dslreports logo
 story category
Australian Netflix Competitor Wants Company to Ban VPN Users

While Netflix launched in France this week, it isn't yet available in Australia, either because the market isn't large enough to take priority in Netflix's international expansion efforts, or because the company can't secure licensing agreements with Australian broadcasters. Consumers aren't waiting; a growing number of Australians are using VPNs to dodge region restrictions so they can pay Netflix for content while living Down Under, a trend that in recent months has been making broadcasters and Australian Netflix competitors uncomfortable.

Netflix blocks Australian IPs and requires a U.S. zip code to be entered upon sign up, but Australian broadcaster Foxtel wants Netflix to stop accepting Australian credit cards. Australian streaming operator Quickflix has been particularly vocal, in a letter to Netflix (pdf) complaining that Netflix is getting a "free ride" in Australia by "turning a blind eye" to VPN users:
quote:
Stop turning a blind eye to the VPN services acting as a gateway to your service. Be honest and face up to the issue of unauthorised access to your US service. Have the courage to limit your service only to the territories where you have legally obtained the rights to operate by abiding by the geo-filtering obligations required by your content license agreements. And do so immediately.
Of course consumers are turning to Netflix because they're not happy with waiting on Australian broadcasters and Quickflix to catch up on digital distribution. As such, it seems far easier for these companies to offer what consumers want, instead of whining about these users having to use VPNs to get it.

Quickflix Open Letter to Netflix

view:
topics flat nest 
page: 1 · 2 · next

jseymour
join:2009-12-11
Waterford, MI

jseymour

Member

Bugger Off, Ya Tossers!

Seriously.

First of all: I doubt Australian customers are a big enough piece of Netflix' business to be a concern, one way or the other. They're trying to make this sound like some big, important effort on Netflix' part to Make Tons Of Australian Cash. Secondly: How is Netflix to know the difference between an illegitimate connection via a VPN and an Australian citizen on a (long-term) visit to the U.S. legitimately wanting Netflix?

Besides: Even if Netflix were to ban the use of Australian credit cards, the truly determined ones will simply Find Another Way to pay.

Jim
shmerl
join:2013-10-21

4 edits

shmerl

Member

Re: Bugger Off, Ya Tossers!

It's also an idiotic request. It's logically equivalent to requiring to ban all tourists from Australia from buying anything in local stores in countries outside it.

If physical distribution is limited, you can travel to another country and buy that in local store (for example some book). No one in their right mind will try to forbid that. Same thing with digital. If some are stupid enough to limit digital distribution to some regions in the digital world of Internet, one can use virtual travel (VPN) as an equivalent of the physical example above to bypass that limitation. And these idiots want to forbid it?
BiggA
Premium Member
join:2005-11-23
Central CT

BiggA

Premium Member

Re: Bugger Off, Ya Tossers!

Exactly. Everything should be worldwide rights.

neill6705
join:2014-08-09

neill6705 to jseymour

Member

to jseymour
said by jseymour:

Besides: Even if Netflix were to ban the use of Australian credit cards, the truly determined ones will simply Find Another Way to pay.

That's what I was thinking. Doesn't Netflix accept Paypal now?

AppleGuy
Premium Member
join:2013-09-08
Kitchener, ON

AppleGuy to jseymour

Premium Member

to jseymour
True, one would find a way. Just get a virtual credit card.

That said, it's not like Quickflix is horrible. They do have titles not yet available in Netflix. Tho the same is true in reverse.

Quickflix just has to let it go and let the .gov.au do it's job, if it means that much to them.

VPN is a good way to go.
I'm sure Quickflix won't be bothered if I signed up for their service even though I am in Canada.

GabeH
Helpless In The Face Of Your Beauty
Premium Member
join:2001-04-25
Wilmington, DE

GabeH

Premium Member

Mixed reaction to this

I get that (until laws evolve) NetFlix should make a good faith effort to respect local and regional laws, but not at the risk of disproportionate expense to address a probably niche issue.

At the heart of the argument is the use of vpn to watch NetFlix and other such services. The proponents say they would or could use vpn to protect their "privacy". Honestly, I'm struggling to accept that argument.

Can anyone clearly define a scenario where NetFlix and similar services are somehow putting personal privacy at risk if they see your TrueIP?
shmerl
join:2013-10-21

3 edits

shmerl

Member

Re: Mixed reaction to this

Using VPN is equivalent to bypassing regional restrictions. What's wrong with that? If it's OK for physical goods, it should be OK for digital as well. See my explanation above: »Re: Bugger Off, Ya Tossers!
Can anyone clearly define a scenario where NetFlix and similar services are somehow putting personal privacy at risk
Besides the point of VPN, any kind of DRM is always putting your privacy at risk.

GabeH
Helpless In The Face Of Your Beauty
Premium Member
join:2001-04-25
Wilmington, DE

GabeH

Premium Member

Re: Mixed reaction to this

I'm open to having my world view expanded, so I'm interested to understand how NetFlix seeing your TrueIP is risking your privacy. You have to sign up for a NetFlix account by providing contact and payment information. Just by virtue of using their service, NetFlix has all kinds of contact and financial details about their customers. If NetFlix already has all that info on their customers and that's deemed an acceptable risk (implicit if you accept the ToS), how is seeing your IP not acceptable or more risky.

Again, not trying to troll but I'm not getting how your privacy risk is somehow increased.
shmerl
join:2013-10-21

shmerl

Member

Re: Mixed reaction to this

It's conceptual. Because of its very nature DRM is using presumption of guilt and treats you, the user as a potential criminal by default. So it's a symmetrical expectation to treat DRM as a privacy / security threat and potential malware. It's not really about IP exposure, it's about running any kind of DRM code on your own system.

GabeH
Helpless In The Face Of Your Beauty
Premium Member
join:2001-04-25
Wilmington, DE

GabeH

Premium Member

Re: Mixed reaction to this

Well, that seems a different problem. DRM is not about protecting privacy but about protecting creative content. Also, the type of DRM you're describing is really bad DRM code implemented to protect things like DVD's and software. Sony in particular has been exceptionally guilty of tainting their wares with bad DRM. No argument from me there, but I'm still trying to hear the logical explanation for legitimate vpn usage with NetFlix. Every respeonse so far has been along the lines of "Australian innovation and competition is terrible, so we should violate the local regulations to get what we want". Is that what you're really saying?
shmerl
join:2013-10-21

2 edits

shmerl

Member

Re: Mixed reaction to this

Why not? using VPN can be a normal thing for anything, not just services like Netflix. And as was said already, it can be used to bypass geoblocking. Which is a perfectly valid reason.

About DRM - it's never about protecting content (because it never does as piracy demonstrates). It's always about attempting to control the user and technology however. Plus of course all the perks of anticircumvetion provisions. That's the real goal of DRM proponents.

GabeH
Helpless In The Face Of Your Beauty
Premium Member
join:2001-04-25
Wilmington, DE

GabeH

Premium Member

Re: Mixed reaction to this

I disagree. I agree that DRM is meant to be a tech and content control tool that's been more trouble than it's worth. Again, not arguing about how things should work and I'm ABSOLUTELY never in favor of big corporate machines or governments, but a company like NetFlix does not put in geoblocking for no reason. Geoblocking is in place typically as part of an agreement between two or more parties such as corporations under a contractual agreement or governments with commerce and brodcast restrictions. Under those provisions, circumventing the geoblock is not justified unless it's to overcome some form of civil oppression (e.g. Iraq blocking Internet access to prohibit free speech and news). If your primary reason to use vpn with NetFlix is to circumvent local broadcast rules and regulations, then there's no ethical weight to that argument. The absence of NetFlix in Australia is not oppressing anybody's rights. It's not anybody's civic and moral duty to bypass regional regulations to get NetFlix. Yes, it stinks but the right way to handle it is by lobbying to change the regulations.

Yeah, i know this sounds like a pro-corporate stance but in this case, it's the responsible thing to do. Else, it sets a continued precedent that says it's okay to violate contracts, agreements, regulations to get what you want....and that way leads to big trouble.
Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium Member
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ

Kearnstd

Premium Member

Re: Mixed reaction to this

The way I see it, avoiding geoblocks is never wrong. if only because there is no laws that say I cannot.

The only thing that could be used against people using VPNs and Netflix would be if it mentions such actions in the Netflix TOS in which case Netflix could terminate their account.

GabeH
Helpless In The Face Of Your Beauty
Premium Member
join:2001-04-25
Wilmington, DE

GabeH

Premium Member

Re: Mixed reaction to this

I wouldn't be surprised if the ToS does mention something about not be allowed in certina countries. If so, using a vpn to avoid the geoblock would be a violation. And just from a philosophical PoV, there's also no law that says I can't walk up to your house, lay on the ground in the gutter, and take a nap at the foot of your driveway when you're trying to get your car in or out...but that doesn't mean I should do it. That's a silly hypothetical but the point is this...just because I can do a thing, because I want to, doesn't make it right.
Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium Member
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ

1 edit

Kearnstd

Premium Member

Re: Mixed reaction to this

People on this site love shitty comparisons. Laying in front of a driveway gets your ass run over, dragged away by a police officer. Or hearing damage when the driver lays on the horn.

Explain where VPN around geoblock causes any harm, it is not even morally wrong since the person is still paying for the content.

Also how is this any different than owning a region free video player and importing discs or importing discs and using AnyDVD HD which also ignores regional lockouts on media.

NYDude25
join:2007-08-23
Massapequa, NY

NYDude25 to shmerl

Member

to shmerl
said by shmerl:

About DRM - it's never about protecting content (because it never does as piracy demonstrates). It's always about attempting to control the user and technology however. Plus of course all the perks of anticircumvetion provisions. That's the real goal of DRM proponents.

How is Netflix DRM controlling me, the user? If you mean that I can't keep a copy of a movie I view on my hard drive to watch in the future, I guess that is a type of control. But that's not the contract I have with Netflix, I only pay them enough to stream content, not to own the content. As far as control of place shifting, I can view the Netflix streams on my TV, my laptop or my tablet, so they aren't controlling me their either.
shmerl
join:2013-10-21

2 edits

shmerl

Member

Re: Mixed reaction to this

quote:
I can view the Netflix streams on my TV, my laptop or my tablet
I can't view it neither on my Linux computer, nor on my Linux tablet. Because I don't use operating systems with DRM. So that's shifting out of the window right away. On the other hand services like GOG video I can use perfectly fine precisely because they are DRM-free. DRM always reduces usability in some way. Always.
quote:
How is Netflix DRM controlling me, the user? If you mean that I can't keep a copy of a movie I view on my hard drive to watch in the future, I guess that is a type of control. But that's not the contract I have with Netflix, I only pay them enough to stream content, not to own the content.

And why is that? There is no good reason for it.

Streaming and renting are not equivalent, yet for some reason they are commonly wrongly equated.

Streaming is simply a convenience. An ability to watch something from the cloud without downloading it first. Who said it has to be equal to renting? You can perfectly buy something and have it stored in the cloud to stream it while being able to save it for local backup at the same time. That's exactly what for example GOG offer for their DRM-free video (you can download it and stream as well, all DRM-free in HTML5 standard and cross platform fashion).

Netflix uses DRM to enforce renting (i.e. prevent backups). First of all using DRM for enforcing renting is pointless same way it's worthless to prevent any piracy in general since those who want to break the renting terms can access all the same content through piracy sources at any time without Netflix. So any kind of enforcement of renting with DRM is futile and only reduces usability of the product for nothing. DRM can be easily dropped without making anything worse for the service.

Let's also take a look at using the concept of renting itself. It doesn't really make any sense for digital goods in general. For physical merchandise renting allows reusability, which allows in term using lower price for renting in comparison with selling since there is no repeated cost of production. For digital goods this problem is non existent because cost of reproduction is non existent (digital copying is trivial). So there is no good reason to make the price of selling any higher than the price of renting. Or in other words, the whole concept of renting is nonsensical for digital goods. It wouldn't hurt to always allow the user for the same price to back up their data if they want to (i.e. complete purchase, not a rent).

Netflix however isn't just about renting. Essentially their novelty is not in the renting aspect, but in an flexible way of titles selection. Instead of renting or selling film per price, they give access to anything for a monthly fee. This can perfectly be done without falling into renting approach (which can push one to entertain the thought of DRM which is nonsensical anyway as above). Some also say, that if you give unrestricted download access from Netflix what would stop users from downloading the whole catalog within the monthly period? The answer to that is that DRM is still not needed to prevent such outcome, Netflix could just make terms of usage more realistic and use other, non DRM methods to prevent such abuse. I.e. instead of saying "watch what you want in any amount by paying N money a month" they can say "watch / download up to M films by paying N money a month. If you want more - pay extra". That would keep basically similar flexible approach but would prevent potential "download it all" abuse, while at the same time remain DRM-free. And there is no need to turn it into renting. I.e. those M films can be made perfectly downloadable and backupable. Since the main expense for Netflix is the streaming (it eats bandwidth / server activity resources), letting users back video up is perfectly fine - it will only reduce costs by reducing load if users will decide to watch their local backups next time.

The bottom line, Netflix can offer a DRM-free streaming service which allows downloads at the same time and uses their approach of "watch what you want for a monthly fee" except with an addition of "not more than M videos per month. If you want more - pay an additional fee".

NYDude25
join:2007-08-23
Massapequa, NY

NYDude25

Member

Re: Mixed reaction to this

That sounds like a lot of theoretical hopes and dreams. It's disingenuous to say "I can't view it neither on my Linux computer, nor on my Linux tablet" because if you look at simple market share of those devices, they barely register. Why would Netflix try to convince all of its suppliers of content that allowing DRM free streaming to Linux devices is worth all the effort if those devices are such a small market? They already have the iOS, Android, Windows, and Mac markets and that covers like 98% of potential customers. By allowing Linux users to receive DRM free streaming, they would risk losing content providers who wouldn't agree to that type of risk. As far as GOG, its nothing like Netflix. It's a collection of public domain and amateur videos.

As far streaming and renting, do you honestly think the Netflix business model could survive if that $9 a month price actually included owning everything you could download every month? If a studio sells a disc or a digital download of a movie for $10-$10 a piece, the Netflix fee would have to jump to $100 or more a month if it was to include owning everything streamed each month.

Then you mention that Netflix shouldn't rent videos because "First of all using DRM for enforcing renting is pointless same way it's worthless to prevent any piracy in general since those who want to break the renting terms can access all the same content through piracy sources at any time without Netflix"

How is it pointless? Netflix has over 40 million customers each month renting content from them and they are all happy to pay the fee each month. Just because some people choose to resort to piracy because they don't want to keep paying Netflix each month to access it doesn't make pointless. It's worthless to put a lock on your door since those who want to break in can do so. But it stops most people, and its not worth the hassle for most people to deal with shady websites or torrent downloads rather than just paying Netflix each month. If everyone resorted to piracy then of course eventually there would be no new content, but most people getting something for nothing isn't sustainable, and that's all piracy is.
shmerl
join:2013-10-21

3 edits

shmerl

Member

Re: Mixed reaction to this

quote:
It's disingenuous to say "I can't view it neither on my Linux computer, nor on my Linux tablet" because if you look at simple market share of those devices, they barely register.
No, it's perfectly fine to say so. Because DRM is always discriminatory in limiting platforms. What if tomorrow platform XYZ comes out? It's not about percentage. It's about the fact that DRM is degrading usability and is never needed in practice.
quote:
By allowing Linux users to receive DRM free streaming, they would risk losing content providers who wouldn't agree to that type of risk. As far as GOG, its nothing like Netflix. It's a collection of public domain and amateur videos.
That's a problem of sick publishers who insist on DRM for completely no valid reasons. It's not a problem of GOG or DRM-free distribution in general. It can perfectly work much better than DRMed one if crooked backward thinking lawyers wouldn't be forcing DRM on major studios (see »www.gog.com/forum/genera ··· /post499 ). GOG are dedicated to change this sick situation and I wish them success.
quote:
As far streaming and renting, do you honestly think the Netflix business model could survive if that $9 a month price actually included owning everything you could download every month? If a studio sells a disc or a digital download of a movie for $10-$10 a piece, the Netflix fee would have to jump to $100 or more a month if it was to include owning everything streamed each month.

I think I clearly explained myself above. How does owning change anything? People pay monthly fee for convenience of streaming. What will change if they are allowed to back up their video with a monthly quota of not more than M titles? Let's say Netflix can measure that on average people watch M titles a month. So they can set such quota for a fee and ask additional fee if you want to go over it, all while allowing downloads of those titles within the quota. People will still pay monthly fee to access more content and new titles which will arrive. What will be changed by the fact that they backed up what they already watched? Nothing really, Netflix would be getting all the same subscriptions from those users. Also, the majority of titles people only watch once. Very few, the real masterpieces have a good replayability value. So again, practically nothing changes for Netflix if downloads are allowed. And the fact that other stores charge $10 per film and Netflix can charge N / M (N - monthly fee, M average amount of films watched per month) simply shows that other stores overcharge and the real price of that digital material is N / M. As I already explained above, renting has completely zero sense in digital sphere because there is no cost of making another copy, so the price of purchase and price of rent should be equal if measured by economical necessity. The fact that they are different and both exist only shows that the current price of purchase is a rip off.
quote:
Just because some people choose to resort to piracy because they don't want to keep paying Netflix each month to access it doesn't make pointless. It's worthless to put a lock on your door since those who want to break in can do so. But it stops most people, and its not worth the hassle for most people to deal with shady websites or torrent downloads rather than just paying Netflix each month.
DRM is not a lock on your door. DRM is police camera put in your house. But that's besides the point. If people want to break renting terms it means they want to pirate the content. So if they want it they can easily get it all DRM-free rather trivially with a couple of clicks. So DRM can't even prevent any piracy which anyway happens on massive scale outside Netflix.
quote:
If everyone resorted to piracy then of course eventually there would be no new content, but most people getting something for nothing isn't sustainable, and that's all piracy is.
That's exactly the point. There is no need to treat people as criminals and use any DRM. Decent people won't pirate, and pirates will pirate regardless of any DRM in place.

NYDude25
join:2007-08-23
Massapequa, NY

NYDude25

Member

Re: Mixed reaction to this

said by shmerl:

Because DRM always discriminatory by limiting platforms. What if tomorrow platform XYZ comes out? It's not about percentage.

Unfortunately, you're wrong. It is about market share. If a new platform comes out tomorrow, Netflix will create access for that interface when that platform reaches a threshold where Netflix determines the investment is worth it.
quote:
That's a problem of sick publishers who insist on DRM for completely no valid reasons. It's not a problem of GOG or DRM-free distribution in general. It can perfectly work much better than DRMed one if crooked backward thinking lawyers wouldn't be forcing DRM on major studios
Not sure what you mean by "sick publishers" but the content creators are who insist on using DRM so that they can be assured they are paid for their work. "Crooked backward lawyers" do come up with complex contracts regarding release and distribution rights, and that can be confusing to understand why a movie is released in one region before another. But that is their prerogative since they created the movie and own it, so they can do what they want with it. As for GOG, I took a look at their content, and if I ever need to write a paper on the history of video games, they may be my prime resource. Otherwise, not much of interest.
quote:
I think I clearly explained myself above. How does owning change anything? People pay monthly fee for convenience of streaming....
Your example would change the simple model that Netflix uses that endears it to so many people. Their monthly bill doesn't change regardless of how much content is viewed. A flat, reliable monthly amount that people depend on to be the same. Incorporating a system that counted viewings and and downloads would totally destroy that simple model. You seem to think that nothing would change if people could pay $8 a month and keep everything they view forever. Lets say someone subscribes to Netflix because they like to watch Star Trek episodes. They could simply pay Netflix 8$ once, download all of the episodes, cancel their Netflix subscription and now own all the episodes for just $8, but which actually sells for over $100, a lot more if you include all of the Star Trek series available. Is that what you think the the video industry should turn into?
quote:
renting has completely zero sense in digital sphere because there is no cost of making another copy, so the price of purchase and price of rent should be equal if measured by economical necessity. The fact that they are different and both exist only shows that the current price of purchase is a rip off.
The purchase price is what the creator of the content determines the purchase price should be. You might not like it, which really seems to be the crux of your argument, but if they created it, shouldn't they get to determine what it should sell for? Renting prices still remain tied to physical rentals because that is how they started. If you walked up to a RedBox machine and get to use the disc it dispenses for a $1.50 fee. If you could just keep the disc for the same price, that would destroy the home video industry.
quote:
If people want to break renting terms it means they want to pirate the content. So if they want it they can easily get it all DRM-free rather trivially with a couple of clicks.
If it was trivial, it would be useless, you are correct. But it's not trivial, so 40 million people each month pay Netflix a fee because it IS trivial to simply pay them the money for the content they want.
quote:
That's exactly the point. There is no need to treat people as criminals and use any DRM. Decent people won't pirate, and pirates will pirate regardless of any DRM in place.
Exactly. Human nature being what it is, many people will take something for nothing. The cable industry found that out soon after it began. People were splicing into cable lines of neighbors and stealing cable because it was trivial to do so, especially in multi-dwelling buildings. So the cable companies moved to encrypt their signals, similar to DRM, and then the cable theft decreased. Netflix could send out their streams totally unprotected, but why take that chance? Just to appease a handful of Linux users? They aren't treating 40 million people a month like criminals, they are just keeping those 40 million people a month honest.
shmerl
join:2013-10-21

4 edits

shmerl

Member

Re: Mixed reaction to this

quote:
It is about market share.
If something is DRM-free it's usable on all platforms. The content has nothing to do with market share. Only DRM makes it locked into "supported" ones. That's exactly my point. It's dumb and unnecessary.
quote:
Not sure what you mean by "sick publishers" but the content creators are who insist on using DRM so that they can be assured they are paid for their work. "Crooked backward lawyers" do come up with complex contracts regarding release and distribution rights, and that can be confusing to understand why a movie is released in one region before another. But that is their prerogative since they created the movie and own it, so they can do what they want with it. As for GOG, I took a look at their content, and if I ever need to write a paper on the history of video games, they may be my prime resource. Otherwise, not much of interest.

It feels like you didn't really read what I wrote. I answered you in detail. Did you read the post from GOG rep about studios? Studios agreed with them that DRM does nothing useful and protects nothing. It's their dumb lawyers who insist that they should use it. I also think it's about keeping around DMCA-1201, not really about protecting anything. I.e. it's not about authors at all, it's about control. That's the reason why GOG don't offer more now. They are working on breaking this wall of stupidity. Please read their post, it provides all details on this matter.
quote:
Lets say someone subscribes to Netflix because they like to watch Star Trek episodes. They could simply pay Netflix 8$ once, download all of the episodes, cancel their Netflix subscription and now own all the episodes for just $8
Again, did you read what I wrote above? I said that Netflix can estimate how much users watch per month on average. Let's say it's 15 titles (no idea about the actual number, let's make it 15 just for this example). So like I wrote above, their terms can be you can select up to 15 titles per month for $8. You can stream them / download them whatever until the month is up. If you want to select additional titles after those 15 during that month, pay more. So this prevents your hypothetical scenario of downloading the whole Star Trek at once while offering similar experience to what users already do now. And it doesn't require any DRM with that.
quote:
The purchase price is what the creator of the content determines the purchase price should be. You might not like it, which really seems to be the crux of your argument, but if they created it, shouldn't they get to determine what it should sell for? Renting prices still remain tied to physical rentals because that is how they started.
As I said, it's nonsensical to project renting logic of physical goods into digital sphere, because it has different economic reality. In the physical case lower price of renting is substantiated by the absence of cost for producing another instance of that physical object. I.e. reusability allows lowering the price. In the digital case it's exactly the same for selling, since producing another instance costs nothing. So if renting price is sustainable for the business in case of digital goods, there is no valid reason to make the price of purchase higher. Except "just because" (i.e. greed). Or to rephrase it in the different direction - there is no need for renting altogether. Just use classic selling using the lower price since it's sustainable. That's what I was trying to say. Lower price of renting or to put it differently higher price of purchase is economical nonsense in digital because there is no economical necessity for such difference. Of course they set prices any way they want. We are talking about economical sensibility here, not about what they want to set it for. Unless you imply that current renting price is not sustainable and Netflix is not bringing sufficient profits to film makers to make such pricing universal.
quote:
But it's not trivial
No, it is trivial. As most studios easily agree. They know perfectly well that their titles are widely pirated and DRM does nothing to reduce it.
quote:
So the cable companies moved to encrypt their signals, similar to DRM, and then the cable theft decreased
Which is irrelevant. Because it takes one technically adept pirate to break that DRM to make it widely available to the rest of the pirates who never deal with any DRM after that. I.e. purpose defeated. DRM does literally nothing to reduce piracy. If anything, it only encourages and boosts it as some suggest:

»www.joystiq.com/2012/03/ ··· anymore/
»www.lexi-alexander.com/b ··· stand-up

The bottom line, DRM is never ever needed. It's insulting for legitimate users since it treats them as potential criminals, it cripples usability of the product it's applied to. Essentially DRM punishes paying customers while doing nothing to pirates who don't deal with it.

Selenia
Gentoo Convert
Premium Member
join:2006-09-22
Fort Smith, AR

Selenia

Premium Member

Re: Mixed reaction to this

I agree about DRM but you can't blame Netflix. Look at the draconian copyright enforcement methods and the ancient business models that the entertainment studios, cable networks, and others cling to. These same entities are the ones demanding the content be "protected".

