4 ms·

My family uses netflix. I don't. Every time I want to watch something I cannot find it. 10,000 titles is nothing in a world where The Simpsons has several hu

My family uses netflix. I don't. Every time I want to watch something I cannot find it. 10,000 titles is nothing in a world where The Simpsons has several hundred. Netflix needs more and deeper content. I won't admit to ever downloading something without full written permission of the copyright holder, carved in stone and witnessed by three saints, but last night I did watch "Black Books" after not finding it on Netflix or any other service. (If you are a fan of 'Father Ted' or 'The IT Crowd', Black Books was done by the same people and contains many of the same jokes.)

smeyer 12y ago
It looks like Amazon's video service has Black Books. Do they only have some of the episodes? Did you just not find them or not want to pay for them?
- sandworm 12y ago
  When I looked I couldn't find it on Amazon. It might be a licensing issue as I'm in Canada. (A VERY common issue north of the boarder.) Using a VPN to bypass such a restriction is just as much a copyright violation as downloading from thepiratebay.
  - mxfh 12y ago
    It's a contract-, TOS-, trade- or tax-code-violation but not "as much a copyright violation" as plain old piracy.
    - sandworm 12y ago
      That's up for debate. Some rights groups (the mpaa etc) see a vpn as "bypassing technical protections". Once upon a time some claimed it a CFAA violation in that you were accessing a computer system under false pretences, ie you were fibbing about your location. BS imho and CFAA law has moved on from such interpretations, but some still call for netflix to block VPNs. Either way you are creating an unlicensed copy, or at least a performance, of the work. It would be the local license holders right to go after you, or Netflix, for violating "their" copyrights.
      - mxfh 12y ago
        It's accessing the internet from a different IP, not a different location, the whole idea of an IP (without additional information) being equivalent with a proof of physical location will most likely not hold up as a legal concept in a higher court. So called geo-fencing by IP only is fuzzy by definition. The copy is licensed since it's made available by the distributor to the customer. It's the distributors duty to the determine if a customer is eligible for purchase or not, best way would be having to provide a verifiable invoice address within the region of the granted license. An IP is a best guess at best, but not a verifiable proof of the physical location of the end customer. Netflix doesn't ask for an invoice address, Amazon Prime does. Amazon also has siloed accounts for each market where you would have to have multiple subscriptions in different countries to access the local offerings, where as NETFLIX has only one global platform. If an US-resident purchases a US-NETFLIX subscription travels abroad for a short or long period it shouldn't make a legal difference if a private VPN to the home's IP or a commercial VPN service is used. By all enforceable concepts the place of purchase of the subscription is the relevant thing for having a valid license for private use, not the place of consumption. Also I can't see why the first-sale doctrine wouldn't apply here either. Rights holder sold a distribution license to Netflix under certain restrictions (first sale). With Netflix distributing the copy to the end customer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine
        sandworm 12y ago
        First sale doesn't apply because you are purchasing a "license" not a "copy". Licenses are essentially contracts through which parties can create all sorts of restrictions that wouldn't apply to copies. Top of the list are restrictions on selling the license to others, ie non-transferability. The problem with Netflix really starts long before the consumer. With something like Black Books, which predates the netflix concept, nobody has universal distribution rights. The original creator, the BBC, long ago sold the American rights to someone else (PBS?). So there is nobody from which Netflix can purchase worldwide rights. Netflix instead purchases whatever rights they find and must mirrors them. Netflix very recently spoke out on this issue. http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/netflix-upholds-geoblocking-rules-amid-reports-of-crackdown-1.2889895 http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/netflix-upholds-geoblocking-...
joshuapants 12y ago
The biggest issue with content is that rights-holders either don't want their programs on Netflix or they don't think they'll be paid enough. I think Netflix is in a sweet spot on pricing (if the charge substantially more, people may be more inclined to stop subscribing) so paying more to attract the heel-draggers may mot be an option. That's part of the reason why they're making their own series. Eventually rights-holders won't have much choice but to allow streaming, but for the immediate future they're the bottleneck.
- rhino369 12y ago
  IP holders have pretty much embraced streaming. They have not embraced Netflix's price point. And at 8 bucks a month, I don't think it is reasonable to expect them too. I don't think 8 bucks is enough revenue to be a major source of funding all the content that is produced. Netflix has been essentially freeriding on cinema goers and live tv watchers who subsidize all the content creation. If Netflix replaces those sources, it'll have to provide similar revenue.
  - vasilipupkin 12y ago
    exactly. Why don't they have a full catalog of everything out there and let me pay 5 bucks for a particular movie I want to watch?
prutschman 12y ago
This is really to your point, not against it, but Black Books used to be on Netflix.

