Netflix to crack down on unblockers

Forums › Online streaming services › Netflix to crack down on unblockers

1 | ... | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70

2394 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1598450 25-Jul-2016 19:00

ajobbins:

What exclusive regional rights gives is an effective monopoly. Generally speaking we don't allow monopolies because they are bad for our economy - they inhibit innovation, the supply inferior products or services at inflated prices. This is good for the (right holding) business, but bad for consumers. Not quite sure why/how content escapes anti-competition laws.

People mis-use and misunderstand (far more often than not, it's not deliberate - just through a lack of understanding) what the Commerce Act is concerned with. For example, s 36 proscribes against undue taking advantage of market power to (a) restricting the entry of a person into that or any other market; or (b) preventing or deterring a person from engaging in competitive conduct in that or any other market or (c) eliminating a person from that or any other market. People too often think, for example, "Apple only allows iOS on Iphones and Ipads and, therefore, Apple has a monopoly* in the iOS market". But that ignores the reality of the substitutability of operating systems. To an extent this would also apply to content rights. It doesn't make sense (at least not from the sense that the legislature drives as, as determined by our courts) to say that there's a "market" of only HBO shows and Sky has them all and, therefore, they have market power in HBO shows and if they refuse to share these with Spark and whoever else, they are abusing their market power. This is because there are potential substitutes and sometimes end users do benefit from one market player having all the content of one group of people etc.

I am not saying the law always get things right but a lot of people's concept of a market, what is market power, and what constitutes a monopoly simply do not take into account many concepts central to our competition laws, e.g. substitutability.

* Note that this word should not be confused with the concept of market power. They are not one and the same.

blakamin

4431 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1598457 25-Jul-2016 19:07

Sky, and Foxtel buy the rights to shows before FTA channels even get a look in. That's why we end up with so much rubbish on FTA, and want things like netflix, stan, lightbox, etc.

Just last night I saw a promo for a show that's "coming soon" to FTA TV. The only problem is it's a show that has already been axed in the US, after 1 season. Sky and Foxtel wouldn't have bought it, so people that only get freeview will get a show that has been over and gone in the US since May.

If I can't get my content by paying a realistic price for it, I'll go back to the old way I watched shows.

charliebrownnz

79 posts

Master Geek

#1598470 25-Jul-2016 19:41

MikeB4:

Sky is not a monopoly but they have been allowed to gain a dominant position through inept competition.

I would argue that in some contexts they are certainly a monopoly. They have a monopoly on showing Rugby, it just happens to be that is the way the industry is currently shaped. But the moment that the rugby games people want to watch is available to be streamed overseas then they will lose that monopoly and many people will almost certainly use unblocking techniques to watch the streamed service if it is cheaper and\or better. They have a monopoly on streaming individual shows as well eg, unless you know how to get around geo-blocking or want to torrent, Sky have a monopoly on showing Game of Thrones episodes in NZ.

It is true to say that the only real competition between content distributors in NZ is at the bidding stage where they bid against each other to get a monopoly on each show - the end result is the overseas show producers get paid more, and consumers in NZ pay more to view that show, in no shape or form does this type of competition lead to cheaper services and in NZ's case hasn't resulted in a better quality service either.

I like the US netflix service because its library is vast and its service is pretty good, and to me it is worth the money I pay - and they haven't been such an atrocious rip-off like sky. But even they are pushing for the same terribly anti-consumer model that Sky has:

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/229108-netflix-will-soon-be-the-only-place-to-find-disney-pixar-lucasfilm-and-marvel-movies

In my opinion, the only time that piracy of tv shows or movies won't be justifiable is when they adopt a model similar to the music industry where you can buy songs from many different store fronts OR stream it via a large (and variably priced) number of sites. I don't think pirating music is acceptable anymore, it is available via a huge number of channels and is priced from free to watch\listen with advertisements in youtube to, a couple of dollars per song on itunes\google or can be bought in streaming packages from spotify etc.

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek

#1598474 25-Jul-2016 19:51

blakamin:

Sky, and Foxtel buy the rights to shows before FTA channels even get a look in. That's why we end up with so much rubbish on FTA, and want things like netflix, stan, lightbox, etc.

Just last night I saw a promo for a show that's "coming soon" to FTA TV. The only problem is it's a show that has already been axed in the US, after 1 season. Sky and Foxtel wouldn't have bought it, so people that only get freeview will get a show that has been over and gone in the US since May.

If I can't get my content by paying a realistic price for it, I'll go back to the old way I watched shows.

Not true. TVNZ have deals in place to have the rights to shows produced by some content houses (ABC-Disney as one example, WB as another). Output deals have largely expired to be more selected bidding. Usually the broadcast rights and the 1st window or 2nd window of pay have differing periods. Netflix, for example, has global rights on Gotham - but only after the broadcast period has expired (which for S2 is probably September this year, when S3 is broadcast in the US). Lightbox have outbid FTA and other pay operators to get some content ahead of the curve (Top of the Lake S2 springs to mind - given Sky had S1 rights its not automatic that it gets the rights before the others get a look in). BBC content has been on TVNZ, Mediaworks and Prime all in the same season - depending on who wants to buy it. Saying that Sky and Foxtel buy the rights before others beggars understanding of the marketplace.

Sometimes FTA operators sit on a program (or waste in OnDemand) before bothering to show it. DC's Legends of Tomorrow - fasttracked on TVNZ OnDemand, then broadcast on Duke 6 months later. Gotham - shown in Sept in the US, on Duke in May and finally in HD on TV2 starting last night. Hardly a paytv issue - TVNZ have the broadcast rights on the series locked up tight.

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

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek

#1598479 25-Jul-2016 19:57

charliebrownnz:

MikeB4:

Sky is not a monopoly but they have been allowed to gain a dominant position through inept competition.

I would argue that in some contexts they are certainly a monopoly. They have a monopoly on showing Rugby, it just happens to be that is the way the industry is currently shaped. But the moment that the rugby games people want to watch is available to be streamed overseas then they will lose that monopoly and many people will almost certainly use unblocking techniques to watch the streamed service if it is cheaper and\or better. They have a monopoly on streaming individual shows as well eg, unless you know how to get around geo-blocking or want to torrent, Sky have a monopoly on showing Game of Thrones episodes in NZ.

It is true to say that the only real competition between content distributors in NZ is at the bidding stage where they bid against each other to get a monopoly on each show - the end result is the overseas show producers get paid more, and consumers in NZ pay more to view that show, in no shape or form does this type of competition lead to cheaper services and in NZ's case hasn't resulted in a better quality service either.

I like the US netflix service because its library is vast and its service is pretty good, and to me it is worth the money I pay - and they haven't been such an atrocious rip-off like sky. But even they are pushing for the same terribly anti-consumer model that Sky has:

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/229108-netflix-will-soon-be-the-only-place-to-find-disney-pixar-lucasfilm-and-marvel-movies

In my opinion, the only time that piracy of tv shows or movies won't be justifiable is when they adopt a model similar to the music industry where you can buy songs from many different store fronts OR stream it via a large (and variably priced) number of sites. I don't think pirating music is acceptable anymore, it is available via a huge number of channels and is priced from free to watch\listen with advertisements in youtube to, a couple of dollars per song on itunes\google or can be bought in streaming packages from spotify etc.

And Netflix have a "monopoly" on House of Cards or Daredevil. And Amazon/Lightbox have a "monopoly" on Mr Robot. Same with rugby or Game of Thrones. Its not a monopoly. Its a misuse of the word. The exclusive right on a particular piece of content is not a monopoly. Its an exclusive right. How the owner of that right chooses to sell/license/distribute is their right. If we consumers dont like how its distributed or dont want to pay the price demanded for that content then we should find something else to watch/do.

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

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek

#1598488 25-Jul-2016 20:14

charliebrownnz:

MikeB4:

Sky is not a monopoly but they have been allowed to gain a dominant position through inept competition.

I would argue that in some contexts they are certainly a monopoly. They have a monopoly on showing Rugby, it just happens to be that is the way the industry is currently shaped. But the moment that the rugby games people want to watch is available to be streamed overseas then they will lose that monopoly and many people will almost certainly use unblocking techniques to watch the streamed service if it is cheaper and\or better. They have a monopoly on streaming individual shows as well eg, unless you know how to get around geo-blocking or want to torrent, Sky have a monopoly on showing Game of Thrones episodes in NZ.

It is true to say that the only real competition between content distributors in NZ is at the bidding stage where they bid against each other to get a monopoly on each show - the end result is the overseas show producers get paid more, and consumers in NZ pay more to view that show, in no shape or form does this type of competition lead to cheaper services and in NZ's case hasn't resulted in a better quality service either.

