Legality and/or morality of geoblocking

Forums › Online streaming services › Legality and/or morality of geoblocking

1 | ... | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | ... | 21

2811 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 627

#1474058 18-Jan-2016 18:36

tdgeek: So the tick is for a monopoly? Ok

A global monopoly; even worse... This is where the NZ population doesn't count for anything as we're so small.

Profit minded companies in the current era are only after one thing and that is to maximise revenue, so any advantage they can get to do so will see them doing it, even if it hurts local markets that have higher fixed costs... NZ is a market with higher fixed costs so will lose out and you'll be left with a multinational in control of your content as they will suck up everything in exclusives; this have they said that if they could they would seek exclusive access to everything!

tdgeek

29819 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9155

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1474059 18-Jan-2016 18:39

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.

I come back to revenues. Its fine that you want no ads. And that pay services are ad free. Sky is pay, its not a sharemarket cash cow. When we go from $28 CD's to unlimited streaming, and SVOD is the same, the cheap as chips $13 a month doesn't stack up for me. If rights are removed, as is global restrictions, what happens to the $13 a month we pay. Its practically giving it away. The demand to have everything for free, and $13 a month for unlimited TV/Movies with no restrictions is free.

gzt

17344 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6349

Lifetime subscriber

#1474061 18-Jan-2016 18:42

It does stack up. Partly because I will watch stuff on streaming that I will never buy. So sales are being made there. Sure sometimes production values are lower, but there is also significant innovation going on as well.

As for the network stuff on there there always was a limited market for box sets etc, streaming opens new markets. The media companies are gradually building up the business and learning about the market segments. You will find that new high margin products will arrive in time. Media companies have been very slow to respond to change and have some catching up to do.

tdgeek

29819 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9155

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1474064 18-Jan-2016 18:52

Benoire: 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.

I feel the premiums you mention, allows some stuff to be bundled into an unlimited $13 per month service. The total revenues need to be there. But we can't expect to have 3 SVOD, that overall have everything, and expect to pay $13 per month x 3. Lets say that happens and the three big SVOD's are $67-95 per month each. The globalisation has happened, there is no exclusivity and the huge rights fees that go with that, its all been bundled into the higher SVOD fees as each of us are now paying rights fees instead, to free up the geo restriction. Thats fair, its user pays. and equally distributed amongst the viewers.

tdgeek

29819 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9155

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1474065 18-Jan-2016 18:56

gzt: It does stack up. Partly because I will watch stuff on streaming that I will never buy. So sales are being made there. Sure sometimes production values are lower, but there is also significant innovation going on as well.

As for the network stuff on there there always was a limited market for box sets etc, streaming opens new markets. The media companies are gradually building up the business and learning about the market segments. You will find that new high margin products will arrive in time. Media companies have been very slow to respond to change and have some catching up to do.

Who pays for the rights once these are removed, and globalisation happens? The revenue stream of rights fees stops, subscription fees stay the same. Whether you watch on proggie a night that you will need buy doesn't change the fact that your contribution remains at $13. So the lost revenues are increased to cover the loss of all rights payments.

shk292

2873 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2012

Lifetime subscriber

#1474101 18-Jan-2016 20:31

What gets me is that all the arguments against geo unblocking seem to be predicated on the old regional, exclusive rights business model. Well what about a different model, as used everywhere else except the movie business? All content producers sell rights to all content distributors, who then sell retail packages to their customers with differentiating factors such as content library, ease of use, picture quality, device choice etc etc etc. I keep hearing the same variations of "you can't do that because company x has bought exclusive rights for produce y in region z. Well, I think that model is an anachronism and I don't accept it, and I'll therefore do my best to circumvent it. If that makes me immoral, well I can live with that, especially as I have yet to see an even vaguely convincing argument that it's illegal.
Those of you who are happy to continue bending over for Sky and their outdated business model, well please carry on

shk292

2873 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2012

Lifetime subscriber

#1474105 18-Jan-2016 20:33

In addition to the above, maybe this will require a payment fit rights based on the number of subscribers, maybe averages over a quarterly period. So, easy for new players to enter the market with low overheads

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

tdgeek

29819 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9155

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1474112 18-Jan-2016 20:45

shk292: What gets me is that all the arguments against geo unblocking seem to be predicated on the old regional, exclusive rights business model. Well what about a different model, as used everywhere else except the movie business? All content producers sell rights to all content distributors, who then sell retail packages to their customers with differentiating factors such as content library, ease of use, picture quality, device choice etc etc etc. I keep hearing the same variations of "you can't do that because company x has bought exclusive rights for produce y in region z. Well, I think that model is an anachronism and I don't accept it, and I'll therefore do my best to circumvent it. If that makes me immoral, well I can live with that, especially as I have yet to see an even vaguely convincing argument that it's illegal.
Those of you who are happy to continue bending over for Sky and their outdated business model, well please carry on

Different model, thats good.

So you don't accept it so will circumvent it? ok.

What has Sky got to do with this? Well actually Sky has a business model that makes a fair return. If you remove rights payments (I have no issue with that)

you need to replace that lost revenue. That won't be $13 a month up to $15. Otherwise, I am in.

