Luke, I understand what you mean, and I agree it's much less likely that DOJ will order shutting down of an offshore datacenter, although it's far from impossible! (see below)Originally Posted by Chilihost
I could live with my sites being down for several days or weeks while I find some European or Canadian hosting, upload sites, wait for DNS to propagate etc. It would somewhat hurt my income but that's no biggie.
However, if I am requested to give them cross-references of all the pics on every damned site I own, I will have to say: "sorry, I haven't done all that cross-referencing stuff. I can show you all the models' releases though". If, as a result of this, my name is put on the DOJ's list of persons who didn't comply with everything that 2257 explicitly demands, then it's much worse than my sites being offline for a week or two. In that case I could even be arrested in 10-20 years time, long after this law has become obsolete, if I come as a tourist to USA.
You are wrong here. Last year, when a pirated copy of the movie Revenge of the Sith appeared on the Bittorent network, one Dutch bittorent site (complete with Dutch IP and servers located in the Netherlands) was closed by US DOJ. I can dig up the screencaps if you're interested.On the other hand, the DOJ cannot walk into an offshore data center as they have no authority.
But, yes, I can agree that for a small or medium-sized porn site it's probably safer to host offshore.
Here are 4 potential cases (I think they are typical):
Person A:
Lives and works in USA as an adult webmaster. He has all the models' releases AND has had them cross-referenced for all his sites as per DOJ's instructions. He uses American AVS/AEN processors (e.g. UGAS) and lots of American sponsors who utilize both American and European credit card processors. His sites are hosted on US servers.
Person B:
Everything the same as person A, except that his sites are hosted offshore.
Person C:
Lives and works in an European country or Canada or Australia (or whatever but not USA). He uses mostly American processors and AVS systems. Has all of the models' releases but did not cross-reference all the pics for every site as per DOJ's instructions. In all probability he may have never heard of the new US law. His sites are hosted on US servers.
Person D:
Same as person C, but switched hosting to some European country.
Now let's see what can be concluded logically on the basis of what we know:
Is person B in a better position than person A? Apart from being somewhat more secure that his sites won't be taken down so easily, if DOJ comes knocking on his door, person B must abide by all the rules just as person A. If he lacks only one model's release or didn't properly cross-reference one picture, he would be breaking the law. The fact that his sites are hosted offshore won't help him one bit. And if DOJ proclaims that Person B's sites are breaking the law in some way, I don't think that his sites staying online will be much of a concern to him then.
Is person D in a better position than person C if the DOJ sends him an email requiring information about his sites? I think not. Strictly speaking, both person C and person D would be breaking the US law. Since person D hasn't cross-referenced all the pics, he would be breaking the US law despite the fact that he does have all the models' releases. In addition, the DOJ may tell person D that, even though his sites are hosted outside the US territory, he is still using billing processors physically located in USA (e.g. UGAS or any of the myriad of sponsors in the US we all use) and thus is technically doing business with the citizens from USA. And he's most definitely targeting gay US citizens which is definitely not a mitigating circumstance
I am NOT a lawyer. This is all conjecture and speculation. However, I do think these scenarios could be envisioned as possible if DOJ starts targeting even small webmasters all around the world.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks