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 | 10 | ... | 21

17150 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1473878 18-Jan-2016 15:07

NonprayingMantis:
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.

Yeah. This is a direct result of the failure to adopt new technology. The graph makes that kind of obvious.

networkn

Networkn
32354 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1473880 18-Jan-2016 15:08

gzt: Yeah. This is a direct result of the failure to adopt new technology. The graph makes that kind of obvious.

That's an interesting take on it. There are about 100 other possible reasons too.

jarledb

Webhead
3257 posts

Uber Geek

Moderator

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1473884 18-Jan-2016 15:13

The record industry made lots of money on the CD because they could resell the same content they had sold before (As LPs) with better sound quality and a longer lifespan. So if you look at the CD sales, what you are actually seeing is new content sales and old content being sold again.

After the CD there has really been no reason to buy the content that was bought on CD again as digital content. So they have not been able to resell the same content yet again in the same scale they could with the CD.

Mind you, with streaming taking over - they are actually renting out the same content again to people that probably already own (at least some of the content) on LP and CD already :)

Jarle Dahl Bergersen | Referral Links: Want $50 off when you join Octopus Energy? Use this referral code
Are you happy with what you get from Geekzone? Please consider supporting us by making a donation or subscribing.

gzt

17150 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1473893 18-Jan-2016 15:31

networkn:
gzt: Yeah. This is a direct result of the failure to adopt new technology. The graph makes that kind of obvious.

That's an interesting take on it. There are about 100 other possible reasons too.

There are other factors but technological change is big. Imagine if USA had ignored cassette and/or tried to fight it. They thought about it and very nearly did. How would that graph look. Very similar to the other side of that graph.

networkn

Networkn
32354 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1473895 18-Jan-2016 15:36

gzt:
networkn:
gzt: Yeah. This is a direct result of the failure to adopt new technology. The graph makes that kind of obvious.

That's an interesting take on it. There are about 100 other possible reasons too.

There are other factors but technological change is big. Imagine if USA had ignored cassette and/or tried to fight it. They thought about it and very nearly did. How would that graph look. Very similar to the other side of that graph.

Right, other reasons could include tighter margins, general loss of interest in music, smaller per item sale prices.. All sorts of things.

You'd need proper analysis, not just finger pointing to support a particular argument.

tdgeek

29752 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1473897 18-Jan-2016 15:38

SaltyNZ: As suggested by MF, let's leave the other thread for reports on the possible success or lack thereof of Netflix's next crack-down on geoblock bypassing. This thread for the arguments over whether it's legal and/or moral. To reiterate my position: Argument for morality: I choose to pay for something that I could get for free. I pay for Netflix. Netflix has paid for content. The producers of that content have been paid. If a local New Zealand producer sold exclusive rights to Netflix to only play their content in the US, and not NZ, then they have been paid. They are still free to sell those rights to Netflix for NZ, and/or to any other provider(s) they wish. My choice to watch an international library has not affected their income. If the sold exclusive NZ rights to TVNZ and then someone else came along and they realised they made a bad decision because they could have gotten more, then sucks to be them. Argument for legality: it is formally declared to be legal for me to buy an otherwise legally available region 1 DVD and import it to New Zealand to watch. If you look closely at the fine print on your DVD you will note that what you have actually purchased is a license to watch the material. So in actual fact what I have legal permission to do is import the license to that content. Watching an otherwise legal stream from an international library is the same - I am importing the license to watch that content. Hypotheticals:

Would a local producer be disadvantaged in negotiations with TVNZ because I watch international Netflix? No, because I literally haven't watched free-to-air TV since the turn of the millennium. I haven't had Sky for nearly 4 years either. If their rights are devalued it's not because of geoblock bypassing
Would Lightbox exist if it were not for exclusive rights agreements? This is a specious argument; Lightbox does exist, and good for them. However, the law only guarantees you the right to try to make money. It doesn't guarantee that you actually will make money
Is international Netflix killing local content producers? I believe it's neutral. If they produce content people actually want to watch, then they'll manage. I'm not personally into Shortland Street, but I loved Outrageous Fortune*
*I watched it from free-to-air via Sky w/ the PVR and skipped all the ads. That makes a double-bad person. Edit - I accidentally a word.

I put it to you that in fact the Content owners have been paid by Netflix for the countries that Netflix is allowed to air said content. The other countries, lets say NZ, the content owners have been paid, but not by Netflix. Could be TVOne, Sky, Quickflix, Lightbox. You should be paying those providers to watch said content, so that they can afford to pay for the rights. By bypassing them, you are depriving them of valid funding, saving yourself money, and breaking the T+C 's that you agreed to

If everyone did this, then the rights holders in NZ have no viewers, and no money to operate. So you are advocating a monopoly.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1473898 18-Jan-2016 15:39

I wonder what the topics and posts will be here when the film and TV revenues tank and the studios are forced to lower and lower the quality and frequency of their releases.

