After Netflix Crackdown On Border-Hopping, Canadians Ready To Return To Piracy (www.cbc.ca) 438
An anonymous reader shares an article on CBCNews: Many Canadians are enraged by Netflix's declared war on cross-border watchers, who skirt the company's rules by sneaking across virtual borders to stream Netflix shows and movies restricted to other countries. Sometimes it's hard to be satisfied with Netflix Canada's library when our American neighbours have, it's estimated, access to almost double the content. But this big and bold clampdown may backfire -- at least in Canada. Turns out, Canadians are big pirates at heart. Apparently, we feel somewhat entitled to download illegal content when we don't have cheap and easy access. Instead of shelling out $10 for a Netflix subscription, some people now may opt to pay nothing at all to get what they want.
That's a funny new definition of "entitlement" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement" (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course they are exercising a sense of entitlement - you aren't entitled to anyone else's work for free, and if they choose not to make it available to you, that's their right. Netflix aren't punishing Canadians for no reason, they're doing it because their content providers are restricting it. Even though it sucks, it doesn't make it "right" to obtain it in violation of copyright. We're not talking about essentials, we're talking about f#@king movies.
I can understand the frustration, and frankly - while I can't condone illegal copying of someone else's work - would tend to look the other way in this instance, but it most certainly a clear case of a sense of self entitlement to other people's work in violation of their terms. There's not even a "gray" area here - it's entertainment. You have no natural "right" to it.
Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement" (Score:5, Insightful)
You have no natural "right" to it.
But neither is copyright a natural right. A right like that comes with certain responsibilities.
Re: (Score:3)
The only responsibility that copyright comes with is the responsibility to turn the work over to the public domain when the copyright ends.
Then again, this responsibility has been dodged for the longest time.
Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement" (Score:5, Interesting)
Today distribution is mostly electronic, so geographical location means nothing. But copyright holders insist on clinging to their old model of limiting availability based on location. That's what's causing conflicts like this. (To be fair, economic normalization has not yet caught up to the information age. So the $10/mo Netflix subscription which is pocket change in the West is still a significant chunk of change in the developing world. The copyright holder may thus feel justified in being able to offer a lower price in certain locations. But those sorts of price differences are what lead to higher wages in the developing world. If they want Netflix but $10/mo is too expensive for them, they will demand higher wages instead of settling for being paid 10 cents/hr.)
Re: (Score:3)
Part of that reason is because content ownership/rights are bounded by those very same boundaries they are being enforced at. My guess, is that Netflix library's availability has more to do with Canada's programming laws and rights owners than anything else. This has been an ongoing issue with Canada for a very long time (since Cable), and the people who are complaining about it, do not outnumber those that like it that way.
Re: (Score:2)
What is a "natural" right, as opposed to a right, and why is there a distinction? All rights come with responsibilities, not just those that you decide to categorize differently out of convenience.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand why people believe they are entitled to someone else's property in whatever way they choose at whatever price they feel they want to pay. Does any other business work this way? Does any other part of life work this way? Do you treat your own property this way?
Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That's a good analogy if watching Flaked is an inalienable right.
Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement" (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a good analogy if watching Flaked is an inalienable right.
Whether they had an inalienable right was disputed at the time.
Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement" (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps it's because Canadians pay a levy on blank media and content players which is then divvied up between major media producers. Until those levies are abolished they have a valid claim to their "piracy."
Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement" (Score:5, Funny)
Don't call it "piracy".
It's really just that after years of observing and learning from the experts, individuals are outsourcing their entertainment provision to jurisdictions that can supply better services and and a wider variety of products for substantially lower prices. Sure, it's a little less convenient sometimes, but that's the cost of doing business.
US BS (Score:5, Insightful)
I think most Canadians have long since forgotten about that whole blank media affair.
What I think is starting to really wear thin is that in this technological wondrous world we live in Canadians still pay more for less than what Americans do for little or no reason. It has been around forever, and is usually blamed on "distribution" or "currency". However these are BS arguments when nothing changes even though the Canadian dollar was at par or more valuable than the US dollar for an extended period of time. "Distribution" costs in regards to digital content is ridiculous, it is't like trucks are going out of their way, or that warehouses need to be built or something. It isn't just newcomers like NETFLIX, look at the US/CAN prices on books and magazines. Digital books and magazines? Then look at anything from Amazon.com VS Amazon.ca and you can do that comparison just about anywhere. Not to mention why some products are available, while others are not... Another fine example would be the Kindle and how if a Canadian were dumb enough to buy it would find half the features disabled just because they live a couple miles outside the US?
