Netflix Cracks Down On VPN and Proxy "Pirates" 437
An anonymous reader sends this unfortunate report from TorrentFreak: Due to complicated licensing agreements Netflix is only available in a few dozen countries, all of which have a different content library. Some people bypass these content and access restrictions by using VPNs or other circumvention tools that change their geographical location. This makes it easy for people all around the world to pay for access to the U.S. version of Netflix, for example. The movie studios are not happy with these deviant subscribers as it hurts their licensing agreements. ... Over the past weeks Netflix has started to take action against people who use certain circumvention tools. The Android application started to force Google DNS which now makes it harder to use DNS based location unblockers, and several VPN IP-ranges were targeted as well.
Cat and mouse... (Score:5, Insightful)
Netflix is obligated to do this to maintain its licensing agreements with the Media Mafia. But it will always be a "cat and mouse" game...
Why is Torrent Freak's logo hot pink?
Re: (Score:3)
Why is Torrent Freak's logo hot pink?
Breast cancer awareness, perhaps?
Re:Cat and mouse... (Score:5, Insightful)
It might always be a cat and mouse game - but there's a relatively simple way to make it a lot harder for the mice; tie content to the address used for payments, rather than tying it to IP geolocation.
DNS trickery, proxies, VPN, etc. are all very easy to set up, technologically. Try opening a U.S. bank account tied to a U.S. address as somebody who is not a U.S. resident. Good luck.
Even if you manage to do so - at least you're now 'stuck' with the U.S. library. No vast French movie library for French subscribers, Belgian TV series for Belgian subscribers, etc. Admittedly, that may have been the primary goal for subscribers all along, but it's worth noting that there's no more library-hopping either which way.
o/t re: pink - hasn't it been pink for a very, very long time?
Re: Cat and mouse... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I guess that would depend on the agreement - but if content gets tied to the billing address, they would actually be getting the correct content, no matter where they're on holiday.
Sharing accounts is already against the terms. I don't know if Netflix bothers to police that, though.
Re: (Score:2)
If they're on holiday somewhere they should get the content for where they are, not where they subscribed from.
Re: Cat and mouse... (Score:5, Insightful)
Keep in mind that this would also mean that when military members are deployed to various locations around the world that you're restricting them to the content offered there.
It translates to my netflix account being almost useless outside of the country.
Re: Cat and mouse... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: Cat and mouse... (Score:4, Interesting)
No, they shouldn't.
If a customer pays for access to the U.S. movie library, they shouldn't be forced to use the Norwegian Netflix library when they go on a skiing vacation to Lillihammer.
You should get access to whatever you pay for, not whatever is licensed for the country they happen to be visiting. What if there is no Netflix license agreement in the country one visits? Does that mean they have zero access to the cloud-based streaming service they are paying for?
Re:Cat and mouse... (Score:5, Insightful)
Opening a US bank account etc. I agree, it's too much work for something that I can get for free anyway and just wanted to pay for because I liked the show enough that I though the authors deserved payment. OK, back to torrents.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Why can't you just:
?
Re: (Score:2)
Have you tried? Which mailbox/scanning service did you use?
Re:Cat and mouse... (Score:4, Informative)
It probably wont work anyhow.
What you will find out is that the credit cards have coded the country of issue into the number.
I once had XM radio US refuse to accept my Canadian mastercard when i was living in the US (obviously an attempt to enforce the higher prices in Canada policy).
The thing is, since i used a US address how did XM know it was a Canadian card?
Re: (Score:3)
Presumably, they based their decision on the issuing bank, which may or may not be the best idea.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Cat and mouse... (Score:4, Funny)
I guess you just don't have any idea how hard it is to re-encode everything upside down do you? That's not free you know.
Re:Cat and mouse... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Try opening a U.S. bank account tied to a U.S. address as somebody who is not a U.S. resident. Good luck.
I just did it a few weeks ago. Was in and out with my account in about 15 minutes.
It is hard to get an account with "Bank of America" and the like but try another bank.
Re: (Score:2)
DNS trickery, proxies, VPN, etc. are all very easy to set up, technologically. Try opening a U.S. bank account tied to a U.S. address as somebody who is not a U.S. resident. Good luck.
I live in Canada (near the border), I have P.O. Box on the U.S. side and I have a bank account in a U.S. bank. I had no trouble opening it, and I use it to pay for many purchases I make from the U.S. (I can often get much better travel deals through sites like Priceline when I use a credit card with a U.S. billing address.)
So, I don't know what difficulty you're alluding to.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I live in Canada (near the border), I have P.O. Box on the U.S. side and I have a bank account in a U.S. bank. I had no trouble opening it, and I use it to pay for many purchases I make from the U.S. (I can often get much better travel deals through sites like Priceline when I use a credit card with a U.S. billing address.)
So, I don't know what difficulty you're alluding to.
Interesting statement considering that U.S. banks don't allow accounts to be set up with PO Box addresses.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Interesting statement considering that U.S. banks don't allow accounts to be set up with PO Box addresses.
Interesting statement since my bank (which was then Wachovia and is now Wells Fargo) did.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm sure that would produce absolutely no privacy issues or anything..
Not to mention -- how do you verify it? You can verify the IP address because that's the place you send packets back to (of course only one bounce worth, hence the VPN issue.)
But a physical address.. unless they want to start physically mailing shit to me to confirm the verification (at a significantly higher cost than a geo/ip check,) I can just punch in any old address I find (or hell make up, depending on how well they check things..
Re: Cat and mouse... (Score:3)
Did he?
He a U.S. citizen with a U.S. subscription paid from his US bank account living on US soil watching US Netflix content on a US (Gov't provided) ISP... How is he a pirate?
Re: (Score:3)
It's pretty common for countries to try to boost their creative output in order to promote the country to the rest of the world. Both the US and UK have systems of tax breaks for locally-produced movies, as does much of the world. Uwe Boll is (in)famous for finding a way to exploit the German system of subsidies by making films so low-budget they cost less than the government paid to subsidise them - he made quite a few before the government revised their laws to stop him. Laws requiring channels to show a
Re:Cat and mouse... (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, I understand that. What I don't understand is why the big media conglomerates put such baffling restrictions into their licenses in the first place. Is it to comply with licensing agreements that they made? Is it truly idiotic licensing all the way down?
As far as I'm concerned, the general public needs to keep fighting this crap. Whenever the content police tighten the screws, change to a different approach. For example, you might convince people with fast upstream and downstream connections to resell a small portion of their bandwidth for other people's Netflix streaming in a sort of peer-to-peer VPN approach so that it will be impossible for Netflix to cut off people using the VPNs without cutting off a lot of their U.S. customers. Encourage U.S. customers to use location-hiding VPNs, too. And so on.
The reality is that in this day and age, nothing short of worldwide licensing makes sense. In a world of physical media, there was at least some plausibility to the notion of export restrictions and region coding. In a world where humans have cast off the shackles of physical bodies... err... media (sorry, movie trailer authoring mode kicked in for a minute there), those limitations are archaic and silly, not to mention unenforceable. They need to go away. We need to kill the restrictions with fire. There's simply no room in a modern world for such pointlessness. It quite literally does not benefit anyone anywhere, from the far end of the content supply chain all the way to the customer. All it does is piss people off for no reason.
Re:Cat and mouse... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, I understand that. What I don't understand is why the big media conglomerates put such baffling restrictions into their licenses in the first place.
Do sociopaths need a reason other than the desire for control?
Re:Cat and mouse... (Score:5, Insightful)
What I don't understand is why the big media conglomerates put such baffling restrictions into their licenses in the first place.
Do sociopaths need a reason other than the desire for control?
Well, purportedly, the reason for this is to ensure profits, but that doesn't compute. Even a business undergrad could tell you that with a little rationalisation in the business space, it would be possible for Hollywood to extend their control and improve their profits in the process. Somehow, though, the ridiculously hidebound distribution chain is successfully working against an improved industry. There are enough people with a vested interest in keeping things the way they were (the way things are is... obviously different) that they can cut off their proverbial face to spite their nose. Yes it's that illogical.
I'm really surprised that, even with over a decade to adjust, most media companies have yet to do so. Even telcos, the other digital industry we love to hate, have learned significant lessons and are in the process of taming a frontier they initially ignored. But media - their collective consciousness defies even a modicum of logic.
Re:Cat and mouse... (Score:5, Interesting)
It's called tiered marketing and discriminatory pricing. I'm not sure which business school you went to, but the AACSB accredited one I went to described this situation pretty well to the undergrads, and it makes perfect sense - it's just complex. They use it because it works best in squeezing the most profit out of each segment. All media companies use it, to a degree. I recall in college, I'd order my MBA texts from India - "International Editions" that were paperback versions of my classmates' books. They were usually full color paperback versions of the exact same textbooks. I was able to buy them for around $20 (including shipping from India) where the course book in the US was hardback and $125.
