Netflix to crack down on unblockers

Forums › Online streaming services › Netflix to crack down on unblockers

1 | ... | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | ... | 70

2806 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 810

Trusted

#1510503 10-Mar-2016 12:28

tdgeek:

Physical Parallel importing is legal, thats already been decided. You can import Jandals to NZ as its legal, unless the Jandall company makes a business decision not to sell to NZ

Importing digital content is legal. But if the T+C says its for US only, then its breaking T+C's, not legal, in a civil case. Simple. The seller is deciding what to digitally parallel export to you.

My question is more around why the Government is allowing the parallel importing of physical media to remain under its TPPA obligations, but is refusing to make the same distinction for digital content. My hypothesis is that making this consistent in either direction would hurt corporate interests, and this is why it's their current stance.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1510508 10-Mar-2016 12:33

old3eyes:

tdgeek:

dclegg:

So the Government is cool with people parallel importing content on physical media, but not when doing so via digital channels. Why the double-standard?

One theory may be that large corporate interests would be negatively affected if they banned the former, as they sell a lot of parallel imported media.

Physical Parallel importing is legal, thats already been decided. You can import Jandals to NZ as its legal, unless the Jandall company makes a business decision not to sell to NZ

Importing digital content is legal. But if the T+C says its for US only, then its breaking T+C's, not legal, in a civil case. Simple. The seller is deciding what to digitally parallel export to you.

I've noticed in all your posts over the past few weeks that you seem to side with big media and treat all of us who use unblocking services like we are all criminals. Do you work for big media??

No.

I use Netflix. And I am not telling you that you and I are criminals, thats just adding words to your post for effect. Not cool

If you speed, you can, and you want to, so you do

If you pay for a radar detector so you can speed in safety of being caught, you do

If you torrent, you can, suits you, so you do

Bypassing a geoblock is no different. You are getting or using something that you are not entitled to, and we know it

That is the trend of my posts, please don't distort them. There is right and wrong, some choose to move that line as and when suited, thats the reality

But choosing what rules to abide by or break, thats ok

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1510514 10-Mar-2016 12:39

dclegg:

tdgeek:

Physical Parallel importing is legal, thats already been decided. You can import Jandals to NZ as its legal, unless the Jandall company makes a business decision not to sell to NZ

Importing digital content is legal. But if the T+C says its for US only, then its breaking T+C's, not legal, in a civil case. Simple. The seller is deciding what to digitally parallel export to you.

My question is more around why the Government is allowing the parallel importing of physical media to remain under its TPPA obligations, but is refusing to make the same distinction for digital content. My hypothesis is that making this consistent in either direction would hurt corporate interests, and this is why it's their current stance.

My personal opinion is that selling physical media globally is possibly its best revenue stream left. But when media companies sell rights to various regions, which involve various deals with linear TV players, SVOD players, Sky type players, that the need to manage the distribution is there to maxmise revenue. After that hurrah, I gather the DVD to anywhere is whats left.

My assumptions only

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 545

#1510518 10-Mar-2016 12:43

mdf:

robbon44:

I would be happy with the global catalogue at a reasonable price, i dont want multiple suppliers...i understand the competative market element but quality and longevity is what i want..

The price of a global market catalogue is potentially fraught. The English Premier League is a great example. Say EPL decided to sell direct to the global public. The price is likely to be dictated largely by English consumers, who would probably jump at the opportunity to pay around 40 quid a month for all EPL games (BSkyB currently has about two-thirds of the games for 45 quid per month). That equates to $85-ish NZ per month at today's exchange rates - which isn't that much less than the $99 Premier League Pass is charging for the _season_. While there's obviously an optimal return on price vs subscriber numbers, I could imagine New Zealand paying a whole lot more for some things with a single global catalogue.

Didnt PremierLeaguePass charge $199 for the season - and its currently $99 for the remaining half season?

Sixth Labour Government - "Vision without Execution is just Hallucination"

SaltyNZ

8862 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9539

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#1510521 10-Mar-2016 12:51

dclegg:
tdgeek:

Physical Parallel importing is legal, thats already been decided. You can import Jandals to NZ as its legal, unless the Jandall company makes a business decision not to sell to NZ

Importing digital content is legal. But if the T+C says its for US only, then its breaking T+C's, not legal, in a civil case. Simple. The seller is deciding what to digitally parallel export to you.

My question is more around why the Government is allowing the parallel importing of physical media to remain under its TPPA obligations, but is refusing to make the same distinction for digital content. My hypothesis is that making this consistent in either direction would hurt corporate interests, and this is why it's their current stance.

