|
2257 Panic Poll
I read the ruling, it was a little worse than I thought:
http://avnonline.com/index_cache.php...tent_ID=286357 So what do you think will happen? |
bump to the top
|
I think a lot of people have been ignoring this law for a long time thinking nothing will ever happen (even after the updates, and even after the adam walsch act).
I think those people are going to be fucked in the goatass. I think TGP Owners (who post explicit thumbs) and Gallery Submitters located in the USA are going to get double penetrated in their goatass. I think small sponsor programs that have been using licensed content that never bothered to get and/or organize docs are going to get their goatass full fledged fisted. There's always hope the lawyers can pull some magic, but it looks like the judge hasn't bought into any of their constitutional arguments, and without those, the goatasses are about to face the assorted sexual acts described above. At any rate, I'm glad I spent the time and money making sure I'm compliant in all that I do, so that I can save my goatass for sexual acts of my own choosing (which may or may not resemble those described above). |
<NOT A LAWYER JUST THROWING IT OUT THERE TO GET OPINIONS>Could be worse... correct me if I'm wrong but the DVD things I'm reading in there... if we as content providers and program operators provide our affiliates with a marketable published DVD version with proper 2257 labels of course... then that removes the actual documentation necessities?</DISCLAIMER>
|
I myself am gonna totally leave the tgp game.... So nothing to worry about for me :)
|
2257 in my ass
|
I doubt much will happen, this industry is always re-active and never pro-active, as long as the shit doesn't hit the fan for the few that are unlucky enough to get caught first, business as usual.
The more I think about it, the more I get the impression that 2257 is the best thing that could ever happen to the industry, because it will remove alot of free stuff and hardcore will move back to the members areas like in the good old days. Those who don't run their business like someone should run a business will get into troubles, those who are serious about their business will stay. 2257 and .xxx should remind us that always being re-active is not really smart. |
Viva la Costa Rica, Bitches.
|
Why worry about 2257 - you already had to more than compliant with that since the Adam Walsh act was signed into law last year - which had much stricter guidelines and didnt get contested one bit - so it is standing law - and requires not only explicit content but simulated sex content to be documented - Im amazed that no one has brought out the fact that primary and secondary producers all got lumped together in that law - and yet we sit here and worry about the 2257 small changes?
|
Ok who's the stupid idiot that voted for:
Quote:
Get your head out of teh sand breeder!!!!!!!!!!!! |
I would be worry If I would run a thumbs site in USA
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Basically, it's about as effective as just about anything else the US government ever tries to accomplish. :Oh crap |
Quote:
Well, what they said on the XBiz Pannel, is that they didn't have funding last year (and managed to do some inspections), and that this year they are fully funded, and I believe they even talked about assigning additional personnel to man an entire other inspection team? Unless something's changed since the convention? |
Quote:
OCCash isn't even a very big program and we have 4000 something US affiliates. They inspected maybe 10 companies this year. Unless they turned the matter over to local police (if this was the case I would run) I don't see how they would do it. |
You forgot
z) I don't give a flying fuck as it's against the laws in my country |
they've already been inspecting, i don't think that this is gonna slow them down, now they can pretty much show up to any address that is listed as a place of business for any content found on the web. i wouldnt be petrified, but i'd say there are more inspections coming and soon.
|
Quote:
Well, I used to consult for the FBI and other organizations in cases involving hackers / online fraud. I'm seeing a very similar pattern here: At first, the FBI would handle all cases of cybercrime, or crimes involving computer systems. Eventually, after they got a feel for the landscape, they started giving HUGE grants to local LEO for training, equipment, and software, to enable them to handle cybercrime cases. I see more and more police departments handling cybercrimes now as a result. If the DOJ gets serious about 2257, I think you'll see the same thing happen with these inspections. Grants and training for local LEO to do inspections as authorized agents of the Attorney General. Many suspect, and I think they're not far off, that the people in Innocent Images at the FBI know damn well how useless and ineffective these 2257 laws are, and how they're a massive waste of resources that they could be using to go after the real criminals: the sick fucks abusing children and creating CP. If that holds true, then once the administration changes, priorities will as well (they'll decide to go after the CP bastards and leave mainstream adult alone), and we probably won't see any more inspections. Either way, the laws are on the books, they're now WAY more clearly defined, we no longer have case law protecting us, and anyone in the USA who posts explicit imagery without proper docs will be playing a game of Russian Roulette with their freedom. Certainly not the position that I would want to be in. :2 cents: LAWDS MERCY teh yellows is back! |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
unfortunately until it goes to court, someone gets arrests for not having there shit in order but everyone is of age. Thats when we will really know how it will work unfortunately.
|
Quote:
|
after sitting and listening to the FBI in l.a., if you simply understand what they want and comply with that, one really has no problems when it comes to an inspection.... inspections will continue and based on what they said, if there's any model whose age is even questionable and you come up in the "lottery", you WILL be inspected. from the horses mouth, they will have a specific verification they are looking for when they come in.... so you guys in the "teen" market... get ready
|
Quote:
|
Sure, and will there be 5000 inspections a month?
