Legality and/or morality of geoblocking

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

1 | ... | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21

262 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 20

Reply # 1475856 21-Jan-2016 08:18

Or (yet another) interesting angle to ponder on this. As I read this thread, a big bright banner ad from UnoTelly sits at the top of the page. Geekzone has a well known and long standing business relationship with a geo-unblocker. UnoTelly gets advertising here and GZ users get special deals at UnoTelly.

Now, a few posters on this thread seem adamant that geo-unblocking is either illegal and/or immoral. But at the same time they are avid GZ users. I wonder how they reconcile that and what, if anything, they're doing about it. Obviously they're not quitting GZ - and I'm not implying they should. Are they maybe sending messages to the GZ admins to stop this behavior? Or are they turning a blind eye, whilst lecturing anyone who'll listen that it's all so wrong?

sultanoswing

725 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 130

Reply # 1475857 21-Jan-2016 08:20

Exclusivity to distributors isn't a problem, but lack of full global choice of distributors by consumers is. In other words, if Amazon gets exclusive global rights to Game of Thrones, so be it.... But I then want the choice of any content provider ie I get to choose Amazon because they've got GoT. As it stands now I can't choose Amazon because I live in NZ.

A current example is House of Cards Season 3. According to today's NZ Herald, no one has the rights to screen S3 in NZ, but thanks to geo-unblocking, we can't legally see it via SVOD anywhere in NZ at present.

Try Wrike: fast, easy, and efficient project collaboration software

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1571

Reply # 1475859 21-Jan-2016 08:21

SaltyNZ:
tdgeek:

Rikkitic:

It's all been said before. I respectfully disagree, for the reasons I have already made clear. Time to stop hammering the same old nail, methinks.

Bullies, outdated, old technology, way of the future, thats all been said, with zero detail.

Well, my point of view is very simple, and I set it out clearly in the original post. I pay for something I could choose not to pay for. In doing so, everyone who's going to get paid at all, gets paid. The law needs to be clearer, but in the meantime it does not prohibit the activity, and indeed there are very good legal arguments (put forth by very good lawyers) that it would, in fact, be declared legal if it ever went all the way in court. Therefore I see no issue doing what I'm doing.

When you say 'could get for free' I assume you mean piracy, right?

That seems a pretty weak argument "I could steal this DVD but instead I bought a bootleg copy from a guy in the pub"

Netflix is essentially selling you bootleg content. Content it has no right to sell to you.

(And it's just the same as bootleg in the sense of who gets paid. The bootlegger gets paid, but the Rights holders don't.
When Netflix sell you content in a region it doesn't have the rights for, and you pay Netflix, but the studio isn't being paid for your watching privilege.

tdgeek

11654 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2005

Trusted

Reply # 1475860 21-Jan-2016 08:23

SaltyNZ:

tdgeek:

Rikkitic:

It's all been said before. I respectfully disagree, for the reasons I have already made clear. Time to stop hammering the same old nail, methinks.

Bullies, outdated, old technology, way of the future, thats all been said, with zero detail.

Well, my point of view is very simple, and I set it out clearly in the original post. I pay for something I could choose not to pay for. In doing so, everyone who's going to get paid at all, gets paid. The law needs to be clearer, but in the meantime it does not prohibit the activity, and indeed there are very good legal arguments (put forth by very good lawyers) that it would, in fact, be declared legal if it ever went all the way in court. Therefore I see no issue doing what I'm doing.

Say I dont havbe NF USA. I have LB. Why can't I watch Netflix produced content on LB? I agree with globalisation. Everyone does it, Netflix included (for their own content). others do it, (for their own content) If your gonna break that down, you break it down for everybody, as they all do it. NF wants to dominate the SVOD world, you could argue they are the Sky of SVOD. The only difference between NF and anyone else is streaming vs linear, and that isnt the cause of restrictions. In terms of business model everyone is the same. That needs to change if you want true globalisation and no restrictions.

Or is it, at the end of the day, $13 per month vs more then $13 per month???

sultanoswing

725 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 130

Reply # 1475862 21-Jan-2016 08:26

tdgeek:
SaltyNZ:

tdgeek:

Rikkitic:

It's all been said before. I respectfully disagree, for the reasons I have already made clear. Time to stop hammering the same old nail, methinks.

Bullies, outdated, old technology, way of the future, thats all been said, with zero detail.

