I'd Vote
I'd vote for anyone promising to keep all football off TV.
Europe’s Digital Commissioner wants to know what you think about copyright rules for satellite broadcasters and cable companies. On Monday, digi veep Andrus Ansip launched a public consultation on his favourite topic – geoblocking. The consultation asks whether 22-year-old EU rules that define where and how satellite …
There's a whole raft of practical obstacles to Euro mobility. Want a PAYG SIM while you're in Germany*? Hard work if you don't have a German address or bank account. Want to open a European bank account - not going to be easy without an address and/or employer in the same country. Want to pay at a machine in with your debit card - might be difficult if it's isn't V-Pay or Maestro in many parts of Europe.
I can see that copyright territoriality would be a symbolic victory for the Commission, but unless the financial system is more accommodating, the rights holders can simply insist on being paid by direct transfers from, say, an Estonian bank account and effect their geoblocking that way.
The business model of selling the same thing for different prices in different markets needs to come to an end. Basically they are selling a monopoly position within a defined geographical area - a license to rip off a given set of consumers. Naturally enough, the broadcasters pay top dollar to secure that monopoly.
In the interests of the consumers, the producers should be required to sell unrestricted rights to anyone who wants to buy them, and allow them to broadcast globally to their subscribers. I don't think it would even hurt the producers financially to do that. In the case of a football game, it's not as if somebody else can produce the same product.
Basically they are selling a monopoly position within a defined geographical area
Why is that a problem? We're not talking about life saving drugs or water, just American drama, televised sport, or access of foreign residents to particular countries' national broadcasters. If you don't like the price, don't pay it.
If you take a view about what price content rights-holders must sell for, then you clearly know the market better than they do, why not go the whole hog, and tell them what sport they must cover, and indeed what drama should be made. The same argument might apply to the way that the poor, weak minded fools who support major league clubs are reamed out for season tickets, memberships, and merchandise (that changes with curiously high frequency). Are you proposing to regulate those prices?
> If you take a view about what price content rights-holders must sell for
You miss the point. It is not about what price they must sell it for, it's that they can (and do) charge different prices based simply on which side of an arbitrary (and imaginary) line someone lives on.
Imagine you went into a shop to buy an item and they said "Sorry, you live in XYZ area, you can't buy from us at this cheaper price, you have to go to our shop nearest to you and pay a more expensive price". Would you say "Ok, that's fine"?
I doubt it, but that's what these companies want to have enshrined in law.
Imagine you went into a shop to buy an item and they said "Sorry, you live in XYZ area, you can't buy from us at this cheaper price, you have to go to our shop nearest to you and pay a more expensive price". Would you say "Ok, that's fine"?
It's how it often works between countries with DVDs, CDs, and software. It's how it works with premium goods (with the EU's blessing). It often happens with tech goods. There's an argument that it does happen with things like cars, despite some limp wristed attempts by the EU to stop the makers doing this. And arguably the public sector routinely offers similar services at different prices depending on where you live (or dissimilar services at the same price).
Overall, it happens, that's a commercial choice by the maker or rights owner, and I am quite happy with that, compared to the alternative of the EU trying to intervene and micro manage the pricing and segmentation structures of commercial businesses. If you don't like it, vote for Corbyn, he'll put an end to this sort of thing.
It's how it often works between countries with DVDs, CDs, and software......There's an argument that it does happen with things like cars, despite some limp wristed attempts by the EU to stop the makers doing this......
The difference is, I can choose to import / go and get those items.
You can't go to Spain and buy the UK football matches for their prices.
First let the whole crowd of country-coders go to hell.
Can't control your channel? No problem, lock down the device and make your customer suffer.
Oh, and call him a criminal if he is pissed and capable enough to unlock the device he legally bought in order to work with the media he also legally bought somewhere else.
Geoblockers are next in line...
For cable re-transmission, operators who want to include broadcasts from other countries have to obtain the rights through collective management organisations or broadcasters.
I suppose needing to obtain rights is not unreasonable as long as those rights are sold at same rates as for original transmission and not inflated.
Either we have a single European market, or we don't. Free movement of people and goods must include media, digital or otherwise.
If Elbonia can provide a good or service cheaper than the UK then that's what happens - it works for everything else, so why should sports & music events or movies be exempted?
I don't really care. There's nothing on offer from satellite and cable providers that I would be prepared to pay a subscription for.
I'm not interested in Estonian football (or any other for that matter) but I might be interested in Estonian drama (don't know until I see it) - is that sort of thing available on Sky?
I remember the good old days of dubbed European children's programmes. Is The Flashing Blade still on anywhere?
Actually, I'm inclined to agree with you on the subject of artifical regional restrictions. All too often the only motive is maximising profit.
I wonder if, in this case, the result would be of overall benefit to the likes of Estonia. One thing that is true is that British and US media products tend to dominate in the world. It would be nice to see more Estonian output but the result might be that Estonia gets swamped by British and American imports.
That was the thinking behind the Flashing Blade reference. I know we have some good stuff from Europe, like The Returned and The Bridge, but I have the feeling that way back in the past we had a lot more available (at least for children).
But - if you are talking about the UK Freesat service - that's exactly the point.
You won't find Freesat boxes on the shelves in Madrid or wherever because Freesat does not have a licence to broadcast its material outside the UK. There are probably multiple reasons for this, but content rights would be a major factor I'm sure. With around 800,000 British expats just in Spain it's likely that Freesat and others would love the opportunity to sell their stuff there.
Yes I know you can buy a box from popular auction sites or chuck one in the back of the car before setting off for your holiday home, but this is currently a grey market - and that's what the EU needs to address.
"Freesat does not have a licence to broadcast its material outside the UK."
Yes. The rights holders say they sell to broadcasters based on the potential audience size. If the potential audience for a Free To Air channel is the whole of Europe, the rights holders are going to want to charge far more and the EU is still a collection of sovereign nations with disparate national broadcasters. This could potentially kill the likes of FreeSat dead
On the other hand, encrypted subscription channels already know their precise potential audience wherever they happen to be located as they watch. More so if the box requires a constant or even regular 'net or phone connection to send viewing habits data back to the mothership. The only possible (weak IMV) argument against cross-borders subscription channels is artificial exclusivity in a territory.
The principle of geo-blocking is that you can charge higher prices to wealthy Brits or Germans, and lower prices to poor Estonians or Greeks. But why stop at national borders? Broadcasters could charge higher prices to Londoners and lower prices to Liverpuddlians; or even narrow it down by postcode, like car insurers do.
Heck, they could go the whole hog and demand to see your last three years' tax returns, and adjust the price according to what you can afford to pay. They certainly would if they thought they could get away with it.
.. so how do i (a citizen of EU) decide which of the commissioners agendas i want to support and vote for it accordingly... oh wait, I can't vote for stuff in Europe... I have to trust that these guys represent my interests... yay, lets export this "democracy" to evildoers.
(bored with EU and want Brexit just to shake things up a bit)
The commission is essentially a civil service organisation. Last I checked you didn't get to vote for the civil servants who run the DWP, MOD, DOH or any UK government department, why do you expect to have a direct vote for the civil service of the EU? The Parliament is directly elected (and with in many respects fairer elections than for UK MPs) and despite its many faults the Commission does actually consult on its proposals.
Where I live (not in the UK), there is a bloke who will set you up with UK sky. You send a monthly DD to an account in the channel islands and he sorts you out with a sky box (that thinks you are in Jersey, so default news channel is a bit boring). Illegal but at the same time, the only sensible thing to do. For a bit more cash he will hook you up with vpn etc so that you can do their VOD thing.
I would welcome being able to just sign up to a legit sky account, but hey ho global corporate has to be an arse about everything. Their loss (of many, many customers).
Names changed to protect the guilty, he is not in fact called Noggsy at all.
This strikes me as the ultimate non problem from a technology standpoint. Globally, we all have accounts with companies that offer logins capable of utilizing federated trusts, such as Facebook and Google. There is no reason I cannot pay Google $20 per month to give me an ad free experience and also compensate the sites and providers I visit so they are taken care of financially. I already do this with Google contributer.
This can simply be extended to other forms of media. If I pay Google $300 per month for an unlimited package, they can just let me watch, listen, stream, and play anything I damn well please anywhere, anytime and directly compensate the provider of said content upon consumption.
By using currency exchange rates and numbers on median wealth in different nations, we can adjust for relative costs... because digital goods aren't like physical good, they can be replicated at no cost. So I should be able to watch a Bollywood comedy and they should be able to get my credited from my account, with one interface and login. Geo blocking and blackouts are absurd in 2015, I'm never going to "the game" because the view is better in my house and the beer is cheaper. Let media compete globally, and fund creators directly, and be amazed at how much better that works.