[HN Gopher] Netflix to start testing warnings for people borrowi...
___________________________________________________________________
Netflix to start testing warnings for people borrowing login info
Author : sharkweek
Score : 48 points
Date : 2021-03-11 14:12 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (gammawire.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (gammawire.com)
| seneca wrote:
| I struggle to see Netflix existing in its current form in 5
| years. Their content is just awful, and the continuous price
| hikes just aren't justified. If they also start cracking down on
| shared accounts, I can only see it hastening their demise.
| gt565k wrote:
| Huh? Their content is far better than any of their competitors.
| I have no idea what you're talking about. They've been pumping
| out amazing original series and movies.
| seneca wrote:
| Going to have to respectfully disagree. There's no accounting
| for taste, but I haven't made it through a full episode of a
| Netflix original since House of Cards, barring series they
| bought and labeled originals. I consider their original
| content very bottom of the barrel.
| dahart wrote:
| What's better content that also allows account sharing from
| different locations?
| Mindwipe wrote:
| This was a popular sentiment when they started blocking VPNs on
| Hacker News.
|
| A lot of money to be made betting against it.
| seneca wrote:
| Yes, very fair statement. I don't think they were really
| under strong competitive pressure until somewhat recently
| though. You can get away with quite a lot when you're the
| only game in town. Less so when Disney are your competition.
| websites2323 wrote:
| Google Voice numbers are cheap. If SMS is the only barrier to
| verifying and they don't block it, could be easy to circumvent.
|
| But then again, this and every other technical "solution" to this
| problem presented here (piracy, etc) is far beyond what a normal
| user could be bothered to implement.
|
| I get it. Business team needs to see an upward trend in account
| sign ups and they're seeing a plateau. This move will get the
| normal users legitimized and it will delay a bigger increase in
| cost for a year or two.
| 4ggr0 wrote:
| The Netflix I pay for is currently used by:
|
| Me, Mom, Dad, Grandparents, GF, GFs Mom.
|
| Other than myself and my GF, most of the people on this list
| watch something on Netflix every couple of months, when I or
| someone/something else recommend them a movie or show.
|
| I don't want them to use my profile, because we then obviously
| can't watch the same things, and it'll break my recommendations.
| I get why Netflix wants to split up accounts. Currently, they get
| approximately $240 per year from me and my family. If everyone
| has to create their own account, that number goes up to $1200.
|
| But that's how my family lives. Parents are separated,
| grandparents live in their own house, my gf at home with her mom
| and I alone.
|
| My dad in turn pays Disney+ for me, Spotify is paid by my GFs
| mother, grandma cooks me a couple of Lasagnas every year. We just
| share these services.
|
| Should my grandma pay $240 per year, to watch two movies I
| recommend to her (and are ONLY watchable on Netflix)?
|
| In the end, these streaming platforms are probably right that you
| shouldn't be allowed to share accounts if you don't live under
| the same roof, but it still kinda pisses me off.
|
| Don't really know what I should think about this to be honest...
| eCa wrote:
| From that use case, what is likely to happen is everyone having
| their own account _but_ being more active in canceling and
| rejoining. I doubt Netflix revenue will increase to much above
| $240 in the end.
| 4ggr0 wrote:
| Probably, yeah. At least my grandparents and my mom would
| probably not get their own accounts.
| fao_ wrote:
| > Don't really know what I should think about this to be
| honest...
|
| Ultimately, piracy is the only remaining option. Because the
| company has decided it's going to brand you a pirate anyway.
|
| It costs maybe 11$/mo to hire a seedbox running plex that can
| store whatever media you would want to watch. While it's not
| next-day or same-day in most cases, in my experience it covers
| basically everything you would want to watch, along with
| collaborative watching, which is a perk netflix does not have.
| BrandonSmith wrote:
| > Don't really know what I should think about this to be
| honest...
|
| All subscription services must account for some form of average
| use. High usage customers are offset by low usage. Thus, it is
| likely with so many people on your account that others are
| subsidizing your account's usage.
|
| Nevertheless, I don't think Netflix cares about your low usage
| family members, like your grandmother. They care about your
| high usage family and want to get them in their own account.
|
| Netflix already has subscription tiers that varies the number
| of screens that can simultaneously watch or device downloads.
| Perhaps Netflix could help honest people be honest by creating
| tiers with modest increases for different households. Maybe $5
| for each additional household?
|
| I am sure they have discussed and don't yet have a great way of
| enforcing such. One option could be true "sub-accounts" where
| the sub-account pays for the bump of $5 with a credit card that
| must be tied to a different address?
| eatbitseveryday wrote:
| > Currently, they get approximately $240 per year from me and
| my family. If everyone has to create their own account, that
| number goes up to $1200.
|
| Typo of extra zero? Is this US dollars?
|
| The most expensive digital plan is 17.99 USD / month. With
| discs, few $ more.
|
| USD 240/month is excessive.
| 4ggr0 wrote:
| As others already pointed out, I wrote that it's per year.
|
| But I quickly looked at it, the amounts I mentioned are even
| too low. Converted to USD, I pay $23 per month. So $276 for
| one person, or $1380 for my use-case.
|
| Keep in mind that not everyone is from the US :)
| bussierem wrote:
| > $240 per _year_ from me and my family
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| jjk166 wrote:
| per year
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| NeutronStar wrote:
| I'd suggest you to reread his comment as he's saying it is
| per year.
| RHSeeger wrote:
| What is it that you think is appropriate for you to be pissed
| off about? You pay for Netflix for you and your household, not
| for anyone that happens to be related to you. Has that ever not
| been the case?
| tomjen3 wrote:
| The Netflix plan I pay for allows two simultaneous views and
| permits different profiles. On what possible ground should it
| matter what physical location those two screens are viewed
| at?
| backtoyoujim wrote:
| What exactly is Netflix pissed about ?
|
| Their stock is over $500 a share.
|
| In 2020 Netflix has positive cashflow of $1.9 billion.
|
| What are they pissed about ?
| ALittleLight wrote:
| Netflix's share price is ~80 times earnings. Their
| investors expect them to grow.
| viklove wrote:
| It's never enough
| stevegalla wrote:
| I won't be shocked when they start introducing ads,
| reduced ads accounts, and premium content subscriptions.
| 535188B17C93743 wrote:
| Stock owners.
| fishtacos wrote:
| Perhaps because they've doubled their streaming service's
| cost, reduced their content amount and availability, and are
| now properly warning they are going to be cracking down on
| geographically distant usage by users of the same account.
|
| At this point I'm paying 20 USD/m for Netflix, roommate for
| HBOMax, friend's password (via reciprocal sharing) for
| Disney+, and our online TV service, which my elderly disabled
| mother can't go without.
|
| The post-cable/satellite TV revolution has tripled my costs
| from what it used to be.
| RHSeeger wrote:
| > geographically distant usage by users of the same account
|
| But that's just it. A Netflix account isn't valid "for you
| and anyone you think it is". It's valid only for people in
| the same household. The thing they are cracking down on is
| people using the account in a way that they were never
| supposed to.
| fishtacos wrote:
| If your account is usable by 2 people of the same
| household and 1 moves out and continued paying half of of
| the Netflix bill... would you expect them to be booted
| out? So how does Netflix make a differentiation?
| Sohcahtoa82 wrote:
| If that person moves out, they are no longer a part of
| that household.
| macksd wrote:
| The number wouldn't go up to $1200 - most of your family would
| get by just fine without Netflix because it simply isn't worth
| what it costs to them. The needle will move on Netflix's
| revenue and subscriber count, and their costs will slow down.
| And largely the people affected will forget about this.
|
| The really fair way to price this is by concurrent viewers,
| independent of location, and they already have that feature. I
| too have my in-laws logged into my Disney+ account which they
| never use. But if they watch my kids, and my kids want to pick
| up where they left off on the Bluey episode, it's both my
| profile they need and my responsibility to pay for it.
| pbronez wrote:
| I also have this use case and think it's really important.
| When I was a kid you could take a favorite VHS or DVD with
| you. Now you take your subscription. Sure, I guess you could
| take a phyusical authorized device (e.g. an iPad) with you,
| then screen cast it. But that requires grandma to figure out
| screen casting. And I'm trusting my kid with a $300 device
| instead of a $15 media artifact. Lame.
| macksd wrote:
| I'm actually curious if the physical device looks any more
| innocent in Netflix's future policies than straight-up
| credential sharing. It's still coming from a new IP.
| tomjen3 wrote:
| If I have a Netflix account and I (post-pandemic) go to
| an ANB rental I would be pissed if my account didn't work
| there.
|
| I subscribed the first month Netflix came to Denmark (my
| country) and I kept the subscription up for a decade
| until they started to degrade the stream too much. They
| fixed that and I eventually came back but stuff like that
| would turn me of for good.