Well, my point of view is very simple, and I set it out clearly in the original post. I pay for something I could choose not to pay for. In doing so, everyone who's going to get paid at all, gets paid. The law needs to be clearer, but in the meantime it does not prohibit the activity, and indeed there are very good legal arguments (put forth by very good lawyers) that it would, in fact, be declared legal if it ever went all the way in court. Therefore I see no issue doing what I'm doing.

Say I dont havbe NF USA. I have LB. Why can't I watch Netflix produced content on LB? I agree with globalisation. Everyone does it, Netflix included (for their own content). others do it, (for their own content) If your gonna break that down, you break it down for everybody, as they all do it. NF wants to dominate the SVOD world, you could argue they are the Sky of SVOD. The only difference between NF and anyone else is streaming vs linear, and that isnt the cause of restrictions. In terms of business model everyone is the same. That needs to change if you want true globalisation and no restrictions.

Or is it, at the end of the day, $13 per month vs more then $13 per month???

Probably less, despite more content, since you'd hope to have increased numbers of subscribers. $13 x 6 million people = $6.50 x 12 million people.

tdgeek

11654 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2005

Trusted

Reply # 1475864 21-Jan-2016 08:27

sultanoswing: Exclusivity to distributors isn't a problem, but lack of full global choice of distributors by consumers is. In other words, if Amazon gets exclusive global rights to Game of Thrones, so be it.... But I then want the choice of any content provider ie I get to choose Amazon because they've got GoT. As it stands now I can't choose Amazon because I live in NZ.

A current example is House of Cards Season 3. According to today's NZ Herald, no one has the rights to screen S3 in NZ, but thanks to geo-unblocking, we can't legally see it via SVOD anywhere in NZ at present.

Pardon me? You all want to remove restrictions and exclusivity, but now that its been disclised that Netflix plays that game as well, exclusivity is now ok? Its exclusive for rights purposes which is revenue creation. So you just wish to bypass that, re the points that NPM made. Have cake and eat it too. It just seems more and more, its about $13 a month, sweet.

sultanoswing

725 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 130

Reply # 1475865 21-Jan-2016 08:31

NonprayingMantis: Netflix is essentially selling you bootleg content. Content it has no right to sell to you.

Well, it's not Netflix at issue per se. Or other SVOD providers (Amazon, BBC et al).

You as a geo dodger are essentially buying bootleg content. Content you have no right to buy.

tdgeek

11654 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2005

Trusted

Reply # 1475866 21-Jan-2016 08:32

sultanoswing:
tdgeek:

SaltyNZ:

tdgeek:

Rikkitic:

It's all been said before. I respectfully disagree, for the reasons I have already made clear. Time to stop hammering the same old nail, methinks.

Bullies, outdated, old technology, way of the future, thats all been said, with zero detail.

Well, my point of view is very simple, and I set it out clearly in the original post. I pay for something I could choose not to pay for. In doing so, everyone who's going to get paid at all, gets paid. The law needs to be clearer, but in the meantime it does not prohibit the activity, and indeed there are very good legal arguments (put forth by very good lawyers) that it would, in fact, be declared legal if it ever went all the way in court. Therefore I see no issue doing what I'm doing.

Say I dont havbe NF USA. I have LB. Why can't I watch Netflix produced content on LB? I agree with globalisation. Everyone does it, Netflix included (for their own content). others do it, (for their own content) If your gonna break that down, you break it down for everybody, as they all do it. NF wants to dominate the SVOD world, you could argue they are the Sky of SVOD. The only difference between NF and anyone else is streaming vs linear, and that isnt the cause of restrictions. In terms of business model everyone is the same. That needs to change if you want true globalisation and no restrictions.

Or is it, at the end of the day, $13 per month vs more then $13 per month???

Probably less, despite more content, since you'd hope to have increased numbers of subscribers. $13 x 6 million people = $6.50 x 12 million people.

Could well be, as in the case of HoC, a recent movie, any SVOD can buy it, so the rights will be a lot less you would think. There could be a myriad of SVOD providers, Netflix would be number one of 176 of them, all legal, all paying rights, rather than a few paying large rights. Competition. But Netflix wont want that, it wants protectionism, the new Sky. So we argue against restrictions, but we subscribers to NF embrace it, as long as it suits us. We either have restrictions or we dont. Tolstoy - We are equal but some are more equal than others

sultanoswing

725 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 130

Reply # 1475867 21-Jan-2016 08:32

tdgeek:
sultanoswing: Exclusivity to distributors isn't a problem, but lack of full global choice of distributors by consumers is. In other words, if Amazon gets exclusive global rights to Game of Thrones, so be it.... But I then want the choice of any content provider ie I get to choose Amazon because they've got GoT. As it stands now I can't choose Amazon because I live in NZ.

