Slashdot Mirror


Netflix Begins Blocking Users Who Bypass Region Locks

An anonymous reader writes with reports that Netflix may be shutting out international VPN users. "Netflix can only stream the videos that studios make available in a given country, which has led to a booming business in workarounds (such as proxies and virtual private networks) that let you see the company's catalogs in other nations. Heck, one New Zealand internet provider practically built a service around it. However, you might not get to count on that unofficial solution for much longer. VPN operators claim to TorrentFreak that Netflix recently started blocking some users who use these technological loopholes to watch videos that would normally be verboten. The effort isn't widespread and mostly appears to focus on connections with many simultaneous Netflix sign-ins (that is, they're obviously being used for circumvention), but it's a surprise to viewers who were used to having unfettered access."

121 comments

  1. It's Dupe-L-Licious! by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's dupe-l-licious!

    Well, OK, this "story" has an additional linky to engadget...

    Netflix really does have to do this, their business requires the licenses and cooperation of the Media Mafia, who could snuff them out if they chose. There would be lawsuits, but Netflix would be essentially over.

    I don't know much about why there are such restrictions, do they charge different amounts in different countries? Shouldn't it all be pretty much the same, money-wise? Is it an issue of censorship based on the particular country's politics?

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    1. Re:It's Dupe-L-Licious! by jones_supa · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's dupe-l-licious!

      This version is tailored for different region.

    2. Re:It's Dupe-L-Licious! by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

      This version is tailored for different region.

      As long as Slashdot doesn't block my VPN, I'm golden in all the regions!

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    3. Re:It's Dupe-L-Licious! by Trepidity · · Score: 4, Funny

      Slashdot uses a more insidious form of "soft-blocking" where rather than being outright blocked, certain users are redirected to beta.slashdot.org.

    4. Re:It's Dupe-L-Licious! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haven't the users paid for their subscription? Or is Netflix free?

    5. Re:It's Dupe-L-Licious! by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 3, Funny

      Slashdot uses a more insidious form of "soft-blocking" where rather than being outright blocked, certain users are redirected to beta.slashdot.org.

      I thought that "cruel and unusual punishment" was against the Geneva Conventions.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    6. Re:It's Dupe-L-Licious! by MoZ-RedShirt · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I don't know much about why there are such restrictions, do they charge different amounts in different countries? Shouldn't it all be pretty much the same, money-wise? Is it an issue of censorship based on the particular country's politics?

      It's all about the licenses. Most of the time a TV station with deep pockets buys the rights for a region for a given timeframe from the producers. And they wouldn't be too happy if you could binge watch a whole season on Netflix before they had time to show all the episodes on TV.

      So unless Netflix outbids every TV station for the content rights all the time they will always have somebody crying for regional blocks.

      --
      Microsft spel chekar vor sail, worgs grate !!!
    7. Re:It's Dupe-L-Licious! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's dupe-l-licious!

      Well, OK, this "story" has an additional linky to engadget...

      Netflix really does have to do this, their business requires the licenses and cooperation of the Media Mafia, who could snuff them out if they chose. There would be lawsuits, but Netflix would be essentially over.

      I don't know much about why there are such restrictions, do they charge different amounts in different countries? Shouldn't it all be pretty much the same, money-wise? Is it an issue of censorship based on the particular country's politics?

    8. Re:It's Dupe-L-Licious! by AK+Marc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I didn't think that Netflix was required by contract to go to extraordinary measures to block un-blocking. 100% security is impossible. Maybe some content owners started complaining to Netflix and threatening to pull content.

      This is a case of the content owners punishing paying users. The un-blockers are all paying users. The pirates aren't. The content owners are making more pirates, and refusing the money of paying customers. And wondering why their business model isn't working.

    9. Re:It's Dupe-L-Licious! by Gadget_Guy · · Score: 4, Funny

      I thought that "cruel and unusual punishment" was against the Geneva Conventions.

      You are right. It is against the conventions. But if we have learned anything from the patent system, it's that "cruel and unusual punishment on the Internet" is different enough to be allowed (and quite possibly patentable).

    10. Re:It's Dupe-L-Licious! by khellendros1984 · · Score: 2

      They've paid, but only for the things that are offered by Netflix in their country. Netflix's catalog varies country-by-country (and is unavailable in most countries of the world). People use outside services that are against Netflix's use policies to make it look like they're in another country that has the content they want to see.

      --
      It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
    11. Re: It's Dupe-L-Licious! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I don't know if you pay strictly for content "in your country." When I travel Netflix offers me content in the region that I am in at the time. If I only paid for content "in" the US then when I arrive in another country it should say "sorry, you are out of the region you have paid for, come back soon!" But instead it offers me the local Netflix content.

    12. Re:It's Dupe-L-Licious! by ruir · · Score: 2

      Exactly. Internet knows no borders and no politics. It is an outdated model to enforce. For instance, back here they are (re)running in a paid channel TruBlood Season 3 for the nth time. I already saw it maybe 2 or 3 years ago...

    13. Re:It's Dupe-L-Licious! by ruir · · Score: 1

      Oh it is working very well. Have not you heard Obama last week? They want to proclaim a new feudal model in the digital world, as if we needed music and movies to breath. They want to prevent you for getting anything that does not come directly from hollywood, and god forbids you get it from other sources. They want you not to ditch cable and go only with Internet. And they have very deep pockets, with money suckers, pardon, customers give them to screw us and buy politicians.

    14. Re:It's Dupe-L-Licious! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know much about why there are such restrictions, do they charge different amounts in different countries? Shouldn't it all be pretty much the same, money-wise? Is it an issue of censorship based on the particular country's politics?

      In the UK we've got a TV company called Sky that dominates the market. They get a lot of shows on exclusivity deals which means that Netflix won't be able to offer them. It's pretty crappy, because they've locked up some of my favourite shows in exclusive agreements and then shoved those shows on some shitty low tier channel to be forgotten.

      It's very frustrating for the consumer.