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| > Should my grandma pay $240 per year, to watch two movies I
| recommend to her (and are ONLY watchable on Netflix)?
|
| This seems more like an edge case. If grandma is only watching
| a couple movies per year, would Netflix even bother throwing up
| a warning message? If she didn't have her own profile in your
| account, it would be difficult for Netflix to even know if this
| was a shared account or if you were just logging in at her
| house during an occasional visit.
|
| They're not rolling this out to go after grandma watching a
| couple movies per year.
|
| It's more likely that they're targeting the heavy users who
| share a single account. People who would have their own
| subscription in a heartbeat if they could no longer exploit the
| shared account loophole.
| 4ggr0 wrote:
| You actually bring up a good point. I thought that they'll
| just show this message to everyone, but maybe you're right
| and they analyze the usage somehow to only notify people who
| are abusing it.
|
| Else, how do you handle people going on business trips and
| vacations?
| sandworm101 wrote:
| I think that you are upset about the subscription model not
| serving your use case. Pay-per-view is probably more
| appropriate for those who only want to watch a couple movies
| every month, put ppv isn't available. Customers instead share
| their accounts with family members. It is dirty rotten piracy
| and anyone doing it is stealing bread from the mouths of babes,
| but that's what happens when the legitimate system fails to
| offer the delivery model that the customer wants.
|
| My story: I have amazon prime, but no proper screens that can
| watch it (linux) and there isn't much on prime that I care to
| watch anyway. So my parents in another state use the account.
| Should amazon care? They are still only streaming to one IP but
| the reality is that we are all pirates.
| mannerheim wrote:
| Hm, that's bizarre, I can watch Amazon Prime on Linux.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| >> I can watch Amazon Prime on Linux.
|
| Everything and anything it _possible_ on linux. The
| question is whether I want to bother. I could probably
| disable my browser 's security features and get it working,
| install some proprietary whatever, but it isn't worth than
| hassle imho. I've got better stuff to watch than
| netflix/amazon junk. Whenever I have a hour to kill my
| first choice tends to be the BBC.
| woodrowbarlow wrote:
| you have (or your distro has) installed the widevine drm
| plugins for firefox (or whatever browser) that are included
| by default on windows and mac os. these are proprietary
| plugins, but some convenience-oriented distros distros
| include them because many users expect them.
|
| some linux users are on linux because they want to
| eliminate proprietary software from their computer
| altogether. which means no access to un-broken drm media.
| 4ggr0 wrote:
| I think it depends on how mainstream your distro is, or
| maybe on what browser you use. When I used Linux, every
| streaming platform ever told me that my browser wasn't
| compatible to stream.
| javagram wrote:
| > Pay-per-view is probably more appropriate for those who
| only want to watch a couple movies every month, put ppv isn't
| available. Customers instead share their accounts with family
| members
|
| PPV is available for most movies, you can rent them from
| iTunes or amazon for $3-5 for a single watch in my
| experience.
|
| Ultimately the best delivery model for the customer would be
| $0 for unlimited free streaming of movies and music, of
| course that would tank the industry and stop new production
| so a balance must be found in terms of what customers will
| tolerate vs what is needed to fund new content production.
| leereeves wrote:
| > PPV is available for most movies, you can rent them from
| iTunes or amazon for $3-5 for a single watch in my
| experience.
|
| Which is insanely expensive. $5 buys a month of Apple TV+,
| almost 2 weeks of Netflix, or 2 hours of PPV.
| adamleithp wrote:
| I'm one of these people. I use my brothers account (in Canada)
| and I'm in the UK. Got the pop up on my smart TV just 2 days ago.
|
| Netflix really doesn't have much for me anymore... not really
| sure I'm going to use their service.
| nashashmi wrote:
| Netflix limits the number of streamers on an account. That should
| allow for account sharing.
| sitkack wrote:
| Netflix should formalize this, things that move together, wear
| together.
| Navarr wrote:
| Could you imagine living with your spouse who owns the account on
| their email; your spouse is at work or on a business trip - maybe
| even out of the country, and you get this screen (or maybe you
| are!)
|
| Authorized Devices with a limit is a better choice
| 4ggr0 wrote:
| > Authorized Devices with a limit is a better choice
|
| Well good luck figuring out what that limit should be.
