> if someone stole that art I would call the company itself.
"The company itself" is a finite set of humans with jobs. Dave Hyman's job is to handle legal issues involving Netflix. You're saying that the best course of action to resolve this legal issue involving Netflix is to call the company's tech support?
> that sounds like the fault of the company
OP is already dealing with a fault of the company. Declaring that the company has a second fault isn't helping.
I've called customer service because I've been burned by malfunctioning products before. I received a replacement product in addition to some financial compensation.
I'm sure that's the sort of thing legal handles, and therefore customer service must have a way of contacting legal.
I think it's beyond reasonable to expect contacting the customer-facing representatives of a company should be sufficient for almost all matters.
Yesterday I was going to reply to your other message in this thread, but I decided to let it go. However, your "it's beyond reasonable to expect" phrasing has piqued the issue once again.
You work in marketing. I do not, but I assume that marketing folks view communication as a good thing. After all, your job is to present your company's message and get responses from potential customers. Communication equals success. Thus, it makes complete sense to you that that customer service would be a catch-all for any incoming communication.
Consider instead someone who works in legal. For them, in almost all cases like this one, avoiding communication is a victory. Status quo is preserved if people go away, and ignoring people often makes them go away. That department absolutely does not want to ensure that customer service faithfully passes on all relevant communication. The more CS is a black hole, the better.
You need to distinguish between these two types of inbound communication. You repeatedly make statements like "it's beyond reasonable to expect," "If your customer service can't figure out how to escalate legal issues, that sounds like the fault of the company," and "Someone trying to contact the organization should not have to divine the nature of the beast." These statements might make sense in the context of a potential customer communication where both sides want to make a deal. But they sound clueless, entitled, and whiny in the context of an inbound communication from a non-customer and potential litigant like OP. Do you think Netflix cares that they didn't make it beautiful and seamless for randos to obtain compensation for copyright infringement? And do you think they care that you're so very disappointed in them?
It's odd to be frustrated at a company for avoiding or delaying the rents and friction of running a company. That's what they're supposed to do. In fact, a shareholder would be frustrated at a company that didn't do this. I doubt you're interested in taking advice from me, but since this frustration is a running theme in your posts, and because most people want less frustration in their lives, you might consider a more nuanced expectation about how companies should behave -- especially when your current expectation leads you to make irrational and self-defeating choices like contacting customer support instead of legal for a legal matter.
"The company itself" is a finite set of humans with jobs. Dave Hyman's job is to handle legal issues involving Netflix. You're saying that the best course of action to resolve this legal issue involving Netflix is to call the company's tech support?
> that sounds like the fault of the company
OP is already dealing with a fault of the company. Declaring that the company has a second fault isn't helping.