Censor 'Eyes' Global Mode

Forums › New Zealand Broadband › Censor 'Eyes' Global Mode - Seriously?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

1418 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#1172768 11-Nov-2014 12:14

Jaxar:
hamish225: I just wish that there was a streaming service in NZ that got everything the moment it finishes airing in the US/UK, is that too much to ask? if so, why?

The way rights distribution works a streaming service would have to charge unreasonable rates to have the money to do that. The population vs cost doesn't work out well.

While our technology for distributing media is in the year 2000 the financial infrastructure behind it is still very much stuck in the bricks and mortar era.

You think it is bad for TV/Movies try audio books. A lot of good novels cannot be purchased because the local distributor has not purchased the right for them to be sold in Aus/NZ and we are not talking about a few months delay in most cases but never going to happen.

While possibly not the best solution there is some hope with ISP's wanting to get into the content game. The competition may result in an improvement across the board but probably not the ideal.

can we regulate the price of content rights, to make it easier for little ol' NZ?

*Insert big spe*dtest result here*

StarBlazer

961 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#1172804 11-Nov-2014 13:27

What I find amusing about this is that the classification in NZ is only performed if it has not already been performed in Australia or the UK or where it has and is already restricted.

Have a look at this flowchart from their website.

Procrastination eventually pays off.

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek

#1172823 11-Nov-2014 13:37

Lias: http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/63084435/support-for-action-against-slingshots-netflix-access.html

"Spark, which launched online television service Lightbox in September, had raised concerns with the labelling body last year, she said. "

Sounds like it's time to boycott Spark and LightBox.

depends what the 'concerns' are.

If I was Lightbox, I would be pretty concerned that I had to pay $xxx for every title to be rated (and presumably wait some period of time too - critical for brand new premium content) when my competitors do not have to incur this fee or wait for the censor to make it's decisions

(I wouldn't be surprised if even itunes 'NZ' doesn't currently incur this cost either. They do not charge GST so presumably iTunes is not an 'NZ' based company so also doesn't have to submit content to the censor - may also be a reason why they don't sell TV shows in NZ)

As a business it's totally reasonable to want a level playing field.

That would either mean forcing everybody who sells content to NZers to pay the fees OR abolishing the fees altogether.
Its not practical to force everybody to pay the fees, so much better solution would be to abolish them.

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek

#1172827 11-Nov-2014 13:41

hamish225: I just wish that there was a streaming service in NZ that got everything the moment it finishes airing in the US/UK, is that too much to ask? if so, why?

Yes. There isn't even such a thing in the states (or any country for that matter)

the reason why is: rights windows. The studios make far too much money by rationing content and delaying the launch on different platforms. google: price discrimination to find out why this works.

Jaxar

383 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1172843 11-Nov-2014 13:57

hamish225: can we regulate the price of content rights, to make it easier for little ol' NZ?

Few challenges here. Firstly the price as I understand it is driven my companies outside of NZ thus not as simple as say regulating the price of broadband in NZ. Secondly NZ is going in the direction of free trade.

We do actually subsidize content, both local and international however the goal in that is presumably to do with economic gains for NZ rather than obtaining the latest episode of Game of Thrones promptly.

Please note: I have a professional bias towards Vodafone.

Lias

5589 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1172856 11-Nov-2014 14:20

Simple really, we just pass a law that says if content producers do not release digital video content in NZ at the same time as overseas, for a comparable price (no oceania tax), they lose copyright to it in NZ and anyone can do what they want with the content for free. See how fast someone comes up with a service offering all video content right away then :-P

The US would scream blue murder and put us on a naughty kids list, but only because their government is completely corrupt and owned by the companies lock stock and barrel. Time we stopped being friends with the US and moved onto partners like India and China.