I'm on mobile at the moment, but I posted a while back some excerpts of the TPPA text that explain it. There is an explicit carve-out for physical parallel imports, with around 5 other clauses that ban geo-lock bypasses, AND make any infringement a criminal offence.

Obviously I must be wrong because the PM said no law changes would be required... But now there are. OH DEAR I'M SO SHOCKED AND CONFUSED.

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

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

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19062 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16302

Lifetime subscriber

#1510523 10-Mar-2016 12:55

Bad laws create contempt for all laws. Civil matters just invite civil disobedience. I would not violate any criminal law but I also would not hesitate to look for ways to enable me to safely commit a civil offense if I felt the law in question was unjust or unreasonable. All too often, the law really is an ass. There are countless examples of muddled legislation that has proven unworkable in practise because it was hastily conceived in a state of panic, or created to appease a powerful vested interest, or simple drawn up by corrupt or incompetent legislators. Laws have to make sense and a law that says I cannot view content that is freely available to others but forbidden to me solely because I happen to have the misfortune to reside in an insignificant backwater country that no-one gives a damn about, is not a law I have any desire or intention to respect.

And yet once again, let me make clear that I am NOT talking about piracy, which is obtaining paid content for free. I am talking about choice, which is my right (yes, right) to pay for something that happens to be distributed somewhere else.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Geekzone support

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

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1510530 10-Mar-2016 13:02

Rikkitic:

Bad laws create contempt for all laws. Civil matters just invite civil disobedience. I would not violate any criminal law but I also would not hesitate to look for ways to enable me to safely commit a civil offense if I felt the law in question was unjust or unreasonable. All too often, the law really is an ass. There are countless examples of muddled legislation that has proven unworkable in practise because it was hastily conceived in a state of panic, or created to appease a powerful vested interest, or simple drawn up by corrupt or incompetent legislators. Laws have to make sense and a law that says I cannot view content that is freely available to others but forbidden to me solely because I happen to have the misfortune to reside in an insignificant backwater country that no-one gives a damn about, is not a law I have any desire or intention to respect.

And yet once again, let me make clear that I am NOT talking about piracy, which is obtaining paid content for free. I am talking about choice, which is my right (yes, right) to pay for something that happens to be distributed somewhere else.

I think the first bold covers it nicely.

Its not about the law, its about this bold highlight.

And it is the same as piracy. Torrenting is getting content that you are not eligible for. Geo unblocking is the same. That you are paying for it is not relevant, it's more a not guilty feeling. There are reasons why the owner decides not to sell it to you, right now. Target them, not NF, Govt or TPPA.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1510531 10-Mar-2016 13:05

SaltyNZ:
dclegg:

tdgeek:

Physical Parallel importing is legal, thats already been decided. You can import Jandals to NZ as its legal, unless the Jandall company makes a business decision not to sell to NZ

Importing digital content is legal. But if the T+C says its for US only, then its breaking T+C's, not legal, in a civil case. Simple. The seller is deciding what to digitally parallel export to you.

My question is more around why the Government is allowing the parallel importing of physical media to remain under its TPPA obligations, but is refusing to make the same distinction for digital content. My hypothesis is that making this consistent in either direction would hurt corporate interests, and this is why it's their current stance.

I'm on mobile at the moment, but I posted a while back some excerpts of the TPPA text that explain it. There is an explicit carve-out for physical parallel imports, with around 5 other clauses that ban geo-lock bypasses, AND make any infringement a criminal offence.

Obviously I must be wrong because the PM said no law changes would be required... But now there are. OH DEAR I'M SO SHOCKED AND CONFUSED.

It is

Copyright infringement isn't criminal is it? So why geo block, its the same thing in terms of allowing the product to be used

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1510532 10-Mar-2016 13:08

Rikkitic:

Bad laws create contempt for all laws. Civil matters just invite civil disobedience. I would not violate any criminal law but I also would not hesitate to look for ways to enable me to safely commit a civil offense if I felt the law in question was unjust or unreasonable. All too often, the law really is an ass. There are countless examples of muddled legislation that has proven unworkable in practise because it was hastily conceived in a state of panic, or created to appease a powerful vested interest, or simple drawn up by corrupt or incompetent legislators. Laws have to make sense and a law that says I cannot view content that is freely available to others but forbidden to me solely because I happen to have the misfortune to reside in an insignificant backwater country that no-one gives a damn about, is not a law I have any desire or intention to respect.

And yet once again, let me make clear that I am NOT talking about piracy, which is obtaining paid content for free. I am talking about choice, which is my right (yes, right) to pay for something that happens to be distributed somewhere else.

Shouldnt you be referring to the owners of said content? No Govt has told Netflix to ban you from viewing some of its titles. Neither has Netflix.

Lias

5655 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3978

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1510542 10-Mar-2016 13:21

Things like this are why I've moved away from considering cord cutting as an option, and have simply reverted to pirating everything.

Also goes to show how hugely corrupt the TPPA process is, and how much the US and NZ governments are in the pockets of big media / big business.

I'm a geek, a gamer, a dad, a Quic user, and an IT Professional. I have a full rack home lab, size 15 feet, an epic beard and Asperger's. I'm a bit of a Cypherpunk, who believes information wants to be free and the Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it. If you use my Quic signup you can also use the code R570394EKGIZ8 for free setup. Opinions are my own and not the views of my employer.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19062 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16302

Lifetime subscriber

#1510543 10-Mar-2016 13:24

tdgeek:

Shouldnt you be referring to the owners of said content? No Govt has told Netflix to ban you from viewing some of its titles. Neither has Netflix.

This government is about to enforce that ban, if the information here and elsewhere is correct. If they do, I will do what I can to ignore it. Some people are much too quick to bend over just because someone tells them to.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

AliExpress

Shop now on AliExpress (affiliate link).

TeaLeaf

6436 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1241

#1510549 10-Mar-2016 13:29

wasnt there an ISP actually telling people how to set this up originally?

i hope netflix in time gets to its goal of having globally equal access to content, but i think with so many rights its going to take at least a few more years yet.

either way netflix is still a good product.

dclegg

2806 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 810

Trusted

#1510550 10-Mar-2016 13:30

tdgeek:

And it is the same as piracy. Torrenting is getting content that you are not eligible for. Geo unblocking is the same. That you are paying for it is not relevant, it's more a not guilty feeling. There are reasons why the owner decides not to sell it to you, right now. Target them, not NF, Govt or TPPA.

No it is not the same as piracy. If I was pirating, I'd be paying nobody. If I pay an overseas service, then I am committing to a revenue stream that can then be used to compensate the content creators.

It also highlights the discrepancy between physical and digital media. The content owner has decided that I'm not eligible to watch a disc categorised for a region that I've not been deemed to be a part of. But our government has decided that it is 100% OK for local resellers to ignore and overcome this region barrier.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1510554 10-Mar-2016 13:38

Rikkitic:

tdgeek:

Shouldnt you be referring to the owners of said content? No Govt has told Netflix to ban you from viewing some of its titles. Neither has Netflix.

This government is about to enforce that ban, if the information here and elsewhere is correct. If they do, I will do what I can to ignore it. Some people are much too quick to bend over just because someone tells them to.

Yourb reverrting back to the law, its the seller of the content you have a gripe with. So the owner of the contact doesn't want to sell to you today, so you are happy to break T+C, thats ok. Its" just" a T+C as you say. But if someone wants to enforce it thats a problem?

Dont get me wrong, I not in favour of geo blocking and so on, but I do see the right and wrong in most things in life, and thus, like radar detectors and piracy is wrong.

And while I may or may not have participated in such wrong things, which I have, I still know they are wrong, I don't seek justifications to make it seem ok

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 545

#1510556 10-Mar-2016 13:39

dclegg:

tdgeek:

And it is the same as piracy. Torrenting is getting content that you are not eligible for. Geo unblocking is the same. That you are paying for it is not relevant, it's more a not guilty feeling. There are reasons why the owner decides not to sell it to you, right now. Target them, not NF, Govt or TPPA.

No it is not the same as piracy. If I was pirating, I'd be paying nobody. If I pay an overseas service, then I am committing to a revenue stream that can then be used to compensate the content creators.

It also highlights the discrepancy between physical and digital media. The content owner has decided that I'm not eligible to watch a disc categorised for a region that I've not been deemed to be a part of. But our government has decided that it is 100% OK for local resellers to ignore and overcome this region barrier.

But you're not paying a revenue stream that is being used to compensate the content creators. Netflix have already paid their price for the right to sell in the US. Others have paid the right to sell elsewhere.

All you are doing is transferring wealth to Netflix shareholders - not the content creators.

Sixth Labour Government - "Vision without Execution is just Hallucination"

1 | ... | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | ... | 70