Tennessee Makes it Illegal To Share Your Netflix Password 495
An anonymous reader writes "State lawmakers in Tennessee have passed a groundbreaking measure that would make it a crime to use a friend's login — even with permission — to listen to songs or watch movies from services such as Netflix or Rhapsody. 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. They hope other states will follow."
Have they nothing better to legislate for (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh come on, this is just a waste of time in the legal process. Anyone already illegally downloading isn't going to stop anyway. There has to be a better way to involve the downloaders, spend time looking for that, rather than legislate against a lost cause.
Re:Have they nothing better to legislate for (Score:5, Interesting)
Besides isn't there already a law against this ? I know in Europe at least on rentals there is always a disclaimer to the effect that only you are allowed to watch it (with your family) but can't use it to share with friends or show in a public setting.
Re:Have they nothing better to legislate for (Score:5, Insightful)
I know in Europe at least on rentals there is always a disclaimer to the effect that only you are allowed to watch it (with your family) but can't use it to share with friends or show in a public setting.
In this situation, if a user were to show it to friends, and the contract prohibited it, then the user might be subject to action for breach of contract, or else infringement of copyright. Here, the summary indicates that sharing a password would be a crime, rather than an act giving rise to a civil (contractual or tortious) liability.
Whilst copyright infringement is, in some circumstances, a crime, this legislation would increase those circumstances to an act which is not, in itself, an infringement, but which enables an infringement.
Re:Have they nothing better to legislate for (Score:5, Insightful)
For Dan Halbert, the road to Tycho began in collegeâ"when Lissa Lenz asked to borrow his computer. Hers had broken down, and unless she could borrow another, she would fail her midterm project. There was no one she dared ask, except Dan.
This put Dan in a dilemma. He had to help herâ"but if he lent her his computer, she might read his books. Aside from the fact that you could go to prison for many years for letting someone else read your books, the very idea shocked him at first. Like everyone, he had been taught since elementary school that sharing books was nasty and wrongâ"something that only pirates would do.
And there wasn't much chance that the SPAâ"the Software Protection Authorityâ"would fail to catch him. In his software class, Dan had learned that each book had a copyright monitor that reported when and where it was read, and by whom, to Central Licensing. (They used this information to catch reading pirates, but also to sell personal interest profiles to retailers.) The next time his computer was networked, Central Licensing would find out. He, as computer owner, would receive the harshest punishmentâ"for not taking pains to prevent the crime.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html [gnu.org]
Why must stalman be right so much the cynical old sod?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Have they nothing better to legislate for (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Can't wait till they want to apply this to prin (Score:4)
It also sounds like big business (or their representatives/lobbyist) have fully started buying state legislatures. I guess easier and cheaper to bribe on the state level?
I know that the govt, especially in this case the state govt isn't listening to their constituency....I mean, I cannot believe if they polled their voters that they'd come up with the idea that this was a good idea to "the people".
Hahahahaahah (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Hahahahaahah (Score:5, Insightful)
Freedom has had nothing to do with how America is governed for a while now. The big players are lobbying congress and other parties with truckloads of money. The people - you know, the guys the government is supposed to work for - are lost in the background noise.
But be reassured, America is not the only country acting this way. Most western industrialized countries are at a similar level.
Something is going to go wrong with this, there's no question about it. Exactly how and when is the question.
Re:Hahahahaahah (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Hahahahaahah (Score:5, Funny)
Gotta love Sony's customer service.
Re: (Score:2)
That's better than party escort bots.
Re: (Score:2)
Holding steady. Send your team.
Re:Hahahahaahah (Score:4, Insightful)
Freedom has had nothing to do with how America is governed for a while now.
I know for a fact that people have been saying things much like that for more than 200 years, such attitudes would seem to be a part of human nature. Even though more of us are living longer, happier, peaceful lives than ever before in the history of the world (percentage and total numbers), every step of the way there are those that put out a 'hue-and-cry' that it will all be crumbling at any moment. As it's part of our safety instinct, people will always listen for trouble. Evolutionists might argue that one of the primary reasons for communication is warn others about trouble. However, some do so not because it makes an sense, but only because it sounds serious. Talk radio and the cable news channels' best audience are those who keep an ear out for trouble, and I believe create a narrative specifically to encourage such people to continue watching. If the their most loyal audience doesn't hear trouble, they go somewhere they can. This trouble doesn't have to be with the government and society, but it needs to be plausible to the audience, so for a modern society curses and witches would be channel changer (to the channel showing ghost hunter programming).
