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 | 11 | ... | 21

Webhead
3319 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1983

Moderator

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1473958 18-Jan-2016 16:16

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

If you look at how much the creators actually get left with as apposed to the record companies, then if its not "sold their souls to Satan" it sure is a tough and bad deal for a lot of them.

A couple of references:

George Michael vs Sony

Prince "Record contracts are slavery"

Its an industry were the artist often have a manger that takes a 20% cut from income, as well as record companies that have a 80% share of revenue and where the artist have to cover all expenses. So the "million dollar" contract actually turns out being pocket change when everyone else have taken their piece of the pie.

Artists going broke isn't an uncommon thing.

One example: The bankrupcy of TLC

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.

networkn

Networkn
32862 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15453

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1473964 18-Jan-2016 16:25

jarledb:
networkn: I don't think the words largest music pop icons consider they "sold their soul to Satan".
If you look at how much the creators actually get left with as apposed to the record companies, then if its not "sold their souls to Satan" it sure is a tough and bad deal for a lot of them. A couple of references: George Michael vs Sony Prince "Record contracts are slavery" Its an industry were the artist often have a manger that takes a 20% cut from income, as well as record companies that have a 80% share of revenue and where the artist have to cover all expenses. So the "million dollar" contract actually turns out being pocket change when everyone else have taken their piece of the pie. Artists going broke isn't an uncommon thing. One example: The bankrupcy of TLC

That's not really particularly releveant to this discussion. There are lots of Bazillionaire Artists too. A lot of artists who have gone broke have done so because they mismanaged their money.

How much they make is really between them and the relevant people to negotiate.

Also if you want to get into the high fees that are charged, you need to understand the risks associated with artists signed to Studios and understand how much money they spend, and how many artists make them no money or cost them huge money.

SaltyNZ

8865 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9540

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#1473966 18-Jan-2016 16:28

NonprayingMantis:
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.

Except that nobody has an unlimited budget for subscriptions. Netflix doesn't have any (new) Syfy content. Suppose, tomorrow, Sky got exclusive rights to it. I would pay Syfy direct to watch their stuff, but I'm not going back to Sky just for that. I will stick with Netflix because it is cheaper and has more of what I like, if not all. It also allows me to watch any of it on my own terms rather than theirs and has no ads, but let's concentrate on the content.

I'm not going to subscribe to everything. I'm not even going to subscribe to Sky. But I would probably pay Syfy as long as it wasn't outrageous. However, if Syfy sold exclusive rights to Sky, they wouldn't have that option.

In any case, if you want to see the world where exclusive rights are a thing, you only need to rewind about 4 years. Exclusive rights enabled Sky. Their world is only just beginning to come undone as the rights holders start selling LESS exclusivity, rather than more.

Or for the opposite example, music. ITunes is big, yes, but I do NOT ever have to deal with them if I don't want to. Any music I want can be legally obtained from plenty of other places. Why? Because the music industry have already learned most of their lessons. iTunes doesn't control music access or prices because they can't. It's not a perfect analogy, I agree, because they are big enough to have influence without formal power. But the fact remains that I can get whatever I want without Apple entanglement purely because music distribution rights are not exclusive.

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

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

SaltyNZ

8865 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9540

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#1473969 18-Jan-2016 16:38

These articles by Charles Stross (http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2012/04/understanding-amazons-strategy.html) are a good explanation on why you don't hand your distributors the knife with which to gut you. They forced Amazon to use DRM, which gave Amazon an effective exclusivity (because I can't leave Kindle-land behind once I buy a book there). Now Amazon can dictate terms to them instead.

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

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

networkn

Networkn
32862 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15453

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1473971 18-Jan-2016 16:40

SaltyNZ:
NonprayingMantis:
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.

Except that nobody has an unlimited budget for subscriptions. Netflix doesn't have any (new) Syfy content. Suppose, tomorrow, Sky got exclusive rights to it. I would pay Syfy direct to watch their stuff, but I'm not going back to Sky just for that. I will stick with Netflix because it is cheaper and has more of what I like, if not all. It also allows me to watch any of it on my own terms rather than theirs and has no ads, but let's concentrate on the content.

I'm not going to subscribe to everything. I'm not even going to subscribe to Sky. But I would probably pay Syfy as long as it wasn't outrageous. However, if Syfy sold exclusive rights to Sky, they wouldn't have that option.

In any case, if you want to see the world where exclusive rights are a thing, you only need to rewind about 4 years. Exclusive rights enabled Sky. Their world is only just beginning to come undone as the rights holders start selling LESS exclusivity, rather than more.

Or for the opposite example, music. ITunes is big, yes, but I do NOT ever have to deal with them if I don't want to. Any music I want can be legally obtained from plenty of other places. Why? Because the music industry have already learned most of their lessons. iTunes doesn't control music access or prices because they can't. It's not a perfect analogy, I agree, because they are big enough to have influence without formal power. But the fact remains that I can get whatever I want without Apple entanglement purely because music distribution rights are not exclusive.

To my mind if you want less exclusivity it comes as part of NOT circumventing the right providers desired options. It feels like you want one provider who has everything, not the opposite because you don't want to pay Sky for their portion of your watching choices.

It also feels like "Well these are my conditions around what I'll watch, and when, and how much I pay" and if the rights providers don't meet these requirements I'll just find another way regardless of whether it's legal or not.

You can't have it both ways!

SaltyNZ

8865 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9540

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#1473973 18-Jan-2016 16:41

I think my exact words were 'I would pay Syfy direct'. Shut up and take my money? I don't want one provider who has everything. I want all providers to have everything.

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

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

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.

networkn

Networkn
32862 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15453

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1473977 18-Jan-2016 16:46

SaltyNZ: I think my exact words were 'I would pay Syfy direct'. Shut up and take my money? I don't want one provider who has everything. I want all providers to have everything.

Right, but if Syfy sells it's rights to Sky, then you'd have no (Legal or non contract breaching) choice.

I don't believe your every provider should have everything dream will ever occur, WAY too many issues with it.

It would end up a price thing, and it would be a race to the bottom which ultimately isn't almost never a good thing for the consumer in the longer term.

SaltyNZ

8865 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9540

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#1473981 18-Jan-2016 16:55

networkn:
SaltyNZ: I think my exact words were 'I would pay Syfy direct'. Shut up and take my money? I don't want one provider who has everything. I want all providers to have everything.
Right, but if Syfy sells it's rights to Sky, then you'd have no (Legal or non contract breaching) choice.

I don't believe your every provider should have everything dream will ever occur, WAY too many issues with it.

It would end up a price thing, and it would be a race to the bottom which ultimately isn't almost never a good thing for the consumer in the longer term.

But only - wait for it - if they sold those rights exclusively.

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

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

networkn

Networkn
32862 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15453

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1473985 18-Jan-2016 16:57

SaltyNZ:
networkn:
SaltyNZ: I think my exact words were 'I would pay Syfy direct'. Shut up and take my money? I don't want one provider who has everything. I want all providers to have everything.
Right, but if Syfy sells it's rights to Sky, then you'd have no (Legal or non contract breaching) choice.

I don't believe your every provider should have everything dream will ever occur, WAY too many issues with it.

It would end up a price thing, and it would be a race to the bottom which ultimately isn't almost never a good thing for the consumer in the longer term.

But only - wait for it - if they sold those rights exclusively.

Sorry You've lost me now, so what is the point you are trying to make?

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1473996 18-Jan-2016 17:09

SaltyNZ:
networkn: Multiple people have ALREADY shown you and all the others who support your argument that you are wrong.
I disagree. To which statute are you referring that states geo-block bypasses are illegal? To which court decision are you referring? Several companies sued in the civil courts last year over this very issue. The company providing the back-end service backed down because the costs were unbearable. But they still operate that business - they just don't offer it by default through ISPs. If it were illegal, Sky and friends would not have launched a civil suit. They would have made a criminal complaint to the police who would prosecute it through the criminal courts. The result would have been very different.

I don't get where illegal comes from. Breaching Netflix T+C is not illegal. Its a breach of contract, not a breach of a statute.

SaltyNZ

8865 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9540

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#1473997 18-Jan-2016 17:09

If they sold exclusive rights to anyone in NZ, then yes, you are correct that that should mean I would not have the option to buy from them direct. Which is why they should not sell exclusive rights. Because that way they keep their options open.

