Canadians are ¯stealing¯ U.S. Netflix content: Bell - Page 4 - Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums

 47Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

post #46 of 84 (permalink) Old 2015-06-05, 11:34 PM
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 718
Canadian BDU's will only win if Canadian consumers are willing to pay for their product. I have a minimalist TV subscription but haven't yet seen a Canadian owned streaming service I would want to subscribe to.

But Canadian cable and IPTV providers are taking in serious money from the internet bandwidth they sell alongside the use of foreign streaming services. They would be better off accepting the new business realities they face.
Eldar3333 likes this.
Obed is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #47 of 84 (permalink) Old 2015-06-05, 11:47 PM
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,994
Quote:
Originally Posted by bev fan View Post
It is simple, Rogers and Bell hold rights in Canada for different content. Netflix does not have the rights to sell that content in Canada.
But the content is easily available to Canadians by bypassing geoblocking therefore this makes very likely than Netflix is gaining extra Canadian customers and Canadian providers losing them. Technology exists that would enable Netflix to stop this practice but it chooses not to do it. Netflix could be breaking copyright laws by doing that and if this would end up in court, anything could happen.
But Bell and Rogers don't own the content, just the distribution rights. Here's an example of how this works:

Bell owns the exclusive distribution rights to HBO content in Canada. However, if HBO were to sign a second agreement allowing Rogers to air Game of Thrones on FX, in violation of that agreement, Bell can sue HBO, but they can't sue Rogers. That agreement is between Bell and HBO - Rogers isn't involved. Bell could attempt to get an injunction to prevent Rogers from airing the show, but ultimately it's HBO who would be responsible for making Bell whole. (Rogers could also sue HBO in this scenario, but that's not really relevant).

So let's extrapolate this out to Netflix. Let's say Bell has exclusive Canadian distribution rights to a Showtime show, but Showtime has also signed a distribution deal with Netflix UK. Now, if by some miracle, Bell was able to establish in Canadian court that Netflix makes it so easy to access other regions that making those catalogues available to Canadians is an intended component of their service (which, by the way, I don't think they can establish), then they still can't go after Netflix. The only one they can sue is Showtime for violating their exclusivity arrangement by licensing their content to a different provider who offers service in Canada. They could also attempt to get an injunction against Netflix UK, but I'm sure you can see why that is completely unenforceable.

Now, Showtime would probably not be pleased that they're getting sued because Netflix can't be bothered to enforce their terms of use. In my opinion, this is the only effective avenue Bell and Rogers have to effect change - pressure up the chain from the content owners. However, which distribution deals do you think are more lucrative for Showtime et al - their deals with Bell or Rogers, or their deals with Netflix? If Netflix believes they would lose customers by enforcing those rules, well, Netflix may be big enough now that they can outmuscle Bell and Rogers on these things. In fact, I'd suggest that we already have evidence that this is the case, since I can pretty much guarantee that Bell and Rogers are agitating to the content holders, to no avail so far.

So their only other avenue is to attempt to make circumventing geoblocking illegal. And if we put aside for a moment the fact that this won't happen and is no more enforceable than torrenting movies being illegal, they still can't use that to go after Netflix. The only ones violating the law would be the users of the circumvention tools, not Netflix. In fact, that would further insulate Netflix, since they can argue that it's law enforcement's job to catch those people, not theirs.

There is only one way Bell and Rogers could get Netflix directly. If they were to license some content they own for Netflix to distribute only outside of Canada, and they were able to establish in Canadian court that Netflix makes it so easy to access other regions that making those catalogues available to Canadians is an intended component of their service (which, by the way, I don't think they can establish), then they could sue Netflix for copyright violation. In which case, Netflix would pull the content, and that would be the end of it.
kcbrk32, CamDAB, Eldar3333 and 2 others like this.

