Netflix password sharing

[butchna]

LOL. Nice - an arrogant thief.

How many thieves with a payment history are in the hoosegow? Pause for Googling.

 

[ButchPlz]

The SECOND they try to micromanage me and deny me the full value of what I'm PAYING? Yeah.

That's the value for you. That's the value for a lot of people. And Netflix de facto encouraged that as part of their value proposition, no matter what they had de jure in the "contracts" they never enforced.

People doing the exact thing Netflix allowed can in no way be construed as stealing. Same story- people being upset at them suddenly doing an about-face are well justified. Our friend here thinks it's entitlement to take advantage of the value sold.

 

[Vol423]

That's the value for you. That's the value for a lot of people. And Netflix de facto encouraged that as part of their value proposition, no matter what they had de jure in the "contracts" they never enforced.

People doing the exact thing Netflix allowed can in no way be construed as stealing. Same story- people being upset at them suddenly doing an about-face are well justified. Our friend here thinks it's entitlement to take advantage of the value sold.

Theft is theft. Keep rationalizing it for yourself.

 

[ButchPlz]

You bury your questions in with your insults and other nonsense. I’m not going to dig them out of that mess.

I’m not addressing the economics. My point has been that sharing passwords is theft and that strikes a nerve with many in here.

I did point out that tax evaders are causing the honest filers to pay more than their fair share. Netflix customers are different from taxpayers in that respect. They have they option of paying zero.

1. And you've never defined why that it is wrong, considering it was inherently part of the value Netflix sold up front, whether it was written in the terms or not. It's your opinion, and nothing more, and beyond that the discussion of thievery here is by its very foundation a discussion of economics. Is it stealing if something has no value?

2. The second proves my point exactly, so you have no grounds to say whether a price is "fair" or not. Only each individual user determines that. Again, it's an economics question and answer, just after you've said:

I’m not addressing the economics.

 

[butchna]

You bury your questions in with your insults and other nonsense. I’m not going to dig them out of that mess.

I’m not addressing the economics. My point has been that sharing passwords is theft and that strikes a nerve with many in here.

I did point out that tax evaders are causing the honest filers to pay more than their fair share. Netflix customers are different from taxpayers in that respect. They have they option of paying zero.

And if someone disagrees with you that what they're paying is THEFT, your own NERVE gets off kilter. Income tax evaders can't really have their service cut of for non-payment of whatever they've already paid. They can get prosecuted and go to jail. Netflix says I can't pay for my daughters, I cut THEM off.

 

[PEPPERJAX]

Family and household are different things. If your daughters don’t live in your house and are using your user credentials, then your family is stealing from Netflix. But I guess it’s okay since they have $30 billion of revenue. I’m going to go fill up my tank at Exxon and not pay for it - they also have billions in sales.

The crux of the issue is Netflix created this problem with the inception of their streaming service. Right or wrong they knew that their users paying for the service would share with other people. This has been known for years.

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

They're my immediate family, they're my household. I don't share with parents, grandparents, cousins or friends. If that was the hill you keep humping, I wouldn't disagree...but it ain't! Actually pilfering gasoline is an option I highly encourage for you. When you explain that you were simply trying to win an argument on a message board, you should be ok.

Immediate family is different than members of the household. Where do your daughters live? That is what determines if they are members of your household. If your cousin lives in your house, then she is in the household. If your daughters are away at school then Netflix isn’t going to consider them members of your household. Allowing the kids to use the password when living somewhere else is stealing. It’s not complicated.

 

[ButchPlz]

Theft is theft. Keep rationalizing it for yourself.

Your entire definition of theft in this case hinges on the terms Netflix wrote into a contract that they haven't enforced for a decade or more. If you want to argue legal, then start there and see how far you'd actually get. Until you say something beyond repeating ad nauseum "ThEfT iS tHeFt" you're bringing even less value to the discussion than your buddy here.

 

[ButchPlz]

The crux of the issue is Netflix created this problem with the inception of their streaming service. Right or wrong they knew that their users paying for the service would share with other people. This has been known for years.

Which is my point exactly. They enabled this with their user profiles, and further enabled it with no enforcement of their "contract" over the last several years.

Arbitrarily deciding it is theft now is the same thing as the genderbenders that decide, based on nothing, that they're suddenly a chick one day and a non-binary planetkin the next. It's not based in anything. And you certainly can't call it "theft" if Netflix valued their own product so little they didn't protect it.

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

1. And you've never defined why that it is wrong, considering it was inherently part of the value Netflix sold up front, whether it was written in the terms or not. It's your opinion, and nothing more, and beyond that the discussion of thievery here is by its very foundation a discussion of economics. Is it stealing if something has no value?

2. The second proves my point exactly, so you have no grounds to say whether a price is "fair" or not. Only each individual user determines that. Again, it's an economics question and answer, just after you've said:

Sharing passwords beyond the household is stealing. Netflix defines the household in their user agreement. They don’t promote the abuse.

The economics for the stock price has been to grow the sub count. The economics of the business is to collect subscription fees.

 

[GAVol]

Which is my point exactly. They enabled this with their user profiles, and further enabled it with no enforcement of their "contract" over the last several years.

Arbitrarily deciding it is theft now is the same thing as the genderbenders that decide, based on nothing, that they're suddenly a chick one day and a non-binary planetkin the next. It's not based in anything. And you certainly can't call it "theft" if Netflix valued their own product so little they didn't protect it.

By my reading, their TOS is more vague about "household" than our resident attorneys are making it out to be. I assure you that the IRS, insurance companies and most other government entities would consider college students to still be part of the household.

 

[ButchPlz]

Sharing passwords beyond the household is stealing. Netflix defines the household in their user agreement. They don’t promote the abuse.

The economics for the stock price has been to grow the sub count. The economics of the business is to collect subscription fees.

No they don't. And if you say they do, prove it.

 

[PEPPERJAX]

Which is my point exactly. They enabled this with their user profiles, and further enabled it with no enforcement of their "contract" over the last several years.

Arbitrarily deciding it is theft now is the same thing as the genderbenders that decide, based on nothing, that they're suddenly a chick one day and a non-binary planetkin the next. It's not based in anything. And you certainly can't call it "theft" if Netflix valued their own product so little they didn't protect it.

If this is a concern for NF now, then they need to get innovative by preventing sharing from occurring in the first place. Definitely not my field but it seems extremely difficult to do.

 

[ButchPlz]

By my reading, their TOS is more vague about "household" than our resident attorneys are making it out to be. I assure you that the IRS, insurance companies and most other government entities would consider college students to still be part of the household.

Exactly.

They also do not define household, whether these folks want to say they do or not.

I'd also like to see what happens when Netflix cracks down on families sharing an account. Surely that won't work out as our resident Harvey Birdman thinks it will.

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

And if someone disagrees with you that what they're paying is THEFT, your own NERVE gets off kilter. Income tax evaders can't really have their service cut of for non-payment of whatever they've already paid. They can get prosecuted and go to jail. Netflix says I can't pay for my daughters, I cut THEM off.

If you’ve not complied with the terms of the user agreement, they can certainly sue you for what you have taken but not paid for. Napster successfully sued their users that broke the law. I don’t expect Netflix to do the same.

 

[GAVol]

No they don't. And if you say they do, prove it.

That's the thing . . . and here's a direct quote from their CEO last Fall that indicates a gray area as well.

And in October, Netflix CEO Reed Hastings said he had no plans to change the company's lax attitude. "Password sharing is something you have to learn to live with, because there's so much legitimate password sharing, like you sharing with your spouse, with your kids ... so there's no bright line, and we're doing fine as is," he said.

 

[ButchPlz]

If this is a concern for NF now, then they need to get innovative by preventing sharing from occurring in the first place. Definitely not my field but it seems extremely difficult to do.

It is.

Which is why I point to other examples. Services that have made things cheaper and easier to use, rather than taking the hostile route, almost always end up with more revenue than the alternative. Spotify and other music services have crushed a lot of piracy of music (not totally, but have made a big dent) because they offer the value of accessibility and affordability.

Instead of being hostile about it, Netflix could do simple things like:
1) reduce/eliminate the nice-to-haves like user profiles, which incentivizes people to have their own account if they care about tailored recommendations
2) reduce the dang cost, which lowers the barrier for people and comes closer to the equilibrium between value and cost that they're very clearly whiffing on right now

 

[PEPPERJAX]

It is.

Which is why I point to other examples. Services that have made things cheaper and easier to use, rather than taking the hostile route, almost always end up with more revenue than the alternative. Spotify and other music services have crushed a lot of piracy of music (not totally, but have made a big dent) because they offer the value of accessibility and affordability.

Instead of being hostile about it, Netflix could do simple things like:
1) reduce/eliminate the nice-to-haves like user profiles, which incentivizes people to have their own account if they care about tailored recommendations
2) reduce the dang cost, which lowers the barrier for people and comes closer to the equilibrium between value and cost that they're very clearly whiffing on right now

They could also improve their content as well. A lot of the movies available on NF are complete trash.

 

[butchna]

Immediate family is different than members of the household. Where do your daughters live? That is what determines if they are members of your household. If your cousin lives in your house, then she is in the household. If your daughters are away at school then Netflix isn’t going to consider them members of your household. Allowing the kids to use the password when living somewhere else is stealing. It’s not complicated.

Immediate family is my daughters. In polite society IMMEDIATE FAMILY includes parents, children and siblings, as anyone who's visited a loved one in the hospital or attended a funeral is aware. So Netflix already gets an allowance on the term. I pay for my daughters. There's no stealing. You're making it complicated, as you're wont to do...example every Majors vs Fulmer discussion.

 

[butchna]

If you’ve not complied with the terms of the user agreement, they can certainly sue you for what you have taken but not paid for. Napster successfully sued their users that broke the law. I don’t expect Netflix to do the same.

Because it's bunk! My daughters are part of the package if they want my business. Doubt I'm alone.

 

[PEPPERJAX]

Immediate family is my daughters. In polite society IMMEDIATE FAMILY includes parents, children and siblings, as anyone who's visited a loved one in the hospital or attended a funeral is aware. So Netflix already gets an allowance on the term. I pay for my daughters. There's no stealing. You're making it complicated, as you're wont to do...example every Majors vs Fulmer discussion.

Majors would have shared Netflix with his immediate family. Fulmer OTOH would have piggy backed off his daughter's account.

 

[n_huffhines]

Sharing passwords beyond the household is stealing. Netflix defines the household in their user agreement. They don’t promote the abuse.

The economics for the stock price has been to grow the sub count. The economics of the business is to collect subscription fees.

How can it be stealing if you don't take property? It might be dishonest but it's not stealing.

 

[butchna]

Majors would have shared Netflix with his immediate family. Fulmer OTOH would have piggy backed off his daughter's account.

Thunder loves you for this one.

 

[ButchPlz]

They could also improve their content as well. A lot of the movies available on NF are complete trash.

It's all about the value, like I have said all along.

@Thunder Good-Oil missed that session in economics class. Netflix is very obviously not providing value to many users. So people do what people do, they find the path that matches the price they're willing to pay for the offered value. Netflix had no problem offering a certain price for a certain value for a lot of people (some of it even zero!) until apparently very recently. So is it shocking that there are people that share the same price point ($0) for the value they're getting that Netflix has almost explicitly allowed up until now ($0)? That's fundamentally how a market works.

Saying it's stealing now is like me being mad eight years later that someone picked up the couch I got rid of off the side of the street and trying to file a police report for theft.

 

[n_huffhines]

Majors would have shared Netflix with his immediate family. Fulmer OTOH would have piggy backed off his daughter's account.

Fulmer would've tattled on people sharing accounts.