After Netflix crackdown on border-hopping, Canadians ready to return to piracy(cbc.ca)
cbc.ca
After Netflix crackdown on border-hopping, Canadians ready to return to piracy
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/netflix-piracy-content-vpn-1.3548476
228 comments
This time, I wanted to watch Game of Thrones legally – from Germany. The rights are with Sky Online, a 10 bucks a month subscription service. Sounds good in theory. I signed up and then:
- I had to wait 25 minutes for the activation email
- I activated my account, but it wouldn’t let me access my account settings for another 25 minutes
- then I had to install Silverlight (I’m on OS X)
- then I tried to start the stream, which resulted in an OS freeze and something like the OS X blue screen, which I have never seen ever before
- then I rebooted and tried again, which failed with the *authentication* step
- the web inspector showed a bunch of JS and/or Silverlight errors
- I gave up and installed Silverlight on my wife’s Win 10 machine
- the stream would load, but it has hard-coded German subtitles for signs and Dothraki scenes, which is annoying.
- it has no optional English subtitles
- it is only HD, not Full HD
- stream was kind of laggy
- downloads very fast
- usually there are subtitles
- superb quality
- I can watch whenever I want with the player I want
- no browser plugins, no errors, no nothing.
- it just worksBefore HBO Go people in the US had to wait and buy the DVD or Blu-ray too . You aren't forced to pirate something just because you need to watch it NOW.
This is not about me being forced to pirate anything. It's about offering paying customers a way worse service than people who just download a copy illegaly.
It's not too hard to slap a PayPal or Stripe button in front of an HTML5 video with optional Flash fallback. But no, legal entities need to make sure that you won't rip them off with their digital rights nonsense.
I understand that this is mostly a legal requirement, but the technical implementation still sucks tremendously up to a point where I wonder, why a service that charges money can't afford better developers than a free service.
It's not too hard to slap a PayPal or Stripe button in front of an HTML5 video with optional Flash fallback. But no, legal entities need to make sure that you won't rip them off with their digital rights nonsense.
I understand that this is mostly a legal requirement, but the technical implementation still sucks tremendously up to a point where I wonder, why a service that charges money can't afford better developers than a free service.
It bothers me so much that I cant just go to gameofthrones.com, put in my credit card and watch the show.
Exactly. They try to sell you their HBO Whatever thing, which isn't even available outside of the US. The amount of revenue lost because of the unnecessary complex process is mind-boggling.
Also: It's not that piracy is without hassles. The piracy-process could easily be outperformed by making it as simple as payment button in front of a media player or downloadable file.
Because when I want to download GoT as a torrent, I have to install a BitTorrent client, I have to go find the torrent files, I must look at ads for porn sites, I often must find the right download button in spammy-looking sites, I need to distinguish which file I actually want and see if it's a fake or not.
The piracy process is difficult enough for most people, but it's still so much easier than the process of watching the show legally.
I simply can't wrap my head around this.
Also: It's not that piracy is without hassles. The piracy-process could easily be outperformed by making it as simple as payment button in front of a media player or downloadable file.
Because when I want to download GoT as a torrent, I have to install a BitTorrent client, I have to go find the torrent files, I must look at ads for porn sites, I often must find the right download button in spammy-looking sites, I need to distinguish which file I actually want and see if it's a fake or not.
The piracy process is difficult enough for most people, but it's still so much easier than the process of watching the show legally.
I simply can't wrap my head around this.
You don't really have to do that just setup something like sonarr. Select the shows you want the episodes are downloaded as released and you don't have to visit spammy sites etc. It will check and download all the correct files and rename them to a naming convention of your choice etc.
Setting up an app like that once is a lot easier than going through the hassle of drm or georestrictions.
Netflix used to boast that with them entering the market piracy went down but now with georestrictions they will go back up.
Similar thing happened to me. I'm British living in Sweden. Not only is the selection poor it also does no contain English subtitles for anything; which is frustrating when trying to watch foreign movies.
So I turned my NAS back on and cancelled my subscription.
I'm happy paying content providers, I really am. I visit the cinema, buy DVDs and even songs on iTunes. But if you stop me or hinder me to the point where piracy is a significantly easier option (Or only one illegal option when there are only illegal options) then I'm going to do it.
(This is slightly annoying however because there is a rather large "netflix" button on my new TV remote.)
So I turned my NAS back on and cancelled my subscription.
I'm happy paying content providers, I really am. I visit the cinema, buy DVDs and even songs on iTunes. But if you stop me or hinder me to the point where piracy is a significantly easier option (Or only one illegal option when there are only illegal options) then I'm going to do it.
(This is slightly annoying however because there is a rather large "netflix" button on my new TV remote.)
This blows my mind. How on earth does Netflix not have the rights to show their own show in Switzerland? I understand their hands are sometimes tied in getting content from the studios, but they own House of Cards... I'm so confused how they could end up in that situation...
> How on earth does Netflix not have the rights to show their own show in Switzerland?
One often-overlooked point is soundtracks. This is why there's no official Cold Case DVD/BD set - it would be prohibitively expensive to license all the music for distribution outside of TV.
One often-overlooked point is soundtracks. This is why there's no official Cold Case DVD/BD set - it would be prohibitively expensive to license all the music for distribution outside of TV.
Same thing with "Wonder Years" it's all about licensing... hell "Daria" had to replace significant portions of the music (thankfully they had the original separate tracks to work from).
Another case in point: House MD doesn't have Massive Attack's "Teardrop" as the intro theme anywhere outside the US.
Netflix doesn't "own" House of Cards.
Media Rights Capital "owns" House of Cards, Netflix distributes the show. Even then MRC's rights are probably limited because they bought the rights to the concept from the BBC who originally did House of Cards as a mini-series.
Media Rights Capital "owns" House of Cards, Netflix distributes the show. Even then MRC's rights are probably limited because they bought the rights to the concept from the BBC who originally did House of Cards as a mini-series.
Because Netflix (or other companies) just simply do not have the resources to manage the duty of distributing content all over the world. Hence, there exists regional distributors. Allocating duties to those regional distributors means that you'll need to sign a contract that gives those distributors special rights.
Simple: They sold exclusive rights in quite a few countries to TV networks before they expanded there.
Not disagreeing, but it still seems odd as the Netflix Original Content is the big carrot to get people hooked into their ecosystem.
"Netflix Original Content" doesn't really mean anything anyway. Better Call Saul is "Netflix Original Content" in every country but the United States, even though they had nothing to do with getting it made. They just bought the non-US rights: http://promo.xfm.co.uk/bettercallsaul/images/970x250_backup_...
I can only assume they didn't plan to expand this quickly and would have lost a lot of money by adding "in case we are in this market by then" clauses to the contracts. But yes, it certainly leaves a strange impression.
Just because something is "Netflix Original Content" in one country doesn't mean it's "Netflix Original Content" in another. For example "The 100" is "Netflix Original Content" in Canada but in the US it's not -- it's distributed by some TV network.
IIRC Netflix purchased the streaming rights for House of Cards from a studio, but the studio sold rights to others for medias/locations Netflix wasn't in at the time. E.g. you can buy House of Cards on disc from Sony, or on various on-demand services. Or possibly for streaming, Netflix had those rights but sublicensed them before expanding (oops, if that's the case).
Netflix doesn't even have an exclusive liscense for the USA. IIRC House of Cards S1 is on comcast xfinity streaming.
I'm not familiar with unblock-us. Would a VPN service work, or have they figured out how to block those too? I would imagine that to do that, they'd have to keep lists of IP addresses associated with the VPN services they want to block.
> they'd have to keep lists of IP addresses associated with the VPN services they want to block.
Yeah, that's probably what they're doing. It wouldn't be too hard for them to get the first 95% either - beyond ARIN/NIC registration searches etc, they could just look for IP addresses that often have a large number of subscribers behind them, especially a large number of non-us subscribers.
Yeah, that's probably what they're doing. It wouldn't be too hard for them to get the first 95% either - beyond ARIN/NIC registration searches etc, they could just look for IP addresses that often have a large number of subscribers behind them, especially a large number of non-us subscribers.
They block anything they can detect as a VPN, which is a pain in the arse, because I don't want to browse at all without a VPN, so I can't use netflix at all any more.
How I solved this problem.
Bought a $5 DO instance, which gets me a personal ip that is located in the states combined with OpenVPN I can watch Netflix and do many other things that are US only.
Does this still work? I have a pptp server up on one of these for Netflix, and I'm getting negged. Should I just rotate the server onto a new IP?
There is a Docker container on github ( https://github.com/ab77/netflix-proxy ) that uses a proxy and an IPv6 tunnel that allegedly works with DO's VPS, but I haven't tried it myself.
A normally configured proxy and VPN usually end up with a flagged IP, as I've read multiple reports of people trying with DO or Amazon EC2 nodes.
A normally configured proxy and VPN usually end up with a flagged IP, as I've read multiple reports of people trying with DO or Amazon EC2 nodes.
[deleted]
I hear that using an ssh socks tunnel currently functions.
You may be able to use a cheap VPS, and use that as a proxy server to your account. Though, keep an eye on how much data is allowed, and if the VPS/Cloud host actually tracks data usage.
I think the reply would be... why do you feel entitled to consume content that you didn't create, in the first place?
You had the choice to stop watching... and thats the only legal choice. To pretend that doing something illegal because you feel entitled to it is right, thats a little bit... childish?
You had the choice to stop watching... and thats the only legal choice. To pretend that doing something illegal because you feel entitled to it is right, thats a little bit... childish?
Illegal is not immoral; copyright is a legal construct designed to reward content creators for their works for a limited period of time before it enters the public domain. Our history, culture, and heritage is a fabric of works created by individuals that enter the public consciousness. If you co-opt culture and won't offer it to people through legitimate means, don't be surprised if they go to the frictionless and better value proposition of copying information from the internet without permission.
...Because they feel entitled to the content...
You keep confusing "being entitled to content" and "being entitled to equal and non-discriminatory treatment". Do you understand the difference?
No, thats not at all what it is. There are regulatory and legal reasons why netflix content (even specific content) isnt available everywhere. Its not discriminatory.
Its simple entitlement. Don't try to confuse the issue by making it about some kind of discriminatory issue. A business has to have licences to operate in a country, there are many stipulations and there is a cost involved with those stipulations, netflix has no oblication to jump through legal hurdles and pay more money so everyone can enjoy their content.
I work for a global company - one who works in the digital realm and makes AAA games... trust me, I deal with these things. You'd be surprised the effort for a US company to sell their product/service in china...
Its simple entitlement. Don't try to confuse the issue by making it about some kind of discriminatory issue. A business has to have licences to operate in a country, there are many stipulations and there is a cost involved with those stipulations, netflix has no oblication to jump through legal hurdles and pay more money so everyone can enjoy their content.
I work for a global company - one who works in the digital realm and makes AAA games... trust me, I deal with these things. You'd be surprised the effort for a US company to sell their product/service in china...
I am not surprised at all, and I am not asking anything from Netflix, like I explained earlier. I was on sell side too, and I know that resolving international legal hurdles is not the most exciting thing in life (I lived and worked in 6 countries).
But this only means that international law is a mess, and have to be repealed/updated. It won't happen soon, unless there will be more and more people willingfully breaking the law, as they are damn right to feel "entitled" to equal service, which can be delivered by config option. Technically, it is not a big deal. If it is a huge legal deal, the laws be damned.
But this only means that international law is a mess, and have to be repealed/updated. It won't happen soon, unless there will be more and more people willingfully breaking the law, as they are damn right to feel "entitled" to equal service, which can be delivered by config option. Technically, it is not a big deal. If it is a huge legal deal, the laws be damned.
And Netflix and your AAA-titles-producing company both have no moral right to legally harass people who can't possibly buy your things and have to copy them for free, of course. What "damage" they are bringing to you, if you can't get any money from them anyway?
"have to copy them for free"
Man, i didnt realize they HAD to copy them... i swear they have the option to just not watch.
