News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:After Netflix crackdown on border-hopping, Canadians read... by planetjones on Tuesday April 26, 2016 @08:54AM (#11571387)
I am an English person living in Switzerland. Netflix Switzerland is useless to me (no House of Cards, not enough focus on UK and USA content, etc.).

Therefore I had a Netflix USA account, which I accessed via unblock-us. The clampdown by Netflix has been "successful" and I now can't access Netflix USA using unblock-us.

This happened halfway through watching House of Cards. So my choice was either stop watching or download the remaining episodes...

I am tired of companies talking about borderless trade, global economy, etc. when the distribution of movies and tv shows is stuck in the sad world of geo-restrictions. I also legally get access to UK TV channels through my cable subscription, but I don't get access to iPlayer as that's only for UK residents... so again the only option to catch-up on TV that I forgot to record, is to use an unblocker.

Re:After Netflix crackdown on border-hopping, Canadians read... by WA on Tuesday April 26, 2016 @03:48PM (#11575005)
This time, I wanted to watch Game of Thrones legally – from Germany. The rights are with Sky Online, a 10 bucks a month subscription service. Sounds good in theory. I signed up and then:

    - I had to wait 25 minutes for the activation email
    - I activated my account, but it wouldn’t let me access my account settings for another 25 minutes
    - then I had to install Silverlight (I’m on OS X)
    - then I tried to start the stream, which resulted in an OS freeze and something like the OS X blue screen, which I have never seen ever before
    - then I rebooted and tried again, which failed with the *authentication* step
    - the web inspector showed a bunch of JS and/or Silverlight errors
    - I gave up and installed Silverlight on my wife’s Win 10 machine
    - the stream would load, but it has hard-coded German subtitles for signs and Dothraki scenes, which is annoying.
    - it has no optional English subtitles
    - it is only HD, not Full HD
    - stream was kind of laggy
So, now compare this to the pirated process:

    - downloads very fast
    - usually there are subtitles
    - superb quality
    - I can watch whenever I want with the player I want
    - no browser plugins, no errors, no nothing.
    - it just works
Re:After Netflix crackdown on border-hopping, Canadians read... by russdill on Tuesday April 26, 2016 @04:12PM (#11575202)
Not only that, but the media players available let you use downloaded subtitles, in some cases automatically fetching them.
Re:After Netflix crackdown on border-hopping, Canadians read... by DavidTWco on Wednesday April 27, 2016 @12:08PM (#11581693)
I have my media collection in Plex set up this way, subtitles are automatically fetched from OpenSubtitles.org for my entire collection.
Re:After Netflix crackdown on border-hopping, Canadians read... by ukyrgf on Tuesday April 26, 2016 @04:21PM (#11575302)
Before HBO Go people in the US had to wait and buy the DVD or Blu-ray too . You aren't forced to pirate something just because you need to watch it NOW.
Re:After Netflix crackdown on border-hopping, Canadians read... by WA on Tuesday April 26, 2016 @04:29PM (#11575348)
This is not about me being forced to pirate anything. It's about offering paying customers a way worse service than people who just download a copy illegaly.

It's not too hard to slap a PayPal or Stripe button in front of an HTML5 video with optional Flash fallback. But no, legal entities need to make sure that you won't rip them off with their digital rights nonsense.

I understand that this is mostly a legal requirement, but the technical implementation still sucks tremendously up to a point where I wonder, why a service that charges money can't afford better developers than a free service.

Re:After Netflix crackdown on border-hopping, Canadians read... by sintaxi on Wednesday April 27, 2016 @12:04AM (#11577761)
It bothers me so much that I cant just go to gameofthrones.com, put in my credit card and watch the show.
Re:After Netflix crackdown on border-hopping, Canadians read... by WA on Wednesday April 27, 2016 @05:39AM (#11578929)
Exactly. They try to sell you their HBO Whatever thing, which isn't even available outside of the US. The amount of revenue lost because of the unnecessary complex process is mind-boggling.

Also: It's not that piracy is without hassles. The piracy-process could easily be outperformed by making it as simple as payment button in front of a media player or downloadable file.

Because when I want to download GoT as a torrent, I have to install a BitTorrent client, I have to go find the torrent files, I must look at ads for porn sites, I often must find the right download button in spammy-looking sites, I need to distinguish which file I actually want and see if it's a fake or not.

The piracy process is difficult enough for most people, but it's still so much easier than the process of watching the show legally.

I simply can't wrap my head around this.

Re:After Netflix crackdown on border-hopping, Canadians read... by xbmcuser on Friday April 29, 2016 @09:40AM (#11595616)
You don't really have to do that just setup something like sonarr. Select the shows you want the episodes are downloaded as released and you don't have to visit spammy sites etc. It will check and download all the correct files and rename them to a naming convention of your choice etc. Setting up an app like that once is a lot easier than going through the hassle of drm or georestrictions. Netflix used to boast that with them entering the market piracy went down but now with georestrictions they will go back up.
Re:After Netflix crackdown on border-hopping, Canadians read... by dijit on Tuesday April 26, 2016 @10:05AM (#11571938)
Similar thing happened to me. I'm British living in Sweden. Not only is the selection poor it also does no contain English subtitles for anything; which is frustrating when trying to watch foreign movies.

So I turned my NAS back on and cancelled my subscription.

I'm happy paying content providers, I really am. I visit the cinema, buy DVDs and even songs on iTunes. But if you stop me or hinder me to the point where piracy is a significantly easier option (Or only one illegal option when there are only illegal options) then I'm going to do it.

(This is slightly annoying however because there is a rather large "netflix" button on my new TV remote.)

Re:After Netflix crackdown on border-hopping, Canadians read... by kennywinker on Tuesday April 26, 2016 @10:01AM (#11571895)
This blows my mind. How on earth does Netflix not have the rights to show their own show in Switzerland? I understand their hands are sometimes tied in getting content from the studios, but they own House of Cards... I'm so confused how they could end up in that situation...
Re:After Netflix crackdown on border-hopping, Canadians read... by detaro on Tuesday April 26, 2016 @10:02AM (#11571909)
Simple: They sold exclusive rights in quite a few countries to TV networks before they expanded there.
Re:After Netflix crackdown on border-hopping, Canadians read... by michaelbuckbee on Tuesday April 26, 2016 @10:13AM (#11572007)
Not disagreeing, but it still seems odd as the Netflix Original Content is the big carrot to get people hooked into their ecosystem.
Re:After Netflix crackdown on border-hopping, Canadians read... by messick on Tuesday April 26, 2016 @01:09PM (#11573672)
"Netflix Original Content" doesn't really mean anything anyway. Better Call Saul is "Netflix Original Content" in every country but the United States, even though they had nothing to do with getting it made. They just bought the non-US rights: http://promo.xfm.co.uk/bettercallsaul/images/970x250_backup_...
Re:After Netflix crackdown on border-hopping, Canadians read... by talmand on Tuesday April 26, 2016 @03:15PM (#11574713)
They do the same thing here in the US or I guess Netflix is creating a large number of foreign movies and TV shows.
Re:After Netflix crackdown on border-hopping, Canadians read... by boyter on Tuesday April 26, 2016 @04:51PM (#11575507)
Not in Australia. Better Call Saul is on a Netflix competitor called Stan.
Re:After Netflix crackdown on border-hopping, Canadians read... by detaro on Tuesday April 26, 2016 @10:21AM (#11572073)
I can only assume they didn't plan to expand this quickly and would have lost a lot of money by adding "in case we are in this market by then" clauses to the contracts. But yes, it certainly leaves a strange impression.
Re:After Netflix crackdown on border-hopping, Canadians read... by sdm on Tuesday April 26, 2016 @08:03PM (#11576823)
Just because something is "Netflix Original Content" in one country doesn't mean it's "Netflix Original Content" in another. For example "The 100" is "Netflix Original Content" in Canada but in the US it's not -- it's distributed by some TV network.
Re:After Netflix crackdown on border-hopping, Canadians read... by mschuster91 on Tuesday April 26, 2016 @01:50PM (#11574053)
> How on earth does Netflix not have the rights to show their own show in Switzerland?

One often-overlooked point is soundtracks. This is why there's no official Cold Case DVD/BD set - it would be prohibitively expensive to license all the music for distribution outside of TV.

Re:After Netflix crackdown on border-hopping, Canadians read... by tracker1 on Tuesday April 26, 2016 @05:50PM (#11576001)
Same thing with "Wonder Years" it's all about licensing... hell "Daria" had to replace significant portions of the music (thankfully they had the original separate tracks to work from).
Re:After Netflix crackdown on border-hopping, Canadians read... by semi-extrinsic on Tuesday April 26, 2016 @04:08PM (#11575166)
Another case in point: House MD doesn't have Massive Attack's "Teardrop" as the intro theme anywhere outside the US.
Re:After Netflix crackdown on border-hopping, Canadians read... by mikeryan on Tuesday April 26, 2016 @03:59PM (#11575096)
Netflix doesn't "own" House of Cards.

Media Rights Capital "owns" House of Cards, Netflix distributes the show. Even then MRC's rights are probably limited because they bought the rights to the concept from the BBC who originally did House of Cards as a mini-series.

Re:After Netflix crackdown on border-hopping, Canadians read... by majormajor on Tuesday April 26, 2016 @01:11PM (#11573693)
IIRC Netflix purchased the streaming rights for House of Cards from a studio, but the studio sold rights to others for medias/locations Netflix wasn't in at the time. E.g. you can buy House of Cards on disc from Sony, or on various on-demand services. Or possibly for streaming, Netflix had those rights but sublicensed them before expanding (oops, if that's the case).
Re:After Netflix crackdown on border-hopping, Canadians read... by rhino369 on Tuesday April 26, 2016 @04:27PM (#11575331)
Netflix doesn't even have an exclusive liscense for the USA. IIRC House of Cards S1 is on comcast xfinity streaming.
Re:After Netflix crackdown on border-hopping, Canadians read... by maruhan2 on Wednesday April 27, 2016 @03:56AM (#11578558)
Because Netflix (or other companies) just simply do not have the resources to manage the duty of distributing content all over the world. Hence, there exists regional distributors. Allocating duties to those regional distributors means that you'll need to sign a contract that gives those distributors special rights.
Re:After Netflix crackdown on border-hopping, Canadians read... by Grishnakh on Tuesday April 26, 2016 @11:22AM (#11572608)
I'm not familiar with unblock-us. Would a VPN service work, or have they figured out how to block those too? I would imagine that to do that, they'd have to keep lists of IP addresses associated with the VPN services they want to block.
Re:After Netflix crackdown on border-hopping, Canadians read... by djrogers on Tuesday April 26, 2016 @12:06PM (#11573028)
> they'd have to keep lists of IP addresses associated with the VPN services they want to block.

Yeah, that's probably what they're doing. It wouldn't be too hard for them to get the first 95% either - beyond ARIN/NIC registration searches etc, they could just look for IP addresses that often have a large number of subscribers behind them, especially a large number of non-us subscribers.

Re:After Netflix crackdown on border-hopping, Canadians read... by 9point6 on Tuesday April 26, 2016 @11:35AM (#11572725)
They block anything they can detect as a VPN, which is a pain in the arse, because I don't want to browse at all without a VPN, so I can't use netflix at all any more.
Re:After Netflix crackdown on border-hopping, Canadians read... by pmalynin on Tuesday April 26, 2016 @01:16PM (#11573742)
How I solved this problem. Bought a $5 DO instance, which gets me a personal ip that is located in the states combined with OpenVPN I can watch Netflix and do many other things that are US only.
Re:After Netflix crackdown on border-hopping, Canadians read... by sheraz on Tuesday April 26, 2016 @01:27PM (#11573826)
Does this still work? I have a pptp server up on one of these for Netflix, and I'm getting negged. Should I just rotate the server onto a new IP?
Re:After Netflix crackdown on border-hopping, Canadians read... by rabidrabbit on Tuesday April 26, 2016 @02:16PM (#11574285)
There is a Docker container on github ( https://github.com/ab77/netflix-proxy ) that uses a proxy and an IPv6 tunnel that allegedly works with DO's VPS, but I haven't tried it myself.

