2257 -- Something quite interesting to think about
 

According to what the DOJ said, movie theaters are exempt from 2257 since they merely screen other people's work.

Suppose I build a brick and mortar movie theater and license a movie from XYZ Studio to show there.

Now suppose I build a website and stream that very same movie there.

What is the difference here?

I've asked this bfore and all I got was quotes from the 2257 rule. Like that POS makes and LOGICAL sense. There isn't any difference.

I finind ironic that if own both, that in one case I am under an obligation to make sure my customers are viewing material that doesn't contain minors in it and in the other case I'm not. Does that make ANY sense.

This is why it will be in the court system forever, good points

Lots of things aren't making sense... I don't even know if we can use foreign content any more: http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showthread.php?t=471658

I want to make it clear to those who didn't take the time to read the new regs (clearly, a lot of you here haven't) that they specifically mentioned movie theaters as being exempt, and that wasn't just an example of mine.

I think the "distributor" term needs serious clarification. That's obviously what the movie theater falls under. Now we need to know the specific conditions that put websites into this same category.

I have a feeling it has to do with how the content is presented.

A video originally licensed from a producer could be presented one of two ways by a website;

"Check out this hot model we shot this week!"
or...
"Check out this hot video from XYZ Studio!"

One takes credit and bundles it with the website as a whole (ie; buying content from 5 different producers and claiming to consumers that you shot it all yourself).

The other screens someone else's work and keeps it separate from the rest in terms of credits. Which is what a movie theater does.

Hmm

very good points.

I'm not clear why some people apparently have trouble with the distinction: a theater screens movies which themselves must include the relevant 2257 details, while websites (although they might screen compliant movies in an effectively similar way) mostly carry content which is edited, re-arranged and which often does not include 2257 info.

In addition, although I don't recall whether this was one such area, in several instances the DOJ ackowledged some validity to comments they received, but stated that in the interests of doing their job with relative ease, they were going to apply their rules broadly.

Lets assume the content in question has not been drastically altered by the website and that it is in fact 2257 compliant on it's own in relation to the original producer. You the webmaster are presenting the content as it was originally released by the producer to you as THEIR WORK.

Edited... re-arranged.... Couldn't a studio authorize a theater to make edits they see fit to a movie? It doesn't mean the theater is suddenly the producer.

This mostly would effect sponsor promo content. If there was a way for webmasters to present it as the SPONSOR COMPANIES own works and have it be 2257 compliant itself, then again, you'd be the equivalent of a movie theater. Same deal for feeds.

These sorts of arguments are going to be going on for weeks and months to come.