4 ms·

Hello popcorn time and torrents in general, I really gave it a fair go to pay for content.

rhino369 11y ago
If you are using a proxy you weren't really paying for content in the first place because Netflix didn't have the right to sell it to you.
- CaptSpify 11y ago
  So the money never left his account? Interesting!
  - rhino369 11y ago
    You are paying Netflix for different content. It's like renting a room at Motel6 and walking into a Hilton and sleeping there instead. Sure you paid, but you didn't pay for that Hilton room.
    - KMag 11y ago
      From a different prospective, he's willing to pay for content in his area. By refusing Netflix the rights to sell the content in his area, the rights holders are indirectly refusing to sell him the content. He offered them the money, but now it goes to someone else. By showing the money is there in his market, he does encourage the rights holders to allow Netflix to sell in his market. I understand other entities likely hold the rights in his area than the ones allowing Netflix to sell content in the US. Analogies only go so far, but it's more like he tried to pay for a Hilton room in Elbonia, and Hilton said "No f'ing way we allow franchises in Elbonia", so he paid for a Motel6 and then went and slept for free in an abandoned building where someone had illegally written Hilton above the door. Yes, Hilton's intellectual property rights are being violated, but he's not incurring direct costs upon Hilton, and he did give first offer to Hilton. Hilton is losing opportunity cost, but it's hard to blame the person who tried to pay them.
      - rhino369 11y ago
        The problem with your analysis here is assuming that these right holders aren't licensing their content in these countries. And sometimes that is true. In those cases, it's a sort of no-harm no-foul situation. If the person can't pay, no revenue was lost. But a lot of the time they are making it available, but Netflix just isn't the company who bought it. It is netflix's job to go and spend teh money to get content licenses for countries where they are selling their service.
    - CaptSpify 11y ago
      If that really is your argument, then you'd need to change your statement to be "weren't really paying netflix for content". That being said, Motel6 gave him the key to the Hilton, he just had to walk over and use it
    - johanneskanybal 11y ago
      It's a bad analogy. I want both the Hilton and Motel6, am prepared to pay for it and currently pay More than the Hilton user. Stepping away from the broken analogy the concept that some provider decides what media I consume is hilarious and I'll never accept that. Take spotify as a good case, the only reason they work is that they provide me with pretty much everything I want to listen to, granted some indie folks will disagree. Meanwhile for video it's still a much more fragmented landscape and this is a step in the wrong direction.

If you are using a proxy you weren't really paying for content in the first place because Netflix didn't have the right to sell it to you.

CaptSpify 11y ago
So the money never left his account? Interesting!
- rhino369 11y ago
  You are paying Netflix for different content. It's like renting a room at Motel6 and walking into a Hilton and sleeping there instead. Sure you paid, but you didn't pay for that Hilton room.
  - KMag 11y ago
    From a different prospective, he's willing to pay for content in his area. By refusing Netflix the rights to sell the content in his area, the rights holders are indirectly refusing to sell him the content. He offered them the money, but now it goes to someone else. By showing the money is there in his market, he does encourage the rights holders to allow Netflix to sell in his market. I understand other entities likely hold the rights in his area than the ones allowing Netflix to sell content in the US. Analogies only go so far, but it's more like he tried to pay for a Hilton room in Elbonia, and Hilton said "No f'ing way we allow franchises in Elbonia", so he paid for a Motel6 and then went and slept for free in an abandoned building where someone had illegally written Hilton above the door. Yes, Hilton's intellectual property rights are being violated, but he's not incurring direct costs upon Hilton, and he did give first offer to Hilton. Hilton is losing opportunity cost, but it's hard to blame the person who tried to pay them.
    - rhino369 11y ago
      The problem with your analysis here is assuming that these right holders aren't licensing their content in these countries. And sometimes that is true. In those cases, it's a sort of no-harm no-foul situation. If the person can't pay, no revenue was lost. But a lot of the time they are making it available, but Netflix just isn't the company who bought it. It is netflix's job to go and spend teh money to get content licenses for countries where they are selling their service.
  - CaptSpify 11y ago
    If that really is your argument, then you'd need to change your statement to be "weren't really paying netflix for content". That being said, Motel6 gave him the key to the Hilton, he just had to walk over and use it
  - johanneskanybal 11y ago
    It's a bad analogy. I want both the Hilton and Motel6, am prepared to pay for it and currently pay More than the Hilton user. Stepping away from the broken analogy the concept that some provider decides what media I consume is hilarious and I'll never accept that. Take spotify as a good case, the only reason they work is that they provide me with pretty much everything I want to listen to, granted some indie folks will disagree. Meanwhile for video it's still a much more fragmented landscape and this is a step in the wrong direction.