Slashdot Mirror
Tennessee Makes it Illegal To Share Your Netflix Password
An anonymous reader writes "State lawmakers in Tennessee have passed a groundbreaking measure that would make it a crime to use a friend's login — even with permission — to listen to songs or watch movies from services such as Netflix or Rhapsody. The bill, which has been signed by the governor, was pushed by recording industry officials to try to stop the loss of billions of dollars to illegal music sharing. They hope other states will follow."
Oh come on, this is just a waste of time in the legal process. Anyone already illegally downloading isn't going to stop anyway. There has to be a better way to involve the downloaders, spend time looking for that, rather than legislate against a lost cause.
america, land of the free. as much as they have money that is. more money, more freedom. less, less freedom. hilarious irony of the land of the free in which freedom is tied to money, and those with the most money can decide how much others can be free.
Read radical news here
the corporate oligarchy, brought to you by the government, which ensures that the only 'competition' happens in the high halls of government power and not in the market place
Beaaaauuuutiiiiifuuuuuul.
You can't handle the truth.
Doing a great job keeping people from doing that nasty theft. Fucking scum!
I think they're one of the states that have a sign on the back that says, "Frequent stops, do not follow."
If this was of concern to Netflix (which, I presume, faces pressure from the studios which license their content to Netflix), I wonder why Netflix would not place a limit on the number of simultaneous connections / streams delivered to any given account, or else the number of simultaneous IP addresses to which a stream is delivered for any given account?
To stop those monsters 1-2-3
Here's a fresh new way that's trouble free
It's got Paul Anka's guarantee...
Guarantee void in Tennessee!
Just don't look!
Just don't look!
Just don't look!
Just don't look!
You can't handle the truth.
I'm seriously wondering whether the goal of recording industry is to make money, or if they just want to see how much they can piss their paying customers off.
why is it that we don't have laws that say YOU CAN SHARE YOUR PASSWORD and YOU CAN DOWLOAD WHATEVER MAKES YOU HAPPY? who is running this show anyway?
Darn those Democrat politicians, in the RIAA/MPAA's pocket, like the sponsor of this bill, Rep. Gerald McCormick, and the Governor who will sign it, Bill Haslam! Thank God the Republicans will come to the rescue!
Oh, wait . . .
Since SONY is a big part of the RIAA ....SONY you continue to be a DUMBASS!!!
http://www.riaa.com/aboutus.php?content_selector=who_we_are_board
So then what makes it my password? I am confus -insert lolcat image-
Niiice. Civil agreements are not enough any more. Now we need the rule of law to make things into a crime! It's clearly not enough to sue your customers. Now we have to fine and imprison them.
But look on the bright side -- they aren't claiming "it's for the poor starving artists" this go around.
As a non-subscriber of anything, this is how I get entertained. It's like watching one of those reality shows unfold. Sure it's a bit slow, but just when you think the industry has gone too far, people just suck it up and let it happen. How much is too much? How far is too far? I may never see the limit in my life time it seems.
How about making it illegal to lend your car to your friends? That will boost car sales which is good for the economy. You don't want to be a terrorist, do you?
If you come to my house and I want to watch Netflix, I'm kicking you out. Better safe than sorry.
Damn... posting twice... oh well... new comment.
This is simply precious. He is not hiding anything in this case. He doesn't know what he signed. He only knows who is backing it and therefore pushes it right through. To hell with the consequences.
And the music industry? I thought this was for netflix? You know what I would like to see? I'd like to see how much tax the entertainment industry pays in Tennessee. Anyone know how to get that information? Also, is there access to information about that states collection of taxes of online services like these and finally the political contributions in that state?
Getting a picture of the money motivation might show what this is really all about.
But we get it -- Tennessee has whiskey and music... and little else?
A crime, really? I'm sure the content industry has wet dreams about pushing this to capital punishment eventually.
I wonder what percentage of users will
1. ignore the legislation and keep using friend's account
2. switch to piracy, download the mp3
3. purchase a separate song for their own netflix account.
Somehow my hunch tells me "3" will not be a majority.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Great job letting bogus assertions sneak into the summary masquerading as fact.
When i read this the short story Right to Read came to mind. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Tennessee Makes it Illegal To Share Your Netflix Password
So it was legal before...
was pushed by recording industry officials to try to stop the loss of billions of dollars to illegal music sharing
...?
This is trash. I was going to move to Tenn. But now NO WAY. I will not renew with Netf_ks.
I can see it now. System hacked. Russian uses Netflix; I go to jail. Do not pass go, Do not collect $200!
To bad many things I liked in Tenn.
how is this any different from reading your email at a friend's place? surely that's copyright material too, or are words less valuable than, say, a movie?
what if I don't "share" the password but simply type it in when I'm at a friend's place, does that count?
with all things "online" this is becoming ridiculous, let's welcome UltraViolet (or something similar)
I never thought I'd feel the need to link to this.... today Netflix, tomorrow everything?
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
by Anonymous Coward: I, for one, welcome the shift from car analogies to pizza analogies. um.. overlords?
Actually, the goal of anyone who goes past a certain point in how messed up they are, becomes to control others. The more out of control they get, the more obsessed they become getting hooks into and controlling anyone who could do something about it.
The RIAA behaves exactly like any other parasite, period, which includes most politicians and ~100% of lawyers. Their motives are not mysterious.
No one has a "right" to make money. You have the right to engage in business and either succeed or fail based on your merits and the market. Using the law to prop up a no longer viable business model is the end of capitalism. However, in the current political climate it is very easy to buy this kind of legislation. In the long run it blurs the distinction between legitimate business and a protection racket.
Please don't call it capitalism, because it's not. This mislabeling adds insult to injury. It insults our intelligence.
Why is Snark Required?
If I had Nexfix I would change the password to "admin".
if it wasn't that already.
The Houseowners Association of America today announced today their support for a bill that would make it punishable to share your rented home with non-family members.
"This will put a stop to the losses incurred to property owners by people crowding their homes with strangers", a spokesman for the HAA said.
It is widely believed the bill will also boost the property market, thus allowing the mortgage financial markets to recover.
Hey don't blame me, IANAB
for Netflix anyway?
No one should be surprised by this, it was predicted quite a while back:
"Dan resolved the dilemma by doing something even more unthinkable—he lent her the computer, and **told her his password**. This way, if Lissa read his books, Central Licensing would think he was reading them. It was still a **crime**, but the SPA would not automatically find out about it. They would only find out if Lissa reported him."
The Right to Read
Richard Stallman
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Now that the precedent is set, its a matter of the government slowly upping the punishments until no one shares any kind of information without first paying for it.
WTF? This is something that Netflix and other players could easily prevent from happening. Why do we need a law? This really rubs me the wrong way.
Lending my pal a fiver becoming a criminal offense? Buying and handing him a beer? Lending him my car to make a business trip?
Regarding the latter, lending our cars to family and friends would surely cause a loss of billions of dollars to the automobile industry.
make it a crime to use a friend's login — even with permission — to listen to songs or watch movies from services such as Netflix or Rhapsody.
But if an employer wants your Facebook username and password, that's completely acceptable - after all, they just need to make sure you're not talking behind their backs!
*sigh* Remember the time when things were much simpler? The service provider said "don't give your password to anyone", and you said "of course not, duh." And that worked. It still works.
How are they going to enforce this? It's not really possible to check who typed in the password, from across the net...
My fellow Tennesseans...whining about wanting smaller government and electing people who will cost the poor less money, electing the exact opposite. How is your conservative loon government now?
... but many places do have laws like that (Boulder, CO has a limit of four unrelated people under one roof), mind you they are intended to prevent people from running brothels... but still
Any and all content posted above may be ignored, considered irrelevant, or otherwise dismissed.
So on a playstation to hand the controller to a friend, so that he can choose something from netflix would be illegal? Nice! Whoever came up with this probably got a raise, but I don't see them being able to enforce this.
I wonder, does the Boulder, CO law also apply to your yearly house party, or only to residents per house?
Hey don't blame me, IANAB
I can see why this is happening. America used to have quite a bit of manufacturing, shops that employed people on living wages etc. Technical workers that worked in country, and spent their money locally. That money flowed round and encouraged other shops and enterprise. Shops that sold stuff made in the US. It also did fair trade in export and import.
That's all gone now. All the US has is "IP" and "Media" aka ideas, films and music, nothing you can touch. There is now really no manufacturing to employee people - Gone abroad. IT Jobs = Cheaper in India. Local workers? almost slave wages in Wallyworld or Starbucks. Exports of any physical goods is nowhere near what it used to be. Just about everything manufactured comes from China.
