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.
