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.


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 | ... | 21
11910 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5524

Trusted

  Reply # 1473574 18-Jan-2016 10:32
Send private message

rugrat:
MikeB4: You purchase the right to view the content according to the sellers terms and conditions you agreed to at purchase time, as long as those terms and conditions comply with NZ law.

If you wish to do otherwise you should renegotiate the terms of the sale or take the issue to the appropriate authority if you believe the terms breach NZ law. You cannot simply unilaterally change the terms and conditions something circumvention does.


If someone provides a product cheaper or better to someone in another market, then as far as I'm concerned I have a right to purchase from that market.

If someone in my own country has paid more for it I don't see why I should be forced to buy off them, it's not my fault they paid more and I had nothing to do with the transaction between those two party's.

The all black Jersy was another one; people importing them from America would have been breaking the terms of sale over there.

Geo unblocking is just another version of Youshop.

It breaches the terms of Netflix, but if they want to terminate my account that's up to them. If they don't want my money they don't have to take it.

One news article looked at said about 30 million people using unlockers world wide. 21.9 million in China.
Not sure how locking out paying Chinese paying customers going to force their government to let it in, it'll just be goodbye to those customers and they'll find other means.

 

 

 

just because one thinks they have a right does not imply they actually have a right. You may think you have the right to use the fruit from your neighbours trees, it does not mean you have the right and there will be repercussions if

 

you use the fruit with out the right to do so.




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

 

 It's our only home, lets clean it up then...

 

Take My Advice, Pull Down Your Pants And Slide On The Ice!

 

 


16539 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4627

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1473577 18-Jan-2016 10:36
Send private message

Rikkitic: I have made my position clear in many other posts on the subject. First, current legislation does not prohibit geo-unblocking, not even in the corporate-run USA, and certainly not here. It is NOT illegal. Therefore, it cannot be piracy or theft.  I strongly believe that corporate attempts to enforce geographic content distribution are nothing more than dinosaurs clinging to an outmoded business model. These companies seem to be run by people who can only think in terms of physical possession, and who keep trying to find equivalents of that in the digital world. The same thing happened with music and CDs. A CD is an object that can be possessed and controlled and boy, did they ever try to hang onto that one as long as possible. Remember the days of $40 CDs? Regionally restricted distribution models go entirely against the spirit and intent of the globalisation movement otherwise being pushed so hard by international corporations. It is a stunning example of corporate hypocrisy. How many want to bet that one of the first actions under TPP will be an attempt to force an international agreement banning geo-unblocking? Geo-blocking causes disproportionate deprivation to small 'regions' like New Zealand, that do not have the resources or political will to enable the production and purchase of more than token amounts of quality content. The result is that we do not even have a choice to view much of the content available elsewhere. There is a reason why people here watch the BBC.  Until someone shows me indisputable evidence to the contrary, I remain convinced that content producers can earn a fair profit under a single market business model. The rest is just sheer greed. I do not agree that it is clever business practice, or in any way acceptable behaviour. It is amoral at best, and mean-spirited as well. Good business is not squeezing every last drop from the consumer. It is providing a fair product for a fair return.       

 

 

 

Multiple people have ALREADY shown you and all the others who support your argument that you are wrong. The reality is, it doesn't SUIT you to accept it, so you will argue your perspective regardless. 

 

I guarantee you would feel 100% different if YOU were the rights holder.

 
 
 
 


Try Wrike: fast, easy, and efficient project collaboration software
6903 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3226

Subscriber

  Reply # 1473590 18-Jan-2016 10:49
Send private message

NonprayingMantis: I have been trying to think of a usable analogy to how the business model works. Essentially what the studios are trying to do is something called 'price discrimination' (you can google it for more detail, but basically it means charging different amounts to different people depending on their level of demand.  It's not an inherently bad thing - it can lead to higher prices for some people but also lower prices for others) An example of price discrimination you might think would be 'ok' would be senior citizen discounts.  Some businesses offer discounts to people over 65. Sometimes those services are even free (e.g. bus services), or services/products put on specially for seniors (i.e. if you are under 65 you can't use it).   But imagine if a service popped up that said "get senior discount even if you aren't over 65" and offered to sell you a fake ID and a convincing rubber mask that meant you could easily get these discounts (advertised for 'novelty purposes only' of course to avoid legal questions about fraudulent ID), what would we think of that service?  Morally ok? Legally? What would we think of the people who utilised that service to get the discounted products?     

 

 

 

The problem with this analogy is that it only relates to price discrimination. A more accurate one would be: you are only permitted to access the library if you are over 65. Everyone else can only read the handful of books in the discard bin outside.

 

 

 

 




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


6903 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3226

Subscriber

  Reply # 1473596 18-Jan-2016 10:53
One person supports this post
Send private message

networkn:
Rikkitic: I have made my position clear in many other posts on the subject. First, current legislation does not prohibit geo-unblocking, not even in the corporate-run USA, and certainly not here. It is NOT illegal. Therefore, it cannot be piracy or theft.  I strongly believe that corporate attempts to enforce geographic content distribution are nothing more than dinosaurs clinging to an outmoded business model. These companies seem to be run by people who can only think in terms of physical possession, and who keep trying to find equivalents of that in the digital world. The same thing happened with music and CDs. A CD is an object that can be possessed and controlled and boy, did they ever try to hang onto that one as long as possible. Remember the days of $40 CDs? Regionally restricted distribution models go entirely against the spirit and intent of the globalisation movement otherwise being pushed so hard by international corporations. It is a stunning example of corporate hypocrisy. How many want to bet that one of the first actions under TPP will be an attempt to force an international agreement banning geo-unblocking? Geo-blocking causes disproportionate deprivation to small 'regions' like New Zealand, that do not have the resources or political will to enable the production and purchase of more than token amounts of quality content. The result is that we do not even have a choice to view much of the content available elsewhere. There is a reason why people here watch the BBC.  Until someone shows me indisputable evidence to the contrary, I remain convinced that content producers can earn a fair profit under a single market business model. The rest is just sheer greed. I do not agree that it is clever business practice, or in any way acceptable behaviour. It is amoral at best, and mean-spirited as well. Good business is not squeezing every last drop from the consumer. It is providing a fair product for a fair return.       
  Multiple people have ALREADY shown you and all the others who support your argument that you are wrong. The reality is, it doesn't SUIT you to accept it, so you will argue your perspective regardless.  I guarantee you would feel 100% different if YOU were the rights holder.

 

The reality is I am not wrong and no-one has so far shown me that I am. Also, I am a rights holder in that I am an author who receives royalties. It doesn't make me feel any different at all.

 

 




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


16539 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4627

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1473598 18-Jan-2016 10:56
Send private message

Posted from the other thread:

 


So let me get this straight.

Lets say you are an artist, you are selling photos on the side of the road (Let's say they are original works, photos taken by you with your equipment and your resources including potentially, staff, vehicles, computers for post processing etc). I come along and take a photo of these photo's and setup in a stand right beside you, but instead of selling them and giving you the money, I either sell them and buy a new ferrari, or if I already have all the ferrari's I want, I decide, hell I'll just GIVE them away to anyone who expresses interest.

You don't consider that STEALING? You still have YOUR photos!

6903 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3226

Subscriber

  Reply # 1473599 18-Jan-2016 10:56
Send private message

OT: Is there a problem with the quotes? They seem to be losing their layout.

 

 




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




4304 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1817

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1473600 18-Jan-2016 10:56
One person supports this post
Send private message

networkn: Multiple people have ALREADY shown you and all the others who support your argument that you are wrong.

 

I disagree. To which statute are you referring that states geo-block bypasses are illegal? To which court decision are you referring?

 

Several companies sued in the civil courts last year over this very issue. The company providing the back-end service backed down because the costs were unbearable. But they still operate that business - they just don't offer it by default through ISPs. If it were illegal, Sky and friends would not have launched a civil suit. They would have made a criminal complaint to the police who would prosecute it through the criminal courts. The result would have been very different.

 

 

 

 




iPad Air + iPhone SE + 2degrees 4tw!

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


16539 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4627

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1473601 18-Jan-2016 10:58
Send private message

