Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dopeman
because we're talking felony charges
The commentary refers to section 2257(f) in the event that the secondary producers are unable to produce the complete records for all content that they ever published. Section 2257(f) is the part of the law that basically says, 'failure to maintain the required records is a crime!'
|
Three things.
1) The commentary is just the DOJ's opinion, nothing more. It's how they view the situation, a court can (and probably will) view the situation differently.
2) The Sundance decision came down AFTER the Library Ass'n decision came down. One would think that basing your decisions on the latest case law is "prudent"
3) EVEN IF the courts today disagree with the 10th circuit's decision in the Sundance case, that the secondary producer requirements in the regulations overreach the law.....there is still a very strong argument to be made that secondary producers acted in "good faith" by following the Sundance ruling.
It would be a giant stretch of the law for the DOJ to obtain a conviction on you for content you published prior to the publication of the new regs, if that content was removed before the new regs went into effect.
I'm not an attorney, this is not legal advice, this is just my opinion. It is however, a sound and well thought out opinion.