Hacker News Reader

Comment by 000001010011100 | Hacker News Reader

Except that in the past, Netflix has sent tweets saying things like "Love is sharing a password" [https://twitter.com/netflix/status/840276073040371712] ...

That tweet, in my not-in-any-way-legal-opinion says that Netflix allows password sharing.

As such, it is not a clear cut example of unauthorised access.

View on HN

That’s not really how it works. Netflix might say that on Twitter and in the license agreed to say something else. Then they can both sue each other and both get fined. The law can be quite cold hearted and it doesn’t have to be a winner and a loser nor does it have to make sense.

Well it is actually, this tweet is advertising. Netflix is asserting that this is OK, saying the opposite somewhere else (EULA) means that this would be false advertising. Which IIRC would most likely get them in trouble with the FTC, and other bodies around the world who are there to protect consumers...

Yeah, that's my point. If the user signs the EULA the customer is on hook for it, but on the other hand, Netflix is on hook for false advertisement. They can both sue each other and win.

If Netflix changes their mind and adds a banner on the login page telling you otherwise, it suddenly becomes unauthorised access.

Great, but if it is my account and I grant them access to use it, it is not unauthorised access.. I authorised it, it is my account.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com