Remember Tom Hymes on the 2257 rule, one year ago? - GoFuckYourself.com

FunkyDog · 12-22-2006, 06:21 AM

From an article one year ago:

"Tom Hymes argues that "the point of these regulations is certainly not to protect children or minors, because it will not do that. The purpose can only be a punitive one, to create burdens that are so onerous on this industry that lots of people are driven out of business." Smaller producers and distributors, he points out, will be especially burdened. Individuals who stream webcam images of themselves over the Internet, for example, may find it prohibitively expensive to preserve copies of all the content they transmit. And many performers may be wary of giving their personal information--including real names and addresses--to every "secondary producer" who hosts their work."

Stated when the 2257 rule changed in that way that also second level must have 2257 info.

Was he right or completelly wrong? Let's have some opinions, one year later.

12-22-2006, 06:21 AM	#1
FunkyDog Confirmed User Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 541	Remember Tom Hymes on the 2257 rule, one year ago? From an article one year ago: "Tom Hymes argues that "the point of these regulations is certainly not to protect children or minors, because it will not do that. The purpose can only be a punitive one, to create burdens that are so onerous on this industry that lots of people are driven out of business." Smaller producers and distributors, he points out, will be especially burdened. Individuals who stream webcam images of themselves over the Internet, for example, may find it prohibitively expensive to preserve copies of all the content they transmit. And many performers may be wary of giving their personal information--including real names and addresses--to every "secondary producer" who hosts their work." Stated when the 2257 rule changed in that way that also second level must have 2257 info. Was he right or completelly wrong? Let's have some opinions, one year later.