Big Media Companies Insist That VPN Services Violate Copyright Law

from the fighting-the-tide dept

Back during the SOPA fight, in a discussion with someone who was working with the politicians pushing SOPA, I pointed out that such a law would encourage much more encryption -- and the response was "that's no problem, because we'll just ban encryption next." As stupid and impossible as such a statement is, it shows the mindset of some copyright extremists. Thus, it should be no surprise that they're actually starting down just such a path in New Zealand. As we noted last year, Kiwi ISPs, frustrated that their users kept running up against geoblocks, have started offering VPN services that get around geoblocks as a standard feature there. Basically, this is nothing more than a recognition that the internet really is global and attempts to pretend otherwise are pretty fruitless.

However, the big media companies are not happy about this turn of events. A week or so ago, a bunch of them (Lightbox, MediaWorks, SKY, and TVNZ) teamed up to threaten New Zealand ISPs that if they didn't stop offering "global mode" VPN services to customers, that the media companies would sue -- arguing that merely offering such a service was copyright infringement. The letter is full of the usual bluster:
“Offshore providers, such as Netflix US, Hulu, Amazon Prime and BBC iplayer do not have the right to exploit the copyright works in New Zealand,” the letter says. Licenses they hold apply only to specific overseas locations and prohibit customers from circumventing geo-blocking measures and other content protections.
That may be true, but whether or not those companies are operating in New Zealand is not an issue that is of concern to the ISPs, who are providing internet access to the entire internet. If Netflix US, Hulu, Amazon and the BBC were the ones sneaking around the geoblocks, the companies might have a point. But arguing that merely offering a VPN service to users somehow violates the law seems like a crazy interpretation of copyright laws.

But, of course, crazy interpretations of copyright laws are the norm these days, and there are always some lawyers who will insist the media companies have a case, such as the lawyer quoted in that article. The basic argument seems to be a variation on felony interference of a business model:
The four are claiming that Global Mode, offered by Slingshot and Orcon, and similar services offered by other providers, are ‘unlawful’ for several reasons.

Top of the list is infringement of the Copyright Act 1994, ‘either directly or as a joint tortfeasor’.

The four are also claiming the services are unlawful in providing ‘misleading representations’ in stating or implying ‘without a proper basis’ that it is lawful for New Zealand based users of the services to access content from the offshore providers, and that ‘circumvention of geo-blocking measures in this way is permitted by New Zealand law (just like parallel importing of DVDs)’.

The four are also claiming that use of the services constitutes a clear breach of the terms and conditions of the offshore providers – being the likes of Netflix, Hulu and Hulu Plus, Amazon Prime and BBC iPlayer.
From a loose reading of this it seems like they're really arguing three things: (1) that offering such a service is a form of "inducement" to infringement, (2) that this is a form of circumvention of restrictions, which violates anti-circumvention clauses and (3) that this violates the terms of those video services.

The third argument is meaningless since that's an issue between those services and the ISPs, not the media companies and the ISPs. The first one seems like a stretch but probably depends on a few factors, including how the services are marketed and whether or not merely viewing geoblocked content is a form of direct infringement (which seems like a stretch to me). The circumvention issue also seems like a stretch, but may depend on the specifics of New Zealand's Copyright Act, which I'm not as familiar with. You can read it here though to see which sections might apply.

Either way, with the threat looming, at least one ISP has caved, saying it's not worth the fight:
Unlimited Internet director Ben Simpson says that while his company doesn’t necessarily agree with that assertion, it has taken down the service nonetheless.

“Geo-unblocking services are a direct result of consumer demand for access to content that is not made available to the New Zealand market,” Simpson says.

“To be on the safe side, we have taken legal advice on this matter and I have made a firm call that we will sit on the sideline until a legal precedent has been set.”
Of course, whether or not offering such a service technically violates copyright law is kind of besides the point, as the very idea that offering such a service should be against the law is crazy. Such services provide real value to consumers not just in getting around pointless geoblocks, but also in protecting privacy. Trying to outlaw VPN services like that just to protect obsolete business models of media companies pretending the world is not global these days, just seems like yelling at the tide. But, given that it's big old media companies we're dealing with, they still haven't figured out that going with the tide is much easier than ordering it not to come in...

Reader Comments

The First Word

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    Mason Wheeler (profile), 9 Apr 2015 @ 8:29am

    Tail: Listen up, Dog! No matter how big you grow, or how insignificant I become in relation to the rest of you, you will be wagged by me whenever and however I want! Is that clear, Dog?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2015 @ 8:34am

    Cue antidirt...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    pixelpusher220 (profile), 9 Apr 2015 @ 8:37am

    Fraud?

    I do like how now even PAYING for content is being classified as infringement.

    It's not like Netflix provides content for free. Wouldn't it be fraud to take customers money and then not provide them the service they paid for?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    jupiterkansas (profile), 9 Apr 2015 @ 8:48am

    So they don't want you to pirate but they won't sell it to you either. Great business model you've got there.

    It's unlikely that media companies will ever realize that they're the problem that needs fixing, not the laws and not the internet and certainly not the consumer.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      bob, 9 Apr 2015 @ 9:15am

      Re:

      except this isn't even pirating.
      they'd be paying for netflix just like US customers.
      what they're doing is like.. trying to block someone who is visiting the US from new zealand from seeing a movie in an american movie theatre because it hasn't been released in new zealand yet.
      it's just whacky crazy.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2015 @ 9:17am

      Re:

      Part of the problem is that Big Media loves charging places like Australia and New Zealand more for the same content, just because they can. People getting around geoblocks to pay at the lower USA rates, instead of the higher Australian or New Zealand rates means less money for the copyright folks.

      Naturally this upsets the media people.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2015 @ 9:05am

    This sounds like a You problem, not an Us, We or My problem.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2015 @ 9:11am

    I think requiring licensing for encryption, rather than banning encryption is what was discussed. There are legitimate uses for encryption. As well as illegitimate and criminal uses.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2015 @ 9:15am

      Re:

      In a sensible society, businesses adapt to society. Only tyrants demand that society adapts to their business model.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      John Fenderson (profile), 9 Apr 2015 @ 9:16am

      Re:

      "I think requiring licensing for encryption, rather than banning encryption is what was discussed."

      From my point of view, these are approximately the same thing.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      TheResidentSkeptic (profile), 9 Apr 2015 @ 9:20am

      Of course they want encryption licensed

      And they will give you a key... not the only key, mind you, but a key... and they will give the "golden" one to all their special friends...

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2015 @ 9:28am

      Re:

      Having a licensing system is just another point of attack for them.
      They can't outright pay to ban VPN because it's widely used for businesses and other legitimate reason.
      So they need to create a chink in the armor by way of licensing. Once licensing is in place, they can use it as their way in to go after copyright infringement by identifying users. Then their copyright blackmail trolling can begin renewed.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2015 @ 9:45am

      Re:

      There is illegitimate and criminal uses for silly string. Want to license that as well ?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2015 @ 10:16am

      Re:

      Not going to happen. That shit left the horse so long ago, it's petrified by now.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2015 @ 10:44am

      Re:

      I think requiring licensing for encryption, rather than banning encryption is what was discussed.

      I can see no way to do that without completely defeating the primary purpose of encryption.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Jeremy2020 (profile), 9 Apr 2015 @ 12:05pm

      Re:

      Why should I pay for encryption to stop random company from knowing what I do online?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      tqk (profile), 10 Apr 2015 @ 12:35am

      Re:

      I think requiring licensing for encryption, rather than banning encryption is what was discussed.

      No, that's not what's being discussed.
      There are legitimate uses for encryption. As well as illegitimate and criminal uses.

      With all due respect, FUCK THE HELL OFF!!!11

      Me using crypto is not any of YOUR DAMNED BUSINESS!!!11 Nor is it anyone else's damned business, damnit. Do you grok "private conversation"? People used to understand that two people whispering to each other should be avoided until they were done whispering. We used to believe private conversations should be left private. What's your fscking problem?!?

