Global mode over ? Lets see.....

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

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | ... | 54

67 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 19

#1276335 2-Apr-2015 19:13

freitasm: Two words: parallel importing.

Ah, but we're talking copyright here. And when it comes to copyright a movie is no different to a piece of software. Both covered by the same law. While copyright generally falls apart when you look at it closely enough I think this instance is fairly clear.

When it comes to creative works still under copyright you do not have permission to do anything with that creative work unless either:

It falls under fair use or some other permission under copyright law
The holder of the copyrights grants you permission

When it comes to Netflix streaming a movie they won't be covered by Fair Use. To stream they'll need explicit consent (a license) from the copyright holder. And the copyright holder is well within their rights to place whatever arbitrary restrictions they please on that license. That includes which countries Netflix can stream a movie to. Or in the case of software, if you're allowed to disassemble it. Both restrictions are equally arbitrary and anti-consumer and both well within the copyright holders rights.

If Netflix does something their license does not cover (such as streaming to a customer in New Zealand (which would effectively be selling a single-use copy I guess)) that is copyright infringement. Just as if I do something my Windows license doesn't cover (disassembly, sell copies, defeat activation, etc) its copyright infringement.

You can't legally possess a copy of a copyrighted work without a suitable license obviously. Otherwise it would be perfectly fine to receive a copy of Windows from a bittorrent peer. Normally the person giving you a legal copy (Microsoft, Netflix, etc) would grant you some form of license to receive that copyrighted work and do something with it.

If Netflix doesn't have a license to be distributing a copy of a movie to you it seems rather unlikely they'd have any ability to grant you a license to watch it. So unless you already own a copy on blu-ray or something I'd say you're receiving an unlicensed copy just as though you were using bittorrent. As downloading a movie via bittorrent is commonly accepted as copyright infringement I'd assume receiving an unlicensed copy from Netflix would be just the same. Only difference between the two I can see is who is sending you the copy and what protocol they're using.

As far as I can see if Netflix doesn't have a license to stream something to someone in NZ and they stream it to me in NZ anyway then logically both I and Netflix are committing copyright infringement. Of course I'm not a lawyer. There are certain cases where logic doesn't apply to copyright law and this may well be one of those cases.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80653 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41045

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#1276360 2-Apr-2015 19:59

PottsyNZ:
freitasm: I disagree. It is no different than buying a book or DVD on Amazon and having it shipped here.

The companies involved look like greedy corporates. We don't need this crap in New Zealand.

That's a poor analogy, it's not like buying the dvd at all.
The bigger question is if streaming should following the broadcasting rights laws. Remember the business model for a lot of shows is that make money in particular regions. We have a lot of cop shows cuz they sell like crazy in the UK apparently (and are chopped up and mixed with Aus shows). IF I recall correctly Shorters only hung around at the start as it got sold to the UK. I'm not saying it's a good business model but it's how stuff works. NZ TV in particular.

It's not poor at all. Amazon sells DVDs for a specific region. We use tools to legally remove geo-blocks from DVD players and enjoy importing those DVDs with digital content for personal use.

Nothing is different. Bits are bits, either on a disc or over a wire.

Referral links: Quic Broadband (free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE) | Samsung | AliExpress | Wise | Sharesies

Support Geekzone by subscribing (browse ads-free), or making a one-off or recurring donation through PressPatron.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80653 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41045

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#1276362 2-Apr-2015 20:03

davidrg:
freitasm: Two words: parallel importing.

Ah, but we're talking copyright here. And when it comes to copyright a movie is no different to a piece of software. Both covered by the same law. While copyright generally falls apart when you look at it closely enough I think this instance is fairly clear.

When it comes to creative works still under copyright you do not have permission to do anything with that creative work unless either:

It falls under fair use or some other permission under copyright law
The holder of the copyrights grants you permission
When it comes to Netflix streaming a movie they won't be covered by Fair Use. To stream they'll need explicit consent (a license) from the copyright holder. And the copyright holder is well within their rights to place whatever arbitrary restrictions they please on that license. That includes which countries Netflix can stream a movie to. Or in the case of software, if you're allowed to disassemble it. Both restrictions are equally arbitrary and anti-consumer and both well within the copyright holders rights.

If Netflix does something their license does not cover (such as streaming to a customer in New Zealand (which would effectively be selling a single-use copy I guess)) that is copyright infringement. Just as if I do something my Windows license doesn't cover (disassembly, sell copies, defeat activation, etc) its copyright infringement.

You can't legally possess a copy of a copyrighted work without a suitable license obviously. Otherwise it would be perfectly fine to receive a copy of Windows from a bittorrent peer. Normally the person giving you a legal copy (Microsoft, Netflix, etc) would grant you some form of license to receive that copyrighted work and do something with it.

If Netflix doesn't have a license to be distributing a copy of a movie to you it seems rather unlikely they'd have any ability to grant you a license to watch it. So unless you already own a copy on blu-ray or something I'd say you're receiving an unlicensed copy just as though you were using bittorrent. As downloading a movie via bittorrent is commonly accepted as copyright infringement I'd assume receiving an unlicensed copy from Netflix would be just the same. Only difference between the two I can see is who is sending you the copy and what protocol they're using.

As far as I can see if Netflix doesn't have a license to stream something to someone in NZ and they stream it to me in NZ anyway then logically both I and Netflix are committing copyright infringement. Of course I'm not a lawyer. There are certain cases where logic doesn't apply to copyright law and this may well be one of those cases.

All very good but books and DVDs are also copyrighted material and we can easily buy those on Amazon and have these directly shipped here.

I can buy a book cheaper on Amazon, including shipping, than from Whitcoulls on Lambton Quay. Whitcoulls can complain all they want but it is still my right to import that for personal use. Similar concept.

Referral links: Quic Broadband (free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE) | Samsung | AliExpress | Wise | Sharesies

Support Geekzone by subscribing (browse ads-free), or making a one-off or recurring donation through PressPatron.

shk292

2916 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2040

Lifetime subscriber

#1276364 2-Apr-2015 20:06

davidrg:
freitasm: Two words: parallel importing.

Ah, but we're talking copyright here. And when it comes to copyright a movie is no different to a piece of software. Both covered by the same law. While copyright generally falls apart when you look at it closely enough I think this instance is fairly clear.

When it comes to creative works still under copyright you do not have permission to do anything with that creative work unless either:

It falls under fair use or some other permission under copyright law
The holder of the copyrights grants you permission
When it comes to Netflix streaming a movie they won't be covered by Fair Use. To stream they'll need explicit consent (a license) from the copyright holder. And the copyright holder is well within their rights to place whatever arbitrary restrictions they please on that license. That includes which countries Netflix can stream a movie to. Or in the case of software, if you're allowed to disassemble it. Both restrictions are equally arbitrary and anti-consumer and both well within the copyright holders rights.

If Netflix does something their license does not cover (such as streaming to a customer in New Zealand (which would effectively be selling a single-use copy I guess)) that is copyright infringement. Just as if I do something my Windows license doesn't cover (disassembly, sell copies, defeat activation, etc) its copyright infringement.

You can't legally possess a copy of a copyrighted work without a suitable license obviously. Otherwise it would be perfectly fine to receive a copy of Windows from a bittorrent peer. Normally the person giving you a legal copy (Microsoft, Netflix, etc) would grant you some form of license to receive that copyrighted work and do something with it.

If Netflix doesn't have a license to be distributing a copy of a movie to you it seems rather unlikely they'd have any ability to grant you a license to watch it. So unless you already own a copy on blu-ray or something I'd say you're receiving an unlicensed copy just as though you were using bittorrent. As downloading a movie via bittorrent is commonly accepted as copyright infringement I'd assume receiving an unlicensed copy from Netflix would be just the same. Only difference between the two I can see is who is sending you the copy and what protocol they're using.

As far as I can see if Netflix doesn't have a license to stream something to someone in NZ and they stream it to me in NZ anyway then logically both I and Netflix are committing copyright infringement. Of course I'm not a lawyer. There are certain cases where logic doesn't apply to copyright law and this may well be one of those cases.

You seem to have (deliberately?) missed one thing: when I stream from Netflix, at no point do I possess a copy of the movie I am watching. No additional copy has been made, in the same way as if I tune my radio into a BBC channel while I'm in France, I have not made a copy of the music I'm hearing and am not breaching copyright.

If I torrent, on the other hand, not only do I make and possess a copy of the material, I also offer this to others so they can do the same. This is such a completely different concept, I can only think that those who are trying to confuse the two are either very stupid or willfully ignorant.

Wade

2225 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 373

#1276370 2-Apr-2015 20:12

So even if successful this would have little to no impact on subscription services such as unblock.us and unotelly?

At worst, it will just cost consumers a few more dollars a month and leave a bad taste in one's mouth

Makoura

49 posts

Geek
+1 received by user: 4

#1276374 2-Apr-2015 20:20

Lightbox: Don't really want to get to much into this - it isn't my area of expertise and it's a legal conversation happening business 2 business.

The legal action is strictly directed against ISPs that promote and benefit from copyright being breached (even if they themselves do not do so directly).

Does anyone disagree that the rights have been sold in NZ and that ISPs are gaining a benefit from said rights being breached?

My problem is this. I think you are supporting the wrong argument. I don't want to be a pirate I want to pay for content I want. But at the moment we don't really have that option in NZ (well it's starting). I have had Netflix and Hulu Plus for a while now and can see that lightbox could replace hulu plus. But it needs the arrow, blacklist etc that I don't record otherwise it's just easier to download the season at the end.

I still think this has been explained best by the someone who said watch a 3 year old on an iPad. They will find peppa pig and watch it on youtube when they want to not when it comes on TV or mum and dad my skyed it.

You as a provider have to be easier than piracy. Netflix had the advantage of being on every device, as is hulu. I know more devices are coming but until you are native on more things it's going to be hard to gain traction in our household and by stopping global mode and wasting money on this you are pushing people (particularly the young) back to piracy.

Dyson

Shop now for Dyson appliances (affiliate link).

Lurch

1061 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 71

#1276379 2-Apr-2015 20:29

Just more reasons not to support Lightbox, MediaWorks, Sky and TVNZ, keep going and turn away more customers.

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9996

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#1276392 2-Apr-2015 20:38

Lightbox:

Does anyone disagree that the rights have been sold in NZ and that ISPs are gaining a benefit from said rights being breached?

You do realise it's not 1997 any longer and Parallel Importing is legal?

The above argument you used is to be completely honest the biggest piece of nonsense I've read all day. How is your claim above any different to the authorised NZ distributor of (insert X brand here) goods who is facing competition from The Warehouse ("the "ISP") who is selling parallel imported goods? Quite simply it's not. The Warehouse is complying with the law, and so is every ISP and end user using such a service.

My challenge to Spark (and others involved with this action) is to cut the BS and file court action. Don't just talk about it or get a lawyer to send a meaningless letter. Front up with your money and file papers. Don't want to? I didn't think so..

The only infringement I could possibly see occurring would be the law regarding a 9 month timeframe for movies, but the NZ law made it very clear personal use is except from this.

davidrg

67 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 19

#1276400 2-Apr-2015 20:50

shk292:
You seem to have (deliberately?) missed one thing: when I stream from Netflix, at no point do I possess a copy of the movie I am watching. No additional copy has been made, in the same way as if I tune my radio into a BBC channel while I'm in France, I have not made a copy of the music I'm hearing and am not breaching copyright.

If I torrent, on the other hand, not only do I make and possess a copy of the material, I also offer this to others so they can do the same. This is such a completely different concept, I can only think that those who are trying to confuse the two are either very stupid or willfully ignorant.

I ignored that because it seemed unnecessary to state. If no copying happened you wouldn't have the video frames in your computers memory for the video player to decompress and display would you? Those frames were in one place and now they're in two. Seems reasonable to say they were copied to your computer in some way. Probably lots of frames too considering buffering, etc.

Protocol doesn't matter. If I upload one of my blu-rays to my web server and you streamed it from there it wouldn't be legal even if you discarded each frame after it was played. Because I didn't have a license to send it and you didn't have a license to watch it. Only difference between HTTP and bittorent here is bittorrent forces you to store a copy on disk due to its out-of-order transmission. Bittorrent doesn't require you to offer the data you receive to your peers so that part is irrelevant.

To do something with a copyrighted work you need a license. Doesn't matter if a copy is being stored on a hard disk or displayed as each frame is received. I need a license to send it and you need a license to receive it.

Regarding DVDs, the disc is sold but the content is licensed. You'll probably find that the license says you're not allowed to copy the content of the disc, screen it at work, rent it out to other people or do any of a number of other things with it. No one seems to dispute this. Why would limiting sale across borders be any different? Its not so much more draconian than the restrictions sometimes placed on software (which can also come on a disc) and people accept those (or don't read the license agreement to see they're there). I guess the copyright holders either just don't restrict resale of DVDs across borders or don't bother enforcing any restrictions they have.

Perhaps the problem is certain copyright groups have conflated copyrights and patents with property. These things are of course not property. Copying a DVD is not technically or legally speaking Theft (its Copyright Infringement). You won't find copying a DVD in the crimes act under Piratical acts. Copyright is nothing more than a temporary right granted by the public to someone to restrict copying in whatever way the holder sees fit for a limited period of time. And the copyright holder would be within their rights to say "No sending this data to New Zealand under any circumstances" just as they are to say "No sending this data anywhere".

Of course the Government could limit the copyright holders rights and say "You're not allowed to prevent people ripping DVDs they own" but as far as I know there aren't any such exceptions for streaming content via a VPN.

PottsyNZ

336 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 23

#1276430 2-Apr-2015 21:30

People seem to be thinking you can compare the idea of parallel importing to broadcasting rights. It's really not the same.

Lets put it this way by looking at it in reverse. TVNZ was able to make Go Girls because it was a to offset the cost by selling it to multiple regions and networks. Love or hate it the law means broadcasting rights are the right to show that in a particular country. Movies make most of their money in threatres...tv shows make most of their money by actually being broadcast on tv

The greedy corporates are just trying to enforce their right to be the only "broadcaster" in that region.
Blame law (and business models) written for VHF tv.

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9996

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#1276438 2-Apr-2015 21:39

PottsyNZ: People seem to be thinking you can compare the idea of parallel importing to broadcasting rights. It's really not the same.

How is it different? I see it as being absolutely identical.

The traditional bricks and mortar business model is to have brand X represented in country Y by company Z. This is the exact same model adopted by the broadcast industry.

In countries where parallel importing isn't legal (remembering NZ is only one of a handful of countries where it is) only company Z is allowed to sell brand X products, and anybody else was breaking the law. In NZ where it is legal, any company (within reason and ensuring you're complying with the law) can import products made by company Z and be in full compliance with NZ law.

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.

Yabanize

2351 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 583

#1276439 2-Apr-2015 21:40

If this happens may as well just switch to Popcorn Time, since its just as bad as pirating

Beccara

1473 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 517

ID Verified

#1276442 2-Apr-2015 21:43

When you strip this all away way back to basic's this is about and has always been about content owners right to say who can have content they own. Back in the age of DVD regions it was simply too hard to stop the bypass of this, Even back then the international issues alone made it impossible but now you have one company bypass making money from this service operating in NZ and have a large selection of ISP's using their service. Bypass put a target on their back from day one and content rights holders and purchasers have been waiting a long time for their change to pounce.

This is all directly the result of lower margins and increased competition, You see more and more NZ based companies fighting back to create level playing fields when international actors can come in and upset a market with an unfair advantage (See GST on digital and physical good imports)

Most problems are the result of previous solutions...

