Global mode over ? Lets see.....

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

1 | ... | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | ... | 54

2798 posts

Uber Geek

#1286289 17-Apr-2015 14:01

This is not about the content owners, but about the legal distribution agreements the distributors currently have and are forced in to by the rights holders.

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek

#1286301 17-Apr-2015 14:07

freitasm:
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?

well I'm sure most business would love to stop anything that harms their business, monopoly or otherwise. But in this case it is specifically about (potential) copyright infringements.

CrushKill

134 posts

Master Geek

#1286305 17-Apr-2015 14:09

NonprayingMantis:
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.

Terms and conditions are not laws. Lying to Netflix is not illegal. It's against their terms - but not a crime.

I am interested as to how global mode works exactly - does anyone know the specifics of it?

Is getting around Geo blocking itself illegal? Forget about then using that connection to download Tv shows and Movies - just the geo blocking part. Is it a crime to circumvent geoblocks period? What you then do once you've done that is an whole other matter.

What if I want to circumvernt geo blocks but not watch TV shows and Movies, but want to just post on a forum or publish something or some other thing that has nothing to do with copyright? It can surely be shown that this tech can be used for other purposes?

The question then is are companies allowed to geo block? If so, are we as citizens allowed to use technologies to get around those geo blocks? If not, then surely all methods, including VPN's, must be banned.

If Global Mode's main issue is just that it's marketed as a copyright avoidance tool only, then show it can be used for other things, and don't advertise that aspect. VPN'S can do teh same, but I suppose you can't trumpet that they too can achieve the same result as Global Mode.

Thoughts?

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek

#1286316 17-Apr-2015 14:18

CrushKill:
NonprayingMantis:
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.

Terms and conditions are not laws. Lying to Netflix is not illegal. It's against their terms - but not a crime.

It may be copyright infringement (which would make it a crime). We don't know yet, since it hasn't been tested in court.

another example of how breaching terms and conditions is a crime:
DVDs have ts and cs that say you may not copy and on-sell the content - but if you do that you haven't just breached ts and cs, you have breached copyright laws, which makes it a crime.

I am interested as to how global mode works exactly - does anyone know the specifics of it?

Is getting around Geo blocking itself illegal? Forget about then using that connection to download Tv shows and Movies - just the geo blocking part. Is it a crime to circumvent geoblocks period? What you then do once you've done that is an whole other matter.

What if I want to circumvernt geo blocks but not watch TV shows and Movies, but want to just post on a forum or publish something or some other thing that has nothing to do with copyright? It can surely be shown that this tech can be used for other purposes?

The question then is are companies allowed to geo block? If so, are we as citizens allowed to use technologies to get around those geo blocks? If not, then surely all methods, including VPN's, must be banned.

I believe it works like this

1) something designed as a general tool to make it seem like you were in another country = fine. it has legitimate uses beyond accessing content without the rights.
2) something specifically created to bypass netflix geoblocking = not ok.

A VPN works in the first way (a general tool, where access to netlfix is a byproduct).
Global mode works in the second way. (i.e. the people behind global mode don't just a make a general tool, they have to specifically code the product for each site, add sites to the list etc for it to work.)

If Global Mode's main issue is just that it's marketed as a copyright avoidance tool only, then show it can be used for other things, and don't advertise that aspect. VPN'S can do teh same, but I suppose you can't trumpet that they too can achieve the same result as Global Mode.

Thoughts?

Global mode can't be used for other things. The ONLY possible use of global mode is to access the specific sites they have on the list.

VPNs also allow you to access those sites, but that is as a byproduct of faking the location, not something they are specifically designed and intended to do.

qyiet

454 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#1286317 17-Apr-2015 14:21

NonprayingMantis:
Global mode can't be used for other things. The ONLY possible use of global mode is to access the specific sites they have on the list.

Actually a bunch of the DNS type blocking services note they are a way to use popular US websites that are banned in some regions. EG Twitter and Facebook. So the TECH has other uses than simply pulling down movies.

Warning: reality may differ from above post

Behodar

10501 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1286318 17-Apr-2015 14:22

CrushKill: Is getting around Geo blocking itself illegal?

I don't believe so.

Section 226A of the Copyright Act:

A person (A) must not make, import, sell, distribute, let for hire, offer or expose for sale or hire, or advertise for sale or hire, a TPM circumvention device that applies to a technological protection measure if A knows or has reason to believe that it will, or is likely to, be used to infringe copyright in a TPM work.

A "TPM" is a "technological protection measure" which according to the definition (my emphasis):

does not include a process, treatment, mechanism, device, or system to the extent that, in the normal course of operation, it only controls any access to a work for non-infringing purposes (for example, it does not include a process, treatment, mechanism, device, or system to the extent that it controls geographic market segmentation by preventing the playback in New Zealand of a non-infringing copy of a work)

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1286321 17-Apr-2015 14:28

The sooner this goes to Court the better, it is the most appropriate way to define and decide this matter.

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.

Benoire

2798 posts

Uber Geek

#1286328 17-Apr-2015 14:35

Behodar:
CrushKill: Is getting around Geo blocking itself illegal?

I don't believe so.

Section 226A of the Copyright Act:
A person (A) must not make, import, sell, distribute, let for hire, offer or expose for sale or hire, or advertise for sale or hire, a TPM circumvention device that applies to a technological protection measure if A knows or has reason to believe that it will, or is likely to, be used to infringe copyright in a TPM work.

A "TPM" is a "technological protection measure" which according to the definition (my emphasis):
does not include a process, treatment, mechanism, device, or system to the extent that, in the normal course of operation, it only controls any access to a work for non-infringing purposes (for example, it does not include a process, treatment, mechanism, device, or system to the extent that it controls geographic market segmentation by preventing the playback in New Zealand of a non-infringing copy of a work)

I'd say the critical bit there is the 'non-infringing copy of work' as accessing this content that is not licensed for NZ is infringing on the copy of work and therefore a TPM would not be allowed... Just my interpretation but as pointed out the courts need to test this.

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek

#1286332 17-Apr-2015 14:37

qyiet:
NonprayingMantis:
Global mode can't be used for other things. The ONLY possible use of global mode is to access the specific sites they have on the list.

Actually a bunch of the DNS type blocking services note they are a way to use popular US websites that are banned in some regions. EG Twitter and Facebook. So the TECH has other uses than simply pulling down movies.

kind of. they have to add each site specifically to the list.
In other words, global mode is not a generalist thing i.e. adding Facebook to the list does not add Netflix. This is the difference between global mode and a VPN.

CrushKill

134 posts

Master Geek

#1286336 17-Apr-2015 14:42

NonprayingMantis:
CrushKill:
NonprayingMantis:
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.

Terms and conditions are not laws. Lying to Netflix is not illegal. It's against their terms - but not a crime.

It may be copyright infringement (which would make it a crime). We don't know yet, since it hasn't been tested in court.

another example of how breaching terms and conditions is a crime:
DVDs have ts and cs that say you may not copy and on-sell the content - but if you do that you haven't just breached ts and cs, you have breached copyright laws, which makes it a crime.

I am interested as to how global mode works exactly - does anyone know the specifics of it?

Is getting around Geo blocking itself illegal? Forget about then using that connection to download Tv shows and Movies - just the geo blocking part. Is it a crime to circumvent geoblocks period? What you then do once you've done that is an whole other matter.

What if I want to circumvernt geo blocks but not watch TV shows and Movies, but want to just post on a forum or publish something or some other thing that has nothing to do with copyright? It can surely be shown that this tech can be used for other purposes?

The question then is are companies allowed to geo block? If so, are we as citizens allowed to use technologies to get around those geo blocks? If not, then surely all methods, including VPN's, must be banned.

I believe it works like this

1) something designed as a general tool to make it seem like you were in another country = fine. it has legitimate uses beyond accessing content without the rights.
2) something specifically created to bypass netflix geoblocking = not ok.

A VPN works in the first way (a general tool, where access to netlfix is a byproduct).
Global mode works in the second way. (i.e. the people behind global mode don't just a make a general tool, they have to specifically code the product for each site, add sites to the list etc for it to work.)

If Global Mode's main issue is just that it's marketed as a copyright avoidance tool only, then show it can be used for other things, and don't advertise that aspect. VPN'S can do teh same, but I suppose you can't trumpet that they too can achieve the same result as Global Mode.

Thoughts?

Global mode can't be used for other things. The ONLY possible use of global mode is to access the specific sites they have on the list.

VPNs also allow you to access those sites, but that is as a byproduct of faking the location, not something they are specifically designed and intended to do.

Interesting. So it's because Global Mode is too specific in the task it performs then? What if they were able to make do other things then? More than just the singular task it apparently seems to currently do? If it could, say, do what a VPN does? If Global Mode could be altered to do a range of things, what then? If the geo blocking aspect was to be used for other purposes outside of getting around copyright? If it can do many things, does it get banned for the one bad thing that a person might use it for? (So ban knives, cars, chainsaws, etc, etc)

On the topic of VPN's, you mention their ability to fake location as a side product. With more and more people getting them (and they are incredibly easy to set up nowadays), is their a point where that will be their "main" function, do you think? No longer a side product, but the main product?

