New accusations against NordVPN

[jagdtigger]

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

our argument is because you don't understand the distribution contracts or why things are the way they are that it entitles you to pirate? 

Nope, i say they are outdated, consumer preferences are clearly shifting. Any good business can see it and adapted. or a new business seen an opportunity and grabbed it. And BTW in this case you can drop the piracy stuff. We are talking about paying customers.

 

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

not being able to control who gets what

As soon as it gets onto the net you lost control, period. No matter how much money you burn trying to foolishly control the uncontrollable ppl will still get the stuff one way or the other disregarding legality. Dont like it? Adapt to the shift in consumer preferences. The good old "adapt or die" saying applies to the business world too.

[leadeater]

3 hours ago, jagdtigger said:

Its their problem not ours. They were getting the signs that ppl are fed up with their outdated ways and had plenty of time to clean up those contracts.... In this day and age you cannot control anymore who gets what, its both unreal and extremely dumb to think otherwise...

You don't "clean up" an existing contract. What is the point of a contract if either side can just change the terms as they wish? Until the contract expires you either 1) Wait out the term or 2) Renegotiate the contract. The problem with number two is that if only one of either parties wished not to then the existing contracts stands in full until expires.

 

What you want is for companies to violate contract law, I'm sure you can acknowledge that is not going to happen.

 

1 hour ago, jagdtigger said:

The good old "adapt or die" saying applies to the business world too.

So does "break the law and get fined and/or arrested"

[LeSheen]

47 minutes ago, leadeater said:

So does "break the law and get fined and/or arrested"

Well it depends who you are and/or how much money you have. coughtrumpcough

[Anomnomnomaly]

The way I look at the current streaming market is simple... the more services that come online, the more fragmented the market becomes which in turn makes it more expensive for the consumer and that leads to arise in people pirating content.  This is at a time when access to media was actually reducing piracy. You will always have those that download everything and never buy anything... that's not gonna change.  It's those who would buy services if they could, that's who they started targeting and it was very successful... I'm one of those people.

 

But fragmenting the market as they are, pushes content out of my price range and there's no way I'm ever going to subscribe to a new service just because it has 1 or 2 shows that I'd like to watch... So that leaves me with another choice.

 

What I'd really like to see is some legislation that truly levels the playing field... A timed exclusive for original content on that streaming platform and then after say... 12 months it's to be offered up for sale to other services. It's what they used to do for OTA TV shows... syndication... although I think that was restricted to shows that had passed the 52 episode mark so that you could broadcast 1 episode a week all year.  Something like that in this case would benefit the whole market, allow companies to compete for business on their exclusives whilst allowing those who can't afford to subscribe to half a dozen or more services to eventually watch the shows later.

 

It won't happen of course... because that would mean applying some common sense and logic to a situation that's only focussed on greed... But if they did the research on numbers it would make sense. Would a company rather earn a small amount each year... say 30 million D+ subs or license out some of the shows 12 months later and reach a target of 180 million people (netflix currently has around 150 subs).... The total number of potential customers only rises from there once you start adding in other services... 300 or so million with Prime, Hulu, Starz and all of the others.

 

It's the most logical and sensible answer to the question... which is also the reason it will never happen. Most of these companies can't see past the next quarters sales figures let alone look at the bigger picture... Long term smaller income vs short term higher income.

[jagdtigger]

3 hours ago, leadeater said:

So does "break the law and get fined and/or arrested"

Since ppl pay for the service hardly anything illegal is going on.....  Or should anyone get into trouble from buying from/using a service from a different country?

[leadeater]

2 hours ago, jagdtigger said:

Since ppl pay for the service hardly anything illegal is going on.....  Or should anyone get into trouble from buying from/using a service from a different country?

See that is the problem, you read a post clearly about the service provider then try and argue it as being a user situation. You aren't getting content because of contracts existing in your country for the content, simple as that.

 

There isn't a company on earth that is going to break contract law just for you.

[mr moose]

3 hours ago, jagdtigger said:

Since ppl pay for the service hardly anything illegal is going on.....  Or should anyone get into trouble from buying from/using a service from a different country?

 

Which comes back to not understanding distribution contracts and combined with this idea you are entitled to all content leads you to some weird conclusions.

 

[Mira Yurizaki]

3 hours ago, jagdtigger said:

Since ppl pay for the service hardly anything illegal is going on.....  Or should anyone get into trouble from buying from/using a service from a different country?

Just because it's legal in one country doesn't make it legal in yours.

[dalekphalm]

17 hours ago, jagdtigger said:

Why is it blocked in the first place? These companies need a few slap in the face with a shovel. If ppl are willing to pay just give them what they want. And if you dont do not complain about ppl getting it through other means.....

Yeah as @mr moose and @leadeater stated, the reason why Disney+ is only launching in 3 countries is almost certainly do to pre-existing distribution agreements that Disney has with other countries.

 

So, let's say that Telstra signed a distribution agreement 5 years ago with Disney that gives them exclusive rights to distribute Disney content in Australia for 10 years.

 

Disney can't just be like "Welp, sorry, now that I have a streaming service, fuck you and your contract".

 

That would be a violation of a contract, and Disney would be liable for breach of contract and damages, and would likely end up paying Telstra millions of dollars in lost revenue.

 

Now you might say "Not my problem" - but that's a bullshit response.

 

Now, I agree that new distribution agreements should be global. Ideally, new content gets released at the same time globally, and say Netflix or Disney+ can release the same content everywhere.

 

But there's a lot of work that needs to be done before that'll happen. We're years away still - and some companies (Like Telstra, Sky, SyFy, Rogers, Bell, etc) will fight tooth and nail to retain those distribution agreements, because it makes them a lot of money.

[mr moose]

13 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

 

Now, I agree that new distribution agreements should be global. Ideally, new content gets released at the same time globally, and say Netflix or Disney+ can release the same content everywhere.

 

 

 

EDIT: I just realized this sounds like I am addressing a point you didn't make,  and I kinda am, however it is more mean to to be in addition to your point.

 

 

And they are moving that direction absolutely, however it is the exact opposite of an open and fair market to demand companies sell their products through competing organizations,  so if Disney only want to sell on their channel and Time Warner only want to sell on theirs then there is almost nothing you can do ethically and legitimately about it.  Certain aspects of content distribution we don't like are likely here to stay.

[dalekphalm]

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

 

EDIT: I just realized this sounds like I am addressing a point you didn't make,  and I kinda am, however it is more mean to to be in addition to your point.

 

 

And they are moving that direction absolutely, however it is the exact opposite of an open and fair market to demand companies sell their products through competing organizations,  so if Disney only want to sell on their channel and Time Warner only want to sell on theirs then there is almost nothing you can do ethically and legitimately about it.  Certain aspects of content distribution we don't like are likely here to stay.

Oh for sure - if we are to live in a capitalist free market, we must also acknowledge that this gives corporations a number of inherent rights. And one of those rights is the right to sell their product where and how and for how much they want.

 

And while it's true that for original content or exclusives, we're heading towards a global release - we're actually heading away from content being on every platform.

 

Example: Netflix originals mostly release globally in every Netflix region now - but those exclusives likely won't ever appear on Amazon Prime or Hulu or Disney+.

[jagdtigger]

12 hours ago, leadeater said:

There isn't a company on earth that is going to break contract law just for you.

Trouble is this isnt limited to old stuff but they keep signing these outdated contracts for new stuff.......

 

  

7 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

Now you might say "Not my problem" - but that's a bullshit response.

Its literally not my problem. Netflix got so popular that the FCC had to ban cable television and telephone service providers from preventing access to competitors or certain web sites. This was back in 2010. They had plenty of time to adapt. Sorry but whatever comes its their fault and 100% deserve it.

[dalekphalm]

6 hours ago, jagdtigger said:

Trouble is this isnt limited to old stuff but they keep signing these outdated contracts for new stuff.......

Some do.

 

And you know how you punish them? By not consuming their content. Pirating the stuff doesn't help, because it will just encourage them to introduce even more draconian anti-piracy measures.

 

Reward companies that do the right thing. Punish those that don't via not consuming their content.

6 hours ago, jagdtigger said:

Its literally not my problem. Netflix got so popular that the FCC had to ban cable television and telephone service providers from preventing access to competitors or certain web sites. This was back in 2010. They had plenty of time to adapt. Sorry but whatever comes its their fault and 100% deserve it.

You don't live in reality then.

 

The reality is that some of these companies have their hands tied behind their backs by old distribution agreements (that were necessary before the surge in popularity among streaming services).

 

You can't just break a contract without consequences.

[jagdtigger]

5 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

it will just encourage them to introduce even more draconian anti-piracy measures.

And in the process frustrate their customers to the point they turn to piracy. I know quite a few for example who moved to linux and when they realized that they get only 720p when they pay for more they just turned to piracy. Or the modders who have rooted phones. And this is just the tip of the ice berg....

 

7 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

The reality is that some of these companies have their hands tied behind their backs by old distribution agreements

Well thats just plain shortsightedness, i would even argue that it will hurt them more in the long-run than paying up for cancelling it. And if i really want to push it i would go as far as to say they also could drop DRM. As a matter of fact even though they use DRM its still a "free for all" to those who really want to pirate. But this is common sense, which is pretty much non-existent in the media industry.

[dalekphalm]

12 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

And in the process frustrate their customers to the point they turn to piracy. I know quite a few for example who moved to linux and when they realized that they get only 720p when they pay for more they just turned to piracy. Or the modders who have rooted phones. And this is just the tip of the ice berg....

Those people would be in the vastly tiny minority - most people don't even know what "root phone" means, let alone how to do it. And even those that do know how to do it, the vast majority of them have no desire or interest in rooting their phones.

12 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

Well thats just plain shortsightedness

I don't disagree with you - but the world is littered with businesses who were short sighted - case in point: Blockbuster, who had the opportunity to buy Netflix outright for like $10m USD - and Blockbuster even a fledgling streaming service too.

 

But they thought streaming would never become mainstream. And now they're gone.

12 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

, i would even argue that it will hurt them more in the long-run than paying up for cancelling it.

It's one thing to cancel a contract through contract termination clauses - but it's a different thing to violate and break a contract.

 

You're telling the rest of the business world that your word means nothing, and you can't be trusted.

 

Let's say Sony Pictures did that - who would want to trust them again after? When they've shown they're willing to throw away a contract at a whim?

12 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

And if i really want to push it i would go as far as to say they also could drop DRM. As a matter of fact even though they use DRM its still a "free for all" to those who really want to pirate. But this is common sense, which is pretty much non-existent in the media industry.

The film industry has always been slow to adapt. The ones that are quicker, tend to put themselves in a better long term position.

 

So I reiterate my original point: Want to support companies who form global distribution agreements? Buy and watch their content. Want to punish those who sell off the rights piecemeal? Don't buy and don't watch their content.

 

Simple.

[jagdtigger]

21 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Want to support companies who form global distribution agreements?

Easier said than done... Is there even a way to find out which company does what?

 

23 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

one thing to cancel a contract through contract termination clauses

Are they actually that dumb that they didnt put at least one in?

[dalekphalm]

24 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

Easier said than done... Is there even a way to find out which company does what?

 There's not like a central database, but it's usually pretty easy to figure out (eg: if it's on Netfix, is it available in different regions?)

24 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

Are they actually that dumb that they didnt put at least one in?

Most contract termination clauses are mutual. If both parties want out. But the party that receives the distribution rights wouldn't want to cancel.

[Pwent]

On 11/30/2019 at 9:57 PM, Arika S said:

this is something i do very much agree with. 

With that said i do have NordVPN and while i don't trust them 100% (i dont trust any VPN 100%), I trust them a hell of a lot more than I trust Telstra. 

 

There are certainly privacy benefits to a VPN, but it's not full privacy like some people think, which is something you just have to deal with more and more these days with the internet how it is.

The only full privacy on the internet is through Tor. It’s funny that tor is seen as the dark web, but it’s probably going to be a really important privacy tool some day. 

[Arika]

7 minutes ago, Pwent said:

The only full privacy on the internet is through Tor. It’s funny that tor is seen as the dark web, but it’s probably going to be a really important privacy tool some day. 

false, the only true privacy is not to use the internet since tor only hides stuff in browser, but there are numerous programs that connect through the internet to function.

 

any time you buy something you have to put in your name, address and payment information, to websites will still be able to collect that and share with other websites.

[dalekphalm]

10 hours ago, Arika S said:

false, the only true privacy is not to use the internet since tor only hides stuff in browser, but there are numerous programs that connect through the internet to function.

 

any time you buy something you have to put in your name, address and payment information, to websites will still be able to collect that and share with other websites.

Not to mention the NSA outright admits to operating Tor nodes. 
 

Tor is an excellent addition if you’re gonna be paranoid about security. But it’s by no means foolproof or absolute. 

[Mark Kaine]

On 11/30/2019 at 9:46 PM, straight_stewie said:

Additionally, as this article would suggest, users have no idea what the VPN service is actually doing

That was also my impression all along, to be honest!