10 ms·

Tennessee Makes it Illegal To Share Your Netflix Password

98 points by chopsueyar 15y ago

kalleboo 15y ago
I don't see what justification there is for this being a law. It's simple enough to make it part of the Terms of Service, and then terminate the accounts of anyone who's logged in on more than 10 IP addresses at the same time. It's fundamentally different from the old "theft of cable" laws where the service provider doesn't have full control over the signal/content.
- mike-cardwell 15y ago
  Yes. This is completely addressable using technology. No need to turn people into criminals. Why can't they just prevent any one account from viewing more than N videos simultaneously? Could make N 1 by default, and then charge people for family packs where N is higher than 1.
  - jim_h 15y ago
    They already limit the number of concurrent streaming videos. Last time I checked, N == 1. (Other packages might have different options.)
    - mike-cardwell 15y ago
      Then that, with the IP limit should be sufficient. Their goal should be to minimise the abuse without turning their customers into criminals.
    - kd0amg 15y ago
      I'm pretty sure my housemates have had multiple simultaneous streams on their shared account.
    - lotharbot 15y ago
      one-disc plans allow one stream. two-disc plans allow two simultaneous streams. four streams is the maximum.
      - bartonfink 15y ago
        My wife and I have a one disc plan and have streamed two videos simultaneously.
    - pavel_lishin 15y ago
      Maybe our account is different, but my girlfriend and I have watched shows on two different devices simultaneously. Maybe they limit it by IP? We were both at home.
jrockway 15y ago
Why not just get it over with and send everyone to RIAA-run prison camps?
- markwweaver 15y ago
  That's a bit over dramatic. Just because the RIAA sponsored or endorsed a bill doesn't mean its necessarily a bad thing. Can you provide a reason why it's unreasonable for a company to want each person (or even household) who uses their service to have a separate subscription? That being said, I haven't read the bill, and only know what the article says about it.
  - _delirium 15y ago
    Using criminal law to deal with it seems like a fairly over-the-top, dramatic step to take. It's not necessarily unreasonable for a company to want each person to have a separate subscription, and they can even mandate it in their terms of service, and take action to terminate the accounts of people violating it. But criminal prosecutions for sharing accounts?
    - markwweaver 15y ago
      The article does say that it is mostly to combat people harvesting and selling large number of accounts/passwords which seems reasonable to me. It is scary that they could go after people sharing with a friend with up to a year in jail though.
      - generalk 15y ago
        > The article does say that it is mostly to combat people > harvesting and selling large number of accounts/passwords > which seems reasonable to me. It seems reasonable that there be a law against that? Reasonable: Netflix TOS allows them to terminate your account if you're found in violation. Unreasonable: TN law allows criminal charges to be brought against you, potentially incurring fines and jail time and almost definitely incurring legal fees.
ck2 15y ago
How on earth would people legally sell netflix passwords in bulk anyway? This was something that needed to be addressed on the state level because no other laws were being broken in the process? But spam is okay? The lobbyist force these industries have must be insanely powerful and expensive. Well, one more law that the people arresting and judging you are probably breaking themselves or their kids are. I'm pretty sure the future of law enforcement is to make sure everyone is breaking some law at some point and they can basically arrest and prosecute you at any time, so you best obey, citizen.
- Refringe 15y ago
  That's not what the law is meant to prevent. It's meant to prevent me from sharing my online service (Netflix) account with my mother. It's meant to persuade me to tell my mother to get her own account. Clearly these people don't love their mothers.
  - lukejduncan 15y ago
    Doesn't NetFlix specifically allow you to have mutliple users on an account? I'd be curious if NetFlix was actually involved in the lobbying that became this law.
    - lotharbot 15y ago
      http://www.netflix.com/FAQ?p_faqid=2902 http://www.netflix.com/FAQ?p_faqid=2902 says you can have up to six devices authorized for one account, and you can use up to [# of discs in your plan] simultaneously, to a maximum of 4. http://www.netflix.com/TermsOfUse#instant http://www.netflix.com/TermsOfUse#instant specifies that this is "within your household".
      - dclowd9901 15y ago
        I'm pretty sure your use of Netflix terms of service is between you and Netflix, not you and local law enforcement. It's a private contract.
cygwin98 15y ago
I used to have a rosy glass over democracy as I came from China. However, news like this really pissed me off. A lot of those representatives are not working for the people who voted them, but rather the big corporates or whichever lobby groups. How come lobbying is even legal in the first place? It's actually glorified bribery. Please forgive me if I'm being a bit cynical here.
- seabee 15y ago
  It's not at all cynical. The issue here is that influential people get listened to more than regular problem, especially those who will invite their congressman onto their personal yacht to discuss matters. However, if you hold a democracy as true to its ideals as possible, than the opinions of the ignorant are as prominent as the knowledgeable. (The media already promotes the ignorant heavily, but that's another issue...) Clearly this is not ideal if you don't have time to listen to everybody. Where do you draw the line? Obviously US-style lobbying is too much, but you don't want to go too far. And various forces will work against you if you try to iterate on this legislation until it works.
  - HeyLaughingBoy 15y ago
    It's not at all cynical. The issue here is that influential people get listened to Should be a period right there! How many people protesting this online will actually write their congressperson and complain? Lobbyists get listened to because they say something. It's hard for someone to hear you if you're silent!
- jcampbell1 15y ago
  Lobbyists are just advocates for a cause. It is illegal for lobbyists to pay bribes. It is pretty easy to undo this type of legislation. All you have to do is send a direct mail campaign against a few state senators with the title "Joe Sentator is turning your child into a criminal... Have you ever shared an online password? Joe thinks you deserve 1 year in jail." It would probably cost around $10k to roast a few state senators, and neutralize the music industry lobby. It's just that nobody really cares enough to spend the $10k.
impendia 15y ago
"Republican Gov. Bill Haslam [who signed the bill] told reporters earlier this week that he wasn't familiar with the details of the legislation, but..." I feel like this says it all.
- anamax 15y ago
  What fraction of legislation do you think that the "best" governor understands?
  - billswift 15y ago
    Any and all that he signs, or he shouldn't be signing it into law.
    - anamax 15y ago
      >>What fraction of legislation do you think that the "best" governor understands? > Any and all that he signs, or he shouldn't be signing it into law. I think that you're answering a different question, namely what should a governor do. I asked about what real governors actually do, suggesting that the governor in question is typical and that none are significantly better. Do you have any examples of governors who behave as you (and I) think that they should? If not....
- pak 15y ago
  This is unfortunately the rule, not the exception. If you ever have checked out any of these laws that go before a US legislature they are generally hundreds of pages long and a very dry read. Even the legislator that is sponsoring the bill likely has not read the whole thing in detail, but only the summary prepared by his team of aides, and has relied on many other people to write up his drafted law. Probably the only people that read and can understand these new laws in full are prosecutors and other lawyers.
- markkanof 15y ago
  This is really all too common. You always hear politicians say things like "Well I'm not familiar with that issue specifically...so many pieces of legislation pass by my desk I really can't review them all." It's true that you can't expect one person to comprehend every issue at a deep level. But politicians shouldn't be rubber stamping things just to build up enough "credits" to get their next piece of legislation passed through.
nextparadigms 15y ago
Great, now they are now inventing new crimes to protect Big Content's old business models.
albertsun 15y ago
Pretty stupid move as companies could actually use this knowledge of consumer behavior to adjust their pricing and increase their profitability. See Bakos, Brynjolfsson and Lichtman (1998) http://digital.mit.edu/erik/sig.pdf http://digital.mit.edu/erik/sig.pdf and Varian (1994) http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~hal/Papers/sharing.pdf http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~hal/Papers/sharing.pdf
monochromatic 15y ago
> The bill, which has been signed by the governor, was pushed by recording industry officials to try to stop the loss of billions of dollars to illegal music sharing. If what this bill criminalizes was already "illegal" sharing, then there was no need for an additional law.
ghostDancer 15y ago
As already said if it's illegal why make another law? Enforce the one you have. I feel it like we are one step closer to RMS short story : http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html Edit: i sent the comment too fast, needed rewrite.
graywh 15y ago
This isn't a new law, but an addendum to an existing law that makes it illegal to leave a restaurant without paying or steal cable television. http://www.tennessean.com/article/20110602/NEWS/306020033/2275/RSS05 http://www.tennessean.com/article/20110602/NEWS/306020033/22...
sfk 15y ago
In other news (http://www.japanrailpass.net/eng/en008.html http://www.japanrailpass.net/eng/en008.html): "Use of a JAPAN RAIL PASS is strictly limited to the signer (hereafter "you") only." Surely an outrageous clause like this one can only be the product of big corporations and corrupt politicians. What about "the right to travel"?
- kalleboo 15y ago
  That's completely reasonable. As is Netflix putting "only one household" in their ToS. It'd be unreasonable if there was a specific law on the books in Japan that says if you loan out your rail pass you're branded a criminal (which in the case of Japan means you're deported for life) and get jail time, instead of them just taking it away from you and saying "you broke the terms, no more rail pass for you".
  - cdcarter 15y ago
    In most public transit systems I have had a pass on, they have the authority to fine you for trying to share a pass... That seems to be what this law is going for. Content providers currently only have the recourse of cutting you off, now they can fine.
  - sfk 15y ago
    I don't think that you necessarily will get jail time. The new law elevates theft of entertainment services to the same level as theft of other services. In practice, I think theft of services is mostly punished by a fine. But in theory, according to the old law you actually could go to jail for loaning out your rail pass in Tennessee. So actually all the people who are upset about this law should first focus on the existing law.
