RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257

RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

SirKenin -> RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 (6/23/2005 6:20:31 PM)
People cry about the stupidest things. All this Law means is that you can not rip off someone else's work and you can not post images that do not belong to you or the model did not give you express consent to post them. What the hell is the big deal? Your speech is not being impeded. Get over it already. Heh. Holy.

GoddessDustyGold -> RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 (6/23/2005 6:36:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SirKenin What the hell is the big deal? Your speech is not being impeded. Get over it already. Heh. Holy. The big deal, SirKenin, is that the requirements for paperwork to back up release forms and the method of required storage, and the ramifications of not keeping to the letter of this new statute, is creating problems for many sites, and rather than fight the system, many of them are deciding to shut down or seriously restrict what they will post, and what they will allow to be posted. The rights are still there. The statute just makes it so difficult to not break the law while you are exercising those rights, that many people are not going to be bothered. Kind of like saying "Oh, you still have the right to assemble, but you can only do it now between 2PM and 2:30PM, all parties involved must register first, and sign a document indicating your intent to assemble, give all your personal information which will be kept on record at such and such a headquarters for the next 7 years, (in hard copy, please!) and you must wear this particular uniform during the assembly." Now is your right to assemble important enough to you to follow all these rules? Or, in order to make things easier for us, will you just decide to stay home because it is more trouble than it is worth? At least, that is what I read the big deal to be.

SirKenin -> RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 (6/23/2005 7:02:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GoddessDustyGold quote: ORIGINAL: SirKenin What the hell is the big deal? Your speech is not being impeded. Get over it already. Heh. Holy. The big deal, SirKenin, is that the requirements for paperwork to back up release forms and the method of required storage, and the ramifications of not keeping to the letter of this new statute, is creating problems for many sites, and rather than fight the system, many of them are deciding to shut down or seriously restrict what they will post, and what they will allow to be posted. Well that is their problem the way I see it. If they want to peddle smut they are going to have to make sure they have the proof that they are not stealing it, or that a model is not oblivious to the fact that s/he is being spread all over the internet. I could care less for those people that are making a killing off of other people's lust. I am more concerned about the people that are being ripped off and those wo/men being exploited without their knowledge. The rights of those people, as far as I am concerned, are far more important than one's right to peddle smut.

AAkasha -> RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 (6/23/2005 7:16:10 PM)
Edited for flames.

ProScatman -> RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 (6/23/2005 7:26:33 PM)
quote: I took that to say American has 200 years of increasing rights enforcement all in the name of freedom....hehe. Right to the point, Gloria! The sad thing is that the majority of Americans believe everything the feds do is in their(the people's) best interest!

Faramir -> RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 (6/23/2005 7:31:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GoddessDustyGold quote: ORIGINAL: SirKenin What the hell is the big deal? Your speech is not being impeded. Get over it already. Heh. Holy. The rights are still there. The statute just makes it so difficult to not break the law while you are exercising those rights, that many people are not going to be bothered. Kind of like saying "Oh, you still have the right to assemble, but you can only do it now between 2PM and 2:30PM, all parties involved must register first, and sign a document indicating your intent to assemble, give all your personal information which will be kept on record at such and such a headquarters for the next 7 years, (in hard copy, please!) and you must wear this particular uniform during the assembly." I think that is a good comparsion, because it highlights the princple at stake here - a rule of law principle. The state can't deny a right effectively by making onerous restrictions - as per your example. The legislature might well pass such an assembly mitigation law - and have it promptly denied by the judiciary.

ProScatman -> RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 (6/23/2005 7:43:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SirKenin People cry about the stupidest things. All this Law means is that you can not rip off someone else's work and you can not post images that do not belong to you or the model did not give you express consent to post them. What the hell is the big deal? Your speech is not being impeded. Get over it already. Heh. Holy. I took the trouble to go read this 2257 crap! I suggest you do the same and take all the time you need, and perhaps ask someone to sit with you to explain the big words! There is no telling how or who will be targeted. The legislation is quite broad based, and has the potential to be selectively inforced; under the guise that "we can't arrest everyone at once"! And most everyone knows how many in government feel about our lifestyle. Remember how they got Al Capone? Tax evasion!

SirKenin -> RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 (6/23/2005 8:21:19 PM)
Edited for flames.

SirKenin -> RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 (6/23/2005 8:26:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ProScatman quote: ORIGINAL: SirKenin People cry about the stupidest things. All this Law means is that you can not rip off someone else's work and you can not post images that do not belong to you or the model did not give you express consent to post them. What the hell is the big deal? Your speech is not being impeded. Get over it already. Heh. Holy. I took the trouble to go read this 2257 crap! I suggest you do the same and take all the time you need, and perhaps ask someone to sit with you to explain the big words! There is no telling how or who will be targeted. The legislation is quite broad based, and has the potential to be selectively inforced; under the guise that "we can't arrest everyone at once"! And most everyone knows how many in government feel about our lifestyle. Remember how they got Al Capone? Tax evasion! Your panties are in a knot for nothing. This reminds Me of the big huge deal everyone made over Google mail. They see one little detail and blow it all out of proportion, getting their noses out of joint and their knickers in a bunch. It COULD mean this so let us get all hell bent for leather and make a HUGE deal out of it. I do not know why you are even concerned. What the hell do you care? Do you own a porn site or something? Are you freely distributing yourself naked to every smut peddler in the USA? It is not your supposed freedom of speech (sic) being abridged. They still have the freedom to peddle their beloved porn. They just have to make sure they have their bases covered, just like the porn magazines. Big deal. This Law has been in effect for printed porn for some time. Do you see Hugh Hefner selling off Playboy? Man, you people really need to get a grip on reality, I swear.

AAkasha -> RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 (6/23/2005 8:29:35 PM)
Edited-M3 Unfortunately some people may be reading this thread and have not read about 2257. It would be a shame if they were misled to believe the new regulations have to do with copyright, when really it's not even close. It's also a very important issue for the online BDSM community. It bothers me that you stated again that this is about author's rights -- it's not. Please go read the 2257 regs. Links have been posted many times here. If I see something so blatantly wrong about something important to anyone posting here, I believe they should know. Akasha

mantis65 -> RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 (6/23/2005 8:58:40 PM)
This is actually a blue law to diminish the amount of adult material on the web. You don’t have to own an adult site to get in trouble with this law. I found some scary stuff about it here. basically it can turn any “undocumented” photo or video into instant kiddie porn no matter the actual age of the person in the picture. Just posting a picture somewhere makes you a “secondary producer” Luckily its so poorly written even lawyers are confused by the language and that alone may get this kicked out. I hope http://www.internet-law-library.com/internet_law_library/articles/law_library_18usc2257_article.php Quote: What If I Have the Content, But Cannot Comply? If you have content and do not have proof of the model's age and the necessary records required by 18 USC 2257, which also covers content created abroad in your possession, you are assuming full risk of violation of the statute and possible child pornography charges.

Lordandmaster -> RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 (6/23/2005 9:10:02 PM)
Kenin, we all know you're a piece of work, but in this thread you've totally lost control. Stop insulting people who disagree with you. For one thing, they're right and you're wrong. It sounds like you haven't even read the law! Lastly, it's embarrassing--to YOU.

Ssilver -> RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 (6/23/2005 9:48:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster Do you have the model releases and the id documents on file for those elephants? [:D] The one on the right looks like it could be underage.

Understudy -> RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 (6/23/2005 9:59:48 PM)
Okay, This is still very distribing. Morons.org has an excellent report on it here. http://web.morons.org/article.jsp?sectionid=1&id=6351 I have read through Section 2257 and I have to admit it is open to wide interpritation and that is the problem with the law. As I understand it freespeech.org either has or is trying to get an injunction on the law. I hope they succeed. The other problem is the selective enforcement that could come about with this law. Also the mess that could be created if they were to go after everyone that violates this law. Let's say you put a recent picture up on your website which is based in the US and send your spouse/partner the URL to the image. The law says you have produced and published that picture and have to have full model release forms for it with a copy of identification to verify the age of the sublect in the photo. This for a photo which you may have had no intent to actually make public. Now if your friends send you pictures for you to host on your website, you have to maintain paperwork for everyone in the every photo if the image is sexually explicit. That means if you or your friend took a photo in a BDSM club you would have to maintain paperwork on everyone in the photo that is considered part of the photo. In a loose way this could mean everyone in the background too, but the law says"preformers" so I think that may be a bit of a stretch on background people. Section 2257. Record keeping requirements (a) Whoever produces any book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, or other matter which - The preamble on other matter has been defined to include the internet (1) contains one or more visual depictions made after November 1, 1990 of actual sexually explicit conduct; and (2) is produced in whole or in part with materials which have been mailed or shipped in interstate or foreign commerce, or is shipped or transported or is intended for shipment or transportation in interstate or foreign commerce; shall create and maintain individually identifiable records pertaining to every performer portrayed in such a visual depiction. That means one photo is enough to seek prosecution. This law makes no distinction between the person who took the photo and the person who distributes it and the person who publishes or posses the photo. Everyone who has their hands on it must have the record. This 2257 is a scary read. Sincerely, Brendhan

proudsub -> RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 (6/23/2005 10:11:53 PM)
I wonder if this law applies to sites that show live cams like jmeeting and anywebcam.

