Legality and/or morality of geoblocking

Forums › Online streaming services › Legality and/or morality of geoblocking

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | ... | 21

6434 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1528

#1473670 18-Jan-2016 12:03

Rikkitic:
MikeB4:
Rikkitic:
MikeB4: There seems to be an ongoing belief of entitlement with this issue. It's seems to be a "I want it so give it to me or I will take it" There also seems to be a belief that rules are optional, it also shows itself in threads about driving.
It has nothing to do with entitlement. It has everything to do with the right to sit at the lunch counter and enjoy a coffee with the white folks.
No it does not, it is not about a civil right or breach there of, it's about a commercial arrangement and contract.
Um, let me see if I've got that right. You put up a farmgate stand selling watermelons. You have a sign saying take one and leave a dollar in the collection box. Then you have another sign saying kiwis only, no sales to tourists. But the tourists really want watermelon. So they come anyway and each puts a dollar in the box and takes one. A few are so grateful to have watermelon that they even put a little extra in the box. So you go to the police with a handful of money and say you want to lay a complaint because those awful, thieving tourists are all buying your watermelons! Have I got that right? And what do you think the police will say?

well the police would think it fairly frivolous, but if you want to get technical from a legal perspective then I would say they probably stole from you. The fact that they left money equivalent to the amount you would have accepted from other people is irrelevant.

(why would you have two signs? Why not have all that info on one sign? )

WyleECoyoteNZ

1055 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 372

#1473741 18-Jan-2016 13:11

I'm going to stick my 2c worth in as well.

As a disclaimer, I don't have Netflix, and don't used TV3 on Demand.

If this shows isn't on Netflix, this whole post can be ignored.

Let's take a current show from TV3 which is available On Demand for the latest episodes from the US, that show being 'The Blacklist'.

Under the On Demand FAQ's on the TV3 website, they state that international shows\programmes are available for 14 days, and that for the on demand content ads are required to pay for the content.

http://www.tv3.co.nz/OnDemand/OnDemandHelp/FAQ.aspx

Surely the point of On Demand means:

I can watch it when I want too, and you can't because it's only available for 14 days
Watching On Demand is supposed to be quicker, and you can't because the online content is full of ads
You can only watch On Demand on selected Mobile devices, your PC, or a Smart TV

So really, although the local provider has the content, it's available audience is limited (you have to watch within 14 days and really either on your PC or smart TV if you have one).

Yes, I get that the ads pay for the content, but surely on-demand services should get around this. How, maybe a TV licence fee needs to be re-introduced.

I'm now going to assume that the latest Blacklist series isn't available on NZ Netflix yet (I don't know as I don't have Netflix)

Yet, If you use an unblocker, you'd be able to access Netflix US, watch the latest episode whenever you want to, watch through either a PC or smart Tv or console (Netflix being available on the X1)

networkn

Networkn
32864 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15454

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1473747 18-Jan-2016 13:17

WyleECoyoteNZ: I'm going to stick my 2c worth in as well. As a disclaimer, I don't have Netflix, and don't used TV3 on Demand. If this shows isn't on Netflix, this whole post can be ignored. Let's take a current show from TV3 which is available On Demand for the latest episodes from the US, that show being 'The Blacklist'. Under the On Demand FAQ's on the TV3 website, they state that international shows\programmes are available for 14 days, and that for the on demand content ads are required to pay for the content. http://www.tv3.co.nz/OnDemand/OnDemandHelp/FAQ.aspx Surely the point of On Demand means:

I can watch it when I want too, and you can't because it's only available for 14 days
Watching On Demand is supposed to be quicker, and you can't because the online content is full of ads
You can only watch On Demand on selected Mobile devices, your PC, or a Smart TV

So really, although the local provider has the content, it's available audience is limited (you have to watch within 14 days and really either on your PC or smart TV if you have one). Yes, I get that the ads pay for the content, but surely on-demand services should get around this. How, maybe a TV licence fee needs to be re-introduced. I'm now going to assume that the latest Blacklist series isn't available on NZ Netflix yet (I don't know as I don't have Netflix) Yet, If you use an unblocker, you'd be able to access Netflix US, watch the latest episode whenever you want to, watch through either a PC or smart Tv or console (Netflix being available on the X1)

Sure, those are the conditions of the rights holders, and they are entitled to set them however they like. If you don't like it, don't watch the content!

May not be "fair", may not be "reasonable", you may not "like" it, but it's their content.

I suggest those who complain about the content we don't have, or can't access in the manner we wish to access, contact the rights holder and make their opinion heard. Better still, start a petition and get all 11 people who want it badly enough to make a fuss sign it.

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 545

#1473750 18-Jan-2016 13:19

WyleECoyoteNZ: I'm going to stick my 2c worth in as well. As a disclaimer, I don't have Netflix, and don't used TV3 on Demand. If this shows isn't on Netflix, this whole post can be ignored. Let's take a current show from TV3 which is available On Demand for the latest episodes from the US, that show being 'The Blacklist'. Under the On Demand FAQ's on the TV3 website, they state that international shows\programmes are available for 14 days, and that for the on demand content ads are required to pay for the content. http://www.tv3.co.nz/OnDemand/OnDemandHelp/FAQ.aspx Surely the point of On Demand means:

I can watch it when I want too, and you can't because it's only available for 14 days
Watching On Demand is supposed to be quicker, and you can't because the online content is full of ads
You can only watch On Demand on selected Mobile devices, your PC, or a Smart TV

So really, although the local provider has the content, it's available audience is limited (you have to watch within 14 days and really either on your PC or smart TV if you have one). Yes, I get that the ads pay for the content, but surely on-demand services should get around this. How, maybe a TV licence fee needs to be re-introduced. I'm now going to assume that the latest Blacklist series isn't available on NZ Netflix yet (I don't know as I don't have Netflix) Yet, If you use an unblocker, you'd be able to access Netflix US, watch the latest episode whenever you want to, watch through either a PC or smart Tv or console (Netflix being available on the X1)

Season 1 and 2 are available on Netflix NZ and Netflix US. Season 2 is available on Lightbox.

Season 3 is not available and usually the buffet ondemand services will get the window after FTA and Pay rights have expired. Usually about 10 months after initial broadcast (but varies from content producer to content producer). To get Season 3 you would need to watch via Hulu.

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

SaltyNZ

8865 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9545

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#1473755 18-Jan-2016 13:23

Then there are the ones that aren't available here *at all*, like The Expanse. These can only be watched via questionable means.

And if you haven't read the Expanse books, go buy them right now. The first one is Leviathan Wakes. I'll be here when you get back.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

networkn

Networkn
32864 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15454

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1473791 18-Jan-2016 13:46

SaltyNZ: Then there are the ones that aren't available here *at all*, like The Expanse. These can only be watched via questionable means. And if you haven't read the Expanse books, go buy them right now. The first one is Leviathan Wakes. I'll be here when you get back.

The first book is over 1000 pages apparently? I must admit in my experience, books over 500 pages are not really able to keep pacing good, and there are usually hundreds of pages of incredibly boring stuff that don't really add to the story.

Is that the case with these books?

New World

Shop on-line at New World now for your groceries (affiliate link).

SaltyNZ

8865 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9545

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#1473805 18-Jan-2016 13:56

networkn: The first book is over 1000 pages apparently? I must admit in my experience, books over 500 pages are not really able to keep pacing good, and there are usually hundreds of pages of incredibly boring stuff that don't really add to the story. Is that the case with these books?

No, they're great. Put it this way - there are 5 out so far and another due in June... I have a reminder in my calendar to buy it as soon as it's released.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

networkn

Networkn
32864 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15454

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1473809 18-Jan-2016 13:58

SaltyNZ:
networkn: The first book is over 1000 pages apparently? I must admit in my experience, books over 500 pages are not really able to keep pacing good, and there are usually hundreds of pages of incredibly boring stuff that don't really add to the story. Is that the case with these books?
No, they're great. Put it this way - there are 5 out so far and another due in June... I have a reminder in my calendar to buy it as soon as it's released.

How science fictiony are they? I like SyFy so long as its not too detailed and "out there"?

SaltyNZ

8865 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9545

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#1473827 18-Jan-2016 14:13

networkn: How science fictiony are they? I like SyFy so long as its not too detailed and "out there"?

The character development is the biggest part of it. One of the two authors is George R. R. Martin's assistant. It's science fictiony in many of the same ways that A Song of Ice and Fire is fantasy - which is to say, the world is science fiction, but the story revolves around the people. The human part of it tries to be physically plausible. They are in zero-g unless under acceleration or spin, and one of the main characters in the first book lives in the cheap part of Ceres, close to the axis where the Coriolis makes people uncomfortable, for example. They have fusion-powered drives, which is not unreasonable, and which allows the action to take place without 5 year gaps between departures and arrivals.

There is another thread to the story which is decidedly not based on physics as we know it, but I won't give it away.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

lagbort

263 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 73

ID Verified

#1473834 18-Jan-2016 14:21

SaltyNZ:
networkn: How science fictiony are they? I like SyFy so long as its not too detailed and "out there"?
The character development is the biggest part of it. One of the two authors is George R. R. Martin's assistant. It's science fictiony in many of the same ways that A Song of Ice and Fire is fantasy - which is to say, the world is science fiction, but the story revolves around the people. The human part of it tries to be physically plausible. They are in zero-g unless under acceleration or spin, and one of the main characters in the first book lives in the cheap part of Ceres, close to the axis where the Coriolis makes people uncomfortable, for example. They have fusion-powered drives, which is not unreasonable, and which allows the action to take place without 5 year gaps between departures and arrivals. There is another thread to the story which is decidedly not based on physics as we know it, but I won't give it away.

I just hope they pick up the quality going forward, I watched the first couple of episodes and it felt like a decidedly b-movie production with terrible acting and awful effects.

The story seemed interesting enough, but after watching so many high quality productions in the last few years it just seemed like a shoddy effort all around.

BlueShift

1692 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 969

#1473848 18-Jan-2016 14:32

NonprayingMantis:
Rikkitic:
networkn: You are essentially saying those who create content should have no control over it's distribution or business models.
Not in a free market. That was decided years ago. People with something to sell are not permitted to deny blacks or Jews the right to buy it. Why should they be permitted to deny someone who lives on the other side of the street? Many years ago the Americans (of all people) took the distribution rights of Hollywood away when the authorities forced the movie industry to sell its cinema chains. This was seen at the time as monopolistic and detrimental to the rights of movie-goers. Well, guess what? Times haven't changed!
look up the various declarations about human rights. Businesses CANNOT discriminate on grounds of race, sex, age, sexuality, religion and various others. businesses CAN discriminate on literally ANY other grounds, and that including geographical location. and remember we also aren't talking about getting people access to something that is crucial to life. I absolutely understand we need to ensure all people have access to things like food, water, shelter, education, healthcare, heck, maybe even access to the internet should be a 'human right'. What I don't understand is the concept that we must ensure that all people have access to the latest season of Game of Thrones the instant it airs in another country.

Well, the discussion title does mention the morality of (un)geoblocking. Legally, there's nothing stopping a trendy bar from putting up a "no fat chicks" sign, and legally, nothing stopping them from enforcing it. That doesn't make it right. And it doesn't make wearing a girdle and spanx to appear thinner and get in a crime.

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.

gzt

18684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7824

Lifetime subscriber

#1473849 18-Jan-2016 14:32

Five years ago the discussion would have been is it moral to get shows from unsanctioned sources. Now the discussion is about morality/legality of getting from officlal sources. The reason the discussion changed is because the content is now available. Five years ago there was so much not available from any official source anywhere in the world.