    15. Re:It's Dupe-L-Licious! by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      That, plus the price gouging that goes on, for example Aussie's famously pay 50-100% more for digital content than customers in the US and EU regions.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    16. Re:It's Dupe-L-Licious! by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      And wondering why their business model isn't working

      I doubt it, their business model is making them $quillions, I don't think they give a flying fuck if it works for you and I.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    17. Re:It's Dupe-L-Licious! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "And they wouldn't be too happy if you could binge watch a whole season on Netflix before they had time to show all the episodes on TV."

      Ummm, me binge watching it on netflix makes them some money, as opposed to me watching it from piratebay. (long live piratebay!)
      There is no way I'm going to watch anything from TV. It's a dead media to me.

    18. Re:It's Dupe-L-Licious! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Different Countries have different rates on content. For example Fox can own the rights for a TV show in the US but Global owns the right in canada. Then when someone uses a proxie/vpn basically we are stealing from the local copyright holder. Netflix does not carry as many shows in canada because copyright owners here for example charge more per stream than in the USA.

      Also, at least in canada the CRTC regulates minimum prices for streaming and they are much higher then in many other countries due to past restrictions.

      Basically none of the US copyright holders care that you proxie, netflix pays them, you're stealing from the local copyright owner who may have decided for reason XYZ that they do not want to let netflix stream for the price they offered.

    19. Re: It's Dupe-L-Licious! by khellendros1984 · · Score: 1

      My point was that at no time do they offer you access to two regions at once. I haven't read the full terms of use recently, so I'm not sure how exactly it's worded.

      --
      It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
    20. Re:It's Dupe-L-Licious! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Murdoch's hugely overpriced Fox Pay TV "service" is a virtual monopoly for movies in Australia which is probably why Netflix is banned here. It is important for the Mafia to maintain these monopolies and keep the prices high. Even Youtube videos that originate from a number of media providers are blocked here, and sometimes the messages are quite insulting.

        And people wonder why piracy is so popular in Australia.

  2. Thank god it only happens once by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://news.slashdot.org/story/15/01/03/2330223/netflix-cracks-down-on-vpn-and-proxy-pirates

  3. Groundhog day! by Dzimas · · Score: 4, Funny

    Excellent. Today, I think I'll learn to play the piano, master a few vintage Atari arcade games and hit on Andie MacDowell.

    1. Re:Groundhog day! by OldSport · · Score: 1

      What I would give for the chance to hit on Andie Macdowell...

    2. Re:Groundhog day! by ArcadeMan · · Score: 2

      And I think I'll learn an ancient language, pottery-making and juggling, play some golf and ride a bicycle.

    3. Re:Groundhog day! by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 2

      And I think I'll learn an ancient language, pottery-making and juggling, play some golf and ride a bicycle.

      That was one of the best episode of SG1 beside the 100 and 200 episode where they made fun of themselves.

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
    4. Re:Groundhog day! by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      I also liked War of the Coprophages on X-Files.

  4. Different Region? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess this article was intended for a different region than the previous one?

  5. I'll never understand those that pay to be pirates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think it was stupid for people to go out of their way to pay for 2 services (VPN/Proxy and Netflix), one of which views them as pirates.
    If you're gonna be viewed as a pirate by Netflix, save yourself the trouble and pirate the content right away at no cost. Because if you circumvent for whatever reason the restrictions and pay you're still considered a pirate by Netflix and the MPAA. In this case being honest doesn't pay.

  6. Hello, Netflix! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hello, Netflix there? With every such shenanigan you drive one more nail into the coffin: I'll never be your customer! You hear me? NEVER!

    1. Re:Hello, Netflix! by SydShamino · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Netflix doesn't have a choice here; they get most of their content from licensing deals and likely were pressured into this by those providers.

      The best thing you could do is support netflix and watch their original programming, so they can make more and cut out the established Big Content providers. (Until Netflix becomes one and we move on to the next new thing.)

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    2. Re:Hello, Netflix! by ruir · · Score: 1

      The best think we can do is boycott sony, disney, all the studios under the MPAA umbrella, and revoke cable and netflix service.

    3. Re:Hello, Netflix! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If netflix is the kind of thing you want then don't fucking boycott it you dumbass. Make it the ONLY way for content owners to make money and suddenly they are forced to put everything up. If netflix extorts its position, creators can subvert them with a new service. The only hard part would be killing the extortionist brand. To get around that, such companies should be forced to publish what they show.

    4. Re:Hello, Netflix! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Er, publish what amount of subscriber fees go to royalties. Of course, content owners are fags and capitalism is bullshit, thus secret deals are the norm and the consumer is not allowed to make educated decisions. But that's another rant.

  7. Re:I'll never understand those that pay to be pira by by+(1706743) · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I could be wrong, but I suspect Netflix is completely fine with you VPN'ing your way to more content -- it's the movie studios that aren't ok with it. More paying customers is a Good Thing for Netflix.

  8. What's the motive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I get that Netflix is doing this because the studios wants them to. But why does the studios want to limit media releases by country? If they have a new movie, what possible motive to they have to release months apart in different jurisdictions? Especaily when it comes to old (eg not new release) materials?

    Is this all just some artefact of a tangled legal web that was built up before media distribution on the internet, or do they really have some profitable reason to keep me as an Australian from watching the same library of content as an American would?

    1. Re:What's the motive by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

      There are rights issues as well.

    2. Re: What's the motive by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Usually they sell the rights to a property to different distributors in different jurisdictions. So in Australia, "Diff'rent Strokes" might be exclusively licensed to Throw-Some-Stream-on-the-Barbie and now here comes Netflix, 'offering' the same content to VPN users there. The idea of 'jurisdictions' and geographical nexus requirements for digital data is stupid, but blame the 12th-century concept of laws still being applied to the Internet if you want a root cause.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    3. Re: What's the motive by AK+Marc · · Score: 3, Interesting

      More likely, Sky will buy the rights, then not show it. They buy rights for things they aren't intending to show in order to lock others out, and drive subscriptions. You can't pay $10 a month to stream stuff. You have to pay a full Sky subscription (we'll call it $100) to get access to their streaming service, and it's not even a very good one.

      Shit like that is why everyone runs to VPNs.

    4. Re: What's the motive by Harlequin80 · · Score: 2

      Have a look at what happened in Australia regarding Game of Thrones. The most recent season was purchased by foxtel as an all formats exclusive. So even iTunes started blocking Aussie users from buying GoT.

      Basically if you wanted to watch GoT in Australia you needed a minimum of a $75 per month contract with Foxtel. What actually happened was it set new records for people downloading it from torrents.

    5. Re:What's the motive by stoborrobots · · Score: 2

      It's Foxtel and Yahoo!7/Ninemsn/Ten, (and the other similar players) who are the instigators here.

      • Foxtel buys the right to show Breaking Bad and Orange Is The New Black on Australian pay TV.
      • Some Australian consumers choose to watch those shows on Netflix.
      • Foxtel loses the ability to attract those consumers, so they complain to the studios that they are losing customers that they bought (the Aussie pay TV market) because of another customer of the studios (Netflix), and threaten not to buy any new shows from the studio.
      • Since the agreement between the studios and Netflix stipulated that they would only show those programs in certain regions (not including Australia), the studios complain to Netflix that they are costing the studios money, and threaten not to sell any new shows to Netflix.
      • Netflix is forced to take action against subscribers suspected of being Australian.

      And there's something really terrible about that sequence of events, but I don't know how to make it any better...

    6. Re: What's the motive by ruir · · Score: 1

      Pretty amazing the lengths they are willing to go to enforce an outdated business model and alienate potencial customers. I am at loss for words that describe this stupidity and arrogance of the media cartels.

    7. Re: What's the motive by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      The idea of 'jurisdictions' and geographical nexus requirements for digital data is stupid, but blame the 12th-century concept of laws still being applied to the Internet if you want a root cause.

      It doesn't really have much to do with the Internet, other than the Internet is the easiest way for anyone to show content to a global audience. The two biggest reasons (there are others) for geographical restrictions:

      1) Different purchasing powers in different countries and different currency exchange rates. Folks in especially poor countries can't afford US$15 for a DVD, and since the reproduction costs are so low, a media company can set what they'd consider a "fair price" related to wealth of the area. Of course, because of that, they can't have US folks buying the "cheap" versions in other countries, otherwise the whole concept of offering lower prices to different zones falls apart.

      2) Control. Some people are just... control freaks and have to control exactly how their content is presented. That leads to foreign releases where a movie is edited for content or regional bias, given localized dubs, etc. It used to be more common on American TV as you couldn't POSSIBLY air a cartoon that had any Japanese influence, the local dub would Americanize all the names and cut out anything controversial. Part of the fault is the content company, part is the fault of the viewers who can't stand subtitles and hearing a foreign language.

  9. 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...

    Why is Torrent Freak's logo hot pink?

    1. Re:Cat and mouse... by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 3, Funny

      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?

      Dupe!

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
  10. Solution, streaming server, .torrents by Zeio · · Score: 2

    Switched to .torrents and a streaming device long ago. Being 100% honest is no longer workable. I will buy copies of the blu-rays and go to the movies. However when viewing is desired a downloaded blu-ray rip @ 720p is obtained and I put them through a streaming device (tivo+pytivo works well).

    Owning the content in box form should entitle one to access to that content but this is simply not the case - the content providers are way difficult to deal with.

    --
    Legalize the constitution. Think for yourself question authority.
    1. Re:Solution, streaming server, .torrents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why downloading > streaming. If you download your stuff, it will always work.

    2. Re:Solution, streaming server, .torrents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't even bother. I mean, I did block Google's DNS from my network just out of spite because Netflix insisted on having it stuffed on my Roku. That's just because of my apparently quaint ideas that my network will carry traffic and use resources I want it to and nothing else without my permission. It has nothing to do with bypassing anything.

      Honestly, movies are a pain to go to lately because of the constant upsell of super high tech seats, $10 popcorn and the like. The last time I tried to go see a movie I walked in to find, literally, a bouncer at the door showing people to their reserved seats and the regular ticket price seats were like the first 5 rows. I walked to the box office, got my money back and haven't gone to a movie since. For online stuff, Hollywood has pissed me off so much I don't even want to watch their content pirated anymore, so I just ignore them unless it's super, super cheap and really easy to deal with.

    3. Re:Solution, streaming server, .torrents by mark-t · · Score: 1
      Being 100% honest on the matter of copyrighted media is only unworkable if one possesses any sense of entitlement to the content they would otherwise probably just pirate.

      Owning the content in box form should entitle one to access to that content

      Leaving aside the issue that how things *should* be is rarely how things actually are, and trying to pretend that one lives in that person's view of an ideal world when things are not actually as they would like is only going to end in disaster, that is nonetheless a very interesting perspective...have you ever considered only voting for people who agree with that notion?

  11. Re:I'll never understand those that pay to be pira by itzly · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Apparently, movie studios have no interest in more paying customers.

  12. duped by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    good thing beta stops dupes!

    oh...

  13. If only there was a way for Slashdot editors by Skuld-Chan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    To coordinate and block duplicate stories.

    Its like they don't even talk to each other.

    "Hey do you think this is a good idea for the front page?"... "Nah it was submitted yesterday..."

    And in fact it was submitted to /r/technology on reddit like a week ago... Slashdot has become the last piece in the chain for news - which is sad because it puts it below Facebook.

    1. Re:If only there was a way for Slashdot editors by OzPeter · · Score: 4, Informative

      To coordinate and block duplicate stories.

      Its like they don't even talk to each other.

      Shit they don't even have to talk to each other. All they Have to do is LOOK at /.

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    2. Re:If only there was a way for Slashdot editors by mSparks43 · · Score: 1

      It seems to all be automated,

      I guess the system picks one or two stories from news.ycombinator.com that seem to be trending more than the others.

    3. Re:If only there was a way for Slashdot editors by MobileC · · Score: 1

      What's Reddit?

      --

      Fran
      :):):)
      1st 1st Poster of the new Millennium!

    4. Re:If only there was a way for Slashdot editors by antdude · · Score: 1

      /. is slow and old news compared to others like Reddit these days. Remember when Reddit, Digg, etc. didn't exist and /. was the place to get the news? :(

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  14. VPNs aren't only for bypassing region limits by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 4, Informative

    Often they are used to bypass the decidedly not net-neutral treatment of Netflix by your ISP.

    --
    I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
  15. Netficks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Serves them right for using netficks instead of torrenting.

  16. Netflix claims geoblocking policy has not changed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.engadget.com/2015/01/03/netflix-clamps-down-on-vpns/
    "Update: 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."

  17. Re:I'll never understand those that pay to be pira by by+(1706743) · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yeah, their strategy seems pretty lousy. Basically everyone I know is totally fine paying reasonable fees for convenient access to content -- but will of course pirate material if it's not available.

  18. Re:I'll never understand those that pay to be pira by fateblossom · · Score: 1

    In Denmark it's not illegal to bypass country restrictions.

    So if you pay for Netflix and uses VPN / SmartDNS / What ever then it's not against the law.

  19. /me is waiting for BBC iPlayer to do the same by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not really waiting. Just anticipating the day when the Beeb wakes up and cuts us off.

    I do like watching Dr. Who without the 30 minutes of commercials that BBC American subjects you to to watch 60 minutes of Who.

    And there's a fair bit of other BBC content that's just not even on BBC America, although I don't have access to BBC America in the first place.

    1. Re:/me is waiting for BBC iPlayer to do the same by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I do like watching Dr. Who without the 30 minutes of commercials that BBC American subjects you to to watch 60 minutes of Who.

      And I like free stuff too!

      I'm all for Americans getting to see Doctor Who if they want to pay a reasonable price for it and/or view adverts. But you're not paying for it through your license fee, so really, you don't have the right to expect them to show it to you free of charge *and* without adverts.

      If people in the United States have a big problem with this, they're welcome to push for a publicly-funded broadcaster using a similar license-based model (or any other model, I don't care how they pay for it, it's not my problem) that'll- amongst other things- pay the BBC a fair rate (or exchange a similar amount of comparable-quality material) then show them without adverts. (The perma-begging PBS isn't really the same thing AFAICT, though they did do some quite good co-productions with the BBC at one point).

      This won't happen because it'd be COMMUNISM!!!!!!111111, but that's the choice you guys made, so that's how you'll get your Doctor Who.

    2. Re:/me is waiting for BBC iPlayer to do the same by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do like watching Dr. Who without the 30 minutes of commercials that BBC America subjects you to to watch 60 minutes of Who.

      And I like free stuff too!

      I'm all for Americans getting to see Doctor Who if they want to pay a reasonable price for it and/or view adverts. But you're not paying for it through your license fee, so really, you don't have the right to expect them to show it to you free of charge *and* without adverts. .

      Well, I never said I had a right to expect it–––

      AFAIC, free is a reasonable price. That's what I bid. And for now the Beeb appears to be tacitly accepting my bid by not blocking the VPNs.

      You may think I'm just rationalizing piracy. That's one way to look at it. For me the difference is that I'm getting it straight from bbc.co.uk, not from TPB or some other torrent site. Maybe you think the VPN provider is complicit somehow, but VPNs are a well understood technology, and commonplace; they merely facilitate the transaction. When the Beeb wakes up and stops accepting my offer I'll just go back to waiting for it land on Netflix. When that happens I may have to wait a year to see it without ads. I'm okay with that.

      Free is a price – and auntie seems happy with that price. For now.

      Oh, I bet there's a bunch of Brits who are using the same VPN I do to get around their Netflix content restrictions.

    3. Re:/me is waiting for BBC iPlayer to do the same by LVSlushdat · · Score: 1

      I love watching/listening to stuff on the Beeb, so all it took was renting a 128mb vps with 500GB/mo transfer from one of the many UK vendors, putting OpenVPN and a squid proxy and voila! I'm now in the UK and the Beeb lets me catch all the great stuff they stream... The vps costs me a whole $25/year..

      --
      THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)
    4. Re:/me is waiting for BBC iPlayer to do the same by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 1

      It's worth noting that unlike Hulu/Netflix/iTunes, Auntie doesn't go out of her way to block people who take even basic measures to bypass geo-blocking.

      For example, on Firefox I use the Modify Headers addon and an "X-Forwarded-For" entry with the Beeb's own IP address. (212.58.246.94) There are other addons that make it as simple as clicking on a flag. Bit easier than screwing around with VPNs or DNS spoofing.

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
    5. Re:/me is waiting for BBC iPlayer to do the same by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are other addons that make it as simple as clicking on a flag. Bit easier than screwing around with VPNs or DNS spoofing.

      Like the Hola plug-in? That's a VPN. There's no screwing around – you just click on a flag.

    6. Re:/me is waiting for BBC iPlayer to do the same by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This won't happen because it'd be COMMUNISM!!!!!!111111, but that's the choice you guys made, so that's how you'll get your Doctor Who.

      It's not the choice Americans made, it's the choice the lawyers and businessmen made for everybody else.

      A strong case can be made that the US government does not have the legal authority to BOTH grant a business both long term monopoly AND the freedom to only sell materials bundled with advertising.

      The rights of an audience, after all, are in some ways just as important as the rights of a speaker or publisher, which means audience rights should get as much protection as freedom of speech, and freedom of the press. A business that wants to only make something available bundled with advertising, forcing every audience to view both the content and the advertising, should therefore forfeit most of the term of legal protection that would otherwise be permitted. It's worth remembering here that copyright is purely an artificial right.

      In US law, assertion of rights such as rights of potential audiences to material is done under the 9th Amendment of the Bill of Rights, which as part of the highest law in the land should in theory supersede the authority of the US Congress.

      In practice, Congress and the US legal profession has a vested interest in pretending the 9th Amendment doesn't exist, for a whole bunch of reasons that have been discussed on this forum in the past. It's a huge ethics problem, and responsible for a lot of the mess in US law, which in turn has nasty side effects for people in other countries. That's the nature of globalization: ethics problems in one country necessarily affect other countries in all kinds of negative ways.

      People have been making fun of the USA for being the Land of the Lawsuit for a long time (something that flows from legal ethics problems in tort law), but the ethics problems in US law affect many other areas of law, and the effects are spilling over into other countries now. I suspect the disaster that is US law is no longer quite as entertaining to the rest of the world, now that they are getting to experience the negative effects.

  20. Re:I'll never understand those that pay to be pira by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In Denmark it's not illegal to bypass country restrictions. So if you pay for Netflix and uses VPN / SmartDNS / What ever then it's not against the law.

    Which doesn't mean Netflix will allow VPN in Denmark. Netflix's actions almost certainly have little to do with "law" and everything to do with being leaned on bu the Media Mafia.

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
  21. dupe by bloodhawk · · Score: 2, Informative

    perhaps they could also show Slashdot how to block dupes.

  22. Not Netflix? by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

    From the Engadget linky:

    Update: 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.

    If this is the case, could it be that the Media Mafia are working with various ISP such as Time-Warner and Comcast? Or perhaps even the owners of the backbones?

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    1. Re:Not Netflix? by bhcompy · · Score: 2

      No. It's the case of Netflix lying to the media or the VPN provider shutting out service, that's all. If the "Media Mafia", as you say it, is up to no good then we wouldn't have access to tons of services that provide unlicensed copyrighted content, be it bittorrent, youtube, reddit, or something else. Now, if the VPN provider was sent a cease and desist letter from any of the various stakeholders, that may happen, but technically they're doing nothing illegal.

    2. Re:Not Netflix? by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

      No. It's the case of Netflix lying to the media...

      Eventually detectable, and so extremely unlikely.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    3. Re:Not Netflix? by bhcompy · · Score: 1

      Yes, because media companies never lie to consumers, particularly in the face of legal proceedings.

  23. Re:I'll never understand those that pay to be pira by Richard_at_work · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They do, but you aren't their paying customer, the entity which buys the distribution license in your country is their paying customer. If you can access an American service to view the content, why would anyone other than an American business buy the distribution license?

  24. Re:I'll never understand those that pay to be pira by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Right, because there aren't other considerations in play. I mean the actors, composers, producers, graphics designers, musicians, etc. involved in the production of a movie all have a uniform contract that discusses world wide steaming over the Internet. It isn't like there is a shitload of legal legwork involved in releasing movies for streaming.

  25. Re:I'll never understand those that pay to be pira by bloodhawk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    how about because they AREN'T pirates. It is perfectly legal to bypass geo-blocking in many countries. e.g. Australia. Why do we do it, because the local services are shit and even with the cost of the VPN + Netflix it is still cheaper than the shit local services.

  26. Dear movie studios by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuck you^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h

    I'm a subscriber to Netflix from a country other than US. Since I don't like the meager local catalog we get here I pay for an "unblock service". I don't know if you ever thought about this but that means it's proven that I (and many with me) are willing to pay MORE to watch all of Netflix. It's just that we can't pay You for it.

    As I see it you got three options here; (I assume doing the right thing and make everything worldwide is not an option.)

    1) Continue the status quo - Netflix, and you, will continue to get 2/3 of what I pay to watch.

    2) Give me an option to pay you the full 150% fee I pay today and cut out the unblock service.

    3) Try to block me from watching and recieve exactly $0 while I go download the stuff for free.

    Is it really something to think about?

  27. Um, they just want to use Netflix. It adds value by aussersterne · · Score: 3, Insightful

    to the media by making it easy to browse through, search, access, and stream.

    And they're paying regular price.

    We live in a very strange world when "piracy" has gone from "armed crews of criminal specialists seizing tonnage shipments of goods on the high seas with cannon and sword" to "a regular schmo paying the regular price to use a regular product in the regular way in his regular living room."

    Hard to believe that the word still retains any of its negative connotation at all.

    "Piracy" these days sounds an awful lot like "tuesday afternoon nothing-in-particular with tea."

    --
    STOP . AMERICA . NOW
  28. Re:I'll never understand those that pay to be pira by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 1

    Imagine a Netflix subscriber who lives in the USA, then moves to Europe for work reasons.

    Unless they use a VPN to appear to still be accessing from the US, they'll lose access to certain shows.

  29. "We've reached out to Netflix" by Dogtanian · · Score: 2, Insightful

    We've reached out to Netflix to verify what it's doing

    Urgh... this makes me think of that famous bash.org quote. Seriously, why the **** are Engadget using this obnoxious phrase instead of simply saying "we've contacted Netflix" or something similar?

    It's the current favoured stock weasel-worded pseudo-touchy-feely (but in fact, insultingly off-the-shelf) bullshit phrase corporate PR use to sound like they *suddenly* give a f*** about a pissed-off customer they're having to contact, er... "reach out to" in response to some massive PR disaster they didn't expect.

    But why would a "proper" news source feel the need to use the same irritating phrase when *they're* not the putative offending party on the defensive, but rather the people investigating the problem?

    Unless this is an example of the phrase "if you lie down with dogs [i.e. hang around too many PR weasels], you get up with fleas".

    --
    "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    1. Re:"We've reached out to Netflix" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the glove doesn't fits, you must acquit!

    2. Re:"We've reached out to Netflix" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reached out to in this instance probably means that they didn't get direct contact (voicemail or email). Your panties must be on good and tight today.

    3. Re:"We've reached out to Netflix" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What? You've lost your mind.

        It's a common every fucking day expression. If they haven't gotten a response all they've done is reach out.

    4. Re:"We've reached out to Netflix" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Couldn't agree more Dogtanian! It's a very obnoxious and irritating phrase.

    5. Re:"We've reached out to Netflix" by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but if that's what it's meant to mean, it's a pretty opaque and obnoxiously PR-ish choice of words. Whether or not it's come (or is coming) into common currency doesn't change the fact that it's recent enough that most people using it probably chose to do so, or did so under the influence of too much PR bullshit.

