New 2257 Regs Posted In Here! You Saw It From The Fag First!

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 7
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 template Next
  • will76
    Making $$$$ w/ ClickCash
    • May 2003
    • 18037
    #251
    Originally posted by RawAlex
    Just remember to lube yourself up before you take the shower, it makes it hurt less the first time.
    thats assuming they will convict me and win.


    Even if they did I will pull a Paris and cry that I can't shit while people are looking at me and I don't eat bologna sandwiches, so I can plead mental issues and get an early release.


    I can't wait to see the 2257 information added to corporate sites like Victoria Secrets. Or do they have an exception too, everyone gets the exception, google, hollywood, any mainstream company, its just us that the bullshit rules apply to. fuck'em come and get me.
    ICQ: 86364801 Email: will [at] innovativeassets [dot] com

    PROGRAM SHIT LIST - DO NOT PROMOTE (click link for gfy thread)
    FNCash | Media Revenue

      Comment

      • IllTestYourGirls
        Ah My Balls
        • Feb 2007
        • 14311
        #252
        Originally posted by BoyAlley
        250 Unconstitutional Regulations
        And I will paraphrase Ron Paul "It is our duty to use civil disobedience as a form of protest" He was talking about not paying your income tax.

          Comment

          • BoyAlley
            So Fucking Gay
            • Nov 2004
            • 19714
            #253
            Originally posted by IllTestYourGirls
            And I will paraphrase Ron Paul "It is our duty to use civil disobedience as a form of protest" He was talking about not paying your income tax.

            Uhm, yeah sure. Try that and see what happens to you.

            Does Ron Paul pay his income taxes? I that bet he does..........

              Comment

              • IllTestYourGirls
                Ah My Balls
                • Feb 2007
                • 14311
                #254
                Originally posted by BoyAlley

                Uhm, yeah sure. Try that and see what happens to you.

                Does Ron Paul pay his income taxes? I that bet he does..........

                yes he does... he also went on to say "Be ready for the consequences!"

                  Comment

                  • Scootermuze
                    Confirmed User
                    • Dec 2001
                    • 4513
                    #255
                    Originally posted by Nathan
                    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!
                    What I am saying is.. there are already stiff laws against cp... and those that produce it could care less about them...

                    Making more laws will do what?? Punish legit producers that may happen to have messed up records.. regardless of the age of the models. That protects children how? and even with a flawless record keeping system.. That protects children how...

                    Requiring legitimate content producers to keep age related information isn't going to stop the criminals...

                    cp producers don't keep records, so what does 2257 do?

                    It's not about cp producers, as it can't even apply..

                      Comment

                      • eroswebmaster
                        March 1st, 2003
                        • Jul 2001
                        • 20295
                        #256
                        Originally posted by Scootermuze
                        cp producers don't keep records, so what does 2257 do?

                        .
                        #1 It will create due diligence on the part of primary producers, ensuring that no one under 18 slips by like Traci Lords.

                        #2 *MORE IMPORTANTLY* This is how they are going to get you.
                        Kind of like the only crime they could convict Al Capone of was tax invasion.

                        The government doesn't want to come after everyone for obscenity, too big a fight that they know they can't win. Not to mention they know if they do, they will have to contend with the likes of the ACLU, and other free speech advocates.

                        Now, they have basically created a crime based upon a clerical error. The ACLU is not going to come to your aid if you don't keep accurate records. The news will only say in response to your complaints..."You have the right to produce porn, just follow the rules."

                        Someone already mentioned it in this thread, but I have mentioned it on this board since the first year I joined. This is much like what happened during the 80's when the Meese report was released.

                        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meese_Commission

                        The DOJ at that time created an atmosphere that made local governments more comfortable with restricting free speech via zoning laws.

                        There was a time in Dallas, on Harry Hines Blvd, that there were shopping centers with nothing but adult bookstores making up their residents.

                        Then came the hammer of zoning laws, and you were lucky to find one within a mile of each other.

                        Same with strip clubs. You could own a strip club for 20 years in one location, a school moves in...bam you were in violation of zoning laws.

                        Now these people fought these zoning laws, however it was so costly it ran a number of people out of business.

                        It was almost 10 years before you could find true porn in the Tarrant County area, which is what Fort Worth resides in. Fort Worth is apart of the Metroplex, which consists of Dallas / Fort Worth and other cities in the counties.

                        Anyway, as they say history repeats itself....here we go again.
                        For rent - ICQ 127-027-910
                        Click here for more details

                          Comment

                          • baycouples
                            Confirmed User
                            • Mar 2004
                            • 1341
                            #257
                            So, should we look at this as a huge FSC failure?

                              Comment

                              • tony299
                                lurker
                                • Aug 2002
                                • 57021
                                #258
                                Originally posted by eroswebmaster
                                #1 It will create due diligence on the part of primary producers, ensuring that no one under 18 slips by like Traci Lords.

                                #2 *MORE IMPORTANTLY* This is how they are going to get you.
                                Kind of like the only crime they could convict Al Capone of was tax invasion.

                                The government doesn't want to come after everyone for obscenity, too big a fight that they know they can't win. Not to mention they know if they do, they will have to contend with the likes of the ACLU, and other free speech advocates.

                                Now, they have basically created a crime based upon a clerical error. The ACLU is not going to come to your aid if you don't keep accurate records. The news will only say in response to your complaints..."You have the right to produce porn, just follow the rules."

                                Someone already mentioned it in this thread, but I have mentioned it on this board since the first year I joined. This is much like what happened during the 80's when the Meese report was released.

                                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meese_Commission

                                The DOJ at that time created an atmosphere that made local governments more comfortable with restricting free speech via zoning laws.

