My take on HR 4472 (after actually reading the whole bill) - GoFuckYourself.com

Quick Buck · 07-25-2006, 05:23 PM

This is what a good lobbyist gets you. It specifically excludes tv & movie studios who are "governed by the fcc".

Quote:

Originally Posted by thomas.loc.gov

`(h)(1) The provisions of this section and section 2257 shall not apply to matter, or any image therein, containing one or more visual depictions of simulated sexually explicit conduct, or actual sexually explicit conduct as described in clause (v) of section 2256(2)(A), if such matter--
`(A)(i) is intended for commercial distribution;
`(ii) is created as a part of a commercial enterprise by a person who certifies to the Attorney General that such person regularly and in the normal course of business collects and maintains individually identifiable information regarding all performers, including minor performers, employed by that person, pursuant to Federal and State tax, labor, and other laws, labor agreements, or otherwise pursuant to industry standards, where such information includes the name, address, and date of birth of the performer; and
`(iii) is not produced, marketed or made available by the person described in clause (ii) to another in circumstances such than an ordinary person would conclude that the matter contains a visual depiction that is child pornography as defined in section 2256(8); or
`(B)(i) is subject to the authority and regulation of the Federal Communications Commission acting in its capacity to enforce section 1464 of this title, regarding the broadcast of obscene, indecent or profane programming; and
`(ii) is created as a part of a commercial enterprise by a person who certifies to the Attorney General that such person regularly and in the normal course of business collects and maintains individually identifiable information regarding all performers, including minor performers, employed by that person, pursuant to Federal and State tax, labor, and other laws, labor agreements, or otherwise pursuant to industry standards, where such information includes the name, address, and date of birth of the performer.

baddog · 07-25-2006, 05:26 PM

$$$ talks

fusionx · 07-25-2006, 05:40 PM

Doesn't (h)(1) (A)(iii) let people off the hook if the "matter" is obviously not child porn, and they can certify that they maintain records or positive ID including date of birth?

What am I missing here?

(h)(1) specifically says "The provisions of this section and section 2257 shall not apply to matter ... "

fusionx · 07-25-2006, 05:57 PM

Never mind - read the rest of that section in the text of the bill:

3 ?(2) Nothing in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of para-
4 graph (1) shall be construed to exempt any matter that con-
5 tains any visual depiction that is child pornography, as
6 defined in section 2256(8), or is actual sexually explicit
7 conduct within the definitions in clauses (i) through (iv)
8 of section 2256(2)(A).

tony286 · 07-25-2006, 06:04 PM

what are the lobbists we have with FSC doing ? Sleeping on the job?

DatingGold · 07-25-2006, 06:05 PM

seeric · 07-25-2006, 06:21 PM

when we start launching paysites that net 120 million dollars at the box office, errrrr i mean processors, in the first weekend, then they'll start cutting us some breaks.

you are correct though. even though the movie studios compete like savage dogs, they have organization, and unions, and lobbyists. sadly, getting webmasters to unite is like herding cats. some say it can never be done.

divided we fall.

Kimo · 07-25-2006, 07:09 PM

webmasters unite!

07-25-2006, 06:05 PM	#6
DatingGold $6 PER EMAIL JOiN Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: California Posts: 13,185	__________________ 9 Years of SOLID payouts and conversions! ADULT DATING - $100 PPS LIVE CAMS - $214 PPS WWW.DATINGGOLD.COM ICQ: 27442303

07-25-2006, 07:09 PM	#8
Kimo ... Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Maryland ICQ:87038677 Posts: 11,542	webmasters unite! __________________ ...

07-25-2006, 05:26 PM	#2
baddog So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: the beach, SoCal Posts: 107,089	$$$ talks

07-25-2006, 05:40 PM	#3
fusionx Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Olongapo City, Philippines Posts: 4,618	Doesn't (h)(1) (A)(iii) let people off the hook if the "matter" is obviously not child porn, and they can certify that they maintain records or positive ID including date of birth? What am I missing here? (h)(1) specifically says "The provisions of this section and section 2257 shall not apply to matter ... "

07-25-2006, 05:57 PM	#4
fusionx Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Olongapo City, Philippines Posts: 4,618	Never mind - read the rest of that section in the text of the bill: 3 ?(2) Nothing in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of para- 4 graph (1) shall be construed to exempt any matter that con- 5 tains any visual depiction that is child pornography, as 6 defined in section 2256(8), or is actual sexually explicit 7 conduct within the definitions in clauses (i) through (iv) 8 of section 2256(2)(A).

07-25-2006, 06:04 PM	#5
tony286 lurker Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: atlanta Posts: 57,021	what are the lobbists we have with FSC doing ? Sleeping on the job?

07-25-2006, 06:21 PM	#7
seeric .......... Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: .......... Posts: 41,917	when we start launching paysites that net 120 million dollars at the box office, errrrr i mean processors, in the first weekend, then they'll start cutting us some breaks. you are correct though. even though the movie studios compete like savage dogs, they have organization, and unions, and lobbyists. sadly, getting webmasters to unite is like herding cats. some say it can never be done. divided we fall.