THE GREY AREA OF STREAMING: OPERATORS CRACK DOWN ON ACCOUNT SHARING, VIEWERS LOOK FOR ALTERNATIVES

Monthly subscriptions for access to television and VOD services continue to rise in price. What’s more, each one has something to offer, but none has everything. As a result, users rely on discreet, friendly assistance and share access passwords to reduce costs. Or they search for content on ‘alternative’ streaming portals, where programmes are played in embedded windows with dangerous scripts.

Consumers are essentially creating their own virtual service packages. Operators warn that this is a violation of their terms and conditions. Global services are fine-tuning technical measures to cut off freeloaders. Czech operators do not yet see this as a major problem, but they, too, refer to contracts and limited numbers of simultaneous streams.

Users’ wishes have remained the same for a long time: to have as many films, series and sports as possible in one place and at an affordable price. However, what is acceptable to users is difficult for providers to accept, as they bear the costs of development, technology and licensing rights. Moreover, costs are rising with all the “any device, unlimited streams” approaches that users take for granted. In addition, every major player has its own exclusive library of programmes that it does not want to share with its competitors, as this would jeopardise its revenues.
Those who wish to watch a wide range of programmes will inevitably end up with multiple subscriptions. And with that comes the temptation to share access outside the household.
Terms and conditions usually stipulate that sharing passwords with third parties outside the household is not permitted, even if the operator tolerates temporary viewing while travelling. Platforms also argue that there are security risks. Sharing a password can compromise the entire account, as whoever has the password can change settings, payment information and so on.

Netflix has started charging for sharing outside the household and allows one additional person to be added for CZK 99 per month. Disney+ has introduced a similar “Extra Member” add-on for CZK 139. HBO Max is testing the “Extra Member” concept in the US. They are thus trying to convert informal user practices into regular revenue, but even this measure has its limits. In most cases, it is not possible to add more than one or two additional users, and they cannot create multiple user profiles.
Czech operators all agree that sharing outside the household is not permitted, but their approach to enforcing the rules varies significantly. The largest domestic player, TV Nova, points out that a higher number of simultaneous streams is reserved for family viewing on the Oneplay service. “Even the name suggests that sharing is intended for family members,” said Barbora Dlabáčková, Head of Communication.

T-Mobile emphasises the binding nature of its terms and conditions.

“The customer is obliged to ensure that access to the service is not shared with persons outside the household or family members,”

explains Johana Valtrová from the press department. Telly has a similar interpretation. The operator’s CMO, Jan Schöppel, states that sharing access outside the family is a clear violation of the terms and conditions.

Vodafone describes the situation differently, admitting that informal sharing occurs quite often in practice. “We notify our customers in such cases, but we do not technically block them at this time,” says Ioannis Papadopoulos. Vodafone also points out that with the possibility of up to six simultaneous streams, the temptation is naturally greater.

SledováníTV states that it does not consider password sharing to be a major problem, as the service limits the number of paired devices and parallel playbacks. Pecka TV takes a similar stance, arguing that technical measures are enforced by the broadcasters. “The limit on simultaneous streams is designed to protect the rights of content owners while allowing mobility for household members,” said Matěj Čičák, Head of Marketing. GoNET, the operator of Lepší.TV, adds another detail: some television stations require their own limits, which is why the service strictly enforces them for selected programmes.

The responses we received indicate that sharing is undesirable, but strict controls are not yet common. Most services rely on the fact that limits will logically restrict the number of people who can use the account, and that user behaviour will thus remain “within limits”.
However, completely outside this area is the grey zone of websites that present themselves as “shared link catalogues”. Sites such as Kukaj.to, Sledujfilmy and Bombuj create an environment strikingly similar to regular streaming services, including a tile-based graphical interface and players. However, they do not have or host any content of their own. In fact, this model is based on embedded video, redirection to external storage, and a dense layer of advertising.

Accessing a programme often requires closing multiple advertising windows. These sites defend themselves by arguing that they do not store content, but only link to it.

“Embedding or framing means distributing works via links or frames. There is a widespread misconception in society that it is permitted and legal, but this is not the case. In other words, it is not possible to absolve oneself of responsibility for copyright infringement simply because a specific file ‘carrying’ the work is not used, but ‘only’ a link to it," points out the Association of Commercial Television.

“The user does not infringe on any rights by simply linking to another website where the copyrighted work is located. On the other hand, embedding should be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Czech courts have ruled in the past that embedding is considered a form of making a work available to the public and, therefore, a form of use of a copyrighted work,"

adds the Association.

In 2016, the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that the financial aspect of linking to content is also an important consideration. The mere placement of a link to a protected work that has been published elsewhere without the author’s consent is not considered “communication to the public” if the person who publishes the link does not profit from it and does not know that the work has been published unlawfully. However, if the link is published for profit, it is assumed that the person knows about the illegality.
At the time, the dispute concerned links to illegally published photos from Playboy, which someone had obtained before they were published in the magazine and uploaded to the Australian server FileFactory. The article with the links was published by one of the most visited websites in the Netherlands. When Playboy’s publisher succeeded in having the photos removed from one storage site, the server operator updated the article and referred readers to another illegal source.

In this context, it should be noted that websites with embedded players are surrounded by advertising systems and scripts from which the website operator receives commissions. Clearly, this is not charity. The money ends up in the pockets of the operators of these websites, not with the original copyright holders.