Slashdot Mirror
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.
No, it's socially acceptable behavior. The industry may have disdain for it, but it is absolutely not frowned upon by society.
Tiniest violin in the world playing for this woman.
- 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.
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.
She didn't get her cut.
It might be a copyright violation however, since the intent of the distributor is to offer the content only in the USA.
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.
"He took a duck in the face at 250 knots." -- William Gibson, Pattern Recognition
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.
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.