Netflix to crack down on unblockers

Forums › Online streaming services › Netflix to crack down on unblockers

1 | ... | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70

Awrrr
18586 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1598846 26-Jul-2016 11:04

networkn:

@rikkitic you are free to think and say what you like about everything, it's a free world, but as someone who has been in the corporate world, and owned a business for nearly 20 years, employed staff etc, I think you need to reconsider your position here. Until you have run a business, you can't easily understand what it's like or the motivations. I think you need to let go of your prejudices. I used to have a similar opinion to you, until I started my own business. I realized what a crappy employee I was once I was an employer, and compared to a lot of people I was actually pretty good.

Excellent post and real food for thought. I have in fact run a business but it was a very small operation, without employees. What you say makes a lot of sense and I am certainly prepared to reconsider my position. I doubt I will give up believing in an open market for digital content, though.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

GoodSync

GoodSync. Easily back up and sync your files with GoodSync. Simple and secure file backup and synchronisation software will ensure that your files are never lost (affiliate link).

networkn

Networkn
32208 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1598871 26-Jul-2016 11:28

Rikkitic:

networkn:

@rikkitic you are free to think and say what you like about everything, it's a free world, but as someone who has been in the corporate world, and owned a business for nearly 20 years, employed staff etc, I think you need to reconsider your position here. Until you have run a business, you can't easily understand what it's like or the motivations. I think you need to let go of your prejudices. I used to have a similar opinion to you, until I started my own business. I realized what a crappy employee I was once I was an employer, and compared to a lot of people I was actually pretty good.

Excellent post and real food for thought. I have in fact run a business but it was a very small operation, without employees. What you say makes a lot of sense and I am certainly prepared to reconsider my position. I doubt I will give up believing in an open market for digital content, though.

I have a lot of respect for anyone who has previously held a firm position, being prepared to reconsidering a prior position in the face of evidence to contemplate.

tdgeek

29588 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1598992 26-Jul-2016 12:33

Rikkitic:

Apart from all the heated discussion I actually think things are changing and will continue to change, in spite of hiccups along the way. I think the long-term trend, driven by consumer demand, will be in the direction of a more global distribution method for digital content. We are currently in a transition period, but we do now have Netflix in this country, albeit in much reduced form, as well as other providers. This is a big change from a few years ago. Over time I think the differences between catalogues here and in other countries will reduce, except for purely local content, and eventually we will have a global market or very close to one. It is an evolutionary process and while I will continue to advocate for what I believe, I think the discussion is probably largely academic.

I agree. Right contracts arent for a year or two they can be lengthy, so they need to expire over time. No owner of content looks at NZ and says we can sell there, but nah, we won't, so there is no fiscal reason why they "appear" not to. Its been sold to someone else, who for whatever reason isn't airing it here and now.

Over time, I can see all the content being here. It may be spread over 3, 6, 9 providers. We may end up discussing, why is it that each provider is well priced, but my tastes dictate having to subscribe to 6 of them at $20 each?? Who knows.

If NF NZ has GOT, ok. If Sky has some other next big thing series, ok. These providers will always chase the subscribers so I cant see any situation where we can avoid multi subscribers, its all here, but its too much money to get everything.

charliebrownnz

79 posts

Master Geek

#1599002 26-Jul-2016 12:56

Charlie Browns main focus is free and near free, his comments.

Completely wrong. My focus is on choice and value proposition. The focus of tdgeeks comments have been along the lines of not supporting geoblocking and the current distribution methods makes you a free loader not much better than a pirate. It is a mind set that music companies and pc game publishers had 10-15 years ago. It is an outdated and regressive mindset and is delusional to think that a tech savvy generation of consumers will accept paying rediculous prices for something that can easily be sourced via other means.

tdgeek

29588 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1599200 26-Jul-2016 19:58

charliebrownnz:

Charlie Browns main focus is free and near free, his comments.

Completely wrong. My focus is on choice and value proposition. The focus of tdgeeks comments have been along the lines of not supporting geoblocking and the current distribution methods makes you a free loader not much better than a pirate. It is a mind set that music companies and pc game publishers had 10-15 years ago. It is an outdated and regressive mindset and is delusional to think that a tech savvy generation of consumers will accept paying rediculous prices for something that can easily be sourced via other means.

rediculous its ridiculous.

You said free or near free, check your posts.

So music and games companies have been doing this for10 to 15 years? So I guess i can pay $13 per month and get free games new and old for the last 15 years? No

Tech savvy is what most of here are. Thats doesnt mean fiscal savvy. It costs. Everything costs.

So you advocate what real costs are,but being tech savvy means you can source via other means, which was Kat till last week and PB now? I and Im sure others are happy to discuss the whys and wherefores of todays media distribution models, but if its free or near free or piracy, well there you go. Id like real cheap. If it was $200 per month for everything in HD with all the features that we could want, I'd take that. But I assume, you want that for near nix? Like any negotiation, you need to be in the ballpark but I feel you aren't?

tdgeek

29588 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1599201 26-Jul-2016 20:01

charliebrownnz:

Charlie Browns main focus is free and near free, his comments.

Completely wrong. My focus is on choice and value proposition. The focus of tdgeeks comments have been along the lines of not supporting geoblocking and the current distribution methods makes you a free loader not much better than a pirate. It is a mind set that music companies and pc game publishers had 10-15 years ago. It is an outdated and regressive mindset and is delusional to think that a tech savvy generation of consumers will accept paying rediculous prices for something that can easily be sourced via other means.

Please expand on choice and value. Im serious. Dont make choice everything, and value 15 bucks. be realistic. Im not picking for a fight, just be realistic.

tdgeek

29588 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1599203 26-Jul-2016 20:04

Rikkitic:

networkn:

@rikkitic you are free to think and say what you like about everything, it's a free world, but as someone who has been in the corporate world, and owned a business for nearly 20 years, employed staff etc, I think you need to reconsider your position here. Until you have run a business, you can't easily understand what it's like or the motivations. I think you need to let go of your prejudices. I used to have a similar opinion to you, until I started my own business. I realized what a crappy employee I was once I was an employer, and compared to a lot of people I was actually pretty good.

Excellent post and real food for thought. I have in fact run a business but it was a very small operation, without employees. What you say makes a lot of sense and I am certainly prepared to reconsider my position. I doubt I will give up believing in an open market for digital content, though.

And thats all good. While myself and others have not been happy with the aggressiveness of some of your responses, they are are proper response, which we can discuss. Not argue, but discuss. Keep em coming. :-)

charliebrownnz

79 posts

Master Geek

#1599227 26-Jul-2016 20:42

tdgeek: Shipping reels and tapes is not a significant cost.

Broadcasting via sattelite or UHF requires a hefty piece of gear - and often set top boxes. Certainly not as cheap watching a global stream. Likewise broadcasting has a host of other issues that streaming doesn't eg, bandwidth, owning rights to a limited range of frequencies and more. That physically meant that a catalogue the size of netflix's couldn't be shown without massive amounts of additional expenditure.

So the TV ep has no value? Make it once and duplicate it 20 million times for free? Like a Stihl, is has a cost to produce. It therefore needs to be sold. I cant sell my Stihl twice. If I sold my GOT to your network in NZ, on the basis of a good price for me, exclusivity for you (more audience, higher priced ads, you get more subscribers) I cant then sell to Joe's ChCh TV as well.

Here is a fancy and obviously foreign term... cost. The cost of producing and distributing an episode of GOT for one person to watch is almost the same as it would cost to distribute to a million people. The production costs change little after the initial show is produced. That Chainsaw you buy will cost the manufacture approximately $200 to make, and if you buy two it will cost $400. There is a cost to each sale of a piece of hardware that manufacturers incur. And if someone steels that chainsaw, then that manufacturer is $200 out of pocket as someone else would have bought that chainsaw. Obviously piracy is usually wrong, but it isn't theft, One pirated movie does not equate to one lost sale. And it is a means to meet demand for something of which there is often no practical supply. And that is where things are heading with the geo-blocking thats goes on.

And if Reebok was to sell exclusive rights at a huge price to sell their shoes to Rebel Sport who would only sell them in boxes of ten with a fishing rod, rugby ball and expensive jacket, all whilst they provide you with a three course five star meal whilst you have your shoes fitted. That would make Rebel Sport complete schmucks given people don't want to pay such rediculous prices for a large bundle. Instead they would parallel import them where they can be bought as the consumer wants it at a price point that is far more reasonable to them.

To compare US and NZ ignore the exchange rate, compare an average job and prices. As if you lived there. Ok, Sky has a monopoly, every network therefore has a monopoly.

So 95% of content is a monopoly, as invariably, you want be able to watch hardly any of what is on Sky, TVNZ, TV3, or anyone else at the same time. Going by the other comments, you favour piracy, free content and ungeoblocking. The key is actually free, as stated. Like some, not all posts, it comes only don to money, I want it free and I want it now.

Nope, as stated earlier, I'm happy to pay for it - hell I spend about 18 bucks NZ on US netflix and another $19 for a vpn provider every month - on top of that I spend about $50 every other month to see movies at the cinema. With the exception of moments when I'm in bed sick and want to binge watch a tv show, I watch more on youtube (and I support the youtubers I like with Patreon) than I do on netflix. For that price I can watch four concurrent HD streams of nearly everything I want to watch - however if I was to not use US netflix and to get the content I currently get I would have to spend more than twice that and the service I would get would still be inferior - and on top of that I'd have to deal with joining fees and\or contracted terms. If the only option I'm left with is to spend $100 (bearing in mind its $20 overseas) a month to one or two NZ providers with monopolies on the shows I want forced in with a bundle of shows I have no desire to see then I see nothing wrong with piracy.

They are stuck in the mindset that having shows transmitted o ver the internet means they don't cost much to make. In actual fact they probably cost more as their is so much content competition

Well thats a first - I've never heard that argument thrown about before - actually wait, Sky seems to follow that model, increase prices as a response to increased competition. Pretty successful business practice to keep clients I hear. Prices may increase on some shows where production values, CGI and salaries increase - but that is nothing to do with competition. In fact with the online age and ease of availability, audiences are far more vast and smaller producers can become profitable whereas under the old model of limited broadcasting bandwidth they wouldn't be.

Huge variety? Well, flat arte streaming is the one main option. Music is say $12 per month, similar to NF. You don't get everything too, as some wont sell rights to NF, same as content, and seem don't as they, the creators get ripped off.

Itunes
Google Play store
Xbox music
Amazon
Spotify
Youtube
Pandora
Last.fm
Deezer
8 tracks
Band\singers website
...

I can legally get music from any one of those digital content providers - I can buy bundles if I wish or I can buy a single song if I wish to. I can play the music in my car, on my phone, on the tv or on a stereo. Imagine if TV and movies were so flexible - imagine if people could buy only the digital content that they want, and options existed to use the content in whatever fashion they wanted to?

networkn

Networkn
32208 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1599233 26-Jul-2016 20:50

charliebrownnz:

that chainsaw, then that manufacturer is $200 out of pocket as someone else would have bought that chainsaw. Obviously piracy is usually wrong, but it isn't theft, One pirated movie does not equate to one lost sale. And it is a means to meet demand for something of which there is often no practical supply. And that is where things are heading with the geo-blocking thats goes on.

I'd be curious to know when piracy isn't "wrong". If it weren't wrong, then it would be called PURCHASING, surely?

How do you figure that one pirated movie doesn't equate to one lost sale?

charliebrownnz

79 posts

Master Geek

#1599238 26-Jul-2016 20:58

tdgeek:

charliebrownnz:

Charlie Browns main focus is free and near free, his comments.

Completely wrong. My focus is on choice and value proposition. The focus of tdgeeks comments have been along the lines of not supporting geoblocking and the current distribution methods makes you a free loader not much better than a pirate. It is a mind set that music companies and pc game publishers had 10-15 years ago. It is an outdated and regressive mindset and is delusional to think that a tech savvy generation of consumers will accept paying rediculous prices for something that can easily be sourced via other means.

Please expand on choice and value. Im serious. Dont make choice everything, and value 15 bucks. be realistic. Im not picking for a fight, just be realistic.

From a personal point of view, 0-$5 for a tv series per month of available access - with no term contracts or joining fees. Some of the top shows could charge more for the most current episodes. Prices would vary based on quality, number of episodes, timeliness and whether there are advertisements. I know that I would probably spend twice what I do now under such a model - that is what happened with my pc gaming where I have a huge library which I've barely touched 10%. The service would be for the person\family, not house or room. If sky offered such a service I would take it up on the shows I want.

Another option would be all you can eat free versions in standard definition with adverts - kind of what youtube did for music. I could almost guarantee that piracy would drop substantially and at least customers that would never have bought the content would be contributing via ad revenue.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18586 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1599254 26-Jul-2016 21:11

tdgeek:

And thats all good. While myself and others have not been happy with the aggressiveness of some of your responses, they are are proper response, which we can discuss. Not argue, but discuss. Keep em coming. :-)

Aggressive? Where do you get aggressive from? I am a pussycat.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18586 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1599259 26-Jul-2016 21:16

networkn:

charliebrownnz:

that chainsaw, then that manufacturer is $200 out of pocket as someone else would have bought that chainsaw. Obviously piracy is usually wrong, but it isn't theft, One pirated movie does not equate to one lost sale. And it is a means to meet demand for something of which there is often no practical supply. And that is where things are heading with the geo-blocking thats goes on.

I'd be curious to know when piracy isn't "wrong". If it weren't wrong, then it would be called PURCHASING, surely?

How do you figure that one pirated movie doesn't equate to one lost sale?

I agree piracy is wrong but I don't agree that it always equates to lost sales. That is the over-the-top argument the music industry tried on for awhile. Everyone who downloads a pirated copy of something is not going to buy a legal copy if they are no longer able to get the free one. Some will, of course, but it is not a 1 for 1 ratio.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

networkn

Networkn
32208 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1599261 26-Jul-2016 21:26

Rikkitic:

networkn:

charliebrownnz:

that chainsaw, then that manufacturer is $200 out of pocket as someone else would have bought that chainsaw. Obviously piracy is usually wrong, but it isn't theft, One pirated movie does not equate to one lost sale. And it is a means to meet demand for something of which there is often no practical supply. And that is where things are heading with the geo-blocking thats goes on.

I'd be curious to know when piracy isn't "wrong". If it weren't wrong, then it would be called PURCHASING, surely?

How do you figure that one pirated movie doesn't equate to one lost sale?

I agree piracy is wrong but I don't agree that it always equates to lost sales. That is the over-the-top argument the music industry tried on for awhile. Everyone who downloads a pirated copy of something is not going to buy a legal copy if they are no longer able to get the free one. Some will, of course, but it is not a 1 for 1 ratio.

Well see this is where I have an issue.. Since there is no quantitive or accurate way to determine if someone would have bought it if they couldn't get it "free", and since those who are prepared to steal, probably wouldn't blink an eye at lying, then the only fair and reasonable thing to do it assume that a 1-1 ratio of lost sales applies. How else do you determine? Guess? Hardly fair. If it were a physical item with a prison sentence for taking it without paying, you'd assume a 1:1 ratio.

tdgeek

29588 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1599267 26-Jul-2016 21:34

Rikkitic:

tdgeek:

And thats all good. While myself and others have not been happy with the aggressiveness of some of your responses, they are are proper response, which we can discuss. Not argue, but discuss. Keep em coming. :-)

Aggressive? Where do you get aggressive from? I am a pussycat.

Im sure you are. Some of us see your posts as "animated" as regards whats a fair profit, and so on. We all would like an open world for media, its the economics that we have a gap on.

tdgeek

29588 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1599270 26-Jul-2016 21:38

Rikkitic:

networkn:

charliebrownnz:

that chainsaw, then that manufacturer is $200 out of pocket as someone else would have bought that chainsaw. Obviously piracy is usually wrong, but it isn't theft, One pirated movie does not equate to one lost sale. And it is a means to meet demand for something of which there is often no practical supply. And that is where things are heading with the geo-blocking thats goes on.

I'd be curious to know when piracy isn't "wrong". If it weren't wrong, then it would be called PURCHASING, surely?

How do you figure that one pirated movie doesn't equate to one lost sale?

I agree piracy is wrong but I don't agree that it always equates to lost sales. That is the over-the-top argument the music industry tried on for awhile. Everyone who downloads a pirated copy of something is not going to buy a legal copy if they are no longer able to get the free one. Some will, of course, but it is not a 1 for 1 ratio.

Agree. Its not 1 to 1, and its also not 45 trillion lost sales either. Once all this comes out of the wash, we shall see, will be interesting. As you said earlier we are in transition, it will settle as the market always will. Supply and Demand, guns and butter, Adam Smith.

1 | ... | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70