Netflix May Soon Crack Down on Password Sharing

[Steve121178]

But it seems completely fair to me that an account can be shared with a family member who doesn't live with the rest of the family

Well, it's against their business terms that you signed when you accepted the T's & C's.

Basically, people shouldn't get Netflix for free as it's jacking up the prices for the rest of us!

I used to pay £9.99 a month for the family/4K plan & pricing has gone up almost 40% in less than 2 years. If people stopped sharing accounts/stealing content it wouldn't penalise those of us who use their service fairly.

 

[LordVic]

Well, it's against their business terms that you signed when you accepted the T's & C's.

Basically, people shouldn't get Netflix for free as it's jacking up the prices for the rest of us!

I used to pay £9.99 a month for the family/4K plan & pricing has gone up almost 40% in less than 2 years. If people stopped sharing accounts/stealing content it wouldn't penalise those of us who use their service fairly.

it's not free.

I pay for 5 simultaneous streams. Why do I not have the choice in who gets to use those streams? If Netflix goes to the model where only a single IP can watch at the same time, I will not be paying for the family plan, and will either cancel or lower the subscription model I have to account for that.

It's not a wise move. What it is, is a consumer hostile move in order to drive themselves more revenues because someone at Netflix has decided they want more profit.

 

[Stromos]

Pretty simple there is no 4K single stream option.

I will not pay any amount of money for less than 4K in 2021.

Netflix is clearly stating they only want families to use their service. When they offer something for me living by myself I'll consider coming back. As soon as this is enforced and my parents can't split the cost with me I'm out. My parents split the cost with me and barely use the service so they won't be getting their own account either.

✌️

 

[alphaswift]

What stops me from having a code texted to the owner and then ask the owner to reveal it to me? Is there a mechanism that prevents this?

Your friend will probably be annoyed AF when you text him at 4 AM for a code.

 

[ian87w]

4 screens in one house where the billpayer lives. A separate household requires a different subscription, i.e. they don't want you sharing your subscription with another person/household which seems fair enough.

So from your logic, if you or any of your family members are out for work or traveling and want to watch Netflix, you/they should have a separate subscription since your/they are not in the house.

 

[SirAnthonyHopkins]

Well, it's against their business terms that you signed when you accepted the T's & C's.

Basically, people shouldn't get Netflix for free as it's jacking up the prices for the rest of us!

I used to pay £9.99 a month for the family/4K plan & pricing has gone up almost 40% in less than 2 years. If people stopped sharing accounts/stealing content it wouldn't penalise those of us who use their service fairly.

It's not for free any more than Apple Music family accounts are for free. Netflix allows multiple simultaneous users. I really can't see why, at the premium price point, they want to dictate who those users are allowed to be.

Also that's not what's jacking the prices up. Netflix's ludicrous commitment to pumping out hours and hours of expensive but incredibly bland content is what's jacking the prices up. Do you seriously think that if Netflix had 50% more subscribers than they did, they wouldn't still take the opportunity to raise the price every couple of years?

 

[icanhazmac]

It's not entitlement if one already paid for the advertised features and use it. Netflix is the one offering the 4 simultaneous screens.

So from your logic, if you or any of your family members are out for work or traveling and want to watch Netflix, you/they should have a separate subscription since your/they are not in the house.

Respectfully pointing out that you keep repeating the same flawed logic over and over again. Yes, you pay for a number of simultaneous screens but for users WITHIN a household. It is pretty clearly meant to cover a family as the days of everyone gathered around a single TV are over. You can very easily have 4 members of the family watching 4 different things. You are permitted, under the terms of service, to share your account password with people in your household. Not people outside of your household, which I would define as your primary residence and I feel that is a reasonable definition that most reasonable people would agree too unless they are trying to justify theft. This then covers the scenario you have brought up several times where someone in the household (primary residence) is traveling for vacation or work or a child at school/college as their primary residence could still be their parents home. This does not and should not also cover parents, cousins, friends, etc that maintain their own primary residence.

The screen shot even says "If you do not live with the owner of the account"!

Advertised features as you put it are not mutually exclusive of the terms of service you agreed too!

