Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Businesses Canada Crime Movies The Media United States Your Rights Online

Bell Media President Says Canadians Are 'Stealing' US Netflix Content 408

iONiUM writes: Today the Bell Media president claimed that Canadians are "stealing" U.S. Netflix, saying the practice is "stealing just like stealing anything else." She went on to say that it is socially unacceptable behavior, and "It has to become socially unacceptable to admit to another human being that you are VPNing into U.S. Netflix. Like throwing garbage out of your car window, you just don't do it. We have to get engaged and tell people they're stealing." Of course, I'm sure the fact that Bell Media profits from Canadian content has nothing to do with these remarks.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Bell Media President Says Canadians Are 'Stealing' US Netflix Content

Comments Filter:
  • by bigfinger76 ( 2923613 ) on Thursday June 04, 2015 @04:45PM (#49842379)
    No, it's socially acceptable behavior. The industry may have disdain for it, but it is absolutely not frowned upon by society.
    • by Austerity Empowers ( 669817 ) on Thursday June 04, 2015 @04:53PM (#49842483)

      Not only not frowned upon, it's actively beneficial to all parties. The "problem" is market based pricing and region lockouts. That actively is socially unacceptable, unfortunately that doesn't really stop the idiots in question.

      • by Grishnakh ( 216268 ) on Thursday June 04, 2015 @05:24PM (#49842791)

        Not only not frowned upon, it's actively beneficial to all parties. The "problem" is market based pricing and region lockouts.

        Wrong, this "stealing" is detrimental to certain media companies who seek to profit from region lockouts and market based pricing. That's why they want to make it socially unacceptable to use a VPN to evade region lockouts.

        • And how will they do that? Oh right, in the article, she says they are going to inform people, and then social opinion shall be so! Wow! She should run for president!

          I agree that region locking is absolutely beneficial to media companies because it allows them to charge different prices to different markets. If you remember Econ 101, as you raise the price, your demand drops, but there is still demand. What if you could charge only those people that higher price? That's what media companies are trying

    • by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Thursday June 04, 2015 @05:25PM (#49842801)
      You wouldn't steal a policeman's helmet, shoot him, take a dump in the helmet, give it to his widow, then steal it back, would you?
    • by foreverdisillusioned ( 763799 ) on Thursday June 04, 2015 @06:02PM (#49843173) Journal
      Anyone who has passed an economics 101 class (micro or macro) should be grasp how this consumer discrimination stuff works: if the producer is able to discriminate against certain customers and offer different prices (and/or different products) then they are able to keep more surplus [wikipedia.org] for themselves. It's blatantly anti-capitalistic in method and intent. If they are able to prevent arbitrage, if they can select and choose who has to pay how much and how (with no option of second sale), the free market breaks down entirely and what you end up with is simply one group fleecing another.

      It's unfortunate that the left doesn't have a good pejorative (as with "socialist" or "communist") to describe the right's anti-capitalist bullshit. Phrases like "corporate greed" are way too vague for this kind of thing.
      • There is - the f-word, or 'fascist' - but it is, if possible, even more overused than 'communist'. These are pretty much meaningless synonyms for the word 'bad' at this point, with no real semantic value left.

        • Yeah, that did briefly occur to me but fascist is more frequently interpreted as a synonym for dictatorial or totalitarian states. Fascism as an economic policy was never well defined; it was just some nebulous form of state-corporate cooperation or melding. And it's also worth noting that it arose in a radically different legal context, when exclusivity agreements tended to be rarer and much harder to enforce in practice.
  • Right. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 04, 2015 @04:46PM (#49842385)

    Tiniest violin in the world playing for this woman.

  • This is ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ZorinLynx ( 31751 ) on Thursday June 04, 2015 @04:47PM (#49842387) Homepage

    - You are paying for the content. The same amount a customer in the US would pay.

    - You are watching the content.

    Why is this suddenly "stealing" if you are in Canada? It's the same content, and the content makers are getting the same money.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Ryanrule ( 1657199 )
      no, you are paying for access to a content library, which is licensed by netflix for your region.
      • by PPH ( 736903 )

        licensed by netflix for your region.

        So, how did Bell Media get 'a pieca da action' (say it with a James Cagney accent) for Netflix sales in Canada?

        "Dat's a nice little video service ya got there, buddy. Be a shame if sumtin' happened to it. Heh, heh."

    • by fuzzyfuzzyfungus ( 1223518 ) on Thursday June 04, 2015 @04:57PM (#49842527) Journal
      Apparently, the head of a company that produces Canadian TV is butthurt about the fact that Canadians will go to extra inconvenience to avoid being stuck with her product and gain access to the US market. Intellectually dishonest and largely nonsensical argument; but the motives are clear enough.
      • Exactly this.

        For a similar situation, see Australia and its indigenous entertainment industry vs American content.

    • by Penguinisto ( 415985 ) on Thursday June 04, 2015 @05:03PM (#49842607) Journal

      Because the packets crossed an imaginary geophysical line to get to you, that's why!

      Now be a good citizen and support proper balkaniz^M taxatio^M patriotism!

    • by Dunbal ( 464142 ) * on Thursday June 04, 2015 @05:05PM (#49842623)

      Why is this suddenly "stealing" if you are in Canada? It's the same content, and the content makers are getting the same money.

      Because Bell Media which owns a television statement and has paid money for episodes of, say, Futurama, is pissed off that you can watch Futurama in Canada via Netflix and not only do they not get a cut, but they don't get to claim you as an ad viewer so they can bilk I mean charge their ad customers for you. They are a middleman, a dinosaur, and part of a broadcasting system that is increasingly irrelevant. If anyone is "stealing" it's these middlemen that produce no content and add no actual value, yet manage to slink their hand in your pocket every month.

      • Stealing does not work that way! Good night!

        • by Dunbal ( 464142 ) * on Thursday June 04, 2015 @05:17PM (#49842725)
          Unfortunately it works the way the money says it does. I wouldn't be surprised if the Canadian government suddenly sees the light and is persuaded to enforce criminal charges on VPN streamers. After all, who knows what other dirty little tricks they are getting up to on their VPNs. They're probably all terrorists anyway.
  • to pay for that which is free.
  • by fuzzyfuzzyfungus ( 1223518 ) on Thursday June 04, 2015 @04:47PM (#49842395) Journal
    She is going to need a downright brilliant propaganda team to convince anyone that paying for netflix is 'stealing'; just because she doesn't like it.

    There's really not much difference between using a VPN to gain access to US electronic markets and using a car to gain access to US malls. Is it 'stealing' when a Canadian drives across the border and buys something in the US? Even by the standards of self-interested bullshit from incumbent monopolist assholes, this is unimpressive work.
    • by Quirkz ( 1206400 )

      Well, if they "throw garbage out the car window" on the way to the American mall, apparently that's like stealing. According to her analogy, at least.

    • by Dunbal ( 464142 ) * on Thursday June 04, 2015 @05:13PM (#49842697)
      Yeah you'd think these media giants would come out with their own streaming services instead of trying to fight the tide. Old-school top down TV is dead. People are sick of their shows being time-slotted according to some arbitrary station policy, are sick of having to wait weeks for the "next episode", are sick of not being able to re-watch a favorite episode and are sick of ads. Internet streaming is the future. Adapt or die.
      • by Zalbik ( 308903 )

        Yeah you'd think these media giants would come out with their own streaming services instead of trying to fight the tide

        Uhhh...they have. That's the whole point. She's trying to paint US Netflix with the "it's illegal and immoral" brush so people sign up for Bell Media's streaming service.

        Problem is she's wrong on both counts (it being neither illegal nor immoral).

