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 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | ... | 21
451 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 125


  Reply # 1474177 18-Jan-2016 21:32
Send private message

Decreased revenue and therefore volume of production isn't necessarily catastrophic. Online streaming decreases costs and exposes content to more people.  It's possible that if we kept current production rates up we'd end up with too much content.

 

Weeds, Dollhouse, Firefly and Person of Interest are all shows I missed on their terrestrial run, but picked up on Netflix. Under the old model these would have been wasted product, like sending good food to a landfill.

 

This is a bit dated and has been posted here before, but Kevin Spacey on the benefits of producing for Netflix

6434 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1571


  Reply # 1474181 18-Jan-2016 21:40
Send private message

hashbrown: Decreased revenue and therefore volume of production isn't necessarily catastrophic. Online streaming decreases costs and exposes content to more people.  It's possible that if we kept current production rates up we'd end up with too much content.
Weeds, Dollhouse, Firefly and Person of Interest are all shows I missed on their terrestrial run, but picked up on Netflix. Under the old model these would have been wasted product, like sending good food to a landfill.
This is a bit dated and has been posted here before, but Kevin Spacey on the benefits of producing for Netflix


Those could all be shown on legitimate streaming services in NZ without requiring breaking geoblocks

I'm pretty sure that weeds and firefly are both on lightbox - which requires absolutely no geoblock busting to watch. Not sure about the others, but what you are talking about is the benefits of on-demand vs broadcast - and I dont think you'll find many people who think on-demand is a ' bad ' model.

Glurp
8209 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3781

Subscriber

  Reply # 1474188 18-Jan-2016 21:46
3 people support this post
Send private message

networkn:
tdgeek: Otherwise, I am in. And geo blocking isn't illegal, I wish that would stop popping up.    
  Well if it's not Illegal, then why did all the ISP's who were providing it, stop doing so when threatened with Legal Action? (Every SINGLE one). 

 

This had nothing to do with the law. Four bullies with deep pockets got together and started a nuisance lawsuit to force a much smaller company to stop doing something they didn't like. The ISPs that were targeted agreed to the demands of the bullies because they could not afford to fight the case through the courts. This was extortion, pure and simple, and a gross misuse of the legal system. If nothing else, this kind of behaviour makes me want to go elsewhere for content, just to give the fingers to the bullies.

 

I will answer your other reply tomorrow. I'm tired.

 

 




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


13429 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2428

Trusted

  Reply # 1474191 18-Jan-2016 21:51
Send private message

shk292: I mention sky because their exclusive rights often seems to be the argument against Netflix having a wider library in NZ.
Good you agree about the legality, especially given the assertions elsewhere that geo unblocking is piracy and piracy is theft
Not sure I agree that the revenue needs to be replaced though

 

 

 

Sky is one of dozens of media providers globally, Its nothing special, it operates like they all do.

 

Revenue doesn't need to be replaced. Its a charity where the global model is based around $13 a month for unlimited?

 

 

gzt

10173 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1558


  Reply # 1474192 18-Jan-2016 21:54
Send private message

We can add Amazon produced streaming only series like Mozart of the Jungle. Amazing quality for a new entrant. I watched on Lightbox and would never have bothered to watch it otherwise. Amazon like a lot of other providers do geoblock. Once content is available I see no reason to use and maintain an unblocker. The small minority that want to do that why worry about it.

1507 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 782


  Reply # 1474193 18-Jan-2016 21:56
Send private message

tdgeek:
shk292: I mention sky because their exclusive rights often seems to be the argument against Netflix having a wider library in NZ.
Good you agree about the legality, especially given the assertions elsewhere that geo unblocking is piracy and piracy is theft
Not sure I agree that the revenue needs to be replaced though

 
Sky is one of dozens of media providers globally, Its nothing special, it operates like they all do.
Revenue doesn't need to be replaced. Its a charity where the global model is based around $13 a month for unlimited?
 

Who said anything implying $13 is the set price for a service. And are you saying that Netflix operates as a charity in the USA?
There could be any number of distributors, with a huge range of subscription costs according to library extent, picture quality, adverts, number of devices per subscriber, hours of use per weekv etc etc etc.
It just takes a bit of imagination and innovation rather than clinging on to outdated business models and trying to stifle competition

451 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 125


  Reply # 1474197 18-Jan-2016 22:02
Send private message

NonprayingMantis:
hashbrown: Decreased revenue and therefore volume of production isn't necessarily catastrophic. Online streaming decreases costs and exposes content to more people.  It's possible that if we kept current production rates up we'd end up with too much content.
Weeds, Dollhouse, Firefly and Person of Interest are all shows I missed on their terrestrial run, but picked up on Netflix. Under the old model these would have been wasted product, like sending good food to a landfill.
This is a bit dated and has been posted here before, but Kevin Spacey on the benefits of producing for Netflix


Those could all be shown on legitimate streaming services in NZ without requiring breaking geoblocks

I'm pretty sure that weeds and firefly are both on lightbox - which requires absolutely no geoblock busting to watch. Not sure about the others, but what you are talking about is the benefits of on-demand vs broadcast - and I dont think you'll find many people who think on-demand is a ' bad ' model.

 

I was replying to @tdgeek's comments that  $13/month Netflix is not sustainable, and the observation that revenues were likely to fall in the same way they have for the music industry. Maybe we need to spend a little more, but a lot of the gap between $13 and a Sky subscription can be met by the cost savings of the new model.

 

 

 

 



4583 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2082

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1474198 18-Jan-2016 22:04
Send private message

Even Members of parliament recognise geo-blocking to be a possible problem. Mojo Mathers says that a lot of deaf people are forced into it as Netflix is the only accessible option for them. I doubt anyone in parliament would openly condone something they believed was illegal. Indeed, she - like everyone else on the pro side of this discussion so far - appears to believe it is in need of explicit protection.

http://parliament.govt.nz/en-nz/pb/debates/debates/51HansD_20151208_00000020/taxation-residential-land-withholding-tax-gst-on-online

And although the debate in question was primarily in regards to GST for online goods, you'll note that nobody calls her out on it and tells her it's illegal.




iPad Air + iPhone SE + 2degrees 4tw!

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


13429 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2428

Trusted

  Reply # 1474199 18-Jan-2016 22:04
Send private message

shk292:
tdgeek:
shk292: In addition to the above, maybe this will require a payment fit rights based on the number of subscribers, maybe averages over a quarterly period. So, easy for new players to enter the market with low overheads

 
Can you clarify? Seems that your wanting to make it easy, which is cheap, for new players. That will further reduce revenue for the owners of the content.
 

Quite simple, content owners set a price for content based on the average number of subscribers to that content. So for example, all series of breaking bad might cost a distributor $2 per month per subscriber (totally arbitrary number). So distributors can compile packages of content to attract subscribers to their service, competing with other distributors.

 

Ok, I know the $2 is arbitrary, so lets run with that. 2 bucks for Breaking Bad. I don't watch it, but I pay for it, ouch. Thats leaves $11 left, for say 5 other great shows. The $1 thats left, that covers the other 5000 titles on NF USA? Rights payments are high, they subsidise the cheap as chips SVOD. NF does DVD's too but they wont let you watch this titles via stream. That will change as its no rights payments now? Nothing wring with changing things but it has to add up. Methinks what will have to happen is rights payments continue (as you allude to) by subscriber. So all the huge dollars paid for rights will be paid by us. Otherwise, your removing large revenue streams. 

