Sharing is Caring......or not.. at least according to Netflix, pay up.

[Master Disaster]

14 minutes ago, mr moose said:

If you bought a 2 box package and gave 1 to your neighbor did you not pay for that 2nd box? Does that box suddenly become stolen content because you let your neighbor watch it instead of having it in your bedroom?

The bill has your name and address on it, not your neighbours so yes, it does become stolen content under the terms of the contract that you signed with the provider.

 

This is literally the point of copyright, you pay for the right to watch the content but that license is non transferrable unless the terms of the contract state otherwise. You don't own the right to let your neighbours watch it.

 

Now TBC, they generally DGAF if you have a movie night with a group of friends or let your neighbour watch Fox but the line gets drawn when you start distributing to other people and especially if you charge them for the privilege.

 

Also fun fact, if you have one to hand go grab a DVD/BR and take a look at the terms printed on the box, it will almost certainly say that screening the movie for more than X people at the same time is not allowed.

14 minutes ago, mr moose said:

That goes a just a tad too far, especially when they have already sold me a legitimate license to said content.

You just answered your own question

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, Master Disaster said:

The bill has your name and address on it, not your neighbours so yes, it does become stolen content under the terms of the contract that you signed with the provider.

 

Does this mean  my car is automatically unregistered or the rego is stolen if I let my neighbor drive it?  its exactly the same thing.  The rego has my name and address on it, not my neighbors.

1 minute ago, Master Disaster said:

This is literally the point of copyright, you pay for the right to watch the content but that license is non transferrable unless the terms of the contract state otherwise. You don't own the right to let your neighbours watch it.

So what's the difference between them coming over to watch legitimately bought content and you letting them watch that exact same legitimately bought content at their house? it's just the place you are watching, because regardless of which house it is viewed at, the content has been legitimately bought with a screen license.

 

1 minute ago, Master Disaster said:

Now TBC, they generally DGAF if you have a movie night with a group of friends or let your neighbour watch Fox but the line gets drawn when you start distributing to other people and especially if you charge them for the privilege.

 

Also fun fact, if you have one to hand go grab of DVD/BR and take a look at the terms printed on the box, it will almost certainly say that screening the movie for more than X people at the same time is not allowed.

 

It's not allowed to be screened as part of a financial transaction,  so in this case it would be fair for Netflix to not want you to by 4 screens then on sell three of them for a profit.  But that is generally not happening.

[Master Disaster]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

 

Does this mean  my car is automatically unregistered or the rego is stolen if I let my neighbor drive it?  its exactly the same thing.  The rego has my name and address on it, not my neighbors.

Your car is yours, the content you're giving away isn't.

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

So what's the difference between them coming over to watch legitimately bought content and you letting them watch that exact same legitimately bought content at their house? it's just the place you are watching, because regardless of which house it is viewed at, the content has been legitimately bought with a screen license.

Its just an arbitrary line they drew to protect their property. Honestly even a movie night would probably break some clause in most ToCs, they just choose to ignore it because the aftermath would be catastrophic.

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

It's not allowed to be screened as part of a financial transaction,  so in this case it would be fair for Netflix to not want you to by 4 screens then on sell three of them for a profit.  But that is generally not happening.

Its not allowed to be screened publicly without a public broadcast license. Publicly is left ambiguous on purpose.

[Arika]

12 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

The bill has your name and address on it, not your neighbours so yes, it does become stolen content under the terms of the contract that you signed with the provider.

 

This is literally the point of copyright, you pay for the right to watch the content but that license is non transferrable unless the terms of the contract state otherwise. You don't own the right to let your neighbours watch it.

 

Lets use the Cable TV example, why should there a difference between:

1. Giving your neighbour one of the spare boxes that you don't need

or

 

      2. Setting up the second box in a shed on your property that your neighbour is allowed to come at use at any time of day.

 

because according to copyright law as long as it's private and only open to guests of yours and not open to the general public, then there is no breach of copyright.

 

Quote

To explain, under Title 17 of the United States Code, known as the “Federal Copyright Act,” all movies that you rent at Netflix or Redbox, or that you buy at a store, are copyrighted.  Neither the rental nor the purchase of a copy of a copyrighted work carries with it the right to publicly exhibit the work.  Thus, while no additional license is required to privately view a movie or other copyrighted work with a few friends and family, absent a few defined exceptions, the Federal Copyright Act requires a special public performance license for any public showing of a copyrighted movie.

 

[Spotty]

Quote

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.

https://help.netflix.com/legal/termsofuse

 

If you don't agree with those terms then cancel your subscription.

 

22 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Does this mean  my car is automatically unregistered or the rego is stolen if I let my neighbor drive it?  its exactly the same thing.  The rego has my name and address on it, not my neighbors.

You didn't enter in to an agreement with the state you registered your car in stating that you would not share your car with your neighbour. With Netflix you did enter in to an agreement stating that it would not be shared with individuals beyond your household.

[staticpage]

Every time I rent a VRBO there is the max amount of accounts logged in on the smart tvs. People prob logged in and forgot, I never know what account to use just pick one at random it's always interesting to see others recommended feeds and the VRBO instructions tell you not to remove any accounts on the tvs. so will They charge you for this now?

[jagdtigger]

On 3/17/2022 at 8:12 PM, wanderingfool2 said:

At that point it pretty much is theft of service.

Lets say i pay for 4 screens, im logged into my TV. Now i have 3 available slots since i use only that TV. I give those available slots to family members to use with their single TV. Since those slots are paid for and thus every royalty is payed i dont see how your twisted thinking classifies it as theft. BTW its unenforceable without a lot of false positives, traveling and long term assignments in foreign countries are a thing....

 

 

I  sincerely hope this will backfire at them AF...

[tikker]

1 hour ago, Arika S said:

Lets use the Cable TV example, why should there a difference between:

1. Giving your neighbour one of the spare boxes that you don't need

or

 

      2. Setting up the second box in a shed on your property that your neighbour is allowed to come at use at any time of day.

 

because according to copyright law as long as it's private and only open to guests of yours and not open to the general public, then there is no breach of copyright.

 

Assuming you sign a similar agreement as with Netflix, I'd say there is a difference. The license expicitely states that you have a non-transferrable license. In case 1 you are giving away the means to access content while not having the right to do so based on the agreement you entered. The box is not in your house and you aren't there viewing it with them, which I would argue does not constitute privately viewing something with a friend.

 

In case 2 stuff is at least on your premises. I would say there may be no difference from the licensing point of view here either though. You are again providing someone else access to something they don't have a license for and you don't have the right to provide through your device. Trying to argue you providing your neighbour(s) access to view whatever they want when they want without your presence constitutes a  "private viewing with a few friends and family" would raise a few eyebrows if challenged I think.

[Kisai]

7 hours ago, staticpage said:

Every time I rent a VRBO there is the max amount of accounts logged in on the smart tvs. People prob logged in and forgot, I never know what account to use just pick one at random it's always interesting to see others recommended feeds and the VRBO instructions tell you not to remove any accounts on the tvs. so will They charge you for this now?

This is an excellent point. By the concept being spoken about here, everyone who rents an BnB has to use a new netflix account. 

 

Because: They "can't use the owner" or "anyone else"'s account, yet they can't use their own because it's outside their household.

 

Now, I'll point out the obvious. Airplay/chromecast and use your own device that already has netflix on it. Sure, you only see standard definition on the TV.

[mr moose]

23 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

Your car is yours, the content you're giving away isn't.

but the content is paid for just like the right to drive the car on the road is.

 

23 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

Its just an arbitrary line they drew to protect their property. Honestly even a movie night would probably break some clause in most ToCs, they just choose to ignore it because the aftermath would be catastrophic.

Its not allowed to be screened publicly without a public broadcast license. Publicly is left ambiguous on purpose.

Which is why some of us are not happy with the arbitrary nature of the clauses,  there is a difference between not paying for a product and having corporations dictate where you consume a product you have legitimately paid for.

 

22 hours ago, Spotty said:

https://help.netflix.com/legal/termsofuse

 

If you don't agree with those terms then cancel your subscription.

 

You didn't enter in to an agreement with the state you registered your car in stating that you would not share your car with your neighbour. With Netflix you did enter in to an agreement stating that it would not be shared with individuals beyond your household.

See above..  The issue is not about the technicalities of their ToS, it's about the concept that such conditions could be legitimately placed on the use of a product that has been paid for according to the number of individual users as determined by the seller.

 

 

Imagine if  telstra decided you weren't allowed to let your neighbor use your wifi. When you have paid for all the data and the connection there is no difference to them just like there is no difference to Netflix as the consumer has already paid for X number of screens.   They used to do this before wifi, their ToS was that internet connection was for 1 computer.

 

 

[Spotty]

3 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Imagine if  telstra decided you weren't allowed to let your neighbor use your wifi. When you have paid for all the data and the connection there is no difference to them just like there is no difference to Netflix as the consumer has already paid for X number of screens.   They used to do this before wifi, their ToS was that internet connection was for 1 computer.

Reselling or making available to the public your residential internet plan is against Telstra's terms of service. There's a big difference between letting guests in your home use your wifi connection when they are visiting and selling/sharing your internet connection with other households so that they don't need to pay for their own internet service. If you were sharing/reselling the internet service Telstra would be within their right to terminate your service.

 

8 minutes ago, mr moose said:

See above..  The issue is not about the technicalities of their ToS, it's about the concept that such conditions could be legitimately placed on the use of a product that has been paid for according to the number of individual users as determined by the seller.

It's not "a technicality" of the ToS. It's clearly stated in the terms of service that you cannot share your Netflix subscription beyond individuals of your household.

 

You keep arguing that "Netflix says you get 4 screens!!!" but if you actually look at the page where it tells you how many simultaneous streams you can have on each plan it clearly states that is can only be used for people within the same household before it tells you how many screens you get. This is the sign up page for Netflix where you choose from the available plans:

 

The plans which allow for multiple simultaneous streams cannot be resold. They are clearly described to allow for multiple people in the same household to watch different programs on Netflix at the same time, such as parents and children watching different shows in different rooms.

 

If your household doesn't need the plan that allows for 4 simultaneous playbacks then don't buy the premium plan, buy the cheaper plan that allows for less simultaneous streams. If you don't agree with Netflix limiting subscription plans to people within the same household - which you already agreed to in their terms of service when subscribing - then cancel your Netflix subscription and sign up for a different streaming service that does not prohibit sharing/selling accounts with people outside your household, if any such streaming service exist.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, Spotty said:

Reselling or making available to the public your residential internet plan is against Telstra's terms of service. There's a big difference between letting guests in your home use your wifi connection when they are visiting and selling/sharing your internet connection with other households so that they don't need to pay for their own internet service. If you were sharing/reselling the internet service Telstra would be within their right to terminate your service.

I never said anything about selling your internet.  I placed it fairly in the same category as sharing your already paid for netflix.    I bought 4 screens, I only needed three so I gave 1 to my neighbor.  I paid extra for unlimited data and a sufficient rate that I could give some to my neighbor.  I am not selling either of them.

 

1 minute ago, Spotty said:

It's not "a technicality" of the ToS. It's clearly stated in the terms of service that you cannot share your Netflix subscription beyond individuals of your household.

 

You keep arguing that "Netflix says you get 4 screens!!!" but if you actually look at the page where it tells you how many simultaneous streams you can have on each plan it clearly states that is can only be used for people within the same household before it tells you how many screens you get. This is the sign up page for Netflix where you choose from the available plans:

 

The plans which allow for multiple simultaneous streams cannot be resold. They are clearly described to allow for multiple people in the same household to watch different programs on Netflix at the same time, such as parents and children watching different shows in different rooms.

 

If your household doesn't need the plan that allows for 4 simultaneous playbacks then don't buy the premium plan, buy the cheaper plan that allows for less simultaneous streams. If you don't agree with Netflix limiting subscription plans to people within the same household - which you already agreed to in their terms of service when subscribing - then cancel your Netflix subscription and sign up for a different streaming service that does not prohibit sharing/selling accounts with people outside your household, if any such streaming service exist.

Again, we are not talking about reselling anything.

 

I have already made the distinction between sharing something you have legitimately paid for and reselling it for a profit:

On 3/19/2022 at 8:39 PM, mr moose said:

 

It's not allowed to be screened as part of a financial transaction,  so in this case it would be fair for Netflix to not want you to by 4 screens then on sell three of them for a profit.  But that is generally not happening.

 

[Master Disaster]

13 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I have already made the distinction between sharing something you have legitimately paid for and reselling it for a profit:

 

Yet you still cannot grasp the fundamental concept of a contract....

[Spotty]

39 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Again, we are not talking about reselling anything.

 

I have already made the distinction between sharing something you have legitimately paid for and reselling it for a profit:

You're trying to justify it based on what you feel like you should be entitled to in the agreement. You feel like you should be entitled to share your service with other people outside your household. You are ignoring that there is a clearly defined agreement made between the subscriber and the service provider where the terms of the agreement clearly state that sharing accounts is prohibited.

 

These are the terms you agree to when procuring a service from Netflix:

Quote

Only people who live with you may use your account

Quote

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.

If you have a Netflix subscription then you have agreed to those terms.

 

If you think the agreement with Netflix to not share your account is unfair, then do not enter in to the agreement. You can't enter in to an agreement and then later decide that the terms of that agreement aren't convenient for you and decide that the terms of the agreement no longer apply to you because you feel like you should be entitled to something that the agreement doesn't provide.

[mr moose]

10 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

Yet you still cannot grasp the fundamental concept of a contract....

I understand the contract full well,  I am stating what I do not like about the contract and why I think the contract has issues.  There is also a difference between not liking something with reasoning for the dislike and not understanding it.

 

10 hours ago, Spotty said:

You're trying to justify it based on what you feel like you should be entitled to in the agreement.

I'm not trying to justify anything except my displeasure with a ToS that essentially is too controlling and unnecessary to protect income.

 

10 hours ago, Spotty said:

You feel like you should be entitled to share your service with other people outside your household.

Correct, I do feel that anyone who pays for a product should be allowed to share that product, I don't care if it's a car, and excavator or the 4th netflix screen you aren't using.

10 hours ago, Spotty said:

You are ignoring that there is a clearly defined agreement made between the subscriber and the service provider where the terms of the agreement clearly state that sharing accounts is prohibited.

I am not ignoring it, I am explaining why it concerns me and why I think it goes too far. 

10 hours ago, Spotty said:

These are the terms you agree to when procuring a service from Netflix:

If you have a Netflix subscription then you have agreed to those terms.

And? 

10 hours ago, Spotty said:

If you think the agreement with Netflix to not share your account is unfair, then do not enter in to the agreement. You can't enter in to an agreement and then later decide that the terms of that agreement aren't convenient for you and decide that the terms of the agreement no longer apply to you because you feel like you should be entitled to something that the agreement doesn't provide.

Ahh, the their product their rules argument.  Again, imagine if RSP's introduced the 1 computer per account terms?  would you not be upset with that? I am allowed to disagree with their rules and I am allowed to explain why I disagree. 

 

So yes, I do FEEL the rules encroach upon my person freedoms, I do FEEL that telling me a service I have bought and that I am not using cannot be given to a friend is anti consumer.     I fail to see why my feelings and reasoning is wrong.  

 

I am not promoting reselling, I am not suggesting we should be allowed to share a single screen or account.  I am merely saying if I pay for 4 screens then I should be allowed to decide who the 4 users are,  where they live should not matter.

 

 

 

 

[Helpful Tech Witch]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

Ahh, the their product their rules argument.  Again, imagine if RSP's introduced the 1 computer per account terms?  would you not be upset with that? I am allowed to disagree with their rules and I am allowed to explain why I disagree

False equivalency

1 computer per account ≠ you can use 4 screens at once but any one who lives with you can use it

[mr moose]

8 hours ago, Helpful Tech Wiard said:

False equivalency

1 computer per account ≠ you can use 4 screens at once but any one who lives with you can use it

You misunderstand.

[Kisai]

12 hours ago, mr moose said:

 

I am not promoting reselling, I am not suggesting we should be allowed to share a single screen or account.  I am merely saying if I pay for 4 screens then I should be allowed to decide who the 4 users are,  where they live should not matter.

 

It doesn't make a difference unfortunately. I agree that Netflix should not be dictating who, but likewise, I wouldn't pay for the 4-screen/4k service if I could get 4k service on a the cheapest account. This a problem entirely of Netflix's own doing. Get rid of those quality tiers, and the "number of screens" goes down, but also I guarantee you most users will switch to the single screen tier. They're only paying for the high end tier for 4K or for 4 screens, not both.

 

As for the idea of reselling or bundling the service (eg in a bnb/rental), there's generally been a unwritten contract between ISP's and consumers that the ISP does not care what or who is inside your house. So you could be renting an illegal basement suite, you could be renting a legal suite, you could be using AirBnB illegally, who cares. But the ISP for that building isn't supposed to know or care about it. That applies to services like cable TV or Netflix.  Which runs into the problem of the host/owner giving access to the ISP and Netflix, but not taking responsibility for it.

