Also, who is this post aimed at? Netflix isn't going to care if someone badmouths them on some random corner of the internet. And anyone who works there isn't going to give a shit just because someone on hacker news couldn't get SG-1 available internationally. I'm struggling to figure out why you felt that this post was at all necessary.
I think when competing firms form a 'union' like this it's called collusion.
the MPA has advocated for the motion picture and television industry, with the goals of promoting effective copyright protection, reducing piracy, and expanding market access. It has long worked to curb copyright infringement, including recent attempts to limit the sharing of copyrighted works via peer-to-peer file sharing networks and by streaming from pirate sites.
It doesn't seem to fit the FTC's definition of that, either: https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...
Not to mention, there is already precendence
Why would the content owners want to work with only one streaming platform? There'd be nobody to bid against each other.
I want to see a show on Broadway, but I don't live in New York so I guess I should just find it on the pirate bay? No? How is it any different? I should start complaining on the internet? I want to see a concert in my town, but no promoter decided to bring that show to my town. I should again start complaining on the internet? A TV show/Film is not available in my available ways of viewing is totally acceptable to complain on the internet? So I go to the internet and complain, and then someone else has the gall to call me out on it? Please children, dad has a headache from the banality.
Yes. Is this meant to be some kind of gotcha? This is absolutely what you should do. There's no downside for anyone involved.
> I want to see a concert in my town, but no promoter decided to bring that show to my town. I should again start complaining on the internet?
Again, yes. If enough people complain the promoter will go "oh crap, we've got loads of fans over there, we're losing out on revenue by not including them on the tour".
> A TV show/Film is not available in my available ways of viewing is totally acceptable to complain on the internet?
Yep. Would you complain if you went to a cinema and were barred from entry because you looked like you were from the wrong side of the town? I sure as hell would, and geographic content restrictions online are exactly the same.
Yes, if content is not available to someone else, any they wouldn't be able to see it otherwise, then their is little harm in piracy.
And you, not them, seem to be to most mad about other people doing things that doesn't really cause any harm.
I am willing to pay to watch your movie/show/series, but if there is no way to do that then I will pirate the show.
Only reason I got a month of Netflix was Inside
Only reason I got a month of Disney+ was to check out Loki
Neither will be renewed.
I tried to search platform where I could watch the new Rick & Morty, but I wasn't able to find one in EU. I'm sure it exists, but if Google can't get me the answer within resonable time (like this time it failed to) I just downloaded the episodes (actually I was able to watch the S5E1 from AdultSwim's website) [BTW if someone knows EU streaming site where I can watch these as they get released I'd like to know so I can pay for couple months]
I don't think you understand. A 'union' is simply a group of companies aligning and talking about common interests, one of which is exactly what I said -- the ability to strongarm content owners into making content available internationally, so that their bottom line can be stronger.
It is not the same meaning as 'merger' -- you seem to have conflated the two? For the union I just proposed, there is historical precendece -- the International Intellectual Property Association and similar organizations put pressure on the US Government via lobbying to specifically 'protect' international copyright law (NB: I can't condone this organization, but it does exist). This is simply a different group of companies with different interests. It doesn't mean they stop competing with each other, it just means that they all agree to do one specific thing. In this case it might harm them all in the short term, but would be beneficial in the long term.
Without sales to Netflix and other content distributors the revenue of the content owners would dry up -- movie sales are dwindling due to increasing prices, DVD sales are drying up, therefore the content distributors hold the cards here which allows them to unilaterally negotiate better terms -- but that only works if they all do it at once. If one company decides to not participate, that leaves an opening for the content owners to go to them.
> I want to see a show on Broadway, but I don't live in New York so I guess I should just find it on the pirate bay? No? How is it any different? I should start complaining on the internet? I want to see a concert in my town, but no promoter decided to bring that show to my town. I should again start complaining on the internet? A TV show/Film is not available in my available ways of viewing is totally acceptable to complain on the internet? So I go to the internet and complain, and then someone else has the gall to call me out on it? Please children, dad has a headache from the banality.
Well this is the most jumbled wall of text I've seen today. You seem to be saying that someone complaining on the internet is bad? You seem to also be trying to insult me? It's highly immature and petty, whatever it is.
The original point was that the ire was directed at the wrong group of people, and I pointed out that it's not like the company is going to care that one single person is venting about them on the internet.
I'm still not sure why it matters that someone on the internet deigned to complain about Netflix as opposed to the content owners. Can you clear up why that distinction is necessary here?
If you feel insulted, then that's something you've read into that isn't there. My whole jumbled wall of text (no worries, I'm not insulted) was to show how ridiculous the concept of "I can't stream a show that I feel like I deserve to watch so I'll do whatever I want to see it". There will always be people that justify whatever they want to do whatever they want, but the rest of us can just roll our eyes at it. You want to complain about something as petty as not seeing a TV show, then you can expect some people to tell you how that logic just makes no sense.
>I'm still not sure why it matters that someone on the internet deigned to complain about Netflix as opposed to the content owners. Can you clear up why that distinction is necessary here?
Because it's okay to blame someone that's not at fault while not blaming the person that is at fault? How does it even come close to being acceptable? Netflix did not make the rules. They need content on their platform, so they make deals with the content owners. It confounds me that you are confused by this.
And for what ? Pirating "culture" that is not available on Netflix ? Star Trek Voyager ? I am huge Trek fan but come on.
This is entertainment we are talking about.
> He/she wants to watch a series on a service he/she pays for.
It's like complaining a vegan restaurant doesn't serve meat.
Netflix has very few of the shows, movies and documentaries I can watch on ARTe. Do people complain that ARTe doesn't stream every Netflix shows and vice versa ?
There are a lot of comments on HN when this topic comes up that feel like people want their cake and eat it too "or else I'll just pirate, there's a gun to my head, they give me no choice".
No, it's like complaining that a chain of restaurant randomly takes dishes off the menu, and it's different in every country. Eventually you get fed up with unpredictable menu and stop going there.
Which is still ridiculous. Even McDonald's don't have the same menu everywhere.
All restaurants I know have dishes that are taken off (because if's off season, because a new chef, because they try something else, etc.).
Plus, the analogy is distorted, you can't complain about a different menu in another country, it's not like you can hop from countries to countries 20 times per evening to get your Mc Bulgogi Burger.
> Eventually you get fed up with unpredictable menu and stop going there.
Good, that's what competition is about between services.
With movies/shows the problem is that there is no alternative. If I want to watch Startrek I can't just put on the Simpsons as an alternative and if I've purchaced a streaming service explicitly because of Startrek then I'm going to feel like I was cheated.
You can argue until heat death of the universe whose fault it is, but in the mean time if there is no way of legaly watching the content piracy is the only way. (and importing expensive DVDs in an erra where literally none of my devices have optical bays is not actual option)
You don't pull a tantrum on an Internet forum about how you are now forced to hire an anon crew to get into a McDonald's warehouse to get your Mac Something ? Indeed you just go to another service provider to see if they have the Mac Something or something else to satisfy your palates. (sorry I kept the food analogy going).
> and if I've purchaced a streaming service explicitly because of Startrek then I'm going to feel like I was cheated.
Read the lines on the contract. No one is cheated. Especially for the price you are paying by the way. Netflix is still a rental service. (fun fact: Netflix doesn't even have full international rights on its own productions, see: orange is the new black, arrested development).
> You can argue until heat death of the universe whose fault it is, but in the mean time if there is no way of legaly watching the content piracy is the only way.
I will argue until heat death that SG1 content owners are not forcing people to pirate their content. It's just hard cold facts. You may not like it because you feel like you are entitled to it or that it doesn't matter much that no one gets hurt or it's stupid or whatever, that's not really the point. The point is that they are not forcing you. It's on you when you decide to go torrent hunting, launch a DCC+, get popcorn, whatever.
> if there is no way of legaly watching the content piracy is the only way
Doesn't mean you are entitled to it or that you are forced to do it. No one is forcing you to pirate SG1 or Star Trek Voyager. It's entirely on you, own up your actions.
I am not saying you should or shouldn't, I am not questioning the morality of it. All I am saying is "nobody forced you".
> (and importing expensive DVDs in an erra where literally none of my devices have optical bays is not actual option)
Again, that's on you. Not content owner's fault that you don't have a DVD player.
Now let's take a step forward. Imagine you pirated off those SG1 episodes. But then you get a letter from copyright holders and a fine from whatever judicial instances in your country manages these kind of things.
You don't want to pay the fine, you go to courts.
Do you believe for an instant arguments like "I pirated those episodes because they were not available anymore on Netflix, they basically forced my hand ; promised, once they are back up I'll subscribe again to Netflix" will fly ?
Customer - Sir, there is cow shit in my burger instead of meat
Chef - you should be happy for the price!
Its their job to set the price, and they dont offer a premium subscribtion for $50 or whatever. I don't want a burger with shit even if it's free.
"Read the lines on the contract. No one is cheated."
Thats a really bad argument, any lawyer can write a ccontract that will let you cheat or scam laymen. In UK we have been selling apartments with 'ground rent' fees that grow exponentially, pyramid schemes have contracts, people pressed into debt bondage have contracts.
> Customer - Sir, there is cow shit in my burger instead of meat
> Chef - you should be happy for the price!
> Its their job to set the price, and they dont offer a premium subscribtion for $50 or whatever. I don't want a burger with shit even if it's free.
Did the chef force you to eat it ? No. The shit burger is on the menu and you decided to take one anyway. It's on you.
Are you complaining because there are shows you don't like on Netflix ? Aka the the shit in a burger ? What could you reasonably expect Netflix to do about that O_o ? Remove content you don't like ?
It's getting ridiculous but this takes the cake:
> I don't want a burger with shit even if it's free.
You are literally whining about a metaphorical free burger that no one is forcing you to touch.
That's why analogies never work.
Here, it's simple:
- that person is already paying Netflix, legally
- SG1 was available on Netflix, so the money was going to whoever owns the right to SG1, too
- Then SG1 was not made available (for whichever reason, in 99% of the cases blame the rights owner, and you'll be right)
So now the rights owner earns exactly zero dollars for SG1 from people who are paying for Netflix.
If those people chose to pirate SG1, literally nothing in the equation will change: the owners will keep not getting the money.
And the only fault lies with the people who decided to pull SG1 (and other content) from Netflix.
That's not how it works. Netflix pays the licensing fees to the content owners, and then hope to recover that money from subscribers. Maybe there's a clause that says they get extra money based on number of viewers, but very doubtful for some catalog title. The fees have to be paid upfront, and it's not a monthly pay as you go where if you miss a payment you get the license reposessed.
Wrong. The owners won't get money from people who pirated content once they make their content available again.
> And the only fault lies with the people who decided to pull SG1 (and other content) from Netflix.
No. The only people responsible for pirating SG1 are the pirates. The owners of SG1 don't owe anything to Netflix viewers and they certainly didn't force the hands of anybody to pirate their content.
1. Their own fault
2. It has been proven, time and again, that piracy goes down, significantly, once content is available.
So they will get their money even from people who pirated this content previously. Why? Because it's much easier to just pay Netflix and watch or re-watch.
> The only people responsible for pirating SG1 are the pirates. The owners of SG1 don't owe anything to Netflix viewers and they certainly didn't force the hands of anybody to pirate their content.
Ah yes. The poor owners who didn't anything at all and now are suffering. Except they did: they made their own content unavailable.
The person was willingly giving them money, legally. The owners made their content unavailable. Guess they didn't want money after all.
Edit. Oatmeal's evergreen take on this: https://theoatmeal.com/comics/game_of_thrones
> 1. Their own fault
Owners have made a bad commercial move but it doesn't force people to pirate their content. Nothing does. There are no pressure from SG1 owners to pirate their content, no incentives. On the contrary they will use digital rights laws to protect their assets. It's entirely their rights to do so and nothing in the commonwealth, US or European laws give the right to people to pirate SG1 content when it's not available on a streaming platform.
> 2. It has been proven, time and again, that piracy goes down, significantly, once content is available.
So ? It doesn't make piracy of SG1 content legal in any way.
> So they will get their money even from people who pirated this content previously. Why? Because it's much easier to just pay Netflix and watch or re-watch.
> > The only people responsible for pirating SG1 are the pirates. The owners of SG1 don't owe anything to Netflix viewers and they certainly didn't force the hands of anybody to pirate their content.
> Ah yes. The poor owners who didn't anything at all and now are suffering. Except they did: they made their own content unavailable.
Which is their entire freaking right to do so. Just like maintainers of open source projects don't owe their users anything the SG1 content owners don't owe anything to Netflix users.
> The person was willingly giving them money, legally. The owners made their content unavailable. Guess they didn't want money after all.
No, the person was willingly giving money to a third-party, Netflix.
> Guess they didn't want money after all.
Or maybe Netflix got greedy or maybe the contract between them had limit in time and Netflix agreed to that time limit or maybe SG1 content owners have another contract with another platform and then the person is free to subscribe to it. Whatever it is, it's up to them to manage their content however they see fit.
Whatever it is, the sole responsibility in pirating SG1 content is on the pirates. There are no way around it, at no point were they forced to pirate it. They are free agents of this world, they decided to obtain something from someone and that someone clearly didn't want to sell it.
I am pirating a lot of stuff but I am not hiding behind entitled justifications which don't make sense.
Edit. Oatmeal's evergreen take on this: https://theoatmeal.com/comics/game_of_thrones
I read it, I don't see new arguments in the comic ?
Literally no one said it wasn't their right to do so
> Which is their entire freaking right to do so. Just like maintainers of open source projects don't owe their users anything the SG1 content owners don't owe anything to Netflix users.
Literally no one said it wasn't their right to do so
> Whatever it is, it's up to them to manage their content however they see fit.
Literally no one said it wasn't up to them
> It doesn't make piracy of SG1 content legal in any way.
Literally no one said that.
Now. When you're ready to argue with what I'm saying, I will gladly continue this discussion. However, so far you're debating some points literally no one said.
I am not saying people said that. All those sentences you dismiss are arguments I make to explain why the idea that content owners forced anybody to steal their content is wrong (and dishonest).
> Now. When you're ready to argue with what I'm saying, I will gladly continue this discussion. However, so far you're debating some points literally no one said.
On the contrary, I am debating a point you literally made.
Reminder, this is what you wrote and what I disagree with:
> And the only fault lies with the people who decided to pull SG1 (and other content) from Netflix.
So it is my understanding you are the one not arguing with what I am saying.
With that being said:
You don't say much besides "I am entitled to pirate any content I want if it's not available legally, content owners are forcing me to do it and it's their fault". And that is simply not true, they are not forcing you to do anything.
edit: I'll play that card too:
> Ah yes. The poor owners who didn't anything at all and now are suffering.
Literaly no one said that.
edit 2:
> > Whatever it is, it's up to them to manage their content however they see fit.
> Literally no one said it wasn't up to them
Then stop fucking complaining about how they don't give you access to their content for god's sake.
I'm not saying "I'm entitled".
Once again, come back when you're ready to debate what I'm saying, not what you imagine I'm saying.
> Once again, come back when you're ready to debate what I'm saying, not what you imagine I'm saying.
You can keep on playing the "you are imagining what I am saying" the fact remains you also posted this:
> If those people chose to pirate SG1, literally nothing in the equation will change: the owners will keep not getting the money.
> And the only fault lies with the people who decided to pull SG1 (and other content) from Netflix.
And I have yet to see any arguments from you against my statement that no content owners are forcing anybody to go on the hunt for pirated content. It's entirely in the pirate's camp that lies the decision to download pirated content.
I can understand that people used to pirating are in full dissonance cognitive mode regarding their justifications but it remains and will likely always remain that they are not forced to pirate content. It's simply not true.
Downloading pirated content might be the only option but no one is forced to.
> Once again, come back when you're ready to debate what I'm saying,
Frankly, the same to you too.
Reread the article we're commenting on.
The rest is literally moot.
> > 1. Their own fault
> Owners have made a bad commercial move but it doesn't force people to pirate their content. [..]
And this piece, as-is:
> > And the only fault lies with the people who decided to pull SG1 (and other content) from Netflix.
> No. The only people responsible for pirating SG1 are the pirates. The owners of SG1 don't owe anything to Netflix viewers and they certainly didn't force the hands of anybody to pirate their content.