      You're an ignorant twit, methinks.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2015 @ 9:30am

    no surprise with this statement. the entertainment industries will not be happy until they have gained total control of the internet or screwed it up so completely that no one can use it. they want the option of deciding who can use the internet and what they can do with it. they are trying to set up a 'tribunal' sort of thing that will decide if a person has violated the entertainment industries rules, even if there is no evidence against that person! this has been the aim all along, but every time i say as much, it gets shouted down. why the hell would any industry spend so much time and so much money, achieving so little monetary wise during that time unless there was a greater fruit to be won at the end? and dont forget, this VPN business being a perfect example, that these industries are not interested in which businesses get closed down or lose customers while they are after their goal! how any country can back an industry that does so little for it or for itself, pays virtually no money in taxation, employs virtually no one when producing their end product out of studios, influences so many laws that have been in place for decades (innocent until proven guilty being swapped around being the classic example) and punishes so many for doing so little, is beyond belief! if there isn't a mass standup against these industries, the internet and the planet are going to be run by an industry that exists by dreaming up something unbelievable. great until something serious happens!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      John Fenderson (profile), 9 Apr 2015 @ 9:43am

      Re:

      "or screwed it up so completely that no one can use it"

      Oh, they want people to be able to use it. They just want it to be like the communications they're used to: one-to-many, with them in complete control.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2015 @ 5:37pm

      Re:

      I haven't heard of any politician who doesn't love being next to a celebrity & New Zealand isn't any different.

      Remember it was only a few years back that the Key Government caved in to allow the movie studios to offer the part time causal workers on the Hobbitt movies less than the award wages, just because someone rich & famous told them they would shoot the films elsewhere, & that was a New Zealand citizen making that threat.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2015 @ 9:38am

    It's those damned "old dinosaurs" again!

    The corporations that make content young people insist on consuming, it's co-dependency. But you can attack this on the demand side by reading a book instead.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Tor Johnson, 9 Apr 2015 @ 9:49am

      Re: It's those damned "old dinosaurs" again!

      Hey! Reading a book instead is a brilliant idea there, er, me.

      But it's true that with a VPN you can get around silly restrictions.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2015 @ 10:25am

      Re: It's those damned "old dinosaurs" again!

      That is unless the book happens to be seized by Customs when you try to have it shipped to you due to import restrictions imposed by the publisher.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2015 @ 5:46pm

      Re:

      You knuckleheads don't seem to get it.

      The corporations will embark on their ridiculous campaigns no matter how well they're doing. A lack of demand will simply let the corporations say "See, there is a lack of demand because people are pirating, therefore please allow us to sue all of them."

      Case in point, how many people actually watched Dallas Buyers Club? Most people here haven't. That's not stopping Voltage from visiting other countries to demand money from random people.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Mega1987 (profile), 9 Apr 2015 @ 9:50am

    VPN does WUT?

    how does changing your Internet Protocol Via VPNs VIOLATES copyright law?

    wait...
    don't tell the that they thought the IP on VPN means Intellectual Property?

    ugh...

    IP(Intellectual Property) Is DIFFERENT from IP(Internet Protocol)!!!!

    you guys seriously don't NEED to replace a valid term in the IT/ComSci department with that something that's NOT even RELATED to the term...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2015 @ 9:54am

    'a firm call that we will sit on the sideline '

    How anyone can put those words together in a sentence without bursting out laughing is quite unknown to me.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    techflaws (profile), 9 Apr 2015 @ 10:01am

    So what license exactly is Netflix violating by being available in NZ?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2015 @ 10:06am

    Trying to ban VPNs is protectionism in this new 'free trade' global world. Just like we build stuff in China because it's cheaper, we also stream stuff from the US because it's cheaper. That's what 'free trade' is all about.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Edward Teach, 9 Apr 2015 @ 3:13pm

      Re:

      It's just like a high court for aristocracy and a low court for peasants.

      Free trade for me, but not for thee, is how it works. See the leaked ISDS and IP chapters of TPP for proof.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Baron von Robber, 9 Apr 2015 @ 10:09am

    Now I know what I need to do. Startup a VPN service for a low price and advertise in New Zealand.

    Time to brush up on my Aussie.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Ed Allen, 9 Apr 2015 @ 10:12am

    When does the illegality appear ?

