Re: For Melonie... And OPEN?
I'm moving this thread to Industry Insight because I think that it can benefit from...well, industry insight. Since you're asking the question of anyone in the adult industry and not specifically camgirls.
Re: For Melonie... And OPEN?
Where camgirls are concerned, OPEN, SOPA and PIPA all share a common negative attribute. They provide legal authority for US judges to order Visa, MC, online payment processors etc. to stop executing online transactions between US customers and non-US based websites ( poster child StreaMates ) who have been ACCUSED ( not legally proven ) of copyright violations / piracy by any US gov't agency or private business entity. Given that US webcam customers comprise 2 out of every 3 total worldwide dollars spend on adult webcam content, this is going to drastically reduce income levels for camgirls working through non-US based webcam hosts.
Also, where fine print ( or lack thereof ) is concerned, OPEN would also exempt US based websites ... meaning that US based websites could still be prosecuged for copyright violation / piracy, but using different ( and already existing ) laws that require a higher burden of proof. However, it could very well be interpreted that a US webcam host that allows non-US based camgirls to stream their content through that US webcam host is NO LONGER a purely US based website ... thus not exempt from OPEN ... thus subjecting that website to OPEN jurisdiction and penalties. The practical reaction by the US webcam hosts would logically be to 'fire' non-US based camgirls in order to preserve it's legal exemption as a 100% US based website.
Re: For Melonie... And OPEN?
I though OPEN would require an investigation AND a trial with evidence supporting the case before even cutting off the fundings, making it more transparent.
So let me get things straight once and for all with these three laws, which will still keep the negative part of cutting off fundings:
Example:
Let's say, that I have a legitimate business in software development in, let's say, Colombia. I use colombian banks for my transactions as well. So I have many customers in the US who buy my products in US dollars and pay with US credit/debit cards. Let's say that an American competitor (for example, Oracle) accuses me (still without legal proof) of infringing some of their patents. If OPEN passed, it'd mean that my American clients won't be able to buy my software and I won't be able to defend myself in a court? And that thanks to this, I won't be able to sell my software to American customers even if I prove I'm NOT infringing anyone's IP?
I'm not a lawyer or an accountant, but somehow I'm afraid situations like these might arise to cut off the competition, creating monopolies and making those that already exist, bigger...
Re: For Melonie... And OPEN?
^^^ the devil is in the details. Under OPEN, or SOPA, and presumably PIPA as well, if a US competitor lodges a complaint in a US court and manages to convince a judge that your Columbian based website ( not entire company, just website ) is 'probably' guilty of offering items for sale that involve patent infringement or copyright violation ( i.e. shows 'probable cause' in legal terms ) , that judge could order US based Visa, MasterCard and/or online credit card processors to stop executing online credit card ( not bank wire or other payment methods, just online credit card ) transactions via your Columbian based website's 'store' until the truth of the patent infringement and/or copyright violations can be investigated.
You would indeed have the right to defend yourself in that same US court ... at your own expense. However, even if you invest the time and money to appear in that US court with a US attorney, and even if that US attorney can eventually prove your innocence, the court order blocking online credit card charge processing would remain in place while the months or years worth of US court deliberations slowly grind through the US legal system. And if the US judge does eventually issue a ruling that you are innocent, the US competitor that originally brought 'accusations' against you has the option of appealing that judge's decision to a higher US court ... with the original judge's order blocking online credit card transactions being extended pending the decision of the higher US court after yet more months or years.
Granted that where a US based website is the target of 'accusations' by a US competitor, the burden of proof must be higher than just 'probable cause' ... but not where foreign based websites are the target. However, the DOJ has already issued both domain blocking orders and credit card blocking orders against 'accused' US companies under existing laws without first establishing 'proof beyond a reasonable doubt'. See
Quote:
somehow I'm afraid situations like these might arise to cut off the competition, creating monopolies and making those that already exist, bigger...
BINGO !!! Arguably, the not for public consumption REAL force behind OPEN / SOPA / PIPA is to provide a new form of tariff-like or quota-like 'protection' for US businesses ( online or otherwise ) against ( usually lower cost ) foreign online competitors. My acquaintance in the entertainment industry tells me that one of the hoped-for results will be the creation of a 'fear factor' on the part of potential investors regarding new and innovative businesses. If those would-be investors face a big new question mark about the gov't potentially 'killing revenue cash flow' while at the same time creating additional legal fees out of nowhere ... all the while the new and innovative business would be burning through cash reserves to pay salaries / rents / utilities / whatever ... many of those new and innovative businesses will find themselves unable to obtain investor funding, and thus 'fold' before they are ever able to actually present new competition.
Re: For Melonie... And OPEN?
Protectionism at its best... America by the Americans, for the Americans... Wow they're totally out of their minds aren't they? Funny: They wanted financial globalization and now that the US is sinking thanks to that (partially), they want to isolate from the world, financially speaking... Isn't that kind of, uhm, quota, what the mafia does?
What they fail to understand is that they'll affect everyone in the world with this, eventually shooting themselves in the foot and going deeper into the abbyss. Such measurements cannot be applied in a globalized economy without causing collateral damage to the rest of the world, even to their economic allies (AKA Canada, the European Union and the UK).
Re: For Melonie... And OPEN?
^^^ to respond, at risk of bending the SW 'politics ban', the US is finally realizing that adding gov't mandated additional costs of doing business ... from high tax rates, to high minimum wage unskilled labor rates, to expensive worker safety and environmental compliance costs, etc. ... automatically makes US businesses less competitive versus competing businesses in many parts of the world. Where Canada, the EU countries, the UK etc. are concerned, the differences in gov't mandated additional costs of doing business are relatively small ... i.e. all of these countries impose high tax rates, have comparable unskilled labor rates, have comparable worker safety and environmental rules ... thus all of these countries more or less operate comparable business environments.
The competitiveness problem really only becomes a major issue when the competition comes from other countries where business taxes are very low, where unskilled labor costs are very low, where worker safety and environmental compliance costs are very low etc. Thus it's not difficult to envision the US, the UK, the Commonwealth countries, the EU countries etc. quietly co-operating to collectively 'fence themselves off' from competition by other countries who don't play by the same general 'rules'. This means Chinese manufacturers, Indian service industries, Brazilian ethanol, Vietnamese fish, Cypriot adult webcam hosts etc.