quote:

ORIGINAL: SirKenin



It affects any US citizen, no matter where their server is. I would say this is a good push in the right direction. Now for other countries to follow suit.

And I will appreciate you not calling Me stupid. I am not calling you names. you kindly return the favor. I am anything but stupid.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SirKenin

Canada will never dare go against the US in this anyways. Not in a million years. Canada has too much to lose. They have been in the US' bad books for over a century. They had better not do anything else to piss off the US without VERY good reason if they know what is good for them. Our government almost buried us with their Iraqi war policy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tormentius

quote:

ORIGINAL: SirKenin



It affects any US citizen, no matter where their server is. I would say this is a good push in the right direction. Now for other countries to follow suit.

And I will appreciate you not calling Me stupid. I am not calling you names. you kindly return the favor. I am anything but stupid.

No other countries are going to follow suit as the law is ineffective and will most likely be struck down even in the US (note the lawsuit which has already been launched challenging it). As for the comment on your intelligence you've amply proven my point throughout this thread by not even reading the very thing you were trying to argue about.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SirKenin




I really, truly wish that if you have so much to say about other people's intelligence that you would show some yourself and not make potshots at whether I read the material when I already said I did. Just because I do not agree with your chicken little half-assed approach does not mean I did not read the material. Any half-wit can assess that logic.

Now, as far as being automatically struck down, do not hold your breath. Just because a lawsuit has been filed means absolutely nothing. This is the USA after all. Every crackpot golddigger can file a lawsuit for anything they want. That does not mean they are going to win. This Law has been in effect for YEARS in the print industry. That is what you people crying wolf are missing altogether, yet you complain about Me not doing any reading. How pathetically predictable. There is no indication whatsoever that this Law will be struck down. As a matter of fact I highly have My doubts.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tormentius

quote:

ORIGINAL: SirKenin

Canada will never dare go against the US in this anyways. Not in a million years. Canada has too much to lose. They have been in the US' bad books for over a century. They had better not do anything else to piss off the US without VERY good reason if they know what is good for them. Our government almost buried us with their Iraqi war policy.

Just when I thought it couldn't get funnier. Canada is a sovereign nation and we make our own decisions (just as we did with the issue you mentioned). You won't see us following along withthe US in implementing this ridiculous law.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tormentius

quote:

ORIGINAL: SirKenin




I really, truly wish that if you have so much to say about other people's intelligence that you would show some yourself and not make potshots at whether I read the material when I already said I did. Just because I do not agree with your chicken little half-assed approach does not mean I did not read the material. Any half-wit can assess that logic.

Now, as far as being automatically struck down, do not hold your breath. Just because a lawsuit has been filed means absolutely nothing. This is the USA after all. Every crackpot golddigger can file a lawsuit for anything they want. That does not mean they are going to win. This Law has been in effect for YEARS in the print industry. That is what you people crying wolf are missing altogether, yet you complain about Me not doing any reading. How pathetically predictable. There is no indication whatsoever that this Law will be struck down. As a matter of fact I highly have My doubts.

You read it after being told to how many times? As for chicken-little half-assed approach do you care to define that? Is it because I don't agree with ridiculous laws which aren't going to even help solve the problem anyways? Putting that money into hiring more police cyber crimes officers would have done far, far more to help prevent exploitation than this.

You also keep mentioning the print industry and yet, as a "tech", you should know very well that the two mediums are entirely different and the laws which govern them need to reflect that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AAkasha

The law may be the same for print, but the way it is regulated and must be documented is completely different -- so much so that it isn't even a relevant comparison. He can't seem to get his head around that for some reason.

Akasha

quote:

ORIGINAL: SirKenin

quote:

ORIGINAL: AAkasha

The law may be the same for print, but the way it is regulated and must be documented is completely different -- so much so that it isn't even a relevant comparison. He can't seem to get his head around that for some reason.

Akasha

Would you care to prove that with some actual data? How is the documentation any different? Because you have to prove that because you are stupid and did not enable hotlink protection that you have to document who is stealing your bandwidth?

Wow, that is a hard one, and such a difficult fix. How can they cope?

Now.. Really. Without any sarcasm. Prove to Me with actual data how the two are significantly different to make one unconstitutional and the other constitutional. Please do a better job of it than you did with your other way-off-topic response in the other thread.

Thanks.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SirKenin

Even you, crying about intelligence and how I do not read, missed the ENTIRE point of My post. You are some genius are you not? Well qualified to speak I might add.

The point is, W/we are perfectly entitled, as this sovereign nation you are whining about, to make any decision that W/we want. That is not the point. The point is, what decisions make for sound foreign policy and good US/Canada relations and which ones do not? THIS is what matters. For 150 years W/we have thrown diplomacy on the back burner and spit in the US' face time and time and time again. "We are our own country. We can do things our way". You know. The same dipshit logic you are spewing right now.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SirKenin

There is a problem with allowing people like you to have any say.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SirKenin

... The US gets more and more and more pissed off at every turn. They have the power, genius. They are responsible for 85% of Canadian wealth. They are responsible for protecting us from our enemies. They are responsible for watching our backs. For a country that is so "sovereign", ace, we can not even protect our own coastlines. Our borders. Anything. Without the US for our major trade partner, we're screwed while idiots sit here and scream "We are a sovereign nation!!!! We can make our own decisions!!!!" as terrorists blast our CN Tower and the US takes over our free enterprise.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SirKenin

quote:

ORIGINAL: AAkasha

The law may be the same for print, but the way it is regulated and must be documented is completely different -- so much so that it isn't even a relevant comparison. He can't seem to get his head around that for some reason.

Akasha

Would you care to prove that with some actual data? How is the documentation any different? Because you have to prove that because you are stupid and did not enable hotlink protection that you have to document who is stealing your bandwidth?

Wow, that is a hard one, and such a difficult fix. How can they cope?

Now.. Really. Without any sarcasm. Prove to Me with actual data how the two are significantly different to make one unconstitutional and the other constitutional. Please do a better job of it than you did with your other way-off-topic response in the other thread.

Thanks.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tormentius

quote:

ORIGINAL: SirKenin

Even you, crying about intelligence and how I do not read, missed the ENTIRE point of My post. You are some genius are you not? Well qualified to speak I might add.

The point is, W/we are perfectly entitled, as this sovereign nation you are whining about, to make any decision that W/we want. That is not the point. The point is, what decisions make for sound foreign policy and good US/Canada relations and which ones do not? THIS is what matters. For 150 years W/we have thrown diplomacy on the back burner and spit in the US' face time and time and time again. "We are our own country. We can do things our way". You know. The same dipshit logic you are spewing right now.

Maintaining ties with another nation does not mean that we should allow them to make our decisions or influence our country. This is a pretty simply concept. We haven't been "spitting in the US' face" as you put it but we have chosen to take a different path on some major decisions. Thats called being a country rather than being a member state. Is that clear enough for you?

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: SirKenin

There is a problem with allowing people like you to have any say.

Oh, right. It should be just the right-wing people who have a say because they've done so much to bring peace and harmony to the world . Its called balance kenin. Insulting other nations outright isn't going to get us anywhere but neither will bowing and scraping. Nations will differ on some of their choices, and thats as it should be.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SirKenin

... The US gets more and more and more pissed off at every turn. They have the power, genius. They are responsible for 85% of Canadian wealth. They are responsible for protecting us from our enemies. They are responsible for watching our backs. For a country that is so "sovereign", ace, we can not even protect our own coastlines. Our borders. Anything. Without the US for our major trade partner, we're screwed while idiots sit here and scream "We are a sovereign nation!!!! We can make our own decisions!!!!" as terrorists blast our CN Tower and the US takes over our free enterprise.

The US needs us as a trading partner for many reasons so that road doesn't go only one way. Its mutually beneficial to maintain trade and that isn't going to change anytime soon.

I notice now that you've lost miserably for pages now on the 2257 argument you're only to happy to shift the subject. Lets keep it on track.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AAkasha

quote:

ORIGINAL: SirKenin

quote:

ORIGINAL: AAkasha

The law may be the same for print, but the way it is regulated and must be documented is completely different -- so much so that it isn't even a relevant comparison. He can't seem to get his head around that for some reason.

Akasha

Would you care to prove that with some actual data? How is the documentation any different? Because you have to prove that because you are stupid and did not enable hotlink protection that you have to document who is stealing your bandwidth?

Wow, that is a hard one, and such a difficult fix. How can they cope?

Now.. Really. Without any sarcasm. Prove to Me with actual data how the two are significantly different to make one unconstitutional and the other constitutional. Please do a better job of it than you did with your other way-off-topic response in the other thread.

Thanks.

Ok, let me give you a really dumbed down analogy. And keep in mind, you can't compare print to internet anyway, because the forms of media are so different. The Internet is dymanic, it changes constantly.

With the "secondary producer" aspect that you still don't grasp, if you were to compare this to print adult materials, then not only would the magazine publisher have to have the models full information, ID, name, copy of shoot on file at his place of business AVAILBLE to inspectors, but these people would also have to have this information on file, with ID, name, copy of the shoto AND their address and be available to inspectors:

1. The guy that did the layout and design
2. The company that did the printing
3. The mailhouse that managed the mailing list
4. Any person who makes a photocopy of the magazine later and gives it to a friend
5. Any other publication that reviews an article in the magazine that includes a picture of the model

etc.

Get it now?

Akasha

quote:

ORIGINAL: SirKenin

quote:

ORIGINAL: AAkasha

quote:

ORIGINAL: SirKenin

quote:

ORIGINAL: AAkasha

The law may be the same for print, but the way it is regulated and must be documented is completely different -- so much so that it isn't even a relevant comparison. He can't seem to get his head around that for some reason.

Akasha

Would you care to prove that with some actual data? How is the documentation any different? Because you have to prove that because you are stupid and did not enable hotlink protection that you have to document who is stealing your bandwidth?

Wow, that is a hard one, and such a difficult fix. How can they cope?

Now.. Really. Without any sarcasm. Prove to Me with actual data how the two are significantly different to make one unconstitutional and the other constitutional. Please do a better job of it than you did with your other way-off-topic response in the other thread.

Thanks.

Ok, let me give you a really dumbed down analogy. And keep in mind, you can't compare print to internet anyway, because the forms of media are so different. The Internet is dymanic, it changes constantly.

With the "secondary producer" aspect that you still don't grasp, if you were to compare this to print adult materials, then not only would the magazine publisher have to have the models full information, ID, name, copy of shoot on file at his place of business AVAILBLE to inspectors, but these people would also have to have this information on file, with ID, name, copy of the shoto AND their address and be available to inspectors:

1. The guy that did the layout and design
2. The company that did the printing
3. The mailhouse that managed the mailing list
4. Any person who makes a photocopy of the magazine later and gives it to a friend
5. Any other publication that reviews an article in the magazine that includes a picture of the model

etc.

Get it now?

Akasha

Again, you did not answer My question. Please answer My question. How are the print and electronic versions so substantially different that one is constitutional, the other one is not.

Thank you.

Also I find your analogy to be bullshit. Please produce the definition of secondary producer from the actual Law, not some biased website's misguided interpretation of it. I realize that you might rely on it, but I prefer to think for Myself.

Further, please demonstrate how allowing everyone to have their say and post their smut, but requiring everyone to keep records is unconstitutional. On what grounds? Please point to the exact Article or Amendment.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AAkasha

So every time I post something, you ask me to do more research for you, clarify more things, dumb more things down?
Are you unable to go read the law yourself? You can't go read the definition of primary producer? And once I cut and paste that, you are going to tell me to go further define each word of it?
I have to go look up, and cut and paste again for you?
You've lost this so bad, you are just dragging it out. I was worried that people might start thinking you know what you're talking about, but I'm not any more. You made your own case.

I don't have time to hold your hand and explain everything to you. Maybe someone else will jump in and finish.

And your second paragraph is just laughable. Almost hysterical.

Akasha

quote:

ORIGINAL: SirKenin

It is about working together. Canada has done nothing to work together with the United States in the last 150 years except to go to war with them in World War II and send their JTF2 over to Afghanistan. You fail to realize from My last post, Mr. Intelligence, that Canada does not have the muscle power to stand up to the US and thumb their noses at them. I mean... Really.. You were flaming Me for intelligence. Use your head. Canada does not have the economy or the military might to piss off the United States and thumb their noses and diss the President in the House. W/we are completely dependent on the USA. Therefore, whether YOU think that Canada is sovereign and has the right to make it's own decisions is immaterial. The TRUTH is that W/we have to pay a reasonable amount of lip service to the United States or fear the guaranteed consequences to O/our actions. You are not thinking beyond the end of your own nose. Typical of the ignorance shown by many Canadians, and the reason why W/we are in the mess W/we are in now.

Incidentally, I am not right wing. For being so smart you are not exactly batting .1000. I am a centrist that votes liberal.

You obviously have no clue about history if you do not know about the tense relations between the US and Canada. None at all. Just for ONE example, if nothing else, look at the lumber dispute. Look at the cattle dispute. Do not tell Me that it is all about a different path.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SirKenin


They do NOT need us as a trading partner at all. That is an outright lie. They have taken a whole new approach since W/we have pissed them off so much. They have taken over O/our commerce. "We do not need your country. We'll just take the heart". Mark My words. If W/we do not do an about face immediately W/we will be buying and selling with USD in twenty years, I promise. Some indication of sovereignty, being forced to use someone else's currency, is it not?

quote:

ORIGINAL: SirKenin

Losing an argument? How old are you? Old enough to be on these boards? I simply do not agree with you people crying wolf and claiming the sky is falling without having a single, concrete fact to back you up. You have absolutely nothing but the hypothesis' of a few misaligned and biased websites. I am, of course, referring to the constitutionality of the Law and nothing more.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SirKenin


you attack Me, yet you have just plainly demonstrated your ignorance. The only thing you have sufficiently demonstrated apart from ignorance is that you have successfully incorporated someone else's bias into your own and are then able to turn around and say "You lost, because you do not think like a puppet like I do". How very mature of you. Nice going.

*the master of puppets is pulling your strings...*

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ssilver

Since you're too fucking lazy to do your own homework, here you go.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/28_C.F.R._75

Here is the actual text of 28 CFT Part 75:

http://www.washingtonwatchdog.org/documents/cfr/title28/part75.html

Here is the definition of secondary producer:

A secondary producer is any person who produces, assembles, manufactures, publishes, duplicates, reproduces, or reissues a book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, or other matter intended for commercial distribution that contains a visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct.

And here is what a secondary producer now must do, as far as record keeping goes:

A producer who is a secondary producer as defined in §75.1(c) may satisfy the requirements of this part to create and maintain records by accepting from the primary producer, as defined in §75.1(c), copies of the records described in paragraph (a) of this section. Such a secondary producer shall also keep records of the name and address of the primary producer from whom he received copies of the records.

quote:

Different record-keeping requirements exist for primary versus secondary producers.

quote:

A secondary producer is defined as any person who produces, assembles, manufactures, publishes, duplicates, reproduces, or reissues a book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, or other matter intended for commercial distribution that contains a visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct

quote:

(1) A primary producer is any person who actually films, videotapes, or photographs a visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct.

(2) A secondary producer is any person who produces, assembles, manufactures, publishes, duplicates, reproduces, or reissues a book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, or other matter intended for commercial distribution that contains a visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct.

quote:

A producer who is a secondary producer as defined in §75.1(c) may satisfy the requirements of this part to create and maintain records by accepting from the primary producer, as defined in §75.1(c), copies of the records described in paragraph (a) of this section. Such a secondary producer shall also keep records of the name and address of the primary producer from whom he received copies of the records.

quote:

(4) Producer does not include persons whose activities relating to the visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct are limited to the following:

(i) Photo processing;

(ii) Distribution; or

(iii) Any activity, other than those activities identified in paragraphs (c) (1) and (2) of this section, that does not involve the hiring, contracting for, managing, or otherwise arranging for the participation of the depicted performers.

(d) Sell, distribute, redistribute, and rerelease refer to commercial distribution of a book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, or other matter that contains a visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct, and does not refer to noncommercial distribution of the such matter, including transfers conducted by lending libraries.

(e) Copy, when used in reference to an identification document or a picture identification card, means a photocopy or a photograph.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tormentius

quote:

ORIGINAL: SirKenin

Canada will never dare go against the US in this anyways. Not in a million years. Canada has too much to lose. They have been in the US' bad books for over a century. They had better not do anything else to piss off the US without VERY good reason if they know what is good for them. Our government almost buried us with their Iraqi war policy.

Just when I thought it couldn't get funnier. Canada is a sovereign nation and we make our own decisions (just as we did with the issue you mentioned). You won't see us following along withthe US in implementing this ridiculous law.

As for relations with the US the "US destroying Canada" point you made a couple posts up is one of the most comical things I've read in awhile. It really showcases the headspace you're in. Could they destroy Canada? Yes, definitely. Would they? Not a chance since there is no act of agression, only a sovereign nation making its own choices on governance.