With the book analogy, it's a kind of region locking. Yes, if you know how, you can get around it with a bit of time and effort.. even if it's not exactly the same quality. Also, you can just borrow the book from a friend or share as needed... or even use a photocopier for just the excerpts you need. Most people will buy the book, and the one for their region, and that works well enough to not worry about those skirting the system. Like enforcing any system (even the legal/criminal justice system), there's diminishing returns for protecting against cheating it.
Game makers and DVD/ Bluray producers do the same thing with region locking. They don't want you to buy the content for $5 from China when they can get you to pay $30 or $50 here in the states. Media distributors for movies do the same. Their model is set to get cash from theaters first, then pay-per-view and DVDs, then cable movie networks, then Netflix, and then general cable networks with commercial breaks - pretty much in that order. They have all that sliced up by regions, too - mostly because people in different regions are willing to pay different prices for the same things, but also so they can control the length of each phase of distribution for each region independently. It's not easy to untangle because there are so many different companies involved that sell distribution rights to different distribution channels in each region and then reward content-makers as a percentage based upon that distribution. That's before countries get involved with taxes, copyrights, streaming rights, etc. as well. That's not even to mention that some actors get paid a percentage of one distribution channel profits and a different percentage of another distribution channel profits - written into their movie contracts. Other actors get residuals from syndication from TV episodes. It really is licensing "all the way down" as the grandparent post suggests. Netflix follows its licensing agreements, Sony, etc follows the ones it made with producers, directors, actors, etc. Even with Hulu - watch what they do with episodes. Sometimes one episode out of a season will be missing due to licensing - and it'll be because of some obscure part of a contract not allowing the episode to be shown because of a clause for an actor or for the background music.
Netflix would love to have a simpler model. Hulu would, too (well, yes and no b/c they're currently owned by Comcast and others that want to spin it off). Hulu got streaming rights for computers, but didn't think ahead to get the licenses for streaming to any internet device... which is partly why there's Hulu Plus. I don't know about now, but when Hulu Plus first came out, I could watch some things on Hulu on my laptop, others on Hulu Plus on my smart TV, but Hulu Plus wouldn't show all of Hulu's content. I had to switch back and forth between them. Different licenses for different methods of distribution. Negotiating for other methods of distribution after the fact would almost certainly lead to higher charges for content, and then higher pricing for Hulu or Netflix subscribers (unless the subscriber growth was substantial)
Hollywood is a huge industry - and getting them to switch their model is a bit like telling the American public that we should go ahead and switch everything to
Re: (Score:3)
They are losing money plain and simple because they really believe they can make it work with a difference licence for different devices
Re: (Score:3)
can't product planes that don't regularly fall out of the sky
"Regularly?"
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Re:Cat and mouse... (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah, I understand that. What I don't understand is why the big media conglomerates put such baffling restrictions into their licenses in the first place. Is it to comply with licensing agreements that they made? Is it truly idiotic licensing all the way down?
The issue is the existing licenses (with service providers with a lot more subscribers, and therefore able to pay more for licensing) will demand exclusivity.
If I'm a TV provider in the uk, I don't want Netflix picking and choosing the content they want, and then undercutting me. I want to lock access to game of thrones down so they can only get it via me.
Re: (Score:3)
The U.S. broadcast networks don't have exclusivity after the first year. Why should U.K. broadcast networks be different?
Example (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Cat and mouse... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Cat and mouse... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's all about the cash. Different markets have different rates because they can/can't afford a single worldwide rate. Somebody making 2, 3 dollars a day (I'm looking at YOU, Pakistan!!) can't afford to pay American rates for content. Licensing agreements are designed to maximise profits.
So what is the issue with someone in Pakistan paying full US price for Netflix? Because that is what Netflix seems to be cracking down on here if the story is true.
Re: (Score:3)
Some Pakistani TV channel might have paid for American content, and part of the deal is that they get exclusivity in their country.
Re:Cat and mouse... (Score:5, Informative)
The Big Media Conglomerates buy and sell the distribution rights for individual properties between each other, they will often sell foreign right for a film to a different company, and as a part of that they give up the right to sell the film in that territory.