Rikkitic:
networkn:
Rikkitic: I have made my position clear in many other posts on the subject. First, current legislation does not prohibit geo-unblocking, not even in the corporate-run USA, and certainly not here. It is NOT illegal. Therefore, it cannot be piracy or theft.  I strongly believe that corporate attempts to enforce geographic content distribution are nothing more than dinosaurs clinging to an outmoded business model. These companies seem to be run by people who can only think in terms of physical possession, and who keep trying to find equivalents of that in the digital world. The same thing happened with music and CDs. A CD is an object that can be possessed and controlled and boy, did they ever try to hang onto that one as long as possible. Remember the days of $40 CDs? Regionally restricted distribution models go entirely against the spirit and intent of the globalisation movement otherwise being pushed so hard by international corporations. It is a stunning example of corporate hypocrisy. How many want to bet that one of the first actions under TPP will be an attempt to force an international agreement banning geo-unblocking? Geo-blocking causes disproportionate deprivation to small 'regions' like New Zealand, that do not have the resources or political will to enable the production and purchase of more than token amounts of quality content. The result is that we do not even have a choice to view much of the content available elsewhere. There is a reason why people here watch the BBC.  Until someone shows me indisputable evidence to the contrary, I remain convinced that content producers can earn a fair profit under a single market business model. The rest is just sheer greed. I do not agree that it is clever business practice, or in any way acceptable behaviour. It is amoral at best, and mean-spirited as well. Good business is not squeezing every last drop from the consumer. It is providing a fair product for a fair return.       
  Multiple people have ALREADY shown you and all the others who support your argument that you are wrong. The reality is, it doesn't SUIT you to accept it, so you will argue your perspective regardless.  I guarantee you would feel 100% different if YOU were the rights holder.
The reality is I am not wrong and no-one has so far shown me that I am. Also, I am a rights holder in that I am an author who receives royalties. It doesn't make me feel any different at all.  

 

 

 

Great so you won't be at all concerned if I copy whatever it is that is authored (Assuming you did so to make money), and distribute it to everyone who is interested for free? Secondly, if your authored product is behind a paywall of some description, then you won't mind if I find a way around it, and tell everyone who wants, how they can access it for free?

1171 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 159


  Reply # 1473602 18-Jan-2016 10:59
3 people support this post
Send private message

MikeB4:
rugrat:
MikeB4: You purchase the right to view the content according to the sellers terms and conditions you agreed to at purchase time, as long as those terms and conditions comply with NZ law.

If you wish to do otherwise you should renegotiate the terms of the sale or take the issue to the appropriate authority if you believe the terms breach NZ law. You cannot simply unilaterally change the terms and conditions something circumvention does.


If someone provides a product cheaper or better to someone in another market, then as far as I'm concerned I have a right to purchase from that market.

If someone in my own country has paid more for it I don't see why I should be forced to buy off them, it's not my fault they paid more and I had nothing to do with the transaction between those two party's.

The all black Jersy was another one; people importing them from America would have been breaking the terms of sale over there.

Geo unblocking is just another version of Youshop.

It breaches the terms of Netflix, but if they want to terminate my account that's up to them. If they don't want my money they don't have to take it.

One news article looked at said about 30 million people using unlockers world wide. 21.9 million in China.
Not sure how locking out paying Chinese paying customers going to force their government to let it in, it'll just be goodbye to those customers and they'll find other means.


 
just because one thinks they have a right does not imply they actually have a right. You may think you have the right to use the fruit from your neighbours trees, it does not mean you have the right and there will be repercussions if
you use the fruit with out the right to do so.


I don't think I have the right to take fruit from my neighbours tree. But if he was going to sell me the fruit at a higher price then someone else, I see nothing wrong with sending someone else to buy fruit off neighbour for me.

11910 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5524

Trusted

  Reply # 1473603 18-Jan-2016 10:59
Send private message

SaltyNZ:
networkn: Multiple people have ALREADY shown you and all the others who support your argument that you are wrong.
I disagree. To which statute are you referring that states geo-block bypasses are illegal? To which court decision are you referring? Several companies sued in the civil courts last year over this very issue. The company providing the back-end service backed down because the costs were unbearable. But they still operate that business - they just don't offer it by default through ISPs. If it were illegal, Sky and friends would not have launched a civil suit. They would have made a criminal complaint to the police who would prosecute it through the criminal courts. The result would have been very different.    

 

 

 

It's a civil matter in most cases. 




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

 

 It's our only home, lets clean it up then...

 

Take My Advice, Pull Down Your Pants And Slide On The Ice!

 

 




4304 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1817

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1473605 18-Jan-2016 11:00
2 people support this post
Send private message

networkn:    Great so you won't be at all concerned if I copy whatever it is that is authored (Assuming you did so to make money), and distribute it to everyone who is interested for free?

 

Who's getting Netflix for free? I pay for mine. I could get it for free, easily, if I wanted. But I don't.




iPad Air + iPhone SE + 2degrees 4tw!

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


6903 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3226

Subscriber

  Reply # 1473611 18-Jan-2016 11:02
2 people support this post
Send private message

networkn: Posted from the other thread:
So let me get this straight.

Lets say you are an artist, you are selling photos on the side of the road (Let's say they are original works, photos taken by you with your equipment and your resources including potentially, staff, vehicles, computers for post processing etc). I come along and take a photo of these photo's and setup in a stand right beside you, but instead of selling them and giving you the money, I either sell them and buy a new ferrari, or if I already have all the ferrari's I want, I decide, hell I'll just GIVE them away to anyone who expresses interest.

You don't consider that STEALING? You still have YOUR photos!

 

You are being obtuse. To get this back in perspective, we are not talking here about torrenting copyrighted stuff, which is piracy. That is what you are describing. We are talking about not being able to buy stuff at all, in spite of having the money and being willing to pay, because that privilege is restricted to people living in a certain area. Two very different things. 

 

 




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


16539 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4627

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1473613 18-Jan-2016 11:04
Send private message

SaltyNZ:
networkn:    Great so you won't be at all concerned if I copy whatever it is that is authored (Assuming you did so to make money), and distribute it to everyone who is interested for free?
Who's getting Netflix for free? I pay for mine. I could get it for free, easily, if I wanted. But I don't.
  As has been talked about before, it's the rights holders "right" to restrict sale to whomever they see fit. I choose not to sell my products and services to specific industries because I find those industries incompatible with my business model.  Rights holders could gain ADDITIONAL INCOME by selling to a digital provider in NZ, but that provider is unlikely to do that because everyone watches via NF USA. You are stopping rights holders from gaining said extra income if they wished.

 

 

 

Also just because they DON'T offer that content right now, doesn't mean they WON'T in the future. Businesses have different priorities to you and I as consumers. 

 

 

 

 

16539 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4627

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1473615 18-Jan-2016 11:08
Send private message

Rikkitic:
networkn: Posted from the other thread:
So let me get this straight.

Lets say you are an artist, you are selling photos on the side of the road (Let's say they are original works, photos taken by you with your equipment and your resources including potentially, staff, vehicles, computers for post processing etc). I come along and take a photo of these photo's and setup in a stand right beside you, but instead of selling them and giving you the money, I either sell them and buy a new ferrari, or if I already have all the ferrari's I want, I decide, hell I'll just GIVE them away to anyone who expresses interest.

You don't consider that STEALING? You still have YOUR photos!
You are being obtuse. To get this back in perspective, we are not talking here about torrenting copyrighted stuff, which is piracy. That is what you are describing. We are talking about not being able to buy stuff at all, in spite of having the money and being willing to pay, because that privilege is restricted to people living in a certain area. Two very different things.   

 

Regardless, that is the right of the people who create the content. They are not obliged to sell to you. The reality is that you are depriving them of potential income. NF pays for the rights not on a per subscriber basis but for the material to be viewed within specific geographical locations.

 

You are essentially saying those who create content should have no control over it's distribution or business models.

6903 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3226

Subscriber

  Reply # 1473617 18-Jan-2016 11:08
Send private message

networkn: Great so you won't be at all concerned if I copy whatever it is that is authored (Assuming you did so to make money), and distribute it to everyone who is interested for free? Secondly, if your authored product is behind a paywall of some description, then you won't mind if I find a way around it, and tell everyone who wants, how they can access it for free?

 

See my other reply. You are mixing apples and oranges.

 

 




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


1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | ... | 21
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:





News »

Opera launches new mobile browser: Opera Touch
Posted 25-Apr-2018 20:45


TCF and Telcos Toughen Up on Scam Callers
Posted 23-Apr-2018 09:39


Amazon launches the International Shopping Experience in the Amazon Shopping App
Posted 19-Apr-2018 08:38


Spark New Zealand and TVNZ to bring coverage of Rugby World Cup 2019
Posted 16-Apr-2018 06:55


How Google can seize Microsoft Office crown
Posted 14-Apr-2018 11:08


How back office transformation drives IRD efficiency
Posted 12-Apr-2018 21:15


iPod laws in a smartphone world: will we ever get copyright right?
Posted 12-Apr-2018 21:13


Lightbox service using big data and analytics to learn more about customers
Posted 9-Apr-2018 12:11


111 mobile caller location extended to iOS
Posted 6-Apr-2018 13:50


Huawei announces the HUAWEI P20 series
Posted 29-Mar-2018 11:41


Symantec Internet Security Threat Report shows increased endpoint technology risks
Posted 26-Mar-2018 18:29


Spark switches on long-range IoT network across New Zealand
Posted 26-Mar-2018 18:22


Stuff Pix enters streaming video market
Posted 21-Mar-2018 09:18


Windows no longer Microsoft’s main focus
Posted 13-Mar-2018 07:47


Why phone makers are obsessed with cameras
Posted 11-Mar-2018 12:25



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.