They have proven tech clueless over and over but Netflix needs them. That means if they don't protect the content, the studios either will not deal with them at all(meaning serious lack of content) or charge an exorbitant fee for licensing(driving Netflix to either cable prices or very little content). Netflix has managed to use essentially a canned DRM solution that both satisfies the studios and works on many devices. Remember, they are more at the mercy of the studios than they are users on minority platforms.

I am a Linux user myself and your post does not represent the spirit of the community at all. We know what we got into by choosing a community supported and driven platform outside the mainstream. We have known mainstream corporate support has been and will be an issue. But the community has always strived for some solution and has largely succeeded. Whether it is a home brew solution or a solution designed to be compatible with the commercial solution(if patents, etc are involved in closed source or reverse engineering is impossible).

Check my thread in the All Things Unix forum »Great solution to your plugin woes and solve the issue instead of acting helpless. Some nice developers have created Pipelight, a framework to run Windows plugins in Linux browsers. It runs Netflix quite well. Only thing is Netflix has a dumb user agent restriction, but easy enough to make Firefox Linux user agent that of Firefox Windows or Mac. But I find most Silverlight stuff outside of Netflix plays fine without the minor step of changing user agents.
shmerl
join:2013-10-21

shmerl

Member

Re: Mixed reaction to this

said by Selenia:

your post does not represent the spirit of the community at all.

The spirit of the community is to oppose DRM outright. That's why I'm not using Netflix or any other DRMed service and support DRM-free ones like GOG. That's voting with one's pocket.
said by Selenia:

I agree about DRM but you can't blame Netflix. Look at the draconian copyright enforcement methods and the ancient business models that the entertainment studios, cable networks, and others cling to. These same entities are the ones demanding the content be "protected"

Netflix can't claim it's not their fault but studios' alone. They are the ones who pushed for this DRM garbage in HTML standard. Didn't they start selling their own content as well? If it's not their intent to use DRM, where is their own content DRM-free? It's disingenuous on their part to claim that they aren't guilty in DRM proliferation.

Selenia
Gentoo Convert
Premium Member
join:2006-09-22
Fort Smith, AR

Selenia

Premium Member

Re: Mixed reaction to this

The DRM is embedded in the streaming platform they use pretty much and their own content uses that platform. It is Microsoft's PlayReady DRM for Windows and Mac. I was not commenting about your post being against DRM. I was commenting on the expectation that mainstream corporates are going to flock to support Linux. The very developers already know this is not likely to ever happen and aren't willing to make the concessions in licensing the closed source OSes have for good reason. Instead, they either make their own solution, if possible or practical, or make a framework that will run this proprietary stuff if it's needed without violating its EULA by even decompiling it. The plugin architecture I linked you to as a solution to your issue can run Silverlight, complete with the DRM needed for Netflix. The community works for a solution like that one, but does not wait for one to come to it from these sleeping giant corporations.
shmerl
join:2013-10-21

shmerl

Member

Re: Mixed reaction to this

said by Selenia:

I was commenting on the expectation that mainstream corporates are going to flock to support Linux.

I was actually pointing out the opposite, i.e precisely that I don't have such expectations. Or in other words that every DRM should be expected to limit platforms from which one can access that content. It's discriminatory by nature.

And I think instead of efforts to work around that and bring DRMed services to Linux and etc. users can better vote with their wallets and not support DRMed services at all.

Selenia
Gentoo Convert
Premium Member
join:2006-09-22
Fort Smith, AR

Selenia

Premium Member

Re: Mixed reaction to this

Click for full size
That pretty much means rejecting big content, which most are not willing to do. The best examples you tend to see, outside of pirated streams, use a form of DRM that uses the Flash Player, which was well supported on Linux until 2 years ago. But still, the community will move on and pretty much has. That Pipelight I linked to can also run the latest Flash outside of Chrome(I use IceWeasel, Debian's variant on Firefox), my most hated Linux browser. Here is my Firefox, with pretty well full DRM and plugin support. Only thing closed source is the plugins themselves, which not much can be done about.

Note: You need to set always activate with Firefox 30+ for those having issues. You can then control plugin activation via extensions. This is due to a well documented change in Firefox and not a flaw in the plugins. Only whitelisted plugins work with Click to Activate on Firefox 30+.
shmerl
join:2013-10-21

shmerl

Member

Re: Mixed reaction to this

Big content is available on disks where DRM is obsolete (libdvdcss and such). So if they don't provide it in pure digital DRM-free, I see no point in supporting distributors which oblige this insanity (like Netflix or whatever).

I do support distributors who stand up to this and actually attempt to improve the situation (like GOG: »www.gog.com/forum/genera ··· /post499 ). Stark contrast with Netflix and others who do nothing about it and only prolong DRM usage by polluting HTML standard with it.

Selenia
Gentoo Convert
Premium Member
join:2006-09-22
Fort Smith, AR

Selenia

Premium Member

Re: Mixed reaction to this

libdvdcss is actually an open source crack to a form of DRM, allowing decryption of DVDs. Still, the studios tried to use a form of copy protection/DRM on them but failed miserably at making it secure at all. I personally think the world would be a better place if all technology developers followed Richard Stallman's principles. But the world doesn't, so it is all about the community making the best of the situation and providing solutions for the better good.
shmerl
join:2013-10-21

3 edits

shmerl

Member

Re: Mixed reaction to this

I know that, that's why I said it's obsolete since it's trivially removable and the disks are easy to back up. Plus that form of DRM is just a static copy protection, not some active untrustworthy / malware-like code blob which actually runs like what's used in Silverlight or Adobe DRM which is planned to work through EME with the browsers.

As for Flash, I'm waiting for Mozilla Shumway to catch up. But it won't have DRM support of course. It's not something that I care about anyway, but some DRM-free pages which use Flash supported through Shumway can still be useful.

NYDude25
join:2007-08-23
Massapequa, NY

NYDude25 to shmerl

Member

to shmerl
said by shmerl:

So like I wrote above, their terms can be you can select up to 15 titles per month for $8. You can stream them / download them whatever until the month is up. If you want to select additional titles after those 15 during that month, pay more. So this prevents your hypothetical scenario of downloading the whole Star Trek at once while offering similar experience to what users already do now. And it doesn't require any DRM with that.

Your example makes no sense. If you want Netflix to stream everything with no DRM, and people pay a flat amount per month, how are they prevented from acquiring everything they want with one $8 monthly payment? You mention counting items viewed, but that is what sites like Vudu and Amazon do now, they allow you to buy each download individually. The Netflix model is like an all you can eat, flat rate, they don't count how many videos you view. Your example would change Netflix into Vudu.
said by shmerl:

So if renting price is sustainable for the business in case of digital goods, there is no valid reason to make the price of purchase higher. Except "just because" (i.e. greed).Of course they set prices any way they want. We are talking about economical sensibility here, not about what they want to set it for.

