Netflix crushed the Latin American password black market(restofworld.org)
restofworld.org
Netflix crushed the Latin American password black market
https://restofworld.org/2023/netflix-latin-america-password-sharing-crackdown-worked/
30 comments
The article doesn't mention hours watched but does mention subscribers, which is the income metric the market is most interested in: "Netflix reported 1.2 million additional subscriptions in Latin America during the second quarter of this year, reversing the loss in the previous quarter and marking its best second quarter in the region since 2020."
So appears that people rage quitting were outnumbered by those who got their own legitimate accounts.
So appears that people rage quitting were outnumbered by those who got their own legitimate accounts.
You have to also consider that they may have gone from a higher rate plan to two cheaper plans
One of the reasons I upgraded back in the day was for more streams so I could share it with my sister. Now she has her own account instead.
One of the reasons I upgraded back in the day was for more streams so I could share it with my sister. Now she has her own account instead.
The purpose of a corporation is not “world utility optimisation” and decreasing the number of Netflix hours watched is good, actually.
You have accepted hook line & sinker the Chicago school's redefinition of the purpose of the corporation whole, as if it is the only truth.
Before 47 years ago - before this marketing reinvention was introduced & subsequently took over - there was a more pro-social belief in what the corporate body was for. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/maximizing-s...
Before 47 years ago - before this marketing reinvention was introduced & subsequently took over - there was a more pro-social belief in what the corporate body was for. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/maximizing-s...
That kind of is the purpose of corporations. They're given special fictional person status because they're thought to be a net benefit for society. If they weren't, it wouldn't make sense to give them these privileges. The duty to maximize profit thing was made up in the '80s and is mostly not true except in cases of fraud or gross negligence.
Agree about watching less Netflix, though.
Agree about watching less Netflix, though.
What we've been missing is the political will to revoke that status for companies who neglect their obligation to society. Today even those who are a net drain get a pass so long as a very small number of people are making money. Let's see the corporate death penalty get more use and people will start to remember that corporate personhood is a privilege, not a right.
> They're given special fictional person status because they're thought to be a net benefit for society.
Where did you possibly get this theory from? They were given personhood as a way of eliminating risk to shareholders so the cost of capital would come down and encourage business formation and capital efficiency. And the justification was “if they aren’t separate people with liability limited to share capital investment then mere investors not connected to the operations could be found liable to an unlimited extent, which is totally unjust”
Where did you possibly get this theory from? They were given personhood as a way of eliminating risk to shareholders so the cost of capital would come down and encourage business formation and capital efficiency. And the justification was “if they aren’t separate people with liability limited to share capital investment then mere investors not connected to the operations could be found liable to an unlimited extent, which is totally unjust”
The guy you replied to is literally just reciting the actual historical circumstances that lewd to governments permitting arbitrary corporations, a relatively recent development in the west over the last 400 years. Read up some history. Originally only the government could form a corporation by a special act of the king or later parliament or congress, as it was seen as such a powerful and special thing that couldn't just be handed out willy nilly.
What you are reciting is merely modern ideology that supports the status quo.
Forcing investors to take on liability is neither just not unjust, merely different ways of running societies, equally valid depending on your goals. After all nobody makes you invest, and in a society where you might be liable for your investment's actions you would be much more scrutinizing about your management's character before agreeing to involve yourself. Ventures would tend to be more personal and require more trust. That's the world we used to live in and that was just as valid and just.
Read history.
What you are reciting is merely modern ideology that supports the status quo.
Forcing investors to take on liability is neither just not unjust, merely different ways of running societies, equally valid depending on your goals. After all nobody makes you invest, and in a society where you might be liable for your investment's actions you would be much more scrutinizing about your management's character before agreeing to involve yourself. Ventures would tend to be more personal and require more trust. That's the world we used to live in and that was just as valid and just.
Read history.
As a trained (but not practicing) lawyer who focused my education on corporate and tax law, I have read history from the source either directly or indirectly in nearly every course I took.
I have not, in any of my education, come across the notion that (as OP was responding to) corporations were allowed due to a belief they would increase the net utility of society (or specifically in this case, that decreased Netflix hours watched would be a net utility objective that would’ve been in the realm of things a corporation was initially intended to be formed for).
