After Netflix Crackdown On Border-Hopping, Canadians Ready To Return To Piracy (www.cbc.ca)

An anonymous reader shares an article on CBCNews: Many Canadians are enraged by Netflix's declared war on cross-border watchers, who skirt the company's rules by sneaking across virtual borders to stream Netflix shows and movies restricted to other countries. Sometimes it's hard to be satisfied with Netflix Canada's library when our American neighbours have, it's estimated, access to almost double the content. But this big and bold clampdown may backfire -- at least in Canada. Turns out, Canadians are big pirates at heart. Apparently, we feel somewhat entitled to download illegal content when we don't have cheap and easy access. Instead of shelling out $10 for a Netflix subscription, some people now may opt to pay nothing at all to get what they want.

Comments

That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[damn_registrars]

If they are trying to pay for something but it isn't available for sale, they aren't really exercising any sense of entitlement. The market has rejected them - and their money - so they are obtaining what they want some other way. There is no indication from this - and if anything counter indication - that they wouldn't pay for it if they could.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[gfxguy]

Of course they are exercising a sense of entitlement - you aren't entitled to anyone else's work for free, and if they choose not to make it available to you, that's their right. Netflix aren't punishing Canadians for no reason, they're doing it because their content providers are restricting it. Even though it sucks, it doesn't make it "right" to obtain it in violation of copyright. We're not talking about essentials, we're talking about f#@king movies.

I can understand the frustration, and frankly - while I can't condone illegal copying of someone else's work - would tend to look the other way in this instance, but it most certainly a clear case of a sense of self entitlement to other people's work in violation of their terms. There's not even a "gray" area here - it's entertainment. You have no natural "right" to it.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[serviscope_minor]

You have no natural "right" to it.

But neither is copyright a natural right. A right like that comes with certain responsibilities.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[gfxguy]

What responsibilities? Again, we're not talking about an essential service, we're talking about entertainment; the content provider is NOT responsible to you....they don't owe you anything. And, frankly, as I stated below, if people could restrain themselves from allowing the content providers to do things like this by, you know, NOT buying the content in their own country, then content providers might rethink their position. But as long as enough Canadians are buying this content at higher prices through other means, then it's THEIR fault.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[tripleevenfall]

I don't understand why people believe they are entitled to someone else's property in whatever way they choose at whatever price they feel they want to pay. Does any other business work this way? Does any other part of life work this way? Do you treat your own property this way?

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[myowntrueself]

If someone doesn't want to sell me something but I can take it without them even noticing, whats the harm in that? Its not like I've deprived them of anything; they didn't want to sell it to me anyway, they didn't want my money.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Anonymous Coward]

>content providers might rethink their position
The only thing they give fucks about is a bigger bottom line. Clearly Canada's treefiddy warrants zero fucks.

Clearly Canada stopped GAF in return. Or "is entitled", depending on your agenda.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Anonymous Coward]

Do any of the people screeching about their right to piracy have an open wifi network in their house?

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[serviscope_minor]

they don't owe you anything.

Sure they do, or I don't owe them anything which includes copyright protection backed by my taxes.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Jason Levine]

The only responsibility that copyright comes with is the responsibility to turn the work over to the public domain when the copyright ends.

Then again, this responsibility has been dodged for the longest time.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Anonymous Coward]

No no no, there is a difference here, she tried to pay for the service and only when the service said she wasn't 'good enough', did she resort to piracy.

Its like making an arbitrary decision to sell your product to some of these people, but not those people, fuck those people. Why? Cause we can.

Thats essentially your argument.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[religionofpeas]

It probably started when the Americans believed they were entitled to their freedom when they were still under British rule.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[cryptolemur]

As the GP said, we (the people) grant them copyright, and they use it to not allow us to have a copy. So why should we grant them that right again?

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[gfxguy]

So you're suggesting that content is not available in Canada by any other means?

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[tripleevenfall]

That's a good analogy if watching Flaked is an inalienable right.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[tripleevenfall]

My taxes pay for all sorts of law enforcement. Does that mean I am exempt from said laws?

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[religionofpeas]

That's a good analogy if watching Flaked is an inalienable right.

Whether they had an inalienable right was disputed at the time.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[AmiMoJo]

It's not black and white. On the one hand it's not right that the only legal way for me to watch the current Game of Thrones this year in the UK is to spend hundreds of pounds on a Sky subscription I don't want. But equally it's not fair on HBO and Sky that I pirate it either.

Neither side has the moral high ground. The only real difference between us is that I'm willing to compromise. If it were available at a reasonable price in a usable format I'd pay for it. I think HBO believe that their current model is more profitable though, so I'm just going to accept the situation for what it is.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[gfxguy]

Because it's not like that at all - the content producers are price discriminating in Canada. I'm going to bet the content is available in Canada, just not through netflix. If enough Canadians are paying higher fees to access that content, then THEY are the ones to blame for allowing the content providers to screw Canadians, and copyright infringement - especially of a non essential thing like movies - is not an acceptable behavior in this case. I think region encoding (or limiting) sucks - but they wouldn't do it if consumers didn't let them. I know, I know - the ones who abstain from playing the provider's game are in a minority, but that doesn't change anything. I may be stuck with Trump as a president, but it won't be because I voted for him. The difference is that Trump can screw up my life - not having access to a particular movie won't. So take the high road... advocating copyright infringement is NOT taking the high road. Only when enough people take the high road will the content provider's rethink their strategy.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[quantaman]

If they are trying to pay for something but it isn't available for sale, they aren't really exercising any sense of entitlement. The market has rejected them - and their money - so they are obtaining what they want some other way. There is no indication from this - and if anything counter indication - that they wouldn't pay for it if they could.

I'll occasionally download stuff I really want to see that is unavailable for online purchase and I'll readily admit it comes from a sense of entitlement. Morally if I'm going to view something I should view it in a way the creators/owners intended, usually by handing over some money, but I'm not prepared to fork over the amount of money it would take to get cable + HBO just so I can watch GoT.

Similarly if I'm going consume animal products I should make sure they're raised ethically. I'll buy free range eggs but the meat is too expensive.

Not doing the right thing because it's too inconvenient is a standard part of being human, I'd much sooner admit I'm imperfect than get into the habit of trying to rationalize the bad things I do as actually being right.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Solandri]

Copyright gives the copyright holder control over distribution. In the past, distribution was physical so it made sense to restrict availability based on geographical location.

Today distribution is mostly electronic, so geographical location means nothing. But copyright holders insist on clinging to their old model of limiting availability based on location. That's what's causing conflicts like this. (To be fair, economic normalization has not yet caught up to the information age. So the $10/mo Netflix subscription which is pocket change in the West is still a significant chunk of change in the developing world. The copyright holder may thus feel justified in being able to offer a lower price in certain locations. But those sorts of price differences are what lead to higher wages in the developing world. If they want Netflix but $10/mo is too expensive for them, they will demand higher wages instead of settling for being paid 10 cents/hr.)

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[jeremyp]

And Canadians are analogous to the slaves.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Kielistic]

Copyright is a "right" granted by the public to private entities. The the public should have the ability to revoke this granted right if they believe the private entities are not holding up their end of the bargain. I believe the public has spoken. The ability for these foreign companies to block access to Canadians isn't an "essential service" either.

The fact that these companies are making money while people have a complete lack of respect for their copyrights isn't a good argument in favour of copyright.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[jeremyp]

We the people grant you property rights and you use them to stop me from taking your car. No fair!

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[gfxguy]

Moreover, my taxes pay to enforce laws that I vehemently disagree with. The answer is not to violate them. It's unbelievable to me the lengths to which people will go to justify copyright infringement - especially of something so non-essential as games, movies, and music. If the content provider won't sell it to under terms YOU agree with, then DON'T BUY IT. You're not entitled to it.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Anonymous Coward]

Copyright exists "to promote the useful arts and sciences", it's fairly hard to argue that anything on Netflix meets that definition.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[gfxguy]

Some may have spoken, but they've done it the wrong way. If they want copyright laws changed, they need to change the copyright laws - you don't just wantonly break laws you disagree with. This isn't like sitting in the front of the bus... this is the entertainment industry. You'd all be better off abstaining, but instead you justify to yourself violating someone else's property rights for the sake of crappy movies and shows.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[serviscope_minor]

My taxes pay for all sorts of law enforcement. Does that mean I am exempt from said laws?

Not sure what that's got to do with my comment.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, last time: copyrights are NOT property.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Anonymous Coward]

If they wanted to keep their "property" then they shouldn't have published it.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Anonymous Coward]

you say that content providers have should have no responsibility to there customers and they own you nothing. fine, but then by the same token the customers should have no responsibility to the content owners. no need to protect or respect there copyright. can't have it both ways.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Anonymous Coward]

(This was modded "Troll"? Seriously?)

If people could restrain themselves from allowing the content providers to do things like this by, you know, NOT buying the content in their own country, then content providers might rethink their position.

I don't see that happening, anywhere, ever. If people aren't buying the content, the copyright holders' response will be either:

* "Well, nobody in this country is interested in our work, so we won't bother selling or licensing it there at all."

* "Well, everybody in this country must be pirating our work, so we need to campaign for more draconian copyright and DRM laws."

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[CCarrot]

We the people grant you property rights and you use them to stop me from taking a picture of your car. No fair!

FTFY.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Plus1Entropy]

The mods in this thread so far obviously have no sense of reality, abusing the pathetically tiny amount of power that they have to promote their unfounded worldview.

Your comments, which state a truth that many here (apparently) want to ignore, are being modded into oblivion, while (e.g.) serviscope_minor's, who clearly understands nothing about Intellectual Property, are being lauded.

Intellectual Property is just that, property, just about any principle that applies to someone's car or house or smartphone applies to copyrighted materials. Maybe copyright laws are out of control, the terms are too long, and distribution models are outdated in the modern global economy, but that's a completely different discussion.

We can argue all day about the way things should be, but your statement of the way things are is completely accurate.

Re: That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Anonymous Coward]

Netflix aren't punishing Canadians for no reason, they're doing it because their content providers are restricting it.

And Canadians pirating the content providers' stuff doesn't harm Netflix, so I don't see why you need to paint it as some kind of poor innocent victim.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[fustakrakich]

Copyright is a government granted temporary privilege. If you paid Netflix, you are entitled to download whatever they have in their library. If you have to torrent it, so be it, but you are entitled by your payment. Without sufficient purchasing power to affect the market, we have to resort to other means. It's just too bad if they don't like it. The balance of power is too lopsided in their favor. It's time to reset it.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[religionofpeas]

Moreover, my taxes pay to enforce laws that I vehemently disagree with. The answer is not to violate them.

Things change when the majority disagrees with the laws. At some point, heads start falling in the baskets.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Anonymous Coward]

To make money off copyrighted property, you have to publish it to your (paying) customers. Next stupid argument, please.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[religionofpeas]

If they want copyright laws changed, they need to change the copyright laws

That's not really a realistic option when content producers are in charge of the laws.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Plus1Entropy]

What is a "natural" right, as opposed to a right, and why is there a distinction? All rights come with responsibilities, not just those that you decide to categorize differently out of convenience.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[kimvette]

Perhaps it's because Canadians pay a levy on blank media and content players which is then divvied up between major media producers. Until those levies are abolished they have a valid claim to their "piracy."

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[fustakrakich]

I don't understand why businesses believe they have a right to indefinite rent seeking privileges and charge whatever price they feel like they want to charge. How many other business operate that way? Can a mechanic or a plumber work that way? Copyright is a privilege, not a right. It is a license granted by the state. When they violate the principles behind it, all bets are off. Cat and mouse it is. Don't like it? Good luck shutting down the network.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[guruevi]

A) it's not property
B) it's being given away for free without depriving anyone else of their property or profits

So say you live in a small town and you go weekly to the cinema for a movie. The theatre closes because it isn't profitable enough, so you go watch the same movies at your neighbors house (which is also illegal under current copyright law). The movie producers weren't going to make money anyway because they don't sell it (anymore), who exactly are you depriving?

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Anonymous Coward]

Ooooh, look everyone, an off-the-mark car analogy!!

Nobody is trying to take your car, they just want to copy it and they're even ready to pay for that copy even though the copy cost close to nothing because electricity is cheap.

But then you say "fuck this, I don't want your money to copy my car" (even better analogy: your boss's boss said that).

So because they gave you the right to protect your car from unlawful copying (thinking that they could get legal copy by paying you for it) they decide to just take the cheap unlawful copy path.

Hey, look at the bright side, even after all that, you still have your car.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[fustakrakich]

Jim Crow is law that I vehemently disagree with. The answer is not to violate them. To the back of the bus with you.

Sorry, It is time for the buyer to start setting the rules for a change, by hook or by "crook". It's not really up for discussion anymore.

Payment to Netflix entitles you to download. The product is paid for. I can decided for myself the method of delivery if they refuse to accommodate and try to block access of paid for content. For me the issue is moot.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Archangel Michael]

Does that mean I am exempt from said laws?

There are lots of laws that are selectively enforced. To the point where they actually become irrelevant, but remain on the books. And when we selectively are either complicit or outraged on the selective enforcement, it says a lot about our own duplicity. The problem is, the bureaucracy doesn't have the balls to either remove nor the balls to enforce these selectively applied laws. Which leaves the people to feel entitled to do whatever they want, because the system itself cannot follow the rules it has set up (and often doesn't even pretend to).

Here's the deal, if the laws are not being enforced, remove them. If you don't like a law, remove it. Which brings me to the real point, it is often much harder to remove a bad law, than it is to pass them. We need to change this.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Geeky]

If you have a good enough internet connection, you can get a three month NowTV subscription (enough to cover the 10 weeks of GoT) for about £14 (special offer if you sign up for three months instead of the usual rolling month).

If you have no way to stream it to your TV and don't want to watch it on a PC or tablet, you can get a Chromecast for £30 that comes with a voucher for, IIRC, 30 days free NowTV. Or a NowTV box, which is basically a rebadged Roku, but I'd go with the Chromecast as it supports the 50Hz output that some TVs need for smooth playback (NowTV / Roku hardware uses 60Hz, which is the US standard, leading to juddery playback unless your TV can cope)

That's what I'm doing to get GoT season 6 legally.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Anonymous Coward]

When american copywrite laws make things difficult for canadians, canadians stop giving a fuck about american copywrite laws. (stop implies we ever did we dont and never have cared about copywrite laws)

It's not like these american content providers have some technical limitation to providing content to us in a convenient way, but they chose not to, meanwhile all this content is already being pirated and just a click a way. We can and will watch your content, if you want to get paid stop making it difficult to pay you for what we want.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[CCarrot]

Some may have spoken, but they've done it the wrong way. If they want copyright laws changed, they need to change the copyright laws - you don't just wantonly break laws you disagree with.

I disagree. If the laws are established by a small minority with disproportionate influence because money, then what other option is there besides civil disobedience?

This isn't like sitting in the front of the bus... this is the entertainment industry.

It is? Golly-gee, guess we shouldn't get so worked up about it then!

You'd all be better off not taking the bus at all, but instead you justify to yourself violating someone else's sense of impropriety for the sake of not having to walk an extra 15 feet.

See what I did there? It's not about the damn movies or tv shows or whatever. It's about generating a sense of artificial scarcity in order to drive more dollars in to the already grossly overflowing pot.

For lack of a better phrase, it's the principle of the thing. If anything highlights that, this story does, since canucks were happily paying to see the content they wanted (sure, once to Netflix and probably again to a VPN provider, but whatever). Sure, they can still PVR the content, or (often) stream it from the network website, or even purchase individual episodes through iTunes...meanwhile this exact same content is provided to the next door neighbor free of (additional) charge. How would your kids react if you give cake to one and kicks to the other, simply because one has a room on the north side of the house the other is in the south?

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Anonymous Coward]

Moreover, my taxes pay to enforce laws that I vehemently disagree with. The answer is not to violate them.

Really? When it comes to truly heinous laws, in many cases over the last couple hundred years, the laws have only been changed AFTER a massive campaign of civil disobedience (and/or armed rebellion.)

Not that I'm saying current copyright laws are "truly heinous". But, if there are laws that you "vehemently disagree with" - what ARE you doing to change those laws?

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry but no, just no. If you took even 2 seconds to scan the linked article you'd see Canadians are more than willing to pay a 'reasonable price' for access to the content. This has been the argument in respect to 'mitigating piracy' all along. People will NOT 'pirate' content if they have easy & affordable/cheap access to it. But people aren't stupid, if you restrict that access unnecessarily or price gouge they'd react accordingly. As another poster notes 'copyright' is NOT a 'natural right' (e.g. 'right to life' IS a natural right which you get simply by virtue of being born). Copyright is provided as a 'benefit' to 'promote the arts', if the 'arts' are not being promoted properly (according to the terms society wants) than its the copyright holders who are 'feeling entitled' & need a severe shake up in the terms of the agreement (laws) that we allow them to make money on their labour.

Consider your statement about 'its entertainment' from the point of view of the content producer...I could easily argue 'you have no natural right to scads of money from your work because its 'just entertainment'"....Quite frankly the rules of copyright in place today have FAR out distanced the value to society of this content..

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Anonymous Coward]

false analogy - it's only against copyright law for your neighbor to charge you a fee to watch a copy of the movie licensed only for in-home use.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Anonymous Coward]

Cultural works belong to the public. We lease them to authors so that they can take them and arrange them in novel ways, and benefit from selling this intellectual monopoly granted to them for limited periods of time as a way to encourage this kind of work. This is the essence in western legislation of the wrongly called "intellectual property" rights.

When the lease contract expires, they return back to their legitimate owners, the public, to do with them as they please. Unfortunately, media conglomerates have been pushing government to extend the lease contract for decades, and are restricting our right to reuse a large amount of our cultural works as originally intended.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Insanity Defense]

Copyright is to allow the creators to profit from their creation. If they refuse to allow themselves to profit why does society allow them copyright?

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Archangel Michael]

Part of that reason is because content ownership/rights are bounded by those very same boundaries they are being enforced at. My guess, is that Netflix library's availability has more to do with Canada's programming laws and rights owners than anything else. This has been an ongoing issue with Canada for a very long time (since Cable), and the people who are complaining about it, do not outnumber those that like it that way.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[zedaroca]

Actually, we do have the natural right to speak, sing, write, do things with our bodies. That would include singing songs we hear and writing zeros and ones we get to know.

Copyright is an unnatural right to revoke our natural rights of doing all those things, for a while, and the time they are revoking our rights is no longer reasonable (I'm free to say those words after we're dead + 70y).

Their terms are a violation of our natural rights, we should no longer let the abuse continue, but if they want the majority of the population to to keep following their terms, they'll have to meet in between.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[i_ate_god]

> I don't understand why businesses believe they have a right to indefinite rent seeking privileges and charge whatever price they feel like they want to charge. How many other business operate that way?

Er, every single one of them. Other businesses however, may not be able to keep their customers if they behaved that way and they will be forced to adapt their pricing models or die.

The entertainment industry however, continues to keep their customers regardless of how they behave. Look at video games and how many times there have been awful launches of games that were partially funded via pre-orders. And despite the backlash, people KEEP pre-ordering, so the industry lacks the incentive to adapt.

This is not an issue that can be solved by any kind of adjustment to copyright law. This is a cultural/societal issue. The customers are so desperate for their entertainment fix that they keep giving in to the bizarre business practices of the entertainment industry and so the entertainment industry doesn't change or adapt. It doesn't have to.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[MadCow42]

Well, presumably that media is still available for Canadians to purchase in other manners. Maybe it's more expensive, maybe it's less convenient than their preferred option of a Netflix subscription, but they could still "buy" it on DVD or other services or whatnot.

So - it's a dubious argument that they're "entitled" to pirate it because Netflix doesn't want to sell it to them. But, it does highlight that people are willing to pay for content in a manner that's reasonably priced, flexible, and in a format that makes it easy and convenient to use... and if media companies won't provide that and get SOME revenue from it, alternatives like piracy will thrive.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Applehu Akbar]

"Of course they are exercising a sense of entitlement - you aren't entitled to anyone else's work for free, and if they choose not to make it available to you, that's their right. "

Technically true, but when technology gives you a capability, such as streaming movies and TV shows, that 'rights holders' take away again, users perceived they have lost a right. If such users were to find a way of getting around Netflix' VPN restriction to stream content through Netflix that they are no longer "entitled to" according to the changed rule, everybody still wins: Netflix and the rights holder still get paid for the viewing, and the user still sees what could view before for the same subscribed price.

The big danger from the rights holder's viewpoint is that if Netflix becomes too effective at keeping VPN usage off its system, the users will just start torrenting instead. In that case, Netflix and the rights holder both lose. My feeling is that someone will soon hack around the VPN restriction, and Netflix will quietly allow this to happen.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[ArgonautThief]

Can't believe someone keeps modding this guy Troll.
Just because his views may not be in line with the popular view on copyright vs availability vs piracy doesn't mean he's trolling.

