Netflix to crack down on unblockers

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

1 | ... | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | ... | 70

2480 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 802

Lifetime subscriber

#1510796 10-Mar-2016 18:32

Subscriber numbers do affect the amount to content providers. On the one hand, the content contracts are mainly fixed value. On the other hand, Netflix aims for a target margin and anything above that is spent. So if they get forecast more income then they budget to spend more while hitting their margin target.

http://ir.netflix.com/long-term-view.cfm

Netflix margin structure and growth

Our US contribution margin structure is set mostly top down. For any given future period, we estimate revenue, and decide what we want to spend, and how much margin we want in that period. Competitive pressures in bidding for content would lead us to have slightly less content than we would otherwise, rather than overspending. The same is true for our marketing budget. The output variable is membership growth that those spending choices influence.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19062 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16302

Lifetime subscriber

#1510827 10-Mar-2016 18:45

I find these kinds of arguments specious and flawed. Buying from a bootlegger does not deprive the owner of the property since it is a copy. It cannot be compared to receiving stolen goods from a burglary. Buying from a bootlegger may deprive the owner of income from a sale, but that is not certain since a significant number of those who would pay a little for a bootleg copy are not prepared to pay the full price for a legitimate one. The lost sales argument does not wash.

Paying for something outside your own distribution region is not the same as paying a bootlegger. Whether the money ultimately goes to the content producer or not, it does go into the legal channel for such things. It becomes part of the cash flow of the distributor just like it does from any other subscriber. These are fundamentally different things. Conflating them does not prove anything, it just obscures the issue.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 545

#1510859 10-Mar-2016 19:44

Rikkitic:

I find these kinds of arguments specious and flawed. Buying from a bootlegger does not deprive the owner of the property since it is a copy. It cannot be compared to receiving stolen goods from a burglary. Buying from a bootlegger may deprive the owner of income from a sale, but that is not certain since a significant number of those who would pay a little for a bootleg copy are not prepared to pay the full price for a legitimate one. The lost sales argument does not wash.

Paying for something outside your own distribution region is not the same as paying a bootlegger. Whether the money ultimately goes to the content producer or not, it does go into the legal channel for such things. It becomes part of the cash flow of the distributor just like it does from any other subscriber. These are fundamentally different things. Conflating them does not prove anything, it just obscures the issue.

Thats complete rubbish. Netflix is the modern bootlegger. Exactly analogous to the DVD replicator that makes a few extra copies on the side and sells them at full price without the content producer knowing about it.

You believe that by paying full price to the DVD replicator that you're not hurting anyone and that the issue is between the DVD replicator and the producer. So not your problem. Now that the producer is trying to prevent the replicator making those extra unauthorised copies on the side you are siding with the replicator. The money never went into any legal channel just into the replicators pocket.

Netflix does not have the legal right to distribute the content in New Zealand. You are aware of their terms and conditions. You are deliberately lying about your location to allow Netflix to sell you content that it does not have the legal right to sell to you. How can this be a grey area? It is directly analogous the bootlegger - not the pirate copy selling bootlegger making a copy of a copy but the one selling you copies directly from their master copy.

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

robbon44

252 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 42

#1510865 10-Mar-2016 20:10

But isn't that the point... I'm paying US Netflix for their content and if necessary I'm even paying in US dollars and I'm watching what I have paid for... I just happen to be sitting outside the country border.. If given a choice I would pay US dollars for us content over NZ dollars for nz content.

If I was paying NZ Netflix for the nz catalogue but then watched the us version..ok maybe there is an issue as I paid for something but then tried to get something more or different.

Why should it matter where the content is sourced as long as I pay for that content where it is sold?

After all as youpost advertises openly on nz tv .. You can!

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1510872 10-Mar-2016 20:22

old3eyes:

tdgeek:

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.

I dont agree DC. If I cannot see a series as its not on I can pirate it for free. If its in NF I can geoblock and watch it, but thats against the T+C. That I pay them is not relevant. There is a reason they wont give me thats eries right here and right now, they have deals with other providers. The bottom line is it their content not ours

So we justify it and break whatever rule there is, same as piracy, same as radar detectors

The sale of radar detectors in NZ is quite legal so not good comparison. My previous comments stand..