The important thing to understand is that "studios" do not own the rights to distribute the shows they make, these are owned by distributors. Many distributors are owned by studios, and many other distributors don't make movies or TV shows at all, they just buy independent films and market them.
Distributors do not generally own the titles they sell outright. They usually only own the rights for a certain territory -- a standard example is a film that is funded by two different studios (many are), with one studio distributing the film in the US, and the other, in exchange for fronting some of the budget, getting the right to distribute the film in foreign territories. Netflix's own shows are perfect examples of this -- "Orange is the New Black" is produced by them, and they distribute it in the US, but they sell the foreign rights to HBO and Sony because they know they'll make more money in the UK and France on HBO than they would if they streamed it. As a condition of taking this deal, HBO required Netflix to not compete with them in their territory.
And this is only "big" products -- most of the true independent films you see are produced by someone with cash up front, and then the rights are sold piecemeal at film markets. The rights to Japan go to company X, the rights to Germany go to company Y. This is much more efficient because each company can then decide exactly how the property should be marketed, if it is appropriate for theaters, or pay TV, or cable, what the posters should look like, will the stars matter, are there cultural factors that make the film/TV show particularly attractive (or not). All of these decisions are decided on a country by country basis, and the only way a distributor in a market can "own" the rights is by keeping other distributors from competing with the same film. That's what the right is.
It's not stupid or evil -- the problem is people think "studios" "own" "movies", and they completely control how they're exploited commercially, and it's not true at all. It never worked that way, the business has always been about licensing of libraries of titles.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
What the general public needs to do is stop watching the crap they produce and just say no, your restrictions are now undesirable, I will do something else for entertainment. As long as there is demand, even if it is in illegitimate forms, the conglomerates wield the power. It is their content after all.
There is so much content out their now, it doesn't have the value it once did. And they know that, that's the problem, it's why they're desperate to extend copyrights and maintain control, they want us to be
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
In a world where humans have cast off the shackles of physical bodies... err... media (sorry, movie trailer authoring mode kicked in for a minute there)
Are your Delete and Backspace buttons broken?
No, he just chose to ignore them to make a humorous point. Sort of like you, ignoring the humorous point in order to appear ignorant.
Re: Cat and mouse... (Score:5, Interesting)
Netflix may be obligated to do this, but the media companies will see their revenues fall from my family if they push it.
I don't need the movie industry. I have my bike, my running shoes, my surfboard, my kids, my dog, my football season ticket and my church. Movies fill in my leftover time. UK Netflix has such weak content that I'll simply cancel my subscription when Hola stops working. I won't go to the cinema or buy DVDs instead. I'll just walk the dog more.
It happened with music. When I discovered Pandora, I started buying music weekly because it opened my eyes to new bands and new genres. Then Pandora got closed down in the UK. I haven't bought music for 2+ years. I can't easily find new music so I do other stuff instead.
Farewell, Hollywood.
Goo
Re: (Score:3)
And how will they do that? It is not an issue of price. The idea is that you would need to be using a US IP that is not through a VPN. There will still be ways but its not a matter of getting people to pony up cash, they already are.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're talking about the people who use VPN, what part of they're using VPN did you misunderstand?
If the VPN option goes away they'll simply stop paying the price. They can just download it for free from somewhere else instead.
Re: (Score:2)
did your mummy let you out of the basement again? just because you have no life doesn't mean others don't. If I lose access I will simply pirate the very little content I use and spend more time on other hobbies. Not everyone is so insecure in their life as you.
Re: (Score:2)
I live in the US. I travel, a lot, for work, to countries outside the U.S.
Why am I screwed when I take a trip and want something to watch from the service that brandishes itself a media streamer for me, and content I am allowed to stream, just not when from an IP block outside the allowed list?
smh.
Re:Cat and mouse... (Score:5, Insightful)
Netflix is obligated to give the appearance of enforcing its licensing agreements, it doesn't have to try to succeed.
encouraging piracy (Score:5, Insightful)
I use a smart DNS service in Australia to get my Netflix access. If they do end up blocking it (currently still works fine), I will just go back to pirating my content. I am happy to pay reasonable services a reasonable rate for the content I consume, but be fucked if I will accept being forced to pay for the overpriced poor content supplied locally in Australia.
Re: (Score:3)
Also;
Australia has 'parallel import' laws which make it legal to bypass country wide restrictions used by corporations, so they cant legally stop us.
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (government funded pro consumer organisition) are pretty strong in areas like this and i would expect them to cause problems for the media cartels if push came to shove.
Using a VPN is encouraged by mainstream consumer oriented groups like choice magazine, see http://www.choice.com.au/revie... [choice.com.au]
Re:encouraging piracy (Score:5, Informative)
Geo-blocking isn't actually illegal, it just isn't illegal to bypass it so they most definitely can legally stop us. They are free to implement various measures to prevent it and enforce it, we just won't be in any legal trouble for doing our best to get around it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Enjoy those laws while you have them. Coming soon in a "Free Trade" pact: elimination of those laws.
Re: (Score:2)
We already have free trade agreements and the laws have remained. They aren't their specifically to allow geo-blocking bypass, more to get past the huge price gouging that takes place by international corporations in Australia where we sometimes pay 50-100% more for items than other countries, in some cases it is cheaper to buy a plane ticket to another country, purchase the item and fly back to Australia with it than buy it here. The price gouging the laws are intended to prevent are actually far more impo
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The above poster is not joking. When the "titanium" Mac came out a newspaper did a cost breakdown to show it, and that was when a flight from Sydney to Hawaii was relatively much more expensive than today
Apple fanboys please hold your fire, MS and others do the same price gouging screwovers - especially annoying when the software is distributed as download so there is n
Re:encouraging piracy (Score:5, Funny)
Some software companies claim it's due to internationalisation expenses (making an EN/AU version) which I think is fair - I imagine teams of university academics, linguists and anthropologists labouring over translating the EN/US XML file into EN/AU.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly what I was going to say.
Part of me wonders when the hell will these people get the goddamned message that their business models are completely outdated and have no place in the modern interconnected world.
Another part of me realizes that more likely than not, they won't have to because they can buy enough politicians to legislate the fuck out of the Internet and protect their revenue streams.
Re: (Score:2)
Where in Australia, apparently Netflix will be introduced in March. However, knowing Australia, we'll probably be paying $30 per month (which is a ripoff), and will have barely any US shows. In all likelihood, it will be filled to the brink of shonky Australian Reality TV programs.
In that case, I'll just stop watching TV shows and just get back to doing more programming.
Re: (Score:2)
yes I suspect when they open in Australia the content will be lacking as Foxtel still have content exclusivity licensing for a lot of it. If the content becomes decent I would happily swap to using them locally instead of via the US, but will have to wait and see. Would even happily pay a little more, maybe 15 bucks or so, but only if the content is there. I just don't watch enough to justify spending more, 3 years ago I had foxtel for around $120 a month and for the few hours of content I watched a month i
This is a foolish business decision. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is a foolish business decision. (Score:5, Insightful)
If Netflix is not doing it, they risk losing all their content - and with it their whole business. It's not foolish from their pov, it's just what they have to do to keep their business alive.
Re:This is a foolish business decision. (Score:5, Insightful)
They are greedy and stupid, really stupid. Just read the other day how "The Interview" made $ 15M from online sales/rentals vs. $ 3M from theatre screenings. Of course they could've made even more but the release was US only, so people took to known torrent sites and downloaded it gratis and DRM-free from there.
I don't think these ass-hats will ever learn and they will do everything in their power to stifle progress and technology. They did it before and will continue to do it instead of working with tech companies.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly you weren't aware of the Bookblinders. It's okay, not many people are, and that in lies their most powerful advantage. They are shadow, secretive group who seek to influence and control the book through literature (or in modern times, whatever people like JK Rowling can shit out)
This is all part of the Machiavellian plan to return to prominence. By making mass market entertainment either too awful and contrived to stomach, or priced out of reason, the people will have no choice but to return to boo
Re: (Score:2)
Cloud Atlas (http://www.netflix.com/WiMovie/70248183)
Battle Royale (http://www.netflix.com/WiMovie/70004548)
The Cabin in the Woods (http://www.netflix.com/WiMovie/70112368)
Well will see what happens when I get home (Score:3)
if they start blocking my provider then I guess I'll be cable and possibly Netflix free and will just torrent away and donate that $$$ to the ones that provide me a real service.
