-
"Think about it a little more and you'll agree with me, because you're smart and I'm right."
- Charlie Munger -
bastards.Comment
-
Because then person A shoots porn of a 16 year old. person B takes it and uploads it to a website.
person B now gets inspected. person B has no records and claims that "I forgot where this image is from". He can also claim the girl is 18 and does not have to prove so because the girl is not OBVIOUSLY underage.
Thats just a very theoretical circumstance of course, but this is the actual point of the law.
I am NOT saying that the gov does not love the fact that the law also adds huge burdon on other people not involved... that of course sucks... they should lower the burdon by simply allowing secondary producers to directly point to the primary producers without having to get inspected. Or at least to give them the choice..."Think about it a little more and you'll agree with me, because you're smart and I'm right."
- Charlie MungerComment
-
"Whether the visual depiction suggests sexual coyness..."
This has gone beyond onerous...to just plain stupid.
icq: 541-739-92Comment
-
I understand that you share the same sentiment regarding the government, so I don't question that, lol. But yes, that is what I wanted to hint at: pointing to the primary producers for inspections. It makes more sense, logically and fiscally. It's just that when I see the government not taking these reasonable measures, I can only assume they ulterior motives.Comment
-
The Child Protection Act has nothing to do with protecting children... It screams this throughout the entire 2257 speal..
It's nothing more than a way to harrass the people responsible for interet porn..
cp producers don't obey the law... and most of the real cp isn't on a regular website, so this lame attempt at calling it a Child Protection Act is a joke.. and it won't do a thing to curb cp..Comment
-
You do understand that the point of a law is to punish the people that do not obey the law, right?
What you just said there basically is the same as saying the law that makes killing you illegal is useless since anyone that would kill you obviously does not obey the law...
DOH!"Think about it a little more and you'll agree with me, because you're smart and I'm right."
- Charlie MungerComment
-
I just read 18 USC 2257 as changed by Adam Walsh (http://www.freespeechonline.org/webdocs/22572006.pdf) and stumbled uppon:
(e) (2) .. It states that if the producer is an organisation, the 2257 statement must be...
Now, why do we not simply all "employ" the primary producer? <G>[...] the name, title, and business address of the individual employed by such organization responsible for main-taining the records required by this section."Think about it a little more and you'll agree with me, because you're smart and I'm right."
- Charlie MungerComment
-
Because you can only have 1 custodian of records and virtual all affiliates deal with content coming from more than 1 primary producer.
Because there are all sorts of legal ramifications for being "hired by" or "employed by" someone.
and more importantly
Because no primary producer in their right mind would be willing to take responsibility for the indexing and cross referencing of an affiliate's records.
Last edited by BoyAlley; 07-12-2007, 01:43 PM.Comment
-
Employ is a pretty slippery term. It would likely mean creating a payroll, paying state taxes, and subjecting yourself to the laws the of the state that the record keeper is in. Further, it would create all kinds of liability regarding workplace health and safety, and so on.
Further, I don't think that having one person INDIVIDUALLY employed by 5000+ companies would pass the legal stink test.
nice try, but no.
Now, nothing would stop a group of webmasters from hiring a single person to be a record keeper. Say 4 companies hire a single person, each paying that person 10 hours per week (for a 40 hour total). That might work within reason.
However, my feeling is that any company that is actively producing tgp galleries, sponsor content, and updating the insides of membership sites will require someone fulltime just to track the content. I think the time to make records will far exceed the time required to publish the content (probably by 4 or 5 to 1). 30 minutes for the gallery, a couple of hours on the paperwork, photocopying, digitizing, storing, and cross referencing.Comment
-
AVN just published an analysis by Obenberger and he brings up a couple of important things that we've all overlooked. This one will create a HUGE amount of work for me considering we spent many thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours developing our digital record keeping system:
http://avnonline.com/index_cache.php...tent_ID=291867The new regs specify that hard copies of the identification documents must be maintained. "What isn't clear is whether records custodians can just print out copies of the digital records, in cases where content producers have provided only digital records," Obenberger said. "This is a significant change for producers who were convinced digital records satisfied the previous regulations. It means the Department of Justice wants things to be done the old-fashioned way."
"[The regulations are] still unconstitutional, but with certain things taken out, I think [they] could be constitutional," he continued.
Does this sound to anyone else like an industry attorney backing down on and out of the fight? I mean, I thought the FSC's position has been that ALL of 2257 is unconstitutional?Last edited by BoyAlley; 07-12-2007, 01:53 PM.Comment
-
Where does the law state "custodian of records"? In contrast, you actually have to put the info on the page displaying the image, this why its rather easy to use different info for each set, tedious, but possible.
Because you can only have 1 custodian of records and virtual all affiliates deal with content coming from more than 1 primary producer.
Because there are all sorts of legal ramifications for being "hired by" or "employed by" someone.
and more importantly
Because no primary producer in their right mind would be willing to take responsibility for the indexing and cross referencing of an affiliate's records.
The "employed by" legal issues, yes, I agree, would have to be examined in detail.
It all depends how that referencing is achived, there might be a way nobody has thought of yet which makes the work very involved small...
Its just a fun suggestion..."Think about it a little more and you'll agree with me, because you're smart and I'm right."
- Charlie MungerComment
-
Where are the board Republicans to tell us how great that party is for our industry?Comment
-
Boy Alley is correct. It won't be a solution.
Because you can only have 1 custodian of records and virtual all affiliates deal with content coming from more than 1 primary producer.
Because there are all sorts of legal ramifications for being "hired by" or "employed by" someone.
and more importantly
Because no primary producer in their right mind would be willing to take responsibility for the indexing and cross referencing of an affiliate's records.Comment
-
This gay homosexual is going to cry long and hard if after it's all said and done, we have to re-do our record keeping system that we just spent all of this time and money having done to comply with the LAST changes in the regs all because they now decide they want the IDs and muck in hard-copy.
Comment
-
I think that there are differences between "constitutional" and legal. The fact of the situation is that the rules of 2257 updated in the Adam Walsh law do nothing to further the government's stated interest (protection of children), and there are many less burdensome ways to accomplish the same net result.
If you go back and look at the whole deal with COPA and COPA II, it came down to "does this serve the stated interest of the government without create undue burdens or restrictions on free speech". The answer in both cases was "no", and as a result, both of those laws have gone to the legislative scrap heap.
The effects of the new version of 2257 would specifically limit free speech without doing a single thing to further the government's stated interest in protecting children. At best, the secondary producer concept makes it easier for the FBI to inspect records at any place. At worst, it means they will inspect the same records over and over again, perhaps reviewing the same documents 1000 times without stopping a single pedophile from producing porn.
The law has been written not to protect children but rather to restrict legal free speech. If they cannot shut down porn with obscenity laws, they will try to shut it down with the paperwork equivilant of zoning laws.Comment
-
I dont think JD is backing out, my guess would be he knows your not going to get all of 2257 thrown out.So why not go after parts of it much better chance of victory.Comment
-
J.D. Obenberger also did not mention one thing about getting rid of the secondary producer shit all together. I think they gave up on that a long tme ago.Comment
-
What's even scarier is that there are only a handful of us discussing this in this thread. Guess this isn't too important to many webmasters.Comment
-
Attentions FBI And Department Of Justice:
Please don't make Teh BoyAlley spend thousands of more dollars and hundreds of more hours reverting to a hard copy records system. My digital system that we just got done spending months and months on and a whole ton of teh monies to do is teh thexy, honest it is.
You don't want to make a faggot cry do you? It's awful..........
Breeders have mercy!
Last edited by BoyAlley; 07-12-2007, 02:13 PM.Comment
-
I think alot will do nothing,I would guess 80% of the mom/pops will put their heads in the sand and say they will never knock on my door.
I would say 6 out of 10 currently dont have the proper 2257 info on their home page or made up bullshit.
No one has been dragged off in chains so its not real to them .You also have the really small sites that dont have any connection to the industry besides the fact they have a site, so they are ignorant to any regs..Comment
-
I like their "Hollywood" exemption...
Last time I checked, internet content was not under the juristiction of the FCC. So does this mean their exemption doesn't really apply to mainstream online content?The other part of this exemption states that section 2257 (to the extent it applies to lascivious exhibition) and section 2257A do not apply to matter that is produced by someone subject to the Federal Communications Commission's authority to enforce federal bans on the broadcast of obscene, indecent, or profane programming, and is created as a part of a commercial enterprise by a person who certifies to the Attorney General that he regularly and in the normal course of business collects and maintains individually identifiable name and age information regarding all performers, for purposes such as Federal and State tax, labor, and other laws.Comment
-
Attentions FBI And Department Of Justice:
Please don't make Teh BoyAlley spend thousands of more dollars and hundreds of more hours reverting to a hard copy records system. My digital system that we just got done spending months and months on and a whole ton of teh monies to do is teh thexy, honest it is.
You don't want to make a faggot cry do you? It's awful..........
Breeders have mercy!
So what is the $$ amount you think you are going to lose?
Comment
-
Going to cost everyone 100s of man hours (if not hell a lot more) and not one single CP provider and/or producer will be caught.
Well I am not surprised that they want hard copies now. The law looks like it was written in 1574 not 2007. Those flashing light boxes on desks are evil and must be burnt!
Comment
-
Thank you, kind of you to say.
I can't wait to hear the supreme court debate the meaning of coyness. I do think it isn't an accident 'child' is in two of those statements but no the others.
I do a lot of foot fetish stuff and clothing fetishes. None of the content I use ever have models that look even close to underrage but if somehow the FBI did try to come inspect me in London I would love them to define coyness in terms of feet or somebody wearing a certain pair of shoes.
As I have long said, my first call will be to a lawyer and the second to the British press - who have naked women on page 3 every day and on the website version of their sites. So, not only will the story be that the British gov't allowed another country's government to come in and raid British homes but that we are no longer able to be sexually coy.
This just feels like something that is going to spend a decade in the courts.Comment
-
-
this is just not taking away the webmasters constitutional rights, but the models as well. You cant look coy in clothes without giving your ID SS# and so on?Comment
-
I find it ironic that the same fuckers that pass this shit are also the ones that say gun laws aren't necessary since criminals don't obey guns laws and it just burdends honest gun owners. So they are making a law that they know CP producers won't obey yet burdens honest producers of ADULT material?Comment
-
I suppose this is the payback for the .xxx extension not coming to fruition. It would have been easier to cast us into a corner with our "own" extension and then regulate us there.
So, the proposed 2257 changes are going to do exactly 2 things.
1, Drive the administrative costs of content producing as well as publishing into business oblivion, making it absolutely unreasonable to produce, publish and sell content in the USA.
2, Adult related or material that would fall under the american 2257 will be produced and published outside the USA.
Both, 1&2 have the same effect: Doom of the American operated porn industry. Due to extensive administrative time investment and compliance efforts, the costs of content are going to rise. Simultaneously, the subscription costs for user are going to be increased and/or the payouts for webmasters will be lowered. This will have the inevitable effect that content that's produced elsewhere and published outside the corrupt and self serving arm of the American politicians, will remain cheaper. Thus, due to new and cheaper content found elsewhere, traffic and revenue is going to shift, and the billion dollar porn industry in the USA is going to shrink to a never before seen dwarf size.
As i said before, i happily repeat again: The fucking political correctness train that we're riding is going to kill us at some point in time. Instead of whining about a 26 year old that is having fun AND making cash while sucking on some dude's dick, we should worry about how many lives & billions of $ we lose in a senseless war every day. If our politicians perspectives aren't completely fucked up, then i don't know what.
Comment
-
XBiz article about their legal seminar where 2257 was discussed:
http://www.xbiz.com/news/81870Comment
-
funny shit
"Douglas noted that each of the obscenity cases currently in progress has a unique set of facts, some of which are very favorable to the defendants. In the JM Productions case, for example, the same videos that have been alleged to be obscene have also been distributed by a company that went bankrupt, and so is now being operated under the auspices of the government itself.
The fact that the government itself is in effect selling and distributing the same content it has alleged to be obscene presents a real problem for the prosecution in the case, according to Douglas. "Comment
-
I'm not reading 5 pages on this bullshit and tired of hearing shit about 2257.
It's a waste of time. Every couple months something pops up new with it, some rediculas regulations. Govt is just fucking with us to make it look like they are doing something about CP, like this is the solution to that. FSC stays busy which is good business for them, we keep watching the same dog any pony show.
I only use non nude images. I will not display 2257 information for non nude images. If they want to pick me up, come the fuck over.
So tired of this shit.ICQ: 86364801 Email: will [at] innovativeassets [dot] com
Comment
-
ePorn, that is why a good legal argument can be made that the rules put in place (a) don't support the government's concept of the law, and (b) stymie or severly limit free speech by making it financially impossible to exercise that right.
You shoot the content once, spend, I dunno, maybe $1000 to produce a b/g scene and edit it, and you produce one new scene per week for a paysite. From that, you create galleries and banners and such. You need a person to keep track of the records and usages of all of that content, every page it appears on, cross referencing models, etc. You will likely pay someone $300-$400 a week to do records (it is a responsible position, you can't hire a McMoron to do the job). So you spend $52,000 a year on content, and another $20,000 + benefits + employment costs + office costs to maintain the records. So now your 50k a year for content turns into 75-80k a year for the same content. Your profitability per scene just dropped through the floor.
I could go on and on. You need an office. You have to have office hours. Small or virtual companies (those that have a bunch of people working from home or remotely) are actually going to have to have a place of business that is open those hours.
The cost of free speech just went up.Comment
-
250 Unconstitutional RegulationsComment
Comment