                                There was a time in Dallas, on Harry Hines Blvd, that there were shopping centers with nothing but adult bookstores making up their residents.

                                Then came the hammer of zoning laws, and you were lucky to find one within a mile of each other.

                                Same with strip clubs. You could own a strip club for 20 years in one location, a school moves in...bam you were in violation of zoning laws.

                                Now these people fought these zoning laws, however it was so costly it ran a number of people out of business.

                                It was almost 10 years before you could find true porn in the Tarrant County area, which is what Fort Worth resides in. Fort Worth is apart of the Metroplex, which consists of Dallas / Fort Worth and other cities in the counties.

                                Anyway, as they say history repeats itself....here we go again.
                                Traci Lords had Government issue id and passport that said she was of age.
                                To get some one on clerical error it will be very hard because it has to go to a jury. As we have seen 2257 has been added on to other charges like GGW, its like the sprinkles on the sundae.
                                once again I have to add the right wingers are very quiet, they jumped in michael moores shit .Here they are as quiet as church mice. lol
                                Last edited by tony286; 07-12-2007, 06:19 PM.

                                  Comment

                                  • Scootermuze
                                    Confirmed User
                                    • Dec 2001
                                    • 4513
                                    #259
                                    Originally posted by tony404
                                    Traci Lords had Government issue id and passport that said she was of age.
                                    ......
                                    Well.. if the law is to protect 16 and 17 year olds, it's a pretty big ordeal for a very select few..

                                    The real problem is the 'children'.. Babies, 5 year olds, 10 year olds, etc..
                                    2257 does nothing to protect the, "children"..

                                      Comment

                                      • IllTestYourGirls
                                        Ah My Balls
                                        • Feb 2007
                                        • 14311
                                        #260
                                        Originally posted by baycouples
                                        So, should we look at this as a huge FSC failure?
                                        you trusted lawyers taking your money?

                                          Comment

                                          • tony299
                                            lurker
                                            • Aug 2002
                                            • 57021
                                            #261
                                            Originally posted by Scootermuze
                                            Well.. if the law is to protect 16 and 17 year olds, it's a pretty big ordeal for a very select few..

                                            The real problem is the 'children'.. Babies, 5 year olds, 10 year olds, etc..
                                            2257 does nothing to protect the, "children"..
                                            2257 has nothing to do with protecting children, before 2257 they checked ids before shoots. Children is the excuse they use to fuck with us. CPers dont keep records to be inspected we know that and they know that.

                                              Comment

                                              • tony299
                                                lurker
                                                • Aug 2002
                                                • 57021
                                                #262
                                                Originally posted by baycouples
                                                So, should we look at this as a huge FSC failure?
                                                No its not their fault also considering its a 15 billion dollar industry, I bet the amount given to them to fight is embrassing. Also if we want them to focus more on us then video companies we have to cough up more money.We should all be giving 5 percent of earnings because this our future but as a industry we are cheap with things like this and spent like drunken sailors on bullshit.
                                                Last edited by tony286; 07-12-2007, 06:43 PM.

                                                  Comment

                                                  • Scootermuze
                                                    Confirmed User
                                                    • Dec 2001
                                                    • 4513
                                                    #263
                                                    Originally posted by tony404
                                                    2257 has nothing to do with protecting children, before 2257 they checked ids before shoots. Children is the excuse they use to fuck with us. CPers dont keep records to be inspected we know that and they know that.
                                                    Which is exactly what I said in an earlier post.. which took on a bit of disagreement..

                                                      Comment

                                                      • BBWTori
                                                        Confirmed User
                                                        • Oct 2003
                                                        • 615
                                                        #264
                                                        Originally posted by IllTestYourGirls
                                                        and how does this protect children?
                                                        ABSOLUTELY!! I'd love to know that
                                                        Tori's Lair- Where Hot Fat Sex Reigns Supreme

                                                        ICQ # 18495959

                                                          Comment

                                                          • baycouples
                                                            Confirmed User
                                                            • Mar 2004
                                                            • 1341
                                                            #265
                                                            Originally posted by tony404
                                                            No its not their fault also considering its a 15 billion dollar industry, I bet the amount given to them to fight is embrassing. Also if we want them to focus more on us then video companies we have to cough up more money.We should all be giving 5 percent of earnings because this our future but as a industry we are cheap with things like this and spent like drunken sailors on bullshit.
                                                            Why don't they just tell us how much they need? I mean they don't seem to complain. As a matter of fact they got a boost in donations and membership fees when this whole deal started.

                                                            But my point is different. I want to ask a question whether or not having FSC involved with this changed anything? Would DOJ do anything differently if FSC wasn't involved. To me it seems they wouldn't because FSC legal actions have not effected everything that DOJ have done so far. Am I wrong?

                                                              Comment

                                                              • tony299
                                                                lurker
                                                                • Aug 2002
                                                                • 57021
                                                                #266
                                                                Originally posted by baycouples
                                                                Why don't they just tell us how much they need? I mean they don't seem to complain. As a matter of fact they got a boost in donations and membership fees when this whole deal started.

                                                                But my point is different. I want to ask a question whether or not having FSC involved with this changed anything? Would DOJ do anything differently if FSC wasn't involved. To me it seems they wouldn't because FSC legal actions have not effected everything that DOJ have done so far. Am I wrong?
                                                                When fighting the government its never enough.If your in CA and a FSC member go to one of the meetings and ask.

