Quote:
Originally Posted by topnotch, standup guy
And if an underage looking girl is spotted on a tube site with no watermark indicating where the original image came from?
How the fuck are the Feds then supposed to go about "Protecting Children" ?
.
|
Well, if the tubemaster inserted the vidcap and the .flv on the page, or if he "otherwise manages the sexually explicit content" of the tube, they inspect his records. If he's offshore, or pretending to be offshore, they do have some more indirect options to inflict pain. They may even secure an arrest warrant that just may be inconveniently served during a change of planes at an American airport. It happened to the gaming people, and I've heard it's dreadfully inconvenient. And those rebooking charges months later are a nightmare.
It would make for bizarre content if any tube actually permitted the direct upload of whatever the browsing public chose to upload. Somewhere near 90% of it would be images of a man's generative organ, typically that of the uploader, being stimulated. Because that's not known to draw high Alexa ratings, I rather suspect that all the tube sites sift and winnow the submissions, cull, and make aesthetic determinations on what gets to hit the landing page. If that does take place, they are all subject to Section 2257 as secondary producers.
That's "how the fuck" the law can be enforced. The inspection regimen may start again at any time; there is no court order blocking it. Inasmuch as one of the loudest arguments from the Free Speech Coalition before the Third Circuit in January was that the law isn't important enough for DOJ to enforce, were I a DOJ official in charge of this, and were I a smart cookie (as some of them really are), I'd begin vigorous inspections now, so as to deprive the FSC of that argument.