Bell Media President Says Canadians Are 'Stealing' US Netflix Content

iONiUM writes: Today the Bell Media president claimed that Canadians are "stealing" U.S. Netflix, saying the practice is "stealing just like stealing anything else." She went on to say that it is socially unacceptable behavior, and "It has to become socially unacceptable to admit to another human being that you are VPNing into U.S. Netflix. Like throwing garbage out of your car window, you just don't do it. We have to get engaged and tell people they're stealing." Of course, I'm sure the fact that Bell Media profits from Canadian content has nothing to do with these remarks.

Comments

Socially Acceptable

[bigfinger76]

No, it's socially acceptable behavior. The industry may have disdain for it, but it is absolutely not frowned upon by society.

Re: Socially Acceptable

[Anonymous Coward]

He said it has to become socially unacceptable, not that it is currently.

Re: Socially Acceptable

[Mister Transistor]

The president of Bell Media is a woman.

Re:Socially Acceptable

[Austerity Empowers]

Not only not frowned upon, it's actively beneficial to all parties. The "problem" is market based pricing and region lockouts. That actively is socially unacceptable, unfortunately that doesn't really stop the idiots in question.

Re: Socially Acceptable

[nitehawk214]

Yeah, the summary is flat out wrong.

Re:Socially Acceptable

[Grishnakh]

Not only not frowned upon, it's actively beneficial to all parties. The "problem" is market based pricing and region lockouts.

Wrong, this "stealing" is detrimental to certain media companies who seek to profit from region lockouts and market based pricing. That's why they want to make it socially unacceptable to use a VPN to evade region lockouts.

Re: Socially Acceptable

[rsilvergun]

You wouldn't steal a policeman's helmet, shoot him, take a dump in the helmet, give it to his widow, then steal it back, would you?

Re:Socially Acceptable

[WillAffleckUW]

It's like smoking MJ.

It is socially acceptable.

But they want to control your ability to do it anyway.

Try getting a conviction for MJ anywhere on the West Coast. No jury would convict.

Same basic thing with VPNs due to stupid region locking.

Re: Socially Acceptable

[Anonymous Coward]

Those anti-piracy ads are getting really harsh.

Re:Socially Acceptable

[Jumunquo]

And how will they do that? Oh right, in the article, she says they are going to inform people, and then social opinion shall be so! Wow! She should run for president!

I agree that region locking is absolutely beneficial to media companies because it allows them to charge different prices to different markets. If you remember Econ 101, as you raise the price, your demand drops, but there is still demand. What if you could charge only those people that higher price? That's what media companies are trying to do. What if you could exclude other suppliers, e.g. control supply? That's also what they are trying to do. Unfortunately, it totally screws compatibility of playback devices and is generally just a pain to deal with. However, they want you to think it's socially unacceptable to try to get around it because they want to make more money. Okay, good luck with that, free speech and all.

Re:Socially Acceptable

[Grishnakh]

And how will they do that? Oh right, in the article, she says they are going to inform people, and then social opinion shall be so! Wow! She should run for president!

I think this is an excellent example of how utterly detached from reality these corporate executives all are.

Re: Socially Acceptable

[vandelais]

You wouldn't steal a policeman's helmet, shoot him, take a dump in the helmet, give it to his widow, then steal it back, would you?

Canada is America's hat.

Re:Socially Acceptable

[Darinbob]

Is it socially acceptable to claim that retrieving a service that you have paid for is "stealing"? Now it may be illegal under various rules, but it's not the same as stealing. It's not even piracy. It's the same as watching a DVD that you paid for in the wrong region, it may be illegal in the local country's laws but it's not stealing. So being fast and loose with the definitions of words undermines her message. Scolding her daughter that using VPN is stealing is instead teaching the daughter that mom doesn't know what she's talking about despite being the head of a muddled organization.

Re: Socially Acceptable

[davester666]

Yes, because when it becomes socially unacceptable, her bonus will be larger.

Re:Socially Acceptable

[LWATCDR]

You are paying for it.

Re:Socially Acceptable

[doccus]

OK , for those that don't know, all the netflix content offered for free on Youtube is blocked to Canadians ..Is that B**ch seriously saying that VPNing something that is offered for FREE is stealing? Obviously she's not talking about the paid content because we have to pay for it whether we access it from Canada or the US, so it must be the free content she's referring to... Apparently she "like, um don't want us Canadians drinking Lucky and watching free Netflix duiring the snowed in 3/4 of the year.. eh?"

Re:Socially Acceptable

[davecb]

Region lockouts are a restraint on trade. If they were enforced within the US, they'd be an illegal one.

Right.

[Anonymous Coward]

Tiniest violin in the world playing for this woman.

Re:Right.

[TsuruchiBrian]

That had better be a Canadian violin, or else you are stealing.

Re:Right.

[Em Adespoton]

That had better be a Canadian violin, or else you are stealing.

The curious want to know: what is she playing on the violin? And does she have licenses to a) have a copy of the music and b) perform in public?

Re:Right.

[flopsquad]

That had better be a Canadian violin, or else you are stealing.

And God help you if the sheet music isn't in French.

This is ridiculous

[ZorinLynx]

- You are paying for the content. The same amount a customer in the US would pay.

- You are watching the content.

Why is this suddenly "stealing" if you are in Canada? It's the same content, and the content makers are getting the same money.

Re:This is ridiculous

[Ryanrule]

no, you are paying for access to a content library, which is licensed by netflix for your region.

Re:This is ridiculous

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Apparently, the head of a company that produces Canadian TV is butthurt about the fact that Canadians will go to extra inconvenience to avoid being stuck with her product and gain access to the US market. Intellectually dishonest and largely nonsensical argument; but the motives are clear enough.

Re:This is ridiculous

[Penguinisto]

Because the packets crossed an imaginary geophysical line to get to you, that's why!

Now be a good citizen and support proper balkaniz^M taxatio^M patriotism!

Re:This is ridiculous

[Dunbal]

Why is this suddenly "stealing" if you are in Canada? It's the same content, and the content makers are getting the same money.

Because Bell Media which owns a television statement and has paid money for episodes of, say, Futurama, is pissed off that you can watch Futurama in Canada via Netflix and not only do they not get a cut, but they don't get to claim you as an ad viewer so they can bilk I mean charge their ad customers for you. They are a middleman, a dinosaur, and part of a broadcasting system that is increasingly irrelevant. If anyone is "stealing" it's these middlemen that produce no content and add no actual value, yet manage to slink their hand in your pocket every month.

Re:This is ridiculous

[PPH]

licensed by netflix for your region.

So, how did Bell Media get 'a pieca da action' (say it with a James Cagney accent) for Netflix sales in Canada?

"Dat's a nice little video service ya got there, buddy. Be a shame if sumtin' happened to it. Heh, heh."

Re:This is ridiculous

[Krishnoid]

Stealing does not work that way! Good night!

Re:This is ridiculous

[Dunbal]

Unfortunately it works the way the money says it does. I wouldn't be surprised if the Canadian government suddenly sees the light and is persuaded to enforce criminal charges on VPN streamers. After all, who knows what other dirty little tricks they are getting up to on their VPNs. They're probably all terrorists anyway.

Re:This is ridiculous

[CaptainDork]

Exactly this.

For a similar situation, see Australia and its indigenous entertainment industry vs American content.

Re:This is ridiculous

[Zalbik]

then you're probably doing something wrong.

I fail to see the immorality of my actions due to the fact that I circumvent a licensing agreement that I was not party to.

Great, so Bell paid for an "exclusive" license for NBC content in Canada. Why should their agreement have anything to do with what sites I access? Last time I checked, Bell Media is not the governing body of Canada.

For the end user this is neither a copyright violation nor a licensing violation. It may violate Netflix terms of service, but I do not believe that violating a websites terms of service is necessarily immoral.

Re:This is ridiculous

[Em Adespoton]

No, you misunderstand... Bell Media owns the Canadian equivalent of Hulu. They're trying to knock NetFlix Canada out of action, but then realized that most people are watching NetFlix US anyway.

Re: This is ridiculous

[0xA]

If they offered a similar level of service then I could understand but their service sucks. I can't get an HBO Now subscription because I'm in Canada and they sold the rights for their shows to Bell's Crave TV. Ok so I'll get me a Crave TV subscription but I can't do that either because I don't have a cable or satellite subscription with one of the Crave TV partners. So if I want to stream the Sopranos I have to switch cable providers, but all new cable boxes and hope there isn't some some other exclusive I'm missing Yeah..... Not gonna happen.

Re:This is ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately it works the way the money says it does

NO. Copyright infringement is not stealing anymore than perjury, murder, or fraud are stealing. It's a separate named offense that isn't even criminal in most cases (IDK about Canada specifically, but in most jurisdictions copyright infringement is only a civil offense unless the infringer is directly profiting, whereas stealing is always a criminal offense).

When someone calls copyright infringement stealing, you can immediately stop listening to that person. Just because something is illegal doesn't mean you get to call it "stealing". To quote another user, "Stealing does not work that way!"

Re:This is ridiculous

[CanadianRealist]

The way Bell sees it is that if you are paying Netflix and getting the content you are stealing from Bell. I think they don't like emphasizing the "stealing from Bell" part and just say "stealing" because they know they would be laughed at.

At the same time, I knew someone who signed up for a special offer from Bell and then had to call Bell every few months to get silly extra charges removed from their bill. I wonder what Bell would call it when people who don't pay enough attention to their monthly bills or don't take the time to call up and argue with them end up paying false extra charges on their bill. To make that clearer, what does Bell call it when they collect unexplained extra fees from customers beyond the required payments for the services provided? That wouldn't be stealing would it? Or just business as usual?

Re:This is ridiculous

[Mashiki]

Unfortunately it works the way the money says it does. I wouldn't be surprised if the Canadian government suddenly sees the light and is persuaded to enforce criminal charges on VPN streamers. After all, who knows what other dirty little tricks they are getting up to on their VPNs. They're probably all terrorists anyway.

Won't happen, it's a violation of s.2 of the Charter. On top of that this would fall into the realm of the CRTC, and the CRTC has been slapping Bell around for the last few months.

Re:This is ridiculous

[foreverdisillusioned]

no, you are paying for access to a content library, which is licensed by netflix for your region.

The key words are "by Netflix". Not "by me, the consumer."

There might be something in the EULA about agreeing to only use the service in the USA, but trying to sue using that clause is going to be pretty tough as the courts generally don't allow a bunch of bullshit gotchas being shoved in contracts of adhesion. (And revoking the right to use a product you've paid for the moment you step foot in another country is a pretty big gotcha.)

Re:This is ridiculous

[Livius]

Why is this suddenly "stealing" if you are in Canada?

Bell has been a monopoly or pseudo-monopoly for so long that they genuinely think that the law is whatever they happen to make up when someone isn't having money extorted from them.

it already is socially unacceptable

[turkeydance]

to pay for that which is free.

Good luck with that.

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

She is going to need a downright brilliant propaganda team to convince anyone that paying for netflix is 'stealing'; just because she doesn't like it.

There's really not much difference between using a VPN to gain access to US electronic markets and using a car to gain access to US malls. Is it 'stealing' when a Canadian drives across the border and buys something in the US? Even by the standards of self-interested bullshit from incumbent monopolist assholes, this is unimpressive work.

Re:Good luck with that.

[Quirkz]

Well, if they "throw garbage out the car window" on the way to the American mall, apparently that's like stealing. According to her analogy, at least.

Re:Good luck with that.

[fustakrakich]

Is it 'stealing' when a Canadian drives across the border and buys something in the US?

If they are evading the duty tax, the government might think so.

Re:Good luck with that.

[Dunbal]

Yeah you'd think these media giants would come out with their own streaming services instead of trying to fight the tide. Old-school top down TV is dead. People are sick of their shows being time-slotted according to some arbitrary station policy, are sick of having to wait weeks for the "next episode", are sick of not being able to re-watch a favorite episode and are sick of ads. Internet streaming is the future. Adapt or die.

Re:Good luck with that.

[Zalbik]

Yeah you'd think these media giants would come out with their own streaming services instead of trying to fight the tide

Uhhh...they have. That's the whole point. She's trying to paint US Netflix with the "it's illegal and immoral" brush so people sign up for Bell Media's streaming service.

Problem is she's wrong on both counts (it being neither illegal nor immoral).

Re:Good luck with that.

[Zalbik]

Is it 'stealing' when a Canadian drives across the border and buys something in the US?

If they are evading the duty tax, the government might think so.

No, the government would consider that tax evasion. Not the same thing at all.

Re:Good luck with that.

[swb]

If a Canadian drives to the US to buy products in a US store, don't they have to declare them to customs? I think they mostly don't care about the bottle of Coca-Cola in your cup holder, but if you buy something expensive they might charge you some kind of import duty and/or taxes on it.

I think this is the kind of argument the Bell Media person was more or less trying to make. She owns the exclusive rights to a basket of content in Canada. If someone is going overseas to acquire this content, they are doing basically the same thing that a physical shopper is doing when they go to the US to buy a product that some Canadian store also wants to sell.

I think the purpose of tarrifs and duties is to specifically hinder this kind of ad-hoc cross-border arbitrage. Of course it's well nigh impossible to do for intellectual content.

There are good arguments to be made that Bell Media is just greedy and using monopoly position to extract rent from Canadians.

But there may be other arguments -- Bell's costs may be higher for reasons outside their control (ie, higher taxes, weak exchange rate, etc).

Re:Good luck with that.

[fustakrakich]

Eh, lawyer talk. All sorts of people describe tax evasion as stealing. What's a metaphor?

Re:Good luck with that.

[pscottdv]

But when you fail to declare articles at customs, the officers don't call it "stealing." They call it "failure to declare articles at customs."

Re:Good luck with that.

[Em Adespoton]

If a Canadian drives to the US to buy products in a US store, don't they have to declare them to customs? I think they mostly don't care about the bottle of Coca-Cola in your cup holder, but if you buy something expensive they might charge you some kind of import duty and/or taxes on it.

I think this is the kind of argument the Bell Media person was more or less trying to make. She owns the exclusive rights to a basket of content in Canada. If someone is going overseas to acquire this content, they are doing basically the same thing that a physical shopper is doing when they go to the US to buy a product that some Canadian store also wants to sell.

