| General > General Technical Chat |
| Video subscription content password sharing warning |
| << < (5/6) > >> |
| MrMobodies:
--- Quote from: MK14 on December 25, 2022, 09:59:00 pm ---Imagine you have purchased, just ONE single train ticket, for a long (and expensive) train journey. Then you take your entire family, friends and some others, with you. Perhaps ten poeple in total. Then, as the train inspector, checks that all passengers, have the correct paid for ticket, you use a sneaky very thin (fishing line), tied to the ticket. To pass it between those same 10 passengers (cheaters), while the ticket collector (inspector), is walking down the train. --- End quote --- Also bit like selling those modified Kodi boxes all set to access paid content without paying for the content. I think they should define the terms of usage and different plans (roof plan, individual plan, remote family and friends plan and maybe some plans requiring the USB dongle for authentication attimes if they move around a lot or are behind cgnat. Edit: As MK14 pointed out Netflix has clearly defined theirs. --- Quote ---So, that would be (the ticket sharing), illegal. As it would be fraudulently obtaining the train journeys, without paying for most of the train fairs (apart from one of them). --- End quote --- Reminds me of that but that was done in protest. --- Quote ---Where it could get complicated, is if in the one household, in the same home/address. Has three different IP addresses (because they are NOT using a land-line/broadband), but instead all using mobile network internet services. Each of which, has someone, watching the paid for, video services, on their own, individual mobile phones. --- End quote --- That's where the dongles would come in handy for Carrier Grade NAT with many users behind them. I came across an article some time ago in America that a few cable providers had been implementing CGNAT it instead of IPV4 due to a shortage as they had started with IPV6 and BT were quietly trialing it with an opt out. I see device checks with Google and they could use something like that to authenticate and allow or add multiple IP addresses if using a internet connection sharing configuration especially for areas limited with slow broadband. https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2013/05/uk-isp-bt-quietly-forces-cgnat-ipv4-internet-address-sharing-pilot.html --- Quote ---UK ISP BT Quietly Forces CGNAT IPv4 Internet Address Sharing Pilot Friday, May 3rd, 2013 (1:06 pm) Customers of BT Retail’s Total Broadband Option 1 package have reportedly become experimental subjects for the ISP’s new pilot of the controversial IPv4 internet address sharing (Carrier Grade NAT) technology, which could cause problems because it allows a single IP address to be shared between several users. ... BT specifically states that “certain” customers will find that they could be sharing a single IP address with up to nine other users, although happily those who wish to opt-out of the seemingly enforced pilot can do so by visiting their related CGNAT FAQ Page and filling-in an opt-out form (you might well wish to do this). --- End quote --- Nice they had an opt out for those it don't suit. |
| MK14:
--- Quote from: Psi on December 25, 2022, 10:26:47 pm ---It's kinda compilated. Are you paying for an account for the house, or are you paying for an account for you as a person to use the service. If it's only for you as a person then you should be able to use your password while at a friends place to watch movies. But it seems like most of the streaming websites imply that it's an account for you personally but anyone in your household can use it. Which is kind of a contradiction, or at the very least makes it hard to state that an account being used at more than one location at different times is a sign of anything illegal. --- End quote --- Well, taking netflix as the 'gold standard'. https://www.netflix.com/signup/planform Seems to say: --- Quote ---Only people who live with you may use your account. Watch on 4 different devices at the same time with Premium, 2 with Standard and 1 with Basic or Basic with adverts. --- End quote --- Which seems to be reasonably clear. It is for one entire household, at the same address (implied), with various maximum concurrent usage amounts, depending on the plan you pay for. I.e. Between 1, 2 or 4 devices simultaneously, depending on plan level, paid for. |
| MK14:
--- Quote from: MrMobodies on December 25, 2022, 10:33:22 pm --- --- Quote from: MK14 on December 25, 2022, 09:59:00 pm ---Imagine you have purchased, just ONE single train ticket, for a long (and expensive) train journey. Then you take your entire family, friends and some others, with you. Perhaps ten poeple in total. Then, as the train inspector, checks that all passengers, have the correct paid for ticket, you use a sneaky very thin (fishing line), tied to the ticket. To pass it between those same 10 passengers (cheaters), while the ticket collector (inspector), is walking down the train. --- End quote --- Also bit like selling those modified Kodi boxes all set to access paid content without paying for the content. I think they should define the terms of usage and different plans (roof plan, individual plan, remote family and friends plan and maybe some plans requiring the USB dongle for authentication attimes if they move around a lot or are behind cgnat. Edit: As MK14 pointed out Netflix has clearly defined theirs. --- Quote ---So, that would be (the ticket sharing), illegal. As it would be fraudulently obtaining the train journeys, without paying for most of the train fairs (apart from one of them). --- End quote --- Reminds me of that but that was done in protest. --- Quote ---Where it could get complicated, is if in the one household, in the same home/address. Has three different IP addresses (because they are NOT using a land-line/broadband), but instead all using mobile network internet services. Each of which, has someone, watching the paid for, video services, on their own, individual mobile phones. --- End quote --- That's where the dongles would come in handy for Carrier Grade NAT with many users behind them. I came across an article some time ago in America that a few cable providers had been implementing CGNAT it instead of IPV4 due to a shortage as they had started with IPV6 and BT were quietly trialing it with an opt out. I see device checks with Google and they could use something like that to authenticate and allow or add multiple IP addresses if using a internet connection sharing configuration especially for areas limited with slow broadband. https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2013/05/uk-isp-bt-quietly-forces-cgnat-ipv4-internet-address-sharing-pilot.html --- Quote ---UK ISP BT Quietly Forces CGNAT IPv4 Internet Address Sharing Pilot Friday, May 3rd, 2013 (1:06 pm) Customers of BT Retail’s Total Broadband Option 1 package have reportedly become experimental subjects for the ISP’s new pilot of the controversial IPv4 internet address sharing (Carrier Grade NAT) technology, which could cause problems because it allows a single IP address to be shared between several users. ... BT specifically states that “certain” customers will find that they could be sharing a single IP address with up to nine other users, although happily those who wish to opt-out of the seemingly enforced pilot can do so by visiting their related CGNAT FAQ Page and filling-in an opt-out form (you might well wish to do this). --- End quote --- Nice they had an opt out for those it don't suit. --- End quote --- Thanks. I enjoyed that post, on multiple levels. I found the ticket picture funny. Also, I was very interested to learn about the IPv4 Internet Address Sharing Pilot. That is worrying. Does it mean there is a risk, of a private internet webpage, being directed back to your internet connection. Could sometimes go to the wrong user (especially if it wasn't encrypted by the browser, i.e. http rather than https etc). On searching for more information about the IPv4 Internet Address Sharing Pilot. I also noticed, that it claimed the post you just made is (technically speaking, so don't panic), illegal in the UK. Here: https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2013/01/uk-isps-react-to-the-pros-and-cons-of-ipv4-internet-address-sharing.html Specifically, why it could be bad for security: --- Quote ---On top of that we have the security considerations, which are numerous. For example, if somebody else with your now “shared” IP is banned from sending email or accessing a particular website then you too could be affected by the same block. Likewise some bank accounts need a unique IP for access and having shared users would be a potential risk and could, in extreme cases, result in you being blocked entirely. --- End quote --- https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2022/12/uk-gov-says-password-sharing-on-streaming-services-is-illegal.html Also specifically, why the post you just made could be (technically speaking) illegal: --- Quote ---As a side note, the IPO also seems to be going after “pasting internet images into your social media“, so at this point almost everybody in the UK is pretty screwed 🙂 . --- End quote --- Hence that could mean we get: --- Quote ---On the other hand, we’ve seen in the past how “law firms” of dubious repute are willing to exploit anything that could earn them a bit of extra money, even when the evidence base is incredibly weak (e.g. speculative invoicing for alleged cases of internet copyright infringement). The latter point about evidence will be key here too, since it’s not at all easy to prove that somebody is abusing password sharing. --- End quote --- So we could suddenly get fines in the post (maybe?), from "law firms", because of alleged password sharing, and/or possibly/maybe? sharing images on this forum. |
| SiliconWizard:
Define "live with you"? :-DD But all this is nothing new, this is inherent to the idea of DRM. While we can all understand the need of finding a new way of monetizing stuff that can be easily copied, pretty much anything we've come up with so far is absurd one way or another. I don't have a magical solution to this though. |
| eti:
Meh. As I saw someone online say “They think by blocking my account that they will generate three more accounts, one each from the people I shared with, but in fact they will end up with one less account” Greed comes in many guises. I can see right through every one of them. They’re desperate due to falling subs. Ah well hard cheese - let me play a sad song for the billionaires. Why are clumsy business practices SO common now? (rhetorical) OP: No need to get swept along by the “news” drama queen hyperbole. “Warning”? Nope. Just another meh “news” article no one cares much about. I have a thousand and one things to watch, few of them on Netflix and countless other ways to watch them. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |