Probably because a market would quickly pop up to sell or rent accounts created in one region to others.
On Thu, Nov 21, 2019, 2:32 AM t...@pelican.org <t...@pelican.org> wrote: > On Wednesday, 20 November, 2019 21:25, "William Herrin" <b...@herrin.us> > said: > > > This is why you don't go after Hulu. You go after the content owners who > > conspired to compel Hulu to limit distribution in a way that tortiously > > interferes with your contract with your eyeball customers. > > Am I the only one who's baffled in the context of a paid service why so > much focus is put on where the consumption takes place (hard), and so > little on where the transaction take place (easy)? > > I understand, even if I don't necessarily always agree with, market > segmentation, differentiated pricing, accurate P&L for different business > units, etc, that mean for example if you're a US citizen you need to pay > Disney US the prevailing US price to watch Disney content, but if you're an > EU citizen you need to pay Disney EMEA the prevailing EU price to watch > Disney content. Surely that transaction is the thing content creators and > distributors care about? > > If I, as a UK citizen, buy region 2 DVDs at home, take them on my trip to > the US and watch them on my laptop, no-one is screaming that I'm violating > someone's geographic distribution rights by doing so. If a US citizen is > paying for Hulu, from a US billing address, on a US credit card, but > happens to be watching from their hotel in Italy, why does anyone care? > > I can see why it's different and more complicated for content that's > provided free but geo-constrained (e.g. BBC iPlayer), but IP geolocation > for paid services seems a terrible waste of time and effort on both sides. > > Or am I woefully naive, and it's actually trivial for a non-US resident to > come up with a US credit card and billing address to pay for the service? > > Regards, > Tim. > > > > On Thu, Nov 21, 2019, 2:32 AM t...@pelican.org <t...@pelican.org> wrote: > On Wednesday, 20 November, 2019 21:25, "William Herrin" <b...@herrin.us> > said: > > > This is why you don't go after Hulu. You go after the content owners who > > conspired to compel Hulu to limit distribution in a way that tortiously > > interferes with your contract with your eyeball customers. > > Am I the only one who's baffled in the context of a paid service why so > much focus is put on where the consumption takes place (hard), and so > little on where the transaction take place (easy)? > > I understand, even if I don't necessarily always agree with, market > segmentation, differentiated pricing, accurate P&L for different business > units, etc, that mean for example if you're a US citizen you need to pay > Disney US the prevailing US price to watch Disney content, but if you're an > EU citizen you need to pay Disney EMEA the prevailing EU price to watch > Disney content. Surely that transaction is the thing content creators and > distributors care about? > > If I, as a UK citizen, buy region 2 DVDs at home, take them on my trip to > the US and watch them on my laptop, no-one is screaming that I'm violating > someone's geographic distribution rights by doing so. If a US citizen is > paying for Hulu, from a US billing address, on a US credit card, but > happens to be watching from their hotel in Italy, why does anyone care? > > I can see why it's different and more complicated for content that's > provided free but geo-constrained (e.g. BBC iPlayer), but IP geolocation > for paid services seems a terrible waste of time and effort on both sides. > > Or am I woefully naive, and it's actually trivial for a non-US resident to > come up with a US credit card and billing address to pay for the service? > > Regards, > Tim. > > > >
