Adobe Thinks It Can Solve Netflix's Password 'Piracy' Problem 81
Adobe thinks it has the answer to Netflix's "password sharing" problem that involves up to 46 million people, according to a 2020 study. TorrentFreak reports: Adobe believes that since every user is different, any actions taken against an account should form part of a data-driven strategy designed to "measure, manage and monetize" password sharing. The company's vision is for platforms like Netflix to deploy machine learning models to extract behavioral patterns associated with an account, to determine how the account is being used. These insights can determine which measures should be taken against an account, and how success or otherwise can be determined by monitoring an account in the following weeks or months. Ignoring the obviously creepy factors for a moment, Adobe's approach does seem more sophisticated, even if the accompanying slide gives off a file-sharing-style "graduated response" vibe. That leads to the question of how much customer information Adobe would need to ensure that the right accounts are targeted, with the right actions, at the right time.
Adobe's Account IQ is powered by Adobe Sensei, which in turn acts as the intelligence layer for Adobe Experience Platform. In theory, Adobe will know more about a streaming account than those using it, so the company should be able to predict the most effective course of action to reduce password sharing and/or monetize it, without annoying the account holder. But of course, if you're monitoring customer accounts in such close detail, grabbing all available information is the obvious next step. Adobe envisions collecting data on how many devices are in use, how many individuals are active, and geographical locations -- including distinct locations and span. This will then lead to a "sharing probability" conclusion, along with a usage pattern classification that should identify travelers, commuters, close family and friends, even the existence of a second home.
Given that excessive sharing is likely to concern platforms like Netflix, Adobe's plan envisions a period of mass account monitoring followed by an on-screen "Excessive Sharing" warning in its dashboard. From there, legal streaming services can identify the accounts most responsible and begin preparing their "graduated response" towards changing behaviors. After monetizing those who can be monetized, those who refuse to pay can be identified and dumped. Or as Adobe puts it: "Return free-loaders to available market." Finally, Adobe also suggests that its system can be used to identify customers who display good behavior. These users can be rewarded by eliminating authentication requirements, concurrent stream limits, and device registrations.
Adobe's Account IQ is powered by Adobe Sensei, which in turn acts as the intelligence layer for Adobe Experience Platform. In theory, Adobe will know more about a streaming account than those using it, so the company should be able to predict the most effective course of action to reduce password sharing and/or monetize it, without annoying the account holder. But of course, if you're monitoring customer accounts in such close detail, grabbing all available information is the obvious next step. Adobe envisions collecting data on how many devices are in use, how many individuals are active, and geographical locations -- including distinct locations and span. This will then lead to a "sharing probability" conclusion, along with a usage pattern classification that should identify travelers, commuters, close family and friends, even the existence of a second home.
Given that excessive sharing is likely to concern platforms like Netflix, Adobe's plan envisions a period of mass account monitoring followed by an on-screen "Excessive Sharing" warning in its dashboard. From there, legal streaming services can identify the accounts most responsible and begin preparing their "graduated response" towards changing behaviors. After monetizing those who can be monetized, those who refuse to pay can be identified and dumped. Or as Adobe puts it: "Return free-loaders to available market." Finally, Adobe also suggests that its system can be used to identify customers who display good behavior. These users can be rewarded by eliminating authentication requirements, concurrent stream limits, and device registrations.
online subscription model (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:online subscription model (Score:4, Informative)
Re: online subscription model (Score:2)
Re: online subscription model (Score:3)
Re: online subscription model (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Netflix provides very little of value compared to 1-2 years ago, and charges a much higher price. Their service is in a dead heat with other streaming services in a race to the bottom (of quality, clearly not pricing). The split of each network to its own profit-seeking streaming platform, often very badly implemented and featuring at most 1-2 shows worth watching, is ma
Re: (Score:3)
> The idea that people who pirate content would otherwise buy it is proven false every time the point is raised.
Indeed. There are at least four different classes of viewers:
* Will always pay for a sub
* Might pay for a sub
* Pays for a sub AND pirates
* Will never pay for a sub
The group in the middle is the ones they should be focusing on.
One solution to diminish (*) piracy is have content worth watching (that people will pay for.)
(*) You can never get rid of piracy.
Re: (Score:1)
I currently pay for a subscription AND I pirate content.
If Netflix keeps raising their prices, I won't be paying them anymore.
My VPN subscription is paid up for the next two years. That's a sunk cost and I'll get every dollar's worth out of it.
LK
Re: online subscription model (Score:2)
The idea that people who pirate content would otherwise buy it is proven false every time the point is raised.
Remember music before Spotify? See the revenue metrics? I rest my case. Dumbest take? The opinion of a dumb ass.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget, Netflix's streaming service is its only business
It doesn't have theme parks, merchandising, online marketplace, or we service hosting to help prop up their business.
Prime and Disney+ are most likely being subsidized by the rest of their businesses because they are spending huge resources creating content and attracting subscribers. So their prices are artificially low.
This is what is called "predatory marketing". If Netflix were to go under, Prime and Disney+ subscription pricing would incre
Re: (Score:2)
Affinity (Score:4, Insightful)
Obligatory plug for Affinity Photo and the Affinity suite. ~$50, offered up as an alternative to Adobe's suite
Re: (Score:3)
Re:online subscription model (Score:4)
Netflix, on the other hand, is not even close to being in that position. It has one offering and while ten years ago that offering was best-in-class by a large margin, these days it's mediocre at best unless you use a VPN to get around region blocking restrictions, then it's kind of all right. They aren't in a secure enough market position to be able to make things more inconvenient for their users. If they were still the only major player, they could focus on this problem, but if they focus on this problem now, many people will just cancel their subscriptions.
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, because Adobe's online subscription model has been sooooo popular
Not sure I understand the sarcasm about a company that is posting almost $1bn in revenue every quarter from its subscription model. I mean the numbers show it clearly is popular.
Popular? (Score:5, Funny)
The way I see it, there's a profound difference between "I think I have to have this thing that abuses me" and "popular."
I mean, there are over 16 million expensive, uncomfortable colonoscopies performed each year in the US. But they aren't popular.
Re: (Score:2)
The difference between a colonoscopy and and an Adobe product is that people chose the Adobe product voluntarily. It's much the same here on Slashdot where people can't bear the thought that some people willingly use Windows. The reality is none of this is essential and alternatives exist.
High volume of revenue from Adobe shows their products are popular.
High volume of colonoscopies show that people prefer the procedure to potential death.
Nope. (Score:2)
Holy crap (heh heh) — our citizens are being subjected to involuntary colonoscopies? OMG, it was Trump, right? Or are you saying it's Dark Brandon??? JFC, Now we have a gummint forcing people to get colonoscopies? Oh My Stars And Garters!
Oh, wait.
People, almost without exception (I mean if you're unconscious and someone else chooses for you, that could happen... but not much), are choosing
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In a world where alternatives exist, volume means popular. Whether you personally think something is good is irrelevant. No one is holding a gun to people's head and saying "say cancel subscription again motherfucker I dare you!"
You may not like it, but you have no say in other people's opinions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Online subscription model (Score:3)
Yep. Adobe "solved" any interest I had in re-investing in Photoshop and Lightroom when they went to the subscription model.
They'll probably be able to "solve" some people's interest in Netflix, too.
Re: (Score:3)
Seems a little bit out of Adobe's area of expertise. I think Netflix was just dropped in the headline to make it sound like they had a deal to fix the problem.
If you need to use Creative Suite you don't really have a lot of competition and it's mostly used for work. Making Netflix hard to use and difficult to log into will just encourage users to cancel their subscription -- until something "must see" hits and then cancel it again.
The whole point of Netflix and other streaming services is that they are nea
Adobe Has The Answer (Score:4, Funny)
Airbnb demonstrates one problem with this scheme (Score:5, Interesting)
What happens to Airbnb hosts who provide free access to Netflix? They may be limited to one TV or one household, but will be used by many different people. Behavior captures the number of users but not how many people are using an account at the approximately the same time. Of course in the future they may deem that a commercial use and thus require a different style of Netflix subscription or ban it outright. Who knows, but at present given the world today it seems like this system doesn't do what the user agreement/license states. It is the number of people who use the system in a given timeframe, compared to the standard license of the number of concurrent screens in approximately the same location used at a time.
Re: (Score:2)
Can an Airbnb provide free access to Netflix without having to pay a commercial license fee?
Further, I wouldn't want to share my personal Netflix if I was in house with temp renters, and I wouldn't provide Netflix in a house that I didn't occupy.