Grow up.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Plus1Entropy]

I'll remember that when a mugger steals your phone and wallet; why should my taxes pay for police to protect you from that? Your view that Intellectual Property is different from normal property is ludicrous.

Imagine we're talking about a car. You want to buy a new Ford, but Ford only licenses one dealer near to you to sell them, and you think their prices are too high. Want to buy a used Ford from someone? No problem. Want to buy a Toyota instead? No problem. Want to buy a new Ford that was stolen off the lot? Problem.

Your logic is so wonderfully asinine:

ASSERT: I don't have to pay them
If I don't pay them, then they don't have to provide it to me
If they don't provide it to me, then they don't deserve legal protection
If they don't deserve legal protection, then I don't have to pay them
QED

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Anonymous Coward]

The market has rejected them

No it hasn't. Draw a Venn diagram with "The Market" in one circle and "Netflix" in the other. Now overlap the two circles appropriately. You'll notice that Netflix != The Market.
People are free to rent/buy movies and it's not hard or expensive. I buy or rent movies on Google Play regularly. I check my Canadian Netflix first to make sure I don't buy something I can watch for almost-free.
Some people just don't want to spend any money and from what I can tell in Canada, there are little/no repercussions to pirating movies as of yet. The hammer will drop, and I don't intend to give content holders a long list of pirated download history as ammunition against me. I'd rather spend the, I don't know, $100-$200 a year on buy/rent movie entertainment.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[religionofpeas]

Your view that Intellectual Property is different from normal property is ludicrous.

So when does your home or car fall into the public domain ?

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[gfxguy]

The problem is you're comparing Jim Crow laws (in fact, I already mentioned the back of the bus analogy in another post) to illegally copying... for the purposes of your entertainment. No, that's not a moral or legal high ground.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Plus1Entropy]

"If you don't use it you lose it" doesn't apply to rights. They have the exclusive right to copy, period. That doesn't mean they have to provide copies.

You have freedom of speech, does that mean you don't have the right to remain silent?

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[gfxguy]

Please... are you seriously comparing civil rights to illegally copying Dumb and Dumber?

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not really a realistic option when content publishers are in charge of the laws.

FTFY.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Plus1Entropy]

You're right, they aren't completely the same. But, they are the same in the sense that while someone owns them, they are afforded the same protections under the law. That's what's relevant to this discussion.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[gfxguy]

No, what you did there was moronic, because people need to take the bus to get to work. There's a huge difference between a PUBLIC BUS SYSTEM and a private content provider not wanting to sell you content as cheaply as you'd like.... I don't know what to say if you can't see the difference.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Insanity Defense]

f you restrict that access unnecessarily or price gouge they'd react accordingly.

The department store Target opened in Canada a few years ago. One of their executives was asked if Canadians were going to get the same prices as the American stores. His response was no because Canadians are used to being ripped off (not an exact quote). Target no longer operates in Canada. Wonder if their is a connection? ;)/p

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[JaredOfEuropa]

Why do publishers feel they are entitled to make money off published works? For much of our history, they didn't. If you had permission, not from the author of a book but from the owner of a physical copy of it, to borrow a published work, no one was stopping you from making a copy. And no one thought the worse of you for doing so: after all, no one was being deprived of anything by your actions. What stopped widespread copying was the effort and cost involved in making the copy, not lack of the author's consent.

At some point society decided that it was a good idea to grant authors an artificial and temporary monopoly on their works so that they could make a profit from them, encouraging them to produce and publish more works. With the goal of enriching society, not the authors. So when these authors and publishers abuse their monopoly and create an artificial scarcity to maximize their profits at the expense of availability of their works, you could say that they are not upholding their end of the deal. Except that this deal got rewritten many, many times with nothing but the interests of the publishers in mind.

And that is why some people feel they are "entitled" to break the law and freely avail themselves of this content. Not because they don't want to pay but because it is not available to them in an agreeable timeframe or format through legal channels. It is high time that society steps up and holds publishers to their end of the deal.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Anonymous Coward]

If the laws in place do not actively promote the will of even a 'large minority' of society not only is it your 'right' to ignore said laws it is your OBLIGATION to do so. How the hell do you think the vast majority of the British Empire (including Britain itself) went from 'Royalty run by people with a Divine Right to rule to democracies run by the people', the Kings & Queens (and their 'nobles') certainly weren't giving up their 'entitled position' without the people ACTIVELY disobeying the laws in place right up to the point of 'revolution'. And just because a society is run as a democracy doesn't mean such sentiment just disappears. If the 'rulers' in a democracy just "aren't getting it" than its up to the people to 'learn them' any way they can...now because this is 'just entertainment' and because Canada is a 'nice friendly society' nobody would really want to have a revolution over this so the only other way to promote dissatisfaction while not killing people is to actively ignore the law.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[fustakrakich]

The problem is you're comparing Jim Crow laws (in fact, I already mentioned the back of the bus analogy in another post) to illegally copying

You are wrong again. The entire meme is wrong. I am discussing the principle of unjust law. Nothing more to read into it. And "morality" never won a war. Gun and bullets do that. "Morality" is merely a rationalization to pull the trigger. I'm am not going to let the industry decide what is "moral".

You also seem to forget that copyright is not a "right". It is a license. And it is being abused.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[gfxguy]

That's not both ways - you people will do anything to justify your copyright infringement; the content providers have NO responsibility to make their content available to you at all, but that's not even the issue - the issue is they aren't making it available to you in the ways that you want at the prices you want to pay. Respect is respecting their right to charge whatever they want, and them respecting you for saying "then go f#@k yourselves, I'm just not going to buy it." Sorry if things aren't as cheap and easy as you want them to be, there's still no justification for violating someone else's copyrights for the sake of you watching TV.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry but if you 'vehemently disagree' with a law then its not just your 'right' its your obligation to violate said law...what's that? you MIGHT go to jail/be punished? Just how 'vehemently' do you disagree with said law? Enough to stake your life on it? How the heck do you think we got to today's democracies anyway? Rulers didn't just 'see the light', people actively disobeyed laws, gave up their lives and fought wars...and just because a country is a 'democracy' doesn't mean the idea of 'civil disobedience' and 'actively flaunting the laws' goes away. The fact is that even in a democracy its each citizens responsibility to actively decide which laws you will obey & which you'll 'fight to the death' to get changed. Copyright is likely not one that anyone would want to 'fight to the death' to change so they find other ways to express their severe dissatisfaction. Calling it 'pirating' is just a way to shame people in to believing THEY are wrong not the law.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[gfxguy]

Yes, it was modded troll... ridiculous, but to people who have justified their illegal copying, the truth hurts.

I don't see it happening, either, because what IS happening is that the content IS available in Canada, just not through Netflix. So what's happening isn't that the content isn't available, it's that enough people are actually buying it at higher prices from other vendors to justify the content providers putting restrictions on distribution for the sake of profit. There's actually nothing wrong with that - that's the free market at work. The problem is there's a significant number of people who are NOT willing to pay the higher price for content, and so they steal it.... then blame the content providers for forcing them to resort to stealing their movies. If it sounds absurd, it's because it is.... and it most definitely comes down to a sense of entitlement.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[religionofpeas]

If they're not completely the same, then your analogies may not work. Better to ignore physical property completely for the purpose of this discussion which was about border hopping using a VPN, which does not apply to physical property.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Plus1Entropy]

The ability for these foreign companies to block access to Canadians isn't an "essential service" either.

That is not what's happening. Other companies have bought the exclusive distribution rights within Canada. By extension, Netflix does not have the right to distribute the content in Canada, and is in fact violating their contract if they do so.

If enforcing contracts aren't an "essential service", then why should you get paid for your job? Why should your ISP have to honor the contract by providing you with internet after you've paid? Why shouldn't the security guard confiscate all your groceries at the door, regardless of what the receipt says? Why should anyone honor any agreement?

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[danbob999]

There is no indication from this - and if anything counter indication - that they wouldn't pay for it if they could.

Of course there is. All this content is available on cable TV, Bluray, Netflix competitors, etc.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[gfxguy]

Wrong - you're entitled to stream netflix, not download and keep a copy. Even if I agreed that the balance of power was in their favor (of course it is), if the public isn't happy about it, the public should STOP BUYING THE PRODUCT until content providers realize they need to make changes. Yes, it's not going to happen, because believe it or not, enough people are paying the higher prices (both in money and freedoms) to view the content. Blame them, they are the ones making the system profitable for the content providers. The problem is we're so entitled, we can't just not buy (or steal) things.... we can't just live without Dumb and Dumber for a while for the sake of changing the system. The people HAVE spoken, and that's what they've said.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[c]

Don't call it "piracy".

It's really just that after years of observing and learning from the experts, individuals are outsourcing their entertainment provision to jurisdictions that can supply better services and and a wider variety of products for substantially lower prices. Sure, it's a little less convenient sometimes, but that's the cost of doing business.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Anonymous Coward]

He's not, and you don't believe that he is.

An analogy suggests that two things are similar in a way, not that they are "the same" or of equal importance. You already knew this, so implying otherwise makes you a liar.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. I don't understand why some third party (movie studio) feels they have the right to control my property (the DVD-R I own). Just because a pattern of bumps in it exist in a way they they feel makes them sad doesn't mean they can control my property and how I choose to use it!

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[gfxguy]

They are profiting... what makes you think they aren't? Are you saying the content being withheld isn't available in Canada at all? And if the content is available through other legal means in Canada, where's the justification for stealing? Just because it's not part of the service you use?

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Triklyn]

... if you paid netflix, you purchased the right to live stream whatever they have explicitly or implicitly offered IN YOUR REGION. you made an agreement with netflix canada, not netflix-USA effectively.

they paid whoever owns the content in the USA to distribute in the USA. If they distributed it to canadians, without paying whoever owns the rights in canada, they'd probably get sued by the canadian rights holder.

so effectively, you're angry at netflix for not contravening canadian laws to give you access to things that they don't own.

you're all angry at netflix for not pirating content for you on your behalf.

good job, assholes.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Anonymous Coward]

you aren't entitled to anyone else's work for free

Why did you tack on the utterly irrelevant "for free?" The issue at hand is that you're also not entitled to it for pay. Right?

if they choose not to make it available to you, that's their right.

It was their right, before they chose (this was an active decision on their part) to throw away their trade secret, and instead they asked society for the special favor of copyright.

The purpose of copyright is to incentivize creation and distribution of ideas and expressions. (It is not always the right tool for the job, but sometimes it is. Copyright is a cool idea!)

Alas, they are refusing to distribute. They renegged on copyright. Their default on the agreement is what gave their creditor (society) the right to seize the work in question.

With the next work, they can choose otherwise. Either keep it a trade secret (don't let people see the videos) or use copyright, depending on whether they want to make it available or not. Nobody is going to force them to make it available; that decision will remain their right to make. But once they make that decision and choose copyright over secret, then we have a deal and defecting from the agreement is going to trigger various conditions that favor the party (society) who was initially approached with the offer ("please give me copyright, and in exchange, I will enrich society with my creation").

There's not even a "gray" area here - it's entertainment. You have no natural "right" to it.

If we're going to look at it on that level (the overall lack of importance), then I'll admit: I tend to agree with you. But let's also remember that nobody has any natural right to prohibit access, either. Obtaining the not-for-sale entertainment is like breathing air: nobody loses. Just as I don't have a right to breath, you don't have a right to stop me. This sort of thing is "beneath" rights.

Nevertheless, we all tend to solve problems (even unimportant problems) by focusing on them as though they really matter. That's why I can write code that shows you an ad or pathfinds a dragon in a game, and do the job just as [in]competently as though I were working on a pacemaker or Apollo capsule. It's not all that out-of-hand to use terms like "rights" in spite of it not being as serious as having to quarter the redcoats in your home, or being taxed without having a seat in parliament. Look at the situation on whatever level it exists.

So sure, in that respect, I agree that movie-watching and copyright aren't as important as other things. And yet you see our government's time taken up by it in courts and in Congress, so maybe we're both WRONG!! (Why did Disney buy Orrin Hatch if it wasn't important?)

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[gfxguy]

Agreed with both you and the post you were responding to. I do have problems with copyright law, but having a copyright law is better than not having it, and if you don't like the terms the content providers are setting, then don't buy the product - violating their copyright is not acceptable so that you can watch Dumb and Dumber on your own terms without paying.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Anonymous Coward]

WOW. Just WOW. You have ZERO concept of the difference between physical property and 'thoughts' do you? Consider that there is likely just 1 law on the books governing 'theft' of physical property (and its not specific to a car, diamonds, golf clubs or any other specific physical property) but we have BOOKS of laws to govern the 'sharing' of thoughts/ideas/subjects even when those thoughts take some kind of 'tangible form' (digital movie, book etc.).

Grow up, do some reading about the history of copyright (it was NOT originally a right given to 'authors'/producers granted to them to control copying of their works but rather a 'right' conferred by Kings to individuals who were 'granted' the right to actually DO the 'copying'...thus 'copyright'...the original intent is right there in the name...that doesn't meant the 'intent' of such laws can't change over time but knowing the history would maybe inform you on why today's rules are just entirely out of sync with what society actually wants or needs laws regarding 'copyright' to provide).

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[gfxguy]

Ok, look, I completely understand your position, but it's just that there are copyright laws for a reason, and the laws may be somewhat broken, but that does NOT give you the right to arbitrarily decide what "a reasonable price" is. You don't need this content; you don't have a "right" to watch Game of Thrones. If the content providers are not giving you a way to watch it in what you consider a reasonable fashion, your option is to NOT WATCH AT ALL; your option should never be to violate someone else's copyright to watch Game of Thrones just because you don't like terms. That's like a movie theater charging $20, you declaring it's not worth it, and sneaking in. Hey, the theater wasn't full, so it's not like you were stealing, right?

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[TsuruchiBrian]

But there *is* a natural right to owning streams of ones and zeroes? You have a natural right to own particular configurations of electrons and photons? Rights are manifestations of government protection of those rights. Natural rights don't exist. But *if* they did exist, they certainly wouldn't include copyright. Copyright is just a tool to incentivize behavior (i.e. content creation). Copyright is no more a natural right than cash rebates for buying electric cars.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[gfxguy]

Thanks, and I agree completely - it's not that there aren't problems with copyright law, it's that people simply aren't entitled to the work of others just because they don't like the terms of it's availability. If people want to stick their fingers in their ears, mod us down, and say "I'm not listening" because they don't like the realization that they are part of the problem and not the solution, then so be it.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Anonymous Coward]

if you have a copyright but don't defend it, it can be seen as you allowing the infringement and get your copyright nullified

so yes, in this society, at least, you have to defend your copyrights

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Plus1Entropy]

Analogies don't have to be completely the same, by definition. This discussion is not about border hopping using a VPN, it's about people turning to piracy because Netflix is blocking VPNs, and whether or not that should be OK. We can argue about the way things should be, but not about the way they are.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't understand why people believe they are entitled to someone else's property in whatever way they choose at whatever price they feel they want to pay. Does any other business work this way? Does any other part of life work this way? Do you treat your own property this way?

It more that in the real world you have to 'compete' with 'I'll juts steal it'.
If you make something too much harder to get 'legitimately' than it is to steal you get people stealing it. This happens with physical goods as well. And the bulk of our legal system is ultimately designed to "fix" this by imposing a harsh penalties if you get caught and catching enough people that the risk of getting caught brings the expected value of theft back below the expected value of buying or going without.

Digital goods in particular are extremely easy to copy and distribute. And there are very low odds of getting punished for piracy. So the rational action often is to ignore copyright law as the bottom line expected value ends up positive even with all the associated risks. So unless the legitimate copy is cheap and easy to get, piracy comes out ahead of acquiring it through legitimate channels.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Anonymous Coward]

My guess, is that Netflix library's availability has more to do with Canada's programming laws and rights owners than anything else. .

It's the rights owners. Production company A sells their show to US network B. They may or may not sell it to any Canadian network. If they do, Canadian network C has exclusive rights within the country to show it, in the exact same fashion as network B does in its country. This isn't exactly new, as you point out, and not hard to understand. If the contract with network C precludes streaming in Canada, then you won't get it there. BFD.

Re: That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[gfxguy]

Who said Netflix was the victim? The content providers and the other venues by which they distribute the content in Canada are the victims of people who simply don't like the terms - whose only legal option is to just not buy the content. Tell me one thing Netflix pulled that isn't available in Canada through other legal means.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Anonymous Coward]

when does your IP start paying property taxes.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[fustakrakich]

I'm not angry, just taking control of the things I buy. I feel no obligation to anything besides giving them the money for the content. One way or another there will be a shift of power. Since they won't discuss it, we can just take action and play cat and mouse for an indefinite period of time. It's up to them. In the meantime we can take down the borders one piece at a time, start with communications and work our way up to free human migration anywhere on the planet.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[kimvette]

Hence the quotes. I really ought to have placed a [sic] after the misused word.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[CCarrot]

No, what you did there was moronic, because people need to take the bus to get to work. There's a huge difference between a PUBLIC BUS SYSTEM and a private content provider not wanting to sell you content as cheaply as you'd like.... I don't know what to say if you can't see the difference.

People don't need to take the bus either, not when they can walk. Yes, they lose the benefits of taking the bus, such as shorter transit time and less fatigue, but hey, if people won't follow the arbitrary nonsensical rules about who's allowed to sit where on this here bus, well...there's the road, sonny.

'Private' content availability or 'public' transportation, it's still discrimination, it's just that now there are technical ways to circumvent it, and that makes certain entitled fat cats see red. The content producers may not like it much, but one benefit of teh interwebs is that pretty much the entire world is 'next door' now. Is it wrong to read a Globe and Mail article on a news aggregator online, instead of buying the same old hard copy of the Globe and Mail just to read that one article that caught your eye? Now imagine that the G&M website tried to geo-restrict their readerbase, so as to force anyone outside their arbitrary distribution area to purchase (and wait for delivery of) a hard copy. How long do you think they would remain relevant?

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[gfxguy]

You're conflating copyright and patents, though. Dumb and Dumber isn't a trade secret; not because the company released it, but because it never was - it's a copyrighted work of "art." And, for the record, they are refusing to "distribute" via Netflix... unless you can name something pulled from Netflix that is not available through other means legally in Canada.

What's happening is that people want the convenience of one service at a price they are happy with. The problem is, neither the service nor the price is up to you. If you have to buy or rent something on DVD or BR because that's the only way legal way the provider is giving you access to it, then your ONLY reasonable choices are to buy or rent it, or NOT buy or rent it, it's never to violate their copyright.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Triklyn]

... why exactly isn't it fair that you can't watch game of thrones exactly?

i'm fairly sure it'll come out on DVD at some point. and won't cost 100s of lbs. so not only is it simply a desire you have, it's a desire you can fulfill easily given time. HBO decided that SKY was apparently the best people to distribute their content in the UK. Sky decided that given their portfolio game of thrones would sweeten the pot enough to drive more subscriptions and presumably cover that licensing cost through more subscriptions or retention.

sure one can pirate it, and i probably would if i cared enough about that show. but i wouldn't try and pretend that i'd be justified, that my hand was forced in some way. I want it, and i don't mind breaking those particular laws. my downside is the risk of getting caught, that niggling of guilt for stealing people's livelihood, if i think of it long enough, my contribution to the moral decay of society, etc. etc. :) mine is pc games,
and right now, they'll get my money, if i think they deserve it. xcom2 for example, i preordered that shit, because i think firaxis needs people to "vote" that they make more games like that. I'd like to, with my money, strap jake solomon to the x-com wheel and have him keep churning out these kinds of games.

my relationship with content is... interesting. I'll go see sicario 2 in theaters for example, because I enjoyed my pirated copy for sicario, they deserve my money now, and I honestly would not have seen it if pirating weren't an option. (it was a contest between boredom and it being slightly outside my typical genre) But now that i've seen it and enjoy it, I owe them money, and i want them to keep making these kinds of films. If it's really indie, and i think it's something worthy i'll hunt it down in theaters to give them my money too. like "the act of killing".

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Anonymous Coward]

You have no natural "right" to it.

But neither is copyright a natural right. A right like that comes with certain responsibilities.

You are wrong. If you create something, you have the right to copyright it. It's yours. You have no right to steal what belongs to someone else.

What is wrong with you people these days??? You're so self absorbed you don't even realize when you're wrong and hurting other people???????? Just incredible.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[TsuruchiBrian]

You don't have to go that far to justify copyright infringement. All you need to do is simply not accept the premise that it is inherently immoral to violate laws (this is pretty easy, there are tons of terrible laws), and then not accept the premise that it is immoral to violate that specific law (a little harder, but still a lot easier than rejecting the idea that murder is immoral).

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[fustakrakich]

This is very true. The entire routine is our own creation. Those that don't make it happen let it happen. I think the biggest problem is excessive obedience.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[gfxguy]

No, no - there is a huge difference between having your rights violated by unjust laws, and not being able to watch Dumb and Dumber on your own terms because you don't like the way it's being made available to you.

I also agree that copyright law is broken, but since it's not violating your civil rights, then civil disobedience is not the answer. Try turning off the computer or TV instead of violating someone else's intellectual property. I realize it's not going to happen, but if we, en masse, just stopped watching the absolute dreg these companies are providing at ridiculous prices and terms, then the problem would clear up really quickly without the need to violate the law.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[TsuruchiBrian]

It's called an analogy. You can make an analogy of a lemonade stand to a fortune 500 company, without implying that these 2 things are on the same scale. (i.e. it is a quantitative difference not a qualitative one)

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[serviscope_minor]

This isn't about laws, it's about rights and responsibilties. The original claim was that the copyright holders do not owe me nothing. I dispute that, because we are giving them something.

Laws and ethics are not the same thing.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Plus1Entropy]

Providing copies and defending copyright are two different things.

Also, if someone steals your car and you don't call the police, don't expect them to catch the guy.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Anonymous Coward]

The irony of this comment is, you're trying to make a point, but what you said is fact. Tax money isn't used to protect me from being mugged. If I'm mugged and my phone and wallet are taken from me, the police will show up, take a report and that will be the end of it. They will put no effort into catching the mugger and they will make no effort into recovering my goods. If on the off chance that they do somehow recover my goods, I will never be notified that they were recovered and they will not be returned to me.

Seriously, it's almost like you've never been burgled and had to deal with filing that report, it really is a joke. Last time my brothers car got broken in to, he didn't bother calling the police because to quote him "what good will it do? They'll take a report, tell me what I should have done, and that will be the end of what they'll do".

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[fustakrakich]

Yes, the people have spoken, but not for me. Neither do you, neither does Netflix. We are dealing with opinion, and merely being part of a majority does not automatically make you right.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[j-turkey]

Imagine we're talking about a car.

Comparing theft of physical property to intellectual property is an old, tired argument that has never ever worked. Please stop making this comparison. Stealing a Ford off of a lot deprives an entity of a physical asset. Paying for intellectual property under false pretenses due to locality restrictions is completely different. Even copying that IP for no remuneration is different, because it is not depriving an entity of a physical asset. Piracy is not the same as theft and never has been.

Does this justify piracy? No.

Does it justify using the same old tired argument and false analogy? Also no.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[TsuruchiBrian]

I find the idea that intellectual property is not different than physical property to be ludicrous. Is it illegal to see your neighbor's Ford and decide to build your own? Stealing a Ford or buying a stolen Ford is denying someone else that physical property. Building your own Ford is not denying anyone else a physical Ford. Maybe building your own Ford is denying the right of the Ford company to be the only entity allowed to make Ford cars. Maybe copyright infringement should be illegal. I think there are very good arguments to be made for that. But to say that they are not different is ridiculous.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Anonymous Coward]

Precisely! So why won't they offer their copyrighted property to obviously willing potential customers?

The content is available, moral philosophizing be damned. The content owners can accept money for it (offer it in Canada), or go without. That's the reality on the ground.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Triklyn]

actually, in that case, the value of the property is devalued in other countries.

lets use amimojo's example above, hbo, sky and game of thrones.

if vpn blah blah blah is prevalent enough, and sky gets wind, the strength of hbo's negotiating position is weakened. why would sky pay for the license of a property that people can get super easy through netflix? HBO might increase its revenue through netflix, but would take a hit in what they get from sky. HBO would probably lose money actually, because it is most likely significantly more profitable currently to give that license for UK broadcast to SKY than to netflix currently... or you know, netflix would have that license.

if netflix does nothing to make vpn harder, then content producers are going to have to start taking a good hard look at seeing if their revenue from US distribution of that content through netflix is more advantageous than through their other channels. Netflix could just straight up lose the property entirely, or get sued by HBO for something or other.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[BlueCoder]

Get over it. It's not real property. It's not a physical thing.

Those that hole copyright sacred are the ones that feel entitled and owed something.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[gfxguy]

Actually, no - your posts indicate you actually know very little about copyright law. Just because you're paying for streaming doesn't grant you the right to torrent a movie.

But it's not merely my OPINION that people violating copyright are in the wrong. Your civil rights aren't being violated, so illegal copying is not an act of civil disobedience - it's merely theft of IP. You can continue to justify it to yourself it if helps you sleep at night, but if you were making a living off of providing content to people, I would wager you'd see it in a different light. I'm also not even suggesting copyright laws don't need fixing - just that illegal copying of something like Dumb and Dumber is not a political statement, nor does it help anything.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[TsuruchiBrian]

I don't think anyone is arguing that content providers have a responsibility to make their content available to anyone. You keep implying that violating laws is inherently immoral, and some people simply don't accept this premise. I don't accept this premise, and I am not even opposed to copyright laws.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[fustakrakich]

You seek distinction where there is none. I don't know how to deal with that. I simply regard the problem as one of people being too obedient.and submissive, and their (yours too) rationalizations for not rocking the boat are merely an appeal to authority.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Plus1Entropy]

Are you talking about the way things are, or the way they should be?

IP is, according to the law, the same as P. If you are saying that it shouldn't be that way, that's a different discussion.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[gfxguy]

Of course there's distinction - I'll repeat it again; not getting the media content you want from the service you want at the prices you want to pay is NOT a violation of your civil rights, and therefore illegally copying it is NOT an act of civil disobedience. It's really just that simple.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Anonymous Coward]

if you have a copyright but don't defend it, it can be seen as you allowing the infringement and get your copyright nullified

Wrong. This is only true of trademarks. Please do not repeat myths.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[religionofpeas]

it's about people turning to piracy because Netflix is blocking VPNs, and whether or not that should be OK.

Whether that's OK or not is not related to whether stealing cars is OK.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, being punished for the crime (in this case, paying a fee to offset profit losses due to file sharing), justifies committing that crime.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Anonymous Coward]

I did not scream yet(just came to the discussion), but I might as well. And yes I do have an open wifi.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[fustakrakich]

Copyright is a license... The voters have allowed the law to be corrupted beyond reason. Just like prohibition, I feel no obligations toward it. I paid the bill, and that's that. We can argue about this till the cows come home. Feel free to have me modded down and call me every name in the book. The cat and mouse is not going to stop. Happy hunting!

By the way, copying and sharing is a basic right. There is no right to deny it.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[fustakrakich]

:-) Then I guess you win...

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[sjames]

If they haven't made it available to you, then they aren't losing anything if you make a non-destructive copy.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[sjames]

If someone wants to make a replica of my car, I say go for it.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[j-turkey]

Are you talking about the way things are, or the way they should be?

IP is, according to the law, the same as P. If you are saying that it shouldn't be that way, that's a different discussion.

Interesting, you're actually making my argument for me. The law treats IP differently than physical property, because it is different. That is why we have separate laws protecting physical property and intellectual property (and significantly different criminal and even civil penalties for violations of such law).

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Triklyn]

but you didn't buy it. you paid for access to things they were offering to show you. you didn't pay for access to things they were offering to show me.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[sjames]

What if I just copy a Ford, leaving the original on the lot?

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[fustakrakich]

That's right, I bought access. That entitles me to it. I will take control of the method.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Insanity Defense]

They are profiting... what makes you think they aren't? Are you saying the content being withheld isn't available in Canada at all? And if the content is available through other legal means in Canada, where's the justification for stealing? Just because it's not part of the service you use?

A lot of stuff is NOT available in Canada.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[AmiMoJo]

Thanks, I wasn't aware of that route. I'll investigate.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Triklyn]

you bought access to what they offered, not to what they offered others. there's a difference.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Forgefather]

Except that very exception has been in place for many of the state copyright rules that governed copy right pre 1979. In fact it is still in place for many of the golden oldies and recently came up with Sony's old recordings of unreleased Bob Dylan practice tracks that they were forced to release as a CD or lose the copyright.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[gfxguy]

What was cut from Netflix that isn't available though other channels?

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Plus1Entropy]

In the same way that the law and penalty for burglary is different from the law and penalty for grand theft auto.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[epine]

You're talking about property as if it's a black and white thing. It's not, and never has been. What we now understand as "property" is the end result of a complex social negotiation that's been ongoing now for many millennia, which has always featured strange winners and losers, and devils in the details.

One can't live in the world and not notice this.

Woe to you if you discover that "your" back yard is contaminated with someone else's "ancestral" DNA.

If "your" antenna radiates energy through "my" radio circuitry, am I allowed to do what I wish with my radio's behaviour?

Blakley on Fashion and Intellectual Property

I once saw Prince making some ridiculous argument about the protection of music, with no idea at all that the people who come up with the fancy clothing he wears are afforded nothing at all like what he presumes:

Johanna Blakley from That was from Blakley on Fashion and Intellectual Property:

The main protection fashion designers have is over their trademark: their logo, their name.

Source is protected; that's why you hear about raids on pirates, who have made copies of Louis Vuitton bags, Canal St. in New York, Santee Alley in Los Angeles.

Have control of their name; have copyright protection of all the two-dimensional designs that go into the production of a garment.

Textile design with a certain pattern—automatically qualify for copyright protection of that design.

What they don't own are any of the three-dimensional designs they end up creating. The stuff you see prancing out on a runway are actually up for grabs. Anybody can copy any aspects of any of those designs and get into no trouble with the law.

Those designs are not particularly utilitarian—a word that comes up a lot in this industry—utilitarian stuff tends not to be protected legally.

Something has to be considered a work of art in order to be considered for copyright protection. The courts decided long ago that they did not want any fashion designers owning such utilitarian designs as shirts, blouses, pants, belts, lapels. Don't want somebody owning a monopoly—basically what a copyright gives you.

If I'm at the runway in Milan and I see a design I like and I'm a medium-to-high end retailer, versions of those non-utilitarian clothes get translated into garments that are worn by everyday people, correct?

Yes, and the courts would say that any fashion design, no matter how non-utilitarian it may seem, does not qualify for copyright protection.

The only way it would qualify is if there were some detachable piece from that outfit. The rare example would be like a belt-buckle—a sculptural item that you could remove and hang on the wall and regard as a piece of art.

[I put what sounded like Russ into italics, which on that transcript is anyone's guess.]

Next we get into the Mickey Mouse Copyright Act. Under no moral theory of copyright, as originally conceived, do retroactive term extensions make any moral sense whatsoever. Basically one group of assholes paid off another group of assholes (who were actually supposed to represent the interests of their constituents, but that's another matter).

The motivated citizen tries to take property seriously, and then it degenerates all over again into Boss Hogg and Rosco vs the Downloaders of Hazzard Country.

So now you know why your two cents worth of Morality 101 sometimes falls on deaf ears.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Plus1Entropy]

So making a copy is OK because the original is still there, as opposed to when you steal something physical, right?

My counter argument to that is that if it can be copied for free, then the original has no value. If it was actually possible to go to a dealership and copy a Ford, paying the dealer nothing, then the dealer's original Ford is worthless to them. What's the difference between inventory worth nothing, and inventory that's been stolen?

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[yithar7153]

This is 100% correct. Publishers don't want to make their content more accessible. They want to artificially make it scarce to up their profits. It really should be no surprise when people turn to piracy because going through legal channels isn't worth the hassle.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Anonymous Coward]

"I should view it in a way the creators/owners intended"

I don't get this at all. Creators and owners have no moral right whatsoever to dictate an "intention" of how things are viewed or used. Contract agreements (like copyright) can set a civil (not criminal) agreement on use of a product or copy, but that's it. It is not immoral to use or do something with an item outside of the intention or wishes of a manufacturer or author.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Plus1Entropy]

So from what I've read Sony did that to take advantage of the EU's extension of the lifetime of copyright works from 50 to 70 years. Sony wasn't going to lose it because they never released it, they were going to lose it because it was going to expire. In other words, not releasing it did not change the fact that they held the rights for 50 years.

Now, because IANAL, I don't understand why releasing it allows them to take advantage of the extended term length, but that's beside the point.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[sjames]

It does cost something to make a copy, and that's the fair market value.

Granted, there is also design costs that need to be recovered, but in the case of content (original production cost in that case), that generally happens in the first couple of weeks in the theaters.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Maxo-Texas]

One basis is taking from the existing public domain and then not ever returning the resulting products to the public domain.

Different countries have different policies but in the u.s. a clear standard was 14 years plus a 14 year extension.

The purpose was to incent the creation of new works.

Now, the policy is essentially "forever" long after the creators are dead. Hate to break it to you, but John Lennon isn't going to make any new songs.

Is it illegal? Sure.

But many view copyright as corrupted, unfair, and immoral.

Normally, they would vote and have new laws passed making their behavior legal. But a small number of people with lots of money have immorally bought legislators and prevented democracy from working as it should. So people are driving around it.

Personally, I can't keep up with the new content now. I'm swamped by a huge glut of content. I just spent almost 20 hours watching Cracked "after hours" for free and then another 20 hours watching "Film Theory". I had to watch Limitless and GoT on the DVR but cable has become so expensive that I'm likely to:

a) Drop cable and borrow a friend's GoT,
b) or check it out from the library,
c) or buy a copy and donate it to my library system if they don't have one.
d) or wait to buy it until it's down to $12 a season in three or four years.

I could torrent it I guess- but I agree that doing so now is both illegal and immoral. But anything over 28 years old is open season imho.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[hawkinspeter]

The dealer's original Ford has just the same worth or value as before. It's just that his potential market is a bit smaller which is more a failure of his business plan than being "stolen" from.

If I set up a business making buggy whips and then the auto mobile gets invented, would you claim that I've been stolen from? Should the new car-sellers be shut down and charged with theft?

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Maxo-Texas]

you always have an inalienable right to pursue freedom.

you have no inalienable right to freedom.

 

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[fustakrakich]

That makes no sense. I bought access to the same library as the others did. I am merely using a different method. As far as I'm concerned it is not subject to their approval. I am not taking any more than what was offered. The where and how is none of their business.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Applehu Akbar]

OR...especially when flat-out piracy through torrenting is easy to get used to once you take the plunge, content providers could unite on a delivery model that is simple enough to make piracy more trouble than it's worth.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[myowntrueself]

Well, presumably that media is still available for Canadians to purchase in other manners. Maybe it's more expensive, maybe it's less convenient than their preferred option of a Netflix subscription, but they could still "buy" it on DVD or other services or whatnot.

So - it's a dubious argument that they're "entitled" to pirate it because Netflix doesn't want to sell it to them. But, it does highlight that people are willing to pay for content in a manner that's reasonably priced, flexible, and in a format that makes it easy and convenient to use... and if media companies won't provide that and get SOME revenue from it, alternatives like piracy will thrive.

Exactly; Netflix is giving the content providers a choice. Make the product available to the world through Netflix and get some revenue from it. Or region-restrict it and get no revenue from it.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Anonymous Coward]

Is simpler than that: streaming is not illegal under Canadian laws, so Canadians are going to stream if you make it hard to pay for the service.

We are not talking here about not paying the subscription money, we are talking about Canadians paying for the US Netflix at the US rates and Netflix blocking access to all VPN customers because you are allegedly in a different country.
.

Re: That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Anonymous Coward]

While what you say is true, it's also true that copyrights are gernerally enforcable only to protect from revenue loss. When it's impossible to buy a show in a given country (which it often is) it would be hard to prove in court where the loss is coming from.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Anonymous Coward]

Natural rights are the ones you would have even if you were the only person on the entire planet. So, for example, the right to own something is natural (if you can obtain it, nobody is there to prevent you from having it), but the right to be given something isn't (there's nobody else around to give it to you).

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[misnohmer]

Bingo! Also, there is no "lost revenue" for the content companies if there is no way to obtain the content by paying for it - the content provider gets no money whether their content is pirated or not.

Re: That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Anonymous Coward]

Good to know you're an expert on every show available for purchase in Canada. When I use iTunes and other means to purchase you'd be surprised to see how often I get the restricted regon error and cannot buy through any means.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Anonymous Coward]

Copying culture and art has been going on for as long as mankind has been around. Every single work is derivative - and distribution via the internet should be speeding up the process. This is a natural push-pull dynamic. When copyright holders make it too difficult to obtain their materials, people will struggle against them. I don't think there's anything wrong here. If the copyright holders want to distribute their material, they need to listen to their market and sell them what they want at a reasonable price. People have showed again and again that if they have an opportunity to buy/subscribe to media without onerous DRM, the majority of people will turn from piracy and pay. It took people pirating for the corporations for said corporations to realize that people don't want onerous DRM and poor quality digital products laden with ads. What we don't need is a perfect enforcement of copyright through a system so tightly controlled and monitored by copyright infringement police that it takes power from the people and destroys the push-pull dynamic.

TLDR: Maybe a little piracy is good for society; corporations need the feedback to know what is and isn't working for their customers.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[thegarbz]

It's not "privacy". It's a download service full of content which they paid for collectively.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Kielistic]

The non-essential service here is using public funds to enforce a system the public says they don't want.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Anonymous Coward]

This is exactly like Jim Crow laws and forcing people to sit in the back of the bus.

They refuse to provide the same service based on nationality. This not only includes Canada but countries such as Mexico, Egypt, and India. This means that the people, minorities, in these countries are provided a separate but equal service. Much like the Jim Crow laws, these services are separate, but not truly equal.

Now it is true that most Canadians are white, but to obey these rules, which have been proven to be racist, is to endorse racist rules. Now I know minorities being provided a truly equal service may make you uncomfortable, but the heroic pirates of Canada will fight the good fight.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Anonymous Coward]

Being able to share in worldwide culture is a right.

And good for society. Puts us all on the same page. Something we could use way more of.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right.
And i don't owe them anything. Like respecting their rights and ownership.
Really. Fuck those guys.

It's the corporate way. Get all i can, any way i can.
Moral and legal arguments are irrevelant until i'm caught.
And then i'll pay a tiny fine and promise it won't happen again.
Then go right back to doing it anyway. Because fuck those guys.

Oh... We weren't supposed to emulate the message being put out by corporations everywhere for decades?
Tough shit... Fuck those guys.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Kielistic]

You are right- this is nothing like civil disobedience in protest of civil rights laws. This is the public saying "we don't give a shit". These aren't "property" rights; this is important to note. These are intellectual property rights granted by the public. The rights holders have repeatedly completely ignored the public that granted them those rights. The public is just returning the favour. The letter of the law says that we're the boss in this scenario.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Triklyn]

you didn't buy access to the same library as others. you bought access to the canadian library of content that netflix has available. did they lie to you and suggest you would be getting access to the US library of content?

if you found a way to circumvent the barrier they erected to separate the two libraries, good for you. but when come with a way patch the hole in the barrier you were using... i don't think you really have a right to complain.

you were never offered, as a canadian, the content that was provided to american customers, you were offered the content that was promised for canadian customers. that is my point.

if you lied about being an canadian customer, then that's on you.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Anonymous Coward]

DMCA? They did change the copyright laws. They continue changing them, all for the worse!

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[fustakrakich]

It's okay, the barriers have to come down anyway. They can adjust the price by the currency rates

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Anonymous Coward]

Except piracy has forced them to adapt, some beneficial to the public, others not so much.
Here in Australia we can now obtain most series within hours or days of its availability in other countries. We used to wait 6 months if we were lucky. We can also now obtain most of them from multiple sources, FTA, Foxtel, Google Play, iTunes, etc.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[serviscope_minor]

Your view that Intellectual Property is different from normal property is ludicrous.

I find your view that it is the same ridiculous, mostly because they are not, in fact, the same.

Imagine we're talking about a car.

Except we're not. We're talking about copyright which is very different. Cars don't need protection in the same way IP does because they cannot be copied freely and at almost zero marginal cost.

Your logic is so wonderfully asinine:

Your reading comprehension is broken.

ASSERT: I don't have to pay them

Now you're resorting to making up lies about what I said. Good job!

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[fustakrakich]

Sorry:

I need to point out that an account bought with an American credit/debit card is an American account. Who cares if the guy is Canadian, or African, or whatever? And one way or another the person is entitled to view that library regardless of his location. When logging into the account, Netflix knows where it is from and should supply the full library available it does at home. If they refuse, then the best advice is to use the alternative, no question. As always, don't take unnecessary risks.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[porges]

If you're going to invoke "back of the bus", you should know that beyond the initial Rosa Parks incident, the tactic that turned out to be effective was not insisting on sitting in the front -- which wouldn't have worked -- but rather a boycott of the segregated busses.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Scroatzilla]

If they are trying to pay for something but it isn't available for sale, they aren't really exercising any sense of entitlement. The market has rejected them - and their money - so they are obtaining what they want some other way. There is no indication from this - and if anything counter indication - that they wouldn't pay for it if they could.

So, people should work for free, without compensation? Just because the work is "creative" or "intellectual" does not eliminate the value of it, nor does it entitle you to be able to enjoy it. Money does that. Go buy the DVD if a particular movie is such a necessity for you. Or are DVDs unavailable in Canada?

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Scroatzilla]

With the goal of enriching society, not the authors.

Right, so are you going to work for free then?

Re: That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[elmer at web-axis]

They do offer the content. Just not via Netflix. Customers have other channels to purchase via ie DVD sales. Netflix and streaming services dont pay nearly as well as physical sales

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Anonymous Coward]

People don't need to take the bus either, not when they can walk. Yes, they lose the benefits of taking the bus, such as shorter transit time and less fatigue, but hey, if people won't follow the arbitrary nonsensical rules about who's allowed to sit where on this here bus, well...there's the road, sonny.

Incidentally, this exact literal argument was made against Rosa Parks and civil-rights activists who boycotted the bus system. It goes to show that having the right to do something is not predicated upon "needing" it.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[butchersong]

Conversely, it seems to me that Intellectual property should only really apply to commercial endeavors by the end user -trying to redistribute the performance etc. How someone can claim that a person is stealing from them because they are observing something is beyond me. You don't have a right for people not to copy what you are doing. You have a right to a finite period of time in which only you can profit off of what you are doing. That is it.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[fustakrakich]

More than one person was arrested for refusing to yield. Parks inspired action, which was also declared illegal. And besides I'm not comparing the two, you are. The principles of human liberties behind the actions are the same. It is simple disobedience against bureaucratic fiat as a human right. I am not to argue the degree of urgency.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Plus1Entropy]

What? This is such a terrible counter argument it's almost a non-sequitur. One technology making another obsolete is completely different from copying existing technology without the owner's consent, rendering their original worthless.

So no, if you were making buggy whips and the Model-T put you out of business, you weren't stolen from. At least we can agree on that.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Immerman]

To start with, Intellectual Property does not exist. Period. There's no such beast - that's a inherently deceptive term created by the copyright/patent maximalists in an attempt to fundamentally change the discussion. Property can be owned - ideas cannot.

What does exist, *all* that exists, is a limited-time government granted monopoly - the ability to prevent others from implementing or distributing an idea for the greater good of society (in the USA, "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts..."). That limited monopoly is granted under the common sense, but yet unproven theory that such limited monopolies will stimulate the production of new ideas (a theory which actually has numerous counterexamples).

So the central question for any application of copyright, patent, or other government-granted monopoly should always be "how does *society* benefit from this?" If you can't at least make a good argument in that context, then it is very unlikely that such an application of monopoly is serving the only purpose for which the government is allowed the power to grant it.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Plus1Entropy]

Is Netflix using public funds to block VPNs?

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Plus1Entropy]

To start with, Intellectual Property does not exist.

Nonsense, the law disagrees. Find me a lawyer that agrees with this assertion.

If you think it shouldn't exist, then that's another thing entirely.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Caesar Tjalbo]

Nobody's forcing you to publish it in a digital format though. Bytes can be easily copied, by the maker and everyone else.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Caesar Tjalbo]

The perversity is that a country:
- needs to have a legal framework for copyrights (based on treaties that made some sense in the pre-digital era),
- needs to (based on that treaty) codify which infringements to the basic copyright it allows,
- needs to set up compensation the rights holders for it.
The levy might not cover "piracy", it's probably for some other type of "infringement" like 'home copy', so you don't even have a "valid claim".

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Kielistic]

Nope. The public funds come from enforcing copyright. That is what the story is about- the people that didn't care about Netflix blocking them and deciding to get the content a different way. Netflix probably feels entitled to public funds for stopping people watching Daredevil.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Plus1Entropy]

ASSERT: I don't have to pay them

Now you're resorting to making up lies about what I said. Good job!

So, to be clear, you agree that copying someone's Intellectual Property without paying for it is stealing?

If so, then I am sorry that I misrepresented your position in the GP, and if /. let me, I would edit the post to indicate my error.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[godel_56]

I don't understand why businesses believe they have a right to indefinite rent seeking privileges and charge whatever price they feel like they want to charge.

Uh, because they're getting away with it and because the Government (thanks to lots of lobbying dollars) is on their side?

How many other business operate that way? Can a mechanic or a plumber work that way?

Well frequently they do. Many times the poor customer doesn't know what a fair or competitive price for the work is, or it's an emergency and their basement is filling up with water and it's 1 am on a Sunday and they have little choice but tp pay what's asked..

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Anonymous Coward]

you aren't entitled to anyone else's work for free

Absolutely! So it's a good thing that copying a TV show doesn't force the creators to perform additional work.

if they choose not to make it available to you, that's their right

Yep. And if some other people choose to make it available to you instead - say, for free via bittorrent - that's their right too. We have some legal restrictions on that right, but they weren't intended to support a situation like this, so clearly they shouldn't apply here.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[JesseMcDonald]

I don't understand why people believe they are entitled to someone else's property....

That isn't what people (or at least these people) believe at all. They just believe that they are entitled to the use of their own property—DVDs, hard drives, books, etc.—regardless of the information it encodes, even if that information represents images or videos or audio or text or any other form of media.

It is the copyright holders who assert that they are entitled to control others' property for the sake of enforcing their unnatural monopoly on making copies.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Plus1Entropy]

Well I mean we know that trying to prevent piracy is a fool's errand. And there's no doubt that copyright law is completely messed up and in need of reform. I think we agree on that.

But you said in the GGP:

The ability for these foreign companies to block access to Canadians isn't an "essential service" either.

To me that implied you were talking about Netflix and the VPN crackdown.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[fustakrakich]

thanks to lots of lobbying dollars

Wrong, it's thanks to the vote count. If public stops selling his vote to the highest bidder, there is no way even the richest guy can occupy the office. It is pretty straight forward, maybe too much so. So simple it's unblievable.

Many times the poor customer doesn't know what a fair or competitive price for the work is, or it's an emergency and their basement is filling up with water and it's 1 am on a Sunday and they have little choice but tp pay what's asked..

:-) That's not quite what I meant. According to recording/movie industry practices, playing back a recording of a plumber clearing the drain is the same thing as actually doing it, and that the distributor has exclusive rights to decide who can even see it. They want to charge full rent for a picture of an apartment, a picture of the garage is extra.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Immerman]

Copyright exists. Patents exist. Trademarks exist. Intellectual property does not - it doesn't even have a legal definition, much less a legal basis. It's simply a catch-all term used to lump the other three together, while simultaneously applying the concept of property to them, which exists nowhere in their individual definitions.

Re: That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Anonymous Coward]

That's "pursuit of happiness". You're not supposed to have to pursue your freedom.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[JesseMcDonald]

Right, so are you going to work for free then?

No one is claiming that authors should work for free. However, if they want guaranteed payment for their labor then they need to negotiate that payment before they do the work, like everyone else, rather than relying on an unnatural monopoly on an completely unrelated activity (copying and distribution of the work) after the fact.

In any case copyright does not guarantee that authors will be paid. It is not uncommon to put a great deal of effort into producing a new work only to find that the result is simply unpopular, even at unprofitably low prices (or even free), and consequently provides little in the way of royalties. As payment is never guaranteed it is disingenuous to complain that the expected revenues never materialized, regardless of whether the cause was unpopularity or copyright infringement.

In any case we currently have a glut of new media, with extremely low barriers to entry, as well as any number of mechanisms for collaboratively funding the production of larger works without reliance on artificial scarcity. Regardless of whether it might have been justifiable in the past, a broad and intrusive subsidy for the creation of new works is clearly no longer required. Copyright should be phased out, starting with a significant reduction in duration and exceptions for non-commercial copying.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[JaredOfEuropa]

I'll find work that will pay me sufficiently, but I will not demand that society grant me a monopoly on everything I create so I can monetize it.

Let me qualify that a little bit. I write software for fun, but I do make money by selling it. Do I think I am entitled to that money? At the very least it is a reason for me to publish my software. And I am certainly not advocating that we do away with copyright altogether; a mechanism that allows authors to make money is beneficial to both authors and society, and that was the spirit behind the original notion of copyright. But I also accept that once the software is out there, I cannot excert ownership over every single instance in existence, and I do not get to dictate every single aspect of what I deem to be acceptable use. That level of control is of no benefit to society, and should be removed from current copyright laws. If I do not agree with those terms, I can opt not to publish, or try and protect my software with DRM.

If I sell my software in Europe and many people were making illegal copies, I'd go after them (if it were economically feasible). But only to make them pay for a copy, not to bankrupt them to "make an example out of them" or "send a message to pirates". If a pirate is caught, that's what the author is entitled to: the price of one copy. If I choose not to sell my software in Belgium because I don't like them and decide to be a dick about it, and someone there obtains a copy of my software illegally, tough luck... for me. Same if I decide not to sell my software in Iraq for fear it will be misused by the government. Same if I choose to use a reseller who sells only a limited amount of copies in order to jack up the price.

In other words: piracy only deprives the author of a sale if a legal sale were actually possible at reasonable terms. If not, I see no moral objection for someone obtaining the work by other means. And that has actually been the official position of the Dutch legislature for a good while: piracy was not actively prosecuted in cases where no legal alternative existed.

Re: That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretty much EVERY business works this way. If something isn't available legally, it WILL be available illegally.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[sumdumass]

Yes they are according to law.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[NoOneInParticular]

They are not afforded the same protections under the law. You have one set of laws for physical property, and another set for copyright. Completely different laws with completely different protections, clauses, penalties and enforcement.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[NoOneInParticular]

No, it's not. The law for burglary and grand theft auto are actually in the same set of laws, namely theft law. There are a few states where larcency is treated differently from theft, and yes, there you could argue that the law's are different wrt larcency and burglary. However, burglary and grand theft are the same set of laws everywhere, and even larcency will fall under criminal law. Not so with copyright. Depending on the type of infringement, copyright is prosecuted under either criminal law or civil law (in particular wrt the scale and monetary objective of the infringement). Copyright law (a wholly separate set of law books) handles that distinction.

I think the only point you can make is that because both theft and copyright infringement are deemed illegal according to the law, they are similar. But so is jaywalking.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[sumdumass]

Actually, copyright owners are entitled by law and they can be owed something by law should they choose if they allow someone else to use those entitled privileges.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Plus1Entropy]

Intellectual property [...] doesn't even have a legal definition, much less a legal basis.

More nonsense. There is a ton of precedent where the term has been used in cases, treaties, and both national and international organizations responsible for overseeing the laws pertaining to it. The Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property was signed in 1883, and serves as the basis for international copyright, patent, and trademark law. It has been amended a few times since then, but is still in effect today. The UN organization responsible for currently administering this treaty is called the World Intellectual Property Organization, a role it inherited from the Bureaux Internationaux Réunis pour la Protection de la Propriété Intellectuelle, established in 1893.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Altrag]

You (and more importantly, the companies involved) need to stop treating this as an "entitlement." It doesn't help anything. Its obvious people are going to get their media whether you like it or not and throwing around insults and rhetoric isn't going to stop that.

These companies can't compete on price (hard to beat free!) and it should be very clear by now that they can't stop piracy via technical means (its kind of the nature of digital media -- it can be perfectly copies and if you can decode it, so can Bob as long as he's willing to put in the time to figure out how to do that.) Nor can they stop piracy via legal means -- there's way too many Bobs in the world to arrest them all.

The only consistently effective method for reducing piracy has been competing on convenience. And that still only reduces piracy -- you can't completely eliminate it because there's always going to be someone too broke to afford things no matter what price you put on it, or just to cheap and they value their few dollars more than their time, or just don't like you and pirate your stuff on some kind of misguided principle, or just flat out do it because they get a kick out of it.

The iTunes store did probably more than any other single thing to reduce music piracy when it came out -- a single place to get everything you want at a reasonable price and surprise surprise, people took to it. Netflix probably did more to reduce TV piracy than anything else because again, if its convenient and reasonably priced, people will use it.

Have any of those _stopped_ piracy? Of course not. But they _reduced_ it (and unlike the shutdown of Megaupload, the reduction held for significant time frames.) But guess what? As soon as you start making those services inconvenient again, piracy spikes.

The biggest story in the whole article is that its somehow still considered surprising enough to even be a story.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Anonymous Coward]

Here in Australia, I myself am happy to pay for particular content, but the content in question is only available on another streaming service which charges 4x the netflix price per month and also has minimum signup periods.

There is some agreement between this local streaming service and the original content provider, an agreement which I am not party to.

In the interests of fair competition as well as my own bank balance, and as I am already a local netflix customer I am using a geo-dodging service to get said content from the US netflix.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Altrag]

Where does "free" come in? There's nothing in any of those statements that says authors shouldn't be compensated for their works -- that's the whole point of copyright!

What its saying is that the authors also have a responsibility to society that comes along with their right to profit off of their _limited_ monopoly. A right that has been constantly shucked via continual copyright extensions.

The purpose of copyright is to encourage authors (by paying them!) to produce works _for society_, not for some giant middleman industry that intends to perpetually profit off of someone else' work without ever holding up their end of the deal.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Anonymous Coward]

I can share a book I own. I can make a copy of a book. I can copy a song. Before copyright you could learn a song and play it all you wanted...Now...not so much. Besides, we're getting to a point where copyright has outlived it's usefulness. It's no longer protecting consumers or incentivising creativity, it's solely a way for people to put artificial barriers on the commons to which they are entitled. The public played by the rules, and copyright holders abused the rules. the wealthy made money harder to get, and the public still played by the rules, the entrenched powers changed the rules to their benefit, the public no longer sees the rules as legitimate. The public decides the rules, not the creator. Creators are entitled, not the public. Copyright is a privilege that has been abused, why should the privilege be respected?

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[flopsquad]

That's like a movie theater charging $20, you declaring it's not worth it, and sneaking in. Hey, the theater wasn't full, so it's not like you were stealing, right?

Correct, it's not like you were stealing, because you weren't--you were trespassing. And you weren't even violating copyright because no copy was made. Instead you were... trespassing.

The right to determine who can and cannot be on your physical property (the occupiable space of which is finite) is as old as the concept of property itself, and it would not be entirely absurd to argue it extends back to pre-human concepts of territoriality in the animal kingdom. Whereas the right to determine who can and cannot make copies of your works (of which a limitless number could be produced) only dates back to the 1600s, and for a very long time included only maps, charts, and books.

The reason almost every real-world analogy to copyright infringement falls short is because IP is only superficially related to real, tangible property. Not to debase copyright and other intellectual property (I am an IP attorney and songwriter). IP is critically important to the modern economy, absolutely worthy of protecting, etc etc.

But if we care about something, it behooves us to understand it, and understand why a vast swath of society would never shoplift or sneak into a movie theater, but would watch movies on PopcornTime or whatever and not equate that with stealing or trespassing.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Some_Llama]

because it isn't like any "property" that has ever existed before.. it is virtual.

If i copy a movie, it doesn't take away a movie from someone else, nor does it deprive the creator of money from it's performance since they don't want the money anyway (take this example). it doesn't hurt anyone so why is it a crime?

it's not analogous to any other part of life.. it is distinct.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Some_Llama]

no they aren't according to law.. see we can both do it.

Re: That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Maxo-Texas]

they are both natural rights.

You can always try to be free.
You can always try to be happy.

The pursuit of happiness you are talking about is simply an enumerated right in the declaration of independence.

They could have listed dozens of such rights but it would have been silly.

You have a natural inalienable right to do things that they can't stop you from doing without killing you. Even imprisoned and shackled you can still try to be free.

Re: That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Anonymous Coward]

Arrrrrrrr!

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Anonymous Coward]

Which they are blissfully trying to stop, because they don't want to compete with _other_ author's works (that are no longer being exploited), and wondering why it's backfiring when people just ignore the ruthlessly-crass law.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Anonymous Coward]

This just in. You don't have a right to profits, either. There is no guarantee on information making you money or being free after a reasonable time. The practical reality is people need to get paid, and information is viral.

Re: That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see why companies believe it's okay to export their work to the cheapest places on earth, where possible, while simultaneously limiting where people may purchase items from be the items non-essentials like literature, art, movies, and music, or essentials like medicine and textbooks.

Also, given the language around copyrights and patents, I wouldn't say the framers saw works protected under these provisions as non-essentials. It was almost a grudging grant of a temporary monopoly to encourage creators to expand the public trust.

Re: That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Anonymous Coward]

Liberating media content isn't illegal....

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[j-turkey]

Nope - entirely different part of the criminal code. Look it up.

Re: That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Anonymous Coward]

So many people here seem to be discussing whether it's wrong or right, or illegal or legal.

i don't care. What I see is a law that's not possible to enforce for the entire population. And something that people want, but that is not for sale legally. If history learns us anything, in such a case new ways will be created to obtain that something and people will use those ways no matter what they are being told. Whether it's alcohol (see prohibition, but also some Muslim countries and the high prices in Scandinavia), drugs, gambling, paid sex, or in this case copyrighted material.

So you could punish people using or running the newly created way. It costs money, turns people into criminals, makes life miserable for many and does not stop people from doing what others think they should not, but they still really want.

Instead, regulate the sale of what people want. Make it available for a price they are willing to pay and people will pay. At the same time, educate people on the fact that their behavior can hurt others or themselves and how you can act responsibly. And make reasonable enforceable laws for those places where otherwise people would have a problem resulting from this behavior - for example limit smoking to places where others are not forced to breathe the smoke, and perhaps even punish copyright infringement where a good affordable alternative is available.

Suddenly, you have turned this into a manageable problem, less criminality and an opportunity to make quite a lot of money.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[sumdumass]

Yes, we can both do it. Except you would be ignoring established law that gives copyright owners all the same rights with the copyright as other property owners outside of a few small exceptions. They can buy, sell, trade, give or restrict access, and otherwise control this right granted by law.

Copyright is property by law. This is true no matter how much you want to think otherwise.

Re: That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is not restrictions from Canadian providers. The problem is the size of the market (10% of the US market size) which is too small for Netflix to really make an effort to entice Canadian users.

It's the same thing with Amazon prime. Same price, far less features, far less content.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as you're happy to work for free as well skippy. Because that's the future. What you've decided you are entitled to do to others will happen to you.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[MarkRose]

The programming laws for terrestrial broadcasters don't apply to online distribution, thus there are no "Canadian content" requirements for Netflix.

Personally I think we should scrap the Canadian content rules, though with the increasing irrelevance of terrestrial broadcast there's less and less point in doing so.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[serviscope_minor]

So, to be clear, you agree that copying someone's Intellectual Property without paying for it is stealing?

So, I "steal" the Linux kernel every time I install it then? Do you really think that, because that is literally what you askedif I feel.

Nonetheless, I believe I know what question you intended to ask, and no, I do not believe that copyright infringment is generally equivalent to stealing. As with all things, it depends on the context. In some forms, it's functionally equivalent, in other forms it is ethically unsound but victimless, and in other cases still I have no ethical problem with copying all to hell and back while giving two fingers to the rent-seeker trying to screw people over.

Nuance, it's a thing!

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[piojo]

I don't understand why people believe they are entitled to someone else's property in whatever way they choose at whatever price they feel they want to pay. Does any other business work this way? Does any other part of life work this way? Do you treat your own property this way?

This is basically the way everything works, and always has. If a company won't license you their product, you build your own version. If they won't license you their patent, you make something similar that does not use the mechanism they described in the patent. If it's too expensive, people make their own or find a substitute. There are so many examples of this that I can't even begin to name them. For the internet age: Soylent is a cheaper version of medical food replacements that have been available for decades. Facebook wouldn't give the Chinese government what it wanted, so a Chinese company created Renren. Do you think in any single one of these cases, the person that wanted the product decided, "No, I won't clone it because it would hurt the other company, and I have a really kind heart."???

The only thing different about the entertainment industry is that the most reasonable way to clone it is to make a bit-by-bit copy. It's unlawful, but so are half the other ways people/companies take ideas from other people/companies.

Re: That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Hognoxious]

Arrrrrrrr, eh.

FTFY. Sorry.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[stealth_finger]

No, no - there is a huge difference between having your rights violated by unjust laws, and not being able to watch Dumb and Dumber on your own terms because you don't like the way it's being made available to you.

I also agree that copyright law is broken, but since it's not violating your civil rights, then civil disobedience is not the answer. Try turning off the computer or TV instead of violating someone else's intellectual property. I realize it's not going to happen, but if we, en masse, just stopped watching the absolute dreg these companies are providing at ridiculous prices and terms, then the problem would clear up really quickly without the need to violate the law.

Or if we just watch their shit anyway, they might think if we want to monetize this how about we do it properly. If they don't want people to watch who haven't paid then they should just keep it off the internet shouldn't they.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[gweihir]

That is bullshit. Copyright is not a natural right, it is entirely artificial. You do have a natural right to copy anything you can. Anything restricting that is purely artificial and (in a sane society) needs very good justification and may not even work, as for example, *surprise*, in the case of copyright.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[houghi]

The market has not rejected them. The market is still there. The (current) suppliers have rejected them. So the market looks for other suppliers.
The market is demand. The demand is still there. And it WILL be fed. If not legally, then illegally.

Just like during th prohibition, the war on drugs; prostituation or making love to a person of the same gender.

Standard 101 supply and demand economics.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[houghi]

distribution was physical so it made sense to restrict availability based on geographical location.

Why? I see no reason why this is a good reason.
It might have had an influence on availablity and perhaps even price. But otherwise, not really.

Just because you at "Internet" or "digital" to something does not change it.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Kielistic]

Fair enough; I was talking about both somewhat unclearly. Bypassing geolocks with a vpn is almost certainly breaking copyright law. And rest assured that these companies do complain about people doing and think they should be prosecuted. To make an attempt to articulate my point concisely: These companies are making a lot of effort to piss off the people that are technically in charge of granting them the "right" to their intellectual property. I think it would be helpful if their position was actually what the law said it was.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[YouGotTobeKidding]

I think you are missing the point. Technology has made geographical 'locks' obsolete. To obtain a perfect copy of Netflix library a Canadian doesnt have to go the US to get it. To use an earlier analogy he doesn't even have to go to the local Ford dealership to get a copy of the ford vehicle. S/He has to just turn on his computer and download it. Then use own equipment to use it.

This is why IP and P are treated differently by the law as they ARE different.

IMHO a better argument is does old Leo D's kids have the right to sue everyone who takes a high res photo of the mona lisa and get it printed on to canvas (as yes at the high end you can get digital copys that are as good as the original paint versions)? Of course not as no one is being deprived of it as the existing owner of the painting A) still owns it and B) was not selling it.

This is how IP is supposed to work: You offer it, people buy it. IF they pirate it, then they are breaking the law and are punished. BUT if the copyright owner is not selling it, they no longer are upholding their part of the copyright bargain: enriching society by their works.

Instead we got asshats not letting things enter the public domain (disney) and others not willing to offer their content in the first place. Offer it, respect the idea behind copyright OR dont bitch and complain when society decides to not uphold their end of the agreement either!

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[david_thornley]

In this case, it's a matter of watching the movie at all. If there's no legitimate way to buy something, copying it does not decrease the market, and does little to no harm.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[david_thornley]

Repeating something again, without any added argument or support, is really not productive. If you don't care who agrees with you, don't bother repeating. If you do care that somebody disagrees with you, figure out what the reasons for the disagreement are, and address them.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[david_thornley]

Bureaucracies don't remove laws, legislatures do. That's often really difficult to accomplish, and I don't see a good way to make it easier. The problem with Constitutionally mandated term limits for laws is that some important laws may not be renewed on time for some reason, and it would be real unpleasant to have murder legal over a weekend.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[david_thornley]

Your view that IP is the same as normal property is ludicrous.

If someone takes my property, I'm without it. If someone violates my copyright, particularly on a personal level, I'm likely not even to notice. The laws involved are completely separate. Copyright and similar laws are from a power specifically granted to the Federal government by the Constitution, while laws about taking of physical property are at the State level or lower.

As far as the car analogy goes, suppose I walk onto the lot and carefully examine the new Ford, then go home and build my own exact copy. Is that a problem?

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[david_thornley]

Burglary and grand theft auto are not the same offense, either. Burglary implies a physical invasion, not just a theft. If I steal your car, and do nothing else illegal, you aren't going to get me convicted on a charge of burglary.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[david_thornley]

There is no specific Intellectual Property law. There are separate laws on copyrights, patents, trademarks, and trade secrets, and there are lawyers who specialize in these bodies of law and advertise under that name. Those bodies of laws differ considerably, and aren't even intended to do the same thing. (Copyrights and patents offer limited monopolies of some type, with different restrictions, requirements, and duration. Trademarks are identification symbols, intended to reduce fraud in the marketplace. Trade secrets are not themselves affected by law, just the dissemination of them.)

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[david_thornley]

The people who can't buy the product are already not buying the product, so I don't see what you're bitching about. The fact that they're getting illicit copies has no real-world business effect. Given that we're talking about Canadians not being able to buy from a US provider, I don't think what they're doing or not doing is going to change US law, and pirating at least shows the US businesses that the product is in demand if they'd care to allow it to be purchased.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Some_Llama]

stop watching or stop paying for.. what's the difference? None if that is what you are really trying to accomplish.. but somehow i don't think it is...

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Some_Llama]

what's the difference between me not wanting to pay any price to watch dumb and dumber, but willing to watch it for free?

what is the copyright holder going to do in either case? not get paid by me for sure.. but otherwise.. what are you arguing here? that it's immoral?

do we need another voice telling us what is immoral or not?

the answer is the same as to "do we need another copyright shill arguing that IP = P and expected profits should = actual profits"?

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Some_Llama]

what is a canadian customer?

someone who is a canadian citizen? someone who uses the canadian internet? someone who is physically IN canada?

I thought this was the new globalization of commerce?

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Some_Llama]

why do you keep putting down dumber and dumber?

Dec 16, 1994 Dumb & Dumber cost to make$16,000,000 gross sales $246,365,376

let's just let everyone watch it for free now, they made $230million in pure profit from just the theatrical sales worldwide. that seems enough.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but NowTV is owned by Sky which is largely owned by Murdoch who is scum, who I refuse to give any money to if I can possibly avoid it. If I want to watch GoT, I'll wait for the DVDs, most other stuff I'll pirate if I can't get it on Netflix or Amazon Prime Video.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Some_Llama]

if only i had mod points.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

If somebody isn't willing (or able) to sell you something, but you take it anyway, then yes, that is a sense of entitlement.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

Presumably they could still buy hard copies, no? There may not be a cheap, convenient way to buy something, but they could still buy it.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Plus1Entropy]

The owner of the Linux Kernel provides it for free, as is the right of the content owner to do so. Don't make ridiculous strawman arguments.

You can rationalize however you want, and perhaps your rationalizations are valid in some context, but nonetheless you are saying that you don't have to pay for it. Maybe you don't think there's anything wrong with not paying for it (and maybe your right), but I didn't make anything up.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Anonymous Coward]

It's discrimination. What if Hollywood decides they don't want to sell to black people? Or gay people? How is geographical location any different?

Re: That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Anonymous Coward]

I only place a [sic] when typing out sumdumass's name

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[chilvence]

So what are you saying then... are you saying that watching Dumb and Dumber on my own terms because I don't like the way it is being made available to me isn't really that much of a crime in the grand scheme of things? Are you saying that we should stop making such a fuss about it and try to deal with actual issues of social injustice instead of worrying about the lot of a few rich people that play pretend in front of cameras to make a living?

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[serviscope_minor]

Don't make ridiculous strawman arguments.

I didn't. You literally said the following:

So, to be clear, you agree that copying someone's Intellectual Property without paying for it is stealing?

And *you* made no consession to the fact that the owner might not demand payment. Nonetheless I figured what you probably wanted to say, and addressed it. It's kind of sad that you accused me of making a straw man when the fault lay with you for poor choice of words and then ignored what I wrote.

You can rationalize however you want,

And you can make unjustified claims all you want, it doesn't make them correct.

A "rationalization" is a justification of a decision after it has been made. A decision made on the basis of rational thought is not "rationalization". You are accusing me of mindlessly making decisions then justifying them afterwards. You have no basis for making such a claim.

you are saying that you don't have to pay for it.

Again, you are pushing towards the excessively simplistic. There's more people than me in the world, and I listed more options than that. Let me spell it out again:

1. Bootlegging DVDs and selling them in a first world country

That's no different from outright theft. That was money that would have gone to the owner of the IP and has been illegally diverted elsewhere.

2. Teenager squirreling terrabytes of warezed software and films.

It's not an ethically or morally justified position, and it is IMO wrong. However, it's not morally equivalent to theft because in the case that the teenager hadn't done that, the original owners would be in exactly the same position. The teenager in question never had the money to spend in the first place, so no money has been lost.

3. Scientific papers in non open publishers.

See any of the numerous threads and discussions surrounding this issue. The Journals have started to bend to reality and (a) let the authors put up papers for free on their websites in many cases (like I was ever going to charge!!) and (b) are now offering formal open access publishing.

4. Happy birthday.

Fuck 'em. Until the lawsuit caught up with reality and the song entered the public domain, I'd have encouraged people to violate that copyright as much as possible, with two fingers held up to Warner/Chappell.

And there are infinitely many more shades of gery in between and off to the sides of them. Now bear in mind, you have been claiming that anyone using "Happy Birthday" before 2015 was more or less equivalent to a shop lifter.

Are you still maintaining that position?

but I didn't make anything up.

Your "ASSERT: I don't have to pay for them" was a complete fabrication. I said no such thing, for two reasons. Firstly, I was talking in a more general case, not just about me. Secondly, an assertion is a precondition, not a conclusion. I have come to the conclusion that in some cases copyright infringement is 100% ethical and in other cases it is not.

You're trying to compact this into a simplistic argument along the lines of "stealing is OK". The world is not that simple. Copyright is not physical property and reasoning by analogy will only get you so far. After than you have to think about it in its entirety.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Triklyn]

essentially, someone who if you sold enough of these services to in big numbers, you'd be violating some contract somewhere.

I don't know, but I'm pretty damn confident that there's a contract somewhere between netflix and content producers, defining exactly who it would be a breach of contract to sell what to.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[dryeo]

More like when the Americans revolted because they felt they had an inalienable right to steal property, namely North America, which was already occupied, by savages so fair game.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Triklyn]

:), hey look at this container of goods, i bought it in china for the equivalent of 500 USD in yuan.

what do you mean i have to pay a tariff on it to bring it back home with me? what the fuck do you mean i can't sell it, it's mine, wtf?

i'd like to point out that it doesn't matter if the currency is local or foreign.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Triklyn]

if it becomes too hard to convince others that those barriers are secure, then they'll lose all their content and get sued into oblivion essentially.

for the content producers, netflix isn't the prime revenue stream, it's just a competitive one. at some point everybody will say, F- this, netflix "piracy" is cutting too much into our other revenue streams. Lets remove our things from netflix entirely.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[fustakrakich]

Good luck putting a tariff on the internet. It has the power to destroy national borders and rent seekers. Now they can't stop me from taking my purchases wherever I want. This is a good thing.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[fustakrakich]

Then we go back to plain old bittorrent. I really don't care about Netflix. And I sure don't sympathize with people who are trying to create indefinite copyright. It doesn't matter what they think. If I want to watch Arrow in the Himalayas, I will.

Hollywood needs distribution if it wants an audience. They need Netfilx more than the alternative. They'll come down off their high horse when they do the math of some distribution vs. no-distribution. The internet shifts the balance of power a tiny bit more our way, and really doesn't leave much room for argument.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[david_thornley]

I don't know if they could buy hard copies. I'd have to get specifics on some individual movies and/or TV series.

From a practical point of view, it really doesn't matter. If there's a convenient and reasonably cheap way to stay legal, lots of people will take it. If there isn't, lots of people will pirate. This is empirical fact. People who want to stream will usually not track down and buy DVDs or Blu-Rays. To add to the mindset, it's also in the spirit of corporate globalism: if corporations can buy from wherever they want in the world and flout the law, why not individuals?

So, the Canadian piracy has little to no effect on legitimate revenues. It makes lots of people happier. Aside from the fact that it violates what many see as unjust laws, what's wrong with it?

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[gfxguy]

I have - people steal IP because they can't do without their entertainment and then pass themselves off as some kind of social crusader. It's moronic. People disagree because they can't live without their pirated copy of Dumb and Dumber. Does that really require an argument to point out how wrong it is?

Re: That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Anonymous Coward]

What I want to know is how piracy was determined to be the reaction. I am sure some would take this route, but we have no way of knowing how many are simply cancelling their subscriptions and doing without in protest.

I was looking forward to Netflix coming to Australia, when I learned of the tiny catalog I chose not to subscribe. While the US catalog is compelling I'm not prepared to spend $160 per year for a fifth of the value - irrespective of the reasons, it feels unjust and I won't support it.

What do I do instead? I exercise patience, wait for the season boxed sets of the shows I am interested in to come out and purchase them. No piracy, but no business for Netflix either.

Re: That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[geekybryan]

Actually Webster's says: 1 a : the state or condition of being entitled : right b : a right to benefits specified especially by law or contract 2 : a government program providing benefits to members of a specified group; also : funds supporting or distributed by such a program 3 : belief that one is deserving of or entitled to certain privileges I believe that fits into definition quite nicely! Also, don't go blaming this on the market. It's overly regulated free markets that cause such problems. A truly free market would not have such barriers.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

I agree that most people who want to stream won't buy DVDs, and thus piracy probably doesn't have a large impact on revenue stream, but it does still display a sense of entitlement.

Do you think corporations buy from wherever they want in the world and flout the law often? Because I'm pretty sure they would get fined heavily for that. They may buy from places you don't want them to, or they buy from places that do not have the same regulations as the corporation's home office, but they still obey local laws, for the most part.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[peawormsworth]

you aren't entitled to anyone else's work for free.

You are entitled to mine. And I am entitled to many 3rd party works for free. I make my own entertainment content to do exactly the opposite of your claim... I make media in order to entitle others to use my work for free.

There is very much content that is available online for free. I watch, listen, edit and re-mix free music and video provided to me by the authors with a license to do it.

Please do not forget to include the large group of content (like millions of works) that is already free and where the author has made a conscious decision to consume the media in the legal and easily obtainable format they desire.

I love free entertainment. And I make my own to give something back for free as well. There is a growing community of people like this. Please don't include us in general sweeping statements which suggest that "free", "sharing" or "taking" somehow relates to theft. That is only a problem for people who are so desperate to get what they want, that they are willing to violate the rights of others to do it.

I think you are referring to works which go through a distributor. These works almost always have outdated licensing and distribution mechanisms, which are designed to maximize your expense and minimize your entertainment. The expense is maximized by limiting the channels through which you can find the content, thereby eliminating competition or allowing for price fixing. The entertainment is minimized by maintaining a select and small group of "super star" artists and actors. By doing this they can minimize the number of participants with which they split their profits (your money). By making sure you cannot obtain the amount of content you desire or are able to consume, they create an artificial demand by limiting supply. Finally, by limiting your selection of entertainment to their small selection of stars, they can maximize their marketing budget per artist, to create additional desire where none should exist. Distributors are dead as books and newspapers. The cost of their efforts has gone to zero since we (the customer) pays for all the bandwidth for that distribution. So what does a company do that has no reason for being? It begins to sue everyone in sight in order to justify its existence. Distribution companies are walking dead suing machines. My advice is to just stop looking at them and let nature take its course.

re: Mega Upload. As a consumer of free content, this website was quickly becoming a valuable and maybe primary source for legal sharing of free content direct from the artist. There may or may not have been excessive commercial theft on this site as well... I do not know. But what ended up happening is that the "free" sharing community suffered from the loss of a good site that was allowing artists and their audiences to connect directly and conveniently. I do not know the true motivations of the authorities who shut it down. All I know is that it provided an alternate, cheap and legal distribution channel for many and now it is gone under the pressure of big distribution companies. I think the biggest benefit to the distribution companies was not the deterrent of copyright infringement, but rather the removal of competition and trying to stop an alternate form of distribution. Distribution companies are lucky that some people were using Mega Upload for illegal activities, because otherwise it would be difficult for them to eliminate a real threat to their monopoly on distribution control. So you can see why I think it makes these companies happy to find their content being distributed over channels they do not control. Because it is the only way they can knock out any distribution channels with are more efficient and profitable (for the artists).

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[dacaldar]

and if they choose not to make it available to you, that's their right

So, if a movie theatre owner says "we choose not to sell tickets to black people", that's fine and dandy?

Taking race out of it, this kind of behaviour is defined as "Social bullying" at my kids' school, and my daughter has been victim to it for years. You don't get to go around broadcasting how awesome everything is and then pointing to a smaller group of people saying "even if you want to pay the admission, you can't come to our party". The rest of us have decided "That's not cool".

So if you wanted to buy tickets to the local rock concert, but they won't sell them to you even though there are empty seats, and then you find a tall hill nearby from which you can view it anyway, not taking anything away from anyone else, what's morally wrong with that?

Also keep in mind we are tired of paying 30-50% more on most everything - even the EXACT SAME PRODUCTS, just shipped a few km further north, including big ticket items like cars and appliances. And this is even without the exchange rate - the price difference continued back when we were 1:1 with the USD just a couple years ago.

Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Anonymous Coward]

To me this is a classic case of Non-internet laws and rules being placed on something which transcends countries and borders.These content producers have an opportunity here to look at Netflix as a flat rate delivery service for their content so they may continue to make money long-after and during its prime. The goal here for these content providers should be to maximize their profits and have their content delivered to as many people as possible. I cannot imagine how this achieves either of those goals.

1, You remove paying customers who access your content and likely a portion of them also promote it.
2. You are now gaining nothing but negative press for what is arguably the best legal alternative to piracy.

There is no scenario here where I can see what is being done as a good thing for either the consumer nor the content producers. Ultimately here the marketplace has spoken the price people are willing to pay is the price Netflix has been charging....accept this, expand on this and everyone can make some money,

Re: That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Anonymous Coward]

"Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."

Yes I believe these are rights, and I would defend them for any human.

Re: That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Anonymous Coward]

The theory was right, but they saw native Americans as less than men. Same applies to the slave trade.

Re: That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah copyrights are wrong, therefore I can watch other people's hard work for free. So I can be selfish and self righteous.

Re: That's a funny new definition of "entitlement"

[Anonymous Coward]

So can your social security number. If you choose to use it, I should be allowed to "liberate" it for my own self interest. It's just information, man.

Make sense

[JcMorin]

The same apply for paid games that are not working well because of authenticated while the pirate game works better. Is it Netflix fault or the whole industry to blame for that?

Re:Make sense

[i_ate_god]

> Is it Netflix fault or the whole industry to blame for that?

Netflix did what it did not because it wanted to but because the producers demanded they do.

Netflix's business model is all about maximizing what any one individual can get. Content owner's business model is all about maximizing the money they can get off their content.

Netflix doesn't have the same leverage as Apple I suppose in forcing the content owners to agree to their terms.

I will continue to subscribe to Netflix because I do support that company even if the MPAA doesn't.

Re:Make sense

[Mr D from 63]

Don't blame Netflix, they are just complying with the law and contractual requirements of the content owners. Netflix would happily supply everything to Canadians if they were allowed to. Making NF the culprit just makes it easier for the real issues to stay in hiding.. the content owners thank those that blame NF.

Re:Make sense

[Anonymous Coward]

At some point, there needs to be a revolt against content producers. They're screwing over consumers. It's relatively new and particularly greedy.

TV channels generally produce at least some original content, though many syndicate some content from other sources. Generally speaking, the channels don't aren't licensed to single distributors. For the most part, I'll get the same channels regardless of whether I subscribe to cable, use a dish, or get my TV over fiber. The channels are generally licensed at an industry standard rate to all the distributors, and this gets renegotiated upward from time to time.

That's not happening in streaming, and it really screws consumers over. Music isn't licensed to all major streaming services at industry standard rates. Instead, there are exclusive deals with services like Tidal, which lack content available on other services. Instead of paying for one service, a user may end up paying for multiple streaming services to access all the content they want. The subscriptions don't just pay for the cost of licensing the content, though. They also cover the cost for the streaming service to pay their employees, to operate their servers, and for the bandwidth to deliver the content. Each service charges for that, so the consumer is stuck paying the (legitimate) overhead multiple times.

The same thing is happening in streaming video. Content isn't licensed at industry standard rates to all services. Instead, there might be an exclusive license to Netflix in one market but to Amazon Video in another. CBS has their own streaming service. The BBC wants to launch their own streaming service, too. Because of exclusive licenses in various regions, the content distributors are forced to do this.

The solution is to get rid of the exclusive licenses and return to the traditional model. License the content to everyone at an industry standard rate. In this case, the traditional pay TV model is far superior to what we have now. Consumers aren't stuck with higher prices because of exclusive licenses, nor do they have to pay for the overhead of multiple content distributors.

Re:Make sense

[gfxguy]

In nearly all these cases I blame the consumer - it's a f#@king game or movie - you don't need it. Is it really that hard to NOT buy a product that has been purposely f#@ked up for legal purchases? If people could just exhibit some restraint, we wouldn't have these problems with content providers, but they keep giving us s#!t and you people keep buying it.

Re:Make sense

[religionofpeas]

From the producer's perspective someone not buying is the same as pirating. Might as well pirate it, and get some enjoyment out of not buying.

Re:Make sense

[Anonymous Coward]

It is time for MPAA to realize that there is only one market; and stop trying to zone the world.
They will even make more money out of it; as they can save on advertising.

Recently they started releasing some DVD/Blueray shortly after the movie stopped showing in the theaters, and it didn't cannibalize the box office as they feared.
Turns out that people that want to go to the movie theater will go to the movie theater, and people that wouldn't go wouldn't. Who would have guessed, right?