The reasons for corporations to spread beyond royal charter to arbitrary creation by the general public had to do with lawsuit administration and limiting liability. Prior to corporations, partnerships were the primary form of organizing and when they were sued each partner had to be included separately which was cumbersome and many partners had nothing to do with the operations or activities that gave rise to the liability.
The legislation which codified the above is credited with a massive increase in company formation and capital allocation in the 1800s. The presumption being that things that were once deemed too risky when there was unlimited liability were no longer as risky.
None of what I’ve written here is “modern ideology” unless by modern you refer to the 1800s.
I have not, in any of my education, come across the notion that (as OP was responding to) corporations were allowed due to a belief they would increase the net utility of society (or specifically in this case, that decreased Netflix hours watched would be a net utility objective that would’ve been in the realm of things a corporation was initially intended to be formed for).
The reasons for corporations to spread beyond royal charter to arbitrary creation by the general public had to do with lawsuit administration and limiting liability. Prior to corporations, partnerships were the primary form of organizing and when they were sued each partner had to be included separately which was cumbersome and many partners had nothing to do with the operations or activities that gave rise to the liability.
The legislation which codified the above is credited with a massive increase in company formation and capital allocation in the 1800s. The presumption being that things that were once deemed too risky when there was unlimited liability were no longer as risky.
None of what I’ve written here is “modern ideology” unless by modern you refer to the 1800s.
OK, then why was it that for so long a new joint stock company's creation required a charter from the monarch or parliament, etc, and not just anybody could get it (as today)? It was obviously seen as a valuable and scarce privilege, not a right.
Choosing to bestow that privilege to anyone for any purpose they wish is a conscious tradeoff that our society makes, nothing natural about it. The upside as you keep mentioning is it's convenient to run the enterprise this way, allowing it to reach a larger scale. The downside to society is the risk that this greater power enables the creation of organizations that rival the state in power -- which is probably why originally, charters specified a limited purpose for the company.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint-stock_company
Choosing to bestow that privilege to anyone for any purpose they wish is a conscious tradeoff that our society makes, nothing natural about it. The upside as you keep mentioning is it's convenient to run the enterprise this way, allowing it to reach a larger scale. The downside to society is the risk that this greater power enables the creation of organizations that rival the state in power -- which is probably why originally, charters specified a limited purpose for the company.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint-stock_company
It appears to be an actual black market:
> The crackdown also correlates with a marked decline in black market sales of Netflix accounts, which either belong to the seller or are created using stolen credit cards.
> The crackdown also correlates with a marked decline in black market sales of Netflix accounts, which either belong to the seller or are created using stolen credit cards.
I can understand Netflix. If you want regional pricing this is what it takes.
I don't care either way I'm living in one of the richest countries in the world but consumers in Argentina or Bolivia can't pay €15 per month.
I don't care either way I'm living in one of the richest countries in the world but consumers in Argentina or Bolivia can't pay €15 per month.
It's people reselling their accounts, there's no "selflessness" involved the way you see it.
Don't they have torrents in Latin America?
When you can search Yandex with "watch (any movie/show here)" and get pages of results, you don't even need torrents anymore.
There's this site with really great ux (no sign up required, little to no ads, it keeps track of your watched list, etc) the hassle for torrents might not even be needed
I know this site. Can't believe they are still operational and have pretty much everything under the sun.
Strictly for academic purposes, what's the site called? If you don't mind. Thanks.
Could you share the site for… research? Or what it rhymes with?
[deleted]
Netflix would like you to believe that torrents no longer exist.
I would argue for many people they no longer did, until the the movie and television markets began to fracture once again. Now that folks have to think about where to go to watch something, they're being resurrected once again for them.
For a long time I’ve subscribed to a bunch of streaming services and used Popcorn Time as a front end for watching torrents out of convenience. I have a friend who until a few years ago would torrent at the same time as buying the DVD on Amazon. He had a library of shrink wrapped DVDs.
Piracy is just more convenient. Streaming was beating that in the early days, now it no longer is again. They ruined it.
I can only hope that music doesn’t go the same way as video has. Right now for most listeners, any of the major streaming services have anything they’d want. Imagine needing two or more music libraries.
