9 ms·

Besides the security implications, if there's no way to legally stream Disney content in my country and I desperately want to watch it for some reason I'll pira

Besides the security implications, if there's no way to legally stream Disney content in my country and I desperately want to watch it for some reason I'll pirate it. Why should I jump through hoops to give them (and an unconnected third party) my money if they don't want me as a customer? I'm making a genuine effort to keep all my entertainment above board by being a paying customer to Netflix, Amazon, Spotify, Google Play, YouTube Premium, Steam and a few others, but I have to say that my patience is wearing very thin with TV/movie studios and their idiotic licensing shenanigans.

alwayseasy 7y ago
What's worse, is that they can't snap a finger and distribute worldwide. They lobbied themselves into legal corners with all these licensing shenanigans.
- burnte 7y ago
  They absolutely can if they choose to. They own the rights, they don't need nations' permission to do things with it. However, their lawyers need lots of time to create all sorts of artificially restrictive terms of service and silly contracts with partners rather than just opening the service worldwide.
  - shaklee3 7y ago
    That's absolutely not true. It's the reason movies like Coco are still on Netflix and not Disney plus. You can't just renege on a previous contract because you started your own streaming service. These things take time.
    - burnte 7y ago
      I was unclear, I meant that the restrictions are artificial; based on contracts and in-company reasoning, not that the law prevents them from letting users in other nations buy subscriptions. Yes, they can't reneg on contracts, but the only reason Disney+ isn't available in other nations is entirely of their own making, and they could let Ukranians or Vietnamese into Disney+ whenever they choose (aside from existing agreed upon obligations), there is no national-legal restriction.
      - alwayseasy 7y ago
        While you are right Disney+ could open everywhere, it makes no business sense to launch in some countries with underwhelming media libraries especially when it's the crux of the Disney marketing. Many countries that have "Media Laws" that define when movies can be broadcasted on streaming services.
  - Mindwipe 7y ago
    > They own the rights They don't, and they are tied into long term exclusivity contracts in many territories. It's pretty well established that in the UK for example they can't launch the service until the exclusive first pay window distribution deal they have with Sky on all the Marvel titles expires, and that's pretty obviously on the 31st March 2020.
    - burnte 7y ago
      As I mentioned to someone else, I was unclear. I meant there's no legislative reason then can't let foreign users into Disney+, contractual obligations are agreements that expire, as opposed to a statute prohibition on being open to other customers.
- tluyben2 7y ago
  A lot of it is totally new content; how could they not write up the contracts a few months ago to allow global distro?
  - Mindwipe 7y ago
    About a tenth of 1% is totally new content. There's really a couple of documentaries, two features and the Mandalorian. And that's it. They couldn't launch the service with just that - Apple are struggling a lot and basically giving away their service and they still have more than that.
felipelemos 7y ago
Copyright law should have a way to allow the content be shared for free if the copyright holder block the distribution themselves with no good reason.
- zhte415 7y ago
  Define 'good reason'.
  - tluyben2 7y ago
    Anything where they (the copyright holders) provide content to one group (region, etc) for $X and you are willing to pay at least $X as well but cannot.
    - Mindwipe 7y ago
      That isn't a good reason.
      - tluyben2 7y ago
        Yeah, reading back it is not a reason at all; just a solution I would agree with (as human and copyright holder).
- Shorel 7y ago
  In some countries, for some media, this is allowed. Of course the USA tries to prevent this with all its might.
lilyball 7y ago
Why do you believe you're entitled to content that the content owner doesn't want to offer you? Practically speaking, yes, people will pirate it if it's not easily available otherwise. But that doesn't make it morally right.
- Barrin92 7y ago
  >Why do you believe you're entitled to content that the content owner doesn't want to offer you? pirating something that you can't even legally purchase is about as close to a victimless crime as it gets. If anyone actually feels guilty about this they can donate the value to the against malaria foundation and have done the world a net good honestly, I find the IP mentality of large companies like Disney immoral who hoard IP like a dragon hoards a lair of gold. I'd be in favour of 'use it or lose it'
  - sneak 7y ago
    Copying information is already victimless. No one is harmed or wronged by magnetizing some disks or tape a certain way in your house.
  - katbyte 7y ago
    As much as I hate copyright if someone doesn’t want to sell something to you or licence it or share it they are under no obligation to. I’m sorry but why do you feel you have a right to any content? It’s just a movie/tv show/book. Thou as a write this I consider the implications of it was educational and only available to a nation or race and not having it would put one at a disadvantage ala scientific papers...
    - tluyben2 7y ago
      The thing is; they do want to sell it to me; it will appear in a few months/years. At least in case of films/shows. So that ‘the copyright holder does not want’ is not true; they just signed contracts with actors, writers etc for a certain region to pay less and/or get more %.
    - 7y ago
tluyben2 7y ago
This. I do what I can but if shows I watch suddenly end in ‘my region’ while it continues in another then I will find a way. It is the internet and it is global; the old way of regions needs to go; it has been gone for a while for but I want to pay for my Netflix to be the same as the US (etc) one. It is not though; I do not watch too much but when ‘they’ get me hooked and then run seasons behind another season, well... I was explained why it is that way, but, like you, that wears thin these days; they had at least a decade to fix it for new content but they keep doing it.

