Legality and/or morality of geoblocking

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

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | ... | 21

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12766

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1473619 18-Jan-2016 11:13

There seems to be an ongoing belief of entitlement with this issue. It's seems to be a "I want it so give it to me or I will take it" There also seems to be a belief that rules are optional, it also shows itself in threads about driving.

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

SaltyNZ

8865 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9543

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#1473620 18-Jan-2016 11:14

networkn: You are stopping rights holders from gaining said extra income if they wished.

No, I'm not. As you yourself point out repeatedly, it's the rights holders right to sell to whoever they see fit. I'm not stopping them from doing anything.

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

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

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19064 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16304

Lifetime subscriber

#1473625 18-Jan-2016 11:18

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

Not in a free market. That was decided years ago. People with something to sell are not permitted to deny blacks or Jews the right to buy it. Why should they be permitted to deny someone who lives on the other side of the street? Many years ago the Americans (of all people) took the distribution rights of Hollywood away when the authorities forced the movie industry to sell its cinema chains. This was seen at the time as monopolistic and detrimental to the rights of movie-goers. Well, guess what? Times haven't changed!

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19064 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16304

Lifetime subscriber

#1473627 18-Jan-2016 11:20

MikeB4: There seems to be an ongoing belief of entitlement with this issue. It's seems to be a "I want it so give it to me or I will take it" There also seems to be a belief that rules are optional, it also shows itself in threads about driving.

It has nothing to do with entitlement. It has everything to do with the right to sit at the lunch counter and enjoy a coffee with the white folks.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12766

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1473642 18-Jan-2016 11:31

Rikkitic:
MikeB4: There seems to be an ongoing belief of entitlement with this issue. It's seems to be a "I want it so give it to me or I will take it" There also seems to be a belief that rules are optional, it also shows itself in threads about driving.
It has nothing to do with entitlement. It has everything to do with the right to sit at the lunch counter and enjoy a coffee with the white folks.

No it does not, it is not about a civil right or breach there of, it's about a commercial arrangement and contract.

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

Wade

2225 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 373

#1473650 18-Jan-2016 11:42

Netflix are not doing anything illegal, consumer is not doing anything illegal so how can it be illegal

Consumer is breaking Netflix T&C's, contractual issue for Netflix to resolve not the legal system - still not illegal

To what level do Netflix need to go to with regards to geo blocking to suffice their contractual obligations to content owners? Given that someone will always find a way around a system legal or other wise where do you draw the line?

Compare Netflix to a car manufacturer, can the manufacturer be expected to take all and every precaution for the end user to not crash? No

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19064 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16304

Lifetime subscriber

#1473651 18-Jan-2016 11:43

MikeB4:
Rikkitic:
MikeB4: There seems to be an ongoing belief of entitlement with this issue. It's seems to be a "I want it so give it to me or I will take it" There also seems to be a belief that rules are optional, it also shows itself in threads about driving.
It has nothing to do with entitlement. It has everything to do with the right to sit at the lunch counter and enjoy a coffee with the white folks.
No it does not, it is not about a civil right or breach there of, it's about a commercial arrangement and contract.

Um, let me see if I've got that right. You put up a farmgate stand selling watermelons. You have a sign saying take one and leave a dollar in the collection box. Then you have another sign saying kiwis only, no sales to tourists. But the tourists really want watermelon. So they come anyway and each puts a dollar in the box and takes one. A few are so grateful to have watermelon that they even put a little extra in the box. So you go to the police with a handful of money and say you want to lay a complaint because those awful, thieving tourists are all buying your watermelons! Have I got that right? And what do you think the police will say?

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

networkn

Networkn
32863 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15453

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1473652 18-Jan-2016 11:47

Rikkitic:
networkn: You are essentially saying those who create content should have no control over it's distribution or business models.
Not in a free market. That was decided years ago. People with something to sell are not permitted to deny blacks or Jews the right to buy it. Why should they be permitted to deny someone who lives on the other side of the street? Many years ago the Americans (of all people) took the distribution rights of Hollywood away when the authorities forced the movie industry to sell its cinema chains. This was seen at the time as monopolistic and detrimental to the rights of movie-goers. Well, guess what? Times haven't changed!

Err you are having a laugh surely? They aren't infringing on your civil rights. They are refusing access based on geographical location not race, sex, religion or the other criteria which would see them pinged under international law.

It's perfectly legitimate for me to not sell you something just "cause" so long as that reason isn't one of the ones listed above. This is what is happening.

