Canadians and 2257

[emmanuelle]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

Seperate disclaimer: If any part of your company is in the US (specifically a company for billing, etc) or you present a US address for your company, then yes, I would say you are subject to 2257 all the way.

You can't have it both ways. If you need to be a US company for billing, then you are a US company for everything else too.

Alex

I respectfully disagree

My US company and my Canadian company are two different entities.
One provides a small service to the other, and generates no profits. The only ties that bind them are my name as the President. I am a Canadian Citizen.

If international arms of US companies were obligated by default to follow US law, there would be no sweatshops, child labour, or a whole host of gross indecencies perpetuated around the world.

[Wazza]

This is the basis of my remarks regarding entities which are formed within the US purely for the purpose of enabling access to US based third party billing providers:

"Four commenters objected to the inclusion in the definition of producer of parent organizations and subsidiaries of producers, claiming it was beyond the Department's statutory authority, did not specify which entities must comply with the statute, overrode state laws on business associations, and violated the principles of Sundance Assoc., Inc. v. Reno. While not confirming the validity of, or adopting, the specific objections of the commenters, the Department has eliminated the inclusion of parent and subsidiary organizations in the definition of producer."

|viking|

[RawAlex]

Originally Posted by Wazza

This is the basis of my remarks regarding entities which are formed within the US purely for the purpose of enabling access to US based third party billing providers:

"Four commenters objected to the inclusion in the definition of producer of parent organizations and subsidiaries of producers, claiming it was beyond the Department's statutory authority, did not specify which entities must comply with the statute, overrode state laws on business associations, and violated the principles of Sundance Assoc., Inc. v. Reno. While not confirming the validity of, or adopting, the specific objections of the commenters, the Department has eliminated the inclusion of parent and subsidiary organizations in the definition of producer."

|viking|

wazza, the issue of companies for billing is more complicated than just being arms or subsidiaries. In order to obtain processing, these US companies must declare themselves as owners or in control of the websites in question. Excluding parent ot subsidiary organizations just means that if a company has a sub created for a production, the principal company is not ALSO required to hold the records. The primary (or secondary) producer holds the records.

Of course, that would go out the window if sub "a" makes content and sub "b" runs websites with it. It is likely that each one would have to have records, one as the primary producer and one as the secondary producer.

This isn't simple!

Alex

[RawAlex]

Originally Posted by emmanuelle

I respectfully disagree

My US company and my Canadian company are two different entities.
One provides a small service to the other, and generates no profits. The only ties that bind them are my name as the President. I am a Canadian Citizen.

If international arms of US companies were obligated by default to follow US law, there would be no sweatshops, child labour, or a whole host of gross indecencies perpetuated around the world.

Okay, here's a question for you: When I go to your signup pages, I get this:

[quote] Content Provided By:
Linc Communications
US[quote]

Who actually provides the content of the site? If you have made a declaration to CCbill that your US company is the beneficial owner of the sites, then that beneficial owner may also accept the responsibilities. It might put you in a position where legally your canadian company is looked at as a support or even an outsource, rather than the publisher.

Can you explain what you mean by this?

Alex