All of us have this nature, but for some of us this 'hue-and-cry' comes at seemingly odd times or for problems often faced. Most are expressing genuine concern, but some do so simply for the audience, mass media has allowed such people to earn a living at it. Jack Van Impe [wikipedia.org] has been making a living predicting the end of the America/world since the early 50s; Rush Limbaugh, not quite as long.
Re: (Score:3)
Freedom has had nothing to do with how America is governed for a while now.
I know for a fact that people have been saying things much like that for more than 200 years, such attitudes would seem to be a part of human nature. Even though more of us are living longer, happier, peaceful lives than ever before in the history of the world (percentage and total numbers), every step of the way there are those that put out a 'hue-and-cry' that it will all be crumbling at any moment.
I have some rats in a cage. They live very long and peaceful lives too.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not just the US, friend.
Though I will admit that when it comes to funneling money and power to the people who already have money and power we are leading the world, as usual.
But y'all seem to be following right along.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Hahahahaahah (Score:4, Insightful)
If you think greed and tyranny started in 1776, you don't know your history.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, and that's why the people who are in control of the monetary supply are the ones in ultimate control over the freedoms of the people (or lack thereof). I am talking about the Fed and the Treasury.
Never mind standing armies - those who print money set the policy.
Re: (Score:3)
Everything changes - the megas wouldn't exist if government wasn't there, protecting them from any competition, saving them from their resource mis-management, which ultimately collapses them.
2008 MUST have made it clear to you that there is no such thing that cannot be brought down by its own doing (well, actually all of human history must have made it clear to you, see USSR and early last century Germany and the Roman Empire for reference.)
Re: (Score:3)
Speaking of elections, if anyone believes that voters aren't voting in their best interests at the ballot box every few years, they should also believe that voters will have similar/worse problems voting with their wallets every day.
Those who think eliminating or reducing government will magically solve problems are fools. It is not quantity of Government that is the problem. It is QUAL
Re: (Score:3)
You don't know shit about anything - throwing it back at you.
Those people, listed as 'robber barons', all have enjoyed close ties to government, using their ties to increase their profits, thus gov't was participating in the market economy at the time just as well, only it was participating with much fewer people, as it was a much smaller government.
The rest of your 'comment' is just pure vitriol without as much as a glimpse of intelligence o reason or knowledge. Go, brew your hate somewhere in a dark corn
Re: (Score:3)
Explain the meaning of "natural monopoly" and how it applies to water, electr
Re: (Score:3)
In the absence of a federalized, representative government, explain how the average citizen/common man would be able to have a say on the direction of their environment. Explain in detail how, for example, you could prevent upstream pollution of rivers and runoff.
Explain in detail where we would get an army to combat a corporation's privately contracted militia (See: Xe/Blackwater).
Re:Hahahahaahah (Score:5, Insightful)
america, land of the free. as much as they have money that is. more money, more freedom. less, less freedom. hilarious irony of the land of the free in which freedom is tied to money, and those with the most money can decide how much others can be free.
This is a problem of human nature, not political ideology or system of government. It has and will occur in any and every government, no matter the society, ideology, or political system. Wealth, in whatever form it may take depending on the type of society/government/political ideology, has always and will always be able to buy privilege and favor.
Private wealth in and of itself is not to be despised, as it is not the problem. The rich vs poor class warfare is simply a propaganda tool to distract and deflect attention from a too large, powerful, and corrupt government and therefor maintain the status quo by keeping people divided and angry.
Humans are corruptible, weak, greedy, and fallible creatures. You can attempt to put in all the government restriction and oversight you want, but corruption will still occur. The larger and more powerful the government, the worse the corruption and the results of that corruption over time. All anyone can really do is keep it to a minimum at best.
As I've stated in previous posts under past topics, the only way to keep government corruption to a reasonable minimum is to make the central government as weak as possible while still fulfilling essential functions. Keep as much governing local as possible/practical so as to distribute power and thus make influencing enough politicians to make a national impact impractical.
As a bonus, and contrary to what many would say would happen with a smaller central government (that corporate/monied interests would more-easily influence/control government), with a less-corrupt government and justice system, corporations/businesses/unions and other wealthy/powerful interests that engage in bad/illegal behavior will actually have a decent chance of having meaningful consequences and penalties applied for their misdeeds.
You certainly can't remedy a corrupt government by giving it more power and wealth. That's how governments become corrupt to begin with. You also can't remedy a corrupt government by removing/redistributing private wealth. That just puts *all* the wealth and *all* the power in the same small set of corrupt government hands that were the problem to begin with. The citizens would then find themselves even more helpless against government/political injustices while living in poverty and having little incentive to be productive.
Many mistake the US Constitution as a purely political/ideological document. It's more than that. It's a distributed-network design. It's designed to distribute and regulate power just as the internet does with data. As with the original internet designs, it was designed to route around "damage" (corruption, etc) and report it to the rest of the network.
Let me take the networking analogy a bit further to describe current conditions/trends in the US.
What has happened in/to the US is management (We the People) have been off on the golf course instead of paying attention, listening to glowing reports from corrupt lackeys, meanwhile groups of rogue BOFHs have been running wild in the data centers and server rooms, doing everything from ripping out entire server racks and selling them from the back door, to installing their own hardware and software, selling company/customer data, running spam servers, etc etc.
They've radically altered the network's design while we were apathetic & distracted for a decade or six. It needs to be returned to a state more closely resembling the original network.
Strat
Re: (Score:3)
As I've stated in previous posts under past topics, the only way to keep government corruption to a reasonable minimum is to make the central government as weak as possible while still fulfilling essential functions.
That sounds very libertarian. However, when you look into libertarianism, it pushes power to the rich as well. Rights are tied to land, and the more land you have, essentially more rights you have (well, the same rights, but more places to exercise them).
If you do the libertarian thing and sell off all government land (welcome private toll sidewalks), you are left with people owning all the land. If you don't own land, you don't have the right to travel (you need explicit permission from all others to m
Re:more money, more freedom (Score:2)
"Class, here is an exhibit to study." *
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwP_SxjPLkM [youtube.com]
Marc Seaberg - Looking for freedom
"...Father said: You'll be sorry son
if you leave your home this way
And when you realize the freedom money buys
You'll come running home some day."
* Youtube, not Netflix, not Tennessee.
Aaaah, beautiful (Score:2)
the corporate oligarchy, brought to you by the government, which ensures that the only 'competition' happens in the high halls of government power and not in the market place
Beaaaauuuutiiiiifuuuuuul.
Predicted Long Ago (Score:5, Insightful)
"Dan resolved the dilemma by doing something even more unthinkable—he lent her the computer, and **told her his password**. This way, if Lissa read his books, Central Licensing would think he was reading them. It was still a **crime**, but the SPA would not automatically find out about it. They would only find out if Lissa reported him."
The Right to Read
Richard Stallman
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html [gnu.org]
Now that the precedent is set, its a matter of the government slowly upping the punishments until no one shares any kind of information without first paying for it.
Re:Predicted Long Ago (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:'stealing' ideas from dystopian authors. (Score:3)
"I really wish that nobody would have taught the evil overlords how to read. They just keep 'stealing' ideas from dystopian authors."
Philip K. Dick's ghost sadly agrees with this.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
yes, I'm reminded of all those comments about how the powers that be take Nineteen Eighty-Four as an instruction manual.
Re:Predicted Long Ago (Score:5, Insightful)
As much as rms's predictions used to sound silly and exaggerated, they have an unfortunate tendency to be correct.
Re:Predicted Long Ago (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, it's old news. There is a paradox here with RMS simultaneously being anti-free market capitalism and being pro-government control, while hating the natural expression of power of that pro-government control over the market.
Re:Predicted Long Ago (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I explained in detail what I mean by him being anti-free market and pro-government regulations here [slashdot.org].
The paradox is that he simultaneously reconciles his believe that government must be in control over the markets, while at the same time being against government setting rules that favor large corporations, but the underlying reason for both of those things is the same - government involvement into the market and economy and setting the fiscal policy. He genuinely does not understand the economics and how the
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
All I see there is the standard libertarian fantasy - taking away government necessarily means everything will be just peachy.
It's bullshit now as it ever has been.
Re:Predicted Long Ago (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if you hold that Stallman's position as totally flawed, his position is clearly less destructive to free markets than corporations writing laws like this one, so he is the 'lesser evil', and your whining is misplaced.
The false dichotomy (Score:3)
That is so fundamentally wrong as to make me reel in dismay to hear it. First of all, there is no fundamental difference between R and D to any noticeable extent. If that has not been proved time and again by comparing the Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2, and Obama (and other) regimes, and by comparing the mess when R's controlled BOTH houses of Congress AND the Presidency, to the equal mess when D's controlled BOTH houses of Congress AND the Presidency, then there is no hope for human powers of observation.
Both
Re: (Score:3)
I see his comments as being against the free market because of the inherent instability and that if you require so much government involvement to keep it stable, then there are better ways of regulating the market than enforcing free market capitalism. Actually, I think he'd be rather for free m
Re:Predicted Long Ago (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
the paradox is not that he is just anti-free market and pro-government control, but that he is that AND that he is also against government skewing the market at the same time, by passing laws that make it illegal to share the passwords, etc.
As to citation - here is my comment from the story on RMS going to Palestine's university and not to Israel's on the same trip [slashdot.org] and the link in that comment goes to the article, which has all those citations, that I mention in that comment.
Re: (Score:3)
The very concept that work must be taxed by the government in the first place - income and corporate and payroll taxes, that's already Marxism.
However you are also incorrect. RMS was referring to the competitive advantage a company gets by moving from a country with more regulations, to a country with fewer regulations, that's his complaint - that companies cause the governments of countries to reduce their regulations, so that those companies would move their business there.
He is complaining that this is a
Follow Tennessee? (Score:2)
Limited number of simultaneous connections? (Score:5, Insightful)
If this was of concern to Netflix (which, I presume, faces pressure from the studios which license their content to Netflix), I wonder why Netflix would not place a limit on the number of simultaneous connections / streams delivered to any given account, or else the number of simultaneous IP addresses to which a stream is delivered for any given account?
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. Also, how on earth do they plan to prevent password sharing? It's not like they can profile the devices you're connecting with and setup some kind of device whitelist. I don't see a technical solution here.
Re:Limited number of simultaneous connections? (Score:4, Interesting)
Anything with a power cable, networking, cd's, blu ray/dvd, computers, displays, lcd, plasma can be removed and sold to raise funds for local law enforcement.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Another law everyone will be breaking, so when the govt wants to fuck you over, they can do it freely and legally. No, it was not your anti-government post on that board or you participating in that demonstration. We're arresting you for computer piracy, that's all.
Re: (Score:2)
They do to a degree. I'm not a Netflix customer, but various people have posted online that you can register 6 devices, but can only stream to one IP at any one time.
Re:Limited number of simultaneous connections? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not a Netflix customer, but various people have posted online that you can register 6 devices, but can only stream to one IP at any one time.
If this is indeed the case (I am not a Netflix customer either), then the situation is very much like prohibiting someone from lending a DVD to a friend. In other words, the prohibition is on consecutive, rather than concurrent, watching.
However, part of me wonders if this is the case, since if, by giving my password to five people, I was competing with five others as to whether I could watch something (since the first person to start a stream locks all others out the service until they have finished), I would be rather less inclined to hand out my password, unless I was retreating to an Internet-free environment for a fixed period. Most people, I'd guess, pay for Netflix for the convenience of the service, which would seem to be undermined if one was not able, by virtue of operation of a technical lockout, to watch at any given point.
Re: (Score:2)
If Netflix is locking out other IP addresses while a stream is playing, then that's where they're screwing up
Re: (Score:3)
Does that mean you need a second account just to be able to watch something on a mobile device during a train ride while someone else in your family is watching something in your living room???
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't about simultaneous connections. This is about people sharing the account _regardless_ of whether someone else is actively using it.
Re: (Score:2)
Because Netflix isn't losing that much business, and knows that going after password sharing is a futile undertaking. The MPAA on the other hand, does care about every little dime they can squeeze and doesn't worry about the futility of its own actions.
Re: (Score:2)
Bingo. Gmail already shows multiple IPs to you today if you're logged in in different places, so it's not as though it's hard to track. Trivial technical solution, rather than the massive hammer of legislation. Why bother trying to get a state to pass a law? And why Tennessee, of all places? It's almost as though someone's trying to set a precedent for something...
