RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 - 6/25/2005 11:19:14 AM

SirKenin

Posts: 2994
Joined: 10/31/2004
From: Barrie, ON Canada
Status: offline

Also, if you are so concerned about "hotlinking" from other websites, all you have to do is disable this capability on your server. Then nobody can steal your images or your bandwidth (I know, I have two servers, one in My office and one in the States). So, Mr. Freeinternetpress really does not have a valid point.

Plus, he does not have to go to all that work to get the information about the models in question. All he has to do is request a completed copy from the producer and maintain it in his office.

I am still reading the rest of that article.

_____________________________

Hi. I don't care. Thanks.

Wicca: Pretending to be an ancient religion since 1956

Catholic Church: Serving up guilt since 107 AD.

(in reply to SirKenin)

Post #: 81

RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 - 6/25/2005 11:22:50 AM

SirKenin

Posts: 2994
Joined: 10/31/2004
From: Barrie, ON Canada
Status: offline

To Me it STILL sounds like all the onus is on the original producer of the work. The ones that make BILLIONS of dollars peddling smut EACH YEAR. If they are going to offer up their adult material, they are going to have to provide a paper trail that the government can follow.

The sky is not falling, and I do not feel the least bit sorry for them to be honest with you. I am more concerned about the rights of the children and adult models than I am about someone feeding off the lowest common denominator of society. It is not hard to ascertain whose rights should supercede whose .

< Message edited by ModeratorThree -- 6/29/2005 5:50:39 PM >

_____________________________

Hi. I don't care. Thanks.

Wicca: Pretending to be an ancient religion since 1956

Catholic Church: Serving up guilt since 107 AD.

(in reply to SirKenin)

Post #: 82

RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 - 6/25/2005 11:25:07 AM

AAkasha

Posts: 4429
Joined: 11/27/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SirKenin

quote:

ORIGINAL: sub4hire

quote:

I have asked this already and nobody has given Me an answer. I have asked anthrosub and although I was given an excellent feedback on his critique, I have yet to see ANYONE stand up and state what the problem is with secondary producers having to keep records.

From what I understand they must keep the same records the original site holder must keep. They realize that the address's are going to change over time...as info gets passed around.
That is my understanding at least.

Sorry, but I chose not to get into the childish fight that was going on.
I just don't see a reason to fight about what is affecting all of us. It is counter productive.

I'm not an expert on the law here either. I'm just quoting what I have been reading about all of this.

Yes, this is exactly the same understanding I have of it. It really is not a big deal as far as I can see. Good for the State for trying to protect children. THEY should be O/our first priority, not defending O/our supposed rights to exploit them.

Even the Association of Sites Advocating Child Protection say that 2257 won't do a thing:

"The government has the same data as ASACP. They must know that 99.9% of CP has nothing to do with the professional adult industry", said Joan Irvine, executive director of ASACP. "The new 2257 rules will not stop the production or distribution of child pornography. Adult companies already comply with the current laws; the criminals involved in CP don`t and never will." Irvine continues, "As I have said before, I wish the government would focus their time and financial resources on apprehending the real criminals and truly saving children."

http://asacp.org/press/pr062405.html

Akasha

_____________________________

Akasha's Web - All original Femdom content since 1995
Don't email me here, email me at [email protected]

(in reply to SirKenin)

Post #: 83

RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 - 6/25/2005 11:26:43 AM

AAkasha

Posts: 4429
Joined: 11/27/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SirKenin

To Me it STILL sounds like all the onus is on the original producer of the work. The ones that make BILLIONS of dollars peddling smut EACH YEAR. If they are going to offer up their adult material, they are going to have to provide a paper trail that the government can follow.

The sky is not falling, and I do not feel the least bit sorry for them to be honest with you. I am more concerned about the rights of the children and adult models than I am about someone feeding off the lowest common denominator of society. It is not hard to ascertain whose rights should supercede whose if Y/you have a brain in Y/your heads.

This new regulation does ZERO for children. So now what do you think of it?

http://asacp.org/press/pr062405.html

"The government has the same data as ASACP. They must know that 99.9% of CP has nothing to do with the professional adult industry", said Joan Irvine, executive director of ASACP. "The new 2257 rules will not stop the production or distribution of child pornography. Adult companies already comply with the current laws; the criminals involved in CP don`t and never will." Irvine continues, "As I have said before, I wish the government would focus their time and financial resources on apprehending the real criminals and truly saving children."

Akashsa

_____________________________

Akasha's Web - All original Femdom content since 1995
Don't email me here, email me at [email protected]

(in reply to SirKenin)

Post #: 84

RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 - 6/25/2005 11:31:15 AM

AAkasha

Posts: 4429
Joined: 11/27/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SirKenin

To Me it STILL sounds like all the onus is on the original producer of the work. The ones that make BILLIONS of dollars peddling smut EACH YEAR. If they are going to offer up their adult material, they are going to have to provide a paper trail that the government can follow.

The sky is not falling, and I do not feel the least bit sorry for them to be honest with you. I am more concerned about the rights of the children and adult models than I am about someone feeding off the lowest common denominator of society. It is not hard to ascertain whose rights should supercede whose if Y/you have a brain in Y/your heads.

I didn't think this was necessary to point out, but I will. This is not about whether or not you like PORN. It's not about whether or not I like it, my mom likes it, or my pastor likes it. Hell, *I* don't even like porn for the most part, and would not whine a bit if all porn was wiped off the Internet.

But this is about free speech. If you allow the government to start dictating what they feel is appropriate and not, that's wrong. Protecting the freedom of speech is more important. If people don't like porn sites, don't visit them, and don't send them money.

Akasha

_____________________________

Akasha's Web - All original Femdom content since 1995
Don't email me here, email me at [email protected]

(in reply to SirKenin)

Post #: 85

RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 - 6/25/2005 11:33:57 AM

SirKenin

Posts: 2994
Joined: 10/31/2004
From: Barrie, ON Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AAkasha
Even the Association of Sites Advocating Child Protection say that 2257 won't do a thing:

"The government has the same data as ASACP. They must know that 99.9% of CP has nothing to do with the professional adult industry", said Joan Irvine, executive director of ASACP. "The new 2257 rules will not stop the production or distribution of child pornography. Adult companies already comply with the current laws; the criminals involved in CP don`t and never will." Irvine continues, "As I have said before, I wish the government would focus their time and financial resources on apprehending the real criminals and truly saving children."

http://asacp.org/press/pr062405.html

Akasha

Well, they have to start somewhere, Akasha. W/we know that this Law carries with it very severe penalties for noncompliance. Already the pornographers will be on the defensive, as they have freely admitted that this gives the State an open invitation to raid their place of business and seize anything and everything that may pertain to a felony. They are already complaining that this is going to stamp out their pornography businesses.

I say good. Let it. Let U/us get the underhanded ones off the internet and in very short order.

Next, the State should actively pursue those that create child pornography or exploit adults against their consent (you are aware, of course, of all the "ex-wife" and "ex-girlfriend" websites out there, right?) These sites need to be shut down. This Law enables that to happen. Not keeping records will enable the State to walk in and take over, asking you to reveal the sources of your material. They can then go after the real perpetrators and bring them to justice.

Producing kiddie porn is not sensual. It is not sexual. It is sick.

_____________________________

Hi. I don't care. Thanks.

Wicca: Pretending to be an ancient religion since 1956

Catholic Church: Serving up guilt since 107 AD.

(in reply to AAkasha)

Post #: 86

RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 - 6/25/2005 11:37:24 AM

SirKenin

Posts: 2994
Joined: 10/31/2004
From: Barrie, ON Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AAkasha

quote:

ORIGINAL: SirKenin

To Me it STILL sounds like all the onus is on the original producer of the work. The ones that make BILLIONS of dollars peddling smut EACH YEAR. If they are going to offer up their adult material, they are going to have to provide a paper trail that the government can follow.

The sky is not falling, and I do not feel the least bit sorry for them to be honest with you. I am more concerned about the rights of the children and adult models than I am about someone feeding off the lowest common denominator of society. It is not hard to ascertain whose rights should supercede whose if Y/you have a brain in Y/your heads.

