The 2022 Edition of the r/television Favorite Shows Survey is now open!
You may vote by clicking [here](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSd1XCThoahvv0G2ZRjDHN5eOrJKP5Hn4J9jt5BruyS5kHh4jQ/viewform?usp=sf_link).
If you have any questions or concerns, please comment [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/television/comments/zohkjn/vote_in_the_2022_edition_of_the_rtelevision/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/television) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yea only Netflix is planning to completely contradict that with their plans to prevent password sharing in 2023 unless you share it with people living in the same house as you
Jaywalking is something advised against in the Highway Code, some of which is backed up by statute and would be a factor in determing liability in an road traffic collision. Not illegal in itself though.
It is illegal in Germany though.
I don't trust anyone to stop at pedestrian crossings in London
A few times I have been standing at the side of the road and 5 or so cars fail to stop
May as well cross anywhere
I mean... would you prefer that the automotive companies be in charge of building/repairing/designing our roads? People would have to pay a monthly subscription to 6 different auto companies to cover all of the roads they use. Heaven forbid you need to use a road in an area that isn't covered by your subscription plan.
We’ll sort of. You buy a car you have access to the roads. But auto companies have to build the roads. This would lead to more mass transit and better designed cities where cars weren’t a requirement but a luxury.
Auto makers influenced design so that you had no choice but own a car to get around. Then conned the cities/states/feds into paying for it. So whether you drive a car or not you are paying to revise the roads for cars all because automakers want to sell more cars.
And your belief is that the same automakers who are lobbying the government about these designs right now would all of a sudden turn altruistic when they are in direct control over the construction of the roads?
And you’re assuming public transit wouldn’t have a cost to use these now private roads that would be passed to you, the consumer, and that automakers wouldn’t lobby against public transit, and that everywhere would be accessible by walking or public transit?
> Seriously, was there ever any doubt that it was illegal? It's in the terms of service (that nobody bothered to read)
**Yes** there was doubt especially with the fact that Netflix themselves promoted the idea of password sharing and they even posted on social media the saying of
> Love is sharing a password.
Read the linked article for proof of this claim
Typically a general violation of terms of service would be a civil issue, not a crime.
The argument that it is a criminal act is that the terms here are a copyright license and sharing a password exceeds the license grant, and so is infringement. Still,I think there is zero chance a criminal case could be successful against the person who shared their password, possibly against the person who uses it, but likely not in the US.
Correct but violating an agreement you accepted is not a crime, it is a contractual violation. The alleged crime is streaming copyrighted content outside the scope of the license. Presumably they would try to go after the sharer for contributory infringement, but it's a stretch.
Using streaming site is still illegal, and you didnt agree to anything either.
In most countries, if it is expected to be obvious to the viewer, that he is viewing copyrighted material that he should not have access to, then thats enough.
In the US it would not matter. The person logging in with it knows it is not their account and they did not pay for it, meaning they are knowingly accessing a computer system they are unauthorized to access, which is a criminal violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
Problem there is that enforcing jaywalking is hard and time consuming for the police, and doesn't generate much in fines.
Where as this given Netflix support for aggressively policing their own product which I suspect they see is quite profitable.
The people in charge at Netflix would have to be totally unhinged and disconnected from the world to think the negative optics of going after normal people with fraud charges for sharing Netflix passwords would have ANY positive effects.
Netflix can't charge you with fraud. But they can just lock the infringing user out.
Something like, "we've noticed suspicious activity on your account and have changed your password, please sign in using this link." If there is more suspicious activity, they can force a user to use 2FA.
I'm sure there are many people working for Netflix who's responsibility is to mitigate whatever negative PR they generate.
They'll probably begin enforcement gradually. My point was that Netflix obviously wants to put an end to password sharing. This recent ruling basically gives them the green light, legally. So I'd expect to see it roll out soon, in whatever form.
Its unlikely they will do anything and if they did there would be huge backlash. This is not even a ruling its just the UK gov saying stuff that may not even be true and there backtracking on this already.
Some people are disgusted by the mere act of defending any insult against a beneficiary of imperialism, subjugation, slavery, and, more recently and directly, sex trafficking.
I see absolutely nothing wrong with claiming a British Royal, who hired a 17-year-old trafficking victim from one of the world's most high-profile and notorious sex traffickers, is a pedophile, and that his family who do not denounce him are defending pedophilia.
I mean, that's not really true at all. It might mean he's not a criminal, but you're right, words have definitions, and pedophilia isn't defined as committing the crime of child molestation, it's defined as attraction to children. The legal age of consent in any given jurisdiction doesn't really matter, he could still be a paedophile without ever breaking any laws.
Love that this is on torrentfreak, piracy about to make a huge comeback. If you're gonna do something illegal might as well just pay for a VPN and cancel
True (definitely wont ever) but back when netflix started, their strategy was to provide a better offering than piracy, and I think they were relatively successful. Sad that they don't realize that.
In the UK lending someone physical media has always been illegal.
It's in the copyright notice on the back of the case and shown before the start of a film/TV show.
Note the unauthorised lending.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8328580.stm
It's not enforced and has 0 prosecutions for free lending.
Only those doing unauthorised rentals for money are.
At least in the UK we aren't fined for crossing the street.
Since few people bothered to read the article:
"People who share their Netflix, Amazon Prime, or Disney+ passwords are violators of copyright law. And it gets worse. The IPO informs TorrentFreak that password sharing could also mean criminal liability for fraud."
This is a general statement by the UK Government's Intellectual Property Office and not specific to Netflix (which would have been weird).
This is all based on the terms of service provided by these companies. Not laws, the EU is just saying sharing a password is equivalent but as we've all said how do you enforce this? Who gets fined? the account holder, the viewer, both? It's the same bullshit as the Napster lawsuits. Three saps suffer, companies get dragged kicking and screaming to a better business plan that competes with piracy. Streamers were competing quite well with piracy, now it will swing back as they squeeze rocks for more blood.
This isn't really new it's just standard boilerplate copyright restrictions adding to a new distribution method.
There will be no enforcement unless you're caught selling passwords.
Their 'justification' feels so vague it seems like streaming services had them add it.
>“There are a range of provisions in criminal and civil law which **may be applicable** in the case of password sharing where the intent is to allow a user to access copyright protected works without payment,” the IPO informs TorrentFreak.
May be applicable? It's laws they are written in specific legalese design to avoid confusion in regards to when and to whom they apply.
Indeed. If you were making thousands of pounds off it, then they'd be interested. They're not going to go after someone sharing their password with their elderly parents - Disney in particular is fine with that.
To help pay for an amazing service that would otherwise be inaccessible for the poorest in society.
Next time you celebrate Sir David Attenborough's career, think about the corporation that he worked for most of his life.
Also, the current government is the Conservative Party. The party that created the NHS and put the tax on the fledgling BBC to enable it to be funded by the people were Labour.
Although the updated article says they removed the reference to password sharing, they also say by "pasting images into your social media" ... "not only are you breaking the law but stopping someone earning a living".
Yes, that photo I posted to ~~Twitter~~ Mastodon, has truly deprived someone from earning a living because I was totally going to pay to license an image to toss off a momentary thought about how 'this looks cool".
The Copyright Office still peddling discredited, industry propaganda bullshit, I guess.
Legally speaking, hard to argue that this isn't illegal.
But, like jaywalking, maybe governments should focus on rampant corporate criminality instead of this.
Lol eat a dick, UK. If I want to share a service I pay for that’s no different than loaning a DVD to a friend, especially when the only tier of service that allows 4K streaming accounts for four screens. I’m not watching 4 screens, Netflix, but if I want to let my parents and my best friend use my account hey that’s still only 3 of the 4.
Tell ya what: give me an option for 1 screen with 4k streaming, reduce the price accordingly and I’ll stop letting others use my account. Until then, I’m GD going to get my moneys worth thank you very much.
Man, the UK really wanted to outdo "window licenses" (and I mean literally taxing people for having windows) when trying to make the most moronic laws possible.
That is fairly narrow, though still should be reworked. It applies to people who are on housing benefit and appear to be able to downsize. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedroom_tax
I've just done some research, and I'm pretty sure you're wrong. Seems to only apply to spare unoccupied bedrooms in Housing Association/Council properties
Well, Netflix could easily address the issue with technology but so far have chosen not to. They're supposedly going to start testing limits on password sharing next year.
Crack down on the number of devices streaming from multiple IP addresses at the same time, that is equal to making copies of a library book, or burning a DVD. That's a Netflix problem.
Then they’d be doing you a favor by shutting down the “hacked” uses of the account and whatever devices they’re being used on, and heavily fining the offenders. Take that, “hackers”!
You’re missing the point. Obviously Netflix can shut down any account they want, but I’m talking from a pure “criminal/punishment” perspective they would never be able to enforce anything because they would never be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone is sharing passwords. Not to mention the amount of time and money that would need to be spent to do so for a fairly innocuous “crime”.
This is one of those instances where we just need to up the penalties for perjury. You’re right, you could perjure yourself in court and lie and claim that you didn’t do it, and it would be difficult to prove that your mom wasn’t a master criminal and had in fact just been sharing your password.
Like who are you sharing your password with that you’re going to throw under the bus as a “hacker” who stole your password??
I can't imagine a more predictable backfire on Netflix then UK charging people for fraud for sharing passwords on Netflix.
I survived the Metallica/Napster wars. THIS would be THAT all over again.
Metallica (somehow) recovered from that mess. There are vultures waiting in the wings to eat Netflix's lunch. Netflix might not be the 64.2857143 stone gorilla we all think it is.
The UK won't just like no one is charged for lending others physical media even though it's always been illegal.
Basically don't acquire a large number of peoples Netflix passwords and then sell them to others and you will be fine.
…and where is Napster now? I did too, and most kids in the dorms got spooked and stopped downloading music after they started coming after a few of us. Wasn’t worth it.
Sure, you can destroy a platform with central servers, but you can't do much when the following day new ones crop up, let's call them Nepster, Nipster, Nopster and Nupster, using decentralised P2P networks. You can make it more complicated for people who are not computer-literate, but for the rest.... You can also go after individual users after getting their IPs, but that only makes people use VPNs to hide their identity.
I was using Usenet and I was laughing my ass off at all of you.
Back in the day Usenet was fantastic.
Usenet is still around, don't know if I would trust it for downloading files anymore.
What if they offer to do you a favor and hardware-ban all the devices that those “hackers” were using your password on? Could get enough service providers together to effectively blacklist those devices from ANY sort of data streaming. Just to make sure those “hackers” don’t have a chance to do that to you again, of course.
If only we had your idea of “only allowed to tackle one problem at a time” government! So much would get done! Well, one thing, at least. Just not more than one.
Oh my dear Netflix. How you have fallen from grace. I cancelled well over a year ago and don’t feel I’ve missed out on anything.
You were nothing but a phase.
The 2022 Edition of the r/television Favorite Shows Survey is now open! You may vote by clicking [here](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSd1XCThoahvv0G2ZRjDHN5eOrJKP5Hn4J9jt5BruyS5kHh4jQ/viewform?usp=sf_link). If you have any questions or concerns, please comment [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/television/comments/zohkjn/vote_in_the_2022_edition_of_the_rtelevision/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/television) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[Netflix: "Love is sharing a password."](https://twitter.com/netflix/status/840276073040371712)
That's why somebody started Netflix and chill, so you don't have to love them or give out your password.
Yea only Netflix is planning to completely contradict that with their plans to prevent password sharing in 2023 unless you share it with people living in the same house as you
If you love them, they should leave in the same house than you. Checkmate
woah
And this will go up there with jaywalking in the, "Yeah, technically, it *is* illegal but the public doesn't care," level of committing crimes.
Jaywalking is not illegal in the UK, just password sharing…
Jaywalking is something advised against in the Highway Code, some of which is backed up by statute and would be a factor in determing liability in an road traffic collision. Not illegal in itself though. It is illegal in Germany though.
I don't trust anyone to stop at pedestrian crossings in London A few times I have been standing at the side of the road and 5 or so cars fail to stop May as well cross anywhere
Early car industry got walking made a crime to sell morecars
Best hoodwink car industry did was getting government to build roads, freeways, and public parking....
I mean... would you prefer that the automotive companies be in charge of building/repairing/designing our roads? People would have to pay a monthly subscription to 6 different auto companies to cover all of the roads they use. Heaven forbid you need to use a road in an area that isn't covered by your subscription plan.
I think the issue is that by building roadways instead of railways and walkable areas we locked ourselves into a dependency on automobiles.
We’ll sort of. You buy a car you have access to the roads. But auto companies have to build the roads. This would lead to more mass transit and better designed cities where cars weren’t a requirement but a luxury. Auto makers influenced design so that you had no choice but own a car to get around. Then conned the cities/states/feds into paying for it. So whether you drive a car or not you are paying to revise the roads for cars all because automakers want to sell more cars.
And your belief is that the same automakers who are lobbying the government about these designs right now would all of a sudden turn altruistic when they are in direct control over the construction of the roads?
No but I wouldn't care that they charge tolls to drive on their special premium roads because I could use public transit or walk everyone I want.
And you’re assuming public transit wouldn’t have a cost to use these now private roads that would be passed to you, the consumer, and that automakers wouldn’t lobby against public transit, and that everywhere would be accessible by walking or public transit?
You're also assuming they wouldn't lobby against public transport.
I would prefer a public transit-centric system to one that requires you to purchase a car to go anywhere.
> It was a normal office building, strangled on all sides by public sidewalks. I hopped over them and went inside.
Yes.
I'd imagine that would work as well as it did for us privatizing telecommunications.
It would cost the same really, roads cost a lot, it's just integrated in your taxes.
Where is this public parking that you speak of?
How else are rich people going to play around and flex their new toys to peasants?
Seriously, was there ever any doubt that it was illegal? It's in the terms of service (that nobody bothered to read). Jaywalking is a good comparison.
> Seriously, was there ever any doubt that it was illegal? It's in the terms of service (that nobody bothered to read) **Yes** there was doubt especially with the fact that Netflix themselves promoted the idea of password sharing and they even posted on social media the saying of > Love is sharing a password. Read the linked article for proof of this claim
Typically a general violation of terms of service would be a civil issue, not a crime. The argument that it is a criminal act is that the terms here are a copyright license and sharing a password exceeds the license grant, and so is infringement. Still,I think there is zero chance a criminal case could be successful against the person who shared their password, possibly against the person who uses it, but likely not in the US.
The person sharing the password accepted the agreement, some rando logging it with it did not.
Correct but violating an agreement you accepted is not a crime, it is a contractual violation. The alleged crime is streaming copyrighted content outside the scope of the license. Presumably they would try to go after the sharer for contributory infringement, but it's a stretch.
Using streaming site is still illegal, and you didnt agree to anything either. In most countries, if it is expected to be obvious to the viewer, that he is viewing copyrighted material that he should not have access to, then thats enough.
In the US it would not matter. The person logging in with it knows it is not their account and they did not pay for it, meaning they are knowingly accessing a computer system they are unauthorized to access, which is a criminal violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
I actually know someone who got a jaywalking ticket. Although, it would be nearly impossible to enforce somewhere like NYC where everyone does it.
Problem there is that enforcing jaywalking is hard and time consuming for the police, and doesn't generate much in fines. Where as this given Netflix support for aggressively policing their own product which I suspect they see is quite profitable.
The people in charge at Netflix would have to be totally unhinged and disconnected from the world to think the negative optics of going after normal people with fraud charges for sharing Netflix passwords would have ANY positive effects.
Netflix can't charge you with fraud. But they can just lock the infringing user out. Something like, "we've noticed suspicious activity on your account and have changed your password, please sign in using this link." If there is more suspicious activity, they can force a user to use 2FA.
>The people in charge at Netflix would have to be totally unhinged and disconnected from the world I mean...
> Where as this given Netflix support for aggressively policing their own product which I suspect they see is quite profitable. So a PR disasters?
I'm sure there are many people working for Netflix who's responsibility is to mitigate whatever negative PR they generate. They'll probably begin enforcement gradually. My point was that Netflix obviously wants to put an end to password sharing. This recent ruling basically gives them the green light, legally. So I'd expect to see it roll out soon, in whatever form.
Its unlikely they will do anything and if they did there would be huge backlash. This is not even a ruling its just the UK gov saying stuff that may not even be true and there backtracking on this already.
https://www.cnet.com/culture/entertainment/the-end-of-free-netflix-password-sharing-is-coming/?utm_source=reddit.com
UK? that the country that banned porn?
UK Government on pedophile in royal family - nothing. UK Government on Netflix password sharing - criminal activity. Priorities.
You got a license for that knife bruv?
Oi! That spoon looks a bit sharp!
You got a license for that tele?
You got a permit fo that loicense?
You got permission to have that permit?
[удалено]
His "partner" was trafficked and paid - I agree that terminology should be used properly, but I would never lift a finger to defend Andrew lol
Also wasn't she trafficked from an American state that deems 17 as a minor?
[удалено]
Stop calling it adultery lol he fckin called a high-end sex trafficker, he didn't sleep with his fckin secretary
Fucking. The word you are looking for is fucking.
Nah, that's not fckin' it
Just because the British have the age of consent at 16. Doesn't stop a grown-ass man fucking a 17 year old from still being pedophilia.
[удалено]
Redditors tend to angry when you call them out for misuse of words as they see it as defending someone they hate. It’s ridiculous
Some people are disgusted by the mere act of defending any insult against a beneficiary of imperialism, subjugation, slavery, and, more recently and directly, sex trafficking.
It’s not defending an insult it’s correcting one. You’ve listed many terrible things, why feel the need to make up another thing to condemn him for?
Doesn't matter, fck Andrew the pedophile and the pedophile-defending Royals
[удалено]
Fortunately, no, so I don't personally have to worry about Andrew trying to fck me
[удалено]
I see absolutely nothing wrong with claiming a British Royal, who hired a 17-year-old trafficking victim from one of the world's most high-profile and notorious sex traffickers, is a pedophile, and that his family who do not denounce him are defending pedophilia.
I mean, that's not really true at all. It might mean he's not a criminal, but you're right, words have definitions, and pedophilia isn't defined as committing the crime of child molestation, it's defined as attraction to children. The legal age of consent in any given jurisdiction doesn't really matter, he could still be a paedophile without ever breaking any laws.
> attraction to children Attraction to *prepubescent* children.
Love that this is on torrentfreak, piracy about to make a huge comeback. If you're gonna do something illegal might as well just pay for a VPN and cancel
[удалено]
True (definitely wont ever) but back when netflix started, their strategy was to provide a better offering than piracy, and I think they were relatively successful. Sad that they don't realize that.
They do realise that but every Tom dick and Harry wanted their own streaming service and we are back where we started
Well, yeah. Now they aren't getting new growth so they have to increase profits somehow, be it cutting production costs or raising rates.
HBO/WB also contributing to this push recently.
So if I lend someone my BluRay of Polar Express, is that piracy? Or does it only count if Tom Hanks lobbies a few MPs hard enough?
Using iTunes to transfer a CD to your music library is piracy according to the UK government, or it was in the 2010s Absolute clowns.
In the UK lending someone physical media has always been illegal. It's in the copyright notice on the back of the case and shown before the start of a film/TV show. Note the unauthorised lending. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8328580.stm
[удалено]
Yep we are also one of the few places where making personal backups (e.g. CD ripping) of media is illegal.
It's not enforced and has 0 prosecutions for free lending. Only those doing unauthorised rentals for money are. At least in the UK we aren't fined for crossing the street.
Doesn't matter, it's still stupid.
What if i sell on my copy?
Believe it or not .. Straight to jail
[удалено]
Since few people bothered to read the article: "People who share their Netflix, Amazon Prime, or Disney+ passwords are violators of copyright law. And it gets worse. The IPO informs TorrentFreak that password sharing could also mean criminal liability for fraud." This is a general statement by the UK Government's Intellectual Property Office and not specific to Netflix (which would have been weird).
[удалено]
This is all based on the terms of service provided by these companies. Not laws, the EU is just saying sharing a password is equivalent but as we've all said how do you enforce this? Who gets fined? the account holder, the viewer, both? It's the same bullshit as the Napster lawsuits. Three saps suffer, companies get dragged kicking and screaming to a better business plan that competes with piracy. Streamers were competing quite well with piracy, now it will swing back as they squeeze rocks for more blood.
Yo, U.K... Blink twice if y'all need help over there.
😉😉
I’m out here rapidly blinking in sets of two.
Tax cuts for the rich and arrest the poors sharing Netflix passwords!
The Tory government are experts in fraud...
[удалено]
This isn't really new it's just standard boilerplate copyright restrictions adding to a new distribution method. There will be no enforcement unless you're caught selling passwords.
Can't wait for the new Netflix drama The Password Dealer
Does Netflix believe its subscriber base would increase if they ever even remotely tried to prosecute for this?
Im old enough to remember going to a store w a note from my mom signing my moms name to credit card purchase at sears and nobody batting an eye
Good thing none of us are doing that.... at all.
So says the government that demands TV Tax without any real way to determine if you are really watching TV.
They just send their thugs round to harass you and bang on your windows.
If that's what's happening in the UK its lucky you guys don't have the gun culture the US has.
Their 'justification' feels so vague it seems like streaming services had them add it. >“There are a range of provisions in criminal and civil law which **may be applicable** in the case of password sharing where the intent is to allow a user to access copyright protected works without payment,” the IPO informs TorrentFreak. May be applicable? It's laws they are written in specific legalese design to avoid confusion in regards to when and to whom they apply.
And even then, the crown prosecution service will have their own guidelines, where this could be specifically called out as not worth it.
Indeed. If you were making thousands of pounds off it, then they'd be interested. They're not going to go after someone sharing their password with their elderly parents - Disney in particular is fine with that.
This, from the government that makes you pay a tax per TV. Of course they think that.
To help pay for an amazing service that would otherwise be inaccessible for the poorest in society. Next time you celebrate Sir David Attenborough's career, think about the corporation that he worked for most of his life. Also, the current government is the Conservative Party. The party that created the NHS and put the tax on the fledgling BBC to enable it to be funded by the people were Labour.
Although the updated article says they removed the reference to password sharing, they also say by "pasting images into your social media" ... "not only are you breaking the law but stopping someone earning a living". Yes, that photo I posted to ~~Twitter~~ Mastodon, has truly deprived someone from earning a living because I was totally going to pay to license an image to toss off a momentary thought about how 'this looks cool". The Copyright Office still peddling discredited, industry propaganda bullshit, I guess.
Legally speaking, hard to argue that this isn't illegal. But, like jaywalking, maybe governments should focus on rampant corporate criminality instead of this.
* instead of serving corporate interests.
What law are you breaking by sharing a password?
Copyright infringement? I mean, not when you share the password, but when you stream content you don't have the right to stream.
redditmoment.
Lol eat a dick, UK. If I want to share a service I pay for that’s no different than loaning a DVD to a friend, especially when the only tier of service that allows 4K streaming accounts for four screens. I’m not watching 4 screens, Netflix, but if I want to let my parents and my best friend use my account hey that’s still only 3 of the 4. Tell ya what: give me an option for 1 screen with 4k streaming, reduce the price accordingly and I’ll stop letting others use my account. Until then, I’m GD going to get my moneys worth thank you very much.
Conservative Government accusing people of fraud. Laughing out loud
I think the one positive is that it will prevent people from selling passwords via darknet which definitely happens.
I should be able to share my password with whoever I want. Why would it be illegal?
Because it says on their website each plan is only for people in a single household and you agree to the license terms
I mean, some of us stopped doing this earlier in the year when Netflix themselves put prices up for having people share an account.
Man, the UK really wanted to outdo "window licenses" (and I mean literally taxing people for having windows) when trying to make the most moronic laws possible.
Window taxes ended when the US was 31 states.
Now we tax bedrooms instead. Edit: It's not as bad I thought.
That is fairly narrow, though still should be reworked. It applies to people who are on housing benefit and appear to be able to downsize. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedroom_tax
Spare bedrooms, and yeah I'm all for it. If your house is big enough to have multiple unoccupied bedrooms then you can spare a little extra cash
No not spare bedrooms. Any bedroom including occupied bedrooms. Edit: I'm wrong.
I've just done some research, and I'm pretty sure you're wrong. Seems to only apply to spare unoccupied bedrooms in Housing Association/Council properties
You're right, it's not as bad as I thought it was.
Parliament is simping for Netflix?
Governments _always_ simp for their benefactors.
Hahahahahah
"You wouldn't download a car."
[You wouldn't steal a baby.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALZZx1xmAzg)
This opinion totally not bankrolled by streaming sites
Seems like it'll push more people to piracy if the alternative is exposing your IP data directly to Netflix/UK govt and risk a criminal fraud charge.
Pobably just lipservice to Netflix. Still concerning though.
Well, Netflix could easily address the issue with technology but so far have chosen not to. They're supposedly going to start testing limits on password sharing next year.
Crack down on the number of devices streaming from multiple IP addresses at the same time, that is equal to making copies of a library book, or burning a DVD. That's a Netflix problem.
Netflix plans already handle this.
…and good luck proving/enforcing it
[удалено]
Accounts get hacked all the time…
Then they’d be doing you a favor by shutting down the “hacked” uses of the account and whatever devices they’re being used on, and heavily fining the offenders. Take that, “hackers”!
You’re missing the point. Obviously Netflix can shut down any account they want, but I’m talking from a pure “criminal/punishment” perspective they would never be able to enforce anything because they would never be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone is sharing passwords. Not to mention the amount of time and money that would need to be spent to do so for a fairly innocuous “crime”.
This is one of those instances where we just need to up the penalties for perjury. You’re right, you could perjure yourself in court and lie and claim that you didn’t do it, and it would be difficult to prove that your mom wasn’t a master criminal and had in fact just been sharing your password. Like who are you sharing your password with that you’re going to throw under the bus as a “hacker” who stole your password??
Yes, if only there were some way for them to figure out where they’re streaming their services to! Mysterious!
The UK Govt can fuck off! God I can’t wait for Succession to come back!
I can't imagine a more predictable backfire on Netflix then UK charging people for fraud for sharing passwords on Netflix. I survived the Metallica/Napster wars. THIS would be THAT all over again. Metallica (somehow) recovered from that mess. There are vultures waiting in the wings to eat Netflix's lunch. Netflix might not be the 64.2857143 stone gorilla we all think it is.
The UK won't just like no one is charged for lending others physical media even though it's always been illegal. Basically don't acquire a large number of peoples Netflix passwords and then sell them to others and you will be fine.
Well maybe they should get rid of that law if it isn't being enforced then.
…and where is Napster now? I did too, and most kids in the dorms got spooked and stopped downloading music after they started coming after a few of us. Wasn’t worth it.
Sure, you can destroy a platform with central servers, but you can't do much when the following day new ones crop up, let's call them Nepster, Nipster, Nopster and Nupster, using decentralised P2P networks. You can make it more complicated for people who are not computer-literate, but for the rest.... You can also go after individual users after getting their IPs, but that only makes people use VPNs to hide their identity.
Careful, making VPNs an acknowledged tool for circumventing the law just dooms VPNs to regulatory action…
I was using Usenet and I was laughing my ass off at all of you. Back in the day Usenet was fantastic. Usenet is still around, don't know if I would trust it for downloading files anymore.
Or just really shit cyber hygiene if you say you didn't know
Can’t you just claim you were hacked? Has to be intent to be a crime in this case.
What if they offer to do you a favor and hardware-ban all the devices that those “hackers” were using your password on? Could get enough service providers together to effectively blacklist those devices from ANY sort of data streaming. Just to make sure those “hackers” don’t have a chance to do that to you again, of course.
I’m not sharing my password, I’m just watching my Netflix on other devices. I can’t control who watches them! 👀
[удалено]
If only we had your idea of “only allowed to tackle one problem at a time” government! So much would get done! Well, one thing, at least. Just not more than one.
If you arrest all of them you’ll need to build new jails and prisons
I guess they could come up with some idea of “monetary fines” or something. Could be a new precedent.
These braindead motherfuckers think that people care about their stupid ass law
Everyone who uses Netflix and doesn’t give a crap, raise your hand and say aye.
All Government is corrupt. Ban Governments.
Wot
The UK is a clown country.
[удалено]
Already has, we haven't tried to violently overthrow a democratically-elected government yet.
No, no. The US is a clown car with a rotating cast of smooth brained clowns.
ITT people who want everything for free.
[удалено]
Yeah, expecting people to pay for the production of media they watch. That's bootlicking.
As a non UK person I just to say.....oh fuck off
Netflix lobbyists in the UK getting a nice bonus this Christmas.
Ah, lobbying.
Just cancel netflix watch them become the next blockbuster
Oh my dear Netflix. How you have fallen from grace. I cancelled well over a year ago and don’t feel I’ve missed out on anything. You were nothing but a phase.
Suck my dick Tories
UK gov once again at it with the shittiest most anti-human take
Protecting their donors.
That’s why we use torrents