Netflix Decides To Crack Down On VPN Users (netflix.com) 249
An anonymous reader writes: Netflix have announced they'll be taking further steps to ensure users are not circumventing geo-restrictions. David Fullagar, Vice President of Content Delivery and Architecture at Netflix says "Some members use proxies or "unblockers" to access titles available outside their territory. To address this, we employ the same or similar measures other firms do. This technology continues to evolve and we are evolving with it. That means in coming weeks, those using proxies and unblockers will only be able to access the service in the country where they currently are. This announcement comes just days after Netflix Chief Product Officer Neil Hunt said that a VPN blocking policy might be impossible to enforce."
Cloudflare (Score:4, Interesting)
This reminds me of the poor Tor users who are met with Cloudflare pages for a large part of the net.
Re:Cloudflare (Score:4, Funny)
One day the crackers will crack down on the crack downs.
Prediction (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As long as a streaming service does not allow me to stream what ever content they have in what ever country, I only pick it if it is extremely cheap.
I don't want to be unable to see german stuff, just because I'm on a trip in Paris, Rome, Amsterdam, London, Copenhaven ... you get it.
Europe has lots of countries and plenty of people spent significant time in hotels outside of their country.
Also: I prefer to watch certain stuff in the original version, e.g. in english (US) or japanese or french: even when I'm
Re:Prediction (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
The result is: many lost customers somehow suddenly have a burned DVD shipped from a friend in the US to Europe or Asia, or they get the original version as a gift because the owner has watched it and don't want to keep it.
Surprisingly the number of people who rather see the english/US original of a series than wait for a localized version is quite high(and it is unknown if there ever will be a localized version, is there a danish version of Walking Dead, e.g.?).
I for my part I'm pretty fed up that everyone
Re: (Score:3)
I would say don't hate the player, hate the game. Netfix would not be able to license a lot of content unless they agreed to do the geo-blocking.
Your beef should really be with the studios. You can argue that refusing to support Netflix (which I would say has probably done more to bring down the cost and increase the availability of content than anyone else) cuts a distribution outlet for the studios and production houses. That is true but you had better be willing to stick to your guns and not turn arou
Re: (Score:2)
However, Netflix probably has to pay more to license stuff for global streaming. It makes little sense for them to pay extra licenssing feese for the ability to stream French Canadian comedies to Norway if they think that only a very small percertage of the users win Norway will benefit from having that content available. Sure you could argue that just about every country would probably benefit from having hollywood blockbusters, as they are in high demand. But Netflix only has so much money to spend on li
Re: Prediction (Score:2)
Of course not the majority, but a significant piece of the pie. I simply have no interest in the steaming turd that is the Canadian Netflix, but I find the US version good value. Whether or not this is something they actually want to do (I suspect not), there will be a battle for the short term between them and vpn services, since the latter require functionality to stay alive, and either it goes back to what it was or I walk away from both companies. It's not their entire customer base, but keep in mind a
Re: Prediction (Score:4, Informative)
As a Finn, I couldn't agree with you more. Netflix has shot up interest in VPN services across the board. The majority of my friends who use netflix here use a VPN to access the american catalog, myself included, because the Finnish Netflix selection is poor in comparison. However my friends are mostly male nerds in their 20s and 30s, so obviously there's selection bias. When F-secure launched their new service that included VPN, one of the main features people were talking about was the ability to easily watch Netflix and other streaming services as an 'american'.
I've been a continuous customer almost since Netflix launched here, but when this goes through I might have to halt the subscription, because I've seen pretty much everything worth watching on the Finnish side of Netflix, so it's just not worth the money anymore. It will not destroy the company but it will severely affect their business.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The day when the CEO of some major company involved gets blocked based on being behind a proxy it will start to rot down to nothing - or if too many random people gets blocked because Netflix has detected a proxy on their IP - then it will be an outrage.
Re: (Score:2)
The very instant they block my VPN access (I live in Panama but I don't want to see fucking "LATAM" content full of un-necessary subtitles, fucking Chavo del 8 and Colombian/Venezuelan soap operas since I am a Canadian living in PTY) is the very instant I cancel my monthly sub.
See now if the industry was REALLY smart they would have the regions as subscriber "channels" and let you choose which region's content you wish to be subscribed to.
