Your question did not specify what problem you are looking to a VPN to solve.I would like to hear opinions on VPN and using it please. I read what it says about it but I never hear about it in any discussions. Thanks
This goes back to why I keep referring to these services as proxy services and NOT VPNs. Yes, they use a VPN as part of the system they present up to the customer. I explain the whole detail around how these systems work in the sticky at the top of this sub forum. As I said, these services are using the term VPN on purpose to give the false illusion that you can do whatever you want on the Internet without leaving a footprint. And most of the time when someone brings up the term VPN on a public forum, it's in reference to these proxy services.Your question did not specify what problem you are looking to a VPN to solve.
VPN's were originally developed to securely connect private networks together over the public internet.
These days, VPN's are mostly seen by office workers as a means to do remote work. This is absolutely a perfect use for a VPN.
Subscription VPN services are snake oil IMO.
Since you have to trust not only the website you are visiting to keep your data "private", now you have to also trust your VPN provider to be selling you what they say they are.
If what you want to do is get around "Geo-Blocking" so that you can watch TV that is otherwise blocked in your region, then that is fair enough, provided that you are OK with breaking the terms of service of the provider of the content you are watching. In other words - this is another form of "piracy".
This discussion perhaps could be moved to the controversial topics forum.With regards to Geo-Blocking, it's not a matter of if the person is ok with breaking the terms of service. And your use of piracy in quotes waters down what the person is actually doing....which is breaking the law and stealing content which they have no permission to consume as the content OWNER has put those restrictions in for a reason. Whether a person agrees to it or not, is irrelevant as the person in question does NOT own the content.
Let's address the final point first. Resorting to calling one's opposing stance ridiculous just makes you the ridiculous one. It is NOT your place to make a determination on how a product is used. Period. Based on what you've wrote so far it's painfully obvious why you would be triggered by the term stealing. Because it is. An analogy is, I can park in someone's driveway for a short term as I'm not laying claim to the property. I'm just borrowing it for a period time. Many content owners have side agreements for broadcasters with exclusive rights with real money involved that you have no privie to.This discussion perhaps could be moved to the controversial topics forum.
Copyright law is complex and is not uniform around the world.
If I, as a Canadian, use a VPN to access a US Netflix account that I personally subscribe to, is that piracy? Whether it is or not depends on the contract that I entered into with Netflix when I subscribed. IANAL.
Should it be considered piracy?
IMO copyright law favours "rights holders" and should be amended.
Law is a human construct. Back in the 80's "Rights Holders" took VCR manufacturers to court, claiming that recording TV programs for the purpose of time shifting was piracy. I am pleased that that the courts sided with consumers and called that activity "fair use"
When you use the word "stealing" when referring to "copying" you look ridiculous. If one "steals" something, it deprives the rightful owner of that thing. One might make the argument that copying something MAY deprive the owner of some income, but that assumes that the infringer would be willing to pay for the IP if it were not freely available.
Stealing is stealing. Copying is different. When you use the word "stealing" instead of "unauthorised copying" it makes you look like you don't know what you are talking about. With the single exception of your choice of that word, it does appear that you do know what you are talking about.Let's address the final point first. Resorting to calling one's opposing stance ridiculous just makes you the ridiculous one. It is NOT your place to make a determination on how a product is used. Period. Based on what you've wrote so far it's painfully obvious why you would be triggered by the term stealing. Because it is. An analogy is, I can park in someone's driveway for a short term as I'm not laying claim to the property. I'm just borrowing it for a period time. Many content owners have side agreements for broadcasters with exclusive rights with real money involved that you have no privie to.
As to your Netflix example, I don't subscribe to Netflix so I don't know how subscriptions are dealt with per market segment. But I find it ridiculous (your term) that anyone would subscribe to a US based content delivery living in Canada knowing there are geo restrictions. If you are in the right and the terms spell out you can consume US content in Canada with a US subscription, then you should have no problems sending correspondence to Netflix to get their approval in writing.
