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"

[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"

[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"

[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"

[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"

[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"

[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"

[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"

[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"

[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"

[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"

[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"

[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"

[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"

[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.

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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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]

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

[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.

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

[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.

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.

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: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.

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.

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

News at 11

[Macdude]

People will obtain illegally, that which they desire but cannot obtain legally.

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?

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.

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.

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...

Since you brought up GoT

[Radical Moderate]

Mandatory Oatmeal link.