Should FBI nail tube sites for 2257 none-compliance?
 

I think, Feds should come in and do something good for a change - bust a couple of tube sites for 2257 and jail a couple of them for 20 years. So other bitches would think twice before launching a new one...

Wouldn't you love a tube site owner calling and saying: i have your copyrighted vid on my site and FBI told me i have a week to get the ID's or i am fucked. And here you proudly respond: go fuck yourself!

If enough people reported them it could happen ?

maybe the FBI should spend more time looking for REAL criminals breaking REAL laws.

Content theft does have a real law attached to it. WTF?

Nice idea, but if they are located outside the US, they can give a shit on 2257 and get away with it. It's just a "local" law.

Totally agreed, although I think he was referring to 2257 only.

where's minusonebit when you need him

Ah yea, that makes sense lol.

Yeah considering he suggested that the FBI bust tube sites for 2257 violations.

I'd say no.. The whole argument against 2257 is because it's burdensome and violates privacy rights. Why would we want to say it's a "usable" law to use against people we don't like, then on the other hand say we shouldn't have to comply with it.

the argument against 2257 only has a little to do with being burdensome (It's really not). The reason I get ID has less to do with age really than positively identifying a performer that I am making a contract with.

2257 is requiring you to prove that you are taking pictures (or whatever) with someone who is of legal age to do so. Laws typically aren't made to enforce you to prove that you can legally do something. If the model is 18 and you are as well, you are adults and can do what adults do without proving otherwise. It's realistically on the shoulders of enforcement agencies to prove otherwise.

I have no problem with keeping records, it's just good business sense. Realistically, I would rather DOJ inspect tube sites (for US based locales, of which there aren't many) and/or block US access to those that fall outside their jurisdiction and don't wish to provide documentation.

As I said in another thread. Our laws start at our borders. The instance that digital signal on the internet crosses into US territory, we have every right to expect the content contained within it or that it helps to compose, to be subjected to US Law. Just because it's being hosted elsewhere doesn't negate the fact that it's being viewed here. There's more to the law than the hosting locale.

Yes this is true. Still busting some tube site(s) here would be a good start. I don't really care if it is 2257 or copyrighted material theft. I just think that 2257 case is the easiest for Feds to win: You have ID's? Tube owner: NO. If FBI is nice they will give them a week to comply and they are fucked. Where with copyright infringement there is DMCA in a way and it is harder to get the case going.

FBI has the time to inspect 100% compliant producers. Why not inspect a 100% criminal for a change? Content theft, 2257 who cares?

We pay shit load of taxes to the Feds. They should protect their income and do whats right and bust a tube site and "send the message".

You must be kidding .... right ? If you don't like what comes from abroad, well get the USA to block it ( China does ... ).

How about if a " foreign " site just puts a disclaimers that it "could be illegal " to view it in the USA .... :1orglaugh

The issue with 2257 is not with content producers. I see no problem with it there. It's the secondary producer clause. It's BS. There is no such thing as a secondary producer. Either one was involved with the actual production of a film or not. Why aren't convenience stores and porno shops required to have the 2257 info on the models in the magazines? Shouldn't they have to prove the girls in those pics are over 18 before they sell them?

If those sites are infringing copyright the copyright owners have legal recourse for that. If they choose not to pursue it then it's really not your call to make now is it?

do you live in china? the DOJ should not be allowed to block anything. they are not the FCC and the FCC doesn't have jurisdiction over the internet. if the FBI can't investigate them and the DOJ can't prosecute them, then you need to bring them up on copyright infringement -which is where they are actually breaking the law.

Which tube site are you running?


You know they actually do pursue... Vivid for example

2257 by the way has nothing to do with copyright. Feds don't need a reason to inspect the tube site. They can do it at will and jail the owner for a long time.

Who says that they are hosting the sites in the USA?

heroin, lead based paint on toys, certain produce, certain meat products, non FDA approved medications ......... should I go on?

It very well is burdensome for a secondary producer whom runs TGP's or the likes. It's pretty much impossiable for a TGP operator to be in compliance to 2257 regs the way the govt proposed.

It's not as hard on the primary producers, simply because they have accuess to the needed info.

The USA ( or any other country ) can block whatever they see fit. Naturally, the population could be in disagreament, as well as other countries could use reprisal ...

True, but those are actual physical ENTRIES ....

Being the devil's advocate, what about satellite feeds ???

exactly, if you are going to go after them, go after them for something you can go after them for.

anyone instigating 2257 investigations will have them backfire right in their face, and deservingly.

I get your point (radio free Europe comes to mind) but porn is impossible to defend in some cases and the "children" card will be played.


.

Well proof of age and model consent are important, stolen content or not.

I know ... But what is wrong is that the 2257 gets confused and integrated with child porn .. while it has nothing to do . Obviously, nobody of any politic stature will stand up for porn .. that would be suicide...

BTW, I kept that pic of yours with that chick sitting on you .. It was very artistic ... Nice shadows ... Nic3e composition .. Do you have 2257 :)

The argument is that imported products, in this case porn, have to meet the same requirements as domestically produced products.

(about the photo, thanks, I almost sent it out as a Christmas card) :1orglaugh

When you visit a foreign website operated by a foreign webmaster, you are an international tourist. My :2 cents: says if you can't accept all the ramifications of wandering into a foreign nation, just don't visit those countries, physically or virtually. The information isn't invading your homeland, you are inviting it. If international law worked as you are advocating, US-based webmasters would be brought up on endless charges for breaking local laws in China, Germany, Saudi Arabia, etc. Instead, for example, the US can't do anything to shut down offshore gambling sites just because an American played there; and shouldn't have any right to; they can only police their own citizens.

And just how do most people know when they have clicked a foreign link? Is there a fence, customs agent ........

fuck no

but everyone should pwn them for copyright violations

Why not? Why should the same rules not apply to everyone?

Not sure can fbi do anything since owners of tube sites with most traffic are not from usa.

That's not the foreign webmasters problem. If someone can't accept that the internet is international, maybe they could filter foreign IPs, do whois lookups in advance, only visit known locations... but now we're talking about how crazy people could solve their own self-imposed crazy problems. The sane mature thing to do would be to just accept you're part of an international community and respect that.

That's real nice but the foreign webmaster needs to comply with US regulations when targeting US traffic. Just like foreign manufactures follow US regulations when making toys.

What makes the net so special? When used to make money, which is the case here, it's just another form of commerce. Regulated commerce.


.

Doesn't make sense. Webmasters comply to local laws , or international laws such as copyright ( FBI-Interpol ).

The way you see it, a 19 years old US citizen entering a bar in Montreal shouldn't not be served .. and a 19 years old Canadian citizen entering a bar in Vegas should be served ....

Countries still exists ....

But he doesn't, legally, and insisting he should doesn't change that. He is not exporting. You are visiting a computer in another country and bringing home the data. Like if you went to Amsterdam and bought some hash; the US can't close the store there, only punish you if you bring it back here. "Targeting" is pretty damn vague and doesn't really mean anything. Even if the cafe owner has a big sign that says "Welcome Americans!", the situation is the same. Your supposition is completely unenforceable and ignores sovereignty.

Theft is theft. There are laws against that. Use those. Don't make 2257 any stronger than it already is and don't encourage it.

Agreed :thumbsup

and when in Rome ............


.

I don't see it that way. If I'm 19 I can't drink in the US but I can in Canada. Same for a Canadian.

If ANYONE is in China they can buy toys with lead based paint for their kids. In the US NO-ONE can.

That's pretty simple, rules of the land should apply to everyone.


.

No. rules of the land should apply to those with boots on that land, whichever land it is .... :2 cents: