GDPR. Pretty much every corporate has been spooked and scrambling, and it's part of the focus on "our" data being gathered and used that seems to be swirling around this year.

The idea that it’s these companies banding together to police the internet is a straw man erected and perpetuated by those with investments in the ‘global mode’ product/included feature (that is, Callplus et al).

Content providers and distributors have called for ISPs to be liable and/or "work with them" on policing the Internet. That they haven't explicitly said so in this case doesn't mean there's no intent to build on any ruling in their favor to do so.

Even Netflix US, etc, aren't producing much of the content they distribute

There was a time in the US when cable channels didn't produce much content, but just distributed someone else's.

Now they dominate the Emmy awards and are more than a serious contender for content. The same eventually will happen to Netflix (and, to a certain extent, already is: House of Cards has won Emmy, Golden Globe, and other "mainstream" awards for what is a show that originates on an Internet streaming platform).

The use of IP extends to works of art, photographs, architects house designs, newspaper articles and so on.

.. and the parallel import laws make clear, mere importation of IP is not in and of itself a violation of the rights within. Even if people think they have exclusive rights in some fashion to some distribution channel. The medium is irrelevant in this case, IP rights are not violated by mere importation.

Before you mentioned breaking geoblocks is breaking protection of the IP, that's explicitly allowed by law (S226[TPM](b), Copyright Act).

But whether we like it or not, the reality of the content model today, put in place by content owners, is that premium video content is sold with geographic rights at very substantial prices

If you replace "content owners" with "intellectual property owners", then you have exactly what parallel importing laws were designed to prevent - geographic exploitation. You even admit, right there, that's all this is about.

The rest of your argument falls apart because every single one of your points fails to address why we have passed laws to prevent IP owners from exploiting geographic rights, but you've built a business based on enforcement of them.

That was your choice, nobody forced you to enter into a contract that had no value in New Zealand law.

I'm sorry your rights aren't what you thought they were, but not a single line in this post is an argument that hasn't been raised before when parallel import laws were proposed and passed. The world didn't end then either.

I was part of the InternetNZ working group on their submission to the SOP which inserted the authorisation clauses you mention here.

We were very concerned about section 2's vague meaning, and seemed to be completely contrary to any abiliity to enforce the crime being described. As you've noted, it would seem to allow absolutely any other purpose no matter how much of a violation that is merely because some part of a system a person was authorised to use.

The Select Committee chose not to remove it (and I can't even find an acknowledgement of the point in their report), and that's where we are now.

(The full text of InternetNZ's submission is here: http://old.internetnz.net.nz/issues/submissions/archive/older/iswg010209submsm_crimes-amend-bill-6.html .. see Item 4).