Quote:
|
Originally Posted by vdc-Loki
I dont feel its about picking and choosing what you like and dont like I see it as I called it from the start the deff of secondary producer is contradicted in the text, from start to finish that entire pararaph says you are, are not, are, are not.
-Loki-
|
It really doesn't matter if it's contradicted, or you think it's contradicted anywhere. If the law is not changed, or until it is changed, if you're in court, the part that says you ARE a producer is the part they will use against you. That's how it works. Here's the excerpt direct from the text, I don't think it can get any clearer...
"A secondary producer is any person who produces"..."or who inserts on a
computer site or service a digital image of, or otherwise manages the
sexually explicit content of a computer site or service that contains a
visual depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually
explicit conduct, including any person who enters into a contract,
agreement, or conspiracy to do any of the foregoing."
Do we all not insert images on a web site? If you can see any ambiguity in that statement, I'd like to have it pointed out.
All the stuff that comes later about distribution and not hiring models and all that shit says IF you don't fall under one of the previously defined scenarios. And we all clearly fall under that scenario.