Will illegal tubes be affected by .xxx?

**BFT3K** · 09-22-2010, 08:43 AM

Originally posted by topnotch, standup guy

In the event that xxx is approved and it subsequently becomes mandatory, will illegal tubes be affected?

Given that they're already exempt from 2257 regulations, I'm thinking not.

But, then again, I'm no lawyer.

What say you?

.

Most governments will not go to bat for the adult industry.

Whatever policies do the most harm to adult, will be acceptable.

**topnotch, standup guy** · 09-22-2010, 09:13 AM

Originally posted by BFT3K

Most governments will not go to bat for the adult industry.

Whatever policies do the most harm to adult, will be acceptable.

Agreed. But would they think it through like that or would they be more focused on all that easily accessed tube porn still available on dot com sites?

Of course the bigger question remains... would illegal tubes be exempt from mandatory .xxx ghettoization in any case?

.

**Paul Markham** · 09-22-2010, 09:15 AM

People keep dreaming other will come to the Adult Internets rescue.

**topnotch, standup guy** · 09-22-2010, 09:26 AM

Originally posted by Paul Markham

People keep dreaming other will come to the Adult Internets rescue.

Not at all. Let's not forget that the governments have to at least pretend that this is all about protecting children. And given that even a circus monkey can see that tube porn can be effortlessly accessed by grade schoolers, the governments might feel compelled to act.

Of course, illegal tubes may very well be exempt from any mandatory .xxx regulations. That's the bigger question here.
.

**Barry-xlovecam** · 09-22-2010, 10:53 AM

Who says tubes are exempt from §2257 ?

**Argos88** · 09-22-2010, 11:23 AM

Originally posted by Barry-xlovecam

Who says tubes are exempt from §2257 ?

They are not...

Basically 2257 is so 2005... Not used anymore.

In 2005 if you submitted a gallery, no TGPs would accept it without 2257...

nowadays nobody cares... 2257 is obsolete and nobody has troubles if they don't use it.

**Frisky Cash** · 09-22-2010, 11:24 AM

How can any porn site be exempt from 2257 if they wish to trade in USA?

**just a punk** · 09-22-2010, 11:27 AM

Originally posted by topnotch, standup guy

In the event that xxx is approved and it subsequently becomes mandatory, will illegal tubes be affected?

Given that they're already exempt from 2257 regulations, I'm thinking not.

But, then again, I'm no lawyer.

What say you?

.

No they won't because they are illegal. They don't have to care about copyrights. They don't have to care about 2257. They don't have to care about .xxx and other shit what was invented for legal sites.

**GregE** · 09-22-2010, 01:02 PM

Originally posted by Frisky Cash

How can any porn site be exempt from 2257 if they wish to trade in USA?

For all practical purposes tube sites are above the law nowadays.

They can do whatever the hell they want

**itx** · 09-22-2010, 01:49 PM

They don't care about 2257, the content uploaded by the users is not their responsability.

**ArsewithClass** · 09-22-2010, 03:25 PM

Originally posted by BFT3K

Most governments will not go to bat for the adult industry.

Whatever policies do the most harm to adult, will be acceptable.

I dont know... I reckon, if they tighten up the url with .xxx, then maybe everything shall becoe more robust & the would have to commit to proving law abiding

**topnotch, standup guy** · 09-22-2010, 04:28 PM

Originally posted by itx

They don't care about 2257, the content uploaded by the users is not their responsability.

uploaded by the users

.

**kane** · 09-22-2010, 05:11 PM

I woudn't hold my breath that .xxx will have much, if any, real impact on this industry. If it passes, the odds of it actually becoming mandatory to use are very slim. Even if a law is passed, it may not survive legal challenges. The Supreme Court already ruled in the COPA case that existing filtering software is good enough to filter out any content people may not wish to have access to. There is almost no way they would allow an entire "virtual ghetto" to be created in order to keep it filtered. Not to mention it would almost legitimize the business. It would be like congress is saying "you guys are free to do as you please as long as you use .xxx." They don't want to send us that message. Many of them want to destroy us, not legitimize us.

**Barry-xlovecam** · 09-22-2010, 05:27 PM

1. US law can only be enforced against US nationals.

2. There is no "safe harbor" in §2257. (User uploads are irrelevant ? unlike with Title 17 (copyright).)

§ 2257 Record keeping requirements for simulated sexual conduct

(a) Whoever produces any book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, digital image, digitally- or computer-manipulated image of an actual human being, picture, or other matter that?

The law says whoever.
So, will the law actually be enforced? That I don't know ...

Not to be construed as legal advice.

Will illegal tubes be affected by .xxx?

Will illegal tubes be affected by .xxx?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment