![]() |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
So I'm 'in violation of trade laws' but you have no clue as to which laws i'm violating? I can't imagine why I stayed away from GFY for so many years.. this shit is hilarious! |
Quote:
|
Look it's this simple. Say you're a farmer in Canada that wants to sell produce in America. Now there are certian labeling laws you have to abide by in order to do that. Now maybe Canada doesn't require these labels when you sell your goods at home. Does that mean you can say "Fuck those laws it's not required where I live so I won't abide by them."? No you can't. Not if you want to sell to Americans. SAME EXACT THING.
Once again The rule is no different from other forms of labeling requirements imposed on foreign producers of, e.g., alcohol, tobacco, or food items that are imported into the United States. If you want to sell to American you HAVE to abide by American laws. Once again if you do not wish to abide by the rules then you are not allowed to sell to Americans. Foreign producers have the option of not complying with the rule, but then their access to the U.S. market is justly and lawfully prohibited. So you better just get some code on your sites that redirects American traffic elsewhere. |
I give up ... no intention of cracking my head on a brick wall ...
GatorB, your examples of products are physical ones for the SOLE distribution in the USA ... Look at airwaves ( TV - Radio )... The FCC has rules. If you re-broadcast from within the USA, you have to follow them. But Joe Millionnaire, with his big dish and a FTA receiver can view programs from Italy wich shows Janet Jackson's nipple ... Early Morning here ... Sun is rising ... and I am going to bed after fixing a shitload of PHP to french language .... The fucking US company didn't conform to our laws that require predominance of french... Hummmm, GFY is illegal here .... LOL and in Germany also ... ( ID required ) ... Bottom Line: This is the most stupid law made on false pretenses ( kid protection ). |
Quote:
Here they are again for the mentally challenged. The rule is no different from other forms of labeling requirements imposed on foreign producers of, e.g., alcohol, tobacco, or food items that are imported into the United States. Foreign producers have the option of not complying with the rule, but then their access to the U.S. market is justly and lawfully prohibited. |
Quote:
Chicks dig my bad-boy lawlessness in regards to 2257 compliance. :pimp What all of this comes down to is that you can't police the internet in the same fashion that you can stop the sale of tangible goods being exported to the US. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
I am currently, and have been for months now, placing on the front page of each site a 2257 compliance statement as well as stating where the Custodian of Records is located. As a Canadian webmaster I think that's fair. If sponsors want to give me the documents for all their models that's cool too. I have no problem producing the documentation if requested to. As for keeping a catalog of all URLs that point to 'actual sexual' content then that's just too bad. Proving a model is over 18 is one thing but what the DOJ is asking is fucked up. This law has absolutely nothing to do with protecting children and I don't think anyone here would argue any different. Clinton's Communications Decency Act was an obvious attempt to censor the Internet in the US and control thought. These new regs however are a little different - they legislate a witch hunt. |
Quote:
Our law enforcement does NOT enforce U.S. laws. Seriously, you Americans are delusionary. WE ARE NOT SUBJECT TO YOUR LAWS! GEDDIT? :1orglaugh |
solution for foreign webmasters = put your address on a 2257 page, and don't bother keeping any records? It's not like they can come and check.
|
Quote:
So an UK farmer that tries to sell unlabled beef to the US can't be arrested for violating US trade laws? Hmmmmmm. WTF is the point in having them then? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Every single webmaster promoting pornography in the United States by the letter of the law is violating obscenity charges. Are they prosecuted? No, as the law is too vague to get a conviction. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Jebus |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Oh too late you guys already made fun of him.
|
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:00 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123