Netflix Begins Crackdown on Password Sharing in US and UK

[cmcbhi]

Many logical fallacies here. E.g. I will never give Disney money. But, I do like the original star wars movies. So, whether I watch them or not, Disney will be getting no money from me. If I'm not giving them money either way, they're no worse off with me watching it via piracy or not at all.

Bits, especially bits not streamed from the seller (e.g. torrents), have no marginal cost. Atoms have marginal cost. No bias is involved-- bits can be infinitely duplicated at no cost, atoms are finite. Stealing atoms deprives someone else of them. Duplicating bits does not. The vendor is not better off, as they would be if purchased, but nobody is worse off.

Let's put it in another context:
I want a GT3. I will not be buying a GT3, as it's not in my budget, regardless of how I value it. If I stole a GT3, Porsche (or the owner) would be out, say, $150,000. If I could 3D print a GT3, nobody is out that $150,000, nor did Porsche lose a sale they otherwise would have had.

Per all economic theory, in an efficient market goods should be priced at marginal cost. The marginal cost to stream an episode of show X is a couple cents. The fact that this stuff is as expensive as it is actually proves exactly what we intuitively know-- companies like Disney are acting non competitively by buying up IPs, limiting competition.

FWIW, many thieves and corrupt politicians make the same argument. Jus' Sayin'

 

[I7guy]

Many logical fallacies here. E.g. I will never give Disney money. But, I do like the original star wars movies. So, whether I watch them or not, Disney will be getting no money from me. If I'm not giving them money either way, they're no worse off with me watching it via piracy or not at all.

Bits, especially bits not streamed from the seller (e.g. torrents), have no marginal cost. Atoms have marginal cost. No bias is involved-- bits can be infinitely duplicated at no cost, atoms are finite. Stealing atoms deprives someone else of them. Duplicating bits does not. The vendor is not better off, as they would be if purchased, but nobody is worse off.

Let's put it in another context:
I want a GT3. I will not be buying a GT3, as it's not in my budget, regardless of how I value it. If I stole a GT3, Porsche (or the owner) would be out, say, $150,000. If I could 3D print a GT3, nobody is out that $150,000, nor did Porsche lose a sale they otherwise would have had.

Per all economic theory, in an efficient market goods should be priced at marginal cost. The marginal cost to stream an episode of show X is a couple cents. The fact that this stuff is as expensive as it is actually proves exactly what we intuitively know-- companies like Disney are acting non competitively by buying up IPs, limiting competition.

What’s the marginal cost of an iphone? A Ferrari? Some good questions? Are companies fleecing us?

 

[jlc1978]

Show me a cell phone plan where a single person has to buy four lines to have Ultrawideband. That’s Netflix logic.

and it's there company and they decide what to offer.

Also my family has a four line family plan and we live in three houses. Could you imagine the carrier saying oh no you each need to buy a single line.

A cell phone is tied to a SIM, and you are paying to use the service with that SIM, and they get paid for each line you have. You can't let 4 or more people use the same SIM as easily as you can a Netflix account.

4 Streams/4 Lines.

Under their TOS.

Just like if a cell carrier did it I’m just not giving Netflix any business. I was a member since 2012 all this news coverage just made me realize it was dumb to give them any business. Gladly resubscribe to a 1 stream plan in 4K. I cancelled HBO as well this week. Not paying extra for 4K or multiple streams. I live by myself. I hope enough people follow suit that these companies need to fight to get us back and acknowledge single people or divorced parents with kids going back and forth.

Which is teh thing to do - don't like teh TOS or offering, vote with your wallet.

As long as I pay for two or four streams, I expect to be able to use those two or four streams. Period.

You pay for 2 or 4 in the same household; not 2 or 4 to share with anyone you want living elsewhere.

Everything else is just claptrap. Using them at a location that's different from my official home cannot be qualified as theft.

It is a violation of the TOS, and Netflix can cancel or suspend your service if they want to.

That depends on how reasonable those rules are.
If tomorrow someone from Ford says, "we'll sell you this Mustang, but you may not drive it more than five miles away from your home", I will buy it and I will sure as hell drive it wherever I please, their rule be damned.

If you don't like it, don't buy it.

The trouble is a single household splitting time between two locations (snowbirds, or families with an RV or weekend cabin or beach condo or similar) is difficult to differentiate from folks sharing the same account/password with a friend.

I would guess Netflix will look at usage patterns to differentiate those sharing outside their household and teh RV/Vacation/college student. A snowbird is likely to stop using it at IP A in a cold area and start at IP B in a warm one seasonally. Similarly, a vacationer is likely to stop at one place and start at another for shorter periods. Pretty easy to differentiate from 2 users at different IPs in different locations.