This is the use case for the various media sticks, I travel with my suite of streaming services, I just need wifi and/or a TV with HDMI (optional).
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry for the slow reply, but if you are renting a room (not a house), and the host has Netflix, why would the license exclude you as a guest. Or to put it another way, if you visited your parent's house with your kids/SO and they access Netflix, should it say "too many users" and just die. I don't think Netflix's EULA says anything like that, the license is number of streams at one time, in a household. Or at least that is what it use to say last time I had Netflix.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is no solution (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:There is no solution (Score:5, Informative)
There is no solution because Netflix itself says my plan includes 3 streams. For example... Thats me and my two kids (8 and 13). My kids may be at my ex wifes house or one of their friends and they would be legally and fairly allowed to use our Netflix account. Oh they also go to my mums (their grandmother) for sleep overs and use their iPads there to watch Netflix. All allowed under Netflix own rules. All across multiple IP addresses and ISPs. The best they can do is maybe lock it to a county, but then my daughter when to Bali (precovid) and used our Netflix account there. I cant see how they can figure out whos sharing passwords.
Re: (Score:2)
They can change the rules so that the three streams are only allowed from the same location and there's an up-fee for allowing simultaneous streams from more than one location.
They can keep the rules as they are but take a stochastic approach: X much simultaneous use from apparently different locations is password sharing.
As a technical matter it's doable. The challenge is: they want to make money, not lose it. That means converting the password sharers into paying accounts, not chasing them off the platfor
Re:There is no solution (Score:4, Informative)
I have a Premium Ultra HD plan that I got specifically so that I always had enough streams for all of the people in my family that might want to watch. I have a lot of children, and before I upgraded I would occasionally bump into streaming limits with just the people in my house. However, looking at our recent viewing history it would appear that these days this is no longer the case. Netflix hardly gets any use at all. These days all of my people are watching Disney+.
I am still going to hang on to Netflix because we do use it some, and it is not expensive. If Netflix wanted to change our arrangement I suspect I would be far more likely to pay them less money than I am to pay them more. Netflix has lost a lot of the more interesting content that they used to have, and I am not particularly impressed with the shows that they created to replace the lost content.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: There is no solution (Score:3)
Re:There is no solution (Score:5, Interesting)
There are solutions.
Password sharing is a social problem. A technological solution to a social problem doesn't work too well. Netflix can make it a social fix.
You have 4 streams. What Netflix does now is if you try to start a 5th stream, it doesn't let you. All Netflix has to do is change this behavior and let you start the 5th stream. Then because you're over your limit, Netflix will simply abort and log you out of one of the existing streams. It could be the stream that's been running the longest, it could be a random stream. It just stops the stream and logs you out completely Oh, and by doing this, it fails to note what you were watching or where you were at.
At this point, you now have to inconveniently log back in, find what you were watching, then find where you stopped. A night of "Netflix and Chill" can become an irritating evening of re-entering email addresses and passwords multiple times and restarting the movie. And chances are, if you shared your password, everyone who gets interrupted will restart the stream and interrupt someone else.
If Netflix wanted to be nice, they could implement a delay, saying "Your stream will exceed the maximum allowed - proceed?" on the 5th stream.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't use streaming services at all so my thoughts may not be so relevant. But FWIW I think you've come up with a very good approach. To me it rather gently promotes self-policing and avoids the "altering the deal" vibe that might cost them subscribers.
I also wonder about limiting the number of simultaneous streams from different geographic locations, and possibly limiting the allowance of monthly data passing through known proxies. But again, I'm not a streamer, so for me these are just interesting thoug
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Now they just need to get back any amount of content I actually want to watch enough to pay them their ever-increasing prices for.
They're already doing that (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is no solution because Netflix itself says my plan includes 3 streams. For example... Thats me and my two kids (8 and 13). My kids may be at my ex wifes house or one of their friends and they would be legally and fairly allowed to use our Netflix account. Oh they also go to my mums (their grandmother) for sleep overs and use their iPads there to watch Netflix. All allowed under Netflix own rules. All across multiple IP addresses and ISPs. The best they can do is maybe lock it to a county, but then my daughter when to Bali (precovid) and used our Netflix account there. I cant see how they can figure out whos sharing passwords.
