| Joe Obenberger |
03-30-2012 10:20 AM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by adultmobile
(Post 18853606)
Hello Joe. We discussed 2257 for cams so many years ago and I see we are still into a mess.
I can surely see controversial the topic of a tube with user(?) uploaded clips of unknown name, country or age people, having no any 2257 doc or info who made these clips, where, in what year, who the people there and how old at the time.
Still for live cam sites it seems not enough to have the 2257 documents that demonstrates the first day the person streamed on that site he/she it was already 18, so the date being when the cam model registered on site, to be matched with the birth date and signature of same model for agreement with site. It would be obvious that for all the next streams of the same person, such person was still over 18 and not going to become underage with time. So I register Irina on day 1 she was 18+, next days and years when you see Irina live she is still 18+, this looks logic.
No, they do want every next live video stream to be kept recorded on servers forever with a different 2257 index, so let's assume you have 50+ live HD streams 24/7 going, this fills a largest HD within 2 days, soon you will grow data storage costs worth $10,000's (hardware+manage+custom software) which may be more than the profit or feasibility of a small cam site economy. Keeping all recorded forever also conflicts with some Eropean privacy laws, and in general if yuo comply 2257 in USA you infringe somewhere else.
|
I'm not one for excessive gentleness. You do have some misunderstandings. All of the issues you raise can be and should be reconciled by a heart to heart consultation with any of us who practice in depth in this area.
Many of the other posters inject tubesite copyright issues into this discussion. That is a serious and respectable issue entitled to its own threads, and it has many. But the purpose of Section 2257 has never been the abatement of copyright infringement.
Given the arguments advanced by the Free Speech Coalition in litigation that, were Section 2257 a powerful tool to protect children, it would be enforced, I expect the government to soon deprive FSC of that argument by commencing inspections and enforcement actions. I can't imagine a better way to help Obama's re-election against arguments that he's been soft of obscenity prosecution than to enforce Section 2257. While they at DOJ may have been content to watch and wait while the drama played out in the courts till now, perhaps the calculus may now shift as a result of the emphasis given to this argument during oral argument in the Third Circuit and the impending election. You may listen to that argument, conducted last January 11, which is linked on xxxlaw in the 2257 area. Should Section 2257 survive its current round of litigation, its most flagrant violators are likely to face a stark day of reckoning and judgment, while adult operators at every level are likely to be selected for inspection. I have no inside information about this, but it all seems to make sense to me and to be consistent with the Eric Holder Justice Department's policies as well as the realities of both litigation and politics. |