- jnhnum1 15y ago
  guys, I think he was being sarcastic
lotharbot 15y ago
The actual bill [0] modifies Tennessee Code 39-14-104 [1] (reproduced in the bill at "Under present law") in order to include "entertainment services" as a subset of "services". Note that the bill does not make it illegal to share your password. It only makes it illegal to "avoid payment" or give services to "another not entitled" to them. Netflix TOS allow you to have up to six devices associated with your account, and to run simultaneous streams up to the number of discs in your plan [2] within your household [3]. This usage remains legal under the bill. [0] http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/billinfo/BillSummaryArchive.aspx?BillNumber=SB1659&ga=107 http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/billinfo/BillSummaryArchive.... [1] http://www.michie.com/tennessee/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=main-h.htm&cp=tncode http://www.michie.com/tennessee/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn... and navigate to 39 then 14 then 104. [2] http://www.netflix.com/FAQ?p_faqid=2902 http://www.netflix.com/FAQ?p_faqid=2902 [3] http://www.netflix.com/TermsOfUse#instant http://www.netflix.com/TermsOfUse#instant
- _delirium 15y ago
  It's interesting that the law seems to conspicuously exclude from its definition of "services" any services provided to businesses. So, for example, it is not a criminal offense in TN if a client stiffs me on a contract programming or webdesign gig--- that remains a mere contract dispute. I can pursue it (if I wish) by bringing a civil suit, but the public prosecutor is not going to haul DeadbeatClientCorp into criminal court for stealing my services. Not sure why a Netflix TOS violation should be treated differently.
  - lotharbot 15y ago
    I'm not seeing where services delivered to businesses are exempted. Tennessee Code 39-14-127 (a)(2) is pretty explicit about being stiffed for services.
Fargren 15y ago
I don't see how this doesn't encourage piracy.
RyanMcGreal 15y ago
In other news, the lawnmowing industry has successfully lobbied the state government to pass a groundbreaking law making it a criminal offence to loan your lawnmower to a neighbour. The practice of lawnmowersharing is claimed, according to an industry-funded study, to cost the industry $10 billion a year in lost revenue. "Now that everyone who wants to enjoy a mowed lawn has to come clean and buy or rent their own lawnmower, we can finally put an end to the harmful piracy that has been driving the lawnmowing industry to the brink of collapse," said Dr. Lawrence Angelo, an industry spokesperson. The barbecue industry is watching this closely as it attempts to secure passage of a law that would uphold barbecue terms-of-use restrictions preventing barbecue owners from flagrantly cooking food for dinner guests without a multi-user licence.
- cruise02 15y ago
  The scenarios you're describing seem a lot more like libraries loaning out physical copies of books, each of which can only be used by one person at a time. I think loaning out your NetFlix password is more akin to cable theft than to loaning out physical objects. If you're giving out your password to all of your friends, you're basically acting as a content distributor. Still, I see no reason why this needs to be a law. NetFlix terms of service should cover it.
  - alex_c 15y ago
    If you're making that distinction, then "theft" is probably not the right word to use.
    - cruise02 15y ago
      They're not stealing from the person who loaned them the password, but "theft" is definitely the right word.
      - iforgot 15y ago
        Theft results in a perment loss. Tresspassing is probably much more apt. But, from the perspective of the online services there is a simple real world analogy that actually happens. Having 10+ people live in the same rented appartment. The lanlord is being paid, but his costs are larger than a single renter due to an increased useage of the property. Still, netflix is probably not the proponents of this law it's all about the RIAA and MPAA who hate the idea of unlimited content on the cheap.
jneal 15y ago
This sounds pretty ridiculous to me, but yet not surprising. I understand that giving out your password to random people should be illegal, but sharing it within your own house hold should not. I mean, what if it was illegal for your friends to watch TV at your house? We pay the cable or satellite company to give our home service, not us as in a particular person. Netflix I view the same way. When I rent a 2 day rental from Blockbuster, I can let everyone in my house watch it with me and I'm not breaking any laws. I can even let a friend borrow it so long as I can still return it on time. Why wouldn't Netflix be the same way? I know it should be illegal to sell passwords in bulk, I have nothing against that, but why leave laws like this open so that we can start arresting dads for letting their kids use their Netflix? Stupid...
cabalamat 15y ago
"The Right To Read"[1] was written as a warning, not a how-to guide. [1] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
lotusleaf1987 15y ago
Was this a real problem? Isn't there something more meaningful these legislators should be working on like jobs and our economy? What a charade.
middayc 15y ago
hum.. I don't get it: Why just NetFlix? We all have tens of other passwords that should earn us a year in prison if shared.
haydenchambers 15y ago
if your password happens to be "Tennesse Makes it Illegal To Share Your Netflix Password" you can't even retweet the story.
e03179 15y ago
<sarcasm> When my group of 8 friends are hungry and want to go eat, we hit up the buffet at Ryan's Steakhouse. As a group, we only buy one buffet, but we share it to hell with the others in the group. </sarcasm>
benlang 15y ago
Wonder how they plan on enforcing that one.

98 points by chopsueyar 15y ago

I don't see what justification there is for this being a law. It's simple enough to make it part of the Terms of Service, and then terminate the accounts of anyone who's logged in on more than 10 IP addresses at the same time. It's fundamentally different from the old "theft of cable" laws where the service provider doesn't have full control over the signal/content.

mike-cardwell 15y ago
Yes. This is completely addressable using technology. No need to turn people into criminals. Why can't they just prevent any one account from viewing more than N videos simultaneously? Could make N 1 by default, and then charge people for family packs where N is higher than 1.
- jim_h 15y ago
  They already limit the number of concurrent streaming videos. Last time I checked, N == 1. (Other packages might have different options.)
  - mike-cardwell 15y ago
    Then that, with the IP limit should be sufficient. Their goal should be to minimise the abuse without turning their customers into criminals.
  - kd0amg 15y ago
    I'm pretty sure my housemates have had multiple simultaneous streams on their shared account.
  - lotharbot 15y ago
    one-disc plans allow one stream. two-disc plans allow two simultaneous streams. four streams is the maximum.
    - bartonfink 15y ago
      My wife and I have a one disc plan and have streamed two videos simultaneously.
  - pavel_lishin 15y ago
    Maybe our account is different, but my girlfriend and I have watched shows on two different devices simultaneously. Maybe they limit it by IP? We were both at home.

jrockway 15y ago

Why not just get it over with and send everyone to RIAA-run prison camps?

markwweaver 15y ago
That's a bit over dramatic. Just because the RIAA sponsored or endorsed a bill doesn't mean its necessarily a bad thing. Can you provide a reason why it's unreasonable for a company to want each person (or even household) who uses their service to have a separate subscription? That being said, I haven't read the bill, and only know what the article says about it.
- _delirium 15y ago
  Using criminal law to deal with it seems like a fairly over-the-top, dramatic step to take. It's not necessarily unreasonable for a company to want each person to have a separate subscription, and they can even mandate it in their terms of service, and take action to terminate the accounts of people violating it. But criminal prosecutions for sharing accounts?
  - markwweaver 15y ago
    The article does say that it is mostly to combat people harvesting and selling large number of accounts/passwords which seems reasonable to me. It is scary that they could go after people sharing with a friend with up to a year in jail though.
    - generalk 15y ago
      > The article does say that it is mostly to combat people > harvesting and selling large number of accounts/passwords > which seems reasonable to me. It seems reasonable that there be a law against that? Reasonable: Netflix TOS allows them to terminate your account if you're found in violation. Unreasonable: TN law allows criminal charges to be brought against you, potentially incurring fines and jail time and almost definitely incurring legal fees.

ck2 15y ago

How on earth would people legally sell netflix passwords in bulk anyway? This was something that needed to be addressed on the state level because no other laws were being broken in the process? But spam is okay? The lobbyist force these industries have must be insanely powerful and expensive. Well, one more law that the people arresting and judging you are probably breaking themselves or their kids are. I'm pretty sure the future of law enforcement is to make sure everyone is breaking some law at some point and they can basically arrest and prosecute you at any time, so you best obey, citizen.

Refringe 15y ago
That's not what the law is meant to prevent. It's meant to prevent me from sharing my online service (Netflix) account with my mother. It's meant to persuade me to tell my mother to get her own account. Clearly these people don't love their mothers.
- lukejduncan 15y ago
  Doesn't NetFlix specifically allow you to have mutliple users on an account? I'd be curious if NetFlix was actually involved in the lobbying that became this law.
  - lotharbot 15y ago
    http://www.netflix.com/FAQ?p_faqid=2902 http://www.netflix.com/FAQ?p_faqid=2902 says you can have up to six devices authorized for one account, and you can use up to [# of discs in your plan] simultaneously, to a maximum of 4. http://www.netflix.com/TermsOfUse#instant http://www.netflix.com/TermsOfUse#instant specifies that this is "within your household".
    - dclowd9901 15y ago
      I'm pretty sure your use of Netflix terms of service is between you and Netflix, not you and local law enforcement. It's a private contract.

cygwin98 15y ago

I used to have a rosy glass over democracy as I came from China. However, news like this really pissed me off. A lot of those representatives are not working for the people who voted them, but rather the big corporates or whichever lobby groups. How come lobbying is even legal in the first place? It's actually glorified bribery. Please forgive me if I'm being a bit cynical here.

seabee 15y ago
It's not at all cynical. The issue here is that influential people get listened to more than regular problem, especially those who will invite their congressman onto their personal yacht to discuss matters. However, if you hold a democracy as true to its ideals as possible, than the opinions of the ignorant are as prominent as the knowledgeable. (The media already promotes the ignorant heavily, but that's another issue...) Clearly this is not ideal if you don't have time to listen to everybody. Where do you draw the line? Obviously US-style lobbying is too much, but you don't want to go too far. And various forces will work against you if you try to iterate on this legislation until it works.
- HeyLaughingBoy 15y ago
  It's not at all cynical. The issue here is that influential people get listened to Should be a period right there! How many people protesting this online will actually write their congressperson and complain? Lobbyists get listened to because they say something. It's hard for someone to hear you if you're silent!
jcampbell1 15y ago
Lobbyists are just advocates for a cause. It is illegal for lobbyists to pay bribes. It is pretty easy to undo this type of legislation. All you have to do is send a direct mail campaign against a few state senators with the title "Joe Sentator is turning your child into a criminal... Have you ever shared an online password? Joe thinks you deserve 1 year in jail." It would probably cost around $10k to roast a few state senators, and neutralize the music industry lobby. It's just that nobody really cares enough to spend the $10k.

impendia 15y ago

"Republican Gov. Bill Haslam [who signed the bill] told reporters earlier this week that he wasn't familiar with the details of the legislation, but..." I feel like this says it all.

anamax 15y ago
What fraction of legislation do you think that the "best" governor understands?
- billswift 15y ago
  Any and all that he signs, or he shouldn't be signing it into law.
  - anamax 15y ago
    >>What fraction of legislation do you think that the "best" governor understands? > Any and all that he signs, or he shouldn't be signing it into law. I think that you're answering a different question, namely what should a governor do. I asked about what real governors actually do, suggesting that the governor in question is typical and that none are significantly better. Do you have any examples of governors who behave as you (and I) think that they should? If not....
pak 15y ago
This is unfortunately the rule, not the exception. If you ever have checked out any of these laws that go before a US legislature they are generally hundreds of pages long and a very dry read. Even the legislator that is sponsoring the bill likely has not read the whole thing in detail, but only the summary prepared by his team of aides, and has relied on many other people to write up his drafted law. Probably the only people that read and can understand these new laws in full are prosecutors and other lawyers.
markkanof 15y ago
This is really all too common. You always hear politicians say things like "Well I'm not familiar with that issue specifically...so many pieces of legislation pass by my desk I really can't review them all." It's true that you can't expect one person to comprehend every issue at a deep level. But politicians shouldn't be rubber stamping things just to build up enough "credits" to get their next piece of legislation passed through.

nextparadigms 15y ago

Great, now they are now inventing new crimes to protect Big Content's old business models.

albertsun 15y ago

Pretty stupid move as companies could actually use this knowledge of consumer behavior to adjust their pricing and increase their profitability. See Bakos, Brynjolfsson and Lichtman (1998) http://digital.mit.edu/erik/sig.pdf http://digital.mit.edu/erik/sig.pdf and Varian (1994) http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~hal/Papers/sharing.pdf http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~hal/Papers/sharing.pdf

monochromatic 15y ago

> The bill, which has been signed by the governor, was pushed by recording industry officials to try to stop the loss of billions of dollars to illegal music sharing. If what this bill criminalizes was already "illegal" sharing, then there was no need for an additional law.

ghostDancer 15y ago

As already said if it's illegal why make another law? Enforce the one you have. I feel it like we are one step closer to RMS short story : http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html Edit: i sent the comment too fast, needed rewrite.

graywh 15y ago

This isn't a new law, but an addendum to an existing law that makes it illegal to leave a restaurant without paying or steal cable television. http://www.tennessean.com/article/20110602/NEWS/306020033/2275/RSS05 http://www.tennessean.com/article/20110602/NEWS/306020033/22...

sfk 15y ago

In other news (http://www.japanrailpass.net/eng/en008.html http://www.japanrailpass.net/eng/en008.html): "Use of a JAPAN RAIL PASS is strictly limited to the signer (hereafter "you") only." Surely an outrageous clause like this one can only be the product of big corporations and corrupt politicians. What about "the right to travel"?

kalleboo 15y ago
That's completely reasonable. As is Netflix putting "only one household" in their ToS. It'd be unreasonable if there was a specific law on the books in Japan that says if you loan out your rail pass you're branded a criminal (which in the case of Japan means you're deported for life) and get jail time, instead of them just taking it away from you and saying "you broke the terms, no more rail pass for you".
- cdcarter 15y ago
  In most public transit systems I have had a pass on, they have the authority to fine you for trying to share a pass... That seems to be what this law is going for. Content providers currently only have the recourse of cutting you off, now they can fine.
- sfk 15y ago
  I don't think that you necessarily will get jail time. The new law elevates theft of entertainment services to the same level as theft of other services. In practice, I think theft of services is mostly punished by a fine. But in theory, according to the old law you actually could go to jail for loaning out your rail pass in Tennessee. So actually all the people who are upset about this law should first focus on the existing law.
jnhnum1 15y ago
guys, I think he was being sarcastic

lotharbot 15y ago

The actual bill [0] modifies Tennessee Code 39-14-104 [1] (reproduced in the bill at "Under present law") in order to include "entertainment services" as a subset of "services". Note that the bill does not make it illegal to share your password. It only makes it illegal to "avoid payment" or give services to "another not entitled" to them. Netflix TOS allow you to have up to six devices associated with your account, and to run simultaneous streams up to the number of discs in your plan [2] within your household [3]. This usage remains legal under the bill. [0] http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/billinfo/BillSummaryArchive.aspx?BillNumber=SB1659&ga=107 http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/billinfo/BillSummaryArchive.... [1] http://www.michie.com/tennessee/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=main-h.htm&cp=tncode http://www.michie.com/tennessee/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn... and navigate to 39 then 14 then 104. [2] http://www.netflix.com/FAQ?p_faqid=2902 http://www.netflix.com/FAQ?p_faqid=2902 [3] http://www.netflix.com/TermsOfUse#instant http://www.netflix.com/TermsOfUse#instant