I like the US netflix service because its library is vast and its service is pretty good, and to me it is worth the money I pay - and they haven't been such an atrocious rip-off like sky. But even they are pushing for the same terribly anti-consumer model that Sky has:

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/229108-netflix-will-soon-be-the-only-place-to-find-disney-pixar-lucasfilm-and-marvel-movies

In my opinion, the only time that piracy of tv shows or movies won't be justifiable is when they adopt a model similar to the music industry where you can buy songs from many different store fronts OR stream it via a large (and variably priced) number of sites. I don't think pirating music is acceptable anymore, it is available via a huge number of channels and is priced from free to watch\listen with advertisements in youtube to, a couple of dollars per song on itunes\google or can be bought in streaming packages from spotify etc.

BTW, on the Disney-Netflix deal, how do you think Netflix will recover the rumoured US$400m for the 3 year exclusive period it has for that Disney content? Will it put up prices (we have more content so we're going to charge you more for it) again?

Do you think that ABC will look to go direct when the deal expires (bearing in mind the deal was brokered years ago and long before the significant changes in the media landscape)? And is it coincident to the expiry of major sports deals that ABC-Disney has in place?

Do you think that the Disney deals in other markets (which are also exclusive to the Disney partners in those mark) had any bearing on Netflix enforcing the geoblocking in the 9-12months of getting exclusive Disney content in the US?

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

blakamin

4431 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1598491 25-Jul-2016 20:15

ockel:

Not true.

NZ is luckier than here then. All those shows you mention are on PayTV, or are shown 6-12 months later

Over here, BBC is on Foxtel... Foxtel have certain channels (SoHo, Boxsets, BBC First, Showcase) for popular shows. The fact is, all FTA TV have are Aussie, reality, or cancelled shows. Unless you're a fan of Criminal Minds, NCIS or older movies (tonight, Ch7, primetime, The Bourne Ultimatum). I've just been through the whole weeks guide.

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.

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek

#1598495 25-Jul-2016 20:20

blakamin:

ockel:

Not true.

NZ is luckier than here then. All those shows you mention are on PayTV, or are shown 6-12 months later

Over here, BBC is on Foxtel... Foxtel have certain channels (SoHo, Boxsets, BBC First, Showcase) for popular shows. The fact is, all FTA TV have are Aussie, reality, or cancelled shows. Unless you're a fan of Criminal Minds, NCIS or older movies (tonight, Ch7, primetime, The Bourne Ultimatum). I've just been through the whole weeks guide.

Over the last 15 years NZ television has been, IMHO, much better than Australia. Better range, faster tracked (its shades of grey but credit to Ten for being the first network down under to fast track). Talking to Australian friends they were always surprised to find I'd seen things that were only just being shown for them. Mind you...... TV3 under its previous CEO took a mighty step backwards in bringing content to screen in a timely fashion. We're about 2 years behind on some series - like SVU and H50.

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

charliebrownnz

79 posts

Master Geek

#1598531 25-Jul-2016 20:59

ockel:

charliebrownnz:

MikeB4:

Sky is not a monopoly but they have been allowed to gain a dominant position through inept competition.

I would argue that in some contexts they are certainly a monopoly. They have a monopoly on showing Rugby, it just happens to be that is the way the industry is currently shaped. But the moment that the rugby games people want to watch is available to be streamed overseas then they will lose that monopoly and many people will almost certainly use unblocking techniques to watch the streamed service if it is cheaper and\or better. They have a monopoly on streaming individual shows as well eg, unless you know how to get around geo-blocking or want to torrent, Sky have a monopoly on showing Game of Thrones episodes in NZ.

It is true to say that the only real competition between content distributors in NZ is at the bidding stage where they bid against each other to get a monopoly on each show - the end result is the overseas show producers get paid more, and consumers in NZ pay more to view that show, in no shape or form does this type of competition lead to cheaper services and in NZ's case hasn't resulted in a better quality service either.

I like the US netflix service because its library is vast and its service is pretty good, and to me it is worth the money I pay - and they haven't been such an atrocious rip-off like sky. But even they are pushing for the same terribly anti-consumer model that Sky has:

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/229108-netflix-will-soon-be-the-only-place-to-find-disney-pixar-lucasfilm-and-marvel-movies

In my opinion, the only time that piracy of tv shows or movies won't be justifiable is when they adopt a model similar to the music industry where you can buy songs from many different store fronts OR stream it via a large (and variably priced) number of sites. I don't think pirating music is acceptable anymore, it is available via a huge number of channels and is priced from free to watch\listen with advertisements in youtube to, a couple of dollars per song on itunes\google or can be bought in streaming packages from spotify etc.

And Netflix have a "monopoly" on House of Cards or Daredevil. And Amazon/Lightbox have a "monopoly" on Mr Robot. Same with rugby or Game of Thrones. Its not a monopoly. Its a misuse of the word. The exclusive right on a particular piece of content is not a monopoly. Its an exclusive right. How the owner of that right chooses to sell/license/distribute is their right. If we consumers dont like how its distributed or dont want to pay the price demanded for that content then we should find something else to watch/do.

Exclusive rights are a form of monopoly - it even says on the wikipedia page for "exclusive right". It may be standard in the industry, but its still a monopoly. And like other monopolies, exclusive rights lead to consumers being shafted, paying more for less. And netflix do have a monopoly on their shows and it sucks, I didn't say otherwise. But at least Netflix aren't charging 50 bucks a month (with a minimum term or joining fee to boot) for their most basic and cut-down service - the value proposition that Netflix US offer is far superior to what NZ distributors offer.

BTW, on the Disney-Netflix deal, how do you think Netflix will recover the rumoured US$400m for the 3 year exclusive period it has for that Disney content? Will it put up prices (we have more content so we're going to charge you more for it) again?

Do you think that ABC will look to go direct when the deal expires (bearing in mind the deal was brokered years ago and long before the significant changes in the media landscape)? And is it coincident to the expiry of major sports deals that ABC-Disney has in place?

Do you think that the Disney deals in other markets (which are also exclusive to the Disney partners in those mark) had any bearing on Netflix enforcing the geoblocking in the 9-12months of getting exclusive Disney content in the US?

Its hard to tell for certain what is going on in the decision making of Netflix, but its generally assumed that the pressure has been put on by the content producers to limit the geographic availability of the content - afterall, they are the biggest winners from it.

Another example of a netflix monopoly is the recent Star-Trek deal they secured - ironically this one benefits NZ subscribers and not US subscribers. It does show that Netflix are after the same consumer-shafting model that Sky has and we should all be aware of it - they just feel like the lesser of two evils as a New Zealand consumer.

tdgeek

29751 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1598616 25-Jul-2016 22:54

blakamin:

Sky, and Foxtel buy the rights to shows before FTA channels even get a look in. That's why we end up with so much rubbish on FTA, and want things like netflix, stan, lightbox, etc.

Just last night I saw a promo for a show that's "coming soon" to FTA TV. The only problem is it's a show that has already been axed in the US, after 1 season. Sky and Foxtel wouldn't have bought it, so people that only get freeview will get a show that has been over and gone in the US since May.

If I can't get my content by paying a realistic price for it, I'll go back to the old way I watched shows.

How do you know that??? The sellers want a good price, they don't care who buys it. FTA doesnt have the same funding, as its FTA, simple as that.

tdgeek

29751 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1598618 25-Jul-2016 23:00

charliebrownnz:

MikeB4:

Sky is not a monopoly but they have been allowed to gain a dominant position through inept competition.

I would argue that in some contexts they are certainly a monopoly. They have a monopoly on showing Rugby, it just happens to be that is the way the industry is currently shaped. But the moment that the rugby games people want to watch is available to be streamed overseas then they will lose that monopoly and many people will almost certainly use unblocking techniques to watch the streamed service if it is cheaper and\or better. They have a monopoly on streaming individual shows as well eg, unless you know how to get around geo-blocking or want to torrent, Sky have a monopoly on showing Game of Thrones episodes in NZ.

It is true to say that the only real competition between content distributors in NZ is at the bidding stage where they bid against each other to get a monopoly on each show - the end result is the overseas show producers get paid more, and consumers in NZ pay more to view that show, in no shape or form does this type of competition lead to cheaper services and in NZ's case hasn't resulted in a better quality service either.

I like the US netflix service because its library is vast and its service is pretty good, and to me it is worth the money I pay - and they haven't been such an atrocious rip-off like sky. But even they are pushing for the same terribly anti-consumer model that Sky has:

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/229108-netflix-will-soon-be-the-only-place-to-find-disney-pixar-lucasfilm-and-marvel-movies

In my opinion, the only time that piracy of tv shows or movies won't be justifiable is when they adopt a model similar to the music industry where you can buy songs from many different store fronts OR stream it via a large (and variably priced) number of sites. I don't think pirating music is acceptable anymore, it is available via a huge number of channels and is priced from free to watch\listen with advertisements in youtube to, a couple of dollars per song on itunes\google or can be bought in streaming packages from spotify etc.

Wrong on so many counts.

So 95% of content is a monopoly, as invariably, you want be able to watch hardly any of what is on Sky, TVNZ, TV3, or anyone else at the same time. Going by the other comments, you favour piracy, free content and ungeoblocking. The key is actually free, as stated. Like some, not all posts, it comes only don to money, I want it free and I want it now.

tdgeek

29751 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1598620 25-Jul-2016 23:12

charliebrownnz:

ockel:

charliebrownnz:

MikeB4:

Sky is not a monopoly but they have been allowed to gain a dominant position through inept competition.

I would argue that in some contexts they are certainly a monopoly. They have a monopoly on showing Rugby, it just happens to be that is the way the industry is currently shaped. But the moment that the rugby games people want to watch is available to be streamed overseas then they will lose that monopoly and many people will almost certainly use unblocking techniques to watch the streamed service if it is cheaper and\or better. They have a monopoly on streaming individual shows as well eg, unless you know how to get around geo-blocking or want to torrent, Sky have a monopoly on showing Game of Thrones episodes in NZ.

It is true to say that the only real competition between content distributors in NZ is at the bidding stage where they bid against each other to get a monopoly on each show - the end result is the overseas show producers get paid more, and consumers in NZ pay more to view that show, in no shape or form does this type of competition lead to cheaper services and in NZ's case hasn't resulted in a better quality service either.

I like the US netflix service because its library is vast and its service is pretty good, and to me it is worth the money I pay - and they haven't been such an atrocious rip-off like sky. But even they are pushing for the same terribly anti-consumer model that Sky has:

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/229108-netflix-will-soon-be-the-only-place-to-find-disney-pixar-lucasfilm-and-marvel-movies

In my opinion, the only time that piracy of tv shows or movies won't be justifiable is when they adopt a model similar to the music industry where you can buy songs from many different store fronts OR stream it via a large (and variably priced) number of sites. I don't think pirating music is acceptable anymore, it is available via a huge number of channels and is priced from free to watch\listen with advertisements in youtube to, a couple of dollars per song on itunes\google or can be bought in streaming packages from spotify etc.

And Netflix have a "monopoly" on House of Cards or Daredevil. And Amazon/Lightbox have a "monopoly" on Mr Robot. Same with rugby or Game of Thrones. Its not a monopoly. Its a misuse of the word. The exclusive right on a particular piece of content is not a monopoly. Its an exclusive right. How the owner of that right chooses to sell/license/distribute is their right. If we consumers dont like how its distributed or dont want to pay the price demanded for that content then we should find something else to watch/do.

Exclusive rights are a form of monopoly - it even says on the wikipedia page for "exclusive right". It may be standard in the industry, but its still a monopoly. And like other monopolies, exclusive rights lead to consumers being shafted, paying more for less. And netflix do have a monopoly on their shows and it sucks, I didn't say otherwise. But at least Netflix aren't charging 50 bucks a month (with a minimum term or joining fee to boot) for their most basic and cut-down service - the value proposition that Netflix US offer is far superior to what NZ distributors offer.

BTW, on the Disney-Netflix deal, how do you think Netflix will recover the rumoured US$400m for the 3 year exclusive period it has for that Disney content? Will it put up prices (we have more content so we're going to charge you more for it) again?

Do you think that ABC will look to go direct when the deal expires (bearing in mind the deal was brokered years ago and long before the significant changes in the media landscape)? And is it coincident to the expiry of major sports deals that ABC-Disney has in place?

Do you think that the Disney deals in other markets (which are also exclusive to the Disney partners in those mark) had any bearing on Netflix enforcing the geoblocking in the 9-12months of getting exclusive Disney content in the US?

Its hard to tell for certain what is going on in decision making of Netflix, but its generally assumed that the pressure has been put on by the content producers to limit the geographic availability of the content - afterall, they are the biggest winners from it.

Another example of a netflix monopoly is the recent Star-Trek deal they secured - ironically this one benefits NZ subscribers and not US subscribers. It does show that Netflix are after the same consumer-shafting model that Sky has and we should all be aware of it - they just feel like the lesser of two evils as a New Zealand consumer.

