![]() |
XBIZ NEWS: Federal Judge Dismisses FSC?s 2257 Suit
XBIZ NEWS: Federal Judge Dismisses FSC?s 2257 Suit
PHILADELPHIA ? U.S. District Court Judge Michael Baylson has granted the government?s motion to dismiss FSC?s 18 U.S.C. § § 2257 and 2257A lawsuit. http://www.xbiz.com/news/123435 |
What about secondary producers? For instance tgp's tubes etc that do not produce content but get their content from sponsors?
Was that ever decided if they need 2257 documents? |
With the new changes to 2257 (2009), primary and secondary producers are all the same now. There is no relative difference. Everyone needs to have the docs and IDs...
|
woah.......
|
|
Quote:
|
Just thinking out loud here (I haven't received enough info on this case yet to forumlate a comprehensive response).
So, outright content theft/piracy is okay, but having a link back to the actual uploader/sponsor is not (I know it's apples and oranges). :upsidedow In the article, I did not see where the Judge indicated how 2257 compliance by the mainstream adult industry posed much, if any, real threat to minors. Aside from the Dirty D case (which I assume is still being tried), I know of no other cases involving a legitimate adult company that caters to adults, having shot a minor. As a primary producer, 2257 is a fact of life for me. However, it's going to be a potential nightmare for many so-called secondary producers to comply with this ruling. Once an appeal is filed, I presume that all will be on hold again until that case is decided. If there is a silver lining, it may mean that many tube sites, and other copyright infringing forums, torrents, etc., might now have to supply documents provided by their copyright infringing uploaders, which is not going to happen, because they don't have the docs. If this becomes law, I hope that the government goes after businesses that cannot provide the docs, or do not even have so much as a link back to the primary producer. Likewise, primary producers are going to have to be careful about who they trust as secondary producers. ADG |
just move your business offshore.. then you can steal the content you want and not have to worry about those pesky feds are their silly 2257 requirements..
problem solved... :thumbsup . |
Anyway, there's always THE COURT OF APPEALS.
|
Quote:
Offshore hosting gets around all of this and it is cheap. Sally. |
It'd be nice if this industry had some lobby that could get our (industry group members) voice accross to gov't's
We could prob. come up with rules that protect minors, and don't flood the internet with hardcore full scene videos, ie. free tubes, etc... If we had a lobby voice that provided a plan of rules and regulations that would clear up this 2257 mess, for example. It'd be a lot better than where we are now and have been for years with the only voice being ocassional lawsuits against members of the industry. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
The best solution would to slap tube site across your own pay site and tell the government that it is all user submited. And all the TGP and MGP guys that use the affiliate content as promos tools for their sponsors, when they get questioned, just say "its all user submitted." "user submitted" seems to be the phrase that pays. Its the magic get out of jail free card. The, you cant sue me card when its said. Works for the tubesites:thumbsup That seems to be the logical solution:thumbsup Just sayen.. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I don’t really see the problem here or am i completely on crazy pills.?
Most content providers or at least the ones i know off including myself have considered ALL of our clients secondary producers for 7 years or so. Not only that but in many cases had tools developed for them to index 2257 properly. The way i see it the people with business knowhow and insight have been preparing for this and in fact considered this a Law already. |
Quote:
You mean "users" like Marco and Eastwood? |
Quote:
If they did go after Tube sites they might ask the Tube site to prove it was user uploaded. That would scare a few. Even user uploaded I think they will still get slammed for having child porn on their sites. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Since tubes sites profit from these user submitted videos they should be required by law to verify that each user has a valid 2257 notification...yes this might be inconvenient, but I find it inconvenient as hell to find a full length video of ours that some user has uploaded to a tube site without a license |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I know it sucks get get robbed, I just don't know any good way to stop this shit from happening without breaking the internet. |
all this will do is make more adult companies operate off shore, where there is no 2257. they should allow them to stay, give them reasonable rules and maybe collect some healthy tax revenue.
2257 only effects american's. but hey, at least the US is trying to regulate it, unlike some countries that just leave it to self regulate. |
Quote:
Seriously. There's no point in having 2257 regulations if the tubes can, and do, thumb their noses at them with impunity. No point at all. None, zip, zilch, nada. Even the government has to be smart enough to figure that one out eventually. |
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:26 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123