We're constantly getting screwed by US companies all the time insistently. I mean if NETFLIX US had double the content than the Canadian version, then shouldn't we be logically paying half the price?
So yeah, when US corporations start complaining, and NETFLIX is forced to police their networks, and as a result more Canadian start looking at other avenues to get the same content, well I doubt too many Canadians will shed too many tears over the matter.
In a matter of fact, I would bet that the two new streaming options CRAVE and SHOMI owned by the already dominant Canadian telecommunications companies Bell and Rodgers, will have great big shit eating grins on their stupid duoloplistic faces...
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand why businesses believe they have a right to indefinite rent seeking privileges and charge whatever price they feel like they want to charge. How many other business operate that way? Can a mechanic or a plumber work that way? Copyright is a privilege, not a right. It is a license granted by the state. When they violate the principles behind it, all bets are off. Cat and mouse it is. Don't like it? Good luck shutting down the network.
Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement" (Score:5, Insightful)
> I don't understand why businesses believe they have a right to indefinite rent seeking privileges and charge whatever price they feel like they want to charge. How many other business operate that way?
Er, every single one of them. Other businesses however, may not be able to keep their customers if they behaved that way and they will be forced to adapt their pricing models or die.
The entertainment industry however, continues to keep their customers regardless of how they behave. Look at video games and how many times there have been awful launches of games that were partially funded via pre-orders. And despite the backlash, people KEEP pre-ordering, so the industry lacks the incentive to adapt.
This is not an issue that can be solved by any kind of adjustment to copyright law. This is a cultural/societal issue. The customers are so desperate for their entertainment fix that they keep giving in to the bizarre business practices of the entertainment industry and so the entertainment industry doesn't change or adapt. It doesn't have to.
Re: (Score:2)
A) it's not property
B) it's being given away for free without depriving anyone else of their property or profits
So say you live in a small town and you go weekly to the cinema for a movie. The theatre closes because it isn't profitable enough, so you go watch the same movies at your neighbors house (which is also illegal under current copyright law). The movie producers weren't going to make money anyway because they don't sell it (anymore), who exactly are you depriving?
Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement" (Score:5, Insightful)
At some point society decided that it was a good idea to grant authors an artificial and temporary monopoly on their works so that they could make a profit from them, encouraging them to produce and publish more works. With the goal of enriching society, not the authors. So when these authors and publishers abuse their monopoly and create an artificial scarcity to maximize their profits at the expense of availability of their works, you could say that they are not upholding their end of the deal. Except that this deal got rewritten many, many times with nothing but the interests of the publishers in mind.
And that is why some people feel they are "entitled" to break the law and freely avail themselves of this content. Not because they don't want to pay but because it is not available to them in an agreeable timeframe or format through legal channels. It is high time that society steps up and holds publishers to their end of the deal.
Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement" (Score:5, Insightful)
they don't owe you anything.
Sure they do, or I don't owe them anything which includes copyright protection backed by my taxes.
Re: (Score:2)
My taxes pay for all sorts of law enforcement. Does that mean I am exempt from said laws?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Moreover, my taxes pay to enforce laws that I vehemently disagree with. The answer is not to violate them.
Things change when the majority disagrees with the laws. At some point, heads start falling in the baskets.
Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement" (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
My taxes pay for all sorts of law enforcement. Does that mean I am exempt from said laws?
Not sure what that's got to do with my comment.
Re: (Score:2)
Does that mean I am exempt from said laws?
There are lots of laws that are selectively enforced. To the point where they actually become irrelevant, but remain on the books. And when we selectively are either complicit or outraged on the selective enforcement, it says a lot about our own duplicity. The problem is, the bureaucracy doesn't have the balls to either remove nor the balls to enforce these selectively applied laws. Which leaves the people to feel entitled to do whatever they want, because the system itself cannot follow the rules it has se
Re: (Score:3)
Imagine we're talking about a car.
Comparing theft of physical property to intellectual property is an old, tired argument that has never ever worked. Please stop making this comparison. Stealing a Ford off of a lot deprives an entity of a physical asset. Paying for intellectual property under false pretenses due to locality restrictions is completely different. Even copying that IP for no remuneration is different, because it is not depriving an entity of a physical asset. Piracy is not the same as theft and never has been. [techdirt.com]
Does this
Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We the people grant you property rights and you use them to stop me from taking your car. No fair!
Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement" (Score:5, Insightful)
We the people grant you property rights and you use them to stop me from taking a picture of your car. No fair!
FTFY.
Re: (Score:3)
"If you don't use it you lose it" doesn't apply to rights. They have the exclusive right to copy, period. That doesn't mean they have to provide copies.
You have freedom of speech, does that mean you don't have the right to remain silent?
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Copyright is a "right" granted by the public to private entities. The the public should have the ability to revoke this granted right if they believe the private entities are not holding up their end of the bargain. I believe the public has spoken. The ability for these foreign companies to block access to Canadians isn't an "essential service" either.
The fact that these companies are making money while people have a complete lack of respect for their copyrights isn't a good argument in favour of copyright.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement" (Score:5, Insightful)
If they want copyright laws changed, they need to change the copyright laws
That's not really a realistic option when content producers are in charge of the laws.
Re: (Score:3)
Some may have spoken, but they've done it the wrong way. If they want copyright laws changed, they need to change the copyright laws - you don't just wantonly break laws you disagree with.
I disagree. If the laws are established by a small minority with disproportionate influence because money, then what other option is there besides civil disobedience?
This isn't like sitting in the front of the bus... this is the entertainment industry.
It is? Golly-gee, guess we shouldn't get so worked up about it then!
You'd all be better off not taking the bus at all, but instead you justify to yourself violating someone else's sense of impropriety for the sake of not having to walk an extra 15 feet.
See what I did there? It's not about the damn movies or tv shows or whatever. It's about generating a sense of artificial scarcity in order to drive more dollars in to the already grossly overflowing pot.
For lack of a better phrase, it's the principle of the thing. If anyt
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If someone doesn't want to sell me something but I can take it without them even noticing, whats the harm in that? Its not like I've deprived them of anything; they didn't want to sell it to me anyway, they didn't want my money.
Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement" (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, presumably that media is still available for Canadians to purchase in other manners. Maybe it's more expensive, maybe it's less convenient than their preferred option of a Netflix subscription, but they could still "buy" it on DVD or other services or whatnot.
So - it's a dubious argument that they're "entitled" to pirate it because Netflix doesn't want to sell it to them. But, it does highlight that people are willing to pay for content in a manner that's reasonably priced, flexible, and in a format that makes it easy and convenient to use... and if media companies won't provide that and get SOME revenue from it, alternatives like piracy will thrive.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not black and white. On the one hand it's not right that the only legal way for me to watch the current Game of Thrones this year in the UK is to spend hundreds of pounds on a Sky subscription I don't want. But equally it's not fair on HBO and Sky that I pirate it either.
Neither side has the moral high ground. The only real difference between us is that I'm willing to compromise. If it were available at a reasonable price in a usable format I'd pay for it. I think HBO believe that their current model i
Re: (Score:2)
If you have a good enough internet connection, you can get a three month NowTV subscription (enough to cover the 10 weeks of GoT) for about £14 (special offer if you sign up for three months instead of the usual rolling month).
If you have no way to stream it to your TV and don't want to watch it on a PC or tablet, you can get a Chromecast for £30 that comes with a voucher for, IIRC, 30 days free NowTV. Or a NowTV box, which is basically a rebadged Roku, but I'd go with the Chromecast as it suppo
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, we do have the natural right to speak, sing, write, do things with our bodies. That would include singing songs we hear and writing zeros and ones we get to know.
Copyright is an unnatural right to revoke our natural rights of doing all those things, for a while, and the time they are revoking our rights is no longer reasonable (I'm free to say those words after we're dead + 70y).
