You're trying to have your cake and eat it too. -Renegade
No, but the problem is mine - I'm trying to explain something but unfortunately I can't get the terms I want to use correct or I'm not using the correct terms.
As soon as I can get it straight in my head I'll you know.
The interesting thing is whether something is right/wrong or ethical/unethical or moral/immoral/amoral or something along those lines. That's the direction I'm trying to steer the conversation in.
And unfortunately that's where you lose me because those terms have close to zero meaning for me.
Theft is a case where the thief deprives the victim, of something.
Copyright infringement does not necessarily lead to deprivation.
-eleman
Great points! 
So getting back to your Netflix scenario:
a) Are the copyright holders being deprived?
They're still getting paid.
b) Is the content distributor being deprived?
They're still getting paid.
c) Are the people using VPNs breaking Australian Copyright Law, (which, while it has some elements of the USA DMCA, is not identical)?
Interesting question.
d) Are they breaking anything?
Netflix T & C by not being in a country that Netflix serves.
e) How about Netflix?
Are they not breaking the T & C of their contracts with the copyright holders by supplying material to "unauthorised" (for want of a better word) users?
So, are the people in Australia using VPNs to access Netflix or Hulu in the USA "pirates"?
Who knows but according to the Australian Federal Government in
2011:
A spokesperson for Attorney-General Robert McClelland told The Australian last week: “In relation to the use of VPNs by Australians to access services such as Hulu and Netflix, on the limited information provided there does not appear to be an infringement of copyright law in Australia.”
This, (AFAIK), is classed as parallel import and in Australia, you're free to parallel import any item, (providing it's legal to own/use, etc), without restriction since about 2000, (I believe the only two items exempted were books and cars but I think that changed for books).
That still holds true to this day ... so who is really at fault here?
1) The people using VPNs and false information to deceive Netflix?
That's not piracy, that's receiving by deception.
2) Netflix, (and other content distributers), for not abiding by their contracts with content providers?
They should be policing who has access ... but they don't want the responsibility.
Until the Australian Federal Government makes a ruling one way or the other, or it's tested in an Australian Court of Law, the subject of whether or not these people are pirates is pretty much irrelevant.
AFA the content providers are concerned they are, AFA the Government are concerned they're not - take your pick.
You seem to have jumped on the side of the content providers ... me, I don't care.
So my original reply to your Netflix post still stands except my remark about 'summary execution under DMCA' was wrong.
Recent Posts