You make naive comments like this that make your argument seem like it's simply a rant. They price it at the price they want because that's how much they either need to make back their costs plus profit, or that's how much the market will allow. To say "greed" is just a childish way of expressing that you feel the price is too high for you. Isn't it simply your "greed" that you want to keep your money in your wallet instead of giving it to the creators? Greed works both way. Why do you care if the price is too high? If people don't like the price, they don't have to purchase it.
said by shmerl:

Which is irrelevant. Because it takes one technically adept pirate to break that DRM to make it widely available to the rest of the pirates who never deal with any DRM after that. I.e. purpose defeated.

Ummm...what? That's a nice theory, but that doesn't mean it's happened. Have pirates cracked CableCARD encryption? No. And if it were to be broken, another system would simply take its place. The industry has been around for decades, with various forms of protection. Your trite retort of "purpose defeated" doesn't apply, because it is serving its purpose every day. The purpose is to prevent people from stealing what they didn't pay for. Is that such a difficult concept to understand? Your answer just seems to be "Well, some people do steal, so it has no purpose." But you've been proven wrong. It does force people to pay, both with Netflix and the cable industry.
said by shmerl:

The bottom line, DRM is never ever needed. It's insulting for legitimate users since it treats them as potential criminals, it cripples usability of the product it's applied to.

I explained to you how the cable industry needed DRM, and yet you insist that it is not needed. You insist that it crippled usability, yet 40 million Netflix users each month are NOT crippled by it, but instead can view it on their phones, TV's laptops, and tablets. You are upset that Netflix is a form of DRM that is both felxible and well received, yet doesn't allow everyone to acquire a collection of 1000's of movies for one $8 payment.

And like I said before, DRM doesn't treat anyone like a criminal, it simply keeps honest people honest. If someone doesn't want to be "treated like a criminal" as you say, they can do what you have done with your dislike of Windows, they can avoid buying and using it.
shmerl
join:2013-10-21

4 edits

shmerl

Member

Re: Mixed reaction to this

said by NYDude25:

Your example makes no sense. If you want Netflix to stream everything with no DRM, and people pay a flat amount per month, how are they prevented from acquiring everything they want with one $8 monthly payment?

Quite simple. Like any service with authentication. Here is the use case:

1. User has a quota for up to 15 films per month for $8.
2. User logs into the service and searches for some film.
3. User finds a title and clicks "add".
4. The title is added to user's library.
5. User can log into the service at any time and download / stream what's in the library from there.
6. Downloaded copy doesn't depend on the service in any way - it's DRM-free.
7. If user already selected 15 titles, user can't add more until next month without paying some additional fee.

In this scenario user can't add more than 15 titles to the library per month. But the added ones can be streamed / downloaded. Users are charged each month regardless whether they added some titles within the quota or not. Obviously you need to log in to authenticate yourself. That's not DRM, it's authentication. Since if you download it, you can watch it without the service (it demonstrates that it's DRM-free). How can you download everything at once in such scenario? A lot of people confuse DRM with any type of authentication. That's wrong. DRM means that you can't access your own backup without authentication. In this case you can.
said by NYDude25:

You make naive comments like this that make your argument seem like it's simply a rant.

It looks like you didn't understand my explanation of economic necessity of price difference and nonsensical nature of renting for digital goods. Just reread it above. Charging more than necessary is called a rip-off. You can also call it greed or whatever. I'm not suggesting that they are supposed to charge less than necessary. Anyway, it's not even about what price it should use. It's about the fact that renting + DRM are not needed at all since if renting can be sustainable for that price, then selling should be as well. And if selling for that price is not sustainable, then such kind of digital renting for the same price is direct loss for creators as well.
said by NYDude25:

Ummm...what? That's a nice theory, but that doesn't mean it's happened. Have pirates cracked CableCARD encryption? No.

They cracked tons of other things which allow to capture the video. For instance HDCP. So all that encryption is completely irrelevant.
said by NYDude25:

I explained to you how the cable industry needed DRM

No, you didn't. Because rampant piracy of cable media demonstrates that DRM on any level until it reaches the end user does nothing to prevent it. Then why is it used if not to stop piracy? That's the question you should ask.
said by NYDude25:

I said before, DRM doesn't treat anyone like a criminal, it simply keeps honestpeople honest.

No it does treat all users like criminals and that's why it's unethical and unacceptable practice (that's besides the point that it does nothing to stop piracy which is obvious to anyone who researches this situation).

To explain why DRM is unethical. DRM is overreaching preemptive policing which uses presumption of guilt for all its users. It assumes that since you are a potential criminal, you need to be controlled / monitored to prevent crime. Compare it to police saying that since all people can be potential criminals they need to place police cameras in everyone's home. Is that normal? No, it's a practice of some police state. You clearly understand that such policing is unethical and overreaching. Yet with DRM people don't think enough to realize that it's exactly the same. DRM code is running in your private digital space. On your computer, on your system in the program that you use. I.e. it's exactly like saying that a police camera or rather some kind of police restriction collar which have to be worn in people's homes should keep them honest.

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium Member
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ

Kearnstd to GabeH

Premium Member

to GabeH
technically the viewer does not break any laws at all by using a VPN and Netflix does not break laws by accepting international credit cards.

Thing is people in that country are using VPNs because they want content made in the US which simply is not getting to their country or will get there sometime next year. Really unless the content owners threaten Netflix here in the US with pulling their license it cannot and will not be changed. And the content owners would rather people skirt the geolocks and pay than to take the other route... Piracy.
NOVA_UAV_Guy
Premium Member
join:2012-12-14
Purcellville, VA

NOVA_UAV_Guy to GabeH

Premium Member

to GabeH
said by GabeH:

I'm still trying to hear the logical explanation for legitimate vpn usage with NetFlix.

How about accessing any service via something like WiFi at a local coffee shop, airport, etc.? I wouldn't use a free open hotspot for anything without connecting to my home network via VPN or connecting to a paid VPN service. Even something as seemingly trivial as sending your account information to login (even over SSL) could lead to problems. I feel more comfortable adding another layer of encryption that a VPN tunnel provides.