I'm a geek, a gamer, a dad, a Quic user, and an IT Professional. I have a full rack home lab, size 15 feet, an epic beard and Asperger's. I'm a bit of a Cypherpunk, who believes information wants to be free and the Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it. If you use my Quic signup you can also use the code R570394EKGIZ8 for free setup.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1172861 11-Nov-2014 14:24

Lias: Simple really, we just pass a law that says if content producers do not release digital video content in NZ at the same time as overseas, for a comparable price (no oceania tax), they lose copyright to it in NZ and anyone can do what they want with the content for free. See how fast someone comes up with a service offering all video content right away then :-P

The US would scream blue murder and put us on a naughty kids list, but only because their government is completely corrupt and owned by the companies lock stock and barrel. Time we stopped being friends with the US and moved onto partners like India and China.

That would be a seriously silly idea thankfully the government would never consider.

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

Jaxar

383 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1172891 11-Nov-2014 15:05

KiwiNZ:
Lias: Simple really, we just pass a law that says if content producers do not release digital video content in NZ at the same time as overseas, for a comparable price (no oceania tax), they lose copyright to it in NZ and anyone can do what they want with the content for free. See how fast someone comes up with a service offering all video content right away then :-P

The US would scream blue murder and put us on a naughty kids list, but only because their government is completely corrupt and owned by the companies lock stock and barrel. Time we stopped being friends with the US and moved onto partners like India and China.

That would be a seriously silly idea thankfully the government would never consider.

Also we signed a treaty not to do that.

Wait no. Ignore that serious reply. Instead I'm going to go with:

In response America blocks all sale of Television to NZ. The NZ government is thrown out by the people because they cannot get their favorite TV show. Except through illegal means.

Please note: I have a professional bias towards Vodafone.

JimmyH

2886 posts

Uber Geek

#1173048 11-Nov-2014 19:40

Jaxar:

I agree they are not bypassing copyright laws. They are enabling users to do so.

Except users aren't bypassing "copyright laws", as I tried to explain. They are just cutting out the expensive local exclusive distributor - just like they do when they buy books, magazines, footwear, cameras and clothing from a cheaper international vendor than the local agent.

Firstly bypassing geolocking is small bucks in the greater scheme of copyright protection for studios but more importantly it isn't the movie studios money that is under threat. It is the regional rights holders money that is under threat. Now as for nothing having being done about this well actually this is what the link article by the OP is about.

Yes, exactly. It doesn't hurt the studios, as they still get paid. It hurts the local distributors who are providing poor service at inflated prices. Copyright laws are about controlling duplication, not parallel importing of legitimate product. If it was illegal copying the studios would jump on it with a lawsuit, and so would the local distributor. The fact that Spark (a big, well resourced, company with a first-class legal team) is reduced to complaining to the censor to try and stifle competition, rather than taking a court case alleging a loss because of copyright law breaches by the parties in question, tells me pretty clearly that they know they haven't got a leg to stand on in a copyright sense.

Now your final statement leaves be a bit confused although I do like the analogy. I agree going after CourierPost because they unwittingly transporting illegal goods, advertising their ability to move goods and making it easy for people criminals and otherwise is nonsense. Where do we draw the line though? When does it become right to go after the carrier or enabler? What arguments are there to say it is right to go after megaupload but not global mode or its equivalent? To be clear I'm not arguing it is right to go after both one or neither. I'm interested in the reasoning of why some people would agree with going after one but not the other?

Really, I thought it was crystal clear. An ISP offering global mode knowingly enables me to legally parallel import digital product, which I have paid for. Thereby bypassing the local distributor. NZ Post carrying a box marked "Amazon" knowingly enables me to legally parallel import a book. Thereby bypassing the local distributor.

And please stop conflating global mode and megaupload. One enables the legal parallel import of a product/service, for which the studio/vendor get paid. The other involves illegal copying in breach of the law. They aren't the same thing.

I asked earlier where we should or do draw the line.

Between parallel importing and illegal copying. That's where, legally, the line should be and indeed is.

psychnurse

329 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1173049 11-Nov-2014 19:49

Must be a bit of a dilemma for Spark. Not that long ago this forum went crazy when people had issues accessing Netflix (due to a Netflix update or something similar) . Full credit to Spark for being one of the first ISP's out of the gate to sort out the issue for their customers. On the flip side Lightbox needs to attract customers.

richms

28187 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1173076 11-Nov-2014 20:24

If spark were to start to block access to unotelly etc to get netflix then I suspect they would get a lot more bad PR than they get with their lousy email service.