                                                                  Comment

                                                                  • Madame0120
                                                                    Confirmed User
                                                                    • Nov 2004
                                                                    • 1227
                                                                    #267
                                                                    Originally posted by IllTestYourGirls
                                                                    ok just making this clear, these are PROPOSED right? Not law yet.
                                                                    Nothing is ever LAW, till someone goes to trial and is found guilty.
                                                                    Try Something New! Teasing Bucks
                                                                    Mistress Always Wins!

                                                                      Comment

                                                                      • Madame0120
                                                                        Confirmed User
                                                                        • Nov 2004
                                                                        • 1227
                                                                        #268
                                                                        [T]he term `produces' means to produce, manufacture, or publish
                                                                        any book, magazine, periodical, film, video tape, computer generated
                                                                        image, digital image, or picture, or other similar matter and
                                                                        includes the duplication, reproduction, or reissuing of any such
                                                                        matter, but does not include mere distribution or any other activity
                                                                        which does not involve hiring, contracting for managing, or
                                                                        otherwise arranging for the participation of the performers depicted

                                                                        So, which is it? Or is that the 'HBO wink and a nod'?
                                                                        Try Something New! Teasing Bucks
                                                                        Mistress Always Wins!

                                                                          Comment

                                                                          • Nathan
                                                                            Confirmed User
                                                                            • Jul 2003
                                                                            • 3108
                                                                            #269
                                                                            It keeps coming up again and again that somehow victoria secret and the likes have to now have 2257 info on their pages and cataloges... This is all regulated by 2257A .. READ THE DAMN THING!

                                                                            2257 ONLY covers ACTUAL SEXUALLY EXPLICIT CONDUCT!!! The keyword here being ACTUAL.

                                                                            2257A covers SIMULATED and "lascivious exhibition". And as the DOJ regulations state, 2257A has _2_ and not one exception! One exception is, yes, the FSC one...
                                                                            The FIRST ONE though is this:
                                                                            (i)
                                                                            Intended for commercial distribution, (ii) 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, and (iii) is not produced, marketed, or otherwise made
                                                                            available in circumstances such that an ordinary person would conclude
                                                                            that it is child pornography.
                                                                            READ it... it COVERS _most_ of us. Unless of course you people do not pay your models.
                                                                            (i): yes, our content is in commercial use
                                                                            (ii): I would say that you pay your models, no? So you have to have records for taxes and such.
                                                                            (iii): Unless you are an extreme teen site that makes the girls LOOK like very close to 18 or under, this one is fine too

                                                                            Thus, i, ii, iii applies thus you are excempt from 2257A.
                                                                            "Think about it a little more and you'll agree with me, because you're smart and I'm right."
                                                                            - Charlie Munger

                                                                              Comment

                                                                              • Nathan
                                                                                Confirmed User
                                                                                • Jul 2003
                                                                                • 3108
                                                                                #270
                                                                                Originally posted by Madame0120
                                                                                [T]he term `produces' means to produce, manufacture, or publish
                                                                                any book, magazine, periodical, film, video tape, computer generated
                                                                                image, digital image, or picture, or other similar matter and
                                                                                includes the duplication, reproduction, or reissuing of any such
                                                                                matter, but does not include mere distribution or any other activity
                                                                                which does not involve hiring, contracting for managing, or
                                                                                otherwise arranging for the participation of the performers depicted

                                                                                So, which is it? Or is that the 'HBO wink and a nod'?
                                                                                I keep telling people this one too.. its not the FCC rule, that one is in 2257A, I posted it above...

                                                                                This rule is WAY MORE interesting and I would hope some layer would finally comment on it! To me this sounds like we are misunderstanding what a "secondary producer" is. This would actually also explain the DOJ's oppinion that there are about 500000 sites and 5000 companies which they need to cover.

                                                                                In what way is an AFFILIATE that simply puts the content on some tgp involved with "hiring, contracting for managing, or
                                                                                otherwise arranging for the participation of the performers depicted"??

                                                                                I see no way this would be the case! Which would EXCLUDE a LOT of the webmasters from the "producer" term.
                                                                                "Think about it a little more and you'll agree with me, because you're smart and I'm right."
                                                                                - Charlie Munger

                                                                                  Comment

                                                                                  • GatorB
                                                                                    The Demon & 12clicks
                                                                                    • Oct 2001
                                                                                    • 18208
                                                                                    #271
                                                                                    Originally posted by eroswebmaster
                                                                                    #1 It will create due diligence on the part of primary producers, ensuring that no one under 18 slips by like Traci Lord
                                                                                    That was 20 years ago and not once case since. Seems the old 2257 rules have worked just fine.

                                                                                      Comment

                                                                                      • BV
                                                                                        wtf
                                                                                        • Sep 2001
                                                                                        • 10914
                                                                                        #272
                                                                                        Here is another little issue that creates problems. (even before these new changes)

                                                                                        Every video clip needs to have the Custodian of Record and his address, etc etc on it.

                                                                                        What happens if this info changes? like you move into a new office (with a new address) or you change Custodians, etc etc....

                                                                                        That's a hell of a lot of work for the sponsor to re edit and re render thousands of videos in order to put the updated and correct new info on.

                                                                                        and for affiliates that host the videos, do the affiliates have to put their custodian of records name and address on the sponsors videos if the affiliate hosts them? that sounds fucked up to me

                                                                                        It makes much more sense to just put a URL to where the CURRENT ACCURATE information can be found. So if you move offices or change custodians there wont be thousands of videos saved all over the place with the WRONG info on them.

                                                                                        What a cluster fuck. I'm embarrassed that we can land on the moon, put satellites into orbit, transplant human hearts and other organs, yet we can't come up with a better solution than this?

