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.
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.
You appear to be advancing an argument that the people who pay for content do not contribute to its production, which isn’t the case i’m afraid.
Content owners and creators auction the rights off in geographic chunks, the value of which is based on a variety of factors – market size, expected return, all the usual things that go into a business decision. Exclusivity is an important part for the owners/creators as it drives the cost of that content up – buyers don’t exactly get much choice on that front. The money that is created from that process goes into funding future production.
Ergo, the rights that Sky, TVNZ, MediaWorks, and Lightbox pay for directly contribute to the ongoing production of content.
What you’re talking about is what happens when people by-pass geoblocking – you might still pay Netflix or Hulu for that content, but they haven’t paid for the right to distribute it to you (being outside of America), meaning the revenue you provide them goes straight into their bottom line and not to the creators and owners of that content.