I cant buy a Stihl hedge trimmer at Bunnings, Mitre 10 or Placemakers, only at the Stihl Shop, is that a monopoly?

I feel that while you showed effort to search for info, your wanting everything to be free or near free. and that anyone else that actually charges a fair price is a ripoff. Find out how much Rugby costs, V8SC cars cost, cricket costs, and so on. Late model TV shows. You cant pay for that showing milky bar ads. Sorry but thats the way it is.

bigalow

566 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1598646 26-Jul-2016 01:16

tdgeek:

blakamin:

Sky, and Foxtel buy the rights to shows before FTA channels even get a look in. That's why we end up with so much rubbish on FTA, and want things like netflix, stan, lightbox, etc.

Just last night I saw a promo for a show that's "coming soon" to FTA TV. The only problem is it's a show that has already been axed in the US, after 1 season. Sky and Foxtel wouldn't have bought it, so people that only get freeview will get a show that has been over and gone in the US since May.

If I can't get my content by paying a realistic price for it, I'll go back to the old way I watched shows.

How do you know that??? The sellers want a good price, they don't care who buys it. FTA doesnt have the same funding, as its FTA, simple as that.

apart from live sports payper view

most of sky is reruns

charliebrownnz

79 posts

Master Geek

#1598654 26-Jul-2016 02:19

I cant buy a Stihl hedge trimmer at Bunnings, Mitre 10 or Placemakers, only at the Stihl Shop, is that a monopoly?

A tv show episode doesn't take up physical shelf space, isn't supply side limited. Technically your chainsaw examples probably is a monopoly, but at least with hardware brands, you are permitted to parallel import them providing they meet other regulations that we have, regardless of any distribution agreements the brand owners may have with their local agents. Typically, this results in a more global price being reached without the geographic disparities in prices.

I feel that while you showed effort to search for info, your wanting everything to be free or near free. and that anyone else that actually charges a fair price is a ripoff. Find out how much Rugby costs, V8SC cars cost, cricket costs, and so on. Late model TV shows. You cant pay for that showing milky bar ads. Sorry but thats the way it is.

So it costs more to get game of thrones showing on a tv in my living room than it does for someone in Alaska? Fair is a subjective term but not many people would call charging a person in NZ where incomes are only 2/3 that of the USA more than twice the price of someone in the USA for the same content fair - especially when the real distribution costs is the same. NZ Sports is a slightly different beast to produced content as there are production costs and limitations involved in getting live coverage out and the availability alternatives are limited - but sky still have a monopoly and consumers are still getting shafted, there are huge margins being realized on something thats becoming available to be sourced via non-official means.

So 95% of content is a monopoly, as invariably, you want be able to watch hardly any of what is on Sky, TVNZ, TV3, or anyone else at the same time. Going by the other comments, you favour piracy, free content and ungeoblocking. The key is actually free, as stated. Like some, not all posts, it comes only don to money, I want it free and I want it now.

Sorry you are wrong on nearly every account. 95% of content is a monopoly- exclusive rights are technically a monopoly. Its just 10-15 years ago distribution involved a fairly significant cost to get that tv show from the USA to your tv set, and there were significant limitations on the number of shows that could be sent to your tv. When buying tv shows, the broadcasters were limited on the number of shows they could distribute, there is only so much content that can be shown on 5 broadcast tv channels at prime time - this meant that to a certain degree there was competition for content producers to sell thier show. And to ensure that the significant distribution costs were met some form of monopoly on the show was acceptable for most people.

Those physical barriers are no more, the costs of distribution are tiny, and there is no requirement to bundle content - but that entire industry is stuck in the old broadcasting mindset, and now that there are other means to source that content, people will use those means when prices are so out of wack. That is a role that black and grey markets play really well when supply is artificially restricted or priced at levels people find unfair. And its easy to write people that pirate off as free-loaders, but the success of other industries that produce digital content shows otherwise. Music and PC games are thriving with more options and much lower levels of piracy now that consumers are given a huge variety of options. Generally, people want to use legitimate methods and treating them as criminals or freeloaders doesn't do anything good for the producers of the digital goods. In my circle of friends and acquaintances I don't know anyone that still pirates music or PC games anymore, yet five years ago I would say that half of the music or games we got would have been pirated, funnily enough, our piracy is largely limited to the few shows or movies not available on netflix that we really want to see.

tdgeek

29751 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1598680 26-Jul-2016 07:46

charliebrownnz:

I cant buy a Stihl hedge trimmer at Bunnings, Mitre 10 or Placemakers, only at the Stihl Shop, is that a monopoly?

