Slashdot Mirror
Netflix CEO Says Blocking Proxy Services Is Maturation of Internet TV (mobilesyrup.com)
An anonymous reader writes: During a recent round table discussion, Netflix CEO Reed Hastings commented on the company's controversial move to begin blocking the use of proxy VPN/DNS services. "We have the obligation to respect the content rights that we buy; it's just a simple fairness thing. Someone else has paid for the rights in Germany, so we should respect that, just as we would expect the same in return," he said. "The basic thing is if we license a movie here [the U.S.], and then another network licenses it in Germany, then we don't have the rights to display it in Germany. That's why we have to enforce those VPN rules, just like Amazon Prime Instant Video and others do as well. Think of it as the maturation of Internet TV."
With any new technology, stuff is relatively free. People who make stuff are left alone to make it, and the stuff that is made is shared. Popular work is encouraged, and less popular work continues on a hobby basis. But then someone rich realises that they're not getting even richer by sticking their nose into this new technology. So they waltz in and say, "Hey, this is disrupting the lifestyle to which I have become accustomed - that lifestyle involving my collecting money from people without actually DOING any further work." And for a while people point and laugh and say, "Who is this old man, coming into our playground and wagging his finger and telling us what to do?"
But this old man has money. And money buys two things: it buys land, and it buys ears. You can buy a lot of the playground, sure, but you can't scare everyone off it, otherwise your playground was useless. So, you buy ears. You convince people who were playing happily that they should be ok with playing differently - in particular, playing in such a way that the old man gets a cut each time you play a game. It's your moral duty. Go on, pay the man.
And then the playground is mature.
I understand that for the time being they need to follow geolimits posed upon them from those licensing out the content. Hopefull this will mature too. Hollywood is still stuck in the old days in regards to distribution.
But the simple fact is that. 15000 titles in the US, compared to around 3000 titles where I live, is not worth the price they are asking.
Lower the price so match the amount of content and it's fine. But paying the same as the US with 1/5th of the content. No.
When not at home it's really only sensible to use vpn to use the web. You know: to keep our web access private in a public place. So, Netflix does not want us to use what we paid for --- except at home? What?
Or they could just move to a non-exclusive licensing model.
I saw a chart somewhere and basically there is 0 incentive to subscribe if you're not in North America unless you have a VPN to make it appear that you are.
Why does my geographical location determine whether or not I'm allowed to access the content I paid for? If I buy a physical book or a DVD, am I not allowed to read or watch it if I travel to another country? Of course I am. Why is streaming video different?
As for licensing deals: as a consumer, I don't need to know any of that; that's not my problem. And if different countries have different laws, that's fine - but it's not Netflix' job to enforce them.
Netflix wants to remind you they are not your friend. They are not a non-profit citizen advocacy organization. They not interested in net neutrality because it is essential to a fair and open public communication infrastructure. They are a for-profit company, no different than Comcast or AT&T. Now that they have "matured", get ready for the same "shut up and pay your bill" treatment.
With the VPN workaround Netflix offered a good deal with its 6000+ titles worldwide, but now without it I get a mere 1600+ titles in The Netherlands. As much as I dislike geofencing, that could still be a good offer because Netflix adds (and removes) titles periodically, but only if the price was adjusted accordingly. But now I am paying slightly more than an American customer, for a third of the content. How is that fair?
I switched from commercial television channels to Netflix, but without access to the much larger US catalogue its offering is starting to lose its shine. My VPN connection still works fine with bittorrent though, but I doubt that this is the effect the content owners want to see.
I'll just have to block Netflix from accessing my credit card.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
Reed Hastings is trying to say that Netflix can only do business by playing by the rules that the TV networks and content producers write. Those groups want to maximize their profit, and so does Reed. If they refuse to do business with Netflix without geographically-limited licensing, Netflix can either say goodbye to customers or agree to do it.
As the head of a public company, Reed doesn't have a choice. I would at least hope that Netflix itself only licenses on a global basis and doesn't engage in geographic limitations.
The wheel it turns, around and around, with an ancient rumbling sound.
There's nothing illegal about geoblockimg, but neither is ther anything illegal about our working around it. And if they try too hard at making geoblockimg stick, we will just torrent, and nobody gets paid.
And I like to travel.
Your system of "intellectual property" is broken beyond repair.
Just Torrent the shows instead. It's cheaper, more convenient, and more reliable. Piracy: A truly global media delivery service.
At the risk of coming off like a cranky, digital-age hermit, I increasingly feel like I'm just done with this shit. The more big companies try to entrench the value of their product, the less value it holds for me. When you just let me have the thing I paid for, we can remain on good terms, but when you place a higher premium on locking things down than you do on the experience of consuming them, I start looking for alternatives. Now, I'm not even that disappointed when I can't find an alternative. The hassle reduction I experience by canceling my sub and being done with it, outweighs the satisfaction I'd have gotten by consuming your stupid fucking content. Good riddance.
I like paint.
In other words, you're working hard on making it as irrelevant as old school TV has become, and for the same reason?
*sigh*
Back to torrents, folks, 'til they get it.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I have immediately subscribed when they became available here in my European country. During the first month I have seen all programs from their very limited list that I am interested in.
Then I have canceled. There are lots of other programs in their worldwide catalog that I would like to see and that I am willing to pay for. See, I am not interested in most of contemporary movies or series. I was interested in documentaries. Sadly, those are not available here.
I am not going subscribe until there are enough programs for me to watch for at least a month.