But what portion of password streaming is two different households both watching from 6pm-9pm on a daily basis with different devices for the past 2 years?
As much as there's a lot of nasty edge cases there's also going to be some really low hanging fruit. It's just a question of how many easy fixes there are before they get into the weeds.
Re: (Score:2)
This is especially true since number of screens is tied to video quality. They only have 3 options, and if you want UHD you automatically get 4 simultaneous screens. Most people would believe that if you are paying for 4 simultaneous screens then you should be entitled to having other people use them, even if they don't live in the same location.
They really need to change the available plans if they are going to start trying to limit password sharing. Make a simple more affordable subscription in which eve
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed. The actual reality of this type of business is that you will only ever get money from people that are ok with paying. Forcing people to pay decreases that number and decreases revenue. Shown time and again, but something the bean-counters are just not equipped to comprehend.
doesn't take into account real life (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
what about things like nexflix on the cable box at say on X1 runs somewhat on the ISP / cable co's cloud systems.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just create sub-users and allow them to be logged (Score:1)
The pins and other account management are garbage. I need a master account with my email, and then I have a few family members that get to use my account but don't get my password.
The kids were all watching rally inappropriate stuff and changing their own rating system.
That should not be a thing. Logging into netflix should not use the same username and password as the billing and moderation.
Easy Solution: 2SA (Score:2)
2SA is the easy solution here, folks. Bind the Netflix login w/ 2SA and then periodically require the code. User with the device can enter the code, but those without will be scrambling to get it.
This would allow travelers, for example, to use their Netflix accounts on all of the smart TVs in hotel rooms because they can enter the 2SA codes...
Will it block all account sharing? Probably not, but it may tackle some of them... I mean, how long is your old buddy from college going to give you the 2SA code on sa
Re: (Score:2)
Most account sharing is probably within family groups so this won't work. I would be willing to share that sort of information with my siblings, parents etc. indefinitely.
Re: (Score:3)
2SA is the easy solution here, folks
Technically easy to implement - probably. Doesn't make it a good solution though. It increases friction in a million different ways ("I'm sitting on the couch, my keys are in the next room, I don't want to get up to get my hardware key"). And this jumping through hoops serves absolutely no purpose to the end-user, so like all other DRM, it is pure annoyance, customer pain, and incentive to abandon the platform in favor of other solutions (probably piracy). There's also a raft of further backend annoyance fo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
... this Adobe nonsense (which, as we all know, is just an attempt by Adobe to sell some overpriced product or service to Netflix...).
Yeah, gotta love it when corporations eat their own. Now if only we could improve their appetites for each other and make ourselves less tasty!
Re: (Score:2)
2SA is the easy solution here, folks. Bind the Netflix login w/ 2SA and then periodically require the code. User with the device can enter the code, but those without will be scrambling to get it.
So when I send the kids to sleep at grandma's house she has to call me and interrupt our date because the Netflix on their iPad is hassling them for a code? Or if I'm traveling for work two time zones away I have to call and wake my wife up because I want to watch a movie on my laptop and it's 9pm for me but 11 for her?
Fuck that. I'd cancel unless it was software TOTP and I could provision multiple devices. And if it was, everyone could just share their Google Authenticator codes and still share accounts
Or come up with a better business plan (Score:3)
They have a business model that charges customers for something regardless of whether they actually use it. This model is borrowed from cable networks that charge for crap channels like shopping network.
I don't see Netflix tackling the issue of refunding accounts that don't access content for days, weeks or months but still pay for it. This is essentially free money and probably balances out users that use it too much.
If password sharing and/or high usage isn't balanced out by users with low usage then you have a broken business model.
Netflix could solve both issues by moving from a "buffet" business model to a usage-based model (ie, charge per streaming minute). This has been the model for utilities for decades because we don't expect a single pensioner to have the same consumption as a large family.
If customers want certainty on their bill then let them set their own monthly usage cap.
Basically it's hard to take these asshats seriously because this has nothing to do with fairness or piracy.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry, they will get there....
Part of the success of netflix was that "buffet style": Subscribe to one streaming service, get what you want.
Now it's "Oh that show is out on Hulu, and that show is out on Netflix". And like with a buffet, you'll pick one buffet at a time. So people will get into the habit of canceling subscribtions they don't need
Talk about out-of-touch executives... (Score:2)
Don't fall for Adobe's sweet talk, Netflix! (Score:2)
Bringing Adobe onboard will further inflate the cost of all subscriptions.