Your right, as is the sale of geo unblockers. So it is a good comparison as we can buy products to allow us to break the law as in radar detectors or break civil law as in geo unblockers. So, in the first world, the Rule of Law, its right to allow means to break the law? Criminal or Civil. Note that i disagree with breaking civil law, aka torts, being classified as criminal.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1510881 10-Mar-2016 20:29

Hammerer:

tdgeek:

I guess my short story is, if we all said, its wrong, I know it, but Im doing it anyway, I'd be fine with that

You won't get agreement on right and wrong. We can't even agree on what is legal even though that is much better defined.

There are a lot of people who consider restrictions on their free will or behaviour to be wrong. Plus there are people who consider that it is OK to do a wrong if they have been wronged themselves, or if they might be in future, or if someone else is being wronged.

Lias:

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.

Agree. If an entity cannot sell to me as they sold to someone else for a better return thats life. I can't turn around and say , hey that doesnt suit me Many threads talk about entitlement. Usually younger ones. Its basically saying, I don't believe in business. Its saying I want this, and I want it now. Certainly, the old business model of content needs to change, but not for the charity of those who feel entitled, but to a new model, which doesnt include FREE

Mighty Ape

Shop now at Mighty Ape (affiliate link).

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1510884 10-Mar-2016 20:32

dclegg:

tdgeek:

I dont agree DC. If I cannot see a series as its not on I can pirate it for free. If its in NF I can geoblock and watch it, but thats against the T+C. That I pay them is not relevant. There is a reason they wont give me thats eries right here and right now, they have deals with other providers. The bottom line is it their content not ours

So we justify it and break whatever rule there is, same as piracy, same as radar detectors

This is where our moral compasses differ, I guess :-)

By pirating content, I am not making any effort to ensure the content creator is rewarded for their output. As a software developer, this is a notion that I am personally not comfortable with doing at all. Although my stance on others doing it as a form of protest has softened a little over the years.

By paying an overseas provider for content, I am contributing to a revenue pool that can be used to remunerate content creators for their output. The fact that this may not be happening due to the contractural arrangements between content providers and content distributers doesn't really concern me. The content provider could (and probably should) revisit these contracts and make them a fee based on user count, rather than a set amount.

As for your radar detector analogy... nobody's life is put at risk by me watching Game of Thrones at a fair price (except for Ned Stark's, of course).

As Ockel recites repeatedly thats not the case. You are contributing the NF, not the content rights holder

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1510888 10-Mar-2016 20:35

charliebrownnz:

tdgeek:

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.

Complete and utter BS. I am legally entitled to get content via geoblocking. Not so much via torrenting. In the event pirating and bypassing geoblocking becomes the same then I and many many many people will happily pirate, but untill then, it is BS to call the two the same.

Rubbish. If you feel that garnering content that you want to, even though you know its not legit, then power to you. Your justifying, that all, own up and say, I know its not right or legit, but I want to. If not, then your just justifying obtaining illicit content as it suits you

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1510889 10-Mar-2016 20:37

Rikkitic:

SaltyNZ:

Here is what I read in the TPP:

These things are always full of hooks. My first question might be what the definition of 'public' is. I'm not a lawyer but it could be argued that once content is released to any audience, it has been made 'public' and any other conditions attached to its use are no longer the provenance of law.

Wrong. Its copyrighted. Don't you read the fine print?? (I don't either), but its copyrighted. Give it 50 years at last look, and its public domain

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12765

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1510892 10-Mar-2016 20:44

You know what ever we say here means squat, this needs to go to Court so a definitive answer is provided.

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

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1510895 10-Mar-2016 20:47

ockel:

shk292:
NonprayingMantis:

SaltyNZ:

ockel:

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

I see no reason to care about that. If I was dumb enough to sell you my brand new Jaguar for $50, would you reimburse me the other $74,950 I realised I could have gotten for it when I opened up the paper and looked at some advertisements?

maybe you don't care, but an incredibly common argument made in favour of using geoblockers to access Netflix instead of simply pirating the content is along the lines of "these guys are so dumb, I'm giving them money and they are trying to stop me!"

when the reality is that by using USA netflix you actually aren't paying the content creators anything.

From the content creators point of view, you are no different to a pirate in the sense that you are accessing their content, and they are receiving no money for that access.

The fact that you pay Netflix is irrelevant to them.

To them, that is no different from you paying the bootlegger at the local market for a pirated DVD, even if that DVD was copied from a legally purchased DVD.

