HBO Max Password Sharing Crackdown Getting Serious in September

jlc1978 said:
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.



But the service can cut you off.
Click to expand...
Correct. Which is why they should allow subscription sharing and multiple IP addresses, locations but perhaps limit the number of concurrent streams.
 
DEMinSoCAL said:
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.
Click to expand...
Oh, really? Businesses want to make money?? Never thought of that. LOL.

What I'm saying is businesses should allow some fair use sharing and incorporate (no pun intended) that into their value proposition for the customer. That's also a basic business principle.
 
iMac The Knife said:
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...
Click to expand...
This.

A household is how many people? Hulu says TWO people. Disney+ says 4. Hulu says 3 people watching at home aren’t allowed to. Ever.

Hulu is clearly charging for simultaneous screens

How about Sling? Sling Blue is 3 “channels” at once while Orange is ONE. So it’s not really a cable replacement because if anyone watches ESPN then nobody else in the household can watch any other Sling Orange channel. At all.

These companies haven’t thought it through, which is why I say they are all just stalling until the “price per screen” system comes out.
 
Someone needs to define "household" in a 2025 human context. Basically, if I buy an account for the family who share the same household but then one of those family members has to go to collage or war or something where they need to leave sad household, that basically means, according to the TOS, that that person is stealing the service. How the hell does that make sense? Same can be said about someone up thread who wanted to buy the service for someone who is elderly. Because that elderly person is not part of the account holders household, that elderly person is now a criminal for stealing and should go to Jail for the rest of her life.

I kid on that last part, but that's basically what these companies are saying. Screw the human condition, or life in general right? You must follow the TOS to the letter and everything else be damned. Well, life doesn't work that way. They changed the TOS, and I could probably challenge them by saying your TOS is confusing as hell.
 
iMac The Knife said:
I will complain all I want to. And, I expect to get the same usage that I've been getting for 15 years. My family that uses this service has been able to use it without issue for 15 years. Therefore, they've set this expectation, not me. This really isn't that difficult to understand.
Click to expand...
In other areas of law it’s known as adverse possession, proscriptive easement, etc.

If a lawsuit was brought by long time subscribers, they might find a court that says these customers are GRANDFATHERED in.

There is a weak precedent for fighting changes. When American Airlines changed their frequent flyer program structure, members successfully sued and AA was forced to continue to offer “legacy” awards to those who earned miles under the old system.

But what might tip the court in the customer’s favor is the “auto billing” feature of the product. Similar to a lease, the provider was perfectly fine with the way customers used the product and continued to bill them and renew them despite those customers violating a ToS. Had the providers sent termination notices for lack of compliance, they would be on more solid ground. But they happily took money and may, MAY, have altered the ToS for those customers by doing so.
 
sjsharksfan12 said:
Someone needs to define "household" in a 2025 human context. Basically, if I buy an account for the family who share the same household but then one of those family members has to go to collage or war or something where they need to leave sad household, that basically means, according to the TOS, that that person is stealing the service. How the hell does that make sense? Same can be said about someone up thread who wanted to buy the service for someone who is elderly. Because that elderly person is not part of the account holders household, that elderly person is now a criminal for stealing and should go to Jail for the rest of her life.

I kid on that last part, but that's basically what these companies are saying. Screw the human condition, or life in general right? You must follow the TOS to the letter and everything else be damned. Well, life doesn't work that way. They changed the TOS, and I could probably challenge them by saying your TOS is confusing as hell.
Click to expand...
Somebody has defined it: Insurance companies.

For auto insurance, a household consists of those living with you AND those temporarily not living with you as long as they haven’t established residency elsewhere. Also, children or grandparents or whoever also must not have title of their vehicle.

So:
Kid at college driving a car you own=Household
Grandparents/parent not living with you=no
Same, but living with you=household unless they own their own car, then exclusion applies.
Military deployed, driving a rental car or third party vehicle=household!
 
turbineseaplane said:
Tangible items at a grocery store also don't have a marginal cost of essentially zero.

When these companies are advertising X amount of simultaneous streams per account, it should not matter one bit where that person is located. It doesn't cost them a nickel more based upon that.

If you pay for X streams, you should be able to use X streams how ever you'd like.
Click to expand...

You can’t say that since it’s intangible and easily duplicated it has no value. Are you going to claim that a software developer’s work, once finished, loses its value just because it can be copied easily?

I don’t particularly care if you approve or disapprove of the fact that the world runs on commerce, but the fact remains that it does. Pay for the things you use. Period.
 
CapitalIdea said:
You can’t say that since it’s intangible and easily duplicated it has no value. Are you going to claim that a software developer’s work, once finished, loses its value just because it can be copied easily?

I don’t particularly care if you approve or disapprove of the fact that the world runs on commerce, but the fact remains that it does. Pay for the things you use. Period.
Click to expand...

How about "I get to use what I paid for?"

If I pay for 3 simultaneous streams, I should get to use those anywhere and anyhow I'd like.

Tell me how it devalues the creative work to allow me to use my 3 streams in 3 different places at the same time .. vs using 3 streams inside one house at the same time?
 
p4ttythep3rf3ct said:
Terms of use literally say "Authorized Users are limited to members of your household."
www.hbomax.com

Terms of Use - US English Policy | HBO Max

Terms of Use - US English Policy | HBO Max
www.hbomax.com www.hbomax.com
Click to expand...

Which makes no actual sense in terms of their costs.

It's an absolutely greed based confabulation of theirs.

If we pay for X number of simultaneous streams, we should get to use those 3 simultaneous streams ... irrespective of if I'm in my house with all 3 or one is one mobile or all 3 are at different houses with kids off at school.

Let's please stop defending this absolute horse crap business behavior from these companies.
 
turbineseaplane said:
How about "I get to use what I paid for?"

If I pay for 3 simultaneous streams, I should get to use those anywhere and anyhow I'd like.

Tell me how it devalues the creative work to allow me to use my 3 streams in 3 different places at the same time .. vs using 3 streams inside one house at the same time?
Click to expand...
It does, but they sell the service under defined terms of service. You and I might not like them, but that is the deal they offer. As long as people pay under those terms there is no reason to change them.
 
npmacuser5 said:
Share a book, music, clothing, tools, cars, RV a long list? If no violation of the number of users at one time, not stealing sharing purchased times and or services. We pay the same for those using 4 users and we only use 1. I asked the streamer do I get a discount, no. Since I am paying for the bandwidth of 4, actually what they are selling, should be-able to use the bandwidth I am paying for and not using. Your examples are outdated. Those are stealing and easily fixed by the number of streams per account not locations, period. This is just a money grab scam.
Click to expand...
4 of you in seperate locations can read the same book?
 
DEMinSoCAL said:
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!
Click to expand...
Violating TOS ≠ "stealing". It's a breach of contract. You won't get arrested or fined. You just might lose access to the service. I hope you aren't an attorney either.

If it was always in their TOS, they should have been enforcing it with the current restrictions from the beginning. They definitely had the ability to do so. They allowed it to get more people hooked and then pulled the rug out from everyone at the right time.

"If you are too poor" lol that's not even the issue. People are free to do what they like with their money. If they feel they aren't getting their money's worth anymore, they won't subscribe, which is what many people (obviously not enough) are doing.

Again, my original statement about people supporting this is insane.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
p4ttythep3rf3ct said:
Terms of use literally say "Authorized Users are limited to members of your household."
www.hbomax.com

Terms of Use - US English Policy | HBO Max

Terms of Use - US English Policy | HBO Max
www.hbomax.com www.hbomax.com
Click to expand...
And a college student who lives at home but is temporarily housed at college is a MEMBER OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD as defined by the US government for tax and benefit purposes, insurance companies and other entities. The same holds for deployed military.

People are purposely ignoring this reality to defend streamers. I really don’t know why people are so intent on redefining household to fit the more restrictive definition. I know why HBO and Netflix want to redefine it.
 
jlc1978 said:
It does, but they sell the service under defined terms of service. You and I might not like them, but that is the deal they offer. As long as people pay under those terms there is no reason to change them.
Click to expand...
They are redefining household when what they MEAN is domicile. A household is a collection of people defined by various established measures and laws, usually related as family. A domicile is a location people live.

The ToS should say domicile, with provisions for temporary use while traveling. But it doesn’t.

3 roommates are not a household but can share a Netflix account under their definition of household.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Back
Top