IP terrorist FTW!!!
suggested by Netflix (Score:5, Insightful)
I use unblock-us, as suggested by a friend who in turn was directed to it by Netflix staff. The stupid thing is that I would be willing to pay Netflix an extra $5 a month to view [US only] programmes, which would in turn go to Hollywood. Instead I'm giving the money to a completely separate entity. It's another case of "I'm throwing money at my monitor, why won't you take it"
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's another case of "I'm throwing money at my monitor, why won't you take it"
Because the MAFIAA's are stupid? Holy shit they are stupid. Like brain-damaged Reavers infected by a stupidity virus.
The studios made an exceeding stupid deal (Score:2)
It's because the studios sold all possible forms of distribution rights to a "Canadian distributor" who is only physically capable of distributing to movie theatres. They sometimes retained TV rights, sometimes sold them too.
Net result? The studio doesn't get the money you'd like to pay them, and neither does the distributor.
Better a horse in the race... (Score:4, Interesting)
At least Netflix push back - I gave up on LoveFilm entirely because they went the extra mile in preventing Linux access (at least back when I tried it). I am happy to keep paying for Netflix as long as they are happy to keep pushing, I can accept that they're going to have to meet studio demands part-way to keep getting content. As long as somebody's not busy breaking Pipelight, somebody's creating award-winning independent content from the ground up, somebody's doing simultaneous worldwide releases, somebody's trying to support Linux [slashdot.org], somebody's open-sourcing parts of their core tech [github.io], I'd rather they cut the deals to keep them in the game, at least their chips are big enough to make a difference.
Maybe it's just because I (sometimes) can find more classic films I want on Amazon Instant Video, but I get HDCP errors or "device not supported" and think, I bet it's a noisier debate when the Netflix reps sit down with the various MPAA negotiators.
"Pirates" (Score:2)
Love the OTT emotive designation --- so paying for content but not being happy about being given a piss-poor selection for the same cost is piracy now is it?
proxy pirates? (Score:2, Insightful)
People willing to go through ridiculous hoops and pay extra money in order to view content they are paying for are pirates?
Re: (Score:3)
Arguments over copyright infringement 'pirates' vs somali thug pirates aside: Yes.
The problem with your question is in the "in order to view content they are paying for" part. They're not paying for that content. They're paying for the content in the country in which they got the subscription. I.e. if you're a Netflix U.K. subscriber, you're paying for content A, B, and C - not for D
Re: (Score:2)
That's exactly how it works today. With a Netflix account that is tied to a US billing address, when in the UK, one can log into netflix.co.uk, but at some point, it redirects to netflix.com and then t
Netflix says "nothing has changed on our end" (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.engadget.com/2015/0... [engadget.com]
Netflix tells us that there's been "no change" in the way it handles VPNs, so you shouldn't have to worry about the company getting tough any time soon. With that said, these blocking errors started showing up in the past few weeks, so it's not clear what would have prompted them.
So... (Score:4, Interesting)
So, if the FCC decides to enforce Net Neutrality like Netflix wants... wouldn't that include region blocking like this?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
In the purist sense of 'net neutrality' it would not. Content licensing is not packet prioritizing. However unappealing and self-defeating it may be, region licensing is 100% legit legally and unrelated to net neutrality.
Pay vs. Pirate (Score:5, Informative)
So, they don't want people paying for their service? They would rather see people pirate the movies for free?
The entire media industry is getting more and more ridiculous by the day. Income is income, especially when it comes to the type of people they're targeting (i.e. the tech savvy). If I were a big hollywood studio licensing my works to Netflix, which I am not, I wouldn't care about stupid country restrictions. If there are people out there that want to see my works, and are willing to pay for it in this day in age, that's a great sign.
I only recently read an article about 2014 being the worst collective year for the box office in recent history. Reading the massive amount of comments following the article, the aggregate reasoning for this was insane pricing at movie theatres (including tickets and snacks), and poor quality of movies. Everything is either a remake or a "safe" formulaic film.
To put this entire comment into context, I'm from Australia where we get the raw end of every deal. We often get films months after they get released in the 'States for no reason, we pay more for music, TV and film than most of the world, we have "pay TV" (what Americans would call Cable) that have horrible bundles forcing you into 1 channel you want and 20 channels you don't.
The faster the big studios, MPAA/RIAA, and distributors realise that people always get what they want, and they just need to re-arrange their outdated models so they can get a slice of the pie, the better. I don't see that happening soon though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes we know. His name is Rupert.
Re: (Score:3)
The issue is likely a bit more complicated than that. The content owners likely have existing agreements in place with 'legacy' providers in each region (satelite/cable...) that prohibits them from licencing the content further.
