Sharing HBO Go Accounts Could Result In Prison

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."

Comments

Theft of Service!

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

Re:Theft of Service!

[mwvdlee]

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.

Re:Theft of Service!

[captainpanic]

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.

Re:Theft of Service!

[lxs]

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.

Re:Theft of Service!

[niftydude]

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.

Re:Theft of Service!

[K. S. Kyosuke]

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.

Re:Theft of Service!

[IndustrialComplex]

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.

Re:Theft of Service!

[Flammon]

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

Re:Theft of Service!

[Richy_T]

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

dumb

[bloodhawk]

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.

Since when is sharing stealing

[overmoderated]

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.

Sarcasm

[ShakaUVM]

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.

Story would have been a lot more interestinging if

[Eightbitgnosis]

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

Re:The Future is Now!

[Anonymous Coward]

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. . . .

Re:netflix sharing llc

[vux984]

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...

Just torrent it via a VPN service...

[Lumpy]

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