Research into piracy in NZ

Forums › New Zealand Broadband › Research into piracy in NZ

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

Handle9

11391 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2188485 27-Feb-2019 22:00

ockel:

Bluntj:

MikeB4:

I didn't need to stop pirating as I never started in the first place. I believe that creators are entitled to payment be it music, film, software or cars.

Not really talking about the creators here at all. Nobody begrudges the creators fair share, but they are only receiving a very small part of it when it could be larger. We have way to many companies clicking the ticket without adding value.

The Netflex type model is the future and the dinosaurs like Sky will die screaming about trying to control the internet.

Netflix are not a creator. It acquires content from creators. It could pay peanuts compared to the success of some properties (Stranger Things sprins to mind). And it never tells the creators how successful or not a property is. Even coming into renewal. Netflix clips the ticket and banks the profit. Great model. Its just like all the other models.

On the flip side Netflix will fund a certain amount of content that never makes money, but the creators still get paid. As with any business it comes down to risk and capital. Netflix is prepared to take the risk of funding content without a guarantee of return.

If the creator has the capital and wants to take the risk to fund the content and distribution then they can take all the profit.

Ge0rge

2055 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2188487 27-Feb-2019 22:03

Oh to have an internet connection fast enough to stream on :(

I often find myself having to use other means to trickle-feed a program down so I can watch it later. I'd rather not, and would be happy to pay for a/several streaming service/s but my connection can't handle it.

Bluntj

556 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2188498 27-Feb-2019 22:38

networkn:

Bluntj:

MikeB4:

I didn't need to stop pirating as I never started in the first place. I believe that creators are entitled to payment be it music, film, software or cars.

Not really talking about the creators here at all. Nobody begrudges the creators fair share, but they are only receiving a very small part of it when it could be larger. We have way to many companies clicking the ticket without adding value.

Let's be sensible. The people who run these media companies are not stupid. They have obviously anaylzed the market and decided for some reason that NZ isn't attractive enough to offer the rights in. Either keeping track of the rights, or not enough money to be made etc etc.

They are not obliged to sell their rights here, no matter how much money you might think they might make (probably far less than you think).

They hold the rights, it's their choice.

I disagree with some parts of what you said. Some media companies are stupid and act as if it is still pre 2000.

The other thing a lot of people assume is that MOST households can afford an excess of $200/ month on media content eg Sky plus several subscription services. They cannot. Clearly those with less disposable incomes will find ways to pirate, and this will be abhorent to those on large incomes. Crazy heh?

tdgeek

29749 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2188570 28-Feb-2019 07:39

Bluntj:

I disagree with some parts of what you said. Some media companies are stupid and act as if it is still pre 2000.

The other thing a lot of people assume is that MOST households can afford an excess of $200/ month on media content eg Sky plus several subscription services. They cannot. Clearly those with less disposable incomes will find ways to pirate, and this will be abhorent to those on large incomes. Crazy heh?

I think everyone is better off now than in the past. Before, you may ahev Sky. Sky doesnt have everything, in fact it has a very small amount, but a nice range of everything. About $75 in today's money (Basics, HD, Recorder)

Back in any day you had no access to everything, just what was on Sky or the movies. Then you could access more by buying movies online at $8 or one TV episode at $2 or $3. Cheap movies but still $32 if you watched only 4 per month, and expensive TV episodes. You still cannot access everything that exists

NOW, you can drop Sky and have Netflix and have more volume of content and at 1/5 the price ($15 to $75) You can have 2 more SVOD and still be cheaper than Sky. Sky and 3 SVOD is $120 not $200. I exclude sport as only Sky has that. Still you cannot access everything that exists but you can get more than you can possibly watch.

You are better off now, but you still want more for less?

Can you explain what you mean by "Some media companies are stupid and act as if it is still pre 2000." Do you actually mean they are stupid as they charge more than you want them to.

Bluntj

556 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2188591 28-Feb-2019 08:50

tdgeek:

Bluntj:

I disagree with some parts of what you said. Some media companies are stupid and act as if it is still pre 2000.

The other thing a lot of people assume is that MOST households can afford an excess of $200/ month on media content eg Sky plus several subscription services. They cannot. Clearly those with less disposable incomes will find ways to pirate, and this will be abhorent to those on large incomes. Crazy heh?

I think everyone is better off now than in the past. Before, you may ahev Sky. Sky doesnt have everything, in fact it has a very small amount, but a nice range of everything. About $75 in today's money (Basics, HD, Recorder)

Back in any day you had no access to everything, just what was on Sky or the movies. Then you could access more by buying movies online at $8 or one TV episode at $2 or $3. Cheap movies but still $32 if you watched only 4 per month, and expensive TV episodes. You still cannot access everything that exists

NOW, you can drop Sky and have Netflix and have more volume of content and at 1/5 the price ($15 to $75) You can have 2 more SVOD and still be cheaper than Sky. Sky and 3 SVOD is $120 not $200. I exclude sport as only Sky has that. Still you cannot access everything that exists but you can get more than you can possibly watch.

