reading 4472 can give you a headache, because much of the good stuff is in the "striking" or "adding" of single words to modify existing code. The version of 2257 at cornell law appears to be out of date at this point.
For hosting, it isn't clear, and certainly needs a ruling. However, it would appear that the best way to figure it is this: The hosting company doesn't need 2257 documents, so they are not a publisher in and of themselves. So the publication would occur on your PC (wherever that may be located) which would be where stuff is published. That office is the office of record (and the one that would be subject to 2257 inspections).
If that office is outside of the US, it would appear at least on the surface that the DoJ would not have jurisdiction over the location, and thus could not make a 2257 inspection (at least not directly).
http://www.freespeechonline.org/webdocs/109248t5.pdf ( starting around page 6)
Sorry, long quote here:
Quote:
``(h) In this section--
``(1) the term `actual sexually explicit conduct' means
actual but not simulated conduct as defined in clauses (i)
through (v) of section 2256(2)(A) of this title;
``(2) the term `produces'--
``(A) means--
``(i) actually filming, videotaping,
photographing, creating a picture, digital image,
or digitally- or computer-manipulated image of an
actual human being;
``(ii) digitizing an image, of a visual
depiction of sexually explicit conduct; or,
assembling, manufacturing, publishing,
duplicating, reproducing, or reissuing a book,
magazine, periodical, film, videotape, digital
image, or picture, or other matter intended for
commercial distribution, that contains a visual
depiction of sexually explicit conduct; or
``(iii) inserting on a computer site or
service a digital image of, or otherwise managing
the sexually explicit content, of a computer site
or service that contains a visual depiction of,
sexually explicit conduct; and
``(B) does not include activities that are limited
to--
``(i) photo or film processing, including
digitization of previously existing visual
depictions, as part of a commercial enterprise,
with no other commercial interest in the sexually
explicit material, printing, and video
duplication;
``(ii) distribution;
``(iii) any activity, other than those
activities identified in subparagraph (A), that
does not involve the hiring, contracting for,
managing, or otherwise arranging for the
participation of the depicted performers;
``(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)); or
[[Page 120 STAT. 626]]
``(v) the transmission, storage, retrieval,
hosting, formatting, or translation (or any
combination thereof) of a communication, without
selection or alteration of the content of the
communication, except that deletion of a
particular communication or material made by
another person in a manner consistent with section
230(c) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47
U.S.C. 230(c)) shall not constitute such selection
or alteration of the content of the communication;
and
``(3) the term `performer' includes any person portrayed in
a visual depiction engaging in, or assisting another person to
engage in, sexually explicit conduct.''.
|
In this case (B) - v specifically excludes hosts.
Most gallery posters / TGP owners / free site makes, bloggers, and such would fall under (A) - iii, "inserting on a computer site or service a digital image of, or otherwise managing the sexually explicit content, of a computer site or service that contains a visual depiction of," - that is a pretty clear description (in those terms, anyway) of what a webmaster at that level does.
Since the host is exempted (unless they specifically are editing content or have editorial control over your site), so the chain goes back to your office of publication. Located outside of the US? I have a feeling that this all makes you "in the clear", at least to that point.
However, I am not a lawyer. I don't play one on TV, I didn't sleep at a holiday inn express, and I haven't "had sex with that woman", so take it with the largest grain of salt you can find.