Piracy is necessary and doesn't hurt revenues

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

I am saying (perhaps implying or trying to say) that it is not nor ever has been an inalienable right to watch a TV show from a different region/country and that for most of my life it was difficult or impossible to do so. People in Canada watched what was shown by Canadian stations, and people in Mexico watched what was shown on Mexican stations.
...

Helen

I don't think that anyone is advocating that position (i.e. that there is an inalienable right to watch a TV show from a different region). I think that the position being advocated is that people want to do this and that many people don't see a moral issue with it.

[RZetlin]

Piracy exist because there is a demand for the product but suppliers are not supplying the demand.

One example are TV shows, they may be distributed in America but they may not be available in other countries. Does a person in China have to wait months for the TV show be released in their home country? Sometimes the TV show is not released at all.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I'm suggesting that just because someone says something is so, doesn't make it so. I can sell you a car and bury a clause in the contract saying that you can't drive it faster than then posted speed limit. That doesn't make that clause legally enforceable. Nor does it mean that you are breaking the law, even if the clause is enforceable. Isn't that your gold standard for if something is right or wrong? If it's legal where you happen to be at the moment?

I'd be very surprised if geographical restrictions on streaming services were not legally enforcible, because the supplier has only bought the right to distribute the material in a given region. Netflix in the US have only bought the rights to stream material to customers in the US. Amazon Instant Video in the UK have only bought the rights to stream in the UK. Accessing the material outside the region for which it's been licensed would, I'm pretty sure, constitute copyright infringement.

[EowynCarter]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'd be very surprised if geographical restrictions on streaming services were not legally enforcible, because the supplier has only bought the right to distribute the material in a given region. Netflix in the US have only bought the rights to stream material to customers in the US. Amazon Instant Video in the UK have only bought the rights to stream in the UK. Accessing the material outside the region for which it's been licensed would, I'm pretty sure, constitute copyright infringement.

That's exactly the problem.
Copyright law need to be adapted to that reality called internet.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by EowynCarter

That's exactly the problem.
Copyright law need to be adapted to that reality called internet.

Are you suggesting that rights holders should not have the right to sell their content to different buyers in different parts of the world? That all sales should be world-wide? The net result of that would almost certainly be an even greater stranglehold on content by a small number of large corporations than we have at present.

[EowynCarter]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Are you suggesting that rights holders should not have the right to sell their content to different buyers in different parts of the world? That all sales should be world-wide? The net result of that would almost certainly be an even greater stranglehold on content by a small number of large corporations than we have at present.

Not sure exactly what should be done. But the current situation is a mess, and no longer make sence today.

[cybmole]

Originally Posted by EowynCarter

That's exactly the problem.
Copyright law need to be adapted to that reality called internet.

exactly, what "region" is a guy in, on a cruise ship or an aeroplane who is streaming a video. Its it really reasonable for the movie to cut out as the transport passed over some arbitrary line on a map ?

A world in which your "location" is defined by what DNS server you happen to be using is never going to manage geo-restrictions well - Neither Netflix or Hollywood know where "I " am, or where my tablet is. They only know where some of my delivery components are registered / located . The model has to adapt. I can already carry a DVD around the world, & play it on a PC anywhere I take it, so legal streaming needs to evolve to be equally flexible if it's ever to be "better" than piracy.

Google search , on my Kindle Fire HDX, thinks I'm in Ireland , because of how Amazon built their Silk browser system !, so its runs all the searches through google.ie & not google.co.uk.

Amazon has a complete rats nest of allowing some purchases and service based on where you live ( i.e. address / card on file) but bases others on where you happen to be at the time. So you see floods of complaints like "I bought amazon coins but I can't spend them until I take my tablet back to country X "
If I took my Kindle to USA I'd expect either 1. UK prime video to still work on the tablet , or 2. USA prime video to kick in instead for the duration of the trip. I suspect I'd get neither!

An email or messaging service that tried to say - sorry - you cant read / write any mail until you return to your home country would be doomed. so why should video streaming be any different.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by cybmole

An email or messaging service that tried to say - sorry - you cant read / write any mail until you return to your home country would be doomed. so why should video streaming be any different.

Because with an email system nobody else's content is involved.

With video streaming, the supplier has to buy the right to stream the video to you. Buying world-wide rights would be enormously more expensive than buying rights for a single country or region.

You may not like it, but I honestly don't see any practical alternative. Would you be willing to pay 10x the current price to be able to watch something from anywhere in the world? Realistically, that may well be the level you'd be looking at for world-wide, rather than single-country, access.

[cybmole]

if a region-free DVD cost 10x a region locked one, then maybe I'd buy into your argument ,

streaming needs to be based on who I am not where I am. I cant watch simultaneous in 2 countries let alone 10!

a licence to stream a single stream only to wherever & however I present valid credentials is not an unreasonable ask, surely , and with some mutual trust that I'm not bouncing the content from a tablet into some big screen paid-admission auditorium ( which the technology cannot detect)

there's also the slingbox product, which as I understand it will take content from say by home cable hard drive & sling it over internet to some hotel room on the other side of the world, where i happen to be with a laptop.

so consider a scenario where last night's USA HBO Game of Thrones episode, has been legally recorded by my TIVO in Kansas, via a predefined series link, & I slingbox it to watch as a stream on my laptop in a hotel room in Bangkok where I've been for the last 2 weeks. I think by your strict interpretation, that's illegal, but all the components are legally purchased, and the right to view has been paid for - where's the crime ?
http://uk.slingbox.com/

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'd be very surprised if geographical restrictions on streaming services were not legally enforcible, because the supplier has only bought the right to distribute the material in a given region. Netflix in the US have only bought the rights to stream material to customers in the US. Amazon Instant Video in the UK have only bought the rights to stream in the UK. Accessing the material outside the region for which it's been licensed would, I'm pretty sure, constitute copyright infringement.

I'm pretty sure that accessing material after you pay for it is not copyright infringement, regardless of where you access it. It may be a violation of the contract, but it's not copyright infringement. Copyright is the right to copy, not the right to view.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by cybmole

if a region-free DVD cost 10x a region locked one, then maybe I'd buy into your argument ,

streaming needs to be based on who I am not where I am. I cant watch simultaneous in 2 countries let alone 10!

No, you misunderstand me.

At present the content owner sells the streaming rights separately on a per-country basis. If they were to sell world-wide rights to a single company, such as Netflix, they would probably charge Netflix 10x (or some other high multiple) of the price they're currently charging them for that content. Unless Netflix could increase their customer base by that same multiplier (which is unlikely), the extra costs would inevitably be passed on to the consumer.

[cybmole]

I do understand that argument - let's just agree that it's a crap business model & move on.

buying the right to stream to x Million folks in a country made sense when most of those folks stayed inside of the borders, but once large numbers of them take to globe trotting. and to expecting an on-demand service everywhere...

And new services anyway blur the boundary; with netflix I am buying the right to stream, but if I pay Amazon to add a video to my cloud library, I am buying some combo of own & stream. For them to say you've bought it, you own it, but you can still only stream it while in country X is too subtle for your average customer ). I believe there was a recent fiasco where Disney pulled the right to watch bought cloud content for some Amazon customers in some locations.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Buying world-wide rights would be enormously more expensive than buying rights for a single country or region.
.

Right.
And exercising those rights would take money the streaming co may not have. Note how Amazon bought LOVEFILM to get its PRIME video service into europe while Netflix had to build from scratch and took a couple years to get even a toehold; if they had world rights, they would be paying for rights they couldn't exercise for years and that wouldn't generate revenue for them or the IP owner.
Also, with regional licensing, the license (and customer relations) can go to a smaller, local player more attuned to the market who cares about their customers.

There are real business world differences between delivering ebooks worldwide and delivering video streams; there are matters of technical infrastructure build out, customer service, billing, and regulatory environment. All of which add cost and risk to running a global commercial video streaming service. And note that while Amazon took their core ebook operation global within months, they are still spending money and effort to build country-specific bookstores; they must see some significant value in localizing their operation.

Again, blanket equivalences are not a good way to look at these products; there are similarities but the differences are more important than the similarities.

[shalym]

What happens when I'm up in Northern Vermont, and my 4G connection switches from US to Canada? (this happens frequently) If I use it to watch a movie from Amazon, should I be able to watch my movie? I'm physically in the US, my billing address is in the US, but my Internet connection is coming from Canada.

I would imagine that in Europe this would happen more frequently, since there are many more international borders one could be next to.

Shari

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by shalym

What happens when I'm up in Northern Vermont, and my 4G connection switches from US to Canada? (this happens frequently) If I use it to watch a movie from Amazon, should I be able to watch my movie? I'm physically in the US, my billing address is in the US, but my Internet connection is coming from Canada.

I would imagine that in Europe this would happen more frequently, since there are many more international borders one could be next to.

Shari

It does indeed - it's not uncommon for people on the south coast of England to pick up French networks on their phone, if the local phone signal is very weak. The solution is to disable international roaming on your phone.