Slashdot Mirror


Netflix Cracks Down On VPN and Proxy "Pirates"

An anonymous reader sends this unfortunate report from TorrentFreak: Due to complicated licensing agreements Netflix is only available in a few dozen countries, all of which have a different content library. Some people bypass these content and access restrictions by using VPNs or other circumvention tools that change their geographical location. This makes it easy for people all around the world to pay for access to the U.S. version of Netflix, for example. The movie studios are not happy with these deviant subscribers as it hurts their licensing agreements. ... Over the past weeks Netflix has started to take action against people who use certain circumvention tools. The Android application started to force Google DNS which now makes it harder to use DNS based location unblockers, and several VPN IP-ranges were targeted as well.

437 comments

  1. Cat and mouse... by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Netflix is obligated to do this to maintain its licensing agreements with the Media Mafia. But it will always be a "cat and mouse" game...

    Why is Torrent Freak's logo hot pink?

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    1. Re:Cat and mouse... by SeaFox · · Score: 2

      Why is Torrent Freak's logo hot pink?

      Breast cancer awareness, perhaps?

    2. Re:Cat and mouse... by QuasiSteve · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It might always be a cat and mouse game - but there's a relatively simple way to make it a lot harder for the mice; tie content to the address used for payments, rather than tying it to IP geolocation.

      DNS trickery, proxies, VPN, etc. are all very easy to set up, technologically. Try opening a U.S. bank account tied to a U.S. address as somebody who is not a U.S. resident. Good luck.
      Even if you manage to do so - at least you're now 'stuck' with the U.S. library. No vast French movie library for French subscribers, Belgian TV series for Belgian subscribers, etc. Admittedly, that may have been the primary goal for subscribers all along, but it's worth noting that there's no more library-hopping either which way.

      o/t re: pink - hasn't it been pink for a very, very long time?

    3. Re:Cat and mouse... by dgatwood · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Netflix is obligated to do this to maintain its licensing agreements with the Media Mafia.

      Yeah, I understand that. What I don't understand is why the big media conglomerates put such baffling restrictions into their licenses in the first place. Is it to comply with licensing agreements that they made? Is it truly idiotic licensing all the way down?

      As far as I'm concerned, the general public needs to keep fighting this crap. Whenever the content police tighten the screws, change to a different approach. For example, you might convince people with fast upstream and downstream connections to resell a small portion of their bandwidth for other people's Netflix streaming in a sort of peer-to-peer VPN approach so that it will be impossible for Netflix to cut off people using the VPNs without cutting off a lot of their U.S. customers. Encourage U.S. customers to use location-hiding VPNs, too. And so on.

      The reality is that in this day and age, nothing short of worldwide licensing makes sense. In a world of physical media, there was at least some plausibility to the notion of export restrictions and region coding. In a world where humans have cast off the shackles of physical bodies... err... media (sorry, movie trailer authoring mode kicked in for a minute there), those limitations are archaic and silly, not to mention unenforceable. They need to go away. We need to kill the restrictions with fire. There's simply no room in a modern world for such pointlessness. It quite literally does not benefit anyone anywhere, from the far end of the content supply chain all the way to the customer. All it does is piss people off for no reason.

      Dear Sony Pictures,

      Bugger off.

      Sincerely,
      Everyone.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    4. Re: Cat and mouse... by Geordish · · Score: 3, Interesting

      And then a subscriber goes on holiday with their tablet, and are getting the incorrect content, and breaking licencing agreements. Or a pool of people from different countries pay for an account each, and share the details. Or someone pays for an account on behalf of someone else in a different country...

    5. Re: Cat and mouse... by jonnyj · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Netflix may be obligated to do this, but the media companies will see their revenues fall from my family if they push it.

      I don't need the movie industry. I have my bike, my running shoes, my surfboard, my kids, my dog, my football season ticket and my church. Movies fill in my leftover time. UK Netflix has such weak content that I'll simply cancel my subscription when Hola stops working. I won't go to the cinema or buy DVDs instead. I'll just walk the dog more.

      It happened with music. When I discovered Pandora, I started buying music weekly because it opened my eyes to new bands and new genres. Then Pandora got closed down in the UK. I haven't bought music for 2+ years. I can't easily find new music so I do other stuff instead.

      Farewell, Hollywood.

      Goo

    6. Re:Cat and mouse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      In a world where humans have cast off the shackles of physical bodies... err... media (sorry, movie trailer authoring mode kicked in for a minute there)

      Are your Delete and Backspace buttons broken?

    7. Re:Cat and mouse... by Scarletdown · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Netflix is obligated to do this to maintain its licensing agreements with the Media Mafia.

      Yeah, I understand that. What I don't understand is why the big media conglomerates put such baffling restrictions into their licenses in the first place.

      Do sociopaths need a reason other than the desire for control?

      --
      This space unintentionally left blank.
    8. Re:Cat and mouse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Netflix is obligated to do this to maintain its licensing agreements with the Media Mafia. But it will always be a "cat and mouse" game...

      ...which is exactly why they shouldn't waste their time going after the few mice running around.

      Sorry, but even with the advent of VPN for dummies tools, I find it hard to believe this is really affecting the licensing agreements that much, obligation or not. The average joe will hardly put forth the effort.

      We act like Netflix is barely scraping by on welfare income and donations, or the fucking media companies for that matter.

    9. Re:Cat and mouse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      In a world where humans have cast off the shackles of physical bodies... err... media (sorry, movie trailer authoring mode kicked in for a minute there)

      Are your Delete and Backspace buttons broken?

      No, he just chose to ignore them to make a humorous point. Sort of like you, ignoring the humorous point in order to appear ignorant.

    10. Re:Cat and mouse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      In a world where humans have cast off the shackles of physical bodies... err... media (sorry, movie trailer authoring mode kicked in for a minute there)

      Are your Delete and Backspace buttons broken?

      Is your funny-bone broken?

    11. Re:Cat and mouse... by Geordish · · Score: 5, Informative

      Netflix is obligated to do this to maintain its licensing agreements with the Media Mafia.

      Yeah, I understand that. What I don't understand is why the big media conglomerates put such baffling restrictions into their licenses in the first place. Is it to comply with licensing agreements that they made? Is it truly idiotic licensing all the way down?

      The issue is the existing licenses (with service providers with a lot more subscribers, and therefore able to pay more for licensing) will demand exclusivity.

      If I'm a TV provider in the uk, I don't want Netflix picking and choosing the content they want, and then undercutting me. I want to lock access to game of thrones down so they can only get it via me.

    12. Re:Cat and mouse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Opening a US bank account etc. I agree, it's too much work for something that I can get for free anyway and just wanted to pay for because I liked the show enough that I though the authors deserved payment. OK, back to torrents.

    13. Re: Cat and mouse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tying it to a bank account location is a great idea! All of our military overseas use a VPN to get US programming but we all have home addresses and bank accounts in the states! I'm in Brussels watching NETFlix right now!

    14. Re: Cat and mouse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spot on. I'll keep my cash then and start to download again for free you fucken muppets (Netflix and associates).

    15. Re: Cat and mouse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      huh? if the VPN option goes away I CAN'T access Netflix. this isn't a case of me choosing to use a VPN for some cost or convenience, it is the ONLY way I can get access to Netflix, if the option is removed I won't keep paying as there is NO OPTION to view the content without a VPN

    16. Re: Cat and mouse... by hodet · · Score: 2

      And how will they do that? It is not an issue of price. The idea is that you would need to be using a US IP that is not through a VPN. There will still be ways but its not a matter of getting people to pony up cash, they already are.

    17. Re:Cat and mouse... by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      DNS trickery, proxies, VPN, etc. are all very easy to set up, technologically. Try opening a U.S. bank account tied to a U.S. address as somebody who is not a U.S. resident. Good luck.

      Why can't you just:

      1. Open a mailbox with a scanning service in the U.S.,
      2. Open a credit card in your own country, and
      3. Change the card's billing address to that address

      ?

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    18. Re:Cat and mouse... by dgatwood · · Score: 2

      If I'm a TV provider in the uk, I don't want Netflix picking and choosing the content they want, and then undercutting me. I want to lock access to game of thrones down so they can only get it via me.

      The U.S. broadcast networks don't have exclusivity after the first year. Why should U.K. broadcast networks be different?

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    19. Re:Cat and mouse... by dk20 · · Score: 1

      Try opening a U.S. bank account tied to a U.S. address as somebody who is not a U.S. resident. Good luck.

      I just did it a few weeks ago. Was in and out with my account in about 15 minutes.

      It is hard to get an account with "Bank of America" and the like but try another bank.

    20. Re:Cat and mouse... by jamstar7 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's all about the cash. Different markets have different rates because they can/can't afford a single worldwide rate. Somebody making 2, 3 dollars a day (I'm looking at YOU, Pakistan!!) can't afford to pay American rates for content. Licensing agreements are designed to maximise profits.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    21. Re:Cat and mouse... by QuasiSteve · · Score: 1

      Change the card's billing address to that address

      Have you tried? Which mailbox/scanning service did you use?

    22. Re: Cat and mouse... by Znork · · Score: 1

      If you're talking about the people who use VPN, what part of they're using VPN did you misunderstand?

      If the VPN option goes away they'll simply stop paying the price. They can just download it for free from somewhere else instead.

    23. Re: Cat and mouse... by QuasiSteve · · Score: 1

      And then a subscriber goes on holiday with their tablet, and are getting the incorrect content, and breaking licencing agreements

      I guess that would depend on the agreement - but if content gets tied to the billing address, they would actually be getting the correct content, no matter where they're on holiday.

      Or a pool of people from different countries pay for an account each, and share the details.

      Sharing accounts is already against the terms. I don't know if Netflix bothers to police that, though.

      Or someone pays for an account on behalf of someone else in a different country...

      In that case, under my suggestion, there really wouldn't be a problem - as long as said 'someone' doesn't also use that account.
      Of course it would be a bit peculiar if said 'someone' ends up paying for 20 accounts from the same billing address. But that should be a lot easier to deal with than the ip geolocation cat/mouse game.

    24. Re:Cat and mouse... by grcumb · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What I don't understand is why the big media conglomerates put such baffling restrictions into their licenses in the first place.

      Do sociopaths need a reason other than the desire for control?

      Well, purportedly, the reason for this is to ensure profits, but that doesn't compute. Even a business undergrad could tell you that with a little rationalisation in the business space, it would be possible for Hollywood to extend their control and improve their profits in the process. Somehow, though, the ridiculously hidebound distribution chain is successfully working against an improved industry. There are enough people with a vested interest in keeping things the way they were (the way things are is... obviously different) that they can cut off their proverbial face to spite their nose. Yes it's that illogical.

      I'm really surprised that, even with over a decade to adjust, most media companies have yet to do so. Even telcos, the other digital industry we love to hate, have learned significant lessons and are in the process of taming a frontier they initially ignored. But media - their collective consciousness defies even a modicum of logic.

      --
      Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
    25. Re:Cat and mouse... by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 0

      Don't a lot of those countries have xenophobic laws that require X percent of content made available be domestically produced? I'm fairly certain France does at any rate. If so, then I don't think it's just the content industry that would want to keep Netflix within the US borders, but xenophobic politicians as well.

    26. Re: Cat and mouse... by bloodhawk · · Score: 1

      did your mummy let you out of the basement again? just because you have no life doesn't mean others don't. If I lose access I will simply pirate the very little content I use and spend more time on other hobbies. Not everyone is so insecure in their life as you.

    27. Re: Cat and mouse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My dog walks himself. He's automated!

    28. Re:Cat and mouse... by BitterOak · · Score: 1

      DNS trickery, proxies, VPN, etc. are all very easy to set up, technologically. Try opening a U.S. bank account tied to a U.S. address as somebody who is not a U.S. resident. Good luck.

      I live in Canada (near the border), I have P.O. Box on the U.S. side and I have a bank account in a U.S. bank. I had no trouble opening it, and I use it to pay for many purchases I make from the U.S. (I can often get much better travel deals through sites like Priceline when I use a credit card with a U.S. billing address.)

      So, I don't know what difficulty you're alluding to.

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    29. Re:Cat and mouse... by Joviex · · Score: 2

      Well, I can understand their cat and mouse bullshit with the media corps, but, what I can't understand:

      I live in the US. I travel, a lot, for work, to countries outside the U.S.

      Why am I screwed when I take a trip and want something to watch from the service that brandishes itself a media streamer for me, and content I am allowed to stream, just not when from an IP block outside the allowed list?

      smh.

    30. Re: Cat and mouse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Netflix may be obligated to do this, but the media companies will see their revenues fall from my family if they push it.

      Unless your family is very rich and/or very big(millions of grandkids and cousins) They don't even know you exist. No, what's needed is a big slapdown, everybody needs to do more bootlegging. Fuck them!

    31. Re:Cat and mouse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with your premise, the address connected to the payment should be what content you see (at least until this silly notion that everyone has different content goes away).

      But you are wrong about setting up bank accounts in the US and paying bills with them. That is actually done all the time, and is easy to do.

    32. Re: Cat and mouse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Just like all the folks screaming about DRM and needing an Internet connection to the Mother Ship for PlayStation and xBox... They still pony up the cash."

      Bullshit. YOU might be like that, but not everyone is.

      I've seen people who are bigger gamers than I am get so fed up with the DRM/Online connections/phonehome requirements that they literally up and quit gaming, taking their entire extensive gaming collections to the pawn shop for liquidation.

      I'm not going to be joining the ranks of Xbox One users over what Microsoft originally intended to do simply because I expect them to do another 180 later on when they get enough people hooked on it. And while Sony was intending on doing the same, I'm not exactly jumping on the PS4 either any time soon. It helps that everything I've seen released for both consoles don't interest me.

      But regardless, your argument is still irrelevant. Those that are using VPN to access US Netflix will not STILL want UK Netflix once the VPN option goes away. The CONTENT is different. They were paying the price anyway.

    33. Re: Cat and mouse... by Imrik · · Score: 1

      If they're on holiday somewhere they should get the content for where they are, not where they subscribed from.

    34. Re:Cat and mouse... by Imrik · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Netflix is obligated to give the appearance of enforcing its licensing agreements, it doesn't have to try to succeed.

    35. Re:Cat and mouse... by QuasiSteve · · Score: 1

      How did that process compare to using one of the technological solutions to get around Netflix's IP geolocation?

    36. Re: Cat and mouse... by QuasiSteve · · Score: 1

      If they're on holiday somewhere they should get the content for where they are

      Why?

      As I said in the above response, I'd suppose it depends on the actual agreements made with their content partners. Do you have a different argument that makes the case for content having to be tied to physical location, rather than subscription paid for?

    37. Re:Cat and mouse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There is a vast difference between xenophobia and supporting your countries creative community.

    38. Re: Cat and mouse... by Firethorn · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Keep in mind that this would also mean that when military members are deployed to various locations around the world that you're restricting them to the content offered there.

      It translates to my netflix account being almost useless outside of the country.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    39. Re: Cat and mouse... by Sarius64 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Just experienced a year of that. When Hulu did it I just shut off the account. Content providers are worse than whores. At least whores don't have a manual you need to memorize to comply with all of the bullshit laws lobbyists obtain to bend us over.

    40. Re:Cat and mouse... by dk20 · · Score: 3, Informative

      It probably wont work anyhow.

      What you will find out is that the credit cards have coded the country of issue into the number.
      I once had XM radio US refuse to accept my Canadian mastercard when i was living in the US (obviously an attempt to enforce the higher prices in Canada policy).
      The thing is, since i used a US address how did XM know it was a Canadian card?

    41. Re:Cat and mouse... by Macrat · · Score: 2, Informative

      I live in Canada (near the border), I have P.O. Box on the U.S. side and I have a bank account in a U.S. bank. I had no trouble opening it, and I use it to pay for many purchases I make from the U.S. (I can often get much better travel deals through sites like Priceline when I use a credit card with a U.S. billing address.)

      So, I don't know what difficulty you're alluding to.

      Interesting statement considering that U.S. banks don't allow accounts to be set up with PO Box addresses.

    42. Re:Cat and mouse... by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Try opening a U.S. bank account tied to a U.S. address as somebody who is not a U.S. resident. Good luck.

      I'm a canuck citizen, I have bank accounts at: Chase, Wells Fargo and Toronto-Dominion(US). I walked into Wells Fargo in Florida a couple of years back to do some banking for my grandmother the Power of Attorney, I opened an account there in 8 minutes. I own property in Florida, I'm not a US resident, I've never held a green card, I have had a work permit back 15 years ago though.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    43. Re:Cat and mouse... by dgatwood · · Score: 2

      Presumably, they based their decision on the issuing bank, which may or may not be the best idea.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    44. Re:Cat and mouse... by MrBigInThePants · · Score: 1

      This is hilarious.

      They stop countries like mine from using netflix and then what happens? You really have to wonder at the sanity/competence of the movie execs....oh wait...no you don't...we already knew.

      Shit gets downloaded one way or another...

    45. Re:Cat and mouse... by pepty · · Score: 2

      At any rate, I don't think it's a coincidence that this news is happening at the same time that Netflix is announcing that it will be expanding to Australia and New Zealand in two months. Anyone want to bet against Netflix service being more expensive and the title selection more limited than it is in the US?

    46. Re:Cat and mouse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's all about the cash. Different markets have different rates because they can/can't afford a single worldwide rate. Somebody making 2, 3 dollars a day (I'm looking at YOU, Pakistan!!) can't afford to pay American rates for content. Licensing agreements are designed to maximise profits.

      So what is the issue with someone in Pakistan paying full US price for Netflix? Because that is what Netflix seems to be cracking down on here if the story is true.

    47. Re:Cat and mouse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh....WOOSH! (I guess...)

    48. Re:Cat and mouse... by BancBoy · · Score: 2

      To be fair, OP never connected those two dots the way that you did... Rereading... Nope.

      --
      [UID-HeinzIntel]
    49. Re:Cat and mouse... by QuasiSteve · · Score: 1

      Seems it's easypeasy for Canucks. I wonder, how easy would it be for you to open a French bank/cc account in order to sign up for Netflix France (under my suggestion of tying the service to the billing address)?

    50. Re: Cat and mouse... by Orestesx · · Score: 1

      Here's the argument: it's easier to write a contract based on physical location. What you are proposing is not technically difficult. In fact, it is probably even easier than what they are doing. Therefore we can conclude that the agreements that Netflix has in place with the movie studios is that they are allowed to distribute certain content to certain countries.

    51. Re: Cat and mouse... by mallyn · · Score: 1
      Folks:

      I thought that we had reached consensus during the discussion about weakening US cinema ticket sales that we are sick and tired of the content that 'The Industry' is giving us each year.

      And now we are griping about not being able to see that content?

      I have solved that problem years ago. I spend my spare time doing art work and making things; ie; I make my own entertainment.

      Whomever suggests that we 'get a life' just may be right. Isn't that what we got a consensus on durin yesterdays' discussion on movie attendance?

      --
      Most Respectfully Yours Mark Allyn Bellingham, Washington
    52. Re:Cat and mouse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I'm really surprised that, even with over a decade to adjust, most media companies have yet to do so.

      Don't be. Hollywood operates on fear. They are the most risk-averse industry in the world. My opinion is that is because their product is nearly unquantifiable so they desperately try to control anything they possibly can to make up for it (for example their focus on sequels). They are the ultimate example of how trying to avoid all risk ends up creating new risks.

    53. Re:Cat and mouse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Lighten up Francis

    54. Re:Cat and mouse... by John+Bodin · · Score: 2

      Interesting statement considering that U.S. banks don't allow accounts to be set up with PO Box addresses.

      Says who, I have only had my PO box on all my bank accounts for 30+ years, and no not all the accounts are that old

      --
      John
    55. Re:Cat and mouse... by omfgnosis · · Score: 1

      You might want to check your math.

    56. Re:Cat and mouse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe they're thinking of pussy.

    57. Re: Cat and mouse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why should they have to be the same?

    58. Re:Cat and mouse... by BancBoy · · Score: 1

      Can he/she get an insightful?

      --
      [UID-HeinzIntel]
    59. Re:Cat and mouse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Second that. I love to pay for movies but don't make it hard for me. I will pay for any service if it (1) gives me the same selection of titles and quality as freely available torrents (hard to match, eh :), (2) lets me keep and rotate a small collection of downloaded movies for offline viewing at any time (in places without internet connection), and (3) accepts payment from any country. Alternatively, if a studio would accept a direct payment without restrictions, I would take effort to pay after viewing their movie. Until that, I will be using torrents and not paying, as there is no obvious way to do that without a major pain in the ass.

      I investigated Netflix some time ago. It had too limited selection (in Canada, anyway).

    60. Re:Cat and mouse... by darkgumby · · Score: 2

      I have had accounts at Bank of America and Chase and only gave them my PO box for an address. No problem.

    61. Re: Cat and mouse... by geezer+nerd · · Score: 1

      Seems to me they should get the content they subscribed "to".

    62. Re:Cat and mouse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not only licensing agreements but also control over when a show is screened so that it can be shown locally to maximise ratings and thus advertising earnings.

    63. Re:Cat and mouse... by geezer+nerd · · Score: 4, Informative

      The credit card number does encode the issuing bank, and that determines the currency that the card works in. If I was in country X with a credit card from country Y, I certainly would not use that card to make regular, recurring purchases in country X. Every such transaction would be treated as a foreign transaction, with accompanying transaction and exchange fees.

    64. Re:Cat and mouse... by geezer+nerd · · Score: 1

      Well, we don't know the details yet, but your surmise will likely be borne out. Everything is more expensive in the antipodes.

    65. Re: Cat and mouse... by retchdog · · Score: 1

      no, that makes no sense at all. if either of those two, they probably "should" get their subscription location content because that's the demographic they belong to and which the agreements and financial strategy are geared toward. if netflix could easily do it that way, they certainly would; it's just that this kind of auditing (done correctly) is harder than geolocation. end of story.

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    66. Re:Cat and mouse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry that's just not true.

      As someone who lives in a country with much LOWER incomes than the US, I can tell you that content is a lot MORE expensive than it is in the US. That is, if you purchase content legally, which in my country almost nobody does.

      Virtually every country charges more for movies, music, games and software than does the US.

    67. Re: Cat and mouse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's funny how the people who constantly say "get a life" are the same ones who spend most of their free time sleeping in front of the TV.

    68. Re:Cat and mouse... by iluvcapra · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yeah, I understand that. What I don't understand is why the big media conglomerates put such baffling restrictions into their licenses in the first place.

      The Big Media Conglomerates buy and sell the distribution rights for individual properties between each other, they will often sell foreign right for a film to a different company, and as a part of that they give up the right to sell the film in that territory.

      The important thing to understand is that "studios" do not own the rights to distribute the shows they make, these are owned by distributors. Many distributors are owned by studios, and many other distributors don't make movies or TV shows at all, they just buy independent films and market them.

      Distributors do not generally own the titles they sell outright. They usually only own the rights for a certain territory -- a standard example is a film that is funded by two different studios (many are), with one studio distributing the film in the US, and the other, in exchange for fronting some of the budget, getting the right to distribute the film in foreign territories. Netflix's own shows are perfect examples of this -- "Orange is the New Black" is produced by them, and they distribute it in the US, but they sell the foreign rights to HBO and Sony because they know they'll make more money in the UK and France on HBO than they would if they streamed it. As a condition of taking this deal, HBO required Netflix to not compete with them in their territory.

      And this is only "big" products -- most of the true independent films you see are produced by someone with cash up front, and then the rights are sold piecemeal at film markets. The rights to Japan go to company X, the rights to Germany go to company Y. This is much more efficient because each company can then decide exactly how the property should be marketed, if it is appropriate for theaters, or pay TV, or cable, what the posters should look like, will the stars matter, are there cultural factors that make the film/TV show particularly attractive (or not). All of these decisions are decided on a country by country basis, and the only way a distributor in a market can "own" the rights is by keeping other distributors from competing with the same film. That's what the right is.

      It's not stupid or evil -- the problem is people think "studios" "own" "movies", and they completely control how they're exploited commercially, and it's not true at all. It never worked that way, the business has always been about licensing of libraries of titles.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    69. Re: Cat and mouse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tough luck. You cannot make an omelette without breaking some eggs.

    70. Re:Cat and mouse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What I don't understand is why the big media conglomerates put such baffling restrictions into their licenses in the first place.

      Do sociopaths need a reason other than the desire for control?

      Well, purportedly, the reason for this is to ensure profits, but that doesn't compute. Even a business undergrad could tell you that with a little rationalisation in the business space, it would be possible for Hollywood to extend their control and improve their profits in the process.

      Do you know what a circle jerk is? This is a circle jerk amongst the rich and the companies they own.

    71. Re:Cat and mouse... by iluvcapra · · Score: 1

      Actually, scratch that, Netflix doesn't even produce Orange is the New Black, it's made by Lionsgate -- Netflix just owns an exclusive American distribution deal. House of Cards is similar: it's produced by Kevin Spacey's company, Trigger Street, and Media Rights Capital, an entertainment hedge fund.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    72. Re:Cat and mouse... by iluvcapra · · Score: 1

      So what is the issue with someone in Pakistan paying full US price for Netflix?

      That would probably be okay, but the companies that license content to Netflix often don't own the rights to stream films to Pakistan, so Netflix's library for Pakistan will end up being too small to be attractive to potential subscribers.

      The secondary market for movies in the BRIC countries is usually pay-per-view or VOD exclusives. The cable company in Pakistan probably demands exclusive content, or else they simply drop all of the distributor's movies, so streaming is off the table. Worse, the VOD/cable company in Pakistan is probably state-owned and the government can make the distributor's life miserable in the theatrical market if they refuse to play ball with the cable company.

      Just speculation but these are some of the issues involved. Cable and sat broadcasters are just a much easier and more profitable way for distributors to sell their movies in the third world, and they aren't going to risk pissing off their best customers.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    73. Re: Cat and mouse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not just limited selection. I also have to use their software. Sorry but I have a media server with the software that *I* like and various "TV"s around the house that stream from that. If you dont allow me to keep that setup, Eff you...

    74. Re:Cat and mouse... by houghi · · Score: 1

      The thing is that they don't have to pay that much for the US content.

      They make a show and they make a profit in the US. Selling elsewhere only adds extra money into their pockets without any of the cost.
      Any local costs will be handled in local tarifs that might be much lower.

      The same happens with e.g. chicken production, where parts of the chicken make a profit. The rest is sold as scrap to e.g. Africa, which in turn means the African farmers have nothing to do. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      Big movie prodcution capacity in Holywood. Almost nothing elsewhere besides India.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    75. Re:Cat and mouse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      UPS boxes work just fine.

    76. Re:Cat and mouse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... I have P.O. Box on the U.S. side

      Australia has a post office in the USA. It allows Australians to buy 'local' and ship it to Australia for $AU30 (Excess charges may apply).

      There are businesses that do mail forwarding: ReShip, MyUS, USA2me. But has any other country got a post office in the USA?

    77. Re:Cat and mouse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      What the general public needs to do is stop watching the crap they produce and just say no, your restrictions are now undesirable, I will do something else for entertainment. As long as there is demand, even if it is in illegitimate forms, the conglomerates wield the power. It is their content after all.

      There is so much content out their now, it doesn't have the value it once did. And they know that, that's the problem, it's why they're desperate to extend copyrights and maintain control, they want us to be fooled into thinking that's the only type of media available and that releasing a new version of a story that has been told 10 times before is the only way you should want to watch it.

      Learn a different language or two, it can occupy you for a few years at a time and you can have fun trying to understand content in different languages and due to your limited understanding watch it many more times than when you half listen to it in your native tongue. Even a silly children's story about an animal that goes here and there and does this and that will occupy your time if you try learn a different language. That's all that entertainment is, getting you through the boredom of life since you're not starving every day.

      Unless you're super well off you don't have enough money to just give it away to people much richer than you. If you're an idiot in debt, you actually don't have any money at all, so what the hell are you doing spending it? You're robbing future generations. Consume consume, eventually there will be nothing left. The idea that an economy can just grow and grow is ridiculous, and it's growth is at the expense of something else. Matter is finite, all wealth is based on matter, even cultural wealth. The marketers want you to think you need more than you have, they instil lust. They want you to throw away what you have and waste. And the usurers are laughing all the way to the bank while they enslave you in bondage.

      Stupid fucks.

    78. Re:Cat and mouse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is Torrent Freak's logo hot pink?

      In honor of the Pink Panther?

    79. Re: Cat and mouse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Content is not tied to the billing address ... going from the UK to Germany, I can't see my U.K. content. Almost every site with links to netflix content shows U.S. only content. It's a mess.

    80. Re:Cat and mouse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet it is possible in the UK to get credit/debit cards, issued by a UK bank, which work in Euros or $US as well £Sterling.

    81. Re:Cat and mouse... by Ramze · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's called tiered marketing and discriminatory pricing. I'm not sure which business school you went to, but the AACSB accredited one I went to described this situation pretty well to the undergrads, and it makes perfect sense - it's just complex. They use it because it works best in squeezing the most profit out of each segment. All media companies use it, to a degree. I recall in college, I'd order my MBA texts from India - "International Editions" that were paperback versions of my classmates' books. They were usually full color paperback versions of the exact same textbooks. I was able to buy them for around $20 (including shipping from India) where the course book in the US was hardback and $125.

      With the book analogy, it's a kind of region locking. Yes, if you know how, you can get around it with a bit of time and effort.. even if it's not exactly the same quality. Also, you can just borrow the book from a friend or share as needed... or even use a photocopier for just the excerpts you need. Most people will buy the book, and the one for their region, and that works well enough to not worry about those skirting the system. Like enforcing any system (even the legal/criminal justice system), there's diminishing returns for protecting against cheating it.

      Game makers and DVD/ Bluray producers do the same thing with region locking. They don't want you to buy the content for $5 from China when they can get you to pay $30 or $50 here in the states. Media distributors for movies do the same. Their model is set to get cash from theaters first, then pay-per-view and DVDs, then cable movie networks, then Netflix, and then general cable networks with commercial breaks - pretty much in that order. They have all that sliced up by regions, too - mostly because people in different regions are willing to pay different prices for the same things, but also so they can control the length of each phase of distribution for each region independently. It's not easy to untangle because there are so many different companies involved that sell distribution rights to different distribution channels in each region and then reward content-makers as a percentage based upon that distribution. That's before countries get involved with taxes, copyrights, streaming rights, etc. as well. That's not even to mention that some actors get paid a percentage of one distribution channel profits and a different percentage of another distribution channel profits - written into their movie contracts. Other actors get residuals from syndication from TV episodes. It really is licensing "all the way down" as the grandparent post suggests. Netflix follows its licensing agreements, Sony, etc follows the ones it made with producers, directors, actors, etc. Even with Hulu - watch what they do with episodes. Sometimes one episode out of a season will be missing due to licensing - and it'll be because of some obscure part of a contract not allowing the episode to be shown because of a clause for an actor or for the background music.

      Netflix would love to have a simpler model. Hulu would, too (well, yes and no b/c they're currently owned by Comcast and others that want to spin it off). Hulu got streaming rights for computers, but didn't think ahead to get the licenses for streaming to any internet device... which is partly why there's Hulu Plus. I don't know about now, but when Hulu Plus first came out, I could watch some things on Hulu on my laptop, others on Hulu Plus on my smart TV, but Hulu Plus wouldn't show all of Hulu's content. I had to switch back and forth between them. Different licenses for different methods of distribution. Negotiating for other methods of distribution after the fact would almost certainly lead to higher charges for content, and then higher pricing for Hulu or Netflix subscribers (unless the subscriber growth was substantial)

      Hollywood is a huge industry - and getting them to switch their model is a bit like telling the American public that we should go ahead and switch everything to

    82. Re:Cat and mouse... by grahammm · · Score: 1

      It's all about the cash. Different markets have different rates because they can/can't afford a single worldwide rate..

      True. But that does not stop them providing the same shows/movies etc worldwide but charging the appropriate local rate for access. I wonder how much of this "pirating" is to get cheaper access to content which is available locally, and how much to get access to content which is NOT available locally and therefore can only be obtained by 'pirating'? I suspect that the latter is more common than the former.

    83. Re: Cat and mouse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm just confused why they insist on breaking so many eggs, when they intend to make so few omelettes.

    84. Re: Cat and mouse... by jonnyj · · Score: 1

      The movie industry don't know I exist, but everyone that I know in the UK uses Hola or equivalent to access more stuff, particularly since a huge amount of old BBC stuff was removed from the UK service a few months ago. It's a fairly safe bet that a reasonable proportion of those people will simply switch off if Hola stops working, but I doubt that many will turn to alternative ways of giving the movie studios their cash.

      For most of the population, movies and old TV shows aren't that important. If they're cheap and easy to access, people will pay. If they're difficult, unreliable or expensive, most people will do something else instead.

    85. Re: Cat and mouse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least whores don't have a manual you need to memorize to comply with all of the bullshit laws lobbyists obtain to bend us over.

      Mine do, you insensitive clod!

    86. Re: Cat and mouse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't need the movie industry. I have my bike, my running shoes, my surfboard, my kids, my dog, my football season ticket and my church.

      Well, at least you've still got the zombie horror genre covered in your entertainment choices.

    87. Re:Cat and mouse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting statement considering that U.S. banks don't allow accounts to be set up with PO Box addresses.

      He didn't say that he used the P.O. Box to get a bank account. Getting a P.O. Box in the first place these days is a major hassle so he's pointing out that despite that he was still able to get one. You CAN however use a P.O. Box as your bank mailing address and also your credit/debit cards billing address, I do.

    88. Re: Cat and mouse... by kthreadd · · Score: 1

      That's not how it works. You subscribe to "Netflix," not to specific content.

    89. Re: Cat and mouse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, didn't you just admit to be a PIRATE?

    90. Re: Cat and mouse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Once in a while slashdot has a comment worth reading. Thanks very much for your interesting post.

    91. Re:Cat and mouse... by garry_g · · Score: 1

      Netflix is obligated to do this to maintain its licensing agreements with the Media Mafia.

      Yeah, I understand that. What I don't understand is why the big media conglomerates put such baffling restrictions into their licenses in the first place.

      Easy. Because the Media Mafia extorts as much money out of their victims as they can. For some countries, license prices are a lot lower than for others ... not exactly comparable, but look at the price per click/view that Google/Youtube pays for US access to e.g. music videos, and look at what Germany's representatives would like to have for accesses ... IIRC it was well beyond 10x the amount ... and more than Google actually makes from advertisement ... which leads to a whole lot of media on youtube not being viewable in Germany ... the big problem is that the value of money isn't proportional to the currency exchange rates ... and this is more than obvious for digital goods...

      Btw, it's not only limited to the availability as such - some features are just not available ... e.g., try to find original US soundtracks on streaming Amazon media in Germany - while they have a pretty decent library, only a small percentage is available with the original soundtrack. While I assume not too many people actually want the English track, it SHOULDN'T cost more to make it available, as for sure all of the movies and series available are also available in the US and UK, so they must have that part. Anyway, as German translations very often suck (at least if you can speak English natively), I'm not going to pay for a service that doesn't provide me with what I want or need ...

      But, as one poster said - back to Torrents ... if you can't get enough of my money fairly, forget about getting any ...

    92. Re:Cat and mouse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Historically copyright is capable of geographical division. Licences or assignments of copyright had geographical limitations and the rights for different parts of the world were sold to different publishers. Content, however, got faster and is no longer tied to physical objects so publishers are left to defend non-existent virtual borders. They need to establish a system which can sell worldwide and divide the proceeds between various rights holders. There are a lot of barriers to implementing such an arrangement. It will probably happen funeral by funeral.

    93. Re:Cat and mouse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What you are trying to say is that US broadcast networks don't pay for exclusivity after the first year.

    94. Re:Cat and mouse... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Some Pakistani TV channel might have paid for American content, and part of the deal is that they get exclusivity in their country.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    95. Re:Cat and mouse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...everything, except for wages.

    96. Re:Cat and mouse... by GNious · · Score: 1

      Netflix is obligated to do this to maintain its licensing agreements with the Media Mafia.

      Yeah, I understand that. What I don't understand is why the big media conglomerates put such baffling restrictions into their licenses in the first place. Is it to comply with licensing agreements that they made? Is it truly idiotic licensing all the way down?

      Tradition - this is how content has been licensed for decades, and since it worked in the past, it has to work in the future no matter the level of shoe-horning required.

      Content was/is licensed per distribution:
      * country
      * distribution method (Satellite, Cable, OTA ...)
      This way, content could be licensed to a cable-TV based channel AND a satellite based channel in the same country.
      The lines have been blurring in the last decade, but the content distributors are trying their darnest to keep the old model, even if it means they are loosing money to "pirates".

    97. Re:Cat and mouse... by Pikoro · · Score: 3, Funny

      I guess you just don't have any idea how hard it is to re-encode everything upside down do you? That's not free you know.

      --
      "Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"
    98. Re: Cat and mouse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wooosh

    99. Re:Cat and mouse... by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Probably fairly easy, since the US has treaties in place for trans-national bank accounts.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    100. Re:Cat and mouse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So in your world forcing people to publish a certain percentage domestically produced content is not xenophobia, protectionism, nor a violation of their right to free speech.

    101. Re:Cat and mouse... by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Why can't the local creative community sell its own material based on its own merit instead of being forced upon you? That's like going to a movie theater, asking for a lemon-lime soda, and being told that they don't sell any, so if you want one tough shit, either buy something else or go home because you aren't allowed to bring your own either.

    102. Re:Cat and mouse... by mSparks43 · · Score: 1

      I agree.
      What's with these stupid pirates wanting to pay for stuff anyway. That evil crime must be stopped.

    103. Re: Cat and mouse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm military and have been overseas (Korea, Japan, Germany, & Qatar) for just shy of 5 years and will at least have a 6th year. Better believe I've been using VPN. I haven't been library hopping around so much, but where I'm currently at (Germany) recently got Netflix, so I have watched a few things without VPN. I also pay for the discs, which do go to APO address, albeit they take longer (Netflix obviously not to blame), so I've been getting much less bang for my $ on discs, which the streaming helps balance.

    104. Re:Cat and mouse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I doubt it. It's possible that they have some tax funded channel similar to BBC or something that has a requirement that they can't buy in too many foreign shows since the tax money is supposed to benefit the local industries but to forbid other channels from airing foreign shows seems like something EU would stomp down on.

    105. Re:Cat and mouse... by Altrag · · Score: 2

      I'm sure that would produce absolutely no privacy issues or anything..

      Not to mention -- how do you verify it? You can verify the IP address because that's the place you send packets back to (of course only one bounce worth, hence the VPN issue.)

      But a physical address.. unless they want to start physically mailing shit to me to confirm the verification (at a significantly higher cost than a geo/ip check,) I can just punch in any old address I find (or hell make up, depending on how well they check things.. there are plenty of one-off accounts out there I've made claiming to be in 90210.)

    106. Re: Cat and mouse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm one who gave up gaming because of DRM. I miss it from time to time but I found other stuff to do.

    107. Re:Cat and mouse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what is the issue with someone in Pakistan paying full US price for Netflix? Because that is what Netflix seems to be cracking down on here if the story is true.

      It's the other way around. The US isn't the place on earth where people have most money available / able to spend it. In other places, things are more expensive, and those shouldn't get the cheap US-versions, and also not as early as the US-releases. But wait for their local distributors, and pay their higher prices.

      Still questionable if the increased administration cost (companies in between earning their share) don't eat up the higher prices...

    108. Re:Cat and mouse... by Altrag · · Score: 1

      Well for this Netflix "piracy" (talk about stretching the definition.. These people are still paying for it just not in their home region,) you're probably right.

      For more general piracy, its almost certainly the local stuff that gets pirated most since that's the stuff that will be known/popular locally. (That may well include huge international shows like Game of Thrones of course.. I'm referring more to being aired locally more than necessarily being produced locally.)

      The great thing about this new "piracy" of course is that by cutting off the Netflix supply, which is being paid for in some fashion at least, people are just going to go back to torrents and such, which they're not paying for at all.

      This isn't so much cat and mouse as the dog trying to chase two rabbits and ending up with neither of them.

    109. Re: Cat and mouse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like Canada, well the selection is much smaller.

    110. Re: Cat and mouse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whomever suggests that we 'get a life' just may be right. Isn't that what we got a consensus on durin yesterdays' discussion on movie attendance?

      It's not black and white. It's cost/benefit. If content is cheaply and easily accessible, even if it is bad, people may accept it. However, if things are getting too expensive, or access too complicated, "get a life" will be applied.

      This is what we'll be seeing now.

    111. Re:Cat and mouse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Some of the other comments says something similar. The problem is, it is exactly the opposite.

      The Movie studios are actually preventing themselves from making more money by going all Darth Vader regarding copyright. Just to give you and example.

      1. I used to spend between $40 - $60 a month on DVD's, I also spend around $30 a month hiring from local DVD store. Hollywood changed the copyright protection methods on the DVD's making it harder and harder to watch them on my computer so I switch to Netflix and Hulu.
      2. Netflix + Hulu + UnoTelly $25 a month. Hollywood is making it harder and harder to watch movies on Hulu and Netflix so I'll just switch to Torrents.
      3. Torrents $0.

      The question is is there enough people that think like me. The answer is YES. Make it hard for people to follow the rules and they will find a way around them. This is what is starting to happen in the Copyright world. Copyright and patents only work if the enforcement is not to severe. Keep going and there will be a small company that will take on the big boys and win.

    112. Re: Cat and mouse... by Ramze · · Score: 0

      you are most welcome

    113. Re:Cat and mouse... by umghhh · · Score: 1

      It is not only his but he got 2 insightful mods too. I guess this means lots of Aspies got mod points today.

    114. Re:Cat and mouse... by Ramze · · Score: 1

      I'd like to add that media companies are evolving - and I'm extremely excited about HBO allowing people to sign up for HBO GO - even if they don't have an HBO subscription through a cable provider. (even if it may be a limited subscription without the HBO subscription... I don't know all the terms yet)

      HBO knows that Game of Thrones and other shows are pirated. They also know that the pirates are very likely to become paying subscribers of HBO GO if they can watch Game of Thrones legally without having to pay for HBO itself (and possibly the cable subscription as well). They're lucky that they're both the creator and distributor for the show, so distribution rights won't be as much of an issue.

      I'm also excited that Netflix creates its own content with shows like "Orange is the New Black" and "House of Cards." I love the model where the creators are also the distributors, but I also really like that the consumers can give instant feedback through number of views or individual ratings. It's an evolution to a direct-to-consumer model with great feedback. They know every time you stream a show, so they don't need a separate ratings company to know how many viewers were watching. Netflix even has a ratings system, so they get feedback from the consumer in a great democratic format. I sincerely look forward to HBO GO, Netflix, and Amazon continuing the trend towards that new model (which will probably work well for most TV shows). Movies, however... those are likely still in the realm of Hollywood labyrinthine production and distribution channels for some time to come.

    115. Re:Cat and mouse... by delt0r · · Score: 2

      You can call it whatever you want. I call it bittorrent. It works for all movies and tv shows almost the day they are released, it works on all my devices and in all countries. They are dinosaurs holding on to a dying system. The proof is as simple as pointing to iTunes. It is run my a hardware provider because the industry was too stupid to see the writing on the wall.

      They are losing money plain and simple because they really believe they can make it work with a difference licence for different devices in different countries. It is *not* working and well the only real part of the company that is benefiting from all that legal work is the lawyers. I would love to use something like netflix with a few requirements. 1 High quality, you don't get genuine HD movie in 700MB so stop using comparable bitrates to that. 2 Timely releases, it is plain stupid that I need to wait 5 months for some shows to be available in the EU. We are on the internet. We have friends in the US, we know when it was out there. 3. everything should *not* be region restricted. Shit i spend quite a bit of time in difference countries. I don't want 10 accounts just because i spend time in 10 different places. Not to mention trying to switch accounts is a nightmare.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    116. Re: Cat and mouse... by mrmaster · · Score: 1

      It doesn't work that way. Bank accounts require street addresses by law. I live in a territory and I wouldn't have any U.S. based accounts if I didn't move from there.

    117. Re: Cat and mouse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Re: bank account, I opened a bank account with an american bank and was a tourist, had it for over a year, then I tied my paypal account to that card. Most of my online stuff gets paid that way.

      I live in Dominican and virtually everyone I know has an APO address in the States because the mail system here is useless.

    118. Re:Cat and mouse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Strange, I am an American (at least for a while longer) and I live outside the states and because of the whole American paranoia that says "We'll fuck 99.95% of the American people because a small handful of people are assholes", I've had to fly to New York to sit in front of a $15/hour employee to prove I am who I say I am instead of just having a Skype conversation.

      What bank did you use?

    119. Re: Cat and mouse... by steven.db.clark · · Score: 1

      Don't be silly. There are many locations in the US with no local mail delivery where a a PO box is used. I used to live in one.

    120. Re: Cat and mouse... by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 0

      And then a subscriber goes on holiday with their tablet, and are getting the incorrect content, and breaking licencing agreements.

      Or a pool of people from different countries pay for an account each, and share the details.

      Or someone pays for an account on behalf of someone else in a different country...

      Or what the hell? These people aren't stealing - they are paying for Netflix, they want to see a movie, and the "rules" are so fucked up that now Netflix considers it's own customers as the enemy.

      Ex-customers, if they have any dignity. Otherwise it's just one more abusive relationship.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    121. Re: Cat and mouse... by kenh · · Score: 3, Interesting

      No, they shouldn't.

      If a customer pays for access to the U.S. movie library, they shouldn't be forced to use the Norwegian Netflix library when they go on a skiing vacation to Lillihammer.

      You should get access to whatever you pay for, not whatever is licensed for the country they happen to be visiting. What if there is no Netflix license agreement in the country one visits? Does that mean they have zero access to the cloud-based streaming service they are paying for?

      --
      Ken
    122. Re: Cat and mouse... by kenh · · Score: 2

      Did he?

      He a U.S. citizen with a U.S. subscription paid from his US bank account living on US soil watching US Netflix content on a US (Gov't provided) ISP... How is he a pirate?

      --
      Ken
    123. Re: Cat and mouse... by kenh · · Score: 1

      Any chance the higher rates in Canada are for Canadian taxes and Canadian music license costs, not simply wonton greed on the part of XM Radio?

      --
      Ken
    124. Re:Cat and mouse... by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      It's pretty common for countries to try to boost their creative output in order to promote the country to the rest of the world. Both the US and UK have systems of tax breaks for locally-produced movies, as does much of the world. Uwe Boll is (in)famous for finding a way to exploit the German system of subsidies by making films so low-budget they cost less than the government paid to subsidise them - he made quite a few before the government revised their laws to stop him. Laws requiring channels to show a certain proportion of domestic content exist in Canada, Australia, and quite a few other countries. Your recollection on France is half-right - it's just outdated. While Franch used to have such a requirement, EU regulations now prohibit members from favoring their own industries at the expense of those of other EU members - so France's 'minimum French TV quota' is now a 'minimum made-in-the-EU quota.'

    125. Re: Cat and mouse... by kenh · · Score: 0

      There's a vast difference between supporting local artists and forcing consumption of local artists on citizens.

      What is the Canadian mandate, 15-20% of content must be created by Canadians? Imagine a movie theater that required every 5th ticket sold has to be for a movie from Sony Studios - while it's great for Sony Pictures (they are guaranteed 20% of box office revenue) it doesn't force Sony to compete to make better movies, where's the incentive?

      --
      Ken
    126. Re: Cat and mouse... by dk20 · · Score: 1

      Funny you mention that as i wasn't commenting on why they were different.

      If you look here the Canadian Senate released a report to "explain" the price gap.
      http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/...

      The problem is the report fails to point the finger at what is probably the single greatest reason for the price gap (the government).

      Buy a pair of kids socks in most US states and you will find they are tax exempt.
      Not so here, the government wants its 13% tax on that purchase (Ontario, we have HST)

      Buy a winter coat in most states and only pay taxes on the "non-exempt" portion (assuming your coat is over the non-exempt amount).
      Buy a winter coat in Canada, and it is 100% taxable, clearly they have no issues taxing "required" things as well.

      Heck, they even tax food here (there is a very small list of "exempt" items, but only what they determine is "essential").

    127. Re: Cat and mouse... by kenh · · Score: 1

      Imagine someone that doesn't live within walking distance of their fantasy US address...

      You realize not all foreigners live so close to a U.S. border, right?

      --
      Ken
    128. Re: Cat and mouse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget Gift Cards... Buy a gift card pay for a 3month subscription on it, provide any address, rinse, repeat.

    129. Re: Cat and mouse... by Imrik · · Score: 1

      If this wasn't the case, then why wouldn't they be able to just allow people to subscribe as US citizens regardless of where they live?

    130. Re: Cat and mouse... by Imrik · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying that this is the way it should be, just that this is the way the contracts are written.

    131. Re: Cat and mouse... by Imrik · · Score: 1

      Then why wouldn't the Norwegian be able to subscribe to the US movie library?

    132. Re: Cat and mouse... by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 1

      That's not how it works. You subscribe to "Netflix," not to specific content.

      Not entirely true.

      I live in Canada, so I have Canada-specific content. When our household signed up for Netflix the agreement said that we were signing up for the specific content that Netflix makes available in Canada.

      Not really a problem for me, as we have two kids and a big Golden Retriever, so Canada-Netflix has more content than we could ever get through anyway...

    133. Re:Cat and mouse... by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 1

      Haven't you just described iTunes?

    134. Re:Cat and mouse... by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 1

      So, I don't know what difficulty you're alluding to.

      Remind me how easy this is if you live in Kamloops.

    135. Re:Cat and mouse... by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I understand that. What I don't understand is why the big media conglomerates put such baffling restrictions into their licenses in the first place. Is it to comply with licensing agreements that they made?

      Yes.

      For example, NBC licenses Saturday Night Live to Global TV Canada for a millions of dollars.

      Global TV Canada now has exclusive rights to 'air' SNL in Canada - On TV, on the web and via their app.

      As a result, in Canada I can't watch SNL on NBC.com or Hulu or Yahoo because those exclusive rights in Canada to my Canadian eyeballs have been licensed to Global TV.

    136. Re:Cat and mouse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Region locking exists for products, so maybe it woud be fair to have region locking for labor.

    137. Re:Cat and mouse... by Chelloveck · · Score: 1

      Correction -- It wasn't stupid when distribution meant shipping physical items around the world to sell locally. In that case it makes perfect sense to license local distributors. It is stupid when you're shipping bits across a wire with no natural geographic boundaries. The proper solution is to change the distribution model, not to create artificial boundaries to shore up the old one.

      --
      Chelloveck
      I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
    138. Re:Cat and mouse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe not a real Post Office Box but a mail receiving agency.
      Full Time RVers (I was one for a while) use these, but they're pretty common.
      It's a legitimate address that receives your mail for you. Then they put it an a box and UPS it to you wherever you are every couple weeks.
      You can even use it to establish residency--which is important for full timers as we have no "house"--just the RV!

    139. Re: Cat and mouse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The upper echelons of the movie and music industry are just so greedy and shady, that this sort of bullshit will just keep getting worse and worse. They must already just hate it that someone can buy a physical copy of a movie and then not have to pay them again every time it's watched, and it can be *gasp* LENT to a friend to watch as well, again with NO PAYMENT! Some bean counter out there has no doubt informed them of all the "losses" occurring due to this.

      The video games industry is pretty far down this road as well, making games into a rental service (I'm looking at you, Steam) rather than a purchase.

    140. Re:Cat and mouse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These exclusivity deals are some of the most bullshit when it comes to being outright hostile to the general public. A couple of guys make a killing off it, and everyone else is worse off. Look at the video game sports franchises that have them. They'll pump out a shitty game that's no different than last year's except for roster updates because there's no competition to keep them in line.

      Another purchased monopoly.

    141. Re: Cat and mouse... by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      The upper echelons of the movie and music industry are just so greedy and shady, that this sort of bullshit will just keep getting worse and worse. They must already just hate it that someone can buy a physical copy of a movie and then not have to pay them again every time it's watched, and it can be *gasp* LENT to a friend to watch as well, again with NO PAYMENT! Some bean counter out there has no doubt informed them of all the "losses" occurring due to this.

      The video games industry is pretty far down this road as well, making games into a rental service (I'm looking at you, Steam) rather than a purchase.

      Garth Brooks, the C&W singer, was once involved in trying to ban sales of used CD's if the music industry didn't get royalties on them.

      There are a couple lines of thought on this of course. One is that the music industry is being robbed blind because as you noted, they feel they have to be paid every time somoene sees their product.

      The second thought is that if you make your product so secretive, so "You shall not pass" unless you pay the fee, no one will ever hear of your product.

      You see it on Youtube, where some companies troll for their music in order to get it taken down.

      In that same vein, I've bought music after listening to it on Youtube. I surely haven't bought any music I've never heard.

      The industry needs to start making good music and movies anyhow. In another Youtube related item, I've been listening to Steely Dan's Countdown to Ecstasy recently. Extremely competent musicians making sophisticated and excellent music that has aged very well.

      From 1972.

      Today, it appears to be Autotune and Twerking. I'm supposed to want to pay for that shit they're serving?

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    142. Re:Cat and mouse... by Phaid · · Score: 1

      In a world of physical media, there was at least some plausibility to the notion of export restrictions and region coding.

      I'm not sure how it ever made sense. Back in the '00s, I bought a $30 region-hackable DVD player from Sam's Club just to watch "They Live". The reason being, I could either buy the out of print Region 1 version from a third-party seller on Amazon for $150, or the in-print Region 2 version from amazon.co.uk for $5. I probably could have downloaded it from somewhere, but I was willing to throw a few dollars at it to have a legitimate copy (and I liked the idea of a region free player in any case). But hey, the studio made money, Sam's made money, and some Chinese DVD maker made money. Now, with region-locked streaming, they've managed to make it completely impossible to legitimately stream certain movies, so nobody makes money. I guess that's progress?

    143. Re: Cat and mouse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because in his ideal Netflix, ip hoping can't be used to hop around different Netflix libraries. But perhaps Netflix could just use whatever location you * sign up* with, and keep you locked to that library. That would satisfy the content providers (maybe), that poster above in Lily hammer, and provide a way to trick Netflix, albeit a sticky one.

    144. Re:Cat and mouse... by MooseMiester · · Score: 1

      A foreign born non U.S. citizen can open a U.S. bank account without any problems at all, they just have to show up in person to do it. They can get a debit card issued against that account, no problem at all. The only bank that I am aware of that refuses to do this on a regular basis is CHASE but that's because of operation chokepoint (and Chase's participation in it).

      It's much, much harder to get a credit card because of how charge back protection works. But what's wrong with a debit card? Nothing....

      --
      Murphy was an optimist
    145. Re: Cat and mouse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The 70s were the last gasp of real music. Mtv ruined the industry, by making sex appeal a requirement of music fame.

      Beyonce Gladys Knight

    146. Re: Cat and mouse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My less-than carrot is gone...

    147. Re:Cat and mouse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting statement considering that U.S. banks don't allow accounts to be set up with PO Box addresses.

      Working in AML (anti-money laundering) operations at a bank in Canada, I've seen many rural and remote areas that are not directly served by postal delivery to the physical address. In lieu of to-the-premises service, Canada Post will have an outlet in a small town nearby that will rent you a PO Box and that becomes your mailing address for everything.

    148. Re:Cat and mouse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Interesting statement considering that U.S. banks don't allow accounts to be set up with PO Box addresses.

      You set them up with the Canadian address. There is absolutely no requirements that you must be a US citizen or resident to set up accounts in US banks.

      http://dan.matan.ca/US-Bank-Ac...

      When you setup a US bank account, then you may have to either register with IRS (see TIN - http://www.irs.gov/Individuals... or get any interest with 30% interest withheld. But if all you want is no interest account just to spend US$ in US, then this is probably not needed.

      US accounts have other requirements than for example Canadian accounts. Even USD accounts in Canada have extra requirements. For example, if you are an Iranian national, you are prohibited from opening USD account even outside US.

      Anyway, cheers.

    149. Re:Cat and mouse... by iluvcapra · · Score: 1

      The distribution system isn't as much about shipping physical items as much as it is about marketing the films to a certain audience, making sure people know about them and then placing them in media that are appropriate for them to find them, obtaining a price that's attractive and then collecting the money. The territories are defined by these factor and there are barriers to entry between them apart from mere shipping.

      Even if this weren't the case, as a practical matter the "new" distribution model just isn't ready for prime time and simply can't offer the same deal that the traditional one does. An independent drama film with a big star that's shot well can cost $30 million, if you go to foreign distributors and offer them the rights they can get $10 million or more up front, before they've even made the film, just for the sale of the rights. Can internet distribution offer a producer $10 million in pre-sales? That's a hell of a Kickstarter.

      Even the shows that Netflix produces, they don't pay for everything. They paid a $100 million fee for House of Cards for the first 26 episodes and that STILL wasn't enough to cover the costs, that's part of the reason why MRC still has to sell foreign territories. HoC's episodes easily cost more than $6 million, and that's not out of line for a HBO-level drama; the show easily costs over $50 million per 13 episode season. Orange costs slightly less but still over $40 mil a season.

      Netflix doesn't talk much about this because the fact is nobody can figure out if they're actually making money on it, it's a huge bet going forward that they can make it work. The Interview distribution was a freak thing but it really didn't make as much money as that film should have the first week, the producers and distributors aren't going to torch the system they have if the system they have makes them more money, and this situation will probably persist for at least another 5 years.

      We know there's definitely some money getting made in new distribution modes, from Netflix to file sharing, Kim Dotcom is fucking rich! But very little of this money seems to find its way back to the people that actually pay to make a product, the people that run aggregating sites and ISPs slurp up all the revenue. Think about it: you pay $20-$40 or more a month for Internet service, and exactly 0% of that goes to pay for the things you actually read or see on the Internet.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    150. Re:Cat and mouse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You say that now, because pirating is easy to do and is not well enforced.

      Rather than negotiate with you under a condition of easy and low-risk piracy, the studios are working to change the accessibility of piracy. Letting aside for a moment the question of whether it's possible for them to achieve this, if they do achieve it, then that will change what you're willing to accept.

      It is useful to consider a hypothetical world in which piracy is impossible. What are you willing to accept when the choice is between something that lets you watch the movies, and spending your leisure time and dollars on activities that aren't watching movies.

    151. Re:Cat and mouse... by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Somebody making 2, 3 dollars a day (I'm looking at YOU, Pakistan!!) can't afford to pay American rates for content.

      And yet working Americans are supposed to compete with those people making 2, 3 dollars a day for jobs that can be outsourced of offshored. Funny how "globalization" is always a one-way street, though.

    152. Re:Cat and mouse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Second that. I love to pay for movies but don't make it hard for me.
      .
      .
      .
        Until that, I will be using torrents and not paying, as there is no obvious way to do that without a major pain in the ass.

      Great, so you will obey the law as long as it is convenient. Waitress taking a long time to bring your check? No problem, just walk out and let someone else pay for your consumption. Assholes like you are what motivates the movie studios to put these licensing burdens on Netflix.

    153. Re:Cat and mouse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where merit == largest advertising budget?

    154. Re: Cat and mouse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And morons like you will keep getting raped by the studios. Intelligent people will pirate, borrow ,or stop watching.

    155. Re: Cat and mouse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Copyright law doesn't care where your bank is, it cares where YOU are.

    156. Re:Cat and mouse... by shilly · · Score: 1

      That is a truly terrible analogy, because most movie theatres will not allow you to consume food and drink you've bought elsewhere on the premises.

    157. Re:Cat and mouse... by shilly · · Score: 1

      Not true. Nollywood is pretty big. Bigger than the US by volume of films produced.

    158. Re:Cat and mouse... by war4peace · · Score: 1

      It's very easy for me.
      One of my many friends from the USA has put up a VM on his main machine and installed NoMachine on it. I connect whenever I want and use his account to watch Netflix USA. In return, I gave him access to my obscenely large music collection through PLEX Media Server. Everyone's happy.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    159. Re:Cat and mouse... by BitterOak · · Score: 1

      How did that process compare to using one of the technological solutions to get around Netflix's IP geolocation?

      I opened the account long before Netflix existed, so it wasn't for that purpose. Since I still don't have Netflix, I can't offer an A/B comparison of the difficulty levels.

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    160. Re:Cat and mouse... by BitterOak · · Score: 2

      Interesting statement considering that U.S. banks don't allow accounts to be set up with PO Box addresses.

      Interesting statement since my bank (which was then Wachovia and is now Wells Fargo) did.

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    161. Re: Cat and mouse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like it when people use 'rape' to describe being slightly overcharged.

      My only complaints are that the entertainment industry abuse their power to influence legislation, they are too heavy-handed in enforcing copyrights (killing innovative tech, silencing people), and use the Fbi top do their bidding. But I feel like I'm paying less for entertainment than ever before.

      Cinema tickets are pricey though.

    162. Re: Cat and mouse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Intelligent people know about 'ethics.'

    163. Re: Cat and mouse... by Wootery · · Score: 1

      I surely haven't bought any music I've never heard.

      Don't give them ideas. With video-games, they use discounts and in-game 'bonuses' to entice fools to pre-order.

    164. Re:Cat and mouse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps you have a mail redirect service, not a PO Box.

      That would give you an US address, and you would receive all your mail back to where you stated you wanted it.

    165. Re:Cat and mouse... by Shirley+Marquez · · Score: 1

      Canada has content laws for broadcasters, requiring that a percentage of what they broadcast be connected in some way or another to Canada. Written there, performed there, done by Canadian performers, and being about Canada all figure into the formula. (Ironically, that means that the Great White North sketches on SCTV were a grand slam of CanCon even as they mocked it.) The justification is in part that broadcast spectrum is a finite resource. Cable channels are not regulated as tightly, and satellite radio has an overall requirement for the entire package of channels offered rather than content requirements for each channel. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    166. Re:Cat and mouse... by Ramze · · Score: 1

      Bittorrent is fantastic, but as PirateBay has shown, it likely won't be around forever. Governments are willing and able to shut down or block every bittorrent tracker site that pops up long enough to have any credibility or usefulness. I've had some friends get cease and desist orders - some even had their ISPs to shut down their service. People are using VPNs to get around such tracking, but even those are getting IP blocks or shut down. Governments are investing a lot of money into hardware, hacking, and spying to help shut down P2P networks. The Hydra theory - lop off one P2P head, and 2 take its place is not going to work when your ISP and your government both are snooping on everything you do - and everything everyone you connect to is doing. Even Tor and other networks are easily breached.

      I don't disagree that the region restrictions suck for the end user - especially one that travels. But, that's not the point. The system is the way it is for valid reasons. You're dealing with an entire industry and multiple countries - not just a single corporate entity that can change its mind on a whim. It doesn't help that the EU is largely an economic union and not a political one. I don't know, but it's possible Netflix may have to have additional legal paperwork and/or negotiations for each country involved. There may be things the EU could do to ease such business negotiations within the EU for member countries. I suspect the difficulties have more to do with the various languages and cultures of the regions and trying to cater to each, but additional negotiations and time spent would cost money as well.

      You have to ask yourself whether you're willing to pay for the service you describe, and if so, how much? Will it be worth it to all parties involved? If not, then why would they offer it? They're fine with not giving you a service you aren't willing to pay their price for, and you're fine with pirating the content and taking your chances with a fine or lawsuit. TV shows in the states run roughly $2/hr per household per episode from commercial sponsors. To deliver that content to you, you'd have to find a way to pay at least that much either directly or through finding commercial sponsors willing to show ads targeted to your demographic to pay for you to watch them - plus cost of whatever technical and legal hurdles to set it up for you. US series generally run 11 to 13 episodes per season, so you'd be paying between $20 to $25 minimum per season for each tv show unless you are willing to sit through ads and find someone who will pay to run ads just for you (and/or others using the service that fit your demographic. It would scale better with others.) Just selling the advertising in a region for a show can be a full time job. As to why shows are released in the states before the EU - I assume a show created by ABC, for example, would first run on ABC plus a few re-runs, then be packaged for sale to an EU network not owned by ABC for a price based upon the US ratings and EU demand, and then the EU station would set up negotiations for EU sponsors for the content and find a time slot. That negotiation would take time - plus any dubbing and subtitle translation work. If ABC owned the networks in both countries and knew EU demand was such that the show was a hit, they might simulcast, but I doubt it. I've seen the reverse happen with shows like Merlin - made for Britain, then 5 months later air on a different network in the USA. There's no language issue for the show between the UK/Canada and USA, but it still took 5 months or more to air. My guess is Syfy was showing its own programming in a time slot while SkyOne was showing Merlin, and if and when Syfy decided it could free up a slot, it paid to pull in Merlin. SkyOne probably did the same thing with some Syfy programming. So, each plays its own content, then swaps and plays the other network's if it works for them. They have the option of just not picking up a show if it stinks and going with something else.

      Each co

    167. Re:Cat and mouse... by Ramze · · Score: 1

      Interesting concept. How would that work exactly?

