Canadians and 2257

[susanna]

Have I missed the threads on how Canadians are affected by 2257? Anyone seen a lawyer yet?

[Agent]

I asked this same question here last year. I gave it some thought. and I came to this conclusion: I'm not (physically) operating within or a citizen of the US. I don't have the right to vote for the US president. I abide by my countires own rules. I worry about Canada.

Fuck, we travel to Cuba and George W. doesn't take us a way. Maybe you mean indirectly? I don't know. We have to wait and see.

This is my last 2257 thread reply =)

[mrenaud]

Also curious being in Canada myself.

[susanna]

I have read the sweet entertainment bit on 2257 and it looks like the old info... that they have not recently updated it. Anyone else have leads?

[tb]

What if your biz is set up in Canada but your hosted on servers either physically located in the US or with a hosting company that resides in the US ?

[Agent]

Am I violating Canadian privacy laws by strictly adhering to the new US 2257?

[RBC]

Originally Posted by tb

What if your biz is set up in Canada but your hosted on servers either physically located in the US or with a hosting company that resides in the US ?

If you host the content in the US then you have to play by US rules. I would backup or duplicate what you have on your US servers and if need be you can change your DNS to a canadian host.

The main thing you have to concern yourself with is the US gov. telling your host to shut you down.

[Fonz]

Originally Posted by RBC

If you host the content in the US then you have to play by US rules. I would backup or duplicate what you have on your US servers and if need be you can change your DNS to a canadian host.

The main thing you have to concern yourself with is the US gov. telling your host to shut you down.

Hosts are not secondary producers so therefor it shouldn't matter where you are hosted, or am I totally wrong here RawAlex?

[pornrex]

Originally Posted by Fonz

Hosts are not secondary producers so therefor it shouldn't matter where you are hosted, or am I totally wrong here RawAlex?

VERY interesting point Fonz indeed.

[RBC]

Originally Posted by Fonz

Hosts are not secondary producers so therefor it shouldn't matter where you are hosted, or am I totally wrong here RawAlex?

The issue is not about the host being any sort of producer.
It's about location, location , location.
The feds wouldnt ask the host to provide any 2257 docs. They would ask the host to shut down the site if the owner couldnt provide the docs.

[tickler]

Originally Posted by ADK

Am I violating Canadian privacy laws by strictly adhering to the new US 2257?

Depends on which part, and where you fit in the loop.

Having the info is probably OK. Giving it out to anybody else, including the DOJ, could pull massive fines.

US server hosts are not responsible for the content on the servers. That has been through the courts before. The DOJ might be able to order them to shut you down though.

They might also be able to interfere with the money flow from sponsors somewhat.

The last 2 might be breaking NAFTA though. Bet, they never thought of porn when it was signed.

[ArtWilliams]

Originally Posted by Fonz

Hosts are not secondary producers so therefor it shouldn't matter where you are hosted, or am I totally wrong here RawAlex?

Agreed Fonz, but the authorities don't take copies of files they usually seize the equipment for proof at a trial.

--art

[ArtWilliams]

Originally Posted by susanna

Have I missed the threads on how Canadians are affected by 2257? Anyone seen a lawyer yet?

Make sure your server is not in the US. You might also want to consider using non-US sponsors.

--art

[terry]

I really need to call my lawyer!!!

Think about it. Sure you "live" in Canada, but your hosting is in the US, your billing is probably in the US (if you run a paysite), your sponsors are mostly in the US.. All that can be stopped by the US! Am I wrong? I don't think so. Sure they may or may not come to Canada to arrest me, but they sure can shut me down pretty quit by making a couple of phone calls.

So maybe I wont go to jail and be someones bitch for a few years, but having no income feels just the same!

[ArtWilliams]

Originally Posted by terry

I really need to call my lawyer!!!

Think about it. Sure you "live" in Canada, but your hosting is in the US, your billing is probably in the US (if you run a paysite), your sponsors are mostly in the US.. All that can be stopped by the US! Am I wrong? I don't think so. Sure they may or may not come to Canada to arrest me, but they sure can shut me down pretty quit by making a couple of phone calls.

So maybe I wont go to jail and be someones bitch for a few years, but having no income feels just the same!

Yes, these are seriosus considerations.

[tb]

Does anyone know of a not too expensive, reliable, Canadian company, that will host adult content?

[Tommy]

I think your all fucked

[ArtWilliams]

Originally Posted by tb

Does anyone know of a not too expensive, reliable, Canadian company, that will host adult content?

I sent you a PM. ... art

[RawAlex]

Okay, here is my take:

The key to 2257 is where the publishing takes place. The publishing of my websites is from my office in Montreal. It doesn't take place anywhere in the US. I may have servers in the us, but they are merely distribution points, not actual points of publication (there is nobody from my company at the servers). Nobody at that point can change or alter the content of the pages or exercise editorial control, so those servers are just distribution points, exempt from 2257 regulations. This is why we don't all have to send copies of the documents to our webhosts.

As I am in Canada, I will adhere to Canadian law. I have licenses for my content, and it is perfectly legal in Canada to publish images of adults having sex. Heck, my local video store also stock peeing and fisting videos.

For models that I shoot for sale outside of Canada, I will require in the future a disclaimer to allow for model information to be revealed as required by 2257. For previous models, I will contact the ones I need to get ahold of and get the documents if they are truly required.

For my video editing customers, I will require no additional documentation, I don't need 2257 documents, I don't need any extra stuff. There is a potential however for an additional document indicating that you are the primary or secondary producer, and that you state that models are of age, you have the documents, and that any requests for documents should be made to you. A copy of that sheet would be put in with any shipments coming from or going to the US.

If Dubya and his merry band of freedom removers attempts to apply the law to me in Canada, I will gladly fight them tooth and nail until such time that they go away. I will not be and not allow myself to be subject to US law unless I am physically in the US.

Alex

[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.

As for shutting down Canadian webmasters, let me just say that this sort of thing can't easily happen without at least some sort of reason, while my opinion of the DOJ on this matter isn't high, I also know they aren't a bunch of jack booted thugs who will randomly run around and pillage server farms to get rid of the porn. The backlash for that sort of action would have Dubya in deep and serious shit.

Avoiding US sponsors isn't really going to help or change anything. If my company in Canada sells support service to a US company, it doesn't mean we are suddenly subject to US laws on the content of that support - unless that content also violates Canadian law or international law.

At the end of the day, 2257 isn't a horrible law as passed by congress. The current tumor attached to it is revolting, and I am confident that Sundance vs Reno will be confirmed by a higher court as this goes forward.

Alex

[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 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

[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

[Jeremy]

I have three words for my Canadian friends: Paul Kent-Snowsell.