As to your example with Fair Use, it's not a law. It's was only set forth with a single court case involving Sony. There have been attempts at codifying Fair Use into actual law in the States which died due to lack of public interest. What has been codified and being enforced is DMCA which governs the content we're talking about and has been used to execute prosecutions on violators.
If you have a problem with copyright laws, you're more than welcome to attempt to affect change.
BTW, I'm anything but a supporter of the MPAA/RIAA and DMCA. I just don't take to hypocritical justifications for knowingly violating laws.
Not according to this on your weak attempt to disassociate copyright infringement from stealing:Stealing is stealing. Copying is different. When you use the word "stealing" instead of "unauthorised copying" it makes you look like you don't know what you are talking about. With the single exception of your choice of that word, it does appear that you do know what you are talking about.
I don't think your analogy of parking a car in someone else's driveway is a good one. If driveway owner needs to use the blocked driveway then he can't. Unauthorised copying never presents the "owner" with the inability to use the works.
If I witness someone using my driveway to turn around, I might get upset emotionally, but intellectually I can forgive the trespass.
"The major legal issue involved in time shifting concerns "fair use" law and the possibility of copyright infringement. This legal issue was first raised in the landmark court case of Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. or the "Betamax case". In the 1970s, Universal and Disney sued Sony, claiming its timed recording capability amounted to copyright infringement. The Supreme Court of the United States found in favor of Sony; the majority decision held that time shifting was a fair use, represented no substantial harm to the copyright holder and would not contribute to a diminished marketplace for its product." - Wikipedia
You suggest that I am hypocritically justifying violating laws. The thing is that the law that is violated when streaming geo-blocked content is the contract that you have entered into with the content provider. It is not the copyright that the IP owner has that has been violated. If you have a valid Netflix subscription, you are allowed to stream the content per your agreement with Netflix. Netflix created the agreement on their own terms without negotiating with individual end users. Take it or leave it.
I understand that cross border license agreements are complex, and that they are the reason why geo-blocking technology exists. Netflix has to make a good faith effort in blocking cross border viewing as a part of their agreements with rights holders.
There is a truce between rights holders and casual pirates currently: Pirates understand that without ticket sales and subscriptions, the funding for new content will dry up. Content providers understand that going medieval on fans that casually pirate their content is counter productive and will provoke backlashes.
I maintain it is appropriate as I'd rather take the word of an actual copyright lawyer (the author of the blog) over some random person on the Internet that is giving their non legal expert opinion.Although the word "Stealing" was used in the blog post, it was not used anywhere in the official complaint as linked to from the post. It is used for pejorative effect and I maintain that it is inappropriate.
The idea of a truce is my interpretation of the reality that I observe. Kids are not getting sued for sharing songs and movies on line anymore because the RIAA found it to be counterproductive.
That Locast case is interesting - I was not familiar with it. It seems that they lost because the judge didn't believe that they were non-profit. Otherwise the law was clear that they had the right to re-broadcast OTA TV. They could re-work their payment model a bit and try again.
"Locast's total costs last year were $2.4 million, compared to its total revenue of $4.5 million, $4.3 million of which came from user payments. Based on this, Stanton said Locast made "far more money from user charges than was necessary to defray its costs.""
This thread was not started as a controversial topic and it will be the thread starter who will decide if they wish to participate in a debate so unless that happens the thread will not be moved. However, my observation is that you Sean have introduced elements (getting around geo restrictions/piracy) that we don't support and semantics on the word "stealing" which have, in effect, turned this discussion into a debate. If you wish to debate VPNs and/or whether piracy or getting around restrictions and Terms of Service is stealing then kindly start a new thread for that purpose in the Controversial Topics forum. For now, I don't want to see any more posts in this thread until the person who started it responds and expresses their intentions for its direction.This discussion perhaps could be moved to the controversial topics forum.
Are you looking for the solution to your computer problem? Join our site today to ask your question. This site is completely free -- paid for by advertisers and donations.
If you're not already familiar with forums, watch our Welcome Guide to get started.
Join over 807,865 other people just like you!