Serious 2257 question. - GoFuckYourself.com

AaronM · 07-02-2004, 05:14 PM

Most of you don't properly follow these laws in the first place so why is it that you are suddenly so concerned about possible changes?

You all panicked when the amber alert shit came out too and yet WTF have you changed since then?

Not a God damn thing.

Juicy D. Links · 07-02-2004, 05:19 PM

MikeHawk · 07-02-2004, 05:22 PM

http://www.washingtondispatch.com/article_9458.shtml

DrewKole · 07-02-2004, 05:33 PM

This coming from the guy who preached that everyone was a moron, for thinking they had to have Model ID's?

Cute.

BigPinPin · 07-02-2004, 05:44 PM

porn will allways go its own way....

AaronM · 07-02-2004, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DrewKole
This coming from the guy who preached that everyone was a moron, for thinking they had to have Model ID's?

Cute.

And they still don't.

Fuck of idiot.

DrewKole · 07-02-2004, 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by AaronM
And they still don't.

Fuck of idiot.

Great, more 2257lookup spam.

AaronM · 07-02-2004, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DrewKole
Great, more 2257lookup spam.

Wrong again.

But I'll let you figure out why all on your own.

And don't reply with the typical crap about not really caring. If that were the case then you would not still be watching this thread.

DrewKole · 07-02-2004, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by AaronM
Wrong again.

But I'll let you figure out why all on your own.

And don't reply with the typical crap about not really caring. If that were the case then you would not still be watching this thread.

*yawns*, more Aaron holier than thou drivel.

Go back to your cage monkey.

sean416 · 07-02-2004, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DrewKole
*yawns*, more Aaron holier than thou drivel.

Go back to your cage monkey.

GROW UP.

AaronM · 07-02-2004, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DrewKole
*yawns*, more Aaron holier than thou drivel.

Go back to your cage monkey.

Why do you always assume that you know where I am comming from?

You are clearly clueless.

I am not holier than most.....Just you and some others.

GFY is my cage...Have you not figured that out yet?

Go read the fucking 2257 laws. Then read the proposed regulations. THEN read what impact "regulations" have on actual law and when those regulations may actually go into effect.

THEN go review the Sundance vs. Reno case.

Once you have a clear understanding of each of these components...Come back here and try to have an intelligent conversation on an issue for once.

I know this is too much for you to comprehend but if you try real hard....Maybe even hire somebody with twice your intelligence..Like SpaceDog.........to help you understand.....

StuartD · 07-02-2004, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DrewKole
Great, more 2257lookup spam.

I even went into the source code for this thread and I still can't find where the url for that was posted here.

Can you please take a screen shot, a picture or something to show where it was mentioned?

DrewKole · 07-02-2004, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by AaronM
Why do you always assume that you know where I am comming from?

You are clearly clueless.

I am not holier than most.....Just you and some others.

GFY is my cage...Have you not figured that out yet?

Go read the fucking 2257 laws. Then read the proposed regulations. THEN read what impact "regulations" have on actual law and when those regulations may actually go into effect.

THEN go review the Sundance vs. Reno case.

Once you have a clear understanding of each of these components...Come back here and try to have an intelligent conversation on an issue for once.

I know this is too much for you to comprehend but if you try real hard....Maybe even hire somebody with twice your intelligence..Like SpaceDog.........to help you understand.....

And? you keep going back to this producer this, producer that , its not your responsibility blah blah blah.

Let me re-read the new proposition, and see if Im incorrect, I'll be sure to post here if I am.

DrewKole · 07-02-2004, 07:12 PM

Proposed....

" 2) A secondary producer is any person who produces, assembles,
manufactures, publishes, duplicates, reproduces, or reissues a book,
magazine, periodical, film, videotape, a computer-generated image, digital image, or picture, or other matter intended for commercial distribution that contains a visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct, or who inserts on a computer site or service a digital image of, or otherwise manages the content of a computer site or service that contains a visual depiction of, actual sexually explicit conduct, including any person who enters into a contract, agreement, or conspiracy to do any of the foregoing.

3) Proposed 28 CFR 75.2(a)(1) would require computer site or service
producers to maintain a ``hard'' physical or electronic copy of the actual depiction with the identification and age files, along with and linked to all accession information, such as each URL used for that depiction. This ensures that all of the data about all of the people in the depictions can be accessed to ensure that none of the people in the depictions are minors."

Looks to me, like the secondary producer as defined, in almost every case, would be the webmaster.

and in section 3, would require that they have a copy of the ids.

I'm probably reading it wrong.

AaronM · 07-02-2004, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DrewKole
Proposed....

" 2) A secondary producer is any person who produces, assembles,
manufactures, publishes, duplicates, reproduces, or reissues a book,
magazine, periodical, film, videotape, a computer-generated image, digital image, or picture, or other matter intended for commercial distribution that contains a visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct, or who inserts on a computer site or service a digital image of, or otherwise manages the content of a computer site or service that contains a visual depiction of, actual sexually explicit conduct, including any person who enters into a contract, agreement, or conspiracy to do any of the foregoing.

3) Proposed 28 CFR 75.2(a)(1) would require computer site or service
producers to maintain a ``hard'' physical or electronic copy of the actual depiction with the identification and age files, along with and linked to all accession information, such as each URL used for that depiction. This ensures that all of the data about all of the people in the depictions can be accessed to ensure that none of the people in the depictions are minors."

Looks to me, like the secondary producer as defined, in almost every case, would be the webmaster.

and in section 3, would require that they have a copy of the ids.

I'm probably reading it wrong.

No, You're not reading it wrong....Now go read 28 CFR 75 and learn about secondary producers as defined BY LAW...not by "regulations."

That specific law has been tried once already and when stacked up against 2257 there seems to have been enough conflict for the court to rule in our favor.

Only time will tell where this stuff ends up and just like the prior 2257 laws, one should be able to fully expect a grandfather type of clause.

In the past, I have been outspoken about actual laws that were currently on the books not laws that have not yet been written.

DrewKole · 07-02-2004, 07:45 PM

And? Current law allows both parties to be the same person, but I didn't see anything about if the primary person or records do not exist anymore, if that would force the person in issue, to be the primary.

If the new regulations get passed, it will not take long before they change any definitions you hold so dearly, because they pretty much completely ignore them in the new regulations.

Doesn't really apply to me, seeing as how the content I own on the net right now, is from dvd rips.

As far as I see it, atleast.

I don't really deal with any photo or original content right now, so Im not all that concerned.

But like I've said to you in the past, when you live in a borderline saucy state like Texas...

I doubt the cops know anything about 2257, or many lawyers... and even if charges were revoked a week later, its stilll damaging.

Though, I don't work in borderline niches either so...

This is fun though.... we can go back and forth all night, with semantics, and neither of us will be right.

But some people might have actually learned something,. =)

Cheers

AaronM · 07-02-2004, 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DrewKole
And? Current law allows both parties to be the same person, but I didn't see anything about if the primary person or records do not exist anymore, if that would force the person in issue, to be the primary.

If the new regulations get passed, it will not take long before they change any definitions you hold so dearly, because they pretty much completely ignore them in the new regulations.

The first part of your concern has been beaten to death multiple times around here so I am not going to address it yet again.

The 2nd part.....

You just don't seem to get it.

THERE IS ALREADY A LAW IN PLACE LIKE THAT.

If you had read what I asked you to read then you would know this. That law was tried in a very famous case and the state LOST.

These new regulations are not as powerful as law. If the law could not stand up in court then WTF makes you think that a regulation would?

The one thing that we both agree on is that none of it is worth the hastle....But I am not giving advice...I am speaking about law just as I have always done.

DrewKole · 07-02-2004, 07:55 PM

How many more famous cases? I'd like to read them all.

History has shown that 1 case is not always enough to create a heavy precedent.

And that was Janet anyways, which is an entirely different subject.

AaronM · 07-02-2004, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DrewKole
How many more famous cases? I'd like to read them all.

