Legality and/or morality of geoblocking

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

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | ... | 21

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12765

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1473574 18-Jan-2016 10:32

rugrat:
MikeB4: You purchase the right to view the content according to the sellers terms and conditions you agreed to at purchase time, as long as those terms and conditions comply with NZ law.

If you wish to do otherwise you should renegotiate the terms of the sale or take the issue to the appropriate authority if you believe the terms breach NZ law. You cannot simply unilaterally change the terms and conditions something circumvention does.

If someone provides a product cheaper or better to someone in another market, then as far as I'm concerned I have a right to purchase from that market.

If someone in my own country has paid more for it I don't see why I should be forced to buy off them, it's not my fault they paid more and I had nothing to do with the transaction between those two party's.

The all black Jersy was another one; people importing them from America would have been breaking the terms of sale over there.

Geo unblocking is just another version of Youshop.

It breaches the terms of Netflix, but if they want to terminate my account that's up to them. If they don't want my money they don't have to take it.

One news article looked at said about 30 million people using unlockers world wide. 21.9 million in China.
Not sure how locking out paying Chinese paying customers going to force their government to let it in, it'll just be goodbye to those customers and they'll find other means.

just because one thinks they have a right does not imply they actually have a right. You may think you have the right to use the fruit from your neighbours trees, it does not mean you have the right and there will be repercussions if

you use the fruit with out the right to do so.

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

networkn

Networkn
32862 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15453

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1473577 18-Jan-2016 10:36

Rikkitic: I have made my position clear in many other posts on the subject. First, current legislation does not prohibit geo-unblocking, not even in the corporate-run USA, and certainly not here. It is NOT illegal. Therefore, it cannot be piracy or theft. I strongly believe that corporate attempts to enforce geographic content distribution are nothing more than dinosaurs clinging to an outmoded business model. These companies seem to be run by people who can only think in terms of physical possession, and who keep trying to find equivalents of that in the digital world. The same thing happened with music and CDs. A CD is an object that can be possessed and controlled and boy, did they ever try to hang onto that one as long as possible. Remember the days of $40 CDs? Regionally restricted distribution models go entirely against the spirit and intent of the globalisation movement otherwise being pushed so hard by international corporations. It is a stunning example of corporate hypocrisy. How many want to bet that one of the first actions under TPP will be an attempt to force an international agreement banning geo-unblocking? Geo-blocking causes disproportionate deprivation to small 'regions' like New Zealand, that do not have the resources or political will to enable the production and purchase of more than token amounts of quality content. The result is that we do not even have a choice to view much of the content available elsewhere. There is a reason why people here watch the BBC. Until someone shows me indisputable evidence to the contrary, I remain convinced that content producers can earn a fair profit under a single market business model. The rest is just sheer greed. I do not agree that it is clever business practice, or in any way acceptable behaviour. It is amoral at best, and mean-spirited as well. Good business is not squeezing every last drop from the consumer. It is providing a fair product for a fair return.

Multiple people have ALREADY shown you and all the others who support your argument that you are wrong. The reality is, it doesn't SUIT you to accept it, so you will argue your perspective regardless.

I guarantee you would feel 100% different if YOU were the rights holder.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19062 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16302

Lifetime subscriber

#1473590 18-Jan-2016 10:49

NonprayingMantis: I have been trying to think of a usable analogy to how the business model works. Essentially what the studios are trying to do is something called 'price discrimination' (you can google it for more detail, but basically it means charging different amounts to different people depending on their level of demand. It's not an inherently bad thing - it can lead to higher prices for some people but also lower prices for others) An example of price discrimination you might think would be 'ok' would be senior citizen discounts. Some businesses offer discounts to people over 65. Sometimes those services are even free (e.g. bus services), or services/products put on specially for seniors (i.e. if you are under 65 you can't use it). But imagine if a service popped up that said "get senior discount even if you aren't over 65" and offered to sell you a fake ID and a convincing rubber mask that meant you could easily get these discounts (advertised for 'novelty purposes only' of course to avoid legal questions about fraudulent ID), what would we think of that service? Morally ok? Legally? What would we think of the people who utilised that service to get the discounted products?

The problem with this analogy is that it only relates to price discrimination. A more accurate one would be: you are only permitted to access the library if you are over 65. Everyone else can only read the handful of books in the discard bin outside.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19062 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16302

Lifetime subscriber

#1473596 18-Jan-2016 10:53

networkn:
Rikkitic: I have made my position clear in many other posts on the subject. First, current legislation does not prohibit geo-unblocking, not even in the corporate-run USA, and certainly not here. It is NOT illegal. Therefore, it cannot be piracy or theft. I strongly believe that corporate attempts to enforce geographic content distribution are nothing more than dinosaurs clinging to an outmoded business model. These companies seem to be run by people who can only think in terms of physical possession, and who keep trying to find equivalents of that in the digital world. The same thing happened with music and CDs. A CD is an object that can be possessed and controlled and boy, did they ever try to hang onto that one as long as possible. Remember the days of $40 CDs? Regionally restricted distribution models go entirely against the spirit and intent of the globalisation movement otherwise being pushed so hard by international corporations. It is a stunning example of corporate hypocrisy. How many want to bet that one of the first actions under TPP will be an attempt to force an international agreement banning geo-unblocking? Geo-blocking causes disproportionate deprivation to small 'regions' like New Zealand, that do not have the resources or political will to enable the production and purchase of more than token amounts of quality content. The result is that we do not even have a choice to view much of the content available elsewhere. There is a reason why people here watch the BBC. Until someone shows me indisputable evidence to the contrary, I remain convinced that content producers can earn a fair profit under a single market business model. The rest is just sheer greed. I do not agree that it is clever business practice, or in any way acceptable behaviour. It is amoral at best, and mean-spirited as well. Good business is not squeezing every last drop from the consumer. It is providing a fair product for a fair return.
Multiple people have ALREADY shown you and all the others who support your argument that you are wrong. The reality is, it doesn't SUIT you to accept it, so you will argue your perspective regardless. I guarantee you would feel 100% different if YOU were the rights holder.

The reality is I am not wrong and no-one has so far shown me that I am. Also, I am a rights holder in that I am an author who receives royalties. It doesn't make me feel any different at all.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

networkn

Networkn
32862 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15453

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1473598 18-Jan-2016 10:56

Posted from the other thread:

So let me get this straight.

Lets say you are an artist, you are selling photos on the side of the road (Let's say they are original works, photos taken by you with your equipment and your resources including potentially, staff, vehicles, computers for post processing etc). I come along and take a photo of these photo's and setup in a stand right beside you, but instead of selling them and giving you the money, I either sell them and buy a new ferrari, or if I already have all the ferrari's I want, I decide, hell I'll just GIVE them away to anyone who expresses interest.

You don't consider that STEALING? You still have YOUR photos!

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19062 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16302

Lifetime subscriber

#1473599 18-Jan-2016 10:56

OT: Is there a problem with the quotes? They seem to be losing their layout.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Geekzone support

Support Geekzone with one-off or recurring donations Donate via PressPatron.

SaltyNZ

8862 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9539

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#1473600 18-Jan-2016 10:56

networkn: Multiple people have ALREADY shown you and all the others who support your argument that you are wrong.

I disagree. To which statute are you referring that states geo-block bypasses are illegal? To which court decision are you referring?

Several companies sued in the civil courts last year over this very issue. The company providing the back-end service backed down because the costs were unbearable. But they still operate that business - they just don't offer it by default through ISPs. If it were illegal, Sky and friends would not have launched a civil suit. They would have made a criminal complaint to the police who would prosecute it through the criminal courts. The result would have been very different.

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

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

networkn

Networkn
32862 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15453

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1473601 18-Jan-2016 10:58

Rikkitic:
networkn:
Rikkitic: I have made my position clear in many other posts on the subject. First, current legislation does not prohibit geo-unblocking, not even in the corporate-run USA, and certainly not here. It is NOT illegal. Therefore, it cannot be piracy or theft. I strongly believe that corporate attempts to enforce geographic content distribution are nothing more than dinosaurs clinging to an outmoded business model. These companies seem to be run by people who can only think in terms of physical possession, and who keep trying to find equivalents of that in the digital world. The same thing happened with music and CDs. A CD is an object that can be possessed and controlled and boy, did they ever try to hang onto that one as long as possible. Remember the days of $40 CDs? Regionally restricted distribution models go entirely against the spirit and intent of the globalisation movement otherwise being pushed so hard by international corporations. It is a stunning example of corporate hypocrisy. How many want to bet that one of the first actions under TPP will be an attempt to force an international agreement banning geo-unblocking? Geo-blocking causes disproportionate deprivation to small 'regions' like New Zealand, that do not have the resources or political will to enable the production and purchase of more than token amounts of quality content. The result is that we do not even have a choice to view much of the content available elsewhere. There is a reason why people here watch the BBC. Until someone shows me indisputable evidence to the contrary, I remain convinced that content producers can earn a fair profit under a single market business model. The rest is just sheer greed. I do not agree that it is clever business practice, or in any way acceptable behaviour. It is amoral at best, and mean-spirited as well. Good business is not squeezing every last drop from the consumer. It is providing a fair product for a fair return.
Multiple people have ALREADY shown you and all the others who support your argument that you are wrong. The reality is, it doesn't SUIT you to accept it, so you will argue your perspective regardless. I guarantee you would feel 100% different if YOU were the rights holder.
The reality is I am not wrong and no-one has so far shown me that I am. Also, I am a rights holder in that I am an author who receives royalties. It doesn't make me feel any different at all.

Great so you won't be at all concerned if I copy whatever it is that is authored (Assuming you did so to make money), and distribute it to everyone who is interested for free? Secondly, if your authored product is behind a paywall of some description, then you won't mind if I find a way around it, and tell everyone who wants, how they can access it for free?

rugrat

3140 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 944

Lifetime subscriber

#1473602 18-Jan-2016 10:59

MikeB4:
rugrat:
MikeB4: You purchase the right to view the content according to the sellers terms and conditions you agreed to at purchase time, as long as those terms and conditions comply with NZ law.

If you wish to do otherwise you should renegotiate the terms of the sale or take the issue to the appropriate authority if you believe the terms breach NZ law. You cannot simply unilaterally change the terms and conditions something circumvention does.

If someone provides a product cheaper or better to someone in another market, then as far as I'm concerned I have a right to purchase from that market.

If someone in my own country has paid more for it I don't see why I should be forced to buy off them, it's not my fault they paid more and I had nothing to do with the transaction between those two party's.

The all black Jersy was another one; people importing them from America would have been breaking the terms of sale over there.

Geo unblocking is just another version of Youshop.

It breaches the terms of Netflix, but if they want to terminate my account that's up to them. If they don't want my money they don't have to take it.

One news article looked at said about 30 million people using unlockers world wide. 21.9 million in China.
Not sure how locking out paying Chinese paying customers going to force their government to let it in, it'll just be goodbye to those customers and they'll find other means.

just because one thinks they have a right does not imply they actually have a right. You may think you have the right to use the fruit from your neighbours trees, it does not mean you have the right and there will be repercussions if
you use the fruit with out the right to do so.

I don't think I have the right to take fruit from my neighbours tree. But if he was going to sell me the fruit at a higher price then someone else, I see nothing wrong with sending someone else to buy fruit off neighbour for me.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12765

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1473603 18-Jan-2016 10:59

SaltyNZ:
networkn: Multiple people have ALREADY shown you and all the others who support your argument that you are wrong.
I disagree. To which statute are you referring that states geo-block bypasses are illegal? To which court decision are you referring? Several companies sued in the civil courts last year over this very issue. The company providing the back-end service backed down because the costs were unbearable. But they still operate that business - they just don't offer it by default through ISPs. If it were illegal, Sky and friends would not have launched a civil suit. They would have made a criminal complaint to the police who would prosecute it through the criminal courts. The result would have been very different.

