Legality and/or morality of geoblocking

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

1 | ... | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21

2031 posts

Uber Geek

#1476087 21-Jan-2016 12:56

tdgeek:

MikeB4:
freitasm:

Just reading a piece on the NBR where it says

9% of the NZ online population say they have a subscription to Netflix NZ;

3% say they have a subscription to Spark's Lightbox; and

1% subscribe to Netflix outside of NZ.

Really, does it matter when you look at numbers?

Interesting, from that one could assume that SkyTV and Freeview are still doing well.

Sky has 800,000 subscribers, which I recall is a 50% market share,(of TV) and are doing well

1 in 11 having NF NZ I feel is surprisngly high.

Roy Morgan Research last year had Netflix at 164,000 households (with a reach of 398,000 people) or 10%. Its consistent depending on the context of the numbers (online population vs population or households.

Interesting though that Lightbox is lower than I expected. Spark stated it had achieved its 70,000 target at its FY15 result - and I assumed that was paying subs vs Spark freebies.

Sixth Labour Government - "Vision without Execution is just Hallucination"

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek

#1476089 21-Jan-2016 13:00

freitasm:

Just reading a piece on the NBR where it says

9% of the NZ online population say they have a subscription to Netflix NZ;
3% say they have a subscription to Spark's Lightbox; and
1% subscribe to Netflix outside of NZ.
Really, does it matter when you look at numbers?

Interesting - all those numbers seem lower than I would expect.

I wonder what the actual question for that was

A lot of people will have an NZ subscription, but use it to access USA content via smart DNS services. Would they be included in the 9% or the 1%?

The wording suggests that those people would be included in the 9%, since it refers to 'having a subscription', but will people have interpreted it that way?

Any idea when the survey was done? Netflix NZ only launched in late March, and it's not uncommon for surveys to occur months before the results come out. i.e. the survey could have been done in, say, August/September and the real numbers may well have doubled by now.

The 3% for Lightbox matches up reasonably well with Spark's announcement of 70k customers at the end of their financial year last June

(i.e. 3% of population is around 120k, so allowing for households with a couple of people it sounds about right)

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18538 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1476098 21-Jan-2016 13:05

Ah, the shining future when all content is global. What I think will happen is something similar to what has been happening with music. A useful question is to ask how much profit is necessary for content providers (and distributors) to maintain a healthy business, and how much is just extra cream for the shareholders. Will a global market necessarily make content more expensive? That is an interesting question. Prices might be expected to rise, but the customer base will also be much bigger and there will be economies of scale. Profits will decline, which will make the companies less valuable, but how valuable do they need to be? Shareholders will find other safe havens for their investments. The content producers will still have enough to make more content and put their kids through school. I think there is a clear line between profit and greed. This is the future I would like to see.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek

#1476101 21-Jan-2016 13:07

NonprayingMantis:

freitasm:

Just reading a piece on the NBR where it says

9% of the NZ online population say they have a subscription to Netflix NZ;
3% say they have a subscription to Spark's Lightbox; and
1% subscribe to Netflix outside of NZ.
Really, does it matter when you look at numbers?

Interesting - all those numbers seem lower than I would expect.

I wonder what the actual question for that was

A lot of people will have an NZ subscription, but use it to access USA content via smart DNS services. Would they be included in the 9% or the 1%?

The wording suggests that those people would be included in the 9%, since it refers to 'having a subscription', but will people have interpreted it that way?

Any idea when the survey was done? Netflix NZ only launched in late March, and it's not uncommon for surveys to occur months before the results come out. i.e. the survey could have been done in, say, August/September and the real numbers may well have doubled by now.

The 3% for Lightbox matches up reasonably well with Spark's announcement of 70k customers at the end of their financial year last June

(i.e. 3% of population is around 120k, so allowing for households with a couple of people it sounds about right)

Its of the online population. Which is ~3.1m people aged 14+ so c93k people. If the number of people per household is more than 1.3 then it suggests Lightbox has gone backwards, doesnt it? 93,000 people, 70,000 households? The Roy Morgan stuff had the number of people per household at 2.4 as "This proportion is slightly lower than the per-person rate because the households that have been quickest to sign up to the US-based streaming giant (such as families, young couples and singles living in share-houses) often contain more people."

Sixth Labour Government - "Vision without Execution is just Hallucination"

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek

#1476106 21-Jan-2016 13:09

Rikkitic:

Ah, the shining future when all content is global. What I think will happen is something similar to what has been happening with music. A useful question is to ask how much profit is necessary for content providers (and distributors) to maintain a healthy business, and how much is just extra cream for the shareholders. Will a global market necessarily make content more expensive? That is an interesting question. Prices might be expected to rise, but the customer base will also be much bigger and there will be economies of scale. Profits will decline, which will make the companies less valuable, but how valuable do they need to be? Shareholders will find other safe havens for their investments. The content producers will still have enough to make more content and put their kids through school. I think there is a clear line between profit and greed. This is the future I would like to see.

So if Netflix sells to more people (being US and other jurisidcations) while paying for just US rights - is that profit or greed? Sounds like greed - more dollars earned for the same cost base.

Sixth Labour Government - "Vision without Execution is just Hallucination"

tdgeek

29554 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1476111 21-Jan-2016 13:13

Rikkitic:

Ah, the shining future when all content is global. What I think will happen is something similar to what has been happening with music. A useful question is to ask how much profit is necessary for content providers (and distributors) to maintain a healthy business, and how much is just extra cream for the shareholders. Will a global market necessarily make content more expensive? That is an interesting question. Prices might be expected to rise, but the customer base will also be much bigger and there will be economies of scale. Profits will decline, which will make the companies less valuable, but how valuable do they need to be? Shareholders will find other safe havens for their investments. The content producers will still have enough to make more content and put their kids through school. I think there is a clear line between profit and greed. This is the future I would like to see.

I feel that content production is not relevant. I will continue making movies and series, hiring people, paying production costs, irregardless of how the distribution changes.

My content is for sale for $X. Whether its just XYZ Ltd, or 173 operatiors globally it don't matter to me. The issue is how will theatres, Sky, DirectTV NF, LB and all the others, fare. That will sort itself out.Production costs of content will be the same, sales revenue will be the same, how the Theatres, Sky's, Netflix's, TV3's of this world settle in with the content they wish to sell for subscriptions will evolve.

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek

#1476114 21-Jan-2016 13:14

ockel:

NonprayingMantis:

freitasm:

Just reading a piece on the NBR where it says

9% of the NZ online population say they have a subscription to Netflix NZ;
3% say they have a subscription to Spark's Lightbox; and
1% subscribe to Netflix outside of NZ.
Really, does it matter when you look at numbers?

Interesting - all those numbers seem lower than I would expect.

I wonder what the actual question for that was

A lot of people will have an NZ subscription, but use it to access USA content via smart DNS services. Would they be included in the 9% or the 1%?

The wording suggests that those people would be included in the 9%, since it refers to 'having a subscription', but will people have interpreted it that way?

Any idea when the survey was done? Netflix NZ only launched in late March, and it's not uncommon for surveys to occur months before the results come out. i.e. the survey could have been done in, say, August/September and the real numbers may well have doubled by now.

The 3% for Lightbox matches up reasonably well with Spark's announcement of 70k customers at the end of their financial year last June

(i.e. 3% of population is around 120k, so allowing for households with a couple of people it sounds about right)

Its of the online population. Which is ~3.1m people aged 14+ so c93k people. If the number of people per household is more than 1.3 then it suggests Lightbox has gone backwards, doesnt it? 93,000 people, 70,000 households? The Roy Morgan stuff had the number of people per household at 2.4 as "This proportion is slightly lower than the per-person rate because the households that have been quickest to sign up to the US-based streaming giant (such as families, young couples and singles living in share-houses) often contain more people."

ah yes, maybe. 93k 'people' would be roughly 35k 'subscriptions'.

So either Lightbox has lost half it's customers in the last six months (doesn't seem likely given most of them are free so would not have cancelled yet), or it could mean the survey was done even earlier than July. e.g. maybe it was done in April.

On the other hand, it could also easily be a function of the margin of error with the research - a margin of error of, say, 2% means a massive change in actual numbers when talking about relatively small proportions of the population

i.e. 2% margin of error implies lightbox 'real' numbers could be as high as 5% (~150k people) or as low as 1% (~30k)

lies damn lies and statistics

gzt

16826 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1476122 21-Jan-2016 13:21

TDGeek: 1 in 11 having NF NZ I feel is surprisngly high.

Something had to be the tipper for the recent round of video shop closures..

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek

#1476126 21-Jan-2016 13:26

NonprayingMantis:

ockel:

NonprayingMantis:

freitasm:

Just reading a piece on the NBR where it says

9% of the NZ online population say they have a subscription to Netflix NZ;
3% say they have a subscription to Spark's Lightbox; and
1% subscribe to Netflix outside of NZ.
Really, does it matter when you look at numbers?

Interesting - all those numbers seem lower than I would expect.

I wonder what the actual question for that was

A lot of people will have an NZ subscription, but use it to access USA content via smart DNS services. Would they be included in the 9% or the 1%?

The wording suggests that those people would be included in the 9%, since it refers to 'having a subscription', but will people have interpreted it that way?

Any idea when the survey was done? Netflix NZ only launched in late March, and it's not uncommon for surveys to occur months before the results come out. i.e. the survey could have been done in, say, August/September and the real numbers may well have doubled by now.

The 3% for Lightbox matches up reasonably well with Spark's announcement of 70k customers at the end of their financial year last June

(i.e. 3% of population is around 120k, so allowing for households with a couple of people it sounds about right)

Its of the online population. Which is ~3.1m people aged 14+ so c93k people. If the number of people per household is more than 1.3 then it suggests Lightbox has gone backwards, doesnt it? 93,000 people, 70,000 households? The Roy Morgan stuff had the number of people per household at 2.4 as "This proportion is slightly lower than the per-person rate because the households that have been quickest to sign up to the US-based streaming giant (such as families, young couples and singles living in share-houses) often contain more people."

ah yes, maybe. 93k 'people' would be roughly 35k 'subscriptions'.

So either Lightbox has lost half it's customers in the last six months (doesn't seem likely given most of them are free so would not have cancelled yet), or it could mean the survey was done even earlier than July. e.g. maybe it was done in April.

On the other hand, it could also easily be a function of the margin of error with the research - a margin of error of, say, 2% means a massive change in actual numbers when talking about relatively small proportions of the population

i.e. 2% margin of error implies lightbox 'real' numbers could be as high as 5% (~150k people) or as low as 1% (~30k)

lies damn lies and statistics

Unlikely that Nielsen would sit on survey results for 9 months. Survey research like that is relevant when its timely, otherwise nobody would pay the $5k for the research report.

Sixth Labour Government - "Vision without Execution is just Hallucination"

tdgeek

29554 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1476129 21-Jan-2016 13:33

gzt:
TDGeek: 1 in 11 having NF NZ I feel is surprisngly high.

Something had to be the tipper for the recent round of video shop closures..

More than likely. 1 in 11 still seems high. Maybe thats cos 10 in 11 exists in the geek sector, 8 in 11 exists in the tech/IT literate sector

and 1 in 40 exists elsewhere?

Classic logarithmic growth pattern I suggest, although that will get a small boost from natural exposure of the unenlightened. And of advertsing by Netflix (isn't that ironic)

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18538 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1476131 21-Jan-2016 13:45

tdgeek:

I feel that content production is not relevant. I will continue making movies and series, hiring people, paying production costs, irregardless of how the distribution changes.

My content is for sale for $X. Whether its just XYZ Ltd, or 173 operatiors globally it don't matter to me. The issue is how will theatres, Sky, DirectTV NF, LB and all the others, fare. That will sort itself out.Production costs of content will be the same, sales revenue will be the same, how the Theatres, Sky's, Netflix's, TV3's of this world settle in with the content they wish to sell for subscriptions will evolve.

