Speaker by Various Artists

Read Post

Speaker: We don’t make the rules, we're just trying to play by them

153 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 3 4 5 6 7 Newer→ Last

  • Sacha, in reply to oga,

    Quite. The prolonged resistance by big global publishing rights-holders to proposals for limited cross-border exemptions from copyright so that organisations representing blind interests can make the material useful and share modifications via similar organisations in other territories shows what cooperation we can expect from them, and what sympathy they deserve.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19680 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to JC Carter,

    Telecom has not been a monopoly for some time. We'd hardly be having this conversation if their services were still the only option.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19680 posts Report Reply

  • steven crawford, in reply to Sacha,

    Telecom has not been a monopoly for some time. We’d hardly be having this conversation if their services were still the only option.

    The reason I never even considered signing up to Lightbox, is becouse It is exclusive. You need to be spark costomers to get the exclusive content the paid to try to exclude there competitors from providing. They bring nothing to the table but litigation lawyers.

    Atlantis • Since Nov 2006 • 4306 posts Report Reply

  • John Rankin, in reply to Sacha,

    Supermodel can’t know what characters are meant to be in a URL

    ah, ok

    Not necesarily. It could make a reasonable assumption that if it reaches a character disallowed in a URL (typically: <>"{}|\^`()[]'), then the URL has come to an end. In this case, the ) could reasonably be treated as an indicator that the URL has ended. Similarly, 'http://example.co.nz' ought to exclude the trailing quote mark from the link, since the ' character is not allowed in a URL.

    So not a bug, but it could be made a bit smarter.

    Wellington • Since Apr 2015 • 1 posts Report Reply

  • llew40,

    Not true. Lightbox available to anyone. Bundled with spark broadband, $12.99 a month for non spark customers.

    Since Nov 2012 • 140 posts Report Reply

  • Ian Dalziel, in reply to John Rankin,

    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)

    Christchurch • Since Dec 2006 • 7886 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to John Rankin,

    thanks. guess that's what I was expecting.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19680 posts Report Reply

  • Sam Durbin, in reply to SteveH,

    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.

    Auckland • Since Apr 2015 • 3 posts Report Reply

  • steven crawford, in reply to llew40,

    Not true. Lightbox available to anyone. Bundled with spark broadband, $12.99 a month for non spark customers.

    That's a relief.

    Atlantis • Since Nov 2006 • 4306 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to Sam Durbin,

    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.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19680 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha,

    Consumer NZ accuses media companies of protectionism, mentions lack of access options for disabled viewers.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19680 posts Report Reply

  • Sam Durbin, in reply to Sacha,

    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.

    Auckland • Since Apr 2015 • 3 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to Sam Durbin,

    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?

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19680 posts Report Reply

  • David Zanetti, in reply to Sam Durbin,

    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.

    Since Aug 2014 • 6 posts Report Reply

  • Dylan Reeve,

    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.

    Auckland • Since Aug 2008 • 311 posts Report Reply

  • Rich of Observationz,

    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.

    Back in Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 5550 posts Report Reply

  • Ian Dalziel, in reply to Dylan Reeve,

    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.

    Christchurch • Since Dec 2006 • 7886 posts Report Reply

  • steven crawford, in reply to Dylan Reeve,

    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.

    Good idea! So what are we arguing about?

    Atlantis • Since Nov 2006 • 4306 posts Report Reply

  • SteveH, in reply to Sam Durbin,

    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).

    Since Sep 2009 • 444 posts Report Reply

  • Ian Dalziel,

    Those Aussies have our number...

    H/T Raymond McH

    Christchurch • Since Dec 2006 • 7886 posts Report Reply

  • Dylan Reeve, in reply to Ian Dalziel,

    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.

    Auckland • Since Aug 2008 • 311 posts Report Reply

  • Dylan Reeve, in reply to Rich of Observationz,

    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.

    Auckland • Since Aug 2008 • 311 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to SteveH,

    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.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19680 posts Report Reply

  • SteveH, in reply to Sacha,

    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.

    Since Sep 2009 • 444 posts Report Reply

  • nzlemming,

    Interesting post about ratings

    [edit] sorry, posted on the wrong thread. Reposted on the Campbell thread

    Waikanae • Since Nov 2006 • 2929 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 3 4 5 6 7 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.