GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum
Page 2 of 3 < 1 2 3 >
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum (https://gfy.com/index.php)
-   Fucking Around & Business Discussion (https://gfy.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   a 2257 thread for all affils to read.... (https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=471576)

woj 05-24-2005 04:34 PM
50...........

Matt 26z 05-24-2005 04:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by chadglni
They said MERE distributors are not. You publish a website, you don't publish a magazine rack.
One could think of the website as the rack and the sponsor content as the magazines.

People (affiliates) who do not own the sponsor content have ZERO control over the content itself. They merely present it as is, as someone elses work. Sounds like distributor to me.

stev0 05-24-2005 04:34 PM
here we go
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/h...6----000-.html

kernelpanic 05-24-2005 04:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt 26z
One could think of the website as the rack and the sponsor content as the magazines.

People (affiliates) who do not own the sponsor content have ZERO control over the content itself. They merely present it as is, as someone elses work. Sounds like distributor to me.
This is how I read it as well.

A porno shop has its own brand, its own identity, its own marketing, etc. They have a phyiscal location, and operate from there, selling other people's materials.

An adult website has its own brand, own identity, domain, marketing, servers, etc. If they're not making content themselves, then they are merely redistributing somebody else's. At least from my perspective, logging into a payout program's site and grabbing some free galleries to put on my site is the digital equivalent of a porn shop operator unboxing new magazines or DVDs that have just arrived.

I'm not an attorney, and am still awaiting official clarification, but I will admit that reading it fully, paying attention to the boldfaced section definitely makes the sky seem to be falling a hell of a lot more slowly than it was before.

Knowing the DOJ and Bush administration, the apocalypic interpretations are certainly a reality, but a more liberal interpretation of the new 2257 regulations could certainly lead one to believe that reposting someone else's content is akin to restocking a virtual magazine rack with the latest smut for the world to see.

kernelpanic 05-24-2005 04:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by stev0
relevant excerpt:
Quote:
(3) ?producing? means producing, directing, manufacturing, issuing, publishing, or advertising;
We're still debating what it means to publish.

We all know that the publisher of Hustler is LFP, and the stores that sell it are certainly not publishers, but what is still unclear is whether or not a website that features others' content is considered "publishing adult material", or if the webmaster is publishing their website which merely features someone else's content.

pornpf69 05-24-2005 04:50 PM
I am never tired of saying it: FUCK 2257!

thonglife 05-24-2005 05:08 PM
Damn.. Google sure is fucked. :helpme

http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&c2coff=1&q=fucking&btnG= Search

Wizzo 05-24-2005 05:20 PM
If your building freesites, galleries or whatever, you are publishing sites.

However, simply providing to links to sites/galleries, I would likely think that would fall under mere distribution, as long as it didn't include content.

Also, we could see some changes to Google image search, except they aren't on the hit list, so who knows... :winkwink:

orcastudios 05-24-2005 05:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cherrylula
That makes sense.

What people are failing to realize also, is these reg are also aimed at PERFORMERS who don't file or pay their taxes. Its a nightmare for the gov to keep track of these people who work all over as contractors or for cash the same day they shoot. Therefore they want more info from the PRODUCERS as in the people who make the porn, which helps keep track of this as well.

Affiliates should have nothing to do with this because we are just selling memberships. Its not our job or obligation to make sure these performers are legit through the companies they shoot for or to keep track of them and their stage names.

Think about it: What does the government really want? MONEY. They want money, and if they can tighten things up along those lines they can track down the people who owe them taxes. I mean seriously, how many big companies are even stupid enough to produce cp? They're not. Not in this country anyhow. Money is the name of the game here.
You are exactly WRONG. The government wants one only thing: to put you out of business.

Matt 26z 05-24-2005 05:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wizzo
If your building freesites, galleries or whatever, you are publishing sites.
As has been said, affiliates freesites and galleries are the cyber equivalent of a porn store rack. You go into porn store and you see previews on the DVD cases. You open a gallery and you see previews of a paysite. Same exact thing.