I didn't think this was necessary to point out, but I will. This is not about whether or not you like PORN. It's not about whether or not I like it, my mom likes it, or my pastor likes it. Hell, *I* don't even like porn for the most part, and would not whine a bit if all porn was wiped off the Internet.

But this is about free speech. If you allow the government to start dictating what they feel is appropriate and not, that's wrong. Protecting the freedom of speech is more important. If people don't like porn sites, don't visit them, and don't send them money.

Akasha

It is not abridging Freedom of Speech. This has already been established. Y/you still have the "freedom to speak"

, Y/you just have to make sure that Y/you have the records to back Y/you up.

This is partially the reason why I am saying that you are crying wolf.

_____________________________

Hi. I don't care. Thanks.

Wicca: Pretending to be an ancient religion since 1956

Catholic Church: Serving up guilt since 107 AD.

(in reply to AAkasha)

Post #: 87

RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 - 6/25/2005 11:48:30 AM

SirKenin

Posts: 2994
Joined: 10/31/2004
From: Barrie, ON Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AAkasha
Is anyone here advocating child pornography by saying these new regulations are wrong? No one said that or even remotely hinted at that.

Your argument about why this is ok is ridiculous, but I will let someone else point that out to you. I've wasted enough time. There is no logical argument why this is a good thing for children, and if having the Association of Sites Advocating Child Protection point it out to you is not enough, I guess you won't budge.

Akasha

I guess that remains to be seen, but some effort is better than no effort. This effort will stamp out a lot of underhanded websites, so that can never be a bad thing. I am sure more will be done as time marches on, but I think this is a positive first effort in protecting the rights of those that would be exploited, child or otherwise.

_____________________________

Hi. I don't care. Thanks.

Wicca: Pretending to be an ancient religion since 1956

Catholic Church: Serving up guilt since 107 AD.

(in reply to AAkasha)

Post #: 88

RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 - 6/25/2005 1:45:55 PM

MadameDahlia

Posts: 2021
Joined: 8/11/2004
From: SoCal aka Hell
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Domin81

Yawns and stretches in Canada.

How many more years of George Bush?

Too bloody many.

_____________________________

Insanity -- a perfectly rational adjustment to an insane world.
--R. D. Laing

"Oh, but if I went 'round sayin' I was Emperor, just because some moistened bint lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away."

(in reply to Domin81)

Post #: 89

RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 - 6/26/2005 8:14:40 AM

GreyStorm

Posts: 423
Joined: 1/26/2005
From: Cheeseheadland
Status: offline

I'm not gonna go read this whole thread but has it been mentioned that a TRO has been granted for 2257 until the courts can hear arguments?

_____________________________

Ahhh temptation, I have named thee and thy name is woman.

(in reply to SirKenin)

Post #: 90

RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 - 6/26/2005 8:36:15 AM

Faramir

Posts: 1043
Joined: 2/12/2005
Status: offline

Yes but the TRO is limited - it only applies to FSC members and the plaintifs.

(in reply to GreyStorm)

Post #: 91

RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 - 6/26/2005 9:04:31 AM

LadyAngelika

Posts: 8070
Joined: 7/4/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MadameDahlia

quote:

ORIGINAL: Domin81

Yawns and stretches in Canada.

How many more years of George Bush?

Too bloody many.

Agreed! And remember, your American laws do not apply to our Canadian servers :) We welcome your smut!

- LA

_____________________________

Une main de fer dans un gant de velours ~ An iron hand in a velvet glove

(in reply to MadameDahlia)

Post #: 92

RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 - 6/26/2005 10:55:07 AM

Tormentius

Posts: 71
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Domin81

Yawns and stretches in Canada.

How many more years of George Bush?

Hehe. Thats just what I was thinking over all this.

(in reply to Domin81)

Post #: 93

RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 - 6/26/2005 11:16:43 AM

Tormentius

Posts: 71
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SirKenin
I guess that remains to be seen, but some effort is better than no effort. This effort will stamp out a lot of underhanded websites, so that can never be a bad thing. I am sure more will be done as time marches on, but I think this is a positive first effort in protecting the rights of those that would be exploited, child or otherwise.

It obviously won't help with exploitation and statements of groups deal with child protection have stated this. Remember, this law affects only US citizens and servers, nobody else on the planet. Its simply another push to get rid of porn with a pretty front put on it so stupid people will welcome it with open arms.