Richard rich.ms

sultanoswing

814 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1173161 11-Nov-2014 22:03

Lias: Simple really, we just pass a law that says if content producers do not release digital video content in NZ at the same time as overseas, for a comparable price (no oceania tax), they lose copyright to it in NZ and anyone can do what they want with the content for free. See how fast someone comes up with a service offering all video content right away then :-P

The US would scream blue murder and put us on a naughty kids list, but only because their government is completely corrupt and owned by the companies lock stock and barrel. Time we stopped being friends with the US and moved onto partners like India and China.

Anyone who likes this idea, should be crying out against the TPPA and its Investor State Dispute Settlement clauses. Any sovereign Govt. that tries this on will get a suit from the corporate suits so fast it'd make the Censor's bow tie spin.

And to the person above who somehow conflated porn with "illegal" - no, most of it isn't - and it is indeed good and great how unrestricted their views on content distribution are. Hooray for freedom!

It can also be well argued that contents rights holder do lose money from paralle SVOD services. It goes something like this - Movieflix pays Warner Sisters $x million for the rights to screen Marvel's latest superhero flick. The price negotiated is based on Movieflix's subscriber base in, say, the US. If in fact the US, UK, Australia, NZ and Japan peeps are all watching "Spidey Part 12: The Reboot" via geo-unblockers, then Movieflix is getting a whole lot of subs money from around the world, but only paying to show it to its "official" US customer base. Warner Sisters then goes to NZ and there's less interest (=less $$$) because a bunch of people have somehow already seen it.

This is not to say I agree with the premise of chopping the world into feifdoms for the content rights holders' egregious profit-gouging - I most absolutely don't - but this is just another perspective on it.

sultanoswing

814 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1173162 11-Nov-2014 22:07

NonprayingMantis:
As a business it's totally reasonable to want a level playing field.

As a consumer it's totally reasonable to want a level playing field.

There. Fixed it for you.

Lias

5589 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1173239 12-Nov-2014 00:16

sultanoswing:
Anyone who likes this idea, should be crying out against the TPPA and its Investor State Dispute Settlement clauses.

Pretty much of the opinion any politician that votes to sign the TPPA should have their names noted, and be hung for treason as the next possible opportunity. It's the ultimate asset sale, selling our entire country to the US corporates.

StarBlazer

961 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#1173299 12-Nov-2014 08:21

sultanoswing: The price negotiated is based on Movieflix's subscriber base in, say, the US. If in fact the US, UK, Australia, NZ and Japan peeps are all watching "Spidey Part 12: The Reboot" via geo-unblockers, then Movieflix is getting a whole lot of subs money from around the world, but only paying to show it to its "official" US customer base. Warner Sisters then goes to NZ and there's less interest (=less $$$) because a bunch of people have somehow already seen it.

This argument is based on whether Movieflix counts the NZ subscribers as US or NZ. If I were to sign up to Movieflix I would have to provide a ZIP code in the US to sign up as part of their registration process, therefore for all intents and purposes, Movieflix includes me in their negotiated rate for US distribution.

In a real world example, NZ has been asking Netflix to open up on our domestic market. They looked and decided that there was not enough demand. People still wanted better content and so either continued to download illegally or circumvented the obstacles in their way to join an overseas provider.

Do I have sympathy for the domestic market? Yes and no. Yes, because they are trying to deliver what we wanted a couple of years ago - quality streaming. No, because they also ignored our requests and tried to hold on to an out-dated distribution model for too long and are now paying the price because we have found an alternative way to get content.

Should censorship be used to fight this battle? Absolutely not (IMO). I doubt that our rules are much different to the US and the UK which is where most of the content is made. As said before this doesn't stop us finding content elsewhere. Global-mode, DNS nor VPN provide the content, they open a door to the rest of the world for us to make an adult choice whether to watch content that is available. If they also provided a method of cheaply accessing Netflix too then maybe there is an argument - but only for the provision of Netflix (for example).

To Sky and Spark; concentrate your efforts into providing a better service instead of trying to block access by any means necessary.

Procrastination eventually pays off.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5