    So, is me renting a server in the US illegal ?
    No.
    Can I sign up for Netflix US to deliver movies to it ?
    Yes.
    Still nothing illegal ?
    No.
    My server in the US can encrypt streams to my Desktop in NZ.
    Since that data is encrypted my ISP does not know anything about what
    it is or where it came from. So they cannot be sued ?
    No.
    Since the encryption was Open Source and only I have the key you cannot know
    what is in that data either. Anything you can charge me with yet ?
    No.
    Since I obtained that content legally are you now saying it became
    illegal when I sent bits from the US to NZ ?
    That is what we would prefer.
    Under what rationale ?


    Since nobody but me knows what is in those bits how can you PROVE I owe you anything ?

    Those bits could really be video of my friend visiting the Grand Canyon. The only way you
    have of proving they are not is by compelling me to give you the key. I tell you now
    that I will not volunteer the key. Are you going to ask for the right to torture me
    for that key ?
    We might.
    If I die under torture is that "justice" ?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    David, 9 Apr 2015 @ 10:24am

    IP address != location

    While an IP block may indicate a location, there is no guarantee that it does. I had a friend that worked at Ericcson (a Swedish company) in the same US city I did, and her mail appeared to come from and get sent to Sweden.

    Just like you can get a VoIP or Google Voice number anywhere in the US, even though you aren't even near there, IP addresses are 'transportable' like that, too.

    They are basing restrictions on a non-absolute test.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2015 @ 10:46am

    It baffels me still...

    that so many people want to ruin the best opportunity the world has ever had.
    I am not just talking about money here, but the worlds greatest library. The greatest opportunity for understanding each other across borders. The internet is probably the single greatest global achievement the world has ever made, and we made it together.
    Yes, there is violence, trolls, arguments and silly pictures a plenty... but this is also the best insight into different cultures and people that we have ever had.
    The internet is not just the 8'th wonder of the world, it is greater than the others combined... and still some people are only interested in tearing it down. How sad these people are.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2015 @ 10:57am

      Re: It baffels me still...

      They want to tear it down because they achieved wealth and power without it and it stands to threaten their maintaining that status quo. All of those other things don't matter to them.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2015 @ 10:56am

    LOL

    The internet violates copyright law.

    Life violates laws.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2015 @ 11:14am

      Re:

      Everyone violates the law. The average person commits 3 felonies a day thanks to vastly over reaching and vague laws.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2015 @ 11:43am

    Of course, my servers are in the United States, are are not subject to New Zealand law. Circumvention of geoblocking is not illegal in America at this time, and since my servers are in my apartment in the United States, New Zealand laws does not apply. I only recognise United States laws over my servers, and nothing else.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2015 @ 5:49pm

      Re:

      But your servers in NZ (or anywhere else for that matter) are subject to USA laws if your data crosses the borders of the USA.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    DB (profile), 9 Apr 2015 @ 12:16pm

    A different viewpoint is that these companies want to reserve the economic benefit of globalization for themselves.

    They have no problem with global outsourcing of call centers, post-production, animation, pressing DVDs, etc. Nor with routing revenue through unrelated countries to evade taxes. It all about having access to the lowest cost of production.

    But these same companies are trying to limit consumers to buying only through tightly controlled distribution channels. Even if it's not their content, they want to block it -- they don't want consumers to have access to the world market.

    We expect a worker in Seattle to compete with a worker in Thailand, and to take less pay if that's what it takes. But we want to enforce that the Seattle worker pays $250 for a textbook instead of $8, pays $15 for a DVD instead of under $1, and 20x for prescription drugs.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2015 @ 1:45pm

    It's not VPN - Slingshot customer.

    Just to clarify a few things, I'm a customer of Slingshot, I've got global mode and it's not a VPN at all. My IP address doesn't appear in the US or Europe like a VPN, it displays as Christchurch, or Auckland. (I'm in neither of those places, I'm outside Wellington).
    It allows me access to Netflix, Hulu and iPlayer but not much else. The new 'Community' on Yahoo is geoblocked, as are comedy central and most embedded video's that others can't watch. It's pretty much useless unless you are after those few things.
    This is important though, as NZ copyright law has a chapter on DRM, and when and how you are allowed to circumvent it.
    If content is available here in one form then the law allows us to disable DRM on other forms of the same content, this is why all DVD players sold here have the code in the box to disable the regions. NZ copyright law is very different than US law, don’t conflate the two.


