Are the studios going to give all those out?
-
-
Seems like the VOD sites will have to catch up with the studios to get it. Or work out a way to easily access the 2257's when nesscessary -
Perhaps they are not concerned with it because their attorneys have read the proposed regulations and understand them?Comment
-
Thats a question thats hot on my mind right now. I hope there will be an easy answer.
But most of the company's like "Legend" buy the rights to the videos, They will have to get with the providers for everything that internet webmasters would need.Last edited by Paolo; 05-19-2005, 12:04 PM.[Comment
-
Originally posted by Manowar
*sigh*
Proposed regulations: Section 75.2 paragraph (D)
"(d) For any record created or amended after [insert date 30 days after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register], all such records shall be organized alphabetically, or numerically where appropriate, by the legal name of the performer (by last or family name, then first or given name), and shall be indexed or cross-referenced to each alias or other name used and to each title or identifying number of the book, magazine, film, videotape, computer-generated image, digital image, picture, or other matter (including but not limited to Internet computer site or services). If the producer subsequently produces an additional book, magazine, film, videotape, computer-generated image, digital image, or picture, or other matter (including but not limited to Internet computer site or services) that contains one or more visual depictions of actual sexually explicit conduct made by a performer for whom he maintains records as required by this part, the producer shall add the additional title or identifying number and the names of the performer to the existing records and such records shall thereafter be maintained in accordance with this paragraph."
It's called a GRANDFATHER CLAUSE!
Jesus Christ.......Get a clue people.Comment
-
I don't get it ... lol ...j/kOriginally posted by AaronMwww.JasonandAlex.com
Christopher's ICQ: 268-843-170Comment
-
-
Originally posted by AaronM
I asked my attorney about your grandfather clause theory back when these new regs were first proposed. He doesn't think what you're saying is going to hold up.
However it's a moot point anyways, this thing will be tied up in court for years.sig too bigComment
-
I think they'll start prosecuting as soon as it's legal for them to do so.Originally posted by Lenny2
They don't build a task force of attorneys to sit around and do nothing. I'm sure they already have many targets in mind. Just waiting for the OK.Last edited by goBigtime; 05-19-2005, 12:19 PM.Comment
-
Originally posted by Lenny2
My grandfather clause theory?
Yeah..Because I wrote that into the proposed regs and all.
OK. I suppose that the grandfather clause presented in Section 75.2 of the current law is my theory as well?
"(a) Any producer of any book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, or other matter that contains one or more visual depictions of actual sexually explicit conduct made after November 1, 1990 shall, for each performer portrayed in such visual depiction, create and maintain records containing the following:"Comment
-
Good Thread.... I actually read it
pssst Lens why is "Gary The Surfer" banned?Comment
-
funny, I was thinking about this today.Comment
-
Which will be YEARS.Originally posted by goBigtime
The FSC is going to file suit and get an injunction. The regs will be enjoined (unenforcable) until the case in court is over.
Regardless of which side wins the first court battle, there will be an appeal and the enjoinment will continue until the case is heard at the next level.
All of this takes years. I don't have a crystal ball but the odds of us successfully getting an injunction are probably 95%.sig too bigComment
-
OK so only have porn from the 70's and 80's on my site or anime.Originally posted by AaronMMy grandfather clause theory?
Yeah..Because I wrote that into the proposed regs and all.
OK. I suppose that the grandfather clause presented in Section 75.2 of the current law is my theory as well?
"(a) Any producer of any book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, or other matter that contains one or more visual depictions of actual sexually explicit conduct made after November 1, 1990 shall, for each performer portrayed in such visual depiction, create and maintain records containing the following:"Comment
-
Yeah I remember that one.Originally posted by AaronM
So here is a thought... considering how hostile things may get, if required to, how would you prove, on demand, that XYZ photo was made prior to the date the exemption ends?
Err... well I know how YOU would prove it Aaron, you would just whip out the model agreement. But others may not be able to do that because they may be a few steps down from the original source (and person holding the model agreement).
I guess I'm asking... will they also require that you can prove, on the spot, that the content is exempt if that is what you intend to claim.Comment
-
Originally posted by Lenny2
And by then Bush will be out of office and hopelly the next AG won't give a shit about porn and actually use resources and manpower stopping the next 9-11.Comment
-
Originally posted by Lensman
I've been through this. When the first big "scare" came through, we freaked and started to call the studios, this was when i was with the VOD company.
That video side of the biz mixing with the internet side of the biz is a fragile line anyhow. The studios are not going to be very anxious to give out those records.
To make it simple, and not get everybody into debates, I would say at the very least it is going to be difficult for the mid level revenue generators to get those records.
I can see AEBN and Gamelink getting them for the type of volume they do, but I am sure that the studios are going to weigh the man hours to the amount of revenue they make from each site.
Comment
-
Originally posted by GatorB
Yeah...That's what I said.
