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 | 12 | ... | 21

8233 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#1474006 18-Jan-2016 17:23

ockel:
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

As previously explicitly stated, I don't want one service with everything. I want all services with everything. A monopoly Netflix would be every bit as bad as a monopoly Sky, or a monopoly Microsoft, or a monopoly Telecom. I don't really know any other way to say it: exclusivity leads to monopoly, and monopolies are bad for consumers.

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

#1474007 18-Jan-2016 17:28

Rikkitic:
networkn: You are essentially saying those who create content should have no control over it's distribution or business models.
Not in a free market. That was decided years ago. People with something to sell are not permitted to deny blacks or Jews the right to buy it. Why should they be permitted to deny someone who lives on the other side of the street? Many years ago the Americans (of all people) took the distribution rights of Hollywood away when the authorities forced the movie industry to sell its cinema chains. This was seen at the time as monopolistic and detrimental to the rights of movie-goers. Well, guess what? Times haven't changed!

Get NF to buy all the rights. Its lie when people whine about Sky. Then when competition arrives and content leaves Sky, they whine about Sky for not having it, and now I have to buy 3 subscriptions. Do people want everything to be on NF so its a monopoly? Remember, the media industry is not movie makers and Netflix. Its many creators, employing many many people, selling to TV stations, networks, Pay networks, streaming services. Off course they will be buyers of content that pay through the nose for exclusivity. Either Netflix becomes the only monopolistic provider of media, or every media player network as above, all get equal rights. Both ways, it has to be paid for. The provision of NF, or everyone buying all the rights is where it breaks down. Sky has RWC, so does TVOne, so does Mediaworks, Netflix, Lightbox, Quickflix, how does that work?

tdgeek

29752 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1474009 18-Jan-2016 17:32

Wade: Netflix are not doing anything illegal, consumer is not doing anything illegal so how can it be illegal Consumer is breaking Netflix T&C's, contractual issue for Netflix to resolve not the legal system - still not illegal To what level do Netflix need to go to with regards to geo blocking to suffice their contractual obligations to content owners? Given that someone will always find a way around a system legal or other wise where do you draw the line? Compare Netflix to a car manufacturer, can the manufacturer be expected to take all and every precaution for the end user to not crash? No

Its not illegal, thats not the issue. It breaks the contract the consumer has. Car analogies often don;t work and yours doesnt either. If a car manufacturer only seems to one dealership, that gives the dealership benefits. I can;t setup my dealership next door and sell the cars. The barrier is the manufacture won;t sell to me. the barrier in this tread are companies selling services to break that contract.

tdgeek

29752 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1474019 18-Jan-2016 17:34

NonprayingMantis:
Rikkitic:
networkn: You are essentially saying those who create content should have no control over it's distribution or business models.
Not in a free market. That was decided years ago. People with something to sell are not permitted to deny blacks or Jews the right to buy it. Why should they be permitted to deny someone who lives on the other side of the street? Many years ago the Americans (of all people) took the distribution rights of Hollywood away when the authorities forced the movie industry to sell its cinema chains. This was seen at the time as monopolistic and detrimental to the rights of movie-goers. Well, guess what? Times haven't changed!
look up the various declarations about human rights. Businesses CANNOT discriminate on grounds of race, sex, age, sexuality, religion and various others. businesses CAN discriminate on literally ANY other grounds, and that including geographical location. and remember we also aren't talking about getting people access to something that is crucial to life. I absolutely understand we need to ensure all people have access to things like food, water, shelter, education, healthcare, heck, maybe even access to the internet should be a 'human right'. What I don't understand is the concept that we must ensure that all people have access to the latest season of Game of Thrones the instant it airs in another country.

What would work is that these extra contents under discussion are PPV. So rights can be said to the company that owns the rights in the problem region. But thats a problem. We have to pay

gzt

17150 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1474020 18-Jan-2016 17:35

Considering in NZ now you can get several streaming subscriptions for the price of a new release DVD I'm not sure this exclusivity is a real problem in practice. In contrast if geounblock was illegal in NZ law this would lead to price and service issues from lack of competition.

