2257 Trial Kicks Off In Philadelphia- 6/3/2013 - - GoFuckYourself.com

Redrob · 06-03-2013, 06:09 PM

Mark Kernes from AVN posted:

PHILADELPHIA?Judge Michael M. Baylson wasted no time getting down to the business of deciding the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. §2257 and 2257A (hereafter "2257"), the federal recordkeeping and labeling law that's been on the books in one form or another since 1988. Court convened promptly at 9:15 a.m. in Courtroom 3810 of the James M. Byrne Federal Courthouse at 7th and Market Streets. Representing Free Speech Coalition (FSC) and 16 additional plaintiffs were J. Michael Murray and Lorraine Baumgartner, while the government mustered U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Civil Division attorneys Kathryn Wyer, Nathan Swinton, Hector Bladuell and James Schwartz.

Here is the link to read Mark's full article:

2257 Trial Kicks Off in Philadelphia

SilentKnight · 06-03-2013, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Douglas was then asked, if 2257 disappeared tomorrow, would the industry begin using minors in its productions? No, Douglas replied, both for moral reasons and because child pornography laws still exist?and attempting to recall thousands of DVDs because they contained an underage performer would be prohibitively costly, not just to physically recall the disks, but also to reimburse retailers and customers who'd bought the product. He also testified that for a company to have been found to have used an underage performer would hurt that company's good will among retailers, who would never again trust that company's product?and that besides, since all the performers in a movie are assumed to be adults, there would be no point in using an underage performer deliberately, since that person would be assumed to be an adult also; there would be no benefit to the producer.

Well put.

This'll be very interesting to follow as it goes on...

Best-In-BC · 06-03-2013, 06:32 PM

Yes, it should be iteresting

Redrob · 06-03-2013, 07:02 PM

Donations for the effort are still being taken at http://2257donate.com/.

This is a very expensive trial and any contribution is appreciated.

Grapesoda · 06-03-2013, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SilentKnight

Well put.

This'll be very interesting to follow as it goes on...

yeah no pedo's in porn cause there are no kids... all the pedo's are at church's and school's

MaDalton · 06-04-2013, 05:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grapesoda

yeah no pedo's in porn cause there are no kids... all the pedo's are at church's and school's

At least a lot more priests have been convicted being a pedo than pornographers

DWB · 06-04-2013, 06:07 AM

Quote:

Douglas was then asked, if 2257 disappeared tomorrow, would the industry begin using minors in its productions? No, Douglas replied, both for moral reasons and because child pornography laws still exist?and attempting to recall thousands of DVDs because they contained an underage performer would be prohibitively costly, not just to physically recall the disks, but also to reimburse retailers and customers who'd bought the product. He also testified that for a company to have been found to have used an underage performer would hurt that company's good will among retailers, who would never again trust that company's product?and that besides, since all the performers in a movie are assumed to be adults, there would be no point in using an underage performer deliberately, since that person would be assumed to be an adult also; there would be no benefit to the producer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SilentKnight

Well put.

Except for he's not telling the truth. I alerted ASACP years ago about a producer using minors from Thailand for DVDs being sold in the USA through a fairly large LA based company. Neither the ASACP, the company who was selling it, or the FBI did anything about it. I even spoke directly with FBI special agent Chuck Joyner who was heading the 2257 investigations at the time. Joan from ASACP told me that it was "pre-teen under 15" that was the problem. Not a single DVD was recalled even though it had 15 - 17 year old girls having sex in it. So as usual, someone speaking on behalf of the industry is totally full of shit. Can't say I'm surprised.

And has everyone forgotten that not too long ago Met-Art used to be full of underage girls, and CCbill billed for them? No one had a moral issue with that at the time. They only changed when 2257 rolled around and they had to. If there is no 2257, do you honestly think those types of people who had no problems with it in the first place wouldn't do it again?

This business is a laugh a minute.

SGS · 06-04-2013, 06:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaDalton

At least a lot more priests have been convicted being a pedo than pornographers

On a % of those involved in either job? I would bet pornographers per % of head involved would be the highest in the world bar none actually.

fitzmulti · 06-04-2013, 06:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaDalton

At least a lot more priests have been convicted being a pedo than pornographers

Quote:

Originally Posted by SGS

On a % of those involved in either job? I would bet pornographers per % of head involved would be the highest in the world bar none actually.

One fault in your point there...
Being a priest CAN be considered a "job"...
A "pornographer" is NOT a job.

Webmaster Advertising · 06-04-2013, 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DWB

Except for he's not telling the truth. I alerted ASACP years ago about a producer using minors from Thailand for DVDs being sold in the USA through a fairly large LA based company. Neither the ASACP, the company who was selling it, or the FBI did anything about it. I even spoke directly with FBI special agent Chuck Joyner who was heading the 2257 investigations at the time. Joan from ASACP told me that it was "pre-teen under 15" that was the problem. Not a single DVD was recalled even though it had 15 - 17 year old girls having sex in it. So as usual, someone speaking on behalf of the industry is totally full of shit. Can't say I'm surprised.

