Just to be clear, there is no moral right to copyright. It's a legal artifact we created to advance society by rewarding artists and other creators for content created in the hope they'll create more/better stuff.
However, it's now being used to hold back society, via actually preventing people from accessing the copyrighted content. Worse, copyright is being used to justify restrictions and prohibitions on new methods of distribution and entire new technologies.
They may not be forcing people to copyright, but they have lost the moral standing to complain about it.
There is a moral right to own that which you have produced, and it is definetely not an legal artifact but an expression of the concept of individual rights.
Furthermore, it isn't copyright that is preventing people from accessing the content, but the fact that these corporations have not evolved their business model to the way consumers consume content these days.
There may be several reasons as to why that has not happened (they may still be making enough money with their old business model and are risk-averse to try new things) but claiming that the creators of something do not have the moral right to own their creations is an absurdity.
If enough people pirate something and are cheap enough not to buy the real thing, it will hurt the maker, I fully realize that. It's just that I don't feel particularly bad pirating most stuff. Partly because I'm copying, not stealing, and partly because I wouldn't have paid for 90% of it anyway. Mostly though, part of me just doesn't feel that bad about it. Just as I'm not entitled to unlimited free entertainment, creators aren't necessarily entitled to making a living off making said entertainment. Might sound heartless, but throughout most of history it wasn't possible. Just recently there was a period of time where there was a mass market for entertainment and where distribution was controlled and copying difficult. It's not anymore though. Copying a book a billion times is as simple as the press of a button, and no amount of talk about morality is going to change that. The sad fact is that content makers will need to find other ways to generate revenue, even if that means abandoning some formats. Personally, I try to support the content makers I like, but most people won't.
it's now being used to hold back society, via actually preventing people from accessing the copyrighted content
What are you referring to here? When I think of the piracy debate, I think of the things that are most commonly pirated, and I can't think of any examples from that set where society is being "held back" due to copyright on them.
This argument strikes me as missing the point. Piracy isn't a morals problem, it's an economics problem. Exhorting pirates to stop being pirates is likely to be about as effective as Don't Copy That Floppy or trying to fight drug cartels with Mr. Mackey and DARE -- they don't think what they're doing is wrong, or they don't care, and you're not going to change their minds.
Which leaves you with an economic choice. Either copyright holders can have more availability and less piracy, or the other way around.
Now maybe they decide they want less availability and more piracy -- maybe they think (almost certainly incorrectly) that that will make them more money. But if that's the case then you might as well go ahead and give up on the pirates, because that's the decision you've made: The decision to create a supply shortage and therefore a market incentive for piracy sufficient to create a critical mass of pirates and commercial enterprises reliant on piracy who, once established, will fight for their own continued existence.
The best case scenario is that the outcome is less violent than the organized crime families created by prohibition or the drug cartels created by the War on Drugs.
Or you can make sure everybody can get their fix from legitimate sources. Then piracy becomes less profitable because it has less of an advantage over purchasing, and some existing pirates discontinue their pirating, which reduces the strength of the pirate community, reduces the demand for illicit releases and thus the incentive to supply them, etc.
But hey, it's your decision. Do whatever you want. If you want you can fight the market and then wail about morality when the inevitable economic consequences ensue. But I wouldn't.
Piracy isn't a morals problem, it's an economics problem.
I find it difficult to reconcile this with the near-constant moral tirades about it, such as those which claim piracy is not about people being cheap, or those which claim rightsholders are "forcing" people into piracy.
One might also recognize those arguments as the ones this post is actually addressing on its way to (as you say) "missing the point".
Nonsense. I'm a designer (say) that makes fancy clothes. I will only ever sell to famous Hollywood types, so they'll wear my clothes and make them trendy.
Because I'd never sell them to you, do you have the right to take my fancy clothes without paying for them?
I'm getting sick and tired of these "and if enough people do X, it will REALLY send a message" exhortations.
People are lazy. The only way to really get them riled up is if they fear for their future. Otherwise the whole "if enough people do it" argument is moot.
Want to make a difference? Hit people where it hurts. The legality and morality of how you do so is up to you, and is entirely dependent upon circumstance.
Actually, here's an "if enough people do it" argument that actually works: If enough people pirate shows because they can't find them via legitimate sources in the way they want, they'll expose a market opportunity. Now get off your goddam high horse.