smeyer 12y ago

It looks like Amazon's video service has Black Books. Do they only have some of the episodes? Did you just not find them or not want to pay for them?

sandworm 12y ago
When I looked I couldn't find it on Amazon. It might be a licensing issue as I'm in Canada. (A VERY common issue north of the boarder.) Using a VPN to bypass such a restriction is just as much a copyright violation as downloading from thepiratebay.
- mxfh 12y ago
  It's a contract-, TOS-, trade- or tax-code-violation but not "as much a copyright violation" as plain old piracy.
  - sandworm 12y ago
    That's up for debate. Some rights groups (the mpaa etc) see a vpn as "bypassing technical protections". Once upon a time some claimed it a CFAA violation in that you were accessing a computer system under false pretences, ie you were fibbing about your location. BS imho and CFAA law has moved on from such interpretations, but some still call for netflix to block VPNs. Either way you are creating an unlicensed copy, or at least a performance, of the work. It would be the local license holders right to go after you, or Netflix, for violating "their" copyrights.
    - mxfh 12y ago
      It's accessing the internet from a different IP, not a different location, the whole idea of an IP (without additional information) being equivalent with a proof of physical location will most likely not hold up as a legal concept in a higher court. So called geo-fencing by IP only is fuzzy by definition. The copy is licensed since it's made available by the distributor to the customer. It's the distributors duty to the determine if a customer is eligible for purchase or not, best way would be having to provide a verifiable invoice address within the region of the granted license. An IP is a best guess at best, but not a verifiable proof of the physical location of the end customer. Netflix doesn't ask for an invoice address, Amazon Prime does. Amazon also has siloed accounts for each market where you would have to have multiple subscriptions in different countries to access the local offerings, where as NETFLIX has only one global platform. If an US-resident purchases a US-NETFLIX subscription travels abroad for a short or long period it shouldn't make a legal difference if a private VPN to the home's IP or a commercial VPN service is used. By all enforceable concepts the place of purchase of the subscription is the relevant thing for having a valid license for private use, not the place of consumption. Also I can't see why the first-sale doctrine wouldn't apply here either. Rights holder sold a distribution license to Netflix under certain restrictions (first sale). With Netflix distributing the copy to the end customer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine
      - sandworm 12y ago
        First sale doesn't apply because you are purchasing a "license" not a "copy". Licenses are essentially contracts through which parties can create all sorts of restrictions that wouldn't apply to copies. Top of the list are restrictions on selling the license to others, ie non-transferability. The problem with Netflix really starts long before the consumer. With something like Black Books, which predates the netflix concept, nobody has universal distribution rights. The original creator, the BBC, long ago sold the American rights to someone else (PBS?). So there is nobody from which Netflix can purchase worldwide rights. Netflix instead purchases whatever rights they find and must mirrors them. Netflix very recently spoke out on this issue. http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/netflix-upholds-geoblocking-rules-amid-reports-of-crackdown-1.2889895 http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/netflix-upholds-geoblocking-...

joshuapants 12y ago

The biggest issue with content is that rights-holders either don't want their programs on Netflix or they don't think they'll be paid enough. I think Netflix is in a sweet spot on pricing (if the charge substantially more, people may be more inclined to stop subscribing) so paying more to attract the heel-draggers may mot be an option. That's part of the reason why they're making their own series. Eventually rights-holders won't have much choice but to allow streaming, but for the immediate future they're the bottleneck.

rhino369 12y ago
IP holders have pretty much embraced streaming. They have not embraced Netflix's price point. And at 8 bucks a month, I don't think it is reasonable to expect them too. I don't think 8 bucks is enough revenue to be a major source of funding all the content that is produced. Netflix has been essentially freeriding on cinema goers and live tv watchers who subsidize all the content creation. If Netflix replaces those sources, it'll have to provide similar revenue.
- vasilipupkin 12y ago
  exactly. Why don't they have a full catalog of everything out there and let me pay 5 bucks for a particular movie I want to watch?

prutschman 12y ago

This is really to your point, not against it, but Black Books used to be on Netflix.