Not that I agree with the regulations at all.....but how exactly can someone inspect your records at a PO BOX?

Like I've said befoerr ther are PLENTY of people that will take teh DOJ to cvourt voer this and so as soon as the new rules become law there will be an injunction. All they have to do is drag this thru 2009 because by then Bush and Ashhahahahaha will be out of office for good.

I hope you're right about that....but people I've spoken with that are in-the-know tell me it'll take at least 600-800K to fight that battle in court.
I'm not so sure there are PLENTY of people with both the means and the willingness to fight that battle.

Considering this could affect GOOGLE, YAHOO and many other big companies I think there's enough cash to fight this. If you read the proposed regs Google could be in BIG time trouble with it's Google Images. Are they goign to get rid of the IMAGES section? No. Are the going to get 2257 info? No. Are they going to put up with Ashhahahahaha's BS rules? No.

I watched this industries attempt to come together and fight Acacia, I'm less sure it could fight the DOJ.

Oh I see so you've spoken to the lead counsel for Google and Yahoo and know for a fact they're going to file a motion for declaratory judgement?

Your logic is flawed in two ways
1) The regs specifically state that to be considered a secondary producer you have to be the person who manages the content.(k) Manage content means to make editorial or managerial decisions concerning the content of a computer site or service.

Since google's image search is automated and the images aren't picked out by an actual human but grabbed randomly from the web by a program, they have a very strong argument based on that alone that they aren't secondary producers.

2) Its a really bad idea to plan your business based on the assumption that someone with deeper pockets than you is going to come to your rescue in the name of all that is right and good.

I hope that someone with deep pockets does indeed file for an injunction and have the resources and will to see it through, but you're wrong for blowing sunshine up people's asses by saying that you're all but sure that someone else is going to file a suit, and that someone else will indeed win that suit.

The last thing anyone should be thinking right now is that they have nothing to worry about.
We should all be hoping for the best but planning for the worst.

:2 cents: :2 cents:

Agreed.
This idea that "someone else" is going to file for an injunction is the same flawed thinking most webmasters used when saying that Microsoft, Real Networks, and Apple were going to fight Acacia for us......that didn't happen either.

sweet, I wonder if that means the free speech coalition will take it to court if the new rules do infact go into affect. That would at least put a halt to it for a few years.

I am not the producer ..

You still didn't answer my question.

How can someone inspect records at a PO BOX?
Whether or not you're a producer is something to argue in court for sure....but saying that you think you have a right to use a PO BOX makes no sense whatsoever.

If your position is that you're not a producer then the thing to do would be list no address for yourself whatsoever.....but a PO BOX doesn't make any sense.

:2 cents:

Read the law or hire a lawyer - moron!! Then you will know.

I've done both dickhead.....but it doesn't take a lawyer to figure out that you can't inspect someone's records at the post office.

As a small website owner the amount of record keeping being requested (now required?) would be just too much and therefore SexEducation.com would not have graphics or video.

In many cities of the free world there is no license required to begin selling a newspaper or magazine. The reason is; the cost of the license could be raised so high as to make it unaffordable to create a newspaper. The other "trick" governments use to shut down free speech is exactly what the 2257 changes do, which is to make the record keeping so complex that an individual could not possibley keep up or afford to maintain them.

It is absolutely a free speech issue.