    • by swb ( 14022 ) on Thursday June 04, 2015 @05:35PM (#49842893)

      If a Canadian drives to the US to buy products in a US store, don't they have to declare them to customs? I think they mostly don't care about the bottle of Coca-Cola in your cup holder, but if you buy something expensive they might charge you some kind of import duty and/or taxes on it.

      I think this is the kind of argument the Bell Media person was more or less trying to make. She owns the exclusive rights to a basket of content in Canada. If someone is going overseas to acquire this content, they are doing basically the same thing that a physical shopper is doing when they go to the US to buy a product that some Canadian store also wants to sell.

      I think the purpose of tarrifs and duties is to specifically hinder this kind of ad-hoc cross-border arbitrage. Of course it's well nigh impossible to do for intellectual content.

      There are good arguments to be made that Bell Media is just greedy and using monopoly position to extract rent from Canadians.

      But there may be other arguments -- Bell's costs may be higher for reasons outside their control (ie, higher taxes, weak exchange rate, etc).

  • Aren't the canadian paying for netflix ? So it would be more like canadian coming through the frontier and buying stuff then bringing them back to the US, thus making the US economy getting more money ? Or does she sees American coming in canada to buy prescription drug as "stealing" from canada ? What the heck is she smoking ?
  • Amnesty (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 04, 2015 @04:50PM (#49842425)

    I suggest an amnesty period in which any Canadian can return stolen content without penalty.

  • First they told us sharing was stealing. I let someone else listen to the album I have, and now I'm stealing. If that was bad enough

    Now, if you buy something in a foreign country, and then bring it back to your home country its stealing, even if you legally bought it.

    This is like how police charge people with "assaulting an officer" for bleeding on them after they beat the crap out of them at a traffic stop for doing 5 mph over the speed limit.

    When you steal something you deprive someone else of usin

    • by dmatos ( 232892 )

      Actually, the guy who bled on the police officers was charged with "destruction of police property," since they couldn't get his blood out of their uniforms.

  • Sorry, citizen, it was not lawful for you to view that content. Nurse, scalpel please.

  • I wonder who you have to be to request to have the word "steal" changed so that it rolls in a behavior that you don't like. I hope the answer isn't "The President of Bell Media".

    I suggest we all buy a dictionary, plop a bookmark at the word "steal" and mail it to him. Half a million dictionaries should be a poignant message.

  • Slander laws (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Dunbal ( 464142 ) * on Thursday June 04, 2015 @04:57PM (#49842521)
    How tough are slander laws in Canada? She just called legitimate Netflix subscribers thieves. I think she should be prepared to have some evidence of theft being committed, or face the consequences in court.
  • It's not stealing. (Score:5, Informative)

    by danbob999 ( 2490674 ) on Thursday June 04, 2015 @05:03PM (#49842591)

    It might be a copyright violation however, since the intent of the distributor is to offer the content only in the USA.

    • Somewhat questionable since CCH Canadian Ltd v Law Society of Upper Canada, 2004 SCC 13, [2004] 1 SCR 339 (Supreme Court of Canada). Basically, fair dealing rights (similar to fair use rights in the US) are to be treated as "user" rights -- what should, from the point of view of the user, their reasonable rights be? Hard to argue that they shouldn't assume they can access the Netflix library of any country if they are paying, except by an argument that it is technologically difficult. But, that's still not
    • by jfengel ( 409917 )

      Is it the customer who's causing the copyright violation? Or is it Netflix, for feeding the content to somebody not coming from the US?

      I would assume that Netflix would be considered sufficiently diligent in having attempted to feed it only to US-based IP addresses, but perhaps they have a case against the VPN provider? Or against the customer themselves, not for the copyright per se but for violating the terms of use (which presumably say "You will only use this from America, and not attempt to fool us wit

    • Since when does anyone give a crap how the vendor meant for you to use the thing they sold you?

