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 | 13 | ... | 21
12594 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5909

Trusted

  Reply # 1473619 18-Jan-2016 11:13
Send private message

There seems to be an ongoing belief of entitlement with this issue. It's seems to be a "I want it so give it to me or I will take it" There also seems to be a belief that rules are optional, it also shows itself in threads about driving.




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!

 

 




4411 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1924

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1473620 18-Jan-2016 11:14
Send private message

networkn: You are stopping rights holders from gaining said extra income if they wished.  

 

No, I'm not. As you yourself point out repeatedly, it's the rights holders right to sell to whoever they see fit. I'm not stopping them from doing anything.




iPad Air + iPhone SE + 2degrees 4tw!

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


Glurp
7568 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3541

Subscriber

  Reply # 1473625 18-Jan-2016 11:18
Send private message

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

 

Not in a free market. That was decided years ago. People with something to sell are not permitted to deny blacks or Jews the right to buy it. Why should they be permitted to deny someone who lives on the other side of the street? Many years ago the Americans (of all people) took the distribution rights of Hollywood away when the authorities forced the movie industry to sell its cinema chains. This was seen at the time as monopolistic and detrimental to the rights of movie-goers. Well, guess what? Times haven't changed!

 

 




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


Glurp
7568 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3541

Subscriber

  Reply # 1473627 18-Jan-2016 11:20
Send private message

MikeB4: There seems to be an ongoing belief of entitlement with this issue. It's seems to be a "I want it so give it to me or I will take it" There also seems to be a belief that rules are optional, it also shows itself in threads about driving.

 

It has nothing to do with entitlement. It has everything to do with the right to sit at the lunch counter and enjoy a coffee with the white folks.

 

 




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


12594 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5909

Trusted

  Reply # 1473642 18-Jan-2016 11:31
Send private message

Rikkitic:
MikeB4: There seems to be an ongoing belief of entitlement with this issue. It's seems to be a "I want it so give it to me or I will take it" There also seems to be a belief that rules are optional, it also shows itself in threads about driving.
It has nothing to do with entitlement. It has everything to do with the right to sit at the lunch counter and enjoy a coffee with the white folks.  

 

 

 

No it does not, it is not about a civil right or breach there of, it's about a commercial arrangement and contract.




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!

 

 


2165 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 357


  Reply # 1473650 18-Jan-2016 11:42
One person supports this post
Send private message

Netflix are not doing anything illegal, consumer is not doing anything illegal so how can it be illegal

 

Consumer is breaking Netflix T&C's, contractual issue for Netflix to resolve not the legal system - still not illegal

 

To what level do Netflix need to go to with regards to geo blocking to suffice their contractual obligations to content owners? Given that someone will always find a way around  a system legal or other wise where do you draw the line?

 

Compare Netflix to a car manufacturer, can the manufacturer be expected to take all and every precaution for the end user to not crash? No

Glurp
7568 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3541

Subscriber

  Reply # 1473651 18-Jan-2016 11:43
Send private message

MikeB4:
Rikkitic:
MikeB4: There seems to be an ongoing belief of entitlement with this issue. It's seems to be a "I want it so give it to me or I will take it" There also seems to be a belief that rules are optional, it also shows itself in threads about driving.
It has nothing to do with entitlement. It has everything to do with the right to sit at the lunch counter and enjoy a coffee with the white folks.  
  No it does not, it is not about a civil right or breach there of, it's about a commercial arrangement and contract.

 

Um, let me see if I've got that right. You put up a farmgate stand selling watermelons. You have a sign saying take one and leave a dollar in the collection box. Then you have another sign saying kiwis only, no sales to tourists. But the tourists really want watermelon. So they come anyway and each puts a dollar in the box and takes one. A few are so grateful to have watermelon that they even put a little extra in the box. So you go to the police with a handful of money and say you want to lay a complaint because those awful, thieving tourists are all buying your watermelons! Have I got that right? And what do you think the police will say?

 

 

 

 

 

 




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


17249 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4927

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1473652 18-Jan-2016 11:47
Send private message

Rikkitic:
networkn: You are essentially saying those who create content should have no control over it's distribution or business models.
Not in a free market. That was decided years ago. People with something to sell are not permitted to deny blacks or Jews the right to buy it. Why should they be permitted to deny someone who lives on the other side of the street? Many years ago the Americans (of all people) took the distribution rights of Hollywood away when the authorities forced the movie industry to sell its cinema chains. This was seen at the time as monopolistic and detrimental to the rights of movie-goers. Well, guess what? Times haven't changed!  

 

Err you are having a laugh surely? They aren't infringing on your civil rights. They are refusing access based on geographical location not race, sex, religion or the other criteria which would see them pinged under international law. 

 

It's perfectly legitimate for me to not sell you something just "cause" so long as that reason isn't one of the ones listed above. This is what is happening. 

 

 

6434 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1571


  Reply # 1473654 18-Jan-2016 11:49
Send private message

Rikkitic:
networkn: You are essentially saying those who create content should have no control over it's distribution or business models.
Not in a free market. That was decided years ago. People with something to sell are not permitted to deny blacks or Jews the right to buy it. Why should they be permitted to deny someone who lives on the other side of the street? Many years ago the Americans (of all people) took the distribution rights of Hollywood away when the authorities forced the movie industry to sell its cinema chains. This was seen at the time as monopolistic and detrimental to the rights of movie-goers. Well, guess what? Times haven't changed!  

 

 

 

look up the various declarations about human rights.

 

Businesses CANNOT discriminate on grounds of race, sex, age, sexuality, religion and various others.

 

businesses CAN discriminate on literally ANY other grounds, and that including geographical location.

 

 

 

 

 

and remember we also aren't talking about getting people access to something that is crucial to life.  

 

I absolutely understand we need to ensure all people have access to things like food, water, shelter, education, healthcare, heck, maybe even access to the internet should be a 'human right'.

 

What I don't understand is the concept that we must ensure that all people have access to the latest season of Game of Thrones the instant it airs in another country. 

jmh

449 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 142

Subscriber

  Reply # 1473655 18-Jan-2016 11:49
Send private message

I think, at heart, it's a case of business models falling behind the technology.  Netlix themselves say that the long-term aim is to have a global catalogue.  I think by pushing the law to limit, and debating the ethics, we as geeks and experts are going to effect change in the marketplace.  This current situation is just a blip in the road to a new system.

 

 It doesn't seem fair to users that they pay the same amount for a product and get less than someone in another country.  This obviously applies other products too, but electronic products don't cost anything to transport across borders.

17249 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4927

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1473658 18-Jan-2016 11:53
Send private message

SaltyNZ:
networkn: You are stopping rights holders from gaining said extra income if they wished.  
No, I'm not. As you yourself point out repeatedly, it's the rights holders right to sell to whoever they see fit. I'm not stopping them from doing anything.

 

 

 

Indirectly you could well be. If the rights holders intention is to offer a license for example, to Lightbox NZ, for something now screening exclusively to those in the USA, and Lightbox can't justify the cost because customers won't stop paying Netflix to pay Lightbox, then the deal doesn't go ahead and right holder loses money.

 

I guess rights holders could then raise the cost to Netflix and issue them a global license, but then the millions of USA customers are being charged more for something they derive no benefit from.

 

I also expect then that the rate of piracy in NZ would rise and it would be justified under the "Netflix/rights holders are just trying to screw us" argument.

17249 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4927

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1473659 18-Jan-2016 11:54
Send private message

jmh: I think, at heart, it's a case of business models falling behind the technology.  Netlix themselves say that the long-term aim is to have a global catalogue.  I think by pushing the law to limit, and debating the ethics, we as geeks and experts are going to effect change in the marketplace.  This current situation is just a blip in the road to a new system.  It doesn't seem fair to users that they pay the same amount for a product and get less than someone in another country.  This obviously applies other products too, but electronic products don't cost anything to transport across borders.

 

 

 

Do you really think there are zero added costs to providing a service in a new country? Who should wear that ?

17249 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4927

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1473662 18-Jan-2016 11:57
Send private message

NonprayingMantis:
Rikkitic:
networkn: You are essentially saying those who create content should have no control over it's distribution or business models.
Not in a free market. That was decided years ago. People with something to sell are not permitted to deny blacks or Jews the right to buy it. Why should they be permitted to deny someone who lives on the other side of the street? Many years ago the Americans (of all people) took the distribution rights of Hollywood away when the authorities forced the movie industry to sell its cinema chains. This was seen at the time as monopolistic and detrimental to the rights of movie-goers. Well, guess what? Times haven't changed!  
  look up the various declarations about human rights. Businesses CANNOT discriminate on grounds of race, sex, age, sexuality, religion and various others. businesses CAN discriminate on literally ANY other grounds, and that including geographical location.     and remember we also aren't talking about getting people access to something that is crucial to life.   I absolutely understand we need to ensure all people have access to things like food, water, shelter, education, healthcare, heck, maybe even access to the internet should be a 'human right'. What I don't understand is the concept that we must ensure that all people have access to the latest season of Game of Thrones the instant it airs in another country. 

 

 

 

I am not sure if Rikkitic knows it's perfectly legal and I've done it before, to discriminate on the grounds that someone smokes? I even had someone challenge me on it legally, which was funny as it didn't go very far.

Glurp
7568 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3541

Subscriber

  Reply # 1473667 18-Jan-2016 12:02
Send private message

What a fun discussion we are having! And I have to say I agree completely that by having it, we are part of the process that is working its way to a future resolution of some kind. But now I have to go. I will look forward to seeing what else people have had to say this evening. Enjoy the debate.

 

 




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


Glurp
7568 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3541

Subscriber

  Reply # 1473669 18-Jan-2016 12:03
Send private message

Oh yeah, I forgot, smoking is a health issue so the grounds for discrimination are very different.

 

 




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


1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | ... | 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 »

Microsoft Dynamics 365 Business Central launches
Posted 10-Jul-2018 10:40


Spark completes first milestone in voice platform upgrade
Posted 10-Jul-2018 09:36


Microsoft ices heated developers
Posted 6-Jul-2018 20:16


PB Technologies charged for its extended warranties and warned for bait advertising
Posted 3-Jul-2018 15:45


Almost 20,000 people claim credits from Spark
Posted 29-Jun-2018 10:40


Cove sells NZ's first insurance policy via chatbot
Posted 25-Jun-2018 10:04


N4L helping TAKA Trust bridge the digital divide for Lower Hutt students
Posted 18-Jun-2018 13:08


Winners Announced for 2018 CIO Awards
Posted 18-Jun-2018 13:03


Logitech Rally sets new standard for USB-connected video conference cameras
Posted 18-Jun-2018 09:27


Russell Stanners steps down as Vodafone NZ CEO
Posted 12-Jun-2018 09:13


Intergen recognised as 2018 Microsoft Country Partner of the Year for New Zealand
Posted 12-Jun-2018 08:00


Finalists Announced For Microsoft NZ Partner Awards
Posted 6-Jun-2018 15:12


Vocus Group and Vodafone announce joint venture to accelerate fibre innovation
Posted 5-Jun-2018 10:52


Kogan.com to launch Kogan Mobile in New Zealand
Posted 4-Jun-2018 14:34


Enable doubles fibre broadband speeds for its most popular wholesale service in Christchurch
Posted 2-Jun-2018 20:07



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.