And geo blocking isn't illegal, I wish that would stop popping up.

tdgeek

29819 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9155

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1474130 18-Jan-2016 20:47

shk292: In addition to the above, maybe this will require a payment fit rights based on the number of subscribers, maybe averages over a quarterly period. So, easy for new players to enter the market with low overheads

Can you clarify? Seems that your wanting to make it easy, which is cheap, for new players. That will further reduce revenue for the owners of the content.

shk292

2873 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2012

Lifetime subscriber

#1474133 18-Jan-2016 20:50

I mention sky because their exclusive rights often seems to be the argument against Netflix having a wider library in NZ.
Good you agree about the legality, especially given the assertions elsewhere that geo unblocking is piracy and piracy is theft
Not sure I agree that the revenue needs to be replaced though

shk292

2873 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2012

Lifetime subscriber

#1474137 18-Jan-2016 20:54

tdgeek:
shk292: In addition to the above, maybe this will require a payment fit rights based on the number of subscribers, maybe averages over a quarterly period. So, easy for new players to enter the market with low overheads

Can you clarify? Seems that your wanting to make it easy, which is cheap, for new players. That will further reduce revenue for the owners of the content.

Quite simple, content owners set a price for content based on the average number of subscribers to that content. So for example, all series of breaking bad might cost a distributor $2 per month per subscriber (totally arbitrary number). So distributors can compile packages of content to attract subscribers to their service, competing with other distributors.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18726 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15570

Lifetime subscriber

#1474139 18-Jan-2016 21:02

Well, I see you guys have gone on without me. I can't react to every post here. I barely managed to read them all. I only want to respond to (and hopefully clarify) a couple of misconceptions that keep turning up.

It seems that some things are being purposely twisted as a debating tactic, in spite of previous careful explication. The use of the words 'illegal' and 'stealing' are examples of this. Also the constantly repeated litany that some of us want all this wonderful content for free, and are not prepared to pay for it.

I can't speak for others but this is what I believe and have been saying. Please don't misrepresent it:

1. Whatever you think about geo-unblocking, it is not 'illegal'. The constant misuse of this word adds an unjustified emotive element to whatever argument is being made. Call it immoral if you like, or unfair, or disgusting behaviour, but please stop calling it illegal. It is not and that just clouds the issue.

2. Those who use geo-unblocking are not 'stealing'. Everyone who accesses non-free sites pays a subscription. No-one is trying to get around that. Maybe they are being deceptive, or immoral (that word again), but they are not, by any definition of the word, 'stealing'. Please quit saying they are.

3. No one in their right mind wants or expects free content. Of course it has to be paid for. No-one here is seriously arguing that it should be free. The point we are making is that we disagree with the current region-based marketing model, for a whole range of reasons, and at least some of us feel justified in using geo-unblocking to circumvent that. We feel that all content should be 'freely' available, not available for free. Please quit distorting this to mean something it doesn't.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

networkn

Networkn
32446 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 14982

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1474145 18-Jan-2016 21:11

Rikkitic: Well, I see you guys have gone on without me. I can't react to every post here. I barely managed to read them all. I only want to respond to (and hopefully clarify) a couple of misconceptions that keep turning up. It seems that some things are being purposely twisted as a debating tactic, in spite of previous careful explication. The use of the words 'illegal' and 'stealing' are examples of this. Also the constantly repeated litany that some of us want all this wonderful content for free, and are not prepared to pay for it. I can't speak for others but this is what I believe and have been saying. Please don't misrepresent it: 1. Whatever you think about geo-unblocking, it is not 'illegal'. The constant misuse of this word adds an unjustified emotive element to whatever argument is being made. Call it immoral if you like, or unfair, or disgusting behaviour, but please stop calling it illegal. It is not and that just clouds the issue. 2. Those who use geo-unblocking are not 'stealing'. Everyone who accesses non-free sites pays a subscription. No-one is trying to get around that. Maybe they are being deceptive, or immoral (that word again), but they are not, by any definition of the word, 'stealing'. Please quit saying they are. 3. No one in their right mind wants or expects free content. Of course it has to be paid for. No-one here is seriously arguing that it should be free. The point we are making is that we disagree with the current region-based marketing model, for a whole range of reasons, and at least some of us feel justified in using geo-unblocking to circumvent that. We feel that all content should be 'freely' available, not available for free. Please quit distorting this to mean something it doesn't.

Heh.

Do you expect your employer to pay you for a days work? If they stop paying you, is that illegal? See this is what makes what you are doing illegal, you are breaking a contract, and contracts are legally binding. You need to check the agreement you signed when you got a Netflix account, it states quite clearly that it's for use only in the USA.

I am not sure what you feel is your right to feel "justified" to decide to work yourself around these agreements.

Would you accept if it your Boss told you he felt "justified" in not paying you?

Doesn't matter if you AGREE with what the rights holders are doing. The content does NOT BELONG TO YOU. It belongs to THEM.

networkn

Networkn
32446 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 14982

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1474148 18-Jan-2016 21:13

tdgeek: Otherwise, I am in. And geo blocking isn't illegal, I wish that would stop popping up.

Well if it's not Illegal, then why did all the ISP's who were providing it, stop doing so when threatened with Legal Action? (Every SINGLE one).

gzt

17344 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6349

Lifetime subscriber

#1474154 18-Jan-2016 21:19

networkn:
tdgeek: Otherwise, I am in. And geo blocking isn't illegal, I wish that would stop popping up.
Well if it's not Illegal, then why did all the ISP's who were providing it, stop doing so when threatened with Legal Action? (Every SINGLE one).

No idea. I'd be interested to know the exact legal action they were threatened with. I'm guessing it was not NZ law.

1 | ... | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | ... | 21