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"

[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"

[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"

[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"

[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.

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: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.

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...