Piracy is not just about watching things you don't own. It's also about watching things you HAVE purchased.
I own a BluRay disc that I purchased new. I attempted to watch it on our "big screen," a projector with a DVI input but no HDMI. BZZZ. The fully legal software that came with my computer won't let me watch over a non-HDMI connection, and VLC can't handle this particular BluRay disc, even with the latest patches, extra files, and instructions I can find posted online.
WHY can't I watch it that way? Because some idiot executive somewhere thinks that it will make it easier to circumvent the DRM on BluRay, and therefore they screw paying customers who don't have the newest equipment.
Either that or it's Sony attempting to coerce people to upgrade their equipment so they can sell more TVs.
Either way it's unethical, and a technological violation of Copyright fair use rights: I should be able to consume a product however I like. I bought it, I want to watch it, and there's no technical reason I shouldn't be able to -- it's entirely a business reason, either way.
I'm not talking about a right necessarily ensconced in law (IANAL), but a moral right. I should also be able to rip and remix content under fair use. And in the case of BluRay, it may be illegal
Copyright law exists (in the US at least) for the benefit of the PUBLIC, not the benefit of the IP owners. Read the Constitution if you don't believe me (or this TechDirt article which provides additional support [1]); it's pretty clear and on point about why we have IP laws.
At the moment the laws are written to benefit IP holders and not the public. And it's that way simply because they have better lobbyists.
What did I do to watch the movie? Put it on my tiny laptop screen to watch in front of my whole family, and accumulated a bit more hatred of the MPAA and constituent companies. Piracy is illegal, but what they are doing now should be as well. And the sad truth is that, when you really hate someone, and they've harmed you, it becomes easier to justify "harming" them. Especially when the "harm" doesn't register in any but an abstract manner.
So I'm in the market, looking for the next season of my favorite show not yet aired here in Finland. Clearly I can't watch it from the TV. Netflix does not offer the show in here in Finland. What options do I have?
Legitimate content providers have failed in a game called free market. Last time I heard free market was quite popular in the USA.
Do without. Watch something else. Play cards. Go for a walk. Write some code. Start a side project. I don't understand why that's a hard concept to grasp.
Really it just sounds kind of pathetic that you can't control yourself enough to simply not sit in a chair or whatever and watch this exact movie.
By not watching the shows at all HBO (or other companies) cannot aggregate consumer demand for their show. If you are interested in watching a show and find it inconvenient then blatant pirating can actually help a cable company quantify the demand for the time and mediums of distribution. (yes those companies track aggregate pirating stats)
Let's look at two scenarios: They both involve a show that 100k people want to watch, but 20k of those people can't/won't watch it using the methods legally provided. (Fuzzy/simple math to illustrate the point.)
In scenario one, those 20k pirate the show instead. This means that the known demand for the show is 100k viewers, 80k using legal distribution, 20k using illegal distribution.
In scenario two (what Marco proposes), the 20k simply don't watch it at all. In that case, the known demand for the show is 80k viewers total, all of which obtained the show legally.
In scenario one, the content providers know there are 100k units of demand, 80k of which they are receiving revenue for - which implies 20% of the viewers want the show, but not for its current price/availability. Thus, they have a semi-accurate view of demand.
In scenario two, the content providers only know there are 80k units of demand. They don't know that the other 20k users even exist, or are at all interested in the product. They have less usable information, and no change is enacted - if they don't know those 20k exist, their absence can't be noted.
In this case, piracy provides an indicator of unfulfilled demand, whereas abstaining from piracy provides no feedback whatsoever. I think the concept of "protest via absence" in this situation isn't going to do anything useful.
I think there is an obligation to obey the wishes and rights of the content providers regardless of your respect for those obligations and whether or not those arrangements serve you fairly.
To demand the ability to dictate terms of the arrangement and disregard the terms offered to you is enlightenment. (The special case of this is when an entity represses another with a monopoly, but that doesn't apply here as there is no single monopoly on all entertainment.)
You may be the shows, musicians, entertainments, etc's target audience but you are not in the current target market. As others routinely point out, content providers need address this. It is a failure for them to not capitalize on an audience.
The pragmatic solution is to sponsor organizations and entertainment that you are the both in the target audience and target market. Ad supported media, Humble Indie Bundle, Pay-what-you-want entertainment and Kickstarter projects are all ways you can easily support content on more respectable terms.
By pirating, you really are letting content providers off the hook by not forcing them to compete with providers that you favor. There is an opportunity cost that you pay by not investing in media where you were the target market and those vested parties respect you.
Most of my video consumption is through legal means, be it recording to my HTPC, or when I cannot, buying from Amazon Instant Videos (it fits my needs: iPad/Roku/Bluray player apps).
When the video isn't available that way, you bet I pirate. If your business model relies on your customers to avoid activities that are convenient, easy, and get them exactly what they want and the only argument against not doing it is that to the consumer, the activity rises to the standard of "morally questionable" at worst, your business model needs to be fixed. Everything I pirate is a lost sale not because the pirated version was available, but because the legal version was not. And the pirated version will always be available.
As the gatekeepers to the content, the movie/TV industries could provide an incredible product with an amazing customer experience and make money hand over fist. Doing that would push piracy off to only the "digital hoarders" who wouldn't be buying it anyway. But they aren't even getting the very basics. Start with giving consumers a way to pay for the product. I'm probably just a simpleton here, but to me the equivalent of their business model would be like walking into a grocery store and seeing a pile of fresh oranges with a sign that says "If you want one today, you'll have to steal it. Come by next Tuesday at 8:00 PM and we'll let you eat one while listening to a guy talk about how good bananas are for 4-6 minutes. We don't sell these". Not a perfect analogy since the act of stealing the orange doesn't make fewer oranges available, it just keeps the store from receiving more money.
There's a TV show called "Ed" that I enjoyed growing up. Because of a licensing mess surrounding the background music in several episodes, it will likely never be released in any format. I'm a rabid fan. I'd pay $200 a season for a legal release in any format that I could playback somewhere. Instead, I've got these horrible SLP VHS to overly compressed MPEG versions that I recorded when it originally aired. I still watch them, but on my larger television the picture is nearly indistinguishable from a Jackson Pollock painting.
"If you can’t watch something legally until it comes out on Netflix or whatever service you use, you have only two justifiable options: either wait, or don’t watch it."
Or, alternatively, if you're going to anyway what's the problem again?
Mass media is meant to be a convenient, efficient market. When it isn't the moral failing is not on the part of consumers.
And the market is convenient, and efficient. It's just that the most convenient and efficient market for much of Television/mass media happens to be the black market. Until the legal market is as convenient, the problem won't go away. And it is possible to beat a casual pirate this way. I haven't pirated a music track in probably a decade thanks to iTunes and Amazon/Google's music stores.
I'm not sure I see the point in arguing that piracy is or isn't justifiable. It's happening and it seems to be increasing. The sad fact is that it's easier to pirate than it is to pay. I pay for cable, HBO, Showtime, etc. but exclusively use a Mac Mini and torrent everything. Do I feel that what I'm doing is justifiable, no. Is it easier for me, yes.
Downloading TV shows is actually not illegal in many countries. Usually, only uploading is illegal.
Morally, is is questionable. You can program your video-recorder (if you still have device like that) and let it record the TV show when it airs and watch it later. Or you can skip recording it yourself (because constantly recording everything is boring and wasting resources) and download it from piratebay. Is there really a difference? And if the show in question is inaccessible in your country, should you wait years for it? I would not.
You can do this, but unless you complain too, most companies are not going to notice for a long time.
I suspect most of these companies still don't really understand the problem - for example I don't want to wait 6 months (in the UK) to see something that's already on TV in the US. I'd happily buy the series on DVD rather than wait. It's not about cost, but if I watch another way, no one who made it will get any money.
Marketing campaigns make people "want very badly" what they can't have. Yet they can, and they don't even have to pay for it.
At some level, the copyright issue is just a question of "wants" vs "needs" of humans. When does "wanting something badly enough" become "needing" it? Are we addicted to content -- are Big Media the dealers leeching off our habit?
This argument is, I think, completely correct, but also to a certain extend irrelevant.
The real discussion should, in my opinion, be held on the supply side of digital content for it still seems to be crowded with companies who for better or worse can not or will not deal with the ramifications of our new networked world and keep dwelling in poor service whilst preaching that piracy is sinful. Companies, whom I might add not so long ago, were happy to push for legislation that would alter the way our basic democratic freedoms work, all in the name of copyright.
