Hulu Blocks VPN Users 259
New submitter electronic convict writes: "Hulu, apparently worried that too many non-U.S. residents are using cheap VPN services to watch its U.S. programming, has started blocking IP address ranges belonging to known VPN services. Hulu didn't announce the ban, but users of the affected VPNs are getting this message: 'Based on your IP-address, we noticed that you are trying to access Hulu through an anonymous proxy tool. Hulu is not currently available outside the U.S. If you're in the U.S. you'll need to disable your anonymizer to access videos on Hulu.' Hulu may make Hollywood happy by temporarily locking out foreign users — at least until they find new VPN providers. But in so doing it's now forcing its U.S. customers to sacrifice their privacy and even to risk insecure connections. Hulu hasn't even implemented SSL on its site."
Privacy is bad (Score:5, Insightful)
How dare you try to bypass our arbitrary and senseless restrictions, and how dare you try to obtain a bit of privacy!
Not their fault (Score:5, Informative)
Oh I'm sure they think it's just as senseless, but if they don't restrict it, then Hollywood won't let them use their IP as cheaply as otherwise (or at all). I'm not associated with Hulu but I've worked for another internet streaming company, and trust us, we really hate Hollywood restrictions--they are shoved down our throats, we have no choice.
Do you /really/ think devs in the industry would implement DRM if we didn't have to? It's a pain in the neck to code and it keeps some of our customer base from using it at all! Half of us are Linux users at home and are just as pissed as you are when things won't work with it.
Re:Not their fault (Score:5, Interesting)
Do you /really/ think devs in the industry would implement DRM if we didn't have to? It's a pain in the neck to code and it keeps some of our customer base from using it at all! Half of us are Linux users at home and are just as pissed as you are when things won't work with it.
Then leave. Find a job elsewhere. Or even better: spend some of your free time writing and publishing (anonymously, of course - use tor) DRM-defeating software based on what you implemented at work - you already have the tech details since you implemented the DRM stuff (or just publish the tech details anonymously and let others implement the stuff). They can't continue playing this kind of games if no developer are helping them.
And I don't think doing so would stop the release or funding of entertainment stuff, either (be it games, movies or music); people have been making music & art for thousand of years without that kind of shit, and people are genuinely ready to pay for content if it's quality, easily available, and reasonably priced; even if it's available elsewhere for free. They are also ready to pay to finance that kind of development even when a release is not certain (look at the many successful crowdfunded projects). It would certainly decrease the amount of shitty games/movies created, though.
The very fact that we have the technological capability to massively distribute culture at a very low cost and we don't because of greed/artificially enforced scarcity is truly depressing.
Re:Not their fault (Score:5, Insightful)
man, while DRM is total bullshit, suggesting someone to do something that almost certainly would end with them getting fired (that's the best case, worse is being sued into oblivion) is just as bad.
Re: (Score:2)
man, while DRM is total bullshit, suggesting someone to do something that almost certainly would end with them getting fired (that's the best case, worse is being sued into oblivion) is just as bad.
Um... you didn't get that GP was recommending they quit anyway?
There DOES come a point at which your principles are worth more than a fat paycheck. Some people seem to have forgotten this.
Re: (Score:3)
well no shit. but leaking details on how to circumvent what you're doing is not the solution. Sometimes the opportunity to snark outweighs reading comprehension i guess.
Re:Not their fault (Score:5, Interesting)
One time, my company asked me to write a spam engine. Seven of us developers go together and threatened to quit. And we would have.
They also tried to get me to write gambling software for an offshore casino. I refused that as well. I told my boss not to take the contract. They got investigated by the FBI shortly thereafter.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Previous AC again: The streaming we have now is a lot better for our culture than what we had 10 years ago, and it's a lot more accessible to more people and cheaper than DVDs. I'm very okay with this kind of "freedom" proceeding slowly, even taking a couple steps backwards once in a while, because the advancements that it does bring are completely worth it when compared to not-100%-perfect ethical mores. It's region control of an entertainment luxury, not killing puppies...I don't think I would call it "
Re:Not their fault (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm very okay with this kind of "freedom" proceeding slowly, even taking a couple steps backwards once in a while, because the advancements that it does bring are completely worth it when compared to not-100%-perfect ethical mores.
I'm not - why should we settle for small steps, when we already have the capability to make giant ones ? where would we be right now as a species if even half the money spent in DRM schemes/IP protection stuff had been thrown in global network deployment (there are still large parts of the planet's population with no access to the Internet, or even no electricity) and putting online courses/teaching material/culture online ?
Technology advances the fastest when people with LOTS of money have their way
While the rest of your post seems pretty reasonable and possibly less utopic/optimistic than mine, this I strongly doubt. It seems to me that the very resources inequalities we're seeing currently - the very fact that some people posess thousands times more money/power than most - is a major part of such an artificially enforced scarcity. It's just concentration of power, and people in power wanting to keep that power.
Maybe I'm just too young / not cynical (call it realistic if you will) enough; that being said, once again, having the capability to diffuse culture massively and willingly limiting that capability seems like a form of madness to me. Makes you wonder what'll happen when material, real-life scarcity will no longer be an issue (and I personally think we're not that far of).
Re:Not their fault (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't think I was quite that idealistic back in the day, but I've gotten more cynical over time, yeah.
Resource inequality is a bad thing, but I have a hard time getting mad about entertainment luxury inequality. (Some things, like textbooks, are pretty inexcusable--but we have Wikipedia, and I grew up back in the day where encyclopedias were ungodly expensive, so I'm in a good mood about that at least.) But there's certainly good things that have come from pursuit of money. Oh yeah, great evils too, but also plenty of good.
Example. Modern blockbuster movies with stupidly large budgets. Directors do that because they think they'll get their investment back and then some. Sure they enjoy the act of creating an impressive creative work (well, some movies are), but movies that cost hundreds of millions of dollars need more inspiration than just "I like making movies". Sure lots of them suck...but you know what, I think I'm glad that they spent all that cash on the Avengers movies. They are turning out really good, in my opinion at least. I don't think they would be so good on a Creative Commons budget.
Anyway...Funding those movies. They make some of that back in theaters, but there's a VERY long, fat tail on that income--and that income is kept large by some of the stupid restrictions they have. Like, while it's in the theaters you can't get it at home; for X weeks out of it goes out of theaters, you can buy it but not rent it; then you can rent it but not televise it. It's a careful curve to maximize money.
Region control is part of the same scheme, and it's not always to customers' detriment. If you can't afford to see a movie in theater for $20, maybe you can afford to buy it for $15. If you can't afford that, maybe you can rent it for $5. But if you could rent it right away, you might not see it in the theater at all. Similarly: Americans are rich enough to buy a movie for $15. In eastern Europe, where money is more scarce, the industry might sell it for $5 instead. If the price was the same everywhere, then either eastern Europe gets shafted, or they make less money in the USA, and like it or not, that money does let them make better media. Region control is super important to let them charge different amounts in different regions, and *if done correctly* the consumer in secondary markets is better off.
Of course, in practice, companies are dumb about actually using region control, and they put off actually selling things to secondary market for months or years (sorry Australia) or they don't ever export them at all. But just because the technology is not optimally used, does not mean it is bad! Much like theoretical capitalism, or theoretical communism, a theoretical region control really does give optimal prices to every user, where they can pay a fair price for their location, and everyone wins. It's not free, but see above...if it was free we wouldn't get modern special effects.
Look, modern DRM is universally badly implemented, but it's getting better, and in a truly perfect world it isn't hostile to the consumer. In the little picture, yeah, it's bad for you personally, but in the big picture it enables some sweeping market reforms that are pretty cool for people that otherwise couldn't afford stuff. It's hard to see from the consumer level, but if you look into the market forces at work...well, they don't actually suck. Anyway, just because we're not at a perfectly customer-unhostile implementation yet doesn't mean we should scrap the technology altogether; Rome wasn't built in a day and getting this stuff right (on the technical side and the social side) are both hard as hell. Current stuff hurts the consumer, most obvious solutions tend to hurt the media cartels, but I think someday there will be implementations that don't hurt customers or publishers. I'm okay with paying for my media--and someday, I hope that imperfect implementations won't keep me from actually using it.
In any case...I think I'm going to go watch Netflix now, and r
Re: (Score:3)
Hollywood owns Hulu, jointly owned by several studios and broadcasters, in fact. The idea was to own and control content distribution of TV over the internet while avoiding fracturing the market, and they've done a pretty good job of it.
Re: (Score:3)
Hulu IS Hollywood. They're not so much a streaming-media company as a PR move so Hollywood can say "See, look, we even have Hulu and these freetards still pirate! You need to pass the Ban Computers And Throw Everyone In Pound Me In The Ass Federal Prison Act NOW!"