Re: (Score:2)
They do. You can't have simultaneous streams running. Which means one Netflix account cannot be shared by two people who are watching things at the same time.
Which shows you how greedy the MAFIAA is.
Re:Limited number of simultaneous connections? (Score:5, Informative)
I work for Netflix (but, obviously, this should not be taken to speak for my employer).
This is something that Netflix thinks about, and it's got about as many safeguards in place to prevent it (starting with the fact you can only have six active devices on your account, followed by the fact that your recommendations get less effective the more you share your account with someone with disparate tastes -- as anyone who shares their account with a spouse will tell you).
As noted in the article, this was pushed by the RIAA types, not Netflix. Netflix had nothing to do with it; it's just that it's being used as the most pervasive example of violation of this law because it's the easiest example.
Re: (Score:3)
Boy howdy, you and I are so entirely on the same page in this regard. There are really two issues there:
1. Having multiple people's tastes poisons Netflix's ability to come up with very good matches for both of them. I know this intimately well -- my wife and I share a profile (it's not a money thing, it's just that we're sharing devices). That means I get to deal with her love for depressing documentaries and she gets to deal with my love for Pixar movies (which she finds to be emotionally manipulative.
Just don't buy? (Score:2, Funny)
To stop those monsters 1-2-3
Here's a fresh new way that's trouble free
It's got Paul Anka's guarantee...
Guarantee void in Tennessee!
Just don't look!
Just don't look!
Just don't look!
Just don't look!
Re: (Score:2)
Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
True. Once you have enough money, you don't really need it anymore. You go for power/influence/control over others.
Usually this turns into a loop: Money gets you power, and power gets you more money.
What? Licenses and TOS agreements not enough? (Score:5, Interesting)
Niiice. Civil agreements are not enough any more. Now we need the rule of law to make things into a crime! It's clearly not enough to sue your customers. Now we have to fine and imprison them.
But look on the bright side -- they aren't claiming "it's for the poor starving artists" this go around.
As a non-subscriber of anything, this is how I get entertained. It's like watching one of those reality shows unfold. Sure it's a bit slow, but just when you think the industry has gone too far, people just suck it up and let it happen. How much is too much? How far is too far? I may never see the limit in my life time it seems.
Re:What? Licenses and TOS agreements not enough? (Score:5, Interesting)
The reason the industry lobbies want to criminalize this stuff is to shift the burden of enforcement to the tax payer. If its a civil agreement it then its mostly their own responsibility to spot where their rights are being infringed and do something about it, send a take down notice, file a suit, whatever.
If they can criminalize it suddenly state enforcement agencies are burdened with detecting the crime, and state legal agencies are burdened with prosecuting it.
Hey, this might work! (Score:5, Insightful)
How about making it illegal to lend your car to your friends? That will boost car sales which is good for the economy. You don't want to be a terrorist, do you?
Re: (Score:2)
This might be a better analogy if you were only leasing the car, and didn't purchase it.
But, who knows. Soon you may not be allowed to own the car at all. It worked that way for the EV-1.
And we need more of this too! (Score:5, Insightful)
Damn... posting twice... oh well... new comment.
This is simply precious. He is not hiding anything in this case. He doesn't know what he signed. He only knows who is backing it and therefore pushes it right through. To hell with the consequences.
And the music industry? I thought this was for netflix? You know what I would like to see? I'd like to see how much tax the entertainment industry pays in Tennessee. Anyone know how to get that information? Also, is there access to information about that states collection of taxes of online services like these and finally the political contributions in that state?
Getting a picture of the money motivation might show what this is really all about.
But we get it -- Tennessee has whiskey and music... and little else?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Said it above -- this isn't for Netflix. It's just that NFLX is being used as an example of people violating this new law.
Re: (Score:3)
Is this how we define government now? I thought it was to provide fair and equal treatment to all interests, neither giving advantage nor disadvantage to particular parties, groups or individuals. It is stated as such more or less in the US constitution which, according to the outcome of the civil war, trumps state level law.
So no, the point is not merely to support constituents. And "corporations" may be "legally people" but that doesn't make it the truth nor does it make it right or moral. So they are
Crime (Score:2)
Profit or loss? (Score:2)
I wonder what percentage of users will
1. ignore the legislation and keep using friend's account
2. switch to piracy, download the mp3
3. purchase a separate song for their own netflix account.