Rules of the Forum | DHC Help Desk
DHC now supports Tapatalk for mobile devices!
TorontoColin is offline  
post #48 of 84 (permalink) Old 2015-06-05, 11:54 PM
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,994
Quote:
Originally Posted by wprager View Post
All you have to do is look at the balance sheet of Bell and Rogers to see that they are not suffering. How can that be, though, as we are just now beginning to come out of a recession that lasted for over a decade? People have lost jobs, their homes and lifestyle they've gotten accustomed to while these companies continued to make record profits all through the downturn. Bell is not speaking out on behalf of the content owners -- the creative folk that provide the entertainment. They are just pissed that their Crave TV service can only compete against Neflix Canada, but not against Netflix US. Purely selfish motives.
Bell is a company. Their job is to make as much money as possible for their shareholders. They need to do whatever they can to protect their revenue streams. Saying they're being "selfish" is ridiculous. Of course they are, that's their job.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wprager View Post
Who gave them that right? What did they do to earn that right? Why wasn't I, the consumer ultimately affected by this, given an opportunity to speak out against this in the first place? Why am I, the consumer, not given the option of chosing a different company to supply this content? As someone already mentioned, I can go to Chapters or Amazon.ca or my local Blockbuster/Walmart/whatever and purchase these programs on DVD or BluRay. No single store holds exclusive content rights. Why is it any different for streaming content? Who made the differentiation in the first place? Why did they do it? In whose interest were those decisions made? Why should we be forced to use -- and pay -- a middleman where there is not need for this middleman? All of this needs to come under review.
They spent a big bucket of money for that right. The content owners have the right to sell their distribution rights to anyone they wish. You can exercise your right as a consumer to buy it or not, but you do not have a right to buy it from those who do not have the right to sell it.

And you're wrong about single stores not having exclusive rights to distributing physical copies. Stores have exclusive special editions with different content all the time, and very rarely stores do get completely exclusive distribution rights to movies, TV shows, and other media.

Rules of the Forum | DHC Help Desk
DHC now supports Tapatalk for mobile devices!
TorontoColin is offline  
 
post #49 of 84 (permalink) Old 2015-06-06, 01:24 AM
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sooke,BC
Posts: 756
The best thing that could happen right now is for Netflix to add "current shows" with an extra fee the the major networks. $8, 12, 15 per month? Who knows - but it would give an actual other choice to the current mainstream distributors (Bell, Rogers, Shaw). I doubt it will happen, but it would sure be interesting to see the effect.
dabell is offline  
post #50 of 84 (permalink) Old 2015-06-06, 09:53 AM
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Toronto
Posts: 33
Quote:
but rather how could Bell and Rogers "go after" Netflix for not doing so?
Via CRTC. The same way Rogers and Videotron went after Shaw and Bell for allowing Account Stacking.
tech40 is offline  
post #51 of 84 (permalink) Old 2015-06-06, 10:06 AM
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,994
Good luck to them with that. Remember earlier this year, when Netflix deputed for the CRTC CanCon thing? They basically thumbed their nose at the CRTC's protectionist policies. If the CRTC fines them, they can refuse to pay, and all they have to do is hint at retreating from Canada due to CRTC actions, and the government will quickly move to reign them in.

Regardless of what's right here, in my opinion Netflix is bulletproof at the moment.
kcbrk32, nerakmacd and Abysmal like this.

Rules of the Forum | DHC Help Desk
DHC now supports Tapatalk for mobile devices!
TorontoColin is offline  
post #52 of 84 (permalink) Old 2015-06-06, 10:36 AM
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: 43° N, 81.2° W
Posts: 8,098
I've seen a number of streaming music sites withdraw from Canada. Netflix could do the same and it would not hurt them very much. With the addition of the EU and Australian services, Canada is probably only about 5% of Netflix's business and shrinking. If Netflix manages to roll out in South America and parts of Asia, Canada would become insignificant.

If Canadian broadcasters and the CRTC continue to alienate media distributors like Netflix, Amazon and Google, Canada could end up with no internet media services except those supplied by Canadian broadcasters. As it is, I don't see much inroad by Amazon or Google and Netflix's Canadian service is second rate compared to their US and UK offerings. Personally, I don't see using proxies to access Netflix as stealing, I just see it as civil disobedience to counter the bad dealings and monopolistic practices of the likes of Bell. It's necessary to get the same value out of a Netflix subscription as US and UK subscribers. Bell has created the situation where Canadians feel it is necessary to use proxies and now Bell doesn't want to live with the consequences of its actions.