I find anti-piracy crowd to be highly similar to politicians or policy-makers who advocate abstinence. In principle the argument is correct, you only need to forget that in the real world people don't quite work that way.
Piracy, in the end to me, is not a moral problem, but a service problem. If you care to fix it, that is.
Realistically, many shows will never make it to my country. So my two choices, in fact, are:
1) Don't watch it.
2) Watch it.
It's not that I'm cheap or impatient. It's not even that I'm lazy (though I am), unless you count not being willing to move to the US.
Same is true for citizens living in the U.S. with regards to BBC and CBC shows like Dragon's Den. I really like to watch BBC docs, but I don't feel the need to go and download them illegally or anything. There's a lot of great stuff from all over the world that USA people can't watch.
I really don't understand the entitled argument. I don't get why consumers feel they are owed the right to be entertained by any particular piece of digital media.
Why not just watch something else? There's plenty of good stuff out there that can be obtained within the rules. Why not argue for all the legal options rather than the entitlement option?
[+] [-] Ensorceled|13 years ago|reply
However, it's now being used to hold back society, via actually preventing people from accessing the copyrighted content. Worse, copyright is being used to justify restrictions and prohibitions on new methods of distribution and entire new technologies.
They may not be forcing people to copyright, but they have lost the moral standing to complain about it.
[+] [-] simbyotic|13 years ago|reply
Furthermore, it isn't copyright that is preventing people from accessing the content, but the fact that these corporations have not evolved their business model to the way consumers consume content these days.
There may be several reasons as to why that has not happened (they may still be making enough money with their old business model and are risk-averse to try new things) but claiming that the creators of something do not have the moral right to own their creations is an absurdity.
[+] [-] purplelobster|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] GHFigs|13 years ago|reply
What are you referring to here? When I think of the piracy debate, I think of the things that are most commonly pirated, and I can't think of any examples from that set where society is being "held back" due to copyright on them.
[+] [-] AnthonyMouse|13 years ago|reply
Which leaves you with an economic choice. Either copyright holders can have more availability and less piracy, or the other way around.
Now maybe they decide they want less availability and more piracy -- maybe they think (almost certainly incorrectly) that that will make them more money. But if that's the case then you might as well go ahead and give up on the pirates, because that's the decision you've made: The decision to create a supply shortage and therefore a market incentive for piracy sufficient to create a critical mass of pirates and commercial enterprises reliant on piracy who, once established, will fight for their own continued existence.
The best case scenario is that the outcome is less violent than the organized crime families created by prohibition or the drug cartels created by the War on Drugs.
Or you can make sure everybody can get their fix from legitimate sources. Then piracy becomes less profitable because it has less of an advantage over purchasing, and some existing pirates discontinue their pirating, which reduces the strength of the pirate community, reduces the demand for illicit releases and thus the incentive to supply them, etc.
But hey, it's your decision. Do whatever you want. If you want you can fight the market and then wail about morality when the inevitable economic consequences ensue. But I wouldn't.
[+] [-] GHFigs|13 years ago|reply
I find it difficult to reconcile this with the near-constant moral tirades about it, such as those which claim piracy is not about people being cheap, or those which claim rightsholders are "forcing" people into piracy.
One might also recognize those arguments as the ones this post is actually addressing on its way to (as you say) "missing the point".
[+] [-] zdw|13 years ago|reply
The problem is that there are things that never are going to eventually become available, for example:
- Culture specific or non-mainstream programming - Reality TV from other countries
Given that you're never going to even be given the option to pay for something, I think the argument breaks down.
[+] [-] popup3|13 years ago|reply
Because I'd never sell them to you, do you have the right to take my fancy clothes without paying for them?
[+] [-] pdonis|13 years ago|reply
No, it doesn't. His argument is that if you can't get it through a legit source, don't watch it at all.
[+] [-] kstenerud|13 years ago|reply
People are lazy. The only way to really get them riled up is if they fear for their future. Otherwise the whole "if enough people do it" argument is moot.
Want to make a difference? Hit people where it hurts. The legality and morality of how you do so is up to you, and is entirely dependent upon circumstance.