Now all shops sell crap mostly made abroad, competing in a race to the bottom to try and squeeze the ever reducing money in pocket from shoppers. Those same shoppers that used to have a job, and pay taxes, but since their job was shipped abroad as it was $8,000 a year cheaper.
If they loose this revenue stream, its over. They have to protect this last thing they have that other people and countries will buy. There is nothing left to make in the US. It still makes it good taxable income for the government. All the "dirty" stuff that makes things got shipped abroad by short sighted fat cats. There is also have defense spending, but same thing applies.
It is in effect the last roll of the dice for the US economy and they are hoping to god these "untouchables" will save them. This should explain why the media fat cats are so terrified of losing the "rights" war. The subscription model is only the beginning.....
In another 20 years I suspect the US (and UK, and Europe) will be entering into what we now class as third world levels of poverty and suchlike. Asia and what we now class as the emerging market will have swapped places with us.
http://www.writeitfor.us - Writing IT for the IT generation.
Stop voting Republican/Democrat already!! Can't you people see what you're doing to your country???
Tennessee resident here!
Bill Haslam is another 1st term Republican governor running amok. We are not getting as much press as Wisconsin, most likely because no large continuous crowds have occupied the state house, but it's the same pro-big business, anti-union agenda being pushed in many other states. Bill Haslam is a new generation of old money, with his family owning Pilot Oil, an extremely successful regional gas station and quick market chain, among others.
Some precious new policies include:
* banning teacher union collective bargaining
* tort reform (read as: placing a price cap on human suffering)
* raising salaries for his cabinet
* pushing charter schools, and publicly-funded privately-owned (for-profit) schools
Some of his reforms, like teacher tenure reform, look positive at first glance, but it remains to be seen what the effects of his policies actually are.
Next it will be a crime to invite friends over unless you've secured your CDs in a locked safe.
True. Once you have enough money, you don't really need it anymore. You go for power/influence/control over others.
Usually this turns into a loop: Money gets you power, and power gets you more money.
PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
"Class, here is an exhibit to study." *
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwP_SxjPLkM
Marc Seaberg - Looking for freedom
"...Father said: You'll be sorry son
if you leave your home this way
And when you realize the freedom money buys
You'll come running home some day."
* Youtube, not Netflix, not Tennessee.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Someone in Tennessee needs a solid bitch-slap of common sense. This is an absolute joke, and is completely unenforceable. Something that is utterly unenforceable should be deemed illegal in itself, to avoid waste of taxpayer money. I'd recommend anyone living in Tennessee to get together and file a class-action lawsuit against the state for waste.
THIS is now what they are calling "illegal music sharing"? OK, downloading MP3's off Napster back in the day without purchasing the actual music I can see as being "illegal", but THIS? Are you kidding me?
If I have a Netflix account, and I happen to have my computer connected to my HDTV and invite a friend over to watch a streaming movie, is that now considered "illegal" sharing/broadcasting?
If I'm listening to streaming music on my smartphone and someone overhears it, am I going to be arrested or fined for broadcasting with a "license"?
When does this bullshit stop? Where do we draw the line? Who keeps moving the damn line?
Keep it up RIAA/MPAA. Won't be long before you're sitting in the ashes of MySpace with regards to popularity if you keep duck-marching around with your legal goon squad, bitching and moaning about your "losses" while smashing all-time records at the box office for weekend earnings. You will be your own demise.
A legislative solution for what should be a technological fix?
While I understand the purpose of this - I don't think we need more laws for the sake of having a law. This sounds like an issue for the companies to handle in their agreements with their clients.
Mind you - I'm a long time netflix subscriber. It's essentially my cable TV replacement and I've been very happy with them. I think their prices are reasonable and their selection is more than plenty for my tastes. I'd support *them* adjusting policy and technical controls to ensure their system maintains the level of quality they're delivering. But again, a law for this? Seriously?
Its a Jew eat Jew world
Isn't this something already covered in most EULAs/ToS? Most are very clear that accounts are not to be shared. That being the case, isn't the real remedy to have the offenders' (the ones whose accounts are shared, once proof is obtained) accounts sanctioned in some way: warned, then a temporary block, then account deletion?
It's already covered by contract law. It doesn't need to be a criminal matter.
I use irony whenever I can, but my shirts are still wrinkled...
This measure is ... horrible.
Someday the sea will come crashing in. Depend on it.
