More Unblocking Companies Give Up Their Fight Against Netflix (techspot.com)

Earlier this year, Netflix announced it was going to block the VPN services that were circumventing the streaming service's geoblocking technology, and it seems in the months since many of the top VPN players have given up on finding ways to workaround Netflix's block tech. From a report on TechSpot (condensed): Australian company uFlix discovered that some of its users could no longer access Netflix. It said that a fix was coming soon, but, uFlix announced recently in a recent blog post that it has given up the fight. "As of today we are going to stop supporting Netflix as an unblocked channel. Unfortunately every time we set up a new network or find a workaround it is getting blocked within hours." Uflix isn't the only service to throw in the towel -- most of the other unblockers have quietly decided to stop trying to evade Netflix's geoblocks, as more customers complain they can no longer watch the streaming site. Popular VPN TorGuard had assured customers that the crackdown wouldn't affect them. But there is no mention of Netflix on TorGuard's website, and its shared Netflix server was taken offline four months ago.

Comments

You gotta fight for your right to

[Anonymous Coward]

netflix?

Re: You gotta fight for your right to

[Midnight Thunder]

It is less about fighting the right to access Netflix and more about being able to access an equivalent service, providing content to your region. In many regions either a particular movie/series is not available or there is no suitable legal way to watch any recent content.

Re: You gotta fight for your right to

[amiga3D]

I've found that most of the better stuff from Netflix is available by torrent. I guess people need to stop paying netflix and head off to the pirate bay. If they don't want your money then stop paying them.

Re: You gotta fight for your right to

[Anonymous Coward]

Do people understand that it is a product of whether Netflix wants to or even can buy the rights to a show in a particular reason. I find it hard to believe they are in the business of pissing off customers intentionally.

Re: You gotta fight for your right to

[Anonymous Coward]

Who cares whether or not it's up to Netflix? If the content's not legally available, it's certainly still available.

Re: You gotta fight for your right to

[jshackney]

Hard to believe Netflix would cut off its nose to spite its face.

Re: You gotta fight for your right to

[jellomizer]

You could focus your blame on the studios who publish the shows and not on netflix that is trying to broadcast them following the rules.

Because when the company follows the rules Netflix doesn't become Napster which took little to no concerns of the other companies IP rights. We may not like the current IP law. However if you are going to work with them you are going to be better off in the long run than if you don't.

Re: You gotta fight for your right to

[OakDragon]

I have decided that I'm not going to break a law... even if it's some kind of trivial, asinine law.. just to watch a Hollywood movie. They're not even worth it.

Re: You gotta fight for your right to

[Anonymous Coward]

Hard to believe Netflix would cut off its nose to spite its face.

You do understand that Netflix isn't cutting off its legitimate customers right ?

Re: You gotta fight for your right to

[Wycliffe]

Netflix could buy the rights for any show in any area. They just choose not to.

Although this is somewhat true, the problem is likely price. At $8/month they are operating at similar prices to HBO but possibly because it is on demand have to actually pay more per title so they are more just a channel that happens to be on demand. Just like a buffet is "all you can eat", very few have the most expensive entries and the ones that do charge alot more than the ones that stick to cheaper items.

Re: You gotta fight for your right to

[amiga3D]

You have a good point. Well over 90 percent of it isn't worth the bandwidth. Free is still more than it's worth.

Re: You gotta fight for your right to

[Wycliffe]

This and they also track views and presumably pay for content via the amount of views. If they are having very few legitimate views (or conversely a ton of illegitimate views) from a particular country then it could possible affect their negotiations.

Re: You gotta fight for your right to

[r1348]

Not true. I certain areas, broadcasting rights probably already belong to someone else.

Re: You gotta fight for your right to

[UnknownSoldier]

> You do understand that Netflix isn't cutting off its legitimate customers right ?

Incorrect.

When I go to visit my parent's in Canada I can't watch my Netflix due to bullshit geo-ip licensing blocking half of the shows.

I'm paying for the dam service-- WHY does it matter WHERE I stream it from ???

Re: You gotta fight for your right to

[chmod a x mojo]

Malicious compliance would hurt Netflix far more than it hurts their content suppliers. After all, the whole point of geoblocking is to protect the content suppliers' ability to sell content to whatever entity is willing to spend the most money in a particular region. Zealously enforcing this wouldn't devalue their content nearly as much as it devalues Netflix.

Not really. It is true that it may hurt netflix in the short term, but it will hurt the content providers more in the longer game. Furthermore, it may actually get it through the content providers heads that blocking off a large portion of their profits is a Bad Thing when their revenues fall drastically; the single markets they think they want can't support the level of profits they have been previously making.

Re: You gotta fight for your right to

[SirSlud]

Actually, they can't when somebody else already owns exclusive distribution rights in a region, which is hardly uncommon.

Re: You gotta fight for your right to

[SirSlud]

Because the people that made the content signed a deal with a distributor in Canada saying that nobody in canada (including you) may view the content unless it's being broadcast or streamed by them. You really want to be blaming the people making the content for signing those deals.

Re: You gotta fight for your right to

[Kreplock]

Because the content of the service varies by region.

Re: You gotta fight for your right to

[hodet]

I agree with this. I was viewing US content through a Socks5 proxy through a VPS I was renting for other purposes. I am the only person who would be using that proxy and it has been blocked. Really I am fine with it, I just don't have the time or energy to figure out another workaround. Once I have nothing left to watch in my geo area I will just discontinue netflix. Simple as that.

Re: You gotta fight for your right to

[UnknownSoldier]

Netflix already knows my zip code from my billing address -- it doesn't _need_ to know which region my IP is in.

This is myopic stupidity.

Re: You gotta fight for your right to

[EvilSS]

Netflix could buy the rights for any show in any area. They just choose not to.

This isn't true at all. A lot of content has existing distribution deals in different regions, some of these may go back decades. Others are new deals but they can be in place before Netflix even has a chance to buy the content (bundled with broadcast rights to local TV networks, for example). I'm sure there is some content they could but chose not to buy the rights to in specific reasons, but it's definitely not "any show in any area".

Re: You gotta fight for your right to

[mattack2]

Then start a company to provide it.. or pay for companies that provide at least some of what you want, and convince them to provide more of it.

Couldn't Netflix go against these VPN companies legally? (Especially in a country like Australia..)