                                                                                          Comment

                                                                                          • Nathan
                                                                                            Confirmed User
                                                                                            • Jul 2003
                                                                                            • 3108
                                                                                            #273
                                                                                            Originally posted by BV
                                                                                            Here is another little issue that creates problems. (even before these new changes)

                                                                                            Every video clip needs to have the Custodian of Record and his address, etc etc on it.

                                                                                            What happens if this info changes? like you move into a new office (with a new address) or you change Custodians, etc etc....

                                                                                            That's a hell of a lot of work for the sponsor to re edit and re render thousands of videos in order to put the updated and correct new info on.

                                                                                            and for affiliates that host the videos, do the affiliates have to put their custodian of records name and address on the sponsors videos if the affiliate hosts them? that sounds fucked up to me

                                                                                            It makes much more sense to just put a URL to where the CURRENT ACCURATE information can be found. So if you move offices or change custodians there wont be thousands of videos saved all over the place with the WRONG info on them.

                                                                                            What a cluster fuck. I'm embarrassed that we can land on the moon, put satellites into orbit, transplant human hearts and other organs, yet we can't come up with a better solution than this?
                                                                                            These are all good reasons for why these new regulations would be contested due to undue burdon...

                                                                                            Regarding affiliates, as I stated above, I wonder if they REALLY have to keep records...
                                                                                            "Think about it a little more and you'll agree with me, because you're smart and I'm right."
                                                                                            - Charlie Munger

                                                                                              Comment

                                                                                              • Nathan
                                                                                                Confirmed User
                                                                                                • Jul 2003
                                                                                                • 3108
                                                                                                #274
                                                                                                Originally posted by Madame0120
                                                                                                [T]he term `produces' means to produce, manufacture, or publish
                                                                                                any book, magazine, periodical, film, video tape, computer generated
                                                                                                image, digital image, or picture, or other similar matter and
                                                                                                includes the duplication, reproduction, or reissuing of any such
                                                                                                matter, but does not include mere distribution or any other activity
                                                                                                which does not involve hiring, contracting for managing, or
                                                                                                otherwise arranging for the participation of the performers depicted

                                                                                                So, which is it? Or is that the 'HBO wink and a nod'?
                                                                                                Ah damn.. you tricked me.. those are the OLD REGS man!!! Pre Adam Walsh..

                                                                                                The new regs state that the "does not include mere distribution..." only applys if it is not specifically stated before, and it SPECIFICALLY states "putting an image on a website"...
                                                                                                "Think about it a little more and you'll agree with me, because you're smart and I'm right."
                                                                                                - Charlie Munger

                                                                                                  Comment

                                                                                                  • GreyWolf
                                                                                                    So Fucking Banned
                                                                                                    • Jun 2007
                                                                                                    • 2036
                                                                                                    #275
                                                                                                    Originally posted by tony404
                                                                                                    2257 has nothing to do with protecting children, before 2257 they checked ids before shoots. Children is the excuse they use to fuck with us. CPers dont keep records to be inspected we know that and they know that.
                                                                                                    Correct

                                                                                                    Never been involved or engaged any performer without having ID as part of a model release - standard procedure in most western countries.

                                                                                                    Ah.. And I thought all illegal CP'ers faithfully kept records to comply with USC 2257

                                                                                                    PS I now feel blessed that the domestic laws of a foreign country are not another burden :-)
                                                                                                    Last edited by GreyWolf; 07-12-2007, 10:44 PM.

                                                                                                      Comment

                                                                                                      • Nathan
                                                                                                        Confirmed User
                                                                                                        • Jul 2003
                                                                                                        • 3108
                                                                                                        #276
                                                                                                        Originally posted by GreyWolf
                                                                                                        Correct

                                                                                                        Never been involved or engaged any performer without having ID as part of a model release - standard procedure in most western countries.

                                                                                                        Ah.. And I thought all illegal CP'ers faithfully kept records to comply with USC 2257

                                                                                                        PS I now feel blessed that the domestic laws of a foreign country are not another burden :-)
                                                                                                        Why does nobody fucking get this? Jeez.. The point is that CP'ers CAN NOT COMPLY AND THUS GET PUT IN JAIL EVEN IF IT CAN NOT BE PROVEN THE GIRL IS UNDER 18 YEARS OLD!

                                                                                                        Get it in your think skulls, THAT is the original point of such a law. It has been bent and twisted like hell, but THAT is the reason it exists. To FUCK CP'ers even if it can NOT be proven the girl is underage...
                                                                                                        "Think about it a little more and you'll agree with me, because you're smart and I'm right."
                                                                                                        - Charlie Munger

                                                                                                          Comment

                                                                                                          • DaddyHalbucks
                                                                                                            A freakin' legend!
                                                                                                            • Feb 2004
                                                                                                            • 18975
                                                                                                            #277
                                                                                                            Originally posted by RawAlex
                                                                                                            Here is the funniest one:

                                                                                                            Many of today's magazine and runway models are under the age of 18. They appear in photos, in videos, and in print ads all over the country. They often have a "sexual coyness" about them, showing large amounts of skin, tight shirts without bras, or pants with the top button undone (for example). Based on the 2257 regulations, they would require proof that these models are over the age of 18.

                                                                                                            The entire fashion industry is fucked.

                                                                                                            Further, all those "junior Miss" pageants are fucked as well. The Jon-Benet case made it clear that many of those children appear in public, on videos, and in print wearing clothing that isn't appropriate for their age, and often posing in provocative or semi-provative ways. Again, they would all require 2257 documents with proof they are over 18. They aren't so they will have to stop.

