Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Many members in here called it when Netflix first announced they was going to clampdown on password sharing. They said that all the other media companies will be watching to see what happens, basically to see if customers would comply of if they would leave and go somewhere else and if customers complied they would roll out the same and here we are now seeing HBO doing what Netflix did. The domino effect has started albeit slowly, Netflix, Disney and now Warner Bros. I wonder how many more are going to join the password sharing clampdown club. When will Paramount and Apple get on board?
 
Here's some perspective: if I had a print subscription to the Wall Street Journal, I could give the hard copy newspaper to my father, my friend, or the random guy on the street when I was done reading it– every day if I chose to.

But when they had the hardcopy you didn't. The streaming equivalent would be for you not to be able to use it while they did. Maybe that's streaming's solution, require geolocation and only allow streaming at one location and if another comes on block the it.

Now you're telling me that to share my digital subscription login (for WSJ or a streaming service) with my friend, my relative is stealing?

It may be written in the EULA fine print to qualifiy as such but no jury is likely to send you to jail for that.

But the service can cut you off.

We are returning to those dark days, where I predict all services will be “1 screen at a time” with more expensive, but still limited “family” plans and additional “add-a-screen” prices.

Yea, I suspect we'll see a more drastic tiering of services at some point as streaming services try to get more money from each consumer; and they will have to balance cancellations with the added revenue from the tiering. I suspect most customers are not willing to give up their HBO, Netflix, etc., and will simply live with the new plans.
 
Many members in here called it when Netflix first announced they was going to clampdown on password sharing. They said that all the other media companies will be watching to see what happens, basically to see if customers would comply of if they would leave and go somewhere else and if customers complied they would roll out the same and here we are now seeing HBO doing what Netflix did. The domino effect has started albeit slowly, Netflix, Disney and now Warner Bros. I wonder how many more are going to join the password sharing clampdown club. When will Paramount and Apple get on board?

As soon as Netflix grew and faced competition I knew it would become another ad filled cable service with no password sharing. I don’t care I went back to downloading online and only kept Netflix for my dad who isn’t tech savvy. It was unrealistic to think it would stay the same especially after they started wasting billions on their ****** movies and shows.
 
They were effectively stealing. Get over it.
It was not stealing though was it? not in the 'general' sense because the majority of password sharing as reported by many tech outlets was being done by families whose one household paid the month subscription but then gave it to their family members whilst at college/university or to their grandparents. Anyone outside of the family unit using the password then yes that is stealing but that was not the case that was being put forward.

Netfilx wanted it's cake and eat it. They saw an opportunity where they could makes tens of millions of $$$ and all they had to do was criminalize it which is exactly what they did. They quickly changed the terms and conditions of use to criminalize password sharing because it then gave them a legitimate path to force people to pay up or be kicked off Netflix.

Now all the other players in the streaming market are now slowly following Netflix's example.
 
Suggestion. Life used to be a little bit different.

Here's some perspective: if I had a print subscription to the Wall Street Journal, I could give the hard copy newspaper to my father, my friend, or the random guy on the street when I was done reading it– every day if I chose to.

Now you're telling me that to share my digital subscription login (for WSJ or a streaming service) with my friend, my relative is stealing?

It may be written in the EULA fine print to qualifiy as such but no jury is likely to send you to jail for that.

It's a new phenomonen that in the digital age companies have been able to severely clamp down on the sharing of media and information in those forms.
Suggestion. Your examples are for physical media. I suggest if you want to share your media you get the actual newspaper each day so you can share it. And, buy DVD's or Blu-Rays so you can share them with friends and random people.

Ever wonder why, at all-you-can-eat buffets, they prohibit sharing food and taking home food? It's a basic business principle to make money, not give away your product for free.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: techfreak23
The fact that anyone defends these corporations' blatantly shady practices when they don't give a crap about them absolutely blows my mind. Calling it "stealing" to share your subscription for which multiple simultaneous streams are included for your money when a large portion of people would only ever use 1-2 at most is completely disingenuous. I don't know when it became a crime to get the most for your money, especially when they don't give any other options that would suit those use cases. It's all about money, which I understand them being businesses and all, but they are arbitrarily adding these restrictions and continuing to raise prices. Those extra subscriptions will in no way flatten that graph or create better service/content. It emboldens them to continue the rise because they know people are willing to pay those prices. The people are not to blame for whatever financial situations these corporations find themselves in, the executives are. They all wanted a slice of the streaming pie and were willing to lose so much money on the front end to get people hooked. That's why many like myself have gone back to the high seas. We're tired of it. They should have never done that to themselves if they knew it wasn't sustainable long-term. If we start to lose some of these companies or content, that's on them, not us.
Hope you aren't an attorney. Apparently knowing the terms/rules before paying for a service isn't your strong suit.

The terms are clear. Just because you don't like them doesn't mean violating them isn't stealing. If you are too poor to pay for the service, then don't feel entitled to use it. So many entitled people here, it's insane!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Haha
Reactions: techfreak23
I don't get why so many people find it their constitutional right that they should be able to share your paid subscription for no additional cost. The subscriptions are priced for individuals or households and not for your entire group of friends or your whole school.
Because we've been able to for over a decade. They are just being miserly scum. If I pay for 3 streams, who cares when and where I use them? They never cared before, until greed took over. And no, they weren't priced for individuals and households, they were priced by streams. Again, they never cared before...
 
I don't get why so many people find it their constitutional right that they should be able to share your paid subscription for no additional cost. The subscriptions are priced for individuals or households and not for your entire group of friends or your whole school.

Because these companies allowed and encouraged it for like 10 years. It's not a "constitutional right" but it's certainly a reasonable expectation.
 
Because we've been able to for over a decade. They are just being miserly scum. If I pay for 3 streams, who cares when and where I use them? They never cared before, until greed took over. And no, they weren't priced for individuals and households, they were priced by streams. Again, they never cared before...
READ. THE. TERMS. Is it so hard for people to understand the terms of service and the where part is explicitly stated?

Funny how all the entitled people here don't say how they are thankful for years of free service, but instead complain because they aren't getting it for free anymore.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: techfreak23
READ. THE. TERMS. Is it so hard for people to understand the terms of service and the where part is explicitly stated?

Funny how all the entitled people here don't say how they are thankful for years of free service, but instead complain because they aren't getting it for free anymore.
Did they care before, for a decade? Answer my question.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Premium1
Because these companies allowed and encouraged it for like 10 years. It's not a "constitutional right" but it's certainly a reasonable expectation.
People also drove around without seatbelts for decades until they made a law saying you need to use one to drive. Does that mean the lawmakers encouraged the dangerous practice before they made the law?

Y'all trying to somehow legitimize using a service for free is exhausting.
 
People also drove around without seatbelts for decades until they made a law saying you need to use one to drive. Does that mean the lawmakers encouraged the dangerous practice before they made the law?

Y'all trying to somehow legitimize using a service for free is exhausting.
The service isn't free, even if you get it through a cellular carrier like I do. We are all paying for the service one way or another. And, we are paying more than we did before to have less usability. Of course people are going to complain about that. Also, your comparison is nonsensical.
 
Did they care before, for a decade? Answer my question.
Neither you or I have the data to answer that. Could it be the number of unpaid users has skyrocketed since COVID and that is, for any business, a great loss of income? I don't have a copy of the terms of service from a decade ago available. Do you?

And I'm sure you're smart enough to know that just because you do something wrong and no one does anything doesn't suddenly make it OK. Is that what you would teach your kids?
 
Neither you or I have the data to answer that. Could it be the number of unpaid users has skyrocketed since COVID and that is, for any business, a great loss of income? I don't have a copy of the terms of service from a decade ago available. Do you?

And I'm sure you're smart enough to know that just because you do something wrong and no one does anything doesn't suddenly make it OK. Is that what you would teach your kids?
Yes, we do have the data to answer that, because we could all use our streams wherever we wanted to over the past 15 years. You're trying to deny something that is concrete. That is not good.
 
The service isn't free, even if you get it through a cellular carrier like I do. We are all paying for the service one way or another. And, we are paying more than we did before to have less usability. Of course people are going to complain about that. Also, your comparison is nonsensical.
Oh, there we go...legitimize not paying for it by saying we're ALL paying for it one way or another. Hilarious. Which way is your friend in another state who is using your login "paying" for it? Spare me.

Not sure where you've been lately, but the cost of everything is UP. EVERYTHING. Quit complaining and pay for what you use.
 
Yes, we do have the data to answer that, because we could all use our streams wherever we wanted to over the past 15 years. You're trying to deny something that is concrete. That is not good.
Did the TOS 15 years ago say all the users had to be in the same household? Please provide concrete evidence.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.