Netflix's VPN ban cannot cure TV studios' chronic headaches

February 1, 2016 by Peter K. Yu, Texas A&m University, The Conversation
Netflix’s VPN ban cannot cure TV studios’ chronic headaches
Netflix is fighting an uphill battle against international copyright regulations – and against graffiti artists tagging its headquarters. Credit: Nick Travis/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA

In mid-January, Netflix announced a ban on the use of proxies, unblockers and virtual private networks (VPNs) – all technical work-arounds to view movies and TV programs unavailable in the subscriber's country. This announcement coincided with the company's global service launch into more than 130 new markets.

With the new in place, Australian subscribers will no longer be able to watch U.S. shows until they become available Down Under. Likewise, U.S. subscribers who are addicted to British shows will have to wait for those shows to come stateside.

The providers' desire for this ban is easy to understand. If Australian fans have already watched a U.S. show via Netflix, who will tune in when the show finally arrives in Australia?

Thus far, movie studios and TV producers have repeatedly criticized Netflix for turning a blind eye to unlicensed viewing. Had the company continued to ignore geographical licensing restrictions, some of these providers might have eventually pulled their content from the service.

Nevertheless, the recently announced ban is unlikely to provide a long-term cure to the content providers' chronic headaches. The problem lies not with Netflix, but with the unmet consumer demand in foreign markets. If we are to successfully address this problem, more comprehensive copyright reform will be needed.

Netflix’s VPN ban cannot cure TV studios’ chronic headaches
Streaming to the world: Netflix launched service almost worldwide in January 2016. (Countries colored red are served by Netflix; black are not.) Credit: NordNordWest/Wikimedia Commons

The benefits of geographical restrictions

Using geographical restrictions to protect entertainment products is nothing new. DVD region codes provide the most recognizable example. The U.S. is Region 1 for standard DVDs and Region A for Blu-ray DVDs.

These region codes are deployed to support releasing movies or TV programs – and later DVDs – in geographic sequences. There are at least three reasons.

First, actors, directors and producers cannot promote entertainment projects around the world at the same time. To ensure optimal marketing, the release of movies and TV programs may have to be staggered geographically.

Second, producers may select different release times to maximize viewership. For example, a movie that is released in the U.S. around Thanksgiving may perform much better at the box office if it is released around Christmas in other parts of the world.

Third, interest in foreign markets may grow considerably after a movie or TV program has succeeded in the local market. In the U.S., TV stations often import foreign programs after they have been well received abroad.

The Internet as a paradigm shift

As far as the Internet is concerned, digital piracy is the most widely discussed issue among movie studios and TV producers. To minimize damage, many have begun releasing material worldwide on the same day.

Such simultaneous release also helps preserve viewers' entertainment experience. Photos, spoilers and reviews will inevitably appear on websites and social media after the material has been shown anywhere in the world.

In addition, consumer expectations have dramatically changed in the Internet age. No longer content to patiently wait for movies and TV programs to arrive in their country, many people now expect immediate worldwide access.

To complicate matters, many entertainment products are now consumed online, and movies and TV programs are viewed outside the times designated by studios and producers. As a result, traditional release windows have become less significant.

Netflix versus content providers

In the coming weeks, and TV producers will certainly welcome Netflix's VPN ban. In the long run, however, it is unclear how much this ban will benefit them.

To some extent, Netflix's problem reminds us of the early days of Napster, when consumers were eager to listen to music online but could not find legitimate access. That a large number of Netflix subscribers are now viewing movies and TV shows before they become locally available suggests very strong demand in foreign markets.

If this demand continues and Netflix can no longer meet it, consumers will look elsewhere, and may end up in places that the content providers like even less. Netflix is a legitimate company that is willing to work with these providers, but many illegal streaming services do exist.

Moreover, Netflix is not only a content distributor, but also a content provider. By making it difficult for subscribers to view unlicensed foreign movies and TV programs, the ban will help drive consumption to the company's own productions, such as "House of Cards" and "Orange Is the New Black."

The new policy therefore could make Netflix more competitive vis-à-vis other , even though such growing strength in content production could eventually discourage these providers from streaming material via the service.

Finally, there are questions about whether technologically savvy subscribers will be able to circumvent the ban, just like how they now use VPNs to provide technical work-arounds. Also worth exploring is the ban's potential adverse impact on those subscribers who need proxies for privacy, security or other legitimate reasons.

The need for global content distribution

Given the mixed results of Netflix's ban, it is time we developed new laws and initiatives to facilitate global content distribution. In the past few years, some countries and international organizations have already been moving in this promising direction.

For instance, the EU is now considering a new regulation on the cross-border portability of online content services, which will allow lawfully purchased materials to be freely accessible throughout the 28 EU countries. This proposed regulation calls into question the appropriateness of tethering copyright protection to national laws.

A few years ago, the director general of the World Intellectual Property Organization also noted the need for developing "a seamless global legal digital marketplace." Although this marketplace has yet to exist, his suggestion underscores the importance of comprehensive global copyright reform.

Obviously, these laws and initiatives are only the beginning. Many of them will remain needed even if Netflix can successfully ban the use of proxies to view unlicensed material. After all, it is neither wise nor easy to fight with those who are eager to consume but have no legitimate access.

Explore further: Even if Netflix is serious about blocking VPNs, it is unlikely to succeed

Related Stories

Netflix becomes 'global TV network' in 190 countries

January 6, 2016

Streaming pioneer Netflix said Wednesday it had significantly expanded its global footprint to 190 countries, making its Internet TV service available in 130 new markets including India—but not China.

Netflix chief says 2016 will bring emphasis on family shows

January 17, 2016

Netflix says it will make a special effort to produce programming for children and families, with the streaming service offering 20 new programs in the category this year led by the Feb. 26 premiere of the "Fuller House" ...

Recommended for you

Finnish firm detects new Intel security flaw

January 12, 2018

A new security flaw has been found in Intel hardware which could enable hackers to access corporate laptops remotely, Finnish cybersecurity specialist F-Secure said on Friday.


Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

not rated yet Feb 01, 2016
"With the new ban in place, Australian subscribers will no longer be able to watch U.S. shows until they become available Down Under."

A ban doesn't mean they will no longer be able to watch... just that they are not supposed to.
4.8 / 5 (4) Feb 01, 2016
Unfortunately knowing the US proclivity for making "their policy the world's policy" means that we'll be subjected to the ridiculous 70 years after an artist's death before the copyright expires. No thanks. Yankee copyright laws and patent laws are completely anti-competition and can be largely viewed as a monoploy. The US wants total control and say in anything that's "cross border" or "international" and they're involved. Greed knows no bounds when it comes to the yankee's.
5 / 5 (1) Feb 01, 2016
Who decides who watches what and where? What makes them so special? It would seem that producers and content providers should be paying consumers to watch their show since the market is so flooded and saturated with shows and youtube videos. It is hard to find time to watch a certain show more less watch a foreign program. Producers and creators should be careful with all the copyright nonsense because in a few years they will be praying for people to watch their show, whether it is a 10/10 best show or not. People have much more content to read and view online today than they have ever had previously. I think the opposite and Netflix should give foreign shows away for free. Funny thing is, many of the same shows are on in different countries, just with different actors or reality stars, Housewives of Melbourne for example.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.