[roosterjm2k2]

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?

[Programmatic]

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.

[roosterjm2k2]

...Because they feel entitled to the content...

[atemerev]

You keep confusing "being entitled to content" and "being entitled to equal and non-discriminatory treatment". Do you understand the difference?

[roosterjm2k2]

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...

[atemerev]

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But this only means that international law is a mess, and have to be repealed/updated.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.

[atemerev]

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?

[roosterjm2k2]

"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.

[atemerev]

Yes, and African Americans had the option of not visiting "white only" restaurants. Do you see any difference here? Because I don't.

[MarkMc]

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?

[atemerev]

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.

[atemerev]

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.

[roosterjm2k2]

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.

[atemerev]

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.

[sintaxi]

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.

[atemerev]

Public good is elusive, but I want at least free competitive market. There isn't any in digital copyright.

[Falkon1313]

>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.