A normally configured proxy and VPN usually end up with a flagged IP, as I've read multiple reports of people trying with DO or Amazon EC2 nodes.

Re:After Netflix crackdown on border-hopping, Canadians read... by russdill on Tuesday April 26, 2016 @04:10PM (#11575185)
I hear that using an ssh socks tunnel currently functions.
Re:After Netflix crackdown on border-hopping, Canadians read... by tracker1 on Tuesday April 26, 2016 @05:46PM (#11575966)
You may be able to use a cheap VPS, and use that as a proxy server to your account. Though, keep an eye on how much data is allowed, and if the VPS/Cloud host actually tracks data usage.
Re:After Netflix crackdown on border-hopping, Canadians read... by roosterjm2k2 on Tuesday April 26, 2016 @03:30PM (#11574829)
I think the reply would be... why do you feel entitled to consume content that you didn't create, in the first place?

You had the choice to stop watching... and thats the only legal choice. To pretend that doing something illegal because you feel entitled to it is right, thats a little bit... childish?

Re:After Netflix crackdown on border-hopping, Canadians read... by Programmatic on Tuesday April 26, 2016 @04:07PM (#11575154)
Illegal is not immoral; copyright is a legal construct designed to reward content creators for their works for a limited period of time before it enters the public domain. Our history, culture, and heritage is a fabric of works created by individuals that enter the public consciousness. If you co-opt culture and won't offer it to people through legitimate means, don't be surprised if they go to the frictionless and better value proposition of copying information from the internet without permission.
Re:After Netflix crackdown on border-hopping, Canadians read... by roosterjm2k2 on Tuesday April 26, 2016 @04:52PM (#11575516)
...Because they feel entitled to the content...
Re:After Netflix crackdown on border-hopping, Canadians read... by atemerev on Tuesday April 26, 2016 @05:29PM (#11575817)
You keep confusing "being entitled to content" and "being entitled to equal and non-discriminatory treatment". Do you understand the difference?
Re:After Netflix crackdown on border-hopping, Canadians read... by roosterjm2k2 on Tuesday April 26, 2016 @05:36PM (#11575880)
No, thats not at all what it is. There are regulatory and legal reasons why netflix content (even specific content) isnt available everywhere. Its not discriminatory.

Its simple entitlement. Don't try to confuse the issue by making it about some kind of discriminatory issue. A business has to have licences to operate in a country, there are many stipulations and there is a cost involved with those stipulations, netflix has no oblication to jump through legal hurdles and pay more money so everyone can enjoy their content.

I work for a global company - one who works in the digital realm and makes AAA games... trust me, I deal with these things. You'd be surprised the effort for a US company to sell their product/service in china...

Re:After Netflix crackdown on border-hopping, Canadians read... by atemerev on Tuesday April 26, 2016 @05:50PM (#11575999)
I am not surprised at all, and I am not asking anything from Netflix, like I explained earlier. I was on sell side too, and I know that resolving international legal hurdles is not the most exciting thing in life (I lived and worked in 6 countries).

But this only means that international law is a mess, and have to be repealed/updated. It won't happen soon, unless there will be more and more people willingfully breaking the law, as they are damn right to feel "entitled" to equal service, which can be delivered by config option. Technically, it is not a big deal. If it is a huge legal deal, the laws be damned.