|
| I know households where everyone owns a smartphone and shares a
| single TV, and other households where every kid has their own
| TV, Playstation etc.
|
| Maybe max 3 devices per person?
| Nextgrid wrote:
| This just gives piracy yet another advantage.
|
| The article clearly mentions that credentials sharing is
| currently used as a mitigation to the balkanization of streaming
| services, allowing the cost of all major subscriptions to be
| spread across several people, essentially bringing down the per-
| person cost to a reasonable, single subscription's cost.
|
| Cracking down on this doesn't mean people will start paying, they
| will just go back to illicit means of watching the content.
| paxys wrote:
| My mom and grandma currently share my Netflix account. If
| Netflix cracks down on it they aren't going to start
| torrenting, but will either get their own subscriptions or not
| watch Netflix at all. I assume the suits at Netflix have run
| the numbers and are confident that enough people will fall into
| the first category to justify this move.
| moate wrote:
| It feels like this is them running the numbers. It's a small
| rollout. Looks like a classic A/B.
| fao_ wrote:
| Or you could switch to renting a seedbox and using
| plex/jellyfin
| dahart wrote:
| How is using someone else's account not piracy?
| 4ggr0 wrote:
| If you can't share accounts, why can you create a seemingly
| unlimited amount of profiles?
| dahart wrote:
| They aren't unlimited, there are 5. Profiles are defined as
| being in the same household. The reasons are easy to
| understand, if you think about it. Netflix is providing
| separate queues and ratings for people who have to share,
| and household sharing is unavoidable in some cases, such as
| when using shared devices like ipads or game consoles.
|
| Or, you could just visit Netflix.com, where they explain
| the reasons behind profiles. "Profiles allow different
| members of your household to have their own personalized
| Netflix experience. You can have up to 5 profiles on a
| single Netflix account."
| https://help.netflix.com/en/node/10421
|
| Sharing accounts outside of a household is stealing. I fail
| to see a big difference between that and any other form of
| illegal downloads where one person pays and someone else
| copies. I got some downvotes but nobody bothered to answer
| the question: how is using someone's account who doesn't
| live with you different in practice from torrenting, from a
| legal perspective?
| wrkronmiller wrote:
| or people will just create a shared email account, or set up a
| forwarding rule for the verification emails...
|
| I agree with another commenter. This seems targeted at people
| who are borrowing someone's account without their knowledge or
| consent.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| This kind of effort (presumably the verifications will be
| constant - one location being verified will trigger re-
| verification on all other locations) will just make people
| realize that piracy isn't _that_ difficult to set up either
| and might make them reconsider using streaming services
| entirely.
| tw04 wrote:
| I think this is going to have the exact opposite effect of what
| they're going for. I know plenty of people who split the cost of
| an account because they can't justify the full price. The
| continual price hikes, and now this?
|
| I'm sure the bean counters have done the math and they'll come
| out ahead, but losing content + raising prices and now killing
| off people sharing accounts is just a bad look. This is yet
| another category of business where I think they'd be far better
| off being private, so in theory there isn't constant pressure to
| continue increasing revenue. Once you have market penetration,
| the only way you're increasing revenue is through customer
| hostile actions (like increasing the price of the service while
| decreasing the cost to provide it).
| gt565k wrote:
| Nah... if you can't justify $10-15 a month, but you spend 10+
| hours binge watching, maybe you should get a side hustle or
| drive uber/lyft.
|
| Peanuts cost argument doesn't hold any water.
| stanmancan wrote:
| It's not just $10-15 since content is spread out over so many
| services. We pay for: Netflix, Disney+, Apple TV, Hulu,
| Crunchy Roll, Apple Music.
| d0100 wrote:
| For someone that has 10+ hours to binge-watch, that time will
| just be spent on something cheaper-free
|
| They won't get extra work because they don't want to, they
| want to spend 10+ hours having cheap/free fun
|
| I know this because I am one of those people, ha!
| mrits wrote:
| If you look at who their competition is I would think they have
| a long ways to go before being considered the bad guys
| moate wrote:
| I am infinitely happier with my stream service mix vs my last
| cable subscription. And if you consider their competition
| other streaming services, Netflix is already the 800lb
| gorilla in the room. It's why you saw things like CBS+ get
| rolled into Paramount, or HBO up their ante by bundling a ton
| of other brands content into HBOMAX. Not enough people want a
| single channel offering, even for $3.99.
