Sky TV Won't Allow Ads For ISP Highlighting Its Anti-Geoblocking Service
from the copyright-makes-you-do-silly-things dept
Last month, we wrote about how the New Zealand ISP Slingshot had started offering what it called “Global Mode” as a standard feature. The ISP realized the simple ridiculousness of geoblocking content, especially since so much content is deemed “unavailable” in New Zealand. So, in response, it basically set its services up so that it disguised where the user was coming from (not unlike many VPN services). This seemed like smart customer service. But, obviously, not everyone is thrilled with it. The local SkyTV is apparently banning ads from Slingshot if they mention Global Mode. Watch SkyTV’s spokesperson totally fail to understand the issue:
Sky TV spokeswoman Kirsty Way confirmed the advertisements had been rejected because of their references to Global Mode.
“We are a business that pays people who create television so we are against any form of piracy or the undermining of intellectual property rights,” she said.
Except that Global Mode is not piracy, nor does it “undermine intellectual property rights.” It merely lets people use the internet in ways to access and pay for authorized content. It actually lets folks in New Zealand do things like pay for Netflix or Hulu — which they can’t do today.
Slingshot’s General Manager Taryn Hamilton rightly calls this situation ridiculous, noting that rejecting the ads is “unjustified and petty.” It’s also fairly counterproductive, given that now Slingshot gets probably more publicity for the service without having to pay the foolish and small-minded folks at SkyTV for the pleasure.
Filed Under: advertising, geoblocking, global mode, vpn
Companies: skytv, slingshot
Comments on “Sky TV Won't Allow Ads For ISP Highlighting Its Anti-Geoblocking Service”
Intellectual property rights?
How is using a VPN to buy something through Internet different from physically going to another country and buying something there in a physical store? It looks quite similar, except executed in the digital space. What does it have to do with intellectual property?
Re: Intellectual property rights?
To be fair, weren’t copyright holders trying to make such reimportation illegal too?
Re: Re: Intellectual property rights?
Not sure, but so far, for example buying books in another country is not illegal. It would be pretty weird and crooked to forbid such thing.
Re: Re: Re: Intellectual property rights?
It would be pretty weird and crooked to forbid such thing.
Media rights owners? Weird and crooked?
Doesn’t sound one bit out of character.
Re: Re: Intellectual property rights?
Please don’t call them copyright holders. EVERYONE who has created any work is a copyright holder in countries that hold to the Berne convention. The term you’re looking for is “Copyright Hoarders” — it’s only a limited number of corporations who have bought the copyrights off of individuals that are pushing for something like this. They’re rarely the entities that have actually created the content they hold copyright over; they’re speculators, pure and simple.
It doesn't actually have to BE piracy...
We’re just so over-sensitized that “doing something with sound or images that an established company doesn’t like” automatically translates to piracy or “undermining of intellectual property rights.”
After all, if we were supposed to access that stuff, the originators wouldn’t have blocked it. It would of course be more fair to label this offense “interfering with a business model.”
Re: It doesn't actually have to BE piracy...
I actually think the quote about undermining intellectual property could be accurate.
When you make your business model about maximizing every single form of intellectual property to truly insane levels (instead of creating content or providing services to customers), then anyone interfering with your business model is undermining intellectual property rights (even if those rights only exist in your head and not even on some unenforceable law).
Of course, I’m the guy who thinks the entire shell game of intellectual property unethical and unsupported by evidence that shows positive benefits, so call me crazy.
But it does undermine their IP “rights”.
It undermines the idea of localized pricing and takes away control of when and how (if at all) they release things in any given country. It is all about control and (ab)using it to extract the maximum amount of money possible.
Of course it is a completely ass backwards way of doing things but that is what they have always done and they want to continue doing it.
Re: Re:
but that is what they have always done and they want to continue doing it
The funny thing is, they will continue doing things this way, until they realize, cutting out the other middle men makes them more money …
Controlling who can produce copies, which is the purpose of copyright,does not make sense in the digital era. The content industry is trying to morph copyright into control over the use of content, that is ideas, so that they can control where, when, how, and for how much they are owed, for every use, including any quotes.
not surprised by this. Sky is heavily involved in the entertainment industry and wants to exercise the control it has over other people and services. shame it cant be done back! his head has grown with his bank balance and that is far too big!!
It's never been about piracy
It’s always been about control. Big Media wants to control what we can see and hear and learn. It wants — and has always wanted — to turn the Internet into network tv with a few more channels.
:D
“We are a business that pays people who create television so we are against any form of piracy or the undermining of intellectual property rights,” she said.
She’s right. Global Mode is undermining creators’ property right to deny access to the content. God forbid creators make unintended income and reach a bigger audience than they want. If creators only want to make a limited amount of money, THAT’S THEIR RIGHT.
