Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Hollywood Reporter)   Netflix tells court it is not a video service provider   (hollywoodreporter.com) divider line
    More: Amusing, video service, Service provider, Creve Coeur, Service, Supreme Court of the United States, video service provider, Dormant Commerce Clause, Service system  
•       •       •

2641 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 14 Sep 2018 at 6:42 AM (44 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



25 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2018-09-14 06:49:20 AM  
Well... It's not. It is an internet business that lets you select from a library of shows and movies on the internet. It's not a broadcast network. It's not a cable channel such as TBS or CNN.

So it can't be taxed as a broadcast network or cable channel. But hey, nice try, Missouri.

/not subby
 
2018-09-14 07:03:27 AM  
Relevant portion of the article that no one will bother to read:

img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2018-09-14 07:31:28 AM  
Oh, not only would Creve Coeur get in on that, but also St. Louis County, I'm sure. Interesting.

/yet another French place that's completely mispronounced
//Cairo = Kay-roh
///Creve Coeur = Kreeve Core
 
2018-09-14 07:45:15 AM  
By the definition in TFA, it's clearly not. Lawyers (the town's) should know that words have meaning.
 
2018-09-14 08:00:34 AM  
But according to Creve Coeur, which has a code of ordinance that requires a video service provider fork over five percent of its gross revenues, Missourians have shifted to subscription-based streaming services like Netflix and Hulu. And those companies aren't paying these fees, which states the lawsuit, "deprives Missouri municipalities of much-needed revenue."

Hold on. Are they trying to claim 5% of Netflix and Hulu's global revenue as a local tax? Good luck with that. Either they'll lose the case or Netflix and Hulu will cancel all subscriptions in their town citing their elected representatives as the reason. Either way they lose.
 
2018-09-14 08:05:53 AM  

Gordon Bennett: But according to Creve Coeur, which has a code of ordinance that requires a video service provider fork over five percent of its gross revenues, Missourians have shifted to subscription-based streaming services like Netflix and Hulu. And those companies aren't paying these fees, which states the lawsuit, "deprives Missouri municipalities of much-needed revenue."

Hold on. Are they trying to claim 5% of Netflix and Hulu's global revenue as a local tax? Good luck with that. Either they'll lose the case or Netflix and Hulu will cancel all subscriptions in their town citing their elected representatives as the reason. Either way they lose.


Even if they did cancel, Netflix would owe back taxes, what a windfall!  (It would never, and could never happen)
 
2018-09-14 08:20:21 AM  

Gordon Bennett: But according to Creve Coeur, which has a code of ordinance that requires a video service provider fork over five percent of its gross revenues, Missourians have shifted to subscription-based streaming services like Netflix and Hulu. And those companies aren't paying these fees, which states the lawsuit, "deprives Missouri municipalities of much-needed revenue."

Hold on. Are they trying to claim 5% of Netflix and Hulu's global revenue as a local tax? Good luck with that. Either they'll lose the case or Netflix and Hulu will cancel all subscriptions in their town citing their elected representatives as the reason. Either way they lose.


If it's like other sales / use taxes, it is for the customers in the jurisdiction, based upon the billing address. Sales tax software is capable of calculating and remitting only the portion relevant to the municipality. However, that would open the door for a lot of municipalities to join in.
 
2018-09-14 08:52:21 AM  

EvilEgg: Gordon Bennett: But according to Creve Coeur, which has a code of ordinance that requires a video service provider fork over five percent of its gross revenues, Missourians have shifted to subscription-based streaming services like Netflix and Hulu. And those companies aren't paying these fees, which states the lawsuit, "deprives Missouri municipalities of much-needed revenue."

Hold on. Are they trying to claim 5% of Netflix and Hulu's global revenue as a local tax? Good luck with that. Either they'll lose the case or Netflix and Hulu will cancel all subscriptions in their town citing their elected representatives as the reason. Either way they lose.

Even if they did cancel, Netflix would owe back taxes, what a windfall!  (It would never, and could never happen)


FTA mis-stated the tax.  It would be a 5% tax on the revenue generated within their jurisdiction.  Comcast, or whoever provides service there, doesn't pay 5% on their global revenue, just the revenue from that town's customers.  The charge is in the taxes and fees section of your bill
 
2018-09-14 09:24:13 AM  

Munchausen's Proxy: EvilEgg: Gordon Bennett: But according to Creve Coeur, which has a code of ordinance that requires a video service provider fork over five percent of its gross revenues, Missourians have shifted to subscription-based streaming services like Netflix and Hulu. And those companies aren't paying these fees, which states the lawsuit, "deprives Missouri municipalities of much-needed revenue."

Hold on. Are they trying to claim 5% of Netflix and Hulu's global revenue as a local tax? Good luck with that. Either they'll lose the case or Netflix and Hulu will cancel all subscriptions in their town citing their elected representatives as the reason. Either way they lose.

Even if they did cancel, Netflix would owe back taxes, what a windfall!  (It would never, and could never happen)

FTA mis-stated the tax.  It would be a 5% tax on the revenue generated within their jurisdiction.  Comcast, or whoever provides service there, doesn't pay 5% on their global revenue, just the revenue from that town's customers.  The charge is in the taxes and fees section of your bill


And there are some batshiat insane tax jurisdictions, when you look at local, municipal, town, district, city, business zone, etc. I had to test implementation of Vertex for a customer in multiple states and countries, and my test plan for a selected set of jurisdictions, known to be crazy, was about 3,000 pages. (passed the Sox audit, though. booyah, beetches.)
 
2018-09-14 09:58:17 AM  
"And those companies aren't paying these fees, which states the lawsuit, "deprives Missouri municipalities of much-needed revenue.""

So, the purpose of the tax is "Fark You, Pay Me"
 
2018-09-14 10:09:21 AM  

ChubbyTiger: By the definition in TFA, it's clearly not. Lawyers (the town's) should know that words have meaning.


'Cause you know sometimes words have two me-ea-nings.
 
2018-09-14 10:12:29 AM  
If you define "video service" in such a way that Netflix is not one, don't be surprised if there are consequences like Netflix not having the legal obligations of a video service.

If the legislature defined a dog as a "four-legged animal that says 'moo'" in the law then your German Shepard is not a dog for legal purposes even though any moron would say otherwise.
 
2018-09-14 11:13:50 AM  
You want to kill the internet? Because this is exactly how you do it. Start allowing local municipalities to pass laws taxing various internet services. Making online retailers pay sales taxes by state is one thing, I have no problem paying my fair share on that, but once these local cities and towns realize there's a cash cow like this they will tax it to death.
 
2018-09-14 12:17:14 PM  
Gotta say based on what appears to be the intent/spirit of the law, it would not include netflix.
they were basically on a bout collecting a tax from a business that in and of itself wanted to use space on the public property for its service to be delivered.

As in the cable company placing their wire on the public land so that you could receive their offered programing. And later potentially an ISP like AT&T that had included in its ISP bundle, their own programing to your home across public lands.

And then the internet actually came along and it turns out the vast bulk of business online to interface with, do not themselves have any direct connection of ownership to anything that uses public lands.
Technically only the ISP itself would be who is directly making use of the public lands, demanding space and access their personally for their own company owned equipment.

It does seem basically silly and greedy of Missouri to expect any streaming provider from anywhere in the world, that has no access to or ownership of anything that touches their public lands. To pay them any taxes or fees that is in relation to the use of those public lands.

for the hypothetical on it:
If a Brit held dual citizenship in America, and lived in Missouri, and could rightfully stream their access to BBC programing to their home. Did they think the BBC has to start paying Missouri?
 
2018-09-14 12:52:18 PM  

PvtStash: Gotta say based on what appears to be the intent/spirit of the law, it would not include netflix.
they were basically on a bout collecting a tax from a business that in and of itself wanted to use space on the public property for its service to be delivered.

As in the cable company placing their wire on the public land so that you could receive their offered programing. And later potentially an ISP like AT&T that had included in its ISP bundle, their own programing to your home across public lands.

And then the internet actually came along and it turns out the vast bulk of business online to interface with, do not themselves have any direct connection of ownership to anything that uses public lands.
Technically only the ISP itself would be who is directly making use of the public lands, demanding space and access their personally for their own company owned equipment.

It does seem basically silly and greedy of Missouri to expect any streaming provider from anywhere in the world, that has no access to or ownership of anything that touches their public lands. To pay them any taxes or fees that is in relation to the use of those public lands.

for the hypothetical on it:
If a Brit held dual citizenship in America, and lived in Missouri, and could rightfully stream their access to BBC programing to their home. Did they think the BBC has to start paying Missouri?


No.

Because the BBC are only granted rights to stream certain shows outside of the UK.  Think of it like Netflix.  Netflix contents vary by country because of streaming rights granted by the content provider.  So while you can watch "Happy!" a SciFy show in other countries, you cannot watch it in the US because the streaming rights are withheld so that only ScFy can stream it here.

And streaming rights are often based on regional exclusivity clauses in contracts.

A Brit's BBC license rights do not extend to other countries.

And part of their user agreement/law is "BBC is for British people in Britain"

In the US you have to US BBC America or get a proxy and Iplayer for the full British version.
 
2018-09-14 01:26:07 PM  

bobug: Oh, not only would Creve Coeur get in on that, but also St. Louis County, I'm sure. Interesting.

/yet another French place that's completely mispronounced
//Cairo = Kay-roh
///Creve Coeur = Kreeve Core


How is Cairo a city name originally found in Egypt French?
 
2018-09-14 01:27:23 PM  

Gordon Bennett: But according to Creve Coeur, which has a code of ordinance that requires a video service provider fork over five percent of its gross revenues, Missourians have shifted to subscription-based streaming services like Netflix and Hulu. And those companies aren't paying these fees, which states the lawsuit, "deprives Missouri municipalities of much-needed revenue."

Hold on. Are they trying to claim 5% of Netflix and Hulu's global revenue as a local tax? Good luck with that. Either they'll lose the case or Netflix and Hulu will cancel all subscriptions in their town citing their elected representatives as the reason. Either way they lose.


Can they even prove anyone in the town has Netflix or Hulu?
 
2018-09-14 01:50:50 PM  

punkwrestler: bobug: Oh, not only would Creve Coeur get in on that, but also St. Louis County, I'm sure. Interesting.

/yet another French place that's completely mispronounced
//Cairo = Kay-roh
///Creve Coeur = Kreeve Core

How is Cairo a city name originally found in Egypt French?


Sorry, it isn't. It's lumped into my "WTF?" for this city and surrounding areas.
 
2018-09-14 01:54:00 PM  

ChubbyTiger: By the definition in TFA, it's clearly not. Lawyers (the town's) should know that words have meaning.


... Have you SEEN the news in the last few years?

Given everything that's been going on lately, I can't blame them for trying.
 
2018-09-14 02:55:56 PM  

theflatline: PvtStash: Gotta say based on what appears to be the intent/spirit of the law, it would not include netflix.
they were basically on a bout collecting a tax from a business that in and of itself wanted to use space on the public property for its service to be delivered.

As in the cable company placing their wire on the public land so that you could receive their offered programing. And later potentially an ISP like AT&T that had included in its ISP bundle, their own programing to your home across public lands.

And then the internet actually came along and it turns out the vast bulk of business online to interface with, do not themselves have any direct connection of ownership to anything that uses public lands.
Technically only the ISP itself would be who is directly making use of the public lands, demanding space and access their personally for their own company owned equipment.

It does seem basically silly and greedy of Missouri to expect any streaming provider from anywhere in the world, that has no access to or ownership of anything that touches their public lands. To pay them any taxes or fees that is in relation to the use of those public lands.

for the hypothetical on it:
If a Brit held dual citizenship in America, and lived in Missouri, and could rightfully stream their access to BBC programing to their home. Did they think the BBC has to start paying Missouri?

No.

Because the BBC are only granted rights to stream certain shows outside of the UK.  Think of it like Netflix.  Netflix contents vary by country because of streaming rights granted by the content provider.  So while you can watch "Happy!" a SciFy show in other countries, you cannot watch it in the US because the streaming rights are withheld so that only ScFy can stream it here.

And streaming rights are often based on regional exclusivity clauses in contracts.

A Brit's BBC license rights do not extend to other countries.

And part of their user agreement/law is "BBC is for British people in B ...


I live in Poland and it's a pain in the a** using proxies to watch eastenders
 
2018-09-14 06:06:38 PM  

PvtStash: Gotta say based on what appears to be the intent/spirit of the law, it would not include netflix.
they were basically on a bout collecting a tax from a business that in and of itself wanted to use space on the public property for its service to be delivered.

As in the cable company placing their wire on the public land so that you could receive their offered programing. And later potentially an ISP like AT&T that had included in its ISP bundle, their own programing to your home across public lands.

And then the internet actually came along and it turns out the vast bulk of business online to interface with, do not themselves have any direct connection of ownership to anything that uses public lands.
Technically only the ISP itself would be who is directly making use of the public lands, demanding space and access their personally for their own company owned equipment.

It does seem basically silly and greedy of Missouri to expect any streaming provider from anywhere in the world, that has no access to or ownership of anything that touches their public lands. To pay them any taxes or fees that is in relation to the use of those public lands.

for the hypothetical on it:
If a Brit held dual citizenship in America, and lived in Missouri, and could rightfully stream their access to BBC programing to their home. Did they think the BBC has to start paying Missouri?


I'd be deep in the cold cold ground before I recognize Missourah
 
2018-09-14 06:07:37 PM  

punkwrestler: bobug: Oh, not only would Creve Coeur get in on that, but also St. Louis County, I'm sure. Interesting.

/yet another French place that's completely mispronounced
//Cairo = Kay-roh
///Creve Coeur = Kreeve Core

How is Cairo a city name originally found in Egypt French?


Little Egypt is where those naked ladies dance, I think
 
amb
2018-09-15 07:39:12 AM  

TheMysteriousStranger: If you define "video service" in such a way that Netflix is not one, don't be surprised if there are consequences like Netflix not having the legal obligations of a video service.

If the legislature defined a dog as a "four-legged animal that says 'moo'" in the law then your German Shepard is not a dog for legal purposes even though any moron would say otherwise.


What a German Sheppard may look like.

img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2018-09-15 12:06:37 PM  

amb: TheMysteriousStranger: If you define "video service" in such a way that Netflix is not one, don't be surprised if there are consequences like Netflix not having the legal obligations of a video service.

If the legislature defined a dog as a "four-legged animal that says 'moo'" in the law then your German Shepard is not a dog for legal purposes even though any moron would say otherwise.

What a German Sheppard may look like.

[img.fark.net image 200x206 -- a cow ]


Well that is one reason to hire lawyers: To discover when the legislature defined Betty the Cow to be a German Sheppard and to take advantage of it.
 
2018-09-15 07:00:52 PM  

TheMysteriousStranger: If the legislature defined a dog as a "four-legged animal that says 'moo'" in the law then your German Shepard is not a dog for legal purposes even though any moron would say otherwise.


That's because they speak German...muh.
 
Displayed 25 of 25 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter




In Other Media
Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report