do things. It doesnt have to be a A vs B argument.

Who's angry? I have been enjoying this debate. I just think it has become a little repetitious.

I don't think it matters much how future revenue will be garnered in a global market, or how many content producers will go under. Of course it matters to those who get hurt, but human nature being what it is, new developments rarely proceed in a logical or orderly manner. While you are busy debating the fine points of contract law, events will overtake you. I think globalisation of streaming content will happen, regardless of what anyone wants, because of the pressure pushing it in that direction. It will probably happen in a messy, disorganised manner, because that is how these things happen. When the dust settles, the contract lawyers will move in and try to make sense of it all. Eventually a new business model will emerge, new content producers will find ways to make a living, the world will move on.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1475896 21-Jan-2016 09:16

Rikkitic:

tdgeek:

Bullies, outdated, old technology, way of the future, thats all been said, with zero detail.

Plenty of detail. Regionalisation of streaming content is a dinosaur business model and it will go the way of DVD regionalisation. It doesn't matter whether unblocking is moral or not, or even legal or not. The artificial barriers are being broken down by technology and will largely disappear in the future. It will happen whether you agree or not, and whether you like it or not. I applaud this development. That is my argument and that is what I believe.

Here we go again. Zero detail. I dont feel you understand how revenues are generated, you just restate what you want, and the reasons are generic wording. State the new businesses model and how todays revenues will be distribuited under a zero restriction, anybody can buy any contect global world. Your wording as if your comments are facts doesnt wash. Politicians state, this policy will deliver. Thats it. A discussion deserves a discussion not a blind policy of want

Mighty Ape

Shop now at Mighty Ape (affiliate link).

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1475897 21-Jan-2016 09:22

Rikkitic:

tdgeek:

Thats correct. Discussion, banter, debate is good. But when its anger words to push the point, with zero detail, and no reposnse to any facts put forward by the opposers, except posts like that, it's not really a discussion. Ive asked many times about how does the reveu gatheriong chnahes when it all goes global and no restrictions, so any service can purchase any content. I think tjhe best I got was its an old business model LOL.

I'd prefer an active discussion on the pros and cons of both. How a move to unrestricted content (yes, even you Netflix) would change the way we do things. It doesnt have to be a A vs B argument.

Who's angry? I have been enjoying this debate. I just think it has become a little repetitious.

I don't think it matters much how future revenue will be garnered in a global market, or how many content producers will go under. Of course it matters to those who get hurt, but human nature being what it is, new developments rarely proceed in a logical or orderly manner. While you are busy debating the fine points of contract law, events will overtake you. I think globalisation of streaming content will happen, regardless of what anyone wants, because of the pressure pushing it in that direction. It will probably happen in a messy, disorganised manner, because that is how these things happen. When the dust settles, the contract lawyers will move in and try to make sense of it all. Eventually a new business model will emerge, new content producers will find ways to make a living, the world will move on.

Please read. Anger words. The short post that had bullies mentioned 4 or 5 times, and the ussual rhetoric. It doesnt add anything

It doesnt matter how revenues will be garnerred. Ok, as long as they are the same

Content producers wont go under, this is not their issue. Whether netflix wishes to pay good money to be exclusive, or 63 others pay less each, the producers will be paid

The ones that fail will be SVOD and non SVOD sites, same as telcos in NZ, many will grow, some will stay.

Content producers will be fine, trust me.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12766

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1475898 21-Jan-2016 09:22

Rikkitic:

tdgeek:

Bullies, outdated, old technology, way of the future, thats all been said, with zero detail.

Plenty of detail. Regionalisation of streaming content is a dinosaur business model and it will go the way of DVD regionalisation. It doesn't matter whether unblocking is moral or not, or even legal or not. The artificial barriers are being broken down by technology and will largely disappear in the future. It will happen whether you agree or not, and whether you like it or not. I applaud this development. That is my argument and that is what I believe.

It's has been a few years since I purchased a DVD but I am of the impression that DVD regionalisation is still in place. yes? no?

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

SaltyNZ

8865 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9545

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#1475900 21-Jan-2016 09:26

MikeB4:

It's has been a few years since I purchased a DVD but I am of the impression that DVD regionalisation is still in place. yes? no?

Yes, and the law - the actual law, as passed by parliament - says that is absolutely OK to ignore it. So, to tdgeek's argument that the local distributor/rights owner isn't getting paid when I stream US Netflix, and therefore it's wrong - the local distributor/rights owner also isn't getting paid when I buy a DVD from Amazon.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

Earbanean

1110 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 377

#1475902 21-Jan-2016 09:28

freitasm:

Earbanean:

Or (yet another) interesting angle to ponder on this. As I read this thread, a big bright banner ad from UnoTelly sits at the top of the page. Geekzone has a well known and long standing business relationship with a geo-unblocker. UnoTelly gets advertising here and GZ users get special deals at UnoTelly.

Now, a few posters on this thread seem adamant that geo-unblocking is either illegal and/or immoral. But at the same time they are avid GZ users. I wonder how they reconcile that and what, if anything, they're doing about it. Obviously they're not quitting GZ - and I'm not implying they should. Are they maybe sending messages to the GZ admins to stop this behavior? Or are they turning a blind eye, whilst lecturing anyone who'll listen that it's all so wrong?

I fail to see the relevance. Unless the service is breaking the law or advertising the service is illegal (for example online advertising of international gambling services) then it's not up to anyone else to say who can or can't buy space here.

I totally agree with you. I'm just wondering what the posters who are adamant that geo-unblocking is illegal (and/or immoral) think.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80653 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41045

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#1475904 21-Jan-2016 09:30

Earbanean:

freitasm:

Earbanean:

Or (yet another) interesting angle to ponder on this. As I read this thread, a big bright banner ad from UnoTelly sits at the top of the page. Geekzone has a well known and long standing business relationship with a geo-unblocker. UnoTelly gets advertising here and GZ users get special deals at UnoTelly.

