VPNs are basically useless as confirmed through testing.

[leadeater]

26 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

its actually more complicated than that. the EU actually forbids "region blocking"... so since Netflix operates in EU they should simply not be allowed to block content based on region in the first place.

That only applies to EU for within EU for EU etc etc. It doesn't effect content licensing rights for streaming. If Netflix doesn't have license to stream in EU then using a VPN to watch US content simply isn't "allowed".

 

And the same the other way, just because you live in the EU doesn't mean you get access to EU content when you visit the US.

 

I just think it's rather dull to be arguing about what rights you have to view content when the list either way is in the thousands and with the physical media model you wouldn't have thousands of those. Sure 90-99% of the content on the streaming service you have no interest in and would never have purchased it but this is also why streaming and physical media are different and each have their own merits and negatives.

 

Many other services have "solved" these types of issues by allowed offline download with time base expiry key on the content so if you are going away you can watch what you want. I say solved loosely because it doesn't address all the issues but it does blunt the tip of many arguments around VPN usage.

[wanderingfool2]

5 hours ago, jagdtigger said:

A civil contract is no law. And if thise dinisaurs want so badly to enforce borders where there is none it is only fair to have the right of digital travel. And that is all i have to say about the hipocricy of the so called "entettainment industry".......

I never said it's the law, I'm saying that just because you pay for a service doesn't entitle you to the entire service around the world.   Specifically contract law can prevent you from doing it, and by doing so you can be in violations of the contract.

 

Again, it goes back to what I said, paying for a service doesn't automatically entitle you do whatever you want.  Again the rental car example, you aren't allowed to take it off-roading yet during that time you are in legal possession of the vehicle.

 

Just because you buy a blu-ray doesn't give you for example the right to play it for public events to thousands of people [because the license doesn't cover that].

 

Or again, its like having a consumer grade internet and saying you are entitled to host a web-server because you are paying for the internet.

 

5 hours ago, leadeater said:

Until exclusive content rights are outlawed this is just how it's going to be because none of the stream services want to share and just fight to the death with each other.

And this is unironically why I miss Netflix having a monopoly...so many places saw how Netflix could make money and now it's a fragmented space where if you want the same content it will cost potentially a hundred a month to sign up to all the services that you once got for all on Netflix [and then worse the bidding wars that end up having the studios making the money instead of it ending up in the hands of those who worked on the movie].

 

4 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

its actually more complicated than that. the EU actually forbids "region blocking"... so since Netflix operates in EU they should simply not be allowed to block content based on region in the first place.

Quickly searched, unless something has changed in the last 6 years in the law Netflix and the like would be exempt from this.  It seems the law was there to essentially restrict the different regional issues where the service would effectively be the same but there are different rates.

 

Copyrighted material was carved out as an exemption to this, as my assumption is they looked at the landscape and realized that they would be weakening copyright if they essentially allowed it [or rather the right to make money from copyrighted works].  The reason being like Leadeater had mentioned in regards to contracts being in place for the rights to the copyright in certain regions.

 

An example of this would be a local TV show, lets say Corner Gas [I know Canadian but whatever].  Now it was made locally so the broadcaster CTV own the rights to it.  Now they want to use it themselves so they own the digital rights to it as well.  Now in America it's less popular, but they still license it out to local stations there [at a reduced rate].  They also license out the digital rights to it.  With the region blocking thing though, they wouldn't be allowed to stop the digital market though, which means they would have to sell it for more [which they can't] or do it themselves [which the won't].  Which would mean less money all around for the producers of the show, and globally not having access to it.

 

Now the above is a bit of a convoluted example, but I think it does highlight why copyright stuff was exempted, as in general it could wreck havoc on the business...and on top of that the current contracts in place would instantly make it is a liability to have it available [so you would see lots of contracts either rewritten or just sat on without airing to avoid being in breach of contract]

[LAwLz]

12 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

I actually was a bit curious on this, I'm not sure it technically is against the TOS/contracts.  From what I gather you still have to primarily access it from the country you are from, but there isn't additional clauses saying that you cannot use technological measures to appear in a different country.