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

Killerkiwi2005

374 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#1473903 18-Jan-2016 15:43

I put it to you that in fact the Content owners have been paid by Netflix for the countries that Netflix is allowed to air said content. The other countries, lets say NZ, the content owners have been paid, but not by Netflix. Could be TVOne, Sky, Quickflix, Lightbox. You should be paying those providers to watch said content, so that they can afford to pay for the rights. By bypassing them, you are depriving them of valid funding, saving yourself money, and breaking the T+C 's that you agreed to If everyone did this, then the rights holders in NZ have no viewers, and no money to operate. So you are advocating a monopoly.

As much as I like lightbox, they dont really have any reason to exist apart from legacy region licensing, as soon as the the first rights holder breaks the world market (probably netflix with its orginals) then the local brodcasters that just distribute and dont create are going to disapper the same way the dvd rentals have

SaltyNZ

8233 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#1473904 18-Jan-2016 15:45

networkn:
gzt: Yeah. This is a direct result of the failure to adopt new technology. The graph makes that kind of obvious.
That's an interesting take on it. There are about 100 other possible reasons too.

True; for example, there are a growing number of artists who simply forgo the whole old-school conventional scene altogether now. It is no longer a requirement to buy $10M worth of studio equipment to make a decent recording, nor to sell one's soul to Satan in order to distribute them.

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

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

tdgeek

29752 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1473919 18-Jan-2016 15:49

Rikkitic: I have made my position clear in many other posts on the subject. First, current legislation does not prohibit geo-unblocking, not even in the corporate-run USA, and certainly not here. It is NOT illegal. Therefore, it cannot be piracy or theft. I strongly believe that corporate attempts to enforce geographic content distribution are nothing more than dinosaurs clinging to an outmoded business model. These companies seem to be run by people who can only think in terms of physical possession, and who keep trying to find equivalents of that in the digital world. The same thing happened with music and CDs. A CD is an object that can be possessed and controlled and boy, did they ever try to hang onto that one as long as possible. Remember the days of $40 CDs? Regionally restricted distribution models go entirely against the spirit and intent of the globalisation movement otherwise being pushed so hard by international corporations. It is a stunning example of corporate hypocrisy. How many want to bet that one of the first actions under TPP will be an attempt to force an international agreement banning geo-unblocking? Geo-blocking causes disproportionate deprivation to small 'regions' like New Zealand, that do not have the resources or political will to enable the production and purchase of more than token amounts of quality content. The result is that we do not even have a choice to view much of the content available elsewhere. There is a reason why people here watch the BBC. Until someone shows me indisputable evidence to the contrary, I remain convinced that content producers can earn a fair profit under a single market business model. The rest is just sheer greed. I do not agree that it is clever business practice, or in any way acceptable behaviour. It is amoral at best, and mean-spirited as well. Good business is not squeezing every last drop from the consumer. It is providing a fair product for a fair return.

Its not illegal. It's against the T+C. You advocate breaking and ignoring T+C. If you want no regions then everyone has to pay. Content Owners get paid in all regions, sopem are Netflix, some are BBC, Sky, Lightbox, etc etc etc. If someone else buys the rights in NZ, you should pay that provider to watch that content, but you advocate stealing it by bypassing the corerct provider in NZ to watch on another provider that you are paying for anyway. You can't hide behind a dinoaur business model mentality. Being paid for goods and services is not a dinosaur business model. Unless you want it for free. Which appears to be the case. What you want is for Netflix to buy all the rights that suit, so that you can watch everything and save money. If Netflix buys global rights, their costs will increase. Then that will be complained about. Irts much better to have everything and make it cheap as chips as that suits me.

SaltyNZ

8233 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#1473931 18-Jan-2016 15:53

tdgeek: The other countries, lets say NZ, the content owners have been paid, but not by Netflix. Could be TVOne, Sky, Quickflix, Lightbox. the rights holders in NZ have no viewers, and no money to operate. So you are advocating a monopoly.

Well, I'm never watching TVone or Sky ever again regardless of what happens with Netflix. I'm done with being forced to sit through 20+ minutes of ads out of every hour of TV. Especially on Sky. I would have thought that the 'pay' part of 'pay tv' entitled me to a reduction in advertising. But no. I tried Quickflix once... I cancelled it before the 14 day trial period was up, it was that pathetic. I may or may not stick with Lightbox.

But you have a valid point in regards to monopolies, and that is something I do wonder about, but cannot realistically see any way around as long as the rights holders continue to sell exclusive rights. As long as they keep doing that, they keep handing more and more power to the strongest player - which is currently Netflix - who will eventually have them by the short and curlies in much the same way that publishers insistence on Kindle DRM has given Amazon the power with which to choke them.

Yet another argument against the rights holders short-sighted refusal to change.

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

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

tdgeek

29752 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1473935 18-Jan-2016 15:58

jmh:
Benoire: I think we all need to take a step back and focus on the main issue here... Should the right of the consumer over-ride the right of the owner; in other words by going outside of the negotiated contracts between rights owner and 'broadcaster' you have broken the owners rights to the content... Is that fair and reasonable?
In that example the contract is between the rights 'owner' and the broadcaster. It does not relate to any rights of the consumer because the consumer has not signed a contract, however companies must follow the laws of the land that it is doing business in.