Re:Make sense

[Jason Levine]

Exactly. This is the content owners at work. (You'll likely never see a Netflix Original in one market and not in another one.) The problem is that the content owners think they are "protecting" their works, but in reality everyone gets hurt. Viewers get hurt by not being able to see content (or by needing to resort to VPN or piracy to get it). Netflix gets hurt by not having their maximum library available everywhere. Finally, content owners get hurt because Netflix reduces piracy. When people can't get to the content via Netflix, they are likely to either pirate or do without - both of which bring in $0. Better to license it to Netflix worldwide and bring in some cash then lose money* due to content restrictions.

* To clarify, I don't mean "lose money" as in so-called "lost sales" but as in "they could have gotten money from Netflix in these other markets but decided not to."

Re:Make sense

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate piracy with a passion, but it might be a rational response to the greed.

Traditional pay TV involves channels (content producers) licensing content to cable TV, dish, and now fiber-based systems (content distributors) at industry standard rates. There are few, if any, exclusive deals. You generally get the same channels with any service.

In streaming, content producers believe they can get more money by forcing content distributors to bid against each other for the exclusive rights to movies and shows. They believe their content is valuable enough that people will subscribe to different services just to get the content. Content producers believe the higher fees for the rights will more than offset the loss of subscribers to the content. The cost of an exclusive deal is higher than that of an industry standard rate, so shows and movies are more expensive. Plus, each service has its own overhead to pay its employees, buy servers and disks, pay the electric and cooling bills, and paying for peering to handle increased bandwidth. You pay the overhead for each service you subscribe to. As a result, the consumer is stuck paying for the overhead of multiple streaming services plus higher prices for the content.

Content producers need to be punished for their greed. Piracy is a way to do this. I despise piracy and consider it unethical. However, it's probably less unethical than the greed displayed by content producers. We need to force a return to the traditional pay TV model.

Re:Make sense

[EvilSS]

In the US TV rebroadcast rates are not standard at all. They are done on a contract by contract basis with each cable/satellite provider. Local networks have a choice: A) allow rebroadcast for no fee, and the cable company MUST carry the signal or B) Negotiate a rebroadcast fee and the cable company can choose to carry or not. Obviously these days they all do B. Cable network (FX, CNN, ESPN, TNT, etc) are not covered by those rules. They just negotiate for a rebroadcast fee period. There is no standardization of the fees involved, and they increase pretty much every time the contract is up (this is one of the biggest drivers for cable and sat companies raising rates, and the reason you see these blackouts happening more and more as the carriers are playing hardball on the contracts more often lately).

Re:Make sense

[jdavidb]

My take is that if the copyright holders want some money, they should play ball with Netflix. Otherwise they are very likely to get nothing at all.

Re:Make sense

[fluffernutter]

At some point, there needs to be a revolt against content producers

This is why pirating is so strong in the first place.

Re:Make sense

[gfxguy]

All you're doing is justifying to yourself that it's OK to violate copyright... so you can watch a TV show. No, it's not OK. I can't believe it's really that hard to just not watch a TV show or movie, and the lengths people will go to in order to bend logic to justify their illegal activity.

Re:Make sense

[AmiMoJo]

Yep, Netflix are the good guys here. Their pricing model is sane too. A friend of mine has an Amazon Fire TV box, and a lot of the same shows are available on both Netflix and Amazon Prime Video.

Netflix is £8/month for HD and all you can watch. Amazon Prime is £6.66/month + £2.50 PER EPISODE. For the same shows that are on Netflix. Okay, with Amazon you sort-of-not-really own a DRM-infested broken file, but it's not really enough to justify the insane pricing.

Re:Make sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes and no. While the rates are negotiated individually, they generally are similar from one service to another. For example, when ESPN negotiates a new carriage agreement with Time Warner Cable, that rate is then used as leverage to get a similar or slightly higher rate from, say, Dish Network. While the rates do increase each time, they tend to be relatively similar from one content distributor to another, hence why I described them as industry standard rates. ESPN isn't distributing their content to Dish Network for $5/month and to Time Warner Cable for $2/month. In both cases, it's going to be around $5/month, though perhaps with small differences. One might be higher if the agreement was negotiated later than the other, but otherwise the rates tend to be similar. In the streaming model, ESPN might negotiate an exclusive deal with Time Warner Cable for $10/month. However, FS1 might negotiate an exclusive deal with Dish Network for $3/month. Comcast might decide they don't want to license NBCSN to anyone and, instead, launch their own content distribution system nationwide. If you want ESPN, FS1, and NBCSN in this scenario, you'd end up paying a lot more than you do with the current pay TV model.

Re:Make sense

[Mr D from 63]

My take is that if the copyright holders want some money, they should play ball with Netflix. Otherwise they are very likely to get nothing at all.

Good thought. Maybe, if and when NF gets the upper hand, that might become the case. For now NF needs the content and they are going to agree to terms to get content and keep it out of the hands of Amazon or other competitors. Of course, if NF does get to that point, things may look a lot different overall.

Re:Make sense

[fullgandoo]

Don't blame Netflix, they are just complying with the law and contractual requirements of the content owners. Netflix would happily supply everything to Canadians if they were allowed to. Making NF the culprit just makes it easier for the real issues to stay in hiding.. the content owners thank those that blame NF.

Fine. I wont blame Netflix if they charge half of what they're charging US subscribers. Subscription rate should be directly proportional to service. I'll gladly pay half the price for half the content.

Re:Make sense

[Anonymous Coward]

It's already happened. Netflix isn't showing House of Cards in Germany because they sold an exclusive license to Sky.

Re:Make sense

[Anonymous Coward]

The worst part about media zoning is that it's so ham handed. Those of us who live in the Caribbean are lumped in with the south American media market which would be fine except that, apart from Cuba (which wasn't even on the media comglomerates' radar until very recently) and the DR, we all speak english, with french being the second biggest language. So we get lots of spanish-language shows, few with english subtitles, and lots of advertising for products none of us have ever seen on our lives and won't without an airplane ticket.

Re:Make sense

[Anonymous Coward]

if my friend buys HBO and I go over and watch game of thrones with him, did he (or I) commit piracy? I mean sure he paid for it, but he in essence transferred the show to my eyes for free and gave HBO nothing for the service, I basically stole the show from HBO to watch for free.

But let me guess, that's ok. But downloading a rip so I can watch it once and delete it immediately, that's illegal, and wrong.

Re:Make sense

[Nethemas the Great]

History demonstrates that things don't truly work that way. The content in question is NOT available by any reasonable means. There is nothing to boycott since you cannot get it but for illicit means. Regional restrictions means there is no lost revenue since there is no product for sale in that region. If it were for sale then people would buy it. When Netflix complied with Hollywood bullying, the products were pulled from the Canadian market.

In many people's minds the minute a copyright holder refuses to provide copy, they wave their rights as such.

Re:Make sense

[Mr D from 63]

The issue was not with what they are charging. You certainly CAN blame them for charging more than you are willing to pay, but that has nothing to do with them not being able to show the content to you legally.

Re:Make sense

[sims 2]

You must be sarcastic or you're forgetting about sports blackouts and the extremely common carriage disagreements.

Notably viacom has been dropped by a lot of carriers because they wanted too much money.

big cable has the same exclusivity deals just try and watch a local sports game. Who got rights to air it this time? was it the local cable company A, cable company B, dish or direct tv?

Chose wisely because the next game you want to watch will only be available on one of the other three.

No we are quite certain cable is high because the people running the companies are greedy bastards. No one would stop to think that the licences might be expensive.

But for the same price as your basic cable package you can already pay for several streaming services.

Sure its not live but who cares the cable company wasn't going to let you watch what you wanted anyway and roughly 1/3 of it is advertising which makes cable an even worse deal than it already was.

Re:Make sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Same AC. I really do understand your position. As I said, I despise piracy. However, the law is not always a reflection of what's actually right and wrong.

A lot of copyrighted works are based on content that's in the public domain. Copyright is supposed to be limited in duration so works eventually return to the public domain and can foster new creative works in the future. Copyright has been extended dramatically to keep works from entering the public domain and even to remove some works from the public domain. If you benefit from the public domain, you need to eventually give back.

Courts have established that recording TV for personal use is fair use and is legal. For a long time, it was possible to record TV with a VCR and have a personal copy for as long you wanted it. It is legal. Content providers are actively trying to undermine this through DHCP, the broadcast flag, and CCI.

It also is legal to make a backup copy in case the original is destroyed. Physical media wear out over time, and the law protects the right of consumers to make backups. However, the combination of the DMCA and draconian DRM restrictions make it difficult to do this. Again, this is legal activity undermined by content producers.

Can you defend the extension of copyrights? Can you defend the draconian restrictions of the DMCA? Can you defend the obnoxious DRM restrictions? Can you defend undermining fair use rights?

I'm not pirating movies and TV shows. However, it seems like piracy might actually be a reasonable response to the assault by content producers on fair use and their rampant greed.

Re:Make sense

[religionofpeas]

I can't believe it's really that hard to just not watch a TV show or movie, and the lengths people will go to in order to bend logic to justify their illegal activity.

I just watch pirated movies and TV shows because I enjoy it. No bending of logic involved. Why is that so hard to understand ?

Re:Make sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Carriage disputes are a result of content producers trying to drive up licensing fees. Local TV rights for sports are licensed by the league or team to a particular network like Comcast or Fox. Teams have also tried skipping the licensing and instead producing their own broadcasts. The Kansas City Royals tried this with RSTN before eventually licensing their rights to Fox. The New York Yankees also had a similar arrangement with YES at one time. That said, the channels are generally available to all of the local distributors, provided they have a carriage agreement negotiated to a comparable rate to the other distributors in the market. The one exception I can think of is NFL Sunday Ticket, which is exclusive to DirecTV. I'm not saying that cable TV is a good model overall. I'm saying that content shouldn't be licensed exclusively to one distributor. In that aspect, cable TV is superior.

Re:Make sense

[Anonymous Coward]

So maybe Netflix should also adjust the price - half the US content - half the price. It is even worse in other countries - you have to pay more than for a fraction of the US library

Re:Make sense

[gfxguy]

Of course - your friend is allowed to watch movies with his friends. If you put that in a public place, it'd be a different story. So no, your analogy doesn't work. Copyright infringement for the sake of entertainment is really not justifiable.

Re:Make sense

[gfxguy]

I understand completely - but you just freely admit you're violating copyright instead of trying to bend logic in order to justify it - you just freely admit you do it because you want to, not because you're taking some kind of high ground in defiance of content providers.

Re:Make sense

[CCarrot]

I can't believe it's really that hard to just not watch a TV show or movie, and the lengths people will go to in order to bend logic to justify their illegal activity.

I just watch pirated movies and TV shows because I enjoy it. No bending of logic involved. Why is that so hard to understand ?

^This^.

Also, this.

Re:Make sense

[religionofpeas]

you just freely admit you do it because you want to, not because you're taking some kind of high ground in defiance of content providers.

Well, I did download the Kanye album, and then threw it away immediately just because I dislike the guy. How does that register on your scale of bendy logic ?

Re:Make sense

[gfxguy]

It's very simple - if the content provider doesn't want to let you try before you buy, then just don't buy it. Again, if people would act legally and morally, and just show some restraint, the content providers might actually acquiesce. But until we do, they have no incentive to stop, and we have no right to violate the law. Your civil rights aren't being violated, so illegal copying is NOT an act of civil disobedience.

More on topic, it's up to you if you want to violate copyright laws... the problem I'm having in this discussion is not only people violating copyright laws, but then justifying it, pretending they've done nothing wrong, and even acting like media Robin Hoods of the entertainment industry. All for the sake of (for example) not abstaining from listening to Kanye West? Just no.

Re:Make sense

[gfxguy]

I think you're wrong, here... I do not know the whole story, but are you really suggesting there's content that was pulled from Netflix that is NOT available legally by ANY means in Canada?

Re:Make sense

[Triklyn]

if you think what you're being offered isn't worth the money... stop paying the money.

Re:Make sense

[Anonymous Coward]

fullgandoo is right, you are wrong

We canadians get half the content. There is no middle ground, we should be paying half the money US customers are paying for what is half the content.

Re:Make sense

[religionofpeas]

But until we do, they have no incentive to stop, and we have no right to violate the law. Your civil rights aren't being violated, so illegal copying is NOT an act of civil disobedience.

So, I do what you suggest, I don't buy it, and hopefully they'll change the rules as a result. In the meantime, I satisfy my own desires by watching a pirated copy, for which I have no further justification.

Re:Make sense

[MikeKD]

More "don't blame the player, blame the game" bullshit. I will blame the player--for playing the game.

Re:Make sense

[Mr D from 63]

If you use Netflix, then you are also a player.

Re:Make sense

[Mr D from 63]

fullgandoo is right, you are wrong

We canadians get half the content. There is no middle ground, we should be paying half the money US customers are paying for what is half the content.

And what if half the cost is not due to content, and if the content available is of higher cost than that not available? The infrastructure osct per customer, and customer acquisition cost is likely a lot higher outside the US, for example. NF original content costs more than a lot of other content. Maybe some content owners charge extra for adding Canada.

Its a lot easier for NF to keep one price structure rather than divide amongst areas. That would only increase the price across the board. Its best to decide if you want to pay for what is available or not, and quit worrying about what drives differences in other markets. I think NF is quite a deal even for just the small portion of content I watch.

Re:Make sense

[Anonymous Coward]

No. They are submitting to an unreasonable request (block all VPN access) when all they need to do is block non US ips the same as before.

There are several issues with this approach, the most important one is that there are legitimate reasons to use VPNs that are not related to circumventing geographical boundaries. So from the get go, it was a dickish approach from Netflix.

Re:Make sense

[Nethemas the Great]

Well I can reverse this and go with something, Karakaraon Canada Netflix and not US Netflix. I did a bit of Googling and could not find a legitimate place where from to purchase it here in the US. If I went down the list of "Canada" not "US" I'd expect similar results. I cannot personally attest to how prevalent the lack of available to purchase in US not Canada but I can most definitely attest to this problem in relation to region locking of Japanese content.

Re:Make sense

[labnet]

I think it is even more complicated than that.
The distributor of TV shows and movies goal is to sell to a market that will give the best return. If Foxtel in Australia is offering $10M for 5 year rights to a serial, and Netflix offers $1M, of course Foxtel will get the deal, and the distributor will expect Netflix to enforce georesetriction.
This old distribution model is slowly dying, but it take decades before it is truly dead.

Re:Make sense

[EvilSS]

Actually it can vary based on the size of the carrier. Larger carriers have more subscribers, and also more clout negotiating. Several small cable companies had to drop AMC not long ago due to this kind of thing. Either way, it's not standardized in any way.

Re:Make sense

[gweihir]

If you have a product that in principle you can sell and a customer that wants to buy it (but can, as a second option get it by other means) and then you refuse to sell, that must be the most demented and stupid "business strategy" ever. This does not even have to do anything with right or wrong, it is just the customer working around terminal stupidity of the supplier.

Re:Make sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Stretching copyright to insane levels and to extreme lengths is also not justifiable. Copyright is a temporary monopoly granted in exchange for works going into the public domain. They are no longer holding up that part of the bargain. Why should we hold up our end? I have lost all respect for the copyright laws.

Re:Make sense

[djinn6]

Netflix is in a better position to negotiate the terms than any individual Canadian. They actually get face time with content owners. The onus is on Netflix to convince them that pushing Canadians into piracy will reduce their revenue rather than increase it.

It's the streaming equivalent of region coding

[Anonymous Coward]

What's really going on here is the greedy content producers want to practice price discrimination. There are no technical reasons why the same content can't be simultaneously made available worldwide. This is a means of enforcing price discrimination and disproportionately charging more for content in some regions. It really is the streaming equivalent of DVD region coding. When you have to resort to such tactics, it ought to be a sign that your business model is bad.

Re:It's the streaming equivalent of region coding

[PhysicsPhil]

What's actually going on here is that other broadcast companies already have in many cases already paid for exclusive rights to the content in question for broadcast in Canada. Netflix welcome to put in their bid when those contracts come up for renewal.

Re:It's the streaming equivalent of region coding

[Anonymous Coward]

It's actually worse than region coding. At least with Region Coding, there's a "North American Region", meaning, that everything that is available to U.S. customers is also available to Canadian customers. Digital rights breaks up the "North American Region" into two regions, and since the Canadian population is so low compared to the U.S. or the U.K. companies never place an importance on providing digital content to Canadian customers. I would gladly subscribe to Amazon Prime if, as a Canadian, I had access to the exact same services that the U.S. Prime customers had. But I don't. I only get "free" shipping. No streaming video, no streaming music. Nada.

Re:It's the streaming equivalent of region coding

[fullgandoo]

What's really going on here is the greedy content producers want to practice price discrimination. There are no technical reasons why the same content can't be simultaneously made available worldwide. This is a means of enforcing price discrimination and disproportionately charging more for content in some regions. It really is the streaming equivalent of DVD region coding. When you have to resort to such tactics, it ought to be a sign that your business model is bad.

And Netflix isn't guilty of price discrimination? They are charging the same price as US for half the content in Canada.

Re:It's the streaming equivalent of region coding

[fullgandoo]

And Netflix isn't guilty of the same? Charging the same price as US for half the content in Canada?

Re:It's the streaming equivalent of region coding

[danbob999]

They are. This is what people don'T understand. Perhaps Netflix could offer all the US content for $30/month. But in order to keep costs down, they offer less content.

Re:It's the streaming equivalent of region coding

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems like a broken model. Why are the rights to stream locked down to a country-by-country basis? I can buy Lays Potato chips in various stores around the world. Streaming should be working on the same model. I pay $Company x amount of dollars, I expect to get the same content as the every other country that pays $Company for their service.

Re:It's the streaming equivalent of region coding

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no technical reason but there is a big financial one, Why sell something once when you can split the market into segments and sell it to each of them.

Re:It's the streaming equivalent of region coding

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoah whoah whoah. This isn't price discrimination, it's financial aid for people who can't afford movies!

Re:It's the streaming equivalent of region coding

[cdrudge]

I can buy Lays Potato chips in various stores around the world. Streaming should be working on the same model.

It is. It's no different than any other product that is sold by distributors that have sales territories. In your potato chip case though, the distributor has chosen to distribute his chips in various locations. In the case of some films in Canada, the distributor has chosen not to distribute the film online, at least with Netflix.

Re:It's the streaming equivalent of region coding

[fustakrakich]

Well, there are some people who are willing to tell them where to stuff their exclusivity. And the industry can expect only more push back against the idea. "Legal" or "illegal" isn't going to make a difference. I see the weakening of national borders as a good thing. Removing the bricks in the wall, one by one.

Re:It's the streaming equivalent of region coding

[Anonymous Coward]

But you can't buy them for the same price in every shop everywhere in the world. In some places you'll have to pay more.

Re:It's the streaming equivalent of region coding

[gweihir]

In other words, artificial scarcity. That counts as malicious in any sane system of ethics.

RETURN? Hahahaha!

[Anonymous Coward]

Now THAT'S FUNNY!

Such is true in life

[Anonymous Coward]

There is only a guard around something people don't have access to.

Age Old Decision!

[BoRegardless]

Supply vs Demand.

The Phoenicians before Christ might be described the Netflix of their day with trade items.

So stupid

[CimmerianX]

I never understood this region license thing as it applied to digital media. It made sense when you had PAL vs NTSC or had to deal with local people to distribute.... but in the age of netflix, it seems very archaic.

It's just the media companies desperately holding on to old sources of revenue instead of trying out new licensing models.

Seriously, a pair of eyes is a pair of eyes.... If my canadian neighbor lives 1 mile away from me, why should I see a show and not them.

Plus, don't get me started on the VPN blocking.... this stupidity by netflix and hulu are what keep me from running Full vpn through my DD-WRT router on my network. If I did, no one in the house could use either service.

Re:So stupid

[b0bby]

Plus, don't get me started on the VPN blocking.... this stupidity by netflix and hulu are what keep me from running Full vpn through my DD-WRT router on my network. If I did, no one in the house could use either service.

Just curious, why would you want to run a router based VPN other than to get around content blocking or something? Is it just so your ISP can't see your traffic?

Re:So stupid

[huh_]

It's because Canadian networks like Bell, Shaw, etc purchase the rights to broadcast those shows here, whether it's over cable or their own shitty services like Shomi, or Crave.

Re:So stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Then just don't sell exclusive licenses. So anyone who wants to distribute it can pay for the right.

Example
1 buyer, cost is $10, Made $10
2nd buyer appears, cost is $7, rebate $3 to first buyer. Made 2 x $7 = $14
3rd buyer appears, cost is $6, rebate $1 more to first and $1 to second. Made 3 x $6 = $18
4th buyer appears, cost is $5, rebate $1 to each of 3 previous. Made 3 x $5 = $20

Re:So stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

So antitrust, restraint of trade, etc. Don't you have something like our Sherman Antitrust Act? Where the CEOs of Bell and Shaw can get some prison time for attempting to monopolize markets?