As quickly as Netflix etc are expanding, they don't yet have the subscriber base of these legacy services, and will be unable to beat the payments that are currently being made for the prime content.
Yes they do have those contracts. But this is not a new phenomena, they have had more than a decade to reform and change those contracts, instead they just renew them and try to hold onto an out of date business model. The world has moved on, it is global market now, nothing the content distributors can do can change that, they either need to use that to their advantage or lose business. No amount of laws, contracts, trade agreements or license restrictions is going to make people obey such outdated models,
Torrents (Score:2, Insightful)
That's why God made Bittorrent
How long before these greedy f**ks (Score:2)
realize we're moving toward one seamless world with friction-free commerce.
There are those who make a way forward, and those who just won't get out of the way.
Route around them with all possible haste.
This seems relevant, re: leaked Sony emails: (Score:5, Informative)
"Netflix are heavily resistant to enforcing stricter financial geofiltering controls, as they claim this would present a too high bar to entry from legitimate subscribers. For example, they want people to be able to use various methods of payment (e.g. PayPal) where it is harder to determine where the subscriber is based. They recognize that this may cause illegal subscribers but they (of course) would rather err that way than create barriers to legitimate subscribers to sign up.
We have expressed our deep dissatisfaction with their approach and attitude."
Does this mean they are going to fix IPv6 already? (Score:2)
Because their lacklustre IPv6 GeoIP promises me programs I can't watch for about a year now.
About time, lazy morons!
Funny how "free trade" is not on this level (Score:5, Interesting)
IMHO it's worth avoiding such vendors who have so much contempt for their customers as to insult them in such a way.
Re: (Score:3)
DNS blocking failure (Score:2)
Apparently the media companies haven't heard of this new-fangled device called a "router". It comes with this exotic, difficult-to-use feature called a "firewall". And it insures that regardless of what DNS servers the application may try to use, it will use my DNS server while on my network. Problem solved.
As for VPNs, it's difficult to block router-based VPN tunnels since there's no trace on the device that a VPN's in use. All it takes is a suitable server to connect to, and I've got a selection available
Simple solution (Score:2)
Netflix could just tie your account to a geographic region. No matter where you login from you get your country's content. I just think they don't really care and will not do this until they are motivated to. Want a US account then you need a US address. I don't know what the issue is. Seems easier than playing IP Range Wack a Mole.
Re: (Score:2)
Lame reply to myself...... ....and I would just cancel my Netflix, which they know and is probably why they don't do that.
Re: (Score:2)
Ya every goober out there is going to do this or send money to some shady guy in another country.
What purpose is there for regions blocking (Score:2)
How do american studios benefit from region blocking?
Excessive powers granted by copyright (Score:3)
The fundamental issue here is that copyright is too powerful. Electronic goods should be a single global market, so the fact that copyright holders are able to use the powers granted by copyrights to slice the market shows that copyright law grants too much.
Content library? (Score:3)
Does the U.S. version of Netflix really use a library model, where they strive to keep content available indefinitely? Video streaming services here in Germany continually change the content they are offering, so it's more like a TV with very many channels and random access, and not really a replacement for a collection of your favorite movies and shows.
Re: (Score:2)
So what's the better answer: Pricing themselves out of some markets, or making less money by pricing for the lowest common denominator? I'm more than happy to take cheaper prices, but I don't invest in media stocks...
Re: (Score:2)
It seems that's what employees are expected to do these days.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Seriously... (Score:5, Insightful)
I just wish consumers would be able to take advantage of "global markets" the same way the large multinationals can.
They are free to export their jobs to the cheapest source, but thanks to copyright laws and "region restrictions" we (the consumer) cant re-import products where they are cheaper.
Real dvd's (not bootlegs) sell for like a dollar in China and $29 here. Why cant i import them and sell them for $10 and make a tidy profit?
First-sale doctrine says i can, lawsuits says you cant.
Re:Seriously... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The content is licensed for where it is being viewed. So a U.S.A. person who travels to the U.K. should only see content licensed for the U.K.
Nope. If you're a US user and you travel out of the country, it lets you log in to manage the account, but you can't stream a damn thing. Nothing. Period. Not the US content, not the local content where you happen to be. Nothing. But they're still happy to take your money and the studios are still happy to collect royalties while providing you literally nothing but an account management interface. No product, whatsoever.
Unless you use a VPN, that is.