Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.
Filter this topic showing only the reply marked as answer View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | ... | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | ... | 70
4604 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2100

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1473276 17-Jan-2016 16:47
Send private message

ockel: 

Whoops.  Theres a problem.  Netflix doesnt pay the same for that content whether you watch the local library or an international one.
That may be why the global rights for a series (like Gotham for example) arent just called US rights. The global rights are more expensive.

 

I'm not saying rights in different regions cost the same amount. I'm saying Netflix pays once for the rights. Any rights they have in NZ or the US are already paid for, no matter which region I happen to watch.




iPad Air + iPhone SE + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.


13435 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2428

Trusted

  Reply # 1473278 17-Jan-2016 16:50
Send private message

SaltyNZ:
ockel: 

Whoops.  Theres a problem.  Netflix doesnt pay the same for that content whether you watch the local library or an international one.
That may be why the global rights for a series (like Gotham for example) arent just called US rights. The global rights are more expensive.

I'm not saying rights in different regions cost the same amount. I'm saying Netflix pays once for the rights. Any rights they have in NZ or the US are already paid for, no matter which region I happen to watch.


No. If NF didn't pay for rights in NZ they didn't ,someone else did. Watch it via them and pay their fees

MF mentioned this is off topic , we need to respect that and start a thread on "Is Geoblocking Fair

It's a great topic. Law. T + C's, legitimate or immoral ?

14356 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1867


  Reply # 1473281 17-Jan-2016 16:58
One person supports this post
Send private message

tdgeek:
SaltyNZ:
ockel: 

Whoops.  Theres a problem.  Netflix doesnt pay the same for that content whether you watch the local library or an international one.
That may be why the global rights for a series (like Gotham for example) arent just called US rights. The global rights are more expensive.

I'm not saying rights in different regions cost the same amount. I'm saying Netflix pays once for the rights. Any rights they have in NZ or the US are already paid for, no matter which region I happen to watch.


No. If NF didn't pay for rights in NZ they didn't ,someone else did. Watch it via them and pay their fees
  Region restricting content though is an outdated model, and was one of the main reasons why people are using online streaming services in the first place. It is really the middle man who paid for the exclusive rights that is being affected, not the actual content producer, as they are still being paid. It is a problem they have to solve via their agreements, for the new age, not revert back to old business practices for the old broadcasting mediums.

gzt

10193 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1562


  Reply # 1473285 17-Jan-2016 17:09
Send private message

jmh: Same programme. I'm not paying a licence fee, and would rather have watched it on local tv, but if the supplier makes it almost unwatchable by flogging off long and frequent ad breaks, then I'll go elsewhere.

Only £149 or just £50 if you watch it in black and white.

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one

Doh! Doesnt cover NZ..

Glurp
8263 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3796

Subscriber

  Reply # 1473286 17-Jan-2016 17:11
One person supports this post
Send private message

networkn:
TeaLeaf:
networkn:To my mind using an adblocker is theft.
damn, i leave the same local newspaper in my secure apartment hole each week so they know not to put another one in. im a thief for not reading the adds and likely douche bag advertising flyer in the middle :-) has anyone else got issues with netflix?
No, that is NOT the same thing.

 

 

 

YES IT IS! (sorry for shouting).

 

 

 

Every time this argument comes up, we get the same bla bla about the immorality of ad blockers. I shall try to explain:

 

Cletus decides to start a blog. Maybe he starts it as a hobby, maybe he intends it to be a money-making enterprise from the beginning. Either way, it becomes increasingly popular and Cletus learns the first lesson of blog-making. While the blog itself may (or may not) be free, running it certainly isn't. The more popular it becomes, the more he has to pay for server space, administrative help, coffee and donuts, whatever.

 

To cover expenses and maybe make a little extra on top, Cletus starts accepting sponsors and ads. His users, who are used to getting everything completely free, don't like this. So Cletus says they can skip the ads if they are prepared to contribute something. The users, who prefer things really free, really don't like that. But some pay, some put up with the ads, some leave. All choices they are perfectly entitled to make. 

 

Then someone comes up with this neat new idea called an ad blocker. The users really like that, at least some do. Others are trouble by pangs of conscience. Is this how we should be treating poor old Cletus, who has given us so much joy in the quiet hours?

 

The point people keep missing is that Cletus doesn't live in North Korea. He wasn't compelled to start a blog, just as a publisher doesn't have to own a newspaper, and a shopkeeper is not obliged to run a retail store. All of these things are ventures, freely entered into with the hope, but not the guarantee, of achieving a particular result. No-one is required to read Cletus' blog. Neither is he required to produce it. He chooses to do so, in the hope that it will provide sufficient return for whatever purpose he has set out to accomplish.

 

When a reader comes along, she is presented with four choices: She can ignore the blog, she can read it with the ads, she can give Cletus money, or she can use the ad-blocker and read it without distraction. Those are her choices and they are all equally legitimate. If she uses the ad blocker, is she 'stealing' the content? No, because the content is already out there, for anyone to look at. Cletus may hope she will pay in some form to view it, but it is up to her to make that choice. Cletus already decided that when he put up the content in the way he did. He has given her the choice to view the content for free without the ads. She is doing nothing wrong by taking that choice. It is hers to make. She could just as easily cut out a paper mask that would block most of the ads, and the result would be the same. Cletus decides what to put on the page. The viewer decides what to look at. There is no moral quandary here, just the confusion of those who think there is.

 

It is different if Cletus gets fed up and decides to put his blog behind a paywall. Now he is a gatekeeper, and anyone who sneaks in IS committing theft, because payment has become a condition of entry, rather than a choice. How does this relate to geoblocking? Well, it doesn't, actually, because those outside are not given a choice to pay for access, but that is another story.

 

 

 

 

 

 




I reject your reality and substitute my own. - Adam Savage
 


1397 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 201


  Reply # 1473290 17-Jan-2016 17:17
Send private message

mattwnz:
tdgeek:
SaltyNZ:
ockel: 

Whoops.  Theres a problem.  Netflix doesnt pay the same for that content whether you watch the local library or an international one.
That may be why the global rights for a series (like Gotham for example) arent just called US rights. The global rights are more expensive.

I'm not saying rights in different regions cost the same amount. I'm saying Netflix pays once for the rights. Any rights they have in NZ or the US are already paid for, no matter which region I happen to watch.


No. If NF didn't pay for rights in NZ they didn't ,someone else did. Watch it via them and pay their fees
  Region restricting content though is an outdated model, and was one of the main reasons why people are using online streaming services in the first place. It is really the middle man who paid for the exclusive rights that is being affected, not the actual content producer, as they are still being paid. It is a problem they have to solve via their agreements, for the new age, not revert back to old business practices for the old broadcasting mediums.

 

 

 

Lets take it to its logical conclusion then.  Everyone in NZ uses a geoblocker to access NF-US.  What is the value of the NZ rights for that property?  Zero.  Lightbox isnt going to pay a penny for NZ streaming rights to that property.

 

Absolute extreme - globally everyone uses a geoblocker to access NF-US.  That implies that the value of the rights for Rest-of-World is zero.  Suddenly 709m households are paying netflix to see something that NF has paid the rights for 110m households.  The content owner (who NF wont tell how many are watching) smells a rat.  No-one in the rest of the world wants to pay to distribute the property (and suddenly NF doesnt want the global rights despite being the only buyer).  

 

When NF acquires the rights in a market they are acquiring the exclusive rights to stream that property.  Which middle man are you trying to cut out?  Is it Sony (the content producer and distributor?) or Disney or who???  Netflix is only replacing, say, Lightbox when they acquire the NZ rights.  Who is the middle man?  Lightbox?  Doesnt that make Netflix the new middle-man?

13150 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6172

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1473292 17-Jan-2016 17:19
One person supports this post
Send private message

The whole is it theft or Jellybeans will never conclude as each camp will never cede.
Let's at least accept that and get back to Netfix




Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

 Mac user, Windows curser, Chrome OS desired.

 

The great divide is the lies from both sides.

 

 


13435 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2428

Trusted

  Reply # 1473294 17-Jan-2016 17:23
Send private message

Nice post. So is adblocking illegal? It can'tbe as browsers support it. Is it immoral? Depends on the user. I believe in user pays. Here on GZ I blocked ads. I don't now. I decided today to subscribe. It's value to me. I don't need to as I'm fine with ads. It's free, I like that. But I've been given value so I will do my part. I could also break T+C for NF as I can. Everyone makes heaps of money so that's my justification. Not immoral. I'm happy to pay for value rather than undermine businesses

gzt

10193 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1562


  Reply # 1473297 17-Jan-2016 17:35
2 people support this post
Send private message

ockel: Lets take it to its logical conclusion then. Everyone in NZ uses a geoblocker to access NF-US. What is the value of the NZ rights for that property? Zero. Lightbox isnt going to pay a penny for NZ streaming rights to that property.

The value is not zero. Lightbox if they want the property for their offering they will buy it. There is no reason two streaming services cannot stock the same item. Exactly like two supermarkets right next to each other have no problem with it.

13435 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2428

Trusted

  Reply # 1473299 17-Jan-2016 17:47
Send private message

gzt:
ockel: Lets take it to its logical conclusion then. Everyone in NZ uses a geoblocker to access NF-US. What is the value of the NZ rights for that property? Zero. Lightbox isnt going to pay a penny for NZ streaming rights to that property.

The value is not zero. Lightbox if they want the property for their offering they will buy it. There is no reason two streaming services cannot stock the same item. Exactly like two supermarkets right next to each other have no problem with it.


Bad analogy. Many hardware providers do that. Hard products is nothing like soft products . Some feel soft products are free as you can use certain means to obtain them illegally

gzt

10193 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1562


  Reply # 1473302 17-Jan-2016 17:58
Send private message

Soft products are similar. Much content is duplicated across streaming services.

jmh

449 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 142

Subscriber

  Reply # 1473304 17-Jan-2016 18:01
Send private message

gzt:
jmh: Same programme. I'm not paying a licence fee, and would rather have watched it on local tv, but if the supplier makes it almost unwatchable by flogging off long and frequent ad breaks, then I'll go elsewhere.

Only £149 or just £50 if you watch it in black and white.

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one

Doh! Doesnt cover NZ..

 

 

 

Just as well Prime has paid the BBC for the rights to show it in NZ then.  So, I can watch it in NZ on Prime, but not on BBC iplayer.  

1397 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 201


  Reply # 1473305 17-Jan-2016 18:02
Send private message

gzt:
ockel: Lets take it to its logical conclusion then. Everyone in NZ uses a geoblocker to access NF-US. What is the value of the NZ rights for that property? Zero. Lightbox isnt going to pay a penny for NZ streaming rights to that property.

The value is not zero. Lightbox if they want the property for their offering they will buy it. There is no reason two streaming services cannot stock the same item. Exactly like two supermarkets right next to each other have no problem with it.

 

But everyone in NZ is watching it via Netflix US.  Why would Lightbox pay for a property that no one will watch?  Wanna watch Breaking Bad - Lightbox in NZ, Netflix in the US.  I'm going out on a limb and suggesting that Lightbox might have paid more money for exclusivity of that property for streaming in NZ.  If everyone chooses to watch in via Netflix NZ then Lightbox have spent money for no return.  It has no value.  No one else is going to buy those rights when they come up for renewal.  Apparently no one in NZ wanted to watch it.  But an extra bunch of subscribers watched in the US - Netflix makes money for selling something to Kiwis that they paid zero dollars for.  Woo hoo.  Netflix investors laughing all the way to the bank.

jmh

449 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 142

Subscriber

  Reply # 1473307 17-Jan-2016 18:07
Send private message

jmh:
gzt:
jmh: Same programme. I'm not paying a licence fee, and would rather have watched it on local tv, but if the supplier makes it almost unwatchable by flogging off long and frequent ad breaks, then I'll go elsewhere.

Only £149 or just £50 if you watch it in black and white.

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one

Doh! Doesnt cover NZ..
  Just as well Prime has paid the BBC for the rights to show it in NZ then.  So, I can watch it in NZ on Prime, but not on BBC iplayer.  

 

 

 

If I watch it on Prime but mute all the adverts, is that theft?

 

 

 

 

gzt

10193 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1562


  Reply # 1473311 17-Jan-2016 18:28
Send private message

ockel:
gzt:
ockel: Lets take it to its logical conclusion then. Everyone in NZ uses a geoblocker to access NF-US. What is the value of the NZ rights for that property? Zero. Lightbox isnt going to pay a penny for NZ streaming rights to that property.

The value is not zero. Lightbox if they want the property for their offering they will buy it. There is no reason two streaming services cannot stock the same item. Exactly like two supermarkets right next to each other have no problem with it.

But everyone in NZ is watching it via Netflix US.  Why would Lightbox pay for a property that no one will watch?  Wanna watch Breaking Bad - Lightbox in NZ, Netflix in the US.  I'm going out on a limb and suggesting that Lightbox might have paid more money for exclusivity of that property for streaming in NZ.  If everyone chooses to watch in via Netflix NZ then Lightbox have spent money for no return.  It has no value.  No one else is going to buy those rights when they come up for renewal.  Apparently no one in NZ wanted to watch it.  But an extra bunch of subscribers watched in the US - Netflix makes money for selling something to Kiwis that they paid zero dollars for.  Woo hoo.  Netflix investors laughing all the way to the bank.

To some extent yes, but the reality is the market is influenced by more than one series. Additionally unblockers add a price and technical cost.

Lightbox exclusive in NZ is still valuable even if the same series is available via USA via unblocker.

The key thing is availability. The vast majority of unblocker use is simply because the content is unavailable to stream in NZ. Unblocker just fades as content becomes available.

1 | ... | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | ... | 70
Filter this topic showing only the reply marked as answer View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic

Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.