Benoire

2798 posts

Uber Geek

#1286339 17-Apr-2015 14:47

I know from my experience with VPNs bought for TV that they terminate at various data centres across the world, but really a VPN is a tunnel to a point such as a company or other place. In the UK, they forced TVCatchup to start banning datacentres that received VPN connections to stop them accessing the streams. If you legitimately had to terminate in a banned data centre and where in the UK you had to provide them with proof. So, no, I don't think VPN as a technology will ever be blocked but I do think more scrutiny will come to those end points by the rights holder.... Unless an ISP can sniff the end point in which case it might become fair game!

sen8or

1787 posts

Uber Geek

#1286340 17-Apr-2015 14:47

Benoire:
Behodar:
CrushKill: Is getting around Geo blocking itself illegal?

I don't believe so.

Section 226A of the Copyright Act:
A person (A) must not make, import, sell, distribute, let for hire, offer or expose for sale or hire, or advertise for sale or hire, a TPM circumvention device that applies to a technological protection measure if A knows or has reason to believe that it will, or is likely to, be used to infringe copyright in a TPM work.

A "TPM" is a "technological protection measure" which according to the definition (my emphasis):
does not include a process, treatment, mechanism, device, or system to the extent that, in the normal course of operation, it only controls any access to a work for non-infringing purposes (for example, it does not include a process, treatment, mechanism, device, or system to the extent that it controls geographic market segmentation by preventing the playback in New Zealand of a non-infringing copy of a work)

I'd say the critical bit there is the 'non-infringing copy of work' as accessing this content that is not licensed for NZ is infringing on the copy of work and therefore a TPM would not be allowed... Just my interpretation but as pointed out the courts need to test this.

But then bypassing regional locks on a DVD or Blu-ray to play an imported movie would be breach of copyright on the assumption that the seller of the product has not obtained consent from the copyright holder to sell goods outside of their territory?

Benoire

2798 posts

Uber Geek

#1286347 17-Apr-2015 14:51

Yes most likely... but I'd imagine as there are no sole distributors of DVDs/blu-rays (think Sky who sign exclusive contracts for content) and you seem to be able to purchase them from many places no one has challenged the T&Cs. Until a sole distributor gained the rights exclusively only the rights holder could bring action against a parallel imported DVD on both the seller and consumer.

Behodar

10501 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1286352 17-Apr-2015 14:58

Benoire: I'd say the critical bit there is the 'non-infringing copy of work' as accessing this content that is not licensed for NZ is infringing on the copy of work and therefore a TPM would not be allowed... Just my interpretation but as pointed out the courts need to test this.

I suppose that's where Sky etc are hoping to win. My own interpretation is that the content on Netflix US is "non-infringing" in that it's obviously legal for a customer in the US to watch content on Netflix US - ie. the content itself isn't infringing. The difference here if that we're accessing the service from NZ, and that in and of itself is clearly allowed according to the wording in the Act.

But I'm not a lawyer :)

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek

#1286361 17-Apr-2015 15:09

CrushKill:

Interesting. So it's because Global Mode is too specific in the task it performs then? What if they were able to make do other things then? More than just the singular task it apparently seems to currently do? If it could, say, do what a VPN does? If Global Mode could be altered to do a range of things, what then? If the geo blocking aspect was to be used for other purposes outside of getting around copyright? If it can do many things, does it get banned for the one bad thing that a person might use it for? (So ban knives, cars, chainsaws, etc, etc)

On the topic of VPN's, you mention their ability to fake location as a side product. With more and more people getting them (and they are incredibly easy to set up nowadays), is their a point where that will be their "main" function, do you think? No longer a side product, but the main product?

With global mode to enable a specific site, the owners need to make changes to global mode specifically to allow that to happen. They can't make it 'general' because that's not how it works.

Whereas VPNs ability to access Netflix is a byproduct of the way VPNs work.

As far as I understand anyway - I don't have any intimate knowledge of how it works, but just looking at how it is implemented suggests that is how it works i.e. you have to request specific sites. some work, some don't, they add more to the list over time. Anything not specifically added to the list still thinks you are in NZ.

whereas with a VPN everything works, and every website you go to thinks you are in the USA

to answer the second question, I don't even think that is relevant.

The main function of bittorrent (by absolutely miles) is for pirating content. But because bittorrent is not specifically designed for piracy, it just happens to be used for that purpose alongside other legitimate uses, we do not ban bit torrent.

It would get tricky within NZ if a VPN seller advertised it specifically "to access Netflix", rather than a more general "Fake your location, get access to websites normally unavailable"
the first option would clearly be for copyright infringement (assuming that is what the courts decide) but the second option has plausible deniability.

(of course, that doesn't always work, as Kim Dot Com is finding out)

1 | ... | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | ... | 54