Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Tennessee Makes it Illegal To Share Your Netflix Password

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the I-thought-sharing-was-good dept.

Crime 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."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Have they nothing better to legislate for (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36317504)

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 (5, Interesting)

CharlyFoxtrot (1607527) | more than 3 years ago | (#36317582)

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 (5, Insightful)

Neil_Brown (1568845) | more than 3 years ago | (#36317696)

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 (5, Insightful)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 3 years ago | (#36317990)

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:Have they nothing better to legislate for (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36317834)

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.

WTH?? I'm Spaniard and this' the first time I've heard something like this. If you rent a movie you can view it not only with your family but with a 1,000,000,000 friends if you dare. The condition is: you can't charge money (obviously) and it must be in a private property (not public showing). That's all.

Re:Have they nothing better to legislate for (3, Informative)

hellgate (85557) | more than 3 years ago | (#36318022)

The EU Rental Directive [wikipedia.org] gives rights holders a lot more influence over the use of rentals than they have in the US, where the First-sale doctrine [wikipedia.org] makes rental restrictions harder to defend. For now.

Hahahahaahah (2, Insightful)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#36317506)

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.

Re:Hahahahaahah (4, Insightful)

Pieroxy (222434) | more than 3 years ago | (#36317570)

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 (3, Funny)

ciderbrew (1860166) | more than 3 years ago | (#36317726)

Sir, please remain where you are. A customer satisfaction response team will be with you shortly.

Re:Hahahahaahah (4, Funny)

lennier1 (264730) | more than 3 years ago | (#36317920)

A customer satisfaction response team will be with you shortly.

Gotta love Sony's customer service.

Re:Hahahahaahah (1)

Talderas (1212466) | more than 3 years ago | (#36317930)

That's better than party escort bots.

Re:Hahahahaahah (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 3 years ago | (#36317832)

america, land of the free. as much as they have money that is. more money, more freedom. less, less freedom.

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:Hahahahaahah (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#36317858)

it seems to me that the ones who already have money and power in usa, are spreading the plague around to other countries, which again reinforcing the ones with money and power in usa.

Re:Hahahahaahah (2)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 3 years ago | (#36317860)

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:Hahahahaahah (0)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#36317968)

if you remove monetary supply controllers, the mega corporation holders will still remain. and mega corporations control vast swaths of life. you just take a layer from the top, nothing changes at the bottom.

Re:Hahahahaahah (2)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 3 years ago | (#36317988)

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:Hahahahaahah (5, Insightful)

BlueStrat (756137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36317996)

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

Aaaah, beautiful (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 3 years ago | (#36317512)

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 (5, Insightful)

ParetoJ (2014556) | more than 3 years ago | (#36317780)

No one should be surprised by this, it was predicted quite a while back:

"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 (4, Insightful)

king neckbeard (1801738) | more than 3 years ago | (#36317816)

I really wish that nobody would have taught the evil overlords how to read. They just keep 'stealing' ideas from dystopian authors.

Re:Predicted Long Ago (4, Insightful)

Noughmad (1044096) | more than 3 years ago | (#36317830)

As much as rms's predictions used to sound silly and exaggerated, they have an unfortunate tendency to be correct.

Re:Predicted Long Ago (3, Insightful)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 3 years ago | (#36317852)

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 (3, Insightful)

king neckbeard (1801738) | more than 3 years ago | (#36317900)

Stallman is generally a big fan of personal liberties, which are an essential part of free as in freedom markets. I think he may be a proponent of certain industrial regulation, but the multinationals are generally bigger opponents of free market capitalism than he is. You can see that right here, as the conglomerates are pushing a law that is against free market capitalism for those who take the term seriously.

Re:Predicted Long Ago (2, Insightful)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 3 years ago | (#36317966)

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 economy is distorted and resources are mis-allocated by the government regulations, maybe that's how he manages not to see the paradox.

Re:Predicted Long Ago (0)

next_ghost (1868792) | more than 3 years ago | (#36317908)

There is a paradox here with RMS simultaneously being anti-free market capitalism and being pro-government control

Citation needed.

Re:Predicted Long Ago (2)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 3 years ago | (#36317946)

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.

good for tennessee (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36317516)

Doing a great job keeping people from doing that nasty theft. Fucking scum!

Re:good for tennessee (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36317904)

Fucking scum!

I agree. Tennessee legislators are fuckings scum, fucking corrupt scum.

Follow Tennessee? (1)

hedgemage (934558) | more than 3 years ago | (#36317518)

I think they're one of the states that have a sign on the back that says, "Frequent stops, do not follow."

Limited number of simultaneous connections? (4, Insightful)

Neil_Brown (1568845) | more than 3 years ago | (#36317524)

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:Limited number of simultaneous connections? (1)

hedleyroos (817147) | more than 3 years ago | (#36317540)

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? (3, Interesting)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 3 years ago | (#36317680)

Think of the joys of a civil forfeiture sale when they raid your home in some US states if laws like this stand.
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:Limited number of simultaneous connections? (1)

arbiter1 (1204146) | more than 3 years ago | (#36317598)

Another unenforceable law that is just wasting tax payers money. This would need Netflix to report possible sharers but if they did that sure they would lose customers.

Re:Limited number of simultaneous connections? (1)

SharpFang (651121) | more than 3 years ago | (#36317666)

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:Limited number of simultaneous connections? (1)

Stormthirst (66538) | more than 3 years ago | (#36317706)

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? (3, Insightful)

Neil_Brown (1568845) | more than 3 years ago | (#36317730)

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:Limited number of simultaneous connections? (2)

lennier1 (264730) | more than 3 years ago | (#36317936)

but can only stream to one IP at any one time

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:Limited number of simultaneous connections? (1)

onion2k (203094) | more than 3 years ago | (#36317736)

This isn't about simultaneous connections. This is about people sharing the account _regardless_ of whether someone else is actively using it.

Re:Limited number of simultaneous connections? (0)

Neil_Brown (1568845) | more than 3 years ago | (#36317756)

This isn't about simultaneous connections. This is about people sharing the account _regardless_ of whether someone else is actively using it.

My response to a comment above [slashdot.org] might be well-placed here, too:

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:Limited number of simultaneous connections? (1)

Kamiza Ikioi (893310) | more than 3 years ago | (#36317938)

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:Limited number of simultaneous connections? (1)

next_ghost (1868792) | more than 3 years ago | (#36317948)

Or even better, set a limit how many videos a month are included in the subscription fee and charge money for anything over the limit. If you give your password to a lot of people then, well, you pay for them using your account.

Re:Limited number of simultaneous connections? (1)

BobGregg (89162) | more than 3 years ago | (#36317982)

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...

Just don't buy? (1, Funny)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 3 years ago | (#36317526)

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!

Really? (5, Insightful)

next_ghost (1868792) | more than 3 years ago | (#36317532)

I'm seriously wondering whether the goal of recording industry is to make money, or if they just want to see how much they can piss their paying customers off.

Re:Really! Parasites! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36317694)

Actually, the goal of anyone who goes past a certain point in how messed up they are, becomes to control others. The more out of control they get, the more obsessed they become getting hooks into and controlling anyone who could do something about it.

The RIAA behaves exactly like any other parasite, period, which includes most politicians and ~100% of lawyers. Their motives are not mysterious.

If WE THE PEOPLE are in control of our destiny (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36317534)

why is it that we don't have laws that say YOU CAN SHARE YOUR PASSWORD and YOU CAN DOWLOAD WHATEVER MAKES YOU HAPPY? who is running this show anyway?

Re:If WE THE PEOPLE are in control of our destiny (1)

PhilHibbs (4537) | more than 3 years ago | (#36317762)

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. Or, more accurately: because, if the case were put to people in detail, they would realise that it is a worthwhile trade-off. Are your rights really infringed because you can't share your contractual relationship with someone else?

Re:If WE THE PEOPLE are in control of our destiny (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36317854)

For reasons already mentioned (it being impossible to use an account in two places at once, namely) this is a pointless law added to ensure that every man is guilty of something. End of line.

Re:If WE THE PEOPLE are in control of our destiny (2)

Dog-Cow (21281) | more than 3 years ago | (#36317986)

I share my account with others in my family, and we can watch multiple streams simultaneously.

Re:If WE THE PEOPLE are in control of our destiny (1)

BobGregg (89162) | more than 3 years ago | (#36318004)

>> 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.

Dang Democrats! (1)

Oh Gawwd Peak Oil (1000227) | more than 3 years ago | (#36317552)

Darn those Democrat politicians, in the RIAA/MPAA's pocket, like the sponsor of this bill, Rep. Gerald McCormick, and the Governor who will sign it, Bill Haslam! Thank God the Republicans will come to the rescue!

Oh, wait . . .

SONY DUMBASS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36317554)

Since SONY is a big part of the RIAA ....SONY you continue to be a DUMBASS!!!
http://www.riaa.com/aboutus.php?content_selector=who_we_are_board

"My" Password? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36317556)

So then what makes it my password? I am confus -insert lolcat image-

Re:"My" Password? (1)

PhilHibbs (4537) | more than 3 years ago | (#36317778)

"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:"My" Password? (1)

richie2000 (159732) | more than 3 years ago | (#36317876)

The MPAA and RIAA would beg to differ. they apparently own both laws and congressmen.

What? Licenses and TOS agreements not enough? (5, Interesting)

erroneus (253617) | more than 3 years ago | (#36317564)

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.

Hey, this might work! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36317574)

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:Hey, this might work! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36317874)

I think they have something like this in Dubai in regards to who can drive your car (you and nobody else but you).

Re:Hey, this might work! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36317932)

That is illegal in the UK.

Re:Hey, this might work! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36318030)

Er... no. There may be some insurance implications depending on the cover you have but there's nothing preventing you from loaning a vehicle to a properly licensed and insured driver.

Forever alone... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36317578)

If you come to my house and I want to watch Netflix, I'm kicking you out. Better safe than sorry.

Re:Forever alone... (2)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 3 years ago | (#36317702)

In Capitalist West Netflix watches with you.

And we need more of this too! (5, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | more than 3 years ago | (#36317606)

Damn... posting twice... oh well... new comment.

Republican Gov. Bill Haslam told reporters earlier this week that he wasn't familiar with the details of the legislation, but given the large recording industry presence in Nashville, he favors "anything we can do to cut back" on music piracy.

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:And we need more of this too! (1)

king neckbeard (1801738) | more than 3 years ago | (#36317846)

It seems to cover Rhapsody as well, as well as the 2 people in Tennessee that use Zune Pass. He doesn't see, however, that this makes legal services that compete with illegal alternatives less competitive.

Re:And we need more of this too! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36317902)

Actually, almost everyone in Tennessee uses Zune Pass, but only 2 people pay for it.

Re:And we need more of this too! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36317962)

Republican Gov. Bill Haslam told reporters earlier this week that he wasn't familiar with the details of the legislation,

OMG...you sign something you didn't even bother reading??????

This man should be FIRED!
His one purpose is to read and sign legislation and he can't even do THAT right.
Then he admits to effectively being a corporate lackey: "but given the large recording industry presence in Nashville, he favors "anything we can do to cut back" on music piracy."

Where are all the cries of immoral and/or illegal behavior by the Conservatives now!?!?!?!

Crime (1)

Issarlk (1429361) | more than 3 years ago | (#36317614)

A crime, really? I'm sure the content industry has wet dreams about pushing this to capital punishment eventually.

Profit or loss? (1)

SharpFang (651121) | more than 3 years ago | (#36317622)

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:Profit or loss? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36317896)

Do you know what Netflix is? What are you babbling about mp3's?

Re:Profit or loss? (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#36317970)

purchase a separate song for their own netflix account.

You don't know what Netflix is, do you?

