|
This thread should be closed it starts off with a very damaging incorrect reading of the regulations. If you follow that advice, your next worry will be what to do if you drop the soap in the prison shower.
|
Quote:
You are 100% right in that this is exactly where issues will be raised most however. Legal experts are debating that anything that implies sex can be sexually explicit. This means that they do not necessarily EVEN need to be nude to fall into this trap. The interpretation/enforcement by officials will be the lawyers bread and butter here. |
I think you guys need to read this part carefully, affilates are not distrubutors like a magazine shop, they create,change rework images and video and republish.
(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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
the actual deff of producer and 2ndry producer falls on the DOJ and only the DOJ, what WE think is correct or not means shit. but in the DOJ's wording affils are & are NOT 2ndry producers the only thing I was trying to point out is that after the sentance about inserting images on a site, it goes on to say that if you mearly distro content or have nothing to do with making the content (iii) then you are NOT a secondary producer. I'm deff not a lawyer nor would I want to be I dont feel I gave any advice unless you call what I said about posting a link to your sponsors 257 links on your sites to be advice, and if thats the case I'm far from the first person to voice that idea. My only point that I'm trying to make (and like I said getting killed over) is the sky is not actualy falling just yet. This thing says one thing then changes from start to finish. I'm gonna sit back now and see what the lawyers have to say about all of this crap. -Loki- |
Loki you're an idiot, and you should be kicked in the fucking teeth for giving people a false sense of security.
Everything Loki is saying is bullshit!!! Of course, if you're willing to take something a person named Loki posted on a messageboard as legal advice, and let 5 years of your freedom hang in the balance, then you probably deserve what you get. |
Quote:
You are 100% right in that this is exactly where issues will be raised most however. Legal experts are debating that anything that implies sex can be sexually explicit. This means that they do not necessarily EVEN need to be nude to fall into this trap. The interpretation/enforcement by officials will be the lawyers bread and butter here. |
Quote:
was just trying to stop the chicken little bullshit, tired of seeing everyone yelling doom and gloom without the full facts, or legal advice. but I forget ppl just want drama -Loki- |
as I already said: FUCK 2257! I am not an US citizen!
|
Quote:
|
50...........
|
Quote:
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. |
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
I am never tired of saying it: FUCK 2257!
|
Damn.. Google sure is fucked. :helpme
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&c2coff=1&q=fucking&btnG= Search |
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: |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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:
|
other than those activities identified in
paragraphs (c) (1) and (2) of this section, |
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 !!!!!!!!!!!!! |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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- |
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". |
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
-Loki- |
Quote:
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- |
Quote:
|
|
|
Quote:
"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. |
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- |
Quote:
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? |
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 |
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 |
Quote:
|
Can we get a fucking lawyer in here already?
|
Quote:
I'm so naive. |
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:56 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123