The more I see the travesty of copyright panic unfolding, the preservation of the rich entitlements, the more I think of the Maginot Line. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maginot_line
You want to kill copyright? Buy yourself a guitar.
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
They already have laws like this passed by the anti-immigrant crowd. It makes it illegal to have too many people in one house even if they are extended family. They figured it was a good way to keep Mexicans out of their suburbs...so much for property rights I guess. What's the point of "owning a home" if you can't actually do what you want in it.
"I really wish that nobody would have taught the evil overlords how to read. They just keep 'stealing' ideas from dystopian authors."
Philip K. Dick's ghost sadly agrees with this.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Maybe this is all part of an EFF conspiracy where they have infiltrated the media corporations and are secretly compelling them to fuck their own customer, that way more and more will stop using their services and learn how to torrent.
Promoting artificial scarcity in lieu of the scarcity inherent in manufacturing physical goods.
Unfortunately this is only going to get worse: http://www.cracked.com/article_18817_5-reasons-future-will-be-ruled-by-b.s..html
the only way to keep government corruption to a reasonable minimum is to make the central government as weak as possible while still fulfilling essential functions. Keep as much governing local as possible/practical so as to distribute power and thus make influencing enough politicians to make a national impact impractical.
Eventually, localities will want to trade with one another, and they'll need some sort of standards for what goods are tradeworthy. The framers of the U.S. Constitution recognized that setting standards for trade between localities is one of these "essential functions" when they specified "regulat[ing] commerce [...] among the several states" as one of Congress's enumerated powers. The problem comes when the courts allow the legislature to turn "regulat[ing] commerce" into a catch-all, as in Wickard v. Filburn.
its not human nature to be selfish or greedy. if so, you wouldnt have families.
Then perhaps it's human nature to be selfish or greedy with those outside one's top 150 friends, or as this Cracked article calls it, one's "monkeysphere". Immediate families are well within that group.
Your Chinese Overlords do NOT approve of your grousing about this. You WILL bow to the wishes of your bought and paid for by the Chinese government, government NOW! You fat round eyes are good for farming money from, you foolish and buy many pieces of JUNK from our Wal-Mart stores. You go in debt to US to buy OUR junk! Bwaaaahahahahahahahaaa
Just keep making white women for us for when we come over to stick our rice dicks in their asses while we laugh at your corpses.
Take the Red Pill.
after all it would no sillier than allowing someone to use my online service. If the provider cannot lock out multiple simultaneous use then that is their problem.
However they could react the way that some MMO games do which is to lock accounts who very closely spaced access from domains located in different parts of the country or world.
It really sounds like they are trying to treat individuals the same as businesses, which long have been sued from companies for sometimes inadvertent uses of entertainment. (like how professional sports cannot be shown in a bar without paying a fee)
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
I think it might be a matter of enforcement costs. With civil action, the cost of enforcing copyright falls upon the producers and distributors. If they make it criminal, then they can get the state to enforce instead, at taxpayer expense. In business speak it's called 'externalising the cost' - finding a way to make someone else pay.
Tennessee government is bought and paid for.
Sorry kids, but sharing an account is NOT STEALING. The RIAA and MPAA have desperately been trying for decades to make it illegal for you to loan someone a song or movie... well using a friends account is the same thing as loaning.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Most rental agreements contain language prohibiting the renter from subletting the property.
I don't see how it's very different from two Xbox 360 consoles needing two Xbox Live Gold accounts and two copies of each game, or two PCs needing two copies of Windows and of each game, or the cable companies charging per cable box, or many other examples of charging per device that I could dig up.
Can you find the legislation so we can get a roll call and contact list?
It also sounds like big business (or their representatives/lobbyist) have fully started buying state legislatures. I guess easier and cheaper to bribe on the state level?
I know that the govt, especially in this case the state govt isn't listening to their constituency....I mean, I cannot believe if they polled their voters that they'd come up with the idea that this was a good idea to "the people".
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
All I have to say is good luck enforcing that one. Not really sure how they are going to do that, I can't really see a tip line working. I expect this "law" is going to be quietly repealed a few years down the road when they find it doesn't' really work.
Cannot find REALITY.SYS. Universe halted.
Don't be looking over my shoulder. Your costing the media companies a billion dollars. Seriously, who's ass are they pulling these numbers from? Most here don't remember taking singles to friends houses or the sock hop and listening to music. The music industry didn't claim to be loosing a giga-billion dollars per second then. If it wasn't for sharing music nobody would have bought their records. It was, and still is, part of a social connection.
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
The Black Iron Prison is alive and well, indeed.
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
Only when actions speaking louder than words has lost its meaning.
If enough people think this is unfair their going to have a bitch of a time enforcing it. Make sure to tell everyone you know about Jury Nullification (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification). It was a right that our forefathers gave to us so we could stop the abusive prosecution of our fellow citizens. The courts will try at every turn to take this right from you, but it is clear and simple. You can decide not to convict someone because the law is unjust.
The reason the industry lobbies want to criminalize this stuff is to shift the burden of enforcement to the tax payer. If its a civil agreement it then its mostly their own responsibility to spot where their rights are being infringed and do something about it, send a take down notice, file a suit, whatever.
If they can criminalize it suddenly state enforcement agencies are burdened with detecting the crime, and state legal agencies are burdened with prosecuting it.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Before talking about your presumed intelligence, you might want to read up on some history and some economic theory. Capitalism ends up with the accumulation of, who would have thought it, capital, in the hands of the few. With the accumulation of capital comes power. With that power, the few shape society to the detriment of all others. Lobbying for protective laws is not the intent, but the end result of capitalism. Essential part of capitalism, however, is all other believing that one day, they might be in the place of the few and yield the whip themselves. That delusion keeps the system going.
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
Semi-OT: Doesn't Netflix already limit the number of simultaneous logins and/or do some kind of IP monitoring? I'm a subscriber and I know in the past I've gotten warnings when I was trying to watch something while travelling (and confirming that my kids were watching Jimmy Neutron or whatever at home).
I see some flawed analogies in the responses. Giving your password already violates their terms. When you sign up and pay for the service, you said you weren't going to share your password. So comparing this to borrowing your friend a car or having someone stay in your house is not the same thing. It is unlikely your purchase agreements for those assets included anything about sharing.
I think this is closer to "stealing" phone service. Where you have a line coming into a house (a single private line, not a party line), and then use several splitters and long runs of cat 3 to connect up your neighbors. If you read your terms and agreements that come with your phone service, I think you'll find that you can't do this. Likewise, you can share your cell phone with anyone - that's a different subscription model with different terms.
N.B. Making a law over the matter... well that is ridiculous and is clearly being done to appease the industry.
Every corporation is standing on top individuals - their clients. Here's a tip: stop undermining your own foundation or you will fall and collapse - the bigger you are the harder you fall. Stop trying to re-write the laws and we may shake hands once again ...
From the beginning it was born on the back of existing infrastructure and refuses to pay for it's own existence (data transfer.) If anything the public (backbone) ought to ban netflix from it's networks at the netblock level as it was unsustainable from it's first inception.
But now the user base has an incentive to ban it.
This should never be more than a civil issue. That's my first point of agreement. I recall when the music industry had just begun to 'cannabilise' it's market. I used to pass it off as something that would lose steam, but it's march is relentless it seems. I now reflect and think about the money these content holders have used to hoard culture icons, then dish them out at whim. It is huge, I am sure. They want a return on that investment. The issue now is that we all share our content freely amongst each other. We swap photos and videos, animation, stories, movies, letters, Mom singing in the shower, whatever. We share it all. For free. Everyone is their own production house. In this new era, who are these archaic gateways of culture? They are just another producer of content. A dime a dozen, these days. The content they hold only has a relevance for a short time, before this new free culture overwhelms them. They need to learn how to be content sharers, not content sellers. I think they want to screw everyone for what they can get before they become irrelevant. Why not put some in jail? At least they got some money. Heartless! Keep the rest of them scared? Fearmongering. Enough said. Internet neutrality is another issue I would talk about in relation to a free internet, we can't have these new corporations controlling and even stifling our internet creativity. It's important that we control the medium, not merchants. We can't have another set of cultural gatekeepers.
Perhaps our law makers and the rest of us should read John Stuart Mills's "On Liberty", then stand up to the law takers a bit more.
()
It is interesting to see Tennessee outlaw what is currently a violation of the terms of service.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
It's already not allowed to lend a bus or a train pass to someone else, and that's generally accepted. That's consecutive, not concurrent, and it doesn't prevent legitimate users still using the service (unless you take a place on a full bus and other people are prevented from getting on, but that's relatively rare).
Why is that okay, and this not?
pushed by recording industry officials to try to criminalize their customers and increase their profit margin.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
You keep saying that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
In a number of states, the law requiring the use of seat belts is primary offense meaning one can be pulled over for not wearing a seat belt. The mere fact that one can and has receive a ticket for not wearing a seat belt means the law is enforceable.
To the best of my knowledge, which may be incomplete, there is no "downloading music law". There is, however, copyright law and it is quite enforceable as has been demonstrated numerous times.
Now, please explain in detail how the law in the article "gives the law a way to arrest you at any moment".
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
I'm sorry to break these never ending posts bashing them for such law, but what is your exact intent when you share/use a shared credential to a paying service?
You are doing it for aiding or to avoid paying for the service. You know that, I know that.
Go ahead and flame me, but I will refuse to fool myself that I do something honorable when I steal something.
I see dozens of comments about how this is somehow evil and/or a money grab.
I see dozens of comments about "screwing users", etc.
BUT, I don't see any comments about this law being redundant since no-one in their right mind shares their passwords.
Do all of you normally share your login details with friends? Why? How can you hate privacy breaches so much and then turn around and get angry when someone tells you not to share your online identity with friends? Especially something that you are paying money for!
If they can criminalize it suddenly state enforcement agencies are burdened with detecting the crime, and state legal agencies are burdened with prosecuting it.
...And it will be a burden they cannot ignore. Once it's law, its their job to pursue it, and they will. All for what? A cultural icon? A favourite movie? A borrowed mp3 player? We won't have enough prisons to hold them all. It's cultural brutality, plain and simple.
Currently Netflix allows multiple streams going at the same time based off how many DVDs you sign up for at a time. If you pay for 3 DVDs out at a time, you can have 3 streams going simultaneously. I don't believe Netflix believes someone is watching 3 streams at one time.
They must be thinking about the number of new jobs it would create. I'm thinking prison guards, but...
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
Don't know about Rhapsody and others, but the Netflix TOU has this:
By sharing the netflix service password, the account owner agrees to be responsible for assuring that household members comply with the terms of use and such account owner shall be responsible for the actions of the household members.*
Which implies that password sharing is allowed and expected, at least within a small group. However I guess in Tennessee this is no longer legal. I wonder what happens if I (not in Tenn.) share my password with friends who have moved to Tenn.?
Of all the online streaming/buying/renting services Netflix seems to understand their customers most. They're easy to use and seem want to provide a good service to their customers even with all the restrictions placed on them by content owners.
* Original is in all caps, but Slashdot says that's lame.
If I get an account with one or two friends in other timezones, it's not just a matter of us paying less per month, we're also screwing up the game in that we can play a single character in shifts, so that character is always playing.
It's bad enough when people who have lives are automatically at a disadvantage (though not insurmountable) to people who can play five or ten hours a day. Now you've got a single character capable of playing twenty-four hours a day.
I honestly don't see how this applies to something like Netflix, though. If I rent or purchase a DVD, there's no good reason I can't lend it to a friend -- and lending them a Netflix account, or a Steam account, is actually significantly less functionality than I have with physical media in that I can't just lend them a single movie or game, I have to lend them the entire account.
Worse, as others have pointed out, there's already legal protection here. If you don't want me to lend my account, put that in the ToS with appropriate penalties -- no need to have the government do your work for you.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
RT5Lg$56
Thanks,
going to jail now
And nobody offers up a secure workaround... So, once again I will ask the question;
How are we, as individuals, going to protect ourselves from the psychos and zombies? How are we going to build secure ad hoc networks that completely bypass the corporate wire? Start with this, and then we can move on to what ever the next step will be.
But another question comes to mind;
How far are you willing to go to protect your freedom? Or even your life? Are you willing to do things that can very easily get you tagged as a 'terrorist'? Right there in the constitution is a specific prohibition against even advocating violent overthrow of the government. So what do you do when your government clearly becomes a tyrannical dictatorship, even if it is a dictatorship of the majority??
So, instead of your age old pissing and moaning, try to address this, and see where it leads. Try just for once to break the circle
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
Say I created my own streaming service, and started streaming my own homemade movies. I created an account for me to use, and then handed that password out to others, would I be infringing that law? I think it would be silly to restrict others from sharing their own creations. Reminds me of recent law in Portugal.
That is so fundamentally wrong as to make me reel in dismay to hear it. First of all, there is no fundamental difference between R and D to any noticeable extent. If that has not been proved time and again by comparing the Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2, and Obama (and other) regimes, and by comparing the mess when R's controlled BOTH houses of Congress AND the Presidency, to the equal mess when D's controlled BOTH houses of Congress AND the Presidency, then there is no hope for human powers of observation.
Both D's and R's want to regulate everything: businesses and individuals. Both crave power. Both consist of unusually stupid and self-centered dregs of humanity, passing themselves off as the people's champions. They focus cravenly on trying to gratify everyone while pissing off no one. They both are bought and paid for by corrupt and stifling mega corporations, and in return they reward these mega corporations and mercilessly beat down true free enterprise, which flourishes when small businesses and individuals doing business thrive.
True free enterprise has nothing to do with the yolk of rampant Capitalism as we know it. Oddly, both D's and R's are as repelled by the idea of true free enterprise as are Communists, even though they will ridicule Communism and claim they hate it. Paradoxically, they both operate exactly the same as pragmatic Communists - the Chinese system, with government and mega corporations operating in league. Except that they owe no allegiance whatsoever to their own country, which, unlike the Chinese, they are rapidly destroying.
Both D's and R's are drunk with the idea of micro managing society. Both are inwardly repelled and horrified at the idea of personal freedom. Both are attracted to the idea of making all sorts of harmless conduct into victimless crimes, the way moths are attracted to the flame - except they themselves never get burned. Neither R's nor D's ever address real problems in an effective manner because they fear that to do so would cause short term distress to the voters who they see as baying and lowing cattle. They fear this would lead to "their side" hitting the third rail of politics.
They do not lead in any sense. They poll continually, and pass themselves off as those who will appease the greatest number.
Republican Gov. Bill Haslam told reporters earlier this week that he wasn't familiar with the details of the legislation, but given the large recording industry presence in Nashville, he favors "anything we can do to cut back" on music piracy.
The recording industry, a major taxpayer in Tennessee, loses money when users share accounts for music services instead of paying separately.
In other words: No, he didn't actually read it to see if it was an egregious affront to the voter base. His concern is for the major taxpayer ( of course, he's Republican), not the thousands of little taxpayers. Besides, with all that pocket cash coming from the RIAA, why would he disagree with them? Imagine his surprise when the voter base boots his ass out next election cycle.
after all it would no sillier than allowing someone to use my online service. If the provider cannot lock out multiple simultaneous use then that is their problem.
Just to play evil-corporate-overlord's advocate for a minute, it's not quite the same.
If you loan out a physical book (or other print media), you no longer have it. The published or author has been paid for a single copy, and a single copy is in use.
But for an online service, you could have multiple people concurrently using the single-user service. (I don't know if this is possible with Netflix, or if their system prevents a single account from logging in from multiple locations.)
Back to reality, how long until Netflix changes based on family size/eyeballs? Watching alone in your basement? $8/month. Want to watch with your Canadian girlfriend? $15/month. Family plan? $20/month.
This is not the purpose of government.
Enacting laws to 'fix' a flaw in a private business model is not what government should be doing.
Instead, Netflix should be working on how they do business.
This is an example of politicians either bought and paid for or dumb as a brick.
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
We'll only be in real trouble when it becomes illegal to listen to your friends' cds!
The thing is, it is the service's responsibility to use technical measures to prevent this, and it is trivial to do so. So basically, this bill's sole purpose is to protect the laziest of the lazy from having to do their jobs.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
I would sell my sole and gladly go to hell, If every citizen of that state got up and packed up and left the place citizenless nothing but crickets.
So, what happens if you post someone's Netflix password online? Could you be arrested for entrapment?
"Judge, I couldn't resist... I know the content providers have a duty to make as much money for their shareholders as they can. But I just couldn't resist... that guy who posted his Netflix password online... he made me do it, how could I not try it out?"
When common sense is outlawed, only the outlaws will have common sense.
I'd happily pay you Tuesday for a biopsy today!
First off, if you didn't see this coming, what the hell's wrong with you. Second, there is a very easy workaround for this problem. Stop supporting Big Media.
Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
This is really get out of hand, and killing the tax payer. In Texas Perry created a multibillion dollar deficit,in violation of the Tx constitution in the previous budget cycle and is going to do so again. One of the many things that creates this deficit is the big government criminalization of trivial matters. One of these things is cheating in fishing competitions. Tax payers are now expected to prosecute cheater in these contests, and may be liable for paying their bills for a year in jail. If the people who run contests are so incompetent that they cannot execute an honest event, it is certainly not up to me to pay for this. Likewise, there are many ways to insure a password is not misused, like logging locations and only allowing one session. Conservatives should not require tax payers to support big government initiatives to help incompetent private enterprise.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
With prisons all going privatized, that seems to be the next big industry. Start buying stock now. They can take away your rights as a citizen, but they won't take your stock shares. If you are a big enough investor, you should be able to vote yourself some better treatment once you are incarcerated for "whatever they think of next."
What if my login is gay/gay? Is it a double negative and I can discuss homosexuality AND my passwords freely? Or do I need to change all my passwords to "Takei"?
you laugh, but unfortunately, most rental agreements specify exactly this...not allowing you to have guests more than a number of consecutive days (often a week) and no long term residents, even if they are family members, unless they are on the lease or under 18 yrs.
My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
Make them come over to your house and bring a 24 :-)
The whole thing is just a direct quote from the linked AP article. 1st & 2nd paragraphs.
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
Campaign finance reform should be the number one issue on the political agenda everyone with a vote insists gets done.
NOTHING else matters.
But for an online service, you could have multiple people concurrently using the single-user service.
They explicitly allow this. Hell, watch their commercials, they tout this as a feature of the service.
My roommate and I share one Netflix account. We routinely both watch it on different devices at the same time.
Except that the *AA members yield control over it. If I have a civil case against you, I can sue you when I want and for what I want, and I can settle if I like the deal. If you've committed a crime that affects me, I can call the police or the County Attorney's office, and they can investigate or not as they please, then prosecute or not as they please. (I once filed a police report on something, and it wound up stamped "no leads" when there were actually plenty of low-quality leads, but the police didn't think it worth investigating them. It's their decision.) Moreover, I have no claim for any reimbursement if the police actually investigate and the County Attorney's office prosecutes and gets a conviction.
The Tennessee law enforcement agencies will not be burdened with having to do anything.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I propose that every Netflix user shares with us his login and password, here and now, as a sign of protestation
[/sarscam]
i just downloaded pirated copies of Game of Thrones episodes one through seven in HD resolution.
the music and movie Industries. Don't buy from a company that treats customers like shit and pushes bad faith legislation down everyone's throats (period) Fuck them.
The bill, which has been signed by the governor, was pushed by recording industry officials to try to stop the loss of billions of dollars to illegal music sharing.
If they didn't push the bill, then it wouldn't have been illegal... so, legally speaking, what were they trying to prevent in the first place?
I can lend a DVD, how is this any different? While they're using the [DVD|streaming service], I can't use it.
Twinstiq, game news
Yes, the people that are calling for Netflix to use technical means to stop this are cutting their nose off to spite their face. Netflix has been VERY generous on the TOS for their service. I personally have 9 separate devices registered for use on my Netflix account. With only 3 people in the household, it is uncommon for more than 2 to be used simultaneously, but having 2 running at the same time is pretty common. There is no way that I would want to be required to pay per device, or even per stream.
I'm not convince that making a law against sharing accounts is a good idea, as I think "IP" law has already gone to far, and should be scaled back before we even consider expanding it, but adding more DRM to Netflix is not the answer, and it would likely be worse for the customer than this law if viewed pragmatically.
I have a rhapsody account a girl friend and I share and use on our iPhones. Occasionally I will be streaming music and it will pop up and say my account is in use on another device do I want to kick the other person off or stop listening. Rhapsody will let you have 5 devices registered I think it is, but only 1 concurrent stream.
You can say what you want about him, but he does have an annoying tendency to be right. This is exactly the same as his right to read article/story: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
In Tennessee you can bribe a legislator with a pair of shoes and one of them fancy Yankee repeater rifles.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
I am wondering how you managed to post on Slashdot as a non-subscriber of anything, and how you did it with a username....
Uh, you're a bit late. See: Prison-industrial complex. For extra fun, see this news item: judges being bribed to send people jail.
Stupid laws are stupid laws. If I go to a friend's house to watch a movie, am I allowed to log in from there? My comment is that Netflix or others have failed to consider allowing multiple households from using a common Netflix or other. If there was concurrent download, then yes, guilty as charged,