https://torrentfreak.com/mpaa-banned-from-using-piracy-and-t....
I prefer the term "sharing".
As you mention, intent is not always to avoid paying. Some people may want backups, may have lost their copy after paying for it, may be frustrated by DRM-laced copies that don't work on their PC/devices, the reasons you mentioned, etc...
Oh man, I used to have to reformat my computer regularly (like 3 times a year). There were several hardware issues, my house was struck by lightning, etc.
I swear every time I'd have to call windows, and be like "hey my key is not working" (I know it's because it was activated previously, but still). They would usually make me call and reset it or what have you.
Eventually, I just got sick of it. I torrented a cracked version and it worked like a charm.
I know people who do the same with video games. They'll get a "shared" copy first, then buy it if they like it.
Honesty, I'd argue most people would pay if they could (at a reasonable price), torrenting just makes all the barriers go away.
Or pay more, even, for a non-DRM-encumbered version; DRM stops people like you, but not crackers or the analog hole.
Thanks for sharing a good example.
punish the paying customer and hope for the best.
Precisely:
>I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone.
-Jack Valenti (former president of MPAA for 38 years), 1982 congressional hearing
Correct me if I'm wrong---I haven't read it yet, but I'm excited to do so over the weekend.
To me it hasn't been proven yet how the argument for p2p copyright laws is any different than a hypothetical argument for let's say drinking, should we make drinking illegal because some people end up harming others because of it and hence any positive/neutral experience derived from it denied to us and overshadowed in the darkness of legality.
Whether or not copyright systems make sense or not is another discussion entirely. Irrelevant even given it has to be changed via Congress by strong, voter push and/or more bribes than pro-copyright groups. If talking laws and metaphors, I focus on what is rather than should be.
Under this definition loaning a book or movie to a friend is sketchy.
The sharing model is rampant as individuals, it only became a problem when the internet made it so strangers could share without much of a thought that they were even doing so.
But I seriously have to ask myself how borrowing a DVD from my friend differs from torrenting it instead. Perhaps the only difference is that only 1 copy can be watched at a time? Do we need a file loaning service?
I cant remember the specifics on loaning angle. I'd just not advertise that I did. Your comment reminds me that i need to fo a refresher on this stuff's grey areas in case the wording needs to be modified.
Sharing is the first moral many of us are taught.
Such morals should instead incite those who possess them to act as a democracy to reform the complex and corrupt system. Like we did fighting thjngs like SOPA. So far, almost no action toward elected officials backing up alternatives you suggest people want while they put strong effort onto other issues. I think this means majority of the US just doesnt care that much. And quite a few oppose us hoping to be next to get rich with a monopoly or maintain good portfolios.
As you noted, copyright laws respect many legally protected activities, like sharing media and holding local displays. The law is pretty clear and I think that is why we don't see many cases about the topic.
Oh yeah, I can see that. Might help get the laws changed if more people realize how absurd they are. :)
Yeah, not always, but very often. Everyone here is trying to downplay this, but I would say >80% of people (disclamer: pulled from my behind) torrent simply because it's free and if they can easily obtain it free rather than paying, then they will. The argument that people pirate because the paid options are shit, and if they were as convenient as torrents people would just pay for them, is rendered moot with the Steam counterexample. Content distribution is much more well advanced and convenient in games compared to movies, and people still pirate en masse.
Of course, all of us are really just talking out of our collective asses until we can cite figures from a study.
I recently purchased a Google Play Music subscription, despite having 10^6 "pirated" songs on my HDD. Why ? Because they have a reasonable price, cool UI and artwork, convenience of listening anywhere, and the AI bot that helps me find new music I might be interested in. All of those things dont exist in pirate land.
There is also the argument that a large portion of those people would never have paid for your content in the first place even if it wasn't available for free through piracy, that most of them shouldn't even be considered a part of your customer base to begin with because they simply aren't willing or aren't able to pay for it.
So? If you make a product you usually pay a lot of attention to price it in a way that your target market can afford. The people that can't pay for it aren't supposed to get it for "free" (if you everyone accepted this logic capitalism as we know it would crumble). I say this as someone who pirates something every now and then but I don't have to pretend that I'm somehow righteous when I do it. I do it for the same selfish reasons everyone else does even if they like to pretend otherwise.