_delirium 15y ago
It's interesting that the law seems to conspicuously exclude from its definition of "services" any services provided to businesses. So, for example, it is not a criminal offense in TN if a client stiffs me on a contract programming or webdesign gig--- that remains a mere contract dispute. I can pursue it (if I wish) by bringing a civil suit, but the public prosecutor is not going to haul DeadbeatClientCorp into criminal court for stealing my services. Not sure why a Netflix TOS violation should be treated differently.
- lotharbot 15y ago
  I'm not seeing where services delivered to businesses are exempted. Tennessee Code 39-14-127 (a)(2) is pretty explicit about being stiffed for services.

Fargren 15y ago

I don't see how this doesn't encourage piracy.

RyanMcGreal 15y ago

In other news, the lawnmowing industry has successfully lobbied the state government to pass a groundbreaking law making it a criminal offence to loan your lawnmower to a neighbour. The practice of lawnmowersharing is claimed, according to an industry-funded study, to cost the industry $10 billion a year in lost revenue. "Now that everyone who wants to enjoy a mowed lawn has to come clean and buy or rent their own lawnmower, we can finally put an end to the harmful piracy that has been driving the lawnmowing industry to the brink of collapse," said Dr. Lawrence Angelo, an industry spokesperson. The barbecue industry is watching this closely as it attempts to secure passage of a law that would uphold barbecue terms-of-use restrictions preventing barbecue owners from flagrantly cooking food for dinner guests without a multi-user licence.

cruise02 15y ago
The scenarios you're describing seem a lot more like libraries loaning out physical copies of books, each of which can only be used by one person at a time. I think loaning out your NetFlix password is more akin to cable theft than to loaning out physical objects. If you're giving out your password to all of your friends, you're basically acting as a content distributor. Still, I see no reason why this needs to be a law. NetFlix terms of service should cover it.
- alex_c 15y ago
  If you're making that distinction, then "theft" is probably not the right word to use.
  - cruise02 15y ago
    They're not stealing from the person who loaned them the password, but "theft" is definitely the right word.
    - iforgot 15y ago
      Theft results in a perment loss. Tresspassing is probably much more apt. But, from the perspective of the online services there is a simple real world analogy that actually happens. Having 10+ people live in the same rented appartment. The lanlord is being paid, but his costs are larger than a single renter due to an increased useage of the property. Still, netflix is probably not the proponents of this law it's all about the RIAA and MPAA who hate the idea of unlimited content on the cheap.

jneal 15y ago

This sounds pretty ridiculous to me, but yet not surprising. I understand that giving out your password to random people should be illegal, but sharing it within your own house hold should not. I mean, what if it was illegal for your friends to watch TV at your house? We pay the cable or satellite company to give our home service, not us as in a particular person. Netflix I view the same way. When I rent a 2 day rental from Blockbuster, I can let everyone in my house watch it with me and I'm not breaking any laws. I can even let a friend borrow it so long as I can still return it on time. Why wouldn't Netflix be the same way? I know it should be illegal to sell passwords in bulk, I have nothing against that, but why leave laws like this open so that we can start arresting dads for letting their kids use their Netflix? Stupid...

cabalamat 15y ago

"The Right To Read"[1] was written as a warning, not a how-to guide. [1] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html

lotusleaf1987 15y ago

Was this a real problem? Isn't there something more meaningful these legislators should be working on like jobs and our economy? What a charade.

middayc 15y ago

hum.. I don't get it: Why just NetFlix? We all have tens of other passwords that should earn us a year in prison if shared.

haydenchambers 15y ago

if your password happens to be "Tennesse Makes it Illegal To Share Your Netflix Password" you can't even retweet the story.

e03179 15y ago

<sarcasm> When my group of 8 friends are hungry and want to go eat, we hit up the buffet at Ryan's Steakhouse. As a group, we only buy one buffet, but we share it to hell with the others in the group. </sarcasm>

benlang 15y ago

Wonder how they plan on enforcing that one.