                                                                                                            Further, the music industry is in for a shit kicking. Remember Britney Spears "hit me baby one more time" video? Schoolgirl uniform, cleavage, sexual overtones galore. She was 16. The new 2257 regulations would require a full model release to show her over 18, which wouldn't happen.

                                                                                                            Even further, channels like MTV will require (if I read the rules correctly) model releases for any performer that shows "sexual coyness", and would have to index and cross reference all performers, their real names, their photo IDs, and the dates of publication for these videos (and each replay).

                                                                                                            The FSC needs to get on the phone with the fashion, print, music, and television industries to point out how each of them would be severely beaten down by these regulations, creating a massive burden for all entertainment industries.
                                                                                                            Smart thinking. The more allies, the better.
                                                                                                            Boner Money

                                                                                                              Comment

                                                                                                              • c-lo
                                                                                                                Confirmed User
                                                                                                                • May 2005
                                                                                                                • 925
                                                                                                                #278
                                                                                                                Having no doubt that (at least) parts of this will pass, I suggest we (affiliates) at least write the DoJ to propose a more logical solution; keeping record of primary producers; because, as previously mentioned, this would save time for inspectors, money for taxpayers, and reduce the burden placed on adult webmasters. (I list the reasons in this order because I am convinced that it corresponds with their level of concern for each issue.)

                                                                                                                Unfortunately, it can only be assumed that since this proposal only regulates U.S. based companies, producers, & affiliates, we will but garner only a portion of the resistance offered in the .XXX TLD situation.

                                                                                                                Glad to see some of you care, though. As usual, it's mostly the majority of the few I respect on this zoo of a board.

                                                                                                                (P.S. Sorry to hear about the possible records revamping, BoyAlley.)
                                                                                                                The AlphaPhaze Network
                                                                                                                Traffic & Hardlink Trades | Sponsors | Resources
                                                                                                                The adult marketing network you can trust

                                                                                                                  Comment

                                                                                                                  • Madame0120
                                                                                                                    Confirmed User
                                                                                                                    • Nov 2004
                                                                                                                    • 1227
                                                                                                                    #279
                                                                                                                    Originally posted by Nathan
                                                                                                                    Ah damn.. you tricked me.. those are the OLD REGS man!!! Pre Adam Walsh..

                                                                                                                    The new regs state that the "does not include mere distribution..." only applys if it is not specifically stated before, and it SPECIFICALLY states "putting an image on a website"...
                                                                                                                    Didn't mean to .. digging through a clusterfuck isn't my forte. Hopefully it is the Atty we have on retainor, is better at it than me.

                                                                                                                    What a bunch of knuckleheads, all they are doing is Fishin' For Trout, in the Great South Bay
                                                                                                                    Try Something New! Teasing Bucks
                                                                                                                    Mistress Always Wins!

                                                                                                                      Comment

                                                                                                                      • just a punk
                                                                                                                        So fuckin' bored
                                                                                                                        • Jun 2003
                                                                                                                        • 32385
                                                                                                                        #280
                                                                                                                        Originally posted by tony404
                                                                                                                        2257 has nothing to do with protecting children, before 2257 they checked ids before shoots. Children is the excuse they use to fuck with us. CPers dont keep records to be inspected we know that and they know that.
                                                                                                                        Yes, I doubt there is someone who thinks the US govt doesn't know that. Sure it does. It's a law against ALL the the industry, and "child protection" is just some good and very actual slogan to cover the real purposes of 2257.

                                                                                                                        P.S. Even a complete moron will understand that the real cp-makers don't give a shit about 2257, because they are CRIMINALS ALREADY.
                                                                                                                        Obey the Cowgod

                                                                                                                          Comment

                                                                                                                          • Nathan
                                                                                                                            Confirmed User
                                                                                                                            • Jul 2003
                                                                                                                            • 3108
                                                                                                                            #281
                                                                                                                            Originally posted by DaddyHalbucks
                                                                                                                            Smart thinking. The more allies, the better.
                                                                                                                            I said this before and I will say it again.

                                                                                                                            The people RawAlex listed are EXEMPT from 2257A and from lascivious exhibition. As are most of us in my oppinion... but they are for sure..

                                                                                                                            Teen sites MIGHT need to care about "lascivious exhibition" but that should be it...
                                                                                                                            "Think about it a little more and you'll agree with me, because you're smart and I'm right."
                                                                                                                            - Charlie Munger

                                                                                                                              Comment

                                                                                                                              • MrPinks
                                                                                                                                Registered User
                                                                                                                                • Oct 2003
                                                                                                                                • 1767
                                                                                                                                #282
                                                                                                                                I agree with you. The fucked up part is, when they start busting balls with this law, if your convicted, you will now be labelled a sex offender for life. FSC really needs to work harder on this to get it thrown out, not made pallitable

                                                                                                                                Our freedom and lives are at stake and I don't think it should have even got this far with all the promises from the FSC throughout the last year. The secondary producer shit should have been thrown out a long time ago. The primary producer, THE SOURCE, should be the ones holding the records. It should be the primary producers fucking responsibility.


                                                                                                                                Originally posted by baycouples
                                                                                                                                Why don't they just tell us how much they need? I mean they don't seem to complain. As a matter of fact they got a boost in donations and membership fees when this whole deal started.

                                                                                                                                But my point is different. I want to ask a question whether or not having FSC involved with this changed anything? Would DOJ do anything differently if FSC wasn't involved. To me it seems they wouldn't because FSC legal actions have not effected everything that DOJ have done so far. Am I wrong?