This is why companies like Valve practically ignore piracy altogether and instead focus on delivering as much value as possible to actual paying customers at prices they're willing to accept (focusing on exactly what you said smart businesses should). Contrast that to those companies that, blinded by the sheer number of people pirating their products, waste money and time in a futile effort to combat piracy by placing draconian DRM schemes on their products, that end up resulting in the pirated versions offering a superior user experience when all is said and done. A sweet irony if I ever saw one.
[1] I used to be a heavy pirate myself when I was in high school, but these days I regularly pay for content that's priced fairly and delivered in a way that's not user-hostile, and simply treat everything else as if it never existed in the first place.
I thought that it has been economically proven that digital goods such as mp3 downloads have zero value, since each additional copy costs the manufacturer 0.
I think standard economic thought defines value in terms of preferences.
Such that the value that something has to me is the supremum of how much I value any of the things I would give up in order to have it.
So, if I am willing to purchase an mp3 for $1, then I value it at at least $1. If I would also be willing to purchase it for $2, then I value it at at least $2.
If I value it at $2, and it is for sale at $1, then I would gain $1 of value in that transaction.
If the seller is willing to sell it at any price over $0.50 , then that is how much they value (not) selling it.
So then, in this transaction I would gain $1 in value, and they would gain $0.50 in value.
I think this is the standard way to think about it.
It's just that they're worth a lot more when corporations lobby governments to make copying them illegal.
How about the first copy? That cost "0" too?
If not, are you suggesting the first buyer pay full price and everyone else get it for free?
Steam is usually used as the example of how better distribution results in less pirating...but not all games are available through Steam or "as easily" obtained as through Steam.
Netflix is also a good example. Most people I knew who used PTP were:
1) In regions Netflix doesn't support or doesn't "properly" support (see: UK above)
2) Watching movies that weren't even available through Netflix.
With the death of "game demos" I pirate most of my games. I also purchase most of those games. If game demos were such a thing - the games I did not purchase were games I'd never have bought. Which is very consistent with the "typical pirate argument of trying to make themselves feel righteous".
There are (of course) people who will download for free because they can but the pirates who actually talk about pirating seem to always have other, "reasonable" motives. Bypassing DRM limitations, removing ads, to demo something/see if it is worth paying for, or because pirating is the only way to even obtain the material. They don't even have the option of paying for it if they wanted to.
How could pirating hurt sales if the person pirating can't even purchase the damn thing?
The real question is how "bad" we should consider copyright infringement to be. For many of us, copyright law has lost its moral footing with draconian DRM, extreme examples of RIAA / MPAA litigation, insane Disney-fueled copyright terms, and a corresponding erosion of the public domain. It may not have lost its legal footing, but legality is not morality, and to call something "bad" because it is illegal is disingenuous.
Or should I remind you how many of our modern societal / legal norms were once illegal?
They mean the word choice, not the act it's describing. "Piracy" smears it as a terrible thing (you're a pirate!), but "sharing" frames it as a good (What do you mean, I was only sharing the movie). The GGP comment switches one biased term for another biased term.
Many programmers seem to have no real care for creators, so it seems moral to them to more or less destroy their wages, force them to make money not off of creating, but touring, beg for tips via Patreon, etc. If the same thing was done to them, they'd be howling how unfair it is. How about your job pays you little to nothing and you need to advertise and get people to support you monthly on a crowdfunding site just to make ends meet in your field?
See, here's the biggest problem with "copyright infringement" as a term; it's too broad. It covers $random_co using your stuff commercially, but it also covers your gran downloading songs from sketchy websites in Russia.
I don't think even the most die-hard of $(insert favorite adjective form of term under discussion) would excuse the first, but quite a few normal, reasonable people would excuse the second, in part, because the economic "harm" is unambiguous in the first case, and impossible to quantify (possibly negative) in the second.
Large multibillion dollar organizations suing grandmothers, printers, and dead people, and claiming $(insert noun form of term) is responsible for $dubious_bignum in "lost sales" isn't helping.
Problem is distributed theft is a new thing for us as people, and it seems to be very hard for us to stop or deal with.
If enough grannies decide to pirate goods (edit), the effect is the same
I question whether this is a thing that significantly exists in the real world, especially given a number of studies [1] that show "pirates" purchase significantly more media (numbers ranging from 30% to 300%) than non-"pirates". If you have numbers on "losses" that don't come from sources that invent numbers out of whole cloth [2], I'd love to see them.
