Global mode over ? Lets see.....

Forums › Online streaming services › Global mode over ? Lets see.....

1 | ... | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | ... | 54

Awrrr
18657 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1282147 13-Apr-2015 13:58

I don't know if this belongs here but this morning two headlines caught my eye: First, four episodes of the new season of Game of Thrones have been pirated even before the premiere; second, Sky could not get its act together to simulcast the first episode as promised. The simulcast stuff-up might not be Sky's fault, of course. I don't know, but considering all the other things they can't make work properly, like Sky Go, it wouldn't surprise me. The point here being that there seem to be matters other than Global Mode that they should be focussing their attention on. I personally have fairly liberal views about file sharing but even I am bothered by the GoT theft (and that's what it is, of course). If a film (or TV series) makes it on to file-sharing sights even before it is released, that really does undermine the making of any new productions. The pirates are shooting themselves in the foot with these kinds of stunts. Either new productions will cease because they can't be made to pay, or a huge crackdown will ensue. Not a good move, guys.

[typo edit]

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Behodar

10501 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1282159 13-Apr-2015 13:59

dclegg: Lightbox CEO, Kym Niblock, states their case here.

So apparently "clarifying the legality" of a service involves telling your competitors to admit that the service is illegal, or face legal action. That's a very hostile definition of "clarification"!

Benoire

2798 posts

Uber Geek

#1282163 13-Apr-2015 14:03

Rikkitic: I don't know if this belongs here but this morning two headlines caught my eye: First, four episodes of the new season of Game of Thrones have been pirated even before the premiere; second, Sky could not get its act together to simulcast the first episode as promised. The simulcast stuff-up might not be Sky's fault, of course. I don't know, but considering all the other things they can't make work properly, like Sky Go, it wouldn't surprise me. The point here being that there seem to be matters other than Global Mode that they should be focussing their attention on. I personally have fairly liberal views about file sharing but even I am bothered by the GoT theft (and that's what it is, of course). If a film (or TV series) makes it on to file-sharing sights even before it is released, that really does undermine the making of any new productions. The pirates are shooting themselves in the foot with these kinds of stunts. Either new productions will cease because they can't be made to pay, or a huge crackdown will ensure. Not a good move, guys.

I won't comment on the pirating bit but I suspect that the simulcast is down to the states. I have seen (and complained) countless times to TVNZ about their watch first issues, that the show isn't up when it was supposed to be. All their troubles, from their words however, stem from the copy coming from the states being bad, corrupted, not right etc. and that they cannot post it until they have it fully checked out... I'd imagine Sky would have the same trouble.

StarBlazer

961 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#1282165 13-Apr-2015 14:04

Benoire:
Rikkitic: I don't know if this belongs here but this morning two headlines caught my eye: First, four episodes of the new season of Game of Thrones have been pirated even before the premiere; second, Sky could not get its act together to simulcast the first episode as promised. The simulcast stuff-up might not be Sky's fault, of course. I don't know, but considering all the other things they can't make work properly, like Sky Go, it wouldn't surprise me. The point here being that there seem to be matters other than Global Mode that they should be focussing their attention on. I personally have fairly liberal views about file sharing but even I am bothered by the GoT theft (and that's what it is, of course). If a film (or TV series) makes it on to file-sharing sights even before it is released, that really does undermine the making of any new productions. The pirates are shooting themselves in the foot with these kinds of stunts. Either new productions will cease because they can't be made to pay, or a huge crackdown will ensure. Not a good move, guys.

I won't comment on the pirating bit but I suspect that the simulcast is down to the states. I have seen (and complained) countless times to TVNZ about their watch first issues, that the show isn't up when it was supposed to be. All their troubles, from their words however, stem from the copy coming from the states being bad, corrupted, not right etc. and that they cannot post it until they have it fully checked out... I'd imagine Sky would have the same trouble.

They should have used one of the pirated copies.

Procrastination eventually pays off.

richms

28168 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1282185 13-Apr-2015 14:22

Sky have to butcher things into 25FPS before they can screen it on the legacy DVB service. Doing this without causing major motion or audio issues takes time. But it seems Aussie managed to get it sorted in time to screen.

Sky have really screwed this one up. I hope people remember this when they get their next sky bill and question if paying $20 for HD SOHO ontop of the already excessive and useless base package is worth it.

Richard rich.ms

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek

#1282188 13-Apr-2015 14:28

Behodar:
dclegg: Lightbox CEO, Kym Niblock, states their case here.

So apparently "clarifying the legality" of a service involves telling your competitors to admit that the service is illegal, or face legal action. That's a very hostile definition of "clarification"!

I think that is actually the only way. You cant confirm something is illegal until there is case law going one way or another. The only way to establish that is with court action. It's a major common law principal from what I remember of legal studies at uni many moons ago.

Naturally taking court action is expensive, so you would just prefer the problem to stop in the first place (hence the cease and desist letter happening before the court action)

1101

3122 posts

Uber Geek

#1282286 13-Apr-2015 16:12

NonprayingMantis:
Naturally taking court action is expensive, so you would just prefer the problem to stop in the first place (hence the cease and desist letter happening before the court action)

Big companies only need to threaten small companies with legal action to get their way.
Small companies simply cant afford the costs of ongoing legal/court actions .

Perhaps lightbox should also sue Spark, for allowing this sort of thing over Sparks network. Cant have it both ways, if its illegal to do this sort of thing, then block it for everyone on Sparks interenet.
Dont just single out a few minor ISPs because they are being open about what the internet is actually being used for.
:-(

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek

#1282304 13-Apr-2015 16:23

1101:
NonprayingMantis:
Naturally taking court action is expensive, so you would just prefer the problem to stop in the first place (hence the cease and desist letter happening before the court action)

Big companies only need to threaten small companies with legal action to get their way.
Small companies simply cant afford the costs of ongoing legal/court actions .

Perhaps lightbox should also sue Spark, for allowing this sort of thing over Sparks network. Cant have it both ways, if its illegal to do this sort of thing, then block it for everyone on Sparks interenet.
Dont just single out a few minor ISPs because they are being open about what the internet is actually being used for.
:-(

Spark don't do global mode.

ETA: Callplus is not a small company. They are worth $250m and can certianly afford lawyers to fight the case if they think they will win. They've certainly fought Spark etc before in courtrooms.

floydie

474 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1282363 13-Apr-2015 17:37

I agree entirely. The BBC stuff available for my 10 year old son is mindboggling and he is LOVING it. Quality, quality, quality and he is lapping it up. NZ TV companies should be ashamed of themselves. And to top it off, my wife and I are watching a lot of quality stuff ourselves and enjoying every minute of it. Interestingly, non of it is ever shown over here by that pathetic TVNZ and mediaworks because they seem to unable to pull their heads out of cheap mindless gutter TV.

i agree. the BBC childrens programs are 1000X better than the lowest common denominator south auckland crap they make here. "lets do a rap about ....." my kids actually learn stuff from the BBC. all they learn from nz tv is how to be a drop out "yeeea boi"

sultanoswing

814 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1282368 13-Apr-2015 17:45

NonprayingMantis:
1101:
NonprayingMantis:
Naturally taking court action is expensive, so you would just prefer the problem to stop in the first place (hence the cease and desist letter happening before the court action)

Big companies only need to threaten small companies with legal action to get their way.
Small companies simply cant afford the costs of ongoing legal/court actions .

Perhaps lightbox should also sue Spark, for allowing this sort of thing over Sparks network. Cant have it both ways, if its illegal to do this sort of thing, then block it for everyone on Sparks interenet.
Dont just single out a few minor ISPs because they are being open about what the internet is actually being used for.
:-(

Spark don't do global mode.

ETA: Callplus is not a small company. They are worth $250m and can certianly afford lawyers to fight the case if they think they will win. They've certainly fought Spark etc before in courtrooms.

I think the point was that Spark could try to block DNS spoofing on their network to also stop others using unotelly etc. from "illegally stealing the exclusive content of Lightbox". Don't see em trying that however because a) I doubt they can and b) spark internet customer backlash and c) because the current action they hope will work. But if they were serious about the principle, which I assume they are, they should also be trying to stop such "piracy" from occuring on their own network.

old3eyes

9119 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1282440 13-Apr-2015 19:10

I signed up for the 8 day Unotelly trail and Netflix. I have a NZ Netflix account so it was an eye opening comparison. Old TV programs like Star trek on the US one but not on the NZ one, why?? I suspect that it's because Sky has all these programs tied up for Jones and Zone for years to come.. Think I'll keep Unotelly after the trial expires..

Regards,

Old3eyes

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek

#1282445 13-Apr-2015 19:21

sultanoswing:
NonprayingMantis:
1101:
NonprayingMantis:
Naturally taking court action is expensive, so you would just prefer the problem to stop in the first place (hence the cease and desist letter happening before the court action)

Big companies only need to threaten small companies with legal action to get their way.
Small companies simply cant afford the costs of ongoing legal/court actions .

Perhaps lightbox should also sue Spark, for allowing this sort of thing over Sparks network. Cant have it both ways, if its illegal to do this sort of thing, then block it for everyone on Sparks interenet.
Dont just single out a few minor ISPs because they are being open about what the internet is actually being used for.
:-(

Spark don't do global mode.

ETA: Callplus is not a small company. They are worth $250m and can certianly afford lawyers to fight the case if they think they will win. They've certainly fought Spark etc before in courtrooms.

I think the point was that Spark could try to block DNS spoofing on their network to also stop others using unotelly etc. from "illegally stealing the exclusive content of Lightbox". Don't see em trying that however because a) I doubt they can and b) spark internet customer backlash and c) because the current action they hope will work. But if they were serious about the principle, which I assume they are, they should also be trying to stop such "piracy" from occuring on their own network.

Only if they thought they could do it.
As with everything they will weight up the cost vs benefit of taking action.

If ,as you suggest, there is nothing they could do about people using unblock-us etc on spark broadband, then there is no upside from 'taking action' against their own customers. Only downside. So they wouldn't do it, no matter how much they would like it to be shut down.

On the other hand, if they could get a court ruling that global mode was illegal (or at least could not be promoted as giving access to content) then that would force all the isps to shut it down or at least stop talking about it.. It would cease to become a differnetiator for callplus. Yeah, people could still use unblockus etc, but their choice of isp would be irrelevant . So there is potential upside for spark.

mdf

3512 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1282474 13-Apr-2015 19:59

1101:
NonprayingMantis:
Naturally taking court action is expensive, so you would just prefer the problem to stop in the first place (hence the cease and desist letter happening before the court action)

Big companies only need to threaten small companies with legal action to get their way.
Small companies simply cant afford the costs of ongoing legal/court actions .

Perhaps lightbox should also sue Spark, for allowing this sort of thing over Sparks network. Cant have it both ways, if its illegal to do this sort of thing, then block it for everyone on Sparks interenet.
Dont just single out a few minor ISPs because they are being open about what the internet is actually being used for.
:-(

It's called a SLAPP suit (strategic lawsuit against public policy). Some jurisdictions, particularly North America, have anti-SLAPP laws that tries and shifts the balance in favour of the little guys. We don't have one here, but our rules regarding costs are different to that in the good ol' U. S. of A.

That said, I'm not sure that this is the case here. I see in the news Callplus has just been bought for $250 million odd (quarter of a billion dollars), so I have a feeling that they should be able to afford a decent lawyer in this. Bypass Network Services has come out and said they're a small outfit and can't afford to fight it, so might be more of a case there.

That said, SLAPP suits are usually suits designed to shut someone up/stop doing something without any real merit to the lawsuit. I think (see my previous posts) that there is a serious issue to be sorted out by the courts and there is real doubt about the actual legal position.

lchiu7

6470 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1282528 13-Apr-2015 21:34

If ,as you suggest, there is nothing they could do about people using unblock-us etc on spark broadband, then there is no upside from 'taking action' against their own customers. Only downside. So they wouldn't do it, no matter how much they would like it to be shut down.

On the other hand, if they could get a court ruling that global mode was illegal (or at least could not be promoted as giving access to content) then that would force all the isps to shut it down or at least stop talking about it.. It would cease to become a differnetiator for callplus. Yeah, people could still use unblockus etc, but their choice of isp would be irrelevant . So there is potential upside for spark.

Just a technical query but why couldn't they? I recall TCL used to do that inadvertently with their transparent proxy so even if you unused Unblock-US, your IP packets would be re-written by TCL's transparent proxy to show that the packets were from NZ so that if you tried Netflix etc it would fail. Fortunately it only occurred on port 80 so that tablets, phones and devices would work fine. But it was annoying enough for me to move to Telecom (then) VDSL service for one year until Vodafone bought TCL, fixed the proxy not to that ( not related to be sure) and offered unlimited cable broadband.

Staying in Wellington. Check out my AirBnB in the Wellington CBD. https://www.airbnb.co.nz/h/wellycbd PM me and mention GZ to get a 15% discount and no AirBnB charges.

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek

#1282532 13-Apr-2015 21:44

lchiu7:

If ,as you suggest, there is nothing they could do about people using unblock-us etc on spark broadband, then there is no upside from 'taking action' against their own customers. Only downside. So they wouldn't do it, no matter how much they would like it to be shut down.

On the other hand, if they could get a court ruling that global mode was illegal (or at least could not be promoted as giving access to content) then that would force all the isps to shut it down or at least stop talking about it.. It would cease to become a differnetiator for callplus. Yeah, people could still use unblockus etc, but their choice of isp would be irrelevant . So there is potential upside for spark.

Just a technical query but why couldn't they? I recall TCL used to do that inadvertently with their transparent proxy so even if you unused Unblock-US, your IP packets would be re-written by TCL's transparent proxy to show that the packets were from NZ so that if you tried Netflix etc it would fail. Fortunately it only occurred on port 80 so that tablets, phones and devices would work fine. But it was annoying enough for me to move to Telecom (then) VDSL service for one year until Vodafone bought TCL, fixed the proxy not to that ( not related to be sure) and offered unlimited cable broadband.

not 100% sure about the smart DNS services, but they most definitely can't do anything about VPNs - there are far too many legitimate uses for VPNs, and the nature of a VPN means spark can't see what the traffic going through it is.

1 | ... | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | ... | 54