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."
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.
Excellent. Today, I think I'll learn to play the piano, master a few vintage Atari arcade games and hit on Andie MacDowell.
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.
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.
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.
Apparently, movie studios have no interest in more paying customers.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
perhaps they could also show Slashdot how to block dupes.
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?
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.
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
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.
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).
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
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!
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.
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.
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.
Learn to love Alaska
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.
Learn to love Alaska
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.
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
It's Foxtel and Yahoo!7/Ninemsn/Ten, (and the other similar players) who are the instigators here.
And there's something really terrible about that sequence of events, but I don't know how to make it any better...
"Go to CNN [for a] spell-checked, fact-checked summary" -- CmdrTaco