Re: :D
I do believe you summed up copyright almost perfectly right here. (Almost, because it’s not “property”, but it is indeed all about the right to deny access, which is being undermined here.)
Economics 101
An increase in competitive content dilutes the value of the incumbent content because viewers are spread out over more content. This in turn dilutes the value of commercial time. Slingshot makes it easy for consumers to watch competitive content that isn’t offered by the incumbent. The incumbent is confused about IP rights, conflating their IP rights with their monopoly on content delivery.
I’d love to see someone in a foreign country sue them over this, just to see how ridiculous their arguments are.
“We were grievously harmed by being paid a bunch of money for our online content from markets didn’t mean to sell it in. We demand Slingshot not allow these evil pirates to buy our stuff”.
This shows Sky's fear
Sky is a pay TV monopoly in NZ. This shows that Sky is terrified of competition, and rightly so. I believe with the exception of live sport that Netflix provides a superior service to Sky in NZ for a fraction of the cost.
Sky flinching at seeing that available to non-technical users is just showing how scared they are of their market collapsing.
In a world of free trade and globalization. Geoblocking tariffs is an outdated protectionism policy.
All major networks, not just Sky
This isn’t just Sky, both of the other major networks have banned the advertising. From the NZ Herald:
“In a statement released this afternoon, Mediaworks – which owns TV3 and Channel Four – said it had been advised Slingshot’s latest development to Global Mode may lead to a breach of copyright, and advertising that presented it as legitimate and legal was misleading, and may also be a breach of the Fair Trading Act.”
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11304231
I have little sympathy for the networks; TVNZ regularly sits on Youtube content that they will not allow to be shown in this region, and that they had no intention of broadcasting either.
Meanwhile their idea of innovation is to show their own channels +1 hour later (so they could show trendsetting content like Mr Bean), after shutting down the rather excellent TV7 and lying to the government about their justifications for doing this.
Except that Global Mode is not piracy, nor does it “undermine intellectual property rights.”
Piracy is whatever the copyright industry says it is!!!
Rupert helping people to find ways to avoid his stranglehold in the Australia/New Zealand region? Perish the thought. Naughty ISP.
First of all I think it is stupid but I guess Sky is correct.
Let’s assume a US TV show is created. A US network has to pay for the license to air it in the US. If a NZ network wants to air it they have to pay for the license and this goes for every country.
i.e. if Netflix wants to expand into other countries they will probably have to license their stuff for the different markets. Compare to Youtube which has to pay fees for music in different countries or block the video.
It is piracy
It is piracy, merely disguised a bit.
It’s getting the material fraudulently, often from sources that don’t have the license to distribute it to you in the first place without said fraud. What do we call acquiring not properly licensed copyrighted material? That’s right.
The fraud aspect does rub me the wrong way a bit, personally. Also, if the local legislature wishes, a bit of computer fraud may often provide the means to crucify you if you’re deemed a generally difficult person.
Traditional straight-up piracy is a honest endeavour, at least. No swindles, breaking possible user agreements or contracts or the like. Just you and a victimless crime.
Re: It is piracy
Where is the fraud? I honestly don’t see it.
Re: Re: It is piracy
You circumvent access controls by pretending to be somewhere else than where you are. Sure, they’re not overly sophisticated access controls, but regardless, knowingly circumventing them seems a lot like using fraudulent means of access to me.
And of course, even if you discount that, there’s still the other matter that I mentioned; usually the guys you dupe into providing you access are not even licensed to provide you with a license in your geographical area, so what you do get is a pirate copy.
Re: Re: Re: It is piracy
I asked that question above already.
When using a VPN you aren’t pretending anything. Let’s say, the publisher puts the same kind of access restriction except in the physical space. Imagine you can’t buy certain book in your country because it’s not distributed there (for whatever reason). What you can do is to go to another country where that book is sold and buy it there. All legal and fine.
Now let’s translate that into the digital space. You can’t get some merchandise because of regional restriction. So you use VPN (analog of country travel in the digital space) to access that store and buy the merchandise there. Why should it be any less legal than above? Conceptually it’s the same. If they use digital space regional restrictions, you can use digital space travel to bypass them. Same as with physical goods.
Surely, some copyright holders would probably attempt to forbid it by buying various corrupted laws, but there is nothing inherently wrong with it. They just don’t like it, that’s all. Forbidding one to travel to other countries or requiring one to show a passport when buying books would be harder for them, because it’s more obvious that it’s nonsense. But they can get away with banning VPNs because it’s more abstract and it’s easier to mask the nonsensical nature of such ban.
Do I see a marketing opportunity, here?
Couldn’t the news coverage and the word-of-mouth attention to this story be leveraged to spread the word about this service to the general public (ie. potential customers) far better than a typical advertising campaign would?