Global mode over ? Lets see.....

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

1 | ... | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | ... | 54

2798 posts

Uber Geek

#1289412 22-Apr-2015 14:53

I would imagine the content owner will win, after all they have the rights and can tell the purchasers what to do or not to do... Imagine if the content owners (such as HBO have done) decied that Netflix was cooperating, they would wait to their contracts end or terminate early and release their own system, of which they would have full control. Choice and prices could severely come under pressure!

Item

1717 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1289473 22-Apr-2015 16:02

Benoire: I would imagine the content owner will win, after all they have the rights and can tell the purchasers what to do or not to do... Imagine if the content owners (such as HBO have done) decied that Netflix was cooperating, they would wait to their contracts end or terminate early and release their own system, of which they would have full control. Choice and prices could severely come under pressure!

The content owner needs to ensure the content is "legally" available to as many people as possible though. Given the overall trend towards cord-cutting and the rise of premium streaming services, they could be slitting their own throats by demanding their ball back and refusing to play any more...

Plus the negative publicity and Nerd/internet power could well lead to people boycotting services or products that start to throw their weight around.

steve98

1395 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1289663 22-Apr-2015 18:33

richms:
Rikkitic: Here is yet another take: In the past I have been in contact with a number of young people through family friends and work I was doing at that time. I was struck then by the fact that none of them, not a single one, had a working television connection. I remember asking about this because it surprised me. They explained that they didn’t see the point; there was just nothing on NZ TV that interested them. Instead, they did their viewing on YouTube, Facebook and other social media sites. None were using any form of Geo-unblocking for this because none of these sites are blocked in the first place.

Ive had an argument with an older couple that are friends of the family. They basically insist that young people are wasting their time on social media facebook fad and that its all a total waste of time.

I pointed out to them that they spent over 2-3 hours per night watching TV, which they think is a totally acceptable non waste of time activity. But facebook. No good will come of that. And youtube, its all just a waste of time. Yet they are quite happy to have someone read news stories to them slowly, even the ones they dont want to hear about because it gives them an oppertunity to complain at the TV. They are very happy to watch low budget made up stories padded out to fit into the needs of a schedule that they basically will interupt their personal activities to go and watch. They will watch pretty much whatever is on TV as their relaxation after a hard day at work (he wouldnt know a hard day if it happened) and they are basically learning zero from it.

People my age and less are more likly to be watching videos related to a hobby or sport or other interest they have on youtube etc. Somewhat more productive than some made up street in a country half way around the world or similar.

Post of the year. Love it and couldn't agree more.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18660 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1289803 22-Apr-2015 22:04

Another enjoyable evening spent watching non-commercial TV. I was downloading before but nothing beats a media PC in the lounge.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

1101

3122 posts

Uber Geek

#1290019 23-Apr-2015 10:43

Item:

The content owner needs to ensure the content is "legally" available to as many people as possible though......

no...they...dont...

Its their content. They do what they want with it. They dont tell you what to do with your photos etc.

All they need to do is try to maximise profit, its a company, they are they to make money .

sultanoswing

814 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1290024 23-Apr-2015 10:47

1101:
Item:

The content owner needs to ensure the content is "legally" available to as many people as possible though......

no...they...dont...

Its their content. They do what they want with it. They dont tell you what to do with your photos etc.

All they need to do is try to maximise profit, its a company, they are they to make money .

Let's reconcile these two statements:

"There are there to make money, therefore the content owner needs to ensure the content is "legally" available to as many people as possible."

Now, the definition of "as many people as possible" is where the debate can commence....

Item

1717 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1290133 23-Apr-2015 13:07

1101:
Item:

The content owner needs to ensure the content is "legally" available to as many people as possible though......

no...they...dont...

Its their content. They do what they want with it. They dont tell you what to do with your photos etc.

All they need to do is try to maximise profit, its a company, they are they to make money .

Well Ok - their business model could be to charge $300 per hour of viewing in order to maximize their profits...but that ain't going to fly.

I may have over-simplified, but in order to make money, they must sell content and therefore it follows that the more people they sell content to, the more money they can make.

Given that we are reaching a tipping point in content delivery architecture, it behooves those who wish to continue to be profitable in this sector to ensure that they get to market early with wide-reaching and progressive content agreements.

Of course, where it then falls over is back to the crux of this thread - greed and a reluctance to move to a progressive model when said content owners have been able to hold their customers to ransom and fix prices for so long.

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.

JimmyH

2886 posts

Uber Geek

#1290404 23-Apr-2015 21:02

NonprayingMantis:

The point is, Sky has paid HBO $$$$ for the exclusive rights to show HBO. if HBO don't crack down on illegitimate users, then sky can probably sue them. At the very least when the rights come up for negotiation next time they will be worth considerably less. So on one hand they might lose revenue from a few hundred kiwis prepared to jump hoops to subscribe to HBO Now, but it will allow them to keep charging millions to Sky, then it's worth it.

To be frank, it's not much of a point in my view. It's like ABC holdings saying that they had paid Canon $$$$ to be the authorised dealer with the exclusive rights to sell Canon cameras in NZ, and so the force of the law and muscle of Canon's legal department should be used to stop Kiwis buying the camera's for less off (say) Amazon.

Property rights are important, but they are extrinsic and not intrinsic - that is to say that they are whatever the law says they are, and Parliament has the right to make/alter the law.

Evading geoblocks is essentially digital parallel importing and not theft and, like removal of pretty much any trade barrier, overall removal of this type of trade barrier raises the welfare of New Zealanders. That's why governments of both stripes have liberalised parallel importing - and we can now enjoy the benefit of affordable used car imports (without the consent of Toyota being needed), cheaper books, and bargain DVDs from outlets like the Warehouse.

In my view, if the court decision goes against global mode providers, then the appropriate response is for Parliament to change the law to clearly establish that this form of parallel importing is in fact legal. That's what they did with other forms of parallel importing - despite howls of dismay from "authorised" distributors at the time, and to the benefit of most Kiwis.

JimmyH

2886 posts

Uber Geek

#1290409 23-Apr-2015 21:11

richms: Ive tried watching TV recently, and to be honest I just start doing something else when the ads come on and never go back. I forced myself to see a campbell live episode almost in entirity when people were complaining about news possibly being cancelled (Oh no, lets announce that just after a quiet release that we are going to do callplus over for providing access to content that people actually want) and I just cannot come back to a show after an ad break. Attention has gone. Something else more interesting happening.

That's exactly how I feel. I can nearly cope with FTA TV if I record it and skip through the ads, but even then the interruptions ruin the immersion and I typically give up or don't bother at all - unless it's a very rare occasion where it's something I really want to see. It's not just the quantity/length of ads, I find that being jolted out of the thread of what I'm watching ruins the experience for me. This is why my viewing of FTA TV is down to under 2 hours a month now, and also (jarring ads on too many channels) why I'm close to giving Sky the toss.

To be honest, until I saw the fuss, I didn't even know Campbell was still on air. I may have seen half an episode staying somewhere over the Christmas break, but I can't really recall. I doubt I would care if Freeview closed down completely.