All comment's I make are my own personal opinion and do not in any way, shape or form reflect the views of current or former employers unless specifically stated

Aredwood

3885 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1749

#1276475 2-Apr-2015 22:36

davidrg:
shk292:
You seem to have (deliberately?) missed one thing: when I stream from Netflix, at no point do I possess a copy of the movie I am watching. No additional copy has been made, in the same way as if I tune my radio into a BBC channel while I'm in France, I have not made a copy of the music I'm hearing and am not breaching copyright.

If I torrent, on the other hand, not only do I make and possess a copy of the material, I also offer this to others so they can do the same. This is such a completely different concept, I can only think that those who are trying to confuse the two are either very stupid or willfully ignorant.

I ignored that because it seemed unnecessary to state. If no copying happened you wouldn't have the video frames in your computers memory for the video player to decompress and display would you? Those frames were in one place and now they're in two. Seems reasonable to say they were copied to your computer in some way. Probably lots of frames too considering buffering, etc.

Protocol doesn't matter. If I upload one of my blu-rays to my web server and you streamed it from there it wouldn't be legal even if you discarded each frame after it was played. Because I didn't have a license to send it and you didn't have a license to watch it. Only difference between HTTP and bittorent here is bittorrent forces you to store a copy on disk due to its out-of-order transmission. Bittorrent doesn't require you to offer the data you receive to your peers so that part is irrelevant.

To do something with a copyrighted work you need a license. Doesn't matter if a copy is being stored on a hard disk or displayed as each frame is received. I need a license to send it and you need a license to receive it.

Regarding DVDs, the disc is sold but the content is licensed. You'll probably find that the license says you're not allowed to copy the content of the disc, screen it at work, rent it out to other people or do any of a number of other things with it. No one seems to dispute this. Why would limiting sale across borders be any different? Its not so much more draconian than the restrictions sometimes placed on software (which can also come on a disc) and people accept those (or don't read the license agreement to see they're there). I guess the copyright holders either just don't restrict resale of DVDs across borders or don't bother enforcing any restrictions they have.

Perhaps the problem is certain copyright groups have conflated copyrights and patents with property. These things are of course not property. Copying a DVD is not technically or legally speaking Theft (its Copyright Infringement). You won't find copying a DVD in the crimes act under Piratical acts. Copyright is nothing more than a temporary right granted by the public to someone to restrict copying in whatever way the holder sees fit for a limited period of time. And the copyright holder would be within their rights to say "No sending this data to New Zealand under any circumstances" just as they are to say "No sending this data anywhere".

Of course the Government could limit the copyright holders rights and say "You're not allowed to prevent people ripping DVDs they own" but as far as I know there aren't any such exceptions for streaming content via a VPN.

What about everyone who travels overseas for holidays / business? Alot of them will take with them a laptop that has a legal copy of windows. And an ipod or iphone that has songs that were purchased from the NZ itunes store. Going by your logic these people are violating NZ copyright by using their laptops. And listening to their music while overseas.

So lets say I decide to travel the world, and I take my laptop with me. Are you saying that I should buy a Windows licence for every country that I visit? So If I visit 10 countries, I would need 10 Windows licences for just 1 laptop? But Microsoft don't care about this. They have already sold me a genuine copy of Windows. They know that making it harder to buy genuine copies of their software will just mean more piracy and less sales.

And Netflix don't care either. As regardless of which country I get Netflix from. The copyright owner still gets paid. Assuming that the contract with the copyright owner is a payment per user or payment per view.

And taking the arguments in the legal threats to their logical conclusion. This would mean that there would be no point in paying for content from overseas. As it would be just as bad as torrenting it. So you might as well just torrent it then. And everyone who buys books, DVDs ect from overseas. If you can't get it locally then you are no worse off from torrenting it. And it would mean that overseas shopping sites will then be breaking NZ law by shipping books ect to nz.

steve98

1400 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 252

Trusted

#1276476 2-Apr-2015 22:44

Like four dinosaurs baying at the meteor not to hit Earth.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | ... | 54