Sharing isn't caring, its now illegal to share your netflix account in TN - Polidicks

[release][b][h2]Tennessee passes Web entertainment Theft Bill[/h2][/b] NASHVILLE, Tenn. – State lawmakers in country music's capital 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. The legislation was aimed at hackers and thieves who sell passwords in bulk, but its sponsors acknowledge it could be employed against people who use a friend's or relative's subscription. While those who share their subscriptions with a spouse or other family members under the same roof almost certainly have nothing to fear, blatant offenders — say, college students who give their logins to everyone on their dormitory floor — could get in trouble. "What becomes not legal is if you send your user name and password to all your friends so they can get free subscriptions," said the bill's House sponsor, Rep. Gerald McCormick. Under the measure, download services that believe they are getting ripped off can go to law enforcement authorities and press charges. The bill expands an existing law used to prosecute people who steal cable television or leave restaurants without paying for their meals. It adds "entertainment subscription service" to the list of services protected by the law. Tennessee would become the first state to update its theft-of-cable laws for the 21st century and address the new trend toward Internet delivery of entertainment, according to the Recording Industry Association of America. "I think it's stupid," college student Josh Merbitz said of the law. The 20-year-old music education major at Middle Tennessee State University said he watches Netflix movies online using the password of his friend's father, with the father's permission. Stealing $500 or less of entertainment would be a misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in jail and a fine of $2,500. Theft with a higher price tag would be a felony, with heavier penalties. 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. The recording industry, a major taxpayer in Tennessee, loses money when users share accounts for music services instead of paying separately. Mitch Glazier, executive vice president of public policy for the RIAA, said the bill is a necessary protective measure as digital technology evolves. The music industry has seen its domestic revenue plunge by more than half in 10 years, from $15 billion to $7 billion, he said. Bill Ramsey, a Nashville lawyer who practices both entertainment law and criminal defense, said that he doubts the law would be used to ban people in the same household from sharing subscriptions, and that small-scale violations involving a few people would, in any case, be difficult to detect. But "when you start going north of 10 people, a prosecutor might look and say, `Hey, you knew it was stealing,'" Ramsey said. Music industry officials said they usually catch people who steal and resell logins in large quantities because they advertise. Among the measure's critics is public defender David Doyle, who said the wording is too vague and overly broad. He said an "entertainment subscription" could be interpreted to mean a magazine subscription or a health club membership. Kelly Kruger, an 18-year-old aerospace major at Middle Tennessee State University, said she likes to watch Netflix movies online in her dorm by logging in with her mother's account information. Kruger said she hands out the login information to friends who don't live with her. Even with a law against it, "I think people will keep doing it, like illegal downloading," Kruger said. [quote][url=http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110601/ap_on_hi_te/us_password_sharing_crackdown]Yahoo News[/url][/quote][/release] [quote]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. [/quote] This is the bullshit section of the bill. They're not losing billions, the fuck do they get their statistics? If they were illegally downloading it, they weren't going to buy it in the first place. Your total loss = $0.00 And people will continue to share their online entertainment accounts. I sure hope that makes the recording industry to lose TRILLIONS. Make these lobbying trolls disappear from our law system. They're fucking up everything. [quote=Kruger]Even with a law against it, "I think people will keep doing it, like illegal downloading," Kruger said.[/quote] Isn't that the fucking truth. Why do you pass laws like this anyway? Its extorting money from your citizens.

A law isn't really worth anything if you can't enforce it. It's like having a state law that forbids everyone to blink, it's fucking stupid.

[QUOTE=Glorbo;30199911]A law isn't really worth anything if you can't enforce it. It's like having a state law that forbids everyone to blink, it's fucking stupid.[/QUOTE] The problem is the ease of enforcing this. X.X.X.X logs in once a day. Y.Y.Y.Y starts logging in now. It won't be hard for them to tell if the account is being shared - and due to the greed of such companies in the US, I can imagine they won't be the least bit reluctant to seek legal action against those that do.

