Global mode over ? Lets see.....

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

1 | ... | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | ... | 54

BDFL - Memuneh
79288 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#1288239 21-Apr-2015 08:15

JWR:
Lightbox: Yeah, my comment was directed at the NBR article and the assertion that Lightbox and Lightbox Sport benefit from overseas access. I represent that part of the business, not the wider Spark group.

Spark as an ISP does not interfere with the way their customers use their connection.

You did say .. "We actively police geo-dodging, cut off anyone practising it and do not promote or advertise it in any way or form."

How can you cut off anyone if you don't get ISP info from Spark?

Give them a break. They can block accounts based on credit card used, or they can block whole IP addresses used by proxies and none of this requires the ISP to give private information.

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek

#1288257 21-Apr-2015 09:01

freitasm:
JWR:
Lightbox: Yeah, my comment was directed at the NBR article and the assertion that Lightbox and Lightbox Sport benefit from overseas access. I represent that part of the business, not the wider Spark group.

Spark as an ISP does not interfere with the way their customers use their connection.

You did say .. "We actively police geo-dodging, cut off anyone practising it and do not promote or advertise it in any way or form."

How can you cut off anyone if you don't get ISP info from Spark?

Give them a break. They can block accounts based on credit card used, or they can block whole IP addresses used by proxies and none of this requires the ISP to give private information.

not to mention that the only information Spark could possibly provide to Lightbox would be info about Spark customers.
Since all spark customers have their connections in NZ, this information would be utterly useless when it comes to stopping people outside NZ from accessing Lightbox sport.

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek

#1288260 21-Apr-2015 09:05

squab:
Lightbox: Yeah, my comment was directed at the NBR article and the assertion that Lightbox and Lightbox Sport benefit from overseas access. I represent that part of the business, not the wider Spark group.

Spark as an ISP does not interfere with the way their customers use their connection.

You wouldn't know if someone overseas was accessing it if they set it up correctly. Despite what you say if they pay you will take the money and provide the service. So if Lightbox does it why cant anyone else.

clearly there are ways to find people, or HBO Now would not have been able to send those emails out.

I'm sure there will always be a few people who slip through the cracks though. But nobody expects their policing to be perfect. It just has to be good enough to stop/deter most people.

the point is, Lightbox have terms that prohibit usage outside NZ. They enforce those terms where possible. They also do not provide a means to get around those terms and neither do they promote it.

It is the latter two things that Global mode does (provide a means to get around geoblocking, and promoting it), that Sky etc are angry about.

There is no double standards here at all.

natlukros

59 posts

Master Geek

#1288264 21-Apr-2015 09:15

The thing that concerns me is if the global mode owners win the court case, sky etc will lobby the government (john key) to get the law changed.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1288268 21-Apr-2015 09:19

natlukros: The thing that concerns me is if the global mode owners win the court case, sky etc will lobby the government (john key) to get the law changed.

Lobbying does not always sway Government, what is more likely to cause law changes is international trade agreements.

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek

#1288276 21-Apr-2015 09:24

natlukros: The thing that concerns me is if the global mode owners win the court case, sky etc will lobby the government (john key) to get the law changed.

AFAIK the way NZ law works (based on common law) is that it is determined by legal precedent.

That means that is sky etc win, then the law automatically says that global mode is illegal.
If Sky lose, then the law says that global mode is legal.

where it will be murky is if it is settled out of court and no formal judgement is made.

sultanoswing

814 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1288281 21-Apr-2015 09:30

NonprayingMantis: There is no double standards here at all.

There *are* no double standards. The 'standards' are plural.

This is a common but grating grammatical error.

OK. Back on topic.

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.

mdf

3513 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1288333 21-Apr-2015 10:53

NonprayingMantis:
natlukros: The thing that concerns me is if the global mode owners win the court case, sky etc will lobby the government (john key) to get the law changed.

AFAIK the way NZ law works (based on common law) is that it is determined by legal precedent.

That means that is sky etc win, then the law automatically says that global mode is illegal.
If Sky lose, then the law says that global mode is legal.

where it will be murky is if it is settled out of court and no formal judgement is made.

This is exactly right, but statutes (acts of parliament) trump the common law.