Re:Prediction (Score:5, Insightful)
IP rights are extremely complicated in the entertainment industry -- especially for older works where all parties didn't decide up-front what residuals would be from "streaming media" which didn't exist at the time of filming. Writers guilds, actor's guilds, and each and every person listed in the credits can get involved with how much they should get paid for what region, how, and when the film or tv show is aired. A lot of actors, writers, and directors want a cut of residuals as well as a paycheck up front. I have friends that are extras in lots of tv shows and movies and occasionally get paid bit parts. They get nothing when someone airs something they were in as an extra, but the bit parts -- if they're in the credits, they get a check every single time some network plays a movie they were in. They're called "residuals" and you better believe they're a complicated mess when 10 years down the line the production company wants to change the rules on distribution to include Netflix an/or a new country. How many phone calls are made to find each and every person in the credits for a work -- including "local jerk #3" to renegotiate his contract 10 years later? Have you seen how many names scroll by at the end of movies?!?!? Sure, for new works it's easier b/c they try to include future tech in the contracts, but it's crazy to expect a lot of entertainment producers to do the work to get the rights to distribute their own works through a different distribution channel than their contract allows.
I'm astonished Netflix even bothered going with so many countries for programming when just the USA and Canada was a nightmare to work out. They've probably been in talks for years to get approvals for other countries. The VPN/proxy ban was probably part of that discussion.
Netfix is not to blame, but the content providers themselves may not be to blame either -- they're bound by a lot of contracts, too. Follow the money if you want to know where this comes from. Lots of actors get X up front, a percent of domestic, and a percent of global through DVD, Bluray, theaters, syndication on TV networks, and many also have Netflix/Hulu/streaming percentages as well. The US Tax code is probably less complicated.
Re: (Score:2)
IP rights are extremely complicated in the entertainment industry
No, it is extremely simple. All the parties you mention are forgetting one thing. The customer is the one who pays. The customer is the boss. I vote with my wallet and my wallet says that if I can't get access to US content then I don't want access. Period. This is entertainment (and bad entertainment nowadays at that), not life support. At some point it becomes far less complicated to read a book or play a computer game instead of struggling for the privilege of watching some show or other.
Re: (Score:3)
No, it is extremely simple. All the parties you mention are forgetting one thing. The customer is the one who pays. The customer is the boss. I vote with my wallet and my wallet says that if I can't get access to US content then I don't want access. Period.
So if I've written a library using GPL code and a company wants to buy it to use in their proprietary application I'm just supposed to "forget" that I don't have the rights to do that? Sorry, you chase down every person in the credits and get permission. Voting with your wallet just means from the choices offered or to walk away, not dictate reality.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
IP rights are extremely complicated in the entertainment industry -- especially for older works where all parties didn't decide up-front what residuals would be from "streaming media" which didn't exist at the time of filming. [...]
This is moot, this affects the media companies' entire back catalog, and in practice they have repeatedly been demonstrated to often make no effort to make payments of owed residuals for older works, even domestically, and even in the case where the contracts provides terms. The media companies have financial incentive to license their back catalog (i.e. profit) for distribution in alternative mediums whether videotape, DVD/BD, streaming, or merchandising of an old brand / image, so it's hard to feel sorry
SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid (Score:4, Insightful)
Back to ThePirateBay.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. Netfix exclusive/produced content, assuming they take these complications into consideration in the first place, gets a leg up over the traditional content while the industry fights to shove genies back in bottles.
A recommendation: Kodi with add-ons is easier for the non-techies - and streaming MAY (IANAL) be less legally exposing than outright torrenting. The industry needs to realize that this is the next frontier they are competing with, and the geo-restrictions are a hurdle consumers will work
Re: (Score:2)
if I pay the same as a US subscriber, why should I not have the same access?
And the access problem is a serious one. People who live outside the US probably don't understand it at all. Since I do, I can explain it:
Companies are lazy and stupid and always pick the lowest hanging fruit. Therefore when a company say like Netflix wants to go regional, they say ok, let's divide the world into regions: Europe, Latam & Caribbean, Asia, etc. Then they farm out the work to regional offices. As far as Latam goes, this is usually Mexico. So lo and behold, what does the Mexican office pr
Smart move driving people to pirate instead... (Score:3)
Or maybe not so smart, because then they pay nothing. This way the pay for the content. Partitioning the world for the purpose of selling content separately is just artificial scarcity and, at best, an anti-capitalist thing to do.
Re: (Score:3)
Regions and business strategy (Score:2)
What good do regions do to any business strategy?
Users pay to watch content and the content provider gets payed. Why would any outfit make it harder for customers to purchase their products by introducing regions? This discussion is not limited to Netflix but also holds for DVDs, Blue Rays, Amazon Prime, etc...
(I'm well aware that providers have licensed rights to representatives abroad and that that is a limiting factor. The question remains why content providers implement such ridiculous schemes.)
Re:Regions and business strategy (Score:5, Informative)
What good do regions do to any business strategy? Users pay to watch content and the content provider gets payed.
The content providers are not getting paid. When content is produced, different regions buy rights to distribute that content; to sell it. As an ironic example, Hulu bought the Japanese rights to House of Cards, a Netflix Original production. Why did Netflix sell it? Because at the time they didn't do business in Japan. Now they do. So if you subscribe to Netflix Japan, you won't find House of Cards.
So Hulu is understandably miffed if a Japanese consumer VPNs into the U.S. Netflix to watch House of Cards. Netflix is getting payed for content owned by Hulu.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem with this model is that Americans know that if the company is selling it cheaper elsewhere they're still definitely making a profit there, and price discrimination based on geography is bullshit
Re: (Score:2)
And prices in sub saharan africa (and asia etc) are not lower because people there can't afford more, they're lower because there is a lot more competition from pirate copies in those locations and charging the same as other countries would result in zero sales.
If there was no piracy, they would charge the same price.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I am not sure I am buying that one. With a traditional product certainly. The trouble is with media the variable costs per unit are near zero. So some of the traditional rules around the economics of selling get a little strange.
If I were selling cars (hey its slashdot) its probably the case that I can get my unit cost of production down lower building 50,000 of them rather than 10. I can charge less for each. I might attempt a price discrimination strategy to try and take market from my competition.
Re: (Score:3)
My best guess is some kind of differential pricing strategy, lowering prices somewhat for some markets as the price they extract, er, charge, in some markets is too high for all markets and they don't want people arbitraging on their own to get a discount.
There might also be contractual terms that require them to guarantee exclusivity in a given market. If you have the rights in some small country which neither creates the content or manufactures the physical product, you might be worried about your market
Re: (Score:2)
It's all about differential pricing. But the fact is, the distributors can never hide the fact that they're profiting off of people paying half as much as you are. And the only things enforcing this segregation are stupid laws written by the distributors themselves, who then paid lawmakers to pass them.
They're trying to enforce an 18th century business model of sailing ships and ox-wagons on the internet. They must be stopped, because they're a fucking burden on the modern eco
Re: (Score:2)
Say you have a few big cities with coax in Australia. Buy a US series and show it a lot in time with the US release date with an expensive month per month connection fee.
Some US or UK brand then offers the same series in full HD at a low per show price on the same day via the internet.
Who wins depends on the political access to ensure regional lock out is enforced or free trade is allowed.
Sell to CBS AND the French TV network (Score:5, Insightful)
It's legacy code. It made perfect sense until a few years ago, but it now needs to be refactored. Suppose you produce a show and CBS (USA) buys the rights to air it. Obviously CBS doesn't want their competitors, such as NBC, to have the same show. So you give CBS an -exclusive- contract.
So your show is on CBS and then the TV station in France wants to air it. CBS isn't competing in France, so they don't much care if the station in France has the same show. CBS only really cares that they have it exclusive in the United States. So that's the way contracts are written, TV networks buy exclusive rights in their country. That goes along fine for 90 years.
After 90 years of that approach working pretty well, Netflix comes along and they want to buy the same TV shows the networks do. The production company either already has sold exclusive rights in different countries or assumes they will (they always have before). The standard model of selling rights to networks in different countries doesn't work well with Netflix, which is available from almost any country (via vpn or otherwise). Hollywood will have to adjust and right contracts differently. Probably, Netflix will have to buy WORLDWIDE rights to the shows, which will be more expensive than buying rights only in a particular service area. They'll adjust, it just takes time to overcome a century of inertia.