Piracy is just more convenient. Streaming was beating that in the early days, now it no longer is again. They ruined it.
I can only hope that music doesn’t go the same way as video has. Right now for most listeners, any of the major streaming services have anything they’d want. Imagine needing two or more music libraries.
Video streaming services need to take Gabe Newell's words to heart. Steam still heavily beats pirating games, and so I pay up for games, and I feel that my money is spent well. Though, my only complaint is that I don't actually own those games. If Steam's services disappear, my games do too. I guess that's a price I'm willing to pay, since I literally do.
Movies and TV shows though? People paid for streaming services because, like you said, it was so convenient. Now every company needs their own streaming service, and every good show is on a platform you don't subscribe to yet. I just stick with pirating these days, and I feel no shame in it. Fix your business model, or I'll still use it for free. Simple as.
Movies and TV shows though? People paid for streaming services because, like you said, it was so convenient. Now every company needs their own streaming service, and every good show is on a platform you don't subscribe to yet. I just stick with pirating these days, and I feel no shame in it. Fix your business model, or I'll still use it for free. Simple as.
> Video streaming services need to take Gabe Newell's words to heart. Steam still heavily beats pirating games, and so I pay up for games
Absolutely. I do think there are subtle differences and bits of strategy that are often overlooked here though.
First off, the risk of using pirated games is significantly higher than that of pirated music/films/tv. You can't put malware in a video/audio file (modulo codec bugs), but it's fairly trivial with a game binary.
Secondly though, Steam has sales, regularly. The amount I care about content exists on a spectrum. I'll pay $30 to see the new Dune film in an IMAX cinema, but the 87th episode of House MD is probably not worth $1 to me. TV/Movie companies never seemed to understand this, with things like buying on iTunes, and it was left to retailers to sometimes price down DVDs, but even then there were restrictions (e.g. Disney). Streaming sort of solved this, but is now un-solving it with so many streaming services having their own pricing setup based on their perceived value of their content.
Steam nicely side-steps this with a range of sale prices – I can buy stuff I care about soon/predictably at high price, or I can buy stuff I don't care about later/unpredictably at a low price. And I do buy across a range of price points based on how much I care about the content.
Edit: another aspect that is maybe under-valued is that Steam doesn't seem to do regional releases. I've never experienced a game not being available in a region. However with TV/movies/streaming this is regularly the case. It's so common for a hit TV series to come out in the US, for the online discourse to be in full swing, and for the studio to just have plans to maybe possibly launch it in select other countries in a year's time. How did they think most people in the world were watching Game of Thrones?
Absolutely. I do think there are subtle differences and bits of strategy that are often overlooked here though.
First off, the risk of using pirated games is significantly higher than that of pirated music/films/tv. You can't put malware in a video/audio file (modulo codec bugs), but it's fairly trivial with a game binary.
Secondly though, Steam has sales, regularly. The amount I care about content exists on a spectrum. I'll pay $30 to see the new Dune film in an IMAX cinema, but the 87th episode of House MD is probably not worth $1 to me. TV/Movie companies never seemed to understand this, with things like buying on iTunes, and it was left to retailers to sometimes price down DVDs, but even then there were restrictions (e.g. Disney). Streaming sort of solved this, but is now un-solving it with so many streaming services having their own pricing setup based on their perceived value of their content.
Steam nicely side-steps this with a range of sale prices – I can buy stuff I care about soon/predictably at high price, or I can buy stuff I don't care about later/unpredictably at a low price. And I do buy across a range of price points based on how much I care about the content.
Edit: another aspect that is maybe under-valued is that Steam doesn't seem to do regional releases. I've never experienced a game not being available in a region. However with TV/movies/streaming this is regularly the case. It's so common for a hit TV series to come out in the US, for the online discourse to be in full swing, and for the studio to just have plans to maybe possibly launch it in select other countries in a year's time. How did they think most people in the world were watching Game of Thrones?
True on all points.
[deleted]
How come Latin Americans are coming back to Netflix, when the rest of the world is not?
Maybe the article is not giving us the full picture?
Maybe the article is not giving us the full picture?
I'd bet total hours watched is waaay down, for eking out an additional 1% or so. Good job guys, you decreased total utility to the world for a few extra cents.