Wrong. You have signed a contract. Netflix USA T+C. Contract exists between NF and content owner, Netflix paid for US/Canada and Senegal. Your breached your contraxct with Netflix USA as you are not eligible. JohnSmithTV in NZ has the contevt as they paid the content owner, watch it there and pay their fee.

Or do you wish everyone to buy rights so its all global? That could happen. Fees will go up as everything has to be global but thats ok. Its what it costs. NF chooses not to bear that cost as its not worth it to them, so you cant watch the content in NZ, thats business. One day you can, when its cheap, as its not new anymore. Or NF could stump up, and just add a user pays surcharge to NZ. Thats fair as they are now paying for rights that are not worth it to them

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek

#1473945 18-Jan-2016 16:04

SaltyNZ:
tdgeek: The other countries, lets say NZ, the content owners have been paid, but not by Netflix. Could be TVOne, Sky, Quickflix, Lightbox. the rights holders in NZ have no viewers, and no money to operate. So you are advocating a monopoly.
Well, I'm never watching TVone or Sky ever again regardless of what happens with Netflix. I'm done with being forced to sit through 20+ minutes of ads out of every hour of TV. Especially on Sky. I would have thought that the 'pay' part of 'pay tv' entitled me to a reduction in advertising. But no. I tried Quickflix once... I cancelled it before the 14 day trial period was up, it was that pathetic. I may or may not stick with Lightbox. But you have a valid point in regards to monopolies, and that is something I do wonder about, but cannot realistically see any way around as long as the rights holders continue to sell exclusive rights. As long as they keep doing that, they keep handing more and more power to the strongest player - which is currently Netflix - who will eventually have them by the short and curlies in much the same way that publishers insistence on Kindle DRM has given Amazon the power with which to choke them. Yet another argument against the rights holders short-sighted refusal to change.

not sure I agree with that as the 'end-game'

As you make 'exclusive deals' illegal, it means studios can no longer play the TV companies off against each other when it comes to bidding - every single company will be able to buy any content, and studios will be forced to sell to anybody who wants to buy (that's what non-exclusive means, after all).

The ones who will get the most content overall will be the winners, and they will be the ones with the largest customer base to spread the costs over - which means Netflix will win because they have a global base to show that content to. non-exclusivity effectively means a guaranteed Netflix monopoly IMHO.

However, if studios continue to sell exclusive rights, they can ensure the downstream competition is kept 'fresh' by selling content to various different parties and not allowing any one party to buy everything. i.e. they can choose to sell a big show to the various local TV companies (e.g. lightbox in NZ, Foxtel in Oz, C4 in the UK etc) which, by the nature of exclusive deals, stops Netflix from acquiring it.

networkn

Networkn
32354 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1473946 18-Jan-2016 16:04

SaltyNZ:
networkn:
gzt: Yeah. This is a direct result of the failure to adopt new technology. The graph makes that kind of obvious.
That's an interesting take on it. There are about 100 other possible reasons too.
True; for example, there are a growing number of artists who simply forgo the whole old-school conventional scene altogether now. It is no longer a requirement to buy $10M worth of studio equipment to make a decent recording, nor to sell one's soul to Satan in order to distribute them.

I disagree, one of the many reasons I am not a fan of NZ Music in General is that production values are so low compared to a decent budget music production from a large studio.

I don't think the words largest music pop icons consider they "sold their soul to Satan".

networkn

Networkn
32354 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1473947 18-Jan-2016 16:06

tdgeek:
jmh:
Benoire: I think we all need to take a step back and focus on the main issue here... Should the right of the consumer over-ride the right of the owner; in other words by going outside of the negotiated contracts between rights owner and 'broadcaster' you have broken the owners rights to the content... Is that fair and reasonable?
In that example the contract is between the rights 'owner' and the broadcaster. It does not relate to any rights of the consumer because the consumer has not signed a contract, however companies must follow the laws of the land that it is doing business in.
Wrong. You have signed a contract. Netflix USA T+C. Contract exists between NF and content owner, Netflix paid for US/Canada and Senegal. Your breached your contraxct with Netflix USA as you are not eligible. JohnSmithTV in NZ has the contevt as they paid the content owner, watch it there and pay their fee. Or do you wish everyone to buy rights so its all global? That could happen. Fees will go up as everything has to be global but thats ok. Its what it costs. NF chooses not to bear that cost as its not worth it to them, so you cant watch the content in NZ, thats business. One day you can, when its cheap, as its not new anymore. Or NF could stump up, and just add a user pays surcharge to NZ. Thats fair as they are now paying for rights that are not worth it to them

Not to mention that their primary customer base (Some 330m Americans) would all have a price increase to allow 4M Kiwi's to watch it, which I can assure you, they will NOT be happy to do.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | ... | 21