Actually, here's an "if enough people do it" argument that actually works: If enough people pirate shows because they can't find them via legitimate sources in the way they want, they'll expose a market opportunity. Now get off your goddam high horse.
[+] [-] SomeCallMeTim|13 years ago|reply
I own a BluRay disc that I purchased new. I attempted to watch it on our "big screen," a projector with a DVI input but no HDMI. BZZZ. The fully legal software that came with my computer won't let me watch over a non-HDMI connection, and VLC can't handle this particular BluRay disc, even with the latest patches, extra files, and instructions I can find posted online.
WHY can't I watch it that way? Because some idiot executive somewhere thinks that it will make it easier to circumvent the DRM on BluRay, and therefore they screw paying customers who don't have the newest equipment.
Either that or it's Sony attempting to coerce people to upgrade their equipment so they can sell more TVs.
Either way it's unethical, and a technological violation of Copyright fair use rights: I should be able to consume a product however I like. I bought it, I want to watch it, and there's no technical reason I shouldn't be able to -- it's entirely a business reason, either way.
I'm not talking about a right necessarily ensconced in law (IANAL), but a moral right. I should also be able to rip and remix content under fair use. And in the case of BluRay, it may be illegal
Copyright law exists (in the US at least) for the benefit of the PUBLIC, not the benefit of the IP owners. Read the Constitution if you don't believe me (or this TechDirt article which provides additional support [1]); it's pretty clear and on point about why we have IP laws.
At the moment the laws are written to benefit IP holders and not the public. And it's that way simply because they have better lobbyists.
What did I do to watch the movie? Put it on my tiny laptop screen to watch in front of my whole family, and accumulated a bit more hatred of the MPAA and constituent companies. Piracy is illegal, but what they are doing now should be as well. And the sad truth is that, when you really hate someone, and they've harmed you, it becomes easier to justify "harming" them. Especially when the "harm" doesn't register in any but an abstract manner.
[1] http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120407/00171418416/yes-co...
[+] [-] rmah|13 years ago|reply
Actions always trump words.
[+] [-] rapala|13 years ago|reply
Legitimate content providers have failed in a game called free market. Last time I heard free market was quite popular in the USA.
[+] [-] chimi|13 years ago|reply
Really it just sounds kind of pathetic that you can't control yourself enough to simply not sit in a chair or whatever and watch this exact movie.
[+] [-] holograham|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dlytle|13 years ago|reply
Let's look at two scenarios: They both involve a show that 100k people want to watch, but 20k of those people can't/won't watch it using the methods legally provided. (Fuzzy/simple math to illustrate the point.)
In scenario one, those 20k pirate the show instead. This means that the known demand for the show is 100k viewers, 80k using legal distribution, 20k using illegal distribution.
In scenario two (what Marco proposes), the 20k simply don't watch it at all. In that case, the known demand for the show is 80k viewers total, all of which obtained the show legally.
In scenario one, the content providers know there are 100k units of demand, 80k of which they are receiving revenue for - which implies 20% of the viewers want the show, but not for its current price/availability. Thus, they have a semi-accurate view of demand.
In scenario two, the content providers only know there are 80k units of demand. They don't know that the other 20k users even exist, or are at all interested in the product. They have less usable information, and no change is enacted - if they don't know those 20k exist, their absence can't be noted.
In this case, piracy provides an indicator of unfulfilled demand, whereas abstaining from piracy provides no feedback whatsoever. I think the concept of "protest via absence" in this situation isn't going to do anything useful.
[+] [-] sarvinc|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jamesmiller5|13 years ago|reply
To demand the ability to dictate terms of the arrangement and disregard the terms offered to you is enlightenment. (The special case of this is when an entity represses another with a monopoly, but that doesn't apply here as there is no single monopoly on all entertainment.)
You may be the shows, musicians, entertainments, etc's target audience but you are not in the current target market. As others routinely point out, content providers need address this. It is a failure for them to not capitalize on an audience.
The pragmatic solution is to sponsor organizations and entertainment that you are the both in the target audience and target market. Ad supported media, Humble Indie Bundle, Pay-what-you-want entertainment and Kickstarter projects are all ways you can easily support content on more respectable terms.
By pirating, you really are letting content providers off the hook by not forcing them to compete with providers that you favor. There is an opportunity cost that you pay by not investing in media where you were the target market and those vested parties respect you.
Edit: grammar
[+] [-] mdip|13 years ago|reply
When the video isn't available that way, you bet I pirate. If your business model relies on your customers to avoid activities that are convenient, easy, and get them exactly what they want and the only argument against not doing it is that to the consumer, the activity rises to the standard of "morally questionable" at worst, your business model needs to be fixed. Everything I pirate is a lost sale not because the pirated version was available, but because the legal version was not. And the pirated version will always be available.
As the gatekeepers to the content, the movie/TV industries could provide an incredible product with an amazing customer experience and make money hand over fist. Doing that would push piracy off to only the "digital hoarders" who wouldn't be buying it anyway. But they aren't even getting the very basics. Start with giving consumers a way to pay for the product. I'm probably just a simpleton here, but to me the equivalent of their business model would be like walking into a grocery store and seeing a pile of fresh oranges with a sign that says "If you want one today, you'll have to steal it. Come by next Tuesday at 8:00 PM and we'll let you eat one while listening to a guy talk about how good bananas are for 4-6 minutes. We don't sell these". Not a perfect analogy since the act of stealing the orange doesn't make fewer oranges available, it just keeps the store from receiving more money.
There's a TV show called "Ed" that I enjoyed growing up. Because of a licensing mess surrounding the background music in several episodes, it will likely never be released in any format. I'm a rabid fan. I'd pay $200 a season for a legal release in any format that I could playback somewhere. Instead, I've got these horrible SLP VHS to overly compressed MPEG versions that I recorded when it originally aired. I still watch them, but on my larger television the picture is nearly indistinguishable from a Jackson Pollock painting.
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] yarrel|13 years ago|reply
Or, alternatively, if you're going to anyway what's the problem again?
Mass media is meant to be a convenient, efficient market. When it isn't the moral failing is not on the part of consumers.
[+] [-] mdip|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] sarvinc|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] waterlesscloud|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sarvinc|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vlasta2|13 years ago|reply
Morally, is is questionable. You can program your video-recorder (if you still have device like that) and let it record the TV show when it airs and watch it later. Or you can skip recording it yourself (because constantly recording everything is boring and wasting resources) and download it from piratebay. Is there really a difference? And if the show in question is inaccessible in your country, should you wait years for it? I would not.
[+] [-] rythie|13 years ago|reply
I suspect most of these companies still don't really understand the problem - for example I don't want to wait 6 months (in the UK) to see something that's already on TV in the US. I'd happily buy the series on DVD rather than wait. It's not about cost, but if I watch another way, no one who made it will get any money.
[+] [-] stephengillie|13 years ago|reply
At some level, the copyright issue is just a question of "wants" vs "needs" of humans. When does "wanting something badly enough" become "needing" it? Are we addicted to content -- are Big Media the dealers leeching off our habit?
[+] [-] jivatmanx|13 years ago|reply
Everything after 1923 is in copyright, and thus affects an era even before movies with recorded sound were even invented.
[+] [-] debacle|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] maurits|13 years ago|reply
The real discussion should, in my opinion, be held on the supply side of digital content for it still seems to be crowded with companies who for better or worse can not or will not deal with the ramifications of our new networked world and keep dwelling in poor service whilst preaching that piracy is sinful. Companies, whom I might add not so long ago, were happy to push for legislation that would alter the way our basic democratic freedoms work, all in the name of copyright.
I find anti-piracy crowd to be highly similar to politicians or policy-makers who advocate abstinence. In principle the argument is correct, you only need to forget that in the real world people don't quite work that way.
Piracy, in the end to me, is not a moral problem, but a service problem. If you care to fix it, that is.
[+] [-] sigzero|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lmm|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chimi|13 years ago|reply
I really don't understand the entitled argument. I don't get why consumers feel they are owed the right to be entertained by any particular piece of digital media.
Why not just watch something else? There's plenty of good stuff out there that can be obtained within the rules. Why not argue for all the legal options rather than the entitlement option?
[+] [-] mhb|13 years ago|reply
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/28/why-are-cab...
[+] [-] sarvinc|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mark-r|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mmariani|13 years ago|reply
Hey Netflix stop saying you're sorry for not being available in Italy and please sort it out already.