So where do we stand on 2257? I've been out of the loop. - GoFuckYourself.com

stocktrader23 · 11-13-2011, 05:57 PM

I only ask because last I checked primary and secondary producers were responsible for keeing all records. This pretty much includes everyone.

However, I've seen several huge sites including sex.com that claim they are not the primary producers and instead link off to all original producers for the content they publish.

Then you see the tubes / cam sites that pass the buck by claiming third party exemption.

So does anyone know where we stand today on 2257? If secondary producers are still liable what made these large companies decide that they would risk claiming that they aren't the producer? I would guess that if the relevant sections haven't been struck down they are using the fact that it's on hold due to pending litigation to continue doing the same old same old.

Thanks for any help.

Barry-xlovecam · 11-13-2011, 10:50 PM

CFR Title 28 § 75.1 Definitions.

(c)(4) Producer does not include persons whose activities relating to the visual depiction of actual or simulated sexually explicit conduct are limited to the following:

(vi) Unless the activity or activities are described in section 2257(h)(2)(A), the dissemination of a depiction without having created it or altered its content.
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 110 > § 2257

§ 2257. Record keeping requirements

(a) Whoever produces any book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, digital image, digitally- or computer-manipulated image of an actual human being, picture, or other matter which?

(iii) inserting on a computer site or service a digital image of, or otherwise managing the sexually explicit content,[1] of a computer site or service that contains a visual depiction of, sexually explicit conduct; and
Secondary Producers are "inserters?" As compared to what -- wankers?
So far there has never been a case at trial setting any precedent. So, any legal opinion is based on?

Not legal advice offered in background discussion only.

Paul Markham · 11-14-2011, 12:06 AM

Go ask a lawyer.

stocktrader23 · 11-14-2011, 02:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

CFR Title 28 § 75.1 Definitions.

(c)(4) Producer does not include persons whose activities relating to the visual depiction of actual or simulated sexually explicit conduct are limited to the following:

(vi) Unless the activity or activities are described in section 2257(h)(2)(A), the dissemination of a depiction without having created it or altered its content.
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 110 > § 2257

§ 2257. Record keeping requirements

(a) Whoever produces any book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, digital image, digitally- or computer-manipulated image of an actual human being, picture, or other matter which?

(iii) inserting on a computer site or service a digital image of, or otherwise managing the sexually explicit content,[1] of a computer site or service that contains a visual depiction of, sexually explicit conduct; and
Secondary Producers are "inserters?" As compared to what -- wankers?
So far there has never been a case at trial setting any precedent. So, any legal opinion is based on?

Not legal advice offered in background discussion only.

So the same old throw up a disclaimer and hope for the best technique.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Go ask a lawyer.

Go fuck yourself.

Pete Goodman · 11-14-2011, 05:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stocktrader23

Go fuck yourself.

11-13-2011, 05:57 PM	#1
stocktrader23 Let's do some business. Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: The dirty south. Posts: 18,781	So where do we stand on 2257? I've been out of the loop. I only ask because last I checked primary and secondary producers were responsible for keeing all records. This pretty much includes everyone. However, I've seen several huge sites including sex.com that claim they are not the primary producers and instead link off to all original producers for the content they publish. Then you see the tubes / cam sites that pass the buck by claiming third party exemption. So does anyone know where we stand today on 2257? If secondary producers are still liable what made these large companies decide that they would risk claiming that they aren't the producer? I would guess that if the relevant sections haven't been struck down they are using the fact that it's on hold due to pending litigation to continue doing the same old same old. Thanks for any help. __________________ Hands Free Adult - Join Once, Earn For Life "I try to make a habit of bouncing my eyes up to the face of a beautiful woman, and often repeat “not mine” in my head or even verbally. She’s not mine. God has her set aside. She’s not mine. She’s His little girl, and she needs me to fight for her by keeping my eyes where they should be."

11-13-2011, 10:50 PM	#2
Barry-xlovecam It's 42 Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Global Posts: 18,083	CFR Title 28 § 75.1 Definitions. (c)(4) Producer does not include persons whose activities relating to the visual depiction of actual or simulated sexually explicit conduct are limited to the following: (vi) Unless the activity or activities are described in section 2257(h)(2)(A), the dissemination of a depiction without having created it or altered its content. TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 110 > § 2257 § 2257. Record keeping requirements (a) Whoever produces any book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, digital image, digitally- or computer-manipulated image of an actual human being, picture, or other matter which? (iii) inserting on a computer site or service a digital image of, or otherwise managing the sexually explicit content,[1] of a computer site or service that contains a visual depiction of, sexually explicit conduct; and Secondary Producers are "inserters?" As compared to what -- wankers? So far there has never been a case at trial setting any precedent. So, any legal opinion is based on? Not legal advice offered in background discussion only.

11-14-2011, 12:06 AM	#3
Paul Markham Too old to care Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: On the sofa, watching TV or doing my jigsaws. Posts: 52,943	Go ask a lawyer. __________________ Blowout deal. 880 videos, 2,400 image sets, plus many RAW videos. $500. PM me for a deal. Skype Paulmarkham70