A current example is House of Cards Season 3. According to today's NZ Herald, no one has the rights to screen S3 in NZ, but thanks to geo-unblocking, we can't legally see it via SVOD anywhere in NZ at present.

Pardon me? You all want to remove restrictions and exclusivity, but now that its been disclised that Netflix plays that game as well, exclusivity is now ok? Its exclusive for rights purposes which is revenue creation. So you just wish to bypass that, re the points that NPM made. Have cake and eat it too. It just seems more and more, its about $13 a month, sweet.

Yep. That's why I wrote it. Doesn't so much matter about the $13, but the idea is that if you increase the sales volume through more subscriptions, you can keep the price lower. Or someone new will come along and put computer you through innovation. That's what s happening to Sky. I have no fear that if NF don't deliver or stop being seen as a value proposition, they'll go the way of other failed providers.

ockel

1224 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 147

Reply # 1475869 21-Jan-2016 08:37

sultanoswing:
tdgeek:

SaltyNZ:

tdgeek:

Rikkitic:

It's all been said before. I respectfully disagree, for the reasons I have already made clear. Time to stop hammering the same old nail, methinks.

Bullies, outdated, old technology, way of the future, thats all been said, with zero detail.

Well, my point of view is very simple, and I set it out clearly in the original post. I pay for something I could choose not to pay for. In doing so, everyone who's going to get paid at all, gets paid. The law needs to be clearer, but in the meantime it does not prohibit the activity, and indeed there are very good legal arguments (put forth by very good lawyers) that it would, in fact, be declared legal if it ever went all the way in court. Therefore I see no issue doing what I'm doing.

Say I dont havbe NF USA. I have LB. Why can't I watch Netflix produced content on LB? I agree with globalisation. Everyone does it, Netflix included (for their own content). others do it, (for their own content) If your gonna break that down, you break it down for everybody, as they all do it. NF wants to dominate the SVOD world, you could argue they are the Sky of SVOD. The only difference between NF and anyone else is streaming vs linear, and that isnt the cause of restrictions. In terms of business model everyone is the same. That needs to change if you want true globalisation and no restrictions.

Or is it, at the end of the day, $13 per month vs more then $13 per month???

Probably less, despite more content, since you'd hope to have increased numbers of subscribers. $13 x 6 million people = $6.50 x 12 million people.

Nope. Netflix @ $13/month. HBONow @ $15/mth. Amazon Prime @ x$/mth. Disney/ABC @ $X/mth. NBC-Universal(Comcast) @ $x/mth. CBS @ $x/mth. BBC @ $x/mth.

And then for those that want more than general entertainment....... lets add sport. Season pass to NFL @$199/yr. NBA @ $199/yr.

Sure you get to build your a la carte selection of content that you want but Netflix is just another aggregator (middleman) other than their own exclusive content. Direct 2 consumer will keep coming. If Netflix show it to be so easy then others will come too. And you wont get all you want for $13/mth or less than $13/mth. I think HBO said it in the last 24 hours with repect to HBONow. "Spain wasnt the first. And Spain wont be the last".

Blurtie

178 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 40

Reply # 1475872 21-Jan-2016 08:42

sultanoswing: Exclusivity to distributors isn't a problem, but lack of full global choice of distributors by consumers is. In other words, if Amazon gets exclusive global rights to Game of Thrones, so be it.... But I then want the choice of any content provider ie I get to choose Amazon because they've got GoT. As it stands now I can't choose Amazon because I live in NZ.

A current example is House of Cards Season 3. According to today's NZ Herald, no one has the rights to screen S3 in NZ, but thanks to geo-unblocking, we can't legally see it via SVOD anywhere in NZ at present.

But I thought exclusivity is the problem? Based off your GoT example, as far as I know, Sky/Neon have the rights to GoT. You can access to GoT by subscribing to them. Why do you need to look for a global distributor when there's already one in place locally?

Exclusivity to a global distributor would still be a problem for content owners, I don't think there will be a truly global content distributor as invariably not all countries would be covered (i.e. such as NZ in your amazon example).

sultanoswing

725 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 130

Reply # 1475873 21-Jan-2016 08:43

ockel:
sultanoswing:
tdgeek:

SaltyNZ:

tdgeek:

Rikkitic:

It's all been said before. I respectfully disagree, for the reasons I have already made clear. Time to stop hammering the same old nail, methinks.

Bullies, outdated, old technology, way of the future, thats all been said, with zero detail.