In the meanwhile I got motivated to have a look at the cable selection I am subscribed to. I have made some changes and I am happy. I am not interested in paying for History Chanel and similar channels that used to have quality programming and that feature mainly reality shows nowadays.
i think the real maturation of internet tv is going to come when the exclusive content agreements stop. i thought music was on the way to getting this right, but...its not. you cant quite get everything on one music service, and video is way behind music in getting it right.
hell, i pay the NHL a few bucks a month for gamecenter live, but my local team is blacked out, and national games are blacked out. for the games i *CAN* watch, there are no commercials or half-time commentary or anything. its weird for a game to go to commercial, the tv to go silent, and the screen to say "we will be right back" and worse, theres NO option to pay a few more bucks a month to get my local games, or to get the national events, and i dont like commercials, but its a weird, weird way to watch anything on tv when there is a 2 minute or 15 minute silent intermission.
hell, id pay twice what what i do now to stream it so that i could watch what satellite/cable users can subscribe to, but thats not a thing. its bizarre.
By and large, language is a tool for concealing the truth. -- George Carlin
You know, it sort of made sense in the pre-internet days where you had only terrestrial broadcast and cable (and then eventually satellite). There, you had people with infrastructure, etc. in a country and you licensed your content to those entities to broadcast. Now it is a holdover. But, those broadcast entities still exist. They haven't been driven out of business yet. So they still license the content. And they complain like crazy if a streaming service based in another country is allowing that same content to be shown in "their" area (where their physical broadcasts can be seen). They say, "you'll put us out of business as nobody will pay us for our connections or broadcasts if you show the content we licensed over the internet". To which I say - Exactly.
It is time for channel based content to go. Who cares what channel or network the content they want to watch is on or even from? They just want to watch say Big Bang Theory or Orange is the New Black or whatever. It no longer needs to be on at a "time" on a "channel". But the old way of distribution is still pretty well entrenched at least for a little while longer.
Evidently you never heard of the DMCA?
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
It pains me to have to point this out, but it seems as if the weekend anti-copyright knee-jerk brigade is out in force today. What Hastings was roughly saying appeared far from shocking or outrage-provoking.
Obviously, if they don't want to be in breach of contract Netflix are legally obligated to abide by the covenants of whatever agreement(s) they've entered into with content owners. He's merely saying this to appear to do what they expect his company to prevent, this in order to keep securing more licenses for their content; and further he adds that he's very aware of what customers want, only it's going to take time to reach a universal licensing model. Except for programs they fund themselves, one would assume.
I mean, who are we kidding here? Obviously, with them using around 37% of the entire Internet's bandwidth as of 2015 stats, one would think that Netflix is keenly aware that it's just a pointless exercise of whack-a-mole, but the balding pointy-headed head of the licensing department at 19thCenturyFax might not quite be as savvy with technology, and could actually believe that the VPNing can be stopped. (in reality, none of them are dumb enough to assume something so silly, but their point simply validates the low-hanging fruit theory to get maximal return for a small investment of time and resources.)
If people are serious about using VPNs, then they'll have to put in a bit of extra effort and spend a little more to get a reputable provider that will not fall victim to their pruning of the cheap or free VPN services. Again, nothing terribly earth-shattering here. One could therefore remark that it would seem reasonable to save the indignant tone for actually important things.
I have had several long acrimonious conversation with the chat bots that Netflix calls customer service and have come away extremely disappointed. 1) Netflix doesn't care that your a US citizen and your VPN gives you a US geolocation. This is too sensible an approach I guess. They also turn a deaf ear to the 'vpn use for computing safety' argument. 2) Netflix doesn't have an email address that you can send complaints. They like postal mail when hearing from customers. 3) I have lodged complaints to both the FTC (no response) and FCC (a stretch, but they've seemed consumer friendly of late, also no response.) 4) To date none of the netflix chat bots can point me to a terms of service that allows such denial of service. This long after they've started doing it makes me think they are afraid of putting it writing for fear of the consequences. 5) I've been considering a small claims action. Since it's not in the terms of service, a breach of contract claim might work.
They need business entities to purchase ad-space in that location. It's unlikely that Hulu's phone is ringing because a retailer in Argentina* desperately wants to run ads there.
* I pulled that country name out of my ass. Argentina may or may not be a huge source of revenue for Hulu, I don't authoritatively know.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
We had a good run, but the things you have available in my country are not worth it. And it is not even the expensive shows I am interested in, it's documentaries etc. I would think those would be easier and cheaper to license globally.
For some reason, I don't even watch much TV anymore, haven't had cable in years. My Netflix usage has also been less and less the last year so it is not a huge loss.
Indeed. I really don't get how denying access to content which users are willingly paying you for because of where they are physically located is a "simple fairness thing". Unless by fairness you mean that driving those people to download from free piracy sites instead is fair.
There are a few services within the music industry that have managed to negotiate almost global rights - iTunes and Spotify are almost there, for example. You'd think that this would make the industry as a whole loosen up a bit and open the floodgates for the rest, but for example 8tracks recently went US and Canada only in their bid to go legit. This despite having many mixes of foreign music hosted there where no US/Canada rights holder exists.
Except in most cases they haven't. The content creator just wants to keep the option open of selling a higher cost exclusive license in those territories in 6 months, a year, 2 years or some indeterminate time in the future. Because that is how things worked in the 1960's when programs were shipped around on physical tapes with a relatively high reproduction cost, so territories took turns showing them.