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
-
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
undesirable characters lurking about...
Similarly, ’http://example.co.nz’ ought to exclude the trailing quote mark from the link, since the ’ character is not allowed in a URL.
Looks like it tries to process it though, link came up -- albeit nonexistent - in chrome browser as: http://example.co.nz%27/
as an aside I have noticed a weird thing with the 'Quote' instructions (below the Response box) sometimes it says Quote: < q > text < / q >
and then sometimes (well yesterday) it says Quote: < quote> text < /quote>
which actually works also - am I feverish or losing my mind?
(note I have added gaps to prevent it doing what it should) -
Sacha, in reply to
thanks. guess that's what I was expecting.
-
Sam Durbin, in reply to
That's always been the case - Sky et al have been saying from the get go that it's not about what people do with their internets at home, it's about clarifying the rules of the game and therefore the true value of the exclusive rights that all those players have paid for.
The problem is they can't ignore the actions of NZ-based players as they are the ones who have forced the issue by actively promoting and profiting from such a service. Either way, them and the content owners overseas will be involved when this gets to court.
-
Sacha, in reply to
Sky et al have been saying from the get go that it’s not about what people do with their internets at home, it’s about clarifying the rules of the game and therefore the true value of the exclusive rights that all those players have paid for.
That was the line on Media Take, screening this eve. Not in the original post above nor in any media coverage I’ve seen so far. Links welcome.
-
Consumer NZ accuses media companies of protectionism, mentions lack of access options for disabled viewers.
-
Sam Durbin, in reply to
For starters, paras 12, 16-18 on this post, and the original release: http://tvnz.co.nz/tvnz-corporate-comms/nz-companies-respond-copyright-breaches-6276089
The idea that it’s these companies banding together to police the internet is a straw man erected and perpetuated by those with investments in the ‘global mode’ product/included feature (that is, Callplus et al).
Bit of a shame to see Consumer NZ going along with it also.
-
Sacha, in reply to
The original post above is clear about the intent and targets of the legal action:
I don’t believe it’s fair or reasonable for content sellers to be regarded as responsible for the active promotion by others of services that avoid the constraints of the geographic rights they have sold.
Likewise the media release you linked to:
In a joint statement, Lightbox, MediaWorks, SKY and TVNZ say they believe companies who set out to profit by marketing and providing access to content they haven’t paid for are operating outside the law and in breach of copyright.
That’s not about seeking redress from those who sold them falsely ‘exclusive’ rights, is it?
-
David Zanetti, in reply to
The idea that it’s these companies banding together to police the internet is a straw man erected and perpetuated by those with investments in the ‘global mode’ product/included feature (that is, Callplus et al).
Content providers and distributors have called for ISPs to be liable and/or "work with them" on policing the Internet. That they haven't explicitly said so in this case doesn't mean there's no intent to build on any ruling in their favor to do so.
-
These comments are frustrating. Probably just as well I didn’t read this yesterday to get into arguments here.
I work in the TV industry – my livelihood and my family’s welfare are ultimately connected with the ability of the industry to function.
I also like TV, lots of which I can’t easily watch here ‘legally’. So I’ve torrented and I’ve been using an anti-geoblocking DNS service for years – I’ve even blogged about how to use the same service.
But I understand and respect the industry and business model from which the content we currently enjoy is derived. I understand why we can’t have everything we want all the time right now. And I understand why TVNZ, TV3, Sky and Spark/Lightbox feel they need to protect their investment.
I also suspect their interpretation of the law is probably too broad and that Global Mode is legal.
People complaining about the obsolete business model need to understand that, as Russell said at the start of the comments, it’s the one that currently works.
If the current model were dropped overnight – if geographic rights and windowed exclusivity were to be abolished tomorrow – we’d soon have a LOT less content to enjoy.
The reason the industry is hanging on so heavily to the model is that there isn’t currently a clear path forward. Gradually as the market for SVOD and other online rights expands and the potential value of those sales increases then a tipping point may be reached and an online-first model may be possible, but until then the whole revenue stream of the TV industry is inexorably tied to the regionalised broadcast-first model that make SVOD a second tier platform.
My personal suggestion is: Spend your subscription money locally then use bypassing services to increase catalogue if desired (this is mostly applicable to Netflix) – it will help grow NZ as an online content market and increase the willingness of providers to invest here.
-
we’d soon have a LOT less content to enjoy
It's almost impossible to make a living as a musician in NZ. Does that mean we have less music? It doesn't seem so.
-
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
it’s the one that currently works.
I read Russell’s comment as meaning more: ‘it’s the one that is currently in use’ - rather than ‘works’… that seems to be a subjective view.
-
SteveH, in reply to
That’s always been the case – Sky et al have been saying from the get go that it’s not about what people do with their internets at home, it’s about clarifying the rules of the game and therefore the true value of the exclusive rights that all those players have paid for.
The problem is they can’t ignore the actions of NZ-based players as they are the ones who have forced the issue by actively promoting and profiting from such a service. Either way, them and the content owners overseas will be involved when this gets to court.
But it's Netflix (and others) that are breaching their contracts by selling content to users they are not permitted to sell to. Lightbox et al should be forcing the content owners to enforce their exclusive rights. It's simply a contract dispute between Lightbox and the content owners (and possibly Netflix). The "rules of the game" are quite clear: Netflix is infringing copyright by allowing NZers to see content via the US service that Netflix are not permitted to show them. The ISPs have nothing to do with it (at least nothing beyond the existing argument that the contribute to all online copyright infringment).
-
Those Aussies have our number...
H/T Raymond McH -
Dylan Reeve, in reply to
I read Russell’s comment as meaning more: ‘it’s the one that is currently in use’ – rather than ‘works’… that seems to be a subjective view.
At this point there isn't really an alternative. The money is still all tied up in broadcast. Basically broadcasters pay a high premium for a period of exclusivity within a region. Distributors aren't going to sell VOD rights in a region before they've tried their hardest to maximize revenue with a broadcast sale first.
Until there are non-broadcast rights sales that are valuable enough to make up this difference it's going to remain the case.
-
Dylan Reeve, in reply to
It’s almost impossible to make a living as a musician in NZ. Does that mean we have less music? It doesn’t seem so.
Yes, and the basically unpaid content you can look to YouTube.
-
Sacha, in reply to
But it's Netflix (and others) that are breaching their contracts by selling content to users they are not permitted to sell to. Lightbox et al should be forcing the content owners to enforce their exclusive rights.
You'd think. Either this is a negotiating gambit or they figure it's cheaper to pressure the local ISPs than take on the might of Hollywood.
-
SteveH, in reply to
they figure it’s cheaper to pressure the local ISPs than take on the might of Hollywood.
I think that's it. And taking on Hollywood might not work out even if they win - they could lose access to the content. A win against the ISPs would be pretty ineffectual as anyone can learn to set things up to get the same effect as Global Mode if they spend 5 minutes with Google. But it could erode the ISPs' standing in terms of not being responsible for their user's behaviour. So action against the ISPs is probably seen as the better gamble to spend money on.
-
Interesting post about ratings
[edit] sorry, posted on the wrong thread. Reposted on the Campbell thread
-
What I find really frustrating about the whole geo-blocking thing is that I can't legally (well I currently can, but that may change) pay to subscribe to services that show the stuff I want to see!
This means I can't financially support those services - is this 'lost opportunity' cost taken into account when it's claimed that 'the current model works'?
It was the same with videogames once upon a time, when console makers aggressively locked down their games to regions. Surely they also lost sales to customers outside those regions in the process? But videogames survived the change to a more global market. Region locked games are far less common these days (only Nintendo are holding out to any degree - and how well are they doing?) so I can now buy the latest weirdo Japanese dating sim or whatever and play it on my NZ bought PS4. Surely this benefits both Sony and the content creator?
As people's tastes become more and more diverse - thanks in no small part to exposure to alternative content on the internet - the desire for people to be able to access more than just what lightbox or whoever has decided to license will just grow and grow.
This issue will not go away, and while I appreciate their currently appears to be 'no alternative' (I hate that phrase) I can't help feeling there is a leap of faith required here - tearing down the region blocking walls will have effects that will not be wholely negative.
I also find this whole idea of making it illegal to 'easily' use a technology - VPN - very distasteful. Surely, if VPN is legal, then it should be legal for ISPs to offer it as part of their service? Or is the end game here making VPN illegal altogether? Wonder what the TPP has to say about all this!
-
Legal threat deadline expires. Callplus says bring it on.
-
Sacha, in reply to
Wonder what the TPP has to say about all this!
That's another whole level of putting the interests of (US) rights-holders over NZ citizens and customers. Do we trust Groser, Key and McCully not to drop to their knees at the slightest hint of a farming trade-off or golf game?
-
Mark Sibly, in reply to
I mentioned the TPP because at one point there were rumours that parallel importing was 'up for negotiation'.
If parallel importing is prohibited - or even just limited somehow - then I guess it'd probably be the end of global mode too.
Frankly, being in the IP/software/tech industry, the TPP scares me shirtless!
-
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
Wonder what the TPP has to say about all this!
http://www.itsourfuture.org.nz/
and
http://www.itsourfuture.org.nz/faq-on-the-nz-korea-fta-and-the-leaked-chapter-from-the-tppa/
Wikileaks posted the almost completed investment chapter of the secretly negotiated TPPA from January 2015. It confirms the New Zealand government has capitulated to US demands, including on ISDS.
-
Finally some discussion of the TPPA. I don't see why Spark et al don't just sit back and wait for circumventing geo-blocking to become illegal. And it won't be a case of VPN-wackamole with individual users - the big content creators will simply sue the govt directly (Investor-state dispute settlement). Fortunately it will be no great loss - season 3 of House of Cards is pretty lame.
-
izogi, in reply to
I don’t see why Spark et al don’t just sit back and wait for circumventing geo-blocking to become illegal.
Through some kind of deluded reasoning, I've wondered if the thinking could be that if they lose a court case then it creates more ammunition for lobbying the government about why it's so critical for the law to be changed to preserve their business model.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.