                                                                                                                                  Comment

                                                                                                                                  • tony299
                                                                                                                                    lurker
                                                                                                                                    • Aug 2002
                                                                                                                                    • 57021
                                                                                                                                    #283
                                                                                                                                    Originally posted by MrPinks
                                                                                                                                    I agree with you. The fucked up part is, when they start busting balls with this law, if your convicted, you will now be labelled a sex offender for life. FSC really needs to work harder on this to get it thrown out, not made pallitable

                                                                                                                                    Our freedom and lives are at stake and I don't think it should have even got this far with all the promises from the FSC throughout the last year. The secondary producer shit should have been thrown out a long time ago. The primary producer, THE SOURCE, should be the ones holding the records. It should be the primary producers fucking responsibility.
                                                                                                                                    Maybe they will get it made easier to comply but thrown out I dont think thats going to happen.

                                                                                                                                      Comment

                                                                                                                                      • Tom_PM
                                                                                                                                        Porn Meister
                                                                                                                                        • Feb 2005
                                                                                                                                        • 16443
                                                                                                                                        #284
                                                                                                                                        Imagine buying a poster of Farrah Fawcett at Spencers Gifts at your local mall. Dont you think you have an expectation as a consumer that since the product is for sale, that it's perfectly legal to own it and "publish" it on your bedroom wall for your 300 million friends to come see? Of course you do, thats the way it works with such products.

                                                                                                                                        The actual producers of content NEED to be the ones who ensure legality of the content before EVERY sale, or be treated like any other store that sells something it shouldnt have.

                                                                                                                                        Merely unzipping a file of 20 images and posting one of them on a website is NOT "producing" the image! The entire definition is fucked!! I PRODUCED the web page, NOT the image. The image is an END product in it's own right. IMHO I should be able to say "I bought that image at xyz123 content store" and that SHOULD be the end of my responsibility. But no, not with adam walsh and 2257... they are in effect saying that I need Farrah Fawcetts drivers license and all that other shit, plus tell them where else she may appear in an image in my home, and any other homes under my control.

                                                                                                                                        It's unfair as consumers of end products to be responsible for the people who sold it to us, and who manufacture it.

                                                                                                                                        But, that angle will ever get real traction it seems.
                                                                                                                                        43-922-863 Shut up and play your guitar.

                                                                                                                                          Comment

                                                                                                                                          • MrPinks
                                                                                                                                            Registered User
                                                                                                                                            • Oct 2003
                                                                                                                                            • 1767
                                                                                                                                            #285
                                                                                                                                            Another excellent point. I really wonder what the FSC says in court. Do they bring up this convincing and realistic points? The secondary producer shit is totally rediculous.

                                                                                                                                            Originally posted by PR_Tom
                                                                                                                                            Imagine buying a poster of Farrah Fawcett at Spencers Gifts at your local mall. Dont you think you have an expectation as a consumer that since the product is for sale, that it's perfectly legal to own it and "publish" it on your bedroom wall for your 300 million friends to come see? Of course you do, thats the way it works with such products.

                                                                                                                                            The actual producers of content NEED to be the ones who ensure legality of the content before EVERY sale, or be treated like any other store that sells something it shouldnt have.

                                                                                                                                            Merely unzipping a file of 20 images and posting one of them on a website is NOT "producing" the image! The entire definition is fucked!! I PRODUCED the web page, NOT the image. The image is an END product in it's own right. IMHO I should be able to say "I bought that image at xyz123 content store" and that SHOULD be the end of my responsibility. But no, not with adam walsh and 2257... they are in effect saying that I need Farrah Fawcetts drivers license and all that other shit, plus tell them where else she may appear in an image in my home, and any other homes under my control.

                                                                                                                                            It's unfair as consumers of end products to be responsible for the people who sold it to us, and who manufacture it.

                                                                                                                                            But, that angle will ever get real traction it seems.

                                                                                                                                              Comment

                                                                                                                                              • Tom_PM
                                                                                                                                                Porn Meister
                                                                                                                                                • Feb 2005
                                                                                                                                                • 16443
                                                                                                                                                #286
                                                                                                                                                Well, I'm just still pissed over the entire concept of record keeping, when I dont produce a single image or movie! I never have and never will.

                                                                                                                                                The thing is bogged down in details like is a link good enough on this or that page, when the entire battle should be about WHO should be responsible for that in the first place.

                                                                                                                                                I am fine with the concept of telling inspectors where I got the content from. Thats perfectly reasonable and not burdensome at ALL and makes perfect sense to the stated goal! But me as an affiliate who might want to use samples on websites, doing the job of the content producers is just so far fetched. But it seems "we've" totally given up that battle entirely.

                                                                                                                                                If I was a business who wanted to use Farrah Fawcetts poster in my store to help sell things, I would have to obtain permission, a content license if you will, and maintain and renew that contract as applicable. Again, perfectly resonable! But to have to keep all of the same records (minus blacked out address) as the actual photographer?? Ridiculous!
                                                                                                                                                43-922-863 Shut up and play your guitar.

                                                                                                                                                  Comment

                                                                                                                                                  • Naja-ram
                                                                                                                                                    Confirmed User
                                                                                                                                                    • Aug 2006
                                                                                                                                                    • 639
                                                                                                                                                    #287
                                                                                                                                                    I really feel sorry for you guys...
                                                                                                                                                    US webmasters - get ready, I think you guys should start finding other ways to make money.
                                                                                                                                                    really.
                                                                                                                                                    this stuff is shitty
                                                                                                                                                    Last edited by Naja-ram; 07-14-2007, 12:31 PM.
                                                                                                                                                    http://www.muslimmatrimonial.com/

                                                                                                                                                      Comment

                                                                                                                                                      • GatorB
                                                                                                                                                        The Demon & 12clicks
                                                                                                                                                        • Oct 2001
                                                                                                                                                        • 18208
                                                                                                                                                        #288
                                                                                                                                                        Originally posted by BV
                                                                                                                                                        and for affiliates that host the videos, do the affiliates have to put their custodian of records name and address on the sponsors videos if the affiliate hosts them?
                                                                                                                                                        If YOU are showing ANY sexual content on YOUR site then it's YOUR name YOUR address and YOUR phone number you have to show on every page that has content.

                                                                                                                                                          Comment

                                                                                                                                                          • Scootermuze
                                                                                                                                                            Confirmed User
                                                                                                                                                            • Dec 2001
                                                                                                                                                            • 4513
                                                                                                                                                            #289
                                                                                                                                                            Originally posted by Nathan
                                                                                                                                                            Why does nobody fucking get this? Jeez.. The point is that CP'ers CAN NOT COMPLY AND THUS GET PUT IN JAIL EVEN IF IT CAN NOT BE PROVEN THE GIRL IS UNDER 18 YEARS OLD!

                                                                                                                                                            Get it in your think skulls, THAT is the original point of such a law. .
                                                                                                                                                            Sooo.. you were there when the fine folks discussed the original point of such a law?

                                                                                                                                                            Please don't try to make your opinion sound any more valid than anyone else's...

                                                                                                                                                            My thick skull tells me that the way records must be kept, and who now may have to keep them... Producers, secondary producers, hard copies, cross references, etc. is nothing more than an attempt to make things as difficult as possible to be involved in the adult industry..

                                                                                                                                                            A simple requirement for producers to keep valid and verifiable identification, with stiff penalties for non-compliance, would be sufficient... and would just as easily take care of the cp'ers..

                                                                                                                                                            Now explain to me again how the original point all of the pending nonsense will do such a better job?

                                                                                                                                                              Comment

                                                                                                                                                              • MrPinks
                                                                                                                                                                Registered User
                                                                                                                                                                • Oct 2003
                                                                                                                                                                • 1767
                                                                                                                                                                #290
                                                                                                                                                                bump since this is a very important topic

                                                                                                                                                                  Comment

                                                                                                                                                                  • GreyWolf
                                                                                                                                                                    So Fucking Banned
                                                                                                                                                                    • Jun 2007
                                                                                                                                                                    • 2036
                                                                                                                                                                    #291
                                                                                                                                                                    Originally posted by Nathan
                                                                                                                                                                    Why does nobody fucking get this? Jeez.. The point is that CP'ers CAN NOT COMPLY AND THUS GET PUT IN JAIL EVEN IF IT CAN NOT BE PROVEN THE GIRL IS UNDER 18 YEARS OLD!

                                                                                                                                                                    Get it in your think skulls, THAT is the original point of such a law. It has been bent and twisted like hell, but THAT is the reason it exists. To FUCK CP'ers even if it can NOT be proven the girl is underage...
                                                                                                                                                                    There was a time I thought USC 2257 could be a general basis for child protection and did support it.

                                                                                                                                                                    However, it was rarely enforced and in reality, it comprised of checking records of companies/individuals who were the least likely offenders. At the same time, there were literally 1000's out outstanding actual cases of CP which had not even been addressed - there was no time or resources to followup on this data. As far as I know, least up to three months ago, that situation still exists and the files are getting higher and deeper in dust.

                                                                                                                                                                    What is the point of sending a few guys in suits to inspect records of companies who are more likely to be aware their talent is of legal age while the dust is covering over thousands of uncheck and uninvestigated incidents of, most probably, actual CP???

                                                                                                                                                                    In reality, it is totally irrelevant whether 2257 records are recorded accurately - it's not about clerical accuracy - it's about CP and possible prior offenses against children. There is a serious lack of priorities.

                                                                                                                                                                    Tho I thought 2257 could have been the basis of *something* - it's a total farce and of little value in protecting any child and, now, we don't pay any attention to this US law - it's an irrelevance. The current existing standards in other countries are both more sensible and practical and do release law agencies to concentrate on the core issue which was supposed to be addressed by USC 2257 - child porn.

                                                                                                                                                                    The numbers of CP'ers (tho this also includes file sharing by like-minded individuals) hosting illegal content on US servers is apparently more than the rest of the world combined. The time has passed to get asses out there and deal with this issue, instead of silly talk about the technicalities of 2257.

                                                                                                                                                                      Comment

                                                                                                                                                                      • bausch
                                                                                                                                                                        Confirmed User
                                                                                                                                                                        • Jul 2006
                                                                                                                                                                        • 3017
                                                                                                                                                                        #292
                                                                                                                                                                        Question about this section

                                                                                                                                                                        The applicability of part 75 to lascivious exhibition is
                                                                                                                                                                        prospective from the effective date of the Act. The rule therefore
                                                                                                                                                                        applies only to depictions whose original production date is on or
                                                                                                                                                                        after July 27, 2006. That is, records are not required to be maintained
                                                                                                                                                                        either by a primary producer or by a secondary producer for a visual
                                                                                                                                                                        depiction of lascivious exhibition, the original production date of
                                                                                                                                                                        which was prior to July 27, 2006. In the case of a secondary producer,
                                                                                                                                                                        this means that even if the secondary producer ``produces'' (as defined
                                                                                                                                                                        in the regulation) such a depiction on or after July 27, 2006, he need
                                                                                                                                                                        not maintain records if the original production date of the depiction
                                                                                                                                                                        is prior to that date.

                                                                                                                                                                        Does this mean that basically that secondary producers can use old content that was produced prior to july 27,2006 and not have to have docs for that?