Is a porn store publishing adult materials by simply laying them out on the shelf? Of course not. So then how can a gallery promoter be publishing?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wizzo
Also, we could see some changes to Google image search, except they aren't on the hit list, so who knows... :winkwink:
Google image search does not involve commercial distribution of the photos on the part of Google.

fusionx 05-24-2005 05:54 PM
other than those activities identified in
paragraphs (c) (1) and (2) of this section,

Cavello 05-24-2005 05:56 PM
I'm suprised many don't get that "(ii) Mere distribution;" is refuring to the web host !!

even if you remote link a image you are publishing !!!!!!!!!!!!!

GatorB 05-24-2005 06:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavello
I'm suprised many don't get that "(ii) Mere distribution;" is refuring to the web host !!

even if you remote link a image you are publishing !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yes and I also believe if I hire someone to build me a website he is also exempt and it's ME the website owner that has to have the 2257 info. So no as the designer of the website you are expempt, but as the onwer you aren't. At least that's how I interpret the exemption.

Loki 05-24-2005 06:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fusionx
other than those activities identified in
paragraphs (c) (1) and (2) of this section,
you forgot to include the rest of that sentance :(

that does not involve the
hiring, contracting for, managing, or otherwise arranging for the
participation of the depicted performers;


IE you insert images on a website BUT did not hire, pay, contract etc the model in the image

Is it sinking in yet? the doubletalk? the "loopholes" if you wish to call it that.

It does say it, OTHER then the stuff from para c, 1 & 2 but when you KEEP READING theres MORE

-Loki-

Chimmy 05-24-2005 06:13 PM
Reading through this thread has reinforced one thing for me...

If any of you are in fact tasked with fighting this out in court, pleaassse do not chose to represent yourself. You will certainly give credance to the saying "Represent yourself in court, and you have a fool for a client".

Fuckin Bill 05-24-2005 06:14 PM
It's amazing how many people pick the parts they like and ignore the rest. It says quite specifically, if you put a picture on a web page you are a producer. Period. There's no "we're distributors" shit. A web site is an electronic publication, you are publishing and producing the content of the site as a whole. You are a producer.

A "magazine rack" doesn't crop images, doesn't change anything, and doesn't create anything. Every single thumb site on the net produces conent, even under the loosest definitition. If you alter something existing, you have PRODUCED something new.

xxxjay 05-24-2005 06:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by vdc-Loki
First I hate to have to add yet another 2257 thread to the growing pile but I've looked over alot of them and some ppl are ONLY quoting part of a VERY important statement, and in doing so I'm sure alot of u.s. ppl are freaking the fuck out....

Here is the statement as it pertains to secondary producers (READ IT ALL!)

(2) A secondary producer is any person who produces, assembles,
manufactures, publishes, duplicates, reproduces, or reissues a book,
magazine, periodical, film, videotape, digitally- or computer-
manipulated image, picture, or other matter intended for commercial
distribution that contains a visual depiction of an actual human being
engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct, 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.
(3) The same person may be both a primary and a secondary producer.
(4) Producer does not include persons whose activities relating to
the visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct are limited to
the following:
(i) Photo or film processing, including digitization of previously
existing visual depictions, as part of a commercial enterprise, with no
other commercial interest in the sexually explicit material, printing,
and video duplicators;
(ii) Mere distribution; AFFILS
(iii) Any activity, other than those activities identified in
paragraphs (c) (1) and (2) of this section, that does not involve the
hiring, contracting for, managing, or otherwise arranging for the
participation of the depicted performers; AFFILS

In short:

if you ONLY Distro it, OR designed website with it you are safe from the extensive record keeping,

Also I read & re-read the whole mess a few times, and though it does NOT say that "It would be acceptable for affils to just have a link to the sponsors 2257 page" with the above statement about the actual deff of a 2ndry producer affils and webdesigners DO NOT FALL UNDER THE SECONDARY PRODUCER CATAGORY.

