New York Wants To Punish Criminals For Incriminating Selves On YouTube

from the if-you-confess,-we-punish-you-more dept

We've been seeing plenty of stories lately that incorrectly place the blame when people film themselves doing something illegal and put that video online. This should be something where politicians and the police should be thrilled. After all, it makes it that much easier for the police to find them, arrest them and convict them of a crime. If people are so stupid to post evidence of their crime in public, then isn't that a good thing? Yet, politicians who incorrectly like to put the blame for the crime on the video of the crime, come up with harebrained proposals like a new one in New York that will make putting a video of yourself committing a violent crime online a felony in itself (above and beyond whatever charges you might face for the violence). Think about that for a second. New York politicians are basically telling people that they'll get charged with even greater crimes if they decide to incriminate themselves by posting evidence online. This makes no sense.

The reasoning behind the bill is that politicians believe people are committing these kinds of crimes for the publicity in the first place. The thinking is that such crimes wouldn't happen at all if they couldn't be put online. However, that's rather meaningless. If someone is going to commit a violent crime -- punish the violence itself. Not the fact that the idiots handed over the evidence as part of a publicity stunt. If the (small number) of idiots who commit violent crimes and post the videos online are getting caught and arrested for the violence itself, shouldn't that act as enough disincentive?

Filed Under: blame, crimes, evidence, incriminating, new york, videos, youtube
Companies: youtube

Amazon Sues NY Over Questionable Tax Collecting Law

from the time-to-prevent-a-mess dept

Recently, Tim highlighted that NY state, in a desperate move to squeeze more tax revenue out of Amazon.com changed the law to require Amazon to collect and pay NY state sales tax on goods shipped to New York. Federal law only requires that companies that have a physical presence in a state collect the sales tax. Amazon doesn't have a physical presence in New York, so New York redefined "physical presence" to include anyone who's a part of an affiliate program. Of course, Amazon affiliates are little more than advertisers of Amazon's goods. As Tim noted, this is effectively saying that any company may suddenly be forced to collect taxes if they just advertise on a website based in a certain state.

In response, Amazon has wasted no time in suing New York State, claiming that the law is unconstitutional, noting that it's "overly broad and vague," while also noting that it's clearly designed to squeeze extra taxes out of one specific company: Amazon.com. It probably doesn't help NY state's defense to hear that state officials even referred to the law as "the Amazon tax."

Filed Under: new york, tax collection
Companies: amazon

New York Tries To Rope Amazon Into Playing Tax Collector

from the bit-of-a-stretch dept

The New York Times reports that the state of New York is demanding that Amazon and other e-tailers begin collecting sales taxes from customers in the state by June 1 or face audits and bills for unpaid taxes. Under federal law, a state can only require a business to collect sales taxes for it if the business has a physical presence in that state. So Amazon collects sales taxes in Washington state, where it has its headquarters, but not in most other states, including New York. But New York has hit upon a novel legal theory: Amazon might not have a physical presence in New York, but many of Amazon's affiliates do, and New York argues that those affiliates constitute a "physical presence" sufficient to require Amazon to collect taxes for the state. It's a novel theory, and one that Amazon will almost certainly challenge in court. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Amazon's affiliates are essentially selling Amazon advertising space on their websites. They're not employees of Amazon any more than I become an employee of any site that purchases advertising space on my blog. If New York's interpretation is accepted by the courts, it would spawn endless litigation about which types of relationships establish a "physical presence." There's also a good chance Amazon would just cut off New York residents from participating in the affiliates program to save itself the headache of potentially having to comply with thousands of different taxing jurisdictions. Either way, nothing good is going to come from this.

Filed Under: e-commerce, local presence, new york, taxes
Companies: amazon

Marilyn Monroe's Estate Loses Rights To Photos After Fighting To Make Her A New Yorker

from the figure-this-one-out dept

It appears Marilyn Monroe's estate didn't think all the way through its strategy of posthumously moving the famed star to New York. Apparently, her family convinced California tax authorities that Monroe had been a New York resident, in an attempt to avoid paying taxes on the estate in California. Unfortunately for the estate, that would also mean that Marilyn Monroe's publicity rights died with her. As Against Monopoly points out in the latest example of the bizarre effects of intellectual property rules, California allows "rights of publicity" to live on after death -- meaning that images of famous people still need to be licensed. However, New York says your right of publicity dies when you die. So, a court has now ruled that, thanks to Monroe's own estate claiming that she was a New Yorker, there's no longer a right of publicity for Monroe, and photographers who own Monroe photographs shouldn't have to pay her estate (as they've done since her death). This has photographers claiming that the estate has been unfairly demanding licenses for many years. Next time, perhaps Monroe's estate will just pay the taxes it owes. But, in the meantime, we get to see the bizarre impact of rules such as "publicity rights" which have forced photographers to pay to use photographs they took for many years.

Filed Under: california, marilyn monroe, new york, publicity rights

NY Legislator Looks To Outlaw Behavioral Targeted Ads Without Opt-In

from the a-bit-late-for-that dept

A New York Assembly member is pushing to outlaw targeted advertising without opt-in approval. Given the scrutiny facing companies like Phorm in the UK, this isn't all that surprising. However, the complaints around Phorm are that it tracks all of your surfing activity and generates ads based on that aggregate info. The bill that is being discussed in New York would apparently apply to websites that do targeted advertising within the site. That seems both extreme and unnecessary. Even though the law would technically only apply to New York, since it would be difficult to figure out who's in NY and who's elsewhere, it would force many providers to get rid of targeted advertising. It seems a bit extreme to think that targeted advertising should be banned entirely, without an initial opt-in. By this point, most people probably expect basic targeting to take place, and when done right, such targeted ads should be more effective. The real problem comes in when such targeting presents a privacy violation, but the focus then should be on privacy laws, not specifically targeting a single activity such as targeted ads.

Filed Under: new york, opt-in, permission, targeted advertising
Companies: google, microsoft, phorm

NY Politicians Can't Resist: Still Want To Pass Law Banning Sale Of Violent Video Games

from the why-bother-defending-the-constitution-when-we-can-suck-up-to-special-interests? dept

Despite the fact that yet another state's attempt at passing a law banning the sale of certain video games to children was just tossed out as unconstitutional (as have seven other similar laws), politicians in NY insist on moving forward with their own attempt at passing the same kind of law. Once again, it will do absolutely nothing but waste taxpayer money as it goes to the courts and gets tossed out as being unconstitutional again. As the article notes, politicians don't care about that. They simply want to have something they can point to as showing that they're working hard to "protect the children." People vote for that and ignore the fact that the laws are unconstitutional and a total waste of time and taxpayer money for both the politicians and the courts.

Meanwhile, as Slashdot highlights in a similar story, there's a fantastic quote from Judge Richard Posner concerning this issue: "Violence has always been and remains a central interest of humankind and a recurrent, even obsessive theme of culture both high and low ... It engages the interest of children from an early age, as anyone familiar with the classic fairy tales collected by Grimm, Andersen, and Perrault are aware. To shield children right up to the age of 18 from exposure to violent descriptions and images would not only be quixotic, but deforming; it would leave them unequipped to cope with the world as we know it." That seems worth remembering.

Filed Under: new york, politicians, video games