Re: You gotta fight for your right to

[fred6666]

Netflix was free to outbid that someone else. They chose not to.

Re: You gotta fight for your right to

[fred6666]

It doesn't need it. But it does use it when negotiating with content provider. They ask "how much for that show? We will only broadcast it to US IP addresses." It's part of the deal.

Re: You gotta fight for your right to

[fred6666]

You are breaking a law when faking Netflix into thinking you are in another country. It's called copyright law. The holder of the copyright (distribution rights) in your country is not being paid. Why pay for illegal content? I agree with the OP, use torrents if you are not going to comply with the law anyway.

Re: You gotta fight for your right to

[r1348]

That someone else probably got the broadcasting rights even before Netflix entered that particular market. Here in italy Netflix doesn't show House of Cards because they sold the rights to Sky years before they started in 2015.

Re: You gotta fight for your right to

[just another AC]

Netflix could buy the rights for any show in any area. They just choose not to.

This isn't true at all. A lot of content has existing distribution deals in different regions, some of these may go back decades. Others are new deals but they can be in place before Netflix even has a chance to buy the content (bundled with broadcast rights to local TV networks, for example). I'm sure there is some content they could but chose not to buy the rights to in specific reasons, but it's definitely not "any show in any area".

Being pedantic but it is possible (but dumb) for them to buy any show in any area. They only need to buy the entire local TV network or whoever has the rights. Expensively stupid but possible.

So the answer isn't whether they can but whether they should.

Re: You gotta fight for your right to

[fred6666]

That's the exception, not the norm. Also, was Netflix stupid enough to think they would not go to Italy?
Anyway the norm is that Netflix is already in a market, but they are outbid on broadcasting rights for a particular show.

Re: You gotta fight for your right to

[painandgreed]

Netflix could buy the rights for any show in any area. They just choose not to.

Shit. There's a lot of movies that haven't even made it from VHS to DVD yet because of licensing issues. Regional and other issues besides simple licenser greed prevent Netflix from getting "any show in any area".

Re: You gotta fight for your right to

[Midnight Thunder]

Only broadcast to US IPs? Ok, my VPN endpoint is in the US, why block it then?

Because that is what the content owners ask of them. Netflix needs to balance providing content to people who want it, with the ability to get the content in the first place. Netflix is in a delicate position and has to compromise. It doesn't need to make sense, but it does need to fulfill the criteria of the contract signed.

Re: You gotta fight for your right to

[EvilSS]

Netflix could buy the rights for any show in any area. They just choose not to.

This isn't true at all. A lot of content has existing distribution deals in different regions, some of these may go back decades. Others are new deals but they can be in place before Netflix even has a chance to buy the content (bundled with broadcast rights to local TV networks, for example). I'm sure there is some content they could but chose not to buy the rights to in specific reasons, but it's definitely not "any show in any area".

Being pedantic but it is possible (but dumb) for them to buy any show in any area. They only need to buy the entire local TV network or whoever has the rights. Expensively stupid but possible.

So the answer isn't whether they can but whether they should.

Actually no, since at least some of the countries those networks are in have laws restricting foreign ownership or the networks are outright state owned themselves.

Re: You gotta fight for your right to

[KingBenny]

in my world regional internet and localized geoblockels are illegal so i guess no netflix then , BLEH, can as well watch state-tv if thats the case, they seem to be taking a turn the size of googles do no evil

Y'all know what you need to do

[kilfarsnar]

Contact Netflix and tell them you are cancelling your subscription due to this action on their part. That's really the only leverage you have over them. It is not in the customer's interest that they are doing this.

Re:Y'all know what you need to do

[PvtVoid]

Contact Netflix and tell them you are cancelling your subscription due to this action on their part. That's really the only leverage you have over them. It is not in the customer's interest that they are doing this.

This. I'll do it right after I finish catching up on Luke Cage.

Re:Y'all know what you need to do

[Tukz]

And what do you expect them to do?

It's not Netflix' choice, it's their content providers requiring them to do this.

Re:Y'all know what you need to do

[houstonbofh]

If you needed the VPN to use it, you should not have been a customer in the first place... They are doing it because the agreements require them to.

Re:Y'all know what you need to do

[kilfarsnar]

And what do you expect them to do?

It's not Netflix' choice, it's their content providers requiring them to do this.

I'm not sure what I expect them to do. But the bottom line is cancelling one's service is the only real leverage one has over a company. You can complain, and they might listen. But at the end of the day if their product does not meet your needs, stop buying the product.

I know they have agreements with the content owners, but that is not my problem. I didn't negotiate those agreements. My problem (if I traveled outside the US much) is that I can't see the programs or movies that I want and paid for. If their licensing agreements become unprofitable because of lost business, Netflix will have to renegotiate or stop carrying that content. If they can absorb the loss of revenue but still maintain an acceptable profit, they will continue as usual. But all I can do is buy their service or not.

Re: Y'all know what you need to do

[Ost99]

This is probably one of the driving forces behind their shift towards original content.

Re:Y'all know what you need to do

[93 Escort Wagon]

It's not Netflix' choice, it's their content providers requiring them to do this.

Netflix keeps dumping third-party content in favor of its own self-produced stuff. So it's making less and less sense for people defending Netflix to keep playing that "it's not their fault, they have no choice" card.

If they can determine that quickly which people are using a vpn service, they can certainly choose to offer some limited set of stuff to those customers. Incidentally, it'd also be a good bellwether regarding whether any significant number of people actually care about the self-produced content (cue the Netflix employees browsing Slashdot in 3, 2, 1...).

Re:Y'all know what you need to do

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't seem to know what you're talking about. People are using VPNs to circumvent the blocking of content based on location. Netflix's original content is already available everywhere, they don't restrict it by location, so your first statement is just nonsense, the content the control is not the content being blocked. As for allowing them some limited service when they're on a VPN, you are describing what is available if they stop using a VPN to circumvent the geoblocking. Doesn't take a "Netflix employee" to tell you you have no idea what you're talking about.

Re:Y'all know what you need to do

[jshackney]

If the content providers find their financial arrangements with Netflix agreeable, then perhaps this move would give Netflix a little bit of leverage. Ultimately, should Netflix continue to create original content, they could ultimately tell their content providers to shove off.

