Video & Multimedia
Related: About this forumuhnope
(6,419 posts)rjsquirrel
(4,762 posts)That country is also the largest source of criminal network intrusion.
Password "sharing" sounds innocuous. "Theft of services" is, however, an existing criminal tort.
Triana
(22,666 posts)Many people need to share passwords with family. Lastpass (a well-known password manager, a utility everyone should be using these days) facilitates the sharing of family passwords. https://helpdesk.lastpass.com/sharing-4-0/shared-family-folders/
Shared bank accounts is one instance where this would be necessary. Netflix can utilize family accounts for its function.
Criminalizing this is ridiculous. Many of these laws - even those passed in the 1980s - have not changed since written, yet technology has sped forward so the laws often no longer fit today's lifestyles, making enforcement ridiculous.
rjsquirrel
(4,762 posts)This is not about a password you own, but a service you have contracted to which a password is a key.
If you rent a car and loan the key to someone not on the rental agreement, you incur all the liability entailed.
Pretending this is somehow against "sharing" rather than theft is disingenuous. Most digital content providers offer a per household or family plan anyway.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)"incorrect," because every time I forget it, I get reminded that it is incorrect!
rjsquirrel
(4,762 posts)just in case you're serious.
Never ever use a common word found in a dictionary -- certainly not without randomized elements added-- and never use the same exact password across multiple sites or accounts.
Use two factor authentication in all possible contexts. Use a password manager and change your passwords every few months at least.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)I was joking.
I have been doing IT work for 27 years. I know what a good password is. Two step authentication is a pain.
Here's a good way to come up with a password, complements of XKCD:https://xkcd.com/936/
stonecutter357
(12,682 posts)AntiBank
(1,339 posts)rjsquirrel
(4,762 posts)for commercial digital services? Which means you can't be using them legally if you are.
Celebrating "piracy" as resistance rather than admitting it mostly describes the money-motivated theft of legally owned intellectual property and the violation of legally contracted user agreements is very 2004 dorm room activist. Many workers make their livings providing these services, not just artists or record companies or movie studios or large companies. I'm one of them.
If you don't like it the Internet is awash in legitimate free content or you are free to make your own movies and music or journalism naturally. But if you sign a user agreement and don't abide by its terms that's on you to bear the consequences.
"Sharing" and "piracy" are romantic terms for theft.
If you don't believe in intellectual property or charging for services you can create your own content and give it away, write your own software, or work to change a global system of laws and agreements. If you see stealing content as civil disobedience then you should be prepared to bear the economic consequences.
Most people I've ever met who claim to be motivated by a political objection to intellectual property rights are actually just too cheap to pay for shit they consume. Rarely are they too poor, which is a whole other kettle of fish.
There's a lot wrong with IP law and copyright enforcement practices and the like, but that doesn't mean they serve no purpose.
AntiBank
(1,339 posts)i actually do not share pw's btw
rjsquirrel
(4,762 posts)but that's a nice turn of phrase.
Copyright directly accounts for trillions of dollars annually flowing through the global economy. It funds scientific and creative work in irreplaceable ways. It benefits so many diverse groups that many (such as, famously, musicians, record companies, and streaming service providers) are at each other's throats over how to calculate and divide the revenues it produces. Some cartel you've got there when mega-corporations are fighting each other over every aspect of the law and its enforcement.
So calling "copyright" as such as "cartel" is vast oversimplification. Sounds good, doesn't suggest any real world thought has gone into the matter.
I have a lot of problems with the way intellectual property law works too. I make a part of my living off patents and copyrights, however. When you steal my ideas you steal from me, not just my publishers or licensees. I'd love some free access to your work product of your own labor too (especially if you're a beer maker!).
As I said, if you view IP piracy as political protest you're welcome to do so, and there are situations where I could see some argument for it (primarily poverty, which you disclaim). I am a big supporter of open access and open source solutions (which do not do away with copyright, they strengthen it).
But if you choose to protest by breaking the law, intellectual consistency demands you accept the consequences as the legitimate exercise of power of the state enforcing duly enacted laws.
ETA that as I last understood, Icelandic and Nordic Pirate Parties disclaimed any associations with copyright violation as such).