Global mode over ? Lets see.....

Forums › Online streaming services › Global mode over ? Lets see.....

1 | ... | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | ... | 54

2806 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1276806 3-Apr-2015 16:46

NonprayingMantis:
How would access to FTA help? It's already free for everybody and virtually everybody has a Freeview receiver already. It would be a huge expense for very little benefit.

To be honest, I'm kinda spitballing here. Convenience perhaps? Ability to pause and resume for those that don't have PVRs? But they need something to differentiate, and I don't think trying to go toe to toe with Netflix content will work.

BarTender

3606 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1276807 3-Apr-2015 16:47

NonprayingMantis:
BarTender: So me with my devil's advocate hat on would you just prefer tvnz, sky and lightbox just not bothered setting up in NZ. As the international offerings from the US will always be cheaper than NZ because the larger companies can negotiate a cheaper deal with the content creators due to size. The money the companies initiating the legal action who invested signing content rights with the content companies was really a wasted investment not worth protecting really??

I wonder how many of the people complaining about this action are the same people who have been bemoaning the lack of good local services over the last few years.

And will be the people who bemoan that all they can get is American tv as there won't be any local content being created anymore. As tvnz and tv3 will go bust. Sky will only be funded by sports until EPL outbid them. Nzonair will cease to exist as the Netflix et al won't be interested in picking up any local content.

Much of this is predicted on my devils advocate position I am taking. As I amrathercynical of the action. But I too would be grumpy if someone openly advertised some thingslike this.

richms

28168 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1276808 3-Apr-2015 16:48

They should go after fishpond too then, since they openly allow you to buy books from overseas!

Richard rich.ms

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79250 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#1276809 3-Apr-2015 16:55

You don't make a good service by being the only service.

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek

#1276812 3-Apr-2015 17:01

richms: They should go after fishpond too then, since they openly allow you to buy books from overseas!

Why would they do that? They care about their own businesses, and taking action against competitors. They aren't the justice league.

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek

#1276829 3-Apr-2015 17:51

saw a comment on reddit that this may the legal thing that might apply here.

Any lawyers care to comment? I know nothing about how this applies beyond what I read in wikipedia :P

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference

Tortious interference with contract rights can occur where the tortfeasor convinces a party to breach the contract against the plaintiff, or where the tortfeasor disrupts the ability of one party to perform his obligations under the contract, thereby preventing the plaintiff from receiving the performance promised. The classic example of this tort occurs when one party induces another party to breach a contract with a third party, in circumstances where the first party has no privilege to act as it does and acts with knowledge of the existence of the contract. Such conduct is termed tortious inducement of breach of contract.

Tortious interference with business relationships occurs where the tortfeasor acts to prevent the plaintiff from successfully establishing or maintaining business relationships. This tort may occur when a first party's conduct intentionally causes a second party not to enter into a business relationship with a third party that otherwise would probably have occurred. Such conduct is termed tortious interference with prospective business relations, expectations, or advantage or with prospective economic advantage.

In either of the above situations, the tortfeasor's conduct must be intentional. There is no cause of action for merely negligent interference with the performance of a contract

seems plausible anyway. Slingshot are certainly encouraging their customers to breach Netflix's contract.

jarledb

Webhead
3253 posts

Uber Geek

Moderator

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1276830 3-Apr-2015 17:53

freitasm: You don't make a good service by being the only service.

Of which Sky is a great example of. I don't know any other country that has worse TV-services than NZ. And my guess is that the country that does is probably not ranked as a developed nation.

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.

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

khull

1245 posts

Uber Geek

#1276831 3-Apr-2015 17:54

There are retailers in the US that directly apply 'geo blocks' by rejecting non US card purchases in conjunction with physical address blacklisting (done usually for security rather than contractual). If digital content is a true issue, then such an arrangement could be made but obviously does not stop people with means to achieve the end result

jarledb

Webhead
3253 posts

Uber Geek

Moderator

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1276832 3-Apr-2015 17:55

NonprayingMantis:
seems plausible anyway. Slingshot are certainly encouraging their customers to breach Netflix's contract.

Wouldn't that be an issue between Netflix and their customers (and possibly the third party) and not between TVNZ/Sky et all and the third party?

jarledb

Webhead
3253 posts

Uber Geek

Moderator

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1276834 3-Apr-2015 17:58

khull: There are retailers in the US that directly apply 'geo blocks' by rejecting non US card purchases in conjunction with physical address blacklisting (done usually for security rather than contractual). If digital content is a true issue, then such an arrangement could be made but obviously does not stop people with means to achieve the end result

Buying content off of US iTunes (movies, rental movies, music etc) is one such service. The work around is to buy gift cards (there is a thriving market for them) and pay that way instead of using a US credit card.

If they were able to stop Unotelly and other such services, people would still be able to use VPN to circumvent the geo-blocking. Realistically though, if you make it hard enough to use geo-blocking to get access to the content (much of which is not available through streaming services here in NZ), what you end up with is not more customers for the NZ companies, but rather more piracy.

Behodar

10501 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1276837 3-Apr-2015 18:04

NonprayingMantis: Slingshot are certainly encouraging their customers to breach Netflix's contract.

But assuming that "imported" streaming video is indeed defined as a "parallel import", then it's legal to watch it. You can't contract out of the law, so is it really breaching a contract?

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek

#1276838 3-Apr-2015 18:09

Behodar:
NonprayingMantis: Slingshot are certainly encouraging their customers to breach Netflix's contract.

But assuming that "imported" streaming video is indeed defined as a "parallel import", then it's legal to watch it. You can't contract out of the law, so is it really breaching a contract?

legal (probably) for the end customer to watch it, but still definitely breaching Netflix's Ts and Cs to do so.

It may come down to civil vs criminal law. i.e. What Slingshot are doing may not be criminal, but may be a breach of civil law, and so Sky etc can sue them under the above tort.

Again, I'm no lawyer, so I have no idea if the above actually applies here.

jarledb

Webhead
3253 posts

Uber Geek

Moderator

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1276843 3-Apr-2015 18:16

NonprayingMantis:
It may come down to civil vs criminal law. i.e. What Slingshot are doing may not be criminal, but may be a breach of civil law, and so Sky etc can sue them under the above tort.

On what basis would Sky be able to sue someone selling a completely legal service? The Netflix T&C does not come into play with Sky et al vs ISPs that deliver a geo-unblocking service.

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek

#1276845 3-Apr-2015 18:19

jarledb:
NonprayingMantis:
It may come down to civil vs criminal law. i.e. What Slingshot are doing may not be criminal, but may be a breach of civil law, and so Sky etc can sue them under the above tort.

On what basis would Sky be able to sue someone selling a completely legal service? The Netflix T&C does not come into play with Sky et al vs ISPs that deliver a geo-unblocking service.

I think that's the basis of the tort I linked to above. I.e. You can sue someone who is inducing a third party to breach a contract which undermines your rights.... Or something like that anyway.
Slingshot are definitely inducing customers to breach a contract with Netflix etc. whether a third party who is harmed as a result of that (I.e. Sky) can sue slingshot for that I have no idea.

richms

28168 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1276848 3-Apr-2015 18:28

Has anyone even established that the contract with netflix is being breached even?

Richard rich.ms

1 | ... | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | ... | 54