 

I mean, I could be wrong and could have missed a few things but overall looking through it there isn't any provision that would cover VPN access [actually the way it's written some of the lines appear as though they wrote it in such a way that the assumption of the word country would be one where you are connecting through the country].

The ToS explicitly states that you have access to Netflix content primarily within the country in which you have established your account. Using a VPN to access content outside of the geographic location outside of the one where you established your account would violate these rules.

The rules also explicitly states that you are not allowed to circumvent any content protection (which is also part of the DMCA).

 

Using a VPN do circumvent DRM, since geo-restrictions are a type of DRM.

You are not allowed to use a tool to get around DRM.

 

 

12 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

I think it would mostly just stay in the land of contract law, and tort.  The DRM circumvention in this case I don't think applies as the DRM itself isn't circumvented.  The detection mechanism would be in Netflix's end, not on the client end.  Now if the Netflix app checked for VPN's and refused to connect only for you to use a VPN that tricks the app then it would I think apply.

The DRM is circumvented. "The detection isn't completely removed, just tricked" holds about as much water as spoofing an activation server and redirecting activation requests for let's say a game to the spoofed server. It's true that you didn't remove the DRM, but you circumvented its intended purpose, which is not allowed.

Netflix also do continuously hunt down and block VPNs.

 

The law is fairly clear about this. Is there some mechanism in place that restricts access and control over content? Then you are not allowed to mess with it. You're not allowed to disable it, modify it, trick it, block it from serving its purpose, or anything of that sort. That is both in the DMCA, as well as the Netflix ToS.

 

 

12 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

The thing is, if it was considered something that would circumvent DRM then I think VPN's would legally not be allowed to be sold as a service [as it prohibits the sale of such "devices"/"services"].

There are plenty of things sold as a service that can be used for illegal things. 

I just looked through the marketing material for some big VPN providers such as NordVPN, PIA, SurfShark and ExpressVPN, and none of the advertising for example accessing the Netflix catalog of countries for other countries. ExpressVPN advertise watching Netflix, but it seems very carefully worded to not mention getting around geo-restrictions. It basically just says "you can watch Netflix while connected to the VPN" and then nearby it mentions being able to secure a video stream while on public Wi-Fi.

 

 

12 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Either way, it always made me curious on things such as ad-blockers in that it's the willful breach of contract which would be a civil action [but iirc Google tried and failed...but I don't think they used that argument].

AdBlockers are different because you aren't circumventing DRM. 

AdBlockers modify which content is fetched (and/or disabled). It's basically like writing a script that changes the background color of a website. There are also arguments to be made about the ToS of the websites and the agreement process. It's just a very different situation compared to Netflix.

 

Tricking a website into serving you content that would otherwise not have been available to you by using an AdBlocker on the other hand is far more clear-cut. That is not allowed for the same reasons using a VPN to trick a server into serving you content that you would otherwise not have access to isn't allowed.

 

 

 

 

7 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

its actually more complicated than that. the EU actually forbids "region blocking"... so since Netflix operates in EU they should simply not be allowed to block content based on region in the first place.

The EU hasn't made region blocking illegal, and Netflix are still allowed to block content based on region.

 

I assume you are referring to EU Regulation 2018/302.

There are some very important details in that regulation.

1) It only applies to restrictions between different EU countries. Even if Netflix was subject to this regulation (more on this later), they would still be allowed to put up geo-restrictions between for example the US and some European countries. The restrictions are only not allowed to exist when it is between EU member countries.

 

2) The regulation specifically addresses what it calls "unjustified geo-blocking". It is not a blanket ban on all geo-restrictions.

 

3) The important part in the regulation regarding this debate is in paragraph 8. I'll quote it for you:

Quote

Audiovisual services, including services the principle purpose of which is the provision of access to broadcasts of sports events and which are provided on the basis of exclusive territorial licenses, are excluded from the scope of this Regulation.

The law itself specifically mentions broadcasting of sports events as an example, but the way I read it (with my very limited legal knowledge), the exemption applies to other audiovisual services where territorial licenses exist as well.