                                                                                                                                                                        And if so how would the government know what the date of production was?

                                                                                                                                                                          Comment

                                                                                                                                                                          • BV
                                                                                                                                                                            wtf
                                                                                                                                                                            • Sep 2001
                                                                                                                                                                            • 10914
                                                                                                                                                                            #293
                                                                                                                                                                            Originally posted by GatorB
                                                                                                                                                                            If YOU are showing ANY sexual content on YOUR site then it's YOUR name YOUR address and YOUR phone number you have to show on every page that has content.

                                                                                                                                                                            Yes I know that. Read my post again or quote the whole thing as not to confuse others. I am talking about videos! Not web pages. Any video also needs to have 2257 information on the video itself within so many seconds from the beginning. So if you have videos on a web page the statement is required to be on the web page and the video. Most sponsors don't put their statement on the video that I see. (Bangbros is the only one that I have noticed that does this) There are tons of sexually explicit promo clips out there without 2257 info on them.

                                                                                                                                                                            The point I was trying to make is that it will be very burdensome to have to re encode all your videos if any of your 2257 info changes. Plus when affiliates have to start putting their information on the sponsors videos, that is going to create some issues. Especially the way videos are posted and shared all over the place these days.

                                                                                                                                                                            Also, FYI, you are wrong about having to put your phone number. Nowhere it says you have to put your phone number, not a big deal though, i'd much rather put my phone number than let every tom dick and harry know where my address is.
                                                                                                                                                                            Last edited by BV; 07-15-2007, 12:13 AM.

                                                                                                                                                                              Comment

                                                                                                                                                                              • Zester
                                                                                                                                                                                Confirmed User
                                                                                                                                                                                • Jul 2003
                                                                                                                                                                                • 5344
                                                                                                                                                                                #294
                                                                                                                                                                                I am getting depressed again....
                                                                                                                                                                                * Mainstream ? $65 per sale
                                                                                                                                                                                * new male contraception

                                                                                                                                                                                  Comment

                                                                                                                                                                                  • Humpy Leftnut
                                                                                                                                                                                    Confirmed User
                                                                                                                                                                                    • Apr 2007
                                                                                                                                                                                    • 1292
                                                                                                                                                                                    #295
                                                                                                                                                                                    I'm just dizzy.
                                                                                                                                                                                    Humpy Leftnut - Pornsumer Reviews

                                                                                                                                                                                      Comment

                                                                                                                                                                                      • bobby666
                                                                                                                                                                                        boots are my religion
                                                                                                                                                                                        • Nov 2005
                                                                                                                                                                                        • 21765
                                                                                                                                                                                        #296
                                                                                                                                                                                        Originally posted by ilbb
                                                                                                                                                                                        That's crazy, will I need 2257 info for teasing pictures like these?

                                                                                                                                                                                        no, not for suicide bombers

                                                                                                                                                                                          Comment

                                                                                                                                                                                          • Naja-ram
                                                                                                                                                                                            Confirmed User
                                                                                                                                                                                            • Aug 2006
                                                                                                                                                                                            • 639
                                                                                                                                                                                            #297
                                                                                                                                                                                            Originally posted by bobby666
                                                                                                                                                                                            no, not for suicide bombers
                                                                                                                                                                                            shut your hole, not every arab in the world blows themselves
                                                                                                                                                                                            http://www.muslimmatrimonial.com/

                                                                                                                                                                                              Comment

                                                                                                                                                                                              • bausch
                                                                                                                                                                                                Confirmed User
                                                                                                                                                                                                • Jul 2006
                                                                                                                                                                                                • 3017
                                                                                                                                                                                                #298
                                                                                                                                                                                                Originally posted by bausch
                                                                                                                                                                                                Question about this section

                                                                                                                                                                                                The applicability of part 75 to lascivious exhibition is
                                                                                                                                                                                                prospective from the effective date of the Act. The rule therefore
                                                                                                                                                                                                applies only to depictions whose original production date is on or
                                                                                                                                                                                                after July 27, 2006. That is, records are not required to be maintained
                                                                                                                                                                                                either by a primary producer or by a secondary producer for a visual
                                                                                                                                                                                                depiction of lascivious exhibition, the original production date of
                                                                                                                                                                                                which was prior to July 27, 2006. In the case of a secondary producer,
                                                                                                                                                                                                this means that even if the secondary producer ``produces'' (as defined
                                                                                                                                                                                                in the regulation) such a depiction on or after July 27, 2006, he need
                                                                                                                                                                                                not maintain records if the original production date of the depiction
                                                                                                                                                                                                is prior to that date.

                                                                                                                                                                                                Does this mean that basically that secondary producers can use old content that was produced prior to july 27,2006 and not have to have docs for that?

                                                                                                                                                                                                And if so how would the government know what the date of production was?
                                                                                                                                                                                                Does anyone know? thanks

                                                                                                                                                                                                  Comment

                                                                                                                                                                                                  • TurboAngel
                                                                                                                                                                                                    H.B.I.C.
                                                                                                                                                                                                    • Jun 2003
                                                                                                                                                                                                    • 30122
                                                                                                                                                                                                    #299
                                                                                                                                                                                                    New page?????

                                                                                                                                                                                                      Comment

                                                                                                                                                                                                      • TurboAngel
                                                                                                                                                                                                        H.B.I.C.
                                                                                                                                                                                                        • Jun 2003
                                                                                                                                                                                                        • 30122
                                                                                                                                                                                                        #300
                                                                                                                                                                                                        New page?

                                                                                                                                                                                                          Comment

                                                                                                                                                                                                          Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 template Next
                                                                                                                                                                                                          Working...