So to affils "The sky is NOT falling" but we as producers and sponsors have to do alot more work :(

-Loki-
wrong...

Loki 05-24-2005 06:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuckin Bill
It's amazing how many people pick the parts they like and ignore the rest. It says quite specifically, if you put a picture on a web page you are a producer. Period. There's no "we're distributors" shit. A web site is an electronic publication, you are publishing and producing the content of the site as a whole. You are a producer.

A "magazine rack" doesn't crop images, doesn't change anything, and doesn't create anything. Every single thumb site on the net produces conent, even under the loosest definitition. If you alter something existing, you have PRODUCED something new.
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-

Loki 05-24-2005 06:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by xxxjay
wrong...
whos wrong lol, all I'm doing is qouting the doj here, and taking alot of shit for doing so, Distributors are NOT prodcers end of story.

Theres links all over today to the full 16 page final verdict go read it, if you already have then you know the DOJ said DISTRIBUTORS are NOT producers.

Simple as that, affils did NOT hire, pay, contract etc the models they make the galleries, freesites, tgp's etc etc and acording to this final verdict that makes them distributors.

YES it mentions inserting images into a website BUT it goes on to say "That does NOT involve the hiring....." get it??

-Loki-

GatorB 05-24-2005 07:04 PM
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-
Exactly the DOJ I believe has made the term "secondary producer" delibertly vague. Perhpas they did it to get more convictions or perhaps they figure the courts will figure it wout and define "secondary producer" for them.

Dirty F 05-24-2005 07:05 PM
http://www.exzooberance.com/animal%2...ance%20001.jpg

Donny 05-24-2005 07:05 PM
http://www.donovanphillips.com/images/gfy/2257.jpg

Fuckin Bill 05-25-2005 10:52 AM
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.

Loki 05-25-2005 11:00 AM
Bill:

Then can you please tell me what you think this means?

(iii) Any activity, other than those activities identified in
paragraphs (c) (1) and (2) of this section, that does not involve the
hiring, contracting for, managing, or otherwise arranging for the
participation of the depicted performers;

Read it close, VERY close, that DOES NOT involve the.....

So if you insert an image, but did NOT hire, contract, manage, etc etc you are not a producer, that how it reads for me.

It's the , that does it theirs not a . it's a comma, meaning (AND)

-Loki-

Fuckin Bill 05-25-2005 11:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by vdc-Loki
Bill:

Then can you please tell me what you think this means?

(iii) Any activity, other than those activities identified in
paragraphs (c) (1) and (2) of this section, that does not involve the
hiring, contracting for, managing, or otherwise arranging for the
participation of the depicted performers;

Read it close, VERY close, that DOES NOT involve the.....

So if you insert an image, but did NOT hire, contract, manage, etc etc you are not a producer, that how it reads for me.

It's the , that does it theirs not a . it's a comma, meaning (AND)

-Loki-
To paraphrase: Any activity OTHER THAN THOSE ACTIVITIES ALREADY MENTIONED.

I'm not meaning to argue here. Honestly just trying to point this out. I don't know how people keep reading over that part and then ignoring it. No aggression meant here at all.

I'm sitting next to a lawyer... Basic and simple, It says you are a secondary producer if you manage a web site. Then the part you quoted says, if you are not already defined in one of the previous parts, you are exempt if you fall under this stuff... We are ALL defined in the previous parts as a secondary producer.

For example, I'm a host. I am not exempt from all this shit just becuase I am a host, I still manage web sites. I can't claim that because I run the hosting company, I get an exemption. A web site manager can't claim he "distributes" to get an exemption when it's already been defined clearly that a web site manager is a secondary producer.