Oh, but again, they feel entitled to watch.
Man, i didnt realize they HAD to copy them... i swear they have the option to just not watch.
Oh, but again, they feel entitled to watch.
Yes, and African Americans had the option of not visiting "white only" restaurants. Do you see any difference here? Because I don't.
Yes, there is a huge difference.
I bet people like Rosa Parks, MLK, etc... people who paid dearly for Equal rights would be so upset that you've lowered the meaning of that word to simple movies...
Being treated differently, being cast aside and being held back from success because of your race, that you cant change, that you had no control of aquiring - is nowhere near not being able to watch a movie because of legal restrictions of where you live. How do you possibly consider those things even remotely similar?
I bet people like Rosa Parks, MLK, etc... people who paid dearly for Equal rights would be so upset that you've lowered the meaning of that word to simple movies...
Being treated differently, being cast aside and being held back from success because of your race, that you cant change, that you had no control of aquiring - is nowhere near not being able to watch a movie because of legal restrictions of where you live. How do you possibly consider those things even remotely similar?
Rosa Parks couldn't ride the bus based on the color of her skin.
In fact, there were sit-ins in "white only" movie theaters, because some people weren't accepted here even if they were able to pay. It's not that they didn't have the option to just not watch the movie, right?
Back then, white people were responding to just accusations exactly the same way — "come on, it's _just_ the bus ride! it's just the movie! what's the big deal?"
I can't easily come to live where I want — visa issues. This is discrimination by nationality, exactly the same as discrimination by skin color. And part of this big discrimination is my inability to watch the movie based on the place where I live.
In fact, there were sit-ins in "white only" movie theaters, because some people weren't accepted here even if they were able to pay. It's not that they didn't have the option to just not watch the movie, right?
Back then, white people were responding to just accusations exactly the same way — "come on, it's _just_ the bus ride! it's just the movie! what's the big deal?"
I can't easily come to live where I want — visa issues. This is discrimination by nationality, exactly the same as discrimination by skin color. And part of this big discrimination is my inability to watch the movie based on the place where I live.
>Being treated differently [...] because of _, that you cant change, that you had no control of [...] is nowhere near not being able to [...] because of _, [that you cant change, that you had no control of]. How do you possibly consider those things even remotely similar?
Edited that for clarity.
Edited that for clarity.
Does the right to equal treatment mean the seller must charge the same price to everyone?
For example, must the price to stream the latest James Bond movie be the same in India as the United States?
For example, must the price to stream the latest James Bond movie be the same in India as the United States?
A trick question. Theoretically, I don't know.
Pragmatically, though, it is not a big deal. Here in Switzerland, I am content to pay 2x price for the same content as in the US — we have to support our reputation as the most expensive country on Earth, after all :) In India, one can attempt to sell software and content for the same price as in US, but it won't generate any sales. The pragmatic option is to sell Indian-localized software for low price, and English versions for original price, which is already working perfectly well for software and everyone is happy. Both me and an Indian girl can buy any US-made software. At least it was possible when the software was downloaded or delivered physically — software in app stores are becoming subject to the same shitty policies as the rest of digital content.
The world is becoming increasingly global, but policymakers and copyright holders try to isolate us in nation state borders.
Pragmatically, though, it is not a big deal. Here in Switzerland, I am content to pay 2x price for the same content as in the US — we have to support our reputation as the most expensive country on Earth, after all :) In India, one can attempt to sell software and content for the same price as in US, but it won't generate any sales. The pragmatic option is to sell Indian-localized software for low price, and English versions for original price, which is already working perfectly well for software and everyone is happy. Both me and an Indian girl can buy any US-made software. At least it was possible when the software was downloaded or delivered physically — software in app stores are becoming subject to the same shitty policies as the rest of digital content.
The world is becoming increasingly global, but policymakers and copyright holders try to isolate us in nation state borders.
Because people at other countries can pay and see the content freely, but we foreigners can't do it, no matter if we want to pay for it. Netflix just says to us: "sorry, we don't want your _kind_ here. Keep your money and go somewhere else". (I am also in Switzerland).
Technically, if you own a restaurant, you can refuse to serve anyone, they are not entitled to your food and service. But try to selectively refuse service to African Americans, or gays, or Canadians, or Swiss, or all non-Americans, and see where this road will lead you and how much time you'll get until first lawsuit.
Technically, if you own a restaurant, you can refuse to serve anyone, they are not entitled to your food and service. But try to selectively refuse service to African Americans, or gays, or Canadians, or Swiss, or all non-Americans, and see where this road will lead you and how much time you'll get until first lawsuit.
Because for netflix to provide a service to you in your country, there is often legal hurdles in doing so... If you think netflix's motivation is "lets keep these people out because we want to" ... you're not very smart. Netflix will gladly take money from anyone willing to give it, assuming they can legally do so without higher costs to them that outweigh the gain. No business turns down customers if they dont have to.
I am not blaming Netflix. I even don't blame corporations holding the copyright, as they'd also want to sell as much as possible. I blame international copyright law, which at this point amounts to outright discrimination, not unlike racial discrimination laws some decades ago.
If history is any teacher, it is impossible to fight immoral discriminatory laws legally. Peaceful protest works much better. So, go pirate, history and truth are on our side.
If history is any teacher, it is impossible to fight immoral discriminatory laws legally. Peaceful protest works much better. So, go pirate, history and truth are on our side.
Copyright law is so unbelievably out of touch with reality that is difficult to understand how we got into this mess. We have evolved to have perfect memories and instant access to information through the invention of personal computing devices and the internet and yet laws are attempting the suppress the impact that these inventions have so that the people with wealth can continue to gain more wealth. The best interest of the public is the last thing on any ones mind which is somewhat ironic since "the public good" is supposed to be the objective of any law put in place.
Public good is elusive, but I want at least free competitive market. There isn't any in digital copyright.
>Because they feel entitled to the content
>Its simple entitlement
>they feel entitled to watch
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
>why do you feel entitled to consume content that you didn't create, in the first place?
Because it has been published, therefore it is public. 'Publish' is literally a verb that means 'to make available to the public'. And 'public' is literally an adjective that means 'open to or shared by all people'. Of course people have a right to access public things. Why would you feel otherwise? Do you feel guilty when you go to a public park because you didn't create the land? Do you feel the urge to surrender yourself to the police because you walked on a public sidewalk that you didn't create?
Copyright grants special privileges to an author so that they can be compensated for their work, in hopes that this will encourage people to publish things. If you refuse to use your privileges, that's your choice, you decided not to get paid. The public is still entitled to keep the gift that you gave them.
Where it gets ugly is that copyright declares that copying or transmitting something (even something already public) is itself an act of publication, and only the author is allowed to determine who may republish their work for awhile. So redistributing without permission is not allowed. But it has been published and therefore the public does still have a right to access it if it is available, they just don't have the right to republish it.
Which leads to the issue here. What is the correct result if something is public, and the public has every right to access it, but can't exercise that right because it's not available? In theory, the author should take advantage of their copyright privileges to get some money from the public in exchange for access. That would be a win-win, leaving everybody happy!
In the past, that could be difficult due to printing and shipping and international trade difficulties and various other legitimate problems. But today's tech makes it relatively trivial, cheap, and convenient to sell digital files online globally. So if the author chooses not to do so, then in the eyes of the public, the author has opted out of their copyright privilege, they have forfeited. It is a public thing that should be open to free access, since the author has chosen not to accept payment for access. Of course, that's not what the law says yet, but that's already what people believe is correct, reasonable, and ethical.
Authors who attempt to suppress access to public things, or make it unreasonably difficult and expensive to do so, or bully people who try to access them, are in the wrong, and they will lose eventually. That is an unethical and immoral stance, and it is an abuse of copyright, not in keeping with its intent.
>Its simple entitlement
>they feel entitled to watch
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
>why do you feel entitled to consume content that you didn't create, in the first place?
Because it has been published, therefore it is public. 'Publish' is literally a verb that means 'to make available to the public'. And 'public' is literally an adjective that means 'open to or shared by all people'. Of course people have a right to access public things. Why would you feel otherwise? Do you feel guilty when you go to a public park because you didn't create the land? Do you feel the urge to surrender yourself to the police because you walked on a public sidewalk that you didn't create?
Copyright grants special privileges to an author so that they can be compensated for their work, in hopes that this will encourage people to publish things. If you refuse to use your privileges, that's your choice, you decided not to get paid. The public is still entitled to keep the gift that you gave them.
Where it gets ugly is that copyright declares that copying or transmitting something (even something already public) is itself an act of publication, and only the author is allowed to determine who may republish their work for awhile. So redistributing without permission is not allowed. But it has been published and therefore the public does still have a right to access it if it is available, they just don't have the right to republish it.
Which leads to the issue here. What is the correct result if something is public, and the public has every right to access it, but can't exercise that right because it's not available? In theory, the author should take advantage of their copyright privileges to get some money from the public in exchange for access. That would be a win-win, leaving everybody happy!
In the past, that could be difficult due to printing and shipping and international trade difficulties and various other legitimate problems. But today's tech makes it relatively trivial, cheap, and convenient to sell digital files online globally. So if the author chooses not to do so, then in the eyes of the public, the author has opted out of their copyright privilege, they have forfeited. It is a public thing that should be open to free access, since the author has chosen not to accept payment for access. Of course, that's not what the law says yet, but that's already what people believe is correct, reasonable, and ethical.
Authors who attempt to suppress access to public things, or make it unreasonably difficult and expensive to do so, or bully people who try to access them, are in the wrong, and they will lose eventually. That is an unethical and immoral stance, and it is an abuse of copyright, not in keeping with its intent.
We're in Canada and have been cable cutters for almost five years now. We've gotten by on Netflix US and YouTube with the occasional pirated streaming site, but we're barely ever using Netflix anymore.
We've turned to Kodi. We don't want to pirate, but it's hard to make a compelling argument against it when you get everything you want even easier than torrents.
Add to that the abusive monopolies of Shaw and Bell, who each now have their own streaming subscriptions, services like Hulu and HBO Now either being blocked here or controlled by Shaw or Bell, and the Netlix subscription increasing by 50% in May for a lacklustre catalogue.
With all of that, the three movies I go to the cinema to see each month, and my Netflix subscription, it's hard not to feel like I pay my share for content. Not a popular opinion, I'm sure, but I'm not getting a dozen streaming services subscriptions.
We've turned to Kodi. We don't want to pirate, but it's hard to make a compelling argument against it when you get everything you want even easier than torrents.
Add to that the abusive monopolies of Shaw and Bell, who each now have their own streaming subscriptions, services like Hulu and HBO Now either being blocked here or controlled by Shaw or Bell, and the Netlix subscription increasing by 50% in May for a lacklustre catalogue.
With all of that, the three movies I go to the cinema to see each month, and my Netflix subscription, it's hard not to feel like I pay my share for content. Not a popular opinion, I'm sure, but I'm not getting a dozen streaming services subscriptions.
[deleted]
What's wrong with Bell/Saw/Rogers having their own streaming services? I've found Bell's Crave TV to be pretty good, Shomi not as much.
It might just be my experience dealing with Bell when we had ExpressVu before becoming cable cutters, and Shaw's Internet service when I was growing up.
I also hate the things Bell has tried to do through the CRTC, like that whole Internet thing with smaller providers using its pipes.
I guess it's a principal thing.
EDIT: Another example... I used to always choose Famous Players for movies. I avoided Cineplex. Then Cplex gobbled up Famous and I started going to Landmark. I should be able to choose where I consume my content.
I also hate the things Bell has tried to do through the CRTC, like that whole Internet thing with smaller providers using its pipes.
I guess it's a principal thing.
EDIT: Another example... I used to always choose Famous Players for movies. I avoided Cineplex. Then Cplex gobbled up Famous and I started going to Landmark. I should be able to choose where I consume my content.
Yea, the CRTC is much better than what it was years ago. They are pushing for channel unbundling for example now.
Yeah, and look how well that turned out: http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/crtc-skinny-basic-pick-and-p...
(Spoiler: the unbundled packages cost more and have fewer shows)
(Spoiler: the unbundled packages cost more and have fewer shows)
Which highlights the same situation, but reversed for US watchers: CraveTV owns rights to some shows that don't appear in the US (Letterkenny), but there is no way to get it in the US. The only way to legally pay for Letterkenny is by VPNing (which would/could be considered illegal in the US as 'circumventing protection').
Media companies need to grow up.
Media companies need to grow up.
To understand what's wrong with that, you need to go back over 100 years. Do a search on the legends and lore behind a device called the "Strowger switch."
This question is the very heart of network neutrality. You don't want your cable company running a competing streaming service.
Really, you don't.
This question is the very heart of network neutrality. You don't want your cable company running a competing streaming service.
Really, you don't.
Crave TV has great content, but they have been very frustrating for me technically. Random drops in the stream, session cookies getting corrupted (they only recently allow password changes from their site).
Agree with that 100%. Any time I've had to use web/iOS apps for Crave, I've wondered what is up with Bell Media's software people. The TSN app is just as poor, especially compared to what Rogers' Sportsnet app is doing on iOS.
you mean besides the obvious conflict of interest?
You have to be a subscriber to cable
May I ask what you don't like about Shomi? Is it the content?
The technical delivery is poor. Hiccups, corruption, and drops in service are pretty common :(
I don't think I've gotten through a single episode without the PS4 app either crashing or the stream freezing.
Similarly, I think I've successfully watched maybe three things from Shomi on my Chromecast while Netflix/Spotify/etc are working flawlessly.
Not being able to stream to my TV kind of defeats the point for me.
Not being able to stream to my TV kind of defeats the point for me.
The same effect is occurring in South Africa. People I know are switching back to piracy because our Netflix catalog is probably in the region of 10% of America (for the same reasons, as well as others).
After years of not being able to legally access some copyrighted content, with no discussion and no change, I honestly don't see the copyright holders backing down - strange considering that they are the only ones actually losing out. Nobody deserves to have their hard work stolen, but I can't lie and deny that I don't perceive some form of justice happening here.
After years of not being able to legally access some copyrighted content, with no discussion and no change, I honestly don't see the copyright holders backing down - strange considering that they are the only ones actually losing out. Nobody deserves to have their hard work stolen, but I can't lie and deny that I don't perceive some form of justice happening here.
Same as you, not condoning piracy. However, in my opinion it is very unlikely we are paying for "the persons who worked hard on creating this content". Sure we are paying for them, but I think most of the money goes to the person whose capital "worked hard on creating this content".
I think it's more like you create demand for them. I doubt any of your bill actually goes to the creator directly in most licensing setups. Or is that wrong?
So? The content creators don't get their next gig unless the investors feel like finding it.
[deleted](1)
The copyright owners aren't losing anything. They're trying to maximize profits, not sales.
That couldn't be farther from the truth, unfortunately. If they were trying to maximize profits, they would focus on providing reasonable ways for everyone on the planet to give them money.
Instead, what production companies try to optimize is the funding used to create the content in the first place. They sell the rights as many times as they can, in as many different markets as they can, in order to finance the production. They are then required to enforce region restrictions to live up to the foreign distribution contracts they signed.
The fact that this ultimately results in lower profits hasn't yet occurred to these idiots^H^H^H^H^H^H creative geniuses. It brings in more cash up front, which appears to be all they care about.
Instead, what production companies try to optimize is the funding used to create the content in the first place. They sell the rights as many times as they can, in as many different markets as they can, in order to finance the production. They are then required to enforce region restrictions to live up to the foreign distribution contracts they signed.
The fact that this ultimately results in lower profits hasn't yet occurred to these idiots^H^H^H^H^H^H creative geniuses. It brings in more cash up front, which appears to be all they care about.
Yeah, these people who are in the business of making money in their field know nothing of what they are doing and should take the advice of random anonymous person on the Internet. Based on the shenanigans of some of the people in the entertainment industry, mainly movies, that are aimed directly at keeping as much money as possible from those they should dole it out to; I'm willing to bet they know what they're doing.
One day it'll be more profitable to do a more reasonable distribution method and that day they'll switch pretending they wanted to do it the entire time. The whole HBO streaming thing is likely a good example of this.
One day it'll be more profitable to do a more reasonable distribution method and that day they'll switch pretending they wanted to do it the entire time. The whole HBO streaming thing is likely a good example of this.
Seems a bit unfair to call them idiots.. by optimizing funding they are minimizing their risk at the expense of higher returns.
This seems like a good thing for a business to do, although perhaps they should figure out better ways to do this so they don't anger all their consumers
This seems like a good thing for a business to do, although perhaps they should figure out better ways to do this so they don't anger all their consumers
>Nobody deserves to have their hard work stolen
First off, it's not theft, it's copyright infringement. No one's stealing their content, because the copyright holders still have it. Stealing is wrong because it deprives the owner of the use of that thing: if I steal your car, then you can't drive to work any more. If I sneakily scan your car with a tricorder and 3D-print a clone of it, you still have your car.
Semantics aside, I completely disagree about them deserving to have their hard work copied and not getting paid for it. They absolutely do deserve this. If someone works hard on some piece of art (music, movie, etc.) and makes it conveniently available to everyone at the same fair price, then I think they deserve to get paid for it. But if they're dicks and they use their dominant position and inertia to promote their works and make them popular and culturally relevant, but then they only make them available to some people and not to others because they're trying to figure out unethical ways of gaming the system to make more money, then fuck 'em. People in other regions where this stuff isn't available have every right to copy it without paying.
These copyright holders have been bitching for many years about "piracy". Then along came the iTunes Store, Netflix, etc., and they proved that people are willing to pay for this stuff as long as it's a fair price and is convenient. Now they want to dick with it, so predictably, people are going back to piracy. Personally, I'd rather not bother with piracy: it's a PITA to use BitTorrent, try to find good versions of stuff, hope there's enough seeders out there, wait forever for it to download (not a problem if it's extremely popular that day, but a big problem if it's not), etc. I'd much rather pay $8/month for Netflix and just select what I want to see, hit "play" and watch it. But if the copyright holders are going to kill the goose that laid the golden egg, then oh well...
First off, it's not theft, it's copyright infringement. No one's stealing their content, because the copyright holders still have it. Stealing is wrong because it deprives the owner of the use of that thing: if I steal your car, then you can't drive to work any more. If I sneakily scan your car with a tricorder and 3D-print a clone of it, you still have your car.
Semantics aside, I completely disagree about them deserving to have their hard work copied and not getting paid for it. They absolutely do deserve this. If someone works hard on some piece of art (music, movie, etc.) and makes it conveniently available to everyone at the same fair price, then I think they deserve to get paid for it. But if they're dicks and they use their dominant position and inertia to promote their works and make them popular and culturally relevant, but then they only make them available to some people and not to others because they're trying to figure out unethical ways of gaming the system to make more money, then fuck 'em. People in other regions where this stuff isn't available have every right to copy it without paying.
These copyright holders have been bitching for many years about "piracy". Then along came the iTunes Store, Netflix, etc., and they proved that people are willing to pay for this stuff as long as it's a fair price and is convenient. Now they want to dick with it, so predictably, people are going back to piracy. Personally, I'd rather not bother with piracy: it's a PITA to use BitTorrent, try to find good versions of stuff, hope there's enough seeders out there, wait forever for it to download (not a problem if it's extremely popular that day, but a big problem if it's not), etc. I'd much rather pay $8/month for Netflix and just select what I want to see, hit "play" and watch it. But if the copyright holders are going to kill the goose that laid the golden egg, then oh well...
> People in other regions where this stuff isn't available have every right to copy it without paying.
I think you've got this wrong. The people in other regions don't have "every right to copy it", they have "every right to not consume it". Don't like the rules? Don't play. It's their content, so they set the rules. That's kind of all there is to it. I absolutely agree that you can be pissed off about this and not like it though.
But nothing gives you the "right" to force your way into someone else's party just because you weren't invited, or didn't like the ticket price. If you think like that, you're as much of a dick as the people you seem to be mad at.
So unless you are using the word "unethical" in an ironic fashion when you describe what they do, you probably should not use it at all if you're then going to condone what is essentially an unethical response yourself.
I think you've got this wrong. The people in other regions don't have "every right to copy it", they have "every right to not consume it". Don't like the rules? Don't play. It's their content, so they set the rules. That's kind of all there is to it. I absolutely agree that you can be pissed off about this and not like it though.
But nothing gives you the "right" to force your way into someone else's party just because you weren't invited, or didn't like the ticket price. If you think like that, you're as much of a dick as the people you seem to be mad at.
So unless you are using the word "unethical" in an ironic fashion when you describe what they do, you probably should not use it at all if you're then going to condone what is essentially an unethical response yourself.
>The people in other regions don't have "every right to copy it", they have "every right to not consume it". Don't like the rules? Don't play. It's their content, so they set the rules.
>But nothing gives you the "right" to force your way into someone else's party just because you weren't invited, or didn't like the ticket price.
Completely wrong on both counts.
If I'm not invited to someone else's party, but I want to observe it without interfering with the partygoers, I have every right to invent a device which allows me to create an artificial wormhole which then allows me to remotely observe this party (see the Arthur C. Clarke book "Light of Other Days"). The partygoers will have no idea I'm observing them and since they wouldn't sell me a ticket anyway, they won't see a difference in their revenues.
Similarly, if content holders don't bother to offer their wares to me and then make it too difficult for me to acquire them with a workaround (subscription + VPN), then I have every right to download a copy. As above, they have no idea that I'm watching their content, and since they didn't offer it to me for sale anyway, they won't see a difference in their revenues.
>if you're then going to condone what is essentially an unethical response yourself.
I'm not condoning an unethical response, I'm condoning an ethical one. Ethics are in the eye of the beholder; for some people, it's completely ethical to hack someone's head off if they don't follow the correct religion. I choose to reject your system of ethics which grants all power to large, moneyed interests.
>But nothing gives you the "right" to force your way into someone else's party just because you weren't invited, or didn't like the ticket price.
Completely wrong on both counts.
If I'm not invited to someone else's party, but I want to observe it without interfering with the partygoers, I have every right to invent a device which allows me to create an artificial wormhole which then allows me to remotely observe this party (see the Arthur C. Clarke book "Light of Other Days"). The partygoers will have no idea I'm observing them and since they wouldn't sell me a ticket anyway, they won't see a difference in their revenues.
Similarly, if content holders don't bother to offer their wares to me and then make it too difficult for me to acquire them with a workaround (subscription + VPN), then I have every right to download a copy. As above, they have no idea that I'm watching their content, and since they didn't offer it to me for sale anyway, they won't see a difference in their revenues.
>if you're then going to condone what is essentially an unethical response yourself.
I'm not condoning an unethical response, I'm condoning an ethical one. Ethics are in the eye of the beholder; for some people, it's completely ethical to hack someone's head off if they don't follow the correct religion. I choose to reject your system of ethics which grants all power to large, moneyed interests.
> I have every right to invent a device which allows me to create an artificial wormhole which then allows me to remotely observe this party (see the Arthur C. Clarke book "Light of Other Days"). The partygoers will have no idea I'm observing them and since they wouldn't sell me a ticket anyway, they won't see a difference in their revenues.
Voyeurism may or may not be a crime in your jurisdiction.
Voyeurism may or may not be a crime in your jurisdiction.
That really depends on the exact laws and how they're worded, and what kind of party this is. A party which involves ticket sales (as was stipulated before) is not a private house party, this is the kind of party that happens at a club and is something that's "open to the general public" (just like a concert or movie), so I don't think voyeurism laws would apply here. There's no expectation of privacy in a setting like this; anyone is allowed to enter, as long as they pay the ticket price and don't exceed the venue's capacity. So if you come up with a way of looking inside the place, getting the viewing experience everyone else has there, without trespassing in any way or interfering with other people there, I don't see how it could be a crime unless they invent a new law to address it.