      Would that be through tariffs, bans on imports, or immigration laws? The US has economic sanctions forbidding business deals with North Korea and others.

      I'm sure one could write laws to forbid the purchase of some product or service produced outside the states. We have something similar for the defense industry - certain products must be composed of raw materials (a certain percent at least) produced in the USA, and a certain percentage of the labor (if not all of it) must be done in the USA as well.

      To have the "Made in USA" label, products have to adhere to certain labor conditions, too. Like for cars, parts can be from overseas, but if it a certain percentage of assembly was done in the USA, it can have the "Made in USA" designation. (I've read the terms for these designations, and it's really sneaky. Parts can be designated as "Made in USA" even if their components are largely not made in the USA.)

    168. Re: Cat and mouse... by Zalgon+26+McGee · · Score: 1

      I'm not certain that the wanton greed of XM Radio extends to Chinese dumplings in soup...

      --

      ---

      Book(n): Utensil used to pass time while waiting for the TV repairman

    169. Re:Cat and mouse... by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      >It is useful to consider a hypothetical world in which piracy is impossible.

      That is a very hypothetical world because even before the internet people were copying rented movies and software borrowed from a friend. It's also hard to see how they would stop *all* internet piracy.

      At best a few countries like the US, UK, Canada, and Australia might have absurd, draconian penalties and have all the major ISPs in the pocket of the media mafia etc. That still leaves most people in the world free to pirate and probably leaves people in locked down countries free to subscribe to a foreign based encrypted VPN and continue to share/trade media with the rest of the world.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    170. Re:Cat and mouse... by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      Also in Pakistan probably most of the films will be available for like $1 US on fake Chinese DVDs sold by people at night on folding tables. A lot of countries like that don't have fast enough internet connections to stream even DVD quality video anyway. Or if such connections are available they aren't affordable to most people.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    171. Re:Cat and mouse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I live in Canada (near the border), I have P.O. Box on the U.S. side and I have a bank account in a U.S. bank. I had no trouble opening it, and I use it to pay for many purchases I make from the U.S. (I can often get much better travel deals through sites like Priceline when I use a credit card with a U.S. billing address.)

      So, I don't know what difficulty you're alluding to.

      Interesting statement considering that U.S. banks don't allow accounts to be set up with PO Box addresses.

      Since when? In my town there is no home delivery and everyone (including the bank itself) picks up their mail from a P.O. box.

    172. Re:Cat and mouse... by Ramze · · Score: 1

      The issuing bank is coded into the credit card number. International transactions could be auto-rejected. Credit Card applications tend to reject any address that isn't a physical residence, so a PO Box wouldn't work - at least not as an initial address, possibly a forwarding address would be fine (at least temporarily).

      You'd likely have to travel to the US and open a bank account with proof of address in the US (something like a bill sent to a rental house or a rental agreement would do), then return to your home country and leave the account open - wire money to it and use its DEBIT or CREDIT card for the service. Of course, you'd still have to use a VPN or proxy and stay ahead of Netflix blocking such services.

    173. Re:Cat and mouse... by LordWabbit2 · · Score: 1

      Third that, am quiet happy to pay for watching something, but since Netflix is not even available in my country I just torrent it instead. All these stupid license agreements means that they are actually losing my money. I haven't pirated a game in years, I earn enough now that I am more than able to pay for them, and prefer to do so. It would be the same for movies if it was available here.

      --
      There are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third is statistics.
    174. Re: Cat and mouse... by nucrash · · Score: 1

      What if the name "Duggar" is on the account?

      --
      Place something witty here
    175. Re:Cat and mouse... by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      How big was Justin Beiber's budget? Not that I'm a fan, but case in point.

    176. Re:Cat and mouse... by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      most movie theatres will not allow you to consume food and drink you've bought elsewhere on the premises.

      That's exactly my point, because in this case you're applying it to a whole country rather than just a movie theater, and worse is that since most content ends up being paid for in some way, you're effectively being forced to pay for something you may not even give a shit about.

    177. Re:Cat and mouse... by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      It's called tiered marketing and discriminatory pricing. I'm not sure which business school you went to, but the AACSB accredited one I went to described this situation pretty well to the undergrads, and it makes perfect sense - it's just complex.

      Well, it makes sense up until a disruptive technology tears down the boundaries to importing. Like... airplanes. I mean, that sort of crap is the reason Canon USA is sending scare emails to all their customers warning them of the dangers of buying grey market cameras... knowing full well that most of the grey market importers stand behind it with a warranty that's approximately as trustworthy as Canon's, for several hundred bucks less.

      Artificially segmenting markets was pretty silly even way back in the DVD era. Now, in the Internet era, it's just plain sad....

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    178. Re:Cat and mouse... by delt0r · · Score: 1

      Little late to this party. But bitrorrent is *not* pirate bay. I notice nothing about my torrent access with pirate online or offline or anything. And where i am the ISPs actively advertise that they don't interfere with torrents as a feature. The world is not the US.

      And well it doesn't matter what the providers want to sell their content for. It is already available for about the cost of an internet connection. That is the price the market will bear.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
  2. ISP throttle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How am I going to circumvent my ISP throttling now?

  3. Re:Seriously... by frooddude · · Score: 1

    So what's the better answer: Pricing themselves out of some markets, or making less money by pricing for the lowest common denominator? I'm more than happy to take cheaper prices, but I don't invest in media stocks...

  4. encouraging piracy by bloodhawk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I use a smart DNS service in Australia to get my Netflix access. If they do end up blocking it (currently still works fine), I will just go back to pirating my content. I am happy to pay reasonable services a reasonable rate for the content I consume, but be fucked if I will accept being forced to pay for the overpriced poor content supplied locally in Australia.

    1. Re:encouraging piracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Especially given the Australian government specifically ENCOURAGED people to circumvent geo-blocking through use of VPN and Proxy services :D

    2. Re:encouraging piracy by bug1 · · Score: 2

      Also;
      Australia has 'parallel import' laws which make it legal to bypass country wide restrictions used by corporations, so they cant legally stop us.
      The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (government funded pro consumer organisition) are pretty strong in areas like this and i would expect them to cause problems for the media cartels if push came to shove.
      Using a VPN is encouraged by mainstream consumer oriented groups like choice magazine, see http://www.choice.com.au/revie...

    3. Re:encouraging piracy by bloodhawk · · Score: 5, Informative

      Geo-blocking isn't actually illegal, it just isn't illegal to bypass it so they most definitely can legally stop us. They are free to implement various measures to prevent it and enforce it, we just won't be in any legal trouble for doing our best to get around it.

    4. Re:encouraging piracy by whoever57 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Australia has 'parallel import' laws which make it legal to bypass country wide restrictions used by corporations, so they cant legally stop us.

      Enjoy those laws while you have them. Coming soon in a "Free Trade" pact: elimination of those laws.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    5. Re:encouraging piracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This. So much this.

      If you dislike this, drop your sub, email them and tell them you are dropping it because of it, optionally even email the companies involved in the licensing bullshit, done.
      Nothing will change unless people start telling these studios to get fucked for region restriction of content.

      If they want to lose money, so fucking be it. It is their industry that is dying, not our wallets.
      Soon independent content producers will gather together and make another attempt at an online-only video site, but this time not half-assed like previous sites. (especially now we know things like Kickstarter work quite well)
      I've paid for many shows online to be created, and even if some of them were average-ish, the stories themselves were infinitely better than the generic shit you see on TV 70% of the time. I'll take average or even outright terrible acting over generic stuff if it means I can actually pay people for content instead of hurting careers.
      And I know the problems of indie video producers all too well since my friend, in fact several friends, work in said industry either full or on the side.

    6. Re:encouraging piracy by bloodhawk · · Score: 1

      We already have free trade agreements and the laws have remained. They aren't their specifically to allow geo-blocking bypass, more to get past the huge price gouging that takes place by international corporations in Australia where we sometimes pay 50-100% more for items than other countries, in some cases it is cheaper to buy a plane ticket to another country, purchase the item and fly back to Australia with it than buy it here. The price gouging the laws are intended to prevent are actually far more important to the government than helping out the media mafia as without them Australia is far to small to prevent being screwed, they have even dragged the heads of various corporations to front parliament to try to justify the consumer gouging that is taking place.

    7. Re:encouraging piracy by OldSport · · Score: 1

      Exactly what I was going to say.

      Part of me wonders when the hell will these people get the goddamned message that their business models are completely outdated and have no place in the modern interconnected world.

      Another part of me realizes that more likely than not, they won't have to because they can buy enough politicians to legislate the fuck out of the Internet and protect their revenue streams.

    8. Re:encouraging piracy by dbIII · · Score: 1, Interesting

      in some cases it is cheaper to buy a plane ticket to another country, purchase the item and fly back to Australia with it than buy it here.

      The above poster is not joking. When the "titanium" Mac came out a newspaper did a cost breakdown to show it, and that was when a flight from Sydney to Hawaii was relatively much more expensive than today
      Apple fanboys please hold your fire, MS and others do the same price gouging screwovers - especially annoying when the software is distributed as download so there is no real answer as to why there is a 50-100% markup.

    9. Re:encouraging piracy by auzy · · Score: 1

      Where in Australia, apparently Netflix will be introduced in March. However, knowing Australia, we'll probably be paying $30 per month (which is a ripoff), and will have barely any US shows. In all likelihood, it will be filled to the brink of shonky Australian Reality TV programs.

      In that case, I'll just stop watching TV shows and just get back to doing more programming.

    10. Re:encouraging piracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The parallel import laws have certainly brought a lot of that pricing back to more realistic numbers, even MS and Apples (except for iTunes) is now mostly within the realms of sanity, though plenty of others like Sony still exploit the isolation and charge a huge premium for no justifiable reason. Would hate to see what pricing would be like again without the laws as companies have proven beyond a doubt they have no ethics in when it comes to pricing in Australia.

    11. Re:encouraging piracy by bloodhawk · · Score: 1

      yes I suspect when they open in Australia the content will be lacking as Foxtel still have content exclusivity licensing for a lot of it. If the content becomes decent I would happily swap to using them locally instead of via the US, but will have to wait and see. Would even happily pay a little more, maybe 15 bucks or so, but only if the content is there. I just don't watch enough to justify spending more, 3 years ago I had foxtel for around $120 a month and for the few hours of content I watched a month it was just insane pricing and now that I got rid of them I would never dream of going back. at around $12 a month (including my smart DNS service) I get all the content I need. I might watch at most 1 hour of TV a day on average so my upper limit of what I am willing to pay is $20 and I consider that simply a fee for not having to watch god damn ads which make free to air TV completely unwatchable for anything except news.

    12. Re:encouraging piracy by xyzzyman · · Score: 1

      Why don't you just not watch their product then?

    13. Re:encouraging piracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When the Titanium PowerBook was first released in 2001, the Australia dollar was languishing in the $US0.50 range and Apple's Australian pricing reflected that. Even after factoring in the GST, the difference wouldn't have got you to Hawaii and back.

      The $3000-difference-after-exchange of Abobe CS Master Collection definitely got a a lot of 'it's cheaper to fly to the states' press over the last few years, though.

    14. Re:encouraging piracy by skegg · · Score: 4, Funny

      especially annoying when the software is distributed as download so there is no real answer as to why there is a 50-100% markup.

      Some software companies claim it's due to internationalisation expenses (making an EN/AU version) which I think is fair - I imagine teams of university academics, linguists and anthropologists labouring over translating the EN/US XML file into EN/AU.

    15. Re:encouraging piracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was possible to get a return flight to Hawaii for around $700-$1000. not sure about apple but I certainly made the flight around 2000/2001 to buy a non-apple laptop and a router. I got to spend a few days in Hawaii (hotel and meals included) and still saved more than buying the items locally in Aus, just had them delivered to my hotel in Honolulu.

    16. Re:encouraging piracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you think you're entitled to watching movies? Are you so desperate to watch them when they don't want you to? Seriously.. they're kicking you to the curb and you come back to lick their feet?

      Better to support DRM free media...

    17. Re:encouraging piracy by geezer+nerd · · Score: 1

      I fear that the forthcoming TPPA agreemwnt will do this and a host of other nasty tweaks to how we live our lives. The fact that it is being done in secrecy is chilling. I just hope we can keep big pharma's clutches off our drug purchasing services.

    18. Re:encouraging piracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's usually cheaper to fly from NZ to Australia and back to purchase stuff as well... so as Australia is getting screwed we're getting seeeriously screwed. It's all such a bunch of ass.

    19. Re:encouraging piracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Again, it's the same in NZ. Netflix is apparently starting up in March, so the other demand services are rushing to market or advertising more. I doubt Netflix will have much unique content with the other networks having deals done. Plus, it will be too expensive, I am guessing.

    20. Re:encouraging piracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's Australia.. You have to reverse the endian order to get anything to work.

    21. Re:encouraging piracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I use a smart DNS service in Australia to get my Netflix access. If they do end up blocking it (currently still works fine), I will just go back to pirating my content. I am happy to pay reasonable services a reasonable rate for the content I consume, but be fucked if I will accept being forced to pay for the overpriced poor content supplied locally in Australia.

      You took the words out of my mouth. I'm in a different part of the world and use an expensive (but good) VPN to access Netflix. Currently I'm happy to pay for both services to get good streaming media. But both Netflix and vpn subscriptions will be cancelled if NF attempts to block me - I will go back to torrenting and watching all my media for FREE. Fuck them and fuck Hollywood and their obsolete licensing models.

    22. Re:encouraging piracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Adobe was another,

    23. Re:encouraging piracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The above poster is not joking.

      Only on Slashdot does one need to clarify that they're not joking.

      Do you people assume that people are always joking around on here or what?

    24. Re:encouraging piracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to another post here, Netflix's apps are using Google DNS to try to geolocate clients. I've checked and my VPN puts all DNS requests through the VPN, which is in the US, so no problem.

    25. Re:encouraging piracy by dbIII · · Score: 1

      the difference wouldn't have got you to Hawaii and back.

      However it could - thus an utterly ridiculous level of price gouging. So you are looking for the word "shouldn't" instead of "wouldn't". The price should not have been that high, but Apple (and many others) decided the market could bear it so they pumped up the price.

  5. This is a foolish business decision. by urbanriot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As a Canadian I know all too well how many people are using services to access American Netflix content that far surpasses the Canadian content in terms quality and quantity (or at least greater quantity of what people want). I expect the majority of my friends that are using these services to access American Netflix will cancel the service outright if they can no longer access it and furthermore, they'll stop suggesting Netflix as a viable option to cable / satellite.

    1. Re:This is a foolish business decision. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It'd be amusing to see people who want to pay being pushed into actual piracy, and then quickly being given their two torrent-warnings from their ISP, and then just quitting on movies and TV altogether and doing actual stuff with their lives instead.

    2. Re:This is a foolish business decision. by urbanriot · · Score: 1

      Haha! The thing is, plenty of us work long hours followed by family life and have a short period of time to relax our brains before bed. We can pop on Netflix to casually watch some good shows, TV that we're interested in, without worrying about PVRs or commercials or what have you. At 9 PM the last thing I want to do is read a book, I'd rather have a glass of wine and let my brain melt in front of an episode of Peaky Blinders (not available on Canadian Netflix).

    3. Re:This is a foolish business decision. by YouGotTobeKidding · · Score: 1

      ROFL. Anyone smart enough to setup a VPN to pay for netflix...is smart enough to use VPNs for pirate'ing...or at least knows a techy who can set it up for them. ;)

    4. Re:This is a foolish business decision. by wvmarle · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If Netflix is not doing it, they risk losing all their content - and with it their whole business. It's not foolish from their pov, it's just what they have to do to keep their business alive.

    5. Re:This is a foolish business decision. by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

      Clearly you weren't aware of the Bookblinders. It's okay, not many people are, and that in lies their most powerful advantage. They are shadow, secretive group who seek to influence and control the book through literature (or in modern times, whatever people like JK Rowling can shit out)

      This is all part of the Machiavellian plan to return to prominence. By making mass market entertainment either too awful and contrived to stomach, or priced out of reason, the people will have no choice but to return to books.

    6. Re:This is a foolish business decision. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Read a book like twilight. Guaranteed to be 150% as effective as Peaky Blinders at melting your brain.

    7. Re:This is a foolish business decision. by SirAudioMan · · Score: 1

      I kind of agree with this. I'm Canadian and have subscribed to Netflix for about 2 years now. In fact about a year ago I cut my cable completely! My wife has been using Hola on Chrome to get passed the restriction but only about 5-10% of the time. Our primary appliance for Netflix is our WD TV Live Plus box which can't easily be fooled with DNS changes (I've tried). Though the Canadian content lacks in many areas, there are still many great things to watch. At first it seemed like it was lacking but honestly I don't miss a good portion of that American TV crap. My TV viewing habits have changed drastically. Canadian Netflix is actually quite good, but it's different than us Canadians are used to. Most of our cable/sat content is American (less CanCon) which is why we are used to it. I for one am happy to try other things I would have normally never given a chance if all the regulars were available.

    8. Re:This is a foolish business decision. by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      Cloud Atlas (http://www.netflix.com/WiMovie/70248183)
      Battle Royale (http://www.netflix.com/WiMovie/70004548)
      The Cabin in the Woods (http://www.netflix.com/WiMovie/70112368)

    9. Re: This is a foolish business decision. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Another Canadian here.

      We use a service with a Netflix region picker. We've been on the Columbian Netflix the past couple of weeks, as they have some really good childrens shows that Canada nor the USA has.

      If they lock out the service my family is using, I'll try an alternative, and if that fails to work I will simply cancel my service and return to pirating. I will jot down a list of things they watch and download complete collections.

      Our local cable provider is simply ridiculous. Before I cancelled my cable, we had maybe 50 watchable channels, ~20 were in HD. That plus a 25Mbps connection was costing around $160 per month. We cancelled the cable, upgraded the connection to the 50Mbps package, and got on the Netflix train. Bam. Including the cost of Netflix and the 'smart DNS' service, we're paying ~$93. Going back to torrents will save us another $13.

      If they don't want my money, fuck 'em.

    10. Re:This is a foolish business decision. by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      How is it more foolish than losing their content licenses?

    11. Re:This is a foolish business decision. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they'll stop suggesting Netflix as a viable option to cable / satellite.

      Assuming you meant your friends will resume suggesting cable or satellite instead of Netflix, that would be a net win for the content companies. Pretty sure Netflix can't pay as much as the expensive cable plans can yet.

    12. Re:This is a foolish business decision. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Canadian Netflix far surpasses American Netflix in terms of movie releases. I'm a canadian and I use a proxy as well to watch tv series, but as far as movie goes we are pretty lucky. Actually I know Americans using Canadian VPN to watch movies!

      http://netflixcanadavsusa.blogspot.com/2014/12/alphabetical-list-j-z-fri-dec-26-2014.html#more

    13. Re:This is a foolish business decision. by urbanriot · · Score: 1

      Your question is irrelevant as you're presenting two options that are not the only two options on the table.

      They could easily not block IP addresses that are sourced from within the country of the target content and simply leave it at "we're not responsible for policing this" and see what happens. They are certainly testing this option with the CRTC here in Canada.

    14. Re:This is a foolish business decision. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like you haven't used any of the VPN services out there. They are dead simple to set up. Install it and then literally just one one button to start and stop it.

    15. Re:This is a foolish business decision. by urbanriot · · Score: 1

      Most of our cable/sat content is American (less CanCon) which is why we are used to it.

      Yea, folks that live within a few hours of the border are used to American content since 99% of their TV comes from the US. There are millions of Canadians that primarily consume US content since there's more of it available. I knew as much about the United States gubernatorial elections as I did about our domestic elections.

    16. Re:This is a foolish business decision. by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 1

      I know somebody fairly bed ridden most of the time, TV and movies are pretty much their life. There are a small group of people in the same condition; who share Movie/TV services, I would of never thought this possible if I hadn't seen the selections (services) available myself.

      They make so little money they can't afford this themselves, but as a group it works. I'm trying to keep this vague enough as not to affect them, but this action of netflix might become a problem for them.

    17. Re:This is a foolish business decision. by urbanriot · · Score: 1

      Yea, constructing that paragraph was a bit rough on limited sleep. I believe the options for most of the folks I know are American Netflix vs. Pirating content. It wasn't uncommon for older folks to ask a younger relative to give them a year's worth of shows on an external hard drive to plug into their TV / Blu-ray / WD TV Live but Netflix became so popular that requests for pirated content diminished. Basically, cheap legal streaming replaced piracy since it was easier to legally obtain content... why not, it was only $8 a month or some such. A 'young feller' would come by and setup a VPN or DNS service on a router and see-ya-later, around $150 a year and they had access to plenty of content without a hassle.

    18. Re:This is a foolish business decision. by silviuc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The thing is that the MAFIAA does not care. Are these decisions hurting NETFLIX? Good. The MAFIAA hates the internet and streaming services. I saw an article not too long ago in which they were evaluating the impact of Google Fiber speeds on piracy and they were scared shitless. Any sane people would recognize that as a new market to fill. For fucks sake, they now have proper bandwidth lets give them content and make money, but not the MAFIAA, nope.

      They are greedy and stupid, really stupid. Just read the other day how "The Interview" made $ 15M from online sales/rentals vs. $ 3M from theatre screenings. Of course they could've made even more but the release was US only, so people took to known torrent sites and downloaded it gratis and DRM-free from there.

      I don't think these ass-hats will ever learn and they will do everything in their power to stifle progress and technology. They did it before and will continue to do it instead of working with tech companies.

    19. Re: This is a foolish business decision. by rikkards · · Score: 1

      They started about 3 weeks ago or so. All of a sudden my wife lost some of the shows that she was watching. Looked into it and this is already known and how to circumvent it. Essentially the Netflix app is trying to get back to Google's DNS servers to determine GeoLocation. Block that and it gives up.

    20. Re:This is a foolish business decision. by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      Your question is irrelevant as you're presenting two options that are not the only two options on the table.

      Yes, they are the only options given to Netflix. The content providers require the region blocks for licensing their content.

  6. Targeting VPN users sounds like a great idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not like they're already set up to use free alternatives like bittorrent. What with having a VPN and all.

  7. Well will see what happens when I get home by future+assassin · · Score: 2

    if they start blocking my provider then I guess I'll be cable and possibly Netflix free and will just torrent away and donate that $$$ to the ones that provide me a real service.

    IP terrorist FTW!!!

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
    1. Re:Well will see what happens when I get home by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And what if your provider decides to cut off your internet access for violating their TOS?

      Uh, heard of torrenting via VPN? No ISP can track that. So, that's moot.

      And if you never cared about morality in the first place, why did you ever bother subscribing to Netflix instead of just torrenting the content the whole time?

      Morality doesn't enter into it. Netflix actually provides a service worth paying for: a curated library with recommendations that are reasonably accurate, playback that begins instantly, direct hardware playback integration, no hassle of trying to determine which torrents for a specific title are quality vs shit, and a reasonable price.

      If Netflix or Amazon Prime don't have it, then I torrent it. Hell, I'll even torrent titles that I own the Blu-Ray for because pirated videos don't have the fucking retarded concept of User-Prohibited Operations... according to the studio execs, I paid for the privilege to not be able to skip previews. Hell, even in the VCR days I could fast forward, but no more.

      It's as the pirates have always said: make the product worth paying for and people will. I certainly do. *Definitely* don't make the paid version less useful or enjoyable than the pirated version.

    2. Re:Well will see what happens when I get home by future+assassin · · Score: 1

      I'm just following the move studios and music label morality.

      --
      by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
    3. Re:Well will see what happens when I get home by omfgnosis · · Score: 1

      Wait. You're being a moralizing prick, then chastising a person for doing the thing you consider moral? When that person expressed *wanting* to do the thing you consider moral? I'm lost.

    4. Re:Well will see what happens when I get home by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Is lying about downloading infringing copyrighted content moral? I'll agree that it's probably not morally justified for companies to not make it reasonably available in the first place, but in what way does that justify having to lie about it if they ever confront a person about the matter just to avoid having their ISP disconnect them for violating their TOS, which probably prohibits such activity?

      ... Bearing in mind that saying that it does somehow justify it also suggests that one has a sense of entitlement to the content they would want to pirate in the first place.

      Of course, if you want to argue about entitlement to public domain works, or even works that *should* be in public domain, you'd have a fair point... and one that I'd agree with, but virtually all pirated works are generally very recently published, and the only reasons they would have to already be public domain are in the minds of copyright abolitionists.

    5. Re:Well will see what happens when I get home by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Piracy fails on no less than half of the fallacies on this page. Do numbers 5 and 12 would look particularly familiar to you?

    6. Re:Well will see what happens when I get home by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Of Netflix actually provides a service worth paying for

      Ah... but the poster to whom I had responded was alleging that if they start prohibiting people from accessing content that is supposed to be available to their region, then Netflix will no longer be providing a service worth paying for, so that isn't relevant.

      If Netflix or Amazon Prime don't have it, then I torrent it

      Will you actually admit to torrenting it if you are confronted about the matter when the consequences include internet disconnection? I'm assuming not, but if I'm wrong about that, then wow.... just wow.

      But morality enters into the matter when one find themselves compelled to be dishonest about their activities just so that they will not face what is ultimately just an inconvenience.... that they might have to wait for a DVD to be released instead of just being able to watch a show on Netflix right now.

      Of course, a sense of entitlement also plays no small part... and there's not a whole lot that's morally valid about that either.

    7. Re:Well will see what happens when I get home by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem to perseverate about some mythical "TOS confrontation" that won't happen when torrenting via a VPN. You have posed your questions incorrectly and the answer is therefore "mu" (i.e. the answer to "have you stopped beating your wife?").

      Also, bravo for missing (or intentionally overlooking) my broader point: I will and do pay if the products and services are more valuable than the pirated content. You are intent upon shoehorning this into your preconceived notion of a morality tale, but in truth this is about convenience and laziness: via this metric, Netflix is superior to pirated torrents which are superior to studio-produced Blu-ray and DVDs.

      Studios are going to be fighting a losing battle if they are relying on laws codified to enforce a "morality" that the culture doesn't acknowledge as valid. Better to concentrate on providing products and services that are superior to "free" torrented versions.

      To restate: is it moral for you to try to foist your bizarre concept of "morality" onto the culture at large? Personally, I think your personal crusade here is rather morally dubious.

    8. Re:Well will see what happens when I get home by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Uh, heard of torrenting via VPN? No ISP can track that. So, that's moot.

      Whoever owns the pipe feeding the VPN can. Maybe not to the ultimate destination, but it might get the VPN itself shut down.

    9. Re:Well will see what happens when I get home by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Whether a TOS confrontation ever happens or not is beside the point... one would still be violatiing the TOS if they were engaging in such activity.

      And whenever "nobody will ever know" ever becomes part of a justification for something, ethics is invariably involved.

    10. Re:Well will see what happens when I get home by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, and now we are into the realm where you have conflated ethics, morality, and law. Protip: these are not equivalent. As a bonus, you attempted to elevate a contract of adhesion (TOS) to an equivalent rank of ethical consideration... are you serious?!

      Furthermore, you are persisting in unsupported presumption that these decisions in this context have a morality basis and consequently you use circular reasoning to assert that torrenting has a moral valence.

      Your argument is tantamount to the question of is it moral to drink a sip of wine? It must be immoral if you feel you have to hide it from the authorities because it's in the USA on 04 Dec 1933 (the day before Prohibition was repealed). This line of argument fails because of the circular reasoning attempt to bootstrap the original premise, i.e. that Prohibition of recreational alcohol consumption is a moral goal, rather than perceiving the reality: that the law is in dissonance with the culture's mores and therefore qaaattempting to evade prosecution by immoral laws is everyone's right (not to mention, evasion is the path of least resistance... again, laziness and convenience rule the day).

      Similarly, you presume without evidence that torrenting is immoral and that people are making decisions about whether or not to do so based on moral reasoning rather than convenience and laziness.

      This probably can't be called "civil disobedience" insomuch as "civil nullification"; that is, nullifying the false "morality" you and others like you are attempting to artificially impose on the culture.

    11. Re:Well will see what happens when I get home by future+assassin · · Score: 1

      My heart is bleeding for you.

      --
      by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
    12. Re:Well will see what happens when I get home by delt0r · · Score: 1

      I would use a service like netflix in a heartbeat instead of torrents for the convenience factor. But in my area there is nothing on it. Also ISP here don't give a shit about torrents or american copyright trash. We have our own laws that make enforcing them pretty dam impossible.

      As for morality. We are talking about TV shows and movies and other crap. Not feeding the world. Keep it in perspective.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    13. Re:Well will see what happens when I get home by mark-t · · Score: 1

      I would argue that piracy itself is immoral because the only thing that actually drives it is a sense of entitlement.

    14. Re:Well will see what happens when I get home by omfgnosis · · Score: 1

      Is lying about downloading infringing copyrighted content moral? I'll agree that it's probably not morally justified for companies to not make it reasonably available in the first place, but in what way does that justify having to lie about it if they ever confront a person about the matter just to avoid having their ISP disconnect them for violating their TOS, which probably prohibits such activity?

      OP never talked about doing any of this. You just made up a strawman and started attacking it. Go back and read the thing you responded to.

      ... Bearing in mind that saying that it does somehow justify it also suggests that one has a sense of entitlement to the content they would want to pirate in the first place.

      Go back and read it *again*. OP was clearly stating that they would gladly pay for a service, and currently do. You attacked them for expressing regret that that option is being taken away.

    15. Re:Well will see what happens when I get home by mark-t · · Score: 1

      OP never talked about doing any of this. You just made up a strawman and started attacking it. Go back and read the thing you responded to.

      Sure thing.... here is what was said:

      if they start blocking my provider then I guess I'll be cable and possibly Netflix free and will just torrent away

      The poster admitted they had every intention of ignoring what was legal and in turn, violating their ISP's terms of service for using it for such illegal activities. Nothing is inherently immoral about either of those if the law and TOS are genuinely unjust and a violation of people's actual rights, but in the end, the only thing that actually drives piracy isn't any kind of sense of justice, or proper moral ethics, it is simply fueled by an over inflated sense of entitlement.

    16. Re:Well will see what happens when I get home by omfgnosis · · Score: 1

      In other words, you made up a strawman to attack, and didn't really take the OP's intent at all into account. You're projecting all of your feelings about the subject into it, which is fine but isn't actually a discussion. Done here.

    17. Re:Well will see what happens when I get home by mark-t · · Score: 1

      I know quite well what a strawman is, and the poster stated that they *intended* to break the merely because they were being inconvenienced. The fact that they wouldn't break the law if they weren't inconvenienced is entirely beside the point.

    18. Re:Well will see what happens when I get home by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would argue that piracy itself is immoral because the only thing that actually drives it is a sense of entitlement.

      Now we're getting somewhere. We have different definitions.

      Your perspective presumes that IP is a possession to which other people are co-opting via piracy. It seems to be somewhat of a dissonant perspective given that IP protection is theoretically of a finite length of time. Why are, for example, libraries and IP entering the public domain presumably (well, as it used to do before Disney bought Congress) something morally acceptable?

      Why do some IP creators try to astroturf a morality valence for their works, whereas no one blinks twice about, say, sharing a food recipe or making a derivative recipe without pretending we need to license the original?

      Circling back around, I believe piracy is morally null (as in, "having no moral valence"), because I don't believe IP owners morally have a right to insist on the protections they have been able to enshrine in law. If you want to call this "entitlement", then I feel similarly entitled to breathe air, to express my own thoughts to whoever willingly listens, etc.

    19. Re:Well will see what happens when I get home by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Circling back around, I believe piracy is morally null (as in, "having no moral valence"), because I don't believe IP owners morally have a right to insist on the protections they have been able to enshrine in law.

      Those protections are merely a legal extension of protections that would have existed entirely naturally if the content creator had simply not published it in the first place, resorting to self-censorship in a simple attempt to keep anyone else from copying it.

      The goal of publication in the first place is to ideally enrich society with the content, but if a content creator keeps their content away form the public just because they don't want anyone else to copy it, then society doesn't benefit at all. The point of copyright, therefore, could be said to create an incentive for the rights holder to publish so that society can be enriched by the content, while trying to offer an assurance to the creator, to the extent that it can be enforced by law, that nobody will copy the work. As copying technologies improved, however, the law has been progressively losing its ability to actually offer any assurance, and copyright has increasingly become a social contract. Society is supposed to agree not to copy the work, and the content creator offers to publish it so that society can be enriched by it.

      Of course, this is still fundamentally supposed to be for a limited time, and I do not for a single second abide by the absurd lengths that copyright has been extended to simply hold onto copyrights. But the absurd lengths that copyright is being extended to should *NOT* entitle anyone to access content that would have fallen under more conventional copyright duration.

      Ultimately, therefore, people pirate most content out of nothing better than a sense of entitlement that cannot be rationalized by any sense of moral justification without resorting to copyright abolition... where anything that anyone publishes automatically becomes public domain, and if they want to control it, they will have to keep it away from the general public, effectively resorting to self-censorship, and society will suffer as a result.

    20. Re:Well will see what happens when I get home by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those protections are merely a legal extension of protections that would have existed entirely naturally if the content creator had simply not published it in the first place, resorting to self-censorship in a simple attempt to keep anyone else from copying it.
      [...] if they want to control it, they will have to keep it away from the general public, effectively resorting to self-censorship, and society will suffer as a result.

      And this is where we differ. I concur with your first statement, as well as the fact that you described their remedy (i.e. keeping their story/art to themselves if they don't want it copied). I don't, however, believe this would result in society "suffering" because I don't believe this self-censorship in order to keep a deathgrip on a story would actually occur.

      As I pointed out several times, there is plenty of ability for entities to make money selling services even when the content is available "free".

      Fundamentally, I don't believe someone has a legitimate moral claim to promulgate their ideas while simultaneously claiming a moral right to control them after they have been promulgated. The question of whether the legal construct of IP is beneficial to society is rather fraught: as you pointed out, it is based on pragmatism—that's a difficult position from which to argue moral absolutes, and that's even before we get into how far from any semblance of propriety it is today.

      So, to summarize the topic: I have no problem with artists receiving money from me for their work. I simply don't believe they have a moral right to it; I *especially* reject their claims they can control it to the degree studios have done, with unskippable previews and so forth.

      Concordantly, I will access whatever they have released in the manner that is most convenient for me. If they receive money while I do that, then all the better. As I pointed out, my first choice is via a method that is legal and theoretically results in them receiving payment (Netflix, though no doubt the unethical studios apply Hollywood accounting to keep the original content creators from being able to reap any appreciable money when I access the content this way). Furthermore, I will also take whatever steps I deem necessary to "civilly nullify" the immoral legal construct that exists surrounding access to IP, again in the manner that maximizes my convenience.

      As you said: if people really don't want their stories/song/art shared, then they can simply not share them.

    21. Re:Well will see what happens when I get home by mark-t · · Score: 1

      I don't, however, believe this would result in society "suffering" because I don't believe this self-censorship in order to keep a deathgrip on a story would actually occur.

      The suffering I speak of is more of a matter of not being enriched by the continuing publication of the content that the public might have a demand for, and the stagnation that would likely occur if people who didn't want their stuff to be copied without their permission were not offered any incentive to publish at all.

      Sure you'd still get some people who are willing to put their stuff out there in public domain right away, but it is unlikely that would be sufficient to actually produce a net societal benefit.

      The result: stagnation, and society suffers.

    22. Re:Well will see what happens when I get home by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if people who didn't want their stuff to be copied without their permission were not offered any incentive to publish at all.

      Simply having the desire to be compensated and to retain control of an idea does not give these people a right to demand it. For example, no doubt doctors who invent a new treatment technique would love to be compensated for every additional day that the patients they cured lived, for the rest of those patients' lives. This does not give them the basis to claim they have a moral right to this type of compensation, and guess what? People are still getting cured. No surgeon pays a license fee to Dr. Whipple in order to perform a Whipple operation, for a real world counterexample.

      People don't have the right to demand that laws exist to prop up the business model they want to exist. They *certainly* shouldn't have the gall to assert that everyone else has some sort of moral imperative to comply with their desired business model.

      Sure you'd still get some people who are willing to put their stuff out there in public domain right away, but it is unlikely that would be sufficient to actually produce a net societal benefit.

      I disagree, especially given the democratization of content distribution since the Internet came into being. There are plenty of people who create and publish now. The age of the "gatekeepers" of publishers and so forth is rapidly coming to an end because they simply do not add adequate value anymore.

      I assert that people are willing to create even if they don't have a legal mandate to allow them to rent-seek based on their IP.

      Most bands make their money touring. Red Hat is a billion dollar company based on software that is "free", etc, etc, etc.

      The result: stagnation, and society suffers.

      Essentially, I assert that your assertion here is a non sequitur, and that content creation would not be substantially impacted.

      By your line of reasoning, Linus Torvalds has no incentive to create Linux and therefore it shouldn't exist because as an IP creator he must demand deathgrip control over his idea or he has zero incentive to create it... therefore it would never happen. Right?

      This is likely to be an impasse in our debate, as this last point (both your assertion and mine) is opinion based.

    23. Re:Well will see what happens when I get home by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Would Linus have had the same incentive to publish if Linux were *required* to be public domain if he were to publish it instead of being an open source project that is protected by copyright? One could always just ask him.

    24. Re:Well will see what happens when I get home by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, I suppose one could ask. Let us know what he says if you decide to do so. My opinion is that he still would.

      I seem to recall that the GPL was created to exploit copyright against itself (viz. "copyleft").

      Regardless, BSD licensing is tantamount to public domain (the burden of an attribution notice is a negligible difference), and contrary to Netcraft's claims (ha) the BSD projects do not suffer for lack of development or popularity.

      As I said before: I disagree with your speculative prediction of what would happen if copyright were abolished. I gave counterexamples where vibrant content creation occurs without creators demanding a deathgrip control over ideas they have promulgated. Ultimately, though, neither of us can run these grand social experiments to test our hypotheses.

      To reiterate: based on my perspective, I don't believe these people have any legitimate moral claim to control ideas they have previously shared, and thus I take steps to nullify the barriers enforcing their false "rights" if they pose an inconvenience. I consider these actions to have zero moral valence.

    25. Re:Well will see what happens when I get home by mark-t · · Score: 1

      So do you allege that the notion that copyright was invented to give content creators some assurance that their works would not be copied, to the extent that the law could control, even if they published is false?

      Because if that notion is not false, then copyright *DOES*, or at least one time did, give content creators some amount of incentive to publish.

      But really, if public domain were really so popular with people, and negligibly different from BSD, as you allege, then why don't people explicitly put more stuff into public domain instead of often explicitly stating that it is copyrighted and dictating the copying terms, however lax they might seem be?

    26. Re:Well will see what happens when I get home by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I allege that this copyright protection enshrined in law represents an immoral concept based on people feeling entitled to rent seek on ideas they have promulgated. As you pointed out, the concept of copyright was created as a pragmatic compromise. Furthermore, I'm not certain you really want to try to conflate laws and morality again... and once more, your argument is using circular reasoning.

      More people don't release into public domain due to the moral hazard: the law allows them to rent seek, and so they do. Similarly, if people could get the government to take money from others and give it to them, how many people would decline to exploit this moral hazard too?

    27. Re:Well will see what happens when I get home by mark-t · · Score: 1

      As you pointed out, the concept of copyright was created as a pragmatic compromise.

      Exactly.... and that compromise is not an unreasonable one, even today.... although you seem to allege that it has become so.

    28. Re:Well will see what happens when I get home by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As you pointed out, the concept of copyright was created as a pragmatic compromise.

      Exactly.... and that compromise is not an unreasonable one, even today.... although you seem to allege that it has become so.

      I'm glad you admitted it was a pragmatic policy decision rather than a moral absolute right. I will point out that while the intention of the law is clear (given the wording of the US Constitution), that in no way proves that it is effective—much less requisite!—in order for new ideas to be promulgated. Presuming that policy intention is equivalent to policy effect was the circular reasoning fallacy used in your previous post.

      At this point, your argument has devolved to "well, copyright seemed like a reasonable idea at the time", which is hardly the basis for supporting a claim that there is a moral "right" to copyright.

    29. Re:Well will see what happens when I get home by mark-t · · Score: 1

      My point is none of the reasons that copyright ever seemed like a reasonable idea at the time have actually changed, and so if it was pragmatic then, it is no less pragmatic today. I would argue that there is a moral obligation to respect such a pragmatic compromise, since the very reason it was ever devised in the first place was with the goal of trying to enrich society. Even if its goal has been "twisted", as you allege (and I do not refute), if they were correct about that goal then, in that published works somehow *did* enrich society, then that point should be no less true today than it was when copyright was invented.

      And on the subject of copyright giving people the option to rent-seek, which you mentioned above... not all copyrighted works are for monetary gain. If, again, public domain is such a viable alternative to copyright when monetary compensation is not being sought, what incentive do people who copyright under BSD terms or many other types of open source licenses (other than the GPL, which explicitly forbids copying to anyone who, in action, disagrees with the terms of the license) have to bother explicitly copyrighting their works and attaching their name to it when they could, with no less effort, put a disclaimer stating the work was simply domain? I would argue that the fact that more works intended to be freely available are *not* being put into public domain, but are almost invariably explicitly put under some copyright terms such as a BSD license or what have you suggests to me that the dissolution of copyright would result in fewer published works other than those of the caliber that people put into public domain today, which tends to set a pretty low bar for quality, and thus does not particularly enrich society to the same extent that copyrighted works otherwise would have. This is fundamentally why I maintain that respecting copyright is a moral decision, and not just a legal one. I'll admit that this suggestion is only my opinion based on what I interpret from the presently available observable data, but do you have any actually observable evidence to support a contrary position?

      Also bear in mind that I don't refute people put stuff into public domain today, and that there's not even a particularly small amount of it.... some of it is even actually pretty good. The average caliber, however, tends to be considerably lower than even the freely available copyrighted works, which are also far more abundant. I feel in the absence of copyright, therefore, all we would be left with is a smaller stream of published content of about the same quality as currently published public domain works, which is what I think would lead to societal stagnation, and again, why I think that respecting copyright has moral weight to it unless one's morals do not advocate supporting a mechanism that benefits society (I do not allege that is your position, only that I acknowledge that there may be some who would hold such a position, and there is no point at which I would ever expect to be able to convince one who held such a position that copyright had any moral value whatsoever).

      And on the question I posed above, and sticking just to content that is legally freely available so as to just compare apples to apples here, do you have any evidence to show that a significant percentage of public domain content is actually of higher caliber than content that may be no less freely available than open source content, for instance, but is usually explicitly copyrighted? This isn't a rhetorical question.... I ask it because I've attempted to present the evidence that I believe supports my position, and I am genuinely oblivious to evidence that contradicts it. I don't allege that the monetary stranglehold that copyright seems to offer the content publishers may be a morally bankrupt tenet, but if published works still somehow enriches society, as I allege that it does, then that moral bankruptcy is actually irrelevant to the still-existing underlying benefit of published works. I don't a

    30. Re:Well will see what happens when I get home by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If, again, public domain is such a viable alternative to copyright when monetary compensation is not being sought, what incentive do people who copyright under BSD terms

      Then I suggest you read the BSD license and discover what's in it. It's tantamount to the public domain while protecting the author through indemnification. I assert that this type of protection should not be necessary under the law; regardless, your argument that the use of BSD license supports the existence of copyright is not well made. Similarly, I don't believe that burglars falling through a skylight and being injured should be able to sue the homeowners they were seeking to harm, but that's not reality in modern America.

      And on the question I posed above, and sticking just to content that is legally freely available so as to just compare apples to apples here, do you have any evidence to show that a significant percentage of public domain content is actually of higher caliber than content that may be no less freely available than open source content, for instance, but is usually explicitly copyrighted?

      You're proposing we trade subjective evaluations of content now as a moral justification for copyright now? Really? This does not support your argument, because you are making the presumption that none of this quality content could exist without copyright, and I assert that your claim is not proven.

      I have already provided manifold examples of viable business models that are thriving, which you apparently rejected.

      I would argue that there is a moral obligation to respect such a pragmatic compromise, since the very reason it was ever devised in the first place was with the goal of trying to enrich society.

      Again, I remind you that policy effect is not equivalent to policy intent. I suggest you reread your sentence there and realize that there is no moral basis for copyright in your statement. Otherwise, all of law is now equivalent to morality, because if we presume that good, pragmatic intentions of legislators are sufficient to elevate laws to morality then compliance with all of law is therefore morally requisite.

      Do you really want to claim that compliance with the Fugitive Slave Act was a moral obligation for the free states? It was passed as a pragmatic compromise by putatively well-intentioned legislators with the goal to benefit the stability of the country. Once more: laws are not morality.

      Returning to our topic: once again, I don't believe that people feeling entitled to control ideas after they have willingly promulgated those ideas is the basis for morality.

    31. Re:Well will see what happens when I get home by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Then I suggest you read the BSD license and discover what's in it. It's tantamount to the public domain while protecting the author through indemnification. I assert that this type of protection should not be necessary under the law...

      And yet it remains true that a relatively small amount of content is explicitly released in public domain.... if the difference were really so inconsequential, why do people bother with the BSD license at all? Just talking about freely distributable works here, the mere fact that greater numbers of works and what appears to also be a higher caliber of works are available that are copyrighted under such terms than released via public domain suggests that if copyright did not exist, whatever benefit that copyright holds for people who would otherwise use a license such as BSD would be lost, and in turn, some measure of incentive to publish the content in the first place (because if that were not so, then it would seem to follow that a much greater amount of content, and a generally higher caliber of content than what seems to be out there, should be regularly put into public domain already. I know intellectually that there exists a possibility that I am wrong about this supposition, but when one's sensibilities convince them of the veracity of a position, then only way to convince them of an opposing position is to also not only suggest, but also convince them that they have previously had some misconception about reality. I do not think that anyone on slashdot is in an appropriate position to make such a diagnosis about my mental state, so we will leave that point alone.

      I would further allege that the benefits that copyright offers to society (that is, via the assurance that it attempts to offer content creators that their works will not be copied without authorization, it creates at least some intent to publish, and that continually newly published works somehow enrich society) far routweigh any so-called stranglehold that copyright places on the works, since in actuality, the only thing that even drives people to pirate copyrighted works in the first place is a sense of entitlement to such works, and the possession of such works cannot reasonably be compared to fundamental and inalienable rights, such as life, or liberty. Attempting to do so either over inflates the importance of such works to absurd levels, or else reduces the importance of actual human rights to little more than an issue of property dispute. Either way, it's wrong....

      Morally.

      Of course, at this juncture, given what I have already said and your responses to them, I don't expect to change your mind about whatever you want to do.... but I do at least hope that I've offered some insight into exactly why I have the values that I do that you perhaps may not have initially expected, and why I still believe that there is moral weight to the choices that are involved with them. I'm evidently not going to convince you of this point, but you are no less unlikely to convince me otherwise.

    32. Re:Well will see what happens when I get home by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet it remains true that a relatively small amount of content is explicitly released in public domain.... if the difference were really so inconsequential, why do people bother with the BSD license at all?

      Because people want indemnification, which is not something that should be required for public domain code, but welcome to modern America. I said this in my last post.

      the only thing that even drives people to pirate copyrighted works in the first place is a sense of entitlement to such works

      You continue to repeat this falsehood, though I have conclusively demonstrated that this is not the case. I have explained alternative motivations many times over. Your statement has been proved false by this thread alone; I suggest you be more careful when using absolutes in the future.

      Either way, it's wrong....Morally.

      According to your opinion. In my opinion, people feeling entitled to control their ideas after freely promulgating them are acting from an immoral sense of entitlement; ergo, piracy is morally null and people advocating societal adherence to an immoral construct like copyright are an shaky moral ground themselves.

      I'm evidently not going to convince you of this point, but you are no less unlikely to convince me otherwise.

      I stipulated this approximately 8 posts ago, when I mentioned we were likely at an impasse. Glad you agree.

  8. suggested by Netflix by oobayly · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I use unblock-us, as suggested by a friend who in turn was directed to it by Netflix staff. The stupid thing is that I would be willing to pay Netflix an extra $5 a month to view [US only] programmes, which would in turn go to Hollywood. Instead I'm giving the money to a completely separate entity. It's another case of "I'm throwing money at my monitor, why won't you take it"

    1. Re:suggested by Netflix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's another case of "I'm throwing money at my monitor, why won't you take it"

      Because the MAFIAA's are stupid? Holy shit they are stupid. Like brain-damaged Reavers infected by a stupidity virus.

    2. Re:suggested by Netflix by willy_me · · Score: 1

      Netflix is in the business of providing content and they want to sell it to you - but they are not allowed. So blame the content owners who want you to watch it on TV so that they get the higher ad revenue. Blocking VPN users will be part of the contract Netflix has with content owners and not something they do on their own accord.

  9. Better a horse in the race... by ciascu · · Score: 4, Interesting

    At least Netflix push back - I gave up on LoveFilm entirely because they went the extra mile in preventing Linux access (at least back when I tried it). I am happy to keep paying for Netflix as long as they are happy to keep pushing, I can accept that they're going to have to meet studio demands part-way to keep getting content. As long as somebody's not busy breaking Pipelight, somebody's creating award-winning independent content from the ground up, somebody's doing simultaneous worldwide releases, somebody's trying to support Linux, somebody's open-sourcing parts of their core tech, I'd rather they cut the deals to keep them in the game, at least their chips are big enough to make a difference.

    Maybe it's just because I (sometimes) can find more classic films I want on Amazon Instant Video, but I get HDCP errors or "device not supported" and think, I bet it's a noisier debate when the Netflix reps sit down with the various MPAA negotiators.

    1. Re:Better a horse in the race... by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Exactly, it's in Netflix interest to turn a blind eye to VPN's since each VPN is also a paying customer. The studio's are twisting Netflix's arm heavily because VPN's are not in the studio's interest, they price their wares to what the "market can bear" in different regions, which they argue optimises both global audience and profit.

      The MAFIA have a point when you look at it as a logistics problem that optimises for profit. Region restrictions are aimed at getting X% of the population in region Y to see movie Z for profit P, X,Y and Z are varied to maximise P.
      So...
      Australasia: Rich folk who love their TV - $20
      US/EU: Large number of rich folk who have a lot more "buyer's choice" than Aussies - $10
      'stan country: Poor folk who consider themselves lucky to have an internet connection - $2

      Netflix gets $10 no matter where the other end of the VPN is located. Ergo: They are not making this move willingly.

      The real problem here is the length of copyright protection combined with greed, if copyright was set at single digit years then all the old (unprofitable/politically incorrect) stuff that cannot be found on the net would suddenly be worth something. Cheap, global subscription services would pop up like mushrooms (for all those not so rich folk).

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    2. Re:Better a horse in the race... by thejynxed · · Score: 1

      I've found that on any flavor of Unix-like OSes (that aren't on mobile devices), that the only semi-reliable way to get Amazon Instant Video to work properly is to use the nVidia binary-blob over any of the other open drivers, unfortunately. I believe there are still proprietary licensing issues when it comes to the open AMD and Intel drivers that cause HDCP to go wonky at times due to the "incomplete" way it had to be implemented.

      Your mileage may vary of course, but at least on the hardware that resides in my home, this is and has been the case for several years now.

      --
      @Mindless Drivel: 100% of Twitter posts ever Tweeted.
    3. Re:Better a horse in the race... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait - netflix *does work* on Linux?
      I just thought to try it out over the christmas hollidays. Since it is 2014/2015 already, I didn't even consider the possiblity that it would not work on Linux. Well, it doesn't.
      Only after signing up, when you try to hit 'play' on some movie, does it say it is Windows/OSX/PS3/... only. No linux supported. This was with firefox, chromium seems to spoof something, so it at least starts to play, but errors out instantly.

      Netflix is obviously not trying to support linux. It might work with your setup, but they explicitly say 'Linux is not supported' on their website.

  10. "Pirates" by devnulljapan · · Score: 1

    Love the OTT emotive designation --- so paying for content but not being happy about being given a piss-poor selection for the same cost is piracy now is it?

    1. Re:"Pirates" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You circumvent the license, you're a pirate.

    2. Re:"Pirates" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you hijack a ship at sea, steal everything and then murder/rape people, you're a pirate.

      Yarr fucking harr.

    3. Re:"Pirates" by xyzzyman · · Score: 1

      If I skip the murder/rape am I still a pirate?? and if so If I skip the hijacking/stealing/murdering and just rape am I pirate? I'm going to try that defense in court. "I think the charrrrrges should be dropped yarrr honorrrrrr. I'm guilty of piracy, not rape!"

    4. Re:"Pirates" by easyTree · · Score: 1

      aaaaaaaaaaaaar

    5. Re:"Pirates" by easyTree · · Score: 1

      [Captain] Hook us up with a link when you do?

  11. proxy pirates? by hawguy · · Score: 1, Insightful

    People willing to go through ridiculous hoops and pay extra money in order to view content they are paying for are pirates?

    1. Re:proxy pirates? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're not watching what they want you to watch, at the price they want you to pay, in the conditions they want you to watch it. These schoolboys have the perfect business plan to pump up the millions and billions more, and the lowly masses better just be sucking it up all the way. You're just ruining their orgasm.

    2. Re:proxy pirates? by QuasiSteve · · Score: 2

      People willing to go through ridiculous hoops and pay extra money in order to view content they are paying for are pirates?

      Arguments over copyright infringement 'pirates' vs somali thug pirates aside: Yes.

      The problem with your question is in the "in order to view content they are paying for" part. They're not paying for that content. They're paying for the content in the country in which they got the subscription. I.e. if you're a Netflix U.K. subscriber, you're paying for content A, B, and C - not for D, and E. If you're a Netflix U.S. subscriber, you're paying for content A, B, D, and E, but not C.
      Sure, the U.S. subscriber is probably paying less and getting more content - but that doesn't somehow mean that the U.K. subscriber is 'entitled' to content D and E as well, any more than that the U.S. subscriber is entitled to content B.

      If you opened a Netflix U.S. account, traveled to Ireland, and then had to pay for a VPN or whatever in order to get the Netflix U.S. content that you indeed paid for, rather than Netflix Ireland content based on your IP address at that time, then I'd have a hard time suggesting that to be 'piracy' as well. Then again, see other comment on using the address used for payment to solve this particular scenario.

    3. Re:proxy pirates? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're not watching what they want you to watch, at the price they want you to pay, in the conditions they want you to watch it. These schoolboys have the perfect business plan to pump up the millions and billions more, and the lowly masses better just be sucking it up all the way. You're just ruining their orgasm.

      The price you pay for a lack of competition. Literally.

      Doesn't help when a legal blind eye is turned towards any company that wishes to gobble up said competition on a whim without even a mention of the word monopoly. I don't even know why we have laws against monopolies anymore.

    4. Re:proxy pirates? by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      If you opened a Netflix U.S. account, traveled to Ireland, and then had to pay for a VPN or whatever in order to get the Netflix U.S. content that you indeed paid for, rather than Netflix Ireland content based on your IP address at that time, then I'd have a hard time suggesting that to be 'piracy' as well.

      That's exactly how it works today. With a Netflix account that is tied to a US billing address, when in the UK, one can log into netflix.co.uk, but at some point, it redirects to netflix.com and then tells you that you cannot stream anything:

      Watching Instantly Is Not Currently Available For Your Account

      Unfortunately your account is restricted to streaming only within the 50 United States and its territories.

      You may still access your account, but you will not be able to play any title.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
  12. Netflix says "nothing has changed on our end" by beernutz · · Score: 4, Interesting

    http://www.engadget.com/2015/0...

    Netflix tells us that there's been "no change" in the way it handles VPNs, so you shouldn't have to worry about the company getting tough any time soon. With that said, these blocking errors started showing up in the past few weeks, so it's not clear what would have prompted them.

    --
    (stolen from DaBum) I am dyslexia of borg - your ass will be laminated.
    1. Re:Netflix says "nothing has changed on our end" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only hackers use VPN, and on Linux no less.

    2. Re:Netflix says "nothing has changed on our end" by The+New+Guy+2.0 · · Score: 0

      NetFlix should be able to implement end-to-end security that makes sure the target device belongs to a USA IP address, even when a VPN is deployed.

      DBS companies didn't mind Canadian users in border regions subscribing to them at first, it took a similar move by Hollywood to block them. Netflix is in the same situation, they have paying subscribers who aren't paying the right price, or paying for something NetFlix can't legally offer there. Worldwide content simply doesn't exist yet.

    3. Re:Netflix says "nothing has changed on our end" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An ssl aware proxy service would become quite lucrative in such a case.

    4. Re:Netflix says "nothing has changed on our end" by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      NetFlix should be able to implement end-to-end security that makes sure the target device belongs to a USA IP address, even when a VPN is deployed.

      They can verify that the traffic they receive and send comes from/goes to an IP address that is registered in the US. What a VPN does is allow the device to be moved outside the US while keeping the place it's packets appear on the internet from in the US. The VPN software need not be on the client device itself, it can be on a seperate system that acts as the client devices default gateway if desired/needed. I guess they could try looking at latency and assume anyone with an unexplained high latency was using a VPN but I expect the false positive rate would be unacceptable.

      They can mess with the "partial VPN" soloutions (which are popular because they are cheaper and more conviniant than forcing all the traffic through a VPN) and they can block known VPN providers but there isn't a whole lot they can do against a "full traffic" VPN with it's endpoint located on a non-suspiscious US network.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    5. Re:Netflix says "nothing has changed on our end" by The+New+Guy+2.0 · · Score: 1

      Next gen netfilx players to require GPS?

    6. Re:Netflix says "nothing has changed on our end" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "in the way it handles"

      Just the list of known VPNs got bigger.

    7. Re:Netflix says "nothing has changed on our end" by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      NetFlix should be able to implement end-to-end security that makes sure the target device belongs to a USA IP address, even when a VPN is deployed.

      Uh, sure. Can you go ahead and geolocate 196.168.1.10 for me?

    8. Re:Netflix says "nothing has changed on our end" by The+New+Guy+2.0 · · Score: 1

      It's hard to solve that one over a VPN... but a TiVo can trust the local cable system's ID to say where it is, a Roku can solve by region encoding... etc.

  13. And nothing of value was lost. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll just have to continue not giving money to a horrid employer who acts as distributor for products in the strangehold of hypocritical lobbying bastards.

    Anyone who wants to watch films on the Internet has three dozen streaming sites to choose from.

  14. So... by Charliemopps · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So, if the FCC decides to enforce Net Neutrality like Netflix wants... wouldn't that include region blocking like this?

    1. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      In the purist sense of 'net neutrality' it would not. Content licensing is not packet prioritizing. However unappealing and self-defeating it may be, region licensing is 100% legit legally and unrelated to net neutrality.

  15. Pay vs. Pirate by therufus · · Score: 5, Informative

    So, they don't want people paying for their service? They would rather see people pirate the movies for free?

    The entire media industry is getting more and more ridiculous by the day. Income is income, especially when it comes to the type of people they're targeting (i.e. the tech savvy). If I were a big hollywood studio licensing my works to Netflix, which I am not, I wouldn't care about stupid country restrictions. If there are people out there that want to see my works, and are willing to pay for it in this day in age, that's a great sign.

    I only recently read an article about 2014 being the worst collective year for the box office in recent history. Reading the massive amount of comments following the article, the aggregate reasoning for this was insane pricing at movie theatres (including tickets and snacks), and poor quality of movies. Everything is either a remake or a "safe" formulaic film.

    To put this entire comment into context, I'm from Australia where we get the raw end of every deal. We often get films months after they get released in the 'States for no reason, we pay more for music, TV and film than most of the world, we have "pay TV" (what Americans would call Cable) that have horrible bundles forcing you into 1 channel you want and 20 channels you don't.

    The faster the big studios, MPAA/RIAA, and distributors realise that people always get what they want, and they just need to re-arrange their outdated models so they can get a slice of the pie, the better. I don't see that happening soon though.

    --
    You moved your mouse. Please restart Windows for changes to take effect.
    1. Re: Pay vs. Pirate by Geordish · · Score: 1

      The issue is likely a bit more complicated than that. The content owners likely have existing agreements in place with 'legacy' providers in each region (satelite/cable...) that prohibits them from licencing the content further. As quickly as Netflix etc are expanding, they don't yet have the subscriber base of these legacy services, and will be unable to beat the payments that are currently being made for the prime content.

    2. Re: Pay vs. Pirate by dbIII · · Score: 1

      The content owners likely have existing agreements in place with 'legacy' providers in each region (satelite/cable...) that prohibits them from licencing the content further.

      Yes we know. His name is Rupert.

    3. Re:Pay vs. Pirate by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Nobody is forcing anyone to pirate the content... the only thing that drives anyone to pirate content merely because it isn't being delivered to them under their preferred terms is a sense of entitlement to that content.

    4. Re:Pay vs. Pirate by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      Copyright is a social bargain so your use of entitlement is not as derisive as you would like it to be. We ARE entitled access to works after a limited time

      --
      Good-bye
    5. Re:Pay vs. Pirate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is simply another chapter of subscription satellite TV service geo-location.

      When I was in the Cayman Islands sat TV was very popular. All that was required was a US billing address and a US based credit card. Many in the Cayman Islands have friends and family in the US to take care of that small geo location issue.

    6. Re: Pay vs. Pirate by bloodhawk · · Score: 2

      The issue is likely a bit more complicated than that. The content owners likely have existing agreements in place with 'legacy' providers in each region (satelite/cable...) that prohibits them from licencing the content further.

      As quickly as Netflix etc are expanding, they don't yet have the subscriber base of these legacy services, and will be unable to beat the payments that are currently being made for the prime content.

      Yes they do have those contracts. But this is not a new phenomena, they have had more than a decade to reform and change those contracts, instead they just renew them and try to hold onto an out of date business model. The world has moved on, it is global market now, nothing the content distributors can do can change that, they either need to use that to their advantage or lose business. No amount of laws, contracts, trade agreements or license restrictions is going to make people obey such outdated models, evolve or die.

    7. Re:Pay vs. Pirate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Everyone is entitled to information, of all kinds.

      The fact you believe privacy, opacity, and restriction is 'a given' shows whatever society developed your mind, has ingrained a lot of counter-productive paradigms into your head that you simply accept to be "the way it is", which is sad, for you, and our species.

    8. Re:Pay vs. Pirate by mark-t · · Score: 1

      We ARE entitled access to works after a limited time

      I'd dare say that the amount of material that is supposed to be public domain by now because of copyright expiry, had it not been extended to the admittedly absurd lengths that it is does not comprise a majority of pirated works.

      Your point about entitlement after a certain time would have been a lot stronger if people were mainly pirating older works that should have been in public domain, but the most commonly pirated content is very new.

    9. Re:Pay vs. Pirate by xyzzyman · · Score: 1

      Exactly. If I don't like the cost and distribution method of something, I just don't wind up viewing/listening to it.

    10. Re:Pay vs. Pirate by thejynxed · · Score: 1

      To keep it in perspective - we should have gotten everything published up to 1958 (music, movies, books, etc) on January 1st. Due to the ridiculous theft from the public domain from copyright rent-seekers, we didn't get a single published work entered into the public domain this year. Not one.

      --
      @Mindless Drivel: 100% of Twitter posts ever Tweeted.
    11. Re:Pay vs. Pirate by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Just what percentage of pirated content do you think is actually *FROM* that era?

      If you're going to argue about entitlement to material that is supposed to be going in public domain, a matter on which I would most strongly agree with you, then the only material that is relevant to that entitlement is content that was actually first published back then. Why should the retaining of copyright of old content entitle anyone to content that was published much more recently, and would not have been anywhere near public domain?

      If there's any moral high ground on entitlement to be taken, it should be *only* on material that was supposed to be public domain and the copyright is being unduly retained for excessively long periods.

    12. Re: Pay vs. Pirate by ausrob · · Score: 1

      You're probably right, but this is for big media to solve and why should consumers care? The longer it takes the more money they are missing out on. It's not like the Internet just sprung up overnight - they've literally had two decades to sort their legal shit out.

    13. Re:Pay vs. Pirate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To put this entire comment into context, I'm from Australia where we get the raw end of every deal. We often get films months after they get released in the 'States for no reason, we pay more for music, TV and film than most of the world, we have "pay TV" (what Americans would call Cable) that have horrible bundles forcing you into 1 channel you want and 20 channels you don't.

      Indeed, and we Aussies have the reputation of being one of the greatest pirate countries in the world. It kinda seems obvious to me that when your only legal options are so limiting, expensive, inconvenient or simply non-existent, why wouldn't you pirate? People don't want to go without.

    14. Re:Pay vs. Pirate by k.a.f. · · Score: 1
      This complaint is very common. I agree with everything in it, since as a European I am just as affected.

      But the solution is not for content owners to wake up and do the obvious. The era of internet-illiterate companies has passed; these days they are very well aware what the technical possibilities are and how they could profit from them. If they don't give us what they want, it is now either because they don't want to give up control, or because they can't because of tangled third-part obligations.

      Remember how NVidia was always unable to open-source their graphics drivers, because there was code in them from multiple non-cooperative third parties? The media situation is like that, only much, much worse. Many companies would love to harvest these additional Dollars you and I would be willing to pay, but to do that would require extra negotiations with a near-infinite list of suppliers, who are quite content with the existing, old-fashioned, area-based license agreements. It will take another generation of technical sophistication in all parts of the supply chain to change that. And until that changes, Netflix or ABC will not sell to me and you because it wouldn't generate enough revenue to pay for the nightmare of renegotiation required.

      In short, the situation is much worse than many think. Ignorance we can deal with; education does work eventually. Conflicting vested interests, not so much. We can live in hope - after all, eventually someone figured out that people would love a music player with an interface that didn't suck - but don't hold your breath.

    15. Re:Pay vs. Pirate by urbanriot · · Score: 1

      Nobody is forcing anyone to pirate the content... the only thing that drives anyone to pirate content merely because it isn't being delivered to them under their preferred terms is a sense of entitlement to that content.

      I think you may be missing the point here - they are actually paying for that content right now and they want to continue to pay for that content.

    16. Re:Pay vs. Pirate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Several years ago I gave up on the movies. When the price went up and the quality went down I simply switched to reading more books and seeing more live shows. Result - I have more money to spend on live entertainment and books. Try attending a few Science Fiction conventions - lots more fun than the awful experience you have at a typical overpriced movie theater, and you get to meet a lot of interesting people, too, including the authors of the books. How often do you get that kind of experience with films and actors? And with books, you never miss a scene because someone's kid was screaming in the seat in front of you. Live music in small venues is equally rewarding. I've met and become friends with a lot of musicians over the years as a result (of course being a sound reinforcement engineer probably has something to do with that - I often end up being asked by the band to mix their shows...) And with live shows you never know what's going to happen, or who will sit in that night. Try it - you may give up on movies altogether. And it'll be a lot easier on your budget. Support your public library and live music!

  16. Torrents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That's why God made Bittorrent

    1. Re: Torrents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually that was Bram Cohen.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bram_Cohen

  17. Circumvention tools? Change their location? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WTF? VPNs are not circumvention tools. The people are not changing their geographical location either. Netflix just has a hard time determining their geographical location from their apparent network location. Any number of network configurations have that same effect. Geolocating IP addresses is a flawed concept, and so is region coding. It's called the INTERNET, and I don't care how much the studios don't like it, but they will not erect virtual tollgates. They've done enough damage already. This is exactly why I won't pay another dime for content: They only use the money to keep breaking stuff I care about.

    1. Re:Circumvention tools? Change their location? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is exactly why I won't pay another dime for content: They only use the money to keep breaking stuff I care about.

      And the execs spend the rest of it on blow.

    2. Re:Circumvention tools? Change their location? by easyTree · · Score: 1

      And hookers

    3. Re: Circumvention tools? Change their location? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blow and hookers, aka the Charlie Sheen diet.

  18. What will this do to US users... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'm just curious how long it will be before Netflix finds itself caught between the proverbial rock and hard place when a US user files a class action lawsuit against them because they are trying to access their legally acquired content while travelling in a non supported country and can't use their VPN any more...

    1. Re:What will this do to US users... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The content is licensed for where it is being viewed. So a U.S.A. person who travels to the U.K. should only see content licensed for the U.K.
      It is weird but TV/film content is licensed in geographic locations, where broadcasters bid for content to show in their location.

      This is a big reason why Netflix is funding so much content themselves now. Because they have often lost the exclusive bid of follow-up-seasons of TV shows that they have already showed, and nothing sucks as bad as a customer who cannot watch the complete series.

      In a few decades all the old tv studios will be dead and only netflix keeps standing, with their own shows.

      Old TV studios still don't get it, I actually looked at paying for HBO, but then I found that they don't even allow you to few old episodes of their own series. And it is not just HBO, but all the old tv studios.

    2. Re:What will this do to US users... by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      The content is licensed for where it is being viewed. So a U.S.A. person who travels to the U.K. should only see content licensed for the U.K.

      Nope. If you're a US user and you travel out of the country, it lets you log in to manage the account, but you can't stream a damn thing. Nothing. Period. Not the US content, not the local content where you happen to be. Nothing. But they're still happy to take your money and the studios are still happy to collect royalties while providing you literally nothing but an account management interface. No product, whatsoever.

      Unless you use a VPN, that is.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    3. Re:What will this do to US users... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've long wondered why people, often tech-savvy ones with a reasonable understanding of DRM and the methods the company put in place to limit their access to content, are so keen to throw money at a service like netflix, is it something to do with the opportunity to get one over on them, with VPNs and the like, whilst feeling morally righteous by paying for the US service, is piracy really such a dirty word now?

    4. Re:What will this do to US users... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope. If you're a US user and you travel out of the country, it lets you log in to manage the account, but you can't stream a damn thing. Nothing. Period. Not the US content, not the local content where you happen to be. Nothing. But they're still happy to take your money and the studios are still happy to collect royalties while providing you literally nothing but an account management interface. No product, whatsoever. .

      This certainly isn't the case for Netflix. I signed up for an account on the US Netflix site (with a UK credit card) when I was living in California. When I returned to the UK, I can use the same account to access the local UK Netlix content.

  19. Re:Seriously... by YouGotTobeKidding · · Score: 1

    Considering that their current model is failing and failing badly (movie goer numbers are down IIRC to 90s levels...and percentage of peeps who go to the movies is also WAY down - IIRC 10% now from its high of 50%)....maybe it is time they take another look at their multi-market strategy. Maybe they can make MORE money if they 'sold' the media for LESS. Odd how that works, but even Henry Ford understood this way back in the dark ages of US consumerism. :P Honestly these dinosaurs still think they are the only game in town. Now peeps have options. Video games, home cinema setups, cable TV, hell theaters that cater to hipsters with only old movie showings. Brave new world.

  20. ha.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not like everyone is trying to surf the system on purpose. My company disables split tunneling by policy, so all my traffic gets routed through the internal network which goes out via a US-based traffic center.

    1. Re:ha.. by arth1 · · Score: 1

      And the network I am on will not allow outgoing DNS requests - the DNS servers are split with different views depending on who queries it. So outgoing access to 8.8.8.8 and other DNS servers are blocked.
      Likewise, outgoing web requests are blocked unless they go through an internal proxy server.

      So I can't use Netflix because my network doesn't allow promiscuous outgoing traffic?
      Hulu, here I come... Take my money!

  21. Re:Seriously... by sjames · · Score: 1

    It seems that's what employees are expected to do these days.

  22. How long before these greedy f**ks by presidenteloco · · Score: 1

    realize we're moving toward one seamless world with friction-free commerce.

    There are those who make a way forward, and those who just won't get out of the way.

    Route around them with all possible haste.

    --

    Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
  23. but apprently it can be circumvented... by Sox2 · · Score: 1

    Roku updated their Netflix app with the forced Google DNS - solutions are available to circumvent the new changes.
    http://support.unblock-us.com/...

  24. media advantage in socialist countries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Having lived on three continents, I found that when you live in Asian socialistic countries, you get the best access to world media content, DVDs are widely available - thanks to the American-first movie release schedule - and Netflix is routinely accessed via VPN. Moreover, cable includes European, Japanese, Australian, Russian, and American channels in the basic package - what shock - and how ironic - moving back to the United States and our media is limited again to a narrow line of English and Spanish movies.

  25. Back to piracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The main reason many people pirate : Its too hard to get things legit ( or non-drm ). Make your service too hard to use, lose customers . Easy formula.

  26. hum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But the only way to change the media industry is by not buying their products simple as that, boycotting. People should stop pirating as well, just ignore the whole fucking industry let it all go to the crapper. Corporations fuck each other as well. The Netflix and Disney deal was a mistake, Netflix payed a lot of $$$ billions to Disney and for what? and same with dreamworks that keeps licensing crappy, half-ass movies, none of their good stuff here in the USA.

    Netflix is scum anyway. In Netflix you still can't sort your items under "My List" unless you use the netflix queue sorter which chrome keeps disabling. Netflix refuses to add a "Monthly Release" category to find new movie/tv releases a lot easier, I'm sick of using instantwatcher.com plus searching online for "Netflix streaming Month XX, 20XX" just to see whats coming and leaving.

    1. Re:hum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow. So that's what people mean when they talk about "whiny, entitled posters". Thanks for the example!

  27. This seems relevant, re: leaked Sony emails: by XahXhaX · · Score: 5, Informative

    http://arstechnica.com/tech-po...

    "Netflix are heavily resistant to enforcing stricter financial geofiltering controls, as they claim this would present a too high bar to entry from legitimate subscribers. For example, they want people to be able to use various methods of payment (e.g. PayPal) where it is harder to determine where the subscriber is based. They recognize that this may cause illegal subscribers but they (of course) would rather err that way than create barriers to legitimate subscribers to sign up.

    We have expressed our deep dissatisfaction with their approach and attitude."

    1. Re:This seems relevant, re: leaked Sony emails: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      illegal subscribers

      My sides.

    2. Re:This seems relevant, re: leaked Sony emails: by PPH · · Score: 1

      This VPN blocking isn't in Netflix's best interests. It is a demand imposed upon them by monopolist distributors in various markets. And it becomes something that Netflix is contractually obliged to do.

      illegal subscribers

      I wish they'd stop supporting what is (in the USA) an idea that this is somehow a criminal activity. Its simply a matter of civil contracts between studios, Netflix and Netflix subscribers.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    3. Re:This seems relevant, re: leaked Sony emails: by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      It's information like this that inclines me to launch grass roots efforts to boycott various content providers...

      Which of course is about as effective as boycotting banks that charge NSF fees a the drop of a hat, or airlines charging luggage fees.....when they all do it outside of some holdouts like Southwest. Barring the creation of a World War Z hive mind, consumer boycotts will do nothing to change widespread corporate behavior, no matter what the Libertarian Loons would have you believe.

    4. Re:This seems relevant, re: leaked Sony emails: by XahXhaX · · Score: 1

      Part of the joy of being a major company their size is you don't need to care what anyone thinks. For every person you talk into your boycott there will be one hundred who just don't care.

      The only cure I know for this anti-consumer behavior is piracy. You have piracy to thank for a music industry that cannot inject DRM into music files and for bringing them into digital distribution kicking and screaming. For every platform that succeeds like Spotify or Pandora despite the RIAA, you have piracy to thank for keeping that sword dangling over their heads, always knowing that if they are too obstinate and too greedy then people can always go back to taking music for free.

      So you go out there and start teaching those same people to run a bittorrent client instead of some silly impotent boycott, and then we'll see the movie companies change their tune.

    5. Re:This seems relevant, re: leaked Sony emails: by Kethinov · · Score: 1

      I'll consider Netflix "heavily resistant" to draconian DRM when they launch a PR campaign publicly skewering Hollywood for asking for it.

      Instead this leaked email tells us only that in private they're mildly uncomfortable with draconian DRM but at the end of the day they don't really give a shit and will fall in line in public for The Almighty Hollywood.

      --
      You're right, I wouldn't steal a car. But if it were possible, I sure as hell would download one!
  28. Does this mean they are going to fix IPv6 already? by burne · · Score: 1

    Because their lacklustre IPv6 GeoIP promises me programs I can't watch for about a year now.

    About time, lazy morons!

  29. Re:Seriously... by BronsCon · · Score: 2

    This isn't a pricing issue at all. People are perfectly willing to pay the current pricing and the studios are simply unwilling to sell to them. What I'd like to see (and what I think would be the most profitable across the board) is Netflix North America, Netflix Mexic, Netflix Frace, etc, each available as their own subscription service, defaulting to the user's local content. That way, users subscribe to what they want and if they want content from, say, the US and France, they pay for both subscriptions. If Netflix costs 2x as much in France, so be it, let US subscribers pay the same price French subscribers pay for French content and let French subscribers pay the same price US subscribers pay for US content.

    Simply making other regions' content available on a secondary subscription basis means more people will pay for those secondary subscriptions so they can legally access that content. Not doing so means the studios are missing out, since Netflix pays them royalties on a per-subscriber basis. Sure, it means giving up a little bit of control, but control doesn't pay the bills. Cash does, and this would net them more of it.

    --
    APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
  30. open up your eyes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When are the movie industry going to open up their eyes and realize that the only way to combat piracy is to offer a service that deliver the same material as torrent sites as easy or easier? If I could pay 50 bucks a month to get legal access to the material found on kickass.so / piratebay I would gladly do so. The industry need to stop shooting themselves in the foot

  31. Funny how "free trade" is not on this level by dbIII · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Funny how "free trade" is not on this level. For instance Australia recently had to take on some of the onerous US copyright laws as part of a "free trade" deal yet the benefit of consumers being able to purchase copyrighted material directly from the USA is not only not happening, but the people who take extra steps to buy such items are labelled as "pirates".
    IMHO it's worth avoiding such vendors who have so much contempt for their customers as to insult them in such a way.

    1. Re:Funny how "free trade" is not on this level by Dunbal · · Score: 2

      What, you find the Pax Americana to be one sided? Shame on you. I think perhaps we should park a few legions in your province for a few decades.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    2. Re:Funny how "free trade" is not on this level by Xylantiel · · Score: 1

      Buy? What is this buy thing that you speak of? We only rent our culture at this point, it's all actually owned by corporations. Or put a more serious way: does havig something available on netfix even count as being distributed for copyright purposes? I didn't think that movie theater shows did, since they are technically private exhibitions. I think HBO does, but what about netflix?

    3. Re:Funny how "free trade" is not on this level by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Buy? What is this buy thing that you speak of?

      Yes it is strange, but some people are actually going to the effort of paying for a VPN then paying for a streaming service and they are still getting labelled as "pirates" as if they had taken the easy way out and just used bittorrent.

      Yes I get the point of "rent" with all the restrictions, but file that in the same container as much of Hollywood's products being "culture".

    4. Re:Funny how "free trade" is not on this level by dbIII · · Score: 1

      The USA is a very fine thing (better than Rome is so many ways) but a historian will look back at all the egotistical comparisons to Rome and laugh - it's just too different. While Australia is indeed acting like a client kingdom to the USA, it does similar things any time someone important from China, Japan or the UK notices it.

    5. Re:Funny how "free trade" is not on this level by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is getting tiresome, but again, it's the same in NZ. We're getting screwed over the same way with the free trade deals and other regional restrictions and high price shit. It's so very fucking boring when you would happily pay reasonable money for goods and content but get stomped on at every turn.

    6. Re:Funny how "free trade" is not on this level by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... we should park a few legions ...

      East Australia was a US base during WW2. Australia has been part of Pax Americana since 1947 and a military ally since 1951. Every decade, the peace becomes more one-sided. The usual subdued pro-American policies have recently been replaced by a government demanding more US military in Australia. The government has also committed to buying a lot of new, over-priced war planes from the USA.

    7. Re:Funny how "free trade" is not on this level by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      This is not going against free trade, at all. This is free trade: part of free trade is that the seller is allowed to choose who to sell to. Free trade agreements are agreements between governments, to not put any restrictions on the trade by businesses.

      When buying on a streaming service, the copyright holder has a say on who/where this service may sell a license to. After all, if you play a show on Netflix, they effectively sell you a license to watch it, and the rights holder has the right to put restrictions on its sale to Netflix - and if Netflix breaks that contract, to stop selling to Netflix altogether.

      The Australian or US governments do not put any additional restrictions on the sale. Neither government levies import/export taxes on the trade. Netflix is fully allowed to sell in Australia under Australian law - it's just that their content suppliers don't let them.

    8. Re:Funny how "free trade" is not on this level by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um... Pine Gap, North West Cape and now Tyndal??

    9. Re:Funny how "free trade" is not on this level by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      This is free trade: part of free trade is that the seller is allowed to choose who to sell to. Free trade agreements are agreements between governments, to not put any restrictions on the trade by businesses.

      That's quite the apologia, but it does nothing to change the fact that Corporate Trade laws (lets stop calling them Free) aren't all about benefiting the giant monied interests that paid for them at the expense of the proles.

      If the working stiff in the States is forced to compete with a sweatshop worker making a couple of bucks an hour in an Asian sweatshop, the least the government can do is give the poor bastard access to third world prices at the same time.

    10. Re:Funny how "free trade" is not on this level by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      The USA is a very fine thing (better than Rome is so many ways) but a historian will look back at all the egotistical comparisons to Rome and laugh - it's just too different.

      The point of making comparisons is to compare similar traits or actions between A and B, not to say A is the same thing as B. For example, Barack Obama and Bill Clinton are both corporate Democrats that have supported sea changes in policy written by lobbyists (NAFTA, Obomneycare) and support eroding the safety net (welfare, Social Security).

      Your great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandson would look at that and "laugh" because Barack and Bill have different skin tones.

    11. Re:Funny how "free trade" is not on this level by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Already happening.

      There's quite an interesting tussle in the Pacific right now, mostly focused around Australia and New Zealand, between the USA and China for influence. China is Australia's biggest trading partner, and it's been cosying up culturally to New Zealand for a couple of decades now. All the US really has left to offer, in that area, is military security. I think it's the switch in allegiance of those two countries, which will come within the next 20 years, that will make everyone finally agree that US hegemony is over.

    12. Re:Funny how "free trade" is not on this level by dbIII · · Score: 1

      The US and Imperial Rome have almost diametrically opposed foregin policies despite both putting a lot of resources into legions.

    13. Re:Funny how "free trade" is not on this level by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      And Bill and Barack are diametrically opposed Democrats. Barack had an African father and beat Bill's wife for the presidency. Therefore, people who compare their free trade deals are just craaaaazy.

      /willfullymissingthepoint

  32. repeat article? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought I saw a similar article on Slash dot a few months ago about Netflix and VPNs. Hmm.

  33. DNS blocking failure by Todd+Knarr · · Score: 1

    Apparently the media companies haven't heard of this new-fangled device called a "router". It comes with this exotic, difficult-to-use feature called a "firewall". And it insures that regardless of what DNS servers the application may try to use, it will use my DNS server while on my network. Problem solved.

    As for VPNs, it's difficult to block router-based VPN tunnels since there's no trace on the device that a VPN's in use. All it takes is a suitable server to connect to, and I've got a selection available that aren't part of any VPN service since I set them up myself. Setting it up the first time's a bit tricky, but duplicating that first setup and changing a few address numbers to match the new system's pretty simple.

    The media companies need to just grow up and accept that the world's moved on with or without them, and that their problems stem not from any overwhelming desire of consumers to pirate content but from their own adamant refusal to accept consumers' money for that content.

    1. Re:DNS blocking failure by ezdiy · · Score: 1

      Operator of VPN/proxy endpoint RBL here (private, for obvious reasons). Lists >90% of VPNs, just a soft filter used to detect credit card fraud. Centralized commercial VPNs are a joke. Just subscribe to all major providers, scrape their endpoint servers. Services like VPNGate make some effort to hinder scraping, but still not nearly enough (also volunteer driven and free just like Tor, thus slow and unreliable). tl;dr: If MPAA will win this bullshit, "Virtual Commercial Network" $5 surcharge to watch netflix will cease to exist as such, and people will be back to "Virtual Private Networks", which are magnitude harder "tech savvy", impossible to commoditize, thus nothing MPAA would care about.

    2. Re:DNS blocking failure by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      I'm another one. I operate my own VPS on which I've configured a VPN. Yes, it'd be a lot harder to track.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    3. Re:DNS blocking failure by Todd+Knarr · · Score: 1

      Harder and "tech savvy"? Hardly. If you're running a router based on DD-WRT (which is basically any home WiFi router these days), it already includes PPTP and OpenVPN servers. Doesn't take much on Windows to create a little script that'll do a one-click push of the necessary files to configure and enable the server and set up the firewall to allow VPN traffic to go to the WAN side as well as the LAN. Worst case is you go to your local geek and have them flash stock DD-WRT onto the router to replace the factory-modified installation (which I'd recommend anyway, the stock images are more stable and less prone to wonkiness).

    4. Re:DNS blocking failure by ezdiy · · Score: 1

      Sorry, should've made it more clear. My post talks about server endpoint specifically (this is what geolocation/fraud prevention "sees"). Flashing openwrt, instead of just running openvpn client on desktop, makes almost zero difference in cases like netflix.

  34. Simple solution by hodet · · Score: 1

    Netflix could just tie your account to a geographic region. No matter where you login from you get your country's content. I just think they don't really care and will not do this until they are motivated to. Want a US account then you need a US address. I don't know what the issue is. Seems easier than playing IP Range Wack a Mole.

    1. Re:Simple solution by hodet · · Score: 1

      Lame reply to myself...... ....and I would just cancel my Netflix, which they know and is probably why they don't do that.

    2. Re:Simple solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That would be awesome, I could set up an account and then sell use of my account to someone in a blocked region for a lot more. Win. Let's do that, it definitely solves the problem!

    3. Re:Simple solution by hodet · · Score: 1

      Ya every goober out there is going to do this or send money to some shady guy in another country.

  35. LOOOLLL ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dear Netflix,

    I don't want to "circumvent" your policies. In general, I really don't need to go to your website. I just get everything I want to watch FOR FREE and in higher video quality.

    Your sincerely,

    somebody smarter than you suckers

  36. So much for using Andriod over my work WiFi :( by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My work's WiFi forces all DNS to the company's DNS.

  37. This is why piracy is important by avivgr · · Score: 1

    This is what happens when you let those greedy hollywood bastards too much control. I have friends overseas where they don't have netflix and they indeed use VPN - but what is wrong with that? all they want is to be legal paying customers!!! But oh no - "licensing agreements" this is just BS sugar coating to charge those customers 3 times for the same service. Now my friends will go back to using torrents.... serves you right Hollywood! I wish that piracy continues to thrive to keep you guys humble.

