EXCELLENT article in Wired re: 2257 [must read]

[xenigo]

I applaud Wired for bringing this information to a mainstream publication. Excellent stuff. We certainly need more of these types of dialogues to get out the message of how the new 2257 jepardises our freedoms in this industry.

http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,...w=wn_tophead_4

[VeriSexy]

Cool

[Dynamix]

Which issue was this in? Maybe I haven't gotten the newest mag but I don't remember reading this. Very good stuff

[Major (Tom)]

why even bother reading this stuff.. Just let your attorneys deal with it.
Duke

[xenigo]

I'm going to call that columnist on Monday to thank him. I'm amazed more attention hasn't gravitated towards this subject.

[Paul Markham]

I read this in a link from another board and was amazed at how biased it was.

The scariest part is that so much of this is happening in secret. The Justice Department refuses to make its obscenity guidelines available to the industry or the public, and "during the entirety of the hearings on (18 USC 2257) and the development of the regulations that implement the statute (which requires producers to maintain meticulous records of performers' ages), there was never any discussion with any industry representatives," Douglas says. Yet any violation of the statute is a federal felony.

This is to the industries benefit. Because when they eventually bring it to court a skilled attorney will drive a horse and cart through the law because they simply do not understand how the Internet works.

As usual the rest of the industry will stand back and let a few individuals pay for the undoing of this law rather than stepping up to the plate and fighting as a united force.

And if consumers are also a target, where does that leave us if we feel like distributing homemade digital videos on peer-to-peer networks for others to enjoy? Can we be indicted for not complying with 18 USC 2257?

If you publish porn you have to be able to prove you own the content and the right to publish it, the models consented to it being published on the Internet and that they are over 18. Otherwise peole can distribute what ever they like under the guise of it being peer to peer.

As pornographers we have responsibilities, should we fail to maintain them do not be surprised if Vias and the banks make it even harder to do business.

[Drake]

President Bush allotted $270 million to "abstinence education," up from the $97.5 million budgeted in 2000.

[xenigo]

Originally posted by Mike33
President Bush allotted $270 million to "abstinence education," up from the $97.5 million budgeted in 2000.

Bush knows when you've been sleeping, he knows when you're awake. He knows when you've been wacking off... so be good for goodness sake.

[xclusive]

Very good artice and a great magazine but when it comes down to it the law is so full of shit it's not going to do any harm to those that know what's up with it and have a great lawyer...

[xenigo]

Originally posted by charly
I read this in a link from another board and was amazed at how biased it was.

This is to the industries benefit. Because when they eventually bring it to court a skilled attorney will drive a horse and cart through the law because they simply do not understand how the Internet works.

As usual the rest of the industry will stand back and let a few individuals pay for the undoing of this law rather than stepping up to the plate and fighting as a united force.

If you publish porn you have to be able to prove you own the content and the right to publish it, the models consented to it being published on the Internet and that they are over 18. Otherwise peole can distribute what ever they like under the guise of it being peer to peer.

As pornographers we have responsibilities, should we fail to maintain them do not be surprised if Vias and the banks make it even harder to do business.

Charly,
If I'm reading this correctly, it sounds as if you're almost siding with the Attorney General who drafted this peice of legistlation. He definitely has made his agenda clear, and it goes way beyond protecting the innocent.

[Paul Markham]

Originally posted by xenigo
Charly,
If I'm reading this correctly, it sounds as if you're almost siding with the Attorney General who drafted this peice of legistlation. He definitely has made his agenda clear, and it goes way beyond protecting the innocent.

You are reading it wrong then.

Look at the law and the way it's written, are all of the things is asks for doable the way the Adult Internet works? In my opinion and knowledge it's not. This gives a lawyer the argument that the law in itself cannot be enforced.

Now imagine if they had consulted industry people and made a law that could be enforced, but made it very didficult and expensive. What would you prefer?

One of the simplest things is the distributing personal information to every webmaster with free content. Let's say they made people obtain a license to get that information or made you employ a lawyer to maintain it.

I think it was a knee jerk reaction from someone who had to come up with a quick excuse of why his department had never enforced the act. Ash c roft gave the excuse to the Senate committee, that the law was under review so he could not enforce it at the moment.

The original law was in response to Traci Lords having one forged ID when she was under age doing porn. Then they passed 2257 which stil asked for 1 ID and was very flexible about what ID that could be. The industry I worked for insisted on better IDs and two of them.

[GatorB]

Originally posted by charly


If you publish porn you have to be able to prove you own the content and the right to publish it, the models consented to it being published on the Internet and that they are over 18. Otherwise peole can distribute what ever they like under the guise of it being peer to peer.

As pornographers we have responsibilities, should we fail to maintain them do not be surprised if Vias and the banks make it even harder to do business.

If you HONESTLY think 2257 is about copyright or models consent then I have a gold mine in Florida to sell you.

Bush, Ashcroft etc don't believe porn is a legitimate business. Which ironically will be their downfall with these new 2257 rules. 2257 is about REGULATION, if something is not legitimate how can you regulate it? You don't see the FDA regualting the quality of crack do you? The government can't say on the one hand that porn is not a legitimate business so therefore it doesn't deserve consititional protections yet at the same time trying to regulate how it is run.

[Paul Markham]

Originally posted by GatorB
If you HONESTLY think 2257 is about copyright or models consent then I have a gold mine in Florida to sell you.

Bush, Ashcroft etc don't believe porn is a legitimate business. Which ironically will be their downfall with these new 2257 rules. 2257 is about REGULATION, if something is not legitimate how can you regulate it? You don't see the FDA regualting the quality of crack do you? The government can't say on the one hand that porn is not a legitimate business so therefore it doesn't deserve consititional protections yet at the same time trying to regulate how it is run.

No 2257 is a law to verify the identity and age of the performers. However it gives the publisher the right to insist the documentation is required.

Whatever Bush and Ashcroft think is irrelevant, under the constitution freedom of speech is a fundimental right. So porn is a legitimate business and not illegal like crack. Bad example.

But if they were a bit more clever they could of made it a lot more difficult to produce/publish porn inside the US.

I was saying that if you publish porn you need to be able to prove certain things, are you saying you should not have to prove the age of the models?

Like I said in that other thread, no wonder the banks are wary of us.