It's a civil matter in most cases.

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

SaltyNZ

8862 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9539

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#1473605 18-Jan-2016 11:00

networkn: Great so you won't be at all concerned if I copy whatever it is that is authored (Assuming you did so to make money), and distribute it to everyone who is interested for free?

Who's getting Netflix for free? I pay for mine. I could get it for free, easily, if I wanted. But I don't.

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

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

Lenovo

Shop now for Lenovo laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19062 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16302

Lifetime subscriber

#1473611 18-Jan-2016 11:02

networkn: Posted from the other thread:
So let me get this straight.

Lets say you are an artist, you are selling photos on the side of the road (Let's say they are original works, photos taken by you with your equipment and your resources including potentially, staff, vehicles, computers for post processing etc). I come along and take a photo of these photo's and setup in a stand right beside you, but instead of selling them and giving you the money, I either sell them and buy a new ferrari, or if I already have all the ferrari's I want, I decide, hell I'll just GIVE them away to anyone who expresses interest.

You don't consider that STEALING? You still have YOUR photos!

You are being obtuse. To get this back in perspective, we are not talking here about torrenting copyrighted stuff, which is piracy. That is what you are describing. We are talking about not being able to buy stuff at all, in spite of having the money and being willing to pay, because that privilege is restricted to people living in a certain area. Two very different things.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

networkn

Networkn
32862 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15453

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1473613 18-Jan-2016 11:04

SaltyNZ:
networkn: Great so you won't be at all concerned if I copy whatever it is that is authored (Assuming you did so to make money), and distribute it to everyone who is interested for free?
Who's getting Netflix for free? I pay for mine. I could get it for free, easily, if I wanted. But I don't.

As has been talked about before, it's the rights holders "right" to restrict sale to whomever they see fit. I choose not to sell my products and services to specific industries because I find those industries incompatible with my business model. Rights holders could gain ADDITIONAL INCOME by selling to a digital provider in NZ, but that provider is unlikely to do that because everyone watches via NF USA. You are stopping rights holders from gaining said extra income if they wished.

Also just because they DON'T offer that content right now, doesn't mean they WON'T in the future. Businesses have different priorities to you and I as consumers.

networkn

Networkn
32862 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15453

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1473615 18-Jan-2016 11:08

Rikkitic:
networkn: Posted from the other thread:
So let me get this straight.

Lets say you are an artist, you are selling photos on the side of the road (Let's say they are original works, photos taken by you with your equipment and your resources including potentially, staff, vehicles, computers for post processing etc). I come along and take a photo of these photo's and setup in a stand right beside you, but instead of selling them and giving you the money, I either sell them and buy a new ferrari, or if I already have all the ferrari's I want, I decide, hell I'll just GIVE them away to anyone who expresses interest.

You don't consider that STEALING? You still have YOUR photos!
You are being obtuse. To get this back in perspective, we are not talking here about torrenting copyrighted stuff, which is piracy. That is what you are describing. We are talking about not being able to buy stuff at all, in spite of having the money and being willing to pay, because that privilege is restricted to people living in a certain area. Two very different things.

Regardless, that is the right of the people who create the content. They are not obliged to sell to you. The reality is that you are depriving them of potential income. NF pays for the rights not on a per subscriber basis but for the material to be viewed within specific geographical locations.

You are essentially saying those who create content should have no control over it's distribution or business models.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19062 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16302

Lifetime subscriber

#1473617 18-Jan-2016 11:08

networkn: Great so you won't be at all concerned if I copy whatever it is that is authored (Assuming you did so to make money), and distribute it to everyone who is interested for free? Secondly, if your authored product is behind a paywall of some description, then you won't mind if I find a way around it, and tell everyone who wants, how they can access it for free?

See my other reply. You are mixing apples and oranges.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | ... | 21