Disney+ is now enforcing "Household" usage, effectively banning sharing in new User Agreement

Forums › Online streaming services › Disney+ is now enforcing "Household" usage, effectively banning sharing in new User Agreement

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

11927 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9683

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3184516 20-Jan-2024 17:29

So what?

Microsoft is the only supplier of Windows. Google is the only supplier of Android. Apple is the only supplier of iOS.

None of them are monopolies, they are all the owners of the ip and can choose what channels they sell through.

rb99

3505 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1830

Lifetime subscriber

#3184520 20-Jan-2024 17:38

And I think they have all had / have anti-trust cases against them.

They may or may not be monopolies, doesn't mean they have to act like monopolies.

“The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.” -John Kenneth Galbraith

rb99

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3184527 20-Jan-2024 18:28

rb99:

I'm amazed by the entitlement some companies have to entice people in then change the T&Cs to enhance their own, always their own, benefits.

Im amazed by the entitlement some people have. I manufacture one widget you buy it, sorted. Online services are online widgets, but I sell, you buy doesnt seem to apply? I manufacture one online widget, I sell it to one buyer, sorted. Then 3 others use it. Doesnt work for toilet paper, so why is online any different.? Its JUST a product

Mprezd

119 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 3

#3184532 20-Jan-2024 19:02

BlakJak: My point (comprehension goes both ways) is that noone should be surprised, or disappointed, that they've updated their terms to close a loophole that was clearly not the expected way the service would be consumed. So why complain?

yet you didn't say that at all. you inferred the mere point that people were discussing a change in the ToS made them entitled. And you keep pushing YOUR VIEW that they're closing a loophole that was not how they intended the service to be consumed. Yet Netflix was arguably clearer from the get-go and still had the issue of people not limiting their consumption to their household. So why didn't they understand that? If they'd made it closed form the get-go they likely would have gotten far fewer subscribers because other streaming options didn't limit it

it's pretty clear they're closing the loophole because a: they want more money and b: they saw what happened when Netflix did the same and are banking on getting new subscribers instead of having people leave. If Netflix lost subscribers they probably wouldn't be doing this.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3184533 20-Jan-2024 19:11

rb99:

So Disney owns Star Wars. They could licence it out (and have before), but they don't. They're the only supplier here (I think). They don't bother with blurays here anymore. The only way to watch Star Wars here is Disney+ (I think). These are our terms, take it or leave it. Doesn't that sound like at least acting like a monopoly to you ?

No.

There are MANY products and services that are provided by one company. There is no monopoly on petrol but your view is that Mobil has a monopoly on Mobil petrol?

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3184534 20-Jan-2024 19:15

rb99:

And I think they have all had / have anti-trust cases against them.

They may or may not be monopolies, doesn't mean they have to act like monopolies.

Many companies have had anti trust actions, they are protecting their interests. Nothing more. If the only phones you can buy are Apple, then you have a point.

HP

Shop now for HP laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

BlakJak

1330 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 735

Trusted

#3184535 20-Jan-2024 19:17

Mprezd:

yet you didn't say that at all. you inferred the mere point that people were discussing a change in the ToS made them entitled. And you keep pushing YOUR VIEW that they're closing a loophole that was not how they intended the service to be consumed. Yet Netflix was arguably clearer from the get-go and still had the issue of people not limiting their consumption to their household. So why didn't they understand that? If they'd made it closed form the get-go they likely would have gotten far fewer subscribers because other streaming options didn't limit it

it's pretty clear they're closing the loophole because a: they want more money and b: they saw what happened when Netflix did the same and are banking on getting new subscribers instead of having people leave. If Netflix lost subscribers they probably wouldn't be doing this.

I'll agree with you that if Netflix had lost subscribers they probably wouldn't be doing this.

My expectation (what I personally find reasonable) is that like most of these sorts of services, they expect there to be 'an account per household'. Just because you can create multiple account profiles and make use of the service from several places at once, doesn't mean that you should keep adding profiles for your extended relatives.

Of course they want more money. They're changing their rules and clarifying their T&C and implementing these changes because they can, and I get a little incensed when there's an air of 'It's not fair!' when (subjectively), the change to more rigidly enforce the 'household' limit is entirely fair and reasonable.

I figured the same about Netflix too. What I objected to was the technical methods they used to enforce it, that compromised a household's ability to use the service in slightly less conventional ways (frequent travellers, holiday homes, etc) - they're clearly still a household, but the enforcement was (is?) problematic.

I think the account boundary is fair and reasonable and if it causes them to get an uptick in subscribers / income then it also helps ensure they'll continue to both offer content, and create new content. Up until the point the value-for-money proposition skews too far down the cost end of the scale, they're good.