GoddessDustyGold -> RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 (6/23/2005 10:16:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: proudsub I wonder if this law applies to sites that show live cams like jmeeting and anywebcam. From what I am reading, it does, proud. The 24/7 live video stream is going to be a nightmare, in and of itself. Now if nothing sexual is happening, I am sure it is no big deal...but W/we know how much is happening that is sexual in that media. And that stuff is not as private as most people like to think.

ginger21 -> RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 (6/23/2005 11:30:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sub4hire quote: America has 200 years of increasing freedom and rights enforcement, not decreasing. Exactly. Anyone who really cares about this site should volunteer now. All of those profile pics that are there need reviewing. Many need to be pulled down...or the government will pull the site down. I know they have been backlogged in the past....it just got like 70,000 times worse overnight. Hell, I'm more than willing to offer my help. Word.

ginger21 -> RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 (6/23/2005 11:36:16 PM)
Wow this legislation is really scary. Now, excuse my ignorance, but I need to ask a question for some clarification. This would effect all the profile pics, avatars, and etc. correct? I just wanna make sure I understand. Edit-M3

ProtagonistLily -> RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 (6/24/2005 4:02:38 AM)
Proud, It does, probably more than still pictures because of the phrasing "Visual Depictions", which I would assume would include both moving and still images and "every performer portrayed in a visual depection of actual sexually explicit conduct." I wonder how many of you have actually read this section before you've tried to form opinions and make conversation. This law is essentially about being able to prove who your models are and that they are old enough to have been depicted in Adult material. The drawback of this new section is that it expects those records to be kept back to November, 1990. Now, reputable producers of Adult material have been aware of the more stringent record keeping requirements for some time, and those who are above board should be alright. The government wants Adult producers to A) Know who their models are who are and B) be able to prove that anyone who appears in the images that are made public are of age. Will this section make it difficult for some who haven't kept records? Yes. But this isn't an assault on those of us in alternative lifestyles. It's about forcing those who produce adult content to keep good records. Lily

Understudy -> RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 (6/24/2005 5:30:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ProtagonistLily Proud, It does, probably more than still pictures because of the phrasing "Visual Depictions", which I would assume would include both moving and still images and "every performer portrayed in a visual depection of actual sexually explicit conduct." I wonder how many of you have actually read this section before you've tried to form opinions and make conversation. This law is essentially about being able to prove who your models are and that they are old enough to have been depicted in Adult material. The drawback of this new section is that it expects those records to be kept back to November, 1990. Now, reputable producers of Adult material have been aware of the more stringent record keeping requirements for some time, and those who are above board should be alright. The government wants Adult producers to A) Know who their models are who are and B) be able to prove that anyone who appears in the images that are made public are of age. Will this section make it difficult for some who haven't kept records? Yes. But this isn't an assault on those of us in alternative lifestyles. It's about forcing those who produce adult content to keep good records. Lily While the idea behind the law may be the producers of adult material. The broad scope of the law causes anyone hosting adult images to be considered part of the production. That is one of the big problems with the law. That is why sites like gapingmaw, xtremeftetish, gay.com and others have had issue with it. Even their classified ads or just their hosting of the picture means they must keep records themselves. So all of the classified ads on gay.com with explicit images fall under the scope of the law as do all of the explicit images on collarme.com. However on the good news side of things a sitpulation has been issued that the law will not be enforced now until sept 7 th 2005. You can read more below. Free Speech Coalition P.O. Box 10480, Canoga Park, CA 91309 ph: 818-348-9373 http://www.freespeechcoalition.com pr @ freespeechcoalition.com FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE June 23, 2005 FSC/DoJ Reach Agreement Suspending 2257 Enforcement for Plaintiffs and FSC Members Denver, Co. – The Free Speech Coalition (FSC) announced today a stipulation between the parties in Free Speech Coalition et al v. Alberto Gonzales, under which the U.S. Department of Justice agrees that the regulations relating to the federal record-keeping and labeling law, 18 U.S.C. §2257, will not be enforced against plaintiffs and all FSC members until September 7, 2005. The U.S. District Court in Denver will hold a preliminary injunction hearing on August 8, 2005, after which the judge will determine whether to issue a further injunction. Specifically, the DoJ will not conduct any inspections or pursue any claims with regard to the plaintiffs and their members, but reserves the right to inspect and prosecute anyone who is not a plaintiff or FSC member. I realize that this is specfic to the members of the free speech colation as it reads most of the adult entertainment industry is part of that now and several of the websitesI mentioned. If you are not part of it you may want to consider it. Sincerely, Brendhan Please do not post full articles, this violates copyright law M3

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875