Non US Webmaster's view on 2257 - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

Dirty Dane · 06-07-2005, 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manga1

There have been many precedents on this. I'm not making it up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by broke

They just did.

Links please

Manga1 · 06-07-2005, 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhutocracy

interstate though right? Anyways.. there is no duristiction over someone following the law of their own country so...

Not only interstate, this has been applied internationally in several jurisdictions.

There is the example of Jay Cohen who was running an online sportsbook out of Antigua with all servers, employees, and operations there. A New York judge decided it didn't matter where the server was and that it was where the site was downloaded that established jurisdiction. You can read the whole story here http://www.freejaycohen.com/RealStoryJayPg.html

There's been other cases outside the US as well. This one in the UK established jurisdiction over an American in a libel case, "The material in question was stored on websites based in California, and related to another proceeding taking place in New York. The issue was whether the American defendant could be served outside of the UK. It was accepted that the tort had occurred in the UK, because in England, the tort of libel is committed where the publication takes place, and Internet text is published at the place it is downloaded."
http://www.heydary.com/internet-laws/20041104.html#4

And this one in Canada where the Washington Post was sued for libel and the province of Ontario established jurisdiction because "due to the fact the allegedly defamatory statements were published online and therefore accessible in Ontario, the Court had jurisdiction over the defendant."
http://www.heydary.com/internet-laws/20040205.html#1

Manga1 · 06-07-2005, 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirty Dane

Links please

Read my previous post

bhutocracy · 06-07-2005, 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by broke

Sorry it's you -- but Christ almighty.

Do you honestly think that you could import cars in violation of US law (to the US and say, "hey -- it's legal here"?)? Hookers? Beer? Weapons? Kids toys? Beef?

Wait -- I get it. Data packets are not subject to trade agreements, but everything else is...

Do you honestly think the Hun will be pulled before the DOJ for hosting beast porn who's packets are being sent to US homes?
You think the DOJ will seriously be allowed to become Team America World Police by the NL government?

bhutocracy · 06-07-2005, 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manga1

Not only interstate, this has been applied internationally in several jurisdictions.

There is the example of Jay Cohen who was running an online sportsbook out of Antigua with all servers, employees, and operations there. A New York judge decided it didn't matter where the server was and that it was where the site was downloaded that established jurisdiction. You can read the whole story here http://www.freejaycohen.com/RealStoryJayPg.html

An American Citizen committing crimes tried by an American court.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manga1

There's been other cases outside the US as well. This one in the UK established jurisdiction over an American in a libel case, "The material in question was stored on websites based in California, and related to another proceeding taking place in New York. The issue was whether the American defendant could be served outside of the UK. It was accepted that the tort had occurred in the UK, because in England, the tort of libel is committed where the publication takes place, and Internet text is published at the place it is downloaded."
http://www.heydary.com/internet-laws/20041104.html#4

Libel is an offence both in the US and the UK

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manga1

And this one in Canada where the Washington Post was sued for libel and the province of Ontario established jurisdiction because "due to the fact the allegedly defamatory statements were published online and therefore accessible in Ontario, the Court had jurisdiction over the defendant."
http://www.heydary.com/internet-laws/20040205.html#1

Libel is an offence both in the US and the Canada.

You think China is going to be able to sentence an American to the gulags because they broke Chinese Laws and published an anti-chinese article on their website?

I'm not saying it's 110% super duper safe but they would be setting LARGE precedents.. precedents that will be fought and fought hard.

WarChild · 06-07-2005, 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhutocracy

Do you honestly think the Hun will be pulled before the DOJ for hosting beast porn who's packets are being sent to US homes?
You think the DOJ will seriously be allowed to become Team America World Police by the NL government?

Why doesn't the US DOJ turn over US webmasters in droves to China. I mean, by the same logic, the moment a Chinese national buys porn from a US website, the website's owner is guilty of a crime in China, right?

broke · 06-07-2005, 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhutocracy

Do you honestly think the Hun will be pulled before the DOJ for hosting beast porn who's packets are being sent to US homes?
You think the DOJ will seriously be allowed to become Team America World Police by the NL government?

No.

Did you read anything else I've said besides the quoted partial statement?

Damian_Maxcash · 06-07-2005, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manga1

Not only interstate, this has been applied internationally in several jurisdictions.

There is the example of Jay Cohen who was running an online sportsbook out of Antigua with all servers, employees, and operations there. A New York judge decided it didn't matter where the server was and that it was where the site was downloaded that established jurisdiction. You can read the whole story here http://www.freejaycohen.com/RealStoryJayPg.html

There's been other cases outside the US as well. This one in the UK established jurisdiction over an American in a libel case, "The material in question was stored on websites based in California, and related to another proceeding taking place in New York. The issue was whether the American defendant could be served outside of the UK. It was accepted that the tort had occurred in the UK, because in England, the tort of libel is committed where the publication takes place, and Internet text is published at the place it is downloaded."
http://www.heydary.com/internet-laws/20041104.html#4

And this one in Canada where the Washington Post was sued for libel and the province of Ontario established jurisdiction because "due to the fact the allegedly defamatory statements were published online and therefore accessible in Ontario, the Court had jurisdiction over the defendant."
http://www.heydary.com/internet-laws/20040205.html#1

Interesting, but in all cases the 'other' country had corresponding laws or was for other reasons capitulating to Washington's requests.

The idea that I could be in any trouble for breaking a law in foreign country that would actually require me to break the law here just dosnt wash.

broke · 06-07-2005, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarChild

Why doesn't the US DOJ turn over US webmasters in droves to China. I mean, by the same logic, the moment a Chinese national buys porn from a US website, the website's owner is guilty of a crime in China, right?

1. The DOJ doesn't have the authority.
2. That's why I had China blocked since I started.

I don't feel my local rights usurp the rights of other nations.

Bad buisness decision... maybe. But I can still go to China.

taibo · 06-07-2005, 09:38 PM

i predict another 2257 thread

bhutocracy · 06-07-2005, 09:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by broke

No.

Did you read anything else I've said besides the quoted partial statement?

Oh I read it, it's just if data packets is importing then the hun is importing animal porn.

Look, I'm also not suggesting that non US people don't become 2257 Compliant, why be the test case? lol.

broke · 06-07-2005, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhutocracy

Oh I read it, it's just if data packets is importing then the hun is importing animal porn.

Fair enough...

I think people are equating my stance to the DOJ's stance. That's just not the case. I'm just trying to inform and warn people. Just like I wouldn't advise Patrick to go to any US shows after the 23rd....

GatorB · 06-07-2005, 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by broke

I think people are equating my stance to the DOJ's stance. That's just not the case. I'm just trying to inform and warn people. Just like I wouldn't advise Patrick to go to any US shows after the 23rd....

Hey that all I was trying to do and got nothing but trouble from people mostly Euros. Got call idiot and worse and got treated really bad. Fuck it, there is no sue trying to explain things to them. They are too defensive to actually try to udnerstand your point. My point was EXACTLY the same as yours. I will say so far they have been nicer to you.

bhutocracy · 06-07-2005, 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by broke

Fair enough...

I think people are equating my stance to the DOJ's stance. That's just not the case. I'm just trying to inform and warn people. Just like I wouldn't advise Patrick to go to any US shows after the 23rd....

Oh yeah.. you'd be silly to be complacent about it no matter where you are. I sure as fuck wouldn't ignore the new 2257 regs even in NL - why go out of your way to break another country's law especially one that provides so much income?

I'm just finding it very hard to see how they can create a precedent that would allow anyone from any country to be at the mercy of any other country's crazy laws. Especially from countries not entered into free trade agreements or other trade contracts that may specify internet use. Some countries won't mind a ruling that applies both ways (libel) but when it comes to extraditing 500 of their own citizens for something legal? And what of other countries not in the mood to be pushed around in a one way manner outside of the close knit western US/UK/CA/AU etc?

Then again thats probably because im not a lawyer

rednet · 06-07-2005, 10:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by broke

I don't disagree with you. However, the DOJ does...

What have I said that's so horrid? Did I tell you to stop doing what you're doing? Did I try to convince you to stop doing something? I gave you the DOJ's stance and advised people not complying to avoid US soil.

the true is the essence of the "US soil" definition...

ULVideo · 06-07-2005, 10:29 PM

Anyone who does not comply with 2257 shouldn't be surprised if their cash flow stream from US sources gets "interrupted". If you don't care about US sales, then don't worry about it, but even if you don't get extradited/prosecutes in the US, I think there's a really good chance US DOJ is going to be able to get other countries processors to stop processing transactions for non-compliant websites. And I think you can forget about Visa and Mastercard, even if you've got a merchant acount. If you don't need them, then you're ok. But who doesn't need them (at all)?

Damian_Maxcash · 06-07-2005, 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ULVideo

Anyone who does not comply with 2257 shouldn't be surprised if their cash flow stream from US sources gets "interrupted". If you don't care about US sales, then don't worry about it, but even if you don't get extradited/prosecutes in the US, I think there's a really good chance US DOJ is going to be able to get other countries processors to stop processing transactions for non-compliant websites. And I think you can forget about Visa and Mastercard, even if you've got a merchant acount. If you don't need them, then you're ok. But who doesn't need them (at all)?

What you say may or may not happen, but even suggesting that people may be extradited is a joke. It wont happen, its one area of the law that I have, unfortunatly, first hand knowledge of.

We are all going to be affected by this but no-one outside the US should worry about criminal procedings. Of course, that said, dont plan on going to the US for a holiday anytime soon.

V_RocKs · 06-07-2005, 10:47 PM

NTSS · 06-07-2005, 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarChild

There seems to be a lot of animosity between US webmasters and non US webmasters over 2257. People seem to be getting angry that non US citizens are taking your new 2257 regulations a little lighter than some of you would like.

As a Canadian, I'm sorry your government was able to pass such a ridiculous law. I stand with you in fighting it, and I'll even help fund Free Speech Coalition to everybody's benefit. Please try to understand if non Americans could make these laws vanish, we would without a doubt.

That being said, I will bind my business by the laws of the land that I live in and operate my business out of, Canada. Much as I won't be bound by China's laws banning pornograhphy all together. I refuse to be made a record keeper by the US DOJ. I'm sorry this upsets some US webmasters but that's really out of my control. Please don't confuse this as disrespect for your plight.

Please understand as a non US webmaster, I have all kinds of other challenges. It's more difficult for me to setup with third party billers and I pay much higher taxes, to name just a few.

Well said

Dirty Dane · 06-07-2005, 11:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ULVideo

Anyone who does not comply with 2257 shouldn't be surprised if their cash flow stream from US sources gets "interrupted". If you don't care about US sales, then don't worry about it, but even if you don't get extradited/prosecutes in the US, I think there's a really good chance US DOJ is going to be able to get other countries processors to stop processing transactions for non-compliant websites. And I think you can forget about Visa and Mastercard, even if you've got a merchant acount. If you don't need them, then you're ok. But who doesn't need them (at all)?

lol... lets be realistic here. 98% of the "pain" in complying 2257 is the new definition of producer and about how, what and where to keep records. Internet has "no borders", yes, but physical countries do and there is no way US authorities can inspect you at your home adress. So it make no sense to say you have to comply 100%, and get prosecuted or whatever may happen.
Besides that, US and foreign agencys are co-operating both ways, and if a US agency find a foreign suspicious website, I'm sure they will contact the local authorities.
Yes, Visa and processors may or may not stop transactions, but that is not new, it already happened. As long there are money there will be websites.

rednet · 06-08-2005, 12:17 AM

well, the one thing that can affect the non-us biz is visa... and that's all...

but as you all know bestiality, rape, shitting and other shit (pun... lol!) that is illegal in US and still getting sold... anyway the internet is full of that stuff (because it still getting sold... lol... how do you think surfers pay for that sick porn? i can be wrong but i suppose they use their visas and mastercards)

FUCKuPAYme · 06-08-2005, 12:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarChild

There seems to be a lot of animosity between US webmasters and non US webmasters over 2257. People seem to be getting angry that non US citizens are taking your new 2257 regulations a little lighter than some of you would like.

As a Canadian, I'm sorry your government was able to pass such a ridiculous law. I stand with you in fighting it, and I'll even help fund Free Speech Coalition to everybody's benefit. Please try to understand if non Americans could make these laws vanish, we would without a doubt.

That being said, I will bind my business by the laws of the land that I live in and operate my business out of, Canada. Much as I won't be bound by China's laws banning pornograhphy all together. I refuse to be made a record keeper by the US DOJ. I'm sorry this upsets some US webmasters but that's really out of my control. Please don't confuse this as disrespect for your plight.

Please understand as a non US webmaster, I have all kinds of other challenges. It's more difficult for me to setup with third party billers and I pay much higher taxes, to name just a few.

Great post

we all have to do whats best for our business

I just think we shouldn't let kids see hardcore for free or anyone for that matter

Matt_WildCash · 06-08-2005, 02:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rednet

well, the one thing that can affect the non-us biz is visa... and that's all...

but as you all know bestiality, rape, shitting and other shit (pun... lol!) that is illegal in US and still getting sold... anyway the internet is full of that stuff (because it still getting sold... lol... how do you think surfers pay for that sick porn? i can be wrong but i suppose they use their visas and mastercards)

Visa has banned Beastility, Rape, incest and any violent porn from being purchased via Visa credit card. Anyone selling with those is bouncing around merchant accounts where the bank doesn't know what its really selling.

06-07-2005, 09:38 PM	#60
taibo Confirmed User Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 3,720	i predict another 2257 thread

06-07-2005, 10:29 PM	#66
ULVideo Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: New York Posts: 405	Anyone who does not comply with 2257 shouldn't be surprised if their cash flow stream from US sources gets "interrupted". If you don't care about US sales, then don't worry about it, but even if you don't get extradited/prosecutes in the US, I think there's a really good chance US DOJ is going to be able to get other countries processors to stop processing transactions for non-compliant websites. And I think you can forget about Visa and Mastercard, even if you've got a merchant acount. If you don't need them, then you're ok. But who doesn't need them (at all)?

06-07-2005, 10:47 PM	#68
V_RocKs Damn Right I Kiss Ass! Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Cowtown, USA Posts: 32,409

06-08-2005, 12:17 AM	#71
rednet Registered User Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 82	well, the one thing that can affect the non-us biz is visa... and that's all... but as you all know bestiality, rape, shitting and other shit (pun... lol!) that is illegal in US and still getting sold... anyway the internet is full of that stuff (because it still getting sold... lol... how do you think surfers pay for that sick porn? i can be wrong but i suppose they use their visas and mastercards)