Netflix to Charge an Additional $8 Month for Viewers Living Outside US Subscribers’ Households 

The Netflix logo at the Netflix Tudum Theater in Los Angeles, California, on September 14, 2022. (AP)
The Netflix logo at the Netflix Tudum Theater in Los Angeles, California, on September 14, 2022. (AP)
TT
20

Netflix to Charge an Additional $8 Month for Viewers Living Outside US Subscribers’ Households 

The Netflix logo at the Netflix Tudum Theater in Los Angeles, California, on September 14, 2022. (AP)
The Netflix logo at the Netflix Tudum Theater in Los Angeles, California, on September 14, 2022. (AP)

Netflix on Tuesday outlined how it intends to crack down on the rampant sharing of account passwords in the US, its latest bid to reel in more subscribers to its video streaming service as its growth slows.

To combat password sharing, Netflix said it will limit US viewership of its programming to people living in the same household. Those who subscribe to Netflix’s standard or premium plans — which cost $15.50 to $20 per month — will be able to allow another person living outside their household to use their password for an additional $8 per month, a $2 discount from the company’s basic plan.

Without providing details how it authenticates subscriber identities or accounts, Netflix assured that everyone living in the same household of a US customer will still be able to stream TV series and movies “wherever they are — at home, on the go, on holiday.”

The company based in Los Gatos, California has roughly 70 million US accountholders.

The long-anticipated move, telegraphed by Netflix a year ago, seeks to end a practice that the company allowed to go unchecked for years while its streaming service was attracting subscribers in droves. At that time, management had little incentive to risk riling customers by reining in password sharing.

While Netflix looked the other away, an estimated 100 million people worldwide were getting passwords from family and friends to freeload on Netflix TV series such as “The Crown” and films such as “All Quiet On The Western Front.” Those passwords were funneled through Netflix’s 232.5 million worldwide paying subscribers, who generated the bulk of the company’s $32 billion in revenue last year.

But after a year of lackluster subscriber growth that included its largest customer losses in more than a decade, Netflix is putting its foot down.

In February, it began blocking freeloading viewers in Canada, New Zealand, Portugal and Spain, following similar moves in Latin America.

Before the crackdown on password sharing, Netflix began introducing features, such as the ability to transfer the profiles set up on subscriber accounts to make it easier for people to retain their viewing histories after they are no longer able to watch shows for free.

Netflix’s effort to force more of its viewers to pay for access to its programming follows the launch of a $7 monthly plan that inserted commercials into its service for the first time. Netflix has picked up an additional 9 million worldwide subscribers since the ad-supported option debuted, although not all of those signed up for the low-priced plan.

Although the new US surcharge for viewers living outside subscribers’ households is less than Netflix’s basic streaming plan, it comes at a time that Americans have been paring their discretionary spending because of high inflation. That inflationary squeeze, combined with more competition from other streaming services, is one of the main reasons Netflix has suffered a slowdown in growth.

Netflix co-CEO Greg Peters acknowledged last month that the crackdown on password sharing is likely to trigger an uptick in subscriber cancellations, but expressed confidence the company will be better off in the long run after people adjust to the clampdown.

“We see an initial cancel reaction, and then we build out of that both in terms of membership and revenue as borrowers sign-up for their own Netflix accounts,” Peters assured analysts, citing how the crackdown has unfolded in Canada since February.

Netflix’s shares fell 2% Tuesday to close at $355.99. The stock remains up by about 20% so far this year.



Disney Sues Hong Kong Company It Says Is Selling Illegal Mickey Mouse Jewelry

Mickey Mouse balloons are displayed at Disneyland Paris in Chessy, France, June 8, 2018. (AP)
Mickey Mouse balloons are displayed at Disneyland Paris in Chessy, France, June 8, 2018. (AP)
TT
20

Disney Sues Hong Kong Company It Says Is Selling Illegal Mickey Mouse Jewelry

Mickey Mouse balloons are displayed at Disneyland Paris in Chessy, France, June 8, 2018. (AP)
Mickey Mouse balloons are displayed at Disneyland Paris in Chessy, France, June 8, 2018. (AP)

The Walt Disney Co. on Wednesday sued a Hong Kong jewelry company it accuses of selling illegal Mickey Mouse jewelry.

The international media and entertainment conglomerate filed a lawsuit in federal court in Los Angeles against the Red Earth Group, which sells jewelry online under the name Satéur.

Disney says the marketing and branding of the rings, necklaces and earrings in Satéur's “Mickey 1928 Collection” violate its trademark rights and that the Hong Kong company is deliberately trying to fool customers into thinking the pieces are official Disney merchandise.

Satéur, the suit alleges, “intends to present Mickey Mouse as its own brand identifier for its jewelry merchandise and "seeks to trade on the recognizability of the Mickey Mouse trademarks and consumers’ affinity for Disney and its iconic ambassador Mickey Mouse.”

A message seeking comment from representatives of the Red Earth Group was not immediately answered.

The lawsuit is indicative of Disney's dogged efforts to protect its intellectual property from unauthorized appropriation. Although the earliest version of Mickey Mouse entered the public domain last year after Disney's copyright expired, the company still holds trademark rights to the character.

Lawyers for Disney argue in the suit that Red Earth’s online marketing efforts “extensively trade on the Mickey Mouse trademarks and the Disney brand” with language that includes describing the jewelry as great for “Disney enthusiasts.”

Such tactics indicate Red Earth was “intentionally trying to confuse consumers,” the lawsuit says. The impression created, it says, "suggests, at a minimum, a partnership or collaboration with Disney.”

The earliest depiction of Mickey Mouse, who first appeared publicly in the film short “Steamboat Willie” in 1928, are now in the US public domain. The widely publicized moment was considered a landmark in iconography going public.

The lawsuit alleges that Red Earth and Satéur are trying to use that status as a “ruse” to suggest the jewelry is legal, by dubbing it the “Mickey 1928 Collection” and saying it is being sold in tribute to the mouse's first appearance.

The centerpiece of the collection, the suit says, is a piece of jewelry marketed as the "Satéur Mickey 1928 Classique Ring,” which has a Steamboat Willie charm sitting on the band holding a synthetic stone.

But there is an essential difference between copyright, which protects works of art, and trademark, which protects a company's brand.

Even if a character is in the public domain, it cannot be used on merchandise in a way that suggests it is from the company with the trademark, as Disney alleges Red Earth is doing.

“Disney remains committed to guarding against unlawful trademark infringement and protecting consumers from confusion caused by unauthorized uses of Mickey Mouse and our other iconic characters,” Disney said in a statement Wednesday.

The lawsuit seeks an injunction against Red Earth selling the jewelry or trading on Disney's trademark in any other way, along with monetary damages to be determined later.