No... |
Quote:
|
yep, since this was passed, it will cost me a pretty penny
|
where's the option for "I don't give 2 shits"?
|
My take is this:
The only area at this point that the FSC has a hope on is the secondary producers. Essentially, there is no simple way to connect the goal of the Adam Walsh law" Quote:
All the cross referenced documents in the world do not help if (a) the original producer fucked it up, or (b) the model lied about their age and had government mandated documents to support that lie. There is absolutely NOTHING that a secondary producer can do to limit distribution under the two circumstances that might be an issue. Having a contract or license for content that states "all content is produced with models over 18 years of age in compliance with 2257, and documents and records for these images can be found at our custodian of records) offers EXACTLY the same level of assurance. The secondary producer has no way in their control to verify that the documents provided are valid. Simply requiring secondary producers to reference their websites and other work product to the original contract for content would serve the same purpose. I understand that the government wants to be able to inspect a single location and find all records for all material. They do not want to have to raid 100 locations to find the records. But in the end, blacked out copies showing only a name and a year of birth woudl not appear to be adequate for proving model age in any true legal sense. A model born on December 31st 1989 would appear to be legal right now, even though they are only 17, because as a secondary producer, you would only see the model's name and YEAR of birth. If the government agencies involved had been more agressive in the past 15 years to go out and actually enforce the EXISTING 2257 regulations, they would find that the "legal" porn industry just isn't the source for child porn, and the supply of child porn isn't going to drop one iota because of additional record keeping. I think that this alone is a clear indication that the new rules do not further the government's interests, but rather punishes the innocent and dampens free speech. Good luck to everyone in court. If you are a US based webmaster, buy extra underware, you are about to crap your pants. |
I think that people have had two years to get ready for this. If you're not ready it's your own damn fault.
The secondary producer injunction was only temporary until the case went to trial, we all knew that, all it did was buy you more time to get into compliance. My guess is that most of the people in panic mode now weren't members of the Free Speech Coalition anyways, so technically speaking they could have been inspected last month, they're in no more danger after this ruling than they were before. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
ascii babeblogs ftw
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
|
No one is probably gonna give two shits about my opinion but here it goes. I think that it's a good thing that the government is trying to do something to help prevent child porn on the internet however I think that they are going way to far. The way the new 2257 is already its like saying " fuck the models let them all be stalked by stalkers ". I personally believe that what they already have now is more then enough if police needed the info they already know where to go and who to contact. That's just my opinion.
|
<--- lives outside the US
<--- is not a US citizen <--- doesn't host pics or vids in the US <--- doesn't give a flying fuck |
Quote:
Breeder? I'd be insulted, if I wasn't in the same company as your Mother. |
its an interesting issue..
2257 would be ILLEGAL in many countries.. so your kind of riding both rails... You might be covering your ass in U.S.A. but you might get arrested when you go to canada :) food for thought.. Think its a fantasy , think again .. the u.s.a. has already done it to other foreigners, so i see no reason why it wont happen in reverse :) Protecting your ass in the usa might lead to getting arrested in other countries :) someone mentioned TGP's and thumbs.. i still see hardcore thumbs on google with no 2257 , i dont think tgp owners need to be worried until google stops displaying the same thumbs.. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Smokey - search engines are specifically exempted in the new wording |
....B) does not include activities that are limited to--
`(iv) the provision of a telecommunications service, or of an Internet access service or Internet information location tool (as those terms are defined in section 231 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 231)) |
Now correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like an appeal for secondary producers is still possible according to #4. This is taken from http://avnonline.com/index_cache.php...tent_ID=286357.
Generally left for trial are (1) Internet chat rooms; (2) Web sites not under control of the record-keeper; (3) The regulations' facial requirements producers must comply with 2005 amended regulations with respect to pre-2005 depictions; and, as noted above (4) the validity of the secondary producer record-keeping, etc., requirements under the Adam Walsh Act. |
Quote:
Yeah, maybe that is why the held up in court is winning so much. |
Quote:
so rename your tgp "search engine tgp" lol problem solved..:thumbsup infact ill coin the new term TGPIILT Thumbnail Gallery Post Internet Information Location Tool |
You know, I think it's great to try and prevent child porn as MUCH AS POSSIBLE. But the government also needs to be considerate. Here's a few of my takes on it.
It's great to have to keep documentation, always a smart thing to do. Always good to keep good documentation to always prove a models age. But do you really think that 2257 laws are really for helping stop child porn? My honest answer, No. What child porn maker is going to keep documentation for any of the girls on his site? None. Hell, I think the adult industry (all of us) have turned in more child porn sites than the FBI has probably busted. We all work in the industry and the respectable people in this industry will do as much as possible to keep the entire industry as clean as possible. But as all industries there are a few bad seeds and we try as hard as possible to help government officials weed out the bad seeds. Because that one bad seed filming children is giving us a bad name. I feel this is a way to get the people that aren't going to keep up with the issues with 2257. Just to take down one company here and one company there. Which you know what, if the company doesn't keep their records straight, that's their own fault. They've had time to do it and get in compliance. But I know that the first thing any news channel would say about a company that fucked up a record and they caught wind is, "Today in [some city, some state], FBI agents did a raid and found that their records weren't 100% compliant. Blah blah blah." Then mention some way how it is weeding out child porn, and basically say that the company was involved in child porn. Just my :2 cents:! |
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:35 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123