Quote:
Originally Posted by chaze
I wonder about this, not to say you would do anything shady but here in LA you can have a adult content legally. The talent just needs to give consent and be over 18.
What else would someone per say need past that legally?
Not to have a consent disclosure?
|
It's not a new policy chaze, but changed a few years ago - before eg "version 2" of USC 2257 was ever heard of. It was obvious at that time that changes would happen sooner or later.
We used to have a fair number of hosts in US territory and actually considered the idea of the "orginal 2257" to be a good basic structure on which to build - and towards child protection from adult content.
However, what happened was nothing on the original 2257 - it was never enforced. Instead another version was introduced which had little to do with child protection and imposed an unpaid "record keeping" operation on webmasters. The industry is not about record-keeping for specific governments - it's about running a business.
Of course talent must be of legal age and verifiable - that was never an issue. The core issue related to child protection and 2257 does not have any weight towards this end.
So, basically why waste time creating a record system for just one country?? Any other law agency would have no problem checking paperwork if needed and verifying a 30 year old busty milf is over 18, but obviously US agencies appear unable to do this without "record keeping"
It's a joke - but a serious joke where children are being used as the excuse and have no interest in wasting time complying with deviant laws simply to enable hosting.
If the scenario changes, common sense prevails and efforts are made towards the protection of children - another story