Re: Y'all know what you need to do

[Stewie241]

On the other hand, it probably doesn't look good from a legal perspective if you signed a contract with your content providers to stop people from watching from other regions, and then you didn't do due diligence to enforce it, had you agreed to do that.

I was hopeful that Netflix wouldn't really work that hard to enforce this, but it seems that they have. If they are being contractually compelled to do this, and they have agreed to enforce it, then it would be a bad idea to not really do it.

It is likely better for their business to make the content available to all the folks in the US who are within the allowable region and block others, than to not have the content at all and lose all of the US subscribers.

Re:Y'all know what you need to do

[tlhIngan]

Netflix keeps dumping third-party content in favor of its own self-produced stuff. So it's making less and less sense for people defending Netflix to keep playing that "it's not their fault, they have no choice" card.

If they can determine that quickly which people are using a vpn service, they can certainly choose to offer some limited set of stuff to those customers. Incidentally, it'd also be a good bellwether regarding whether any significant number of people actually care about the self-produced content (cue the Netflix employees browsing Slashdot in 3, 2, 1...).

Unlike Amazon, all the content Netflix produces is available everywhere that Netflix has service. So you don't need a VPN to access Netflix-produced content. At all.

And Netflix has service practically everywhere.

So the only reason you use a VPN is it access content on another Netflix in another country, as Netflix just checks where you're logging in from to determine your content. So if you travel to the US, you get to see the entire US catalog while you're there, even if you have a Canadian Netflix account.

So yes, it's the content provider's fault. In Canada, you cannot legally stream The Simpons, because Fox has given all North American streaming rights to FXX. Which doesn't serve Canada at all. So once it airs, it's one. None of the legal Canadian streaming services, free or otherwise, carry it. So if you miss the broadcast, tough luck, you have to pirate it.

Re: Y'all know what you need to do

[umafuckit]

This is probably one of the driving forces behind their shift towards original content.

Which they also geolock. The last season of House of Cards appeared on US Netflix weeks and weeks before it aired locally. I pay for Netflix, but I still ended up looking on Torrent sites to watch their content without waiting.

Re: Y'all know what you need to do

[Anonymous Coward]

Not true. Plenty of original netflix content is not available on my country's ~11â... of us catalog. Ever wondered why netflix never publish full list of available shows and movies? So people can't see the ahitty selection they offer in some country for exactly the aame price.

Re:Y'all know what you need to do

[fustakrakich]

Contact Netflix and tell them you are cancelling your subscription due to this action on their part.

It will do you no good at all...

If Netfilx won't deliver to your location, your only alternative is bittorrent. And since you paid for the service, you need not feel guilty about it.

Re:Y'all know what you need to do

[ArtemaOne]

Thanks. My wife and daughter watch it back in the USA while I'm deployed to the middle east. I shouldn't be a customer?

Re: Y'all know what you need to do

[umafuckit]

That... it the strangest thing. That makes literally no sense. Why on earth?

It's not like when Netflix FIRST arrived in NZ it was without "Orange is the New Black" because they'd licensed the rights to that off to a local TV station earlier, but the latest season?

I'm assuming there wasn't some stupid deal where they'd sold first broadcast rights to a local provider?

Likely something like that. They claim "licensing issues", whatever that means. As far as I recall it wasn't available on local TV, but then I don't subscribe to any premium channels.

Re: Y'all know what you need to do

[SlayerOfKings]

Not true. Plenty of original netflix content is not available on my country

Same here.. NetFlix sold international licenses to lots of it's early stuff before it went global.

Re: Y'all know what you need to do

[Josuah]

House of Cards distribution rights are not solely owned by Netflix. Wikipedia indicates distribution is jointly owned by Netflix and Sony. Compare to Daredevil or Luke Cage, which I think was launched simultaneously everywhere, where Netflix is listed as the only distributor.

Re: Y'all know what you need to do

[umafuckit]

Ah, right. Sony's fault. Should have known

Re:Y'all know what you need to do

[RockDoctor]

If Netfilx won't deliver to your location, your only alternative is bittorrent.

your "only" alternative ???

I don't think that word means what you think it means. Surely you have the alternatives of (1) not watching that TV programme, movie, or whatever it is that NetFlix deliver (cream cakes? I'm not even sure if they exist in, on, or near this continent); or (2) getting the content burned onto DVD and posted to you by a friend (whether a genuine friend, or one of the paid varieties) ; or (3) wait until it comes to some other content provider that does cover your area. I mean, you may not like these alternatives, but they do exist.

Which dictionary do you use for your definition of "only"? I'd like to know, so I can avoid using it.

Welp, back to pirating

[Anonymous Coward]

Now I get the content for free and I'll always have it. You blew it Netflix.

Re: Welp, back to pirating

[Anonymous Coward]

you're right. we should ban libraries as well

Re:Welp, back to pirating

[stealth_finger]

Yup, because you're entitled to someone else's work.

Typical thief.

Thief - Someone who makes a copy of something that someone won't sell to them.

Is that how you're defining it now. Piracy has never, ever been thievery, at least since you stopped needing a boat and an eye patch anyway.

Plenty of people went to netflix from the piratebay because it had all the content they wanted for one price. Was easy, convenient and fair. Yet with every step they erode that deal, one could say it's getting worse all the time. It might be ok in America where you have all the good content but try look out side where they charge more and give less. Australia gets a particularly raw deal as I understand it.

Re:Welp, back to pirating

[kilfarsnar]

Yup, because you're entitled to someone else's work.

Typical thief.

Capitalism doesn't work without scarcity. Once something can be reproduced at near-zero marginal cost, it loses value in the marketplace. That's true regardless of how much money or effort went into producing it. It's just the way the system works.

You can argue against it on moral or ethical grounds, and you'll have a good point. But really, if morality or ethics ruled the day the world would be a very different place. A technological lack of scarcity doesn't seem to be a problem for businesses when they can drive down labor costs by replacing people with robots or computers. So I don't shed a tear when the same dynamic affects their bottom line. I do feel bad for the artists who actually do the work to produce the content. But then again I gave up on a career in music because I could see there was no money in it.

Re:Welp, back to pirating

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not entitled to somebodies work, you're absolutely right about that.

But the rights holder shouldn't be entitled to a monopoly on reproduction of their stuff 90+ years after the original author died either.