Nice job, OP (2)

mike260 (224212) | more than 3 years ago | (#36317648)

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.

Great job letting bogus assertions sneak into the summary masquerading as fact.

Re:Nice job, OP (1, Redundant)

UBfusion (1303959) | more than 3 years ago | (#36317758)

+1. Just one more word would make the summary quite acceptable: "to stop the alleged loss of billions"...

The right to read (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36317654)

When i read this the short story Right to Read came to mind. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html

Was it legal? (1)

Timmmm (636430) | more than 3 years ago | (#36317670)

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:Was it legal? (1)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 3 years ago | (#36317890)

This means that the lawyer does not have to try and get you to civil court, have you fail to show up, have to go back to court, get a court order, find you, get you back to court ... face your family lawyer, fine you, face your cheaper lawyer... repeat a few times then finally you are in the prison industrial complex.
Now its your ip, instant no knock digital warrant, SWAT, 5 min plea bargain/risk of court sign off and prison industrial complex.

I guess I'll stay in texas. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36317682)

This is trash. I was going to move to Tenn. But now NO WAY. I will not renew with Netf_ks.

I can see it now. System hacked. Russian uses Netflix; I go to jail. Do not pass go, Do not collect $200!

To bad many things I liked in Tenn.

Re:I guess I'll stay in texas. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36317888)

Planned on marrying your cousin, or something? You can buy whiskey out of the state, and pray for a twister to toss the whole lot of the hicks into the ocean.

how is this any different (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36317686)

how is this any different from reading your email at a friend's place? surely that's copyright material too, or are words less valuable than, say, a movie?
what if I don't "share" the password but simply type it in when I'm at a friend's place, does that count?
with all things "online" this is becoming ridiculous, let's welcome UltraViolet (or something similar)

Obligatory (1)

Gideon Wells (1412675) | more than 3 years ago | (#36317692)

I never thought I'd feel the need to link to this.... today Netflix, tomorrow everything?

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html [gnu.org]

Re:Obligatory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36317868)

Let me be the first to protect the following:

The End Is Nigh!©®

Buggy whip makers lobby limits max drivers per car (1)

Required Snark (1702878) | more than 3 years ago | (#36317744)

When your business model becomes obsolete you can try to keep going by changing the law. This has two consequences: it doesn't work and it eliminates competition. Both will eventually destroy the market.

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 legislation. In the long run it blurs the distinction between legitimate business and a protection racket.

Please don't call it capitalism, because it's not. This mislabeling adds insult to injury. It insults our intelligence.

Nexfix pass word (1)

ciderbrew (1860166) | more than 3 years ago | (#36317746)

If I had Nexfix I would change the password to "admin".
if it wasn't that already.

Re:Nexfix pass word (2)

Noughmad (1044096) | more than 3 years ago | (#36318032)

admin? Everyone knows the password is 1234.

In other news .. (4, Funny)

roguegramma (982660) | more than 3 years ago | (#36317766)

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... (3, Informative)

kantos (1314519) | more than 3 years ago | (#36317864)

... but many places do have laws like that (Boulder, CO has a limit of four unrelated people under one roof), mind you they are intended to prevent people from running brothels... but still

Does it also apply to your yearly party? (1)

roguegramma (982660) | more than 3 years ago | (#36317898)

I wonder, does the Boulder, CO law also apply to your yearly house party, or only to residents per house?

Re:In other news .. (1)

king neckbeard (1801738) | more than 3 years ago | (#36317934)

Many leases have terms that prohibit subleases, but landlords generally have responsibilities to tenants, more tenants mean a greater risk of damage, and in extremes, there may be concerns over fire safety regulations. But hey, netflix account sharing means more clogging of the tubes, so it's pretty much even.

who pays ... (1)

bball99 (232214) | more than 3 years ago | (#36317770)

for Netflix anyway?

Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36317782)

WTF? This is something that Netflix and other players could easily prevent from happening. Why do we need a law? This really rubs me the wrong way.