[wanderingfool2]

5 hours ago, LAwLz said:

The ToS explicitly states that you have access to Netflix content primarily within the country in which you have established your account. Using a VPN to access content outside of the geographic location outside of the one where you established your account would violate these rules.

The qualifier of "primarily" in this case though actually changes it in the legal sense.  As an example, I could watch 75% without a VPN and 25% of the time watching with a VPN.  Under that circumstance I would still be primarily watching content within the country and technically compliant with that sentence.  Actually specifically it feels that phrase was more put in to catch the people who sign up for Netflix in a region where it's quite a bit cheaper [because there isn't any good content] and then use it to watch only their own countries shows.

 

Otherwise if that sentence disqualifies VPN's it would also disqualify travelling, but later on they talk about how some features may not work when consuming content in other countries.  Specifically this sentence

Quote

 Some Offline Titles may not be playable in certain countries and if you go online in a country where you would not be able to stream that Offline Title, the Offline Title will not be playable while you are in that country.

So I would say that nothing really stands out as being able to not use VPN with Netflix; although it is their right as a service provider to block VPN addresses just no

 

5 hours ago, LAwLz said:

The DRM is circumvented. "The detection isn't completely removed, just tricked" holds about as much water as spoofing an activation server and redirecting activation requests for let's say a game to the spoofed server. It's true that you didn't remove the DRM, but you circumvented its intended purpose, which is not allowed.

Netflix also do continuously hunt down and block VPNs.

 

The law is fairly clear about this. Is there some mechanism in place that restricts access and control over content? Then you are not allowed to mess with it. You're not allowed to disable it, modify it, trick it, block it from serving its purpose, or anything of that sort. That is both in the DMCA, as well as the Netflix ToS.

Not entirely sure about if it would constitute as a protection though as the DMCA is concerned.  DMCA really is a dumpster fire in regards to words and such, where many of the wordings are too vague or ambiguous.

 

Anyways, specifically the DMCA uses this as a "technological measure" definition

Quote

a technological measure “effectively controls access to a work” if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.

and to bypass what is deemed a technological measure would be illegal.

 

As per prior US courts though, an IP address is not an identifiable piece of information, and the use of VPN's to mask the IP address I think would already eliminate "ordinary course of its operation", and the uncertainty of correctly assessing a persons location based off an IP I would also say disqualified the "effectively".  So for that I would already have my doubts.

 

Specifically the term technological measure has been tested in court surrounding the word "effectively".  While it concluded that effective doesn't mean the difficulty of the protection, the court did rule that the word effective would apply if there were other method legal means at the persons disposal of accomplishing the same kind of content then the word effectively didn't apply...i.e. in the case of VPN a person could go to the country and get an IP address from that country which makes geo-locating on the server end not, with the additional fact that Netflix already has the identifiable information of your country of origin [This part is a bit more dubious in terms of the court ruling, as it was about other technology like when floppy disks were still a thing].

 

Spoofing an activation server would be a DRM circumvention because you are in effect emulating responses.  Had the Netflix app also sent GPS co-ordinates to process, and your VPN software modified it to simulate the location then I would agree the DRM would be broken.

 

6 hours ago, LAwLz said:

There are plenty of things sold as a service that can be used for illegal things. 

I just looked through the marketing material for some big VPN providers such as NordVPN, PIA, SurfShark and ExpressVPN, and none of the advertising for example accessing the Netflix catalog of countries for other countries. ExpressVPN advertise watching Netflix, but it seems very carefully worded to not mention getting around geo-restrictions. It basically just says "you can watch Netflix while connected to the VPN" and then nearby it mentions being able to secure a video stream while on public Wi-Fi.

Yea, my mind was on the content creators they pay to advertise with the spot reads who do mention accessing shows not available.  While they might not directly produce the ads, they support the creators which do use such wording around VPN's

 

While a product itself might have legal applications, the act of advertising anything that circumvents DRM would make the distribution of that software illegal.

[Quackers101]

as the user goes around their services, they go around the services they provide for you.

like take netflix, how much spam/"ads" are in their non-ad package, to providing games instead of the media service you subscribed to.

[Dracarris]

On 5/9/2024 at 6:06 PM, LAwLz said:

That's not how it works. Like, actually not how it works, at all.

Don't waste your energy. I think it's pretty clear that he's in the factual, objective wrong here. He's just showing off his childish stubbornness once more. At this point no one here should fall for it anymore.

[BINBASH]

On 5/9/2024 at 12:48 AM, Mark Kaine said:

only reason to use vpn is to illegally watch or consume region restricted content.

This is wildly inaccurate.

[Albal_156]

Is this only mobile phones or is it desktop and laptop computers as well?

 

Ah I see its both. Well I do wonder what will happen tp VPN companies noe. Their business won't simply just go under due to this.

[Mark Kaine]

46 minutes ago, BINBASH said:

This is wildly inaccurate.

u need vpn for illegal torrents in most places , without vpn there would be almost no piracy. 

 

your statement therefore doesn't even make sense, other that you "disagree" ... 

9 minutes ago, Albal_156 said:

Their business won't simply just go under due to this.

of course not, as long piracy is a thing they'll do just fine

 

[wanderingfool2]

1 hour ago, Mark Kaine said:

u need vpn for illegal torrents in most places , without vpn there would be almost no piracy. 

 

your statement therefore doesn't even make sense, other that you "disagree" ... 

No; piracy would exist with or without VPN.  NewsGroups were and still are a major player in piracy.  Yes torrenting is a thing that is big and popular but piracy existed well before torrents and well before VPN services became a thing.

[BINBASH]

1 hour ago, Mark Kaine said:

your statement therefore doesn't even make sense, other that you "disagree" ... 

It seems like you're under the illusion that VPNs are only used by consumers, however this is not actually true. That is why your assertion that "...only reason to use vpn is to illegally watch or consume region restricted content." is as I said, wildly inaccurate. Let's take a look at why that's the case.

 

VPNs were used widely in the private sector within corporate and enterprise network infrastructures well before they really took off in the commercial space in the early 2010s. IPSec and SSL/TLS VPN technology has been around for about 35 years now dating back to the mid-1990s when IETF and Netscape developed IPSec and SSL (TLS after Standarization efforts) respectively. 

 

Today, when we say 'VPN' what most people are referring to, is an IPSec VPN. In layman's terms, an IPSec VPN creates a 'secure tunnel' between two endpoints and all traffic within that tunnel gets encrypted and authenticated. For business purposes, it is not uncommon to see branch offices connect back to headquarters using an IPSec VPN, sometimes however they choose SSL/TLS. The decision is purely based on the use case, cost of implementation, company security policies, state/federal requirements etc. Another example, today we are seeing more and more remote healthcare workers connecting to applications that access databases with sensitive patient information, and in order to protect this information and abide by HIPPA regulations and publications such as NIST SP 800-53 Rev.5, VPNs must be implemented at either layer 3 or layer 7 of the OSI model, again depending on the specifics of the use case they could either choose IPSec or SSL/TLS.

 

Like many on this thread have already mentioned, the initial goal of creating these technologies was not to provide the user with anonymity or location masking, rather to secure and authenticate data in transit across 'public' network infrastructure. However, due to the secure nature of VPNs many have realized that you can in fact appear as if you are somewhere other than where you actually are, by using the termination point of your VPN as the source that is seen by the resources you access on the internet. It's not foolproof but it certainly works a great deal of the time. So, when you refer to VPNs as only useful for location masking in order to access restricted or illegal content, you can see why that's not really the case.

[Mark Kaine]

On 5/12/2024 at 8:32 PM, BINBASH said:

is as I said, wildly inaccurate

a question of pov, from where i am its only very slightly inaccurate, if at all. you gotta learn to read between the lines...

 

 

and maybe start differentiate between corporate vpn, and the kind of vpns (i assume) this topic is about...

[Lightwreather]

6 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

and maybe start differentiate between corporate vpn, and the kind of vpns (i assume) this topic is about...

They're the same thing, software-wise at least