Then lock the thread.

dejadeadnz:

 

Rikkitic:

 

The corporate shill speaks. Does anyone seriously believe that the industry and all the parasitic hangers-on are not trying to clip the ticket for as much as they can squeeze out of end-consumers? Geo-blocking is all about profit maximisation and nothing else.

 

 

 

 Earth to Rikkitic: if you were some regional rights holder who paid for regional rights to X programmes, you'd want your rights respected too. The reality is that contents producers are free to sell their contents on a regional basis to maximise their profits and consumers are free to look for workarounds until such workarounds are conclusively established as being illegal.

 

This is more of an exercise in legal enforcement of rights rather than a pragmatic solution to increase revenue for rights holders. 

Ultimately consumers will cancel netflix and pirate their content instead.  

Overall there will be reduced money in the food chain by taking this action. This is something content producers will likely consider in their future plans.  Already netflix are grabbing back regional ownership of their self produced content now that they have a presence in more countries. 

One day there will be no regional rights holders but it is a way off yet. Internet is still too slow for too many people. 

old3eyes:

 

Then lock the thread.

 

I am not locking the thread because of your opinion. If you don't like the direction or opinion of others then you can leave the thread. What you can't do is accuse people of being corporate shills for something they didn't write.

Rikkitic:

 

networkn:

 

Rikkitic:

 

The corporate shill speaks. Does anyone seriously believe that the industry and all the parasitic hangers-on are not trying to clip the ticket for as much as they can squeeze out of end-consumers? Geo-blocking is all about profit maximisation and nothing else.

 

 

 

 

Is there some other reason businesses are operating other than profit maximisation? I think you are confusing what you want from a corporation, as something you hope for, from a charity.

 

 

 

 

I sincerely believe there is a fundamental distinction between fair and reasonable profit, and maximising profit as much as possible by any means possible. Fair profit is what is necessary to remain in business and have a decent income. Maximised profit is what today's shareholders scream for, but it wasn't always this way. It wasn't this way when I grew up in the 1960s. It only became this way in the 1980s after the Wolf of Wall Street and speculative investors started getting high on cocaine and making increasingly shrill demands for more and more and more. Fair profit is not the same as maximised profit and where that is concerned I feel no confusion at all.

 

 

 

Well that is what YOU want, but this isn't reality. What is "fair" to you? What if that isn't "fair" to me? What if I put a lot of time/effort into my business for little or no profit for the first 5 years and then in the second 5 years required to "balance" that by maximising my profits? Am I not allowed? 

Do you know how much money each of these corporates make, what the actual profit margins are? What is acceptable to you? Why do YOU get to decide over anyone else?

I understand what you are saying, but I really don't understand how it can be realistic?

old3eyes:

 

dejadeadnz:

 

Rikkitic:

 

The corporate shill speaks. Does anyone seriously believe that the industry and all the parasitic hangers-on are not trying to clip the ticket for as much as they can squeeze out of end-consumers? Geo-blocking is all about profit maximisation and nothing else.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Earth to Rikkitic: if you were some regional rights holder who paid for regional rights to X programmes, you'd want your rights respected too. The reality is that contents producers are free to sell their contents on a regional basis to maximise their profits and consumers are free to look for workarounds until such workarounds are conclusively established as being illegal.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Illegal??  Where in NZ law does it say that  getting around geoblocking is illegal??   Comments like yours show that you are also a corporate shill and hense the reason that this discussion went underground..

 

He said until

networkn:

 

Rikkitic:

 

networkn:

 

Rikkitic:

 

The corporate shill speaks. Does anyone seriously believe that the industry and all the parasitic hangers-on are not trying to clip the ticket for as much as they can squeeze out of end-consumers? Geo-blocking is all about profit maximisation and nothing else.

 

 

 

 

Is there some other reason businesses are operating other than profit maximisation? I think you are confusing what you want from a corporation, as something you hope for, from a charity.

 

 

 

 

I sincerely believe there is a fundamental distinction between fair and reasonable profit, and maximising profit as much as possible by any means possible. Fair profit is what is necessary to remain in business and have a decent income. Maximised profit is what today's shareholders scream for, but it wasn't always this way. It wasn't this way when I grew up in the 1960s. It only became this way in the 1980s after the Wolf of Wall Street and speculative investors started getting high on cocaine and making increasingly shrill demands for more and more and more. Fair profit is not the same as maximised profit and where that is concerned I feel no confusion at all.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well that is what YOU want, but this isn't reality. What is "fair" to you? What if that isn't "fair" to me? What if I put a lot of time/effort into my business for little or no profit for the first 5 years and then in the second 5 years required to "balance" that by maximising my profits? Am I not allowed? 