There have been lots of situations where the court says the law is X, then parliament overrules it. Most of these are probably quite right and reflect the fact that societal norms have evolved over time. Others, perhaps less so.

Sky et al could well lose but then have the law reversed by parliament.

If New Zealand were obliged by an international treaty to do something, that would actually be given effect in domestic law by an act of parliament.

Dratsab

3946 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1288347 21-Apr-2015 11:12

lchiu7: http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/67879996/TV-companies-go-to-court-over-Global-Mode

Let the battle begin!

Good to see sensibility is being applied and they've requested a declaratory judgement.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18660 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1288429 21-Apr-2015 12:49

I think more prominence needs to be given to the argument that global mode and dns proxies play an important role in making it possible to access content that is simply not made available in New Zealand. This has been pointed out by blind and deaf spokespeople. In my own case (and I’m sure that of many others), my tastes simply are not those of the majority. I don’t watch series television, also not GoT, and I don’t care for blockbuster films. The cultural content I do watch is simply not available in this country. This means that no-one is being deprived of any income if I go overseas. This point is being obscured by all the technical legal arguments over what is or is not copyright violation. Those of us who want to see things that the mediaopoly cannot be bothered with also have rights.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek

#1288458 21-Apr-2015 13:07

Rikkitic: I think more prominence needs to be given to the argument that global mode and dns proxies play an important role in making it possible to access content that is simply not made available in New Zealand. This has been pointed out by blind and deaf spokespeople. In my own case (and I’m sure that of many others), my tastes simply are not those of the majority. I don’t watch series television, also not GoT, and I don’t care for blockbuster films. The cultural content I do watch is simply not available in this country. This means that no-one is being deprived of any income if I go overseas. This point is being obscured by all the technical legal arguments over what is or is not copyright violation. Those of us who want to see things that the mediaopoly cannot be bothered with also have rights.

could you expand a little please on this last point. What rights do you have to access content that the content owner does not want you to access?

we aren't talking about things necessary for life - food, water, shelter, or other human rights. We are talking about some entertainment.

If the person who owns that entertainment does not want you to access it, what right do you have to overturn that?

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18660 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1288518 21-Apr-2015 14:09

I’m talking about knowledge, not entertainment, though the classifying of everything as entertainment does seem to be part of the general dumbing-down process of NZ media. Just look what is happening to Campbell Live.

I would argue that ABC (Australia), SBS, Arte, PBS and others couldn’t care less who sees their content. More likely the geo-restriction is due to over-arching demands of providers of unrelated content and the laziness and unintelligence of politicians who cannot pass legislation that properly distinguishes between these things.

We happen to live in a small country. In Britain, everyone can freely partake of a vastly greater range of content than is available to us here. Why should that be? On-demand is free to all, separate from the license fee. But someone (surely not the content providers) has decreed that we cannot access it.

In the USA the situation is even more perverse. Hundreds of millions of people can view any public access content they like without any restrictions, other than where they live. Why should we be denied this just because we happen to be located in a small country? Geographical restrictions do not make any sense in a digital age.

I maintain that I do have a right to view this content, and that right supersedes any so-called copyright crap. The principle of civil disobedience, enshrined by Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr., says that bad laws do not have to be respected. The people have a moral right to break them. The current media situation in New Zealand is akin to unwarranted censorship. My ability to freely access knowledge is being subjugated by the narrow financial interests of a small coterie of outdated commercial enterprises who seem to feel they have some kind of god-given right to squeeze profits from a captive audience. A normal business earns profits by meeting demand. It does not artificially create demand by restricting access to alternatives. Geographical discrimination is arbitrary, unfair and unjust. This lawsuit stinks and the reasoning behind it is corrupt. That is where I draw my right from.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

timbosan

2159 posts

Uber Geek

#1288520 21-Apr-2015 14:18

Rikkitic: I’m talking about knowledge, not entertainment, though the classifying of everything as entertainment does seem to be part of the general dumbing-down process of NZ media. Just look what is happening to Campbell Live.

I would argue that ABC (Australia), SBS, Arte, PBS and others couldn’t care less who sees their content. More likely the geo-restriction is due to over-arching demands of providers of unrelated content and the laziness and unintelligence of politicians who cannot pass legislation that properly distinguishes between these things.

We happen to live in a small country. In Britain, everyone can freely partake of a vastly greater range of content than is available to us here. Why should that be? On-demand is free to all, separate from the license fee. But someone (surely not the content providers) has decreed that we cannot access it.

In the USA the situation is even more perverse. Hundreds of millions of people can view any public access content they like without any restrictions, other than where they live. Why should we be denied this just because we happen to be located in a small country? Geographical restrictions do not make any sense in a digital age.

I maintain that I do have a right to view this content, and that right supersedes any so-called copyright crap. The principle of civil disobedience, enshrined by Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr., says that bad laws do not have to be respected. The people have a moral right to break them. The current media situation in New Zealand is akin to unwarranted censorship. My ability to freely access knowledge is being subjugated by the narrow financial interests of a small coterie of outdated commercial enterprises who seem to feel they have some kind of god-given right to squeeze profits from a captive audience. A normal business earns profits by meeting demand. It does not artificially create demand by restricting access to alternatives. Geographical discrimination is arbitrary, unfair and unjust. This lawsuit stinks and the reasoning behind it is corrupt. That is where I draw my right from.

Quite well said (from the "The current media situation in New Zealand is a...." part onwards, I don't totally agree with people having a moral right to break laws. That is (supposedly) why we have elected officials - to do our bidding and implement the laws as the people see fit. Of course in NZ it is all about the power/money of the corporate entities.

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek

#1288525 21-Apr-2015 14:29

Rikkitic: I’m talking about knowledge, not entertainment, though the classifying of everything as entertainment does seem to be part of the general dumbing-down process of NZ media. Just look what is happening to Campbell Live.

I would argue that ABC (Australia), SBS, Arte, PBS and others couldn’t care less who sees their content. More likely the geo-restriction is due to over-arching demands of providers of unrelated content and the laziness and unintelligence of politicians who cannot pass legislation that properly distinguishes between these things.

if they couldn't care less, then they wouldn't have taken steps to geo-restrict their content.
The fact that they have georestricted their content is proof positive that they do care.

We happen to live in a small country. In Britain, everyone can freely partake of a vastly greater range of content than is available to us here. Why should that be? On-demand is free to all, separate from the license fee. But someone (surely not the content providers) has decreed that we cannot access it.

It will be exactly the content providers who decide BBC iplayer is not viewable outside the UK.
This is because the BBC would rather sell the rights to Sky etc.

In the USA the situation is even more perverse. Hundreds of millions of people can view any public access content they like without any restrictions, other than where they live. Why should we be denied this just because we happen to be located in a small country? Geographical restrictions do not make any sense in a digital age.

I maintain that I do have a right to view this content, and that right supersedes any so-called copyright crap. The principle of civil disobedience, enshrined by Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr., says that bad laws do not have to be respected. The people have a moral right to break them. The current media situation in New Zealand is akin to unwarranted censorship. My ability to freely access knowledge is being subjugated by the narrow financial interests of a small coterie of outdated commercial enterprises who seem to feel they have some kind of god-given right to squeeze profits from a captive audience. A normal business earns profits by meeting demand. It does not artificially create demand by restricting access to alternatives. Geographical discrimination is arbitrary, unfair and unjust. This lawsuit stinks and the reasoning behind it is corrupt. That is where I draw my right from.

I'm not sure what to make of this.
Ghandi etc were fighting for fundamental human rights - right to vote, etc.

the right to access a product the owner does not want you to access is not one of those. Not even close. (unless the product is something critical to life - water, shelter etc - and even then there is no requirement that access be free)

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18660 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1288533 21-Apr-2015 14:36

timbosan:
Quite well said (from the "The current media situation in New Zealand is a...." part onwards, I don't totally agree with people having a moral right to break laws. That is (supposedly) why we have elected officials - to do our bidding and implement the laws as the people see fit. Of course in NZ it is all about the power/money of the corporate entities.

When elected officials don't do their job (or corporate behemoths crap on their customers) the people have a responsibility to rise up if they want to maintain their freedoms. By 'rise up' I don't mean revolution or violence in the streets. There are other effective ways of telling the power abusers where to shove it.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

1 | ... | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | ... | 54