 

 

13429 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2428

Trusted

  Reply # 1474228 18-Jan-2016 22:18
Send private message

Rikkitic: Well, I see you guys have gone on without me. I can't react to every post here. I barely managed to read them all. I only want to respond to (and hopefully clarify) a couple of misconceptions that keep turning up. It seems that some things are being purposely twisted as a debating tactic, in spite of previous careful explication. The use of the words 'illegal' and 'stealing' are examples of this. Also the constantly repeated litany that some of us want all this wonderful content for free, and are not prepared to pay for it. I can't speak for others but this is what I believe and have been saying. Please don't misrepresent it: 1. Whatever you think about geo-unblocking, it is not 'illegal'. The constant misuse of this word adds an unjustified emotive element to whatever argument is being made. Call it immoral if you like, or unfair, or disgusting behaviour, but please stop calling it illegal. It is not and that just clouds the issue.  2. Those who use geo-unblocking are not 'stealing'. Everyone who accesses non-free sites pays a subscription. No-one is trying to get around that. Maybe they are being deceptive, or immoral (that word again), but they are not, by any definition of the word, 'stealing'. Please quit saying they are. 3. No one in their right mind wants or expects free content. Of course it has to be paid for. No-one here is seriously arguing that it should be free. The point we are making is that we disagree with the current region-based marketing model, for a whole range of reasons, and at least some of us feel justified in using geo-unblocking to circumvent that. We feel that all content should be 'freely' available, not available for free. Please quit distorting this to mean something it doesn't.     

 

 

 

Sorry Rikki but when you sue words such as misconceptions, debating tactic, etc, you are or appear miffed that some do not agree with you. So you are correct and the opposers are incorrect. These are ALL opinions. 

 

1. Illegal is part of the thread topic, I'm not sure many, if any, have said its illegal to geoblock. It isn't illegal as its not covered by Statute Law. Or Torts. The user breaks the contract they have with NF, so NF can cancel their sub. Simple. By making money from creating a means for users to covertly break NF T+C's is immoral.

 

2.  Networkn's analogy of the photo was accurate. If a content owner sells to another, rights, and not to NF, NF cannot air that content. the other provider airs it, is entitled to earn the revenue from the sub, ads if they use ads, and so on. The stealing relates to that potential local revenue not being paid in to view the content, instead the users geoblocks to the US to watch it for free. Yes free, as he isn't being asked to pay extra, he's hanging off Americans

 

3. No one here has said anyone wants the content for free. But to disband exclusivity, and disband rights payments, you can't leave the sub at $13 a month. It will rocket upwards as to all intents and purposes, $13 a month is chickenfeed. Say it triples, thats still good value. But so do the other ---flixes that hold the other contents we all want. No problem as there's no issue in re writing the model, and removing rights payments, we will need to top that up on a subscriber basis. Its just math. 

13429 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2428

Trusted

  Reply # 1474229 18-Jan-2016 22:20
Send private message

networkn:
tdgeek: Otherwise, I am in. And geo blocking isn't illegal, I wish that would stop popping up.    
  Well if it's not Illegal, then why did all the ISP's who were providing it, stop doing so when threatened with Legal Action? (Every SINGLE one). 

 

 

 

Yeah, thats true actually. Illegal in Civil Law, yep, agreed.

13429 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2428

Trusted

  Reply # 1474231 18-Jan-2016 22:23
Send private message

gzt:
networkn:
tdgeek: Otherwise, I am in. And geo blocking isn't illegal, I wish that would stop popping up.    
  Well if it's not Illegal, then why did all the ISP's who were providing it, stop doing so when threatened with Legal Action? (Every SINGLE one). 

No idea. I'd be interested to know the exact legal action they were threatened with. I'm guessing it was not NZ law.

 

 

 

Civil Law. Thats is, its not a crime, but its illegal. Criminal Law such as piracy/copyright as its in Statutes. Civil Law is application of the Rule of Law. We have a contract, you breach it, I can sue for damages. 