I think the purpose of tarrifs and duties is to specifically hinder this kind of ad-hoc cross-border arbitrage. Of course it's well nigh impossible to do for intellectual content.

There are good arguments to be made that Bell Media is just greedy and using monopoly position to extract rent from Canadians.

But there may be other arguments -- Bell's costs may be higher for reasons outside their control (ie, higher taxes, weak exchange rate, etc).

Actually, NAFTA means that Canadians/Americans/Mexicans generally don't have to pay customs fees when crossing the border. What Canadians pay when coming back from the US is GST (federal tax) on the value of the products purchased outside the country.
And if a Canadian buys a NetFlix subscription, the GST is added on in Canada. So there's no theft from this angle.

Re:Good luck with that.

[luther349]

in most cases no you don't have to pay fees for goods you buy. even things as large as cars.

Re:Good luck with that.

[Cajun Hell]

She owns the exclusive rights to a basket of content in Canada.

I think maybe what's going on here, is that she thought she was buying the exclusive rights to sell baskets, not realizing that the seller had made the exact same with an American.

Bell needs to contact the seller and ask for their money back. Exclusivity was promised but not provided. If the seller doesn't issue refund, take 'em to court. Netflix would make a good witness for their case.

Re:Good luck with that.

[LinuxIsGarbage]

>I think the purpose of tarrifs and duties is to specifically hinder this kind of ad-hoc cross-border arbitrage

Duties on all items brought over for personal consumption/use is GST, or HST in areas having HST. This pegs the maximum legal of charge at 13%.

There is actually a parts of Canada outside Ontario. Here HST is 15%.

Re:Good luck with that.

[phorm]

a) You do have to pay the tax
b) You don't pay duties on items manufactured in the US. If it's an import to the US that is then resold, it's susceptible to duties.

Re:Good luck with that.

[Gramie2]

Yes, GST is certainly charged for anything you bring in over your duty-free allowance ($200 or so, depending upon how long you were outside Canada).

And cars have different restrictions. You have to be the owner of a car in the U.S. for a certain length of time before importing it to Canada (and perform certain modifications, like making sure that the headlights automatically go on when the car is running).

Re:Good luck with that.

[david_thornley]

I've also noted that large companies have no problems with cross-border arbitrage when it suits them, so I have no moral problems with ordinary people doing the same thing (although the legalities are not the same). If a company is allowed to hire a guy in India because he's cheaper than I am, why am I not allowed to buy stuff in India and enjoy it in the US? (Yes, I know; one saves large companies money and one gets them less revenue.)

Re:Good luck with that.

[rakslice]

If I bring a pallet of Coke across the border, I may owe the government some money, but I don't owe money to the local Coca-Cola distributor.

Hu ?

[aepervius]

Aren't the canadian paying for netflix ? So it would be more like canadian coming through the frontier and buying stuff then bringing them back to the US, thus making the US economy getting more money ? Or does she sees American coming in canada to buy prescription drug as "stealing" from canada ? What the heck is she smoking ?

Re:Hu ?

[amiga3D]

She didn't get her cut.

Re:Hu ?

[Jumunquo]

Yup, exactly, the problem is what she didn't get to smoke cuz no got her a share of the pot.

Just like

[Anonymous Coward]

driving across the border and buying a nice dinner in an Canadian restaurant is stealing, just don't do it!

Amnesty

[Anonymous Coward]

I suggest an amnesty period in which any Canadian can return stolen content without penalty.

Re:Amnesty

[foradoxium]

Please do! I'd appreciate it if those darn Candadians would return that stolen content. I logged onto Netflix yesterday and couldn't find a movie that I wanted to watch. I guess they ran out of copies.

Re:Amnesty

[bobbied]

I suggest an amnesty period in which any Canadian can return stolen content without penalty.

How about we just let them delete it..... Wouldn't that be faster? (As in already done once the movie is over...)

First sharing is stealing, now

[davydagger]

First they told us sharing was stealing. I let someone else listen to the album I have, and now I'm stealing. If that was bad enough

Now, if you buy something in a foreign country, and then bring it back to your home country its stealing, even if you legally bought it.

This is like how police charge people with "assaulting an officer" for bleeding on them after they beat the crap out of them at a traffic stop for doing 5 mph over the speed limit.

When you steal something you deprive someone else of using it. End of story.

Re:First sharing is stealing, now

[dmatos]

Actually, the guy who bled on the police officers was charged with "destruction of police property," since they couldn't get his blood out of their uniforms.

Re:First sharing is stealing, now

[Anonymous Coward]

And proving that argument wrong is trivial, because the following acts also "deprive" the developer of income they otherwise might have received:
-Having a game loaned to you by its owner
-Buying the game used at a secondhand store
-Not getting the game at all, in any form

Since none of those acts can be called "stealing" in spite of the fact that they deprive the developer of income they would have received if the game had been bought through the usual channels, that aspect cannot be said to be what makes the act theft.

So we're back to deprivation of use. If I steal a thing, the person who rightfully owns that thing doesn't have it anymore and can't enjoy it. If they still have their thing, then I can't possibly have stolen it.

That said, there are other arguments to be made that (or to call it what it actually is: copyright infringement) is morally wrong. But regardless of whether it's wrong, it isn't stealing, and never can be.

Re:First sharing is stealing, now

[jedidiah]

She is simply whining that you didn't buy it from the correct middleman. It's an obviously outdated notion these days. It doesn't even reflect reality 30 years ago never mind now.

She is simply emanating the death throes of a dying dinosaur.

Re:First sharing is stealing, now

[Zalbik]

The argument with piracy is that when you pirate a game (specifically in the sense of acquiring the game without paying the developers for it), you deprive the developers of compensation for their work, therefore it is stealing.

Agreed! But in this case, Canadians have paid Netflix, who has (presumably) compensated the content creators.

So is it "stealing" to deprive a middleman (Bell) compensation for their work, when I receive nothing from Bell?

Re:First sharing is stealing, now

[Zalbik]

No, the argument was: When you pirate a game (specifically in the sense of acquiring the game without paying the developers for it), you deprive the developers of compensation for their work. (emphasis mine)

This has two parts:
1) You acquire something
2) The developers are deprived of something.

In case (1) Game is loaned to you, the developer is deprived of nothing. The developer received compensation for the original sale.
In case (2) Buying the game used, the developer is deprived of nothing. The developer received compensation for the original sale.
In case (3) Not getting the game, you acquire nothing

I disagree that it is stealing, but for different reasons. If one accepts the definition that stealing is the acquisition of something without providing adequate compensation to the original owner, they piracy is indeed stealing.

Re:First sharing is stealing, now

[Anonymous Coward]

In case (1) Game is loaned to you, the developer is deprived of nothing. The developer received compensation for the original sale.
In case (2) Buying the game used, the developer is deprived of nothing. The developer received compensation for the original sale.

No, the developer is still deprived of the sale they would have gotten if I had bought the game new instead of borrowing or buying it used. One sale takes place, when two sales would otherwise have taken place.

You can argue that they're not really "deprived" after all since that second sale was only a potential sale that may or may not have actually occurred (and to which the developer is not entitled a guarantee), but that argument would also in turn apply to a pirated copy - which is my whole point.

If one accepts the definition that stealing is the acquisition of something without providing adequate compensation to the original owner, they piracy is indeed stealing.

Yes, but only because that definition is tailored specifically to include piracy. The point I am making is that it's a poor definition because it ends up encompassing acts that are clearly at odds with the commonly accepted idea of theft.

And I'll reiterate here, to avoid confusion and head off the most obvious strawman, that copyright infringement can be morally wrong without being theft. "Is it stealing?" and "Is it wrong?" are two different questions, and I'm only saying "no" to the first one.

Re:First sharing is stealing, now

[david_thornley]

You left out one thing we can do to deprive a developer of income they otherwise might have received: give the game a bad review. There's reasons why people don't like bad reviews of their work, but I haven't seen it called "stealing" yet. However, if you tell me that a game is bad, and I don't buy it, that's "lost income" as much as if I'd pirated it. (More, in fact; some people pirate as trying before buying, and will buy games they like.)

Re:First sharing is stealing, now

[davydagger]

hey look, I had the idea for posting on slashdot before you came along and stole my idea, I am going to need $100 per post in compensation.

Re:First sharing is stealing, now

[davydagger]

buying the game used the developer only makes one sale. That is exactly the same if a person buys the game and makes a copy for their friend.

Re:First sharing is stealing, now

[davydagger]

But giving the game a bad review, in the future is going to be considered stealing because you're causing other people to not buy it, which is exactly the fucking same as what they are doing now.

Part of tommorow's "Terms and Services" which for the last 3 years have been legally binding and a felony to breach is that you must only say and think positive things about the product.(drink your verification cans)

Lobotomy

[roc97007]

Sorry, citizen, it was not lawful for you to view that content. Nurse, scalpel please.

Please Change the Language

[Jaime2]

I wonder who you have to be to request to have the word "steal" changed so that it rolls in a behavior that you don't like. I hope the answer isn't "The President of Bell Media".

I suggest we all buy a dictionary, plop a bookmark at the word "steal" and mail it to him. Half a million dictionaries should be a poignant message.

Re:Please Change the Language

[CaptainDork]

Her.

Slander laws

[Dunbal]

How tough are slander laws in Canada? She just called legitimate Netflix subscribers thieves. I think she should be prepared to have some evidence of theft being committed, or face the consequences in court.

Re:Slander laws

[agm]

The sooner companies realise that IP addresses are not "in" a country the better. IP addresses are not designed to betray your physical location, and nor should they.

Re:Slander laws

[thegarbz]

Irrelevant. Canada is not the USA and they don't run around dragging pointless hurt feelings through the courts.

But really I have a question: What kind of a mindset makes people go from "someone generically called an action I do something it isn't in an un-targeted media" to "they should be sued"?

Don't you people have anything better to do?

Oh and please don't sue me for this question.

It's not stealing.

[danbob999]

It might be a copyright violation however, since the intent of the distributor is to offer the content only in the USA.

Re:It's not stealing.

[SpottedKuh]

Somewhat questionable since CCH Canadian Ltd v Law Society of Upper Canada, 2004 SCC 13, [2004] 1 SCR 339 (Supreme Court of Canada). Basically, fair dealing rights (similar to fair use rights in the US) are to be treated as "user" rights -- what should, from the point of view of the user, their reasonable rights be? Hard to argue that they shouldn't assume they can access the Netflix library of any country if they are paying, except by an argument that it is technologically difficult. But, that's still not a great counter-argument (that it is challenging is not, in itself, a great counter-argument to user rights)...

Re:It's not stealing.

[jfengel]

Is it the customer who's causing the copyright violation? Or is it Netflix, for feeding the content to somebody not coming from the US?

I would assume that Netflix would be considered sufficiently diligent in having attempted to feed it only to US-based IP addresses, but perhaps they have a case against the VPN provider? Or against the customer themselves, not for the copyright per se but for violating the terms of use (which presumably say "You will only use this from America, and not attempt to fool us with a VPN")?

Perhaps that would be the ultimate way to put it, that the customer is attempting to defraud Netflix, putting Netflix at risk of violating their licensing terms. I'm not sure what the law has to say about such cases, where you've got a chain of causation. It would certainly be wildly inefficient for the providers (all of them) to sue Netflix for violating the terms, then have Netflix attempt to recover the money by suing those who broke their own terms. But that would be, as far as I can tell, the logical chain of events.

Re:It's not stealing.

[penguinoid]

Since when does anyone give a crap how the vendor meant for you to use the thing they sold you?

Re:It's not stealing.

[Obfuscant]

It might be a copyright violation however, since the intent of the distributor is to offer the content only in the USA.

Netflix cannot legally sell you the content that is licensed for US distribution if you are in Canada. By circumventing the access controls (use of a VPN to masquerade as being in the US) you are obtaining content that you have not paid for. I think it is a fallacy to think that most of society would not call that "stealing", even if a smaller fraction would consider it significant. /. is a VERY self-selected population and sampling opinion here and extrapolating that to society as a whole is begging for error. It is the same kind of error that had the Chicago Tribune front page announce that Dewey beat Truman -- they did a telephone survey in a time when only rich people had telephones.

Now, Netflix could differentiate accounts so that Canadian customers could never access things they don't have a license to sell in Canada no matter what address they come in from.

The other "analogies" being floated, like it being stealing for a Canadian to eat in a US restaurant are nonsense, because the Canadian was in the US and paid for the food that was legally sold to him. The analogy of a US resident buying drugs in Canada is also equally flawed, since the Canadian pharmacy has authority to sell him the drugs, it is US law that interferes in bringing them over the border.

Re:It's not stealing.

[danbob999]

It's not "how" it's "where". Copyright holders of movies want to sell at different prices in different countries.
When you are paying for Netflix Canada, you are not paying for content exclusive to the US.

Re:It's not stealing.

[danbob999]

Stealing is taking something from someone. Violating copyright is another issue but it is not stealing. Also a rapist is not a stealer even if they are both evil.

Re:It's not stealing.

[agm]

A company can't do this with anything else we buy, so why should it be able to for digital content? If I buy a pair of jeans there is no way someone can stop me from taking them to another country.

The only rule being broken here is that you have to lie about your address when you sign up for US Netflix. That's not a criminal issue, it's a civil one.

Re:It's not stealing.

[St.Creed]

Netflix cannot legally sell you the content that is licensed for US distribution if you are in Canada. By circumventing the access controls (use of a VPN to masquerade as being in the US) you are obtaining content that you have not paid for.

You do need a working netflix account, a paid one, I assume? Or do Americans just get Netflix for free? In which case the content has been paid for. What's not been paid for is the extortionist in Canada that said to Netflix "I can make them bleed harder, if you let me - and we can split the difference!".

It used to be the case that tax collectors paid the King for the privilege and then got free reign to squeeze the populace for as much as they could. Quite a lot of uprisisings started that way. But tax collection where you took everything the people had, wasn't stealing, oh no - it was all nice and lawful. And when the people starved and poached a hare in the forest, they were hung - for theft. In the view that defends that position, stealing is when you withhold money from the people holding the guns. When you take stuff from the people on the wrong end of the gun, it's just business as usual.

Well, I don't subscribe to that opinion. The extortion racket by Bell is theft. Avoiding it is just good sense.

Re:It's not stealing.

[Zalbik]

you are obtaining content that you have not paid for

But the Canadians are obtaining content that they have paid for. They paid Netflix for content.

If that same Canadian takes their laptop to the US, and watches Netflix they receive US Netflix. I think it is a fallacy to think that most of society would consider accessing a service at one geographic location legal and at another "stealing"

Netflix could differentiate accounts so that Canadian customers could never access things they don't have a license to sell in Canada no matter what address they come in from.

Which is exactly why I do not consider the behavior "stealing". Netflix could cut down on 99% of this simply by tying Netflix.ca accounts to Canadian Netflix.

They choose not to. I fail to see how this becomes the moral responsibility of the Canadian populace.

Re:It's not stealing.

[danbob999]

The thing is that you are not buying Netflix in the US. You are buying it in Canada. And by using a VPN service, you are faking that you are travelling to the USA (where, by Netflix standards, you have the right to more shows). Netflix has distribution rights for the USA only on certain shows. By using VPN, you and/or Netflix are doing a copyright violation. Again, that is not stealing.

Re:It's not stealing.

[Obfuscant]

But the Canadians are obtaining content that they have paid for. They paid Netflix for content.

They cannot buy from Netflix that which Netflix has not sold them. Netflix cannot distribute in Canada things that they don't have a Canadian distribution right for. While you, and others, claim that "they paid for Netflix content", they only paid for the content that Netflix could legally sell them. And indeed, distribution of copyright material without a license is a crime.

A good analogy is a 15 year old walking into a convenience store, tossing $10 on the counter, and walking out with a case of beer. The store, while it can sell beer to some people, cannot sell beer to the minor. Because there was no sale it doesn't matter that there is a $10 bill on the counter, the minor is still stealing the beer. If the attendant takes the money to complete the transaction, he is committing a crime.

So, Netflix cannot sell Canadian residents access to the content that isn't licensed for Canada. You can't pay them for access to it, if you are in Canada.

Which is exactly why I do not consider the behavior "stealing". Netflix could cut down on 99% of this simply by tying Netflix.ca accounts to Canadian Netflix.

As you say, they choose not to do this. I can't say why, but I would guess that's because if that same account holder is in the US he can access that content because Netflix has the license to distribute it in the US -- where that Netflix customer now is.

They choose not to. I fail to see how this becomes the moral responsibility of the Canadian populace.

By itself, it doesn't. The "moral responsibility" comes in when a Canadian customer takes explicit steps to circumvent the access controls that Netflix does use to prevent distribution of material they don't have a license to distribute.

Yes, this is all "copyright", and /. people hate copyright for the most part. But it is the current law, and if you accept the idea of copyright at all (temporary monopoly on a work of art to support the production of art) then you have to accept the concept that the copyright holder can control where his works are sold. Otherwise what is the copyright other than a word? Once he sells one copy, that person can sell an infinite number of copies and pocket the profit that should go to the artist.

Re:It's not stealing.

[foreverdisillusioned]

By circumventing the access controls (use of a VPN to masquerade as being in the US) you are obtaining content that you have not paid for.

No no, it was paid for. That's the friggin' point. They are paying what the Americans are paying and receiving the same product. "I'm not authorized to sell you that" ==> not my problem.

The analogy of a US resident buying drugs in Canada is also equally flawed, since the Canadian pharmacy has authority to sell him the drugs, it is US law that interferes in bringing them over the border.

This analogy is actually spot-on: compare to a Canadian subscribing to Netflix in the USA while on vacation and then trying to watch it back at home. The Canadian drug situation is a case of the same phenomenon--anti-competitive market segmentation given (some degree of) protection by law.

I think it is a fallacy to think that most of society would not call that "stealing", even if a smaller fraction would consider it significant. /. is a VERY self-selected population and sampling opinion here and extrapolating that to society as a whole is begging for error.

We may have an echo chamber in here, but I think your perception of the population as a whole is pretty skewed. "Most people" are not in the habit of considering something to be theft just because some bullshit, counter-intuitive, anti-capitalistic laws says it is. I very much doubt that "most people" consider recording something on a DVR and fast-forwarding the commercials stealing, let alone buying and using the exact same product that Americans are using, for the exact same price.

Re:It's not stealing.

[TechyImmigrant]

I've said it elsewhere in this discussion. The Berne Convention is a treaty that protects the rights of individuals to import individual goods for personal use. It is the reason you can fly to Canada, buy a CD and fly home with it. There is a WIPO treaty that prevents signatory countries making laws that prevent that.

Re:It's not stealing.

[TechyImmigrant]

>Netflix cannot legally sell you the content that is licensed for US distribution if you are in Canada.

Netflix is selling it in the US. The Canadian is purchasing it in the US and importing it. The Canadian is legally protected in doing so.

Re:It's not stealing.

[Zalbik]

If I buy a pair of jeans there is no way someone can stop me from taking them to another country.

You have heard of tarriffs, have you not?

The issue I have here is that due to free trade between the US & Canada, It is perfectly legal to go to the US, fill up my trunk with cheap US-made DVD's and bring them across the border duty free.

Apparently if I bring those exact same bits across the border via Netflix, I am an shameful, immoral thief.

Re:It's not stealing.

[luther349]

no its not a copyright violation they are paying for netflicks and using a vpn to view it. it like buying a book and crossing the border no laws are broken. its a tos violation on Netflix end being they don't cover canada but do you really thing there going to enforce it and do nothing but lose paying subs.all that's going hear are the death screams of a dieing media just like the riaa did.

Re:It's not stealing.

[luther349]

the payed there taxes when they exchanged the currency to usd so even that's not the case. its just some random persion mad there not getting there cut from there dead media remind you of another entente in the usa that now totally irrelevant

Re:It's not stealing.

[Cajun Hell]

It's not "how" it's "where". Copyright holders of movies want to sell at different prices in different countries.

Oh, I get that they want to do that. I want you to buy ten of my widgets instead of one of them. I want you to tell your friends that my widget is the awesomest. I want you to parade my widget around a bunch of rich people so they'll want a widget too.

But if you don't give a crap what I want, and simply hand me the money for a single widget and then you don't tell your friends or show it off to rich people, I'm just going to have to live with that damn money that you put into my hand. I might angrily stare at the wad of cash, resenting that we did business because life as a bum was just fine since I never had my unrealistic expectations crushed. I might talk shit about you, "danbob999 bought my widget! Waaaah!" But I'm the one people are going to be laughing at.

Re:It's not stealing.

[danbob999]

And this is offtopic. You are free to fly to the US to watch US-only Netflix content.
That's not the same as paying Netflix Canada, in Canada, and use a VPN to get US content.

Re:It's not stealing.

[danbob999]

They are paying for Netflix Canada. The price is not the same as Netflix USA. It's not even in the same currency. Netflix is free to offer different content to different countries.

Re:It's not stealing.

[danbob999]

Except that the copyright holders are free to sell only to those in the US if they want to.
Just because you could theorically hack Netflix and get the service without even paying doesn't mean that it's not a copyright violation. So I really don't see what your point is.

Re:It's not stealing.

[TechyImmigrant]

Who implied that is what is going on. Netflix US is presumably getting paid for US content, by Canadians. Netflix is entirely capable of preventing a Canadian Netflix account working on a US server. If they don't limit access in that way then they are explicitly supporting the practice.

Re:It's not stealing.

[luther349]

they are but bell as a huge government sponserd monopoly there the Comcast of Canada so just like them they are crying because Netflix is cutting into there profits. people in canada use the usa version because Netflix Canada has a crippled library thanks to the likes of bell.

Re:It's not stealing.

[bobbied]

Since when does anyone give a crap how the vendor meant for you to use the thing they sold you?

Ever heard of a EULA? How about TERMS OF SERVICE? You may not care about them, but choosing to violate them and in this case YOU are infringing on somebody's copyright... I know they are unlikely to come after you in this case, but they *could* if they wanted too.

Re:It's not stealing.

[bobbied]

This only works for physical copies that you obtain legally. I'm guessing that a VPN violates the terms of service you agreed to when you signed up for Netflix, which means Netflix can come after you if it chooses. So when the copyright holder sues Netflix because you are using a VPN and causing Netflix to violate it's licensing terms, expect to get sued too...

Re:It's not stealing.

[bobbied]

You better bet they WILL TOS and sue their customers for this, should the copyright holders choose to sue them for distribution of content to areas they didn't have the right to.

Re:It's not stealing.

[Obfuscant]

"I'm not authorized to sell you that" ==> not my problem.

It is when you actively bypass the system that enforces the distribution limits.

This analogy is actually spot-on: compare to a Canadian subscribing to Netflix in the USA while on vacation and then trying to watch it back at home.

No, it is significantly different. The pharmacy can legally sell to someone standing at the counter. They cannot legally send the product to a US customer who buys by mail. Similarly, Netflix has a distribution right to someone in the US; once they have to ship it across the border they don't have that right.

We may have an echo chamber in here, but I think your perception of the population as a whole is pretty skewed.

Yes, I think there is an echo chamber, and all the voices have a view that is similar. When you get out into the real world, things are not so clear. For example, I dare say that a vast majority of people on /. think the TSA does nothing but theater. Yet polls of the public as a whole show a different opinion. Yes, it was a shock to me to hear someone ahead of me in the TSA line actually say "they're protecting us" and they were glad they were there, but I learned from it. /. is a monoculture in many respects, and extrapolating to the society as a whole is just nuts.

I very much doubt that "most people" consider recording something on a DVR and fast-forwarding the commercials stealing,

That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about people who have not paid for something deliberately bypassing access controls to get access to it. And I expect that a significant number of people do consider that to be illegal (if not specifically "stealing"), or at a minimum unethical. Not on /., however.

It isn't "buying and using the exact same product that Americans [sic] are using," because Netflix didn't sell it to them. Netflix cannot legally sell it to them.

Re:It's not stealing.

[foreverdisillusioned]

Similarly, Netflix has a distribution right to someone in the US; once they have to ship it across the border they don't have that right.

They aren't "shipping it across the border". They are "shipping" it to a server located in the United States; the customer, then, "ships" it across the border via the VPN. Essentially the same situation as with prescription drugs.

And I expect that a significant number of people do consider that to be illegal (if not specifically "stealing"), or at a minimum unethical. Not on /., however.

I don't know what kind of people you hang out with, then, but I don't think they're representative. I'm not saying they all agree with my or with ./'s ethical worldview, but the average person is definitely subscribes to the "I bought it. I should be able to do what I want with it" point of view. This is an intuitive and particularly American POV that you will find is extremely common on both the right and the left (ordinary people; not politicians.) For example, there is no and has never been a widespread belief that jailbreaking a phone is unethical.

Re:It's not stealing.

[luther349]

would be hard to sue someone outside the usa for usa infringement. what they would do is thretion to pull the content and Netflix would cancel there accounts. but if it was a real problem they would have acted by now its more nobody really cares.

Re:It's not stealing.

[foreverdisillusioned]

addendum:

It isn't "buying and using the exact same product that Americans [sic] are using," because Netflix didn't sell it to them. Netflix cannot legally sell it to them.

Like I said in my original post, this is incorrect. A Canadian [sic][1] can subscribe to Netflix while on vacation in the States and there is no issue with them watching using the hotel's wifi. Then they go back home with 20 days left on the subscription and, like someone with a bottle of cheap medicine in their pocket, want to take their lawfully purchased product with them and enjoy it. And they can, using a VPN. Netflix can sign all of the agreements it wants, but the large majority of the population will never view this scenario as theft.

Agreements that require a seller keep tabs on a customer's physical location (not merely the location of the server--as I stated elsewhere, with a VPN the packets *Netflix* addresses never leave the country) and actively deny them the already-purchased product when they venture outside invisible lines are ridiculous on their face.

1. "Canada" is an erroneous name that literally means "village". So if you're going to be pedantic about referring to Americans as Americans, why not also be pedantic about referring to Canadians as Villagers?

Re:It's not stealing.

[agm]

Using a VPN in this regard is not copyright violation (at least, not by the end user). I connect to a Netflix server using a Netflix account that is being paid for, I ask the server (via my client software) to start streaming me a movie and their server starts streaming it. If they were not allowed to stream it to me then they are breaking the rules, not I.

If you are not permiited to give me something that you possess and I ask you for it, who is at fault if you then give it to me? Surely you would be, not I.

IP address is not a sensible way to tell where someone is. I think Netflix use this mechanism because they are happy for people abroad to pay them a monthly fee to access their service. Why wouldn't they be?

Re:It's not stealing.

[TechyImmigrant]

>This only works for physical copies that you obtain legally.
Who says?

Re:It's not stealing.

[camperdave]

I can tune in several over the air American channels here in Canada. Since the intent of the distributor is to offer the content only in the USA, is it copyright infringement for me to view them?

Re:It's not stealing.

[Simulant]

Legal or not, false scarcity is an abuse of intellectual property rights, as are indefinite terms, lack of refunds, and the spamming of some IP all over the goddamn place while still expecting to 'own' control of it. I'm sure there's more but I still need coffee....

  Therefore, screw you lady. Cry me a river.

Re:It's not stealing.

[danbob999]

No, because:

1. Is is offered for free.
2. The broadcaster knows that waves cross the boundary, and didn't reasonably tried to block people outsite the US to receive the signal.

Re:It's not stealing.

[david_thornley]

Go ahead. Try to convince people that getting something you pay for in a freely agreed-on manner is stealing. I'll wait and snicker.

Re:It's not stealing.

[Obfuscant]

Like I said in my original post, this is incorrect. A Canadian [sic][1] can subscribe to Netflix while on vacation in the States and there is no issue with them watching using the hotel's wifi.

That's right. Netflix has distribution rights to what he's watching in the US.

Then they go back home with 20 days left on the subscription and, like someone with a bottle of cheap medicine in their pocket, want to take their lawfully purchased product

Lawfully purchased for distribution in the US. Not in Canada.

And they can, using a VPN.

No, because while the VPN makes it look like they are still in the US, they no longer are. And they're using the VPN specifically to avoid the Netflix distribution limits.

Netflix can sign all of the agreements it wants,

Which the customer also agrees to.

1. "Canada" is an erroneous name that literally means "village".

It is also the official name of the country on the northern border of the US. If it is "erroneous", that is an issue for the Canadian government to deal with, not me. "America" is not the official name of any country and is a valid reference to anyone who lives in any of the American continents -- north, south, or central.

Re:It's not stealing.

[foreverdisillusioned]

Lawfully purchased for distribution in the US. Not in Canada.

The distribution rights were negotiated by Netflix, not the consumer. Netflix can *try* to pass that restriction on to the consumer in the form of a EULA, but this is a highly theoretical approach, not a matter of settled law. Yes, courts have enforced *some* laws in a EULA, but unlike the contract Netflix has signed with the content producers, the EULA is a contract of adhesion. Courts tend to take a very dim view of jamming ridiculous restrictions into a contract of adhesion. The absolute most they might uphold is the right of Netflix to terminate customers who use VPNs. By no stretch of the imagination would they hold the customer liable for any sort of copyright violation. (If that is what you were implying at any point here.)

So, that takes care of the positive. As for the normative, if you believe that this anti-free market three ring circus is how our societies should operate (with full support from our courts), well, the best that can be said of you is you're in favor of crony capitalism. I'm still in search of a better pejorative to describe such people who not only believe that monopolies are good, but that they should be allowed to utterly destroy the law of one price. "Fascist" may be applicable here, but unfortunately it was never well-defined as an economic system and it has too many other connotations.

"America" is not the official name of any country and is a valid reference to anyone who lives in any of the American continents -- north, south, or central.

"Mexico" is not the official name of any country. Therefore, "Mexican" may refer to a citizen of the United Mexican States (the name of the country to our south), or a citizen of Mexico, Indiana or Mexico, Kentucky or Mexico, Maine or Mexico, Missouri or Mexico, Texas, etc.

I'm a tenacious pedant too but it's extremely stupid to attack a term that 1. is perfectly understood by all listeners and 2. has no widely understood substitute that isn't extremely wordy. I'm not going to say "citizen of the United States of America" every time, and neither is anyone else of importance.

LOL

[kuzb]

Bell, talking about "socially acceptable behaviour" and "theft".

Has anyone had a look at Bell Canada's pricing and services lately? They epitomize theft.

Re:LOL

[MagickalMyst]

+1

It's just like murder, if ya think aboot it, eh?

[Kevoco]

Leave to a paid mouthpiece to pull some bullshit argument from her arse and spray it through a microphone

Region locking is socially unacceptable

[Xelios]

Sounds to me like region locking content has become socially unacceptable in this globally connected age. These people are not only paying for the content, they're paying extra on top of it just to get around your arbitrary restrictions.

Maybe it's time for people like her to join us in the 21st century.

Demonizing for fun and profit

[HangingChad]

We don't like Canadians VPNing Netflix content it but it's really not that bad. So, let's call it stealing and make it sound worse than it is. Like calling abortion murder. Demonize the things you don't like.

Re:Demonizing for fun and profit

[Gramie2]

Bad analogy. If you truly believe that a baby is a living human being before it is born then the intentional destruction of that life is murder, just like if you killed the baby after it was born. Accept the first premise, and the second logically follows.

"stealing just like stealing anything else"

[duckintheface]

And this is the problem with industry thinking. It is NOT stealing. Copyrights, patents, and trademarks are separate types of law. They are NOT property law. If they were, we would not need a separate part of the Constitution (Art. 1, Sec 8) to define what they mean.

Violating copyright is NOT stealing because the copyright is NOT property. The term "intellectual property" is an intentional obfuscation designed to blur the difference between universal ideas of property ownership and the proposition that ideas can be owned. Ideas can NOT be owned. Copyrights are just temporary monopolies for the purpose of encouraging the arts and sciences. They do NOT exist because "Hey, that's mine". They do not exist for the benefit of the copyright holder. They exist for the benefit of society as a whole. Don't believe me? Read Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution.

Re:"stealing just like stealing anything else"

[msauve]

" Don't believe me? Read Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution."

I don't believe you when you imply that the US Constitution applies to Canada, which is what the article covers. You'd do better to refer to the Statute of Anne, as Canada is a Commonwealth country.

Re:"stealing just like stealing anything else"

[CaptainDork]

How confusing.

Lawsuits are legion that involve copyright where specific damages have been used for the purposes of sentencing in the form of, "The copyright owner would have made $x ..."

Re:"stealing just like stealing anything else"

[Zalbik]

And this is the problem with industry thinking. It is NOT stealing

No, the problem in this case is not only is it NOT stealing, it is not actually illegal.

Accessing US Netflix outside of the US may break terms of use (which Netflix would have a VERY hard time winning a lawsuit over), but does not currently break any Canadian laws. No more than using a VPN to access any other website.

This whole thing is bloody retarded. In this case, Canadians:
- Pay for the content
- Pay for the VPN to access the content

At least if nothing else, this has convinced me to NEVER sign up for any Bell services.

Re:"stealing just like stealing anything else"

[msauve]

The GP is confused, because one can own a copyright. What is not owned is the work the copyright covers - the copyright only allows the copyright owner to control copying of the work. A copy can be owned by others. e.g., you probably own some books, which you're able to buy, own and sell, but not copy.

Re:"stealing just like stealing anything else"

[mi]

And this is the problem with industry thinking. It is NOT stealing.

In that case, NSA, Google, Facebook et al. collecting our data aren't "stealing" anything either.

They are NOT property law.

Distinction without difference. The infringer gets something for nothing — like a thief. The copyright holder loses something — like a theft-victim.

The term "intellectual property" is an intentional obfuscation

Had the Commandments been the "living and breathing document", that certain folks like to pretend the US Constitution is, something like "thou shall not enjoy artwork against the artist's wishes" would've been found in it by now.

Ideas can NOT be owned.

Why not?! Inasmuch as anything can be owned, why can't ideas be? The deed on my house is just as much a "piece of paper" as anything granting rights to a song. If you can download a song against its owner's wishes, why can't you move into my home while I'm away and change the locks? It is (or ought to be) just as socially (un)acceptable...

They do not exist for the benefit of the copyright holder. They exist for the benefit of society as a whole. [...] Read Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution.

There is nothing in the article affirming your Socialistic view, that my idea exists for "society as a whole". All the section says on the matter is: "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;"

So, you said an untruth (most likely, lied): the Constitution acknowledges the benefit the authors may derive from their writings and discoveries and leaves it to Congress to develop a system to reward them. Which Congress did — long ago — and it is referred to as "intellectual property".

Re:"stealing just like stealing anything else"

[duckintheface]

Yeah, judges are sloppy sometimes. Copyright "holder" would be a better term. In our super-capitalist country, people are conditioned to think in terms of property and ownership. The common good gets short shrift.

Re:"stealing just like stealing anything else"

[pr0fessor]

Canadian Grocers aren't going to call their customers thieves for going somewhere else to get something they are not providing they are going to see it as an opportunity to expand their business and get those products for their customers.

The problem is companies that want to regulate and make deals to lock customers into regional services and pricing that do not provide what the customer wants and then criminalize doing business elsewhere in order to protect their bottom line.

Re:"stealing just like stealing anything else"

[FredGauss]

"At least if nothing else, this has convinced me to NEVER sign up for any Bell services."

And of course this "moral stand" has nothing to do with subscriptions for Bell services...
or maybe the fact that Bell is actively trying to gain traction for their own brew of Netflix (CraveTV) is mere coincidence.

Re:"stealing just like stealing anything else"

[dysmal]

Try calling Bell for service some time. Their call centers will make you realize that Bell truly is a 4 letter word!!!

Disclaimer: I'm an American and had to work with Bell on a project. I only have the likes of Comcast, TWC, and AT&T to compare Bell to.

Re:"stealing just like stealing anything else"

[david_thornley]

Let's see...the NSA isn't stealing anything (as far as I know). They're doing a variety of other things I consider immoral, and likely illegal.

In the case we're talking about, nobody's getting anything for nothing. Canadians are trying to buy NetFlix just like people in the US do. You're copy-pasting your thinking where it doesn't belong.

You don't seem to understand much of anything else, either, but this should be enough to start with.

Re:"stealing just like stealing anything else"

[Rakarra]

In that case, NSA [extremetech.com], Google [quora.com], Facebook [pcworld.com] et al. collecting our data aren't "stealing" anything either.

Absolutely correct, that is not stealing.

The infringer gets something for nothing — like a thief

"Getting something for nothing" is not, and never has been stealing. Taking something from someone, such that they no longer have full use of it, is.

Inasmuch as anything can be owned [wikipedia.org], why can't ideas be?

Because if someone else has that idea, you still have that idea. For someone to "steal" your idea, they would have had to hit you over the head hard enough that you'd never be able to remember it. Someone copied your idea. He/she didn't steal it.

There is nothing in the article affirming your Socialistic view, that my idea exists for "society as a whole." [...] the Constitution acknowledges the benefit the authors may derive from their writings and discoveries and leaves it to Congress to develop a system to reward them

The Constitution acknowledges the benefit the authors derive from copyright because the Framers felt it was the system that would encourage the most works to be available to the public. The public. They realized that if there was no copyright, there would be little incentive (or ability) to create, and so the public would lose out entirely. Copyright is there to incentivize creation. It's also why they put limitations on the length of copyright, where it would expire after a set time, as opposed to physical property which can be held and passed down through generations forever. This is because copyright is a balance, a compromise. A copyright gives the creator more rights than he would naturally have, and it does that by reducing the rights of everyone else. Your natural ability to write whatever you want, to copy whatever you want, to say whatever you want. Because putting such a limitation on the public is a pretty big deal, they need to be getting something out of the bargain, and they do -- more content. But let's be clear that it IS a compromise, that there needs to be a balance between those two interests.

So save the "Socialist" bullshit, because copyright is socialist. It is a government-granted and enforced monopoly against what you and I can naturally do on our own: to write, read, and say what we wish. There are certainly reasons for those limitations, but just remember that it's the heavy hand of government that makes it possible.

Re:"stealing just like stealing anything else"

[Zalbik]

In that case, NSA [extremetech.com], Google [quora.com], Facebook [pcworld.com] et al. collecting our data aren't "stealing" anything either.

They aren't "stealing" anything. How can one "steal" information? That's like stealing the number 4 or the color blue.

Distinction without difference. The infringer gets something for nothing — like a thief. The copyright holder loses something — like a theft-victim.

There's an obvious difference. The "infringer" gains something different than the copyright holder loses.

If I steal your car, I gain a car and you lose it.

In this case, I gain access to view a piece of content. The copyright holder only "loses" the ability to sell that content to me through a different channel.

If you can download a song against its owner's wishes, why can't you move into my home while I'm away and change the locks [credit.com]? It is (or ought to be) just as socially (un)acceptable...

That's just silly. How exactly does downloading a song "change the locks" on the song?

I agree there should be copyright terms. These promote the health and innovation of the arts. I disagree that terms should be unnecessarily restrictive.

In this case, the distinction that "you are permitted to view this content from this specific pile of dirt, but not from that pile of dirt over there" seems unnecessarily restrictive.

Re:"stealing just like stealing anything else"

[Em Adespoton]

I'd rather go about this a different way. If the president of Bell Media wants to call infringement stealing, I'd like to compile a list of things stolen by Bell Media.

If the definition of "stealing" is that loose, we can surmise that the president of Bell Media:

Has stolen US programming -- it is also available from Bell Media under license, which steals from the US: after all, residents can step over the border and legally view the programming, so Bell Media is stealing viewers from the US.

Has stolen broadcasting technologies from people everywhere -- You know that TCP/IP? It wasn't invented in Canada. You stole it.

Has likely stolen all sorts of documentation -- a quick pass through the office would be enough for me to find multiple cases of infringement.

Just because Bell Media has come to an agreement with US distributors of media doesn't mean that individuals have to go through Bell, no matter what Bell ExpressVu was able to pass into law regarding satellite broadcasts.

Re:"stealing just like stealing anything else"

[BitterOak]

Accessing US Netflix outside of the US may break terms of use (which Netflix would have a VERY hard time winning a lawsuit over), but does not currently break any Canadian laws.

I wish that were true but it isn't. You'd be breaking copyright law. You're importing copyrighted content from someone without the legal authority to distribute said content in Canada. It isn't unusual for different companies to have exclusive rights to distribute in various countries, and the U.S. Netflix has no rights to distribute this copyrighted content in Canada. Therefore, in transferring the data from your VPN in the U.S. to your computer in Canada, you're copying copyrighted content which you have no authorization to do. That's illegal. I'm not saying I agree with this law, but it is wrong to say that what you're doing isn't illegal.

Re:"stealing just like stealing anything else"

[metrix007]

The infringer gets something for nothing â" like a thief. The copyright holder loses something â" like a theft-victim.

The 'infringer' often has no legitimate means to otherwise access the content. Canadian Netflix has a 10th of what US Netflix does, so what is a better solution here, if the 'infringer' wants to stream something that Bell refuses to make available?

The copyright holder only potentially loses something. That's key. If they made it available on Canadian Netflix they wouldn't be losing anything, and if it wasn't possible to watch over a US based VPN they may not pay for it at all. I know I wouldn't.

Re:"stealing just like stealing anything else"

[TechyImmigrant]

> You're importing copyrighted content from someone without the legal authority to distribute said content in Canada.

I thought both the US and Canada were signatories of the Berne Convention. So you're good to go paying for and importing individual works for personal consumption.

It's not only not illegal. It's protected by treaty.

Re:"stealing just like stealing anything else"

[PopeRatzo]

This whole thing is bloody retarded. In this case, Canadians:
- Pay for the content
- Pay for the VPN to access the content

Wait, let me get this straight: they're paying for the Netflix? Then how could it possibly be "stealing"?

Maybe I'm a little messed up because I had a few beers at a softball game this afternoon, but where does the stealing part come in again?

Re:"stealing just like stealing anything else"

[vux984]

You're importing copyrighted content from someone without the legal authority to distribute said content in Canada.