You can't simply treat an unauthorized copy as a lost sale [3]. And for the sake of pete, stop calling it "theft", or at the very least stop making flawed analogies to physical goods.
[1]: http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/research/telecoms-...
[2]: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120206/04501417667/ny-ti...
Do note that the same people who were pirating games/movies i Decades ago are now making them or buying them.
Not to mention that There's more content to consume today - for free, than there is to buy.
Programmers are creators of lots of copyrighted works. Claiming that programmers just want to dismantle somebody else's livelyhood is misguided when we use on the copyright system heavily in our work as well.
On another note, I'm sad to see you downvoted. Your point of view is widely shared by the public and if we're going to enact any change, we as a community should listen to and think about how to address your points.
What you're saying is akin to entering a conversation about the value of cannabis and saying "Let's just call it what it is. Criminal production, distribution and possession of a controlled substance".
I'm disagreeing with the anti-social philosophy, not the legality (though it'd be nice to see the latter change to accommodate what the issues I mentioned).
Then obviously this isn't a primary concern of yours, because why would you rip off crap?
How would you execute "try before you buy" for a novel? You can already get free previews. For a movie? You can view a trailer. You can view reviews. You can rent it, but not for free. I don't see how letting you watch it then deciding if you want to buy it or not will work. How many movies do we keep permanent copies of so we can view them repeatedly? Not many adults I know do this very much.
There are honest complaints about DRM. My gripe with it is that I don't want vendor lock-in on the reading devices. My gripe with research paywalls is for research paid for with public funds. But I have no problem (morally) with the Washington Post asking for a subscription.
To take it when it's not yours is stealing, pure and simple. If it has no value for you then don't take it, and certainly don't redistribute it.
Copyright is a legal fiction, created by governments and enforced by the threat of violence. It is often a useful legal fiction, but absolutely none of it justifies the selfish and self-righteous "MINE!" attitude you seem to espouse in your confusion of physical theft with duplication of ideas.
That's an interesting perspective that we've lost through time as a result of our laws.
This is why DRM scares me so much. What will our society be like when culture says that it's ok that we don't get to tinker, that we don't actually own anything, etc.
Torrenting a movie does not fall into the category of "theft of ideas." It is falls into the category of stealing a work.
As for the argument that things would be made/written etc. anyway, you can still find that. It's out there. If it was better, you would be hearing the music all over the radio. You would be seeing the productions all over TV (because there's no royalty to pay, right?). You do hear and see some, but it's no way for a lot of to make a living. It's not enough. There's no way to take a year off and write that novel that you aren't going to get paid for. So you write a blog instead.
No, some way to protect the work of the people who do it is needed. I appreciate your opinion, but I don't think it's the right answer here.
You're still using words like "theft" and "stealing". Those terms confuse duplication with deprivation. If we had a magic ray gun that could make a copy of any car on the street for basically zero cost, without affecting the original owner of the car, you'd better believe people would use that, and they definitely wouldn't call it stealing.
So when discussing how to reward creators of intangible products for their work (but only if it's actually good -- nobody "deserves" extra money just because they want it), talking about "theft" and "property" is not helping.
---
Added in edit:
> You would be seeing the productions all over TV (because there's no royalty to pay, right?).
I don't think we can reasonably use our current reality as proof that it's the only possible reality. We see talented people gravitate toward the available market for their talents, yes, but in the absence of that market I don't see how their talents would just evaporate.
Besides, most of us who oppose current copyright aren't talking about total abolition (at least not until society is completely post-scarcity). We want an acknowledgement that current works stand on the shoulders of past works, and that future works should be allowed and encouraged to do the same, as well as an acknowledgement that technology is changing and the conveniences of that technology should be embraced, not hindered with crap like DRM and oppressive lawsuits.
What if there were no copyrights. Would people still create things? Damn right they will. At least the skilled and the curious people will.
However, the digital world is a changing landscape. Consider how technology replaces humans in the workplace and displaces jobs. No matter what, change causes collateral damage and the reality is this time it's hitting the bottom-line of the wealthy studios. If they can't afford to come up with a brilliant technical solution to the problem then they are SOL. :)
I think the ebook market is a good example. The big companies can absorb ebook piracy just by raising prices and relying on print sales and a large stable of works to deal with weak sales of easily pirated things. But the small presses and indie authors are starting to dry up because piracy tends to hit them much harder as they have less print options (indie authors never get traditional shelf space) no stable of books to offset risk, and a much smaller window when their book is viable.
There's a good argument that creative destruction favors the rich more than the poor, I think.
However, that has always been the case even with piracy aside: when have publishers not squeezed the profits from the artists of the world? Or what about Walmart running small companies out? Spotify paying peanuts to musicians? That's certainly been a trend of capitalism for a long time.
The companies that have means to invest lots of legal and technical resources in developing DMC and help track down those torrent hubs have a lot of money. They are trying to shut them down to protect their bottom-line, not the content producers. It's a business after all.
How about we call it what it really is, Broadcast.
There's a distinct difference between sharing a couple of mixtapes with your friends at school, to broadcasting it all over the internet for millions of your "neighbors" to see.
I agree that the term "piracy" has been redifined to be a crime inline with rape or murder, which sucks; but let's not kid ourselves that publishing a public torrent for everyone to see is just "sharing".
The difference between sharing a half dozen copies to thousands/millions, is indeed broadcasting/publishing, and that IMO is the distinct difference that's conveniently overlooked in these debates.
While putting it all under the label of "sharing" might not be 100% precise, this whole thing was a "problem" long before we could even dream about broadcasting anything.
The problem is that right now the EU isn't one copyright market - each EU country is a separate market, with a tonne of legacy exclusive distribution deals in place. If the EU was a single market, it would be the same size or bigger than the US market and would probably get better attention.
The EU is working on it, it just moves at the speed of bureaucracy (and of course each country has lobbyists in the local media which has those legacy exclusive distribution deals resisting it)
Here's the page on copyright harmonization: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/copyright
And check the "Geo-blocking" and "Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement" headlines here hhttp://ec.europa.eu/growth/single-market/digital/
Yes, it would. That's the whole point of the Euro currency and the long-term goal of the EU.
And that's the main reason a lot of people thought the quick expansion of the EU towards the east (or even the south) was a mistake - if you have a common market and a common travel area, but wildly differing economies, you create strife.
It's not like they have "spend money on advertising" as a terminal value. They spend money on advertising because advertising makes money.
The problem is that they require a payment method from a country by having residence there, that alone prevents abuse in the overwhelming majority of situations.
For the record, I am one of those cases (technically I'm a resident in three countries, potentially 4 next year), so I'm pretty much aware of the details of it.
I would guess the speed is more limited by 27 governments having to agree on everything.
The largest studios could, in theory, go to the EU with a proposal for how they would like a single market for movies and music to work. They won't because they like the ability to have differentiated prices. Having to sell a movie in Sweden for the same price as in Slovenia translates directly to lost profit. Selling in Slovenia at Swedish prices results in lower sales figures and more piracy. So I doubt the big players are all that interested in help the EU on this one.
So, I just looked up the word "bureaucracy" in a dictionary and it says "a system of government in which most of the important decisions are made by state officials rather than by elected representatives.". I always thought that was what a technocracy was.
The secondary definition is "excessively complicated administrative procedure, seen as characteristic of bureaucracy" which is the only usage I can remember seeing.
Bureaucracy comes from the French word "bureau", that means office. It names the way things are organized in an office, and was created for private offices, only adopted for governments later.
It came into English in the early 19th century, carrying a similarly negative connotation. The connotations have shifted back and forth somewhat since then.
Still, it seems that it's never been primarily used to talk about private offices in English or French; the primary use has always referred to governments.
I used to be a Netflix/Hulu subscriber before they've banned proxy access to their content. Lately I tried to buy various TV streaming services but they did a great job in banning VPNs. This is where I stopped believing they have a good faith.
Last I was there, Astrill seemed to be the way to go. But the situation evolves.
There also are many smaller details that makes torrent more attractive, like being able to watch the movie offline, HD with low bandwidth, subtitle choice, etc.
Netflix is a good step, and of course the movie industry will use it as "no excuse" argument against piracy. Meanwhile you still have other issues about net neutrality and people using VPN when they can.
Legally, I think they usually make a stricter claim than that: You are purchasing access to the content, but only using the method that you paid for. If you buy the DVD, you aren't licensed to rip it and play the content from files (unless you live somewhere with medium-shifting laws that provide that right).
Further, say that you own a copy in some format, and you torrent an equivalent quality copy. What they'll actually go after you for is the redistribution of tiny chunks of the file to other people in the torrent swarm, because it's easier to prove that you took part in unauthorized redistribution than to prove that you didn't have the right to access the content in the format that you torrented.
Oh, and the ability to keep my kids tablets in airplane mode (triple the battery life!) and still let them watch their favorite shows/movies on a long road trip is definitely worth the extra effort.
Nope, wouldn't expect that. It'll come slowly, and apparently very grudgingly. It took a decade or more to be able to get flac downloads commonly available. For years music downloads were low bit rate crap mp3. Pirate it or buy the CD were the only options for quality. It was like they actively wanted us to be searching for torrent sites.
Nope, it is even funnier because most probably you're paying more than US citizen. 1eur>1usd on exchange market (and it is a long trend) and - correct me if I'm wrong - price levels are the same for US and EU (ie. 9usd in US, 9eur in EU)?
Tax rates on netflix vary, in both rate and whether they are collected at all.
Don't count the taxes as part of what you're getting back, it's very different and beyond the scope of this article :)
[1]: http://www.csn.se/en/2.1034/2.1036/2.1037/2.1038 [2]: http://www.su.dk/english/
CSN money is not conditional based on your family's income, has no relationship with the military, and is not earmarked for any particular purpose. The only requirements are that you can't get more than 6 years total (a relatively recent restriction), that you pass 75% of your courses, and that you don't personally earn more than ~160k SEK/year (the exact amount varies, but has an inverse proportion to how much your study).
During high school you get a smaller amount, but then it's only conditional on attendance, not your academic results.
Wikipedia disagrees: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pell_Grant
> Applicants must also sign a statement certifying that they will use the aid only for education-related purposes,
And
> Males between the ages of 18 and 25 must register with the Selective Service.
Not saying you're wrong, and I'd definitely love it if Wikipedia is wrong on this.
> Pell does not care how old you are, for example
CSN doesn't either AFAIK, only how many times you've been paid. According to WP Pell seems to have a similar policy.
Personal expenses while you are in school (including rent) count as an education-related purpose. See: http://pell-grants.org/what-the-pell-grant-money-can-be-appl...
> Males between the ages of 18 and 25 must register with the Selective Service.
These people are required to register for selective service anyway, though federal financial aid is used as a stick to enforce this requirement. See: https://www.sss.gov/Registration-Info/Who-Registration
> CSN doesn't either AFAIK, only how many times you've been paid. According to WP Pell seems to have a similar policy.
I think I am unclear on the difference between the "student allowance" and "study aid".
On the other hand, however, I don't see how this frustration can serve as a justification for copyright infringement. This seems to flow from one of two premises: 1. the studios made it, therefore I have a right to watch and enjoy it or 2. the studios have made something available to some people, therefore I have a right to see it too. And I don't see how either is even arguably true from either a moral or legal perspective. After all, we're talking about movies and TV shows here, not food and water. (It would be different, of course, if the studios were targeting traditionally disadvantaged minority groups. But I don't think there's any credible argument that there is something akin to, e.g., racial discrimination going on here.)
And let's not kid ourselves, the copyright holders are not stupid. They are very well aware that this is a problem, maybe not the reason, but at least a problem. Yet they keep up with these practices, throwing millions at copyright organizations such as MPAA & RIAA every year to build up some form of scare tactic against normal, law abiding citizens across the globe and creating lots of unnecessary tension between ISPs, governments and enterprises like Google instead of addressing the problem at hand.
There are of course edge cases where I think torrenting copyrighted content is OK. For example, my PC doesn't have a CD reader and I bought the game "The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion" years ago, still have the CD but no way to install the game on my PC, so... I torrented it.
If I look at content available at these services, I feel more of a third or fourth hand customer. And that is the reason I have left them for good. Scorched earth is what is left for me.
But you would not even have to go to these streaming "services". I really love my classic tv shows. Take for example "Quincy, M.E.". I love this show and would pay good money to have it available at home (in DVD or BluRay format). And for my significant other have the synchronized version. The whole series was synchronized for German TV. But is it available as DVD? No it isn't.
Our only chance i to wait for the reruns on any network, program our HDD recorder and ripp the low quality TV stream.
If I would still be illegally downloading, I would already have the whole show at home, with self printed DVDs and such. But being a good and law abiding citizen I am pretty much fed.
так....
Netflix' official standpoint is that you are paying for access on n screens at a time at x resolution (e.g., FullHD), not for the content.
This is of course complete nonsense — of course we are paying for content — and I have no qualms whatsoever in downloading something available on Netflix US via some torrent if it is not available in my local Netflix catalogue.
I don't and neither does Bram Cohen. Regardless, I agree with your overall notion. The times have changed and customers want a better solution to quality entertainment. Restricting access and content will lead to piracy. Vice-versa will lead to less overall piracy.
Everyone I know who pirates is doing it because it's free. Although almost all of them pay for something (Netflix, Amazon Prime or Nowtv), they just don't pay for all of them. And these are all grown adults in their 30s.
Say you pay for Netflix and Amazon, but they don't have everything. So GoT has to come from somewhere... And movie releases are still over-delayed to streaming services. You see a DVD in the shop? You can stream it for free rather than wait 6 months more for it to maybe turn up on Netflix.
Also if you enter the argument of entertainment being a luxury, and that a DVD should cost around $15, you will have people pirating because they certainly don't want to spend so much for watching a movie at home. There will be people arguing over the holywood money machine and how much a movie really is worth.
The explanation is that distribution rights are sold by territory because most old school distribution channels are by territory. And content is usally financed by the sale of rights (usually before anyone has seen anything).
But streaming is becoming more and more important and those deals will be reviewed.
To give you an example, when Netflix opened in my country, House of Cards wasn't in the catalogue. That's a show produced by Netflix. But that was because Canal + Afrique held the rights. A few months ago, it was added. Most likely because the contract expired or because they renegociated.
Fortunately, Netflix is putting a lot of effort in their own content to prevent exactly this quagmire of regional licensing. They are well aware that it is one of the biggest complaints their customers have.
Oddly enough, the new Star Trek series will actually be on Netflix worldwide except for North America — usually it is only the other way around except for the local-language content.
I am worried though about Netflix (and any competitors) assembling catalogues for each separate country based on what people in that country like on average. I didn't sign up for Netflix to get Dutch soap opera's and reality shows, and I do not like being limited to a catalogue focussed specifically on what the average Dutchman wants. There is whole world out there; so what if I want to watch Austrian cooking television or Japanese game shows? Just fix the damn licensing mess already!
I personally don't think this is true. There are significant amounts of content on Netflix that are only available in regions such as NLD and GBR that are not available in USA / CAN (Orphan Black comes to mind off the top of my head).
The problem definitely goes both ways.
USA: 4100 films, 1154 series
Netherlands: 1475 films, 382 series¹
I can't see how you can imagine that having a discussion about this with someone high up in the movie industry acting like you do would do any good. You'd just be shunned. It's better to be realistic and acknowledge the fact that the majority of torrent traffic is related to copyright infringement, and that it is a problem and the only way to solve it is to make the legal alternatives better and more attractive to the general public. Of course, the BitTorrent protocol is not and should never be illegal, but you have to acknowledge that it is the protocol that currently plays the biggest part in infringing copyrighted content.
Being a european citizen, it is very frustrating knowing that pirating is illegal even though being a Netflix, HBO & Spotify customer. Pirating is a much bigger trend in EU & AUS than it is in the US, and I think that it mainly boils down to the US-based movie studios restricting and delaying access to content to non-US citizens. Some may think that this is acceptable, but I can't see how treating one customer differently from another is acceptable just because they have different nationalities. I'm paying exactly the same amount of money as the next US-citizen for the content, yet I am treated differently.
One other thing that troubles me is that there are higher quality content available via torrents than via the legal alternatives. Having invested in a 7.1 surround system and a 4K 3D Android TV, you would expect that the legal alternatives would have content available for such hardware, but they rarely do.
Personally I think it's absurd that the movie studios expect to be on the european market but treat those customers as second-hand customers, and I don't understand why the EU isn't doing anything about it. The EU and US relies on eachothers markets, yet music labels forces the Swedish-invented Spotify to restrict access to certain songs for non-US citizens.
I do acknowledge that some people are pirating because it's free, but I don't think that the general public does so. I'd be the happiest Netflix & HBO customer if I had the same content library as my fellow US friends.