Legality and/or morality of geoblocking

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

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

BDFL - Memuneh
80657 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41062

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#1475913 21-Jan-2016 09:35

tdgeek:

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.

How is this all even different than me buying a book on Amazon and have it shipped to New Zealand instead of buying it from a local retailer?

Or how is this different from me buying an Icebreaker jacket on Amazon for US$200, shipping it via YouShop (the "physical geo-unblocking service") instead of paying NZ$ 600 for the same jacket in Wellington retailers?

It's not illegal, the content producer still receives a payment. And I pay less for the same thing - or in the case of Netflix pay even more but have choices.

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.

Earbanean

1110 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 377

#1475915 21-Jan-2016 09:40

How is this all even different than me buying a book on Amazon and have it shipped to New Zealand instead of buying it from a local retailer?

Or how is this different from me buying an Icebreaker jacket on Amazon for US$200, shipping it via YouShop (the "physical geo-unblocking service") instead of paying NZ$ 600 for the same jacket in Wellington retailers?

It's not illegal, the content producer still receives a payment. And I pay less for the same thing - or in the case of Netflix pay even more but have choices.

Yup, I made this exact point a few pages ago (but using a pair of levi's jeans via YouShop). Prepare to be corrected.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1475928 21-Jan-2016 09:45

freitasm:

tdgeek:

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.

How is this all even different than me buying a book on Amazon and have it shipped to New Zealand instead of buying it from a local retailer?

Or how is this different from me buying an Icebreaker jacket on Amazon for US$200, shipping it via YouShop (the "physical geo-unblocking service") instead of paying NZ$ 600 for the same jacket in Wellington retailers?

It's not illegal, the content producer still receives a payment. And I pay less for the same thing - or in the case of Netflix pay even more but have choices.

Your assuming there are licencing and therefore restrictions for these articles. Saltys example. He pays nothing to view the restricted proggie on NF US. Its restricted to the rights holder in NZ, who paid for the rights, but didnt get paid by Salty. Salty didnt pay via US NF as he has that anyway. I hear you, but the payment thing is missing, alhough in your hard product example, the payment is there botth ways, although the rights holder in NZ for the jacket isnt getting compensated for his rights payments (if there were any, it may just be a centralised arrangement. Sole supplier in NZ for logistics reasons only)

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80657 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41062

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#1475930 21-Jan-2016 09:48

Again I am not thinking distributors, I am thinking content producers (either Icebreaker or the movie production). Whenever the associations cry "pirates" their story is that piracy is not good for content producers.

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.

Benoire

2878 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 681

#1475939 21-Jan-2016 09:55

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.

Personally, I think we confuse parallel importing when it comes to streaming video or music.

Let me put it in to perspective; You purchase a DVD/CD from Amazon.com and 'parallel import' the item. The flow of money is quite simple:

Content Producer/Seller < Amazon < International Consumer

In the above flow, Amazon have purchased at a set rate a physical item which is then sold to the consumer, in other words, an SKU was exchanged for money. Distribution rights may have been broken between Content Owner and Amazon but that is not a concern of the consumer UNLESS they used an intermediary company to ship the goods (youshop etc.) to bypass shipping restrictions. Just because you've potentially broken distribution rights and reduced local sales, the content owner is still being paid for that physical SKU.

Online Streaming has a different model, one negotiated on a territory basis as we've discussed before. To repeat the above:

Content Owner > Negotiated territory rights < Offer made by company based on expected territory use < Territory Consumer

For the above, using US Netflix as the example, Netflix have paid a fee to the owner for the rights in the territory it has licensed and as such the fee paid was based around expected usage projects for that territory. To relate to the physical space, the Territory is the SKU now and is negotiated as a big sum based on SKU users. If you're not paying US Netflix then you're effectively streaming the US SKU in a territory that IS NOT licensed and therefore your money goes in to Netflix but not transferred to the content owner as you're not counted as being a US user.

Where local rights do not exist (however just because it is not shown doesn't mean the rights haven't been taken) then you would be breaking T&Cs most likely but there would be no monatory loss to the owner as the content was never going to be paid in the local territory, but when they do exist, you're effectively paying the middleman (e.g. Netflix) for the content but they're not paying the owner for your usage, ergo the local distributer and potentially the content owner depending on local negotiated rights, are losing money.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1475940 21-Jan-2016 10:00

freitasm:

Again I am not thinking distributors, I am thinking content producers (either Icebreaker or the movie production). Whenever the associations cry "pirates" their story is that piracy is not good for content producers.

NF US pays the content producer for the rights

TDGeekflix buys the rights fior NZ and distributes them, and pays the content producer

Salty (sorry :-) ) already pays NF US, no payment happens but it shoukd happen to TDGeekflix so he can view it, and pay me as I paid the producer for the rights. If salty got NF US for the month solely to watch it, then you can argue thats ok. But its dilution. You can't dilute a jacket, its made once, it s sold once and its paid for

Samsung

Shop now on Samsung phones, tablets, TVs and more (affiliate link).

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16317

Lifetime subscriber

#1475942 21-Jan-2016 10:00

One issue I have tried to avoid until now is the definition of what constitutes property, especially intellectual property. I feel this is a separate, though related, matter that would take this thread in a totally different direction. I just want to point out that I do not agree with the current legalistic definitions, which have been written by copyright lawyers. And no, I do not believe everything should be free for the taking. But I am opposed to copyright in its current form and I have questions about just how 'property' should be defined. This is why I hold the views I do about geo-unblocking and free markets. Restricting content availability by artificially-defined regions is, in my view, just a ploy to inflate profits that unfairly discriminates against consumers. I do not believe it is legitimate business practice. Many business practices are not legitimate, such as price-fixing agreements, or moving profits between countries to avoid taxation. Just because something is a practice, and is widely applied, does not make it correct. I do not think this is a valid argument for opposing geo-unblocking. I do think the move towards a global market for streaming content will necessarily include a redefinition of the concept of 'property'.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1528

#1475944 21-Jan-2016 10:02

Benoire:

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.

Personally, I think we confuse parallel importing when it comes to streaming video or music.

Let me put it in to perspective; You purchase a DVD/CD from Amazon.com and 'parallel import' the item. The flow of money is quite simple:

Content Producer/Seller < Amazon < International Consumer

In the above flow, Amazon have purchased at a set rate a physical item which is then sold to the consumer, in other words, an SKU was exchanged for money. Distribution rights may have been broken between Content Owner and Amazon but that is not a concern of the consumer UNLESS they used an intermediary company to ship the goods (youshop etc.) to bypass shipping restrictions. Just because you've potentially broken distribution rights and reduced local sales, the content owner is still being paid for that physical SKU.

Online Streaming has a different model, one negotiated on a territory basis as we've discussed before. To repeat the above:

Content Owner > Negotiated territory rights < Offer made by company based on expected territory use < Territory Consumer

For the above, using US Netflix as the example, Netflix have paid a fee to the owner for the rights in the territory it has licensed and as such the fee paid was based around expected usage projects for that territory. To relate to the physical space, the Territory is the SKU now and is negotiated as a big sum based on SKU users. If you're not paying US Netflix then you're effectively streaming the US SKU in a territory that IS NOT licensed and therefore your money goes in to Netflix but not transferred to the content owner as you're not counted as being a US user.

Where local rights do not exist (however just because it is not shown doesn't mean the rights haven't been taken) then you would be breaking T&Cs most likely but there would be no monatory loss to the owner as the content was never going to be paid in the local territory, but when they do exist, you're effectively paying the middleman (e.g. Netflix) for the content but they're not paying the owner for your usage, ergo the local distributer and potentially the content owner depending on local negotiated rights, are losing money.

exactly right. The closest analagy to a physical transation, I feel, is a bootleg DVD. The Bootlegger quite likely made a legitimate purchase of the DVD from a shop. He could onsell that DVD once. But instead he then creates copies and sells them to people that his licence does NOT grant. The shop sees none of that extra money.