Re:After Netflix crackdown on border-hopping, Canadians read... by atemerev on Tuesday April 26, 2016 @06:00PM (#11576075)
And Netflix and your AAA-titles-producing company both have no moral right to legally harass people who can't possibly buy your things and have to copy them for free, of course. What "damage" they are bringing to you, if you can't get any money from them anyway?
Re:After Netflix crackdown on border-hopping, Canadians read... by roosterjm2k2 on Tuesday April 26, 2016 @06:06PM (#11576117)
"have to copy them for free"

Man, i didnt realize they HAD to copy them... i swear they have the option to just not watch.

Oh, but again, they feel entitled to watch.

Re:After Netflix crackdown on border-hopping, Canadians read... by atemerev on Tuesday April 26, 2016 @06:14PM (#11576176)
Yes, and African Americans had the option of not visiting "white only" restaurants. Do you see any difference here? Because I don't.
Re:After Netflix crackdown on border-hopping, Canadians read... by roosterjm2k2 on Tuesday April 26, 2016 @06:40PM (#11576355)
Yes, there is a huge difference.

I bet people like Rosa Parks, MLK, etc... people who paid dearly for Equal rights would be so upset that you've lowered the meaning of that word to simple movies...

Being treated differently, being cast aside and being held back from success because of your race, that you cant change, that you had no control of aquiring - is nowhere near not being able to watch a movie because of legal restrictions of where you live. How do you possibly consider those things even remotely similar?

Re:After Netflix crackdown on border-hopping, Canadians read... by atemerev on Tuesday April 26, 2016 @07:07PM (#11576503)
Rosa Parks couldn't ride the bus based on the color of her skin.

In fact, there were sit-ins in "white only" movie theaters, because some people weren't accepted here even if they were able to pay. It's not that they didn't have the option to just not watch the movie, right?

Back then, white people were responding to just accusations exactly the same way — "come on, it's _just_ the bus ride! it's just the movie! what's the big deal?"

I can't easily come to live where I want — visa issues. This is discrimination by nationality, exactly the same as discrimination by skin color. And part of this big discrimination is my inability to watch the movie based on the place where I live.

Re:After Netflix crackdown on border-hopping, Canadians read... by Falkon1313 on Tuesday April 26, 2016 @11:15PM (#11577614)
>Being treated differently [...] because of _, that you cant change, that you had no control of [...] is nowhere near not being able to [...] because of _, [that you cant change, that you had no control of]. How do you possibly consider those things even remotely similar?

Edited that for clarity.

Re:After Netflix crackdown on border-hopping, Canadians read... by MarkMc on Wednesday April 27, 2016 @12:43AM (#11577870)
Does the right to equal treatment mean the seller must charge the same price to everyone?

For example, must the price to stream the latest James Bond movie be the same in India as the United States?

Re:After Netflix crackdown on border-hopping, Canadians read... by atemerev on Wednesday April 27, 2016 @04:17AM (#11578616)
A trick question. Theoretically, I don't know.

Pragmatically, though, it is not a big deal. Here in Switzerland, I am content to pay 2x price for the same content as in the US — we have to support our reputation as the most expensive country on Earth, after all :) In India, one can attempt to sell software and content for the same price as in US, but it won't generate any sales. The pragmatic option is to sell Indian-localized software for low price, and English versions for original price, which is already working perfectly well for software and everyone is happy. Both me and an Indian girl can buy any US-made software. At least it was possible when the software was downloaded or delivered physically — software in app stores are becoming subject to the same shitty policies as the rest of digital content.

The world is becoming increasingly global, but policymakers and copyright holders try to isolate us in nation state borders.

Re:After Netflix crackdown on border-hopping, Canadians read... by atemerev on Tuesday April 26, 2016 @04:11PM (#11575196)
Because people at other countries can pay and see the content freely, but we foreigners can't do it, no matter if we want to pay for it. Netflix just says to us: "sorry, we don't want your _kind_ here. Keep your money and go somewhere else". (I am also in Switzerland).

Technically, if you own a restaurant, you can refuse to serve anyone, they are not entitled to your food and service. But try to selectively refuse service to African Americans, or gays, or Canadians, or Swiss, or all non-Americans, and see where this road will lead you and how much time you'll get until first lawsuit.