Hence the VPN. They are delivering the content to the US. The Canadian is then transporting it across the border, for person use (not redistribution).

This is exactly as illegal as buying a DVD and a book from Sam's in the states, and then driving it home to Canada with you across the border. Which is to say, "not even slightly illegal".

Re:"stealing just like stealing anything else"

[Jumunquo]

Correct, the NSA, Google, and Facebook are collecting our data. They are not stealing. In the case of the NSA, there might be 4th amendment issues, but that's illegal search and seizure (which might be worse) but it's not stealing. We have different words, phrases, and laws with different punishments for a reason. You used the phrase, "like a thief." In other words, you yourself admit that it's not. To continue to call it what's it's not to embellish the effect is what journalism calls sensationalism - it's a sort of propaganda. Also, you gave the funniest example of why it's like a thief - that it's because the person got something for nothing. So ... if I get a free sample at Costco, I'm a thief?

Re:"stealing just like stealing anything else"

[Zalbik]

Many lawyers disagree with you (see the section headed "But is faking a U.S. IP address illegal?")

Specifically:
"Prof. Fewer said he doubts that the use of a VPN qualified as the breaking of a digital lock on a device designed to prohibit unauthorized copying, since it merely cloaks a user’s IP address."

Re:"stealing just like stealing anything else"

[Mister Transistor]

It can't even be imagined as "stealing" in my mind. Since it's paid for in the U.S., I fail to see the difference if you had driven to the U.S. and purchased something to take back to Canada. it might be "smuggling" if anything, by way of avoiding paying whatever bullshit tariffs Canada might be able to levy, if there even are any that apply.

Re:"stealing just like stealing anything else"

[mi]

The 'infringer' often has no legitimate means to otherwise access the content.

How is this relevant? Is access to American entertainment a Canadian's right? Is it a human right — of the kind given to us by our creator?

If they made it available on Canadian Netflix they wouldn't be losing anything

That's not for the infringer to decide. My not using whatever is in my pocket does not entitle you to it.

Re:"stealing just like stealing anything else"

[bobbied]

You're importing copyrighted content from someone without the legal authority to distribute said content in Canada.

Hence the VPN. They are delivering the content to the US. The Canadian is then transporting it across the border, for person use (not redistribution).

This is exactly as illegal as buying a DVD and a book from Sam's in the states, and then driving it home to Canada with you across the border. Which is to say, "not even slightly illegal".

Not exactly the same thing and by law it *could* be illegal to buy a DVD in the US and then import it into Canada depending, but moving a physical copy of a work which you rightfully purchased for personal use is usually an exception.... But remember, when you do Netflix over a VPN, you are not importing a physical disk, but the logical data. It's very likely you are violating the terms of your Netflix subscription as well as infringing on the copyright holder's rights to control where the work can be streamed. As this is a civil law thing and not a criminal law thing, you might not be arrested for a crime, but the copyright holder can sue you to recover damages.

Re:"stealing just like stealing anything else"

[tepples]

What is not owned is the work the copyright covers

"Ownership of a work" is common shorthand for ownership of copyright in a work, especially when contrasted with ownership of a copy.

Re: "stealing just like stealing anything else"

[bobbied]

Awh come on people... Copyright infringement is a CIVIL law issue not a criminal offense.

So the police may not be knocking down doors to stop you... However, they may be knocking ON your door to serve you with the lawsuit brought by the copyright owners and later assisting in the confiscation of damages when you have a judgment entered and have to pay.

Re:"stealing just like stealing anything else"

[SillyHamster]

Accessing US Netflix outside of the US may break terms of use (which Netflix would have a VERY hard time winning a lawsuit over), but does not currently break any Canadian laws. No more than using a VPN to access any other website.

Why would they sue you when they can just disable your account and end the business relationship?

Re:"stealing just like stealing anything else"

[AK Marc]

How do you steal a widget if the law in the location you stole it from defines it as not stealable? So yes, the US law matters when talking about stealing US things.

And commwealth has nothing to do with law, so the Statute of Anne may or may not apply. I'm in a commonwealth country, and it doesn't apply. So your corrections are incorrect. "Member states have no legal obligation to one another". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...

Re:"stealing just like stealing anything else"

[bobbied]

Because the copyright holder didn't agree to let Netflix stream their content in Canada. You are using content in a way which is NOT authorized by the people who hold the copyright.

This isn't "illegal" as to mean "criminal". You are not committing a crime when you do this, but you ARE infringing on the copyright holder's rights and as such they CAN (if they choose to) sue you for damages in civil court. You won't go to jail for this, but you might have to pay damages.

BTW, buying a DVD/BluRay in the states and then carrying it into Canada *might* be infringing too, however it's unlikely that a copyright holder would care as long as you are not importing multiple copies in order to sell them, bypassing distribution agreements they may have made.

Re:"stealing just like stealing anything else"

[tepples]

The 'infringer' often has no legitimate means to otherwise access the content.

Why can't the viewer travel to United States soil, view the video, and travel back to Canada? The owner of copyright in an audiovisual work is not obligated to make viewing the work convenient.

Re:"stealing just like stealing anything else"

[tepples]

The agreement was that you would not only pay the fee but also pay it from United States soil and remain on United States soil while viewing works available through the service. What makes such a contract invalid?

Re:"stealing just like stealing anything else"

[vux984]

But remember, when you do Netflix over a VPN, you are not importing a physical disk, but the logical data. It's very likely you are violating the terms of your Netflix subscription

No question its a violation of my netflix subscription. But that is not even slightly illegal. They are welcome to terminate me as a customer if they don't want my money.

as well as infringing on the copyright holder's rights to control where the work can be streamed

Nope. Its being streamed in the USA. Once it hits my VPN its on my private network. The copyright holder has no streaming rights on the flow of information from the point at which i receive the stream to the point at which i view it. Just as I don't need a streaming license to transfer the data from the computer along a vga cable to the TV.

but the copyright holder can sue you to recover damages.

Sure. What damages though? I paid them for content that wasn't otherwise available; that I consumed in the privacy of my home. What material harm are they going to show the court exactly?

Re:"stealing just like stealing anything else"

[PIBM]

I purchased and installed those copper wires you insensitive clod!

Re:"stealing just like stealing anything else"

[LinuxIsGarbage]

It can't even be imagined as "stealing" in my mind. Since it's paid for in the U.S., I fail to see the difference if you had driven to the U.S. and purchased something to take back to Canada. it might be "smuggling" if anything, by way of avoiding paying whatever bullshit tariffs Canada might be able to levy, if there even are any that apply.

You actually set up a Netflix Canada account, and pay in Canadian Dollars. Connect by VPN (or DNS proxy), and Netflix thinks you're "visiting" the US. Regardless of where you registered your account, Netflix will provide the content library of the country you appear to be in. Netflix will do this no problem even though you were just in Canada moments earlier, and even though you apparently travel to the states for months at a time, and are coming from the same IP as hundreds or thousands of other Canadians (and other international customers).

Netflix very much turns a blind eye to this. There's no way they don't know about how many people are bypassing region locks, but they turn a blind eye because they know people will pay to sign up for the crappy Canadian content, with the intention of VPNing into the US content. They try to do the bare minimum to make content creators think that they are trying to block it, without really doing anything.

Myself, I use TVUnblock It's free, and it's just a DNS setting. To get it to work on Chromecast, I set the router DNS to TVUnblock, and I set a firewall on the router to prevent Chromecast from connecting to Google's DNS servers (8.8.8.8, 8.8.4.4) causing it to fall back on the router's DNS settings.

Re:"stealing just like stealing anything else"

[bobbied]

But remember, when you do Netflix over a VPN, you are not importing a physical disk, but the logical data. It's very likely you are violating the terms of your Netflix subscription

but the copyright holder can sue you to recover damages.

Sure. What damages though? I paid them for content that wasn't otherwise available; that I consumed in the privacy of my home. What material harm are they going to show the court exactly?

I didn't say it was LIKELY they would, only that they *could* if they choose too. However, I can think of ways they could claim damages. If the content was licensed to another service in your area and you got out of paying the subscription fees to this other service (and thus affecting their revenue) by using your VPN. I don't expect they could claim all that much, so it's not likely worth their while, but they *could*....

Re:"stealing just like stealing anything else"

[Whiteox]

and the U.S. Netflix has no rights to distribute this copyrighted content in Canada.

I think you've got the PC before the Mountie here. The only blame that Netflix has is they make it very easy to illegally distribute geolocked licensed content since a user registration in any country is also a world wide registration. So Netflix themselves do not differentiate the user from Canada or NZ or Australia or UK from US users as long as it delivers content to a US IP. Now according to recent Netflix (3rd party) reports, they want to provide the same content everywhere but are not allowed to, not because of copyright, but local licensing agreements.
The content provider sells licences to a cable/satellte company in one country, but sells the same series to Netflix in another country. Thus the problem.
So it does come down to PC and the ethical issue of supporting your local cable/sat provider or stuff them and vpn to the content you want when you please.

Re:"stealing just like stealing anything else"

[LinuxIsGarbage]

The agreement was that you would not only pay the fee but also pay it from United States soil and remain on United States soil while viewing works available through the service. What makes such a contract invalid?

No. I setup a Netflix Canada account. A courtesy they provide to all Netflix users is to provide the content library of the region you appear to be in, regardless of where you registered your account. They just think me, and thousands of other Canadians, and UK, and Australians, are just visiting the USA for months at a time, from the same IP.

Re:"stealing just like stealing anything else"

[tepples]

Thank you for clarifying the actual terms. I am neither a Netflix subscriber nor an international traveler and have absorbed the terms by pop-cultural osmosis, apparently incorrectly. Let me rephrase: The agreement was that you would not only pay the fee from wherever you are but also remain on United States soil while viewing works exclusive to the United States. What makes such a contract invalid?

Re:"stealing just like stealing anything else"

[msauve]

Whoosh. The GP was arguing not law itself, but the rationale behind the law. The history behind the Statute of Anne is part of the legal heritage of Commonwealth countries. The Statute of Anne is no longer the law even in England.

Re:"stealing just like stealing anything else"

[dryeo]

Of course you can copy a work such as a book, a Canadian (Federal court IIRC) judge even said so when ruling that photocopying machines are legal. You just aren't allowed to distribute it, especially for money where the police might even get involved. But at least in Canada your free to make copies of works that you own. Of course this government did pass a law making it illegal to break any type of copy protection (with an exception for VHS tapes)

Re:"stealing just like stealing anything else"

[dryeo]

Heard an interview with Michael Geist (sp?) who is probably the expert on Canadian copyright law and he pointed out that whether legal or not is a grey area currently and a Canadian court would likely rule it legal but who knows until the courts rule including appeals. (The Canadian courts have not been sympathetic to copyright holders when it comes to personal copying which is why I can borrow music from you and make legal copies and then give you back your music,)

Re:"stealing just like stealing anything else"

[AK Marc]

Whoosh. Despite Canada being in the Commonwealth, the Stature of Anne has as much relevance to Canadian law as the US Constitution does. So correcting to it was not a valid correction.

Re:"stealing just like stealing anything else"

[vux984]

I didn't say it was LIKELY they would, only that they *could* if they choose too.

I never debated whether it was likely or not. I fully agree they can sue me. Anyone can sue anybody at any time for any reason.

However, I can think of ways they could claim damages. If the content was licensed to another service in your area and you got out of paying the subscription fees to this other service (and thus affecting their revenue) by using your VPN.

Then the local movie theatre that has rights in my city can claim damages if I drive to another city and use another theatre by using my car! I'm affecting their revenue1!1!

I don't expect they could claim all that much, so it's not likely worth their while, but they *could*....

Sure. They could claim all kinds of utter nonsense. But what could they actually make stick. (Canada's actually got pretty consumer friendly laws for non-commercial personal use infringment. And that's assuming its even infringment... since I'm actually paying for it... even infringment isn't established.)

Re:"stealing just like stealing anything else"

[dryeo]

Always been a right to access American entertainment. Turn on the TV and point the antenna south worked most of my life and the habit was started by my creators who did the same thing.
Are you saying I don't have the right to point my antenna anywhere I like? Or in todays world, pay netflix for content and use a relay to get that content?

Re:"stealing just like stealing anything else"

[AK Marc]

It's very likely you are violating the terms of your Netflix subscription

Nope. It's 100% legal, and not a violation of any part of the Netflix agreement (at least the last one I read, I don't re-read all the changes).

the copyright holder can sue you to recover damages.

No, they can't. It's explicitly legal for me to drive to another country, buy a DVD and import it for personal use. In this case, I'm using a re-mailer service to deliver the DVD to a different address, but it's still imported for personal use, and still legal.

Re:"stealing just like stealing anything else"

[Darinbob]

There is also a great deal of inconsistency regarding copyright with various media. Physical books you can sell or regift or scribble in the margins or read it at any time and in any place. But you can't make a duplicate of it, or of a significant portion, and then give that duplicate to someone else. You're not even restricted from photocopying for your persoanl use. However a digital book may forbid all this, no resales, no gifting, no conversion to a more readable format, etc. Same with digital movies, games, music, etc. And in corner cases where the copyright law may allow this (making a backup), there are side rules in the US against circumventing any manufacturer supplied digital protections.

Re:"stealing just like stealing anything else"

[LessThanObvious]

If they are using someone else's account it's potentially theft of services of the U.S. company Netflix. If they are paying for the service on their own account then where is the problem?

Re:"stealing just like stealing anything else"

[Darinbob]

This only applies because this is digital content. Are you prevented from buying a book in a US airport and then continue reading it after the plane lands in Canada? No. You can't technically watch the DVD of a movie outside the region it is for, but there are no restrictions on watching your own copy on film as long as no one else sees it. The laws and restrictions are very different and inconsistent between digital and physical goods.

This is because cryptography and DRM has given copyright holders all sorts of powers they never had before. No more watching movies at the wrong time, no more giving your games to your friends to play when you're done with them, you can even change your mind and revoke all copyright to your works or even grab back those books that you accidentally sold with a push of the button. None of that is feasible with physical copies without devolving into a totalitarian state. But they manage to get the government to agree with their warped world view by crying that someone is stealing their stuff.

Re:"stealing just like stealing anything else"

[Darinbob]

But the US DMCA law forbids you from making use of that treaty if you have to circumvent digital protections. "Digital" has become a new category of items that sit above copyright law.

Re:"stealing just like stealing anything else"

[Darinbob]

Netflix itself doesn't care, except so far as it has made agreements with the media big boys that they will not show their programs in Canada. The reason Netflix would sue over this is to prevent the MAFIAA from sending out Bruno to break some kneecaps.

Re:"stealing just like stealing anything else"

[Darinbob]

They have fewer words in the Canadian language. For convenience, all civil violations regarding copyright issues are called "stealing" there.

Re:"stealing just like stealing anything else"

[Darinbob]

And congress along with the courts have a system of copyright that allows for various forms of fair use. You may make a backup copy for your own personal use, you may read your book at any time of day, you may reference some quotes from it, when you have finished the book you may sell it to someone else or present it as a give, etc.

EXCEPT if these are digital, then you are not allowed to do anything at all with the product you purchased without permissions. This is because congress failed to see that digital works should be just like physical works and instead were misled into thinking that hackers could do evil things if they weren't stopped. So you may technically be allowed to make a backup copy of your digital movie for your own personal use, but in order to do so you must first break the law. So in essence the DMCA has trumped copyright law.

Re:"stealing just like stealing anything else"

[KGIII]

A company succeed with having criminal charges filed (I do not recall the outcome but I know that it was linked here on this site) for failing to adhere to the ToS. The charge was unauthorized use of a computer system (as they were in violation of the ToS they were not authorized to use it, that was the mentality/justification for the charges). I do not recall the name of the company but it was linked here on this site and, yes, it got the comments you would expect it to get. I wish I could find it so that people do not think I am more insane than they already think I am.

Re: "stealing just like stealing anything else"

[KGIII]

Then, if you delete your browser's history, they can charge you with a criminal offense! Oh the fun never stops... Never. Really. It never stops.

Re:"stealing just like stealing anything else"

[KGIII]

I get Canadian TV OTA as I am right near the border. I do not watch it but I have. I wonder what kind of legal ramifications are in store for me. The reverse is also true. I have dual citizenship and often go to Canada. I frequently go up and visit some friends that are right on the border, I generally stay at a small motel for a few days/a week when I do this. I do have internet access at the motel but it is fairly slow which makes streaming problematic so I watch TV and their TV sets are all setup to receive OTA broadcasts from Canada and the United States! I also bring movies on disk or already ripped to my HDD... I must surely be in violation of something... As I have dual citizenship what if I pack my stuff and move to Canada? Do I have to leave all of my movies and, presumably, leave my many many many music CDs behind as well? I cross the border a lot. I have had them paw through my stuff more than once. I have had them paw through it in both directions. They have never, at least not yet, complained about me bringing media back and fourth. I have even bought media in Canada (and in the US) and brought it back!

I hope Border Control does not get any ideas and decide to build their media collection based on confiscating my disks. I really, really, would not put it past them.

Re: "stealing just like stealing anything else"

[Type44Q]

And that, specifically, refers to cracking the encryption [used to protect said content]; using a VPN to mask your location has *fuck-all* to do with the DMCA.

Re:"stealing just like stealing anything else"

[KGIII]

My guess is that Netflix does not really care. I suspect that they are making noise as they probably have a legal obligation, to the copyright holders/media companies, to try to stop such actions as they do not have a contract that allows them to stream the content to other countries.

Re:"stealing just like stealing anything else"

[KGIII]

That speaks to your morals, not to the legality. The issue at hand is the legality. Our morals, I do not disagree with you and I pirate stuff all the time, are not the law and are not a part of the discussion. This is, quite likely, illegal in the sense that it is a civil offense (still illegal but not something you can be incarcerated for). I can see the business' justification for this and I accept that it is against their terms of service if I were to do this. I, on the other hand, would just pipe my traffic through VNC here on my home computer if I wanted to access Netflix when I visit the reserve or friends a bit closer.

Re:"stealing just like stealing anything else"

[KGIII]

They can come to the US and watch it. If they have a US IP address then the US content is delivered automatically. As they are on US soil they are not putting Netflix in a position where they are violating their contracts with third parties. The person you were replying to is being simplistic but not overly so.

Re:"stealing just like stealing anything else"

[KGIII]

We could have some fun with this... Shall we? I say we shall, for the sake of fun and argument.

illegal search and seizure
search - we can throw that out and we can discard the and
illegal seizure
illegal - against the regulations/rules
illegal - without permission
seizure - taking possession of (not necessarily depriving but to take possession of)
illegal - without permission - seizure - taking possession of
we can shorten taking possession of to just taking
illegal - without permission - seizure - taking
switch them around
taking without permission
definition of theft - taking without permission

Do I agree? Well, no... Not strictly. My ethics are pretty poor and I pirate stuff all the time. Much of what I pirate is stuff I already own, I am just too lazy to go get the disk and rip it so that I can use it how I want to. However, not everything I pirate is actually something I have purchased. I just downloaded Leon - The Professional last night. Yay! PirateBay! Anyhow, I digress, I *used* to own that on DVD but I have given that DVD away to my daughter who really liked the movie (smart kid). I can no longer suggest that I have a legal right to view the movie.

Did I take, in the sense of deprive, anything? No. I did take a set of numbers and make a copy of it to use on my own computer. I am not pedantic and I do not care about escaping justice. I, in short, stole a copy of the movie without paying the creator (worse, I can certainly afford to). I have no problem using the word steal. Arguing over the definition is trivial, trite, and is just an excuse so people can feel better about their immoral activities.

So, is the NSA stealing data? Well, it could be argued that they are. They are taking something without permission. Even if they are taking a copy of which infinite copies could be made, they are still taking a copy. This is morally reprehensible as much as my taking the above movie is reprehensible.

To be fair, and honest, if there were a way that I could simply go a site and click that I pirated this, this, and this and then pay for a license to view those pirated videos I would quite likely go there and pay. I would prefer that it not have the cost of physical media included and it should not charge for infrastructure costs (beyond their site) as I did not download it from them and used infrastructure not belonging to them and I did not get (or create) a physical copy. Hell, if they offered a legit copy via torrent I would certainly go pay for the things I pirated (though it would not be pirating then). It might even be better if I had a choice, "Yes I will pay the extra buck to be able to burn a copy of this to disk." I would be highly unlikely to burn it to disk but I would pay to have that right in case I changed my mind. Hell, if I deleted the copy on my drive it would be akin to losing it or giving it away and I would be willing to pay a second (or third, or fourth, etc.) time if I chose to download it at a latter date.

However, there is no equivalent so that is why I went this route, it is unlikely that - even if the NSA *could* pay that they would, say, by getting a warrant for each and every bit of data, warrants should be specific, for every single person and not scooping broadly defined data and hoping for the best... So the difference between my stealing data and the NSA stealing data is that I would do the right thing to make it ethical and they are almost certain to never do the ethical thing or even worry about the legality of what they are doing. They, and I, are thieves but somehow I have managed to come out on the moral high ground in comparison to them. That is pretty sad, really.

Re:"stealing just like stealing anything else"

[AK Marc]

UK law is not the law in any commonwealth country outside the UK. The US constitution is not the law outside the US. As such, UK (or old English) law has just as much relevance in Canada as US law.

That you throw insults, but can't point out a flaw is proof that I'm right, but you don't like the truth.

Re:"stealing just like stealing anything else"

[deek]

They aren't "stealing" anything. How can one "steal" information? That's like stealing the number 4 or the color blue.

Well, the English language being as it is, you can have multiple meanings attributed to a single word. In this case, the word "steal" can certainly be applied to this situation. It is possible to "steal" an idea, data, attribution, and other intangible things. You can even steal a show, if you're a performer. The definition of the word supports this. As much as I dislike the rhetorical use of the word with copyright violations, it is valid.

Re: "stealing just like stealing anything else"

[Opie812]

You, sir, are evil. Someday the baby Jesus will judge you for all the crimes against humanity you have committed. SHAME.

Re:"stealing just like stealing anything else"

[Malc]

Isn't he saying that a bunch of laws were inherited from the UK.

There are still many connections with the old country: look at how various commonwealth nations immediately amended their laws to match the UK when the British Parliament recently changed the laws of succession for the monarchy.

Re:"stealing just like stealing anything else"

[WCLPeter]

Bell is actively trying to gain traction for their own brew of Netflix (CraveTV) is mere coincidence.

Except that they're really not, they only offer it to people who already have a Bell - or one of their partners - subscription to a Satellite package. You literally cannot sign up for Crave unless you have one, they won't let you, and I'm not paying the metric fucktonne of money Bell requires to get a Satellite package - not to mention they'd likely want me to sign up for their internet too. Did I also mention you can't even sign up for the service unless you have third party tracking cookies enabled by default on your browser? Fuck that noise.

Shomi, the Rogers equivalent, is pretty much the same except you need - you guessed it - a Rogers, or other partner, cable service in order to get it. And again, they'll likely want you to get their internet on top of it.

So for about $100+ per month I could spend $4 to get a streaming service that has a few extra shows than the Canadian Netflix does or I can save my hundred bucks and spend $8 on Netflix. I cancelled my Bell internet a few years ago, went with Teksavvy - totally worth it, and signed up for Netflix while sticking an antenna on my roof for OTA HD. I honestly don't miss cable, Netflix / Youtube covers nearly all my visual entertainment needs, and for what it doesn't cover I get either OTA or use an iiTunes Seasons Pass for the rest.

Re:"stealing just like stealing anything else"

[Pi1grim]

The problem is that Bell Media would want that money for themselves and could do with a little less competition from better services. But they can't prohibit VPNs, so they are just trying to convince people that it's socially unacceptable to watch Netflix if it's not available in your country.

Re:"stealing just like stealing anything else"

[camperdave]

They have fewer words in the Canadian language.

Our laws are in both English AND French. That more than makes up for the fewer words.

Re:"stealing just like stealing anything else"

[AK Marc]

Canada takes more laws from the US than the UK. Yes, the Queen is the head of state for many Commonwealth countries, and if they have different succession rules, then there would be weirdness when the crown passes. It has no practical meaning about the other laws.

Re:"stealing just like stealing anything else"

[rikkards]

Except you both forgot what is supposed to make it relevant in all three countries:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W...

Re:"stealing just like stealing anything else"

[rikkards]

Except Netflix is available in Canada but with a more limited selection due to agreements with the varying media houses. Bell and Rogers can compete with Netflix Canada, they can't with Netflix US hence why they are bitching about it.

Re:"stealing just like stealing anything else"

[rikkards]

With a maximum fine of $500 (or is that $5000?) either way it isn't worth the owners to go after the people downloading. Now if you are doing it for profit that is a whole other kettle of fish

Re:"stealing just like stealing anything else"

[DescX]

"I'm not saying I agree with this law, but it is wrong to say that what you're doing isn't illegal."

If I may build on this, social contract is largely broken. My grandparents used to laugh when poor laws would surface, presumably because they lived in a world where it was physically and digitally possible to hide from abuse. We aren't laughing in my age group, or the one superseding it, and yet so many people are happy to itemize problems and b-line it straight for apathy. Your post wasn't done, you were on a roll, please finish next time.

On matters of law, apathy has reigned supreme for long enough that rules, in aggregate, have begun to create mass pain for demographics well outside intended boundaries. We haven't lost the religious principle of vengeance in any major culture yet. So when rules are violated, the multitude of knee jerk reactions usually involve inflicting more pain. I imagine Bell doesn't want pain, nor does Netflix, nor do the users. But let's call DNS selection a form "loss of property" and carry on beating each other over the head with the way the world is today, instead of how it should be...???

The thing we have to get across to people is that social contract is too complex, and the method by which all humans load their morality is haphazardly based on genetics and environment, NOT any specific book. And that everyone has a say in the way forward -- if we'd just quit being jerks to each other already.

The nonsense going on in tech and the world at large is rooted firmly in the impossibility of learning law; it is as complex as software, yet we do not delude ourselves into thinking that a genius could learn every language and device.... let alone Joe Blow who who serves fries for a living. I want to hear someone speak of a new methodology for building consensus... because ultimate freedom, mob rule, and parental oversight were only valid ethos for governing in the context of building civilization. Maintenance governing requires brand new thinking. If a feasible solution hits me, I'll share, and hope everyone would do the same.

Re:"stealing just like stealing anything else"

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

Depending on the context, it's still a dick move.

Like pirating big media's work, whatever. I think it's devaluing the work, but not theft. In the aggregate it might suck because it makes it harder to continue making work, like in the case of some games, anime, manga and comics.

Using someone else's work to make money? That's a dick move. If you're a big corporation and using an artists work with out them getting credit? You've deprived someone of something in a huge way. That's theft in some degree.

Re: "stealing just like stealing anything else"

[Maury Markowitz]

Given the low bar that defines "protections", I guarantee there would be a lawsuit over if if there way any money in it.

But seeing as Netflix is getting paid by these customers, there is no money in it.

Re:"stealing just like stealing anything else"

[Maury Markowitz]

> I fully agree they can sue me.

I don't think they can. The copyright holder perhaps, but not Netflix. Netflix would simply cancel your service:

108
PRINT A A A
Netflix is clamping down on users accessing the service through a VPN, with its updated terms of service threatening to "terminate or restrict your use of our service, without compensation or notice".

Virtual private networks are used for a variety of reasons, but with regards to Netflix usually to combat limited download speeds and access content restricted to other territories.

Here's the key clauses:

Article 6C

You may view a movie or TV show through the Netflix service primarily within the country in which you have established your account and only in geographic locations where we offer our service and have licensed such movie or TV show. The content that may be available to watch will vary by geographic location. Netflix will use technologies to verify your geographic location.

Article 6H

We may terminate or restrict your use of our service, without compensation or notice if you are, or if we suspect that you are (i) in violation of any of these Terms of Use or (ii) engaged in illegal or improper use of the service.

Re:"stealing just like stealing anything else"

[Maury Markowitz]

> not a violation of any part of the Netflix agreement

Go read it again, Article 6C and 6H specifically.

Re:"stealing just like stealing anything else"

[IllogicalStudent]

And this is the problem with industry thinking. It is NOT stealing

No, the problem in this case is not only is it NOT stealing, it is not actually illegal.

Accessing US Netflix outside of the US may break terms of use (which Netflix would have a VERY hard time winning a lawsuit over), but does not currently break any Canadian laws. No more than using a VPN to access any other website.

Shhh... don't give Harper any more ideas for gifts to his media friends. I can definitely see an attempt to make VPN use for such purposes illegal in the near future; hell they already want to ban/criminalize encryption!

Re:"stealing just like stealing anything else"

[IllogicalStudent]

And this is the problem with industry thinking. It is NOT stealing

No, the problem in this case is not only is it NOT stealing, it is not actually illegal.

Accessing US Netflix outside of the US may break terms of use (which Netflix would have a VERY hard time winning a lawsuit over), but does not currently break any Canadian laws. No more than using a VPN to access any other website.

Shhh... don't give Harper any more ideas for gifts to his media friends. I can definitely see an attempt to make VPN use for such purposes illegal in the near future; hell they already want to ban/criminalize encryption!

Re:"stealing just like stealing anything else"

[AK Marc]

Yup. I read it after I posted. I hadn't read it in years. Though, legally, without other penalties laid out, the only penalty allowed is that Netflix can cancel your service.

Re:"stealing just like stealing anything else"

[tepples]

Does Canada have a counterpart to the U.S. Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986?

Re: "stealing just like stealing anything else"

[tepples]

By "travel" I meant physical travel of the receiving eyeballs, not packet forwarding.

Re:"stealing just like stealing anything else"

[LessThanObvious]

Bitteroak actually nailed this one. It's an issue with Netflix's rights to export the content in that, in many cases they don't have the rights. Thus it is infringement on the part of the customer since the behavior is forbidden in Netflix terms of service. Maybe people wouldn't feel the need to break the rules if rights-holders didn't set themselves up to be in opposition of an open global market.

Re:"stealing just like stealing anything else"

[dryeo]

$5000 ($100 minimum), but they will claim that they can sue for much higher damages.
BTW, commercial is $20,000 per infringement or under criminal law, $1,000,000 or 2 years

Re:"stealing just like stealing anything else"

[davecb]

Imagine if a company in Virginia had, in their terms and conditions, a line prohibiting a citizen of Massachusetts from purchasing their product or service? One requiring they buy it from a specified licencee in Mass?

Can you say "criminal conspiracy in restraint of trade" ?

Re:"stealing just like stealing anything else"

[jwhitener]

Nope. Its being streamed in the USA. Once it hits my VPN its on my private network.

I know that technically you are correct. However, arguments similar in nature to that have been used in the past, and failed when it reached a court. Like the, "I'm not housing any copyrighted material, I'm just providing links to them..." argument.

It seems like judges are more likely to make rulings that conform to the spirit of a law, the intent of the law, rather than a technical loophole. For example, https://www.aereo.com/ , as far as I could tell, was not breaking any laws. Unless I'm mixing my companies up, Aereo was the online TV streaming service, who literally had a physical TV antennae for each customer. What they provided was a service that would use "your" TV antennae (housed in their data center) to record over the air broadcasts, and then let you stream those broadcasts at a time of your choosing.

It sounded very legal to most of us. Say I payed my neighbor to rent a spot on his roof. I moved my antennae off of my house, and put it on his roof. In addition to this rent, I told my neighbor that I would pay him X dollars per month to record all the TV signals that are flowing down my antennae, and put them in my dropbox account. DVR's, VCR's, etc... have been legal for a long time. Why should it matter if I do it myself in my own house, or pay someone to manage it for me?

The courts disagreed:

While we had significant victories in the federal district courts in New York and Boston and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, the reversal of the Second Circuit decision in June by the U.S. Supreme Court has proven difficult to overcome. The U.S. Supreme Court decision effectively changed the laws that had governed Aereo’s technology, creating regulatory and legal uncertainty. And while our team has focused its energies on exploring every path forward available to us, without that clarity, the challenges have proven too difficult to overcome.

Bell runs a competing streaming service...

[Dzimas]

What the article neglects to mention is that Bell recently started a competing streaming service called CraveTV. They have licensed some shows that are available on the US Netflix, so the only way for Canadians to watch them is to subscribe to CraveTV or use a VPN to access the American version of Netflix.

Where things get really stupid is that Bell's $4 CraveTV service requires potential customers to subscribe to a Bell (or partner) cable or satellite TV plan in an effort to protect their traditional business. Have an OTA antenna on your roof instead? Tough. You don't qualify for their service.

Mrs Turcke's Company could copy Valve's model

[Dan667]

Really, any more a content company complaining is on them. At any time they could copy Valve's successful media distribution model and make huge amounts of money. My hope is that Valve pulls an Amazon and enters other media types or teams up with Netflix.

Moron thinks all crimes are theft

[gurps_npc]

They are not stealing.

They are illegally importing.

I am sick and tired of shmucks that rip people off trying to 'upgrade' the crime of not being ripped off into 'theft'.

Re:Moron thinks all crimes are theft

[TechyImmigrant]

They are not stealing.

They are illegally importing.

I am sick and tired of shmucks that rip people off trying to 'upgrade' the crime of not being ripped off into 'theft'.

They are not illegally importing. Search this discussion for 'Berne Convention' to see why.

Re:Moron thinks all crimes are theft

[luther349]

you cant illegally import a packet.

Bell-End Media, we speak your name!

[countSudoku()]

Now pipe down you silly bunt. You got your stupid company name out and we viewed it, and now we go back to our lives of overeating and purchasing ever-more-powerful Rascel Scooters to move our pendulous boobs from one fast-food joint to the next!

Blame Canada! Blame Canada!
This Bell-End Media is no surprise, their flapping heads all filled with lies!
Blame Canada! Blame Canada!
Actually all our actors come from there anyway!

Thank God!

[nick357]

Someone is finally thinking of the childr^H^H^H^H^H^H cable executives!

Re:Thank God!

[UnknownSoldier]

/Oblg. South Park Cable Company

Is it stealing if I watch US netflix while in US?

[aristotle-dude]

Apparently she does not understand how netflix works. If I travel to the US, I can only watch US content while visiting there without using a VPN to pretend to be in Canada even though I have a Canadian Netflix account. If I travel to the UK, I can only watch UK netflix and so on.

If you want to see stealing...

[Luthair]

See the prices Bell Media charges for internet, telephone and satellite.

Pot meet kettle

[JustNiz]

>> "It has to become socially unacceptable to admit to another human being that you are VPNing into U.S. Netflix"

No, it has to become socially unacceptable for companies to be racist, and/or monopolist, and/or to try to socially engineer our view of moarality, and/or to attempt to propagandise and demonize peoples attempts to fight for equal treatment, and/or to create artificial marketplaces just to be able to unfairly overcharge people based on where they live.

Grey market nonsense

[HideyoshiJP]

What the hell is this lady talking about? This is just grey-market stuff, as long as they're paying for it. I suppose it's a TOS violation. Having said that, This is the very thing I despise about the auto industry, but that's a story for a different time.

Infringement is not stealing

[jjo]

This is the usual content-industry twaddle, trying to muddle the distinction between taking tangible property ("stealing") and violating legal rights in intangible goods ("infringment"). They yell and scream that infringement is totally, absolutely and completely the same thing as stealing, yet screaming doesn't make it so. Stealing has been intuitively understood as wrong from time immemorial. Infringement is a modern invention, with none of that moral underpinning. The content industry seeks to confuse the issue by baldly asserting that two different things are actually the same. The common person, in his internal moral calculus, will realize this and continue to reject the intellectual-property maximalists such as a Bell Media.

Market Segmentation should be socially unacceptabl

[foreverdisillusioned]

Anyone who has passed an economics 101 class (micro or macro) should be grasp how this consumer discrimination stuff works: if the producer is able to discriminate against certain customers and offer different prices (and/or different products) then they are able to keep more surplus for themselves. It's blatantly anti-capitalistic in method and intent. If they are able to prevent arbitrage, if they can select and choose who has to pay how much and how (with no option of second sale), the free market breaks down entirely and what you end up with is simply one group fleecing another.

It's unfortunate that the left doesn't have a good pejorative (as with "socialist" or "communist") to describe the right's anti-capitalist bullshit. Phrases like "corporate greed" are way too vague for this kind of thing.

Canadian Bacon?

[Overzeetop]

Yeah, but what if a Canadian had a friend buy an Egg McMuffin in the US and then sent it to them to be consumed in Canada. Before you answer, I should remind you that the standard Egg McMuffin includes *Canadian* bacon on it, so be careful how you word your response. ;-)

Re:Canadian Bacon?

[bobbied]

Yeah, but what if a Canadian had a friend buy an Egg McMuffin in the US and then sent it to them to be consumed in Canada. Before you answer, I should remind you that the standard Egg McMuffin includes *Canadian* bacon on it, so be careful how you word your response. ;-)

(Eye-Roll)

You got me there, but let's not get ham handed with this analogy....

Re:It's not stealing...

[roc97007]

Think of it as a video version of an H1B visa (yes, I realize it's Canada, not the US). People are using the VPN to access content not available otherwise, just like an H1B visa is to obtain labor not available otherwise at starvation wages.

FIFY.

You can't have them back!

[JoeDuncan]

... Canadians are 'stealing' US Netflix ...

Damn straight! And we ain't giving those shows back neither, suckas!

If you want your Game of Thrones, you're going to have to come and get it! Ha!

Stealing? No, smuggling.

[Anonymous Coward]

As numerous others have posted, "stealing" is the wrong word. Those Canadian customers are paying for what they're watching.

What would be a far more approriate term, given licensing region limitations, international borders, and hiding the stuff beneath a VPN, is smuggling. A time-honored tradition for any product where artificial barriers (tarriffs, duties, geographic licensing restrictions, etc) make a product more expensive to buy locally than to buy it elsewhere and pay the additional transportation.

So, Canadians are smuggling US Netflix content? BFD. As anyone who has lived near the border especially in pre-NAFTA times, smuggling (to a degree, and depending on the contraband) is socially acceptable.

Who the F is Bell Media...

[slasher999]

...and why should we care if they don't like our (my) neighbors to the north vpning into the U.S. to watch 20-30 year old TV shows and a few decent movies? Sounds like their (Bell Media's) problem to me.

Yeah, God

[Greyfox]

What the hell is wrong with the Canadians, paying for that content and a VPN when they could be getting it all for free on TPB! Um, that's what she meant, right?

Interesting PR strategy, but will it work?

[Cajun Hell]

The problem: I work at K-Mart and some of the people who I thought would become my customers, are shopping smart. They're going to my competitor, S-Mart, who sells similar things for less money.

My solution: yell at the would-be customers, call them thieves. "It's not socially acceptable to drive over there."

There are two ways the public might react. One is "Cajun Hell is right, and so I am going to shop at K-Mart instead of stealing by buying from S-Mart." Unfortunately, the other one is "Cajun Hell is an entitled loon."

Which way do you think the public is going to take my announcement? Will it work, or should I try something slightly less fuckwitted?

Explicit sociopathy?

[melchoir55]

How can anyone explicitly state their plan is to manipulate social norms on a grand scale and expect anyone to take them seriously?

Ha!

[kamapuaa]

Meanwhile, here in the US, I'm sitting back, smoking a joint and watching re-runs of "Little Mosque on the Prairie" and "Corner Gas."

What is actually socially unacceptable

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, its socially UNACCEPTABLE to do the following

Use copyright law to hold a piece of music (happy birthday) or a cartoon character (mickey mouse) as yours in perpetuaty

Set up the identical service in different countries, with vastly different content, and then PREVENT users outside that country any way to pay for or access that service

Release movies on different dates, and expect people in other countries to wait weeks or months to pay to see that movie in their local theatre

The digital economy is here to stay, don't fight it, embrace it. If you fight it, your users will just find a way to get around your stupid protections. And there is simply NO way to write proper protections, since everything boils down to a yes/no question, and I can trivially NOP out the method used to determine the answer, and just always pass back a YES.

Bell Media only hires peckerheads?

[Tool Man]

It seems like every time one of their senior execs opens their mouths in public, they blather on and on to show us just how clueless and tone deaf they are. It's like their recruitment process has a required check box:

[X] Yes, I am a twat!

Blame legislators for this particular sloppiness

[tepples]

Yeah, judges are sloppy sometimes. Copyright "holder" would be a better term.

I don't know about Canada's copyright statute, but the U.S. copyright statute consistently uses the phrase "owner of copyright".

AT&T is Bell

[tepples]

I only have the likes of Comcast, TWC, and AT&T to compare Bell to.

Fitting, seeing as the company now called AT&T used to be called Southwestern Bell.

"Intellectual property" in section 230

[tepples]

Copyrights, patents, and trademarks are separate types of law.

Correct. However:

They are NOT property law.

That's what I used to think until I discovered section 230 of the (U.S.) telecommunications code. From 47 USC 230(e)(2): "Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or expand any law pertaining to intellectual property." The section as a whole is intended to rule out legal theories claiming that an ISP is a "publisher" of information that flows through it. But if copyrights, patents, and trademarks are not property, then to which "law pertaining to intellectual property" did the U.S. Congress intend this to apply? And what's the closest Canadian counterpart to this statute?

Re:"Intellectual property" in section 230

[Maury Markowitz]

> But if copyrights, patents, and trademarks are not property

Uhhh, correct me if I'm misinterpreting, but I don't believe that it was it means. I believe it means the ISPs do not have legal ownership over the property, so you can't sue them if someone uses an ISP to move stolen property. In the same fashion, the US Postal Service does not have legal ownership of the things you put in envelopes, so you can't sue them for putting drugs in them. In both cases you have to sue the person responsible for the actual illegal action, or sue for negligence or similar.

Re:"Intellectual property" in section 230

[tepples]

My point is that section 230 still represents official recognition of "intellectual property" by the US Congress as a term for a particular set of "separate types of law".

Copyrights don't expire

[tepples]

It's also why they put limitations on the length of copyright, where it would expire after a set time

LOL

as opposed to physical property which can be held and passed down through generations forever.