 

Do you know how much money each of these corporates make, what the actual profit margins are? What is acceptable to you? Why do YOU get to decide over anyone else?

 

I understand what you are saying, but I really don't understand how it can be realistic?

 

Exactly - Netflix makes 35% contribution margin on its US business.  It wants it to be 40% - so it hikes up prices.  Is this fair?  Is this a reasonable margin?  Is this acceptable?  Clearly the increase in churn means its not acceptable for some to see a 25% increase in prices with a 24% drop in content offered.  

ockel:

 

 

 

 

 

Exactly - Netflix makes 35% contribution margin on its US business.  It wants it to be 40% - so it hikes up prices.  Is this fair?  Is this a reasonable margin?  Is this acceptable?  Clearly the increase in churn means its not acceptable for some to see a 25% increase in prices with a 24% drop in content offered.  

 

Right, but the market will control it. Either people are prepared to pay, or prices will drop to attract back customers or the business will fail due to being uneconomic or not profitable enough for the stake holders. 

networkn:

 

ockel:

 

 

 

 

 

Exactly - Netflix makes 35% contribution margin on its US business.  It wants it to be 40% - so it hikes up prices.  Is this fair?  Is this a reasonable margin?  Is this acceptable?  Clearly the increase in churn means its not acceptable for some to see a 25% increase in prices with a 24% drop in content offered.  

 

 

Right, but the market will control it. Either people are prepared to pay, or prices will drop to attract back customers or the business will fail due to being uneconomic or not profitable enough for the stake holders. 

 

 

 

What??!   You mean that the market will determine whether its a fair and reasonable margin - thats "the industry and all the parasitic hangers-on are not trying to clip the ticket for as much as they can squeeze out of end-consumers"?  Not arbitrarily decided by Rikkitic?  And you mean that Netflix could earn supernormal profits by way of signing exclusive content deals and "and maximising profit as much as possible by any means possible."  

That could take years and years and years to determine.  Whatever will the consumer do in the meantime?  Either pay or not pay depending on how he or she perceives utility value?  Goodness, theres a thought.

ockel:

 

networkn:

 

ockel:

 

 

 

 

 

Exactly - Netflix makes 35% contribution margin on its US business.  It wants it to be 40% - so it hikes up prices.  Is this fair?  Is this a reasonable margin?  Is this acceptable?  Clearly the increase in churn means its not acceptable for some to see a 25% increase in prices with a 24% drop in content offered.  

 

 

Right, but the market will control it. Either people are prepared to pay, or prices will drop to attract back customers or the business will fail due to being uneconomic or not profitable enough for the stake holders. 

 

 

 

 

What??!   You mean that the market will determine whether its a fair and reasonable margin - thats "the industry and all the parasitic hangers-on are not trying to clip the ticket for as much as they can squeeze out of end-consumers"?  Not arbitrarily decided by Rikkitic?  And you mean that Netflix could earn supernormal profits by way of signing exclusive content deals and "and maximising profit as much as possible by any means possible."  

 

That could take years and years and years to determine.  Whatever will the consumer do in the meantime?  Either pay or not pay depending on how he or she perceives utility value?  Goodness, theres a thought.

 

I have no idea if you are being sarcastic or even the point you are trying to make, the market is controlled by the customer, and if the customer considers the pricing acceptable for what they are getting, they will buy it, if not, then they won't. No business can survive without revenue from customers. 

networkn:

 

ockel:

 

networkn:

 

ockel:

 

 

 

 

 

Exactly - Netflix makes 35% contribution margin on its US business.  It wants it to be 40% - so it hikes up prices.  Is this fair?  Is this a reasonable margin?  Is this acceptable?  Clearly the increase in churn means its not acceptable for some to see a 25% increase in prices with a 24% drop in content offered.  

 

 

Right, but the market will control it. Either people are prepared to pay, or prices will drop to attract back customers or the business will fail due to being uneconomic or not profitable enough for the stake holders. 

 

 

 

 

What??!   You mean that the market will determine whether its a fair and reasonable margin - thats "the industry and all the parasitic hangers-on are not trying to clip the ticket for as much as they can squeeze out of end-consumers"?  Not arbitrarily decided by Rikkitic?  And you mean that Netflix could earn supernormal profits by way of signing exclusive content deals and "and maximising profit as much as possible by any means possible."  

 

That could take years and years and years to determine.  Whatever will the consumer do in the meantime?  Either pay or not pay depending on how he or she perceives utility value?  Goodness, theres a thought.

 

 

 

 

I have no idea if you are being sarcastic or even the point you are trying to make, the market is controlled by the customer, and if the customer considers the pricing acceptable for what they are getting, they will buy it, if not, then they won't. No business can survive without revenue from customers. 