You are better off now, but you still want more for less?

Can you explain what you mean by "Some media companies are stupid and act as if it is still pre 2000." Do you actually mean they are stupid as they charge more than you want them to.

I still disagree...it is going to get much worse as the market fragments and we have to pay multiple subscriptions to watch content including our national sports. NZ is a small market and providers cannot expect just the well off to pay for their services as that model will quickly fail.

NZ actually needs SKY, but we need a SKY that isnt greedy like it has been over the last 15 years. Now that they have woken up to a dose of reality it may indeed be too late.

tdgeek

29749 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2188593 28-Feb-2019 09:00

Bluntj:

I still disagree...it is going to get much worse as the market fragments and we have to pay multiple subscriptions to watch content including our national sports. NZ is a small market and providers cannot expect just the well off to pay for their services as that model will quickly fail.

NZ actually needs SKY, but we need a SKY that isnt greedy like it has been over the last 15 years. Now that they have woken up to a dose of reality it may indeed be too late.

I just explained how we are better off than we were before, both in price and the volume of content that you get for the price

How was Sky greedy?

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek

#2188595 28-Feb-2019 09:04

Handle9:

ockel:

Bluntj:

MikeB4:

I didn't need to stop pirating as I never started in the first place. I believe that creators are entitled to payment be it music, film, software or cars.

Not really talking about the creators here at all. Nobody begrudges the creators fair share, but they are only receiving a very small part of it when it could be larger. We have way to many companies clicking the ticket without adding value.

The Netflex type model is the future and the dinosaurs like Sky will die screaming about trying to control the internet.

Netflix are not a creator. It acquires content from creators. It could pay peanuts compared to the success of some properties (Stranger Things sprins to mind). And it never tells the creators how successful or not a property is. Even coming into renewal. Netflix clips the ticket and banks the profit. Great model. Its just like all the other models.

On the flip side Netflix will fund a certain amount of content that never makes money, but the creators still get paid. As with any business it comes down to risk and capital. Netflix is prepared to take the risk of funding content without a guarantee of return.

If the creator has the capital and wants to take the risk to fund the content and distribution then they can take all the profit.

This is true of all distributors, not just Netflix. Viacom, SkyUK, Canal+, ABC/Disney, BBC - all distributors the world over. Netflix is not any different to them - just a different delivery model. Netflix buys exclusivity, exploits that exclusivity. Thats called media distribution. Just another middleman.

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

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek

#2188596 28-Feb-2019 09:07

Bluntj:

networkn:

Bluntj:

MikeB4:

I didn't need to stop pirating as I never started in the first place. I believe that creators are entitled to payment be it music, film, software or cars.

Not really talking about the creators here at all. Nobody begrudges the creators fair share, but they are only receiving a very small part of it when it could be larger. We have way to many companies clicking the ticket without adding value.

Let's be sensible. The people who run these media companies are not stupid. They have obviously anaylzed the market and decided for some reason that NZ isn't attractive enough to offer the rights in. Either keeping track of the rights, or not enough money to be made etc etc.

They are not obliged to sell their rights here, no matter how much money you might think they might make (probably far less than you think).

They hold the rights, it's their choice.

I disagree with some parts of what you said. Some media companies are stupid and act as if it is still pre 2000.

The other thing a lot of people assume is that MOST households can afford an excess of $200/ month on media content eg Sky plus several subscription services. They cannot. Clearly those with less disposable incomes will find ways to pirate, and this will be abhorent to those on large incomes. Crazy heh?

If you cant afford to buy the things you want under the budget you have then you choose those goods and services that you want to buy. You do not take them purely because you cant afford them. Its called theft (taking property without the intention of paying) and, yes, you have a choice. If you cant afford it you dont take it.

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

tdgeek

29749 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2188602 28-Feb-2019 09:20

ockel:

If you cant afford to buy the things you want under the budget you have then you choose those goods and services that you want to buy. You do not take them purely because you cant afford them. Its called theft (taking property without the intention of paying) and, yes, you have a choice. If you cant afford it you dont take it.

Yes, thats it, thats whats changed these days. To me, I can afford something or I can't. If I cannot afford it, I cannot afford it. These days, affording it or not, must have been removed from the English language and replaced with greedy shop owner.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18662 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2188605 28-Feb-2019 09:26

Ge0rge: Oh to have an internet connection fast enough to stream on :(

I often find myself having to use other means to trickle-feed a program down so I can watch it later. I'd rather not, and would be happy to pay for a/several streaming service/s but my connection can't handle it.