Look, nobody tries to force me to buy cheese from New World, lamb chops from Countdown, tomato sauce from Pak'n'Save, and ice cream from Four Square. That would be absurd. I'm sure New World would love to be the only legal seller of cheese in NZ. But cheese makers don't need to be told that that would be dumb. What is it that makes it a good idea for movies or TV?

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

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

Mighty Ape

Shop now at Mighty Ape (affiliate link).

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1474000 18-Jan-2016 17:17

Rikkitic:
networkn: Posted from the other thread:
So let me get this straight.

Lets say you are an artist, you are selling photos on the side of the road (Let's say they are original works, photos taken by you with your equipment and your resources including potentially, staff, vehicles, computers for post processing etc). I come along and take a photo of these photo's and setup in a stand right beside you, but instead of selling them and giving you the money, I either sell them and buy a new ferrari, or if I already have all the ferrari's I want, I decide, hell I'll just GIVE them away to anyone who expresses interest.

You don't consider that STEALING? You still have YOUR photos!
You are being obtuse. To get this back in perspective, we are not talking here about torrenting copyrighted stuff, which is piracy. That is what you are describing. We are talking about not being able to buy stuff at all, in spite of having the money and being willing to pay, because that privilege is restricted to people living in a certain area. Two very different things.

Why is the content restricted to a certain area? Is it because NF don't like us? No. Is it because they do not have the rights, as the owner of that content sold it to someone else? Yes. For reasons that belong in another thread, some content is not Netflix's to circulate in their library here. I guess NF could buy everything that is available and add it to every library so that every library is the same. The funds paid by other operators to the owners, Netfilx would have to pay. Prices go up. I feel NF model is lots of content for cheap. Says prices are based on cost of rights and subscriber fees. What they have allows todays prices. If they bought more content (that not everyone wants) everyones subscription rises.

You can't expect something for nothing, someone has to pay the rights fees that NF decided is not viable. NF doesnt have much new stuff. if it did, its fees would skyrocket. others have less stuff but its newer, everyone wants to keep in that $13 window

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 545

#1474003 18-Jan-2016 17:18

SaltyNZ: If they sold exclusive rights to anyone in NZ, then yes, you are correct that that should mean I would not have the option to buy from them direct. Which is why they should not sell exclusive rights. Because that way they keep their options open.

Look, nobody tries to force me to buy cheese from New World, lamb chops from Countdown, tomato sauce from Pak'n'Save, and ice cream from Four Square. That would be absurd. I'm sure New World would love to be the only legal seller of cheese in NZ. But cheese makers don't need to be told that that would be dumb. What is it that makes it a good idea for movies or TV?

You should drop a note to the Netflix executive team then and let them know your views. Given the moonbeams that they are paying for exclusive rights to new content (according to a recent presentation & Q&A with FX Networks CEO). Different beast, same behaviour. Still better it Netflix than someone else who might raise prices on the basis of new content...... http://variety.com/2016/tv/news/john-landgraf-fx-moneyball-tca-1201681533/

edit: close bracket

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

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1474004 18-Jan-2016 17:18

Rikkitic:
networkn: Posted from the other thread:
So let me get this straight.

Lets say you are an artist, you are selling photos on the side of the road (Let's say they are original works, photos taken by you with your equipment and your resources including potentially, staff, vehicles, computers for post processing etc). I come along and take a photo of these photo's and setup in a stand right beside you, but instead of selling them and giving you the money, I either sell them and buy a new ferrari, or if I already have all the ferrari's I want, I decide, hell I'll just GIVE them away to anyone who expresses interest.

You don't consider that STEALING? You still have YOUR photos!
You are being obtuse. To get this back in perspective, we are not talking here about torrenting copyrighted stuff, which is piracy. That is what you are describing. We are talking about not being able to buy stuff at all, in spite of having the money and being willing to pay, because that privilege is restricted to people living in a certain area. Two very different things.

And he's not being obtuse, he merely puts forward accurate analogy, that it seems you don't want to accept as you want to break Netflix T+C to get what you want.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1474005 18-Jan-2016 17:20

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.

Well said.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | ... | 21