[QUOTE=DogGunn;30199988]The problem is the ease of enforcing this. X.X.X.X logs in once a day. Y.Y.Y.Y starts logging in now. It won't be hard for them to tell if the account is being shared - and due to the greed of such companies in the US, I can imagine they won't be the least bit reluctant to seek legal action against those that do.[/QUOTE] It will be so easily challenged it will result in the case in being dropped.

It will be hilarious when they start busting people who get their IP changed, or use a different router v:v:v

[QUOTE=don868;30200015]It will be hilarious when they start busting people who get their IP changed, or use a different router v:v:v[/QUOTE]IP changes happen in the same subnet. This will not trigger the lawsuit.

[QUOTE=DogGunn;30199988]The problem is the ease of enforcing this. X.X.X.X logs in once a day. Y.Y.Y.Y starts logging in now. It won't be hard for them to tell if the account is being shared - and due to the greed of such companies in the US, I can imagine they won't be the least bit reluctant to seek legal action against those that do.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.techspot.com/news/43664-us-judge-an-ip-address-is-not-a-person.html[/url] "US Judge: an IP address is not a person" So yeah, you can't really enforce it.

[QUOTE=johan_sm;30200071]IP changes happen in the same subnet. This will not trigger the lawsuit.[/QUOTE] Even on the IP changing outside the subnet, it will be legal for them to "roam" their accounts. Like go to a friends house, or use someone elses wifi for the service. Which will result in an IP difference. Theres no true method in enforcing this law at all, unless they restrict you to 1 MAC address per account. Which will be rather stupid.

[QUOTE=Glorbo;30200088][url]http://www.techspot.com/news/43664-us-judge-an-ip-address-is-not-a-person.html[/url] "US Judge: an IP address is not a person" So yeah, you can't really enforce it.[/QUOTE] I'm not exactly sure of how the US Court hierarchy works, but I believe that the decision made there is only relevant to the "Central District of Illinois". [editline]3rd June 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Richard Simmons;30200013]It will be so easily challenged it will result in the case in being dropped.[/QUOTE] No doubt, but it's easy to predict their thought pattern. The only thing that goes across the RIAA's mind is: "Let's sue"

Judges and lawmakers really need to realize the predicted loss of profits claimed by the recording industry is pretty much made up bullshit. Producers and the industry as a whole need to grow the fuck up and realize it's not 1992 anymore. Stop trying to run your business like it is.

They should make it illegal to even look at something that's not yours anymore.

So even when recording companies [i]are[/i] getting money, they are still bitching about losing it. Fuck them.

[QUOTE=DogGunn;30200217]I'm not exactly sure of how the US Court hierarchy works, but I believe that the decision made there is only relevant to the "Central District of Illinois". [editline]3rd June 2011[/editline] No doubt, but it's easy to predict their thought pattern. The only thing that goes across the RIAA's mind is: "Let's sue"[/QUOTE] If its an Il supreme court judge, that point can easily invalidate any IP or CP accusations in illinois. If its a US Supreme court judge, it will make that available for everyone in all 50 states. And its the RIAA and MPAA that are copyright trolls. The only thing they actually do is litigation. [editline]2nd June 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Squarebob;30200300]So even when recording companies [i]are[/i] getting money, they are still bitching about losing it. Fuck them.[/QUOTE] They're not losing any... [editline]2nd June 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=markg06;30200284]They should make it illegal to even look at something that's not yours anymore.[/QUOTE] Don't worry.. thats coming up soon

[QUOTE=Richard Simmons;30200302]If its an Il supreme court judge, that point can easily invalidate any IP or CP accusations in illinois. If its a US Supreme court judge, it will make that available for everyone in all 50 states.[/quote] Then it's just for IL. It can of course be used as a sort of persuasive precedent in case that comes before a court in another jurisdiction.

My brain is a storage device. What next? A law that prohibits anyone from remembering songs?

[QUOTE=SwissArmyKnife;30200268]Judges and lawmakers really need to realize the predicted loss of profits claimed by the recording industry is pretty much made up bullshit. Producers and the industry as a whole need to grow the fuck up and realize it's not 1992 anymore. Stop trying to run your business like it is.[/QUOTE] Actually that's a misconception, they still lose massive amounts of money to pirating, but not as much as they say they do (obviously). There are many ways to regain that money easily, but these companies are so stubborn they refuse to change and adapt to the market. It's like that old man who won't leave his home even if there is a tornado heading straight for it.

[QUOTE=Glorbo;30200361]My brain is a storage device. What next? A law that prohibits anyone from remembering songs?[/QUOTE] using your brain to store copyrighted stuff isn't illegal. It is only illegal if you go reproduce it on another medium or format.

[QUOTE=ForgottenKane;30200412]Actually that's a misconception, they still lose massive amounts of money to pirating, but not as much as they say they do (obviously). There are many ways to regain that money easily, but these companies are so stubborn they refuse to change and adapt to the market. It's like that old man who won't leave his home even if there is a tornado heading straight for it.[/QUOTE] That's pretty much what I meant, they inflate their losses and blame it all on piracy to get policies made when in reality the reason their losses are high is because they refuse to adapt.

[QUOTE=Glorbo;30200361]My brain is a storage device. What next? A law that prohibits anyone from remembering songs?[/QUOTE] You can remember the songs, you just cant teach them to anyone else. Sharing is illegal

[QUOTE=koeniginator;30200488]using your brain to store copyrighted stuff isn't illegal. It is only illegal if you go reproduce it on another medium or format.[/QUOTE] But why? If I listen to a song and remember it, it's legal, but if I record it with another device to listen to it at home, it isn't. Why?

[QUOTE=Frisk;30200512]You can remember the songs, you just cant teach them to anyone else.[/QUOTE] BAN SCHOOLS!

[QUOTE=SwissArmyKnife;30200506]That's pretty much what I meant, they inflate their losses and blame it all on piracy to get policies made when in reality the reason their losses are high is because they refuse to adapt.[/QUOTE] Exactly. Most attempts are futile, mainly because they are pitting themselves the largest, fastest communicating, organized body in the world: the Internet. The largest scale organization effort in the world, the only way to win is adapt or die. [editline]2nd June 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Glorbo;30200563]But why? If I listen to a song and remember it, it's legal, but if I record it with another device to listen to it at home, it isn't. Why?[/QUOTE] Maybe because the medium on the device can be transferred, while your brain cant transmit the song to anyone else. This thread is about sharing, not personal crap.

[QUOTE=Glorbo;30200563]But why? If I listen to a song and remember it, it's legal, but if I record it with another device to listen to it at home, it isn't. Why?[/QUOTE] The brain isn't like other storage devices. You don't have the ability to not record it with your brain, it works subconsciously. besides, they can't really check to see if you know the song in your brain. you are in complete control of what you copy with other formats.

How totally bullshit. They might ad well ban giving away and lending DVDs and CDs, and watching or listening to them with other people. If I paid for the god damned service, I'll use it however I god damned want. With stuff like this, they wouldn't be losing any money anyhow. I get DVDs and streamed media for a set amount of money per month, I can view 200 things in that month, and I'd still pay the set amount. What's the difference if half of it goes to my friend? They aren't losing anymore.

so basically, i can no longer have movie nights watching like 6 movies straight on Saturday anymore...?

[QUOTE=garychencool;30201287]so basically, i can no longer have movie nights watching like 6 movies straight on Saturday anymore...?[/QUOTE] Nope. Watching movies with someone who didn't pay for the movie is copyright infringement. You know, people have been swapping movies for decades. And now they're getting all pissy about it now. What a greedy industry.

could we please only allow people who have used the internet before to sign in laws like this? this governor is a senile piece of shit

What the fuck, Tennessee. I guess I'll get busted for using my parent's netflix account, then.

[QUOTE=Sanius;30201402]could we please only allow people who have used the internet before to sign in laws like this? this governor is a senile piece of shit[/QUOTE] I don't think it has to do with him not knowing the internet. Hes just acting on corporate interest.

[QUOTE=johan_sm;30200071]IP changes happen in the same subnet. This will not trigger the lawsuit.[/QUOTE] Wrong, some ISP's have 3-4 subnets.