    Also Netflix is the same price here as it is in the US ( in NZD ). The local competition that’s sprung up lately is costing double, and because of prior deals Netflix doesn’t have House of Cards or OITNB.
    Netflix’s modus here seems to be that they don’t need to operate in NZ at any profit as the account globally, so sadly the competition won’t last here for long.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Rikuo, 9 Apr 2015 @ 2:42pm

      Re: It's not VPN - Slingshot customer.

      Sounds to me then that what you've got is a DNS proxy, rather than a VPN.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      CynicalChris (profile), 11 Apr 2015 @ 2:22am

      Re: It's not VPN - Slingshot customer.

      If anyone is reading the act linked to above, the relevant section is "Section 226 Technical Prevention Measures".

      This has part b as follows.

      (b)for the avoidance of doubt, does not include a process, treatment, mechanism, device, or system to the extent that, in the normal course of operation, it only controls any access to a work for non-infringing purposes (for example, it does not include a process, treatment, mechanism, device, or system to the extent that it controls geographic market segmentation by preventing the playback in New Zealand of a non-infringing copy of a work)

      This is commonly interpreted as allowing a user to break DRM so that a DVD from a different zone can be played in New Zealand (i.e. a legitimately purchased DVD from a different country, via Amazon or another vendor).

      That is why I can require a home electronics vendor to "multizone" a DVD player before I leave the store.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Sheogorath (profile), 9 Apr 2015 @ 4:51pm

    Hey, Lightbox et al., I got those apps at the price offered. If I need to use a VPN to firewall them because some of the ads are impacting negatively on my visual issues and no amount of reports has fixed them, that's neither here nor there. I'm not the one responsible for the Disability Impact Assessment fail, after all. :p

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2015 @ 5:47pm

    Next the booksellers will want to ban the NZ Post Office from allowing books to be imported into the country. A few years back the booksellers in Australia stopped any local competition with their parallel import laws (you must buy from the authorised importers & distributors), however they still went broke & out of business when Amazon US sent them via the post from overseas.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2015 @ 6:06pm

    Just stay away from intellectual property. A fan is just a fanatic with money to burn. Stop giving them your time and money.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Drunkard, 9 Apr 2015 @ 6:07pm

    Sounds right to me

    Maybe we should grant limited sovereign immunity to global corporations based on the amount of money they pay to elect public officials. The more they pay, the broader the immunity.
    Admittedly, that won't help them in this case because they are the Plaintiff but, I think this would send the right message to the common man.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    jamesvang86 (profile), 9 Apr 2015 @ 11:34pm

    How could it would be the violation of copyright act by just changing the protocols. Almost every 3rd business person in the world using VPN to secure their data.I am also using a VPN from VpnRanks and want to know am i violating any copyright act.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2015 @ 8:20am

    Don't you know? Their definition of VPN is Virtual Pirating Network. Sheesh.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    John, 3 Jun 2015 @ 5:08am

    bullsh**!

    This is madness, i use nordVPN for perfectly legitimate reasons when transfering sensitive business and personal data. The entertainment industry thinks it's the center of everyones universe.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Diana, 20 Aug 2016 @ 1:26pm

    Please Netflix fix your service first!

    I have been using a VPN to unblock netflix because the US offers they have for american clients are much better than the ones we pay for here in Europe, i don't know how that can be considered illegal as i'm still paying for the service.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Sarah, 30 May 2017 @ 8:15pm

    many good services

    I would usually agree with you but there are many good services out there, you just need to know which one to choose from the myriad of providers, many are bad, many keep logs of what you are doing, but there a few of them that are quite reliable. Some even offer free trials for you to test their software before purchasing anything, i would advise you to look into some lists of the <a href="https://itday.com/vpn/best-vpn-services-of-2017/">best vpn services in 2017</a> .

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: I Invented Email
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.