UI mistakes (Score:2)
This reminds me of the problems we had with "The Ribbon" and other horrible UIs. Do something the same way every day and it works fine, but do something different once and the software freaks out, breaks everything, and tells you it's all your fault. Like a lot of the early DRM systems, maybe you'll need to reboot your computer at least 10 times before things will start working correctly again.
Yeah, I sense a lot of impending failure and false positives that will drive end-users crazy. Sounds like a grea
Well then... (Score:2)
I'm a low volume consumer with the highest paid tier. I share my password with my retiree mother. Should I not be able to do that, I'll politely offer to continue paying if they will change their mind (just in my case, of course), and I'll cancel my subscription if they don't. They might choose to ignore the request, or they might not. If they're smart, they'll just quietly turn a blind eye to me, and carry on with their policy at large. I'll keep the exception to myself.
Who the fuck still uses netflix? (Score:2)
Just use parallel port DRM dongles (Score:2)
I mean just use a parallel port dongle containing some DRM circuity, make sure it won't work with USB->Parallel adapters and only access them in "real mode" to make it harder to circumvent them. That should be fine.
Alternatively they could update their business model for the 21th century, instead of trying to emulate niche business models of the 20th century. There is no need to digitally emulate sending out physical copies of movies, you can just offer DRM-free downloads. It works nicely for companies l
Re: (Score:2)
There is no need to digitally emulate sending out physical copies of movies, you can just offer DRM-free downloads.
This. Being able to buy DRM-free video files falls into the "shut up and take my money" category. Apple, who I think was the first to move on this, dropped DRM on music downloads (*mostly - files are still, I believe, watermarked showing who originally bought them, but can be played arbitrarily) about 13 years ago, and I've been waiting for the same event to occur for video, but at this point I think it will never happen. Initially I believe the primary reason movies stayed behind the DRM razor wire was bec
Adobe already has it in action (Score:2)
It shouldn't be hard (Score:2)
Netflix doesn't have a 'piracy' problem, (Score:1)
They have a greed problem. Accounts are already limited to number of simultaneous streams. If an account allows 2 simultaneous streams, then they really shouldn't care where those streams are coming from, as long as that number can't be exceed. Which is way easier to control and less disruptive to subscribers than whatever hellscape they are about to create by trying to crack down on password sharing.
Re: (Score:3)
I would pay and watch Netflix (Score:2)
If I could get a 1 user/stream, 4K subscription. But their plan only support 4 user/stream, 4K. So I can understand why people share. But I don't care enough about Netflix to find somone to share a 4K account with.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL... anyone but Adobe for this! (Score:2)
I think most people who work as admin at a company using Adobe products is well aware of the hassles Creative Cloud and their licensing schemes cause!
Honestly, their admin portal wouldn't be so bad but account setups insist on users first receiving email they're sent from Adobe, then clicking the provided link to create their Adobe account. And then it takes them to the software installation step, which many can't complete because they lack local admin rights on their workstation in a business environment.
Meh? I thought they "solved" this already. (Score:2)
I share my Netflix account. At one point it started saying something like "too many people watching at once", and we upgraded to get more concurrent users.
That seemed pretty fair to me. I think that's as much "solving" as they'll get away with.
If they want to go further, then the people who share my account probably just won't have Netflix anymore (they don't use it much anyway), and I'll downgrade my Netflix account and they'll get less money. Or maybe even go back to "few-months-on", "few-month
Really? (Score:2)
Somebody should tell the Chinese that our Chinese hackers are better than their Chinese hackers.
And if you know the movie The Right Stuff...
Another big tech company crosses the creepy line.. (Score:1)
Flash Player! (Score:2)
Adobe sure misses being relevant for video streaming.
So many euphamisms! (Score:2)
All the euphemisms in Abode's ad/blog make me nauseous. And for good reason! [propagandacritic.com]
Examples: "Return free-loaders to available market" (from TFA), "optimal monetization" (instead of "maximized subscription revenue"), "optimize actions," etc.
This kind of greed-based optimization usually serves short-term goals for a company while sacrificing long-term viability. Instead, maximizing the value provided to customers by providing good content, reliable service, helpful features, and low prices, would help companies lik