Somehow my hunch tells me "3" will not be a majority.
Re: (Score:2)
purchase a separate song for their own netflix account.
You don't know what Netflix is, do you?
Nice job, OP (Score:3)
Great job letting bogus assertions sneak into the summary masquerading as fact.
Was it legal? (Score:2)
Tennessee Makes it Illegal To Share Your Netflix Password
So it was legal before...
was pushed by recording industry officials to try to stop the loss of billions of dollars to illegal music sharing
...?
Re: (Score:2)
Now its your ip, instant no knock digital warrant, SWAT, 5 min plea bargain/risk of court sign off and prison industrial complex.
Buggy whip makers lobby limits max drivers per car (Score:2)
No one has a "right" to make money. You have the right to engage in business and either succeed or fail based on your merits and the market. Using the law to prop up a no longer viable business model is the end of capitalism. However, in the current political climate it is very easy to buy this kind of legi
Nexfix pass word (Score:2)
if it wasn't that already.
Re: (Score:3)
admin? Everyone knows the password is 1234.
In other news .. (Score:5, Funny)
The Houseowners Association of America today announced today their support for a bill that would make it punishable to share your rented home with non-family members.
"This will put a stop to the losses incurred to property owners by people crowding their homes with strangers", a spokesman for the HAA said.
It is widely believed the bill will also boost the property market, thus allowing the mortgage financial markets to recover.
You laugh... (Score:3, Informative)
Does it also apply to your yearly party? (Score:2)
I wonder, does the Boulder, CO law also apply to your yearly house party, or only to residents per house?
Re: (Score:2)
So I guess it's fine if I prostitute my wife and daughters.
Re: (Score:2)
The cause is fear and.. (Score:2)
I can see why this is happening. America used to have quite a bit of manufacturing, shops that employed people on living wages etc. Technical workers that worked in country, and spent their money locally. That money flowed round and encouraged other shops and enterprise. Shops that sold stuff made in the US. It also did fair trade in export and import.
That's all gone now. All the US has is "IP" and "Media" aka ideas, films and music, nothing you can touch. There is now really no manufacturing to employee p
Unenforceable should be Illegal. (Score:2)
Someone in Tennessee needs a solid bitch-slap of common sense. This is an absolute joke, and is completely unenforceable. Something that is utterly unenforceable should be deemed illegal in itself, to avoid waste of taxpayer money. I'd recommend anyone living in Tennessee to get together and file a class-action lawsuit against the state for waste.
THIS is now what they are calling "illegal music sharing"? OK, downloading MP3's off Napster back in the day without purchasing the actual music I can see as b
Pirates don't use netflix (Score:4, Funny)
Once again, a dying business paradigm (Score:4, Interesting)
Promoting artificial scarcity in lieu of the scarcity inherent in manufacturing physical goods.
Unfortunately this is only going to get worse: http://www.cracked.com/article_18817_5-reasons-future-will-be-ruled-by-b.s..html [cracked.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Because most people are happy that there are "safe harbours" created by law that enable companies to offer services. Without legal protection, some services of this nature would be unprofitable, and thus there would be no Netflix. It's a difficult balance, and there may be a case to be made that such services could exist without such protection if they "got their business model right rather than legislating to protect a redundant business model", but you asked, and that's the answer. Because people want it.
Re: (Score:2)
>> Without legal protection, some services of this nature would be unprofitable,
>> and thus there would be no Netflix.
Yes... because Netflix, whose stock price is up at least 4-fold over the last 2 years, and raking in record profits quarter on quarter, is clearly having trouble under the current setup.
Re: (Score:2)
The legislation isn't, and shouldn't be, just about one service.
Re: (Score:2)
I share my account with others in my family, and we can watch multiple streams simultaneously.
Re: (Score:2)
"My" doesn't always indicate absolute ownership. "My Social Security number", "My country", "My congressman", "My right not to be enslaved". These are all things that we can't give to someone else to use.
Re: (Score:2)
The MPAA and RIAA would beg to differ. they apparently own both laws and congressmen.
Re: (Score:2)
Outside of obvious examples like these I doubt much will come of this.
Re: (Score:2)
Extend it to a device which sends an electtic charge through a politician's ass whenever they are in contact with a lobbyist and you might be on to something.
Re: (Score:2)