Their terms are a violation of our natural rights, we should no longer let the abuse continue, but if they want the majo
Re: (Score:2)
"Of course they are exercising a sense of entitlement - you aren't entitled to anyone else's work for free, and if they choose not to make it available to you, that's their right. "
Technically true, but when technology gives you a capability, such as streaming movies and TV shows, that 'rights holders' take away again, users perceived they have lost a right. If such users were to find a way of getting around Netflix' VPN restriction to stream content through Netflix that they are no longer "entitled to" acc
Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement" (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:That's a funny new definition of "entitlement" (Score:5, Interesting)
If they are trying to pay for something but it isn't available for sale, they aren't really exercising any sense of entitlement. The market has rejected them - and their money - so they are obtaining what they want some other way. There is no indication from this - and if anything counter indication - that they wouldn't pay for it if they could.
I'll occasionally download stuff I really want to see that is unavailable for online purchase and I'll readily admit it comes from a sense of entitlement. Morally if I'm going to view something I should view it in a way the creators/owners intended, usually by handing over some money, but I'm not prepared to fork over the amount of money it would take to get cable + HBO just so I can watch GoT.
Similarly if I'm going consume animal products I should make sure they're raised ethically. I'll buy free range eggs but the meat is too expensive.
Not doing the right thing because it's too inconvenient is a standard part of being human, I'd much sooner admit I'm imperfect than get into the habit of trying to rationalize the bad things I do as actually being right.
Since you brought up GoT (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
"Wah, it is too expensive. I'll just shoplift it." Same type of thing.
No because shoplifting takes goods out of inventory.
Re: (Score:3)
But if you can just make as many copies of the original without paying for them, then the original has no value. What's the difference between having no inventory and having inventory that's worth nothing?
Re:Reminds me of "lifters" when I was in sixth gra (Score:5, Interesting)
What's the difference between having no inventory and having inventory that's worth nothing?
Is this some sort of Zen koan? It should be, because it's enlightening. There's a revelation the inventory's value isn't directly related to the price tag you place on it.
The remainder of this post isn't directly replying to you, it's just topical. I don't call it "piracy". It call it "magic". Allow me to explain.
I have the ability to - through magic - do more or less whatever I want. I like food. I am willing to pay for food. So I go to the grocery store and I load up a cart and I buy some milk, some bread, some meat, some ice cream... whatever I feel like, then I pay for it. The next day, the grocery store stops carrying milk because the dairy farmers signed an exclusive distribution deal with STORENAME. If I want milk, I must make a separate trip to STORENAME. The next day, the same thing happens with bread, only it's only available at OTHERSTORE.
Sooner or later I'm going to use my magic to just wish food onto my plate. It's going to taste better than the products at the grocery store and it's going to arrive prepared the way I like it. Oh, and I won't be paying for it. Because... magic.
That's my lesson to media creators. Don't worry about "piracy". It's magic and you can't stop it. Worry about the ways YOU can make me want to not use my magic. Hint: making magic illegal won't work. Remember, I want to pay for my food. Not the least, because food-makers think of new kinds of food that I didn't, so I want to encourage food-making. Just don't make consuming food such a pain in the ass that I resort to magic. My magic food doesn't steal anything from anyone, but it sure deprives YOU of an opportunity to have some of my money.
Re: (Score:3)
"Wah, it is too expensive. I'll just shoplift it." Same type of thing.
How do you shoplift something that isn't on the shelf or isn't being made available to you? This more akin to watching a football match from outside the stadium, because they wouldn't let you in, even with you indicating you would pay. You get to watch the match, but the stadium doesn't get to make money from your viewership.
Make sense (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Make sense (Score:5, Insightful)
> Is it Netflix fault or the whole industry to blame for that?
Netflix did what it did not because it wanted to but because the producers demanded they do.
Netflix's business model is all about maximizing what any one individual can get. Content owner's business model is all about maximizing the money they can get off their content.
Netflix doesn't have the same leverage as Apple I suppose in forcing the content owners to agree to their terms.
I will continue to subscribe to Netflix because I do support that company even if the MPAA doesn't.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
At some point, there needs to be a revolt against content producers
This is why pirating is so strong in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
You must be sarcastic or you're forgetting about sports blackouts and the extremely common carriage disagreements.
Notably viacom has been dropped by a lot of carriers because they wanted too much money.
big cable has the same exclusivity deals just try and watch a local sports game. Who got rights to air it this time? was it the local cable company A, cable company B, dish or direct tv?
Chose wisely because the next game you want to watch will only be available on one of the other three.