Heck, the production companies are still doing something else they've done since the earliest days of TV - casting Betty White. :)
Re: (Score:2)
It's legacy code. It made perfect sense until a few years ago, but it now needs to be refactored. Suppose you produce a show and CBS (USA) buys the rights to air it. Obviously CBS doesn't want their competitors, such as NBC, to have the same show. So you give CBS an -exclusive- contract.
So your show is on CBS and then the TV station in France wants to air it. CBS isn't competing in France, so they don't much care if the station in France has the same show. CBS only really cares that they have it exclusive in the United States. So that's the way contracts are written, TV networks buy exclusive rights in their country. That goes along fine for 90 years.
Except in older times didn't work like this. Let's say you sell a show at the French television, and you sell a show at the Italian television. Beacuse UHF waves don't follow national borders, you were able to pick a French TV show in Tuscany and some part of Northern Italy and the opposite happened in France. Dual standard colour TV were easily available on both countries. There were also repeaters in Italy for the French TV, and Tele Monte Carlo had both a French speaking and an Italian speaking channel,
Re: (Score:2)
The content providers don't sell to the end users, they sell to media companies. If you're, say, Channel 5 in the UK and you buy the latest hot American TV show, you'll probably not be screening it for several months. In fact, in some cases you might be broadcasting more than a year after the air date in the USA. If the same show has been made available on Netflix in the UK at the same time as in the US, your viewing figures are going to be eroded which means your advertising revenues will be reduced. Thus
Re: (Score:2)
Business 101 -- try to extract the most money possible from each customer. This works best when you segregate customers. IE -- get the rich guy to pay more if you can.
Give you an example:
A lot of college books sold in the USA are hardback books that cost upwards of $75. (sometimes as high as $125). You can get a used one for cheaper... OR you can find a paperback "international version" online that's being used in India. Same book, just paperback vs hardback and a slightly different title. Sometime
You gotta love this industry (Score:5, Insightful)
Their business model is so screwed up. I mean, no other industry responds to potential customers abroad willing to buy their stuff by making it extra hard for them to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
Their business model is so screwed up. I mean, no other industry responds to potential customers abroad willing to buy their stuff by making it extra hard for them to do so.
Mainstream video gaming treats all customers like criminals. I'd say that's worse.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not Netflix, really. It's the production houses. Netflix licenses content from publishers, and the publishers impose restrictions upon where that content can be shown. Often this is because the publisher already has an exclusive arrangement with a streaming service somewhere, and cannot allow another streaming service to carry it.
It's similar to local blackouts in sports. The sports league sells the TV rights to a media company with the restriction that the content cannot be shown in the markets local
Re: (Score:2)
Shipping physical goods to foreign countries costs money and incurs additional overhead to implement... It's less effort to not ship to foreign countries, and if your product is already selling out in its native country the extra effort won't result in any more sales.
And companies don't try to prevent the re-shippers from operating.
Intentionally restricting access via the internet is the opposite, adding arbitrary restrictions requires considerable effort.
I'm perfectly ok with someone who doesn't make the e
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Cars require shipping, distribution, and various safety certifications. There's nothing to stop you buying a car from another country and importing it, providing you are willing to pay the cost of doing so and handle any legal issues like registering the car and certifying it to comply with local road laws. And no care makers will refuse to sell to you just because you plan to export the car.
Anything distributed on the internet is available globally by default, it actually requires additional effort to deny
Given the story a few days back (Score:2)
Given the story a few days back, did anyone not see this coming?
Some members (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If it is indeed the content providers, why can't Netflix stand up to them?
Because the content providers are effectively operating as a cartel. Maybe not formally, but you can guarantee they're talking to each other, sneaking a look at each other's contracts, and making sure their licensing terms don't diverge too far. It is very much in the content providers' interests to make sure they can still apply pricing discrimination between markets so they can maximise their profits and not have Netflix cannibalise all their other regional sales channels (e.g. Blu-Ray/DVD sales) too. Wha
Re: (Score:2)
Because it's not the content provider's faults necessarily. Writers, actors, directors, musicians all have contracts which usually spell out at length how the content provider can distribute the work. If something says it's explicitly for US distribution only with an option to discuss pricing for other regions... well... they're going to restrict its distribution to the US only -- at least unless it's worth their time to call up everyone involved in the production that has a stake in it & negotiate
Re: (Score:2)
"why can't Netflix stand up to them?"
Because the content providers provide the content and if Netflix has no content it ceases to exist. That's why Netflix is trying so hard to make it's own content.
But to be honest I think I'd quit Netflix if they had reduced content. They're already incredibly expensive compared to Amazon Prime.
It costs me £83.88 a year to have Netflix (soon to be £90) and for that I get to use Netflix on 2 devices at once and only get 1080p HD content. Compare and
Impossible to enforce 100% (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The lower end, cheaper VPN services will be easy to block if they all use the same few fast low cost networks to emerge into the USA.
If a VPN has its own real hardware in the US? Then it can buy into any network or provider from its own more hidden hardware and exit as any US telco, providers, networks business service ip range.
An ip range might show as a U
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your private VPN is probably set up in a major hosting provider, like AWS or DigitalOcean, just like the major proxy services are. Netflix will just block the IPs of known hosting providers, so most private VPN's are probably SOL too.
It will only make piracy grow (Score:2)
Good for them! (Score:2)
Going after customers who jump to hoops, just to buy your product, is a great business idea.
I just hope they have 80% of their customers on VPN.
Stupid question but: (Score:3)
Why isn't your catalog of video choices based upon your billing address, instead of your IP? They certainly know where the CC # is based out of and tie that to the video selection and boom, they don't have to care if you VPN/Proxy in.
IMarv
Re:Stupid question but: (Score:4, Informative)
Netflix allows you to pay in more ways than your CC (e.g. PayPal & gift cards).
What about not using vpn? (Score:2)
Re: How very Republucan... (Score:5, Insightful)
I doubt Netflix cares about geo restrictions at all. They're probably being pressured hard by the content providers. "Do something about this or we won't let you show our products."
Re: (Score:2)
It's likely that it's the content providers that thinks that they will profit more from the content if it's made scarce in some areas - at the cost of annoying the consumers.
But the other side of the coin is that it may be seen as discrimination depending on your current location.
Just because this is crappy I have given up TV, it's just depressing.
Re: How very Republucan... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's likely that it's the content providers that thinks that they will profit more from the content if it's made scarce in some areas - at the cost of annoying the consumers.
No I honestly think its because Hollywood is too fucking lazy to re-write its standard industry contracts. It's a well established fact by now that the ONLY thing restricting content from a region does is boost piracy of that content in the "scarce" region. Hollywood idiots need to learn that the world has changed and they can't afford to turn away a customer with money in his hand EVER.
Re: How very Republucan... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Because Hollywoid isn't getting paid licensing fees from Netflix. This is an attack on Hollywood.
Hollywood isn't even a thing to attack. It's just a place where movie makers haven't had an original idea in decades and instead try to find the safest way to recycle old stuff. Usually by filling it with CG and casting the latest hot young actors whose acting ability is bottom of their list of skills.
Re: (Score:3)
This is an attack on Hollywood. Please stop your victim blaming.
LOL thank you. I needed that.
Re: How very Republucan... (Score:4, Insightful)
One day you will wake up - hopefully - and realize that "power" doesn't meant "speed-typing on a keyboard" but "I can take a dump on anyone anytime and get away with it".
No, you see, because I don't have to play their game. They are powerless because I access through a VPN, and they are powerless if they go after Netflix because I switch to torrenting what I want (like I did before). And if they are willing to spend their power trying to convince the entire world's courts and lawyers and cops that downloaders of a "Game of Thrones" or "Gotham" episode need to be thrown in jail then I wish them every success, because at that point I won't be interested in their "content" anymore. There are other things I can do with my free time. Back in the day there was only TV and they were God. Now there are a lot of things someone can do to keep entertained. And to be honest the quality of the "content" they provide is disturbingly poor nowadays.
Re: How very Republucan... (Score:5, Interesting)
No, you see, because I don't have to play their game. They are powerless because I access through a VPN, and they are powerless if they go after Netflix because I switch to torrenting what I want (like I did before).
That's their problem. We were all torrenting because trying to buy the stuff was a nightmare. Give us an easy way to buy it and we will, we said. So they did, for a while, and all was well. Until they wanted the control back of how, where and who can watch what and when. So we start to say fuck you again and go back to piratebay and their ilk.
Re: How very Republucan... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a side effect of media companies still clinging desperately to 20th century business models, with a hopelessly complex web of international agreements and licensing rights that are becoming increasingly archaic in a world with media streaming on one unified internet.
Re: How very Republucan... (Score:5, Informative)
They're absolutely being lobbied by content providers. It was in the news not that long ago when they leaked emails from Sony on Wikileaks.
https://wikileaks.org/sony/emails/emailid/3124
1. Geofiltering
Netflix do not closely monitor where some of their subscribers are registering from and don’t take steps to counter circumvention websites that allow people in, for example, Australia, to sign up to the US or the UK Netflix service and subscribe illegally (Netflix don’t as of now have a service in Australia, nor do they have Australian rights for our content).
We have asked Netflix to take steps to more closely monitor circumvention websites, and to restrict methods of payment to more clearly weed out subscribers signing up for the service illegally. This is in effect another form of piracy – one semi-sanctioned by Netflix, since they are getting paid by subscribers in territories where Netflix does not have the rights to sell our content.
Netflix are heavily resistant to enforcing stricter financial geofiltering controls, as they claim this would present a too high bar to entry from legitimate subscribers. For example, they want people to be able to use various methods of payment (e.g. PayPal) where it is harder to determine where the subscriber is based. They recognize that this may cause illegal subscribers but they (of course) would rather err that way than create barriers to legitimate subscribers to sign up.
We have expressed our deep dissatisfaction with their approach and attitude. I’m sure other studios feel the same way, especially as we are now hearing from clients in Australia, South Africa and Iceland (to name a few) where significant numbers of people are able to subscribe to Netflix. Netflix of course get to collect sub revenues and inflate their sub count which in turn boosts their stock on Wall St., so they have every motivation to continue, even if it is illegal.
This issue is almost certainly going to get more heated, since our goal and Netflix’s are in direct opposition.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
This sounds like an excellent way to prepare to get a license to distribute in other locations.
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly, if people are willing to pay for a US netflix account, i.e. the price to consume content in the country where 99%
Re: How very Republucan... (Score:5, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
For some reason, Canada seems to get new movies afew weeks sooner then the US. Maybe that has something to do with the RedBox kerfuffle from afew years ago.
Re: How very Republucan... (Score:4, Insightful)
For those who complain about content geo-restrictions, look at it from the other side of the coin. If you are a TV network that has just paid up big for the rights to a new show, the last thing you want is for people to be able to get it via Netflix USA and kill your revenue (ad dollars, subscription fees, whatever)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you are a TV network that has just paid up big for the rights to a new show, the last thing you want is for people to be able to get it via Netflix USA and kill your revenue
No you do this thing called "work" and you figure out how to adapt to a changed world and a changed economy, and you build that into your price. There is no fucking reason I need to pay another monthly fee to get through Netflix exactly the same shit I already get through my cable company. I don't feel sorry for the TV network who wants to make money a) through advertising AND b) through monthly subscription AND c) through online distribution FOR THE SAME FUCKING CONTENT. I'm not against a guy earning a liv
geo-restrictions vs. globalization (Score:2)
For those who complain about content geo-restrictions, look at it from the other side of the coin. If you are a TV network that has just paid up big for the rights to a new show, the last thing you want is for people to be able to get it via Netflix USA and kill your revenue (ad dollars, subscription fees, whatever)
The problem is that conflates that paying for exclusive broadcast (and/or streaming) rights, also grants exclusive rights to the audience as well.
Or from a different point of view, you can't have globalization only when it benefits yourself (or said TV broadcaster in this example).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Well you have to figure, as far as Netflix is concerned, the best thing is to have all content available to all people all the time. Ignoring licensing costs and storage costs for a second, it would be to their benefit to just store every video ever made and make it available to any subscriber that wants to watch it, since that would increase the utility to the subscriber, thereby increasing the likelihood of keeping the subscription.
Anything contrary to that is probably going to be a cost-saving measure
WHAT CONTENT?! (Score:2)
"We wont let you show this B movie from 1970!!!!"
Netflix has such a poor selection of movies. TV shows are a little better, but not by much. It's not like they're hosting blockbuster flicks like they used to do when they started up.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Here in Europe it is 8Eur/month for basic package, 10 Eur/month for standard package with HD and 2 devices used to watch simultaneously, 12Eur/month for premium package with 4k content on 4 devices at the same time. All that for a small fraction of content available in USA. Roughly 200 series and 550 movies available in countries around here, for example.
If you use VPN, you can watch 1157 shows and 4593 movies available in USA. See http://www.finder.com/global-n... [finder.com] for more numbers and http://www.finder.co [finder.com.au]
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't it great how Greedy Holywood and other content creators is these stupid geographical restrictions? If you are paying for content shouldn't you have the right to see from anywhere in the world? No wonder why some folks don't have a problem ripping off content.
And why does it have to be exclusive contracts? Why not just sell the rights to show your show to any who will pay. Why do the people who do this think that their content being available only on this one service and only in certain parts of the world is a good thing? They want to sell the same thing multiple times, which is ok I guess but they should be selling to different providers rather than different regions. The internet is as good as it's own country. If it's on the internet, it's available worldwide
Re: (Score:2)
Contracts work both ways (or they should). If the consumer has to pay for service for a minimum period, then the provider must continue to provide the service paid for. If they stop providing the service then they must compensate the consumer, either by releasing the consumer from having to continue to pay or paying compensation for loss of service.
*We reserve the right to stop or change any service at any time with no notice.
You'll usually find a line like that somewhere.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not Netflix doing this, it's the copyright holders.
They're forcing them to do something.
Besides, this will barely have any effect.
It's like blocking torrents by blocking the DNS, easy to circumvent but the decision makers are satisfied.
Re: (Score:2)
What is this about "4 streaming providers"?
All you have to do is switch VPN provider most likely.
If you are already using a VPN to access american Netflix, this announcement isn't really going to hurt you as you probably know how to circumvent it rather quickly after it's active anyway.
If you aren't using VPN, this doesn't affect you at all.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Is this confirmed?
Other sources haven't been able to confirm HOW they are going to prevent it.
Re: (Score:3)
If you aren't using VPN, this doesn't affect you at all.
Absolutely incorrect. What Netflix is talking about, is cross referencing the payment methods bill-to address, and using that to determine what country the customer lives in. The result will be, that when you log in, *your account* determines what content you get access to, not your IP address. Spoofing a bill-to address for payment is a great deal harder to do. Banks do not allow incorrect bill-to address' easily. Most people don't have the wherewithal to get an american billing address, and even if they could, it will cost them more in time and money than it is worth.
So they will go back to what they were doing before Netflix; pirating. The 'rights holders' will start to notice the huge leap in piracy and its just possible that it might dawn on their tiny minds that if they opened up viewing rights globally they might make *some* money from that international audience instead of *no* money.
Re: (Score:2)
so I predict this will continue for a month or two, tops.
They will not be getting their cancelled subscriber base back afterwards. See the thing about living in the third world is - piracy has no consequences. When you cut off legitimate paying customers and give them no other option to view the shows they want to see, why the hell would they go back to paying once they discover exactly how easy it is to find the content "elsewhere"? A customer doesn't give a shit about Hollywood's "business model" or agenda, or Netflix "corporate policy". They want to see what t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've also discovered that it's impossible to get a full list of the available content
Let me help http://www.finder.com.au/inter... [finder.com.au]
and that they take out content regularly. WTF? Why do they take the content out?
They buy the distribution rights for Show Y in Region X for Time Z. When Z is up, they pull it.
Needless to say, they won't get any billing cycles from me, VPN or no VPN.
They're be best [legal] game in town, but I'm sure they're sorry to see you go.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Stop helping, I knew all of that.
Then why did you say you didn't?
I just don't give a shit as a potential customer, and read it as "they don't want my money".
I bet you're miffed they want to charge you in the first place.
Except the lack of a content list on the netflix sites. That's their own idiocy.
Yea, I never understood that either. Here in the U.S. I go to Instantwatcher
http://instantwatcher.com/ [instantwatcher.com]
It has full sort capability and I can even add shows to my queue from there. It is one of the few third-party sources available.
Used to be that Netflix had a public API that lots of sites pulled from to provide just what you're looking for. About a year ago they restricted that API for all but a few play
Re: (Score:2)
If they don't they will lose so much money they will kill themselves entirely. Be funny since they just spread world-wide. I know I'll cancel my service immediately.
The content providers will just pull their content then. Hell, that's probably going to happen anyway as studios and producers start to think they can make more money providing the streaming themselves.