alwayseasy 7y ago

What's worse, is that they can't snap a finger and distribute worldwide. They lobbied themselves into legal corners with all these licensing shenanigans.

burnte 7y ago
They absolutely can if they choose to. They own the rights, they don't need nations' permission to do things with it. However, their lawyers need lots of time to create all sorts of artificially restrictive terms of service and silly contracts with partners rather than just opening the service worldwide.
- shaklee3 7y ago
  That's absolutely not true. It's the reason movies like Coco are still on Netflix and not Disney plus. You can't just renege on a previous contract because you started your own streaming service. These things take time.
  - burnte 7y ago
    I was unclear, I meant that the restrictions are artificial; based on contracts and in-company reasoning, not that the law prevents them from letting users in other nations buy subscriptions. Yes, they can't reneg on contracts, but the only reason Disney+ isn't available in other nations is entirely of their own making, and they could let Ukranians or Vietnamese into Disney+ whenever they choose (aside from existing agreed upon obligations), there is no national-legal restriction.
    - alwayseasy 7y ago
      While you are right Disney+ could open everywhere, it makes no business sense to launch in some countries with underwhelming media libraries especially when it's the crux of the Disney marketing. Many countries that have "Media Laws" that define when movies can be broadcasted on streaming services.
- Mindwipe 7y ago
  > They own the rights They don't, and they are tied into long term exclusivity contracts in many territories. It's pretty well established that in the UK for example they can't launch the service until the exclusive first pay window distribution deal they have with Sky on all the Marvel titles expires, and that's pretty obviously on the 31st March 2020.
  - burnte 7y ago
    As I mentioned to someone else, I was unclear. I meant there's no legislative reason then can't let foreign users into Disney+, contractual obligations are agreements that expire, as opposed to a statute prohibition on being open to other customers.
tluyben2 7y ago
A lot of it is totally new content; how could they not write up the contracts a few months ago to allow global distro?
- Mindwipe 7y ago
  About a tenth of 1% is totally new content. There's really a couple of documentaries, two features and the Mandalorian. And that's it. They couldn't launch the service with just that - Apple are struggling a lot and basically giving away their service and they still have more than that.

felipelemos 7y ago

Copyright law should have a way to allow the content be shared for free if the copyright holder block the distribution themselves with no good reason.

zhte415 7y ago
Define 'good reason'.
- tluyben2 7y ago
  Anything where they (the copyright holders) provide content to one group (region, etc) for $X and you are willing to pay at least $X as well but cannot.
  - Mindwipe 7y ago
    That isn't a good reason.
    - tluyben2 7y ago
      Yeah, reading back it is not a reason at all; just a solution I would agree with (as human and copyright holder).
Shorel 7y ago
In some countries, for some media, this is allowed. Of course the USA tries to prevent this with all its might.

lilyball 7y ago

Why do you believe you're entitled to content that the content owner doesn't want to offer you? Practically speaking, yes, people will pirate it if it's not easily available otherwise. But that doesn't make it morally right.

Barrin92 7y ago
>Why do you believe you're entitled to content that the content owner doesn't want to offer you? pirating something that you can't even legally purchase is about as close to a victimless crime as it gets. If anyone actually feels guilty about this they can donate the value to the against malaria foundation and have done the world a net good honestly, I find the IP mentality of large companies like Disney immoral who hoard IP like a dragon hoards a lair of gold. I'd be in favour of 'use it or lose it'
- sneak 7y ago
  Copying information is already victimless. No one is harmed or wronged by magnetizing some disks or tape a certain way in your house.
- katbyte 7y ago
  As much as I hate copyright if someone doesn’t want to sell something to you or licence it or share it they are under no obligation to. I’m sorry but why do you feel you have a right to any content? It’s just a movie/tv show/book. Thou as a write this I consider the implications of it was educational and only available to a nation or race and not having it would put one at a disadvantage ala scientific papers...
  - tluyben2 7y ago
    The thing is; they do want to sell it to me; it will appear in a few months/years. At least in case of films/shows. So that ‘the copyright holder does not want’ is not true; they just signed contracts with actors, writers etc for a certain region to pay less and/or get more %.
  - 7y ago

tluyben2 7y ago

This. I do what I can but if shows I watch suddenly end in ‘my region’ while it continues in another then I will find a way. It is the internet and it is global; the old way of regions needs to go; it has been gone for a while for but I want to pay for my Netflix to be the same as the US (etc) one. It is not though; I do not watch too much but when ‘they’ get me hooked and then run seasons behind another season, well... I was explained why it is that way, but, like you, that wears thin these days; they had at least a decade to fix it for new content but they keep doing it.