|
| Personally, I have to agree with you that they have a _long_
| way to go before I 'm going to be as annoyed with them as I
| am with many of my other service providers (cell, cable, ISP)
| Mindwipe wrote:
| > This is yet another category of business where I think they'd
| be far better off being private, so in theory there isn't
| constant pressure to continue increasing revenue.
|
| Netflix has borrowed billions (and billions) of dollars to get
| where they are. As a private entity they've gone bust seven or
| eight years ago.
|
| Netflix priced themselves artificially low to grow, based on
| debt. That set unrealistic consumer expectations and they might
| have to face the consequences of that eventually, but Netflix's
| terms literally always said that accounts could only be shared
| with people living in the same household as you.
| tw04 wrote:
| >Netflix has borrowed billions (and billions) of dollars to
| get where they are. As a private entity they've gone bust
| seven or eight years ago.
|
| Netflix has been profitable since at least 2005... they may
| not have grown as quickly, but I'd need some data to back up
| the claim they'd be bankrupt without billions in investment.
|
| https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/NFLX/netflix/gross.
| ..
|
| >but Netflix's terms literally always said that accounts
| could only be shared with people living in the same household
| as you.
|
| I never said anything to the contrary. But it's no secret to
| netflix or anyone else that account sharing happens. This
| wouldn't be a news story otherwise. It also doesn't change
| the fact it's customer hostile and clearly an attempt to
| increase revenue.
| Mindwipe wrote:
| > Netflix has been profitable since at least 2005..
|
| Only because you're allowed to not count issuing junk bonds
| towards your profitability. Netflix only started having
| cash positive quarters this year, and has fifteen billion
| dollars in debt, generally going up by four billion dollars
| a year.
|
| Netflix literally could not have afforded the interest on
| those junk bonds as a private company. It was only able to
| borrow so cheaply on the promise of it's growth.
|
| (And this year is unusually friendly to them due to Covid,
| I do not think they are suddenly actually profitable, they
| just didn't spend nearly as much as normal.)
| whatok wrote:
| Netflix would not remotely resemble its current form and
| likely would have been acquired years ago if they did not
| pivot to their own content. Switching to their own content
| required and still requires huge amounts of money; est.
| 17bn last year[0]. Additionally, the gross profit number is
| a flawed number for many reasons; try looking at operating
| or net income or anything farther down the income statement
| from basic revenue. Netflix has no option but to finance
| content spend with debt as they do not generate enough FCF
| to cover content spend and will quickly fall behind
| competitors if they don't.
|
| [0] https://www.pcmag.com/news/netflix-will-probably-
| spend-19-bi...
| tw04 wrote:
| >Netflix would not remotely resemble its current form and
| likely would have been acquired years ago if they did not
| pivot to their own content.
|
| You can't acquire a private company unless they're
| willing to sell.
|
| >Switching to their own content required and still
| requires huge amounts of money; est. 17bn last year[0].
|
| I don't follow your point? Private companies can take a
| loan just as easily as public. If they were unable to
| attain the financing they wanted, they'd still have
| plenty of their own content, just not as much.
|
| >Additionally, the gross profit number is a flawed number
| for many reasons; try looking at operating or net income
| or anything farther down the income statement from basic
| revenue. Netflix has no option but to finance content
| spend with debt as they do not generate enough FCF to
| cover content spend and will quickly fall behind
| competitors if they don't.
|
| I'd suggest you do the same. Their cash balance increased
| from $5 billion to $8 billion last year. They took out
| "debt" to finance their movies because money is cheap
| right now. Nothing they've done required them being a
| public company, and nothing you've shown makes me believe
| they couldn't be in exactly the same position they
| currently are as a private company. They didn't even
| start borrowing money of significance until 2012, I still
| don't believe for a second they'd be "bankrupt" as a a
| private company.
|
| https://stockanalysis.com/stocks/nflx/financials/balance-
| she...
| whatok wrote:
| > I don't follow your point? Private companies can take a
| loan just as easily as public. If they were unable to
| attain the financing they wanted, they'd still have
| plenty of their own content, just not as much.
|
| Private companies face a higher cost of capital than
| equivalent public companies and are unable to borrow as
| much money as public companies are able to. This is basic
| finance 101 stuff. Without debt financing, they would not
| have been able to begin their pivot when they needed to.
| Netflix is able to borrow at much lower rates than a
| company with the same financials solely because they are
| a large public company. Google "equity cushion" if you're
| unfamiliar with the term.
|
| > I'd suggest you do the same. Their cash balance
| increased from $5 billion to $8 billion last year. They
| took out "debt" to finance their movies because money is
| cheap right now. Nothing they've done required them being
| a public company, and nothing you've shown makes me
| believe they couldn't be in exactly the same position
| they currently are as a private company.
|
| Yes, Netflix is doing much better financially over the
| past few years and especially in the past year given the
| pandemic. I don't see how their cash balance is relevant
| in the face of content spend 2-3x that much. The initial
| contention was over content spend and a misleading gross
| profit number.
|
| >They didn't even start borrowing money of significance
| until 2012, I still don't believe for a second they'd be
| "bankrupt" as a a private company.
|
| They started borrowing when they needed to pivot to their
| own content, had to do so at pretty high rates, and
| luckily succeeded in their pivot.
|
| Throughout this, I don't see any acknowledgement of where
| streaming was back then and how competitive the space has
| become since then. Netflix needs to spend on content or
| it will get left behind. A smaller Netflix offers no
| competitive edge right now and a smaller Netflix years
| ago would have been held hostage by content owners while
| being unable to have any real control over sub pricing;
| see poorly handled rate increases years ago.
| tw04 wrote:
| >Private companies face a higher cost of capital than
| equivalent public companies and are unable to borrow as
| much money as public companies are able to. This is basic
| finance 101 stuff. Without debt financing, they would not
| have been able to begin their pivot when they needed to.
| Netflix is able to borrow at much lower rates than a
| company with the same financials solely because they are
| a large public company. Google "equity cushion" if you're
| unfamiliar with the term.
|
| I guess I took a different finance 101 than you did - it
| was at an accredited university though, so I'm fairly
| certain they weren't making things up as we went. I've
| literally never heard of a public company being able to
| borrow more because they were public. Quite the opposite
| actually, as a private company with a solid financial
| track record isn't subject to the whims of shareholders
| and short-term quarterly-returns based internal
| investment.
|
| Now if you're pets.com that is burning through cash like
| it's water in the hopes of making money 20 years down the
| road... that's a different story. That's also not
| Netflix.
| jfengel wrote:
| _Private companies face a higher cost of capital than
| equivalent public companies_
|
| Why is that? (Sorry, I never took finance 101.) Is it
| because public companies can more easily put up corporate
| ownership as collateral for the loan? Or because of the
| extra scrutiny they get from the SEC?
| kmeisthax wrote:
| Right, but at the same time, Netflix also prices their
| product tiers around being able to pay for more simultaneous
| streams on the same account. Account sharing is literally a
| selling point for them.
| Mindwipe wrote:
| Sharing _inside a household_ is.
|
| Again, the t&cs explicitly forbid you account sharing with
| anyone outside your household.
|
| (As does Spotify's, and Spotify started doing something
| similar to do this a few years ago.)
| NeutronStar wrote:
| Ok so, what if I live with you but work in another city I
| travel to every week, do I not live with you? What if I'm
| a trucker on the move? What if I'm in the army and
| getting deployed?
| javagram wrote:
| In those 3 examples you'd still both file your taxes at
| the same address and be legally eligible to vote there
| too.
|
| Seems easily distinguished from the case of independent
| adults who sleep in different homes every night and have
| separate addresses on all their tax forms, drivers'
| license and voting registrations...
| Noted wrote:
| So is Netflix going to require tax information on
| everyone in the household? How can they tell the
| difference from their end I think is one of the questions
| being presented
| Sohcahtoa82 wrote:
| Presumably, this person that is on the move is still
| using the same device no matter where they go. Their
| login session will be the same, just coming from a
| different IP.
| lol123456789 wrote:
| "The easiest way to stop piracy is not by putting antipiracy
| technology to work. It's by giving those people a service that's
| better than what they're receiving from the pirates." - Gaben
| Mindwipe wrote:
| This is the same Gaben who runs a store with a bunch of DRM on
| it that has a variety of mechanisms to prevent account sharing
| yeah?
|
| It's a nice soundbite, but even he doesn't believe it.
| Sohcahtoa82 wrote:
| DRM on its own isn't always necessarily bad.
|
| Gaben's quote on piracy was about 2 1/2 years after the big
| Spore DRM debacle [0], which affected legitimate customers.