Now that is something I can agree with completely!

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

sultanoswing

814 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1476143 21-Jan-2016 13:58

ockel:

sultanoswing:

Does Netflix (as just one example of SVOD provider) pay the content producer(s) based on number of subscribers in a given region? I presume this is the case.

If so, me paying for US NF means the content provider in the US gets paid appropriately. If I don't region switch from the US, and pay US NF, who then - based on counting me as a US subscriber - pay the content distributor, then all is moral, assuming my morality is comfortable with not abiding by the T&C's, but is comfortable that the content providers are being fairly paid by NF. In other words, I have paid my money for US-only content to NF, who pay the content producer for US-only content based on me being in the US, and am limiting my watching to said US-only content.

Of course if I then choose to "double dip" i.e pay NF once, as a US person, but geo-switch to NZ,UK, Netherlands NF, then the moral argument I have constucted falls flat, as I am getting more than I paid for, so to speak, meaning the content producers are getting paid less.

It depends. Netflix may pay an agreed amount for the region. Say $1m for the US rights. They may not pay on a per-subscriber basis and definitely do not pay on a per-viewer basis. In fact the content producers do not know how many have viewed the content. Netflix wont tell them. So if Netflix estimates that 1m people will view it and have budgeted on a cost-per-viewer of $1 then they break even. If another 1m watch it then its only cost 50c/viewer. Or the next 1m viewers are cream in other words. If they pay $1m for the US rights and 2m US viewers watch then thats good business. If another 1m viewers watch from NZ then their making a fantastic profit. And all for the fixed cost of acquiring that US content.

Its possible that they pay on a per subscriber basis but unlikely. Imagine if they paid on a per subscriber basis for every title - say 5,000. If they add titles too fast over their US sub base contribution margin will fall unless prices go up. Different content arrangements will have different pricing mechanisms - output deals vs buying titles.

Yeah - who knows indeed. Well, as stated, I'm paying for US content as though I'm in the US, and only watch US NF. The incidental fact that I am in NZ is anachronistic, and the deal that US content producers strike with US distributors is, IMHO, up to them, and I am a number in that equation as though I lived in LA.

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek

#1476147 21-Jan-2016 14:08

tdgeek:

gzt:
TDGeek: 1 in 11 having NF NZ I feel is surprisngly high.

Something had to be the tipper for the recent round of video shop closures..

More than likely. 1 in 11 still seems high. Maybe thats cos 10 in 11 exists in the geek sector, 8 in 11 exists in the tech/IT literate sector

and 1 in 40 exists elsewhere?

Classic logarithmic growth pattern I suggest, although that will get a small boost from natural exposure of the unenlightened. And of advertsing by Netflix (isn't that ironic)

Australia - 14% of Australian's had used Netflix Australia in the 3months to June 15. (Source: ACMA)

UK - Netflix 14% of households subscribed at Q4 2014. (Source: BARB). And near plateauing at that point which was very interesting.

Sixth Labour Government - "Vision without Execution is just Hallucination"

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek

#1476154 21-Jan-2016 14:19

something I just realised

The title of this thread is "Legality and/or morality of geoblocking"

which is not the same thing as "legality and/or morality of getting around geoblocks."

It could well be perfectly legal and moral to use methods to get around geoblocking. (smart DNS etc etc)

It can ALSO be perfectly legal and moral for businesses to implement geoblocks. (IP blocking, etc)

tdgeek

29554 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1476161 21-Jan-2016 14:27

A business can sell to who it chooses and exclude who it chooses. A content owner can sell rights to another company. It can also produce and distribute and be exclusive. So its moral to geoblock and immoral to bypass the geoblock.

Its legal to put T+C's in place to support the geoblock, and a bypasser can have the breach of T+C dealt with which is usally cancellation of account. Legally its only contract law.

Its desirable to place economics ahead of legality and morals, as its cheaper. Like many things in life it comes down to money

1 | ... | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21