Bell's position kind of like Woolco and Kmart complaining that Walmart and Target are putting them out of business. Bell and Rogers are the Woolco and Kmart of broadcasting. They need to completely revamp their business models but they have been so badly mismanaged that it's almost impossible without a complete reorganization. It's time for the Walmart and Target of the broadcasting industry to be allowed to compete in Canada. To complete the analogy, Netflix is kind of like the Amazon of broadcasting. Given a level playing field it could do well but it's not. Bell has stacked the cards against Netflix by using political influence. It's time for that to change.
wetlabk and kcbrk32 like this.
ExDilbert is online now  
post #53 of 84 (permalink) Old 2015-06-06, 01:04 PM
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Toronto
Posts: 33
Quote:
Good luck to them with that.
Easy. I'm not arguing with you. I simply suggested that Bell's most likely approch would be an appeal with the CRTC.
tech40 is offline  
post #54 of 84 (permalink) Old 2015-06-06, 01:32 PM
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by TorontoColin View Post
Regardless of what's right here, in my opinion Netflix is bulletproof at the moment.
From your lips to God's ears.
Abysmal is offline  
post #55 of 84 (permalink) Old 2015-06-06, 01:48 PM
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 718
Netflix' actions are perfectly reasonable.

They are aiming to be a global business, in a world where people travel internationally. When their customers travel they reasonably provide customers with the programming services that Netflix has the commercial rights to in the location that they are in at the time. Why should paying Canadian subscribers be denied service when traveling to the States?

Second, they are enforcing geo-location checks on IP addresses. Again, a reasonable step.

I don't see their position as bullet proof in Canada, but that is down to the political machinations of the corporate elites here interfering with government. But even if Netflix closed down their Canadian service I don't see them denying service to Canadians when we travel.

I do see Canadian ISP's selling a lot less bandwidth. The media divisions of the big telco's will damage their own internet businesses a lot more than Netflix. More fool them.
Obed is offline  
post #56 of 84 (permalink) Old 2015-06-06, 02:02 PM
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,596
Does Bell Media offer a similar streaming service in Canada, or elsewhere?
Maybe they should, and go toe to toe with Netfilx...let the best man win?

DB8E/VHF Yagi rotor FM Bandstop ap-8700 preamp 8way split LG lcd.
majortom is online now  
post #57 of 84 (permalink) Old 2015-06-06, 03:21 PM
Veteran
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: North York
Posts: 2,152
Quote:
Originally Posted by ExDilbert View Post
I've seen a number of streaming music sites withdraw from Canada. Netflix could do the same and it would not hurt them very much.
But no music streaming site was as popular in Canada as Netflix is. The public has some affection for Netflix - they have zero for Bell and Rogers. They government is (or should be) well aware of this.
NeilN is online now  
post #58 of 84 (permalink) Old 2015-06-06, 08:05 PM
Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Minot, North Dakota
Posts: 1,598
Quote:
Originally Posted by tech40 View Post
Via CRTC. The same way Rogers and Videotron went after Shaw and Bell for allowing Account Stacking.

I don't know how successful that was. If I had to guess I'd say there are thousands of People out there that account stack with both companies. As for Netflix almost everyone I know that has Netflix has the U.S. Version.
Blackloz is offline  
post #59 of 84 (permalink) Old 2015-06-07, 01:38 PM
Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Kanata, ON, Rogers Digital
Posts: 1,674
I just realized that my DNS subscription ran out (I was using ProxyDNS and paid for 6 months up-front). I can still use some services using their DNS IP (e.g. YouTube on my LG smart tv still works) but not Netflix. I've basically been using Canadian Netflix for the last few months not even realizing it. So I'm actually not the outlaw I thought I was

You know what would actually help? Knowing who owns which rights. Who owns the distribution rights to the content on Netflix US that is not on Netflix Canada? Is it all on Bell's Crave service? I was paying $4/month to ProxyDNS, so wouldn't matter (to me) to pay $4 for Crave, instead. And is there overlap between Crave and Netflix Canada?
wprager is offline  
post #60 of 84 (permalink) Old 2015-06-08, 11:41 AM
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Moncton, NB
Posts: 1,157
Bell managed to get decrypting foreign satellite signals illegal as in criminal code illegal. Don't put it past them to somehow someway to do the same thing with VPNs.

This was their opening public shot across the bow. God only knows how much lobbying they've already done in the backroom.
habskilla is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome