Thae same way they did it in the Traci Lords example, you say word got out...it gets out here too. nI expect Paul Markham or whomever would notify his customers.

The point is using 2257 for this is like setting your house on fire to get rid of a mouse.

These jack booted thugs we have in office have usurped way too many of my civil liberties in the name of the war on drugs/terror/whatthefuckever.
And now its "the children omg think of the children" Fuck that

Hate to tell you this but it happens...I know of someone in my niche who is doing hard time in an Illinois prison for CP because he wanted to film himself fucking a 16-17 y.o. and then stalk her on top of that.....I can pull up his mugshot right now...as his prison time goes on, his face looks more and more tired...Almost like a meth user timeline pic.

you still have missed the point...

it's not magic that a webmaster/site owner is able to locate the images/videos of the underage performer on his website(s).

its a whole lot easier for a store owner or a vhs/dvd distributor to locate and remove the contraband inventory.


Fight the 2257 tizzy!

Here's a good set of two reasons:

• Jail
• Prison

Be sure to take notes.

It just irritates me to no end to see how many people are willing to completely lay down the rights that Americans have fought and died to protect all in the name of "security"

you dont deserve to be secure and you dont deserve to have the rights either...the real shame is that you are willing to take people like me down with you

And wouldn't it be nice if tube sites had to comply, if anyone posting had to comply? This would not only level the playing field it would erase most of it.

If my g/f and I make a site we need to comply with 2257 including posting our address and manning our "office" a certain number of hours per week ... But none of the laws apply if we post it as user submitted to a tube site????? :Oh crap

you seem to have mistaken GFY for your own blog.... this is a message board thread, conversations occur here... you have been going off on various 2257 tangents that aren't related to the point of the thread.

i asked a direct question: How is a website owner going to do the equivalent that the store owner did for the Traci Lords situation when images/videos are found to be underaged?


your answer was:

"Thae same way they did it in the Traci Lords example, you say word got out...it gets out here too. nI expect Paul Markham or whomever would notify his customers."

that's not an answer, that's the same as saying the webmasters will magically take care of it .... because the reality is most webmasters wouldn't know where to begin to look. If Paul markham said xxx model from photosets yyy need to be taken down due to underage, then how does the webmaster who has those images and videos on his website(s) deal with things next?

The point of this thread was to be aware of the very real potential situation that an underage model could be uncovered and webmasters need to pull down images and videos.

If a webmaster did do the inventory documentation, they would actually be accomplishing part of 2257 compliance from the original 2257 statue and its intent.


Fight the rants!

Vivid has brought up the 2257 issue against pornotube (AEBN) in their lawsuit against them.

Other content producers who have targeted copyright infringers have also brought this up.

The whole user-generated-web-2.0 thing is certainly an interesting gray area that attorneys and prosecutors are trying to understand. Google inherited a huge library of videos with copyright infringement and going into the acquisition they felt they could handle it... of course, they are being sued by Viacom over these issues.

Fight the copyleft!

You can if that's all you can do.

I think that most everybody was trying to comply with 2257 until the new version was enacted. The new version (i.e. that bullshit amendment attached to The Adam Walsh law) is so far over the top that everyone just takes it for granted that it'll get overturned.

Meanwhile, there's no longer any real payoff in complying with the original 2257 because, whether you do so or not, you’ll still be in violation of the new 2257 which is quite simply impossible to comply with.

that's why the point of my thread topic is not really about 2257 compliance... its about inventory controls over the content on your site, such that if an underage performer were found, that the website owner could have those images/videos removed.

as i have stated repeatedly, forget about 2257, forget that it exists, pretend it was struck down... would you still not do any inventory / record keeping to keep track of what images/videos are on your website?


Fight the sand in the ears!

2257 was created solely to eat into your profits.

Makes me want to move to a true capitalist country with open minded people like Denmark.

if that were true then the various incarnations of "porn tax" bills would have been passed


Fight the government conspiracies!

possession and distribution of CP is a crime in denmark as well.

Fight the jurisdiction!