HBO Max Password Sharing Crackdown Getting Serious in September

[jlc1978]

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.

I agree that a college student emporarily away at college should be incuded in the household. Deployed military becomes more of a challenge due to licensing agreements between rights holders and Netflix that impose geographic limitations. Someone deployed in the US, IMHO, should be considered part of the household. Streames could renegotiated licensing to allow those deployed overseas to stream.

It would be relatively straightforward, IMHO, to veify a student's or deployed servicemember's status and allow them to stream as part of their agreement.

I read the book pass it around. Book clubs ring a bell or those little free libraries in so many unique places. Seems all those folks are stealing according to media gods.

Librarie and people lending a book do not enable multiple people in different locations to read it at the same time.

 

[jlc1978]

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.

While I agree domicile is probably a better legal definition, the question is how do they definre houshold in their TOS. They should be clear it means one location. If they do, they should be ok under contract law as understand it, but IANAL and ultimately a court coud decide what is required by law.

As for traveling, I have not had an issue with temporary streaming while traveling, other than having too many streams at once..

 

[Scoob Redux]

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.

Wasn't it the corporations that suggested password sharing in the first place?

 

[Shanghaichica]

They are all cracking down. I wonder if Apple will eventually end family sharing or mage you pay extra to do so.

 

[dkh587]

it’s honestly time to drop all these streaming platforms and tell them to go to Gehenna

 

[npmacuser5]

I agree that a college student emporarily away at college should be incuded in the household. Deployed military becomes more of a challenge due to licensing agreements between rights holders and Netflix that impose geographic limitations. Someone deployed in the US, IMHO, should be considered part of the household. Streames could renegotiated licensing to allow those deployed overseas to stream.

It would be relatively straightforward, IMHO, to veify a student's or deployed servicemember's status and allow them to stream as part of their agreement.



Librarie and people lending a book do not enable multiple people in different locations to read it at the same time.

If I paid for four books it would. I pay for four streams only use one, the point. I should be able to use my purchases that best suits my needs.

 

[turbineseaplane]

While I agree domicile is probably a better legal definition, the question is how do they definre houshold in their TOS. They should be clear it means one location. If they do, they should be ok under contract law as understand it, but IANAL and ultimately a court coud decide what is required by law.

As for traveling, I have not had an issue with temporary streaming while traveling, other than having too many streams at once..

They shouldn't be worried about households or domiciles.

They should clearly offer "X number of simultaneous streams" and you use those however you please.

Honestly, if three college friends want to split a sub ... they should be able to buy a "3 stream plan" and split it up!

 

[ikramerica]

They shouldn't be worried about households or domiciles.

They should clearly offer "X number of simultaneous streams" and you use those however you please.

Honestly, if three college friends want to split a sub ... they should be able to buy a "3 stream plan" and split it up!

Legally, it matters.

But the streamers are cable content providers at heart, and are thinking like that.

Cable is/was based on domicile, on 1 “drop” entering that domicile, and then offering outlets or rooms inside the domicile. Premium channels required a box of some kind, meaning that you could only watch them in the rooms that had a rented box.

Streamers want everyone to ignore that the internet exists and that service isn’t dependent on location. Part of the reason is, as has been pointed out, their licensing DOES depend on location, be it local channels or regional distribution contracts.

But much of it just is due to old, entrenched thinking.

Story: way back when, our cable company relied on you having a box to watch HBO, Showtime or Disney. Other channels only required a cable ready TV or a device that my Dad installed that converted the cable channels to UHF. But to scramble the premium signals, the installed a scrambler in the box by the street. One day, some construction equipment knocked the cover off the box. As a 13 year old, when nobody was looking, I unscrewed the inline scrambler and from then on we had free premiums without cable boxes in every room. Fun times.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Legally, it matters.

But the streamers are cable content providers at heart, and are thinking like that.

Cable is/was based on domicile, on 1 “drop” entering that domicile, and then offering outlets or rooms inside the domicile. Premium channels required a box of some kind, meaning that you could only watch them in the rooms that had a rented box.

Streamers want everyone to ignore that the internet exists and that service isn’t dependent on location. Part of the reason is, as has been pointed out, their licensing DOES depend on location, be it local channels or regional distribution contracts.

But much of it just is due to old, entrenched thinking.

Story: way back when, our cable company relied on you having a box to watch HBO, Showtime or Disney. Other channels only required a cable ready TV or a device that my Dad installed that converted the cable channels to UHF. But to scramble the premium signals, the installed a scrambler in the box by the street. One day, some construction equipment knocked the cover off the box. As a 13 year old, when nobody was looking, I unscrewed the inline scrambler and from then on we had free premiums without cable boxes in every room. Fun times.

I guess what I was getting at is that: "it's time for the old ways of thinking to change"

 

[jlc1978]

If I paid for four books it would. I pay for four streams only use one, the point. I should be able to use my purchases that best suits my needs.

Except you purchase the books, but are only given a license to view the streams, so there is no first sale doctrine involved. Thye can license the stream any way they want within the license they have to stream it.

They shouldn't be worried about households or domiciles.

They should clearly offer "X number of simultaneous streams" and you use those however you please.

Honestly, if three college friends want to split a sub ... they should be able to buy a "3 stream plan" and split it up!

They should do that, but they don't. In the end, it is their choice as how to license the content for end user use in a way that makes them the most money. I suspect, once faced with losing access, many more users will pay the extra fee rather than dump them. All the 'I'll just pirate the stuff I want' is just noise on the greater signal of users who just want to watch content. From my experience, the average user just wants to click on something and watch it, and when something goes wrong gets frustrated, even if it is just a momentary buffering due to some connection blip. I can't see them jumping through the hoops of having to get familar with how to pirate and find what they want to watch. The closest I can see them coming around to that is buying one of the pirate boxes or IPTV services; but even then it's a cat and mouse game to keep them working smoothly.

Wasn't it the corporations that suggested password sharing in the first place?

Which was a smart marketing move to hook people on the service; now they need to look to how to keep expanding their subscriber base and ending sharing is one way to try to do that.

We don't have to agree with or like their move but we can understand why they are doing it.

I guess what I was getting at is that: "it's time for the old ways of thinking to change"

TL;DR: Certainly, but I think they only way that will happen is if there is more money in changing.

I remember when, at high cable, people were clamoring for breaking up the model and being able to buy a la carte, thinking it would save money. In a classic case of be careful what you wish for, the breakup happened and now it can cost more to get what you had before, especially as content owners move to making their content exclusive to their service.

Besides the increased cost to consumers to get the content they want, small content creators may be collateral damage in the end. For example, sports are a big money maker for the streaming aggregators and enables them to carry much less popular channels becasue the cost is low and any subscribers they get from them is simply more marginal revenue. In return, those channels get enough money to produce content because they get paid more than they would as an independent.

For example, ESPN is offering their own package, so if enough subscribers for whom sports is the main driver decide they don't need the other channels and can get ones the want cheaper than subscribing to a streaming service like Sling, YoutubeTV, etc., the revenue loss will force the aggregators to lowering prices and dump low performing channels to survive; or offer premium service bundles and still dump low performing channels to cut costs.

I've looked at my viewing habits and could dump my streaming service if I could reliably DVR shows from local channels and have a consistent interface that lets family member simply fire up AppleTV and pick their shows. I already subscribe, binge and cancel services that have 1 show I watch, some I have simply as freeperks so I keep them around.

Until subscribers change their habits there is no reason for streamers to change their model.

Edit:Typo

 

[npmacuser5]

Except you purchase the books, but are only given a license to view the streams, so there is no first sale doctrine involved. Thye can license the stream any way they want within the license they have to stream it.



They should do that, but they don't. In the end, it is their choice as how to license the content for end user use in a way that makes them the most money. I suspect, once faced with losing access, many more users will pay the extra fee rather than dump them. All the 'I'll just pirate the stuff I want' is just noise on the greater signal of users who just want to watch content. From my experience, the average user just wants to click on something and watch it, and when something goes wrong gets frustrated, even if it is just a momentary buffering due to some connection blip. I can't see them jumping through the hoops of having to get familar with how to pirate and find what they want to watch. The closest I can see them coming around to that is buying one of the pirate boxes or IPTV services; but even then it's a cat and mouse game to keep them working smoothly.