13429 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2428

Trusted

  Reply # 1474233 18-Jan-2016 22:27
Send private message

hashbrown: Decreased revenue and therefore volume of production isn't necessarily catastrophic. Online streaming decreases costs and exposes content to more people.  It's possible that if we kept current production rates up we'd end up with too much content. Weeds, Dollhouse, Firefly and Person of Interest are all shows I missed on their terrestrial run, but picked up on Netflix. Under the old model these would have been wasted product, like sending good food to a landfill. This is a bit dated and has been posted here before, but Kevin Spacey on the benefits of producing for Netflix

 

 

 

Decreased revenue as in income currently received from rights owners. That's nothing to do with volume of production. If you remove rights payments you need to replace it with other revenue. Thats will be the NF subscription, and everyone else's subscription. User pays instead of right owner pays

13429 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2428

Trusted

  Reply # 1474236 18-Jan-2016 22:33
Send private message

Rikkitic:
networkn:
tdgeek: Otherwise, I am in. And geo blocking isn't illegal, I wish that would stop popping up.    
  Well if it's not Illegal, then why did all the ISP's who were providing it, stop doing so when threatened with Legal Action? (Every SINGLE one). 
This had nothing to do with the law. Four bullies with deep pockets got together and started a nuisance lawsuit to force a much smaller company to stop doing something they didn't like. The ISPs that were targeted agreed to the demands of the bullies because they could not afford to fight the case through the courts. This was extortion, pure and simple, and a gross misuse of the legal system. If nothing else, this kind of behaviour makes me want to go elsewhere for content, just to give the fingers to the bullies. I will answer your other reply tomorrow. I'm tired.  

 

 

 

What? Has nothing to do with the law, they were threatened with lawsuits which makes it everything to do with the law. I assume you also applaud radar detector manufacturers? Its the same immoral moneymaking to allow and encourage drivers to speed so they wont get caught. Bullies? Extortion? Misuse of the legal system? Stop something they didnt like? You mean making money in order to allow users to break the Terms and Conditions that subscribers agreed to, and not get caught. We don't live in the wild west anymore. 

13429 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2428

Trusted

  Reply # 1474243 18-Jan-2016 22:43
Send private message

shk292:
tdgeek:
shk292: I mention sky because their exclusive rights often seems to be the argument against Netflix having a wider library in NZ.
Good you agree about the legality, especially given the assertions elsewhere that geo unblocking is piracy and piracy is theft
Not sure I agree that the revenue needs to be replaced though

 
Sky is one of dozens of media providers globally, Its nothing special, it operates like they all do.
Revenue doesn't need to be replaced. Its a charity where the global model is based around $13 a month for unlimited?
 

Who said anything implying $13 is the set price for a service. And are you saying that Netflix operates as a charity in the USA?
There could be any number of distributors, with a huge range of subscription costs according to library extent, picture quality, adverts, number of devices per subscriber, hours of use per weekv etc etc etc.
It just takes a bit of imagination and innovation rather than clinging on to outdated business models and trying to stifle competition

 

If you want to run media distribution and disband rights issues, you lose a great deal of revenue. You don't what that replaced. The typical SVOD model is $13 a month. Now you want the revenues that rights holders pay to be removed. Bizarre. Grab a set if accounts for any business and wipe out huge lumps of revenue, then check the bottom line. I mean in this case of the industry. Or triple the dirt cheap prices we have now to cover that lost revenue. You cannot actually take revenue away and live happily ever after.

 

And none off this oft repeated outdated business model. The new model would increase prices radically, Im fine with that. But the supporters wont be. SVOD that is driving the streaming is based around $13 a month, thats the defect standard. Its like one day we were fine with paying $99 for a game, now when we buy a game at the app stores we want it for free, or maybe 99c. Its the same mindset. I want it all and I want it cheap, finances dont interest me

 

 

 

When we imaginate and innovate, don't forget to adjust the pricing as you removed revenue streams. Don't forget that

 

 

 

 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | ... | 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:



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.