Global mode over ? Lets see.....

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

1 | ... | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | ... | 54

2798 posts

Uber Geek

#1286105 17-Apr-2015 10:33

Yabanize: If it is true that we are only giving Netflix more profit and no money goes to the creators we may as well be using popcorntime right?

Depends how Netflix have structured their payments to the content owner. I don't know how, but if they have a bulk deals then each subscriber accessing US content makes that content cheaper and no more goes to the content owner however if they're paid by subscriber then the content owner will benefit. The only issue is how they have licensed content per region as that will affect how much the content owner gets paid and how much of a cut netflix receive.

old3eyes

9120 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1286107 17-Apr-2015 10:36

I see in this morning news that the TAB wants to retain the same monopolistic 20th century model by asking the Gov to enact legislation to ban people in NZ from using overseas gambling agencies. Maybe the gamblers need a global mode as well..

Regards,

Old3eyes

shk292

2858 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1286158 17-Apr-2015 11:30

richms: No because as Netflix customer numbers in the US go up the studios will want more money to license things.

Exactly! That's why the "by using US Netflix you're ripping off the content providers" is specious. By signing up to US Netflix, you are paying the content provider in exactly the same way as a new US-resident Netflix subscriber. There's no way that the fees Netflix pays for content are fixed for all time, independent of subscriber numbers. So in the long-term, big picture, I'm paying the originator for content regardless of the paid-for streaming service I use, whether this is Netflix US, Netflix NZ, Neon, Lightflix, Quickbox or whatever.

This is why geo-block circumvention is completely different to piracy.

It's also why the only losers from geo-unblocking are the NZ streaming services and broadcasters who can't handle the global competition

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek

#1286181 17-Apr-2015 11:52

freitasm:
Behodar: The latest "Big Media" press release includes this gem:

we believe companies who profit by [...] providing access to content they haven’t paid for are in breach of copyright.

So now an ISP needs to pay for the content viewed by the consumer? So by that logic, if Spark isn't paying Sky for Neon's content, then Spark's breaching copyright too.

Every single ISP in New Zealand is in breach of copyright because they are all "providing access to content they haven’t paid for are in breach of copyright" even without GlobalMode.

other ISPs provide access to the internet. What customers choose to do with that access is up to them.

ISPs that include global mode provide an additional service over and above that. Specifcally they provide direct access to specific parts of the internet that would otherwise be 'out of bounds'.
They also sell and promote this aspect, being very specific about what you can use global mode to get. i.e. "Use it for Netflix"

It's like the difference between knife manufacturer 'A' selling kitchen knives that could be used for stabbing someone as a byproduct of being very sharp vs knife manufacturer 'B' selling knives with special features like (e.g. doesn't retain fingerprints) and promoting it on TV as 'ideal for murdering old ladies'

hopefully you can see why B is very different to A

We wouldn't hold company A to be responsible for what someone did with their knives, but I think we might consider company B to be at least partially liable if their customers use those knifes for stabbing someone.

In other words, IF it can be shown that accessing Netflix from NZ is copyright infringement (that's quite a big 'IF') then I would say there is very good case to hold all global mode companies responsible for that.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79314 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#1286183 17-Apr-2015 11:57

NonprayingMantis:
freitasm:
Behodar: The latest "Big Media" press release includes this gem:

we believe companies who profit by [...] providing access to content they haven’t paid for are in breach of copyright.

So now an ISP needs to pay for the content viewed by the consumer? So by that logic, if Spark isn't paying Sky for Neon's content, then Spark's breaching copyright too.

Every single ISP in New Zealand is in breach of copyright because they are all "providing access to content they haven’t paid for are in breach of copyright" even without GlobalMode.

other ISPs provide access to the internet. What customers choose to do with that access is up to them.

You completely missed the point. I am looking at the quote, not at the situation. I will repeat it here:

"Our position has not changed, we believe companies who profit by marketing and providing access to content they haven’t paid for are in breach of copyright."

The quote needs something more specific otherwise it could just as easily be interpreted as any access - after all ISPs provide access to content they haven't paid for... ISPs live of providing access to content, this is their business: moving bits from A to B.

They should expand the quote to say explicitly what they are fighting against, otherwise I could as easily say "ISPs are making money by providing access to NBR, and they haven't paid NBR a cent! [insert outrage here]."

That's all.

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek

#1286190 17-Apr-2015 12:03

freitasm:
NonprayingMantis:
freitasm:
Behodar: The latest "Big Media" press release includes this gem:

we believe companies who profit by [...] providing access to content they haven’t paid for are in breach of copyright.

So now an ISP needs to pay for the content viewed by the consumer? So by that logic, if Spark isn't paying Sky for Neon's content, then Spark's breaching copyright too.

Every single ISP in New Zealand is in breach of copyright because they are all "providing access to content they haven’t paid for are in breach of copyright" even without GlobalMode.

other ISPs provide access to the internet. What customers choose to do with that access is up to them.

You completely missed the point. I am looking at the quote, not at the situation. I will repeat it here:

"Our position has not changed, we believe companies who profit by marketing and providing access to content they haven’t paid for are in breach of copyright."

The quote needs something more specific otherwise it could just as easily be interpreted as any access - after all ISPs provide access to content they haven't paid for... ISPs live of providing access to content, this is their business: moving bits from A to B.

They should expand the quote to say explicitly what they are fighting against, otherwise I could as easily say "ISPs are making money by providing access to NBR, and they haven't paid NBR a cent! [insert outrage here]."

That's all.

Just semantics IMHO. It's pretty obvious what they mean in context - they are specifically talking about global mode and the 'incremental' access it provides to specific content that otherwise is inaccessible.

i.e. Spark customer's access to NBR is a necessary byproduct of being able to access the internet.
Slingshot customers access to US Netflix is not just a byproduct, it't the entire point of global mode, and promoted as such.

CrushKill

134 posts

Master Geek

#1286203 17-Apr-2015 12:20

NonprayingMantis:
freitasm:
NonprayingMantis:
freitasm:
Behodar: The latest "Big Media" press release includes this gem:

we believe companies who profit by [...] providing access to content they haven’t paid for are in breach of copyright.

So now an ISP needs to pay for the content viewed by the consumer? So by that logic, if Spark isn't paying Sky for Neon's content, then Spark's breaching copyright too.

Every single ISP in New Zealand is in breach of copyright because they are all "providing access to content they haven’t paid for are in breach of copyright" even without GlobalMode.

other ISPs provide access to the internet. What customers choose to do with that access is up to them.

You completely missed the point. I am looking at the quote, not at the situation. I will repeat it here:

"Our position has not changed, we believe companies who profit by marketing and providing access to content they haven’t paid for are in breach of copyright."

The quote needs something more specific otherwise it could just as easily be interpreted as any access - after all ISPs provide access to content they haven't paid for... ISPs live of providing access to content, this is their business: moving bits from A to B.

They should expand the quote to say explicitly what they are fighting against, otherwise I could as easily say "ISPs are making money by providing access to NBR, and they haven't paid NBR a cent! [insert outrage here]."

That's all.

Just semantics IMHO. It's pretty obvious what they mean in context - they are specifically talking about global mode and the 'incremental' access it provides to specific content that otherwise is inaccessible.

i.e. Spark customer's access to NBR is a necessary byproduct of being able to access the internet.
Slingshot customers access to US Netflix is not just a byproduct, it't the entire point of global mode, and promoted as such.

So, it's more about how it's promoted and marketed then? Or is it the technology itself?

What I mean is, if they succeed, will the technology / method be banned or made illegal? Or will CallPlus and ISP's be able to keep offering it, but not say it can be used for accessing geo blocked content? Because their are other methods that are already legal that result in the same thing. Maybe not call it Global Mode.

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.

Benoire

2798 posts

Uber Geek

#1286204 17-Apr-2015 12:24

Without jumping ahead of any potential court decision, it was found that 'global mode' infringed on copyrights etc. as the four have described, I would suspect they would move to ban that sort of technology from existing in NZ. Of course, you would still have access to Unotelly etc. that operate out of NZ unless the four managed to convince the courts that all net access should pass through services which automatically add an NZ based DNS so you cannot spoof your DNS...

sen8or

1789 posts

Uber Geek

#1286216 17-Apr-2015 12:40

In all likelyhood, Netflix's appetite for content will be based on a percentage of revenue (or expected revenue gains). The more money they receive in subscriptions, the more they spend on content, the more content they have, the more appealing they are to consumers, so the more money they get in revenues, which means they have more to spend on content, which makes them more appealing..... do you see a pattern emerging?

Whilst Netflix may not pay on a "per subscriber basis" their business model is no different than anyone else in the entertainment industry, try and give punters what they want so they'll spend their hard earned $ with you and not your competitor.

CrushKill

134 posts

Master Geek

#1286230 17-Apr-2015 12:53

Benoire: I would suspect they would move to ban that sort of technology from existing in NZ. Of course, you would still have access to Unotelly etc. that operate out of NZ unless the four managed to convince the courts that all net access should pass through services which automatically add an NZ based DNS so you cannot spoof your DNS...

Would that not end up making illegal other technologies / technological methods, that achieve the same outcome as global mode, but are already legal? Or they would be allowed to continue, but not Global Mode?

How far do you take this line of thinking I wonder? Anytime anyone invents a new piece of technology or software, they submit it to Sky or Spark or the Government, and if it means they lose money, or impacts badly on their business and profit, it gets banned?

Benoire

2798 posts

Uber Geek

#1286251 17-Apr-2015 13:04

I think currently the issue is simply that global mode has no other purpose than to aid consumers to access geo-blocked content, other tech like VPNs have other reasons and bypassing blocked content is not their primary purpose.

As this is all about legal distribution rights in NZ, any tech that, unless the courts have deemed otherwise, breaks these agreements are likely to be not allowed. It appears that at present the media companies are not concerned about what YOU do with your connection, but they are concerned about any companies making a profit out of selling services that circumvents their content rights, so as long as the new tech did not infringe upon these rights (assuming the courts agree with the media companies) they would be fine.

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek

#1286276 17-Apr-2015 13:41

CrushKill:
Benoire: I would suspect they would move to ban that sort of technology from existing in NZ. Of course, you would still have access to Unotelly etc. that operate out of NZ unless the four managed to convince the courts that all net access should pass through services which automatically add an NZ based DNS so you cannot spoof your DNS...

Would that not end up making illegal other technologies / technological methods, that achieve the same outcome as global mode, but are already legal? Or they would be allowed to continue, but not Global Mode?

potentially, but only if they are designed and promoted for the express purpose of circumventing content rights. (like global mode)
Not if the access happens to be a byproduct of the nature of the business (like a VPN)

How far do you take this line of thinking I wonder? Anytime anyone invents a new piece of technology or software, they submit it to Sky or Spark or the Government, and if it means they lose money, or impacts badly on their business and profit, it gets banned?

No, obviously not.

it's not simply a technology that causes harm to a business - it's technologies that have the express purpose of circumventing regional content rights.

So something like a VPN, which allows people to mask their location (and so as a byproduct means people can fool NEtflix into thinking they are in America), would not be deemed illegal.
A VPN promoted as being 'Perfect for Accessing Netflix USA content' could be deemed illegal. If it was designed specifically to enable Netflix content (i.e. the access wasn't a byproduct of something else) then that would increase the likleyhood of it being deemed illegal.

the clue should probably be that if your 'innovative' product encourages people to break terms and conditions of another business, that should really set off warning bells as to the legality of your product.

StarBlazer

961 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#1286279 17-Apr-2015 13:41

I reiterate a previous comment. Should the courts decide that the likes of GlobalMode are illegal then by definition using any VPN/DNS to access overseas content is equally illegal and therefore we are back to square one and considered pirates. We will not subjugate ourselves in droves to the cartels crappy offerings but more likely go back to the wild west of "on demand" content - just be smarter about what works and what doesn't. Of course they can't go after the likes of Unotelly or Unblock-US but the ISPs will know when we are using them based on where our connections are going and how much content passes through those addresses.

The likes of Spark who are not only a content provider but also an ISP will be making all sorts of deals with the studios to bring us back in line along the lines of "you give us a good deal and we won't block you request for user details through the courts". Paranoid? Maybe... Of course thi is just one possible scenario. One other is that the courts rule GlobalMode illegal and shut it down, nothing else happens and we all live happily ever after.

Procrastination eventually pays off.

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek

#1286281 17-Apr-2015 13:47

StarBlazer: I reiterate a previous comment. Should the courts decide that the likes of GlobalMode are illegal then by definition using any VPN/DNS to access overseas content is equally illegal and therefore we are back to square one and considered pirates. We will not subjugate ourselves in droves to the cartels crappy offerings but more likely go back to the wild west of "on demand" content - just be smarter about what works and what doesn't. Of course they can't go after the likes of Unotelly or Unblock-US but the ISPs will know when we are using them based on where our connections are going and how much content passes through those addresses.

The likes of Spark who are not only a content provider but also an ISP will be making all sorts of deals with the studios to bring us back in line along the lines of "you give us a good deal and we won't block you request for user details through the courts". Paranoid? Maybe... Of course thi is just one possible scenario. One other is that the courts rule GlobalMode illegal and shut it down, nothing else happens and we all live happily ever after.

it really depends on what level the courts determine it is illegal.

illegal to use? illegal to sell? illegal to buy?

They are not the same thing.

They could determine that global mode is illegal to sell in NZ, but not illegal to buy or use. (this would not make VPNs illegal)

That would mean that those of us using unblock-us are totally fine.

Also bear in mind that Spark have never shown any sign of tracking down the more obvious pirates unless legally required (i.e. torrent users who don't encrypt anything) so the chances of them trying to go after people who use VPNs (where the traffic is encrypted) is pretty much zero. I really wouldn't worry about that. This would be totally consistent with their statements about NOT going after individual users.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79314 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#1286284 17-Apr-2015 13:54

NonprayingMantis: it's not simply a technology that causes harm to a business - it's technologies that have the express purpose of circumventing regional content rights.

You are then saying this is not about copyrights holders being fairly compensated for their creative output, but companies trying to maintain monopolies?

1 | ... | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | ... | 54