Here's another thought experiment, but using modern tech: suppose there's a party like this (open to the public, tickets required to enter), and there's no rules at the club forbidding cameras or communication devices. If you pay the ticket price, you're allowed to enter and take photos all you want as long as you don't disturb people and make a nuisance of yourself. (I'm pretty sure any normal bar or club these days is just like this; people take photos of themselves at bars all the time.)
You don't want to pay the ticket price to get in, but you want to see what's going on there. Your friend however wants to go in, so he buys a ticket and enters. While inside, he whips out his phone, and activates an app which contacts your phone, and then streams live video from his phone's camera to your phone. You're now able to see and hear what's going on in the party without buying a ticket, apparently legally. Fast-forward a few years and instead of watching your buddy's video stream on your 5" phone screen, you're watching it on a VR headset, so it's almost like being there. My wormhole idea isn't much different from this; it just doesn't require a confederate.
Here's another thought experiment, but using modern tech: suppose there's a party like this (open to the public, tickets required to enter), and there's no rules at the club forbidding cameras or communication devices. If you pay the ticket price, you're allowed to enter and take photos all you want as long as you don't disturb people and make a nuisance of yourself. (I'm pretty sure any normal bar or club these days is just like this; people take photos of themselves at bars all the time.)
You don't want to pay the ticket price to get in, but you want to see what's going on there. Your friend however wants to go in, so he buys a ticket and enters. While inside, he whips out his phone, and activates an app which contacts your phone, and then streams live video from his phone's camera to your phone. You're now able to see and hear what's going on in the party without buying a ticket, apparently legally. Fast-forward a few years and instead of watching your buddy's video stream on your 5" phone screen, you're watching it on a VR headset, so it's almost like being there. My wormhole idea isn't much different from this; it just doesn't require a confederate.
Point here is, all of this doesn't matter. The market doesn't care about "ethics" or whatever. The market only knows one thing: Demand.
And it will do whatever it takes to satisfy this demand. If this happens to be "subscribing to your awesome streaming service", well then good for you! If not, too bad, the market DOES NOT CARE about you.
So you can now either spend your money on lobbying to get these people into jail or try to expand your market and get the people's money into your pockets. The latter being obviously the better choice for both you and your future customers.
And it will do whatever it takes to satisfy this demand. If this happens to be "subscribing to your awesome streaming service", well then good for you! If not, too bad, the market DOES NOT CARE about you.
So you can now either spend your money on lobbying to get these people into jail or try to expand your market and get the people's money into your pockets. The latter being obviously the better choice for both you and your future customers.
The problem with Netflix, to me, is that relying on it means that I restrict myself to their very limited selection.
The only place I know where I can reliably find copies of high-quality cinema is a private torrent tracker... and some public libraries, but I don't own a DVD unit (and don't want one).
Sure, there might be some legal way to gain semi-convenient access to the library of cinematic culture, but I don't know about it. It's kind of tragic.
Like, people seriously claim Netflix as some sort of alternative to pirate copying... and I go into the Swedish Netflix and search for "Bergman" and get one result: Casablanca.
iTunes's selection is wider, but still, I search for "Tarkovsky" and there's zilch. "Ozu", nothing. "Renoir", nah. Oh, they do have one Murnau, the newly restored Nosferatu. No Eisenstein, Dreyer, or Godard. And so on.
Of course it's all because of copyright restrictions and maybe a lack of projected profits from these art films. That's exactly the point. Pirate copying is a way for people to share this material without being restricted by such tedious limitations.
The only place I know where I can reliably find copies of high-quality cinema is a private torrent tracker... and some public libraries, but I don't own a DVD unit (and don't want one).
Sure, there might be some legal way to gain semi-convenient access to the library of cinematic culture, but I don't know about it. It's kind of tragic.
Like, people seriously claim Netflix as some sort of alternative to pirate copying... and I go into the Swedish Netflix and search for "Bergman" and get one result: Casablanca.
iTunes's selection is wider, but still, I search for "Tarkovsky" and there's zilch. "Ozu", nothing. "Renoir", nah. Oh, they do have one Murnau, the newly restored Nosferatu. No Eisenstein, Dreyer, or Godard. And so on.
Of course it's all because of copyright restrictions and maybe a lack of projected profits from these art films. That's exactly the point. Pirate copying is a way for people to share this material without being restricted by such tedious limitations.
Perhaps this might be useful when it is available: http://filmstruck.com/
Maybe, but I can't tell from the press release or the website whether it will be available internationally, and it seems likely that it will (at least initially) be a US-only deal.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Regional rights agreements are really slowing down the move of TV to online. Publishers say "well, we already signed these agreements with these TV companies, so we can't let this shows be streamed online in those countries". TV companies say "well, we only got the rights to broadcast on TV, so we can't stream the show online in this country".
Hopefully as the popularity of online streaming increases, new contracts will take online streaming into account more. There's no real reason to have regional restrictions online, but I'm sure they'll continue as long as the companies want to get more money
Hopefully as the popularity of online streaming increases, new contracts will take online streaming into account more. There's no real reason to have regional restrictions online, but I'm sure they'll continue as long as the companies want to get more money
And even
> "well, we only got the rights to broadcast on TV, so we can't stream the show online in this country".
Is horrendous. Because then you wind up with 10 different streaming services, all charging you the same (or more) as netflix.
> "well, we only got the rights to broadcast on TV, so we can't stream the show online in this country".
Is horrendous. Because then you wind up with 10 different streaming services, all charging you the same (or more) as netflix.
> There's no real reason to have regional restrictions online...
While I broadly agree with you I don't buy this one point.
By restricting availability by region, publishers can (a) spread out their promotion costs & reduce risk exposure, and (b) charge more.
Wearing my techno-utopian hat, the first reason is bullshit that nees solving and the second reason is greed. Wearing my realist hat, both reasons are the way the world works and neither seems like it's going to change in short order as publishers hold a monopoly over content.
Does anyone know if Netflix delay release of their own content by region?
While I broadly agree with you I don't buy this one point.
By restricting availability by region, publishers can (a) spread out their promotion costs & reduce risk exposure, and (b) charge more.
Wearing my techno-utopian hat, the first reason is bullshit that nees solving and the second reason is greed. Wearing my realist hat, both reasons are the way the world works and neither seems like it's going to change in short order as publishers hold a monopoly over content.
Does anyone know if Netflix delay release of their own content by region?
They kind of do. At least in France, until about a month ago, you could not watch House of Cards on Netflix because the show was sold to a local network !
It's been "fixed" now though.
It's been "fixed" now though.
> Hopefully as the popularity of online streaming increases, new contracts will take online streaming into account more. There's no real reason to have regional restrictions online, but I'm sure they'll continue as long as the companies want to get more money
Piracy has always been a convenience problem and only partly a cost problem.
Pirating content is the easiest, fastest, highest quality, and most available method of watching content. The price is just a nice bonus.
Digital restrictions hurt everyone and maybe one day Hollywood will wake up and realize that you can't strong-arm the market into behaving how you want it to and you have to adapt to consumer demand. It's one of the few industries that I know of that try this hard to fight against consumer demand. It's so backwards.
Until the day they change, pirate on.
Pirating content is the easiest, fastest, highest quality, and most available method of watching content. The price is just a nice bonus.
Digital restrictions hurt everyone and maybe one day Hollywood will wake up and realize that you can't strong-arm the market into behaving how you want it to and you have to adapt to consumer demand. It's one of the few industries that I know of that try this hard to fight against consumer demand. It's so backwards.
Until the day they change, pirate on.
Yep -- I want to watch tv shows on the night they come out so I can talk with friends about them the day after. Nearly every per-episode-purchase vendor lists them the day after (most likely because the networks that air the shows require them to wait). It's dumb, and all it does is push me away from paying them more than they'd make on advertising from me anyway.
The only reason I subscribed to Netflix was that it was the best way to get Warehouse 13, which I really wanted to see at the time. For now Netflix still has enough content to satisfy me, but the idea that the library is so much smaller here in Germany than in the U.S. was never to my liking .. Greedy companies force Netflix to block customers, customers pirate content instead, all loose. One would think Hollywood learned their lesson, just as the music industry did, but it doesn't look that way. Maybe one day they'll find out that the correct solution if you ran against a wall is not do it again and hope that the wall falls, but to go around it.
It's never been well explained to me how this is a profitable model, especially considering the ease with which popular shows are pirated - in full HD and digital sound I might add. What do studios really stand to gain by keeping Germany et al from so much content?
Why is everyone assuming that greedy German companies aren't willing to sell? Is it also possible that Netflix isn't willing to pay the going rate or hasn't bothered to negotiate for the rights.
Netflix launched globally without taking the time to negotiate content for most countries on earth. I'm not sure you can assume that Netflix is being diligent in trying to acquire content.
Especially since even in the USA netlix appears to be pivoting into being a content creator instead of a content aggregator.
Netflix launched globally without taking the time to negotiate content for most countries on earth. I'm not sure you can assume that Netflix is being diligent in trying to acquire content.
Especially since even in the USA netlix appears to be pivoting into being a content creator instead of a content aggregator.
>Why is everyone assuming that greedy German companies aren't willing to sell?
The OP isn't talking about greedy German companies, he's complaining about greedy American companies who won't let Netflix in Germany show American content to German viewers. Greedy German companies are a different issue.
This whole issue is mainly about greedy American companies, because if there's one thing that America produces that people around the world want, it's our movies and TV, and a lot of people outside the US were/are using VPNs and other such things to get access to a US-based Netflix account because the versions in their own countries didn't have all the content that the American version has, and now Netflix is restricting that access.
There aren't many people outside Germany/Austria who really want to see content from German media companies.
The OP isn't talking about greedy German companies, he's complaining about greedy American companies who won't let Netflix in Germany show American content to German viewers. Greedy German companies are a different issue.
This whole issue is mainly about greedy American companies, because if there's one thing that America produces that people around the world want, it's our movies and TV, and a lot of people outside the US were/are using VPNs and other such things to get access to a US-based Netflix account because the versions in their own countries didn't have all the content that the American version has, and now Netflix is restricting that access.
There aren't many people outside Germany/Austria who really want to see content from German media companies.
But it most of these situations some German company already bought the rights to the show. So the greedy American companies already got paid.
They sell it over different channels (Amazon Prime, DVD, etc.) and somehow seem to think that people will use more than one to get all content they want. They probably do this to get better rates from Netflix, e.g. "You know, if you don't pay us x we can always give our content someone else". To me this sounds like madness, I would never use multiple streaming services, but I'm not an Hollywood exec, so maybe there is some method to the madness that I'm not able to see.
FWIW, I regularly use Netflix, Amazon Prime, and YouTube. In the past I would also use iTunes.
The companies get to sell the distribution rights more than once. Its more chances to get a good deal for the producers of the content.
Then they need to maintain this barrier so that the deal is good for both the Producer and Distributor involved. If they don't force Netflix to do this then the deals don't look as good to the distributors.
Then they need to maintain this barrier so that the deal is good for both the Producer and Distributor involved. If they don't force Netflix to do this then the deals don't look as good to the distributors.
I still can access netflix through the VPN I use. As long as I still can do that, I will keep my account. The second they block it, I'll cancel my netflix account and will go back to resorting to piracy. If movie studios don't want my money then so be it, I'll find better use for it.
EDIT: And I say this as someone who spends roughly $100/month supporting artists I like on Patreon and Kickstarter, so I'm not opposed to paying for content. I'm just opposed to big media conglomerates screwing me.
EDIT: And I say this as someone who spends roughly $100/month supporting artists I like on Patreon and Kickstarter, so I'm not opposed to paying for content. I'm just opposed to big media conglomerates screwing me.
Their blocking seems to be quite aggressive, as a lot of regular hosting providers even had their IP ranges blocked by them.
I've been following a few forum posts where people were sharing their working VPN provider/ISP, but those were showing the same error message a few days later, so it looks like they are actively monitoring traffic and maybe even social media to block further IP ranges.
I was not able to test it (for example borrowing a residential IP in a different country) but I suspect they detect OpenVPN via packets inspection, like this example: "Detecting VPN (and its configuration!) and proxy users on the server side" by @ValdikSS https://medium.com/@ValdikSS/detecting-vpn-and-its-configura...
How are they screwing you? You pay for a Netflix sub in the country you live in, and you're paying only for the content they can license there. By making sure people can't watch whatever country they want easily, they make it easier to negotiate with license holders.
They're screwing you because, while everyone pays the same price for the same service, the library that you have access to depends entirely on what side of the border you're on. This makes absolutely no sense in a globally connected world.
Putting a wire or a signal across a border doesn't change content licensing between businesses operating in different countries. We wish it did but it doesn't.
The internet is a global connection where the concept of "countries" don't even make sense. They only exist on the internet, because we put them there. Packets don't magically change when they cross borders, why should the content?
The concept of countries makes sense legally and practically when it comes to licensing content. That's not netflix's fault.
They might make sense legally, but they don't make sense on the Internet. We're trying to patch our archaic rules onto it. Sorry laws can't keep up with technology, but tough shit to those trying to force a square peg into a round hole.
Also, while it may not be Netflix's fault, it's definitely Netflix's problem. They are the ones losing out on free money.
Also, while it may not be Netflix's fault, it's definitely Netflix's problem. They are the ones losing out on free money.
Same issue in Singapore. The Netflix library available here doesn't even contain the latest season of House of Cards – and it's a bloody Netflix production.
I would love to pay someone for timely content, but now that Netflix is blocking vpn access there is literally nobody to pay. It's complete madness.
I would love to pay someone for timely content, but now that Netflix is blocking vpn access there is literally nobody to pay. It's complete madness.
Netflix doesn't own house of cards actually, it exclusive rights to it in some countries in others it doesn't.
Since it is a production of them, is seems utterly moronic to remove one of the main reasons people would join their services in the first place. Many non-us customers joined, just to cancel the account right after they realized that they had no access to the good content. In some cases this is not the fault of netflix, but that of 19th century copyright laws. I cannot blame them, when other services had the rights prior to them...
But 'House of Cards' is a Netflix production, and this doesn't apply here. They would have done themselfs a favour by not selling the rights to this content to the highest bidder. Especially since their ads suggest access to 'House of Cards'.
But 'House of Cards' is a Netflix production, and this doesn't apply here. They would have done themselfs a favour by not selling the rights to this content to the highest bidder. Especially since their ads suggest access to 'House of Cards'.
The problem comes from the original BBC House of Cards. Netflix doesn't actually own the rights, they're licensed from a company called Media Rights Capital.
Netflix funded production, so would have had strong leverage over MRC's relicensing. We can't see the contracts, but I'm fairly confident that Netflix would have had at least right of first refusal for rights for any region.
Leverage only goes so far. Since it was originally a BBC show ~20 years ago, chances are that country-specific rights were sold off long before Netflix got involved.
Why would the licensing of the old shows have anything to do with the licensing of the new shows?
MRC licensed the name and concept from the BBC. That license would definitely not be regionalized.
MRC licensed the name and concept from the BBC. That license would definitely not be regionalized.
It's likely impossible to say without having insider knowledge. Perhaps somebody with international IP law could weigh in.
But it appears there's an added wrinkle. Back when the show started production, MRC sold off rights in countries where Netflix didn't yet operate. CanalPlus in France and Sky Deutschland in Germany managed to get exclusive rights in their respective countries. Netflix is trying to get the rights globally, but they can't force anyone to sell them anything.
source: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/netflix-subscribers-eu...
But it appears there's an added wrinkle. Back when the show started production, MRC sold off rights in countries where Netflix didn't yet operate. CanalPlus in France and Sky Deutschland in Germany managed to get exclusive rights in their respective countries. Netflix is trying to get the rights globally, but they can't force anyone to sell them anything.
source: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/netflix-subscribers-eu...
Puts pressure back on regional rights holders to sign on with Netflix - join the dominant market player and make a few bucks, or see your content pirated and get nothing
The whole deal system is a problem here. In Germany even the latest season of House of Cards isn't available, and that's their own production.
Production that, I'm pretty sure, they sold to some German network for more than it would bring in on Netflix itself... gotta love economics!
Yup, sold to Sky.
I ended up having the conversation with a co-worker...I live in Canada, and anyone who lives up here can back me up on the fact that this country is just awful with regards to its copyright litigation with regards to television, especially.
It's far, far easier for me to pirate content than it is to legally buy it.
Until that's the case, I'm not interested in forking over my money to be inconvenienced (and this is coming from a dude who buys his music mainly on vinyl).
It's far, far easier for me to pirate content than it is to legally buy it.
Until that's the case, I'm not interested in forking over my money to be inconvenienced (and this is coming from a dude who buys his music mainly on vinyl).
Wait, you are justifying an illegal action of yours because it is easier than the legal route? Since when doing the right thing is and should always be easier... So, do you also not pay income tax because it is much easier to not do so? There are countless examples where being illegal is easier over legal, but as a society some of us understand that if the majority respect the law and order, we are much better off.
I'm Canadian, and I certainly don't back you up on this. I use Netflix, Crave, my providers VoD service, independent and mainstream theaters to consume content all the time. When I realize I've spent more then I should on entertainment, I simply find other stuff to do or consume.
Is it really about being "easier" and not about being cheap? Personally, I find it quite easy to swipe my credit card or link it to a Google Play account.
I am amazed to read this under the caption of articles picture: "Netflix customer Susan Lorenz of Toronto doesn't understand why the company is suddenly shutting her out from the content she used to be able to see." ... Susan most certainly understands why.
I'm Canadian, and I certainly don't back you up on this. I use Netflix, Crave, my providers VoD service, independent and mainstream theaters to consume content all the time. When I realize I've spent more then I should on entertainment, I simply find other stuff to do or consume.
Is it really about being "easier" and not about being cheap? Personally, I find it quite easy to swipe my credit card or link it to a Google Play account.
I am amazed to read this under the caption of articles picture: "Netflix customer Susan Lorenz of Toronto doesn't understand why the company is suddenly shutting her out from the content she used to be able to see." ... Susan most certainly understands why.
Regardless of whatever moral card you want to play here, the fact of the matter boils down to Gabe Newell's famous insight on the matter: Piracy is almost always a service problem[0]. People value their time. Make the experience easy for them, and people will pay. Make the experience shitty for them, and people will find the path of least resistance.
People pay taxes because they have to. When it comes to entertainment, people aren't going to waste their time jumping through hoops.
[0] http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/114391-Valves-Gabe...
People pay taxes because they have to. When it comes to entertainment, people aren't going to waste their time jumping through hoops.
[0] http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/114391-Valves-Gabe...
It might be true of first world. I do not think that in poor countries like India where 100s of millions live on less that ~2 dollar a day any service could be cheaper than piracy. And I have seen people in India jump through hoops to pirate content rather than paying even a little for convenience.
Gabe Newell's observation seems to me a very limited view of the world by a spectacularly successful first world entrepreneur.
Gabe Newell's observation seems to me a very limited view of the world by a spectacularly successful first world entrepreneur.
Odd that it seems to work, though. How much money does Steam make from people who could be getting the content for free?
I really don't think Gabe is right.
People pirate games that are on steam by the millions. Fall out 4 was pirated millions of times, but it's super easy to install on Steam. In fact it's a pain in the butt to install a pirated copy. Yet it's highly pirated.
Paying for convenience is an upper middle class / rich thing. For a lot of people, saving 60 bucks is all the motivation one needs to pirate.
People pirate games that are on steam by the millions. Fall out 4 was pirated millions of times, but it's super easy to install on Steam. In fact it's a pain in the butt to install a pirated copy. Yet it's highly pirated.
Paying for convenience is an upper middle class / rich thing. For a lot of people, saving 60 bucks is all the motivation one needs to pirate.
Your missing the point though: How much money did FO4 make, from people who could have pirated it? They chose not to, and a large part of that reasoning is that Steam is just easier to use.
You really pay for, and juggle the use of, more than one streaming service? Until we can stream any movie or TV show, from a single service, for a reasonable price, the same day it is broadcast on cable or released on home media, all without commercials, pirating will continue to be extremely popular. There are no ifs, ands, or buts about it. You can lambaste the general population's morals all you want. Call it lawless entitlement, criminal theft, whatever floats your boat. It doesn't change the fact that the current situation is a joke, and a lot of people have no qualms telling the industry that fucks with us to go fuck themselves.
Hopefully the situation will change as the baby boomer generation dies off, and a younger generation that understands the idiocy of the previous era takes over. There is no way the current system would survive if 20-30 year olds were leading the industry. It's time to ditch the horse and carriage, and upgrade to electric vehicles.
Hopefully the situation will change as the baby boomer generation dies off, and a younger generation that understands the idiocy of the previous era takes over. There is no way the current system would survive if 20-30 year olds were leading the industry. It's time to ditch the horse and carriage, and upgrade to electric vehicles.
> I am amazed to read this under the caption of articles picture: "Netflix customer Susan Lorenz of Toronto doesn't understand why the company is suddenly shutting her out from the content she used to be able to see." ... Susan most certainly understands why.
Later on in the article, it says this:
~~~~~
Because she pays for the service and has been able to skirt the rules for so long, Lorenz doesn't understand why Netflix is suddenly shutting her out.
"I don't know why I can't have international access," she says. "That doesn't make sense to me."
~~~~~
Understanding why there are content restrictions across regions makes no sense to most people.
Later on in the article, it says this:
~~~~~
Because she pays for the service and has been able to skirt the rules for so long, Lorenz doesn't understand why Netflix is suddenly shutting her out.
"I don't know why I can't have international access," she says. "That doesn't make sense to me."
~~~~~
Understanding why there are content restrictions across regions makes no sense to most people.
>> 'Understanding why there are content restrictions across regions makes no sense'
fix'd
fix'd
>> Understanding why there are content restrictions across regions makes no sense to most people.
Because the industry refuses to modernize the business structure they've been using since what, the 1950s? Before the birth of the internet. We have 18 year olds out there who grew up with internet as the centre of their world. It doesn't make sense to most people, because it doesn't make sense in the 21st century.
Because the industry refuses to modernize the business structure they've been using since what, the 1950s? Before the birth of the internet. We have 18 year olds out there who grew up with internet as the centre of their world. It doesn't make sense to most people, because it doesn't make sense in the 21st century.
No, she doesn't understand why. Maybe you can enlighten us. She used to pay hard cash for access to Netflix (the US version), and watched US content legally. Now she's being prevented from that.
If the content creator doesn't want to sell access to the content for you, then you have every right to access it through other means. They never had to cut off access to these non-US customers: they were paying good money for this service, the same money as someone in America. Why shouldn't they be allowed access? Why is their money not as good as an American's money?
Don't forget, we have a Free Trade treaty between Canada and the US. They're not practicing free trade here as the treaty states, so she has every right to work around it.
If the content creator doesn't want to sell access to the content for you, then you have every right to access it through other means. They never had to cut off access to these non-US customers: they were paying good money for this service, the same money as someone in America. Why shouldn't they be allowed access? Why is their money not as good as an American's money?
Don't forget, we have a Free Trade treaty between Canada and the US. They're not practicing free trade here as the treaty states, so she has every right to work around it.
"She used to pay hard cash for access to Netflix (the US version), and watched US content legally" ... she didn't, she paid "hard cash" for the the Canadian version of Netflix, and found a not legal workaround to watch US content. She can most certainly watch CSI from an authorized distributor in Canada if she pays the right content owners in Canada.
"If the content creator doesn't want to sell access to the content for you, then you have every right to access it through other means.", No you don't, how did you come up with this logic? No distributor deemed the selling price acceptable for them in Canada, if the creator wants the content in Canada he can sell it at a lower price. As a consumer, if you don't have an option to buy something, doesn't mean you should acquire it thru illegal means.