A tv show episode doesn't take up physical shelf space, isn't supply side limited. Technically your chainsaw examples probably is a monopoly, but at least with hardware brands, you are permitted to parallel import them providing they meet other regulations that we have, regardless of any distribution agreements the brand owners may have with their local agents. Typically, this results in a more global price being reached without the geographic disparities in prices.

So the TV ep has no value? Make it once and duplicate it 20 million times for free? Like a Stihl, is has a cost to produce. It therefore needs to be sold. I cant sell my Stihl twice. If I sold my GOT to your network in NZ, on the basis of a good price for me, exclusivity for you (more audience, higher priced ads, you get more subscribers) I cant then sell to Joe's ChCh TV as well.

I feel that while you showed effort to search for info, your wanting everything to be free or near free. and that anyone else that actually charges a fair price is a ripoff. Find out how much Rugby costs, V8SC cars cost, cricket costs, and so on. Late model TV shows. You cant pay for that showing milky bar ads. Sorry but thats the way it is.

So it costs more to get game of thrones showing on a tv in my living room than it does for someone in Alaska? Fair is a subjective term but not many people would call charging a person in NZ where incomes are only 2/3 that of the USA more than twice the price of someone in the USA for the same content fair - especially when the real distribution costs is the same. NZ Sports is a slightly different beast to produced content as there are production costs and limitations involved in getting live coverage out and the availability alternatives are limited - but sky still have a monopoly and consumers are still getting shafted, there are huge margins being realized on something thats becoming available to be sourced via non-official means.

To compare US and NZ ignore the exchange rate, compare an average job and prices. As if you lived there. Ok, Sky has a monopoly, every network therefore has a monopoly.

So 95% of content is a monopoly, as invariably, you want be able to watch hardly any of what is on Sky, TVNZ, TV3, or anyone else at the same time. Going by the other comments, you favour piracy, free content and ungeoblocking. The key is actually free, as stated. Like some, not all posts, it comes only don to money, I want it free and I want it now.

Sorry you are wrong on nearly every account. 95% of content is a monopoly- exclusive rights are technically a monopoly. Its just 10-15 years ago distribution involved a fairly significant cost to get that tv show from the USA to your tv set,Incorrect. Shipping reels and tapes is not a significant cost. and there were significant limitations on the number of shows that could be sent to your tv. Wrong. Linear, 1 program her channel, at a time, if we didn't have Freeview it would still be the same, except not HD When buying tv shows, the broadcasters were limited on the number of shows they could distribute, there is only so much content that can be shown on 5 broadcast tv channels at prime time - this meant that to a certain degree there was competition for content producers to sell thier show. And to ensure that the significant distribution costs were met some form of monopoly on the show was acceptable for most people.

Those physical barriers are no more, the costs of distribution are tiny, and there is no requirement to bundle content - but that entire industry is stuck in the old broadcasting mindset, They are stuck in the mindset that having shows transmitted o ver the internet means they don't cost much to make. In actual fact they probably cost more as their is so much content competition. and now that there are other means to source that content, people will use those means when prices are so out of wack. Prices are fair, NF is dirt cheap. Says prices are due to sport subsidy. It seems quite clear that you just want your content cheaper. Irregardless of the real price to create the content. That is a role that black and grey markets play really well when supply is artificially restricted or priced at levels people find unfair. And its easy to write people that pirate off as free-loaders, but the success of other industries that produce digital content shows otherwise. Music and PC games are thriving with more options and much lower levels of piracy now that consumers are given a huge variety of options. Huge variety? Well, flat arte streaming is the one main option. Music is say $12 per month, similar to NF. You don't get everything too, as some wont sell rights to NF, same as content, and seem don't as they, the creators get ripped off. Generally, people want to use legitimate methods and treating them as criminals or freeloaders doesn't do anything good for the producers of the digital goods. In my circle of friends and acquaintances I don't know anyone that still pirates music or PC games anymore, yet five years ago I would say that half of the music or games we got would have been pirated, funnily enough, our piracy is largely limited to the few shows or movies not available on netflix that we really want to see.

1 | ... | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70