Which was a smart marketing move to hook people on the service; now they need to look to how to keep expanding their subscriber base and ending sharing is one way to try to do that.

We don't have to agree with or like their move but we can understand why they are doing it.



TL;DR: Certainly, but I think they only way that will happen is if there is more money in changing.

I remember when, at high cable, people were clamoring for breaking up the model and being able to buy a la carte, thinking it would save money. In a classic case of be careful what you wish for, the breakup happened and now it can cost more to get what you had before, especially as content owners move to making their content exclusive to their service.

Besides the increased cost to consumers to get the content they want, small content creators may be collateral damage in the end. For example, sports are a big money maker for the streaming aggregators and enables them to carry much less popular channels becasue the cost is low and any subscribers they get from them is simply more marginal revenue. In return, those channels get enough money to produce content because they get paid more than they would as an independent.

For example, ESPN is offering their own package, so if enough subscribers for whom sports is the main driver decide they don't need the other channels and can get ones the want cheaper than subscribing to a streaming service like Sling, YoutubeTV, etc., the revenue loss will force the aggregators to lowering prices and dump low performing channels to survive; or offer premium service bundles and still dump low performing channels to cut costs.

I've looked at my viewing habits and could dump my streaming service if I could reliably DVR shows from local channels and have a consistent interface that lets family member simply fire up AppleTV and pick their shows. I already subscribe, binge and cancel services that have 1 show I watch, some I have simply as freeperks so I keep them around.

Until subscribers change their habits there is no reason for streamers to change their model.

Edit:Typo

Obviously correct they can do whatever they want, we accept the condition of sale. Pointing out the scam. Our options are very limited. Can voice an opinion, do something else.

 

[jlc1978]

Obviously correct they can do whatever they want, we accept the condition of sale. Pointing out the scam. Our options are very limited. Can voice an opinion, do something else.

I wouldn't call it a scam since they are upfront about the TOS.

Given the data they have on user viewing habits they could change their fee structure to better separate the two screens in same location vs password sharing users. For example, they could look at how many streams and for how long users at the same geo location use at a time vs those at different geolocations. If in the first case the average maximum time a second screen is viewed is say 4 hours, start a tier with 1 unlimited and one 5 hour limit per day stream, and charge for adding a second or 3rd unlimited stream. That would let most of the users see 2 streams with no issue, they could even let users run over by an hour or so periodically so they don't end a film or show with say 15minutes to go; or even if both are at the same geolocation the second stream is unlimited. That gets rid of the whole sharing issue as a casual user could still share but 2 or more people wanting to watch a lot would have to pay for sharing.

 

[Scoob Redux]

Which was a smart marketing move to hook people on the service; now they need to look to how to keep expanding their subscriber base and ending sharing is one way to try to do that.

We don't have to agree with or like their move but we can understand why they are doing it.

I don't get your point. I didn't say that I didn't agree or like it. My comment was directly responding to:

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.

So, I was explaining why so many people think password sharing is acceptable.

 

[jlc1978]

I don't get your point. I didn't say that I didn't agree or like it. My comment was directly responding to:

So, I was explaining why so many people think password sharing is acceptable.

Fair enough. I was just commenting on why they made the change and also not agreeing or disagreeing with it.. My point was companies change their marketing based on market conditions. Sharing was a way to grow market share and get people hooked on the service, once growth slowed password sharing became drag on growth; so they took steps to stop it. So far, it appears to be a net positive for Netflix and others are betting it will be for them. Only time will tell, and companies will adjust based on consumer response.

The consumer response, IMHO, is a classic example of loss aversion, how it drives their actions will be interesting to see.

 

[theinstructor]

Perhaps one day someone will invent a totally new thing and call it ‘cable’ and something else that contains persistently available media and they could call that ‘DVD’ hahahahaha I love that one! Then these streaming companies that have made everyone so ADD, will just evaporate.

 

[Project Alice]