History has shown that 1 case is not always enough to create a heavy precedent.

And that was Janet anyways, which is an entirely different subject.

Go ahead and research all of the cases..adult and non-adult...that have been tried with conflicting laws.

Feel free to come back and post your findings here.

pornguy · 07-02-2004, 08:55 PM

I think that they just want to fuck us everyway they can. Now look what they have done.
You two are fighting.

Can't we all just play in the sand box nicely???

07-02-2004, 05:14 PM	#1
AaronM Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: ┌∩┐ ◣_◢ ┌∩┐ Posts: 46,909	Serious 2257 question. Most of you don't properly follow these laws in the first place so why is it that you are suddenly so concerned about possible changes? You all panicked when the amber alert shit came out too and yet WTF have you changed since then? Not a God damn thing.

07-02-2004, 05:22 PM	#3
MikeHawk Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: In bed with Harley Girl....Not sleepin Posts: 6,683	http://www.washingtondispatch.com/article_9458.shtml __________________ THE AMBUSH INTERVIEW

07-02-2004, 08:55 PM	#20
pornguy Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Homeless Posts: 62,911	I think that they just want to fuck us everyway they can. Now look what they have done. You two are fighting. Can't we all just play in the sand box nicely??? __________________ PornGuy skype me pornguy_epic AmateurDough The Hottes Shemales online! TChicks.com \| Angeles Cid \| Mariana Cordoba \| MAILERS WELCOME!

07-02-2004, 05:19 PM	#2
Juicy D. Links So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: N.Y. -Long Island -- Posts: 122,992

07-02-2004, 05:33 PM	#4
DrewKole Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 5,193	This coming from the guy who preached that everyone was a moron, for thinking they had to have Model ID's? Cute.

07-02-2004, 05:44 PM	#5
BigPinPin Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: May 2003 Location: Spain Posts: 894	porn will allways go its own way....

07-02-2004, 07:12 PM	#14
DrewKole Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 5,193	Proposed.... " 2) A secondary producer is any person who produces, assembles, manufactures, publishes, duplicates, reproduces, or reissues a book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, a computer-generated image, digital image, or picture, or other matter intended for commercial distribution that contains a visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct, or who inserts on a computer site or service a digital image of, or otherwise manages the content of a computer site or service that contains a visual depiction of, actual sexually explicit conduct, including any person who enters into a contract, agreement, or conspiracy to do any of the foregoing. 3) Proposed 28 CFR 75.2(a)(1) would require computer site or service producers to maintain a ``hard'' physical or electronic copy of the actual depiction with the identification and age files, along with and linked to all accession information, such as each URL used for that depiction. This ensures that all of the data about all of the people in the depictions can be accessed to ensure that none of the people in the depictions are minors." Looks to me, like the secondary producer as defined, in almost every case, would be the webmaster. and in section 3, would require that they have a copy of the ids. I'm probably reading it wrong.

07-02-2004, 07:45 PM	#16
DrewKole Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 5,193	And? Current law allows both parties to be the same person, but I didn't see anything about if the primary person or records do not exist anymore, if that would force the person in issue, to be the primary. If the new regulations get passed, it will not take long before they change any definitions you hold so dearly, because they pretty much completely ignore them in the new regulations. Doesn't really apply to me, seeing as how the content I own on the net right now, is from dvd rips. As far as I see it, atleast. I don't really deal with any photo or original content right now, so Im not all that concerned. But like I've said to you in the past, when you live in a borderline saucy state like Texas... I doubt the cops know anything about 2257, or many lawyers... and even if charges were revoked a week later, its stilll damaging. Though, I don't work in borderline niches either so... This is fun though.... we can go back and forth all night, with semantics, and neither of us will be right. But some people might have actually learned something,. =) Cheers

07-02-2004, 07:55 PM	#18
DrewKole Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 5,193	How many more famous cases? I'd like to read them all. History has shown that 1 case is not always enough to create a heavy precedent. And that was Janet anyways, which is an entirely different subject.