And has everyone forgotten that not too long ago Met-Art used to be full of underage girls, and CCbill billed for them? No one had a moral issue with that at the time. They only changed when 2257 rolled around and they had to. If there is no 2257, do you honestly think those types of people who had no problems with it in the first place wouldn't do it again?

This business is a laugh a minute.

Don't forget Brent Corrigan / Cobra Video...

SGS · 06-04-2013, 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fitzmulti

One fault in your point there...
Being a priest CAN be considered a "job"...
A "pornographer" is NOT a job.

Semantics

BFT3K · 06-04-2013, 08:40 AM

Will any aspect of this trial discuss whether or not tubes and torrents will be REQUIRED BY LAW to maintain 2257 files and records, or will thieves still be given a free ride?

How will this trial effect non-US websites, and sites hosted offshore?

Webmaster Advertising · 06-04-2013, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BFT3K

Will any aspect of this trial discuss whether or not tubes and torrents will be REQUIRED BY LAW to maintain 2257 files and records, or will thieves still be given a free ride?

How will this trial effect non-US websites, and sites hosted offshore?

No, it wont.

Again, it wont.

BFT3K · 06-04-2013, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Webmaster Advertising

No, it wont.

Again, it wont.

Well, there you have it then. Just more unfair bullshit on planet earth. Where can I donate for this again?

xxxjay · 06-04-2013, 10:01 AM

I'm going on record. I hope it passes. I'd like to see a tube site comply.

It's pretty clear by now they aren't ISPs.

Upload your own video and see what happens if you don't have a deal worked out with them

BFT3K · 06-04-2013, 06:36 PM

Bump Bump.

Markul · 06-05-2013, 12:54 AM

Those 2257 requirements are fucking crazy.

faxxaff · 06-05-2013, 07:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xxxjay

I'm going on record. I hope it passes. I'd like to see a tube site comply.
It's pretty clear by now they aren't ISPs.

Unfortunately, they are considered ISPs by law:
http://www.xbiz.com/articles/legal/162709

06-03-2013, 06:09 PM	#1
Redrob Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: In a refrigerator box by the tracks. Posts: 4,790	2257 Trial Kicks Off In Philadelphia- 6/3/2013 - Mark Kernes from AVN posted: PHILADELPHIA?Judge Michael M. Baylson wasted no time getting down to the business of deciding the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. §2257 and 2257A (hereafter "2257"), the federal recordkeeping and labeling law that's been on the books in one form or another since 1988. Court convened promptly at 9:15 a.m. in Courtroom 3810 of the James M. Byrne Federal Courthouse at 7th and Market Streets. Representing Free Speech Coalition (FSC) and 16 additional plaintiffs were J. Michael Murray and Lorraine Baumgartner, while the government mustered U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Civil Division attorneys Kathryn Wyer, Nathan Swinton, Hector Bladuell and James Schwartz. Here is the link to read Mark's full article: 2257 Trial Kicks Off in Philadelphia

06-03-2013, 06:32 PM	#3
Best-In-BC Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 9,506	Yes, it should be iteresting __________________ Vacares - Web Hosting, Domains, O365, Security & More Unparked domains burning a hole in your pocket? 5 Simple Ways to Make Easy $$$ from Unused Domains

06-04-2013, 10:01 AM	#15
xxxjay Tube groupie. Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: LoScandalous, CA Posts: 13,482	I'm going on record. I hope it passes. I'd like to see a tube site comply. It's pretty clear by now they aren't ISPs. Upload your own video and see what happens if you don't have a deal worked out with them __________________ http://donttellmehowtoruinmylife.com/ - http://www.jmdigitalmarketing.com/my...s-and-reviews/ - http://www.wouldyouhitit.org - http://shinyobjectreviews.com/

06-03-2013, 07:02 PM	#4
Redrob Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: In a refrigerator box by the tracks. Posts: 4,790	Donations for the effort are still being taken at http://2257donate.com/. This is a very expensive trial and any contribution is appreciated.

06-04-2013, 08:40 AM	#12
BFT3K Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Narnia Posts: 10,764	Will any aspect of this trial discuss whether or not tubes and torrents will be REQUIRED BY LAW to maintain 2257 files and records, or will thieves still be given a free ride? How will this trial effect non-US websites, and sites hosted offshore?

06-04-2013, 06:36 PM	#16
BFT3K Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Narnia Posts: 10,764	Bump Bump.

06-05-2013, 12:54 AM	#17
Markul Likes Pie Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: The land that liberated porn Posts: 12,401	Those 2257 requirements are fucking crazy.