If you put pictures on your site that are explicit (Thumbs, banners, etc...) you are a secondary producer. If you're a secondary producer, all the other shit doesn't apply to you. You are required to have records or face 5-10 years in prison. Are you really willing to risk that?

nikad 05-25-2005 12:03 PM
2257 Holes
 
After reading the whole project:

- If you shoot content out of the US, hire foreign models and they present their id's, there is no way you can be 100% sure those ids are not fake?

- If you distribute underage porn for free - non commercial - this law doesn't apply.

- If the depitcion is " live " how can anybody prove it ever existed.

- Lets bare in mind that I never saw any CP Paysite, because that is not the way those organizations work, any idiot watching the news knows it, they distribute the content via email or postal mail and if they make money out of it they probably get it via WU, or similar, who would have a button saying " buy your CP " ????? That is why it is so difficult to catch these assholes.

- I do not live in the Us, but my husband is american, what US based company would risk their biz by not having their 2257 already??????

- Secondary producers, aka affiliates, must comply just by placing a link on your homepage and keeping copies on hard paper or digital or the primary producers records for 7 years, nothing a good pdf app can't cover. Now why is everybody going crazy???????? If you cannot move your ass to place a fucking link on your sites and download some fuckin files and keep them with you, you are not serious about your work, so this industry won't miss you, you are just dumb.

- This new 2257 doesn't improve anything really, it just adds some more burocracy to the daily work. And especially the sponsors and primary producers who will have to create an easy simple to use archive of records for affiliates aka secondary producers to keep.

- Hosting providers won't be affected unless you are a free hosting provider and you run banners on the sites you host.

- It is very funny how the department refuses to create a national sex workers Id, seems like they are too busy grabbing your taxes but don't have time to work for you!

:321GFY Nik

nikad 05-25-2005 12:10 PM
my last 2 cents
 
Oh this is my favourite:

The rule does not restrict
in any way the content of the underlying depictions other than by
clarifying the labeling on and record-keeping requirements pertaining
to, that underlying depiction. Cf. 27 CFR 16.21 (alcoholic beverage
health warning statement; mandatory label information). However,
compliance with the record-keeping requirements of this part has no
bearing on the legality or illegality of the underlying sexually
explicit material.

Also, I was thinking about opening a McDonalds franchise, would McDonalds provide me with all the franchisees and company owners and stock holerds personal information and addresses?????????? Nice!!!!!!!! :321GFY

chadglni 05-25-2005 12:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuckin Bill
It's amazing how many people pick the parts they like and ignore the rest. It says quite specifically, if you put a picture on a web page you are a producer. Period. There's no "we're distributors" shit. A web site is an electronic publication, you are publishing and producing the content of the site as a whole. You are a producer.

A "magazine rack" doesn't crop images, doesn't change anything, and doesn't create anything. Every single thumb site on the net produces conent, even under the loosest definitition. If you alter something existing, you have PRODUCED something new.
Thank you, I just gave the fuck up. Worst damned analogy EVER. :1orglaugh

kernelpanic 05-25-2005 12:17 PM
Can we get a fucking lawyer in here already?

ronaldo 05-25-2005 12:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikad
- If you distribute underage porn for free - non commercial - this law doesn't apply.
Hmm. I thought this law was meant to help protect the children.

I'm so naive.

Fuckin Bill 05-25-2005 12:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kernelpanic
Can we get a fucking lawyer in here already?
Nikad is a lawyer.

Love the sig BTW. :)

Oberon 05-25-2005 01:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by chadglni
Everyone has read the whole thing. In MY opinion, mere distribution would be the sales clerk selling a porno mag with explicit shit in it. Or me linking to your explicit site through text. And a secondary producer would be considered one who PUBLISHES the shit to a website.

And no matter where you got the image, or whether it's owned by someone else and used with permission, the act of creating and owning the web site makes YOU the publisher, and therefore the secondary producer.

Join the main discussion

GatorB 05-25-2005 01:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oberon
And no matter where you got the image, or whether it's owned by someone else and used with permission, the act of creating and owning the web site makes YOU the publisher, and therefore the secondary producer.

Join the main discussion
Just LINKING to a pic not hosted on YOUR site doesn't mean you have to follow 2257. If that was the case all SE would have to be 2257 compliant.

Oberon 05-25-2005 01:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cherrylula
That makes sense.

What people are failing to realize also, is these reg are also aimed at PERFORMERS who don't file or pay their taxes. Its a nightmare for the gov to keep track of these people who work all over as contractors or for cash the same day they shoot. Therefore they want more info from the PRODUCERS as in the people who make the porn, which helps keep track of this as well.

Affiliates should have nothing to do with this because we are just selling memberships. Its not our job or obligation to make sure these performers are legit through the companies they shoot for or to keep track of them and their stage names.

Think about it: What does the government really want? MONEY. They want money, and if they can tighten things up along those lines they can track down the people who owe them taxes. I mean seriously, how many big companies are even stupid enough to produce cp? They're not. Not in this country anyhow. Money is the name of the game here.

Correct insofar as the secondary producer has no responsibility to check the model info. The primary producer has to rely on gov't-issue id and the model's statement as to any other aliases used. They also have no obligation to check further.

Oberon 05-25-2005 01:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by GatorB
Just LINKING to a pic not hosted on YOUR site doesn't mean you have to follow 2257. If that was the case all SE would have to be 2257 compliant.
if it's a text link, no, it's not an explicit image, you don't need the documentation. If it's a thumbnail image you have hotlinked, it appears on your page, yes, you DO need documentation.

Same with banners.

Oberon 05-25-2005 01:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by diggz
Aside from the legal definitions.. what do you all look at as:

Primary Producers & Secondary Producers ?

Lets all put some examples on the table.

Here is my perspective:

Example = MILFHunter.com
Primary Producer = white guy (milf hunter), camera man (2257 responsible)
Secondary Producer = Nastydollars.com, anyone who purchases their content for re-distribution. (2257 responsible)
distributor = affiliates (doesnt really own any content, so there is no record keeping required)
Except that affiliate = secondary producer. See other comments in this thread.

jonesy 05-25-2005 01:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by chadglni
And a secondary producer would be considered one who PUBLISHES the shit to a website.
which would eb a person that owns a website and makes money from that website from using images videos ect by

a - sending traffic, clicks ect

b - membership

c -ect :1orglaugh


what about a designer?

Oberon 05-25-2005 01:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by wyldblyss
To hell with all of that...wtf is sexually explicit? Seems like a dumn question, but since it is not clearly defined...it means that it is open to interpretation...and that can be scary.

The asshole inspecting might think that sexual explicit is topless....another guy might think there has to be some insertion....another two naked people together but only kissing...
Plenty of links in the main discussion to the legal definition of explicit... which, as a businessperson in this industry, you really SHOULD know, along with the definition of 'obscene'....

Oberon 05-25-2005 01:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by GatorB
Yes and I also believe if I hire someone to build me a website he is also exempt and it's ME the website owner that has to have the 2257 info. So no as the designer of the website you are expempt, but as the onwer you aren't. At least that's how I interpret the exemption.

That would be my interpretation as well. The designer's activities would fall under a similar category to photo processors.

GatorB 05-25-2005 01:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oberon
if it's a text link, no, it's not an explicit image, you don't need the documentation. If it's a thumbnail image you have hotlinked, it appears on your page, yes, you DO need documentation.

Same with banners.
Yes I was clarifying. So for example if I had a TGP with text links going to FHG I do not need the 2257 info. Of course it would be wise to make sure the FHG has the link to their 2257 info though before I link to them.

Oberon 05-25-2005 01:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by vdc-Loki
you forgot to include the rest of that sentance :(

that does not involve the
hiring, contracting for, managing, or otherwise arranging for the
participation of the depicted performers;


IE you insert images on a website BUT did not hire, pay, contract etc the model in the image

Is it sinking in yet? the doubletalk? the "loopholes" if you wish to call it that.

It does say it, OTHER then the stuff from para c, 1 & 2 but when you KEEP READING theres MORE

-Loki-
Other people have said it, but you're a crack smoking monkey.

The fact that you did not hire, pay, contract, etc, simply makes you not the PRIMARY producer.

In no way does it mean you're not a secondary producer.

Oberon 05-25-2005 01:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by vdc-Loki
whos wrong lol, all I'm doing is qouting the doj here, and taking alot of shit for doing so, Distributors are NOT prodcers end of story.

Theres links all over today to the full 16 page final verdict go read it, if you already have then you know the DOJ said DISTRIBUTORS are NOT producers.

Simple as that, affils did NOT hire, pay, contract etc the models they make the galleries, freesites, tgp's etc etc and acording to this final verdict that makes them distributors.

YES it mentions inserting images into a website BUT it goes on to say "That does NOT involve the hiring....." get it??

-Loki-
Wrong, that only changes you to a secondary producer and not a primary.

GatorB 05-25-2005 02:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oberon
Wrong, that only changes you to a secondary producer and not a primary.
You guys keep telling these people the truth but they don't want to hear it so they read into the new rules what they want. "Hey I don't want to be a secondary prodcucer so I'm not" that's going to work real well in court. Say hi to Bubba, people.

Oberon 05-25-2005 02:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by GatorB
Yes I was clarifying. So for example if I had a TGP with text links going to FHG I do not need the 2257 info. Of course it would be wise to make sure the FHG has the link to their 2257 info though before I link to them.

It's a bit of a stretch to imagine that they would go after a text-link TGP using these regulations for a content sponsor that was not 2257 compliant. I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm saying I'd consider it unlikely, as the entire need to document is based on the status of being an explicit content producer, which, as a text-based link, you have exempted yourself from, IMHO.

However, having said that, as I've said elsewhere, my personal opinion is that this lays a good framework for more and more sanctioning regulations to be applied to businesses that try to sell to a US market or do business in the US with any non-compliant company, no matter where it's hosted or resides.

Sarah_Jayne 05-25-2005 02:10 PM
anyone willng to be the test case?

munki 05-25-2005 02:10 PM
Fuck
 
Just inserting the singular though going through almost everyone's head I'm sure....

FUCK!!!

Mayor 05-25-2005 02:21 PM
When was the last 2257 violation case under the old rules (just wonderin)

Do you think the hotels will have to carry records for the movies?

thonglife 05-25-2005 02:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor
When was the last 2257 violation case under the old rules (just wonderin)

Do you think the hotels will have to carry records for the movies?
Yes, Hilton employees be forewarned. Also, they are going to start filling our prisons with webmasters. :1orglaugh
The prison system is way too strained on resources. Interstate cocaine middleman versus adult webmaster.

Oberon 05-25-2005 03:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by thonglife
Yes, Hilton employees be forewarned. Also, they are going to start filling our prisons with webmasters. :1orglaugh
The prison system is way too strained on resources. Interstate cocaine middleman versus adult webmaster.

This is really a simple question. Do you want to operate legally, or not?

If not, then why are you bothering to read this?

If so, then the ridiculousness of legislation has no bearing on compliance.

ClevelandSlim 05-25-2005 03:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by chadglni
They said MERE distributors are not. You publish a website, you don't publish a magazine rack.
finally... the shit was gettin funny, but this statement by chadglni was just too fuckin ridiculously humerous. because making a website has been technically known as "publishing" you can see a difference here between a site owner sticking a thumb on his page to send traffic to the sponsored site where the actual records keeping is maintained. well, what if they change "publish" to "build" it's still the same fuckin thing... you can build a webpage AND just like a store owner can build his store. then placing the magazines inside on a rack would classify him as a secondary producer.

the fact remains, as long as the statute reads the way it does, it can go either way. the free speech challenges need to include this, and the many other sections that can be interpreted too many different ways to be clarified.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:52 AM.
Page 2 of 3 < 1 2 3 >
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123