Revealed: How Netflix plans to stop you sharing your password
Netflix’s impending crackdown on password sharing includes plans to force users to regularly connect via their home Wi-Fi.
An update to the streaming giant’s help page reveals details of how the company will finally take a tougher stance against the practice, which millions of people in the UK are estimated to partake in.
While logins will still be shareable within a single home, Netflix has outlined new measures to ensure that any device which uses the account is associated with the account holder’s primary location.
Who will I be able to share my account with?
People within your home can still use your account – so if mum or dad are paying, but the kids are still at home, they can have their own profiles and watch Netflix on their own devices as they do now.
But if the kids have gone to university or moved out, maintaining access to their parents’ Netflix will get trickier.
That’s because by using information such as IP addresses, device IDs, and account activity, the company can detect where users are logging in from and may choose to intervene if they suspect a case of freeloading.
How is this going to be enforced?
Netflix will treat devices which use your account as trusted if they are connected to your home Wi-Fi regularly.
So don’t worry, you can of course still take your Netflix account with you on your phone when you go out, assuming that you bring it back home with you and log in there at least once every 31 days.
But if a device from outside your household signs in or is used persistently, Netflix says it may ask you to verify that device before it can be used to watch anything.
Read more:
How streaming services could change in 2023
No more Wednesday binging unless you have your own account. Pic: Netflix
What sort of verification?
Netflix says it will send a link to the email address or phone number associated with the primary account holder, containing a four-digit code that will need to be entered on the untrusted device within 15 minutes.
This “may be required periodically”.
And this will also be needed of you if you are away from your home for an extended period of time, for example if you take your phone travelling and plan to keep using Netflix.
So I can still share my account?
Technically, yes, it’s just becoming a lot more inconvenient, riskier, and could end up costing you.
Firstly, don’t forget Netflix limits how many devices can be using one account simultaneously depending on which pricing tier you’re on, and it maxes out at four at £15.99 per month.
Even if the prospect of constant verification code messages or someone swinging by to use your Wi-Fi isn’t inconvenient enough, Netflix may still act if it suspects blatant password sharing is going on.
Those who are logging in from outside the household will either have to pay up for their own account, or the original account holder will need to spend a little extra.
Netflix has been trialling a feature to let people add subaccounts for up to two people they don’t live with. It’s been testing in parts of South America since last year and costs the equivalent of an extra £2-£3 a month.
Netflix is banking on The Crown and other top shows to encourage more sign-ups. Pic: Netflix
Why is Netflix doing this?
Netflix started talking tough on a potential password sharing crackdown during a lull in subscriber numbers.
With more competition from the likes of Disney+ and Amazon Prime, and the cost of living crisis, the company was looking for ways to reverse the trend and boost revenue.
It started trying to tempt account sharers to make the move of their own accord last year, by letting people transfer profiles from one account to another.
The Intellectual Property Office has since ruled that password sharers are breaking copyright law – it’s just down to the streaming services themselves to enforce it.
Video footage has shown the moment singer and actress Ariana Grande was accosted by a fan at a film premiere.
Ms Grande was in Singapore for the debut of Wicked: For Good when the incident unfolded on Thursday.
The video captured the moment the fan scaled the barricade and pushed past photographers towards Ms Grande.
Pic: tacotrvck_vb/X/via REUTERS
He then threw his arms around her, before co-star Cynthia Erivo intervened and security swoops in to stop him.
The man, now identified as Johnson Wen, 26, is reportedly a notorious red carpet crasher.
Wen, who has since been charged with being a public nuisance, goes by the nickname Pyjama Man, and gloated as he shared footage of the intrusion online.
“Dear Ariana Grande, Thank You for letting me Jump on the Yellow Carpet with You,” he wrote on Instagram.
Pic: tacotrvck_vb/X/via REUTERS
In video stories posted to the site beforehand, he was seen at the Universal Studios venue, revealing his intentions.
In one, he said: “I feel like I’m in a dream, that’s my best friend, Ariana Grande, and I’m gonna meet her. I’ve been dreaming about that.”
Read more:
When you should actually arrive at cinema to avoid ads
TV and film’s obsession with upper-class actors
The Australian has ambushed several performers on stage, according to reports, including Katy Perry and The Chainsmokers at concerts in Sydney, and The Weeknd in Melbourne.
It has been reported that Wen intends to plead guilty and that he could face a fine of more than £1,000.
Ariana Grande and Cynthia Erivo at the London premiere for Wicked: For Good
Ms Grande took a moment to gather herself in the aftermath of the intrusion, visibly shocked by the incident.
She didn’t address the incident on her own Instagram, but shared some photos with the caption “thank you, Singapore”, adding “we love you”.
The singer battled post-traumatic stress disorder after her 2017 concert in Manchester was bombed, leaving 22 people dead.
She told Vogue in 2018: “It’s hard to talk about because so many people have suffered such severe, tremendous loss. But, yeah, it’s a real thing.
“I know those families and my fans, and everyone there experienced a tremendous amount of it as well. Time is the biggest thing.
“I feel like I shouldn’t even be talking about my own experience – like I shouldn’t even say anything. I don’t think I’ll ever know how to talk about it and not cry.”
In the same interview she also addressed her own anxiety, saying she has “always” had it.
Ms Grande plays Galinda Upland in Wicked: For Good, the character who becomes Glinda the Good Witch. Ms Erivo plays Elphaba, the character who becomes the Wicked Witch of the West.
The film is released in UK cinemas on 21 November.
Entertainment
A third of daily music uploads are AI-generated and 97% of people can’t tell the difference, says report
Do you care if the music you’re listening to is artificially generated?
That question – once the realm of science fiction – is becoming increasingly urgent.
An AI-generated country track, Walk My Walk, is currently sitting at number one on the US Billboard chart of digital sales and a new report by streaming platform Deezer has revealed the sheer scale of AI production in the music industry.
Deezer’s AI-detection system found that around 50,000 fully AI-generated tracks are now uploaded every day, accounting for 34% of all daily uploads.
File pic: iStock
The true number is most likely higher, as Deezer’s AI-detection system does not catch every AI-generated track. Nor does this figure include partially AI-generated tracks.
In January 2025, Deezer’s system identified 10% of uploaded tracks as fully AI-generated.
Since then, the proportion of AI tracks – made using written prompts such as “country, 1990s style, male singer” – has more than tripled, leading the platform’s chief executive, Alexis Lanternier, to say that AI music is “flooding music streaming”.
‘Siphoning money from royalty pool’
What’s more, when Deezer surveyed 9,000 people in eight countries – the US, Canada, Brazil, UK, France, Netherlands, Germany and Japan – and asked them to detect whether three tracks were real or AI, 97% could not tell the difference.
That’s despite the fact that the motivation behind the surge of AI music is not in the least bit creative, according to Deezer. The company says that roughly 70% of fully AI-generated tracks are what it calls “fraudulent” – that is, designed purely to make money.
“The common denominator is the ambition to boost streams on specific tracks in order to siphon money from the royalty pool,” a Deezer spokesperson told Sky News.
“With AI-generated content, you can easily create massive amounts of tracks that can be used for this purpose.”
File pic: Reuters
The tracks themselves are not actually fraudulent, Deezer says, but the behaviour around them is. Someone will upload an AI track then use an automated system – a bot – to listen to a song over and over again to make royalties from it.
Even though the total number of streams for each individual track is very low – Deezer estimates that together they account for 0.5% of all streams – the work needed to make an AI track is so tiny that the rewards justify the effort.
Are fully-AI tracks being removed?
Deezer is investing in AI-detection software and has filed two patents for systems that spot AI music. But it is not taking down the tracks it marks as fully-AI.
Instead it removes them from algorithmic recommendations and editorial playlists, a measure designed to stop the tracks getting streams and therefore generating royalties, and marks the tracks as “AI-generated content”.
“If people want to listen to an AI-generated track however, they can and we are not stopping them from doing so – we just want to make sure they are making a conscious decision,” the Deezer spokesperson says.
Read more from Sky News:
How Elon Musk is boosting the British right
The extraordinary impact of a crime on UK growth
Concerns about artists’ livelihoods
Deezer’s survey found that more than half (52%) of respondents felt uncomfortable with not being able to tell the difference between AI and human-made music.
“The survey results clearly show that people care about music and want to know if they’re listening to AI or human-made tracks or not,” said the company’s boss Alexis Lanternier.
“There’s also no doubt that there are concerns about how AI-generated music will affect the livelihood of artists.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Musicians protests AI copyright plans
Earlier this year, more than 1,000 musicians – including Annie Lennox, Damon Albarn and Kate Bush – released a silent album to protest plans by the UK government to let artificial intelligence companies use copyright-protected work without permission.
A recent study commissioned by the International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers suggested that generative AI music could be worth £146bn a year in 2028 and account for around 60% of music libraries’ revenues.
By this metric, the authors concluded, 25% of creators’ revenues are at risk by 2028, a sum of £3.5bn.
Entertainment
BBC apologises to Donald Trump over editing of Panorama but says there isn’t ‘basis for defamation claim’
-
Sports2 years agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports3 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Sports3 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment1 year agoHere are the best electric bikes you can buy at every price level in October 2024