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.
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.
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.
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.
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*
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"
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.
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.
So, if the FCC decides to enforce Net Neutrality like Netflix wants... wouldn't that include region blocking like this?
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.
That's why God made Bittorrent
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
Example: Community is only available on Hulu Plus in the USA, but its available on Swedish Netflix.
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!!!!!
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.
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.