All here in this thread is moot. The playing field may well change dramatically with TPP but only a handful know this.

Blurtie:

 

While you may not agree with it, it is there to protect the content creators. 

 

Actually, it's not. I mean, it is, but only as a side-effect of it's real purpose, which is, and I quote the US Constitution:

[T]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

It protects artists not for artists sake, but for the sake of society as a whole. So whether or not Disney Corporation should have any rights in content produced by Walt Disney, who has been dead for 50 years, is a debatable question. Would the progress of the arts be better advanced by Disney raking billions of dollars annually by re-releasing Mickey Mouse cartoons, or might it be better advanced by Mickey Mouse being in the public domain? But that's not the topic of this particular discussion.

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.

 

It depends.  Netflix may pay an agreed amount for the region.  Say $1m for the US rights.  They may not pay on a per-subscriber basis and definitely do not pay on a per-viewer basis.  In fact the content producers do not know how many have viewed the content.  Netflix wont tell them.  So if Netflix estimates that 1m people will view it and have budgeted on a cost-per-viewer of $1 then they break even.  If another 1m watch it then its only cost 50c/viewer.  Or the next 1m viewers are cream in other words.  If they pay $1m for the US rights and 2m US viewers watch then thats good business.  If another 1m viewers watch from NZ then their making a fantastic profit.  And all for the fixed cost of acquiring that US content.  

Its possible that they pay on a per subscriber basis but unlikely.  Imagine if they paid on a per subscriber basis for every title - say 5,000. If they add titles too fast over their US sub base contribution margin will fall unless prices go up.  Different content arrangements will have different pricing mechanisms - output deals vs buying titles.  

MikeB4:

 

All here in this thread is moot. The playing field may well change dramatically with TPP but only a handful know this.

 

I think it will. If you read one of my earlier posts in this thread there are at least 5 items in the TPP that either explicitly or with a bit of not-too-far-fetched legal twisting could be construed as outlawing it. There is also one line item that permits region bypassing in respect of physical copies (i.e. DVDs) but the language strongly implies that it is only intended to be used with physical copies. I imagine that's because Hollywood already knows that realistically they've lost that battle, and throwing out all their other goodies in a vain attempt to get that one back would be counterproductive.

I don't actually think much will change. All the players support region fixing and do it. Producers down to SVOD operators. There isnt a Team A tugging a rope against Team B, they are all of the same side, doing the same things. The above quote shows NF has arrangements that are potentially in place for years. If it ain't broke.

So, instead of saying I hate geoblocking so I will revolt and bypass geoblocking, say I hate Netflix, etc so I will revolt and bypass geoblocking.

SaltyNZ:

 

 

 

It protects artists not for artists sake, but for the sake of society as a whole. So whether or not Disney Corporation should have any rights in content produced by Walt Disney, who has been dead for 50 years, is a debatable question. Would the progress of the arts be better advanced by Disney raking billions of dollars annually by re-releasing Mickey Mouse cartoons, or might it be better advanced by Mickey Mouse being in the public domain? But that's not the topic of this particular discussion.

 

As an interesting aside: There was the time that John Fogerty was sued for sounding too much like John Fogerty.

SaltyNZ:

 

MikeB4:

 

All here in this thread is moot. The playing field may well change dramatically with TPP but only a handful know this.

 

 

 

 

I think it will. If you read one of my earlier posts in this thread there are at least 5 items in the TPP that either explicitly or with a bit of not-too-far-fetched legal twisting could be construed as outlawing it. There is also one line item that permits region bypassing in respect of physical copies (i.e. DVDs) but the language strongly implies that it is only intended to be used with physical copies. I imagine that's because Hollywood already knows that realistically they've lost that battle, and throwing out all their other goodies in a vain attempt to get that one back would be counterproductive.

 

unfortunately the detail of the TPP is still a big  say what now for the vast majority.

SaltyNZ:

 

MikeB4:

 

All here in this thread is moot. The playing field may well change dramatically with TPP but only a handful know this.

 

 

 

 

I think it will. If you read one of my earlier posts in this thread there are at least 5 items in the TPP that either explicitly or with a bit of not-too-far-fetched legal twisting could be construed as outlawing it. There is also one line item that permits region bypassing in respect of physical copies (i.e. DVDs) but the language strongly implies that it is only intended to be used with physical copies. I imagine that's because Hollywood already knows that realistically they've lost that battle, and throwing out all their other goodies in a vain attempt to get that one back would be counterproductive.