What currently is law isn't at all what the original thought behind copyright protection was (to permit the original author to make money off their work for a while, before it becomes public domain) and has been mangled into something that basically means they own it perpetually. Instead of rewarding innovation and helping the next generation of artists to give material on which to build on (like any human innovation, standing on the shoulders of your predecessors), it rewards landgrabs and IP hoarding. And they continue to abuse their power with DRM, fucking over fair-use, regional releases and all this other nonsense.

If something current is released and I like it, I will buy it on physical media, strip the DRM and anti-piracy nonsense and dump it on my NAS. Even while doing this as a legitimate customer I'm breaking several copyright laws. So if something is 40+ years old and would have been in the public domain if we kept to the original copyright legislation, I don't feel any bad for pirating it.

Maybe if the law was a bit saner, I would feel more compelled to abide by it. But right now they can just fuck themselves.

Re:Welp, back to pirating

[green1]

Theft, in law, a general term covering a variety of specific types of stealing, including the crimes of larceny, robbery, and burglary. Theft is defined as the physical removal of an object that is capable of being stolen without the consent of the owner and with the intention of depriving the owner of it permanently.

theft | law | Britannica.com
https://www.britannica.com/top...

We have a word for copying something. "copying". We have a term for doing it without the legal permission to do so "copyright infringement". Theft is a very different crime which is in no way related to copyright infringement in any way.

Re:Welp, back to pirating

[MooseTick]

What value does all this semantics bring?

Whether its "theft" or "copyright infringement" or "something else"; its illegal, Maybe it should or shouldn't be illegal, but it currently is in pretty much every country on the planet.

Re:Welp, back to pirating

[Merk42]

So they're both right?
smooth wombat doing the literal definition of "Thief", stealth_finger the legal definition of "Thief".

It's grammatically correct to call the AC a thief, but not in a court of law?

Re:Welp, back to pirating

[green1]

Well why don't we call it "murder" or "rape" while we're at it? They are also illegal, if that's what we're doing, lumping all illegal acts in together?

Why don't we call it jaywalking instead? Also illegal. But doesn't fit the narrative the studio's want to portray of it being a heinous act.

The point is that by conflating one crime with another you push an obvious agenda to try to make it seem more serious than it is.

Words do matter. And you can't have an honest discussion about a subject while using dishonest or misleading terminology.

Re: Welp, back to pirating

[SirSlud]

hehehe, somebody doesn't understand how libraries work

Re:Welp, back to pirating

[SirSlud]

I don't think you read your own link.

Re:Welp, back to pirating

[stealth_finger]

After jumping through three hoops you can connect it literally. Look you can call it rape if you want but it's still copyright infringement which is different to theft as evidenced by them coming up with a whole new term for it.

Re:Welp, back to pirating

[green1]

No, "copyright infringement" doesn't "murky the waters" it describes EXACTLY What is happening. the only ones trying to "murky the waters" are those calling it Theft when it doesn't meet even the most basic definitions of such.

It's precisely because people know that theft is wrong, and understand WHY it is wrong (depriving someone of their property) that it is extremely dishonest to call copyright infringement theft. When talking to non-technical people, you don't need to come up with a completely unrelated example. Talk to them about photocopying books, they're all familiar with that, and it's exactly the same thing. Trying to pretend it's different is extremely dishonest.

I'm not getting in to value judgement of whether copyright infringement is right or wrong, but you can't have an honest discussion about it when you intentionally try to prey on people's feelings in regards to a completely different issue to cause them to feel that same way about this one.

Re:Welp, back to pirating

[Merk42]

How is it three hoops? I could have just left it at the first definition of "thief".
Again, I am referring up the dictionary definition of "thief", you're referring to the legal one, they are both valid given their appropriate context.

Re:Welp, back to pirating

[dskoll]

I think piracy is theft. It's not the content that's being stolen, it's the forgone revenue that is being stolen.

I certainly am no fan of the current copyright enforcement regime, but I do think that content creators and owners should be able to control the terms by which their works can be obtained. The market will sort out those who over-charge, but piracy distorts the market and hurts all content-creators.

Re:Welp, back to pirating

[stealth_finger]

No, theft is taking an object from someone without permission. This is copying a file without permission. Similar but distinct. You steal a dvd yeah but these aren't dvds.

Re: Welp, back to pirating

[buchanmilne]

"The definition makes no distinction between tangible and intellectual property, and a thief is simply a person who steals."

Which is why, after the invention of the printing press, a new term was created for those who were given permission to steal copies of an author's work using this device, thieveryright.

Right?

Wrong. The English Language does not therefore define theft as the unauthorised copying of a work that is already being distributed (for a fee) to the public.

Re:Welp, back to pirating

[Merk42]

and "take" can mean "to secure for use" meaning the "taker" can now use the thing being "taken" regardless of if it is copied or not. Again, that is the dictionary definition.

Re:Welp, back to pirating

[Anonymous Coward]

We were all taught stealing was wrong when we were little and we all know theft is stealing. The use of "copyright infringement" murkys the waters a little bit. Now that's being honest.

We were all taught a lot of things were wrong, and even tiny children know which rule they've broken. When people break a rule, why lie about which rule it is?
You know theft and copyright infringement are violations of different rules, with completely different consequences, right?
Isn't calling something by a false name what "murkys the waters"?

Illegal immigration is rape! Sending spam is arson!
Are you worried that the use of "spamming" instead of "arson" murkys the waters a little bit?

Re:Welp, back to pirating

[Anonymous Coward]

> While some may not agree, many people do find "copyright infringement" and theft to be very similar.

These people like to ignore the fact that when somebody copies something the owner keeps the original. That's a pretty radical difference. Wouldn't mind people copying my clothes, car, home, etc, as long as I kept mine.

Re:Welp, back to pirating

[Anonymous Coward]

You missed the point of that content (sometimes) simply not being available at all, for any price.
But even in less extreme cases, the lost revenue and hurting content-creators parts have been rather hard to show conclusively (also compare with DRM-free games doing fine, and even old games that were and in some case are still on "abandoned games" sites selling fairly well), which puts your whole statement on rather shaky feet.

Re: Welp, back to pirating

[chmod a x mojo]

And the original person who shared the movie / book also either bought it or borrowed it from someone who did buy it as well, therefore it is no different - it's still 1 sale --> multiple viewers.