If blocking USA netflix from 100,000 kiwis means that 99,000 of them turn to piracy and the remaining 1000 turn to locally purchased options (e.g. iTunes) - then that is a net WIN for the content creators. Before the block, that was 100,000 kiwis who were giving the content creators nothing. Now it is only 99,000 giving the content creators nothing, and 1000 who are paying them something.

Two massive holes in your argument:
1. The fact that the licensing model takes no account of viewer numbers is studio's fault, not mine. They need to fix it
2. How is it any better for the studios if I sign up to a local service to access the content? Sky etc work under exactly the same flawed licensing model as Netflix USA. The only difference is for material which is only available here on Ppv, but as a bundle elsewhere

So its okay to buy a bootleg copy of something because thats a contractual problem between the bootlegger and the studio? Its just not your problem and so long as you've paid something then your conscience is clear.

Yep, thats the J word

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.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1510899 10-Mar-2016 20:52

Rikkitic:

I find these kinds of arguments specious and flawed. Buying from a bootlegger does not deprive the owner of the property since it is a copy. It cannot be compared to receiving stolen goods from a burglary. Buying from a bootlegger may deprive the owner of income from a sale, but that is not certain since a significant number of those who would pay a little for a bootleg copy are not prepared to pay the full price for a legitimate one. The lost sales argument does not wash.

Paying for something outside your own distribution region is not the same as paying a bootlegger. Whether the money ultimately goes to the content producer or not, it does go into the legal channel for such things. It becomes part of the cash flow of the distributor just like it does from any other subscriber. These are fundamentally different things. Conflating them does not prove anything, it just obscures the issue.

Sorry. I like your posts, but your justifying, nothing more. If I buy a bootleg DVD for 10 bucks, but I don't want to pay 30 bucks thats ok? I should have been a fencing contractor....

Dugimodo

168 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 93

#1510900 10-Mar-2016 20:52

So unotelly on the PC has been working fine up until this week and now I've started getting the error message about turning off the proxy etc. Anyone have any updates on this, googling just finds old threads like this one as far as I can tell and anything current is lost in a sea of it.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1510901 10-Mar-2016 20:54

ockel:

Rikkitic:

I find these kinds of arguments specious and flawed. Buying from a bootlegger does not deprive the owner of the property since it is a copy. It cannot be compared to receiving stolen goods from a burglary. Buying from a bootlegger may deprive the owner of income from a sale, but that is not certain since a significant number of those who would pay a little for a bootleg copy are not prepared to pay the full price for a legitimate one. The lost sales argument does not wash.

Paying for something outside your own distribution region is not the same as paying a bootlegger. Whether the money ultimately goes to the content producer or not, it does go into the legal channel for such things. It becomes part of the cash flow of the distributor just like it does from any other subscriber. These are fundamentally different things. Conflating them does not prove anything, it just obscures the issue.

Thats complete rubbish. Netflix is the modern bootlegger. Exactly analogous to the DVD replicator that makes a few extra copies on the side and sells them at full price without the content producer knowing about it.

You believe that by paying full price to the DVD replicator that you're not hurting anyone and that the issue is between the DVD replicator and the producer. So not your problem. Now that the producer is trying to prevent the replicator making those extra unauthorised copies on the side you are siding with the replicator. The money never went into any legal channel just into the replicators pocket.

Netflix does not have the legal right to distribute the content in New Zealand. You are aware of their terms and conditions. You are deliberately lying about your location to allow Netflix to sell you content that it does not have the legal right to sell to you. How can this be a grey area? It is directly analogous the bootlegger - not the pirate copy selling bootlegger making a copy of a copy but the one selling you copies directly from their master copy.

I want it, and I want it now, free be good, thanks. Owners, business model, viability, law, morals, ongoing innovation, side issues!

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1510903 10-Mar-2016 21:00

MikeB4: You know what ever we say here means squat, this needs to go to Court so a definitive answer is provided.

Your 100% right Mike. Its a discussion that goes nowhere. My issue is that if I do something I know is kinda not right, and kinda dodgy, and against T+C's, I know that.

I might do it. But I know its not right. I don't disavow any one here doing that, but at least own up to it, don't create justification. Its not a conspiracy theory. Its the same as going 60 k in a 50 k area, we know its wrong, and i am a law abiding citizen , so therefore its ok.

1 | ... | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | ... | 70