 

TBH, if a geoblock is there to enforce the boundaries of a rightsholder who paid big bucks for the rights, its hardly a bad thing to allow protection. geoblock is a protection, and it can be made law. The geoblock is not the problem. It just allows the correct rights holder to be paid by viewers in that region, for the duration. Either remove the need for exclusivity, and to do that you need to talk to ALL those in the industry. Start with Netflix who are one of the youngest in the industry and this is their model as well. 

I dont really think Hollywood has that much concern. If they sold a series for BIG $X to an SVOD operator, or they got the same money from selling it to 54 operators, I don't see how they care. Its an issue for the media distributors suich as move theatres, PayTV. FTA TV, Cable companies, SVOD to establish models of what and how much content to buy and how much subs to charge

tdgeek:

 

SaltyNZ:

 

MikeB4:

 

All here in this thread is moot. The playing field may well change dramatically with TPP but only a handful know this.

 

 

 

I think it will. If you read one of my earlier posts in this thread there are at least 5 items in the TPP that either explicitly or with a bit of not-too-far-fetched legal twisting could be construed as outlawing it. There is also one line item that permits region bypassing in respect of physical copies (i.e. DVDs) but the language strongly implies that it is only intended to be used with physical copies. I imagine that's because Hollywood already knows that realistically they've lost that battle, and throwing out all their other goodies in a vain attempt to get that one back would be counterproductive.

 

 

 

TBH, if a geoblock is there to enforce the boundaries of a rightsholder who paid big bucks for the rights, its hardly a bad thing to allow protection. geoblock is a protection, and it can be made law. The geoblock is not the problem. It just allows the correct rights holder to be paid by viewers in that region, for the duration. Either remove the need for exclusivity, and to do that you need to talk to ALL those in the industry. Start with Netflix who are one of the youngest in the industry and this is their model as well.  

 

I dont really think Hollywood has that much concern. If they sold a series for BIG $X to an SVOD operator, or they got the same money from selling it to 54 operators, I don't see how they care. Its an issue for the media distributors suich as move theatres, PayTV. FTA TV, Cable companies, SVOD to establish models of what and how much content to buy and how much subs to charge

 

The consumer using geo-unblock services is not breaching the law (as it is not tested and explicitly mentioned). This person may be breaching T&Cs by the SVOD service but that's no crime.

Hollywood is not concerned because as mentioned they as producers get paid anyway.

The other players (theatres, Pay TV, cable companies, DVD distributors) are the ones worried because they paid for rights and don't get to capture the Consumer's money. But these rights is a contract between them and the distributors. The Consumer does not have a contract with the distributor and it's not bound by the geo restrictions those players have. The Consumer has option and seek those options.

This is at the end no different than the example of books or jackets I posted before.

 Just reading a piece on the NBR where it says 

• 9% of the NZ online population say they have a subscription to Netflix NZ;
• 3% say they have a subscription to Spark's Lightbox; and
• 1% subscribe to Netflix outside of NZ.

Really, does it matter when you look at numbers? 

freitasm:

 Just reading a piece on the NBR where it says 

• 9% of the NZ online population say they have a subscription to Netflix NZ;


• 3% say they have a subscription to Spark's Lightbox; and


• 1% subscribe to Netflix outside of NZ.

Really, does it matter when you look at numbers? 

Given NF subscriptions cover multiple users they potentially have the market saturated at around 25% of the population don't they? so 9% equates to maybe 30%+ of market?

freitasm:

 Just reading a piece on the NBR where it says 

• 9% of the NZ online population say they have a subscription to Netflix NZ;


• 3% say they have a subscription to Spark's Lightbox; and


• 1% subscribe to Netflix outside of NZ.

Really, does it matter when you look at numbers? 

MikeB4:

freitasm:

 

 Just reading a piece on the NBR where it says 

 

 

• 9% of the NZ online population say they have a subscription to Netflix NZ;

 

 

• 3% say they have a subscription to Spark's Lightbox; and

 

 

• 1% subscribe to Netflix outside of NZ.

 

Really, does it matter when you look at numbers? 

 

Interesting, from that one could assume that SkyTV and Freeview are still doing well.

Sky has 800,000 subscribers, which I recall is a 50% market share,(of TV) and are doing well

1 in 11 having NF NZ I feel is surprisngly high.