Thank God there's someone seeing sense here!! People on here quoting Kodi vs Sky is insane....might as well put up torrent links as well while we are at it.
Printable View
True but let's be honest, people are talking about All Blacks, Black Caps, Game of Thrones etc. If they are talking about replacing SKY with Kodi then they are talking about replacing SKY content with Kodi... and SKY generally has exclusive rights to their content in NZ. It's illegal. I'm no judging, but that's what it is.
Actually how do you know it isn't legal - is there a case where this has actually been tested here? There are parallel imported products, there are region 1 DVDs you can purchase freely and arrive here, there are products that aren't available to directly ship here from the US you can freight forward via YouShop - yes that's products and that is not illegal.
But you can subscribe to the US Amazon Prime service which is not geo-blocked and watch content that someone may have rights to in New Zealand, you can rent movies on a US shop iTunes account or an Australian one and watch them here - again that is greyer but consensus is neither of these isn't illegal to do either.
Now if something is being screened free to air somewhere then it's clearly not illegal to watch or even record it.
If something is available to watch for free via stream but is geo blocked then most folk can't watch it. There's nothing not legal in operating a proxy or even a secure VPN - so if it happens that a stream becomes available to view of a free to air stream somewhere else, tell me how by opening that stream you have done something illegal. As far as exclusive rights are concerned, that's a contract between a broadcaster and a content provider - not any contract between a consumer and anyone else.
Now your countervailing argument is that the content is copyrighted but is there any real difference between a parallel imported DVD of season 1 of Man in the High Castle and someone watching Man in the High Castle on demand on Amazon Prime - as opposed to say watching it on TV3? I would say very little at all - the content provider has been compensated for the content.
Next you have to ask with an FTA stream where's the actual breach of the rights? Yes the content provider has been paid for an FTA in a country but not necessarily by a viewer in NZ. Granted, the FTA streaming 'broadcaster' has geo blocked the content which they would be duly obligated to do as part of the contract between content provider and the broadcaster but how far do they go and do they actually care if the content leaks unless there is a breach of their contract with the provider.
Perhaps there may be a breach of the terms of distribution of that content but have you ever seen such terms on the on demand services you can watch on TV here or on any FTA channel?
I'd agree on the other hand with streaming of paid subscriptions that is clearly a breach of the terms that you sign up when you do contract with say Sky - that is a breach of contract.
A stream of an FTA that isn't as clear cut as you'd seem to suggest.
Disc - No SKT held, I do have two paid subscriber services and I don't have a Kodi box.
There was a case in the UK where Sky's namesake tried to sue someone who brought content off a cheaper overseas supplier. The person contested Sky's claims and won.
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-17150054
Someone more knowledgeable in this field than I once remarked, "The only secure intellectual property claim in one that is not contested."
I have posted before how the new IPv6 internet protocol makes one-to-many streaming of content a far less difficult technical challenge. Content aggregators such as SKY are in danger of being by-passed by sporting codes such as rugby who may choose to stream coverage directly to subscribers.
Boop boop de do
Marilyn
The parallel importing was to do with Netflix, where you are paying Netflix and Netflix has the licence in the US or wherever you are VPN'ing from.
Who's paying Kodi/whoever to watch the All Blacks on their Kodi box? No-one. Is there a free licence for the content? No. And if there was a free licence, did it allow for a person receiving it to then re-broadcast it worldwide? No.
And even if you are paying someone via Kodi, are they officially licensed in some capacity to have the All Blacks and to transmit it to you? No.
All illegal.
We can go round in circles but these IP rights are not black and white. Your position is that there is no grey but yet there is no actual case law that supports your absolute assertions.
You show me where the licence terms are for TV1, TV3, Prime or for that matter any FTA Freeview terrestrial or Satellite service and where those receiving that service
actually actively agrees not to copy, record, disseminate, reproduce, or transmit any content thereby broadcast and I will agree with you about legality because it would be a breach of contract.
But the fact is, there isn't and never has been a licence agreement with the FTAs - not disputing content from a subscription service where someone did have to actively agree to abide by the providers' terms but a plain old FTA simply doesn't have those agreements probably ever since we got rid of the annual TV licence fee.
You forget that there are transmissions of live AB games FTA particularly in Australia - simply because under antisiphoning rules they must be FTA - so you tell me where the broadcaster of an Australian FTA specifically contracts with any viewer about not passing it via a KODI box. Nah, I can't see an agreement there either.
The exclusive rights is a contract between the content provider and SKY for that exclusivity in distribution - the FTA in Australia is obliged under their rights to attempt to stop redistribution but it is not in breach for them if someone watches that content in NZ after taking reasonable steps to prevent it.
What was with the drop? 10c drop but no announcement
As much as I think Sky TV is in trouble over the long term, $3.60 is starting to look tempting given they have a monopoly over pay for view sport and that looks to remain for a long while yet.
The Robot: Danger, Will Robinson!
The Robot: Warning! Warning! Alien spacecraft approaching!
Dr. Smith: We're doomed!
Attachment 8722
Yes you could say that. There is a wealth of opinion on this thread, it would be worthwhile scrolling back a dozen or more pages and reading the story of SKT's woes.
Regardless of all that wisdom, consider that the chart I posted is Monthly 'closing price'. SKT has been in a severe SP down trend for almost three years, it is way below the 20 months moving average (that is an approximation of a 400 day moving average), and is now well below the last gasp 78.6% fibonacci from the GFC lows. It is a truely very seriously ugly SP chart.
JMHO, that SKT has yet to re-invent itself, while its content sourcing is still very capable, it's content distribution is woeful and as long as subscribers (who are imo being ripped off) are declining, one can only expect the FA of the company to wane also.
Eventually if they don't fix the content distribution (increasing eyeballs, wallets and revenue for the whole value chain), the content sources will seek other distributors. SKT are seriously exposed to content distribution disruption as well, as content sources can mount their own online content distribution easily at relatively low costs, cutting out the intermediary (Sky).
SKT is farming an apathetic legacy subscriber base, which is fine as long as they are growing 'online' subscribers faster than they are losing legacy 'set top box' subscribers, but they're not. At this stage it looks like SKT are broken and in a low glide to oblivion.
Even Skodafone is a dead duck, even though it is less than obvious how a long term sub-distributor (Vodafone) would have made that much difference to Sky revenues just because the ownership model changed.
There is nothing in the FA or the TA now that would encourage me to go anywhere near buying (or holding) SKT.
Just be patient, they might sort it out some day even if it's a few years away. They still have a very large legacy subscriber base, though their challenge is to retain it and convert it progressively, without sustained losses, to online distribution.
If or when SKT demonstrate a reversal of fortunes, the market will recognise that and respond with an up turn in the SP. Until then, there are better (and worse) companies to invest in and one should expect SKT to stay in a sustained SP down trend.
Until that happens, stand back, enjoy the show and learn as we watch a once proud company either destroy itself, or reinvent itself. There is no middle ground.
This week, I returned my last decoder, went into the drop off point at lunchtime, there were 3 people ahead of me in a line, the guy eventually took it, he was very efficent, a process well practiced, I said are are you always busy, he said busier than we have ever been, especially in the last few months, it has gone through the roof - he went and put the old decoder literally in a pile next to other stacks in a room, of what looked like must be a hundred plus? he said SKY come and pick them off him a couple of times a week - his business collecting boxes as a sideline to the main point of the store - presumably for a fee - appeared to be booming. The boxes with all the cables etc are quite large and bulky - surprisingly so, makes me wonder where they are storing them all. Must be a large warehouse somewhere if they lost 50k customers alone last year.
If you look at all of those at the average revenue of ~85 a month and say there was a hundred there - thats 100k pa revenue lost from one place - with multiple dropoffs a week.. That would have to be a bit troubling, so yes they have a big base, but if its not growing its sure being whittled away.
The guy ahead of me in the line, as he was walking out - said. Sell your SKY Shares..... indeed.