Now, a few posters on this thread seem adamant that geo-unblocking is either illegal and/or immoral. But at the same time they are avid GZ users. I wonder how they reconcile that and what, if anything, they're doing about it. Obviously they're not quitting GZ - and I'm not implying they should. Are they maybe sending messages to the GZ admins to stop this behavior? Or are they turning a blind eye, whilst lecturing anyone who'll listen that it's all so wrong?

I fail to see the relevance. Unless the service is breaking the law or advertising the service is illegal (for example online advertising of international gambling services) then it's not up to anyone else to say who can or can't buy space here.

I totally agree with you. I'm just wondering what the posters who are adamant that geo-unblocking is illegal (and/or immoral) think.

I am running the platform where they can discuss the topic. What I do with the platform is mainly my decision to make. It's not the topic of the discussion.

Referral links: Quic Broadband (free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE) | Samsung | AliExpress | Wise | Sharesies

Support Geekzone by subscribing (browse ads-free), or making a one-off or recurring donation through PressPatron.

New World

Shop on-line at New World now for your groceries (affiliate link).

dclegg

2806 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 810

Trusted

#1475906 21-Jan-2016 09:32

Blurtie:

In my opinion, the analogies of people comparing the parallel import of a physical product via you shop or other means doesn't hold weight. You are comparing something tangible with something intangible. As far as I'm aware, in the dvd example, the money you pay for the DVD essentially buys you a 'copy' of the movie on physical media. You are free to watch that movie as many times as you want. You own a copy of the movie (of course with conditions).

The difference with Netflix/streaming services on the other hand is that you are essentially renting/streaming a copy of the movie. You do not own a copy of the movie. You are essentially granted a license to watch said movie. The license to watch the copy is subject to conditions as stipulated by rights owner. This to me is not parallel importation.

I'm happy to be corrected on this, but I thought with physical media you still don't actually own a copy of the movie, but are granted rights to view the copy that is stored on that media. If you did own the movie, wouldn't you be able to view it exactly how you pleased? For example, couldn't you could take it down to your local RSA and have a movie evening with it? Or charge people in your neighbourhood a few bucks to borrow it? But no, unless you have purchased a commercial license for the physical media, these are against the T&Cs under which you have purchased the license to view the physical media.

And with physical media we do have geo-blocking restrictions in place via region codes. These restrictions are there so content creators can control when and where there content is released. I see this as the same as geo-blocking restrictions on streaming media, which are also there to control when and where content can be accessed.

Our laws have no problem with us parallel importing physical media, and using devices that circumvent the region codes encoded on the files contained within that media. I see using DNS and other means to circumvent geo-restrictions as exactly the same. This is why I have absolutely no moral qualms whatsoever in consuming media in this way. And I also see no logic flaws in deeming this to be parallel importing of content. The only thing that has changed is the way the licensed content is delivered to me.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12766

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1475907 21-Jan-2016 09:32

Earbanean:

freitasm:

Earbanean:

Or (yet another) interesting angle to ponder on this. As I read this thread, a big bright banner ad from UnoTelly sits at the top of the page. Geekzone has a well known and long standing business relationship with a geo-unblocker. UnoTelly gets advertising here and GZ users get special deals at UnoTelly.

Now, a few posters on this thread seem adamant that geo-unblocking is either illegal and/or immoral. But at the same time they are avid GZ users. I wonder how they reconcile that and what, if anything, they're doing about it. Obviously they're not quitting GZ - and I'm not implying they should. Are they maybe sending messages to the GZ admins to stop this behavior? Or are they turning a blind eye, whilst lecturing anyone who'll listen that it's all so wrong?

I fail to see the relevance. Unless the service is breaking the law or advertising the service is illegal (for example online advertising of international gambling services) then it's not up to anyone else to say who can or can't buy space here.

I totally agree with you. I'm just wondering what the posters who are adamant that geo-unblocking is illegal (and/or immoral) think.

quite happy actually, MF does an excellent management of these Forums

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1475908 21-Jan-2016 09:32

SaltyNZ:

MikeB4:

It's has been a few years since I purchased a DVD but I am of the impression that DVD regionalisation is still in place. yes? no?

Yes, and the law - the actual law, as passed by parliament - says that is absolutely OK to ignore it. So, to tdgeek's argument that the local distributor/rights owner isn't getting paid when I stream US Netflix, and therefore it's wrong - the local distributor/rights owner also isn't getting paid when I buy a DVD from Amazon.

Is Amazon breaking its licensing with the rights owner? If not, there is nothing wrong, they get paid from the NZ sale or the Amazon sale. If yes, Amazon are breaking the contract.

You paid for the DVD at Amazon but you didnt pay it for the Netflix US viewing. Your paying the $13 a month whether you watch that restricted contect or not, so you go it for free.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12766

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1475912 21-Jan-2016 09:35

SaltyNZ:

MikeB4:

It's has been a few years since I purchased a DVD but I am of the impression that DVD regionalisation is still in place. yes? no?

Yes, and the law - the actual law, as passed by parliament - says that is absolutely OK to ignore it. So, to tdgeek's argument that the local distributor/rights owner isn't getting paid when I stream US Netflix, and therefore it's wrong - the local distributor/rights owner also isn't getting paid when I buy a DVD from Amazon.

That there is the key, Parliament sanctioned the use of circumvention. That is what is needed here to legally clarify the NZ position. That of course does not enforce offshore suppliers to comply, they can cease supply.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

1 | ... | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21