    1. Re:This is why piracy is important by Shados · · Score: 1

      You are right about the primary reason for this, but its not the only reason. Medias are regulated in a lot of countries, and regulations are different from one to the other. If they didn't go through the legal red time in a given country, they can't necessarily license it. Sometimes the contracts could simply be tied to some marketing campaign, or licensing is delayed to avoid conflicting with something else.

      Sometimes...just sometimes...there's even good reasons for it.

  38. Re:Seriously... by SternisheFan · · Score: 1, Interesting
    "Moviegoers purchased just 1.26 billion movie tickets in 2014, the lowest number since 1.21 billion in 1995, according to early estimates. Attendance dropped 6% from 2013. Overall revenue is projected to finish at $10.36 billion, down 5% year-over-year, the sharpest decline in the industry in nine years,..."

    http://time.com/3652040/movies...

  39. What purpose is there for regions blocking by codepigeon · · Score: 1

    I keep seeing these kinds of stories pop up about region blocked dvds, streaming, etc. What is the purpose of it again? Is there some sort of competition in other regions that movie studios are trying to fight for revenue? I honestly don't even understand why it is a 'thing'. Wouldn't you want to sell your product to as many people and as quickly as you can??

    How do american studios benefit from region blocking?

    1. Re:What purpose is there for regions blocking by easyTree · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't you want to sell your product to as many people and as quickly as you can??

      Ahah. How naive. There's no place in business for your *logic* n00b!

    2. Re:What purpose is there for regions blocking by awol · · Score: 1

      The content providers license the program to a distributor in the region for >$. In Oz, for example, it is the paytv operator, which then uses that "desirable" program as a draw card for subscribers and hence advertising dollars and hopefully 6) $profit. If people can legitimately buy it from netflix they don't need the paytv intermediary.

      So the content providers (HBO et al ) won't license, say, "Trade of Toilets" or "Zombie Apocalypse series 13" to Netflix in Australia since they are already contractually bound to FoxTel (the provider). They will probably always get a better price from the network distributor than the sum of the paid views from Netflix*.

      *How soon before that changes? I expect that "unbundling" and IPTV will be the death of these deals so perhaps this is all a shortish term issue.

      --
      "The first thing to do when you find yourself in a hole is stop digging."
  40. bs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Netflix is bs anyway. Every six months or so I check it out. Each time there are gaping holes in their catalog. BT deliver a better experience with broader catalog for lower subscription costs.

  41. Re:Seriously... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >movie goer numbers are down IIRC to 90s levels...and percentage of peeps who go to the movies is also WAY down - IIRC 10% now from its high of 50%

    Nothing to do with a recession and lower disposable income, then?

  42. FoxyProxy is the way to go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I use http://getfoxyproxy.org for watching Netflix. It's worked for years. Everytime Netflix tries to block it, the admins take counter-measures. So I'm paying someone else to be the "mouse" in the cat-and-mouse game. Worth it to save my time.

  43. The studios made an exceeding stupid deal by davecb · · Score: 1

    It's because the studios sold all possible forms of distribution rights to a "Canadian distributor" who is only physically capable of distributing to movie theatres. They sometimes retained TV rights, sometimes sold them too.

    Net result? The studio doesn't get the money you'd like to pay them, and neither does the distributor.

    --
    davecb@spamcop.net
  44. Car analogy by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

    when a US user files a class action lawsuit against them because they are trying to access their legally acquired content while travelling in a non supported country

    The key words are "non supported". The way it works in a legal sense, it would be like trying to sue a gas station owner because the hose wouldn't stretch to where you parked your car.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    1. Re:Car analogy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's retarded. The limitation has been specially coded in, in TFA they are announcing new measures to further restrict user-access. The users are using their own means to "reach" Netflix-USA, it's Netflix which is actively refusing to provide service.

      It'd be more like a gas station owner who cuts the flow of fuel after taking your payment because they don't like your license plate.

    2. Re:Car analogy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's more like rolling off the ferry in france and having someone come along and immediately syphon out all of the fuel from your tank because it wasn't paid for with the correct duty to the local government.

    3. Re:Car analogy by grahammm · · Score: 1

      But there is a difference between "Not supported" and "Actively preventing it from working". If a country is 'not supported' then it should mean that you are on your own and the official support channels will not provide help if you have problems. Not that they actively block you from accessing from that country,

  45. Re:Seriously... by dk20 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I just wish consumers would be able to take advantage of "global markets" the same way the large multinationals can.

    They are free to export their jobs to the cheapest source, but thanks to copyright laws and "region restrictions" we (the consumer) cant re-import products where they are cheaper.

    Real dvd's (not bootlegs) sell for like a dollar in China and $29 here. Why cant i import them and sell them for $10 and make a tidy profit?

    First-sale doctrine says i can, lawsuits says you cant.

  46. This seems relevant, re: leaked Sony emails: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It's information like this that inclines me to launch grass roots efforts to boycott various content providers...

    If Sony have this opinion that's explicitly and intentionally designed to screw the consumer, I seriously think the consumer should screw them.

    Where would Sony be if over a period of 12 months, all SCE, SPE, SOP, etc products ceased to sell.

  47. Gordian Knot by mjm1231 · · Score: 1

    Blah Blah Blah Blah... there is an obvious and easy solution to this. Just license everything to all Netfilx customers, instead of regionally. The value of the content that is regional probably adds up to less than the cost to police these stupid rules. In fact, there is more than a decent chance that there would be a net savings to Netfilx and their customers, and a net gain to all content providers.

    --
    Ideology: A tool used primarily to avoid the bother of thinking.
  48. The geoblocking of online content must be banned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is nothing more than a form of censorship and information fascism. In the ancient times we had the burning of books. This is the modern day equivalent.

    It is discrimination: much like discriminating someone because of his/her race, gender, socio-economic class etc. Geoblocking discriminates internet users based on the geographical identity of where they're accessing the content from.

    Even China is getting onto the geoblocking bandwagon. Some videos on Youku and Tudou cannot be played from outside mainland China. This has to stop.

  49. My rights as a paying Netflix customer by twasserman · · Score: 1

    I subscribe to Netflix. To me, that means that I should be able to use my subscription independently of where I am in the world. I'm often too busy when I'm at home to watch a full movie or to binge-watch a TV season, but I have more time when I am traveling. When I am outside the US, I must use a VPN to a US-based host. If Netflix blocks my access to their service from outside the US, then the value of the subscription drops significantly for me.

  50. Re:Seriously... by jtownatpunk.net · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Their distribution model is pretty ridiculous. These people are trying like hell to pay for content that they want to watch. It would be easier and cheaper to just pirate the content but they want to pay and the media companies refuse to sell their product. They trick the media companies into being paid for their product and the media companies block them. It's absurd. Ridiculous. Asinine.

  51. You first! by bornagainpenguin · · Score: 1

    I'd dare say that the amount of material that is supposed to be public domain by now because of copyright expiry, had it not been extended to the admittedly absurd lengths that it is does not comprise a majority of pirated works.

    So? They moved the goal posts first. Why should we be the ones obligated to abide by agreements the other parties have abrogated their part of?

    I'll be quite happy to show respect to copyright when Big Media starts showing respect for it--until I'll fly the jolly roger for as long as I can as often as I can.

    The MAFIAA can go suck it for all I care.

    --
    Have a Virgin Mobile USA smartphone? Give VMRoms.com a try!
    1. Re:You first! by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Did you catch the "you first" part? Where's the ethics in forcing consumers across the planet to adopt increasingly absurd, corporate-written copyright laws while enforcing regional pricing at the same time?

    2. Re:You first! by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Did you catch that doing something unethical in response to something else unethical is still unethical?

  52. Perhaps, and I'm going to go out on a limb here... by flayzernax · · Score: 1

    One that I have fallen off of many times.

    But just perhaps, our current 'schema' of (yes scare quotoes 1111!) of ... liscencing intellectual ideas is pretty dumb as hell.

    Perhaps as a society we should just do away with this monstrosity of a dinosauriod hemorage inducing system. And U know... I don't know socialism this shit... so artists can get payed fairly based on the merit, popularity, or other measurable, qualitative variables of their work... U know we wouldn't even have to have some gulag of a system, we could have multiple ways of doing this. We could even have privitized funds for this!

    But not with our current bullshit way of selling and trading empires of bullshit that does not and will not ever, really, technically, 'belong' to anyone in perpetuity.

    Just a thought, oh, and happy New Year slashdot.

  53. Just lost a loyal customer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well congratulations Netflix, I was thinking about cancelling netflix and looking for alternatives, because here in Canada, the selection is horrible and we really get screwed over with almost everything when compared to the US. This is the final nail in the coffin for me. There are a lot of Canadian netflix customer that use these techniques to access Us library. How stupid are you netflix? You're going to start loosing your business in Canada. The sad thing is that they can afford to, that's why companie$ like these could give a shit about buisness in Canada.

  54. Re:Seriously... by geezer+nerd · · Score: 1

    Exactly! Plenty of people in the world outside the US and Europe would like to be able to legally consume the content. In most situations, the content providers will not provide it to those people, not for ANY price. So some use VPNs, etc to try to get the content that others can get -- and the copyright owners want to shut them out instead of trying to find a way to accept their money. Makes no sense to me.

  55. Real absurdity by geezer+nerd · · Score: 1

    I live in a non-US country. My family is all in the US. For years, before I left the US, it was my habit to purchase Netflix Gift Subscriptions for family members. I used to do this online, and was no trouble at all.

    Now, because I connect from a foreign location, Netflix will not talk to me at all. Even though I am trying to buy a gift for someone in the US using a US$ credit card based at a US address, I have no hope. Neflix simply refuses to do any business with me because I come in from a foreign address.

    I find that to be really absurd.

  56. Re:frankly, I think it's awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Meh, I rather like the A320. They feel new. Not like pretty much every time I fly on a AA Boeing which feels like it just flew in from 1980. I half expect to find ashtrays in the armrests every time I step on a Boeing (especially in the Economy/Cattle section).

  57. Example by gimmeataco · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Example: Community is only available on Hulu Plus in the USA, but its available on Swedish Netflix.

  58. Doom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Something I saw the other day really cemented just how bullshit this copyright monster has become. I am old, and now granted I am not a huge hockey fan, but I went to watch a video on YouTube of a small clip from a hockey game and it said "This video is property of the NHL and cannot be shown in your country." and I thought "WOW". I am from Canada, the fucking HOME of hockey. WE pretty much BUILT the NHL. Probably something like 50% of the players in the league are Canadian, and yet Canadians can't watch some clips of NHL games on YouTube??? Time to burn it all down.

    1. Re:Doom by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      The "TEAM" owns the original rights to that video and they have probably sold the viewing rights to another company (Perhaps a sports broadcaster/TV network/website) You've probably seen the disclaimer at the end of live TV broadcasts referring to rebroadcast/retransmission.

      If that team is american it has probably sold the rights to an american company...who may not have the rights to "re-broadcast" in Canada.

  59. what is the issue with someone in Pakistan paying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The deal the studios have with the content providers in Pakistan (i.e the Television stations) gives them exclusive rights to the content for the first 12 months, so they can guarantee an income from their advertisers. If you allow access to the content on the net, at any time you want and without local advertising, the stations in Pakistan have paid for a promise that wasn't realised.

  60. I love this story! by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 1

    Paying customers for content provided by these studios, and the studios are actively trying to stop them from being able to pay them a price they have generally agreed is fair to let the members of the public able to pay in that currency.

  61. Just because we sail, doesn't make us a pirate by grahamtriggs · · Score: 1

    I'm sick of the outdated business practices of media providers. Sure, you can understand the regional libraries for Netflix, et al when the times when things are sold, shown on TV, shown in cinema differ in each region.

    And you can understand why that is the case when you are shipping film to cinemas and producing and shipping the film stock is a logistical problem. And to an extent the same with DVD and Blu-Ray.

    But we are increasingly moving to a world where we buy or rent digital files rather than physical media. Where even cinemas are going to digital projection and just get files streamed to them.

    Other than the time it takes to unwind the backlog, there are no valid reasons for having such vast time difference between when things are released in different regions. And resolving that, there is little (aside from one or two broader regions based on economic activity) reason for price differences between countries.

    Making these region locks, on the whole, rather pointless. We need to be clear about this - if a content provider chooses not to provide the content (for very weak reasons), then people attempting to circumvent these arbitrary blocks are not to blame, but the content providers themselves. Stop treating us all so badly.

  62. Ah the free market economy at work by einar.petersen · · Score: 1

    It is so funny to see these Goliaths scream for access yo markets and for free markets and then attempt to play the cold war russian economic planning game attempting to control content etc... the movie studios / music studios are a joke not to have open licensing without borders people are willing to pay a fair price for the same content not differing prices for differing content and calling people pirates and criminalizing them when they are using a paid service that the movie companies are actually earning money from is an insult to logic and actually shows a total lack of seriousness on their part... no net neutrality and a forced global market that is what should be pulled over their heads as a response to this behaviour.

    --
    MS, ALS, Aphasia ? http://globability.org - Me http://einarpetersen.com
  63. ISP by Thaneral · · Score: 1

    Two things I would like to share... 1, I use an ISP that doesn't packet shape, throttle protocols, bandwidth manage, deep packet inspect, blah, blah blah... (yes, there are still a few out there) and quite often I VPN into my own home from other places in the UK, work, family, mobile devices just so I know I have a "clean" internet connection. I wonder how Netflix would identify that as unacceptable? 2, Most torrent clients now have a stream facility, If Netflix make it too difficult for the average user, then Utorrent may just become more popular.... I do agree though, it is a game of cat and mouse because anyone with half an inkling of technology knowledge will circumvent any blocks/ip restrictions/dns in a heartbeat and carry on watching regardless....

  64. Nice! by nospam007 · · Score: 1

    Forcing people back to using Torrents and refusing their money.
    One more nail in the TV-coffin.

  65. Re: Seriously... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There will be. The fracturing and balkanization of the Internet is inevitable. China has already succeeded, Australia is following. The UK is leading the effort with the EU taking an interested look (the EU was the first to put up fences relating to "inappropriate speech" and trading of nazi memorabilia). In less than 20 years the Internet will have turned into a bunch of closed network delimited by political boundaries and operated by profit-oriented private entities bound by government-mandated guidelines. Nobody will protest because "netizens" will have turned into passive customers all happy and safe in their walled gardens. The revolution is over.

  66. why not license globally? by Mirar · · Score: 1

    What is the problem with licensing everything for global use? Can someone explain?

    1. Re:why not license globally? by PPH · · Score: 1

      There are different crime syndicates in power in different countries that control media distribution. Each one demands a piece of the action in order for studios to gain access to their territory. And a studio CEO only has so many knee caps.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  67. Excessive powers granted by copyright by SkunkPussy · · Score: 2

    The fundamental issue here is that copyright is too powerful. Electronic goods should be a single global market, so the fact that copyright holders are able to use the powers granted by copyrights to slice the market shows that copyright law grants too much.

    --
    SURELY NOT!!!!!
  68. Global economy? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Only good when studios do it to press DVDs in some godforsaken country where child labour is cheap and available, then import them tariff-free to sell them here for 25 bucks. But me buying a DVD in said godforsaken country where they (legally!) cost a buck is a big nono.

    Let alone me watching a movie from abroad. I always thought that in international trade territory protection is a big nono because it "distorts competition". Unless of course the competitor would be the customer. Then the ass should pay through the nose!

    Fucking assholes! If any current movies were worth watching I'd torrent them.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  69. Re:Seriously... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Free trade has lowered the price of labour. Why shouldn't things be cheaper in a globalized world, or is free trade just for corporations?

  70. Re: frankly, I think it's awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh yes of course, we just have the shows that the yanks steal then ruin.

  71. Technology: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    dissolving imaginary borders one movie at a time.

  72. Its about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hollyweed (after all, they must be smoking something illegal!) wanting to create an atrificial scarcity of content to keep licensing fees as high as possible, even though most of the movies and TV shows that they have produced in the last 15-20 years are CRAP! Hollyweed and the cable TV industry are trying to fight streaming of content, even though it IS the future of video entertainment. People want to watch what they want, when they want, and without commercials, or being gouged by rediculously high prices. Most people are perfectly willing to pay reasonable prices for the content that they want to watch/listen to/read, especially if it can be made easy and convenient to get. Instead, we have insanely greedy corporations price gouging us for nearly everything, and insanely greedy politicians taxing us to ruin!

  73. Content library? by Florian+Weimer · · Score: 2

    Does the U.S. version of Netflix really use a library model, where they strive to keep content available indefinitely? Video streaming services here in Germany continually change the content they are offering, so it's more like a TV with very many channels and random access, and not really a replacement for a collection of your favorite movies and shows.

  74. Re:frankly, I think it's awesome by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 2

    can't product planes that don't regularly fall out of the sky

    "Regularly?"

    You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

  75. Like the Comcast deal by hEpen · · Score: 1

    Perhaps Netflix could pay everyone millions of dollars to stop doing that?

    It is how Netflix dealt with Comcast successfully.

  76. location account by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Personally I would prefer on vacation to have my normal home content.
    If I go to Japan, I can turn on the tv in the hotel to watch that. But being able to keep watching my own shows would be nice as well. Though there is something to be said for looking at older stuff from a diff country.
    As for accessing a diff country on a reg basis. It would be nice. Canada is really limited in a lot of subjects.

  77. The more you tighten your grip.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thank god we out here in the rest of the world still have bittorrent.

  78. Verizon Buffering fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    VZN was the perfect fix for the Verizon buffering issue. Oh, well. Time to cancel Netflix. I wonder if Redbox has the same buffering issue.

    1. Re: Verizon Buffering fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      VPN, not VZN.

  79. Well there goes my plan by ssufficool · · Score: 1

    I purchased a VPN router and was about to route through that to avoid Netflix throttling by my ISP. I guess this is out now.

  80. .waste of time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The entertainment industry products are such a waste of time... its a good thing they are being blocked. Why spend the 1 1/2 hours watching a movie when you can spend it in code academy learning.

    Its funny how things are turning out, I keep telling my nephew to stop wasting his time watching movies and get learning and make some good connections on the net... anything that pushes him to stop vegging in front of the tv is good with me :)

  81. Re: what is the issue with someone in Pakistan pay by swilver · · Score: 1

    They paid for that anyway. So, the stupid ones really are the local stations.

  82. Re:frankly, I think it's awesome by electrosoccertux · · Score: 1

    3 in the last year or so? that's completely unacceptable.

  83. Re:frankly, I think it's awesome by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 1

    3 in the last year or so? that's completely unacceptable.

    What are the three Airbus A-320 crashes in the 'last year or so' that you're referencing?

    I'm an aviation geek and I know of one, for which the cause has not yet been determined. 18+ months ago one ran off the runway in the Philippines, but that was pilot error.

  84. You think I'm missing the point? by dbIII · · Score: 1

    You are very naive if you think those who work directly for the executive branch drafted those free trade agreements. All Bill, Barack or Bush did was say "looks good" to agreements that were effectively drafted by the same people over multiple administrations.

  85. Inexplicable Licencing Arrangements by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    When I used to get Netflix though my xbox 360, I used to switch back and forth between Canadian/USA versions of Netflix all the time. Manually editing your DNS takes 2 minutes and that is all you need to do. I was always perplexed by some of the differences in content. In some instances I can understand, but others it seemed some arcane methodology must be in play... The US version had all the Star Trek TV, Canada had just had the movies for example. However when a new season of Top Gear was added, it was available in Canada, but not in the US... I also recall starting to watch "Workaholics", and it vanishing from the library, presumably because they couldn't come to licencing terms...

    Media companies are just shooting themselves in the foot making doing the legal thing so difficult. Of course Netflix is not alone in this, just the other day, when trying to watch an SNL clip on YouTube, I get the message about it not being allowed because I live in Canada. Really?

  86. Re:frankly, I think it's awesome by electrosoccertux · · Score: 1

    oh, ok.

    There was a china one just a couple months ago, then this one, and then one in the last few years I thought.

    Also, on every single A-320 flight I've been on, during takeoff and once during landing, there has been a violent, high frequency vibration/shudder throughout the entire plane, right as the plane nose-ups and leaves the runway.

    It doesn't worry me, but I do think it's ridiculous that they allowed that past QA. I'm not making this up, and it's not just me, I've recognized it at least 4 times. I use this to fuel my anti-european sentiments.

  87. Are paying customers now called "pirates"? by Any0n · · Score: 1

    While I have a serious objection for anyone to be calling paying customers "pirates", this issue is not going away any time soon because of the restrictive contracts imposed by the studios on content delivery providers.

    In any case, a VPN is not the best technology to use for bypassing ge-restriction, since VPNs are designed to send all traffic, including audio/video delivery through the VPN tunnel.

    A better option is to use a smart DNS proxy, which you can easily build yourself for the cost of a cheap hosted Linux server. This type of solution only proxies API traffic and leaves video delivery to happen across your local connection, with the benefit of your local CDN PoPs.

    A private solution such as this, could possibly avoid all of this unpleasantness associated with multiple user accounts observed to be coming from a small IP space (or even single IPs).

    DIY clone of Netflix Tunlr/Unblock-Us/UnoTelly on cheap US based VPS
    http://blog.belodedenko.me/201...

    Having said all that, response from Netflix suggests they are not doing anything to break VPN circumvention:
    http://www.engadget.com/2015/0...

    -- ab1

    P.S. And then there is always IPv6 :)

  88. Why is this even an issue? by Riplakish · · Score: 1

    I never understood why NetFlix used IP address to determine which country's service that they gave you access to. Why don't they use the billing address for the credit card/payment service and then only allow the country to be changed if your billing address changed and then stupid technical fixes implementing Google DNS wouldn't be necessary.

  89. PureVPN by shaunkevin340 · · Score: 1

    Netflix works amazingly with PureVPN, having no issue at all