Moral of the story: Make content available and all these moral and legal questions just go away.

Back in the 90's the usa music industry believed it had to destroy unsanctioned distribution before they would make content available legally worthwhile.

They were wrong. The exact opposite was true. As soon as they made content legally available the audience began buying it.

gzt

18684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7824

Lifetime subscriber

#1473858 18-Jan-2016 14:47

NZ trade policy has made clear to USA that NZ regards legal enforcement of geoblocking as silly and a potential threat to access to services and technology.

Ie; No need to provide legal support for it because shoot self in foot at direction of overseas interests.

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1528

#1473865 18-Jan-2016 14:54

BlueShift:
NonprayingMantis:
Rikkitic:
networkn: You are essentially saying those who create content should have no control over it's distribution or business models.
Not in a free market. That was decided years ago. People with something to sell are not permitted to deny blacks or Jews the right to buy it. Why should they be permitted to deny someone who lives on the other side of the street? Many years ago the Americans (of all people) took the distribution rights of Hollywood away when the authorities forced the movie industry to sell its cinema chains. This was seen at the time as monopolistic and detrimental to the rights of movie-goers. Well, guess what? Times haven't changed!
look up the various declarations about human rights. Businesses CANNOT discriminate on grounds of race, sex, age, sexuality, religion and various others. businesses CAN discriminate on literally ANY other grounds, and that including geographical location. and remember we also aren't talking about getting people access to something that is crucial to life. I absolutely understand we need to ensure all people have access to things like food, water, shelter, education, healthcare, heck, maybe even access to the internet should be a 'human right'. What I don't understand is the concept that we must ensure that all people have access to the latest season of Game of Thrones the instant it airs in another country.
Well, the discussion title does mention the morality of (un)geoblocking. Legally, there's nothing stopping a trendy bar from putting up a "no fat chicks" sign, and legally, nothing stopping them from enforcing it. That doesn't make it right. And it doesn't make wearing a girdle and spanx to appear thinner and get in a crime.

that's true - but your post seemed to be clearly angling on the legal side of things (referencing human rights things like religion, race - (there is no human right about weight or size AFAIK)

If I owned a bar, I should be free to discriminate against 'fat chicks' if I wanted to (and many clubs do actually this, not overtly, but by letting attractive girls in to the front of the line for free, but charging everyone else and making them queue.)

Morally is that right? Probably. but I would argue it is more immoral to force someone to sell their product to someone they do not want to sell to. (essentially this is the difference between slavery and a freely entered into contract for labour)

And practicing deceit to get into the club is also not so moral.

What's the alternative? That we compel property owners to sell to people they don't want to sell to? How would we set the price?

Basically you are suggesting we create an entirely new basis for property rights and the legal system surrounding it- simply because of the desire for entertainment.

Because some people really really want to watch Game of Thrones a few days earlier than you otherwise would. How noble!

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1528

#1473876 18-Jan-2016 15:03

gzt: Five years ago the discussion would have been is it moral to get shows from unsanctioned sources. Now the discussion is about morality/legality of getting from officlal sources. The reason the discussion changed is because the content is now available. Five years ago there was so much not available from any official source anywhere in the world.

Moral of the story: Make content available and all these moral and legal questions just go away.

Back in the 90's the usa music industry believed it had to destroy unsanctioned distribution before they would make content available legally worthwhile.

They were wrong. The exact opposite was true. As soon as they made content legally available the audience began buying it.

actually they were right. Music industry revenues have absolutely plummeted over about the last 15 years, even with the availability of spotify and itunes.

the revenues from downloads and streaming have come nowhere near the revenues from CDs they were getting back in the late 90s and early 2000s

Based on this chart history, music industry revenue is the lowest it has been since before that chart began in 1973.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | ... | 21