Shared movies don't just spring up out of the magic ether of the net you know...

Re:Welp, back to pirating

[stealth_finger]

I agree you've taken something, I don't agree, in this context, that's theft.

Re:Welp, back to pirating

[khchung]

Talk to them about photocopying books, they're all familiar with that, and it's exactly the same thing.

It is not even that, using VPN to access Netflix is like ordering books from India because it was much cheaper there. You did pay for a legitimate copy, but from a country other than where you physically were.

Obviously, your local distributor would not be happy about that, for exactly the same reason. And any layman would understand the situation correctly.

Re:Welp, back to pirating

[gerddie]

I think piracy is theft. It's not the content that's being stolen, it's the forgone revenue that is being stolen.

There is no forgone revenue when you can not buy the content because of the geo-locking.

I certainly am no fan of the current copyright enforcement regime, but I do think that content creators and owners should be able to control the terms by which their works can be obtained.

The moment a (copyrighted) work gets published it can be copied (in the worst case you could mount a camera in front of the TV screen) and, hence, the only way to make sure that content creators and owners have complete control over how their works are distributed is to impose a surveillance system on the viewers, welcome to 1984.

The market will sort out those who over-charge, but piracy distorts the market and hurts all content-creators.

Also wrong, on one hand the marked can do nothing about over-charge, if exclusive deals are made, on the other hand "piracy" can also work as advertising, for instance Metallica as a band became famous because there fans were copying and distributing there tapes (oh the irony). In that "piracy" indeed may distort the market, but it doesn't hurt the content creators.

Re:Welp, back to pirating

[Merk42]

"transfer" doesn't mean it's not still at the original location
transfer to print or otherwise copy from one surface to another by contact

Re:Welp, back to pirating

[Merk42]

transfer can mean it is copied
to print or otherwise copy from one surface to another by contact

Re:Welp, back to pirating

[Merk42]

Why though? Why do you feel this doesn't fit the dictionary definition of 'thief'/'theft'?

Re:Welp, back to pirating

[stealth_finger]

Because theft is the taking without permission of an object (or certain types of data), denying the original owner it's use. That is the key distinction. In pirating content no one is denied anything. There's the argument of the lost sale but that doesn't really hold up. If it somehow worked that if when, I downloaded a film I had to find someone with a copy and it removed it from whoever I downloaded it from then I would say it's theft but it doesn't work like that. I'm not trying to say piracy is ok or anything, just it's not theft. If I could replicate any object in your house, and you let me despite not having the right to, and I indulged in that, would you say I'd stolen? That's the other distinction, this stuff has been offered, just not by the people who technically own it so if anything it's closer to handling stolen goods(copies of goods anyway).

Re:Welp, back to pirating

[Merk42]

Because theft is the taking without permission of an object (or certain types of data), denying the original owner it's use.

and that's where we disagree, thank you.

Great news! Piracy always works.

[xtal]

As a bonus, the VPN does a great job of neutering threats.

I pay Netflix because I hate the media companies. Netflix will win.

Netflix is not the enemy. The rent-seeking copyright holders are; so hit them where it hurts.

If they don't want my money.. the Torrents doth provide.

Re:Great news! Piracy always works.

[houstonbofh]

Better selection too...

Re:Great news! Piracy always works.

[GameboyRMH]

Piracy is very reliable indeed! I never switched from Piracy and as such, have never suffered any kind of geoblock or service outage. Also, Piracy lets you save shows (in fact it usually saves them by default), and viewing is completely device-agnostic, so it even works on my weird old GNU/Linux phone! I've never needed any other service than Piracy and have no plans to switch.

The verb?

[Megane]

many of the top VPN players have given up on finding ways to Netflix's block tech.

Maybe they could try to accidentally Netflix's block tech.

Re:The verb?

[The-Ixian]

Sounds like you even it too. I didn't....

And back to piracy we go. Nice one.

[Anonymous Coward]

So I'm six quid up a month again, times that by how many others think well fuck this then if I can't watch what I want for no better reason than they don't want me to.

Technology

[tgetzoya]

I wonder how Netflix is doing this. More importantly, I hope they're not sharing this technology with countries like Iran or China.

Re:Technology

[houstonbofh]

Look at how many concurrent streams come from a specific IP and then block it. Not rocket science here...

Re:Technology

[grahamsz]

Plus they already know which accounts have used VPNs in the past and are likely to do so in the future. "Oh, 4 accounts that have used VPNs have just shown up on this previously-unseen IP range".

I haven't really understood why they don't just say that your subscription fee only covers the region in which you subscribe. Then they'd at least get double the subscription fee from someone who uses it in their own country + another country.

Re:Technology

[The-Ixian]

I am sure it is simply whack-a-mole, but they have a dedicated team for it and there are only so many VPN providers of a scale that matter...

I am sure that a single person could easily handle monitoring of dozens of VPN providers.

Re:Technology

[bernywork]

If they're using TCP you can look at how long it takes to get an ACK from data send, basically a TCP ping. If it's outside of a certain range, it's probably on a VPN

Anything over 50ms? Flag. Multiple connections? Flag Multiple accounts, same IP address? Flag

The only way I can think of getting around this is to use your own host and use something like a VPN and TOFFEE.

Re:Technology

[CastrTroy]

It's not really that simple. I tried setting up a VPN using a basic Amazon EC2 machine. When I first tried it, I was able to watch US Netflix. The second time I attemped to use this method it ended up blocking me. My AWS machine did switch IPs in the interim, as I had stopped it and restarted it, so it may have just picked up an IP that was already banned, but I think they are doing a lot more than just checking how many people are using a particular IP address otherwise they may end up doing things like blocking university campuses and hotels.

Re:Technology

[jandrese]

Shitty cable modem provider? Probably a VPN, ban.

Re:Technology

[umafuckit]

I haven't really understood why they don't just say that your subscription fee only covers the region in which you subscribe. Then they'd at least get double the subscription fee from someone who uses it in their own country + another country.

That would be rather annoying for people who travel a lot, but Netflix could do something related. They could lock the content to the home address you have given them for payment. Then you can watch from anywhere in the world but your content is locked to your home country.

