Lawyer will tear a new asshole in 2257
 

Some lawyer somewhere is going to blast a hole in 2257.
Not by defeating it directly but focusing heat on the "secondary producers/publishers".

The way I read 2257 a good legal argument can be made that the following are also secondary producers/publishers:

Local Cable TV (rebrocast Playboy chanel etc...)
Adult Video rentals/sales
Adult Film theaters
7-11 magazine section
etc...etc...

None of these have copies of ID's and they shouldn't because in reality they are not secondary producers or publishers. They are in fact Primary retailers.

So are most free sites. All my images point to the producer where 2257 is kept so whats the need for me to keep it?. The gov is to fucking lazy to click???!!!

Some lawyer is going to make shit about non-internet interprises not being prosecuted and when that shit hits the fan these powerful businesses will get their lawyers to bring 2257 down.

Telling me to verify a models age when the content links to the producer(sponsor) is like telling the local bartender to verify the ingredients in Jack Daniels. "You wanna know the ingredients? Then call the fucking company."

I hope your right...

Name one way it says the business you mention are producers or publishers?

.........

You read it wrong, none of those you listed in your post publish anything.. They either only sell it or rebroadcast it, with no changes.. A webmaster however publishes a page with the content.

Cable video on demand, it gives you the show the second you ask for it, and they also add in trailers and such before it begins thus altering the content.

who's going to pay that spectacular lawyer?

Read it again, and then read it 2 more times. It clearly lists and defines the examples that you gave as mere distributors

They are redistributing content.
Just like an ISP is not responsibble if you download kiddy porn to your home PC.

It will be interesting to see how Google and Yahoo handle it as well.... Both have pic and/or vid search with adult content.

It would be great if they got done first... all those expensive lawyers would get some great - damn whats the word Im looking for? when a Judge makes descisions and they pass into law. - you know what I mean.

Direct from the DOJ: As the rule makes clear, mere distributors of sexually explicit material are excluded from the definition of producers and under no plausible construction of the definition would a movie theater be covered merely by screening films produced by others.

not true. retailers do not publish.

porno stores are not included

What he is saying in the REAL world is there REALLY a difference in between those business and us running websites? And the answer is NO. What because I have the abilty to change the background and font on my page I'm PUBLISHER? Well can't a movie theater change the color of the walls and the carpeting? The internet is the way I choose to DISTRIBUTE my content. Should the way I DISTRIBUTE my content punish me?

Look at this way. What is the "supposed" reasoning for this new rule? To prevent content that may have minors in it from being seen by people. Now if that is the case then why WOULDN'T cable TV or movie theaters also be required to follow these rules?

So the govrnment cares if some 16 year olds are on content that is on the internet but if some porno shops has the SAME content they don't give a fuck? Going by who they have exempt it seems that way. So basically the rule is saying to CPers. "Here, peddle your stuff at bookstores and movie theaters because we won't be looking for you there."

Search engines, hosts, chat rooms, large forums, and other similar services are exempt from the law:


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

(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 duplicators;

(ii) Mere distribution;

(iii) Any activity, other than those activities identified in
paragraphs (c) (1) and (2) of this section, that does not involve the hiring, contracting for, managing, or otherwise arranging for the participation of the depicted performers;

(iv) A provider of web-hosting services who does not, and
reasonably cannot, manage the sexually explicit content of the computer site or service; or

(v) A provider of an electronic communication service or remote computing service who does not, and reasonably cannot, manage the sexually explicit content of the computer site or service.

Read "v".

Cool... Thanks

How ever many time you read that shit you miss something.

A web page is a location just like a theater. The webpage rebroadcast the content just like the theater in my opinion.
The webpage is just another fucking chanel on your cathode ray tube(TV/PC).
Saying I published a movie because I built a location to show it is not going to stand up in court in the long run.

His sponsor when he put's his images back up. :1orglaugh

you're going to need a very expensive lawyer to convince a judge of that.

Yes but SOMEONE will in fact challenge the law. The law and it's supposed reason for existing contridict itself by it's exemptions. I can tell you the reason why cable TV got exempt is because they are big corporations. You think the government wants to go up against Comcast, Time/Warner, Charter, Cox etc? Because they sure as hell would have challenged this rule on DAY ONE.

Here my :2 cents:, not that it means much:

Laws exist merely to control the masses. The same law can be, has been and will be interpreted and judged differently for different groups / individuals within the mass based on the whims, feelings, agendas, etc. of the controlling body.

Read into that how you want, but it's pretty much a time-tested fact.

A precedent?

what if the gov't just starts targeting small time affiliates like TGPs or gallery submitters? you think 'the industry' is going to come to their aid?

All it takes is to jail one affiliate for non-compliance and a 1,000 affiliates will comply 100% or leave adult.

Oh thank god for that... Ive been sitting here thinking about that for ages. It was driving me nuts.

I owe you a beer. :thumbsup

haters all aside, there are some valid points in this thread

Dopeman;

Ron Miller will most likely be one of the lawyers

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/22/law...ion=cnn_latest


I think the safest route is to just become one of his affiliates.

Click here: Dirtyoldlawyer.com

This is real; he's a real lawyer and after I send some sign ups I'm going to hit him up for advise.

Like I have said the DOJ rather have 1000 webmaster quit than put 1000 of them in jail. If busting 100 gets 10,000 to quit then they did their job.

well some lawyers are saying that the regulations have a retroactive scope. taking everything down now does nothing to save you. you have always been requried to have the model IDs as a secondary producer. if sponsors aren't giving them out, i'd say almost all affiliates are screwed. if indeed that's how the regs are interpreted.

with an administration that needs some good news and quick - i think they would like to one day wake up and see '1000s of people arrested for breaking the law that protects children from being exploited on the internet'

that's how they'll spin it and Joe America will love it.

If you create a webpage you are a Producer.
If you sell a DVD or Magazine on the stand, you are a Distro


"and who are separate
and distinct from the on-line
distributors of pornography who digitize
the covers of videos, DVDs, etc., who are
included in the definition of secondary
producer, as discussed above."

Can you Name the Lawyer?
Can you Quote this in the 16 Page release??

Give me your Email I will send you the PDF, so you can read it....

Your right but you missed the point.
The point is that I believe affiliates that host thumbs and samples are also retailers. showing samples should not be considered broadcast because if it is then these other venues cannot show samples either.

Another point is that this law is only targeting people who mostly like are powerless and the only reason it tries to exempt other venues is because the gov knows it would most likley loose in court and the other venues will not support the internet because they blame us for driving down their profits.

The shit 2257 proposes is bullshit in reality and eventually reality is going to win.

Only in the mind of idiots. Does ANYONE really believe that? If you do you should even be whinning about 2257 then.

Showing porn on webpage is merely a different way of DISTRUBTING content. now when you can who me way of DISTRUBUTING content on the net WITHOUT publishing it let me know.

i'm speaking of sponsors who say they have spoken with their laywers and this is how they interpret it. i believe you were in the same thread. i'm not calling out names, but there's only been a couple so far.

and i've read the thing many times, thanks.

considering the consequences of these regulations, affiliates should be asking these hard questions. to a lawyer, yes. but when two large sponsors with the money to acquire expensive legal counsel come to two completely different interpretations of the regulations, that had better get people thinking.

if one is right, every affiliate that doesn't have the model's ID for every photo they have ever posted in the past can get pinched.

of course these are 'ifs'. i'm not a lawyer.

This is why you are a webmaster and not an attorney :2 cents:

So a hosting company that can put it's banner on every fucking webpage as a free host somehow cannot reasonably place a "Report this content" button on the page and delete the material.

I say fucking bullshit.

I have no control over the gallery of the fucking day so does that make me exempt.
I think not so much of the focus of this law is bullshit and it will be defeated in time.
Hopefully in time for me to keep making money.

WRONG..
Cable companies simply dont put a DVD into a machine everytime someone wants to watch it.. they rip and encode it to their specs which makes them a secondary publisher...People edit images and put them on their free site...cable companies edit the video and put it on their network...see the likeness?

and therein lies the problem

OK so that means a 7-11 can sell kiddie porn w/o being liable? C'mon...

And the reason you are a webmaster instead of a lawyer is because you don't read everything in my post.

Re-read where I say "In reality they are not secondary producers/publishers because infact they are primary retailers".

I'm saying the argument for affiliates is going to have to center around proving that we are retailers. That's good fucking lawyering because I have found a method of attack. You're only bitch about it with no method.

Exactly, the publish the page, and then drop in content from elsewhere. Much like a television station broadcasts commercials, and fills it with content in between.

Anyone who can't see 2257 as a double standard designed to harass webmasters and models is naive, although I disagree with the threadstarter that this will be an effective legal tactic.

BINGO

And they also mix content with commercials, all within their station's marketing package.

Adult webmasters publish a page, load it with advertisements, and then drop content in.

A TV station is no less a secondary producer than an adult webmaster.

precedent is only established if/when a case goes before the Appellate or Supreme Court, and then only if the ruling is published (not all are)

That would make you the producer of the webpage that is distributing the content.. Not the producer of the content itself.

Like if you have a shop selling porn dvds your a distributer, but if you create shelves to display those dvd's you're sudently a producer ?

Just doesn't make sence does it.. Though this law doesn't seem to be about sence so here you are the producer anyways :1orglaugh

:1orglaugh :thumbsup

I see it as the only tactic without actually defeating the law.

Exactly!
I am not saying what I believe is right or worng, or what the FSC is trying to get an injunction against...
I am just showing what the 16 pages say..
It is a Very easy, but boring read, and does explain a lot...
If ANYONE needs the PDF I can send it to them...
[email protected]

what about a designer who's hired by a company to create/update a website and only that?

FUCKIT!!!!!

I'm suing Michael Jackson for my royalties!
I will build a webpage with his pic and stream his video and MP3 and then tell him that I produced and published his fucking CD.

Correctamundo.

The law applies to those who PRODUCE the content. Not the affiliates. Not the distributors. The PRODUCERS, and PROVIDERS. Basically those who deal directly with the models, and who have direct contact (i.e. media company, photographer, publisher).

All you keyboard warrior GFY attorney's need to call a real lawyer.

Some of the people in these drama threads are apparently too poor to afford counsel, and come to the GFY to seek advice on how to run their business. Anyone see the problem in that?

If you are simply an affiliate, TGP or a webmaster who does nothing but distribute, resell, the content from a provider, then you just need to make sure your documentation is good for whereever your shit's coming from. That's how it's been for years.

:disgust

This law is nothing more to make sure that if someone has a questionable model on their site, and should another webmaster, affiliate, O'Reilly, some Bush administration official, DOJ, or anyone else ask for you to prove she is over the age of 18 at the the of the shoot, you can produce these records. So you have a copy of their ID's, and preferible a picture of them laying on today's (or that day's) newspaper (i.e. showing the date).

End of story.

:disgust

what kind of documentation are you talking about specifically?