> Maybe instead of putting on a show in court, Netflix et al should simply stop asking people for their physical addresses? I mean, that is the underlying vulnerability that will allow this push to succeed.

> We were so excited for the promise of the Internet to overturn all this legacy bullshit. Then the legacy bullshitters got here, built a bunch of proprietary services on top of HTTP, marketed them as progress, and are slowly reimplementing the status quo!

I don't understand your point. The tax Chicago is trying to impose has nothing to do with Netflix's service being proprietary. The tax would still be charged even if their service were built entirely out of free software and all they streamed was public domain material, as long as they charged for the service.

> The tax would still be charged even if their service were built entirely out of free software and all they streamed was public domain material, as long as they charged for the service.

If a user couldn't simply `git clone` and then http://localhost/ , that would still be a proprietary service. Even if a foundation is free - HTTP/TCP/IP or even Free software as in your example - services built on top are not necessarily so.

My point is that Netflix is better viewed as yet another cable company, rather than as some champion of the Internet. This is especially relevant to Net Neutrality, for understanding when Netflix will turncoat - they aren't going to be standing up for p2p rights.

>Maybe instead of putting on a show in court, Netflix et al should simply stop asking people for their physical addresses? I mean, that is the underlying vulnerability that will allow this push to succeed.

That's an interesting point. There are internet services that don't require an address to pay for something. What are their legal obligations, if any, with respect to local taxes? I assume quite a few local laws don't explicitly make this a loophole, so does that mean anyone doing business online has the legal obligation to collect address information? That would be an odd situation, and it doesn't seem to be the one we're in.

It seems like the situation on the ground is that in reality only companies big enough to attract attention are at risk from this. My understanding of the legal situation is that the federal government in the United States provides the legal basis for ensuring that a business in one state or city abides by the laws of another state or city when it sells to its residents. But they seem uninterested in actually enforcing this.

It's interesting to think about what would happen to companies of various sizes should they refuse to implement this tax. Small / medium size companies? Probably nothing. In fact it's unlikely that many of them will implement it. Suppose Netflix refuses; it now becomes illegal for Chicago residents to purchase Netflix subscriptions (unless they have some mechanism for the citizens to pay the taxes themselves, as some states do; this usually doesn't happen though). But Netflix can say "no problem", we just make web servers available over the Internet, we don't check whether someone's logging in from Chicago. What does Chicago do? They either ban the Netflix domain at the local internet level, or (more likely) they get the Federal government involved and have fines put in place to penalize Netflix for not paying taxes to Chicago.

I'm not a lawyer though, and it would be interesting to get one's point of view of one here since questions about jurisdiction come up here all the time, e.g. whether US companies have to comply with EU laws.

Legally, government can keep grinding at the courts until they convince some judge to write a justification for the practice - look at what happened to the Bill of Rights. The legal system assumes its own omnipotence, rather than limiting its own scope and excusing itself.

So those limits end up being defined by what is actually practical to enforce. Which is why the technical environment ends up being quite important, and the web 2.0 surveillance industry is ultimately the enemy of Free people - it is vaccination for the state [0]. If Chicago ended up failing here, we could chuckle at the corrupt politicians making nonsensical laws and then quickly forget. But rather, success means that other municipalities will be looking to get on this gravy train.

Then, even if there is eventual pushback where online services start explicitly forgoing obtaining users' addresses, there will be enough money behind it to fund that grinding at the courts. Eventually it will be declared that doing business and not obtaining the identity of your customer is illegal, presuming an intent to evade all of these "duly enacted" backwoods laws.

[0] FWIW Bitcoin is in the same class, as it negligently lacks the standard property of untraceability.

Netflix: We don't know where any of our customers are, sorry Chicago!

Chicago: Okay fine we talked to all the local ISPs and you're no longer accessible in our city. Have a nice day.

or

Chicago: We didn't fall off the turnip truck yesterday guys, have you heard of this thing called GeoIP services?

Besides, I'm sure Netflix is bound by all kinds of territory-based licensing to need people's addresses. Like if Foobar Productions did a deal with someone else for exclusive digital rights to Austria and Australia but is letting Netflix license their show for streaming everywhere else, Netflix needs to be able to not show it to the Austr(al)ians.

To the extent that territory licensing forces Netflix's position, that still doesn't justify the customer-hostile behavior. I don't expect my comment to change Netflix's behavior, but rather to highlight the hypocrisy of casting themselves as a modern solution while dragging us backwards.

And yes, obviously the totalitarian matrix is interconnected. GeoIP is a symptom of that cancer - the legacy status quo attempting to make the Internet conform to its preconceived notions. Which is why I pointed the way towards the Internet-first solution.

You need to provide a physical address to pay with a credit card.

The credit card processors and banks actually do not require a physical address. All you need to charge a credit card is the cart number, and you need to provide an expiration date that is in the future.

You can provide a zip code, or a full address, or the card security code, or a name, and those will be checked and you will be told if they match the information on file with the card issuer, but it is up to you whether or not mismatches should block the transaction.

Transactions with mismatches generally have a higher risk of being fraudulent, so it is a good idea to not go through with transactions when the data doesn't match because if you put through too many fraudulent charges bad things can happen to you, ranging from higher fees to having your ability to accept cards revoked.