Re:So stupid

[PPH]

Then just don't sell exclusive licenses.

Because collusion between the studios? Netflix needs licenses. And if the content providers get together and agree to stick to one licensing scheme, Netflix has to go along. Otherwise they get nothing.

Why don't some independent studios break away and offer different licensing deals, breaking apart the cartel? Research the influence of organized crime in the motion picture industry.

Re:So stupid

[sims 2]

Verizon wireless has a pretty long history of fking with web traffic let's see... They have used a intercepting proxy to compress images (years ago now) they have (and afaik still are) intercepting all dns traffic on port 53 so you can't use a outside dns server unless you run it over a another port.
and most recently they started injecting a tracking code into all outgoing http traffic. Sure they let you opt out of that now but for the better part of a year there was no opt out.

And last there is a account usage analysis option that shows what types of data your line was used for.

That's just what my isp has done so i can easily understand why someone would want to run a vpn just so their connection would function.

Maybe netflix will start offering vpn service so they can verify that i actually am in the united states. Or I suppose i could always setup a vpn to the lan at work i bet netflix wouldn't catch that.

Re:So stupid

[tlhIngan]

It's just the media companies desperately holding on to old sources of revenue instead of trying out new licensing models.

Or it's because exclusivity pays.

I mean, I'm sure they'd love to have worldwide distribution - it's less people to deal with and less people means less middlemen taking profits.

The problem is, the old distributorship model pays quite well - they know if they get exclusivity they can get a lot of money from it, so they pay a lot to the studios.

The problem is if you want to break exclusivity, then the amount they're going to pay you for the content is a lot lower. And that difference is not made up by the additional providers you bring in.

The problem is exclusivity pays a lot more, and the exclusive partners are willing to fight for it.

Take Bell (Canada) for example - the CRTC ruled they can no longer "simsub" (a practice that's really only desirable during US election season) - basically if a Canadian channel is showing the same content as a US channel, then providers (satellite, cable) are required to substitute the Canadian's channel content over the US channel.

Well, as an experiment, the CRTC ruled that simsubbing the superbowl was not going to happen starting in 2017. Bell was upset, being the exclusive distributor for it in Canada (because 95% of Canadians have cable or satellite) and the simsub rules meant anyone turning to NBC would get Bell's version (with Canadian ads).

Personally, I think simsub is just bad policy - it was designed to help CanCon, but I think it really goes against it because it's more profitable for a channel to simsub by airing the same programming as the US than to air Canadian content instead which results in the Canadian content being quite marginalized (until the US picks it up).

Bell is spending millions in lawsuits to overturn this one experiment. Bell spent 20 years in court getting people to not install US satellite dishes in Canada, too (Dish and DirecTV are *illegal* in Canada, even if you pay for them and not use hacked cards or anything!).

Oh yeah, and the Bell CEO speaks out against VPNs, calling them "thieves" for using it to watch US Netflix. She even called her daughter a thief for doing that.

That's the kind of money on the line - and the studios and networks go along with it because there is so much money being thrown around that non-exclusive distributorship would simply make a lot less money.

Re:So stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

probably because many of those "independent" studios are Sock puppets for the majors.

Re:So stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Where I live, the ISPs do any/all of the following:

1: Add unique ID headers to every HTTP call.
2: Inject "surveys" where if you take them, you get discounts on dodgy stuff.
3: Toss ads in, Phorm style.
4: Actively log all traffic and sell what sites I visit.

I always use a VPN. The VPN site can do shanegians, but it prevents location attacks, locks out logging by the ISP, and protects my end IP address against snoops that don't decide to throw motions of discovery around. (I'm not worried about the *AAs or LEOs, but the ad companies wanting to track 24/7.)

Re:So stupid

[avandesande]

Yeah it seems archaic, but how do you sign a contract with an entity that would be the same across across companies and comply with different laws in each country? Seems money grabish but from a contract law perspective makes complete sense.

Re:So stupid

[cardpuncher]

It made sense when you had PAL vs NTSC

You do realise that the PAL vs NTSC wasn't simply a technological accident? PAL was patented and the patent used to shield European TV manufacturers from, principally Japanese, competition. So it was just as much consumer-hostile as regional content protection is now. It certainly didn't technically prevent the widespread interchange of programming between PAL and NTSC regions - though this was done on film for the most part until digital standards conversion became feasible.

Re:So stupid

[CimmerianX]

OMG - that is brilliant. You should pitch that to Netflix. I'm sure they could run a VPN service for another $5.00/month. It's a whole new revenue stream

Re:So stupid

[sims 2]

I suggested it to netflix support they said they would pass along my feedback.

So if netflix starts its own vpn service in a few months I suppose you can blame me for that.

Time = Money

[bretts]

If you make content available for people at a reasonable price in a convenient manner, they tend to choose that option. When you make it difficult for them, they seek the path of least resistance, which is pirating it. Back in the 1980s when software cost $50 a disk and you might have to try out 300 programs to find five you wanted to keep, piracy was the way people experienced software and it benefited the publishers, who then got their apps out there so that business -- which had the money -- could buy them.

Customer Service Fail

[unixcorn]

No matter who's fault it is that the customer can't get the content she wants, Netflix is once again fucking up by trying to say the "small vocal minority" is inconsequential. In all cases where some are being vocal, there are many others who aren't. I liken it to an ice berg....the top would be the vocal ones and under the water the dissatisfied, quiet ones.
At least provide a reason why there can't be a world catalog or start working on pricing.

Re:Customer Service Fail

[Kjella]

Look it's really as simple as this, the reasons Netflix don't get global rights will be the same for any similar legal service. And since they're not going the Pirate Bay route, all they could effectively do is talk down their own service and stock price. Don't expect KFC to speak ill of fried chicken.

Tears of LOL

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, I've never see so much bitching over this shit in my life. A bloo bloo bloo, you can't access what you weren't paying for in the first place, a bloo bloo bloo. Get over it already.

Re:Tears of LOL

[PIBM]

What you weren`t paying for ? Those that => used = vpn to access their Netflix were also subscribing using a USD card providing a US address paying the USD price and the local taxes for the state from which their VPN in-out was.

Re:Tears of LOL

[Anonymous Coward]

you can't access what you weren't paying for in the first place

They were paying for it, that's the issue. These were Canadians using a VPN to look like they were connecting from the USA. They were paying with USA credit cards for USA Netflix so they could watch USA content. There was zero difference between them and any other legitimate, paying USA Netflix subscriber, except that they were physically located outside a politically decided boundary.

Re:Tears of LOL

[sims 2]

Where do you live that netflix is free?

Numbers, please.

[westlake]

Instead of shelling out $10 for a Netflix subscription, some people now may opt to pay nothing at all to get what they want.

Some people? But how many? The Canadian market is at best about 10% that of the U.S. and 20% Francophone. These are not big numbers for Netflix or the studios, so why should they care?

Re:Numbers, please.

[angelbar]

Because 10%

Re:Numbers, please.

[Anonymous Coward]

If the numbers are so small why do they fuck us over?

Goodbye Netflix, hello Plex

Re:Numbers, please.

[fluffernutter]

The number I saw was 3.1 million.

Re:Numbers, please.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ask them, the mafiaa.org is screaming bloody murder every time someone outside the US watches something they have not "authorized, billed and fucked over" via their territorial business model from the 1970ties...

Re:Numbers, please.

[Anonymous Coward]

Instead of shelling out $10 for a Netflix subscription, some people now may opt to pay nothing at all to get what they want.

Some people? But how many? The Canadian market is at best about 10% that of the U.S. and 20% Francophone. These are not big numbers for Netflix or the studios, so why should they care?

You're telling me you'd say no to an increase (no matter how incremental) in your salary even if it requires little-to-no effort on your part?

Re:Numbers, please.

[Your.Master]

First, the population being 10% doesn't mean the market is limited to 10%.

Second, 10% *IS* a big number for Netflix and the studios. That's why the studios have insisted on doing this, and why Netflix resisted for a time.

Re:Numbers, please.

[Anonymous Coward]

10% is actually pretty close, the Canadian market is about 15% of the U.S. market in terms of Netflix users. 1 in 3 Canadians is a subscriber of Netflix. Out of the global netflix market, Canada is the highest: http://www.thewrap.com/netflix-global-paid-subscribers-by-country-canada-wins-photo/

The revenues of the Canadian market to Netflix is roughly $400,000,000 USD
The revenues of the US market is significantly in the billions.

So yeah, it's not a lot, but still something.

Reminds me of "lifters" when I was in sixth grade.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Wah, it is too expensive. I'll just shoplift it." Same type of thing.

Uncaring Canadian here

[future assassin]

Told the wife who cares little about tech what Netflix was doing, he said off with their heads. So cancelled the sub. We were in the middle of watching Departures and Longway Round, well they downloaded overnight so here we are watching a leisure once again. I believe Departures is on CDN Netflix but Long Way is not.

The decision was easy too as we mostly watch nature/travel shows and pretty much seen them all on Netflix, everything else that I watch I already have on my 800+ DVD. Oh and two days ago I received my Descending DVD which I bought from the Departures websites.

I might feel different if I was younger but at this point of my life I just don't give a fuck. Put up roadblock and I'll just go around them or better yet not watch tv at all.

Re:Uncaring Canadian here

[myowntrueself]

Told the wife who cares little about tech what Netflix was doing, he said off with their heads. So cancelled the sub. We were in the middle of watching Departures and Longway Round, well they downloaded overnight so here we are watching a leisure once again. I believe Departures is on CDN Netflix but Long Way is not.

The decision was easy too as we mostly watch nature/travel shows and pretty much seen them all on Netflix, everything else that I watch I already have on my 800+ DVD. Oh and two days ago I received my Descending DVD which I bought from the Departures websites.

I might feel different if I was younger but at this point of my life I just don't give a fuck. Put up roadblock and I'll just go around them or better yet not watch tv at all.

To be honest I'm having difficulty finding anything I want to watch even on the US Netflix. If it wasn't for my child I'd cancel it.

Re:Reminds me of "lifters" when I was in sixth gra

[myowntrueself]

"Wah, it is too expensive. I'll just shoplift it." Same type of thing.

No because shoplifting takes goods out of inventory.

Just a few more downloads for Plex

[blueshift_1]

Then Plex will just get some more downloads and nothing will really change. NF is generally easier than searching and torrenting (figuring out what to watch then waiting for the download to complete), so it just ends up a convenience fee for many people. But as it becomes more challenging to get the content they want, then piracy is naturally the alternative.

Lawyers vs Engineers

[spaceyhackerlady]

Like so many of these things, the lawyers can pass all the laws they want. But this has already been settled by the engineers. The onus is on the lawyers to figure stuff out, because this isn't going away any time soon.

I have a legit account for the Canadian Netflix-lite and may pull the plug soon since there is little of interest on it. U.S. Netflix doesn't interest me, but I use a U.K. VPN to access BBC and ITV streaming content. I'd pay a reasonable amount to access it legitimately.

...laura

Re:Lawyers vs Engineers

[gweihir]

Indeed. The thing is the lawyers are too arrogant and stupid to understand that it is not them that define how reality works. They try very hard and do a lot of damage (and is always surprising to see society tolerate their evil machinations which make everybody much poorer), but in the end, actual reality trumps deranged fantasies every time.

worst for foreign language

[Anonymous Coward]

Netflix language choice always forced us to go from country to country to have something in another language than english. With the border gateway the content has not been divided by 2 but more like by 20 . Even if a movie is available in Canada the french version might be availalbe on Netflix France only , Belgium or another country.

I am begin to look at other site like canalplay to replace Netflix

Re:worst for foreign language

[Triklyn]

actually this is one of the imo legitimate things that VPN blocking will fuck up. watching programs that netflix makes available in in the US and another country, where subtitles in a foreign language are provided in the other country and not in the US. Netflix needs to make subtitles in foreign languages, that they obviously already have on file, available to every region.

Canadian Netflix

[Anonymous Coward]

I think part of the reason Canadians may be more willing to pirate is a combination of lack of options and less strict copyright laws. Canadians have less access to Netflix, Hulu, YouTube and other streaming services. The "Content not available in your area" label is a pretty common sight in Canada. This gives Canadians a lot of incentive to pirate material. After all, if it's not for sale legally, it is easier to justify downloading content for free.

Also, in Canada, the copyright laws tend to be less strict. We have tarifs on blank media that go to the music industry and our plenalties for downloading videos have caps that make it less risky to download. Plus fewer media companies are willing to take legal action against Canadian pirates because they're not likely to recoup their court costs.

I think most Canadians would happily pay Netflix and other providers for content, but often cannot, so the only alternatives are pirate (with little risk) or go without.

Re:Canadian Netflix

[Triklyn]

are you sure its not available? or is it simply available at a price you're not willing to pay?

Re:Reminds me of "lifters" when I was in sixth gra

[Anonymous Coward]

No, these people aren't complaining about price, they're complaining about availability. Its more like, "that store won't sell to us because we don't live in the right neighborhood, so I'll just steal their shit instead." Which you could arguably say is alright because its not like the store made money on the people stealing the content in the first place.

Re:Reminds me of "lifters" when I was in sixth gra

[Anonymous Coward]

Amazing how people don't get that.

A shoplifted or stolen item is no longer there to sell or be owned.

A copied "item", the original is still there.

This actually benefits netflix.

[Z80a]

Because now they can basically go to the studios, tv networks etc and say "see? those are all your lost sales for not signing a contract with us."

Not Canada's first issue with streams

[TheMadTopher]

Old days Canada and DirecTV I remember long ago when DirecTV wasn't licensed to provide service in Canada and Canadians could get hacked cards and legally pirate everything DTV had with H cards. The Canadian courts had ruled since DTV wasn't authorized to do business in Canada (at the time -- I'd be surprised if it never changed), then DTV was essentially beaming an unsolicited signal and anyone in Canada could do what they wish with it.

The Real Problem

[cyriustek]

The Netflix offering in New Zealand is abysmal as well. As such, many people happily used services like Unotelly and others to circumvent the geo-blocking. As a matter of fact, one ISP (Orcon) actually offered a service to help its users to bypass geoblocking. However, this was taken away due to legal threats from SkyTV and cable operators.

Services like DirecTV, SkyTV, Xfinity, and others are to blame for perpetuating an antiquated system of content rights. They have a lot to lose from globally available services because they are the middle men that need to be cut out, resulting in lower prices for the consumers and/or higher profit for the content creators.

In the meantime, I guess it is back to downloading for New Zealand as well. It is a shame that content creators will lose due to the "middle men."

Blocking is illegal *within* a country

[davecb]

It's a non-tariff barrier to trade: between the states of the US or EU, or between the provinces of Canada, a blocking scheme is illegal. Between countries, it is legal because the countries want to protect their businesses from foreign competition and encourage, for example, local printing of physical books.

IMHO, it should not be legal for non-physical goods. Someone in Australia or Canada shouldn't have to pay a higher price that someone in the US to stream a movie, just the exchange on the money...

Re:In a nutshell...

[Z80a]

Using theft as a word to describe it only make you sound silly.
Its copyright infringement the name of the crime here.

Border-Hopping is piracy

[danbob999]

Like it or not, border hopping means getting content that you are not licensed to get. It's piracy, just like it is piracy to get a student version of a software if you are not a student. Just because you pay for something doesn't mean it isn't piracy. Some people pay for VPN/tunnels/torrent trackers/newsgroup, and the copyright holder gets nothing of that money. If the copyright holder of TV show XYZ sold it in Canada to a Netflix competitor but to Netflix in the US, that Canadian competitor is right to expect money from all those who watch the show in Canada.

Re:Border-Hopping is piracy

[Anonymous Coward]

If the copyright holder of TV show XYZ sold it in Canada to a Netflix competitor but to Netflix in the US, that Canadian competitor is right to expect money from all those who watch the show in Canada.

Eh, why? Going by that logic - if Best Buy Canada gets an exclusive deal to sell Star Wars DVDs in Canada, then you are committing piracy if you bought the DVD while on vacation in the US and went back to Canada? Or I would be committing a crime (assuming you define 'piracy' as a crime) if I caught some over-the-air American tv channel north of the border and watched a show that a Canadian broadcaster happens to have an exclusive license for?

Doesn't that seem patently absurd?

Re:Border-Hopping is piracy

[gweihir]

People do not care. And they are right to. Offer a service at a reasonable price and good quality and most people will see it as a fair offer and will be willing to pay. Offer it at artificially inflated prices, at bad quality or not at all, and people will look for alternate sources. That is how the world works. If some disconnected-from-reality law-makers think differently, then the problem is with them. They do not define how reality works at all, although many of them seem to suffer from that delusion. Suppressing copyright infringement (no, not "piracy", the whole term is a shameless lie) does not even work in the worst fascist regimes. The only thing that works is making fair offers.

News at 11

[Macdude]

People will obtain illegally, that which they desire but cannot obtain legally.

Re:News at 11

[Anonymous Coward]

Especially in Québec, for intance AMC is refusing to sell Walking Dead to french broadcasters in QC, so the only way for people in QC to watch it in French is to download it after it was showed in France/Belgium.

Re:News at 11

[wwalker]

Not quite. If I desire a new Bentley, but cannot obtain legally because I don't have the money, I'm not going to go and steal it. If I cannot get the latest episode of my favorite show because the stupid Comcast DVR failed to recorded it once again, and there are no upcoming reruns, I'm going to torrent it without thinking twice, even though technically it's also illegal. The difference here is that in the first case, if I steal the car, there will be one less car in the previous owner's garage. If I pirate the movie/TV show, the only difference is that I enjoy watching it (hopefully). Since I cannot get it any other way, nobody lost anything, including potential revenue. Repeat after me, kids: copyright infringement is not always stealing.

Re:News at 11

[Anonymous Coward]

Not quite. If I desire a new Bentley, but cannot obtain legally because I don't have the money, I'm not going to go and steal it. If I cannot get the latest episode of my favorite show because the stupid Comcast DVR failed to recorded it once again, and there are no upcoming reruns, I'm going to torrent it without thinking twice, even though technically it's also illegal.
 
Are you all people? Because there are certainly people who would heist a Bentley. Yhere are people (such as myself) who'd like to see something but if they can't get it through the 3-4 legal (read easy) channels to get it, will just let it slide.
 
I will grant you that more people would be willing to torrent a TV show than steal a Bentley but you're trying to make an absolute case that isn't so absolute.
 
  Repeat after me, kids: copyright infringement is not always stealing.
 
Again, this is a grey area. For you it might not be stealing if NetFlix pulls Wargames off their service a week before you decide to watch it but the fact that you're unwilling to go and buy a copy for 8 dollars is theft for me. I'd agree with you if Wargames was out of print and the only legal copy you could get was for a couple hundred dollars from eBay but that's not where most of these downloads are coming from.

Re:News at 11

[k6mfw]

It all happened since Day One. "Do not take and eat that apple." It's been downhill ever since.

IP "owners" have a strange sense of entitlement

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no natural right to own intellectual property. It's solely a made-up condition which we (the people who offer said right) agree to in return for artists to disseminate their works. The mere belief that you're entitled to stop the spread of ideas (which is all art and science is) to a limited number of people because you don't feel that your work is valued is bullshit. You create or you don't. We have mechanisms in place to assist in the remuneration for such endeavors *for the sole purpose of enticing you to create for our (the public's) use and enjoment*. If we didn't think you deserved anything, we'd never have written any of that section of the law books.

This is the appropriate "fuck you, too" response to the initial "fuck you" directed at Canadians. And that'a pretty big deal when you piss off Canadians enough to get them to tell you to go fuck yourself.

The industry

[Anonymous Coward]

They never seem to understand the reality: Give me a legal path or F off. Canada and the US should share the same library. Justify the difference or remove it. Either you want a global market or you don't.

I'd really like original van Gogh's too

[mpercy]

But for some reason no one is willing to sell them to me. I guess I'm entitled to just take them?

Re:I'd really like original van Gogh's too

[iCEBaLM]

Analogy falls flat - no one is downloading originals, by definition every download is a copy, of which it is literally no cost to make.

Re:I'd really like original van Gogh's too

[religionofpeas]

Poor analogy, as you probably already knew before you wrote it.

Re:I'd really like original van Gogh's too

[Plus1Entropy]

If you can just make as many copies of the original without paying for them, then the original has no value.

Re:I'd really like original van Gogh's too

[Anonymous Coward]

https://www.google.com/search?q=van+gogh&safe=off&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjsw_Sepq_MAhXlvoMKHQcBBjMQiR4IgwE&biw=1920&bih=979

Here you are, copies of original van gogh's, free for your viewing pleasure. You can even copy/paste them to your own device, all for free.

That said, dealers are perfectly willing to part with Van gogh's, its just you need to pay millions of dollars for them.

If you don't have millions of dollars, you can easily buy a giclee or print of the work for a fraction of the price.

If you can't do that, you can still look at and enjoy the work from the numerous free sources out there.

No one is trying to prevent you from looking at a Van Gogh. But they are trying to prevent you from looking at movies.

Even ones you've already paid for.

Re:I'd really like original van Gogh's too

[aquabat]

It has value to me. Maybe not monetary value, but it's worth the time I waste watching it, so in a sense, I have paid for it.

Re:I'd really like original van Gogh's too

[Plus1Entropy]

It took effort and time to pick the lock to your house. So in a sense, I paid for the TV I stole from you.

Re:I'd really like original van Gogh's too

[aquabat]

Absolutely. This is opportunity cost in action; basic economics. The value of my TV is worth more to you than the value of your time and the risk of getting caught.

Re:I'd really like original van Gogh's too

[aquabat]

reply#2: But I was commenting on the value of the content, not on the cost (in risk) of getting it. I was trying to convey how much more valuable one's personal time is than anything else in life, really. Whether you pay for it or not, the content we watch is seldom worth the opportunity cost of the time we give up to watch it. And yet we habitually choose to use large portions of our waking life staring at lights on a piece of glass instead of going out and actually living.

Re:I'd really like original van Gogh's too

[david_thornley]

Suppose someone photographs the van Gogh in a way that preserves as much of the picture as possible, and releases it. That photograph has no protection in US copyright, since it is not a creative act; indeed, it tries to avoid any possible creativity in the product (it may in the technique, but not in the result). Many famous paintings have been so photographed, and the photographs can be duplicated endlessly in the US. Are you now going to claim that the original van Gogh is worthless?

Re:I'd really like original van Gogh's too

[Some_Llama]

sounds fair. i was on the fence but now i agree, i should just pirate the stuff i want and you should just steal the stuff you want. let's see who ends up in prison first.

Re:I'd really like original van Gogh's too

[Plus1Entropy]

I know (think?) you're saying this to disagree with me, but this actually made me laugh, so kudos. :D

Doesn't Canada have a "Canadian content" law?

[mpercy]

That limits the number of foreign (including American) movies, TV shows, songs, etc. that can be aired?

Meanwhile, let the Canadians make their own damn movies and STFU if they don't care for the American laws protecting American IP.

Disclaimer: it's not that I think USA copyright laws are right or correct.

Re:Doesn't Canada have a "Canadian content" law?

[nuckfuts]

Canadian content laws have nothing to do with NF. They come into play when a company wants to acquire an OTA broadcasting licence, for example, where a limited number of stations can exist within a given spectrum. No such limitations exist on content delivered over the Internet.

Re:Doesn't Canada have a "Canadian content" law?

[spaceyhackerlady]

Canadian content applies to cable channels too. The authorities are still trying to figure out streaming services.

When I pulled the plug on my cable BBC Canada had degenerated to endless reruns of Top Gear and various Mike Holmes shows.

...laura

Re:Doesn't Canada have a "Canadian content" law?

[Insanity Defense]

hey don't care for the American laws protecting American IP.

Why the FUCK should Canadians obey American laws IN CANADA?

How much of the blank media tax goes to

[mpercy]

artists in the US?

Re:How much of the blank media tax goes to

[nuckfuts]

How much of the black media tax goes to artists in the US?

That is an excellent question. The organization in charge of distributing fees is The Canadian Private Copying Collective. Quoting from their Distribution FAQ (PDF):

Songwriters, music publishers, recording artists and record companies are all eligible to receive private copying payments. While songwriters and music publishers are eligible regardless of nationality, only Canadian recording artists and record companies may receive payments under current law.

So the answer is, if you're a songwriter or music publisher in the US, you may receive payments. If you're a recording artist or a record company in the US, then no.

Reverse NAFTA?

[xanthos]

Weren't all those wonderful free trade agreements supposed to make things a big open market?

Apparently it only applies to sellers, not to buyers.

Netflix doesn't own all the content, limited

[mpercy]

Yeah, Netflix has some original content that they own and can license anywhere they want. But the vast majority of the catalog is subject the the restrictions imposed by the rights-holders and passed on by contract to Netflix. Netflix contractually has a responsibility to make good faith effort to protect the rights of the content in accordance with the rights-holders demands.

Again, not defending the rights-holders, but it is their content and they can do with it as they please.

Re:Netflix doesn't own all the content, limited

[o_ferguson]

But it's not. As has been pointed out time and again in this thread, it is public content to which they've been granted a time-limited monopoly.

Re:Reminds me of "lifters" when I was in sixth gra

[Midnight Thunder]

"Wah, it is too expensive. I'll just shoplift it." Same type of thing.

How do you shoplift something that isn't on the shelf or isn't being made available to you? This more akin to watching a football match from outside the stadium, because they wouldn't let you in, even with you indicating you would pay. You get to watch the match, but the stadium doesn't get to make money from your viewership.

Re:Reminds me of "lifters" when I was in sixth gra

[Plus1Entropy]

But if you can just make as many copies of the original without paying for them, then the original has no value. What's the difference between having no inventory and having inventory that's worth nothing?

Re:Reminds me of "lifters" when I was in sixth gra

[Plus1Entropy]

But if you can just make as many copies of the original without paying for them, then the original has no value. What's the difference between having no inventory and having inventory that's worth nothing?

Cord cutting != piracy - I call BS on this!

[jenningsthecat]

TFS echoes TFA, which says the following:

If Netflix continues its crackdown, we're likely to see more Canadians turning to piracy. That's apparently what Canadians do when we don't have easy access to cheap content. Market research analyst, Brahm Eiley calls it our "dirty little secret." He says statistics on piracy are scant but that, according to his findings, Canadians are bigger cord cutters than Americans. On the surface that seems odd because Americans have access to many more low-cost streaming services such as Amazon, HBO and Hulu. However, we find other ways to get what we desire — such as downloading unauthorized films and TV series. "Canadians are kind of more comfortable going out and finding content in whatever creative way they want," explains Eiley, president of the Toronto-based market research company, Convergence Consulting Group.

TFA talks about piracy, but relies entirely on a linked article to support its claims. The linked article is primarily about cord-cutting, but contains a little blurb titled "Canadian Pirates". That weaselly little blurb links to a 'study' that supposedly supports its contention - but the 'study' mentions NOTHING about downloading, (illegal or otherwise), nor does it mention piracy. Shitty, shoddy journalism, a tempest in a teapot, and total BS. As a Canadian, I expect better from the CBC.

The madness of different distributors

[Miamicanes]

There's an easy way to fix this: a free trade agreement that stipulates that anyone with the rights to license content in one country within the zone automatically shares the rights to distribute that content to viewers in ANY country within the zone... maybe throwing in a statutory formula to allocate a chunk of the profits to the official licensing entity for a given country while denying their ability to block or prevent it. And prohibiting licensors in the zone from attempting to limit distribution by country in their contracts (in other words, by law, any contract that gives you the right to distribute content in the US would automatically give you the right to distribute it in Canada and Britain, regardless of any other wording in the contract).

Example: suppose MusicCorpUS owns the rights to ThemeSong. In Britain, MusicCorpUK owns the rights. In Canada, SomeOtherMusicCorp owns the rights. Now, Fox makes a TV show using ThemeSong, and wants to show it in all three markets. However, SomeOtherMusicCorp decides to throw a monkey wrench into their plans and use the show's expected popularity as a rent-seeking opportunity to wring more cash than Fox is willing to pay. Under current law, the show wouldn't get shown in Canada. Under my proposed treaty, Fox would could just give SomeOtherMusicCorp the finger, recursively inherit the rights from MusicCorpUS, and write the royalty check to them... leaving it up to MusicCorpUS to figure out the statutory royalties they owe to MusicCorpUK and SomeOtherMusicCorp for the show's Canadian & British viewers. And in fact, if either MusicCorpUK or SomeOtherMusicCorp were willing to undercut MusicCorpUS, Fox could license global rights to use the music from THEM instead.

This is why, for example, MTV (US) never, ever, EVER shows the European Music Awards as anything more than a scattered collection of 3-second clips... and why shows like EuroVision never get shown in the US. The production costs would be close to zero since the video already exists, but the licensing costs for literally dozens of pop songs would make it more expensive than producing an episode of a show like Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D or Grimm.... especially since any one of the individual licensors could hold out and demand more. Putting them all into competition with each other, and prohibiting licensing deals that limit distribution by country, would solve most of the problem.

In the worst case (one big multinational corp buys up the nominally-independent distributors in the various countries), it would still have the benefit of reducing the transaction costs by massively simplifying the distribution agreements. At the end of the day, BigMultinationalCorp still needs to license its works to make money... and the TV shows that would today require an army of lawyers in each country to negotiate royalties could pay a single legal team who'd (by law) be negotiating a contract good for everywhere within the trade zone. It would become impossible for one rent-seeking licensor in a significant market to get in the way.

Free Market requires Competition

[gurps_npc]

One of the basic principles of a free market is that there is COMPETITION.

Yes, you are allowed to charge whatever you want for something you own - but that requires people to have valid, reasonable other options available to purchase something similar.

When you collaborate with other people to ensure that there is NO other option for people to buy anything similar to what you own, that is called an illegal trade monopoly.

Yes, you are legally allowed to get the protections of copyrights, but as part and parcel of a capitalistic system, the government is required to spend just as much time and effort preventing you from engaging in anti-competitive trade agreements as they are in enforcing your copyright.

W\hen you violate the rules of capitalism, creating anti-competitive trade agreements with the other content produces that are supposed to be your competitors, you have no right to complain that the government doesn't spend enough effort going after the 'pirates' because they also are not going after you for your illegal Trade Agreements.

Re:Reminds me of "lifters" when I was in sixth gra

[PsychoSlashDot]

What's the difference between having no inventory and having inventory that's worth nothing?

Is this some sort of Zen koan? It should be, because it's enlightening. There's a revelation the inventory's value isn't directly related to the price tag you place on it.

The remainder of this post isn't directly replying to you, it's just topical. I don't call it "piracy". It call it "magic". Allow me to explain.

I have the ability to - through magic - do more or less whatever I want. I like food. I am willing to pay for food. So I go to the grocery store and I load up a cart and I buy some milk, some bread, some meat, some ice cream... whatever I feel like, then I pay for it. The next day, the grocery store stops carrying milk because the dairy farmers signed an exclusive distribution deal with STORENAME. If I want milk, I must make a separate trip to STORENAME. The next day, the same thing happens with bread, only it's only available at OTHERSTORE.

Sooner or later I'm going to use my magic to just wish food onto my plate. It's going to taste better than the products at the grocery store and it's going to arrive prepared the way I like it. Oh, and I won't be paying for it. Because... magic.

That's my lesson to media creators. Don't worry about "piracy". It's magic and you can't stop it. Worry about the ways YOU can make me want to not use my magic. Hint: making magic illegal won't work. Remember, I want to pay for my food. Not the least, because food-makers think of new kinds of food that I didn't, so I want to encourage food-making. Just don't make consuming food such a pain in the ass that I resort to magic. My magic food doesn't steal anything from anyone, but it sure deprives YOU of an opportunity to have some of my money.

When the Free Market Fails

[Anonymous Coward]

When the free market fails the powerless its tough titty - when the free market is ignored by the powerful its time to get all excited and put people in jail instead of adapting to the marketplace.

The market spoke - make a reasonable product for a reasonable fee and people will prefer it to piracy - i.e. you get paid. You could even tack another two bucks CDN on the monthly Netflix fee to access the newly doubled content and I doubt the market would even flinch. We are used to paying up to 30% more for books etc. etc. so why not Netflix?

The problem is not with Netflix, its with the unrealistically complicated regional content agreements. We need more disruption in region free content distribution.

US BS

[DarthVain]

I think most Canadians have long since forgotten about that whole blank media affair.

What I think is starting to really wear thin is that in this technological wondrous world we live in Canadians still pay more for less than what Americans do for little or no reason. It has been around forever, and is usually blamed on "distribution" or "currency". However these are BS arguments when nothing changes even though the Canadian dollar was at par or more valuable than the US dollar for an extended period of time. "Distribution" costs in regards to digital content is ridiculous, it is't like trucks are going out of their way, or that warehouses need to be built or something. It isn't just newcomers like NETFLIX, look at the US/CAN prices on books and magazines. Digital books and magazines? Then look at anything from Amazon.com VS Amazon.ca and you can do that comparison just about anywhere. Not to mention why some products are available, while others are not... Another fine example would be the Kindle and how if a Canadian were dumb enough to buy it would find half the features disabled just because they live a couple miles outside the US?

We're constantly getting screwed by US companies all the time insistently. I mean if NETFLIX US had double the content than the Canadian version, then shouldn't we be logically paying half the price?

So yeah, when US corporations start complaining, and NETFLIX is forced to police their networks, and as a result more Canadian start looking at other avenues to get the same content, well I doubt too many Canadians will shed too many tears over the matter.

In a matter of fact, I would bet that the two new streaming options CRAVE and SHOMI owned by the already dominant Canadian telecommunications companies Bell and Rodgers, will have great big shit eating grins on their stupid duoloplistic faces...

Re:US BS

[c-A-d]

>In a matter of fact, I would bet that the two new streaming options CRAVE and SHOMI owned by the already dominant Canadian telecommunications companies Bell and Rodgers, will have great big shit eating grins on their stupid duoloplistic faces...

Given their ownership, it gives me even more reason to NOT subscribe to them.

Re: US BS

[Lynchenstein]

And those services are shit. If you think Canadian Netflix is bad, check out the awesome selection of content on Shomi or Crave.

Re:US BS

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

It's probably not Netflix's fault; the people who own the copyrighted material charge Netflix more to have their content available in other countries. If the Canadian market isn't big enough to offset those costs, then Canadians don't get to see things on Netflix.

I mean if NETFLIX US had double the content than the Canadian version, then shouldn't we be logically paying half the price?

Only if all content is equal, which it isn't.

Re:Reminds me of "lifters" when I was in sixth gra

[Plus1Entropy]

I agree with your premise, that piracy can't be stopped, and that people will choose legitimate options as long as they are not too much of a pain in the ass. But this statement made me think of a few things:

The next day, the grocery store stops carrying milk because the dairy farmers signed an exclusive distribution deal with STORENAME. If I want milk, I must make a separate trip to STORENAME. The next day, the same thing happens with bread, only it's only available at OTHERSTORE.

First of all, this does happen to an extent. You can only get certain brands in certain stores, but usually that has to do with the brand being owned by the same company that owns the store. Bread and milk (as well as certain other foods, like butter and eggs, I believe) are a bit different because there are special controls and rules in place for them. But anyway, the point is not to nitpick your analogy.

What this makes me think of are restraint of trade and anti-trust regulations. I believe (IANAL), for example, that Heinz could not exclusively sell ketchup to McDonald's, but refuse to sell to Burger King. So what if we take the legal model that we apply to the distribution of goods like ketchup, and apply them to intellectual property?

In other words, it would be illegal for the content provider to sign exclusivity deals. If they allow Hulu to distribute content, then they have to allow Netflix to as well (assuming Netflix wants to and is willing to pay). However, just to be clear, it would be perfectly fine for Netflix to exclusively distribute their own content (analogous to the store brands).

Am I crazy, or does this seem like the obvious solution to all of this nonsense?

Pirate away!

[mpercy]

"Why the FUCK should Canadians obey American laws IN CANADA?"

They don't need to. Agree 100%.

But they shouldn't complain when Netflix is trying to prevent American laws from being broken in America, or more to the point, Netflix is trying to protect their contractual rights and obligations vis-a-vis distributing licensed content AND trying to not violate the exclusive rights for content distribution to Canada held by others.

it's not piracy it's group purchase

[Anonymous Coward]

what do you mean return ? we never left it since we pay a special tax on every blank media to cover for this , actually you cant even call it piracy anymore , we just gave ourself a life long open bar on anything you can torrent

Simple ...

[angel'o'sphere]

I mostly live in germany.
However I spent about 6 days per month in France. And about 6 per quarter in Denmark!
On top of that I spent roughly 3 months in Asia.

A Netflix account makes no sense to me!

Piracy is the leverag we need on content producers

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think many people understand what piracy has done for content. Piracy serves as competition to cable/distribution networks. Without it we probably wouldn't have netfix or any digital streaming services. Piracy is the best thing that ever happened for consumers of media. Now the power to choose is in the hands of the consumer. Content providers cannot force commercials anymore, they cannot enforce arbitrary lines on a map, and the cannot enforce prices through artificial scarcity. Tons of people only turn to piracy when there is no other reasonable place to get what they want, and that gives consumers power to push back on how they want content delivered. Content producers can go through netflix, or any other digital service, and their decisions and price points will be judged by consumers by how many of them decide to just pirate it, because the content producer is being unreasonable. This story is a perfect example of the industry messing up, and consumers fighting back.

Re:Reminds me of "lifters" when I was in sixth gra

[myowntrueself]

But if you can just make as many copies of the original without paying for them, then the original has no value. What's the difference between having no inventory and having inventory that's worth nothing?

Of course they have value; you have to have something to copy from. Therefore each copy has value, not just the original.

Since you brought up GoT

[Radical Moderate]

Mandatory Oatmeal link.

Canadian Here

[thundercattt]

I'm Canadian, my VPN has not prevented me from viewing Netflix US. I had to change my DNS once, that's about it. Never noticed any enforcement at all. The day I'm locked into Canada is the day I exercise the option of canceling and using other free services like Shomi (comes with my Shaw account free).

Re:Canadian Here

[CanEHdian]

The day I'm locked into Canada is the day I exercise the option of canceling and using other free services like Shomi (comes with my Shaw account free).

Since you're paying for your Shaw account, Shomi is not free but "included"; I have Crave TV "included" with MovieNetwork/HBO. The fun part is that both Shomi and Crave are Canadian services, so there is no US counterpart to compare to. Which means you're locked into Canada from the get-go. We don't have Hulu and our localized Amazon Prime is joke.

But it's not just via the Content providers like Netflix that our friends in Hollywood are busy protecting their own entitlements, also the government is being worked on.

Re:Reminds me of "lifters" when I was in sixth gra

[Plus1Entropy]

Yes, value that was stolen from the original without paying for it.

Re:Reminds me of "lifters" when I was in sixth gra

[Anonymous Coward]

Just don't make consuming food such a pain in the ass that I resort to magic.

Stop eating so many habanero peppers!

Re:Reminds me of "lifters" when I was in sixth gra

[Anonymous Coward]

This might be true, and by god, a lot of the relevant originals have absolutely no value.

But the original argument was pirating something that you actually value, but you're not allowed to pay for. Copying something you want to pay for and therefore value, is a way of increasing the value of the original product. You wouldn't bootleg a Justin Bieber concert even if he wasn't on the radio all the time. Just ask Adobe, who seems to go out of their way to make you copy their software.

Is anyone surprised?

[nebular]

We have access to nearly every other piece of American media without restrictions, hell we even have to put up with prescription medication ads that are illegal in this country. Really Netflix is the only area that we notice a difference in access and it frustrates the hell out of us.

But we'll still pay for Netflix because the movie selection on our side is awesome

Damn right I'm entitled

[m76]

Why is the US guy's money better than mine? If they're not going to sell it to me, of course I'll look for other sources to obtain my fix. I'm addicted to TV shows and they complain that when they take it away I'll try to source it elsewhere?

It's so ironic that the people crying "entitlement" over this are the ones on the privileged side of the fence. You're the entitled ones, because you think you deserve it, and we don't.

Re:Reminds me of "lifters" when I was in sixth gra

[myowntrueself]

Yes, value that was stolen from the original without paying for it.

If its not being sold and taking it doesn't remove it from inventory what value has been lost to the original? The original had no price attached to it; they weren't going to sell it to us. Its value was zero.

Re:Reminds me of "lifters" when I was in sixth gra

[Some_Llama]

and since value is a relative term there is no way to put a legal definition on it since legal facts have to be concrete.

Been Pirating Since The Start

[SoVi3t]

My parents have Netflix, but I was always disappointed in the titles available. Much like when the Xbox 360 came out and had access to tons of TV shows and movies, but not in Canada (however they still charged me the same fees for Xbox Live Gold subscriptions, with their limited content). So I've been streaming and torrenting whatever I was unable to get from Netflix, until I no longer felt the need to use Netflix. Sports, movies, tv shows, I stream everything now, and my wallet thanks me.

Not surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

Canadians have always been very into sharing media. I always noticed that Canadians were at the top of the chain in the sharing scene—25 years ago, and still today.

Piracy

[Anonymous Coward]

This is piracy:

http://www.offshoreenergytoday.com/nigeria-pirates-attack-two-offshore-vessels-two-crewmembers-kidnapped/

http://www.oilandgaspeople.com/news/8254/pirates-kidnapped-crew-from-offshore-vessels/

Don't be misled.