Benoire

2798 posts

Uber Geek

#1474022 18-Jan-2016 17:37

In my opinion, region non-exclusivity will never happen as content owners would not be able to charge the premium they do (just look how much the EPL cost Sky UK and BBC Sport) as the distributors would never pay more than necessary. Exclusivity ensures a bidding war and that therefore increases the price of the media substantially. If they got the same revenue from non-exclusivity as exclusivity then they might be inclined, but then a distributor would likely offer more money as a timed exclusive over their competitors... Unless non-exclusivity is mandated in statute then we're stuck in the current position and seeking content outside of this jurisdiction is in breach of the terms and conditions of the rights holder and the company you watched the content from (in general) and also leads to lower returns for the company that did purchase the rights for this region.

tdgeek

29752 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1474030 18-Jan-2016 17:42

jmh: I think, at heart, it's a case of business models falling behind the technology. Netlix themselves say that the long-term aim is to have a global catalogue. I think by pushing the law to limit, and debating the ethics, we as geeks and experts are going to effect change in the marketplace. This current situation is just a blip in the road to a new system. It doesn't seem fair to users that they pay the same amount for a product and get less than someone in another country. This obviously applies other products too, but electronic products don't cost anything to transport across borders.

Agree. Here, we are talking about the content owners and Netflix. Is Netflix the only content buyer? No, there are many others, involving cheap subscriptions, PPV that are also buying rights, and not every right is exclusive. And the streaming media is only one item of the movie/series, there are box sets, DVD;s, all sorts off businesses who are involved. A movie/series comes out, its sold in many ways, the whole model is large and complex. I feel if Netflix went all out to buy the rights so that all their contact was everywhere it affects a lot of others in business, and there is a cost to that. Rights Fees. Does $13 for unlimited access to heaps of stuff sound like a great financial model, thats cheaper than chips. Its one revenue stream, and to make the whole global shebang work, this is what it is. One day, everything will be streamed, and it may well cost a great deal more. I can buy a movie ticket for the price of 1.5 months unlimited movies form NF. There is a financial hole there. NF is just one teeny piece of the media industry.

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.

tdgeek

29752 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1474035 18-Jan-2016 17:48

WyleECoyoteNZ: I'm going to stick my 2c worth in as well. As a disclaimer, I don't have Netflix, and don't used TV3 on Demand. If this shows isn't on Netflix, this whole post can be ignored. Let's take a current show from TV3 which is available On Demand for the latest episodes from the US, that show being 'The Blacklist'. Under the On Demand FAQ's on the TV3 website, they state that international shows\programmes are available for 14 days, and that for the on demand content ads are required to pay for the content. http://www.tv3.co.nz/OnDemand/OnDemandHelp/FAQ.aspx Surely the point of On Demand means:

I can watch it when I want too, and you can't because it's only available for 14 days
Watching On Demand is supposed to be quicker, and you can't because the online content is full of ads
You can only watch On Demand on selected Mobile devices, your PC, or a Smart TV

So really, although the local provider has the content, it's available audience is limited (you have to watch within 14 days and really either on your PC or smart TV if you have one). Yes, I get that the ads pay for the content, but surely on-demand services should get around this. How, maybe a TV licence fee needs to be re-introduced. I'm now going to assume that the latest Blacklist series isn't available on NZ Netflix yet (I don't know as I don't have Netflix) Yet, If you use an unblocker, you'd be able to access Netflix US, watch the latest episode whenever you want to, watch through either a PC or smart Tv or console (Netflix being available on the X1)

Your right. Its about COST. Thats why the 14 day rule, etc, to make the costs viable. Ads cover the costs. They could charge you 85c every ad break, then its a case of why do I have to pay these costs when I can get it from NF USA for free (as you already have NF USA).

Look at a CD, its $28 or whatever they cost. Or you can buy Spotify and have unlimited CD's. There is a cost hole. So all this edits of media availability can be the read deal, a CD, or a cheap way, streaming, the whole revenue stream has to add up.

tdgeek

29752 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1474038 18-Jan-2016 17:52

ockel:
WyleECoyoteNZ: I'm going to stick my 2c worth in as well. As a disclaimer, I don't have Netflix, and don't used TV3 on Demand. If this shows isn't on Netflix, this whole post can be ignored. Let's take a current show from TV3 which is available On Demand for the latest episodes from the US, that show being 'The Blacklist'. Under the On Demand FAQ's on the TV3 website, they state that international shows\programmes are available for 14 days, and that for the on demand content ads are required to pay for the content. http://www.tv3.co.nz/OnDemand/OnDemandHelp/FAQ.aspx Surely the point of On Demand means:

I can watch it when I want too, and you can't because it's only available for 14 days
Watching On Demand is supposed to be quicker, and you can't because the online content is full of ads
You can only watch On Demand on selected Mobile devices, your PC, or a Smart TV

So really, although the local provider has the content, it's available audience is limited (you have to watch within 14 days and really either on your PC or smart TV if you have one). Yes, I get that the ads pay for the content, but surely on-demand services should get around this. How, maybe a TV licence fee needs to be re-introduced. I'm now going to assume that the latest Blacklist series isn't available on NZ Netflix yet (I don't know as I don't have Netflix) Yet, If you use an unblocker, you'd be able to access Netflix US, watch the latest episode whenever you want to, watch through either a PC or smart Tv or console (Netflix being available on the X1)
Season 1 and 2 are available on Netflix NZ and Netflix US. Season 2 is available on Lightbox. Season 3 is not available and usually the buffet ondemand services will get the window after FTA and Pay rights have expired. Usually about 10 months after initial broadcast (but varies from content producer to content producer). To get Season 3 you would need to watch via Hulu.

There you go, tks Ockel. There is premium, as in now thats been paid for, there is cheaper, which is later. Once this series is old hat and has only 3 viewers per month watching globally, its run its course, its gathered the revenue from premium to non premium over time. Not everybody can access it everywhere on day one for nix.

tdgeek

29752 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1474042 18-Jan-2016 17:56

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.

Yep, as long as we don't complain when rights payments go up to make everything available everywhere right now.

tdgeek

29752 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1474045 18-Jan-2016 18:02

gzt:
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.

Seems to me that its about everyone wanting everything for nix. People used to pay for stuff, now they want Unlimited movies, TV, music for the price of one coffee every 10 days.

That we have that is great, but thats one piece of the pie, the rest of the revenue has to be paid by rights holders. Or we can settle for 99c for every TV ep, and $5 for every movie, still cheap. But what we pay as in ( Unlimited movies, TV, music for the price of one coffee every 10 days.) is massively cheaper. Thats a hole that not many seem to want to know about. Rights Fees and the management of distribution to cover the cheaper then chips options.

A step further. All movies are only to appear on NF, Hulu, etc. How would that business model go?

tdgeek

29752 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1474050 18-Jan-2016 18:11

jarledb: 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 :)

True. But instead of buying CD's we can pay one coffee every 10 days to "buy" every CD. To me that a huge revenue stream hole. Or, fill that hole with Spotify at $67-95 per month and the world will end.

tdgeek

29752 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1474055 18-Jan-2016 18:30

networkn:
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.

Thats my point. Unlimited music for cheap, unlimited movies and TV for cheap. I could sell burgers in a meal for $13, or I could sell you unlimited for $13 a month. Doesn't stack up.

tdgeek

29752 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1474056 18-Jan-2016 18:32

MikeB4: 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.

I'll pay $4 a month for Netflix and $4-50 a month for Spotify, after everything is freed up from Geoblocking. As compensation for poor revenues, and get a better CEO!

tdgeek

29752 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1474057 18-Jan-2016 18:33

Killerkiwi2005:
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

So the tick is for a monopoly? Ok

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | ... | 21