Well, my point of view is very simple, and I set it out clearly in the original post. I pay for something I could choose not to pay for. In doing so, everyone who's going to get paid at all, gets paid. The law needs to be clearer, but in the meantime it does not prohibit the activity, and indeed there are very good legal arguments (put forth by very good lawyers) that it would, in fact, be declared legal if it ever went all the way in court. Therefore I see no issue doing what I'm doing.

Say I dont havbe NF USA. I have LB. Why can't I watch Netflix produced content on LB? I agree with globalisation. Everyone does it, Netflix included (for their own content). others do it, (for their own content) If your gonna break that down, you break it down for everybody, as they all do it. NF wants to dominate the SVOD world, you could argue they are the Sky of SVOD. The only difference between NF and anyone else is streaming vs linear, and that isnt the cause of restrictions. In terms of business model everyone is the same. That needs to change if you want true globalisation and no restrictions.

Or is it, at the end of the day, $13 per month vs more then $13 per month???

Probably less, despite more content, since you'd hope to have increased numbers of subscribers. $13 x 6 million people = $6.50 x 12 million people.

Nope. Netflix @ $13/month. HBONow @ $15/mth. Amazon Prime @ x$/mth. Disney/ABC @ $X/mth. NBC-Universal(Comcast) @ $x/mth. CBS @ $x/mth. BBC @ $x/mth.

And then for those that want more than general entertainment....... lets add sport. Season pass to NFL @$199/yr. NBA @ $199/yr.

Sure you get to build your a la carte selection of content that you want but Netflix is just another aggregator (middleman) other than their own exclusive content. Direct 2 consumer will keep coming. If Netflix show it to be so easy then others will come too. And you wont get all you want for $13/mth or less than $13/mth. I think HBO said it in the last 24 hours with repect to HBONow. "Spain wasnt the first. And Spain wont be the last".

I agree with all of this - interesting times, as no one ever wants to let go of the Almighty dollar, consumers or sellers!

tdgeek

11654 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2005

Trusted

Reply # 1475878 21-Jan-2016 08:48

HBONow in Spain. As you can see, the things that are criticised for the old technology, outdated, restrictions are not a linear vs Streaming issue. Its the way of the world. As Ockel outlined, we may end up with a myriad of services. Maybe its better if Netflix was a monopoly?

Below shows that Streamer companies are like all companies. If anyone wants to bypass geoblockiong, your not doing it cos the old way is an old business model and outdated as has been said over and over here

For HBO, introducing an Internet channel in Spain -- which has high rates of broadband-only homes as well as online piracy -- is a calculated bet. HBO will now retain the exclusive rights to its shows for its streaming service and will no longer license its programming to pay-TV services in the country. That means that, once current licensing deals expire, HBO fans in Spain will only be able to watch its first-run programming on the new streaming service. Yet while HBO is giving up that licensing revenue, it believes it can make even more money long-term by offering its own Web service, Chief Executive Officer Richard Plepler said.

“We follow the money,” Plepler said in an interview. “We’re making a determination of where we think the most profits lie.”

Rikkitic

6900 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3226

Subscriber

Reply # 1475879 21-Jan-2016 08:53

MikeB4:
Rikkitic:

It's all been said before. I respectfully disagree, for the reasons I have already made clear. Time to stop hammering the same old nail, methinks.

Are you saying that those who hold a view different to yours should stop hammering ?

No. I'm saying that the arguments have already been made and people are starting to repeat themselves. I am interested to read and discuss anything new about this topic, not so much to rehash rephrasings of what has already been said.

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

SaltyNZ

4304 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1817

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 1475880 21-Jan-2016 08:57

2 people support this post

NonprayingMantis:

When you say 'could get for free' I assume you mean piracy, right?

That seems a pretty weak argument "I could steal this DVD but instead I bought a bootleg copy from a guy in the pub"

Netflix is essentially selling you bootleg content. Content it has no right to sell to you.

(And it's just the same as bootleg in the sense of who gets paid. The bootlegger gets paid, but the Rights holders don't.
When Netflix sell you content in a region it doesn't have the rights for, and you pay Netflix, but the studio isn't being paid for your watching privilege.

*Sigh* No... it is nothing like bootlegging. If I buy a bootleg DVD, the content creator doesn't get paid. If I watch Netflix out of region, the content creator gets paid. And yes, when I say 'could get for free' I do mean piracy. Piracy is easier and more convenient than dodging geo-blocks. But I dodge the geo-blocks instead because I support the content creators being paid.

iPad Air + iPhone SE + 2degrees 4tw!

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

1 | ... | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21