P.S. - to everyone arguing the meaning of "household", YOU are the reason for lawyers and for terms of service that are 57 pages long and that the average person cannot make heads nor tails of! If we all didn't challenge common sense terms and definitions like "household" then Netflix wouldn't need to hire a team of lawyers to define it better to prevent THEFT OF SERVICE!

 

[ian87w]

my point on that is, if that was how it was designed they'd set it up like that. you're part of the problem if you are doing it that way and that's why they are cracking down and prices increase. it takes away from how many subscriptions would be bought if people didn't share passwords. 4 families sharing 1 account, means they are losing out on 3 subscriptions. Aka raise price to make up for it.

I’m not going to argue whether price should be increased or not. In the end, Netflix is the one offering the premium accounts to be able to stream to 4 screens at the same time. If their servers cannot handle it, it’s their problem. Why offer that tier to begin with?

I’d say Netflix should simply offer 4K to all tiers. That will nudge most account holders to just get the basic/standard tier with 1 or 2 screens. Automatically people would also be less likely to share their accounts as they don’t want to risk reaching the screen limit, and in turn the account “borrowers” might be tempted to just get the basic account for themselves.

 

[Mainsail]

In the "Terms and Conditions" it says that you can share with members of your household. Not on the "plans and pricing" page. You can share the cheapest plan with members of your household - but only one can watch at a time. And even the most expensive plan, you can't share outside your households. So you and your spouse and two kids can watch Netflix on the way to work or to school, but not the third kid at the same time.

Just because you didn't find this where you looked for it doesn't mean it's not there, and you did agree to it.

Right. So, when Netflix solicits me to upgrade to the top their plan so I can stream 4 screens at once and sends me to the "pricing and rate page", I am suppose to dig through their web site and terms and conditions to find out that 4 live streams doesn't mean 4 live streams. Nonsense. Who wades through 30 pages of terms and conditions for a $17.99 subscription that can be canceled anytime? Bait and switch.

I only share the password with immediate family members (wife and kids). But, my kids are away at college or working elsewhere. They don't share with anyone else. Why? because I don't want to be denied access because friends of friends are using my subscription.

If this is such a big deal, Netflix can offer a family plan like Apple. If it is more expensive, I will decide then if I want to continue or not. Otherwise, don't misled your customers with offerings and then put in fine print this ridiculous notion of a "Household" in an era of mobile live streaming and mobile family members.

 

[MacManTexas56]

Right. So, when Netflix solicits me to upgrade to the top their plan so I can stream 4 screens at once and sends me to the "pricing and rate page", I am suppose to dig through their web site and terms and conditions to find out that 4 live streams doesn't mean 4 live streams. Nonsense. Who wades through 30 pages of terms and conditions for a $17.99 subscription that can be canceled anytime? Bait and switch.

I only share the password with immediate family members (wife and kids). But, my kids are away at college or working elsewhere. They don't share with anyone else. Why? because I don't want to be denied access because friends of friends are using my subscription.

If this is such a big deal, Netflix can offer a family plan like Apple. If it is more expensive, I will decide then if I want to continue or not. Otherwise, don't misled your customers with offerings and then put in fine print this ridiculous notion of a "Household" in an era of mobile live streaming and mobile family members.

YOU may only share it with immediate family members, but i know so many people that share with all sorts of people that aren't family at all. I agree on the family plan, i'm not sure why they haven't done that if they are so worried about things. But then again, look at spotify, they have a family plan but do checks to ensure you live in the same house. That kinda defeats the purpose.

 

[MacManTexas56]

I’m not going to argue whether price should be increased or not. In the end, Netflix is the one offering the premium accounts to be able to stream to 4 screens at the same time. If their servers cannot handle it, it’s their problem. Why offer that tier to begin with?

I’d say Netflix should simply offer 4K to all tiers. That will nudge most account holders to just get the basic/standard tier with 1 or 2 screens. Automatically people would also be less likely to share their accounts as they don’t want to risk reaching the screen limit, and in turn the account “borrowers” might be tempted to just get the basic account for themselves.

i'm not arguing at all lol just saying in general what the current issues are. majority of people don't even know what 4k is and don't have tv's or streaming devices even capable of doing 4k so i don't think that's the problem with their tiers. If they made the top tier stream 4 and it was cheaper to have it in 1080p they would choose that option. People sharing their logins will happen anyway, even if prices were decreased. it just means their cost is less now. Many people want more than 1 or 2 streams at a time in their own house. It's not meant for you and your 3 neighbors to share the same login.

 

[Mimiron]

To be fair, they are entitled to run their business how they see fit. Closing loopholes to stop people sharing subscriptions isn't unreasonable.

Yeah, but the way they do it is foolish; why not offer a family membership plan just like Apple does for Apple Music?

 

[SirAnthonyHopkins]

Respectfully pointing out that you keep repeating the same flawed logic over and over again.

Respectfully, so do you. You’re not addressing the question, you’re basically just parroting the Netflix TOS. Our/my complaint here isn’t that it’s not in the TOS. I’m questioning why it should be in the TOS and why you keep trying to justify it. If you’re charging people £15 a month for an account which allows multiple users/log ins, why attempt to dictate who those log ins can come from, other than to drive up your own bottom line and subscriber numbers?

again, “they’re a profit-driven company” doesn’t cut it. Companies still need to treat their customers well and ensure they can use their services in a manner of their choosing. If Netflix doesn't want people sharing accounts currently, they need to work out a product structure for single-household accounts and multi-user accounts and price them accordingly. That's demonstrably how people want to use the product, and it's not really up to Netflix to tell them that's wrong, it's up to Netflix to provide what customers are asking for. Defending this is a bit like defending Apple during antenna gate. "You're using it wrong!"

 

[hot-gril]

I don't understand differentiating by video quality. Shouldn't Netflix want people to see the best version of its content? I can't pay $5 to watch Netflix in black and white.

It would make more sense to me if cheaper subscriptions lacked access to certain shows and movies. (Not that I'm saying that would be a good idea either, just that it seems better than charging extra for higher resolutions.)

It costs them more bandwidth and maybe even more in royalties. I don't know how they pay the film producers. Also, they want money from people without 4K screens who might otherwise not feel the service is worth. Same reason kids get a discount at buffets.

 

[icanhazmac]

Our/my complaint here isn’t that it’s not in the TOS. I’m questioning why it should be in the TOS

Address your complaints about why there is an address restriction to Netflix, arguing that point with me is pointless. I have been responding to a number of people who are either ignoring the TOS in favor of the "number of screens" advertisement or people that just flat out want to justify theft under the guise of a complaint about the "why" of the Netflix TOS.

All of this is moot, if you are sharing an account with someone that maintains a separate primary residence, then you are a theif per the TOS, arguing that here is dumb.

 

[SirAnthonyHopkins]

Address your complaints about why there is an address restriction to Netflix, arguing that point with me is pointless. I have been responding to a number of people who are either ignoring the TOS in favor of the "number of screens" advertisement or people that just flat out want to justify theft under the guise of a complaint about the "why" of the Netflix TOS.

All of this is moot, if you are sharing an account with someone that maintains a separate primary residence, then you are a theif per the TOS, arguing that here is dumb.

It's not 'dumb', it's just not the same argument as the one you demonstrably think you've won. Netflix aren't on these forums, you are, so I'm addressing it to you because you apparently have such belief in the righteousness of the Netflix TOS and I'm curious why, and why you think they shouldn't create products to match users' use-cases instead of demanding people use their services how they think they should be used.

 

[calderone]

It's not 'dumb', it's just not the same argument as the one you demonstrably think you've won. Netflix aren't on these forums, you are, so I'm addressing it to you because you apparently have such belief in the righteousness of the Netflix TOS and I'm curious why, and why you think they shouldn't create products to match users' use-cases instead of demanding people use their services how they think they should be used.

So why don't you make that demand to them? Use your dollars and use your voice rather than rationalize theft under the guide of "they don't give me what I want."

 

[LordVic]

So why don't you make that demand to them? Use your dollars and use your voice rather than rationalize theft under the guide of "they don't give me what I want."

It is not theft if you are actively paying for it. Trying to call it theft is absolutely and attempt to label it for someting that is not.

a possible TOS violation? Yes. But NOT theft.

Piracy would be theft. Illegaly hacking into someone elses account would be theft

Paying for 5 streams and giving one of those streams to your parents to watch at home is not theft.

 

[SirAnthonyHopkins]

So why don't you make that demand to them? Use your dollars and use your voice rather than rationalize theft under the guide of "they don't give me what I want."

This is a really peculiar way of shutting down debate. If you don't want to discuss something, why post in the first place? Or do you respond to every thread about issues with Apple products with "just make that demand to Apple" as well?

Also as LordVic points out, you don't seem to understand what theft is.

 

[calderone]

This is a really peculiar way of shutting down debate. If you don't want to discuss something, why post in the first place? Or do you respond to every thread about issues with Apple products with "just make that demand to Apple" as well?

Also as LordVic points out, you don't seem to understand what theft is.

You pay for a service, the service stipulates what you can and cannot do with it, you do the thing you shouldn't do, that is theft.

theft ; the action or crime of stealing
stealing ; the action or offense of taking another person's property without permission or legal right and without intending to return it

The property in this case is a Netflix stream which you do not have the legal right to provide to someone outside your household. That usage can't be returned.

People seem to be upset that Netflix is going to enforce their policy. You shouldn't be, they are within their right to do so just as you are within your right to not use the service.

And yes, I respond with "just make the demand." Do you think sitting here debating what a company has a legal right to do is useful? How else would you get the changes you seem to want other than asking and voting with your dollars?

 

[icanhazmac]

a possible TOS violation? Yes. But NOT theft.

How do you justify this? If you willingly violate the TOS in an effort to not have or share a subscription that is theft.

Example for you: Apple, as part of the MacOS TOS, states that it cannot be used on non-Apple hardware which makes all hackintosh users thieves, agree or not?

 

[SirAnthonyHopkins]

Example for you: Apple, as part of the MacOS TOS, states that it cannot be used on non-Apple hardware which makes all hackintosh users thieves, agree or not?

I would say this is both semantically and legally incorrect, yeah. You can make the argument that "morally" it's equivalent to theft, but no court in the world is going to prosecute someone installing MacOS on a non-Apple hardware for theft.

 

[calderone]

I would say this is both semantically and legally incorrect, yeah. You can make the argument that "morally" it's equivalent to theft, but no court in the world is going to prosecute someone installing MacOS on a non-Apple hardware for theft.

It is actually semantically and legally correct, whether a prosecutor or court of law would pursue it is a separate matter.

 

[icanhazmac]

You can make the argument that "morally" it's equivalent to theft, but no court in the world is going to prosecute someone installing MacOS on a non-Apple hardware for theft.

I was not commenting on if Apple or courts in general would prosecute, I was only stating that in terms of the TOS you cannot install MacOS on non-Apple hardware making hackintosh users thieves as they did not "pay" for the OS as Mac users do as part of the hardware cost. If you don't buy the hardware you are not entitled to the OS, simple as that.

 

[icanhazmac]

Netflix aren't on these forums, you are, so I'm addressing it to you because you apparently have such belief in the righteousness of the Netflix TOS and I'm curious why, and why you think they shouldn't create products to match users' use-cases instead of demanding people use their services how they think they should be used.

Again I wasn't responding to anyone in an effort to discuss "why" but as you asked I'm happy to engage.

I personally feel their TOS makes perfect sense. As I stated before the days of the entire family gathering around the TV to watch the same thing are over. To facilitate different family members watching different things on different devices Netflix offers different levels of "screens" as part of their subscription offerings but limit this to people who have the same primary residence. They make no claims that friends or extended family cannot share the account as long as they all claim the same primary residence or "household" as they state in the TOS.

All companies are in business to make money, Netflix is no different, so in their eyes Family A that uses 2 screens cannot share a 4 screen subscription with Family B because they are making less money than if both households have separate accounts, its all very simple.

Right now you get:

Standard: 2 screens, 13.99
Premium: 4 screens, 17.99

If Family A shares with Family B Netflix gets 17.99 instead of 27.98, basic math here.

Now if we all want to argue that the number of screens is the driving force then Netflix will do this:

2 screens = 13.99
4 screens = 27.98
etc.

If you want to "cheat" and split the cost you will lose all "quantity" discounts.