To flip it around. Let's say Netflix was fine with, allowed for (in their terms) and even encouraged what you describe. If they then decided to take it away, do you think they would be stealing something you've paid for?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Netflix May Soon Crack Down on Password Sharing
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
To flip it around. Let's say Netflix was fine with, allowed for (in their terms) and even encouraged what you describe. If they then decided to take it away, do you think they would be stealing something you've paid for?
Lol you lost me. That will literally kill the movie industry faster by going that route. Then nobody gets credit
A hackintosh user who paid for their license and violated the terms of service may have violated potential civil contract, but they have no violated any law. There is no criminality. And calling it "theft" is very specific in the means of taking something without paying for it, and depriving the original owner of it.
In the case we're talking about. None of the required definitions of Theft is actually happening.
The Criminal Code of Canada outlines theft as:
Every one commits theft who fraudulently and without colour of right takes, or fraudulently and without colour of right converts to his use or to the use of another person, anything, whether animate or inanimate, with intent
- (a) to deprive, temporarily or absolutely, the owner of it, or a person who has a special property or interest in it, of the thing or of his property or interest in it;
- (b) to pledge it or deposit it as security;
- (c) to part with it under a condition with respect to its return that the person who parts with it may be unable to perform; or
- (d) to deal with it in such a manner that it cannot be restored in the condition in which it was at the time it was taken or converted.
Paying for the right to stream 5 streams, and using all those streams, even in different households does not meet any level of theft.
Violation of Terms of Service doesn't escalate to a criminal matter, nor does it meet the requirements for Theft. Terms of Services and EULA's fall under contract law, which is not theft. Continuing to try to call this "Theft" is plain and simple asinine as it's trying to paint the behaviour in a light that implies criminality.
Since we're no longer talking about Criminal law as well, we can only talk about business law. And ToS and EULA's all also must adhere to any legal requirements of their region. Including Good Faith application of those ToS. (Called Duty of honest Contactual Performance here, or part of the Uniform Commercial Code in the USA)
I absolutely would contend that Netflix changing what they're currently allowing for "per household" to "per IP" would absolutely violate the good faith implied covenant of fair dealing.
Basically, Because NETFLIX has not ever defined in the ToS clearly up front that 1 house hold can only equal 1 IP address, and one Physical location, trying to change the TOS now to enforce that, would not be good faith dealing and would likely not hold up as defensible in court.
And like I said earlier. If Netflix does change their ToS to say that? Than I will be one of many who votes with our wallets and gives Netflix $0 in return and takes our business elswhere.
as per my above, if Netflix was for years allowing "per household" to mean "immediate family even if at different IP's", which they have allowed, and then suddenly changed that without properly updating the ToS to reflect, it wouldn't be stealing, but it would be a violation of fair dealing by them and possibly open them up to litigation against Netflix for such enforcement.
But not stealing or criminal act.
Alright - so you agree it is a violation but maybe not stealing or criminal. Can you agree that the behavior this article refers to that Netflix is now enforcing has been a violation by those users and should be subject to enforcement?
Perhaps a flawed example because one cannot pay for a license of MacOS, they are not available.
Ug, while this might be factually correct, I am not a lawyer so I won't speak to that, we should all be able to agree that they are now saying that an account can be shared by people claiming the same primary residence. You can either choose to adhere to that contract or not.
If you don't you might not legally be a thief but you are a thief.
No. As I said, if Netflix didn't specify these terms outright in clear language upon the initial contractual agreement, but is deciding to change enforcement behaviour without issuing a new ToS, Netflix would likely be in violation of Good Faith principles of Contract law themselves. Making such change un-enforceable until they outright change the TOS to provide the clarifying language. With the option for the customer to cancel at that point.
Last edited:
so you're doubling down on calling people thieves despite literally, and agreeing that the term Thief likely doesn't apply.
and you want me to continue to discuss with you anything in the future? this isn't a good faith argument you're having, you're just looking to call people thieves who disagree with your interpretation of a terms of service.
this is one of those times where "one protests too much"
have yourself a pleasant future.
As I said in my previous post: if netflix terms of service say "household" and have allowed for years, the sharing between family. Than that is now implied allowable by the law as that was the interpreted good faith of the ToS. For Netflix to come back years later and say "no no, we really mean this!" and cut off people. That would not be legal. They would HAVE TO re-issue a ne TOS that clearly defined the new enforcement and rules.
it’s not legally correct. It is a crime, but not the crime of theft.
do you realise how “it’s legally correct except no legal enforcement would ever consider it so” sounds
Last edited:
Honestly I don't consider it stealing if everyone does it, and Netflix knows everyone does it. There's the whole "just cause other people do it doesn't mean you can" thing, which I disagree with. I won't cheat if it's only a few people, but if it's like 95%, I'd rather not be cheated.
If Netflix wants to change that, fine by me.
Last edited:
No. Crime and Criminality is a very specific thing in law. Violation of contractual law does not rise to criminality. it would only be enforcable via contract law. While enforcable by courts upon rendering decision in such, Violation of contract law rarely will have the same enforcability as criminal law. Break a contract, Police aren't showing up at your door to arrest you.
Ahh, The Kantian approach to cheating. "it's not cheating if everyone is now on the same playing field because everyone is cheating"... interesting approach
Ok, I guess I am. They might not legally be a thief but I think most reasonable people would agree the only reason to share an account outside of the TOS is to avoid paying full price for their own subscription. So if you are "cheating" for a lower price...... another word for that is stealing.
It's almost like walking into a retail store and taking a $10 item off the shelf and leaving only $5 on the counter because that is all the retailer paid for it and then claiming I didn't "steal" it because I paid for it, I just didn't pay what they wanted me to pay.
Anyway, thats my personal feeling, YMMV.
Last edited:
It's nothing the like
it's like walking into a bulk food store. Paying for a giant bag of food. walking out and giving people part of that food. Only for the store to run up, take it away and say "BUT WE ONLY SOLD IT TO YOU!!!!!!"
if I'm paying for 5 consequetive HD streams and the interpretation of the TOS has allowed me to give my parents access, and for 5+ years Netflix has never enforced such provision differentlly, Than the provision in the terms stands as it has been enforced.
For Netflix to change directions and now say that house hold is a singular residence only and per IP, they would have to actually put that in writing for the users. Not just starting to block people.
I don't support people who give it to all their friends and share. That wouldn't be a "household" and would be hard to enforce. But a "family" plan shared amongst family, might still be interpreted as within the household, even if different physical locations and IPs. And again, Since NETFLIX has never up till now enforced that, they cannot claim that is what they always intended. Making such change requires Netflix from changing the ToS.
Your second point doesn't make sense. We're talking contract law. Netflix can "Offer", and I can counter Offer. By allowing me for the last 5 years to have shared my Netflix service with my parents, who I consider part of my household, they have agreed to my counter-offer, thus the Contract agreed upon allows for sharing with my immediate family. Again, if Netflix wants to change this, they are more than welcome to present me with a NEW TOS that states in clear precise language their offer. And at that point, I can chose to accept it as is, or move on.
Netflix knows this and is also probably why they haven't actually enforced this for years. They've tried this sort of "probing" in the past, and have kept running into the same wall. people like me who will not pay for 5 streams for a single person just to get 4k. So jpeople like me are and have been willing to cancel our subscriptions when they make such threats.
And each time they've backed off, further evidencing that they accept that the looseness of their TOS allowed for this and that this is the current acceptable use fo the TOS. again. NETFLIX has to issue a NEW ToS and new contract should they wish to make change in enforcement. Sof ar they have not done so
I guess this is part of my objection. Hiding behind a loose interpretation in the TOS because it fits your desire to pay less for a service.
Outside of this instance I wonder how many reasonable people would consider those not under their own roof to be part of their "household"? Part of their family, certainly but I would never have said my parents or siblings were part of my household because they don't live here.
Definition of HOUSEHOLD
those who dwell under the same roof and compose a family; also : a social unit composed of those living together in the same dwelling… See the full definition
www.merriam-webster.com
household
1. a group of people, often a family, who live together: 2. a group of people…
See, any other interpretation of the word is your own personal twist to fit your narrative.
Last edited:
I guess this is part of my objection. Hiding behind a loose interpretation in the TOS because it fits your desire to pay less for a service.
Outside of this instance I wonder how many reasonable people would consider those not under their own roof to be part of their "household"? Part of their family, certainly but I would never have said my parents or siblings were part of my household because they don't live here.
Definition of HOUSEHOLD
those who dwell under the same roof and compose a family; also : a social unit composed of those living together in the same dwelling… See the full definition
household
1. a group of people, often a family, who live together: 2. a group of people…dictionary.cambridge.org
See, any other interpretation of the word is your own personal twist to fit your narrative.
I'm not against the interpretation. the problem is that Netflix allowed this interpretation as part of their TOS for years now. That sets precedent that they accepted that as what HouseHold meant
for them to change that. They have to state that clearly and issue new terms that state that. that's all.
They are in their rights to do such a change. But they must do it legally and not just arbitrarily change their minds and start enforcing it after all this time. That would be as I said, not acting in good faith to the agreed upon contract.
Now, as someone who watches 4k. and has only shared it with my parents. if they made such a change and outright blocked that. I would likely leave them as a service. there is no shortage of content out there from other services that have outright said that for now they are accepting password sharing amongst family.
This is the balance Netflix is going to have to consider. By locking down streaming to a single IP and "household" that way. Are they going to drive new business for the multiple households, or are people going to just move to other services that allow it? Disney+ for example has said they're ok with it (For now)
I think they're just honestly probing right now. As I said, They've made comments a few times unnoficially that they may change the ToS to do it this way, but each time discussions of it dropped off.
