Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Sharing HBO Go Accounts Could Result In Prison

Posted by Unknown on from the you-are-a-criminal dept.

coolnumbr12 writes "In a recent New York Times article called 'No TV? No Subscription? No Problem?' Jenna Wortham noted how she used, 'the information of a guy in New Jersey that I had once met in a Mexican restaurant.' Dave Their of Forbes admitted that he used his sister's boyfriend's father's account in exchange for his Netflix information. But this is stealing under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, which makes it a misdemeanor with a maximum one-year prison sentence to 'obtain without authorization information from a protected computer.' It is also a violation of the Digital Millennium Copy Act because it is knowingly circumventing a protection measure set up to prevent someone from watching content like 'Game of Thrones' without paying. Forbes points out that a crafty prosecutor could also claim that using an HBO Go password without paying is a form of identity theft."

43 of 221 comments (clear)

  1. Theft of Service! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Of course this is theft of service! Someone is benefitting from the service of these companies without paying. That's a lost sale right there!!! The true travesty is that people within the same household are not allowed to be charged for a subscription to these services as well... Damn freeloaders!

    1. Re:Theft of Service! by mwvdlee · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We're not talking about the lack of availability for a family-plan here.
      This is about the lack of availability of a random-people-I-once-met-but-don't-even-know-their-name-plan.

      As much as I dislike DRM, DMCA and big-content corporations in general, I can't really fault them on this one.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    2. Re:Theft of Service! by captainpanic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I tried to turn myself in at the local police station. I told the officer there that I had borrowed a book from someone else. I had not paid for it. My friend has also read it. So, that's three people, in three different households, that have all read this book for the price of one!

      The officer threatened to give me a fine for wasting his time, then sent me home.

    3. Re:Theft of Service! by lxs · · Score: 5, Funny

      Don't worry. Under PRISM the NSA can watch movies all day long using your credentials.
      This is actually how this whole mess will get resolved. The MPAA sues the NSA for trillions and bankrupts the whole spying industry after which the FBI rounds up all MPAA execs for terrorist activities and sends them to a camp in sunny Cuba.

    4. Re:Theft of Service! by slashdyke · · Score: 2

      We could only hope...

    5. Re:Theft of Service! by niftydude · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As much as I dislike DRM, DMCA and big-content corporations in general, I can't really fault them on this one.

      The fault with this situation is that the punishment should fit the crime, and in this case, clearly does not.

      Are you really suggesting that the punishment for watching a bit of tv that you haven't paid for should carry a possible one year prison penalty? This is a non-violent crime which only has very small financial consequences. As such, the penalty should be a fine of some sort. What it would have normally cost to subscribe to the service, with a small punitive multiplier would be appropriate.

      Taking someone's liberty for a year for such a small infraction is tyrannical in every sense of the word.

      --
      You can never know everything, and part of what you do know will always be wrong. Perhaps even the most important part.
    6. Re:Theft of Service! by Culture20 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, potentially dangerous actions like aggressive driving are just fines (and maybe loss of license). Sometimes just Warnings. A prison sentence for account sharing is insane. If the person is using it to actually pirate shows (copying them to DVD and reselling them; the *real* definition of media piracy), then they should get prison time for that one, not this one (should still be a fine, and not a [value of TV watched times ten thousand] style of fine either).

    7. Re:Theft of Service! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      For punishment that fits the crime: Anyone convicted of this type of stealing should be sentenced to watch TV for as many hours as they stole watching movies.

    8. Re:Theft of Service! by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 4, Funny

      The officer threatened to give me a fine for wasting his time

      That's because it was obvious to him that you'd been already booked.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    9. Re:Theft of Service! by Rockoon · · Score: 2

      In other news, a man sentenced to watching 40 hours of Jersey Shore committed suicide this morning after only fulfilling one 4 hour session...

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    10. Re:Theft of Service! by necro81 · · Score: 3, Informative

      The availability of HBO without cable is largely a matter of business agreements between HBO and the cable providers. I assume that in its various contracts, HBO is forbidden from offering a stand-alone streaming service to people who don't pay for cable. Government doesn't have a whole lot to do with it. It would be swell if the FCC could force cable providers to offer channels a la carte, but it isn't clear that they have the authority to do that, let alone the political will.

    11. Re:Theft of Service! by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That would be a valid point, if you got to choose the minimum instead of the maximum.

      Instead, you are threatened with the maximum, and history shows that it is very likely in any trial situation (especially regarding copyright or CFAA issues) the prosecution/plaintiff is going to go for the maximum because you dared turn down a plea bargain. It is prudent to assume that you must defend yourself to a level commensurate to the maximum pentalty because you cannot know that the prosecution will not seek the maximum penalty. In fact, the prosecution has an interest in seeking the maximum penalty in almost all circumstances. In persuing (or threatening) to pursue the maximum penalty if a plea bargain is rejected, the prosecution makes the plea bargain a hard deal to refuse given the high rate of convictions. If the prosecutor was known to not pursue the maximum sentence, then the consequence to rejecting a plea bargain is reduced and the negotiating position of the prosecutor is weakened.

      From the perspective of the person targeted for prosecution, without any explicit guarantee that you would not face the maximum sentence, it makes sense to plan your defense around the very likely situation that you would face the maximum sentence.

      Aside from public backlash, there isn't really any reason a judge/prosecutor/jury must apply the minimum sentence. Without any real pressure to minimize the sentence, it might as well not exist.

      The maximum sentence is the measure by which a law must be evaluated, because that is the measure by which the government is bounded.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    12. Re:Theft of Service! by Flammon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Prison should be reserved for people who pose a serious threat to society. Is copying a DVD and selling it a serious threat?

      --
      ayottesoftware.com
    13. Re:Theft of Service! by nitehawk214 · · Score: 2

      Yeah, potentially dangerous actions like aggressive driving are just fines (and maybe loss of license). Sometimes just Warnings. A prison sentence for account sharing is insane. If the person is using it to actually pirate shows (copying them to DVD and reselling them; the *real* definition of media piracy), then they should get prison time for that one, not this one (should still be a fine, and not a [value of TV watched times ten thousand] style of fine either).

      Getting it from bittorrent has a far smaller sentence, and is far harder to prosecute. (Not to mention that spending a year in jail would ruin the entire life of a normal law-abiding citizen. Goodby career, goodby family, goodby prospects of getting a job at anyplace more demanding than mcdonalds.)

      And flat-out stealing it from a store would carry even less of a sentence.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    14. Re:Theft of Service! by TheCarp · · Score: 2

      Somebody better tell this to the government because they seem to have tossed this idea out the window as soon as they realized there was money in building building prisons. I knew a guy who was jailed for years over a package of flowers that he was receiving in the mail.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    15. Re:Theft of Service! by fredprado · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Nope he implied that if I am innocent I better take a guilty plea anyway or I will go to jail. That is how US criminal system works, and that is why more than 90% of the people charged with anything end pledging guilty, a great part of them innocent people. Basically people are blackmailed to give up on their right to defend themselves by the threat of disproportional sentences if they fail.

    16. Re:Theft of Service! by curunir · · Score: 2

      I would have a lot more sympathy for companies like HBO if they made these services available to everyone. But, instead, you need to spend hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars per year on separate TV service from one of a few blessed providers. If HBO had a ~$10/mo plan that gave access to HBO:Go only, I'd be right there with you condemning people for sharing accounts. But as long as they're using the new online services to prop up the entrenched satellite/cable services and make the service unavailable to many people at any price, they deserve all the abuse they get.

      --
      "Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!"
    17. Re:Theft of Service! by Richy_T · · Score: 4, Funny

      Perhaps the wives were turning up on-screen...

  2. dumb by bloodhawk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Stupid arse obnoxious overkill laws... But definitely theft of service, just the punishment is hardly fitting for the crime, if that is how they are prosecuted.

    1. Re:dumb by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sorry, serving up video isn't free. The company pays for servers, electricity, bandwidth, and the salaries of all the people required to make it work.

      And the account owner pays for that. So if the account owner has a friend visiting and tells him "I wanted to watch [insert-a-movie-name-here] but I have to go get my car fixed, why don't you watch it instead?", where's the difference?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
  3. Since when is sharing stealing by overmoderated · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They didn't steal accounts from each other. They shared. What is this world coming to? A place for fascist corporations and governments who clearly support them.

    1. Re:Since when is sharing stealing by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Do you have a food replicator? If yes, your analogy would actually make sense.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    2. Re:Since when is sharing stealing by Ash+Vince · · Score: 2

      Do you have a food replicator? If yes, your analogy would actually make sense.

      Even with your amazing star trek style replicator it would still take energy. The real issue here though is that the original copy took hundreds of millions of dollars to produce, even if each subsequent copy takes less than 0.01 of a cent. They have to use the profit made from selling copies with are cheap to create to cover the cost of the original.

      Netflix must have to pay a fortune to the studios for their licence to resell their content. That deal may also include a small amount extra per user they have or even per viewing. Large companies generally trust other large companies to accurately report this data for some reason.

      I work in the elearning industry and it is common place for people producing online courses to charge big companies based on how many people they way to give access to the courses. Even though it costs the producing nothing extra for each user they still demand an extra fee for each person who benefits from their original investment. This is simply how lots of things work in the capitalist world we inhabit.

      --
      I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
    3. Re:Since when is sharing stealing by nitehawk214 · · Score: 2

      They didn't steal accounts from each other. They shared. What is this world coming to? A place for fascist corporations and governments who clearly support them.

      Try going to a buffet restaurant and using the "it's only sharing" argument. It won't work. Buffet restaurants aren't "fascist" for not allowing you to feed all your friends for the price of one person.

      But the buffet just kicks you out if you cheat. They don't try to send you to jail for a year.

      But of course HBO doesn't want to disconnect even their cheating customers. That would be killing their own revenue stream. So instead they can scare people with this scary "1 year imprisonment" to convince people not to cheat the service. Its a hell of a lot easier than building in real security.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
  4. Sarcasm by ShakaUVM · · Score: 5, Funny

    Fortunately our US Attorneys are well-known for their common sense and restraint, and when they *do* go overboard, they get fired and disbarred like Carmen Ortiz.

  5. A choice to make by tftp · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If you are facing the choice to either sit down in front of the TV or to go in the street and kick the living dayligths out of an innocent stranger, now you know which one is safer.

    1. Re:A choice to make by TheSeatOfMyPants · · Score: 2

      There's a good reason that people can't kick "addictions" though -- it's that most addictions exist as a way to cope with serious problems in everyday life, which is also why people that manage to quit one addiction often develop a more socially acceptable one in its place. In those cases, either the real problem is that the person doesn't have healthy coping skills, or the problem itself is so severe & pervasive that regular healthy coping skills aren't enough; sometimes it's a combination of both.

      If we want this situation to improve, we'll have to start identifying the aspects of our society that leave so many people overly stressed & unhappy, and start changing them. It's not likely to ever happen, though, partially because people are still raised to scorn "weakness" (e.g. not being able to do or be everything we feel is expected of us) or anyone that admits being "weak" in that regard, and in part because the changes would have a short-term negative impact on businesses due to the number of problems that come from how employees are treated.

      --
      Now mostly at Usenet:comp.misc & SoylentNews.org (it's made of people!)
  6. netflix sharing llc by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 2

    idea. you and whatever other person you wish to share account with start a limmited liability company that signs up for account as "employees" of said company you get access to their netflix/hulu/hbo go account. if sued the limited libabillity company goes under and nothing happens to you. use the corporate contorted legal system to your own advantage

    --
    ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
    1. Re:netflix sharing llc by vux984 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      if sued the limited libabillity company goes under and nothing happens to you. use the corporate contorted legal system to your own advantage

      Why would they sue the company? The company has a paid account. They'd sue you, personally, the individual using their service who does not have an account.

      But even so, it raises some interesting points:

      Can a corporation have a netflix account?
      If not, why not? Is that discriminatory? After all, "Corporations are people too my frienda".

      If they can have an account who is allowed to stream content on their behalf, employees? shareholders? officers?

      Maybe I should incoporate for steam. Now the account holder (the corporation) never dies, and presumably my wife can play my games without violating their EULA; solves at least one of the larger gripes I have with Steam...

  7. The Future is Now! by gooman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Welcome to the new world where you are all criminals!
    Now do what we say or we'll lock you away.

    --
    "Kittens give Morbo gas!"
    1. Re:The Future is Now! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      When I was growing up, I thought that was how things were behind the iron curtain. Now I realized that the iron curtain was lifted, it merely shifted position so we're all behind the curtain now. . . .

    2. Re:The Future is Now! by greg1104 · · Score: 2

      In Soviet Russia, HBO shares you!

  8. Story would have been a lot more interestinging if by Eightbitgnosis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Someone had actually been charged with something rather than just some random guy supposing it could happen.

  9. Piracy? by mitcheli · · Score: 2, Informative

    I read an article on Slashdot last year about The Game of Thrones that stated that it was the number one pirated show on the Internet. Because I am a guy who believes in rewarding good talent and also knowing that GoT was a pretty darn good show, I bought both Seasons 1 and 2 (yes, paid for it!) on iTunes. And I was right, a fantastic show! So when my wife and I finally finished off Season 2 and Season 3 was just starting up, we went to our trusty iTunes to get a subscription for Season 3. Well, sorry folks, it's only available in Australia. And we wonder why people are attempting to steal it? Seriously, make it available to purchase and I'll be more than happy to do so. In the meantime, I can't exactly imagine why the piracy happens... Stumped really... Correct me if I'm wrong, if a technology is not readily available to be used, isn't the circumvention of the protection mechanisms legal under fair use? Was that not the point of the DeCSS case?

    --
    Select from tblFriends where interesting >= 4;
    1. Re:Piracy? by Rockoon · · Score: 2

      Well, sorry folks, it's only available in Australia. And we wonder why people are attempting to steal it? Seriously

      Exactly. I could be convinced to pay $50/month for a streaming on-demand service if it had nearly everything -- to re-iterate, the key factors are:

      (a) ON-DEMAND
      (b) NEARLY EVERYTHING

      Furthermore I propose that the content owners could offer this service at nearly no cost to themselves, by simply indemnifying subscribers from any and all legal and contractual repercussions if they are caught torrenting their content. $50/month in order to never get sued by members of the RIAA and MPAA.. I'll take it.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    2. Re:Piracy? by cdrudge · · Score: 2

      And now you know why this comic was made.

  10. Re: Ohh for fuck's sake by mcsnee · · Score: 2

    Happy to, Trollio. It's the other $80 for 90000 channels i dont watch that I object to.

  11. Solution by asmkm22 · · Score: 3, Informative

    HBO could easily solve this problem by offering their shows for sale/rent online the same day or the day after it's aired on cable. They have no one to blame but themselves when they only provide a single means to watch their programs, and people resort to pirating or sharing credentials. I know I'd be more than happy to pay 2 or 3 bucks for a one-time pass per episode.

    The world is moving forward, and it's up to the entrenched media industries to move with it if they want a piece of the action.

    1. Re:Solution by second_coming · · Score: 2

      Because 2 billion would be even better?

  12. Give me a legal choice HBO by slycer9 · · Score: 2

    Cable isn't available at my house (not even internet, I have to use a cellular data access point), I don't have a clear view for satellite, there are no FIOS options and you won't let me just subscribe to HBO Go so I can watch from my phone or whatever, give me a legal option and I'll take it.

    Hell, I bought the previous two seasons already, I'd LIKE to buy this one.

    --
    Don't park drunk, accidents cause people.
  13. Just torrent it via a VPN service... by Lumpy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Honestly the safest way is to torrent the stuff. These companies are hell bent on hating the consumer, so screw them.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  14. Re:Ohh for fuck's sake by Lumpy · · Score: 2

    Would love to. Please point me at the page on their website to subscribe to HBO-GO without Cable TV.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  15. Re:Same problem with Steam by kannibal_klown · · Score: 2

    Indeed, since the ToS specifically denies you the right to have multiple accounts on Steam (commonly done to allow the account to be sold so the game can be sold, or so that a ban on one account does not ban all games on steam), many people doing so are just as "guilty" of computer fraud and misuse as this HBO case, even if you're NOT sharing your account.

    But does Steam list prison as a consequence?

    Or does it just say they'll kill your account and thus lose all of your purchases.

    The "prison" thing is the headline-grabber here. Not that HBO is against you doing it.