It's the same as the studios who sell one territory's rights to Netflix, but then Netflix uses them across many territories that it has not right to do. Where customers outside the USA use Netflix's USA service, they are paying for a service where Netflix has NOT paid the supplier for that product.

old3eyes

9158 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1364

Subscriber

#1475947 21-Jan-2016 10:07

I've about given up reading this thread now as there seems to be too many wanna be media company lawyers saying that everyone who bypasses geoblocking are a pack of pirates..

Regards,

Old3eyes

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12766

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1475951 21-Jan-2016 10:10

I have voiced this opinion a few times, I am probably very very wrong but, what needs to happen here is one of two things or both.

1. The matter needs to go to court to get an answer as to if this comes under parallel importing, it has not been tested yet and it should be.

2. Parliament takes the lead and legislates to include it as parallel importing.

This will protect New Zealanders from civil action.

The legal clarification has no binding influence on rights holders to allow the content to be imported into NZ without licence, they can simply ignore and block the content.

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

Blurtie

487 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 131

#1475952 21-Jan-2016 10:11

Rikkitic:

One issue I have tried to avoid until now is the definition of what constitutes property, especially intellectual property. I feel this is a separate, though related, matter that would take this thread in a totally different direction. I just want to point out that I do not agree with the current legalistic definitions, which have been written by copyright lawyers. And no, I do not believe everything should be free for the taking. But I am opposed to copyright in its current form and I have questions about just how 'property' should be defined. This is why I hold the views I do about geo-unblocking and free markets. Restricting content availability by artificially-defined regions is, in my view, just a ploy to inflate profits that unfairly discriminates against consumers. I do not believe it is legitimate business practice. Many business practices are not legitimate, such as price-fixing agreements, or moving profits between countries to avoid taxation. Just because something is a practice, and is widely applied, does not make it correct. I do not think this is a valid argument for opposing geo-unblocking. I do think the move towards a global market for streaming content will necessarily include a redefinition of the concept of 'property'.

Sadly I think IP is the heart of the issue. Copyright is IP. While you may not agree with it, it is there to protect the content creators. It is vastly different to the producer of a physical product. If one tries and 'copies' a physical product, then that person can probably expect to face legal proceedings. Why should it not be the same for someone who reproduces something intangible (such as a song, movie or a book?)

Samsung

Shop now on Samsung phones, tablets, TVs and more (affiliate link).

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1475953 21-Jan-2016 10:12

Rikkitic:

One issue I have tried to avoid until now is the definition of what constitutes property, especially intellectual property. I feel this is a separate, though related, matter that would take this thread in a totally different direction. I just want to point out that I do not agree with the current legalistic definitions, which have been written by copyright lawyers. And no, I do not believe everything should be free for the taking. But I am opposed to copyright in its current form and I have questions about just how 'property' should be defined. This is why I hold the views I do about geo-unblocking and free markets. Restricting content availability by artificially-defined regions is, in my view, just a ploy to inflate profits that unfairly discriminates against consumers. I do not believe it is legitimate business practice. Many business practices are not legitimate, such as price-fixing agreements, or moving profits between countries to avoid taxation. Just because something is a practice, and is widely applied, does not make it correct. I do not think this is a valid argument for opposing geo-unblocking. I do think the move towards a global market for streaming content will necessarily include a redefinition of the concept of 'property'.

The Govt passes statutes, not copyright lawyers

I agree with you, Im quite happy with zero restrictions, zero exclusivity, zero rights payments, zero regions. Movie and TV makers are responsible as they do all these.

Netflix is responsible as they do all these, as does HBONow as recently quoted. This issue isnt linear model vs streaming model. The means of transmission is not even remotely related to these restrictions. These restrictions are born and made by everyone on the media business. Netflix and SVOD companies included.

