[dylan604]

> because Netflix took the episodes down for no reason.

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.

[fao_]

Both are at fault. The content owner wants to make money through Netflix and other distributors, without it they are limited by DVD sales which are dwindling. It would be very, very easy for all of the content distributors to band together into some sort of... 'union', that would help them strong-arm the owners and push back the incoherent decisions made by them.

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.

[mullingitover]

> It would be very, very easy for all of the content distributors to band together into some sort of... 'union', that would help them strong-arm the owners and push back the incoherent decisions made by them.

I think when competing firms form a 'union' like this it's called collusion.

[TheSpiceIsLife]

One person’s collusion is another person’s Motion Picture Association.

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.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Association

[mullingitover]

This is kind of apples and oranges though. The MPAA is more of a lobbying organization, it isn't an agreement between firms about how they will compete (or not compete) in the marketplace

[eurasiantiger]

HDCP is absolutely a byproduct of abusing a quasi-natural monopoly.

[CRConrad]

Isn't it pretty much an agreement that they'll compete" (i.e. not compete) by all implementing basically the same shitty DRM?

[mullingitover]

A group of competitors agreeing on a standard isn't the same thing as collusion, though. There are all kinds of industry competitors that use common standards. Not defending the DRM, but that alone isn't collusion.

[fao_]

It seems closer to Refusal To Deal, but the wiki page on that is sparse: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refusal_to_deal

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

[dylan604]

This is how I was interpreting the suggestion to "join" together as well.

[dylan604]

Why would any of the platforms join together? If all of the streamers had the same content, there'd be no point in having more than one streaming platform.

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.

[sellyme]

> 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?

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.

[thatguy0900]

"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?" I mean, honestly, why not. I will never drive to New york to see it. So they will never receive money from me. So they lose nothing by me watching it online. Victimless crime.

[stale2002]

You seem to be the one complaining about other people's behavior.

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.

[nextlevelwizard]

This is actually where I've drawn the line.

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]

[shric]

Also, at least in my country (Australia), Rick and Morty was censored (bleeps every 15 seconds) on Netflix, so I pirated it for a better experience.

[LinAGKar]

Rick and Morty is available on HBO. It's also on Netflix, but they don't have season 5 yet for some reason.

[nextlevelwizard]

I need to check HBO out. Netflix I knew had the first 4, which I kind a assumet ment they had the exclusive deal and wouln't have the episodes until season finale airs

[fao_]

> Why would any of the platforms join together? If all of the streamers had the same content, there'd be no point in having more than one streaming platform.

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?

[dylan604]

>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.

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.

[kaba0]

Why would it be an entitled viewpoint? He/she wants to watch a series on a service he/she pays for. It is entirely reasonable to expect said service to continue to serve previously available content - it was of course a legal way of operation that the owner didn’t extend their license and that Netflix removed episodes. But gp has every right to be upset that netflix due to any reason didn’t live up to expectations.

[johnchristopher]

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.

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".

[ClumsyPilot]

> "It's like complaining a vegan restaurant doesn't serve meat."

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.

[johnchristopher]

> No, it's like complaining that a chain of restaurant randomly takes dishes off the menu, and it's different in every country.

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.

[nextlevelwizard]

The food analogy is shitty because you know what I do when McDonalds takes burgers off of their menu? I go to the grill next door to get my burger.

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)

[johnchristopher]

> The food analogy is shitty because you know what I do when McDonalds takes burgers off of their menu? I go to the grill next door to get my burger.

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 ?

[dmitriid]

> Which is still ridiculous. Even McDonald's don't have the same menu everywhere.

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.

[dylan604]

>So now the rights owner earns exactly zero dollars for SG1 from people who are paying for 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.

[johnchristopher]

> If those people chose to pirate SG1, literally nothing in the equation will change: the owners will keep not getting the money.

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.

[kaba0]

> 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.).

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.

[johnchristopher]

Of course the analogy is weak (like all analogies), especially if you believe its purpose is to represent the whole of the Netflix responsibilities, flaws and success.

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.

[etripe]

> Good, that's what competition is about between services.

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.

[TeMPOraL]

> Which is still ridiculous. Even McDonald's don't have the same menu everywhere.

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.

[johnchristopher]

> > Which is still ridiculous. Even McDonald's don't have the same menu everywhere.

> 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.

[dylan604]

> But gp has every right to be upset that netflix due to any reason didn’t live up to expectations.

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?

[ClumsyPilot]

"Those expectations ... entitled."

He is the customer, Netflix is asking for his money

[abnry]

Right, he's the customer, but he violates the customer-supplier social contract by pirating.

[ClumsyPilot]

Well my grandma doesn't, and Netflix doesn't let her watch SG1 either, so how is this relevant?

[sillysaurusx]

What's wrong with being entitled?

We're entitled to our entertainment. If we don't get it, we torrent it.

[abnry]

You are not entitled to entertainment. If there is literally anything as petulant and first-world narcissistic it is the belief that one is entitled to entertainment.

[sillysaurusx]

But... we are, because we can pirate it if it's not available to us.

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.

[dylan604]

>"That's just the way it is"?

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.

[sbuk]

When they signed up for said service, was there an implicit agreement in place that said they would show whatever show he/she wanted, when they wanted? While I agree that the GP has the right to be upset that their expectations weren’t met, it doesn’t make the unreasonable expectations right. I’d argue that Netflix, or whoever, not carrying a show or file for whatever reason, save them explicitly stating that they would do and failing to do so, is unreasonable.

That would be, to me, entitled.

[lloydatkinson]

Did I ever say that I expected them to show X whenever I wanted? No, I simply eaid "for no reason". If I was entitled I'd have said "I demand to watch it".

Stop being an idiot.

[kaba0]

It frankly, doesn’t really matter whether it is a reasonable or an “entitled” reason a customer is upset. What matters is he/she is not happy with a service and thus will terminate his subscription.

[sbuk]

That's how commerce works...

[lloydatkinson]

It's tragically my experience of HN - someone posts an interesting fact or discusses something they've done and someone comes up and picks up the smallest irrelevant detail to argue about.

[lloydatkinson]

Put a sock in it and grow up