![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
PEANUTS + TWITTER = COMEDY
Jun. 10th, 2011 11:16 amAnd now, yr new favorite Interwub time-waster: PeanutTweeter, which matches tweets with Peanuts cartoon panels.
Like so.
Genius.
On tap,
This is dF
Like so.
Genius.
On tap,
This is dF
Jun. 10th, 2011
SHARE YR NETFLIX ACCOUNT, GO TO JAIL
Jun. 10th, 2011 06:50 pmITEM: The state of Tennessee makes it a crime to use a friend's login to listen to songs or watch movies from services like Netflix or Rhapsody – even if you have their permission.
On the one hand, I’m fascinated by the argument that using someone else’s Netflix account is similar to sharing cable TV with the neighbors (which is of course not only illegal, but also likely a violation of yr ToS). From a cable-TV theft POV, using someone else’s Netflix account (outside of your home, at least) is a little harder to justify.
On the other hand, the law doesn’t distinguish between hackers who sell passwords in bulk and someone using their mom’s Netflix account, and knowing the MPAA and RIAA, they’re not really going to care. As far as they’re concerned, sharing a Rhapsody account is no different from selling pirated copies of Ke$ha CDs out of the back of yr car (or, for that matter, breaking into EMI’s bank account and stealing all their money).
Typical.
For me, the best way to evaluate laws like this is to ask the following question: does the remedy solve the problem?
If the problem is piracy and financial losses for the music and film industry, the answer is “no”. Actual criminals who steal and sell passwords are already breaking the law, so making more laws isn’t much of a deterrent. And people who can’t or won’t pay for media services generally will not become paying customers just because you outlaw ways to get it for free. You might get less people to use someone else’s account, but I seriously doubt you’ll get them to pay for their own. And a lot of people will keep sharing accounts anyway.
Conclusion: it’s a law that creates new ways to put people in jail without remedying the problem it proposes to fix.
Typical.
Access denied,
This is dF
The bill expands an existing law used to prosecute people who steal cable television or leave restaurants without paying for their meals. It adds "entertainment subscription service" to the list of services protected by the law. […]
On the one hand, I’m fascinated by the argument that using someone else’s Netflix account is similar to sharing cable TV with the neighbors (which is of course not only illegal, but also likely a violation of yr ToS). From a cable-TV theft POV, using someone else’s Netflix account (outside of your home, at least) is a little harder to justify.
On the other hand, the law doesn’t distinguish between hackers who sell passwords in bulk and someone using their mom’s Netflix account, and knowing the MPAA and RIAA, they’re not really going to care. As far as they’re concerned, sharing a Rhapsody account is no different from selling pirated copies of Ke$ha CDs out of the back of yr car (or, for that matter, breaking into EMI’s bank account and stealing all their money).
Typical.
For me, the best way to evaluate laws like this is to ask the following question: does the remedy solve the problem?
If the problem is piracy and financial losses for the music and film industry, the answer is “no”. Actual criminals who steal and sell passwords are already breaking the law, so making more laws isn’t much of a deterrent. And people who can’t or won’t pay for media services generally will not become paying customers just because you outlaw ways to get it for free. You might get less people to use someone else’s account, but I seriously doubt you’ll get them to pay for their own. And a lot of people will keep sharing accounts anyway.
Conclusion: it’s a law that creates new ways to put people in jail without remedying the problem it proposes to fix.
Typical.
Access denied,
This is dF
ITEM: Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand while I was typing up that last post, I learned that Tennessee also amended another law that makes it illegal to "transmit or display an image" online that is likely to "frighten, intimidate or cause emotional distress" to someone who sees it.
THAT law is the result of updating an existing TN law that makes it a crime to make phone calls, send emails, or otherwise communicate directly with someone in a way the sender "reasonably should know" would "cause emotional distress" to the recipient, provided there’s no “legitimate purpose” in doing so. The law now includes online images.
The catch:
In other words, if you post (say) a picture of Jesus buttsecksing a giraffe on Facebook and anyone sees it and finds it offensive enough to call the cops, you get to go to jail, whether you intended to offend them or not. Eugene Volokh has a good summary of the First Amendment issues this raises.
Anyway, the TN legislature is really on a roll this year, eh?
My Republican friends, of course, assure me this is no big deal, and that it will only ever be used in cases like whatever specific instance inspired it, because Republicans thought of it and they’re all about small, responsible govt, so what harm could possibly come of it, and why is the media making such a big deal about nothing?
Which is a relief, because I was worried for a second there that lawyers who specialize in finding people to sue for emotional distress – in this day and age where just about anything is offensive to at least five people somewhere in America – might exploit this law to beef up their business. Good to know that could never happen.
Offense is the best defense,
This is dF
THAT law is the result of updating an existing TN law that makes it a crime to make phone calls, send emails, or otherwise communicate directly with someone in a way the sender "reasonably should know" would "cause emotional distress" to the recipient, provided there’s no “legitimate purpose” in doing so. The law now includes online images.
The catch:
But for image postings, the "emotionally distressed" individual need not be the intended recipient. Anyone who sees the image is a potential victim. If a court decides you "should have known" that an image you posted would be upsetting to someone who sees it, you could face months in prison and thousands of dollars in fines.
In other words, if you post (say) a picture of Jesus buttsecksing a giraffe on Facebook and anyone sees it and finds it offensive enough to call the cops, you get to go to jail, whether you intended to offend them or not. Eugene Volokh has a good summary of the First Amendment issues this raises.
Anyway, the TN legislature is really on a roll this year, eh?
My Republican friends, of course, assure me this is no big deal, and that it will only ever be used in cases like whatever specific instance inspired it, because Republicans thought of it and they’re all about small, responsible govt, so what harm could possibly come of it, and why is the media making such a big deal about nothing?
Which is a relief, because I was worried for a second there that lawyers who specialize in finding people to sue for emotional distress – in this day and age where just about anything is offensive to at least five people somewhere in America – might exploit this law to beef up their business. Good to know that could never happen.
Offense is the best defense,
This is dF