Re:Technology

[houstonbofh]

If they're using TCP you can look at how long it takes to get an ACK from data send, basically a TCP ping. If it's outside of a certain range, it's probably on a VPN

Central and south Texas have a lot of Wireless ISPs to cover the vast regions of nothing... OK bandwidth, but very bad latency. Sometimes 100ms.

Re:Technology

[grahamsz]

That's what spotify do. I'm not sure i've heard of a lot of people seeking out US spotify accounts so they can access american music overseas - but maybe it does happen.

Re:Technology

[bernywork]

If they're only using a single input, sure it's a great way to get people to call in for support.

Re:Technology

[AHuxley]

The way around it is to buy bulk real US ip ranges and set up a US hub.
Then hide the rest of the world behind that USA front network. Encrypt all foreign interaction with real crypto. Hire real academics for that in house never trust US turn key crypto.
Induce some guess work back in ip blocking. Is that a new housing estate in a fly over state or vast numbers of users from another nation.
Buy deep into ip ranges that are, will be or got used by real US providers to deep consumer, telco networks.
A huge pool of shared virtual accounts with one commercial ip range asking to stream a new show is rather too easy to track.
Find all that networking around the US during the .com years and become part of ever changing US virtual networks.
A cheap VPN with one well mapped exit range in the US is too easy to track when flooding one streaming site.

So next year...

[Mashiki]

So next year we'll be seeing the stats that piracy is increasing again since hollywood and so on decided that region locking was a really good idea. I know of quite a few people here in Canada who've simply cancelled their netflix subs, kept the VPN and now pirate everything like they did a few years ago.

Re:So next year...

[UnknownSoldier]

Indeed.

Region Lock == Price Fixing

_Why_ does it matter _where_ I buy the movie from??

Re:So next year...

[drinkypoo]

But but but price fixing is illegal! unless it's gas prices. Or propane prices. Or food prices. Or... hmm...

You know....

[johnsmithperson123]

They really ought to have an international ban on geoblocking/locking. It's just a pain for everybody involved.

Re:In other news,

[houstonbofh]

Between this and the smaller selection every year, it does seem to have less value every time you turn around.

Re:Offline library...

[I'm New Around Here]

If the light bulb burns out, do you switch to a candle-based library?

Re:In other news,

[McGregorMortis]

The only reason I got Netflix in the first place was because I got Unblock.US at the same time.

I was slowly working my way through all the original Twilight Zone series, when suddenly I couldn't get it anymore. Not available in Canada. Now the available selection is crap again. Even the US selection had a hell of a lot of B-movie filler.

I would totally cancel it now, and tell them exactly why, except unfortunately my kids still find plenty to watch. So I can't.

Time for the average folks

[clonehappy]

To start running OpenVPN and letting anyone they know personally abroad connect in and view the content they want. My connection should be able to handle 2 or 3 more regular HD Netflix streams in and out. They block my IP? Big deal, I can convince the ISP's DHCP server to assign me a new one. Once they've blocked enough dynamic residential IPs to piss everyone off, they'll most likely just give up.

It's easy to play whack-a-mole when there are only a handful of very visible moles. Put millions of them underground and see how much effort the rent-seekers are willing to spend on blocking.

Re:Time for the average folks

[geek]

To start running OpenVPN and letting anyone they know personally abroad connect in and view the content they want. My connection should be able to handle 2 or 3 more regular HD Netflix streams in and out. They block my IP? Big deal, I can convince the ISP's DHCP server to assign me a new one. Once they've blocked enough dynamic residential IPs to piss everyone off, they'll most likely just give up.

It's easy to play whack-a-mole when there are only a handful of very visible moles. Put millions of them underground and see how much effort the rent-seekers are willing to spend on blocking.

1) Securing your own network from a foreigner connecting to it would be a pain.
2) Data caps in the US make this untenable.
3) Why should US citizens pay so that foreigners can watch our videos? Shouldn't you just unsub from Netflix and let them know why?

Re:Time for the average folks

[clonehappy]

I mean for friends and family abroad, not random foreigners. Why? As both a friendly gesture to them, and a middle finger to the rent-seekers, that's why. I'm personally not affected by a cap, so that part's no big deal, and I can handle securing the network.

Although I agree, unsubbing sounds great in practice, and I'd absolutely do it in a heartbeat (Cable TV, too), except the whole family would have me strung up in the back yard about 5 minutes after I do it. I've found most people under the age of 30 in addition to many significant others don't give two shits about taking a stand, only that they get what they want.

Re:Time for the average folks

[fluffernutter]

How come any time a non-commercial entity takes a stand, it seems to be against the law?

Re:Time for the average folks

[hackel]

> Why should US citizens pay so that foreigners can watch our videos? Shouldn't you just unsub from Netflix and let them know why?

You realise this goes two-ways, right? There is a lot of content geo-blocked to people in the US as well (especially in Canada). And what does citizenship have to do with this? It only matters *where* the endpoint of the internet connection is, it has nothing to do with the nationality of the user paying for that connection. U.S. Americans travelling abroad should be able to view the same content available to them at home.

So piracy goes up, I guess

[mark-t]

I know people here in Canada who use a vpn to get around the blocks netflix uses because American Netflix has more choices than here... when the subject came up just a few weeks ago about something like this, he has, in about as many words, plainly admitted that he will torrent the shows he watches if they ever make it otherwise impossible for him to watch.

Re:So piracy goes up, I guess

[The-Ixian]

The problem with pirating is you have to be pretty technical to not only find and download your copies but also savvy enough to avoid malware. How many times will a non-techy have to be burned by a pwnd system that they have to then spend hundreds on either repairing or replacing before they decide that it isn't worth the risk? I am guessing once.

Re:So piracy goes up, I guess

[ADRA]

The bar for malware is:
  - User must be savvy enough to install torrent software and know about torrent sites
  - User must be savvy enough to install a video player which can playback files
  - User must be non-savvy enough to click on torrents that have executables instead of movie files

I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but unless instructed extremely bad by those helping you set this stuff up, the surface area for malware is lower than you make it out to be.