< Message edited by ModeratorThree -- 6/29/2005 5:57:13 PM >

(in reply to SirKenin)

Post #: 94

RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 - 6/26/2005 12:29:58 PM

GoddessDustyGold

Posts: 2822
Joined: 4/11/2004
From: Arizona
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika

Agreed! And remember, your American laws do not apply to our Canadian servers :) We welcome your smut!

- LA

I can host anywhere, but if I am living in the United States I am stll liable for the records. At least that is what I have been advised.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Faramir

Yes but the TRO is limited - it only applies to FSC members and the plaintifs.

True...for those who are not members, they are immediately accountable to this regulation. For the members of FSC, if they win, everybody wins...if they lose, their members got a few months of extra time before being forced to comply.

_____________________________

Dusty
They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety
B Franklin
Don't blame Me ~ I didn't vote for either of them
The Hidden Kingdom

(in reply to LadyAngelika)

Post #: 95

RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 - 6/26/2005 1:49:51 PM

MadameDahlia

Posts: 2021
Joined: 8/11/2004
From: SoCal aka Hell
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika

quote:

ORIGINAL: MadameDahlia

quote:

ORIGINAL: Domin81

Yawns and stretches in Canada.

How many more years of George Bush?

Too bloody many.

Agreed! And remember, your American laws do not apply to our Canadian servers :) We welcome your smut!

- LA

And which server would you recommend? In the future I'll be in need of one for this sort of thing. However I'd still have to research it all and check with a lawyer or three just to be on the safe side. I'm not keen on being hauled off to prison.

_____________________________

Insanity -- a perfectly rational adjustment to an insane world.
--R. D. Laing

"Oh, but if I went 'round sayin' I was Emperor, just because some moistened bint lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away."

(in reply to LadyAngelika)

Post #: 96

RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 - 6/26/2005 4:09:14 PM

SirKenin

Posts: 2994
Joined: 10/31/2004
From: Barrie, ON Canada
Status: offline

It affects any US citizen, no matter where their server is. I would say this is a good push in the right direction. Now for other countries to follow suit.

< Message edited by ModeratorThree -- 6/29/2005 5:57:45 PM >

_____________________________

Hi. I don't care. Thanks.

Wicca: Pretending to be an ancient religion since 1956

Catholic Church: Serving up guilt since 107 AD.

(in reply to Tormentius)

Post #: 97

RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 - 6/26/2005 4:43:40 PM

KarbonCopy

Posts: 779
Status: offline

god bless Canada *grins and burns pirated software non-illegaly*

_____________________________

I am KarbonCopy's signature

(in reply to Lordandmaster)

Post #: 98

RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 - 6/26/2005 4:51:31 PM

roger28

Posts: 10
Joined: 2/21/2005
Status: offline

The law is stupid and I doubt anyone would be able to comply by it. In the past, the 2257 law was fair. But now they're making it extremely hard. In the past, most producers where happy to give the webmaster a copy of the model release form and a copy of the driver's licence (censored to remove address). But now, the producer will no longer be the only one who has the records. The producer is required to give copies of ID's to the buyer and he's forbidden from hiding parts of it. So any dishonest person/rapist/fundamentalist can claim to be a webmaster, buy the photo set and get the models address.

What does it mean for webmaster's? You got to have full ID's for each model in every porn image appearing on your site and a list of all the url's in which this model appears. All photos/videos you bought previously, you'll have to get rid of unless you can convince the producer to give you the documentation.

< Message edited by roger28 -- 6/26/2005 5:00:53 PM >

(in reply to SirKenin)

Post #: 99

RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 - 6/26/2005 4:59:23 PM

roger28

Posts: 10
Joined: 2/21/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SirKenin

The sky is not falling, and I do not feel the least bit sorry for them to be honest with you. I am more concerned about the rights of the children and adult models than I am about someone feeding off the lowest common denominator of society. It is not hard to ascertain whose rights should supercede whose if Y/you have a brain in Y/your heads.

Is that why you want all the info about adult models to be easily available to any maniac who has a website?

(in reply to SirKenin)

Post #: 100

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.094