Great! Now what's next? (1)

UBfusion (1303959) | more than 3 years ago | (#36317784)

Lending my pal a fiver becoming a criminal offense? Buying and handing him a beer? Lending him my car to make a business trip?

Regarding the latter, lending our cars to family and friends would surely cause a loss of billions of dollars to the automobile industry.

Re:Great! Now what's next? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36317974)

In Australia there is actually a law along the lines of "you can't lend your car to family or friends" under certain circumstances. There was a big news story about it only around a year ago.

Let's just keep it simple (1)

WWWWolf (2428) | more than 3 years ago | (#36317792)

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.

But if an employer wants your Facebook username and password, that's completely acceptable - after all, they just need to make sure you're not talking behind their backs!

*sigh* Remember the time when things were much simpler? The service provider said "don't give your password to anyone", and you said "of course not, duh." And that worked. It still works.

RFID chips implanted in the ass (1)

value (2182292) | more than 3 years ago | (#36317802)

How are they going to enforce this? It's not really possible to check who typed in the password, from across the net...

Re:RFID chips implanted in the ass (2)

slackbheep (1420367) | more than 3 years ago | (#36317940)

"So let me get this straight Mr. Johnson, you finished up watching Inception in your home in Long Island, then six minutes later began watching it in Texas?"
Outside of obvious examples like these I doubt much will come of this.

Re:RFID chips implanted in the ass (1)

lennier1 (264730) | more than 3 years ago | (#36317958)

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.

My fellow Tennesseans... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36317828)

My fellow Tennesseans...whining about wanting smaller government and electing people who will cost the poor less money, electing the exact opposite. How is your conservative loon government now?

A crime? (1)

vikisonline (1917814) | more than 3 years ago | (#36317878)

So on a playstation to hand the controller to a friend, so that he can choose something from netflix would be illegal? Nice! Whoever came up with this probably got a raise, but I don't see them being able to enforce this.

The cause is fear and.. (1)

Stu101 (1031686) | more than 3 years ago | (#36318010)

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 people - Gone abroad. IT Jobs = Cheaper in India. Local workers? almost slave wages in Wallyworld or Starbucks. Exports of any physical goods is nowhere near what it used to be. Just about everything manufactured comes from China.

Now all shops sell crap mostly made abroad, competing in a race to the bottom to try and squeeze the ever reducing money in pocket from shoppers. Those same shoppers that used to have a job, and pay taxes, but since their job was shipped abroad as it was $8,000 a year cheaper.

If they loose this revenue stream, its over. They have to protect this last thing they have that other people and countries will buy. There is nothing left to make in the US. It still makes it good taxable income for the government. All the "dirty" stuff that makes things got shipped abroad by short sighted fat cats. There is also have defense spending, but same thing applies.

It is in effect the last roll of the dice for the US economy and they are hoping to god these "untouchables" will save them. This should explain why the media fat cats are so terrified of losing the "rights" war. The subscription model is only the beginning.....

In another 20 years I suspect the US (and UK, and Europe) will be entering into what we now class as third world levels of poverty and suchlike. Asia and what we now class as the emerging market will have swapped places with us.

WAKE UP, AMERICANS!!! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36318014)

Stop voting Republican/Democrat already!! Can't you people see what you're doing to your country???

another 1st term Republican governor (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36318024)

Tennessee resident here!

Bill Haslam is another 1st term Republican governor running amok. We are not getting as much press as Wisconsin, most likely because no large continuous crowds have occupied the state house, but it's the same pro-big business, anti-union agenda being pushed in many other states. Bill Haslam is a new generation of old money, with his family owning Pilot Oil, an extremely successful regional gas station and quick market chain, among others.

Some precious new policies include:
  * banning teacher union collective bargaining
  * tort reform (read as: placing a price cap on human suffering)
  * raising salaries for his cabinet
  * pushing charter schools, and publicly-funded privately-owned (for-profit) schools

Some of his reforms, like teacher tenure reform, look positive at first glance, but it remains to be seen what the effects of his policies actually are.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?