Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
I stole this Sig
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.)
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.
"Oh no... he found the