| I've been using Steam for who knows how long and have never
| had the DRM be an issue, even after several computer upgrades
| and motherboard replacements. I just have to log in and I can
| redownload all my games with no issue at all.
|
| Yes, Steam is DRM, but it's _sane_ DRM.
|
| > has a variety of mechanisms to prevent account sharing
| yeah?
|
| Well...yeah. You aren't supposed to share accounts.
|
| > It's a nice soundbite, but even he doesn't believe it.
|
| It's not just about DRM. When he talks about it being a
| "service problem", it's not just about the ability to simply
| play games. When you buy from Steam, you get automatic
| updates, cloud saves, community integration (such as the
| Workshop for installing mods and other user-made content),
| built-in screenshot management features, and more. If you
| pirate the game, you get none of that.
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spore_(2008_video_game)#DRM
| _co...
| jjk166 wrote:
| But providing a service people are willing to pay for is so
| much less lucrative than finding ways to force people to pay
| for inferior service.
| jenkstom wrote:
| What is the solution for shared custody of children? I have three
| kids that spend half their time at their moms. Are their Spotify
| and Netflix accounts (and mine) going to get shutoff? Is there
| some sort of appeal process?
| sharkweek wrote:
| According to the article you can just verify through a code
| that any devices are yours.
|
| My hunch is this is only going to cull the second layer and
| beyond of password sharing (people you wouldn't feel
| comfortable texting and asking for the verification code).
| sitkack wrote:
| Interesting. Why the warning tho and not just a "please
| relogin" screen?
| sharkweek wrote:
| Would assume on that it's because many people probably have
| the password memorized or written down somewhere as opposed
| to having to proactively ask someone for the verification
| code.
| pridkett wrote:
| "Please Relogin" doesn't give you the message that they're
| on to what you're doing. I don't assume anything when I'm
| asked to login again. Guilt can be a powerful motivator for
| people who share accounts because many of them know that
| you're not really supposed to do it, but it's been more or
| less tolerated.
| npwr wrote:
| This might be the right time to dust off the pirate hats. I share
| my account with my family and my girlfriend and there is no way
| they would all subscribe to a new account.
| matbilodeau wrote:
| Reminds me of something similar that happened in Canada.
| Satellite boxes were so easy to hack it was more of
| configuration, cable provider sued for disloyal competition.
|
| https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/bellexpressvu-must-pay-
| quebecor-137m-for-not-stopping-signal-piracy-1.2987341
|
| Which brings my question : Would a provider who tolerates account
| sharing be at risk of being sued by competitors over similar?
| donmcronald wrote:
| That's the first time I've seen someone accuse the satellite
| providers of tolerating signal piracy. It wasn't THAT easy. The
| difficulty was in the range of a firmware flash.
|
| It wasn't super reliable either. They used to change / fix
| things and people with the pirate boxes would end up waiting
| days or even weeks for the new hack. I can't remember the name
| of the content protection systems, but IIRC it was an issue /
| limitation with the actual satellite(s), so it's not like they
| could flip a switch and fix it. They made huge improvements
| with the next set of satellites that were put into service.
|
| There was a very brief golden age of satellite piracy when all
| the FTA stuff was popular, but it didn't last any longer than
| you'd expect when you consider the logistics of having to deal
| with a satellite that's in space as one side of the system.
|
| That's crazy.
| cortesoft wrote:
| The way I see it, the system currently works pretty well. Account
| sharing isn't totally free for the user.... you only can have a
| certain number of simultaneous streams, and you will have extra
| profiles on your account.
|
| If people can afford their own account without sharing, they will
| do it. If they are sharing an account, it means they are
| sacrificing some functionality to save money.
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| I have a group of friends who share a Netflix login and split
| the bill.
|
| It took them several months to realize there was a simultaneous
| streaming limitation because it was so rare for 3 of them to
| try to watch at the same time.
|
| When they hit it, the third person just watches on their shared
| Hulu or shared HBO account anyway.
| drivingmenuts wrote:
| I don't own a TV; I have an iPad. Wonder if that's going to cause
| problems if I ever get to travel again?
| Sohcahtoa82 wrote:
| Assuming you never log out, I wouldn't think so. Your iPad may
| move around, but the login session on your iPad is still the
| same session.
| chucky wrote:
| As part of a single person household it feels weird that there is
| a norm that you are allowed to share logins "within your
| household". Effectively this means people in the same household
| are paying a lower price than others - so people living in single
| households are effectively subsidizing that usage by paying more
| per person.
| larrik wrote:
| Are you saying if you have a wife and kid you should pay 3x the
| price?
| aaronax wrote:
| It's obviously not something that is going to happen, but
| it's also not that crazy of an idea. They use more water so
| you pay for more water. They use more clothing so you pay for
| more clothing. They use more cellular devices so you pay for
| more cellular connections. They each want an email address so
| you pay for more email accounts. They use more digital
| content so you pay for more digital content.
| chucky wrote:
| I wouldn't put it like that. I would say that each user using
| Netflix should pay the same amount. So you pay for yourself,
| your wife pays for herself, and your kid pays for themselves.
|
| Sure, it's 3 times more than what you pay today. But you are
| 3 times as many people as I am, so why shouldn't you?
| jjk166 wrote:
| And three roommates splitting rent pay less than the person who
| lives in a three bedroom apartment alone.
|
| If it really bothers you, get a few people to pay you a few
| bucks to be included in your "household" and use your netflix
| account with you the same way that apartment owner sublets the
| extra rooms.
| chucky wrote:
| >If it really bothers you, get a few people to pay you a few
| bucks to be included in your "household" and use your netflix
| account with you the same way that apartment owner sublets
| the extra rooms.
|
| But I can't do that - this is exactly what the article is
| saying Netflix is now starting to take action against, and it
| is already against their TOS.
| jjk166 wrote:
| You're restricted to sharing with people in your household,
| but you get to define who is in your household.
| croes wrote:
| You mean like internet access, telephone and cable tv? Single
| and multi person households both have pros and cons and this is
| just a pro for multi person households. The con is you need a
| more expensive netflix plan or you can't just watch when you
| want to.
| bidirectional wrote:
| Almost everything is cheaper for multiple people living as a
| unit. Wait until you find out people with partners effectively
| have their rent halved.
| dazc wrote:
| Except that rents are now at a level that need two people to
| cover - so that issue is kind of priced in already?
| chucky wrote:
| Not sure why you are using such a condescending tone, but I
| do understand how rent and the costs of living work.
|
| The difference is that if I brought another person into my
| home then yes, we could split the rent, but it would also
| halve the amount of living space per person.
| cortesoft wrote:
| Do you expect my wife to turn away from the TV when I am
| watching Netflix?
|
| Each tier has a number of simultaneous streams allowed. If you
| want multiple people to be able to stream at once you pay more,
| and if you are streaming one at a time on the same device, you
| really think each person should have their own account?
| chucky wrote:
| > Do you expect my wife to turn away from the TV when I am
| watching Netflix?
|
| No, and I do not expect my friends to turn away when they are
| visiting my home. This is not at all what I said or meant,
| and I think you know that.
|
| > Each tier has a number of simultaneous streams allowed. If
| you want multiple people to be able to stream at once you pay
| more, and if you are streaming one at a time on the same
| device, you really think each person should have their own
| account?
|
| There are really two things here. Yes, I am aware Netflix has
| a model where you can pay to have multiple streams ongoing at
| the same time. That's the model I am questioning, because
| obviously one person can only watch one stream, so this can
| only be used by different people in a household.
|
| As for the other part of your question, yes, that is exactly
| what I think. Each person should pay equally for their own
| account. Why am I allowed to share my 2 streams with a
| partner in the next room, but not with a partner in
| Australia? What is the difference between the two?
| cortesoft wrote:
| I am guessing the reason is twofold.
|
| One, they know it is unlikely a family would pay for more
| than one account while living in the same house, but they
| might get a few extra bucks for the family upgrading to a
| multiple streams subscription.
|
| Two, they probably have data that a shared account in the
| same house does less simultaneous streaming on average than
| a shared account in multiple houses.
| rafael09ed wrote:
| For products with a flat rate, the people who use it less are
| subsidizing it for people who use it more too. Would you say
| there is a problem with that?
| dazc wrote:
| I share my account with my dad, who does not live with me.
| He's been self-isolating for almost a full year and has
| redefined 'binge-watching' to a whole new level.
|
| I rarely watch Netflix since it seems mostly series stretched
| across multiple episodes despite having a story that wouldn't
| justify a comic strip.
|
| So, yes, I am subsidising him consuming stuff that Netflix
| would have to pay me to watch.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-03-11 23:02 UTC)