Quote:
|
Originally Posted by GatorB
Two commenters commented that the definition of producer in the
proposed rule was too broad and would encompass a convenience store
that sold sexually explicit magazines or a movie theater that screened
R-rated movies. The Department declines to adopt this comment. As the
rule makes clear, mere distributors of sexually explicit material are
excluded from the definition of producers and under no plausible
construction of the definition would a movie theater be covered merely
by screening films produced by others.
Ok so how is me making a TGP gallery different than a store selling a copy of Hustler? Logic would say I am only distributing the content. Hell I didn't shoot those fucking pics or movies. This law contridicts itself.
|
Yeah that is definitely interesting there. I'm not sure how valid their commentary is VS. actual law though? Because if a movie theatre explicitly gets an exemption (by their commentary, not necessarily by law... they did deny the request after all), then shouldn't a paysite displaying the content to the end user get the same exemption? If they didn't create the content, or contract the content to be produced, then isn't that paysite basically a eletronic movie theatre of sorts?