The interesting direction of this thread is to discuss what it will be like when there are no restrictions, no exclusivity, its free market

- More or less SVOD operators?

- More or less linear operators

- What about live programming? (Linear or SVOD?)

- Prices, up or down?

- Production of content, up or down or not affected?

sultanoswing

818 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 160

#1475954 21-Jan-2016 10:13

Does Netflix (as just one example of SVOD provider) pay the content producer(s) based on number of subscribers in a given region? I presume this is the case.

If so, me paying for US NF means the content provider in the US gets paid appropriately. If I don't region switch from the US, and pay US NF, who then - based on counting me as a US subscriber - pay the content distributor, then all is moral, assuming my morality is comfortable with not abiding by the T&C's, but is comfortable that the content providers are being fairly paid by NF. In other words, I have paid my money for US-only content to NF, who pay the content producer for US-only content based on me being in the US, and am limiting my watching to said US-only content.

Of course if I then choose to "double dip" i.e pay NF once, as a US person, but geo-switch to NZ,UK, Netherlands NF, then the moral argument I have constucted falls flat, as I am getting more than I paid for, so to speak, meaning the content producers are getting paid less.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1475958 21-Jan-2016 10:23

sultanoswing:

Does Netflix (as just one example of SVOD provider) pay the content producer(s) based on number of subscribers in a given region? I presume this is the case.

If so, me paying for US NF means the content provider in the US gets paid appropriately. If I don't region switch from the US, and pay US NF, who then - based on counting me as a US subscriber - pay the content distributor, then all is moral, assuming my morality is comfortable with not abiding by the T&C's, but is comfortable that the content providers are being fairly paid by NF. In other words, I have paid my money for US-only content to NF, who pay the content producer for US-only content based on me being in the US, and am limiting my watching to said US-only content.

Of course if I then choose to "double dip" i.e pay NF once, as a US person, but geo-switch to NZ,UK, Netherlands NF, then the moral argument I have constucted falls flat, as I am getting more than I paid for, so to speak, meaning the content producers are getting paid less.

Good points. I dunno how they pay

If a series was sold to NZ Lightbox/neon/Quickflix, you would need to pay them to watch, they pay content owner. If you already have NF US, your not really paying. You can say as in youir post there is a % paid of your sub, but its broken the model as someone in NZ paid big money, and the reward of new subscribers isn't happening, as thats been bypassed. In a free market, the rights will be cheaper and most SVOD will have most of the content, then its all good as there is no world or here not there.

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1528

#1475982 21-Jan-2016 11:13

sultanoswing:

Does Netflix (as just one example of SVOD provider) pay the content producer(s) based on number of subscribers in a given region? I presume this is the case.

If so, me paying for US NF means the content provider in the US gets paid appropriately. If I don't region switch from the US, and pay US NF, who then - based on counting me as a US subscriber - pay the content distributor, then all is moral, assuming my morality is comfortable with not abiding by the T&C's, but is comfortable that the content providers are being fairly paid by NF. In other words, I have paid my money for US-only content to NF, who pay the content producer for US-only content based on me being in the US, and am limiting my watching to said US-only content.

Of course if I then choose to "double dip" i.e pay NF once, as a US person, but geo-switch to NZ,UK, Netherlands NF, then the moral argument I have constucted falls flat, as I am getting more than I paid for, so to speak, meaning the content producers are getting paid less.

no, they typically do not pay on a 'per subscriber' basis. They pay a flat fee per region. It's up to them to then get enough customers to make the economics work.

(there are probably a few exceptions, but this is correct for the most part)

http://ir.netflix.com/secfiling.cfm?filingID=1065280-14-6&

"In connection with obtaining streaming content, we typically enter into multi-year licenses with studios and other content providers, the payment terms of which are not tied to member usage or the size of our member base (“fixed cost”) but which may be tied to such factors as titles licensed and/or theatrical exhibition receipts."

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