I'm outta here for today.Comment
-
Bush will just round them up and throw em in Concentration camps.
NAKED HOSTING FTW!11 I'm On The INSANE PLAN $9.95/mo!
| The Alien Blog Adult News Worth Reading Updated Daily
| Content For Sale! 641 PICS 216 MINUTES OF VIDEO $350.00 |ICQ: 78943384 |Comment
-
HAHAHAHAOriginally posted by GatorB Yup.
www.JasonandAlex.com
Christopher's ICQ: 268-843-170Comment
-
we can only wish....Originally posted by GatorBComment
-
That was an example of current law, gator.Originally posted by GatorB
Your 70's and 80's porno is and has been exempt from 2257 since the start of 1990's.
What AaronM is pointing out is that when the new ammendments to 2257 go live, there will also be a new created-prior-to exemption date covering those new ammendments.Last edited by goBigtime; 05-19-2005, 12:36 PM.Comment
-
Originally posted by A1R3KI've been through this. When the first big "scare" came through, we freaked and started to call the studios, this was when i was with the VOD company.
That video side of the biz mixing with the internet side of the biz is a fragile line anyhow. The studios are not going to be very anxious to give out those records.
To make it simple, and not get everybody into debates, I would say at the very least it is going to be difficult for the mid level revenue generators to get those records.
I can see AEBN and Gamelink getting them for the type of volume they do, but I am sure that the studios are going to weigh the man hours to the amount of revenue they make from each site.
And if a company like AEBN gives me content to use on my site then they are required to hand me over the records. I mean I HAVE to comply with 2257 and if it's their content and they are giving it to me to use well then I'm entitled to the records. I don't think the feds are going yo buy "They wouldn't give me the 2257 info, sirs"Comment
-
Yes I know that. My point is if I have 70's or 80's porn on my site or anime no worries anyways. Man I just just funning around. Jeez.Originally posted by goBigtimeComment
-
Or they will only hand over old content... It is probably going to change how we do business.Originally posted by GatorBComment
-
How do they define "sexually explicit conduct"
I know it may sound like a stupid question... but some people say nudity is porn, I say its just nudity.Comment
-
Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but doesnt that grandfather clause only apply to the proposed filing and cross-referencing system associated with these new rules? i.e. you dont need to go back and make sure everything is cross referenced from the beginning, just from now on. BUT, you still need all the info on site from 1990, just not filed and referenced as laid out in that paragraph.LOVERCASH.COM
good dating sites.Comment
-
Originally posted by GatorB
yeah, but aebn doesn't relicense anything to the best of my knowledge. the studios would never really allow that. are you talking about affiliates of aebn that use their "samples" of the studios movies to make money? i.e. fhgs from aebn?
the vod companies would be required to have the hard copy records on file from the studios.
lets see what pans out though. still to early to really know.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JerseyPuma
Kind of makes you think they made they law deliberately vague doesn't it.Comment
-
Read the current law, it is clearly defined as to what sexually explicit conduct is.Originally posted by MrPheer
Comment
-
It's called computer forensics....Say you print a bomb threat out on your computer and mail it....There is a tag put in the document so that it can be traced to you and it also gives a time of creation.Originally posted by goBigtime
If a piece of paper can be traced, don't you think that any other computer file could be traced back to you?Comment
-
you sound like my fuckin 4th grade teacher when i'd ask what a word means.. go look it up in the dictionary.Originally posted by Lord of the fungiRead the current law, it is clearly defined as to what sexually explicit conduct is.
Why dont you just say you dont know.. she would never admit that she didnt know either.Comment
-
I do know what it is and any pornographer should as well. But for those who refuse to look it up themselves or understand 2257 is not the only part of title 18 we must deal with. Here is the text from title 18 2256:Originally posted by MrPheer
(2) ?sexually explicit conduct? means actual or simulated?
(A) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;
(B) bestiality;
(C) masturbation;
(D) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
(E) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;
Now can anyone find the funny part of it?Comment
-
Building now in Cuba:Originally posted by AlienQ
PORNATAMOI know that Asspimple is stoopid ... As he says, it is a FACT !
But I can't figure out how he can breathe or type , at the same time ....Comment
-
My grandfather was a sailor. Kinda cool
Comment
-
woooff woooffOriginally posted by Lord of the fungiI know that Asspimple is stoopid ... As he says, it is a FACT !
But I can't figure out how he can breathe or type , at the same time ....Comment
-
Keep in mind 2257 says part E isn?t included for purposes of 2257Originally posted by Lord of the fungi
(1) the term ?actual sexually explicit conduct? means actual but not simulated conduct as defined in subparagraphs (A) through (D) of paragraph (2) of section 2256 of this title;Comment
-
Dude, you are way to easily manipulatedOriginally posted by Lord of the fungi
But thanks for posting that for me
Comment
Comment