Rikkitic:

timbosan: 
Quite well said (from the "The current media situation in New Zealand is a...." part onwards, I don't totally agree with people having a moral right to break laws.  That is (supposedly) why we have elected officials - to do our bidding and implement the laws as the people see fit.  Of course in NZ it is all about the power/money of the corporate entities.

When elected officials don't do their job (or corporate behemoths crap on their customers) the people have a responsibility to rise up if they want to maintain their freedoms. By 'rise up' I don't mean revolution or violence in the streets. There are other effective ways of telling the power abusers where to shove it.

Rikkitic: Here is yet another way of looking at it: Geo-blocking is a kind of tax. It is a tax that must be paid in both money and reduced choice. Those why pay the tax have less content to choose from, and it costs them more. This is not unlike a tax on tea once imposed by the British.

Some were greatly outraged by this tax, and dumped the tea in the harbour. They then rebelled against the authorities who imposed the tax. In the process they broke a lot of laws. This is now known as the American Revolution. I don’t think many people today would question the right of the colonists to do what they did, or claim the outcome was not a good thing. These were just people standing up for their right to self-determination (to watch what they want to) and their right to be free of tyranny and injustice (to watch what they want to). Maybe the Gang of Four should be invited to a cup of tea.

NonprayingMantis: 
I'm not sure what to make of this.
Ghandi etc were fighting for fundamental human rights - right to vote, etc. 

the right to access a product the owner does not want you to access is not one of those.  Not even close.  (unless the product is something critical to life - water, shelter etc - and even then there is no requirement that access be free)

Rikkitic:

NonprayingMantis: 
I'm not sure what to make of this.
Ghandi etc were fighting for fundamental human rights - right to vote, etc. 

the right to access a product the owner does not want you to access is not one of those.  Not even close.  (unless the product is something critical to life - water, shelter etc - and even then there is no requirement that access be free)

You and I fundamentally disagree on what ownership rights mean. You seem to see this as something sacrosanct that cannot be compromised under any circumstances. I am sure Hollywood and the Gang of Four would agree with you. I happen to see this somewhat differently.

Gandi, by the way, was fighting for the right of his people to make their own clothes and manufacture their own salt. The British were fighting to maintain a monopoly and keep an enforced colonial export market for their own goods which could not compete without protectionism (sound familiar?).

KiwiNZ: We hear all the time that the World is one global market, that there should be no protectionism or barriers to free trade. That is a myth and Geo-blocking is glaring evidence of this.

NonprayingMantis: 

property rights are the fundamental building block of the world economy.  Without them, you have literally nothing.

So if you don't agree with property rights, why are you starting with something as trivially unimportant as content.
Why not start with land, food etc.

If property rights don't exist,  what gives people the right to stop me from using land they believe they own,  or eating food they believe they own because they paid for it.

If I go to a farmer and offer him $1 for everything from his farm, can he refuse to sell it to me? Why not?

Don't Countdown have the right to choose what they sell, to whom they sell, and for how much?
If so, why is content any different?

NonprayingMantis:

KiwiNZ: We hear all the time that the World is one global market, that there should be no protectionism or barriers to free trade. That is a myth and Geo-blocking is glaring evidence of this.

protectionism and barriers put in place by governments.  (e.g. tarriffs, quotas, subsidies)
People should be free to buy and sell whatever they want with consenting parties, and this includes refusing to sell to somebody they don't want to sell to.

My 'right' to not sell to you trumps your 'right' to buy something.

Rikkitic: 

It's not all or nothing. Of course there should be property rights. They also need to be precisely defined, so people know what to expect. 

KiwiNZ:

NonprayingMantis:

KiwiNZ: We hear all the time that the World is one global market, that there should be no protectionism or barriers to free trade. That is a myth and Geo-blocking is glaring evidence of this.

protectionism and barriers put in place by governments.  (e.g. tarriffs, quotas, subsidies)
People should be free to buy and sell whatever they want with consenting parties, and this includes refusing to sell to somebody they don't want to sell to.

My 'right' to not sell to you trumps your 'right' to buy something.

Geo-blocking is anti free trade, Party A sells to party B but prevents party B from selling to party C. It is like me selling my car Arthur Daley but telling him he can only sell it to Terry McCann not to Del Boy. It is fundamentally wrong, once
you have sold something you should not be able to dictate the terms of trade after that.

sultanoswing: Of course the right to not sell is not absolute either. Countdown cannot refuse to serve you on, for example, the basis of your sexual orientation or religion. So by extension of this principle, it may be that Netflix can't refuse to serve you on the basis of your locality.

 

•  

  (a)sex, which includes pregnancy and childbirth:

   

 

•  

  (b)marital status, which means being—

   

   

  •  

    (i)single; or

     

   

  •  

    (ii)married, in a civil union, or in a de facto relationship; or

     

   

  •  

    (iii)the surviving spouse of a marriage or the surviving partner of a civil union or de facto relationship; or

     

   

  •  

    (iv)separated from a spouse or civil union partner; or

     

   

  •  

    (v)a party to a marriage or civil union that is now dissolved, or to a de facto relationship that is now ended:

     

 

•  

  (c)religious belief:

   

 

•  

  (d)ethical belief, which means the lack of a religious belief, whether in respect of a particular religion or religions or all religions:

   

 

•  

  (e)colour:

   

 

•  

  (f)race:

   

 

•  

  (g)ethnic or national origins, which includes nationality or citizenship:

   

 

•  

  (h)disability, which means—

   

   

  •  

    (i)physical disability or impairment:

     

   

  •  

    (ii)physical illness:

     

   

  •  

    (iii)psychiatric illness:

     

   

  •  

    (iv)intellectual or psychological disability or impairment:

     

   

  •  

    (v)any other loss or abnormality of psychological, physiological, or anatomical structure or function:

     

   

  •  

    (vi)reliance on a guide dog, wheelchair, or other remedial means:

     

   

  •  

    (vii)the presence in the body of organisms capable of causing illness:

     

 

•  

  (i)age, which means,—

   

   

  •  

    (i)for the purposes of sections 22 to 41 and section 70 and in relation to any different treatment based on age that occurs in the period beginning with 1 February 1994 and ending with the close of 31 January 1999, any age commencing with the age of 16 years and ending with the date on which persons of the age of the person whose age is in issue qualify for national superannuation undersection 7 of the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001 (irrespective of whether or not the particular person qualifies for national superannuation at that age or any other age):

     

   

  •  

    (ii)for the purposes of sections 22 to 41 and section 70 and in relation to any different treatment based on age that occurs on or after 1 February 1999, any age commencing with the age of 16 years:

     

   

  •  

    (iii)for the purposes of any other provision of Part 2, any age commencing with the age of 16 years:

     

 

•  

  (j)political opinion, which includes the lack of a particular political opinion or any political opinion:

   

 

•  

  (k)employment status, which means—

   

   

  •  

    (i)being unemployed; or

     

   

  •  

    (ii)being a recipient of a benefit under the Social Security Act 1964 or an entitlement under theAccident Compensation Act 2001:

     

 

•  

  (l)family status, which means—

   

   

  •  

    (i)having the responsibility for part-time care or full-time care of children or other dependants; or

     

   

  •  

    (ii)having no responsibility for the care of children or other dependants; or

     

   

  •  

    (iii)being married to, or being in a civil union or de facto relationship with, a particular person; or

     

   

  •  

    (iv)being a relative of a particular person:

     

 

•  

  (m)sexual orientation, which means a heterosexual, homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual orientation."