Quote:
Originally posted by charly
What is the difference between a video store owner and a webmaster.
The difference is the webmaster is altering the images. Therefore a publisher not retailer.
It is not my opinion it is the opinion of two lawyers. Prepared to put their names to that opinion.
Post an opposing opinion from a lawyer and I will consider it.
|
I already have. My opinions are based on facts from my previous, my current, and other attorneys that I have seen give talks about these issues at adult trade shows.
If a video store splices a tape, it is then altered and they should then fall under 2257?
I think not.
Here is another example for you Charly.
Phone sex ads on adult videos..... They clearly are not 2257 exempt but the production company of the video did not produce the original phone sex ad, however they did reproduce it on the video. Since they produced the final product then they are responsible by your definition. No 2257 info is listed for the ads on the tape/DVD so is EVERY adult video out there now in violation?
No. Why not? Because the contact info for the final publisher was added to the media. If the Attorney General goes to the video store and finds a spliced tape with phone sex ads, do you think he is gonna be in hog heaven? If he thinks there is a violation, he will get the 2257 info from the box or media itself then trace it back as needed. If the person in question is underage do you think he will go after the video store? Hell no. He will go after the original producer of the material and IF the video store does not remove it THEN he may go after them for knowingly distributing the material.
This is so basic it is not even funny. Why do people insist on making it difficult?