(Netflix are getting dangerously close to that threshold for me at the moment... we'd probably have ditched it by now if we weren't still watching a few shows on it).

No signature to see here, move along...

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3184536 20-Jan-2024 19:18

Mprezd:

BlakJak: My point (comprehension goes both ways) is that noone should be surprised, or disappointed, that they've updated their terms to close a loophole that was clearly not the expected way the service would be consumed. So why complain?

yet you didn't say that at all. you inferred the mere point that people were discussing a change in the ToS made them entitled. And you keep pushing YOUR VIEW that they're closing a loophole that was not how they intended the service to be consumed. Yet Netflix was arguably clearer from the get-go and still had the issue of people not limiting their consumption to their household. So why didn't they understand that? If they'd made it closed form the get-go they likely would have gotten far fewer subscribers because other streaming options didn't limit it

it's pretty clear they're closing the loophole because a: they want more money and b: they saw what happened when Netflix did the same and are banking on getting new subscribers instead of having people leave. If Netflix lost subscribers they probably wouldn't be doing this.

Marketing wise. many online providers made their services available. When peeps abused that, they tightened up, no issue. If said online company quietly allowed the abuse (to gain product interest) and then they tightened it up, thats just business, nothing more and nothing less.

Handle9

11927 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9683

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3184542 20-Jan-2024 19:52

rb99:
And I think they have all had / have anti-trust cases against them.

They may or may not be monopolies, doesn't mean they have to act like monopolies.

They aren’t acting like monopolies. They are acting like a business working in their own best interests.

rb99

3505 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1830

Lifetime subscriber

#3184545 20-Jan-2024 20:13

tdgeek:

rb99:

I'm amazed by the entitlement some companies have to entice people in then change the T&Cs to enhance their own, always their own, benefits.

I manufacture one widget you buy it, sorted.

After I've bought it, Ts and Cs change so I'm not allowed to lend widget to anyone at all, they have to buy their own instead. Sorted ?

“The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.” -John Kenneth Galbraith

rb99

3505 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1830

Lifetime subscriber

#3184546 20-Jan-2024 20:16

tdgeek:

rb99:

So Disney owns Star Wars. They could licence it out (and have before), but they don't. They're the only supplier here (I think). They don't bother with blurays here anymore. The only way to watch Star Wars here is Disney+ (I think). These are our terms, take it or leave it. Doesn't that sound like at least acting like a monopoly to you ?

No.

There are MANY products and services that are provided by one company. There is no monopoly on petrol but your view is that Mobil has a monopoly on Mobil petrol?

No. But if only Mobil make a particular star spangled banner petrol to and they tell after you've bought it the conditions under which you can use it have changed...

“The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.” -John Kenneth Galbraith

rb99

Mighty Ape

Shop now at Mighty Ape (affiliate link).

rb99

3505 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1830

Lifetime subscriber

#3184547 20-Jan-2024 20:18

tdgeek:

rb99:

And I think they have all had / have anti-trust cases against them.

They may or may not be monopolies, doesn't mean they have to act like monopolies.

Many companies have had anti trust actions, they are protecting their interests. Nothing more. If the only phones you can buy are Apple, then you have a point.

Also, see HP printer inks.

“The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.” -John Kenneth Galbraith

rb99

Handle9

11927 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9683

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3184548 20-Jan-2024 20:21

I don’t get the posturing for the moral high ground in this thread on either side. It’s an entertainment product being sold and it’s not essential for anyone to have it.

Disney want to maximise revenue so have made a change to the TOS. They are entitled to do so and if you don’t like it you should tell them and then cancel the service if it upsets you so much that you don’t see value in it.

If you still see enough value in the service to keep it then Disney have made the right decision for their shareholders. If they lost enough subscribers they’ll reverse it.

Handle9

11927 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9683

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3184549 20-Jan-2024 20:23

rb99:
tdgeek:

No.

There are MANY products and services that are provided by one company. There is no monopoly on petrol but your view is that Mobil has a monopoly on Mobil petrol?

No. But if only Mobil make a particular star spangled banner petrol to and they tell after you've bought it the conditions under which you can use it have changed...

It’s a month by month rental contract. You buy again at the start of each month, you never owned the content, you just had a right to use it that month.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3184550 20-Jan-2024 20:25

rb99:

After I've bought it, Ts and Cs change so I'm not allowed to lend widget to anyone at all, they have to buy their own instead. Sorted ?

With most online content you didnt buy it. Did you buy the Star wars content??? You must be supremely wealthy. You entered into a contract (offer, acceptance and consideration) the T+C's did not say you own it, they said you as in "you" have access to it

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6