Re:Privacy is bad (Score:5, Insightful)
Because you need my money to exist. I don't need your product to exist.
Guess who needs who.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't need your product to exist.
hahahaha oh you silly consumer thinking you have free will in the matter.
The problem is that most of the world works around psychology of consumerism. Only the strongest of mind are able to exert the kind of free will that says "I don't need your product." Many think they can, but suddenly they NEED that product when the word "Sale" is written next to it, or when they see it on the back of the bus, or when their favourite celebrity endorses it.
They don't need your money to exist. If anything companies can c
I don't think, they worry about non-US users (Score:5, Insightful)
I suspect, it is the anonymity, that they wish to defeat — to be able to track users and sell the information.
That may be only a secondary concern.
There is no conspiracy. (Score:4, Insightful)
Regardless of the users IP, Hulu can track those users and sell their information, VPN or not. They've got those subscribers billing credentials, after all. A VPN is useful if you don't want someone else looking into your connection, but for the site you're visiting, especially one that needs your credit card, a VPN isn't meant to be a protection from them getting your info. Your ISP won't (or at least shouldn't) have a clue that you're visiting Hulu, should you be using a VPN, though.
So no, there is no attack on anonymity here.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure the people they are blocking aren't actually subscribers...
Re: (Score:2)
Regardless of the users IP, Hulu can track those users and sell their information, VPN or not. They've got those subscribers billing credentials, after all. A VPN is useful if you don't want someone else looking into your connection, but for the site you're visiting, especially one that needs your credit card, a VPN isn't meant to be a protection from them getting your info. Your ISP won't (or at least shouldn't) have a clue that you're visiting Hulu, should you be using a VPN, though.
You are mostly right. About your ISP, it would probably be very easy to know what you're up to, by comparing your data usage pattern against other online video users usage. Hulu and other services with heavy traffic probably have a specific traffic usage signature that they can identify, even if you are using a VPN.
Re: (Score:2)
Foreigners can get a prepaid US credit card fairly easily. I'm not sure how easy those are to block, but it's probably at least as much of a moving target as identifying VPNs.
There is no conspiracy; they're just enforcing license terms in a simple and imho reasonable way. I have no idea what "insecure connections" I would be risking by not using a VPN, but it certainly hasn't been a problem for me yet. This just seems like more nerd entitlement syndrome to me. It's Hollywood's content, not yours.
Re: (Score:2)
It's Hollywood's content, not yours.
Actually, its the public content, Hollywood only gets a "temporary" distribution rights. Remember, content is culture and humans have a basic right to access culture. If we did not, then the government could make laws stating who can or can't speak or learn English or talk to each other.
Re: (Score:2)
No it isn't. It's public content once the copyright expires, which is effectively never. This should be changed.
I'm glad everyone agrees that the problem is Hollywood's copyright monopoly and licensing restrictions, and that this isn't a ridiculous conspiracy by Hulu to omg!!!track everyone!!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Like I said, it should be changed, but honestly, what consent of the public do you want? Our elected representatives support copyright by-and-large, yes, even slashdot's Patron Saint ROONNNNN PAAUULLLLL.
And direct democracy? Do you really think the majority wouldn't support copyright law if sold to them as "more jobs and more movies"?
So, yeah, I don't know if there isn't public consent. Most people seem pretty enthusiastic about it; they just want to have the best of both worlds and break the law for themse
Re: (Score:2)
Like I said, it should be changed, but honestly, what consent of the public do you want? Our elected representatives support copyright by-and-large, yes, even slashdot's Patron Saint ROONNNNN PAAUULLLLL.
However, people do not vote only for people they 100% agree with. Most end up voting for 'the lesser of two evils' (because our system is poorly designed and they're idiots) based on a select few issues that they agree with their chosen candidate on; other issues often get ignored. So even if our elected representatives agree with the current state of copyright policy, that doesn't mean the public at large does. Unless I misunderstood what you were saying.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, yes, but the next fucking paragraph expresses my belief that a majority would vote for copyright extension, at least if packaged as "more jobs and more movies."
You may disagree with this if you wish, and I may be wrong, however if both representative and direct democracies would support the current system, then how is it not public consent?
You don't seem to be a moron, but you do consistently misread what I say. At least you acknowledge it.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but there was nothing to show that the majority would do such a thing, other than a guess. The way you presented that sentence made it seem as if you were saying, "Our elected representatives agree with it, so the public does too."
You may disagree with this if you wish, and I may be wrong, however if both representative and direct democracies would support the current system, then how is it not public consent?
It would be.
Re:There is no conspiracy. (Score:5, Insightful)
Missed this bit of garbage:
This just seems like more nerd entitlement syndrome to me. It's Hollywood's content, not yours.
Entitlement? So, criticizing a company means you're entitled? You're holding a gun to their head and demanding they change their ways, or saying that you deserve everything? If not, then there is no entitlement; just criticism. If you think criticizing a company for its actions means you have "nerd entitlement syndrome," then you're a god damned idiot, and your definition of "entitlement" is completely worthless. I'm tired of people abusing these terms and using them to describe anyone who says anything they don't like about a company.
As for whether it's "Hollywood's content," I don't believe you can own content, although they certainly try. Problem is, it's not working out for them, and no matter how much people cry and scream, it will never work out. If Hulu is going to kick people off for using VPNs, many of those people will likely just find alternatives, 'legitimate' or not.
Re: (Score:3)
By "entitlement," I was referring to the asserted 'right' to use a VPN to access a service. There is no such right. I could have been more clear.
You should criticize Hulu all you want, but they're the middleman. You're not making a whole lot of sense. Do you agree that the problem is Hollywood's stupid licensing fetishism, or are you still maintaining that this is Hulu's conspiracy to track that you rewatch Strictly Sexual [imdb.com] every Friday night and sell that information to OKCupid and Lubriderm?
Re: (Score:2)
By "entitlement," I was referring to the asserted 'right' to use a VPN to access a service. There is no such right.
Did someone say there was such a right?
Do you agree that the problem is Hollywood's stupid licensing fetishism, or are you still maintaining that this is Hulu's conspiracy to track that you rewatch Strictly Sexual [imdb.com] every Friday night and sell that information to OKCupid and Lubriderm?
I don't even use Hulu, so it's not my problem, but I think it may very well be both at the exact same time.
Re: (Score:2)
Fair enough, no one said that exactly. Still, Hulu licenses this content and 'pay' for it through advertising agreements. Americans have more money (for now), and are an easier target for advertisers, than other nationalities. That's why Hulu is restricted to Americans, and why for non-Americans to watch Hulu is stealing.
Now, since Hulu has to uphold their end of the contract, they have to keep non-Americans from watching Hulu. Thus they need to block VPNs. Is this clear enough for you? Maybe they are also
Re: (Score:3)
How is it stealing at all? I pay for Hulu Plus, watch the commercials, and when I see something that I think is worth getting, I'll even circumvent yet more unnecessary regional restrictions in order to buy it. The only ads that are literally worthless to me are the ones for cars, Comcast, and not texting and driving in Nevada (actually, that's still relevant- it's illegal here too).
Re: (Score:2)
Now, since Hulu has to uphold their end of the contract, they have to keep non-Americans from watching Hulu. Thus they need to block VPNs. .
That's not accurate. You could be an American in London,and you're still not allowed to watch. You could be an illegal alien living in San Diego, and they couldn't care less. The requirement is the restriction of broadcasting, not viewership.
Re: (Score:2)
Just because the net outcome of action A is positive, doesn't mean that A is legal or morally desirable. This isn't exactly hard to understand.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's not hard to understand. It's patently incorrect, but that's beside the point.
(Side note: it's not illegal either. It's a violation of the Terms of Service; but where I am, circumvention of technical prevention measures designed solely to enforce territorial restrictions is explicitly legal. So I'm not breaking local law, and Hulu isn't breaking US law by delivering me the content I'm paying for in good faith).
Watch something other than mainstream US TV (Score:2)
These license terms are not "reasonable," and nor is the enforcement; they're arbitrary and detrimental.
Then boycott the MPAA. If a TV producer is requiring Hulu to refuse you service, take your eyeballs elsewhere. Instead, you can always watch video under a Creative Commons license, or produce video yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
You're not much for reading comprehension, are you? I didn't say that the license terms were reasonable, I said that given what they are, Hulu's method of enforcement is sensible. No one, apart from a few paranoid freaks, uses a VPN to watch legal non-porn videos unless they're violating region restrictions. You're not entitled to free movies, and Hulu's pricing was collectively negotiated for Americans only. Since Hulu is worth about $1B, and is licensing content from companies worth ~100x that much, it do
Re: (Score:2)
You're not much for reading comprehension, are you? I didn't say that the license terms were reasonable, I said that given what they are, Hulu's method of enforcement is sensible.
I read that and understood it. I do not think it is "sensible," as the license terms themselves are unreasonable, so enforcing them is unreasonable, no matter how effective the enforcement is.
No one, apart from a few paranoid freaks, uses a VPN to watch legal non-porn videos unless they're violating region restrictions.
Yes, people who actually care about being ever so slightly more anonymous are "paranoid freaks." Or, could it be that they use VPNs for other things too,
You're not entitled to free movies
No one said otherwise.
Utter nonsense. The ratio [actual conspiracies]/[paranoid bullshit] on slashdot is damn near zero, though admittedly still not as close as I'd like.
When it comes to privacy, almost every single company works hand-in-hand with the government to give them what they want. Especially the large co
Re: (Score:2)
When it comes to accusations that some big company is violating people's privacy or working with the government to do so, it's true far too often.
Re: (Score:2)
If they already have all that information, then why do they need to block VPNs? It seems like they could figure it out another way.
But is this just about the paid service?
Because the only reason you're using a VPN to watch Huluu is to bypass the regional restriction, which they are REQUIRED by their license terms to enforce.
Re: (Score:3)
The only reason? Some people use a VPN for everything, or for privacy. You say that there is only one reason, but that is false.
Re:I don't think, they worry about non-US users (Score:5, Insightful)
I suspect, it is the anonymity, that they wish to defeat — to be able to track users and sell the information.
That may be only a secondary concern.
No. Hulu is owned by Hollywood. This is entirely about them controlling content. Hulus biggest problem from the start has been all the disparate interests of all the media companies involved in its ownership and operation. It benefits from sweet deals with those companies, but suffers from their idiotically uncreative ideas about how video on the Internet should work.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I don't think, they worry about non-US users (Score:4, Insightful)
Why, when Hulu detects a visitor arriving from a country other than the United States, does it not refer the user to the licensee doing business in that particular country?
Because in most cases, there is no licensee doing business in that particular country. Sure here in Canada we have Netflix, but there sure isn't anything close to Hulu. Same hold true in many other countries, but really since I didn't use it I don't care too much, but I'm sure this is going to tick quite a few people off. It's quite similar as to the whole bit with HBO and Game of Thrones, and their other TV series. They *could* be making money hand over fist by selling it people online, but they don't. Instead it has to go through cable companies, which require you to buy into HBO via a part of a package which may cost you upwards of $100-200/mo on top of your normal cable bill.
And they wonder why piracy is running wild for that show. Derp.
Re: (Score:2)
When someone is coming in through a VPN, you have no idea what their country of origin is, so how can you tell what license to show them?
You can't.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I don't think, they worry about non-US users (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm fairly sure if such a service was offered in their country, people would not resort to VPN hoops to jump through.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Logic? Really? How long have you been on this planet that you try to argue with logic when it comes to copyright matters?
Content distribution is heavily territory protected. When I have the "right" to distribute in this part of the world, nothing, but NOTHING, you do to distribute here is acceptable. No, not even when I don't provide this service. Or when you try to pay me. Allowing you to do something in my territory might create a dangerous precedent. Because sooner or later you might take over my territo
Re: (Score:2)
Because outside the US, there is no licensee doing business. Every time I see someone from the US bitching about how awful Netflix and Hulu are, I want to tear my hair out because we (and most of the rest of the world) have nothing even remotely as good.
Re: (Score:2)
Why, when Hulu detects a visitor arriving from a country other than the United States, does it not refer the user to the licensee doing business in that particular country?
Because for the majority of the world's population, there simply is no legal way to obtain this stuff. I live in a country where the majority of the population cannot get a credit card, and for whom internet is a luxury beyond the means of most. But even for people like me who have full-time access, the prospect of actually paying for things is a daunting one. Many companies simply won't accept my credit card; virtually none of them ship to my country, and a number of software makers (I'm looking at you, Ap
Hulu to studios: "You leave money on the table." (Score:2)
Because they don't really have that information.
Why can't Hulu encourage the copyright owners to provide that information? Hulu could tell the studios that otherwise, they are leaving money on the table.
There may not even be a licensee in that particular country.
Then why can't Hulu sign a deal to be the first such licensee? Hulu could tell the studios that otherwise, they are leaving money on the table.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a great question, and I don't know the answer, but nobody is doing it in practice.