      • It's not "how" it's "where". Copyright holders of movies want to sell at different prices in different countries.
        When you are paying for Netflix Canada, you are not paying for content exclusive to the US.

        • by agm ( 467017 )

          A company can't do this with anything else we buy, so why should it be able to for digital content? If I buy a pair of jeans there is no way someone can stop me from taking them to another country.

          The only rule being broken here is that you have to lie about your address when you sign up for US Netflix. That's not a criminal issue, it's a civil one.

          • The thing is that you are not buying Netflix in the US. You are buying it in Canada. And by using a VPN service, you are faking that you are travelling to the USA (where, by Netflix standards, you have the right to more shows). Netflix has distribution rights for the USA only on certain shows. By using VPN, you and/or Netflix are doing a copyright violation. Again, that is not stealing.

    • It might be a copyright violation however, since the intent of the distributor is to offer the content only in the USA.

      Netflix cannot legally sell you the content that is licensed for US distribution if you are in Canada. By circumventing the access controls (use of a VPN to masquerade as being in the US) you are obtaining content that you have not paid for. I think it is a fallacy to think that most of society would not call that "stealing", even if a smaller fraction would consider it significant. /. is a VERY self-selected population and sampling opinion here and extrapolating that to society as a whole is begging for er

      • Stealing is taking something from someone. Violating copyright is another issue but it is not stealing. Also a rapist is not a stealer even if they are both evil.

      • Netflix cannot legally sell you the content that is licensed for US distribution if you are in Canada. By circumventing the access controls (use of a VPN to masquerade as being in the US) you are obtaining content that you have not paid for.

        You do need a working netflix account, a paid one, I assume? Or do Americans just get Netflix for free? In which case the content has been paid for. What's not been paid for is the extortionist in Canada that said to Netflix "I can make them bleed harder, if you let me - and we can split the difference!".

        It used to be the case that tax collectors paid the King for the privilege and then got free reign to squeeze the populace for as much as they could. Quite a lot of uprisisings started that way. But tax col

      • by Zalbik ( 308903 )

        you are obtaining content that you have not paid for

        But the Canadians are obtaining content that they have paid for. They paid Netflix for content.

        If that same Canadian takes their laptop to the US, and watches Netflix they receive US Netflix. I think it is a fallacy to think that most of society would consider accessing a service at one geographic location legal and at another "stealing"

        Netflix could differentiate accounts so that Canadian customers could never access things they don't have a license t

        • But the Canadians are obtaining content that they have paid for. They paid Netflix for content.

          They cannot buy from Netflix that which Netflix has not sold them. Netflix cannot distribute in Canada things that they don't have a Canadian distribution right for. While you, and others, claim that "they paid for Netflix content", they only paid for the content that Netflix could legally sell them. And indeed, distribution of copyright material without a license is a crime.

          A good analogy is a 15 year old walking into a convenience store, tossing $10 on the counter, and walking out with a case of beer.

      • Yeah, but what if a Canadian had a friend buy an Egg McMuffin in the US and then sent it to them to be consumed in Canada. Before you answer, I should remind you that the standard Egg McMuffin includes *Canadian* bacon on it, so be careful how you word your response. ;-)

  • by kuzb ( 724081 ) on Thursday June 04, 2015 @05:03PM (#49842605)

    Bell, talking about "socially acceptable behaviour" and "theft".

    Has anyone had a look at Bell Canada's pricing and services lately? They epitomize theft.

  • by Xelios ( 822510 ) on Thursday June 04, 2015 @05:09PM (#49842657)
    Sounds to me like region locking content has become socially unacceptable in this globally connected age. These people are not only paying for the content, they're paying extra on top of it just to get around your arbitrary restrictions.

    Maybe it's time for people like her to join us in the 21st century.
  • by HangingChad ( 677530 ) on Thursday June 04, 2015 @05:09PM (#49842659) Homepage

    We don't like Canadians VPNing Netflix content it but it's really not that bad. So, let's call it stealing and make it sound worse than it is. Like calling abortion murder. Demonize the things you don't like.

  • by Dzimas ( 547818 ) on Thursday June 04, 2015 @05:11PM (#49842677)

    What the article neglects to mention is that Bell recently started a competing streaming service called CraveTV. They have licensed some shows that are available on the US Netflix, so the only way for Canadians to watch them is to subscribe to CraveTV or use a VPN to access the American version of Netflix.

    Where things get really stupid is that Bell's $4 CraveTV service requires potential customers to subscribe to a Bell (or partner) cable or satellite TV plan in an effort to protect their traditional business. Have an OTA antenna on your roof instead? Tough. You don't qualify for their service.

  • Really, any more a content company complaining is on them. At any time they could copy Valve's successful media distribution model and make huge amounts of money. My hope is that Valve pulls an Amazon and enters other media types or teams up with Netflix.
  • by gurps_npc ( 621217 ) on Thursday June 04, 2015 @05:12PM (#49842683) Homepage
    They are not stealing.

    They are illegally importing.

    I am sick and tired of shmucks that rip people off trying to 'upgrade' the crime of not being ripped off into 'theft'.

  • Someone is finally thinking of the childr^H^H^H^H^H^H cable executives!

  • Apparently she does not understand how netflix works. If I travel to the US, I can only watch US content while visiting there without using a VPN to pretend to be in Canada even though I have a Canadian Netflix account. If I travel to the UK, I can only watch UK netflix and so on.
  • See the prices Bell Media charges for internet, telephone and satellite.
  • >> "It has to become socially unacceptable to admit to another human being that you are VPNing into U.S. Netflix"

    No, it has to become socially unacceptable for companies to be racist, and/or monopolist, and/or to try to socially engineer our view of moarality, and/or to attempt to propagandise and demonize peoples attempts to fight for equal treatment, and/or to create artificial marketplaces just to be able to unfairly overcharge people based on where they live.

  • What the hell is this lady talking about? This is just grey-market stuff, as long as they're paying for it. I suppose it's a TOS violation. Having said that, This is the very thing I despise about the auto industry, but that's a story for a different time.
  • This is the usual content-industry twaddle, trying to muddle the distinction between taking tangible property ("stealing") and violating legal rights in intangible goods ("infringment"). They yell and scream that infringement is totally, absolutely and completely the same thing as stealing, yet screaming doesn't make it so. Stealing has been intuitively understood as wrong from time immemorial. Infringement is a modern invention, with none of that moral underpinning. The content industry seeks to confuse
  • ... Canadians are 'stealing' US Netflix ...

    Damn straight! And we ain't giving those shows back neither, suckas!

    If you want your Game of Thrones, you're going to have to come and get it! Ha!

  • ...It's not possible to "steal" Netflix. All users are paying for it.

  • .... they also want their internet money too?? Internet Money [google.co.nz]
  • by Rick in China ( 2934527 ) on Friday June 05, 2015 @01:37AM (#49845757)

    Like many here, the socially unacceptable portion makes me laugh so hard. I live in China, I'd gladly pay for content I happily enjoy -- but if it's not available legally for me within reasonable methods, then fuck it, VPN first, piracy second. I found myself watching lots of Hulu content at one point and tried to upgrade to their premium service.......had no feasible way whatsoever, even via VPN, because I was trying to pay with a Canadian credit card and mailed them on the topic to see if I could legally pay for it, answer was "no, it's not possible.". If people can't pay for content and watch it legally what do these corporations expect?

    I'd say it's more than socially acceptable, it's socially desirable. Many I've met who haven't got the technical means to access particular content wants to know how. That's just how it is. Companies like this and dumb bitches who complain about circumvention tactics in order to access content need to learn to deal with it by making content easily accessible for all..then, perhaps, they'll have at least one leg to stand on when soap boxing.

E = MC ** 2 +- 3db

Working...