 

[frqunzfltr]

That depends on how reasonable those rules are.

No.

This adds nothing to my post.

 

[Obioban]

What’s the marginal cost of an iphone? A Ferrari? Some good questions? Are companies fleecing us?

I don’t think anyone would consider either of those to be efficient markets. But, Apple generally has a ~30% margin, so the marginal cost of a $1000 iPhone is ~$700– not at all bad compared to streaming 😜

 

[eltoslightfoot]

I think more-and-more people are simply going to do what I do. Closely examine their viewing habits and swap services every couple of months. Right now its Paramount Plus and Hulu. In a few months I will shut down Paramount Plus and switch to Netflix. I stupidly keep Amazon Prime for the aggregated services (that keep getting worse—may have to look into that eventually) and Disney, Hulu, and ESPN Plus are included with my cell phone plan.

So I rotate some and keep Hulu, ESPN, Disney (for no added cost to me) and Amazon Prime.

Heck, I am cancelling YoutubeTV (as it has gone up like 30% in two years) until the NFL season starts. Then I will cancel as soon as it is done.

It isn’t that the price on these things is a big deal individually. Its when you start adding up all your subscriptions. It’s getting out of hand. So I operate at the margin. If we could share some of these services then great! Keep them all. They start cracking down, then I choose between them. The next step will be that they require contracts. At that point I won’t get them at all. There is too much to watch now.

 

[I7guy]

I don’t think anyone would consider either of those to be efficient markets. But, Apple generally has a ~30% margin, so the marginal cost of a $1000 iPhone is ~$700– not at all bad compared to streaming 😜

The distribution of digital content is pennies the production not so much.

 

[E.Lizardo]

Cancelled my account in Canada as soon as they did this lol. Because of the stupid rule of needing to be back at the same place within 30 days. I have a condo but I work 500 Kms north doing shift work so I am away/back and forth sometimes longer than a month and it has just become annoying.

I wonder if you could set up two accounts and suspend/reactivate each account depending on your location. No idea if that would work or not. Not an issue for me as I cancelled years ago.

 

[DEMinSoCAL]

As long as I pay for two or four streams, I expect to be able to use those two or four streams. Period. Everything else is just claptrap. Using them at a location that's different from my official home cannot be qualified as theft.

It seems you're not big on Terms and Conditions, are you? You must be the person that goes to the all-you-can-eat buffet and takes home bags of food because, well, it's "all you can eat" ANYWHERE, PERIOD? Or are there rules about where you can eat it? Of course. Was it OK to string cable from one house to all your neighbors houses so you all could share the cable TV you were paying for? That was called stealing cable. Same thing here. The T&C says "same household". That's not friends living in different homes.

 

[roguedaemon]

Netflix has lost their minds!

and their subscribers !!

 

[Obioban]

I think more-and-more people are simply going to do what I do. Closely examine their viewing habits and swap services every couple of months. Right now its Paramount Plus and Hulu. In a few months I will shut down Paramount Plus and switch to Netflix. I stupidly keep Amazon Prime for the aggregated services (that keep getting worse—may have to look into that eventually) and Disney, Hulu, and ESPN Plus are included with my cell phone plan.

So I rotate some and keep Hulu, ESPN, Disney (for no added cost to me) and Amazon Prime.

Heck, I am cancelling YoutubeTV (as it has gone up like 30% in two years) until the NFL season starts. Then I will cancel as soon as it is done.

It isn’t that the price on these things is a big deal individually. Its when you start adding up all your subscriptions. It’s getting out of hand. So I operate at the margin. If we could share some of these services then great! Keep them all. They start cracking down, then I choose between them. The next step will be that they require contracts. At that point I won’t get them at all. There is too much to watch now.

I 100% agree with all of this. I have AppleTV and Max for "free". Anything else I rotate in/out one at a time as I consume all their content that I care about. If anyone were to start demanding a year long contract, piracy.

For me, all these services ramping up prices just means the era of having all the services at the same time is over. It's honestly kind of better, anyway-- finding a new show is a much faster process when you only have a couple apps to go through. We've spent entire evenings looking for a new show, back in the era of having all the services.

Similarly, I won't buy any car without CarPlay-- because I'm not paying any car companies monthly, either.

The nickel and diming of subscription services is maddening, and I just won't participate. "you will own nothing and you will love it" does not apply to me 😜

 

[Allrightythen]

4. Wait until your 'family' member does something illegal on your IP address.
5. The police turn up at your door to arrest you.
6. Netflix finding out, suing you as well.

Wow. It’s as risky as sharing your wi-fi access with family when they visit.

Don’t trust them? Don’t do it then.

 

[deeddawg]

What’s the marginal cost of an iphone? A Ferrari? Some good questions? Are companies fleecing us?

Strictly speaking, not really relevant to pricing a non-commodity / well-differentiated product such as an iphone.

With those, pricing is generally based on determining what people will pay for your device, what the prices are for competing different goods, and how much sales volume you expect at a particular price so you tune it to desired production levels to maximize the overall profit.

Marginal cost becomes more of a factor when competing with similar (less-differentiated) products on a price basis and you need to ensure your not pricing too low and thus losing money.

As for whether companies are fleecing iphone and ferrari buyers... folks don't have to buy either product, and can live just fine with a cheap walmart android phone and a cheap used car.

 

[BillyBurke]

I get what you are saying with the price, but that's not the same as changing TOS. If Coke all of a sudden had a TOS that said you had to charge a family member $1 for a can of Coke that you've already paid for, because they live across the street and want a Coke, and then you had to send that money back to Coke, would you keep buying Coke? I certainly wouldn't.

You have answered your own dilemma. If you don't like the new TOS, SIMPLY CANCEL.Continuing to rationalize a "back way" into the way it used to be is a waste of time.

 

[Biga173rd]

This. Piracy and shady things aside it affects paying customers. Netflix is sending the message if you have a kid in College or you're in a divorce you're not the customers we care about. People aren't going to pay extra for their kids to have Netflix when they are with the other parent. Even if both parents pay they aren't going to want to manage signing in tablets when the kids move around.

As far as I'm concerned they have also said if you're single not our target either. Not paying for a family plan.

That's horrible.

 

[Analog Kid]

Many logical fallacies here.

By "here" I presume that was an introduction to your comments...

E.g. I will never give Disney money. But, I do like the original star wars movies. So, whether I watch them or not, Disney will be getting no money from me. If I'm not giving them money either way, they're no worse off with me watching it via piracy or not at all.

Ahh, the victimless crime argument... Again, by that argument, they're no worse off if nobody pays for their products and services as long as everyone says the magical incantation in advance: "I wouldn't have paid either way".

Bits, especially bits not streamed from the seller (e.g. torrents), have no marginal cost. Atoms have marginal cost. No bias is involved-- bits can be infinitely duplicated at no cost, atoms are finite. Stealing atoms deprives someone else of them. Duplicating bits does not. The vendor is not better off, as they would be if purchased, but nobody is worse off.

I can only assume you either have no income or have somehow found a buyer for your literal blood, sweat and tears or whatever other atoms your body produces.

By your argument, your ideas and your labor have no value.

Let's put it in another context:
I want a GT3. I will not be buying a GT3, as it's not in my budget, regardless of how I value it. If I stole a GT3, Porsche (or the owner) would be out, say, $150,000. If I could 3D print a GT3, nobody is out that $150,000, nor did Porsche lose a sale they otherwise would have had.

You want Star Wars. Star Wars was made with a multimillion dollar budget. If you could copy it for free, nobody is out those millions of dollars?

Per all economic theory, in an efficient market goods should be priced at marginal cost. The marginal cost to stream an episode of show X is a couple cents. The fact that this stuff is as expensive as it is actually proves exactly what we intuitively know-- companies like Disney are acting non competitively by buying up IPs, limiting competition.

No, an efficient market means all available information is priced into an asset. You're confusing that with a perfectly competitive market, which is one in which an infinite number of firms sell identical products, all information and people are perfectly mobile, and there's no cost to enter a market.

Star Wars wouldn't exist in a perfectly competitive market, we'd all be watching the same print of Citizen Kane which would have entered the market via immaculate production.

In reality, Star Wars exists because people paid more than the marginal cost of American Graffiti, and Indiana Jones exists because people paid more than the marginal cost of Star Wars.

In a perfectly competitive market, there is no innovation. Innovation breaks the market and couldn't be afforded anyway. We really don't want to live in a world where everything is priced at marginal cost.

All that said, I'm sticking with my original plan. 1 month of netflix/year is enough to consume what I care about of theirs, so I'll subscribe for one month a year, then cancel. I basically use their service for drive to survive and stranger things... and don't really care about anything else they make. One streaming service at a time is plenty if you have them in a rotation, and quite cost effective. Long gone is the era where Netflix is THE streaming service, so you need to keep your plan year round.

... except for Disney, who I'll never give money, because I'm tired of them buying IPs I like and then utterly ruining them.

That's the correct answer-- don't pay for what you don't want and let the market sort out its priorities. The corollary though is don't take what you don't pay for.

 

[BillyBurke]

Calling it a crime does seem a bit melodramatic. I can see the TV ad campaign right now:

“If you suspect your friends or family may be password sharing, call the police. Only you can prevent password sharing!”

Nobody is suggesting these folks advocating "password sharing" are the spawn of satan. Most of us are just pointing out what I believe most of you know already. There is no justification for taking something that is offered for sale and not paying for it. Netflix has every right to set the conditions to use their product. If you agree and want their product, sign up. If you disagree, cancel. Yes, they changed their TOS. Yes, you have the right to reevaluate your decision to use their product. Yes, this change may force some people out of their market, but I doubt it will kill the company.

 

[BillyBurke]

As long as I pay for two or four streams, I expect to be able to use those two or four streams. Period. Everything else is just claptrap. Using them at a location that's different from my official home cannot be qualified as theft.

Unless the TOS forbids a location different from your official home.

 

[Obioban]

Ahh, the victimless crime argument... Again, by that argument, they're no worse off if nobody pays for their products and services as long as everyone says the magical incantation in advance: "I wouldn't have paid either way".

I mean, it literally is a victimless crime of you aren't paying for it either way 😜

You want Star Wars. Star Wars was made with a multimillion dollar budget. If you could copy it for free, nobody is out those millions of dollars?

$32.5 million. I'm pretty sure they've recouped it, and I've already paid for it 3X (VHS and DVD, plus watching in the theater when they re-released the special editions (and I didn't yet know they were worse).

That's the correct answer-- don't pay for what you don't want and let the market sort out its priorities. The corollary though is don't take what you don't pay for.

You can do that if you want. Me, I'm going to continue to break the speed limit when it's unreasonable, continue to fly my drone outside of visual range, and continue to pirate when companies put me in a position where that's the best option. I don't morally feel bad about it, and there's no functional reason not to do so.

Piracy ended in the music industry because better options came along for a reasonable price-- not because people suddenly felt sorry for the RIAA. Streaming, thus far, has also been better than piracy. Nobody is going to feel bad for movie studios-- you aren't going to guilt trip people into not pirating. Streaming services are getting worse. Less content, more ads, lower quality, higher prices, cracking down on account sharing. I don't know where the inflection point is, but I know where the end destination is if they continue down this path.

 

[Analog Kid]

I mean, it literally is a victimless crime of you aren't paying for it either way

Taking something of value without permission and without paying for it is a victimless crime? And you think the fallacies are elsewhere…. 😄

 

[Vlad Soare]

It seems you're not big on Terms and Conditions, are you? You must be the person that goes to the all-you-can-eat buffet and takes home bags of food because, well, it's "all you can eat" ANYWHERE, PERIOD? Or are there rules about where you can eat it? Of course. Was it OK to string cable from one house to all your neighbors houses so you all could share the cable TV you were paying for? That was called stealing cable. Same thing here. The T&C says "same household". That's not friends living in different homes.

Sure I'm not big on terms and conditions. I never read them. I just scroll all the way down and click 'I agree'. Like everybody does.
The Netflix scenario is nothing like your cable example.

 

[SanderEvers]

Wow. It’s as risky as sharing your wi-fi access with family when they visit.

Don’t trust them? Don’t do it then.

When my family visit here they have access to a guest network. (which is very limited in what you can actually do on it) And also there is very little time to do illegal stuff. But when they are at their own home there is really nothing for me to stop them to do something illegal.

Giving someone full access to your internet account / ip-address (VPN) is the most stupid thing you can ever do (on the internet). Sure you can filter out a lot of stuff, but you are never going to stop them for 100%. Don't let others access your internet connection.

 

[KaiFiMacFan]

^I guess that just depends on how much you trust the people in your life. I have no problem giving my wi-fi password to my siblings and friends when they visit. But then, I live with roommates and we all share the same wi-fi and split the cost per month. I don’t have any concerns that they’re doing anything illegal.

 

[Vlad Soare]

When my family visit here they have access to a guest network. (which is very limited in what you can actually do on it)

Wow, you have a separate, limited network for when your family visit? Really?
What would your family do on your regular wi-fi? Break into the FBI's servers? Publish classified documents stolen from the White House? Download child abuse photos? Have a friendly chat with Putin? What kind of illegal stuff are you afraid of?

 

[Vlad Soare]

^I guess that just depends on how much you trust the people in your life. I have no problem giving my wi-fi password to my siblings and friends when they visit.

Of course. Neither have I, nor anybody else I know. Why would I? What could they do?