Content restrictions

It seems every couple of years (about two) I return to this very same question. Why do DVD makers have the need to regionalize their releases? In that respect we can also add why certain content over the internet is not available for specific locales. I seriously don't see the point.

• Obviously there's a market for getting content cross-continent. Doesn't matter if it's a television series box set for a show that's brilliant, but in the infinite wisdom of the networks over here we do not receive it. Could also be a simple, funny youtube video, which just happens to be viewable only in the United States. People all over the world want to see it, why are they stopped? Can't be censorship, (at least because we're not in China) because I don't see how this content could possibly violate any moral laws. It's just 30 Rock for chrissakes.
• If you just want to make a (import) buck via customs, yeah that will work. Basically that's the only rational explanation I can imagine for having non-free cross-continent flow of content. If you would not have any restrictions whether to view content, play the DVD, play the game or whatnot, customs agencies and governments wouldn't be able to tax it, thus losing out on some income. Essentially the restrictions generate cashflow, and I understand that. But why does the government arbitrarily make certain content unfeasible (e.g. Pandora.com, certain NBC television shows etc.) to reach? Why yes to "Two and a half men", but no to "How I met your mother", an infinitely better show?
  
• Even if a producer is angry with networks from a certain country to not buy a particular series, why would the consumer be to blame? If the consumer wants to have this content, let him bloody reach it. He will pay for it himself. Cut out the middle man.

So all in all, I find a couple of things disconcerting about these restrictions.

The restrictions on content seem arbitrary. Decisions which make certain content available in one region and not the other unreasonably prohibit flow of information, and prevent opportunities for consumerism. If the producer does not believe there's a market for particular content, why should that be the consumer's problem? If he restricts the content right out of the gate (I blame you, WWE), he does not allow the market to develop anyway. Ergo, self-fulfilling prophecy.

If countries want to tax content, sure, but do it to ALL available content. Put a levy on internet accounts. Put a flat rate on all goods imported. Don't make the laziness of the government the problem of the market.

If a country wants to prohibit certain content for fundamental reasons (I'm thinking of countries like China or particular Muslim countries; or morally offensive content such as child abuse, racial extremist doctrines), it should. But at least in this case you'd have a clear case why certain content is banned. It's against the law.

My problem is with restricting content which clearly is not against the law, now or ever. If legislation hasn't caught up to something new yet, then government is lazy. A government might want to protect certain producers within the own nation's borders against foreign influx (for example, Holland would have to protect the Volendam music industry). I say it's not the role of government to do so. The market should decide if content is viable or not. And if particular valuable content is in danger of dying out, you can subsidize it. You've done so with the Arts, with farm goods, with car manufacturing, so why not with music, movies, television and games?

My problem is I'm not allowed to use my Pandora.com. It's pissing me off for almost two years now. Just because some fat cat music label can't control its assets over the internet? Just because government has no overview over what gets broadcast?

I mean, c'mon! It's just freakin' music. Pop music for that matter.

Greedy, lazy bastards.