 

Netflix knows that if they don't crack down hard on account sharing, they will still have growth, because people will use Netflix they didn't pay for, and when they're cut off, may want to continue watching that show they were watching. However that's poor justification overall to try and wrangle away account sharing. While the ToS may say only X many users within the household, or who live with you, that is subject to interpretation. What if I had a 10 million dollar house with 10 rooms? Are you asking me to pay for Netflix 3 times so that every TV in the house can have Netflix, but what if there are only 4 people in the house, and they just want to watch it any of those 10 rooms?  At that point the problem is clearly how you login to Netflix (eg a netflix device needs to be able to have multiple Netflix accounts on it, rather than logging in and then selecting the viewer.) So perhaps that's what really needs to happen to the software side. (think about how Playstation and Nintendo logins work on consoles.)

 

[Master Disaster]

18 minutes ago, Kisai said:

It doesn't make a difference unfortunately. I agree that Netflix should not be dictating who, but likewise, I wouldn't pay for the 4-screen/4k service if I could get 4k service on a the cheapest account. This a problem entirely of Netflix's own doing. Get rid of those quality tiers, and the "number of screens" goes down, but also I guarantee you most users will switch to the single screen tier. They're only paying for the high end tier for 4K or for 4 screens, not both.

Huh? You do realise that, just like a subscriber doesn't own the content they watch on a streaming service, the content provider also doesn't own that content either?

 

This is an issue of copyright, plain and simple. Netflix have a contract with whoever to resell their products under a license dictated by the copyright owners and since copyright is an automatic and absolute right it 100% offers the owner the protection from their work being given away for free.

 

Even for Netflix owned IP, copyright still allows them to prevent it being given away.

 

I don't know how much clearer I can say it, you pay NetAzonLu for a license to watch their content, by law this contract applies to you and can only ever apply to you unless the IP rights holder specifically allows it to be shared. As pointed out earlier, the US Govt. does have protection for people who want to have a movie night with friends, that doesn't equate to you being allowed to give the content away to whomever you want.

 

That IS piracy and IS illegal.

 

Edit - And I do mean actually illegal, like not just a breach of contract. Copyright is a law that exists pretty much everywhere (CCP not included)

 

Edit 2 - If I had to guess I'd say the Movie studios got nervous during Covid while at the cinemas were closed and decided to put pressure on Netflix to clamp down on it. If no one is watching the blockbusters in theatres then streaming is the only source of revenue the movie gets.

[mr moose]

29 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

 

 

This is an issue of copyright, plain and simple. Netflix have a contract with whoever to resell their products under a license dictated by the copyright owners and since copyright is an automatic and absolute right it 100% offers the owner the protection from their work being given away for free.

 

 

No it's not, netflix sells a 4 screen license which means the copyright has been legitimately licensed to be viewed on 4 different screens.   Where those screens exist is not part of copyright law.

 

The problem is not the number of screens they sell but artificial limitation of the location of those screens.  As each screen has been paid for, the license is legit and copyright has not been infringed. 

 

 

[Master Disaster]

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

No it's not, netflix sells a 4 screen license which means the copyright has been legitimately licensed to be viewed on 4 different screens.   Where those screens exist is not part of copyright law.

Its a personal license so actually yes, where the content is being viewed and by whom is very much covered by copyright.

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

The problem is not the number of screens they sell but artificial limitation of the location of those screens.  As each screen has been paid for, the license is legit and copyright has not been infringed.

There is nothing artificial about it. You bought the license, not your friend/neighbour, it covers you and you alone. By giving it to your friend/neighbour you are committing piracy.

 

The copyright owner VERY much has the power to dictate that, only the person buying the content is legally allowed to view it. Otherwise why is it illegal to take a camcorder into a movie theatre? You bought the ticket, right?

[Spotty]

31 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

Huh? You do realise that, just like a subscriber doesn't own the content they watch on a streaming service, the content provider also doesn't own that content either?

 

This is an issue of copyright, plain and simple. Netflix have a contract with whoever to resell their products under a license dictated by the copyright owners and since copyright is an automatic and absolute right it 100% offers the owner the protection from their work being given away for free.

...What? Did you quote the wrong post?

I believe @Kisai is saying they want 4k video quality available on the cheaper plans that provide less simultaneous streams. They would rather a plan that offers only 1 simultaneous stream with 4k quality. Right now the only way to get 4k content with Netflix is to pay for the Premium tier which has 4 simultaneous screens. That has nothing to do with who owns the content or licensing issues, it's just the way that Netflix structures their subscription plans.

480p - 1 simultaneous stream

1080p - 2 simultaneous streams

4k+HDR - 4 simultaneous streams

 

If you want 4 streams then you need to buy the premium 4k package. If you want 4k content you need to buy the plan which offers 4 streams.

Some people buy the premium plan because they want 4 streams, some people buy the premium plan because they want 4k. I think Kisai is saying the reason people are sharing accounts are because in order to get 4k content you have to buy the package that provides 4 streams whether you need that many streams or not, which is resulting in people sharing their account with other people because they have additional simultaneous streams they're never going to use themselves that they feel would be going to waste otherwise.

[mr moose]

55 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

Its a personal license so actually yes, where the content is being viewed and by whom is very much covered by copyright.

There is nothing artificial about it. You bought the license, not your friend/neighbour, it covers you and you alone. By giving it to your friend/neighbour you are committing piracy.

Your still conflating licensing with the artificial limitations imposed by netflix.   Netflix do not have to impose the household restriction because they already have the right to stream to any location within the country that service is sold.    I am a big proponent of copyright law and defending the rights of people to protect their own content, I work with musicians to understand how the laws effect them and how best to release music without falling foul of it. Hell I even defend disney's right to protect mickey mouse.  When it comes to distributions rights, typically the rights are sold to Netflix for distribution in a country, not a house.    Occasional the rights are sold to two distributors like a free to air and a streaming or cable service, but mostly the rights go to the highest bidder in any one country and then that distributor can basically on sell that content as they see fit.   The limitation to a household is absolutely made up by Netflix and not part of any licensing contract between them and the CR owners.

 

55 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

The copyright owner VERY much has the power to dictate that, only the person buying the content is legally allowed to view it. Otherwise why is it illegal to take a camcorder into a movie theatre? You bought the ticket, right?

That's just not how it works.   To start with recording a live show is a completely different situation to netflix subs.  When it comes to content licensing, the CR owner calls all the shots,  however Netflix is not the CR owner, they have merely bought the distribution rights to that content from the CR owner.  The only limitation you will find in these contracts is that netflix might only be able to buy the rights to a show or movie for certain countries because other services already have contracts for that specific content in other places.   Those contracts do not stipulate the number of households Netflix can service, they do not typically stipulate how much netflix can charge nor how many different simultaneous views they can stream.   Everything in the netflix ToS is purely about maximizing their profit and not working within licensing contracts.

[Master Disaster]

6 hours ago, Spotty said:

...What? Did you quote the wrong post?

I believe @Kisai is saying they want 4k video quality available on the cheaper plans that provide less simultaneous streams. They would rather a plan that offers only 1 simultaneous stream with 4k quality. Right now the only way to get 4k content with Netflix is to pay for the Premium tier which has 4 simultaneous screens. That has nothing to do with who owns the content or licensing issues, it's just the way that Netflix structures their subscription plans.

480p - 1 simultaneous stream

1080p - 2 simultaneous streams

4k+HDR - 4 simultaneous streams

 

If you want 4 streams then you need to buy the premium 4k package. If you want 4k content you need to buy the plan which offers 4 streams.

Some people buy the premium plan because they want 4 streams, some people buy the premium plan because they want 4k. I think Kisai is saying the reason people are sharing accounts are because in order to get 4k content you have to buy the package that provides 4 streams whether you need that many streams or not, which is resulting in people sharing their account with other people because they have additional simultaneous streams they're never going to use themselves that they feel would be going to waste otherwise.

In this case, nope, I didn't misquote, I did however totally miss the point @Kisaiwas making. Apologies.

 

5 hours ago, mr moose said:

Your still conflating licensing with the artificial limitations imposed by netflix.   Netflix do not have to impose the household restriction because they already have the right to stream to any location within the country that service is sold.  

The important word being sold, did you neighbour pay for anything?

5 hours ago, mr moose said:

When it comes to distributions rights, typically the rights are sold to Netflix for distribution in a country, not a house.    Occasional the rights are sold to two distributors like a free to air and a streaming or cable service, but mostly the rights go to the highest bidder in any one country and then that distributor can basically on sell that content as they see fit.   The limitation to a household is absolutely made up by Netflix and not part of any licensing contract between them and the CR owners.

And how exactly does that mean that the owners are happy with you giving their stuff away to people that haven't paid them to watch it?

 

Netflix impose that restriction because copyright law literally forces them too. Somebody who has not paid the royalty fee does not have the right to view the material, it doesn't matter if you paid for it since you and your neighbour are different people and you don't have the right to give your ticket away. The copyright owner retails absolute control over who is allowed to view their work and who isn't. The deal is you pay to cover yourself, Netflix adds your family in as a bonus.

5 hours ago, mr moose said:

 

That's just not how it works.   To start with recording a live show is a completely different situation to netflix subs.  When it comes to content licensing, the CR owner calls all the shots,  however Netflix is not the CR owner, they have merely bought the distribution rights to that content from the CR owner.  The only limitation you will find in these contracts is that netflix might only be able to buy the rights to a show or movie for certain countries because other services already have contracts for that specific content in other places.  

Gonna have to call a big [Citation Needed] on that one. You essentially saying that Disney don't care about you giving away the latest Avengers movie to your neighbours and friends. You honestly believe that the contract between the IP Owner and the Distributor will not cover content sharing? I'd go as far as to guess that Netflix probably had to get permission just to allow multiple screen in the same house.

 

5 hours ago, mr moose said:

Those contracts do not stipulate the number of households Netflix can service, they do not typically stipulate how much netflix can charge nor how many different simultaneous views they can stream.   Everything in the netflix ToS is purely about maximizing their profit and not working within licensing contracts.

I'm really not sure if you're being serious here? You cannot honestly believe that the IP Owners are not stipulating and enforcing strict rules onto distribution partners.

 

Remember, this is the industry that compared piracy to stealing a car and has gone after people for downloading a single copy of a movie, multiple times.

[mr moose]

18 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

In this case, nope, I didn't misquote, I did however totally miss the point @Kisaiwas making. Apologies.

 

The important word being sold, did you neighbour pay for anything?

He didn't need to, I paid for it for him.   Honestly it's like you are intentionally ignoring the part where the product is fully paid for and not just taken from Netflix.

18 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

And how exactly does that mean that the owners are happy with you giving their stuff away to people that haven't paid them to watch it?

They have been paid, How many times does it need to be said that the product has been paid for,  If I buy 4 screens then I have paid for access to netflix on 4 devices.

18 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

Netflix impose that restriction because copyright law literally forces them too.

No it does not. 

18 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

Somebody who has not paid the royalty fee does not have the right to view the material, it doesn't matter if you paid for it since you and your neighbour are different people and you don't have the right to give your ticket away. The copyright owner retails absolute control over who is allowed to view their work and who isn't. The deal is you pay to cover yourself, Netflix adds your family in as a bonus.

That's not Copyright law, that netflix policy.    Please show me in copyright law how netflix is forced to do any of this.

 

18 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

Gonna have to call a big [Citation Needed] on that one. You essentially saying that Disney don't care about you giving away the latest Avengers movie to your neighbours and friends.

https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/distribution-rights

 

Distribution rights really only do two things,  1. grant netflix the right to offer said content on their service and 2. dictate which countries netflix can offer it in.  That is why foxtell in Australia and netflix in Australia has a different library to the US version.    E.G the rights to a lot of disney stuff slowly weren't re licensed to netflix when disney started their streaming service.  also some content (like paw patrol) will not be on netflix because it is already licensed to stan. where as in the US it might be licensed to netfllix or binge etc. 

 

This is why geo-blocking of streaming services occurs at a country level.  It does not occur inside a country because there is no licensing or copyright law that calls for it.

 

 

18 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

You honestly believe that the contract between the IP Owner and the Distributor will not cover content sharing? I'd go as far as to guess that Netflix probably had to get permission just to allow multiple screen in the same house.

Yes,  because how it works is that netflix pays for the right to distribute said content, at that point who it is distributed to and how much they pay is solely up to netflix.   Netflix could just as legally give it away for free, they have paid for the rights to do that under the license agreement.   That is effectively what free to air television does, they buy the rights to a movie, give it away for free and make money back through ad breaks and sponsorship. 

 

18 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

I'm really not sure if you're being serious here? You cannot honestly believe that the IP Owners are not stipulating and enforcing strict rules onto distribution partners.

Very serious,  about the only stipulation you might find in a license contract will be about not editing or changing the content and maybe not serving that content alongside ads or services that are not inline with the companies ethic codes.  But that is rare.

 

18 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

Remember, this is the industry that compared piracy to stealing a car and has gone after people for downloading a single copy of a movie, multiple times.

Yep, I know this.  you wouldn't shit in a dead policemens hat.