I feel your pain. I had this frustration for years when stuck on dial-up while the rest of the world moved on. I still have it at times when my RBI connection gets overloaded but for the most part it is infinitely better than it used to be. Still, it can be quite annoying when I actually want to watch something and it starts buffering.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18662 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2188624 28-Feb-2019 09:42

tdgeek:

ockel:

If you cant afford to buy the things you want under the budget you have then you choose those goods and services that you want to buy. You do not take them purely because you cant afford them. Its called theft (taking property without the intention of paying) and, yes, you have a choice. If you cant afford it you dont take it.

Yes, thats it, thats whats changed these days. To me, I can afford something or I can't. If I cannot afford it, I cannot afford it. These days, affording it or not, must have been removed from the English language and replaced with greedy shop owner.

You and others keep hammering this point. I am sure it is true for some, but I also think those are probably in a minority. Many people keep saying they don't mind paying, but they are not given an opportunity to do so for the content they want. This is also my complaint. Again, for the record, I have no trouble with the notion of paying whatever the going rate is for what I want to see, but I do not find arbitrary geographical restrictions acceptable. Note I am not specifically referring to corporate content providers chopping the world up into regions so they can keep selling the same content over and over again. I am also opposed to that, but what I am specifically referring to is content that is available either free or for purchase, but is not available at all in New Zealand, most likely because the content provider could not find us on the map and did not realise there is a New Zealand. If it is not made available here, but is legally available somewhere else, I will go somewhere else. I think this also applies to a lot of other people. It is not a matter of wanting it on the cheap. It is a matter of wanting to choose for oneself what one wants to purchase/view, regardless of where one happens to live in the world. Choice also extends to the way content is viewed. Geekzone offers a choice between free access with advertising, and paid access without. Even if something is available here that has not been wrapped up in the Sky exclusivity cocoon, I might prefer to pay to watch it somewhere else without all the irritating commercial interruptions. As far as I know, that is an option not offered by our Freeview channels.

The point I am trying to make is that it is not just a simple question of pay vs pirate as some people keep trying to reduce it to. It is about the way content is made available and the choice or lack of it here. I really wish people would get this subtlety right and quit rabbiting on about everyone wanting everything for nothing, which simply is not true.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

tdgeek

29749 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2188640 28-Feb-2019 09:51

Rikkitic:

tdgeek:

ockel:

If you cant afford to buy the things you want under the budget you have then you choose those goods and services that you want to buy. You do not take them purely because you cant afford them. Its called theft (taking property without the intention of paying) and, yes, you have a choice. If you cant afford it you dont take it.

Yes, thats it, thats whats changed these days. To me, I can afford something or I can't. If I cannot afford it, I cannot afford it. These days, affording it or not, must have been removed from the English language and replaced with greedy shop owner.

You and others keep hammering this point. I am sure it is true for some, but I also think those are probably in a minority. Many people keep saying they don't mind paying, but they are not given an opportunity to do so for the content they want. This is also my complaint. Again, for the record, I have no trouble with the notion of paying whatever the going rate is for what I want to see, but I do not find arbitrary geographical restrictions acceptable. Note I am not specifically referring to corporate content providers chopping the world up into regions so they can keep selling the same content over and over again. I am also opposed to that, but what I am specifically referring to is content that is available either free or for purchase, but is not available at all in New Zealand, most likely because the content provider could not find us on the map and did not realise there is a New Zealand. If it is not made available here, but is legally available somewhere else, I will go somewhere else. I think this also applies to a lot of other people. It is not a matter of wanting it on the cheap. It is a matter of wanting to choose for oneself what one wants to purchase/view, regardless of where one happens to live in the world. Choice also extends to the way content is viewed. Geekzone offers a choice between free access with advertising, and paid access without. Even if something is available here that has not been wrapped up in the Sky exclusivity cocoon, I might prefer to pay to watch it somewhere else without all the irritating commercial interruptions. As far as I know, that is an option not offered by our Freeview channels.

The point I am trying to make is that it is not just a simple question of pay vs pirate as some people keep trying to reduce it to. It is about the way content is made available and the choice or lack of it here. I really wish people would get this subtlety right and quit rabbiting on about everyone wanting everything for nothing, which simply is not true.

Yes, I do get that, and you have noted that you are happy to pay, but you cannot get it, so you pay another provider and use a geo unblocker. I did say earlier thats no issue.

But I do see, a lot, where it is everything for dirt cheap that is the issue. We are actually now, getting more access to everything now than we have ever had before. Some talk about fragmentation and extra cost, so it is about money for some. At least those that mention fragmentation, and prices

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5