No we are quite certa
Re:Make sense (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Make sense (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. This is the content owners at work. (You'll likely never see a Netflix Original in one market and not in another one.) The problem is that the content owners think they are "protecting" their works, but in reality everyone gets hurt. Viewers get hurt by not being able to see content (or by needing to resort to VPN or piracy to get it). Netflix gets hurt by not having their maximum library available everywhere. Finally, content owners get hurt because Netflix reduces piracy. When people can't get to the content via Netflix, they are likely to either pirate or do without - both of which bring in $0. Better to license it to Netflix worldwide and bring in some cash then lose money* due to content restrictions.
* To clarify, I don't mean "lose money" as in so-called "lost sales" but as in "they could have gotten money from Netflix in these other markets but decided not to."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My take is that if the copyright holders want some money, they should play ball with Netflix. Otherwise they are very likely to get nothing at all.
Good thought. Maybe, if and when NF gets the upper hand, that might become the case. For now NF needs the content and they are going to agree to terms to get content and keep it out of the hands of Amazon or other competitors. Of course, if NF does get to that point, things may look a lot different overall.
Blocking is illegal *within* a country (Score:2)
It's a non-tariff barrier to trade: between the states of the US or EU, or between the provinces of Canada, a blocking scheme is illegal. Between countries, it is legal because the countries want to protect their businesses from foreign competition and encourage, for example, local printing of physical books.
IMHO, it should not be legal for non-physical goods. Someone in Australia or Canada shouldn't have to pay a higher price that someone in the US to stream a movie, just the exchange on the money...
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, Netflix are the good guys here. Their pricing model is sane too. A friend of mine has an Amazon Fire TV box, and a lot of the same shows are available on both Netflix and Amazon Prime Video.
Netflix is £8/month for HD and all you can watch. Amazon Prime is £6.66/month + £2.50 PER EPISODE. For the same shows that are on Netflix. Okay, with Amazon you sort-of-not-really own a DRM-infested broken file, but it's not really enough to justify the insane pricing.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't blame Netflix, they are just complying with the law and contractual requirements of the content owners. Netflix would happily supply everything to Canadians if they were allowed to. Making NF the culprit just makes it easier for the real issues to stay in hiding.. the content owners thank those that blame NF.
Fine. I wont blame Netflix if they charge half of what they're charging US subscribers. Subscription rate should be directly proportional to service. I'll gladly pay half the price for half the content.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Make sense (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I can't believe it's really that hard to just not watch a TV show or movie, and the lengths people will go to in order to bend logic to justify their illegal activity.
I just watch pirated movies and TV shows because I enjoy it. No bending of logic involved. Why is that so hard to understand ?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
History demonstrates that things don't truly work that way. The content in question is NOT available by any reasonable means. There is nothing to boycott since you cannot get it but for illicit means. Regional restrictions means there is no lost revenue since there is no product for sale in that region. If it were for sale then people would buy it. When Netflix complied with Hollywood bullying, the products were pulled from the Canadian market.
In many people's minds the minute a copyright holder refuse
It's the streaming equivalent of region coding (Score:5, Insightful)
What's really going on here is the greedy content producers want to practice price discrimination. There are no technical reasons why the same content can't be simultaneously made available worldwide. This is a means of enforcing price discrimination and disproportionately charging more for content in some regions. It really is the streaming equivalent of DVD region coding. When you have to resort to such tactics, it ought to be a sign that your business model is bad.
Re:It's the streaming equivalent of region coding (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
What's really going on here is the greedy content producers want to practice price discrimination. There are no technical reasons why the same content can't be simultaneously made available worldwide. This is a means of enforcing price discrimination and disproportionately charging more for content in some regions. It really is the streaming equivalent of DVD region coding. When you have to resort to such tactics, it ought to be a sign that your business model is bad.
And Netflix isn't guilty of price discrimination? They are charging the same price as US for half the content in Canada.
Re: (Score:2)
They are. This is what people don'T understand. Perhaps Netflix could offer all the US content for $30/month. But in order to keep costs down, they offer less content.
Re: (Score:2)
Age Old Decision! (Score:2)
Supply vs Demand.
The Phoenicians before Christ might be described the Netflix of their day with trade items.
So stupid (Score:3)
I never understood this region license thing as it applied to digital media. It made sense when you had PAL vs NTSC or had to deal with local people to distribute.... but in the age of netflix, it seems very archaic.
It's just the media companies desperately holding on to old sources of revenue instead of trying out new licensing models.
Seriously, a pair of eyes is a pair of eyes.... If my canadian neighbor lives 1 mile away from me, why should I see a show and not them.
Plus, don't get me started on the VPN blocking.... this stupidity by netflix and hulu are what keep me from running Full vpn through my DD-WRT router on my network. If I did, no one in the house could use either service.
Re: (Score:2)
Plus, don't get me started on the VPN blocking.... this stupidity by netflix and hulu are what keep me from running Full vpn through my DD-WRT router on my network. If I did, no one in the house could use either service.
Just curious, why would you want to run a router based VPN other than to get around content blocking or something? Is it just so your ISP can't see your traffic?
Re: (Score:2)
Verizon wireless has a pretty long history of fking with web traffic let's see... They have used a intercepting proxy to compress images (years ago now) they have (and afaik still are) intercepting all dns traffic on port 53 so you can't use a outside dns server unless you run it over a another port.
and most recently they started injecting a tracking code into all outgoing http traffic. Sure they let you opt out of that now but for the better part of a year there was no opt out.
And last there is a account u
Re: (Score:2)
It's because Canadian networks like Bell, Shaw, etc purchase the rights to broadcast those shows here, whether it's over cable or their own shitty services like Shomi, or Crave.
Re: (Score:2)
Then just don't sell exclusive licenses.
Because collusion between the studios? Netflix needs licenses. And if the content providers get together and agree to stick to one licensing scheme, Netflix has to go along. Otherwise they get nothing.
Why don't some independent studios break away and offer different licensing deals, breaking apart the cartel? Research the influence of organized crime in the motion picture industry.
Re: (Score:3)
Or it's because exclusivity pays.
I mean, I'm sure they'd love to have worldwide distribution - it's less people to deal with and less people means less middlemen taking profits.
The problem is, the old distributorship model pays quite well - they know if they get exclusivity they can get a lot of money from it, so they pay a lot to the studios.
The problem is if you want to break exclusivi
Re: (Score:2)
Customer Service Fail (Score:3)
No matter who's fault it is that the customer can't get the content she wants, Netflix is once again fucking up by trying to say the "small vocal minority" is inconsequential. In all cases where some are being vocal, there are many others who aren't. I liken it to an ice berg....the top would be the vocal ones and under the water the dissatisfied, quiet ones.
At least provide a reason why there can't be a world catalog or start working on pricing.
Numbers, please. (Score:5, Interesting)
Instead of shelling out $10 for a Netflix subscription, some people now may opt to pay nothing at all to get what they want.
Some people? But how many? The Canadian market is at best about 10% that of the U.S. and 20% Francophone. These are not big numbers for Netflix or the studios, so why should they care?
Re: (Score:2)
Uncaring Canadian here (Score:3)
Told the wife who cares little about tech what Netflix was doing, he said off with their heads. So cancelled the sub. We were in the middle of watching Departures and Longway Round, well they downloaded overnight so here we are watching a leisure once again. I believe Departures is on CDN Netflix but Long Way is not.
The decision was easy too as we mostly watch nature/travel shows and pretty much seen them all on Netflix, everything else that I watch I already have on my 800+ DVD. Oh and two days ago I received my Descending DVD which I bought from the Departures websites.
I might feel different if I was younger but at this point of my life I just don't give a fuck. Put up roadblock and I'll just go around them or better yet not watch tv at all.
Re: (Score:3)
Told the wife who cares little about tech what Netflix was doing, he said off with their heads. So cancelled the sub. We were in the middle of watching Departures and Longway Round, well they downloaded overnight so here we are watching a leisure once again. I believe Departures is on CDN Netflix but Long Way is not.
The decision was easy too as we mostly watch nature/travel shows and pretty much seen them all on Netflix, everything else that I watch I already have on my 800+ DVD. Oh and two days ago I received my Descending DVD which I bought from the Departures websites.
I might feel different if I was younger but at this point of my life I just don't give a fuck. Put up roadblock and I'll just go around them or better yet not watch tv at all.
To be honest I'm having difficulty finding anything I want to watch even on the US Netflix. If it wasn't for my child I'd cancel it.
Just a few more downloads for Plex (Score:2)
Lawyers vs Engineers (Score:3)
Like so many of these things, the lawyers can pass all the laws they want. But this has already been settled by the engineers. The onus is on the lawyers to figure stuff out, because this isn't going away any time soon.
I have a legit account for the Canadian Netflix-lite and may pull the plug soon since there is little of interest on it. U.S. Netflix doesn't interest me, but I use a U.K. VPN to access BBC and ITV streaming content. I'd pay a reasonable amount to access it legitimately.
...laura
This actually benefits netflix. (Score:2)
Because now they can basically go to the studios, tv networks etc and say "see? those are all your lost sales for not signing a contract with us."
Not Canada's first issue with streams (Score:2)
The Real Problem (Score:2, Informative)
The Netflix offering in New Zealand is abysmal as well. As such, many people happily used services like Unotelly and others to circumvent the geo-blocking. As a matter of fact, one ISP (Orcon) actually offered a service to help its users to bypass geoblocking. However, this was taken away due to legal threats from SkyTV and cable operators.
Services like DirecTV, SkyTV, Xfinity, and others are to blame for perpetuating an antiquated system of content rights. They have a lot to lose from globally available
Border-Hopping is piracy (Score:2)
Like it or not, border hopping means getting content that you are not licensed to get. It's piracy, just like it is piracy to get a student version of a software if you are not a student. Just because you pay for something doesn't mean it isn't piracy. Some people pay for VPN/tunnels/torrent trackers/newsgroup, and the copyright holder gets nothing of that money. If the copyright holder of TV show XYZ sold it in Canada to a Netflix competitor but to Netflix in the US, that Canadian competitor is right to ex
News at 11 (Score:5, Insightful)
People will obtain illegally, that which they desire but cannot obtain legally.
Cord cutting != piracy - I call BS on this! (Score:5, Informative)
TFS echoes TFA, which says the following:
If Netflix continues its crackdown, we're likely to see more Canadians turning to piracy. That's apparently what Canadians do when we don't have easy access to cheap content. Market research analyst, Brahm Eiley calls it our "dirty little secret." He says statistics on piracy are scant but that, according to his findings, Canadians are bigger cord cutters than Americans. On the surface that seems odd because Americans have access to many more low-cost streaming services such as Amazon, HBO and Hulu. However, we find other ways to get what we desire — such as downloading unauthorized films and TV series. "Canadians are kind of more comfortable going out and finding content in whatever creative way they want," explains Eiley, president of the Toronto-based market research company, Convergence Consulting Group.
TFA talks about piracy, but relies entirely on a linked article to support its claims. The linked article is primarily about cord-cutting, but contains a little blurb titled "Canadian Pirates". That weaselly little blurb links to a 'study' that supposedly supports its contention - but the 'study' mentions NOTHING about downloading, (illegal or otherwise), nor does it mention piracy. Shitty, shoddy journalism, a tempest in a teapot, and total BS. As a Canadian, I expect better from the CBC.
Free Market requires Competition (Score:3)
One of the basic principles of a free market is that there is COMPETITION.
Yes, you are allowed to charge whatever you want for something you own - but that requires people to have valid, reasonable other options available to purchase something similar.
When you collaborate with other people to ensure that there is NO other option for people to buy anything similar to what you own, that is called an illegal trade monopoly.
Yes, you are legally allowed to get the protections of copyrights, but as part and parcel of a capitalistic system, the government is required to spend just as much time and effort preventing you from engaging in anti-competitive trade agreements as they are in enforcing your copyright.
W\hen you violate the rules of capitalism, creating anti-competitive trade agreements with the other content produces that are supposed to be your competitors, you have no right to complain that the government doesn't spend enough effort going after the 'pirates' because they also are not going after you for your illegal Trade Agreements.
Re: (Score:2)
What you weren`t paying for ? Those that => used = vpn to access their Netflix were also subscribing using a USD card providing a US address paying the USD price and the local taxes for the state from which their VPN in-out was.
Re: (Score:2)
Where do you live that netflix is free?
Re: (Score:2)
Using theft as a word to describe it only make you sound silly.
Its copyright infringement the name of the crime here.