Re:After Netflix crackdown on border-hopping, Canadians read... by roosterjm2k2 on Tuesday April 26, 2016 @04:54PM (#11575527)
Because for netflix to provide a service to you in your country, there is often legal hurdles in doing so... If you think netflix's motivation is "lets keep these people out because we want to" ... you're not very smart. Netflix will gladly take money from anyone willing to give it, assuming they can legally do so without higher costs to them that outweigh the gain. No business turns down customers if they dont have to.
Re:After Netflix crackdown on border-hopping, Canadians read... by atemerev on Tuesday April 26, 2016 @05:25PM (#11575783)
I am not blaming Netflix. I even don't blame corporations holding the copyright, as they'd also want to sell as much as possible. I blame international copyright law, which at this point amounts to outright discrimination, not unlike racial discrimination laws some decades ago.

If history is any teacher, it is impossible to fight immoral discriminatory laws legally. Peaceful protest works much better. So, go pirate, history and truth are on our side.

Re:After Netflix crackdown on border-hopping, Canadians read... by sintaxi on Tuesday April 26, 2016 @11:57PM (#11577741)
Copyright law is so unbelievably out of touch with reality that is difficult to understand how we got into this mess. We have evolved to have perfect memories and instant access to information through the invention of personal computing devices and the internet and yet laws are attempting the suppress the impact that these inventions have so that the people with wealth can continue to gain more wealth. The best interest of the public is the last thing on any ones mind which is somewhat ironic since "the public good" is supposed to be the objective of any law put in place.
Re:After Netflix crackdown on border-hopping, Canadians read... by atemerev on Wednesday April 27, 2016 @04:19AM (#11578629)
Public good is elusive, but I want at least free competitive market. There isn't any in digital copyright.
Re:After Netflix crackdown on border-hopping, Canadians read... by Falkon1313 on Tuesday April 26, 2016 @11:08PM (#11577588)
>Because they feel entitled to the content

>Its simple entitlement

>they feel entitled to watch

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

>why do you feel entitled to consume content that you didn't create, in the first place?

Because it has been published, therefore it is public. 'Publish' is literally a verb that means 'to make available to the public'. And 'public' is literally an adjective that means 'open to or shared by all people'. Of course people have a right to access public things. Why would you feel otherwise? Do you feel guilty when you go to a public park because you didn't create the land? Do you feel the urge to surrender yourself to the police because you walked on a public sidewalk that you didn't create?

Copyright grants special privileges to an author so that they can be compensated for their work, in hopes that this will encourage people to publish things. If you refuse to use your privileges, that's your choice, you decided not to get paid. The public is still entitled to keep the gift that you gave them.

Where it gets ugly is that copyright declares that copying or transmitting something (even something already public) is itself an act of publication, and only the author is allowed to determine who may republish their work for awhile. So redistributing without permission is not allowed. But it has been published and therefore the public does still have a right to access it if it is available, they just don't have the right to republish it.

Which leads to the issue here. What is the correct result if something is public, and the public has every right to access it, but can't exercise that right because it's not available? In theory, the author should take advantage of their copyright privileges to get some money from the public in exchange for access. That would be a win-win, leaving everybody happy!

In the past, that could be difficult due to printing and shipping and international trade difficulties and various other legitimate problems. But today's tech makes it relatively trivial, cheap, and convenient to sell digital files online globally. So if the author chooses not to do so, then in the eyes of the public, the author has opted out of their copyright privilege, they have forfeited. It is a public thing that should be open to free access, since the author has chosen not to accept payment for access. Of course, that's not what the law says yet, but that's already what people believe is correct, reasonable, and ethical.

Authors who attempt to suppress access to public things, or make it unreasonably difficult and expensive to do so, or bully people who try to access them, are in the wrong, and they will lose eventually. That is an unethical and immoral stance, and it is an abuse of copyright, not in keeping with its intent.