Netflix in Canada vs. the US has an overlapping set of shows, but there are a set of Canada-only shows and a (much larger) set of US-only shows. Why? I don't know. Maybe just negotiating tactics, or maybe they feel the price the content producers are sticking to can't be recovered in a Canadian demographic like it can in a US demographic.
Re:I don't think, they worry about non-US users (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, Hulu is ad-supported. If I was one of their 'sponsors', I might be a bit annoyed that Hulu was billing me for ads delivered to countries where I don't even do business.
Re: (Score:3)
"Also, Hulu is ad-supported. If I was one of their 'sponsors', I might be a bit annoyed that Hulu was billing me for ads delivered to countries where I don't even do business."
People who use VPNs usually also use adblockers, they are the same crowd.
Re:I don't think, they worry about non-US users (Score:4, Interesting)
"Also, Hulu is ad-supported. If I was one of their 'sponsors', I might be a bit annoyed that Hulu was billing me for ads delivered to countries where I don't even do business."
People who use VPNs usually also use adblockers, they are the same crowd.
Ad blockers are pretty poor at doing their named job when the next 1800 frames inserted into the video stream are going to be 60 seconds worth of commercials, and you can go pee or not go pee, talk to your family, or whatever, but those are the 1800 frames @ 30FPS you are going to be getting over the next 60 seconds. Hulu has a fairly captive audience, due to their implementation of streaming.
The big argument with Aereo streaming content legally received on antennas within a given region where the information is broadcast is that the Aereo subscribers are unlikely to be customers of the local ads which paid (in theory) for the broadcast service to those devices. In other words, it's about regionality for the ads for ad-sponsorred content.
In practice, it's no different than taking your DVR with you on vacation, and using DVR time shifting, but the ad conversion rate is closer to 0 than if the ads were being viewed by someone local, instead of someone on vacation in a hotel room in Rome. Advertisers care about conversion rate, so media providers also care about conversion rate, and anything that lowers their conversion rate lowers the advertising rate they are able to charge.
Re: (Score:2)
Hulu's ads are delivered as part of the video stream.
Re: (Score:2)
Aside from that, I don't think there's any evidence at all that people who use VPNs are more likely to use ad-blockers. I can only assume this is because you figure it requires technical knowledge to set up a VPN.
I think some people might not realize just how streamlined and easy some common VPN-services have become outside the US, because of just how bad video streaming services are outside the US. The same sort of people who have trouble finding the "Any Key" set these up by themselves. I know a person
Re: (Score:2)
Also, Hulu is ad-supported. If I was one of their 'sponsors', I might be a bit annoyed that Hulu was billing me for ads delivered to countries where I don't even do business.
You should factor that into your advertising budget.
Some percentage of people your ads get shown to aren't interested in your product and never will be, that some percentage don't have enough money to buy it, that some percentage are foreign tourists staying at a friends house who don't speak English and can't even under stand your ad,
Re: (Score:2)
In fairness the US is less than 1/23 of the world's population, even assuming only Europeans, Canadians, and Australians are also interested in Hulu that's three foreigners for every American. I would probably be upset at paying for ad views when 3/4 of them are potentially wasted on non-Americans. Granted for a time VPN was probably a good enough filter that only a tiny minority of views were from foreigners, but at this point I imagine most everyone interested has had a tech-savy friend hook them up.
It
Re: (Score:2)
If 3 out 4 Hulu subscribers were foreign, you'd think Hulu would have opened up in foreign markets by now. :)
On the other hand if it's in the 30-70% range then I'd say they're absolutely justified in cracking down on it.
I'd be VERY surprised if its much more than the 0.3% to 0.7% range.
How terrible (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not like it takes about 5 mouse-clicks to find an alternate source for practically anything. No, Hulu clearly have everyone completely over a barrel and we must just do everything they say if we're to be allowed to consume their entertainment the way they want us to.
Re: (Score:2)
Because they care about following the law, and have moral fiber?
Re: (Score:2)
Because they care about following the law, and have moral fiber?
Hulu is partially owned by NBC whose stock symbol is GE. A publicly owned corporation can not and does not have "moral fiber". That's an impossibility.
Re: (Score:2)
Irrelevant. The point relates to the question "why bother with the hassle when you can get the same thing elsewhere, free, with no hassle?" which raises the question as to why you would go to all the effort to circumvent the restrictions on Hulu, et al, when you could just pirate it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It was a score 0 comment. Those have a tendency to disappear when viewing :/
Welcome to the 21st century (Score:5, Insightful)
where you can find TV set the size of the Berlin wall with a resolution so high you can't see the pixels up close, so thin they can be hung on the wall and look like paintings, able to display movies in 3D, almost affordable by ordinary people, and that display content controlled by cartels who decide who can watch what, where, how and for how much, like in the middle ages.
Re: (Score:2)
Privacy? (Score:2)
Generally when you sign up for a paid service with license terms, part of the deal is sacrificing enough of your privacy to be able to sign the deal and identify yourself as a licensed customer (even for a free service) when you try to use it.
Use your own VPS instead (Score:5, Informative)
2. Tunnel connection through it (e.g. via a SOCKS proxy) or set up your own VPN
3. Keep the IP to yourself so you don't get flagged
That's how I get to watch BBC's premiers at the same time people in London do, and if I care about something in the US, I just switch to another VPS.
Re: (Score:2)
A handful of VPS provider's IP are banned. The ones that run popular proxies, and the really huge ones. It is not worth if for them to go after all VPSes. The cost-benefit just doesnt work out.
Cheap VPN Howto (Score:2, Informative)
2) ssh -D proxyport
3) configure proxy on localhost:proxyport
watch hulu
Re:Cheap VPN Howto (Score:4, Informative)
AWS is one of the "VPN" services that were blocked.
Re: (Score:3)
VPS + OpenVPN (Score:2)
One thing the USA has is cheap Virtual Private Servers. I've seen them as low as $25/year. That plus a little bit of time to read up on setting up OpenVPN or a SOCKS proxy would be worth it.
Not only could you tunnel Hulu, you could tunnel many other services. Maybe store some encrypted backups of important data if you really need to justify the cost.
make your own tunlr clone (Score:3)
Rent a cheap VPS and run your own tunlr clone (similar to other commercial DNS-based geo-unlocking services like Unlocator, unblockus, etc.)
http://corporate-gadfly.github... [github.io]
Grrr. (Score:2)
I am a citizen of the USA, and I pay monthly for services (not Hulu) that I am not easily able to watch in my country of residence, Germany. It's really annoying to have restrictions on content that I PAY FOR.
I don't pay Hulu, I am not interested in their content, but there is a certain other major US-based content network that lulls me to sleep with usually shitty (but occasionally brilliant) movies and television shows.
I did get off the commercial VPN services and roll my own OpenVPN, as suggested by othe
Re: (Score:2)
Content is licensed by locations, which means in this case its for US residents. Your citizenship has jack squat to do with it. That's why someone visiting the US in vacation can and you can't.
You can complain about the licensing model, sure, but this isn't a government service. Your citizenship means nothing in this argument.
Hello, they are douchebags, what is the problem? (Score:4, Informative)
To quote from Wikipedia:
"Hulu is a joint venture of NBCUniversal Television Group (Comcast),[5] Fox Broadcasting Company (21st Century Fox) and Disney–ABC Television Group (The Walt Disney Company),[6] with funding by Providence Equity Partners, the owner of Newport Television, which made a US$100 million equity investment and received a 10% stake.[7] In October 2012, Providence sold its 10% stake in Hulu.[8]"
So why exactly are you surprised?
Re: (Score:2)
Aye. The only reason I use Hulu primarily is because I can get it for free, and in exchange for that I'm fine with the ads. But the minute that the free version goes away, or the average commercial time per show outpaces regular TV (right now I believe it's 25% less or so) I will completely drop them and get a Netflix account.
If Hulu Plus were ad free or, hell, I could just watch the "Free" content with no ads for the same (or even double!) the price, I would have signed up years ago. Their excuse for still
BBC (Score:2)
I'd be really PO'd if the BBC did this. How else can I watch new episodes of Doctor Who prior to them being shown on BBC America?
Watch it live the way the BBC intended (Score:2)
Go to Great Britain and watch it live on a taxed television set.
Oh, you mean how can you watch it without the hassles of international travel? Why didn't you say so in the first place? :^)
If BBC got smart, it would change its international licensing agreements with companies like BBC America to reserve the right to show all future shows world-wide on an on-demand, a la carte basis. It might have to agree to charge a minimum-but-affordable per-episode fee to not completely gut the overseas television marke
P2P VPN? (Score:2)
Tor would be overkill for this, but is there any lighter-weight p2p based VPN system, ideally where you could select you out node's country or something?
I'd let a Brit route through my home connection a little, if I could get to the BBC sites in return.