I do support the rights of content owners to receive payment for providing licenses to use their intellectual property, but also support reasonable behavior and innovation. At the end of the day, this whole thing seems very much like "no harm, no foul" to me. The fact that some arbitrary geopolitical border prevents people from accessing content in an otherwise legal manner is ludicrous to me. These are the types of laws which beg not only to be ignored, but to be stricken down when every opportunity arises.
Rekrul
join:2007-04-21
Milford, CT

Rekrul to GabeH

Member

to GabeH
said by GabeH:

At the heart of the argument is the use of vpn to watch NetFlix and other such services. The proponents say they would or could use vpn to protect their "privacy". Honestly, I'm struggling to accept that argument.

Can anyone clearly define a scenario where NetFlix and similar services are somehow putting personal privacy at risk if they see your TrueIP?

So people should only have the right to use such things if they can demonstrate a need for them?

••••••••••••••
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

Skippy25 to GabeH

Member

to GabeH
I am sure it is not them that are providing services they are concerned with and is more likely all the nodes in between.

Titus
Mr Gradenko
join:2004-06-26

Titus

Member

Crocodile tears

Stephen's two week online Australian marketing course paid off.
Banger
join:2014-07-22
Sturgeon Bay, WI

Banger

Member

Re: Crocodile tears

He had to use a VPN to take it though.
NOVA_UAV_Guy
Premium Member
join:2012-12-14
Purcellville, VA

NOVA_UAV_Guy

Premium Member

Wah! Wah! Time to change the Quickflix diaper.

The subject line says it all.

Yes, copyrights should be respected and copyright owners have a right to profit from the sale and distribution of their intellectual property. But when businesses intentionally drag their feet and fail to provide people with what they want, people will find a way to get it anyhow.

I'd also like to note that at least these people are making strides to legitimately purchase access to the content via Netflix, rather than simply resorting to finding it elsewhere and downloading it without paying anybody - so it's hard to make any sort of argument that there's any intention of pirating anything.
elefante72
join:2010-12-03
East Amherst, NY

1 recommendation

elefante72

Member

Re: Wah! Wah! Time to change the Quickflix diaper.

Yet another Hachette example with two middlemen instead of one. I'd like to see any content CREATOR that would want to restrict how many copies of XYZ they license if negotiated in good faith directly w/ OTT providers. Except you can't. The middlemen are afraid (rightly) so that they are adding no value (they aren't) and in a supply chain, out come the inefficiencies.

So they cling to their antiquated ways by artificially attempting to limit a good with unlimited supply by artificially reducing supply or distorting demand and hence price. Not a winning economic model in the 21st century.

My what the next ten years are going to bring...

Mike
Mod
join:2000-09-17
Pittsburgh, PA

Mike

Mod

Quickflix...

Bet they're sued for trademark violation.

davidc502
join:2002-03-06
Mount Juliet, TN

davidc502

Member

Re: Quickflix...

doubt it... it would have been done already, instead of Stephen sending a nasty gram.
ocjosh
join:2013-03-19
Anaheim, CA

ocjosh

Member

Just check the billing address

I think this is the easier fix than VPN. Lock IPs are not the only solutions. Use VPN is actually one of users choice for many other reasons.

•••••••••••

josephf
join:2009-04-26

3 edits

1 recommendation

josephf

Member

Netflix isn't the Australian courts or police

And Netflix isn't required to enforce any purported or actual violations by Australian consumers of their contractual, civil, local or national laws. And if Netflix is in breach of any of their contracts with the studios, insofar as this issue is concerned, that is a matter relevant directly and exclusively between the studios and Netflix and not other third-parties. And we can presume the studios would have addressed it directly with Netflix if that were so. Considering a competitive service in Australia is making a stink out of this, indicates the studios aren't concerned about it and their contracts don't require Netflix to enforce this type of banning rule being demanded.
josephf

josephf

Member

Australians outside Australia legitimately use their Australian credit card

Australians outside Australia legitimately use their Australian credit card to pay for Netflix in the countries they are in where Netflix is officially offered.

So banning Australian credit cards is unfair to Australians outside Australia and unfair to Netflix who rightfully may accept such customers to their service.

Packeteers
Premium Member
join:2005-06-18
Forest Hills, NY
Asus RT-AC3100
(Software) Asuswrt-Merlin

Packeteers

Premium Member

focus on the credit cards - ya wanker

i went through something similar trying to play a korean game from usa - you had to have a korean based smartphone to pay for it (everyone pays for stuff in korea using their phones). quickflix was stupid to focus on vpn use which should never be curtailed for any reason - it's the aussy payment method that netflix should not allow. of course austrailians can circumvent that as well, but at least it will make it harder for some to pick vpn based netflix over aussy quickflix.
albundyhere
join:2000-10-26
New York, NY

albundyhere

Member

Ban everything!

Not only should VPN be banned, but any goods including food coming into Australia. it would only be fair since it would also be affecting local business. I have never seen a company this cretinous in my entire life!

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium Member
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK

KrK

Premium Member

Translation: Stop competing, go away, don't serve our customers....

"Play by the rules"? He means "Don't offer your services here."

"We don't want competition."

"GO AWAY!"
67845017 (banned)
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL

67845017 (banned)

Member

Re: Translation: Stop competing, go away, don't serve our customers....

said by KrK:

"Play by the rules"? He means "Don't offer your services here."

"We don't want competition."

"GO AWAY!"

But he SAID he was pro-competition. He said it, he did.

I'm amazed that these people in technology fields are so stupid about technology.
SunnyD
join:2009-03-20
Madison, AL

SunnyD

Member

INTERnet.

INTER... INTERnet. I-N-T-E-R. Like "international".

*sigh*

maartena
Elmo
Premium Member
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA

maartena

Premium Member

Impossible to ban....

People all over the United States are using pre-paid VISA/Mastercard cards for online services like Netflix. They do this for security reasons (you can't be cleaned out if you have a pre-paid credit card if you just fill it up with $100 from time to tome) or in cases where you have bad credit or no credit (e.g. minors or recently arrived immigrants)

These prepaid gift cards can be gotten all over the United States, and can be loaded up using PayPal in many cases, and PayPal can be connected to an Australian bank or credit card. Whats even more, Netflix accepts PayPal itself.

Unless you are going to lobby to change the law IN the United States to BAN foreign card acceptance, nothing is really going to change. And that's unlikely to happen, Senators voting against companies making money from foreigners? Yeah... No. Not happening.

And Netflix isn't going to want to change this, as soon as they do secure deals in Australia, they would have an IMMEDIATE clientele of Australian customers that already have accounts.

Banning VPN's is also not the solution. There are plenty of Americans, living IN America, that use a VPN by default as their outgoing connection because they don't want their ISP snooping in on them. And they may be using the very same VPN providers as the Australians are using.

