Cable TV’s Password-Sharing Crackdown Is Coming

Jeremy C said:
I don't think they understand that those that are using shared passwords aren't going to instantly start paying for these services if they get them taken away. I don't share nor take any passwords, but at the same time I am not paying for any television programming with no intentions of that changing. If I can get a decent setup for $25-30 a month, then we'll talk. That is all it's worth to me.
Click to expand...

It's the piracy argument all over again - Company X stating that they've lost YY billions of $ because of piracy - No, no you haven't. The vast majority who obtained a pirate copy would never have bought it in the first place, just as those using a shared password won't sign up and pay for their own account.
 
Charter's CEO admitted their software was so bad that it let a single customer have 30,000 simultaneous streams. I doubt even a Las Vegas sports betting casino has that many screens. They need to fix their own problems first before blaming customers. What did ESPN think was going to happen when they let a single user have 10 streams? Sure, it makes a great ad sound bite(watch 10 events on 10 different devices at the same time!). Most folks are doing good to watch one or two. The other eight became open to gift friends and relatives. A lot of folks won't consider it piracy since they were told they could use 10 streams for one low low price. What does it matter who is using them?
 
Dead Parrot said:
Charter's CEO admitted their software was so bad that it let a single customer have 30,000 simultaneous streams. I doubt even a Las Vegas sports betting casino has that many screens. They need to fix their own problems first before blaming customers. What did ESPN think was going to happen when they let a single user have 10 streams? Sure, it makes a great ad sound bite(watch 10 events on 10 different devices at the same time!). Most folks are doing good to watch one or two. The other eight became open to gift friends and relatives. A lot of folks won't consider it piracy since they were told they could use 10 streams for one low low price. What does it matter who is using them?
Click to expand...


They could make them all required to be on one or two public IP's at the same time.

You could still circumvent it with your own VPN, but most people won't do that...
 
The best example of what to do is how Apple up-ended the music scene with the sale of single tracks. Back in the day you had to buy an entire CD just to get that one song. Now everyone buys the good tracks and skips the crappy tracks as routine.

The cable industry needs to follow the example, ditch bundling, go 'a la carte' and do the same thing. Let people buy the good channels and skip the crap channels.

If you give people a way to get the content at a reasonable price, most will do it - partly out of honesty and mostly out of laziness.
 
It's always so amusing to me that exec logic is so far off base from the real world.
"we're losing subscribers! but let's not address that! let's just go after our subscribers that share passwords!"
"but won't they just quit subscribing if we keep bothering them? we'll be in a worse hole..."
"nope that won't happen! seek and destroy!"
 
dvsman said:
The best example of what to do is how Apple up-ended the music scene with the sale of single tracks. Back in the day you had to buy an entire CD just to get that one song. Now everyone buys the good tracks and skips the crappy tracks as routine.

The cable industry needs to follow the example, ditch bundling, go 'a la carte' and do the same thing. Let people buy the good channels and skip the crap channels.

If you give people a way to get the content at a reasonable price, most will do it - partly out of honesty and mostly out of laziness.
Click to expand...

I completely disagree with this because it sets up a very slippery slope for all industries. For your example, who buys tracks anymore? How long will that model still last? People are jumping to streaming like Pandora/Spotify/Apple Music/etc.

And this why every corporation is pushing you to a a la carte subscription model. They don't want to sell you something once that you can use as much as you like. They want to sell you something for EVERY time you use it. And t's just going to get worse. nickel and diming to the extreme. and when revenue doesn't meet targets, they create artificial scarcity so they can recoup (overage charges, etc) that loss. In this cable example, they may go, "well here, buy HBO channel for 4.99/mo. Oh you want starz too? another 4.99. AMC? another 4.99.." and you're back up at just shoulda bought the 100 channel bundle for $50 to get the 6 you want and the 44 you don't care for. (numbers made up.)
 
It's piracy eh? Lets look at the definitions shall we? We'll ignore everything to do with "the high sea"

a : the unauthorized use of another's production, invention, or conception especially in infringement of a copyright
b : the illicit accessing of broadcast signals
Click to expand...
Doesn't the user/password translate into the authorization to use said production? So it sounds like it is in fact not piracy, but a matter of the company having a very relaxed way of authorizing use.
 
sfsuphysics said:
It's piracy eh? Lets look at the definitions shall we? We'll ignore everything to do with "the high sea"


Doesn't the user/password translate into the authorization to use said production? So it sounds like it is in fact not piracy, but a matter of the company having a very relaxed way of authorizing use.
Click to expand...

No it doesn’t.

I am sure if you looked at their TOS and what was agreed to it probably states household or same residency or members of household etc.

Most likey the technical aspect of sharing is piracy or some form of it.

However they aren’t getting any sympathy from most of us due to their business model and pricing.
 
focbde said:
It's the piracy argument all over again - Company X stating that they've lost YY billions of $ because of piracy - No, no you haven't. The vast majority who obtained a pirate copy would never have bought it in the first place, just as those using a shared password won't sign up and pay for their own account.
Click to expand...

So you're argument is that only a portion of the pirated content is theft of their work, so they should just STFU about it.
 
I would equate piracy as part of the cost of doing business in the current climate. My question is what did the mpaa and riaa do back in the 80s when everyone had copies of vhs movies/audio tapes and were being shared? Where was their bottom line getting hurt then? They lost control of their own mediums and industry from the start.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Gavv
like this
Meh. They just need to start banning accounts. Once enough people are blacklisted by cable providers and can't get cable tv or broadband internet the rest will cut their freeloading friends / family off. Like it or not sharing your login details is against the law, and undoubtedly violates the TOS for said account. I'm all for it, maybe it'll get my in-laws to quit whining about us not giving them access to our netflix or HBO accounts.

Edit to add the important text from the link:
The CFAA imposes criminal penalties on whoever “knowingly and with intent to defraud, accesses a protected computer without authorization, or exceeds authorized access, and by means of such conduct furthers the intended fraud and obtains anything of value . . . ."
Click to expand...
 
if there's a free meal, there are always takers, regardless of whether or not they can afford to buy it or not.
Only when the situation is made undesirable do they skip it.
 
Cut the cord.

The cable companies are laughing at your addiction.
 
GlowingGhoul said:
So you're argument is that only a portion of the pirated content is theft of their work, so they should just STFU about it.
Click to expand...

Your*

And no, that was not my argument in the slightest - how you'd come to that is a bit of a mystery. I was referring to the damages/loss of income figures rolled out by copyright holders as the result of piracy which have no basis in reality. To aid comprehension, I'd recommend you read the comment I was replying to in order to get more context.
 
Dead Parrot said:
Charter's CEO admitted their software was so bad that it let a single customer have 30,000 simultaneous streams. I doubt even a Las Vegas sports betting casino has that many screens. They need to fix their own problems first before blaming customers. What did ESPN think was going to happen when they let a single user have 10 streams? Sure, it makes a great ad sound bite(watch 10 events on 10 different devices at the same time!). Most folks are doing good to watch one or two. The other eight became open to gift friends and relatives. A lot of folks won't consider it piracy since they were told they could use 10 streams for one low low price. What does it matter who is using them?
Click to expand...
If that is accurate and not CEO bullshit, how dumb can you be not have the ability to kill a stream after a few simultaneous?,.. if this 30 k shit is true, it must be those tv boxes and grey area tv services. They should do a few streams allowed and not worry about sharing., So yeah i agree.
 
The amount of excuses people will make up in order to "justify" them breaking the law/rules is mind boggling...
 
If it's any consolation to them, I wouldn't watch their shit even for free at this point.
 
Factum said:
The amount of excuses people will make up in order to "justify" them breaking the law/rules is mind boggling...
Click to expand...

rape, murder, theft, it is all justified sometimes. You just have to bend the rules until you can make what you are doing ok.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top