Re:My VPN service still works (Score:4, Interesting)
I suspect most will continue to work, because they will simply change their IP ranges if providing access to Hulu is at all important for them.
You can't really block someone on the internet reliably with an IP ban. Or well, you can, but the effort you'll need to keep on swatting the changing IP addresses is going to be significant.
Re:And people will just bend over too. (Score:4, Insightful)
Right. I'll just drop Comcast and switch to the other ISP with decent speeds in my area: Comcast.
Well, the situation is most certainly not the same with Hulu. It's trivial to find another place to watch such videos, 'legitimate' or not.
Choose an area (Score:2)
Right. I'll just drop Comcast and switch to the other ISP with decent speeds in my area: Comcast.
Key words: "my area". I know it's not for everyone, but some people have exercised the option of choosing a different area in which to live. Others [slashdot.org] agree [slashdot.org].
Re: (Score:2)
I would move to get sewer service over septic (yes, subjective), to get reliable electric service over rotating brownouts: utilities matter.
Re:And people will just bend over too. (Score:5, Insightful)
Enjoy your overages (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Probably not the case - I suspect that Hulu Plus is actually where more of the customers use a VPN. Foreigners with no local equivalent, using prepaid credit cards, are probably one of Hulu's major customer groups.
If Netflix is in Canada, why isn't Hulu? (Score:4, Interesting)
Hulu has no legal way to provide a global service.
Hulu could open Hulu Canada and license the rights for Canada from the copyright owners. Hulu could open Hulu Britain and license the rights for Ireland and Great Britain from the copyright owners. Hulu currently happens to choose not to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
Hulu could open Hulu Canada and license the rights for Canada from the copyright owners. Hulu could open Hulu Britain and license the rights for Ireland and Great Britain from the copyright owners. Hulu currently happens to choose not to do so.
Oh please. Or are you being obtuse on purpose?
Hulu is a company created to serve the US market. They have no responsibility to open up open up in every damn country worldwide. There are good reasons they don't - and why no one else really does, either. Netflix is just at snail speed in its addition of international support, even with all the cash and influence they have these days (and often movie licensing is easier with one clear owner than television where rights can be owned by all number of folks
Re: (Score:2)
Obtuse?
Hulu is a consortium that OWNs the copyright to the material. Are you missing this point for some reason?
If the consortium members have "licensed" away their OWN rights -- would be shortsighted of them.
As to your supposed "GAS" (golden age of streaming). Um. You do realize that broadband is better in a lot of other non-US places, right?
I personally don't care. Hey, I like "Bones" and it is available on Netflix. Happy enough to give them my money. And, it's commercial-free. If Hulu doesn't want my vie
Re: (Score:2)
First, a lot of the bilingual packaging is used in the US too. Often they use the same package for all of north america. I'm Canadian too, but living in the US, and it surprised me just how much of it is exactly the same as the Canadian package, complete with Quebec-compliant french.
Second, its the same as everything else: in Canada, iTune is a shadow of what it is here, Amazon has a fraction of the inventory, Netflix is a streaming ghost town with only a handful of meaningful shows (remember when it just l
Re: (Score:3)
I'm in Canada, and I don't use Hulu.
The point though, is that for people wanting to pay for the content they consume, there needs to be options.
If you don't allow me a timely (ie: available at the same time as the earliest showing somewhere else in the world), reasonably priced (ie: charge me for the show, not for a base tier + advanced tier + channel subscription costs), high quality (1080p) steam that I can pay for; then I will just torrent or otherwise pirate said content.
Personally I wouldn't ever do Hu
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh please. So few Canadians actually watch the CBC, that if it didn't have HNIC for years it would have died on it's own. That's what happens when you get outside of the major metropolitan "centres of the universe aka Toronto, Vancouver and Ottawa" and get into the rest of the country, where no one pay's attention to the hyper-elitism that the CBC likes to spew. Besides, 90% plus of the programming on the CBC is recycled American programming anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty much. People going halfway for licenses to appease their conscience is just dumb.
While probably an exception here, I don't mind intellectual property laws (and I still follow the ones I don't like....if I just ignore them they wont get changed), but either you do, or you don't. Going in the middle is silly.
Thats like people getting 1 MSDN license and then deploying the software on all their computers to use for day to day usage. Thats not what the license is for. If you're not going to go by the lice
Re:BTW! (Score:3)
"Hulu hasn't even implemented SSL on its site."
SHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! Damn, keep your mouth shut!
Man, I can"t take you anywhere!