You wouldn’t download a car??? I would! And if I could own a car that my mom could also use by giving her my key, I would do that too!
Plus, if the maker of the car could make a car by just pressing a button and burning a few logs of wood in the process, I would try to figure out how that button works. Furthermore, if the vendor of such car, sold me the car and told me that I could get a brand new car by just duplicating my key, then I would just duplicate my key! Fuck yeah!
The reason why it would not be criminal is that no one is working in the background to actually make a new car. I’m just using my car the way it was sold to me.
Similarly, if Netflix allowed me to download the movies, I would back them up to watch later. I would share copies with my friend and his mom. His mom is hot. I would chill with his mom. Anyway, if Netflix doesn’t want us to share passwords, fine! Just request the IP and lock the account to that IP…try to sell that shit and see me running to prime in a heartbeat. But then Netflix would have fixed their problem (emphasis on “their” not “our”).
I don’t think their legal position is ambiguous at all. Subscribers agree to terms when they sign up. The part that will kill them is popular opinion. If they start prosecution on subscribers how many people will keep using the platform? That’s why they’re sending out the emotional message too.
I’m going to assume the agreement one makes with Netflix in exchange for access states to their systems states that credential sharing is not permitted. Using computer systems without authorization can indeed be against the law—while the scenario you outline is probably not explicitly forbidden.
I say this because in the article they quoted the paragraph in Netflix’s terms of use section 4.2:
4.2. The Netflix service and any content accessed through the service are for your personal and non-commercial use only and may not be shared with individuals beyond your household. During your Netflix membership we grant you a limited, non-exclusive, non-transferable right to access the Netflix service and Netflix content. Except for the foregoing, no right, title or interest shall be transferred to you. You agree not to use the service for public performances.
They way this is written is open to interpretation with regards to what ‘personal use’ means and what is considered ‘members of the household’. If you invite someone else over for Netflix and chill - would that be a violation of this section? It might be “obvious” that it would not be a violation of the terms, but 4.2 was used in the argument, and from that perspective I would say that Netflix and chill falls within the same gray area as password sharing.
The original article has been updated though, it now states that the Intellectual Property Office has modified its advice and removed the password sharing mention.
I googled for the definition of “personal use”, and the popular interpretation seems to mean use that is e.g. non-commercial and non-research. So if you’re personally watching a video with a friend, that’s personal, but not if you ask for money.
Seems if the agreement doesn’t define the term, the popular definitions would be the intepretation chosen by the judge. Clearly nobody is going to be trialed for fraud if they share a video that way in the first place, though.
Nevertheless what the IPO says about password sharing, is it still not illegal under the U.S. Computer Fraud and Abuse Act? Other countries probably have similar stipulations.
Capitalists state using repression apparatus in the defense of capitalist interests, who would have thought?
You wouldn’t download a car??? I would! And if I could own a car that my mom could also use by giving her my key, I would do that too!
Plus, if the maker of the car could make a car by just pressing a button and burning a few logs of wood in the process, I would try to figure out how that button works. Furthermore, if the vendor of such car, sold me the car and told me that I could get a brand new car by just duplicating my key, then I would just duplicate my key! Fuck yeah!
The reason why it would not be criminal is that no one is working in the background to actually make a new car. I’m just using my car the way it was sold to me.
Similarly, if Netflix allowed me to download the movies, I would back them up to watch later. I would share copies with my friend and his mom. His mom is hot. I would chill with his mom. Anyway, if Netflix doesn’t want us to share passwords, fine! Just request the IP and lock the account to that IP…try to sell that shit and see me running to prime in a heartbeat. But then Netflix would have fixed their problem (emphasis on “their” not “our”).
Emotional manipulation, that’s what this is. I’m thinking they wouldn’t even need to resort to it, if their legal premise wasn’t so wobbly.
I don’t think their legal position is ambiguous at all. Subscribers agree to terms when they sign up. The part that will kill them is popular opinion. If they start prosecution on subscribers how many people will keep using the platform? That’s why they’re sending out the emotional message too.
Yeah, that admittedly makes more sense.
ahh yes the ‘password sharing’ kind of fraud
not the ‘taking a bribe to absurdly strengthen media monopolies’ kind of fraud
got it ;)
So Netflix and chill might be illegal too if one of the participants doesn’t have a Netflix subscription?
I’m going to assume the agreement one makes with Netflix in exchange for access states to their systems states that credential sharing is not permitted. Using computer systems without authorization can indeed be against the law—while the scenario you outline is probably not explicitly forbidden.
I say this because in the article they quoted the paragraph in Netflix’s terms of use section 4.2:
They way this is written is open to interpretation with regards to what ‘personal use’ means and what is considered ‘members of the household’. If you invite someone else over for Netflix and chill - would that be a violation of this section? It might be “obvious” that it would not be a violation of the terms, but 4.2 was used in the argument, and from that perspective I would say that Netflix and chill falls within the same gray area as password sharing.
The original article has been updated though, it now states that the Intellectual Property Office has modified its advice and removed the password sharing mention.
I googled for the definition of “personal use”, and the popular interpretation seems to mean use that is e.g. non-commercial and non-research. So if you’re personally watching a video with a friend, that’s personal, but not if you ask for money.
Seems if the agreement doesn’t define the term, the popular definitions would be the intepretation chosen by the judge. Clearly nobody is going to be trialed for fraud if they share a video that way in the first place, though.
Nevertheless what the IPO says about password sharing, is it still not illegal under the U.S. Computer Fraud and Abuse Act? Other countries probably have similar stipulations.
Ah - I see. Netflix and chill remains legal then!