Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mardigras
You don't think prosecutors will use archives to shore up cases?
|
Once again with MILLIONS of webpages out there that are LIVE why would the DOJ spend all their time at archive.org to go after people without current websites? There is ZERO chance at a conviction. No jury will convict someone of a crime over something that does not longer exist and when it did, wasn't violating any laws.
Fact is secondary producers were NOT required to have the docs before now. Prove that they were. Were they required to have a 2257 page with the names and adresses of the PRIMARY producers? Yes, but that's a different issue and one that the DOJ
could have been prosecuting for YEARS now already. They didn't.
Think about what you are saying. You are saying the DOJ is going to ask someone to PROVE the had docs BEFORE June 23, 2005? For what purpose? What difference does that make? And like I said they weren't required until now. Now you can make a case that the DOJ THINKS they SHOULD have been required. But as AaronM says the rules were VAGUE. Well VAGUE in court spells REASONABLE DOUBT.
Fact is I will have ZERO live webpages that require a 2257 statement on June 23, 2005. I am not worrried in the slightest that I will be prosecuted over something that no longer exists.