This to verify when using ANY legal/illegal torrent:
  - Use a torrent distribution site which is 'somewhat' reputable
  - Only download mainstream files from users who are 'verified' on said sites
  - Only download mainstream files that have a large pool of seeders vs. others.
  - When downloading niche content not in large distribution, be VERY sceptical of the torrent's contents before downloading (use said torrent site's description of the contents to make sure there aren't exe's etc.)
  - (advanced) If you specifically download executable files (highly discouraged), have a VM and every antivirus/malware software known to man in there and launch the executable before giving it a chance to infect your main system.
  - ISO's should only be downloaded from distribution sources directly or direct links from their web pages. If in doubt, you could always view the ISO contents, mount the file systems, extract the contents, etc..

Re:So piracy goes up, I guess

[fred6666]

I know people here in Canada who use a vpn to get around the blocks netflix uses because American Netflix has more choices than here... when the subject came up just a few weeks ago about something like this, he has, in about as many words, plainly admitted that he will torrent the shows he watches if they ever make it otherwise impossible for him to watch.

So? In both cases it's illegal, and in both cases, the content owner in his country doesn't get paid.
Go ahead and pirate, it's no worse than using VPN to watch Netflix.

Re:Same country VPN

[varag]

"It does not count where you come from, if you are in another country, they cannot show you anything which is only licensed in your home country and not in the country you are watching from."

And therein lies the idiocy of the approach. Attempting excessive monetisation of a product will eventually result in people refusing to purchase it. Especially if your product is a bunch of bits.

I will give you three guesses...

[emil]

...where people will go when they cannot access their desired content through approved channels.

Re:I will give you three guesses...

[jshackney]

T?
P?
B?

Car analogy

[jenningsthecat]

Geo-blocking movies is like geo-blocking automobiles, and it makes about as much sense. Can you imagine a car dealer or rental agency telling you "sorry, your car won't work in the following geographic areas"? Geo-blocking is all about artificial scarcity, and if it was being done between US states it might even be treated as collusion. But since it's an international thing, the law says it's OK. Movie watchers beg to differ.

Thanks to the Internet, the world is now a very small place; when a movie is released, it's usually all over the world within hours, regardless of rights-holders wishes and fantasies to the contrary. So content owners can continue to tie the hands of companies like Netflix, and Netflix and the like have no choice but to honour the content owners' wishes. And the stricter the enforcement of geo-blocking is, the more Netflix users will resort to torrenting, or stop watching altogether. Either way, the industry is shooting itself in the foot - it has people willing to pay to watch a movie, and it's telling them to fuck off.

If cars were geo-blocked there would be a brisk business devoted to unblocking them, even though it might cost quite a bit of money. The equivalent for movie fans is a torrent site - except torrented movies can be had almost for free. I expect a rise in torrenting among non-geeks who would rather spend their money on legally obtained movies, if only someone would put out their hand and take it.

Re:Car analogy

[fiver-hoo]

Actually in many regions rental cars are locked and can't be taken more than a few states away. It's a violation of the rental agreement. Some even have lojack type devices and if you drive outside of the area and shut the car down you can't start it again.

Re:Car analogy

[ADRA]

No, cars are almost universally 'geoblocked' because of safety standards and tariffs. There's little of artificial scarcity in play here. I've had many friends import their cars from around the world for one reason or another, but they've largely been able to do so after paying up the nose and having the cars' safety/regulatory features brought to spec.

Example: Canada requires daytime running lights. Every car, basically no exceptions(?). We don't stop all Americans from driving their non-daylight-running-light cars up here, but if you ever want to sell the car to 'live' in Canada, it must be retrofitted with the feature. Another, I'd be shocked if America allows cars to be imported without functioning seatbelts, etc..

PS: Can you believe that only 80% of American's use seatbelts? No wonder there's 10's of thousands of fatalities a year. You people are nuts. It's night-and-day proven to save your life by a huge factor.

Re:Car analogy

[hackel]

If you are Canadian, YOU are an American. Stop trying to pretend like you're this magical "other". It's a huge continent, and we're all in this together. I'm not defending the United States' absurd lack of regulation, nor our many idiot residents that can't be bothered to use things like seat belts--that is truly astounding in this day and age. I just get sick of stuck-up Canadians, Mexicans, Brazilians, etc. pretending that they aren't Americans just as much as we are.

Re:Car analogy

[ADRA]

The United States propaganda machine has worked it magic on me too well. When I hear 'America' now, I infer hearing the United States of America. Though technically true that we're all residents of the two America continents, the 'word usage' for this word is far too muddy to be used without confusion. Apologies.

Re:Car analogy

[PRMan]

My dad would have died if wearing a seatbelt. Yes, the odds are better, but he's alive because he was NOT wearing one. Because of the law, he switched. He's also alive because he was wearing one.

Don't use it

[AndyKron]

Maybe not use NetFlix? I don't. Why should I when I can watch video lectures on YouTube?

I cancelled months ago

[nucrash]

I want to enjoy television, but all of this walled garden crap has to end. There are more content providers producing original content which require me to subscribe to multiple services which I don't have money for or time to enjoy.

The only thing I currently have is Amazon Prime and the only reason I have it is because I get other Amazon services for free. I could care less about their selection although it is improving. I am not going to subscribe to any of these services and while I am falling behind on my pop culture references, I will have to just learn to adapt.

Another user referenced Youtube Lectures, which is good until YouTube pulls their walled garden crap. Hulu already seems to want to do the same thing which ended my subscription with them.
In other news, books are still around and I feel a bit more accomplished having read through one of them instead of losing hours watching lame or rehashed plots of television shows.

And as I user I finally gave up Netflix.

[Thanatiel]

As an European, when my VPN finally failed a few months ago, I simply cancelled Netflix.

Since then, I've spent the same level of money I used to pour into Netflix + VPN to buy Blu-Rays of recent good movies (a pretty rare occurrence per year, given the abysmal quality of movies). On the whole, I'm pretty happy with the change.

As for TV series, it's not like if there were many "The Shield", "Breaking bad" or other gems of that level around, so I expect the investment to be pretty low.

In the end it's a win, so I don't plan to go back, ever.

So, thanks Netflix for making me realise this.

Re:And as I user I finally gave up Netflix.

[hackel]

So basically, you are just continuing to *support* the media companies that force Netflix to implement these draconian measures. Congratulations.

Re:And as I user I finally gave up Netflix.

[Thanatiel]

Why, thank you. But your conclusions are a bit hasty. You are presuming both to know the media companies that are pushing this, and that the movies I like are made by them.

Instead of paying a fee for a global heap of crap, I only pay for the few select ones that are worth it.
So you could say now I only support the select few good quality products, which is largely deserved.

Re:And as I user I finally gave up Netflix.

[hackel]

If there are any content distributors who are *not* pushing this, I would be very interested to learn about them, and support them myself. Louis CK is the best example I know of that would come close to mainstream. The vast, vast majority of films on Netflix are distributed by a very small number of huge companies, and they are all requiring this for streaming. My point was that you've done precisely what these content creators hoped to achieve by not making available your desired titles in your country. If that's the kind of behaviour you want to encourage, then please go right ahead.

Re:And as I user I finally gave up Netflix.

[Thanatiel]

Sure,

I'm happy to have encouraged, among other similar movies, "Falling Sky Entertainment" for "The Man from Earth".

Blame the content owners

[OneHundredAndTen]

They are still in a 20th century mindset whereby they artificially create temporal and geographic scarcity in order to increase their revenues. That does not work any more, even if they refuse to understand it. Content providers, what people want is for the content to be available everywhere, all the time, in all devices, at reasonable prices and in simple, user-friendly ways. As long as you refuse to do so, people will resort to piracy. You can fight it, you can scream and adopt hypocritical pseudo-moral positions, but people will carry on doing it - you have been trying to thwart them for almost two decades now, without any significant success. It's up to you: try to make the best of the new status quo, by implementing the above, or keep your heads deeply stuck up your collective asses, and watch piracy grow every passing year.

Re:Blame the content owners

[jonwil]

As long as a world exists where different local broadcasters (be they over-the-air free TV or be they pay TV of some kind) get the rights for TV shows in different countries, its going to be impossible to have content available everywhere.

the answer is simple

[FudRucker]

quit watching TV, they need viewers, and without viewers they will go bankrupt, too bad the population dont get it so they wont follow my advise

Re:the answer is simple

[Thanatiel]

"Your" advice has already been put in practice by lots of people for many years now.
TVs are selling brain availability to announcers. Like for facebook, the viewer is the product.
To escape advertising, many people have simply cut themselves from TV (as well as "people" crap etc)
Recently, TV has been in decline (I'm not sure if it covers my area, or the whole world) as the "younger" generation increasingly sees no interest in a non-interactive media.

Re: In other news,

[fluffernutter]

My kids are all Youtube, Twitch and Instagram. They have 'stars' they follow and everything. TV just seems like too much trouble to them. Even streaming sites like Netflix don't have a very good future with the next generation if they don't pull it together.

Net Neutrality

[fibonacci8]

If only Netflix supported net neutrality, you know the system where everyone receives what they've paid for.

So much for trying to play by the rules...

[hackel]

These customers were trying to actually *pay* for the content they wanted, as opposed to just pirating it, and still the asshole executives stuck in the 20th century insist on trying to block it. This is so incredibly disappointing. Surely we can continue to band together to oppose these absurd geo-restrictions. I have no doubt that the people at Netflix are very talented and will continue figuring out ways to stop it, but we have the numbers behind us. If media companies want to prevent piracy, they need to stop trying to control how and where we can access the media we have voluntarily chosen to pay for. They need to start treating us like actual *customers* instead of fighting us like the enemy.

Re:So much for trying to play by the rules...

[EvilSS]

Pirating the content is about the only means available to them to send a message to the studios (who are really the ones causing most of this) that they need to join us in the 21st century and either make sure that their content partners are providing streaming in their regions, or uncouple the streaming rights so Netflix or someone like them can provide it. It's a bit insane that people want to pay for content, and there exists the means to provide it, but it's being held back by these antiquated deals.

Re:So much for trying to play by the rules...

[AHuxley]

The idea was to make this global. But the coax owners with cable tv contracts in each nation got the shows.
People don't want to wait and see if a show is good in the US to have it in their nation weeks, months or years later thanks to a national monopoly buying the rights.
The producers just need to seek global sales and then push global streaming per nation. Buy a gift card and stream the show on any device.
Totally remove any effort to secure all shows with region lock outs or anti-competitive terms.
A cable company can get equal rights but the show will stream globally to that nation too.

Netflix Against Linux

[JimSadler]

Netflix currently insists that one install SilverLight which is a Microsoft program in order to view NetFlix. This slaps Linux users right out of the boat and is a serious insult for those who refuse to run Windows products. It is an unacceptable situation. It is as if it is a conspiracy to force people to run Windows.

Re:Netflix Against Linux

[PRMan]

You can buy an Android or iOS tablet, that run on Linux and BSD respectively, and watch it on there.

Re: Netflix Against Linux

[corychristison]

Netflix now works nativelt in both Google Chrome (or Chromium) if you have Widevine installed. Also just recently Firefox is supported natively, as long as your on the most recent version.

Blame the music industry!

[hackel]

One more thing... Much of the need for these pathetic geo-restrictions is actually the *music* industry, funnily enough. Because they sell distribution rights to copyrighted music to a different companies in every country, licensing a work for streaming in one country requires a whole different set of agreements than in another country. I believe this is why, even if a content provider like the BBC wants to make its content available everywhere, they can't until they've secured the rights for every song used in the media for every country. It's absolutely appalling. RIAA and ASCAP fucking us all over yet again, even in a completely different medium!

And this is why I don't subscribe

[m76]

Until they start showing everything worldwide without any sort of geoblocking

The reason the movie industry doesn't want to sell worldwide licenses to netflix is because they think they can strong-arm a better licensing deal out of local tv stations if the content is not already available on netflix there. But if they stopped to think for one second they'd realize that the audience of a local tv station has almost no overlap with the audience of an english speaking streaming service.

It doesn't matter if it's up to netflix or not. IF they're not opening their entire library I'm not going to pay for it. Would you buy petrol at a petrol station if they told you that sorry, half of it is water, but it's not our fault?

Netflix can push back, we can't

[HalAtWork]

And anyway, how useful is that subscription if you're living outside the US? Content providers have to wise up and realize this is now a global audience and you can't just target one nation anymore, we communicate on a global level and disjointed experiences don't work anymore. You want to talk to your friends about a video and if they can't see the same thing as you they're going to obtain it some other way and just keep getting frustrated with these antiquated policies