Ok, now we are getting somewhere! I appreciate the conversation!
By saying that Netflix "allowed this interpretation" did they do so in print, advertisement, etc. or do you mean that they have not actively spoken out against a practice that is thought to be widely used?
If it is simply that they did not fight harder against that which is widely thought to be happening couldn't one say that they don't need to change the TOS because they have always stated "household" and now they are seeking to make sure everyone understands the definition of the word? Or is "household" new to the TOS?
I honestly have not paid attention to their wording over the years that I have had the service but I find it hard to believe that they ever put into writing that people could share their account outside of their household.
Last edited:
Yeah, I figured it's been said before. People do seem to think like this, most evident when looking at how road laws are disobeyed and unenforced. Speed limit 65 in California really means 80 usually, so they'll never make the limit actually 80, but in Arizona, 75 means 75. And as brought up earlier, Netflix's ToS imply it's technically against the rules to even watch a show with a visitor from a different household.Ahh, The Kantian approach to cheating. "it's not cheating if everyone is now on the same playing field because everyone is cheating"... interesting approach
Last edited:
I don't think you really have much to worry about. Probably your family members will just have to ask you for a code one time.
Allowing something and not actively denying are two different things. AFAIK, their TOS has always been very clear that subscriptions are meant for "Households". If you want argue that a "Household" means something different than common definition, that's fine. But, I don't think any one can argue that your ex-GFs sister-in-law is part of your household. Too many people on this thread (not necessarily you, just in general) are trying to take extreme position to complain about the change, which isn't even official yet. (when I leave my house, I am no longer part of the my household?) That is a pretty whacked definition and I doubt that is what Netflix is trying to limit.
But there is no change, they are just attempting to enforce the rules as they were agreed to by when the user signed up. By you logic, if I drive 40 in a 25 zone every day for a year and never get a ticket, does that mean the police have no right to give me a ticket at a later time?
My guess, Netflix knows there is a difference between a family sharing their password between with grandparents, adult/college children etc and people sharing their password with their college roommate, who then shares it with his GF, and then shares it with her parents. That is what Netflix is trying to limit.
Where did Netflix say that it was locking down streaming to a single IP? As far as I have seen, that is just a fantasy scenario that was made up in this thread to bash Netflix. Netflix knows that people travel, they're not going to take away that ability. I am sure that Netflix has good enough programmers to develop algorithms to detect potential fraudulent activity and will act on the obvious ones. Is it possible some legitiment customers may get caught, possible. But Netflix isn't stupid, they will weigh the benefits versus costs.
Again, they are not changing the TOS, they are just looking at harder enforcement of existing rules.
Let me ask this from an Apple point of view. We regularly read right here on MR that Apple removes Apps from their App store for violating the developer TOS. In some cases, these Apps have been in the App store for significant amount of time and were approved by Apple. Would you bash Apple the same way you are bashing Netflix? Is not, whats the difference?
Spotify tried this by actually using your location in the app and obviously your home address during signup. That definitely didn’t last long...
A lot of people on the internet sell part of their subscription to strangers. And sometimes, a person's Netflix information ends up in the wrong hands and gets shared amongst people who like to pirate, without the owner knowing, until Netflix's contacts them and ask why there are people from across the country and world trying to stream from the same account that should be from the same house-hold.
You can thank the pirates and those who sell their subscription to strangers for this possible new action by Netflix.
I mean sure, I’m sharing my password. My point however was that for many people, with Netflix's current pricing scheme, the cost sharing aspect is the real key. My friend and his wife wouldn’t be paying for Netflix at all if we weren’t splitting it. They were interested in giving it a try because I always had good things to say but they already had Hulu and Amazon Prime Video, and weren't really interested in paying for a Netflix subscription, especially not at the now more expensive price. In a similar vein, if've had Netflix for quite a long time now, but was pretty irritated when they introduced the extra fee / 4 screen minimum for "4K" streaming. At the time I was still using a 1080P plasma and only occasionally had access to a 4K TV/devices so I wasn't willing to pay more.
In the end, Netflix has gotten two new users and more money every month. If they crack down, will my friend pay $20 / month? I don't know. Will I continue to pay for four screens for two people? Probably not.
I don't hate Netflix or think they shouldn't get paid. They produce a lot of great content (but they also lost Marvel which while not their fault per se, still sucks...). But the aggressive price raising in what is quickly becoming a crowded market is untenable. Streaming is beginning to resemble Cable in that you can either be stuck paying $60~$80+ month for "everything," or you can overpay to "unbundle" (just pay for one or two services.)
Bring 4K to the standard "two screen" sub, and lower the price to the OG $10 (or even $12) per month. At the very least do something significant to add additional value if you're going to leave prices where they are (or more likely raise them again) AND crack down.
I am surprised how difficult this is for some. Traveling for vacation/work/etc guess what you still have a primary house. That hotel you are visiting is not a primary house.