      There may be a case for a short and snappy phrase intended to concisely convey the meaning you describe, but f*****g "reaching out" sure as hell aren't the words I'd have chosen to do so.

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
  30. Re:I'll never understand those that pay to be pira by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    how about because they AREN'T pirates. It is perfectly legal to bypass geo-blocking in many countries. e.g. Australia. Why do we do it, because the local services are shit and even with the cost of the VPN + Netflix it is still cheaper than the shit local services.

    From Netflix USA you are considered a pirate.
    Understand that from their perspective paying for content is not enough, you have to respect the restrictions of the service.

  31. Re:I'll never understand those that pay to be pira by Kjella · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Right, because there aren't other considerations in play. I mean the actors, composers, producers, graphics designers, musicians, etc. involved in the production of a movie all have a uniform contract that discusses world wide steaming over the Internet. It isn't like there is a shitload of legal legwork involved in releasing movies for streaming.

    They're mostly work for hire or to receive a percentage of the gross (if they're smart) or the net (if they're stupid), you don't renegotiate those contracts per country. That would be extremely fooling since the movie is already made, you'd give everyone involved the chance to ask any price they want. The problem at least in the early days was that many movies and series were sold with exclusive distribution rights often down to the national level due to the traditional broadcasting networks. That means Netflix can't go to one company and ask for rights, they have to sub-licenses from many different entities. For newer material this is changing, typically the production company keeps the online streaming rights and only promise to not exercise them while it airs. Of course they still want to gouge Netflix as much as they can, but it's not the same fractured landscape of rights as it used to be.

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  32. Netflix was coerced by Kethinov · · Score: 2

    Hollywood bullies Netflix into implementing draconian DRM.

    But like any abusive relationship they're too afraid of losing their sugar daddy to speak out against it in public.

    From the leaked Sony emails: "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."

    Yeah, right. 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.

    Keep taking those beatings, Netflix. Keep doing your abuser's bidding.

    --
    You're right, I wouldn't steal a car. But if it were possible, I sure as hell would download one!
  33. If Netflix were actually serious about this.... by mark-t · · Score: 1
    ... then available content would be determined not by identifying the geographic area of the IP address, but instead by the billing address of the customer. Live in the USA, but are on vacation out of the country and still want to watch movies? Not a problem... since your billing address is still in the USA, so you can continue to enjoy your favorite movies and shows anywhere in the world.

    This won't necessarily stop people from trying to get bogus billing addresses to get around this, but that's the credit card company's problem to crack down on, not Netflix's, and carries a not entirely insignificant risk of criminal charges for fraud that tends to discourage even people who might otherwise consider doing it from stealing credit cards in the first place.

    1. Re:If Netflix were actually serious about this.... by mark-t · · Score: 1

      What you are describing would be equivalent to a landlord who owns adjacent houses on a block splitting his cable line and running it into to the neighboring house without paying for two subscriptions.

      It's pretty conventional address fraud, actually.

      Although the chances of your friend would get caught doing this for you with Netflix are probably virtually nil, as long as he doesn't do it for anyone else...

      And bear in mind that not everyone will necessarily be willing to let other people who do not live with them pay them every month for access to their Netflix account.

      And I think I already mentioned that what I was suggesting would *NOT* stop people from providing Netflix with bogus billing addresses anyways.

  34. Setting up your own VPN? by Guppy · · Score: 1

    So how do I go about setting up a home router with a VPN exit point, for my own personal use while traveling? I've seen some of the various *WRT and other router firmware packages with VPN servers, but I have never managed to get one to work. Couldn't tell if I was messing something up on the router, or on my laptop / mobile phone client, or it was some firewall I was hitting at my hotel or hotspot I was connected to (although my university's VPN usually would usually function properly, so I don't think that was it).

    Any cookbook instructions out there that will let me get something working?

  35. Re:I'll never understand those that pay to be pira by iluvcapra · · Score: 2

    They're mostly work for hire or to receive a percentage of the gross (if they're smart) or the net (if they're stupid),

    Or if they're very smart, they just get paid up front... Have you any idea how few people actually get "gross"? And gross still usually means gross of distributor revenue, minus exhibition fees, which is to say, after Netflix has taken their cut. Nobody who merely works on a movie gets first-dollar gross.

    Of course they still want to gouge Netflix as much as they can, but it's not the same fractured landscape of rights as it used to be.

    Which is good, because Netflix adds nothing to the actual value chain for new titles. It's just a subscription Video-on-Demand service, except ON THE INTERNET!

    It's a great way of watching older movies and TV shows, and for the people that own the rights to those to get some revenue from the "long tail" without committing to a DVD, but if you've made a new film and the best distribution you can get is Netflix, you're screwed, you'll never make your costs back.

    I'm just speaking as someone who occasionally gets paid contractual gross in deferred deals. Netflix and VOD pay-through never remotely comes close to market rate for my work. I think a lot of the "streaming" business models are sorta scams, particularly for new filmmakers, they can't come close to generating the revenue theatrical and TV distribution can, and Netflix is sorta bluffing people on wether or not they can actually generate the revenue to sustainably create new original content. Netflix keeps making stuff like House of Cards, but that show costs over $6 mil an episode, there's no way they're making their nut back on those, and if even they can't make their costs back, how on Earth is some independent filmmaker supposed to profit from streaming distribution? HoC has stars, and is a franchise title, and has a co-production company plowing tens of millions of their own money into the project, and is selling the rights to HBO in Europe and Sony in Asia.

    --
    Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
  36. NetFlix prices have changed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Netflix just cut me off, on a Sunday afternoon. No warning, not even an email. My device said it was not allowed to connect. I had to activate the device.

    At the Netflix site, instead of the 6 devices I had been paying for, I now only get 2 HD devices for the same money, and have to pay $4.00 extra to get to get up to 4 HD devices.

    What a bunch of cowards!!!!!!!!!!!!

    1. Re: NetFlix prices have changed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is false. You can have as many devices as you want and the stream limit didn't change. If you pay for 2 streams, you get... well 2! Instead, you should probably change your password, maybe your relatives or friends are streaming on your account.

  37. Re:I'll never understand those that pay to be pira by AK+Marc · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So the American license is the global license. But they don't give global licenses, because they can extract money selling the exact same thing 200 times to 200 different people. But reality wins. If you don't allow global access under the more expensive US license, then you'll have pirates, as the streaming options in most other places are inferior.

  38. Re:I'll never understand those that pay to be pira by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    actually no he isn't considered a pirate by them either. Netflix is quite happy with this scenario, they even happily tell people how to do it. Piracy is about accessing content you are NOT paying for, they are paying for the content. The only people upset are the media companies and local distributers, but under no scenario is it piracy as it is all perfectly legal and not in breach of any copyright laws.

  39. Re:I'll never understand those that pay to be pira by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most likely, movie studios are more or less ok with it too but can't show it too blatantly. After all, more paying Netflix customers means more revenue for them, too.

    However, movie studios depend on distributors in various territories. In particular, in territories where the content is dubbed or subtitled into the local language(s). Often, these distributors want exclusive rights. That's ok for the dubbed/subtitled version but this also means that the movie studio can no longer license the English version in the respective territory. So they can't license it to Netflix for these territories, either.

    In order to appease the exclusive distributors, they have to be able to show they are at least trying to prevent any circumvention of regional restrictions.

  40. Re:I'll never understand those that pay to be pira by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From Netflix USA you are considered a pirate.
    Understand that from their perspective paying for content is not enough, you have to respect the restrictions of the service.

    Finally an intelligent comment on /. and especially in this type of conversation.

  41. So.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can HOSTS files prevent this?

  42. Re:I'll never understand those that pay to be pira by Kjella · · Score: 2

    They're mostly work for hire or to receive a percentage of the gross (if they're smart) or the net (if they're stupid),

    Or if they're very smart, they just get paid up front... Have you any idea how few people actually get "gross"? And gross still usually means gross of distributor revenue, minus exhibition fees, which is to say, after Netflix has taken their cut. Nobody who merely works on a movie gets first-dollar gross.

    That's all covered by "work for hire" which is why I put it first, whether it's up front, on delivery, per hour, fixed fee or whatever. You get paid an agreed rate, they get all the rights. Makes a lot of sense too, if you're not in a position to make any creative input or deliver an acting performance that'll affect the audience then it's not your achievement if it's a success or your fault if it bombs.

    Which is good, because Netflix adds nothing to the actual value chain for new titles. It's just a subscription Video-on-Demand service, except ON THE INTERNET! (...) I'm just speaking as someone who occasionally gets paid contractual gross in deferred deals. Netflix and VOD pay-through never remotely comes close to market rate for my work. I think a lot of the "streaming" business models are sorta scams, particularly for new filmmakers, they can't come close to generating the revenue theatrical and TV distribution can, and Netflix is sorta bluffing people on wether or not they can actually generate the revenue to sustainably create new original content.

    Theatrical distribution is its own thing, but for TV you're arguing both for and against "on the Internet" making a difference. Whatever they broadcast today, they could stream over TCP/IP tomorrow. DVRs has already provided VOD-ish features for broadcast TV. This year HBO will offer a web only service in the US, we've already had something similar here a while in Norway through HBO Nordic. Netflix is in a decent position to be the "online middleman" like Spotify is for music.

    Of course they say that Spotify pays too little too but the market has mostly quit buying CDs and digital downloads so what will they do? If people cancel their cable subscriptions and watch what is on Netflix, YouTube and HBO web with a helping of torrents for what's not you either put your content online and get poor margins or you don't and lose out on much of the market. Here in Norway some 88% of households have broadband and 85% of those can stream online video at a reasonable quality with 4+ Mbit.

    Remember that it's not just the long tail, it's also the wide tail. For example if I wanted to watch NFL here in Norway, I could get an NFL game pass and watch any game I want live and in HD. On the TV you'll probably not find anything more than the Superbowl, maybe some more obscure sports channel will send it but it's a very limited audience here. Porn has massively embraced it, I'm sure there's an adult channel on most networks but on the web there's absurdly many.

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  43. Re:I'll never understand those that pay to be pira by Sarius64 · · Score: 1

    Nope! You're loss of service (with no refund I'd bet) is worth the sanctity of the MPAA.

  44. Re:I'll never understand those that pay to be pira by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not pirating, it is breaking their terms of service. Pirating implies that a person "use[s] or reproduce[s] (another's work) for profit without permission, usually in contravention of patent or copyright."

    The only thing that we can be accused of is breaking a contract (that's not even really a contract).

    At the end of the day, this isn't Hulu. This is Netflix where you pay your $8.00 and then you view content, that's about it. They don't have localised advertisers to pander to and the geo-location bullshit only exists because the media companies make stupid global broadcasting contracts with people for more "profit". In Australia, the biggest issue is Foxtel who are basically a giant walking cock and balls that enjoys fucking consumers. It's basically a mixture of third-line forcing and cartels, it's bloody outrageous! In fact, as Foxtel have just lowered their prices and are changing up how they do business in preparation for Netflix's launch in Australia I would bet money on them being responsible for this bullshit.

    Total bullshit all around, including your argument.

  45. Re:I'll never understand those that pay to be pira by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it what possible way is it an intelligent comment. It is an ignorant comment. firstly they are not pirates as they aren't stealing anything or breaching any copyright laws. secondly Netflix is quite happy with them using content out of there region, they even made a point to post that the story is wrong and that they haven't changed anything with regards to VPN access.

  46. This will break with firewalled dns, Oh joy. by YCrCb · · Score: 1

    I have firewalled dns as a security measure. One hack is to point someone at a foreign dns server bad guys control. So I guess I am off to another provider if they do this. Disappointing.

    1. Re:This will break with firewalled dns, Oh joy. by ruir · · Score: 1

      This https://www.dnsleaktest.com/wh.... And indeed, some shady ISPs and a lot of corporations block DNS, this promises to be a lot of fun. oh, I cannot see my series anymore while on wifi in my lunch break. It also promises to be a very interesting "work-related" network ticket...

  47. Re:Um, they just want to use Netflix. It adds valu by advocate_one · · Score: 1

    We live in a very strange world when "piracy" has gone from "armed crews of criminal specialists seizing tonnage shipments of goods on the high seas with cannon and sword" to "a regular schmo paying the regular price to use a regular product in the regular way in his regular living room."

    the signs of the rot were there when they went after DVD Jon for having the audacity to provide a work around so that he could watch DVD's he'd legally bought on his own personal computer that just didn't have their blessing as it was running Linux...

    --
    Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
  48. Re:I'll never understand those that pay to be pira by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

    And when the global license prices adjust to compensate?

  49. Informercial by ruir · · Score: 1

    Cool, now slashdot runs adverts for the bad guys. Pay us and you will get your shiny files back. Very smart.

  50. Re: I'll never understand those that pay to be pir by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is more to it than that though. When I travelled a lot more I always had a server running at home (in the US) that I could proxy through to act like I was home if I had to (sites requiring local IPs, etc).

    Occasionally I would watch Netflix through my proxy at home. If I pay for Netflix in the US and run through my own home network to watch said paid for service, why shouldn't I be allowed to do that just because I'm in Brazil or Germany or wherever else? If I'm remotely controlling my home computer through VNC--legitimately--and I decide to open Netflix in my browser, suddenly I'm doing something wrong? I think this boils down more to intent than logistics.

    I do get that there are legitimate reasons why this should be restricted, but not everyone doing this is an outright pirate nor should be considered as such.

  51. Re:I'll never understand those that pay to be pira by ruir · · Score: 1

    It is more problematic than prices. Availability, delays for years sometimes, the licenses being used to sell something else (shitty cable service). A whole host of problems.

  52. not available in your region by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This comment is not available for VPN connections.

  53. If Netflix were actually serious about this.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I could just pay some amercan friend some extra to pay my netflix subscription for me. We'll call it a gift. As in, he subscribed to netflix and lets me use it as a gift. 'm sure that violates netflixs TOS, but then again, just using netflix in the first place propably does. TOSes are useless because they are so overly broad everyone just ignores them anyways.

  54. Class Action - Bring in the Lawyers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It would be easy to move IP's around dynamically so that when poisoned or unresponsive IP blocks spotted, several All American as apple pie (Preferably Texans) are blocked. Obviously the first VPN provider to make a private settlement with Netflix is going to have a market advantage.

    A class action is going to prove very expensive (but lucrative for greedy lawyers) if they want to go down this path of assumptions.
    Furthermore, the discovery documents about blocking will become a huge liability for Netflix should the dirt come out - which should give the lawyers even more leverage and money.

    High time some cease and desist letters are sent out. If these VPN guys can buy/sell/swap IP ranges fast enough, they may even get a case for racketeering.

  55. Re:I'll never understand those that pay to be pira by Rakarra · · Score: 1

    Pirating implies that a person "use[s] or reproduce[s] (another's work) for profit without permission, usually in contravention of patent or copyright."

    That is... not the definition of piracy that almost anyone uses. No profit needs be involved with content piracy/unauthorized sharing/copyright infringement/whathaveyou.

    Unless you're counting "not giving money to the owners of the media you use" as personal profit, a definition that most content sharers would not want to embrace.

  56. Where the problem really is by Mister+Null · · Score: 1

    The problem is the whole concept of country codes, which was an attempt by local providers not to compete.

  57. Re:Um, they just want to use Netflix. It adds valu by Rakarra · · Score: 1

    Um, they just want to use Netflix. It adds value to the media by making it easy to browse through, search, access, and stream.

    I'd counter that you're not getting what you paid for when it comes to Netflix streaming, as Netflix's streaming selection is absolutely horrible and gets smaller thanks to media company shenanigans.

    The one exception being Netflix's original content available only through Netflix streaming. Supposedly they're high-quality, and available only through Netflix, so I could see a number of people trying to access it through VPNs for that reason. Do House of Cards or Orange is the New Black have any region restrictions? I would guess no, it would be dumb for Netflix to do it, but nothing surprises me anymore.

  58. Re:I'll never understand those that pay to be pira by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe they use VPN by default to bypass deep packet inspection and content-based throttling?
    Maybe they use it to get a good route through another backhaul ISP when the routing tables are screwy.
    Different shows are just a fringe benefit.

  59. Hardcoded DNS server by tepples · · Score: 1

    From the other summary: "The Android application started to force Google DNS which now makes it harder to use DNS based location unblockers". So if it's directly accessing 8.8.4.4 and 8.8.8.8, it'll ignore your hosts file.

  60. Re:I'll never understand those that pay to be pira by iluvcapra · · Score: 1

    You can get pid grosses work-for-hire; work-for-hire doesn't necessarily mean "all up front." It just means the copyright is under the corporation's name. Almost everyone above the line is "work-for-hire," the only exception is a spec script, and even those writers will generally agree to designate their work as for-hire.

    Whatever they broadcast today, they could stream over TCP/IP tomorrow.

    The difference for Netflix isn't so much the Internet aspect as much as its the revenue model. They charge a flat rate for an all-you-can-eat service and this means the actual pay-through to the rights holders is a lot lower than VOD or premium cable. They want to make Netflix look like a premium cable service though, and they want to make Netflix appear relevant to people selling new content, and they want to position the Netflix brand and being for something more than just old episodes of St. Elsewhere and shitty Asylum movies, so they fund some premium content. But their premium content offerings are a potemkin village. And it's not like people like Starz haven't come to them with premium content, Netflix just won't change their model to offer premium-tier pricing, probably because it dilute their brand and would screw up their oh-so-precious user metrics.

    From the perspective of a filmmaker (the evil Media Mafia), it makes sense to squeeze Netflix to the bone because they really don't bring much to the table in terms of distribution -- they might get you eyeballs but they have a lot of trouble turning this into money, and the money they do get they try to keep every penny of.

    --
    Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.