Fix Netflix (1 Viewer)

[St. Widge]

They will start with "it's just one commercial at the beginning"
Then "it is just very limited interruptions once in the middle of the program"
Eventually it will be as chock full of commercials as network TV. Once the door is open to a few commercials, then they certainly will keep adding more and more.

I only watch network TV when it is recorded on my DVR and I can skip commercials. I assume Netflix will make it impossible to do the same on their platform. I am already paying a fee to Netflix for their content. I don't want to pay them a 2nd time to watch it ad free.

Network TV = free to viewers, but commercials pay the networks
Netflix/HBO/Hulu = viewers pay the channels directly.

Netflix wants it BOTH ways. I don't see HBO putting commercials in the middle of their movies.

HBO Max has a version with Ads.

Honestly, I don't get the big deal. If you hate ads the way I do, then pay for the ad free version. It's likely that the price will remain the same for the ad free version and the version with ads will cost less. It's what HBO Max did when they added the version with Ads.

 

[DaveXA]

HBO Max has a version with Ads.

Honestly, I don't get the big deal. If you hate ads the way I do, then pay for the ad free version. It's likely that the price will remain the same for the ad free version and the version with ads will cost less. It's what HBO Max did when they added the version with Ads.

Yeah, some others are already doing 2 tiers, one with ads and one ad free. I think it's going to be the model going forward for most subscription services. I don't see the big deal about Netlix monetizing what's rightfully theirs.

I have other issues with Netflix, which is why I'm probably going to dump them, but the password sharing issue and adding a tier with ads isn't the reason. Their search algorithm and poor execution of proprietary content are a couple of the big reasons.

 

[kizzy821]

Ultimately, I blame the minions who are susceptible to ads in the first place. They stand in line for free granola samples at the grocery store.

Those flappy wind men at the dealerships mesmerize them.

When the radio DJ says stop by Hank's Husky Hams, "And tell 'em Rusty Bob sent ya..." THEY DO IT.

Pop-ups, junk mail and emails from the prince of Nigeria wouldn't be a thing if it wasn't so effective.

You know who you are...

 

[TheRealJRad]

HBO Max has a version with Ads.

Honestly, I don't get the big deal. If you hate ads the way I do, then pay for the ad free version. It's likely that the price will remain the same for the ad free version and the version with ads will cost less. It's what HBO Max did when they added the version with Ads.

Yea I would think they plan to add a lower tier, not inject ads into the current one. I don’t think I’m alone in saying I wouldn’t keep the subscription if my current tier became the ad tier.

 

[DaveXA]

Ultimately, I blame the minions who are susceptible to ads in the first place. They stand in line for free granola samples at the grocery store.

Those flappy wind men at the dealerships mesmerize them.

When the radio DJ says stop by Hank's Husky Hams, "And tell 'em Rusty Bob sent ya..." THEY DO IT.

Pop-ups, junk mail and emails from the prince of Nigeria wouldn't be a thing if it wasn't so effective.

You know who you are...

People are gullible, yes. And businesses are going to do what makes them money. It is what it is. I'll pay a little extra to watch with no ads, or do something else. But at least there are options.

 

[bigdaddysaints]

They will start with "it's just one commercial at the beginning"
Then "it is just very limited interruptions once in the middle of the program"
Eventually it will be as chock full of commercials as network TV. Once the door is open to a few commercials, then they certainly will keep adding more and more.

I only watch network TV when it is recorded on my DVR and I can skip commercials. I assume Netflix will make it impossible to do the same on their platform. I am already paying a fee to Netflix for their content. I don't want to pay them a 2nd time to watch it ad free.

Network TV = free to viewers, but commercials pay the networks
Netflix/HBO/Hulu = viewers pay the channels directly.

Netflix wants it BOTH ways. I don't see HBO putting commercials in the middle of their movies.

Doesn't Hulu and HBO both have an ad supported tier? So what's the difference? On both you can pay more for ad free versions. i don't think you did your homework on this.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

i don't think you did your homework on this.

It’s supposed to be a take home

 

[bigdaddysaints]

No, all that means is you're breaking the TOS. They don't have the power to establish a whole new, made up legal definition of "stealing" in an end user license agreement.

let me rephrase it. I said it wrong. Athough all stealing isn't illegal, what i meant to say was all stealing isn't criminal. I can steal your ideas, i can steal your reserved parking spot, etc.. But they may not be criminal. They may get you fired or kicked/banned from an establishment or club or fined, but that does't always equal criminal.

 

[Brad Mojo]

Doesn't Hulu and HBO both have an ad supported tier? So what's the difference? On both you can pay more for ad free versions. i don't think you did your homework on this.

I get HBO Max included with my (paid) subscription to HBO.

 

[bigdaddysaints]

I get HBO Max included with my (paid) subscription to HBO.

ok.. But that doesn't change the fact that they have an ad supported subscription.

 

[superchuck500]

I think theft applies, but it's also certainly fraud and likely violates many Federal and State statutes.

My gut is that there's some difficulty with calling it generic theft. States have been passing laws to define the unauthorized use of online services. There's quite a bit of analysis online and the consensus seems to be that accessing an online service with someone else's credential for otherwise legal purposes (e.g. simply streaming content) has not been treated as a crime.

If it was so obviously and fundamentally theft under state law, I think much of this lawmaking and analysis would be unnecessary.

Is It Really Illegal to Share Your Netflix Password?

What is illegal to do on a computer? When I teach technical computer science majors about cybersecurity policy, that is one of the first questions I...

slate.com

 

[St. Widge]

My gut is that there's some difficulty with calling it generic theft. States have been passing laws to define the unauthorized use of online services. There's quite a bit of analysis online and the consensus seems to be that accessing an online service with someone else's credential for otherwise legal purposes (e.g. simply streaming content) has not been treated as a crime.

If it was so obviously and fundamentally theft under state law, I think much of this lawmaking and analysis would be unnecessary.

Is It Really Illegal to Share Your Netflix Password?

What is illegal to do on a computer? When I teach technical computer science majors about cybersecurity policy, that is one of the first questions I...

slate.com

I agree there is some ambiguity in calling it theft, mostly because of the requirement of the intent to permanently deprive the other of the thing, but I do think it broadly fits the definition based on the idea that the taker is permanently depriving the owner of the value of the IP even if they aren't actually taking a thing. But, as you point out, that's probably why they are writing more specific laws to deal with the issue.

Still, I do think it's fraud since you are essentially representing yourself as being the person with the subscription by using their username and password.

But, obviously no DA is going to ever prosecute this stuff anyway unless it is done by someone selling usernames and passwords in massive numbers.

Anyway, regardless of if it fits the legal definition of theft or not, I think we all know that it is stealing in the practical sense even if we choose to play semantics in our own minds to avoid admitting it.

 

[bigdaddysaints]

Its like eating a grape at the grocery store. No one is gonna throw you in jail over it, but if every single person that comes in the store eats a couple grapes, the stores gonna notice somethings off. Or just like someone stealing your lunch out of the refridgerator at work. I doubt you could prosecute someone over this, but if that isn't stealing, well i guess i don't know what stealing is. (two food references, i must be hungry)

Look, my wife and kids use my InLaws Netflix. But if Netflix decides to start charging extra for password sharing, I am not gonna act like Netflix is the devil because of it. They could easily only allow an account to work on only one IP address at a time, making everyone who is piggy back riding off anothers account to either be without or get their own account. I think charging extra for password sharing is better than that scenario.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

I agree there is some ambiguity in calling it theft, mostly because of the requirement of the intent to permanently deprive the other of the thing, but I do think it broadly fits the definition based on the idea that the taker is permanently depriving the owner of the value of the IP even if they aren't actually taking a thing. But, as you point out, that's probably why they are writing more specific laws to deal with the issue.

Still, I do think it's fraud since you are essentially representing yourself as being the person with the subscription by using their username and password.

But, obviously no DA is going to ever prosecute this stuff anyway unless it is done by someone selling usernames and passwords in massive numbers.

Anyway, regardless of if it fits the legal definition of theft or not, I think we all know that it is stealing in the practical sense even if we choose to play semantics in our own minds to avoid admitting it.

you're doing some work on this
there are 5 profiles on the user acct right? one of your kids is at college and uses one of the profiles - you're saying that's fraud?
and maybe if the kid would not have a separate acct if it was disallowed so there is no value lost since netflix is not getting that money regardless

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

Its like eating a grape at the grocery store. No one is gonna throw you in jail over it, but if every single person that comes in the store eats a couple grapes, the stores gonna notice somethings off. Or just like someone stealing your lunch out of the refridgerator at work. I doubt you could prosecute someone over this, but if that isn't stealing, well i guess i don't know what stealing is. (two food references, i must be hungry)

Look, my wife and kids use my InLaws Netflix. But if Netflix decides to start charging extra for password sharing, I am not gonna act like Netflix is the devil because of it. They could easily only allow an account to work on only one IP address at a time, making everyone who is piggy back riding off anothers account to either be without or get their own account. I think charging extra for password sharing is better than that scenario.

but it's not like eating a grape at a store or stealing lunch - it's like me buying grapes and walking out of the store and giving half the grapes to whomever i want to when i leave the store