Greenguy's Board - Canadians and 2257

Greenguy's Board (http://www.greenguysboard.com/board/index.php)

- General Business Knowledge (http://www.greenguysboard.com/board/forumdisplay.php?f=10)

- - Canadians and 2257 (http://www.greenguysboard.com/board/showthread.php?t=20574)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tommy

I think your all fucked

Thanks Tommy, we can feel the love

|lovers|

Here's my thought.

I'm in Canada. It's a United States law. China can't enforce their laws on me so Fuck off! :D

With respect for all opinions;

Quote:

Originally Posted by emmanuelle

Ex Post Facto Law - A law that makes criminal an act that was legal when it was committed, or that increases the penalty for a crime after it has been committed, or that changes the rules of evidence to make conviction easier; a retroactive criminal law. A Latin term meaning "after the fact." The state legislatures and Congress are forbidden to pass such laws by Article I, section 9 and 10 or the Constitution.

source: http://www.vote-smart.org/resource_g...hp#expostfacto

This is not Ex Post Facto.
The new 2257 law has been released prior to its coming into effect.
You have been clearly and fairly warned.
How you act is now Ex Post of the new law.
There do not seem to be any retroactive provisions in this law as I am aware.
What you have done in the past is not relevant, the law only dictates how you should conduct your biz from a future date.
Sad but true. |cry|

What about the recordkeeping that is retroactive to 1995?

Quote:

Originally Posted by emmanuelle

Ex Post Facto Law...
The state legislatures and Congress are forbidden to pass such laws by Article I, section 9 and 10 or the Constitution....

The same point I made in another thread a couple of weeks ago. |thumb
http://www.greenguysboard.com/board/...&postcount=159

With respect for all opinions;

Quote:

Originally Posted by emmanuelle

What about the recordkeeping that is retroactive to 1995?

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2257

Thirty-six commenters commented that even if the effective date
were changed to July 3, 1995, the regulation would be overly burdensome
on secondary producers because producers would be required to obtain
records for thousands--even hundreds of thousands--of sexually explicit
depictions dating back a number of years. These commenters claimed that
secondary producers would likely be unable to locate many of those
records from primary producers who may have moved, shut down, or
otherwise disappeared. According to the commenters, those secondary
producers who could not locate such records would be forced to remove
the sexually explicit depictions, which would be a limit on
constitutionally protected material.
The Department declines to adopt these comments. Producers were on
notice that records had to be kept at least by primary producers for
depictions manufactured after July 3, 1995. In addition, commenters
were similarly on notice that the D.C. Circuit, in American Library
Ass'n v. Reno, had upheld the requirement that secondary producers
maintain records. The Department is not responsible if secondary
producers chose to rely on the Tenth Circuit's holding in Sundance and
not to maintain records while ignoring the D.C. Circuit's holding in
American Library Ass'n v. Reno. A prudent secondary producer would have
continued to secure copies of the records from primary producers after
July 3, 1995. If those records, which are statutorily required, are not
currently available, then the commenters are correct that they will be
required to comply with the requirements of all applicable laws,
including section 2257(f).

They claim that you have been fairly warned to keep records after July 3, 1995.
The leg they chose to stand on may be debatable, but they are covering their bums very well on the retroactivity crap.
Evidently they are quite aware of meeting the requirements of being non ex post facto.
Of course the statment they make " The Department declines to adopt these comments blah blah blah...." can be debated in a court of law.
Lets just hope that the first person to step up to the plate to debate these laws has deep pockets and a lawyer with a good sense of humor.
Is Hugh or Larry still around?

Personally I see this as a chance to re-position porn in the internet market place. Make it rare, increase the price.....painful in the short term, very profitable in the long term. Just don't fuck the affiliates along the way. Every cloud has a silver lining. ;)

Emmanuelle, you make the mistake of assume that the congress passed a new law. That is just not the case. What you have here is an administrative clarification of an existing law - basically they are explaining what paperwork is truly needed. The wording and contents of this administrative clarification have been shot down in court before (sundance vs reno), but this is not an Ex Post Facto law, because congress, the house, and the president were not involved in passing a new law.

Don't bet your (american based) business on tricky out clauses and flashy legal game playing.

Alex

Found what looks like a decent canadian hosting company that allows adult content http://www.moxiehosting.com

is .com = united states??
i highly doubt those fuckers could take a domain away from me

Ok so far very good ideas and I tend to agree with RawAlex. At the very least a Canadian can understand their own laws and follow them. I understand PIPEDA. The privacy laws at the federal level are fairly simple but the provincial interpretations are just coming in. This can change over time but if anything they will get stricter. If that is a word.

My new questions are:

Can and will a processor such as ccbill require all companies to have 2257 compliance? I know there is that extenuating circumstance for canadians that they had to incorporate in the USA for visa reasons... so there is probably? no canadian businesses using ccbill? What about other processors? I guess they are offshore and wont be imposing anything?

Next...what about link lists? already there are some that have their terms listed to include 2257 compliance. Will us based link list operators have to force the 2257 compliance? tgp operators? Is linking to someone who doesnt bother posting their compliance a bad thing for someone who lives in the USA? does this mean those that wont comply cant play with any USA webmasters anymore?

Now what if you are an American and you want to use an overseas affiliate program? are you in trouble for linking/using banners or even free content from a non-compliant program? Of course this would have implications for the rest of us non-users.

I would suggest that everybody read what the FSC told the DOJ was wrong about the proposed regs here.
http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/F...7_Comments.htm

And then compare the result here with old vs. proposed vs. new.
http://my.execpc.com/~xxxlaw/2257Tables5.24.05.htm

It don't take a braniac to see that the DOJ is out to lunch, and that any injunctions may even force the courts to scrap the entire law and start over from scratch.

Look, this whole thing is crap.
Have you tried to read all this shit after 6 beers? (Canadian ones)
and I'm so fucking Canadian I'm worried about a US law eh?
That's fucking crap.
Maybe I'll just incarcerate myself eh? That'd be real Canadian polite eh?
Bad boy go to your room for ten days!
Maybe Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales should spank me eh?
Simply put if the US sponsors don't step up to the plate and start hitting balls back
it's time to leave and join another game.
This is porn and where I come from porn is legal, if it's obviously between consenting adults.
This hair splitting shit is fucking crap.

Needless to say I have had about 5 of those 6 Canadian beers!
Now where the fuck is Homer Simpson, I'm supposed to meet him here and then we're headed over to Moe's.

yes you sound so canadian.

No one have any idea how link lists are going to react? Greenguy what is your take on that?

Maybe they'll build special prisions to house all the Canadian webmasters they arrest. They'll have to because theirs will be full of American webmasters. *sigh*

If the worst case scenario described in any of these 225 fucking 7 threads happened I don't see our Liberal goverment handing anyone of us over. Ever. If anyone in Canada does something incredibly stupid or illegal the RCMP would have their asses long before the Feds could get their paperwork written. In that case you deserve to be assfucked in prison.

As long as the Conservatives are kept in their corner I'll feel pretty safe. And the Conservative's chances of taking control of Parliament are fucked without Belinda ;)

EDIT: I almost forgot, we're a Minority government and not completely Liberal. The way it should be.