Speaker: We don’t make the rules, we're just trying to play by them
141 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Newer→ Last
-
Sacha, in reply to
including that closing bracket in the url link confuses the poor site-finding beast
yes, bit of a bug - you need to add an extra space between the link and the following character.
-
Bill Bennett, in reply to
That's what comes of not reading the instructions under the Post box....
-
But whether we like it or not, the reality of the content model today, put in place by content owners, is that premium video content is sold with geographic rights at very substantial prices. And often those geographic rights are a key part of the revenue model that allows that content to be made. It’s a similar principle that sees the NZRU dependent on selling rights to broadcast All Black tests exclusively and at a premium in order to help retain talent.
See, here is the problem.
You state that... " the reality of the content model today, put in place by content owners,"
and then go on to say... "those geographic rights are a key part of the revenue model that allows that content to be made." which is to say "the content creators".
It is a false equivalence. The creators are, more often than not, people who work for a lot less than CEOs and the lawyers that protect them and they do not own the rights to their own work but cared enough to create that work for you to sit back and enjoy the profits from, not only the consumers of that work but also the advertising revenue and any global resales, which is the whole point of the global model of artificial restrictions wished for by the worlds media comanies, which add up to little more than the behaviour of a cartel.
And what a small cartel that is, just a handfull of wealthy owners double dipping on that same content over and over again. You don't pay your "creators twice, why should you have that "right". -
Russell Brown, in reply to
yes, bit of a bug – you need to add an extra space between the link and the following character.
It's not a bug, it's how URLs work! :-)
-
Sacha, in reply to
it's a bug in how Supermodel *auto-converts* plain text to a URL.
-
This is quite a good source for looking at how complicated territorial rights make Netflix's business. What's on Netflix, where:
https://netflixaroundtheworld.com/
Point of interest: all 10 eps of Netflix's new production of Marvel's Daredevil turned up on Netflix NZ on Saturday – before they showed up on Netflix US!
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
it’s a bug in how Supermodel *auto-converts* plain text to a URL.
No, Supermodel can't know what characters are meant to be in a URL. If you pasted the same string into a browser, that would be broken too.
-
Perhaps we should be looking at this as another example of The Tragedy of the commons
-
llew40, in reply to
Never seen that theory before Steve (oh what a sheltered life) - fascinating
-
nzlemming, in reply to
If by obsolete, you mean “the one that currently works”.
Except that it obiously is not working, or we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
[edit] Snap, Sacha
-
Steve Barnes, in reply to
it's a bug in how Supermodel *auto-converts* plain text to a URL.
Its not a bug its a function. (appologies to apple) ;-)
It is part of the HTTP protocol. If you were to allow the protocol to "guess" where the URL ends we would be in a right pickle I can tell you. It works for the front end, ie HTTP or WWW but not the back end, which can be literally anything.note. Over the past decade you have been allowed to drop the HTTP and/or WWW in the browser address bar and it is auto filled, mostly "behind the scenes".
nzherald.co.nz will take you direct to the herald for instance but (nzherald.co.nz) will search for that text. -
nzlemming, in reply to
You want to *clarify* it? So if the result is a clear “global mode is legal” then you won’t be appealing, or pushing for regulatory change because you’ll have that clarity, and that’s all you want?
Well put, young Edge.
-
Sacha, in reply to
Supermodel can’t know what characters are meant to be in a URL
ah, ok
-
nzlemming, in reply to
Sky will always hold on to a non-tech and rural base here in NZ but Lightbox has feck all leverage and you wonder if Spark has really even understood the business it is getting into?
When has Telecom/Spark/Cat'sBum ever understood the business it's in, let alone the ones it has tried to get into. Remember Xtraville?
-
Mikaere Curtis, in reply to
Enclosure is the real – and unmitigable – tragedy of the commons. Artificial geographic rights zones are another form of enclosure (in this case, from the market, as opposed to the customary owners).
The real question the content delivery industry needs to be asking themselves is: “how can we deliver the content *better* than teh torrentz ?” Things like high quality, fast delivery (local servers), and reasonable price spring to mind. Perpetuating monopolistic business models, while it might allow short-term gouging (which is what Telecom did), hardly seems to be the enduring way forward.
-
Steve Barnes, in reply to
Never seen that theory before Steve (oh what a sheltered life) - fascinating
This is why there is a copyright type called "creative commons"
-
Rich of Observationz, in reply to
It's because inventing markup that can be easily input by humans, allows markup special characters to be used as literals, and that is consistently unambiguous is a moderately hard problem.
IMHO, Tim-Berners Lee made a reasonable job of it in 1993, and most attempts at a simplified markup language will have a range of undocumented glitches and/or won't allow certain results to be achieved.
-
Steve Barnes, in reply to
Enclosure is the real - and unmitigable - tragedy of the commons.
Very true and "The Tragedy of the Commons" is the analysis of the causes and effects of that.
-
Steve Barnes, in reply to
IMHO, Tim-Berners Lee made a reasonable job of it in 1993,
And never claimed the IP.
Berners-Lee made his idea available freely, with no patent and no royalties due. The World Wide Web Consortium decided that its standards should be based on royalty-free technology, so that they could easily be adopted by anyone.
World Wide Web Consortium. 5 February 2004. Retrieved 25 May 2008.
Also, interestingly enough...
In a Times article in October 2009, Berners-Lee admitted that the initial pair of slashes ("//") in a web address were actually "unnecessary". He told the newspaper that he could easily have designed web addresses not to have the slashes. "There you go, it seemed like a good idea at the time," he said in his lighthearted apology.
BBC. 14 October 2009. Retrieved 14 October 2009.
Thanks Tim, for helping me share stuff.
;-) -
-
Here's some news which is relevant to the impending legal threats. CallPlus (that's CallPlus, Slingshot and Orcon) has just been sold to Australian telco M2 for $250 million.
-
Rich of Observationz, in reply to
See also the "www" which appeared on the front of a URL because an organisation wanting to make a web presence would set up a dedicated server and name this www.gradgrind.com to go with mail.gradgrind.com and ftp.gradgrind.com.
-
Steve Barnes, in reply to
An ad from the page you linked to..
That name Key just won't go away eh?.
Also retains healthy profits. -
Steve Barnes, in reply to
Ah, yes, but...
The use of www is not required by any technical or policy standard and many web sites do not use it; indeed, the first ever web server was called nxoc01.cern.ch. According to Paolo Palazzi, who worked at CERN along with Tim Berners-Lee, the popular use of www as subdomain was accidental; the World Wide Web project page was intended to be published at www.cern.ch while info.cern.ch was intended to be the CERN home page, however the DNS records were never switched, and the practice of prepending www to an institution's website domain name was subsequently copied.
Berners-Lee, Tim. "Frequently asked questions by the Press". W3C. Retrieved 27 July 2009.
But we digress. ;-) -
Really the only way Lightbox et. al. can compete with Netflix US et. al. is to provide a better platform. That might include more local content. Or better presented and curated content. Or more convenient features in your apps (e.g. complete device transparency).
Add value and you'll get customers. Don't and you won't.
I appreciate that this is really hard right now for them - they need to get in the game now or risk missing out, but at the moment they're beholden to the old model of false exclusivity. I guess they have to make investment decisions as best they can based on their knowledge of that - if the false exclusivity isn't worth the money asked, then don't provide that content.
That taking legal action against something that is perfectly legal seems like a sure-fire way to never get my custom though.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.