This is a really big, grey area of the law anyways. I use a VPN (or rather, a SmartDNS) to watch several Australian programs through their catch-up services, such as the Australian edition of Who Do You Think You Are? - because genealogy is something I find interesting. Is that illegal? Yes in the sense that I am not paying towards any type of TV license or tax in Australia, as the station I am watching this on is partly publicly funded by the Australian government. (Sort of the Australian version of PBS), but also NO, because geoblocking, and the circumventing of such is not determined to be legal or illegal in any country of the world at this moment. (As a matter of fact, Australian parliament considered adopting a law that would allow circumventing geoblocking, but it did not pass. The law was fueled by consumer demand, as Australia is usually the last to get anything "western", such as Netflix)

In the case of the UK for instance, one could argue that IF you pay a TV license, you can access their streams, even if you are abroad. There is about 1 million retirees living in Spain and Portugal for instance, which has been dubbed the "Florida of Britain", retired Britons seeking a warmer, more forgiving climate to escape the harsh English rain, BUT still keeping their pensions (and paying taxes) in the UK. With EU laws, this is possible nowadays, to keep your taxes and income taxes in one country and live in another. One could truly argue that those who live abroad in such a manner, are entitled to the television they pay for by paying for the TV license, and as such, use geoblocking workarounds to get to BBC iPlayer.

The circumvention of geoblocking is as old as geoblocking itself.

When "DivX" movies first started hitting the internet, the movie industry responded. It used to be that a movie was released in the USA and Canada first, then when it was considered a commercial success, 3 months later the movie was released in Europe. The same applied automatically to the release of the DVD, which was about the same amount of time after theater release. The invention of "DivX" meant that DVD's could be ripped, copied, and placed on the internet MONTHS before the movie was released to DVD in Europe. So they responded by releasing movies and TV series at the same time to theaters and television stations, and as such the DVD releases were also much much closer together. TV series DVD's are still behind often because TV stations often are months behind with their broadcast schedule, but the point is that if you want to prevent users from getting it illegally when it isn't available legally in their country...... make sure that it IS available legally in their country.

Bottom line: Netflix should simply BUY Quickflix and re-brand it.

camper
just visiting this planet
Premium Member
join:2010-03-21
Bethel, CT

camper

Premium Member

It is a PR manoeuvre on the part of Quickflix

 
Quickflix is just trying to draw attention to themselves in the hopes of attracting more customers to their service.

morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000

morbo

Member

Re: It is a PR manoeuvre on the part of Quickflix

They should try and attract customers in other locations like here in the U.S. I tried to sign up months ago, but sadly only Australian addresses allowed.

dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium Member
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ

dvd536

Premium Member

Quickflix

I bet they haven't got 5% of the catalog NF has.

maartena
Elmo
Premium Member
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA

maartena

Premium Member

Re: Quickflix

said by dvd536:

I bet they haven't got 5% of the catalog NF has.

This is likely the main problem. Netflix offers more content for less money, even converting to AUD. Now that doesn't include the price for a VPN which would make it more expensive, but there are free geoblocking browser plugins that also work.

IowaCowboy
Lost in the Supermarket
Premium Member
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA

IowaCowboy

Premium Member

I'd just like a VPN domestically

I'd like a VPN to put my GeoLocation in Iowa and not Massachusetts. I don't like how advertisers use your GeoLocation to target you with ads targeted towards the area.

As for Netflix, Australia is not bound by US Copyright law but they have their own copyright laws. And Netflix may not be licensed in Australia, just like you can't get DirecTV in Canada or Mexico. So Netflix may have their hands tied by Australian law in terms of content. Same reasoning why you can't legally get DirecTV in Canada even though you can install a dish and get their signal.

maartena
Elmo
Premium Member
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA

maartena

Premium Member

Re: I'd just like a VPN domestically

said by IowaCowboy:

I'd like a VPN to put my GeoLocation in Iowa and not Massachusetts. I don't like how advertisers use your GeoLocation to target you with ads targeted towards the area.

Most VPN providers offer this, albeit not VPN access in all 50 states. My VPN provider has a point-of-presence in three out of four continental time zones, with servers in Seatle, Nothern and Southern California, Chicago and Ashburn, VA.

You can investigate which VPN providers have access points in what states. I doubt you will find one that has all 50 states, but you may be able to find one that has one in the most important state for you.
said by IowaCowboy:

Same reasoning why you can't legally get DirecTV in Canada even though you can install a dish and get their signal.

And having family in Canada, I know of several people who have an account based off of a service address in the United States (a family member, or a 2nd house in Florida) and enjoy DirecTV in Canada.
NOVA_UAV_Guy
Premium Member
join:2012-12-14
Purcellville, VA

NOVA_UAV_Guy

Premium Member

Re: I'd just like a VPN domestically

said by maartena:

And having family in Canada, I know of several people who have an account based off of a service address in the United States (a family member, or a 2nd house in Florida) and enjoy DirecTV in Canada.

This is precisely the way that things should be. Content producers and consumers could be served much better by eliminating unnecessary geopolitical boundaries from content distribution, particularly in the age of the Internet when we're all connected in one or another anyhow. Governments and middlemen add no value to what's received (in fact, they detract from it by creating inefficiencies) and should be eliminated from the distribution chain whenever and wherever possible.

TheToro
Premium Member
join:2003-06-05
Atlanta, GA

TheToro

Premium Member

International Netflix sucks

it must be reason why Australians are going through all this trouble to get US Netflix, I lived in Canada for a year, it was so bad that I had to use one of those VPN services to get the US version. The other netflix versions suck outside of the US.

•••

buzz_4_20
join:2003-09-20
Dover, NH

buzz_4_20

Member

So...

If I were to sign up with the QuickFlix service and use a VPN from the US. He'd want to suspend my account?

I can hardly believe that.
AmericanMan
Premium Member
join:2013-12-28
united state

AmericanMan

Premium Member

Re: So...

Ooh good point -- somebody should try that, see what happens
perryrpj
Premium Member
join:2006-06-14
Bedford, TX

perryrpj

Premium Member

F the Australian competitor

F the Australian competitor

RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY

RARPSL

Member

Offer to Sell It to Me or Shut Up

If a company is not willing to supply some good, they IMO have no right to complain if a potential (but ticked off) customer somehow gets it somewhere else. So long as they are unwilling to offer the movies to Australian customers, they have no right to say that that the movies can not be gotten from some other source (such as a VPN session to Netflix). It is hard to claim to be losing money on an item you refuse to sell.
page: 1 · 2 · next