Pay for 2257 info?

RawAlex · 2005-06-08, 10:14 AM

DB Stuart, you purchased and accepts to take responsbility for the content refered to as "RBC".

You became the primary record keeper for the RBC content.

New regulations under 2257 require (not just suggest, but require) that you provide fll model IDs and other information to licensed users of the RBC content.

New regulations discuss the subject of blacked out, modified, or editing model information, and state it is not only not required, but can hinder model identification, which could render the 2257 documents you give to the secondary providers useless. This could put those secondary providers in violation.

I would highly recommend that you contact a lawyer that is fluent and has a clear understanding of 2257 law. this isn't an issue of copyright, ecrimes, or some governors panel on internet fraud. This is a very specific issue germain to our industry.

It is my opinion that your lawyer(s) either did not clearly understand the intent of this new rule clarification, or did not read the discourse that accompanied the publication of these new rules.

No, I am not a lawyer. But I have told more than one where to go and won.

Alex

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Switch to Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

2005-06-08, 10:14 AM	#20
RawAlex Took the hint. Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 5,597	DB Stuart, you purchased and accepts to take responsbility for the content refered to as "RBC". You became the primary record keeper for the RBC content. New regulations under 2257 require (not just suggest, but require) that you provide fll model IDs and other information to licensed users of the RBC content. New regulations discuss the subject of blacked out, modified, or editing model information, and state it is not only not required, but can hinder model identification, which could render the 2257 documents you give to the secondary providers useless. This could put those secondary providers in violation. I would highly recommend that you contact a lawyer that is fluent and has a clear understanding of 2257 law. this isn't an issue of copyright, ecrimes, or some governors panel on internet fraud. This is a very specific issue germain to our industry. It is my opinion that your lawyer(s) either did not clearly understand the intent of this new rule clarification, or did not read the discourse that accompanied the publication of these new rules. No, I am not a lawyer. But I have told more than one where to go and won. Alex