06-05-2009, 08:21 PM
|
|
|
I'm Lenny2 Bitch
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: On top of my soapbox
Posts: 13,449
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by CYF
Wasn't the "Girls Gone Wild" guy prosecuted for that? Or did he cop a deal?
Wait... Just found this on Wikipedia:
At present, the Department of Justice has only implemented one specific case based primarily on the new 2257 laws and its supportive regulations. The case was against Mantra Films, Inc., based in Santa Monica, California, and its sister company MRA Holdings (both owned by Joe Francis), who are the originators of the Girls Gone Wild video series. Francis and several of his managers were prosecuted, citing infractions of this act.[3] In January 2007, these charges were for the most part dropped.[4]
However, Francis and the company entered guilty pleas on three counts of failing to keep the required records and seven labeling violations for its series of DVDs and videos before U.S. District Judge Richard Smoak, agreeing to pay $2.1 million in fines and restitution. This allowed Francis to avoid possible harsher penalties which include five years prison time for each violation.
Also in 2006, the FBI began checking the 2257 records of several pornography production companies
|
I wasn't saying there's never been a prosecution using this statute, I meant there's never been one of a search engine using this statute.
They are probably operating under the assumption that they are in the clear, because the statute specifically states
Quote:
(2) the term ?produces?? .......
(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)); or
(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
|
__________________
sig too big
|
|
|