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1528

#1473654 18-Jan-2016 11:49

Rikkitic:
networkn: You are essentially saying those who create content should have no control over it's distribution or business models.
Not in a free market. That was decided years ago. People with something to sell are not permitted to deny blacks or Jews the right to buy it. Why should they be permitted to deny someone who lives on the other side of the street? Many years ago the Americans (of all people) took the distribution rights of Hollywood away when the authorities forced the movie industry to sell its cinema chains. This was seen at the time as monopolistic and detrimental to the rights of movie-goers. Well, guess what? Times haven't changed!

look up the various declarations about human rights.

Businesses CANNOT discriminate on grounds of race, sex, age, sexuality, religion and various others.

businesses CAN discriminate on literally ANY other grounds, and that including geographical location.

and remember we also aren't talking about getting people access to something that is crucial to life.

I absolutely understand we need to ensure all people have access to things like food, water, shelter, education, healthcare, heck, maybe even access to the internet should be a 'human right'.

What I don't understand is the concept that we must ensure that all people have access to the latest season of Game of Thrones the instant it airs in another country.

jmh

458 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 141

#1473655 18-Jan-2016 11:49

I think, at heart, it's a case of business models falling behind the technology. Netlix themselves say that the long-term aim is to have a global catalogue. I think by pushing the law to limit, and debating the ethics, we as geeks and experts are going to effect change in the marketplace. This current situation is just a blip in the road to a new system.

It doesn't seem fair to users that they pay the same amount for a product and get less than someone in another country. This obviously applies other products too, but electronic products don't cost anything to transport across borders.

networkn

Networkn
32863 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15453

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1473658 18-Jan-2016 11:53

SaltyNZ:
networkn: You are stopping rights holders from gaining said extra income if they wished.
No, I'm not. As you yourself point out repeatedly, it's the rights holders right to sell to whoever they see fit. I'm not stopping them from doing anything.

Indirectly you could well be. If the rights holders intention is to offer a license for example, to Lightbox NZ, for something now screening exclusively to those in the USA, and Lightbox can't justify the cost because customers won't stop paying Netflix to pay Lightbox, then the deal doesn't go ahead and right holder loses money.

I guess rights holders could then raise the cost to Netflix and issue them a global license, but then the millions of USA customers are being charged more for something they derive no benefit from.

I also expect then that the rate of piracy in NZ would rise and it would be justified under the "Netflix/rights holders are just trying to screw us" argument.

New World

Shop on-line at New World now for your groceries (affiliate link).

networkn

Networkn
32863 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15453

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1473659 18-Jan-2016 11:54

jmh: I think, at heart, it's a case of business models falling behind the technology. Netlix themselves say that the long-term aim is to have a global catalogue. I think by pushing the law to limit, and debating the ethics, we as geeks and experts are going to effect change in the marketplace. This current situation is just a blip in the road to a new system. It doesn't seem fair to users that they pay the same amount for a product and get less than someone in another country. This obviously applies other products too, but electronic products don't cost anything to transport across borders.

Do you really think there are zero added costs to providing a service in a new country? Who should wear that ?

networkn

Networkn
32863 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15453

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1473662 18-Jan-2016 11:57

NonprayingMantis:
Rikkitic:
networkn: You are essentially saying those who create content should have no control over it's distribution or business models.
Not in a free market. That was decided years ago. People with something to sell are not permitted to deny blacks or Jews the right to buy it. Why should they be permitted to deny someone who lives on the other side of the street? Many years ago the Americans (of all people) took the distribution rights of Hollywood away when the authorities forced the movie industry to sell its cinema chains. This was seen at the time as monopolistic and detrimental to the rights of movie-goers. Well, guess what? Times haven't changed!
look up the various declarations about human rights. Businesses CANNOT discriminate on grounds of race, sex, age, sexuality, religion and various others. businesses CAN discriminate on literally ANY other grounds, and that including geographical location. and remember we also aren't talking about getting people access to something that is crucial to life. I absolutely understand we need to ensure all people have access to things like food, water, shelter, education, healthcare, heck, maybe even access to the internet should be a 'human right'. What I don't understand is the concept that we must ensure that all people have access to the latest season of Game of Thrones the instant it airs in another country.

I am not sure if Rikkitic knows it's perfectly legal and I've done it before, to discriminate on the grounds that someone smokes? I even had someone challenge me on it legally, which was funny as it didn't go very far.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19064 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16304

Lifetime subscriber

#1473667 18-Jan-2016 12:02

What a fun discussion we are having! And I have to say I agree completely that by having it, we are part of the process that is working its way to a future resolution of some kind. But now I have to go. I will look forward to seeing what else people have had to say this evening. Enjoy the debate.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19064 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16304

Lifetime subscriber

#1473669 18-Jan-2016 12:03

Oh yeah, I forgot, smoking is a health issue so the grounds for discrimination are very different.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | ... | 21