The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Eldred v. Ashcroft makes periodic extension of subsisting copyrights just as legal as periodic readoption of the House and Senate rules at the beginning of each session of Congress.

Re:Copyrights don't expire

[Rakarra]

Yes, well, I was talking about the framers of the Constitution here, who did approve a copyright term of 14 years with a 14-year extension. Since the details of copyright were ambiguously left up to Congress, it's allowed different interpretations. Enforcement of intent was not written in the Constitution, so it's allowed copyright to become corrupted over time.

*Netflix* is the one doing the stealing...

[west]

For all intents and purposes, Netflix is selling content that they don't have the rights to. They financially benefit in the form of subscriptions, and yet they're not paying for the right to distribute to customers who are consuming the content.

Now, the VPN muddies the legality issue a bit, but it's pretty clear that Netflix's policies are (1) for the present hurting rights purchasers who thought they were buying exclusive rights and (2) in the future will hurt content producers when their foreign rights sell for vastly less than they used to.

It's the sellers to Netflix who should be pressuring Netflix to change their policies or withdrawing their content from Netflix on the basis of devaluing their property.

One other point, the idea that Bell has a financial stake should devalue their opinion seems odd. Bell's obviously taking a financial hit on this, but they paid for rights that have been undermined by Netflix's fairly dubious attitude. However, I'd also expect that the person who's regularly being robbed to be the one shouting most about neighbourhood crime, *because* he has a financial interest in it.

It seems common sense.

How do they know?

[jetole]

How does Bell know what people are doing with their VPN? While I realize that encryption isn't, technically, a requirement of VPN, I cannot recall the last time I saw an unencrypted VPN. I vaguely recall that a PPTP server I was using some 9 years ago may have been unencrypted by default but I'm really not certain because that was 9 years ago.

Re:How do they know?

[gerald.edward.butler]

If it's not encrypted, it's not a VPN (Virtual PRIVATE Network). The PRIVATE part comes from encryption.

I'd like to respond in corporate terms...

[ewhenn]

Greetings Mary Ann Turcke:

I'd like to discuss your assertion of Canadians "stealing" Netflix. Since the common language of us peasant folk isn't something you can decipher, I'd like to explain these events in a language you can understand. Please do bear with me as CEO speak isn't my native language;

What we actually have here is just an instance of your consumer associates controlling costs by outsourcing entertainment laden data packets to "friendlier" regions. I'm sure this is a business practice you are familiar with as your parent company, BCE, utilizes this same strategy to control non-profit generating business expenditures. By outsourcing these entertainment laden IP packets, your consumer associates have significantly improved their cost efficiency, freeing up additional resources that can be used to improve other areas of their business. To maintain your status as a premier content provider, it would be wise to observe and adapt to recent market trends in the "over-the-top" entertainment industry.

I hope that my rudimentary command of CEO speak has helped you gain a better understanding of the situation at hand.

Respectfully,
Joe what-goes-around-comes-around Consumer

It's a global market

[OrangeTide]

When content providers realize we live in a global economy, they are going to have to learn that their old behavior of regional control and distribution rights are no longer acceptable.

It has to become socially unacceptable to admit to another human being that you are a media executive that produces no content of your own but takes the majority of profit from creative artists.

So long as you have to log into a Netflix account.

[Applehu Akbar]

...It's not possible to "steal" Netflix. All users are paying for it.

This explains the anti-piracy ad I saw yesterday

[scourfish]

You wouldn't purchase a handbag. You wouldn't purchase a car. You wouldn't purchase a television. You wouldn't pay royalties to see a movie. Watching content you've paid for is a crime.

Let me guess...

[CliffH]

.... they also want their internet money too?? Internet Money

Re:Market Segmentation should be socially unaccept

[laddiebuck]

There is - the f-word, or 'fascist' - but it is, if possible, even more overused than 'communist'. These are pretty much meaningless synonyms for the word 'bad' at this point, with no real semantic value left.

on man's theft is another man's freedom

[epine]

Wow, just wow ... after scanning this thread all I can say is "wow" — the same part of the brain that parses "freedom" (as in not beer) has a second function, heretofore unsuspected.

Copying is "stealing"

[aNonnyMouseCowered]

"Violating copyright is NOT stealing"

Okay I'm being pedantic but stealing is quite a broad word and in some mostly archaic or figurative senses, unlicensed copying of copyrighted works can be considered a form of stealing (i.e. taking without permission). No, I don't think copying is stealing in the modern sense of shoplifting or carjacking but that's just the way the language is. Somewhat similar to some ancient poetic use of the word rape to mean kidnapping (e.g Rape of the Sabine Women).

The problem is when the person arguing for draconian copyright laws deliberately "confuses" the different senses of the word stealing. To "steal" a song online has an entirely different effect from shoplifting a CD in a store. The store loses its copy of the CD to the shoplifter. On the other hand, the number of copies is incremented++ whenever you "pirate" a song.

Re:Market Segmentation should be socially unaccept

[foreverdisillusioned]

Yeah, that did briefly occur to me but fascist is more frequently interpreted as a synonym for dictatorial or totalitarian states. Fascism as an economic policy was never well defined; it was just some nebulous form of state-corporate cooperation or melding. And it's also worth noting that it arose in a radically different legal context, when exclusivity agreements tended to be rarer and much harder to enforce in practice.

Re:Blame legislators for this particular sloppines

[AK Marc]

That made me think of an outdoor cat. You may assert ownership over it, but that doesn't mean it or the neighbors it begs food off, recognize it. I'll have to call my cat "copyright".

Re:Market Segmentation should be socially unaccept

[diamondmagic]

Sort of: Price discrimination is generally good; it's fully capitalistic practice and that's a good thing.

For instance, when an amusement park or movie theater charges less admission for children, it's because far fewer families would go there if it weren't for the price discrimination.

There's lots of price discrimination that comes about only as a result of the government, though. Plane tickets used to be transferrable, now they're not. 0.0001% because you might be a terrorist, 99.9999% because airlines ended up liking the protectionism.

Likewise for copyright, even though the Internet has no borders, the copyright model is still suck in this fantasyland where you can't put things on the Internet because that might make it available in a "bad" country.

I am not ashamed

[Opie812]

"It has to become socially unacceptable to admit to another human being that you are VPNing into U.S. Netflix" I am Canadian. I occasionally vpn into a US server to watch US netflix. Heck, I've even vpn'ed into European countries just to see what they get. I have never sat in the penalty box for 2 minutes to feel shame. Generally, though, I stick to Canadian netflix because it's good enough and it's a wee bit of a hassle to vpn to a US server. It's only a wee hassle. Don't go telling me how easy it is. I get it. It's just clicking a couple of buttons.

Re:Market Segmentation should be socially unaccept

[foreverdisillusioned]

I agree that on the whole child-specific pricing is probably helpful to the economy. (Though I'm much less sure about student and senior discounts.)

But you are wrong to characterize it as a "fully capitalistic practice." Anything that prevents resale or transfer is anti-capitalistic. That isn't to say that absolutely everything in life has to be pro-free market, but when you begin your analysis you must begin by acknowledging that preventing someone from reselling something is in no way in the spirit of the free market. (Yes, I'm aware I'm using those two terms interchangeably, but as they are popularly understood they pretty much are interchangeable.)

Sorry...

[iCEBaLM]

I just can't seem to give a fuck about supposed crimes whose victims are self manufactured.

Re:Market Segmentation should be socially unaccept

[diamondmagic]

We might be arguing semantics here, but... I think so?

If I'm not allowed to modify a car or computer that I own, right.

If I can't sell a ticket with my name on it... well maybe I can technically sell it, but that wouldn't be of much use to the person buying it, unless they literally just want the piece of paper because it has my name on it. (And there's good reasons to put names on tickets... invitation-only or other events not open to the general public.)

But if someone actually slaps a lawsuit on me for selling the ticket, then... wat.

Re:Market Segmentation should be socially unaccept

[foreverdisillusioned]

As you point out, the ticket is not the thing of value; it is merely an indicator of the thing of value (being able to go somewhere or attend something.) If resale of the thing of value is being prevented, then that is no way a "fully capitalistic practice".

Again, it's not about "good reasons." There are sometimes good reasons to do things that run against the free market, but that doesn't mean those things are pro-free market. An exception to a rule is (for better or worse) an *exception* to a rule, not an embodiment of it.

I would go further and say that no "good reason" exists here (re: Netflix in Canada), although that conversation is a messier because it involves analyzing the monetary motivations of a lot of interconnected parties. But in a truly free market, the default assumption should be that there is no good reason. The burden of proof should fall on the person or entity demanding an exception.

Social acceptance

[Livius]

There is nothing less socially acceptable than being the president of Bell Media.

Hilarious..

[Rick in China]

Like many here, the socially unacceptable portion makes me laugh so hard. I live in China, I'd gladly pay for content I happily enjoy -- but if it's not available legally for me within reasonable methods, then fuck it, VPN first, piracy second. I found myself watching lots of Hulu content at one point and tried to upgrade to their premium service.......had no feasible way whatsoever, even via VPN, because I was trying to pay with a Canadian credit card and mailed them on the topic to see if I could legally pay for it, answer was "no, it's not possible.". If people can't pay for content and watch it legally what do these corporations expect?

I'd say it's more than socially acceptable, it's socially desirable. Many I've met who haven't got the technical means to access particular content wants to know how. That's just how it is. Companies like this and dumb bitches who complain about circumvention tactics in order to access content need to learn to deal with it by making content easily accessible for all..then, perhaps, they'll have at least one leg to stand on when soap boxing.

Artificial barriers

[SpaghettiPattern]

And are artificial barriers socially acceptable?

Just Canada?

[pbjones]

Just Canada? And the rest of the modern world...

Re:How about your taxes?

[umghhh]

Oh man that would hurt!

what? the.. FUCK?

[Rainwulf]

How is it stealing? Wait is this that geographic bullshit again where if you are in a different country you cant watch a show because of.. reasons?
That make absolutely no sense at all?
You think they would be happy that people are paying for it..

Look at this, piracy is bad, ok so we pay for it with netflix.
now thats bad too.. at any time is the consumer going to win..

oh i see what i did there.

The consumer is NEVER going to win.

Netflix has a foolproof plan for stopping this

[gatkinso]

Advertising.

Re:Speaking of "theft"

[gatkinso]

Sadly, that is quite reasonable CEO pay these days.

If this is stealing...

[gerald.edward.butler]

...then this Bell Media executive must be a child molester because every time he looks at a child, he is molesting children. LATEST NEWS: Bell Media management and executive-level personnel littered with Child Molesters! Won't somebody please think of the children?

Re:Bell can go blow it out their ass

[MagickalMyst]

+1 if I had points...

In other news...

[JustNiz]

In other news... Bell Media CEO says remembering or discussing a Netflix movie you have seen is stealing. To cunteract a massive upsurge in movie thought theft, Bell Media has patented a new form of DRM/encoding of movies that causes the viewers entire memory of ever having watched it to dissappear after a preset time limit.

Re:Lindsey Graham is a total FUCKTARD

[MagickalMyst]

"...Fucktard..."

Sometimes it seems like the academic standard for literacy is degenerating to levels only seen in the movie Idiocracy.

Re:Market Segmentation should be socially unaccept

[foreverdisillusioned]

I was taking capitalism as a synonym for free market capitalism. If you mean crony capitalism then why yes, this is perfectly capitalistic behavior!

Understand that this goes way beyond the monopoly offered by copyright (which by itself is already pretty suspect.) If the law of one price breaks down and the producer is able to gobble up arbitrary amounts of the consumer's surplus, free market capitalism is not operating in any meaningful sense of the term except in the very, very broad sense that it isn't communist.

Face Punch!

[DarthVain]

It is stuff like this that wants me to punch her in her stupid face.

First of all I have no doubt she is an intelligent person, she is a female CEO of one of the largest media companies in Canada, she probably has a pile of degrees, and lots of real world experience in business, licencing, content generation, copyright law, etc...

So when she spouts BS like that, I have to think she doesn't really believe that tripe, but rather is using the media as a propaganda machine to try and influence people to an opinion that has a positive effect on her company (who wants to sell competing CraveTV, as well as paying licencing fees both in Canada and the US, etc...). So that pretty much means that she is purposefully lying, on the understanding that she thinks of her clients, and the public in general are complete idiots and will gobble up whatever she has to say, talking inflammatory language as theft, etc... it is barely even copyright infringement, as these people are actually paying for the service in the first place, at worst is is jurisdictional content licencing abuse... nothing is enough for these people. Face Punch.

In other news...

[JustNiz]

The president of Bell Media says remembering or talking about a movie that you have paid to watch once actually involves making an unauthorised mental copy and is therefore stealing.

Independent research recently published by the MPAA proves the massive upsurge in media thought piracy directly impacts American jobs at most Hollywood movie studios. Under the government's new Jobs For Patriots act, Bell Media received $10bn in first-round funding to develop its innovative new DRM technology that digitaly encodes movies with a signal that causes the viewer's entire memory of ever having watched that movie to dissappear after a preset number of hours.

Key difference between fair dealing and fair use

[tepples]

Fair use.

Does Canada even have "fair use"? I thought Commonwealth countries such as Canada had "fair dealing", which is noticeably narrower than "fair use". US law allows fair use "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research" (17 USC 107), and the word "such as" is considered "illustrative and not limitative". Fair dealing is similar to fair use except that the listed purposes are the only purposes for which a use is permitted.

nowhere in the Netflix user agreement does it say that in so many words.

From Netflix Terms of Use 6c: "You may view a movie or TV show through the Netflix service [...] only in geographic locations where we offer our service and have licensed such movie or TV show. The content that may be available to watch will vary by geographic location. Netflix will use technologies to verify your geographic location."

Receiving stolen property

[tepples]

So your position is that whenever a consumer purchases a product they are legally required to assume the liability for complying with the conditions of any and all contracts between the producer and the retailer?

This is the position of the legislators who created laws against receiving stolen property.

Fraction of copies owned by © owner

[tepples]

On the other hand, the number of copies is incremented++ whenever you "pirate" a song.

When you copyright infringe a song, the fraction of all copies owned by the copyright owner decreases. I imagine that this fraction is what's being "stolen".