NAFTA was created to eliminate tariffs and protect intellectual property. Someone buys the right to distribute a show in Canada, this right should be protected.
"If the content creator doesn't want to sell access to the content for you, then you have every right to access it through other means.", No you don't, how did you come up with this logic? No distributor deemed the selling price acceptable for them in Canada, if the creator wants the content in Canada he can sell it at a lower price. As a consumer, if you don't have an option to buy something, doesn't mean you should acquire it thru illegal means.
NAFTA was created to eliminate tariffs and protect intellectual property. Someone buys the right to distribute a show in Canada, this right should be protected.
>She can most certainly watch CSI from an authorized distributor in Canada if she pays the right content owners in Canada.
She can buy the US version instead. Why should she be limited to what someone in Canada wants to sell it for? The internet doesn't follow national borders. I can access a webpage in Germany just as easily as a website in the US, and with online content, it's nothing more than bits being streamed. So why should she pay more? To prop up a dinosaur of a business model? Screw that.
>As a consumer, if you don't have an option to buy something, doesn't mean you should acquire it thru illegal means.
Sure it does. They've had their chance to offer things by legal means, they've been shown that it works, but it's not good enough for them. Fuck 'em.
>NAFTA was created to eliminate tariffs and protect intellectual property. Someone buys the right to distribute a show in Canada, this right should be protected.
Why should that be protected? That's not free trade, it's blatantly against the whole stated reason for the treaty.
Again, fuck 'em. Piracy is the answer. When legal means don't work, and only serve moneyed interests and are put in place by corrupt politicians, it's time to ignore the laws.
She can buy the US version instead. Why should she be limited to what someone in Canada wants to sell it for? The internet doesn't follow national borders. I can access a webpage in Germany just as easily as a website in the US, and with online content, it's nothing more than bits being streamed. So why should she pay more? To prop up a dinosaur of a business model? Screw that.
>As a consumer, if you don't have an option to buy something, doesn't mean you should acquire it thru illegal means.
Sure it does. They've had their chance to offer things by legal means, they've been shown that it works, but it's not good enough for them. Fuck 'em.
>NAFTA was created to eliminate tariffs and protect intellectual property. Someone buys the right to distribute a show in Canada, this right should be protected.
Why should that be protected? That's not free trade, it's blatantly against the whole stated reason for the treaty.
Again, fuck 'em. Piracy is the answer. When legal means don't work, and only serve moneyed interests and are put in place by corrupt politicians, it's time to ignore the laws.
She used to pay hard cash for access to Netflix (the US version), and watched US content legally.
The article says "For about a year, Lorenz subscribed to Netflix Canada, but her family freely accessed the streaming service's shows from across the globe."
The change discussed is that a subscriber in one country is no longer allowed access to the catalog of another country when accessing from a proxy IP in that country. Whether she should be allowed set up and pay for a Netflix US account to watch US shows as a non-resident is a separate issue.
The article says "For about a year, Lorenz subscribed to Netflix Canada, but her family freely accessed the streaming service's shows from across the globe."
The change discussed is that a subscriber in one country is no longer allowed access to the catalog of another country when accessing from a proxy IP in that country. Whether she should be allowed set up and pay for a Netflix US account to watch US shows as a non-resident is a separate issue.
No, sorry if I got the details slightly wrong, but the issue is the same: should people from country A be able to set up an account in country B, and then watch the shows in country B's market (over a VPN)? Usually, it's non-US people wanting to get access to the US version of Netflix, but obviously there's other cases too since every country will have a different catalog and different people have different tastes.
Wait, you are justifying an illegal action of yours because it is easier than the legal route? Since when doing the right thing is and should always be easier.
The "right thing" and the "legal thing" are not always the same thing.
The "right thing" and the "legal thing" are not always the same thing.
After years of using netflix, since long before it was even available in Germany, I canceled my account the moment I couldn't access the US library anymore. The German library is just not worth it and titles were often missing English subtitles, even for movies which were available on US netflix with subtitles. As I usually watch shows with english subtitles (including shows in english) and original audio, this really bothered me and made the non-US experience even worse. Never really watched many of the German shows on there, maybe one or two.
I've been rather stunned at how no one has come up with a strong workaround to this yet. It's really quite simple, we just need slick, easy-to-use software for it.
Make software that both turns your home computer into a single-user VPN server, that lets you set the maximum upload bandwidth to ~5mbit/s or so, and lets you only pass through Netflix content; and also gives you a VPN client that lets you connect to another's computer and only uses the VPN for Netflix content, allowing your web browser and everything else to continue working through your regular ISP. The whitelisting eliminates the traditional concern of someone using your connection for torrents or worse illegal content. The bandwidth limiting ensures smooth QoS for your own network. Latency here is not a concern at all ... it's streaming video.
Once you have this software, it's simply a matter of setting up a message forum somewhere where people say, "I am from 'country X' and want to watch content from 'country Y'", and waiting for someone in the reverse situation to come along. As long as your connections are always-on, this works perfectly.
As an alternative to the fact that more people will want US Netflix than any other region, people could also offer server-only access for nominal Paypal fees. Eg lease out a 5mbit/s link for $10/mo. The price would naturally follow supply and demand.
I can change my IP any time, and there is no possible way Netflix can ban my hostmask as a VPN (all of Time Warner Cable in Columbus, Ohio.)
And if this forces Netflix to start charging by billing region ... good!! Now we can offer services that let people pay for the regions they want to access! Or if they try and block that too, then perhaps people sharing VPNs can share their account logins next.
Either way, this is a cat-and-mouse game with a very clear end-game. Why the hell is no one working on this problem? There are millions of people affected by this VPN block nonsense.
On that note, I have a US 300/20 connection I'd be happy to share, and I can do the software the hard way with BSD/pf. Is there anyone with an always-on JP connection that would like to trade with me? I would also be willing to pay someone for a residential ISP VPN connection in Japan, which I would use exclusively for Netflix only. I'd really love to be able to use Netflix Japan again; it's helped a lot with my listening comprehension in studying the language.
(Side note: this proxy software wouldn't have to be just Netflix. It could be a wonderful anti-geolocking system. The major VPN and VPS models are clearly detectable and blockable. This could allow fine-grained whitelisting or blacklisting and decentralization of VPN services.)
Make software that both turns your home computer into a single-user VPN server, that lets you set the maximum upload bandwidth to ~5mbit/s or so, and lets you only pass through Netflix content; and also gives you a VPN client that lets you connect to another's computer and only uses the VPN for Netflix content, allowing your web browser and everything else to continue working through your regular ISP. The whitelisting eliminates the traditional concern of someone using your connection for torrents or worse illegal content. The bandwidth limiting ensures smooth QoS for your own network. Latency here is not a concern at all ... it's streaming video.
Once you have this software, it's simply a matter of setting up a message forum somewhere where people say, "I am from 'country X' and want to watch content from 'country Y'", and waiting for someone in the reverse situation to come along. As long as your connections are always-on, this works perfectly.
As an alternative to the fact that more people will want US Netflix than any other region, people could also offer server-only access for nominal Paypal fees. Eg lease out a 5mbit/s link for $10/mo. The price would naturally follow supply and demand.
I can change my IP any time, and there is no possible way Netflix can ban my hostmask as a VPN (all of Time Warner Cable in Columbus, Ohio.)
And if this forces Netflix to start charging by billing region ... good!! Now we can offer services that let people pay for the regions they want to access! Or if they try and block that too, then perhaps people sharing VPNs can share their account logins next.
Either way, this is a cat-and-mouse game with a very clear end-game. Why the hell is no one working on this problem? There are millions of people affected by this VPN block nonsense.
On that note, I have a US 300/20 connection I'd be happy to share, and I can do the software the hard way with BSD/pf. Is there anyone with an always-on JP connection that would like to trade with me? I would also be willing to pay someone for a residential ISP VPN connection in Japan, which I would use exclusively for Netflix only. I'd really love to be able to use Netflix Japan again; it's helped a lot with my listening comprehension in studying the language.
(Side note: this proxy software wouldn't have to be just Netflix. It could be a wonderful anti-geolocking system. The major VPN and VPS models are clearly detectable and blockable. This could allow fine-grained whitelisting or blacklisting and decentralization of VPN services.)
This solution likely won't work because Netflix would do this:
A) Tally up all the Account <-> IP relationships. B) Perform an analysis on # of accounts per IP that exceed predefined thresholds. C) Scrutinize accounts who are using an IP that is swarming with accounts from other countries.
Total cat and mouse, but can be automated quite easily.
A) Tally up all the Account <-> IP relationships. B) Perform an analysis on # of accounts per IP that exceed predefined thresholds. C) Scrutinize accounts who are using an IP that is swarming with accounts from other countries.
Total cat and mouse, but can be automated quite easily.
> A) Tally up all the Account <-> IP relationships.
In my scenario, it would be two accounts with two IPs each.
That threshold is way below something truly actionable. I mean, could you imagine? A guy travels and uses hotel wi-fi, perhaps internationally. Now he has two IPs associated with his account, and so they block/ban him. Not going to happen.
Hell, locally one's IP often changes thanks to DHCP leases expiring.
> C) Scrutinize accounts who are using an IP that is swarming with accounts from other countries.
This won't scale, and that's entirely the point. They catch ExpressVPN and co because there are 500+ accounts from each of the pool of ~20 IP addresses they have. They probably just block the whole subnet mask. VPS is the same, "this is a datacenter IP range. No customer is running out of a datacenter, it must be being used as a VPN."
But a guy's home connection of 50/20 mbit/s can only handle two users, and can't be flagged as belonging to a datacenter, and can't be range-blocked. I'm sure there will be cases of a person wanting access to 10+ regions, but for the most part, people just want one extra region. In my case, Japan. In most people's cases, the US.
In my scenario, it would be two accounts with two IPs each.
That threshold is way below something truly actionable. I mean, could you imagine? A guy travels and uses hotel wi-fi, perhaps internationally. Now he has two IPs associated with his account, and so they block/ban him. Not going to happen.
Hell, locally one's IP often changes thanks to DHCP leases expiring.
> C) Scrutinize accounts who are using an IP that is swarming with accounts from other countries.
This won't scale, and that's entirely the point. They catch ExpressVPN and co because there are 500+ accounts from each of the pool of ~20 IP addresses they have. They probably just block the whole subnet mask. VPS is the same, "this is a datacenter IP range. No customer is running out of a datacenter, it must be being used as a VPN."
But a guy's home connection of 50/20 mbit/s can only handle two users, and can't be flagged as belonging to a datacenter, and can't be range-blocked. I'm sure there will be cases of a person wanting access to 10+ regions, but for the most part, people just want one extra region. In my case, Japan. In most people's cases, the US.
You've more or less invented Hola Unblocker with a few limits
The huge one being that your connection won't be used for illegal purposes. I would never in a million years operate what is essentially a mini Tor exit node.
And even the paid one way option ... there's also too many people on Hola sharing the same endpoints, and the threshold is high enough that many people are reporting that Hola is getting blocked as well.
The ratio needs to be 1:1. And if Netflix manages to block a user connecting from only two residential IP addresses, then the final step in this game is those two people will share their logins with each other. I connect to a Japan exit point, and use that person's Japanese account login; and vice versa. At that point, there is nothing left that Netflix can possibly do to stop me.
And even the paid one way option ... there's also too many people on Hola sharing the same endpoints, and the threshold is high enough that many people are reporting that Hola is getting blocked as well.
The ratio needs to be 1:1. And if Netflix manages to block a user connecting from only two residential IP addresses, then the final step in this game is those two people will share their logins with each other. I connect to a Japan exit point, and use that person's Japanese account login; and vice versa. At that point, there is nothing left that Netflix can possibly do to stop me.
Or: go to private tracker, hit download button, wait 60 seconds.
Don't pay $10/mo to some random, don't pay $10/mo for HD netflix subscription.
Don't pay $10/mo to some random, don't pay $10/mo for HD netflix subscription.
In my case, it's much more difficult to find Japanese series. Japan isn't nearly as big on file sharing as we are. Anime, sure, but I'd like to watch things with real people too.
Example: try finding the live action version of Nobunaga Concerto [信長協奏曲] (not the anime that's readily available.) Now I'm sure someone here can do it. But look at its seed ratio compared to say, Game of Thrones or Last Week Tonight. And this is a really easy case, because it's being streamed subtitled from Crunchyroll. Now imagine the difficulty of series not conveniently subtitled into English on major streaming services already.
Example: try finding the live action version of Nobunaga Concerto [信長協奏曲] (not the anime that's readily available.) Now I'm sure someone here can do it. But look at its seed ratio compared to say, Game of Thrones or Last Week Tonight. And this is a really easy case, because it's being streamed subtitled from Crunchyroll. Now imagine the difficulty of series not conveniently subtitled into English on major streaming services already.
Oh yes, I'm constantly clashing with unavailable/blocked Japanese content. Crunchyroll has quite a bit of non-anime content to offer, but it's still far from other country specific streaming sites.
The oddest thing for me are the constantly blocked Japanese music videos on Youtube. I'm not talking copyright infringing content, but music videos published on the official band/performer's channel and being viewable from within Japan only. Why is a music video blocked outside of Japan, when you can buy the song via the regional iTunes store? One would assume that a music video is meant to promote the music sales, so why are so many of them blocked outside of Japan then?
The oddest thing for me are the constantly blocked Japanese music videos on Youtube. I'm not talking copyright infringing content, but music videos published on the official band/performer's channel and being viewable from within Japan only. Why is a music video blocked outside of Japan, when you can buy the song via the regional iTunes store? One would assume that a music video is meant to promote the music sales, so why are so many of them blocked outside of Japan then?
> Crunchyroll has quite a bit of non-anime content to offer
Yeah, they have a drama-only section that even then is 80% Korean (nothing wrong with that, just I'm not personally studying Korean.) And no option to turn off the English subtitles unless I want to watch movies on my computer instead of my TV. And absolutely, definitely, 100% never any offer for Japanese subtitles (closed captioning.) Very, very rare even on Netflix Japan, but it helps so much when I can find them.
> The oddest thing for me are the constantly blocked Japanese music videos on Youtube.
Yeah ... I don't understand that at all. Of all the countries, Japan seems to have the most obscenely strict copyright takedown enforcements of all. I pretty much always have to resort to torrents to obtain songs even remotely popular.
Japan really is a country that's stuck in the '90s. No surprise that also includes their views on music.
> Why is a music video blocked outside of Japan, when you can buy the song via the regional iTunes store?
I'm surprised they even let you buy it on iTunes. Apple must be forcing their hand somehow.
I've always dealt with extreme aversion to selling to me. The Japanese famously hate selling their wares internationally. It's pretty much a given that anything on Yahoo! Japan will be from sellers that refuse to ship internationally, so you have to use deputy services and pay them an extra 30% markup (plus a predatory and unfair yen exchange rate that's off by 15+ yen from the real market value.) And even then, there are sellers that track deputy IDs and will delete deputy bids. I've even come across one such seller, and my deputy of choice used one of their 'hidden' IDs to pick it up anyway. They're so used to it that they already had sleeper accounts for dealing with such sellers, despite having 100% perfect payment histories to sellers.
There are several major doujinshi websites for buying from artists, and these sites are 100% perfectly capable of accepting Visa cards from anywhere in the world ("it's everywhere you want to be... unless you want to be in Japan"), yet they block you anyway.
It was only just very recently that Amazon finally started selling new Japanese games internationally. Before then, I was paying 50% markups to small, sleazy extortionist companies. On top of having to buy Japanese systems to get around their region blocking attempts. Half surprised the fuckers don't try to use GPS to pinpoint you're not actually in Japan while playing their precious games.
Apologies if I seem bitter... it's because I am. I probably wasted $2000 on deputy fees alone trying to build a game collection and buy other items I like. And the harder I try to practice and learn this language, the more I get taken for a ride.
Yeah, they have a drama-only section that even then is 80% Korean (nothing wrong with that, just I'm not personally studying Korean.) And no option to turn off the English subtitles unless I want to watch movies on my computer instead of my TV. And absolutely, definitely, 100% never any offer for Japanese subtitles (closed captioning.) Very, very rare even on Netflix Japan, but it helps so much when I can find them.
> The oddest thing for me are the constantly blocked Japanese music videos on Youtube.
Yeah ... I don't understand that at all. Of all the countries, Japan seems to have the most obscenely strict copyright takedown enforcements of all. I pretty much always have to resort to torrents to obtain songs even remotely popular.
Japan really is a country that's stuck in the '90s. No surprise that also includes their views on music.
> Why is a music video blocked outside of Japan, when you can buy the song via the regional iTunes store?
I'm surprised they even let you buy it on iTunes. Apple must be forcing their hand somehow.
I've always dealt with extreme aversion to selling to me. The Japanese famously hate selling their wares internationally. It's pretty much a given that anything on Yahoo! Japan will be from sellers that refuse to ship internationally, so you have to use deputy services and pay them an extra 30% markup (plus a predatory and unfair yen exchange rate that's off by 15+ yen from the real market value.) And even then, there are sellers that track deputy IDs and will delete deputy bids. I've even come across one such seller, and my deputy of choice used one of their 'hidden' IDs to pick it up anyway. They're so used to it that they already had sleeper accounts for dealing with such sellers, despite having 100% perfect payment histories to sellers.
There are several major doujinshi websites for buying from artists, and these sites are 100% perfectly capable of accepting Visa cards from anywhere in the world ("it's everywhere you want to be... unless you want to be in Japan"), yet they block you anyway.
It was only just very recently that Amazon finally started selling new Japanese games internationally. Before then, I was paying 50% markups to small, sleazy extortionist companies. On top of having to buy Japanese systems to get around their region blocking attempts. Half surprised the fuckers don't try to use GPS to pinpoint you're not actually in Japan while playing their precious games.
Apologies if I seem bitter... it's because I am. I probably wasted $2000 on deputy fees alone trying to build a game collection and buy other items I like. And the harder I try to practice and learn this language, the more I get taken for a ride.
I must say I've been considering the same thing (I'm in the netherlands). for now, there's still ways to watch the US version of netflix, but should that too be blocked, I will probably revert to piracy, even though I've been against it for a long time...
But violating the license terms by border hopping is piracy.
Not saying I agree with geo restrictions, or any of the other silliness (I don't, and thankfully we're rapidly moving away from that sort of thing), but using VPNs or foreign credit cards to subscribe to a service that isn't available to you because the company selling it doesn't have a license to do so is still, technically, piracy.
Not saying I agree with geo restrictions, or any of the other silliness (I don't, and thankfully we're rapidly moving away from that sort of thing), but using VPNs or foreign credit cards to subscribe to a service that isn't available to you because the company selling it doesn't have a license to do so is still, technically, piracy.
That is certainly an ethical gray area -- an strong argument could be made that paying for content (even when you pay extra to view out-of-area content by using a VPN) is not piracy at all since the content owner is still getting paid for his content. (you're still paying a fair price for the content even though the content owner might have gotten more (or less) money for his content had you viewed it in your own country). It may be against the law in your country (or the country that hosts the content), but that doesn't neccessarily mean it's piracy)
Much like how visiting Canada to purchase much cheaper prescription drugs is not "stealing" drugs even though it means that drug manufacturers are getting less revenue than if you bought the drugs in the USA. (I'll admit being guilty of that one when my mother was on an expensive prescription drug that was not covered under her insurance plan. I helped her source the same drug for 20% of the cost at a Canadian Pharmacy, otherwise she couldn't have afforded it and would have had to use a less effective substitute (with more side effects) that was covered under insurance.
Much like how visiting Canada to purchase much cheaper prescription drugs is not "stealing" drugs even though it means that drug manufacturers are getting less revenue than if you bought the drugs in the USA. (I'll admit being guilty of that one when my mother was on an expensive prescription drug that was not covered under her insurance plan. I helped her source the same drug for 20% of the cost at a Canadian Pharmacy, otherwise she couldn't have afforded it and would have had to use a less effective substitute (with more side effects) that was covered under insurance.
Sure, but piracy where everyone gets paid.
No, piracy where the service provider you subscribe to gets paid, but the rightful license holders don't. Sometimes the license holder and the service provider are the same, in which case everyone gets paid.
But in most cases you aren't. Sure you pay netflix, but netflix just keeps the money. They definitely don't go find and pay the right people.
But in most cases you aren't. Sure you pay netflix, but netflix just keeps the money. They definitely don't go find and pay the right people.
Good. This is the only way to make the publishers change something.
What exactly does Netflix stand to gain from making it harder for its non-american subscribers to VPN the geoblocked content?
Surely they must have predicted a substantial drop in subscription rates as soon as people realize they can't watch the good stuff.
It just seems like international-marketshare suicide.
Surely they must have predicted a substantial drop in subscription rates as soon as people realize they can't watch the good stuff.
It just seems like international-marketshare suicide.
I suspect they were given ultimatum(s) from the content copyright holders, and decided to keep the content but lose the international viewers. Then this can be used as leverage in the ongoing negotiations.
If netflix lets users from across the world access their US service, US content owners are going to demand payment based on netflix's global subscriber base. A title that was worth 1 million for streaming rights in America, might be worth 3-4 million worldwide. The US companies are going to demand the 3-4 million.
The amount of people who can figure out a VPN solution is probably not that substantial.
The amount of people who can figure out a VPN solution is probably not that substantial.
My guess is that Netflix has now positioned themselves as the first global 'television' network.
They hopefully have enough power and leverage to stop the content producers from stupidly restricting access via region, but they're not able to do this effectively if users can easily bypass the restrictions.
If it doesn't work out then at least they'll get a global audience for their own content and the rest will go back to piracy.
They hopefully have enough power and leverage to stop the content producers from stupidly restricting access via region, but they're not able to do this effectively if users can easily bypass the restrictions.
If it doesn't work out then at least they'll get a global audience for their own content and the rest will go back to piracy.
They don't even have a global audience for their own content - House of Cards isn't available in many countries because Netflix sold the TV networks exclusive distribution.
The deals they've signed with companies allow them to distribute shows X, Y, & Z in say the US other companies have the rights to that same show in Canada or the UK. Netflix can't just distribute the copyrighted content wherever they want and keep the media creating companies they rely on for content coming back to renew deals.
In order to make content companies cooperate with them on international expansion, i assume content creators demanded this, so they could still play the old game of selling content differently in different places - with a simple reasoning - more control = more revenues.
I'm guessing it had to do with pressure from international rights-holders.
Same story here, but I have been living in Eastern Europe and then Australia and then back for a few years now, paying for unblock-us and Netflix US which I signed up for while in the US.
Ever since my first experience with Netflix powered by a Roku I have been praising how awesome it is, trying to get my friends to sign up for the service.
And then the geofencing crap happened but the service was suddenly available in our country, but with minus 90 percent of the content - a lot of my friends signed up and then cancelled their subscription.
I for one am seriously thinking about canceling both unblock-us and Netflix as I suddenly feel a 'localized' citizen with no way to legally we global anymore and it sucks.
Ever since my first experience with Netflix powered by a Roku I have been praising how awesome it is, trying to get my friends to sign up for the service.
And then the geofencing crap happened but the service was suddenly available in our country, but with minus 90 percent of the content - a lot of my friends signed up and then cancelled their subscription.
I for one am seriously thinking about canceling both unblock-us and Netflix as I suddenly feel a 'localized' citizen with no way to legally we global anymore and it sucks.
"We look forward to offering all of our content everywhere and to consumers being able to enjoy all of Netflix without using a proxy. That’s the goal we will keep pushing towards."
-- David Fullagar is Vice President of Content Delivery Architecture at Netflix.
https://media.netflix.com/en/company-blog/evolving-proxy-det...
-- David Fullagar is Vice President of Content Delivery Architecture at Netflix.
https://media.netflix.com/en/company-blog/evolving-proxy-det...
The same is happening here in Australia talking to people.
How does that blocking even work? How does nflx know I'm using a VPN?
Many users on the same IP, IP is registered to a cloud hosting company, etc. They'll never have perfect detection but you can do pretty well without much effort.
Startup idea, airbnb of VPNs. Normal people distributing a limited number of other peoples, VPNs for a small fare.
Good idea, except most consumer internet connections don't have sufficiently fast upstream performance.
won't work. Netflix does not simply blocks IP, I'm pretty sure they detect behavior from account, and then locks them when the behavior looks like a VPN user (country hopping, etc.)
That is pretty much how Hola works. Except that most Hola users don't even know that they contribute their bandwidth.
better yet, lets record netflix to VHS and mail the copies around the world. Block that Neflix! /s
are there VPN out there where you can purchase a static IP of your own for it?
You can run your own VPN server on a VPS, but Netflix is (rumored to be) blocking the IP address ranges of DigitalOcean, Linode, AWS, etc.
I tried running OpenVPN on DigitalOcean and AWS and had no luck with Netflix on either host.
I tried proxying through a server in Germany (in a big, well known hosting provider) and I got the same message, both with ssh -D and pptpd.
So they're either reading signatures left on the packets by various VPN / proxy technologies (fragmentation and other obscure metrics), or they're blocking the IP ranges of major hosting providers, or both.
So they're either reading signatures left on the packets by various VPN / proxy technologies (fragmentation and other obscure metrics), or they're blocking the IP ranges of major hosting providers, or both.
They don't use anything sophisticated, it's just IP range blacklist. Hint: try different VPS provider, there's plenty out there...
I used to run OpenVPN on Linode, but that was blocked a while back.
Yes I'm cancelling my account as I haven't used it in 2 months.(since the vpn I used was blocked)
Getflix still mostly works. They added new proxies but many of the old ones don't work.
Netflix really screwed up with House of Cards. They should be able to take the high ground and say:
"Don't get mad at us, they're making us do it. We're leading by example, maybe someday everybody will realize that regional restrictions are a bad idea."
But their licensing and handling of House of Cards prevents them from taking the moral high ground.
"Don't get mad at us, they're making us do it. We're leading by example, maybe someday everybody will realize that regional restrictions are a bad idea."
But their licensing and handling of House of Cards prevents them from taking the moral high ground.
Popcorn Time should publish some graphs of their traffic. I bet there will be a correlation between Netflix blocking proxies and downloads of Popcorn Time
I thought Popcorn Time had shut down?
If I recall correctly the original project did close down and others picked up where it left off. Some good, some malicious.
I use this subreddit to find a trusted one: https://www.reddit.com/r/PopCornTime/
https://popcorntime.sh
I use this subreddit to find a trusted one: https://www.reddit.com/r/PopCornTime/
https://popcorntime.sh
The domain was shut down. Big deal.
The source code is still on Github, and new mirrors appear every once and then.
The source code is still on Github, and new mirrors appear every once and then.
I see no statistics. This article is air.
Imagine I live in Canada and one day drive to the US and purchase a House of Cards DVD, which I take back with me to Canada. Would you consider what I just did piracy?
No? Then why is it piracy if I do the exact same thing by different technical means? (Streaming the content instead of buying a physical disk)
No? Then why is it piracy if I do the exact same thing by different technical means? (Streaming the content instead of buying a physical disk)
Why does netflix care so much? Doesn't just blocking ip's by country satisfy whatever legal requirement? Do the contracts with content provider specifically require netflix to maintain a list of VPN providers and block them?
A lot of people seem angry about the geo-blocking, and I would agree with the sentiment, but can anyone tell me why Netflix is geo-blocking so heavily?
Companies don't do things for no reason...
Companies don't do things for no reason...
Because content producers are threatening to remove their support of Netflix.
Which is what I thought...so why the Netflix hate? Shouldn't we be instead be getting angry at the copyright holders essentially exercising monopolistic control of the market?
[deleted]
Isn't everybody already?
Same here downunder. Loved my Netflix US subscription. Now I have no subscription with Netflix guess they don't want money ey?
Content geofencing makes no sense. Until businesses realize this people will always find ways around it.
It makes a lot of sense for the world we live in now. Most revenue from TV is still captured by regular broadcast or cable viewership. Those means of distribution are typically geofenced.
If you have an American show, Sky or BBC will pay more than Netflix will.
Plus, people in developing countries can't and won't pay western prices for content. It makes sense to geofence and then sell it to them much cheaper.
If you have an American show, Sky or BBC will pay more than Netflix will.
Plus, people in developing countries can't and won't pay western prices for content. It makes sense to geofence and then sell it to them much cheaper.
But in most cases here, people are willing to pay the same price as the original country of origin of the content but are denied that option.
Atleast you can download : for personal use in Canada last I read.
I think that you could argue that as long as you download to a medium that has had the copy levy applied then it is OK. That would only work for audio downloaded to things like audio CD-Rs and the like.
Interestingly up to a few years ago it was pretty much legal to put stuff up on the internet and let others download it. The Canadian government had to pass a law to specifically address that. The funny thing was that during the period before the law there was an internet legend that downloading was OK and uploading was illegal when in fact it was the opposite.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_sharing_in_Canada
Interestingly up to a few years ago it was pretty much legal to put stuff up on the internet and let others download it. The Canadian government had to pass a law to specifically address that. The funny thing was that during the period before the law there was an internet legend that downloading was OK and uploading was illegal when in fact it was the opposite.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_sharing_in_Canada
It was ten years ago. I believe this has changed since then…
We can say the same about taxes and regulations: if it's too high, individuals will just go elsewhere. For some reason, we always try to punish the individuals that do this.
Piracy will only continue to make it more difficult for small and mid-sized companies to compete. The multi-national corporations will always have the resources to wait out the slaughter.
The end result will be the same as what we have with the music industry: huge companies owning all of the media.
Piracy will only continue to make it more difficult for small and mid-sized companies to compete. The multi-national corporations will always have the resources to wait out the slaughter.
The end result will be the same as what we have with the music industry: huge companies owning all of the media.
Well, I've cancelled my account. Who needs Netflix when I've got BitTorrent?
Hollywood movies are such shit these days, I wouldn't even watch most of them for free.
US Netflix has a decent collection of Korean movies for example, where new movies have been added on a regular basis for the past year or so. It's just that the Hollywood content is most prominently displayed on the home page, but if you know what you're looking for, then there may be a few worthwhile sub-categories available for you on Netflix.
Nobody is forcing you to. Plenty of folk have Netflix for access to favorite classics or TV series when they have time to. New titles are only added value for them.
In Spain Netflix has a VERY limited classic (or contemporary for that matter) catalog. Is only worth paying it for series IMHO.
That's going to vary wildly from country to country depending on what deals they're able to actually get for content. In the US it's pretty good for watching old shows.
Wonder when the first person stands up and claim this is blatant racism/ discrimination. Because it literally is. 'oh you come from this country and you have netflix? -- oops then you cannot see because you are canadian/european/ whoever'
Media copyrightrights per country, its 2016 its insane release your media globally or don't release it at all.
Media copyrightrights per country, its 2016 its insane release your media globally or don't release it at all.
It sure is how it feels. Facebook trending: look at this awesome SNL clip the world is laughing and talking about! Click on it, oh sorry, you can't watch this in Canada, but hey, the rest of the world that matters can(read: the US), so yeah, good bye. Any content provider that blocks you out based on your location makes you feel discriminated against and it sucks!
I like how Netflix says that we are very vocal, but minor and 'inconsequential'. Well yeah, fuck you too!
I like how Netflix says that we are very vocal, but minor and 'inconsequential'. Well yeah, fuck you too!
I don't agree that that's the case. To me, region-restrictions for US content (the most popular worldwide) present a massive opportunity for content creators not based in the US to make something that is in fact truly globally available. While it's true that US TV and movies have been globally popular since the time of their invention, the rise of YouTube, Vine, Instagram etc. show that global audiences can be developed without needing to be US centric.
Your comment "this awesome clip the world is laughing and talking about" refers to SNL, but there are examples of viral videos that didn't originate from a big-name US studio. "Charlie bit my finger" and "Gangnam Style" are two examples. I don't think it's too much of a stretch that English-language long-form content (30-60 minute series) can be developed without having a "Made in America" imprimatur on it. Danish crime shows are popular in Europe and the UK, while Korean dramas are extremely popular in East Asian markets. Indian cinema is also popular in the Middle East, North Africa and parts of Southeast Asia. A small slice of British shows like Made in Chelsea have carved out a niche in English-speaking markets like the US, Canada and Australia.
I hope production studios large and small across the world are seeing this as an opportunity to expand past their borders rather than simply continue "Business as usual" under the protectionism offered with these types of restrictive licensing rules.
Your comment "this awesome clip the world is laughing and talking about" refers to SNL, but there are examples of viral videos that didn't originate from a big-name US studio. "Charlie bit my finger" and "Gangnam Style" are two examples. I don't think it's too much of a stretch that English-language long-form content (30-60 minute series) can be developed without having a "Made in America" imprimatur on it. Danish crime shows are popular in Europe and the UK, while Korean dramas are extremely popular in East Asian markets. Indian cinema is also popular in the Middle East, North Africa and parts of Southeast Asia. A small slice of British shows like Made in Chelsea have carved out a niche in English-speaking markets like the US, Canada and Australia.
I hope production studios large and small across the world are seeing this as an opportunity to expand past their borders rather than simply continue "Business as usual" under the protectionism offered with these types of restrictive licensing rules.
I never said it wasn't a great opportunity for non-US content creators, I love shows from all over, I'm just saying it feels racist when the country next door won't share with me (or others) their content. Do I understand why they won't yes, but it's frustrating none-the-less and I imagine most people don't understand it. And it's not like they can stop me from viewing what I want, it's just incredibly aggravating when a simple hyperlink fails and requires a multi-step, lengthy process, especially for things ranging from a 30 second clip from goddamn syndicated TV I can get with basic cable (which I no longer have) to premium talk of the town shows.
In short, I'm kind of confused with why you don't agree and then talk about a completely different subject. Yes, good opportunity, but that doesn't stop the feelings for existing content that is also good, unless you consider it irrelevant, which you might, but I still like some premium US based stuff. Geo-blocking, at least to me, and I'm sure many others, feels like discrimination. Not all have to feel that way for it to be true.
In short, I'm kind of confused with why you don't agree and then talk about a completely different subject. Yes, good opportunity, but that doesn't stop the feelings for existing content that is also good, unless you consider it irrelevant, which you might, but I still like some premium US based stuff. Geo-blocking, at least to me, and I'm sure many others, feels like discrimination. Not all have to feel that way for it to be true.
That's a pretty good point there about non-US studios taking this golden opportunity to expand their worldwide sales since the US studios are happily shooting themselves in the foot.
Don't blame Netflix blame those countries because they are the ones which prevent titles from being released as they have local companies that bought the distribution rights.
The topic of this thread is Netflix, and i have personal experience with these limits of netflix, hence i referred to them. Though it applies to all such parties. And netflix being the biggest could certainly 'make a fist' and get some stuff done.
And since Netflix is such a big party, they have blame too.
And since Netflix is such a big party, they have blame too.
Therefore I had a Netflix USA account, which I accessed via unblock-us. The clampdown by Netflix has been "successful" and I now can't access Netflix USA using unblock-us.
This happened halfway through watching House of Cards. So my choice was either stop watching or download the remaining episodes...
I am tired of companies talking about borderless trade, global economy, etc. when the distribution of movies and tv shows is stuck in the sad world of geo-restrictions. I also legally get access to UK TV channels through my cable subscription, but I don't get access to iPlayer as that's only for UK residents... so again the only option to catch-up on TV that I forgot to record, is to use an unblocker.