 

 

 

I think he is replying to Rikkitic via your post

tdgeek:

 

networkn:

 

ockel:

 

networkn:

 

ockel:

 

 

 

 

 

Exactly - Netflix makes 35% contribution margin on its US business.  It wants it to be 40% - so it hikes up prices.  Is this fair?  Is this a reasonable margin?  Is this acceptable?  Clearly the increase in churn means its not acceptable for some to see a 25% increase in prices with a 24% drop in content offered.  

 

 

Right, but the market will control it. Either people are prepared to pay, or prices will drop to attract back customers or the business will fail due to being uneconomic or not profitable enough for the stake holders. 

 

 

 

 

What??!   You mean that the market will determine whether its a fair and reasonable margin - thats "the industry and all the parasitic hangers-on are not trying to clip the ticket for as much as they can squeeze out of end-consumers"?  Not arbitrarily decided by Rikkitic?  And you mean that Netflix could earn supernormal profits by way of signing exclusive content deals and "and maximising profit as much as possible by any means possible."  

 

That could take years and years and years to determine.  Whatever will the consumer do in the meantime?  Either pay or not pay depending on how he or she perceives utility value?  Goodness, theres a thought.

 

 

 

 

I have no idea if you are being sarcastic or even the point you are trying to make, the market is controlled by the customer, and if the customer considers the pricing acceptable for what they are getting, they will buy it, if not, then they won't. No business can survive without revenue from customers. 

 

 

 

 

I think he is replying to Rikkitic via your post

 

Right, well that makes a lot more sense!

For me TV is a distraction. I want it easy, no hassles and there. This is why I have Sky TV, go into the lounge turn it on look for something to watch. Nothing to watch? turn it off then read a book, have a spa or spend time talking and or doing my hobby.

Having mess around with VPN's and zillion subscriptions means that TV is not an escape it's a chore.

I just bashed out a long and thoughtful reply to your previous post and then hit the wrong key (again) and sent it into a black hole from whence it will never return. This finally motivated me to download and install Open Office Writer on my notebook so I quit typing overlong replies into the GZ answer box and then lose them. I don't yet have the energy to try to retype everything that got lost but I will return.

networkn:

 

 

 

 

 

Well that is what YOU want, but this isn't reality. What is "fair" to you? What if that isn't "fair" to me? What if I put a lot of time/effort into my business for little or no profit for the first 5 years and then in the second 5 years required to "balance" that by maximising my profits? Am I not allowed? 

 

Do you know how much money each of these corporates make, what the actual profit margins are? What is acceptable to you? Why do YOU get to decide over anyone else?

 

I understand what you are saying, but I really don't understand how it can be realistic?

 

Holy cow -- someone mark the diary, since this might be the first time that I totally agree with networkn.

Much of the puritanical ravings against the horrible corporates and their attempts at profit maximisation, aside from the usual inherent hypocrisies and the claimants being unable to put forward any useful metric as to what is a fair profit etc, also ignore a few simple realities.

1. For most of the content that people want, you almost certainly can get it legally. When I say legally here I mean either conclusively legally, e.g. getting things through Sky or things where the courts have made no pronouncements on one way or another, e.g. geoblocking and are unlikely to -- who seriously believes that some content owner will pursue an end user? 

2. And you can get things legally in a form that takes advantage of market efficiencies. For those who hate the supposed middle men, good luck on trying to buy access to 1/10th of all that you want for the same price that you pay Sky and/or Netflix, for example.

3. You might not always get things in absolutely the form that you want, at the time and place of your choosing, but this is no different from much of the rest of life.

4. If you truly have no options to get things legally, even this supposed corporate shill (who incidentally is likely the only one here who has a post-graduate law degree specialising in IP law, by the way) and probably most NZers aren't about to go up in arms over the use of alternative methods. Note that of course this is no legal defence. But your chances of getting caught is basically zero.

This sort of cat and mouse/territory marking game between content producers (who want to sell access rights in chunks and regionally to maximise profits), rights holders, end-users, and mass reseller of contents like Netflix kind of reminds me of cat fights between domestic cats that generally get along but have the occasion disagreements. Nobody really wants to kill any other; one cat occasionally wants to pee in another cat's corner to establish dominance or to protect her patch. On and on it goes. Are end users inconvenienced to a degree? Of course. But anyone who expects any of the other parties to just roll over for the sake of any one or more of the other groups has a fundamental detachment from reality. But as end-users we mostly get what we want. And I suspect in time arrangements will become even better for us -- note for example Netflix's increasing moves towards producing their own content.