And then to my original argument (summarized) (and please note it's not about whether piracy harms sales or not):
> Netflix is a rental platform. Like the old DVD and VHS rental shops. And regularly some content gets pull off the shelves because they don't have the licensing fees. It's a pretty well known fact some movies and TV shows come and go on Netflix.
> > He/she wants to watch a series on a service he/she pays for.
> It's like complaining a vegan restaurant doesn't serve meat.
> There are a lot of comments on HN when this topic comes up that feel like people want their cake and eat it too "or else I'll just pirate, there's a gun to my head, they give me no choice".
I am still waiting for a valid example from you that proves people are/were forced to pirate SG1 content when content owners pulls them off Netflix.
Can you actually give one or do you simply refuse to admit you were wrong about that specific point and this ping pong thread will never end ?
And it is perfectly okay to not spend money at that restaurant in the future when your favorite dish disappears.
Except that the analogy breaks down since it is a subscription model, where you are not really “constantly evaluate” whether this other month is worth it.
Doesn't mean you are entitled or forced by the content owners to pirate content that is not available on streaming platforms.
Netflix deals in TV shows and movies, not in access to drinking water.
Except the competition isn't between services but between streaming services and local TV channels. It's between artificially maintained "content regions" that have no basis in technological reality. The choice to host content isn't up to consumers. The period of availability is hardly ever displayed. There are platform and operating system constraints.
Finally, the pricing model doesn't allow you to say you want to watch one series and that's it, either - you'd have to sign up for a month of services, a cable package, etc. In fact, it can't reflect the price of individual content at all given that everything is a package.
You have the right to disagree, but calling a dissenting opinion ridiculous is uncalled for, given that there are actual service and distribution failings in the sector.
Except they mostly have. That's one of their huge selling points: wherever you go in the world, whatever weird cuisine they have going on there, if you can find a McDonald's, you can feel comfort in knowing you have a fallback - a place where you can find good food you already know.
> Except they mostly have.
Which means they don't
So my point still stands.
You know, the point.
The one I made to demonstrate that even McDonald's don't have the same menu everywhere. Despite one of their huge selling points: wherever you go in the world, whatever weird cuisine they have going on there, if you can find a McDonald's, you can feel comfort in knowing you have a fallback - a place where you can find good food you already know.
Those expectations are unrealistic, and quite frankly entitled. When did Netflix ever state that any content available now will be available for ever? It's the nature of the business that content is only made available for a set amount of time. What does complaining about it on the internet expect to do anyways?
He is the customer, Netflix is asking for his money
We're entitled to our entertainment. If we don't get it, we torrent it.
I suppose "entitled" isn't the correct word. Is there a word for "That's just the way it is"?
Basically, there exists a way to acquire entertainment. It's up to businesses to provide that entertainment to us at a reasonable market value. If the market value exceeds the threshold of reasonableness, then we downshift into torrenting the entertainment.
It's a business opportunity. The music industry learned this in 2008 or so.
How many sins of the past have used that as an excuse? It's just a very immature way of looking at life.
>It's up to businesses to provide that entertainment to us
And that doesn't sound entitled??? Wow. Not that we are lucky for someone providing us entertainment (within the confines of how they choose to share it)?
>The music industry learned this in 2008 or so.
Did they though? Really learned it? Seems like they got what the wanted where nobody actually owns anything and is only able to rent the content from them.
The central question here seems to be ethics. Is it moral to download entertainment when someone doesn’t want you to?
My view is, nobody is harmed. You could argue that there was financial harm to the original show — in this case, Stargate SG-1. But I would say they’ve failed to give us a way to reasonably enjoy the show, when the best alternative is to simply torrent it.
Suppose the show was made available for $2,000. Would you still argue that it’s wrong to torrent it?
If so, we’ll have to agree to disagree; my view is that if nobody is harmed, then it’s usually fine.
If not, then there exists a price threshold beyond which it would become unreasonable to expect someone to pay. The person you were replying to was saying that they felt the show crossed that threshold.
I still come back to the fact that there is no right/expectation of anyone to be able to view anything. The fact that something exists and someone says they should be able to watch it is the entitled bit in my opinion. There is no "god given right" to entertainment. There is no "pursuit of entertainment" set out in the US Constitution. If someone graciously allows you to watch/view their work, then that's great and we hope you were entertained. The expectation one should be able to watch/view anything at anytime is a bit petty. If someone asks to be paid to view that entertainment but in a very controlled/restricted manner (ex: buying a ticket to a limited capacity venu), this seems to be accepted. However, once it was allowed to be broadcast/streamed with certain restrictions (for a limited 3 month period), people feel like this is not acceptable.
At the end of the day, it is the content owner's discretion to allow/disallow as they see fit. People do not like calling it stealling because no physcial copy has been removed from the owner's possession, but the owner is still be wronged by not being allowed to control the thing they created. I do not know what to call that.
I am not trying to equivocally express that piracy is legal, or morally right, but to respond to "the fact that there is no right/expectation of anyone to be able to view anything" - to answer "Why" someone might do it.
While your sentence was meant in the more strict "human rights" sense I think people pirate because it comes down to "I want to be part of the social group" vs "barrier to experience".
As a society - IE larger overall social group - we have schools, museums, galleries and libraries for access to our culture. We WANT people to gain knowledge of our culture. It provides a social basis and cohesion.
Movie/TV shows clearly aren't fantastic high art but they still serve a social purpose. People make references - or memes - and connect with others over it. It is social lubrication largely associated with a time. For example, Game of Thrones was a social phenomenon but now it is passé.
To say that people can simply never watch any movies or TV shows ever - because there exists no "right/expectation" - is to deny a person being social on some level. You were not advocating this, but leave it up to the powerful vs the powerless and this is where things will tend to go for some of society.
Humans are social creatures.
You could raise your own children with zero experience of any movie or TV shows, and they won't drop dead. But you also know you are not doing them any favours regards socially "fitting in" - so it isn't most people's first choice.
So movies and TV shows are another social signal and people will go out of their way to be included - by simply paying. Or pirating, stealing Netflix DVDs from mailboxes or whatever else.
Fortunately, good libraries ease this social imbalance, but statistically you are always going to find people walking their own line for whatever reason.
But maybe like Jon Snow, I know nothing.
Edit: trying to be more concise. I fail.
BTW, I'm much more partial to Tyrion's "I drink, and I know things"
I grew up in a country town with 3 TV broadcast channels, that expanded to 5 by the time I left. No cinema. No cable. But two video rental shops at least. But because my social groups were all in the same boat, there was little in the way of being left out.
I recall going to two different friends houses to watch a video on two consecutive nights - Friday, Saturday. They both showed Groundhog Day... that morning clock radio still rings in my mind.
Usually, being part of a social group involves effort/cost expended. It has to cost you something or it doesn't demonstrate care for the social groups interests.
Most everyone agrees - even the pirates - that people who put effort into creation/distribution deserve reward. The problem is the details of who/how-much/how-long-for.
I like libraries. Not quite up to date and with the latest zeitgeist, but good enough for me.
But if you need the latest zeitgeist - for example, as marketing bombarded, self-image conscious teens trying to define their identities in society are wont to do - then as far as I can see Piracy is the easy "I disagree" button to the corporate answer. Unless you can hang at a friends place.
I don't like piracy. But I also don't want to see a war on piracy ruining the lives of those who are just trying to fit in. Not for extra $ in MPAA coffers.
I kind of wish there was a single low cost streaming site using bittorrent, that hosted everything. But while it may be good for consumers, it wouldn't be good for distribution corporations and content creators would lose regional pricing.
Aside: I loved Tyrion and Bronn together.
That would be, to me, entitled.
Stop being an idiot.
Wow, what an entitled viewpoint. There was a very simple reason on why the episodes were removed: their license for those episodes expired. The content owner only allowed Netflix to display that content for a certain amount of time known as a licensing window. That window is now closed. Now that there are several other streaming vendors, the content owner of SG1 is more than likely to hoping to get more money from someone else.
So while you may be disappointed in you not getting what you want when you want it, you're ire is totally pointed at the wrong people. It is always the content owner, not the distributor. At least learn a little bit about what you are clearly passionate about.