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 (6/25/2005 11:19:14 AM)
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.

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

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

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

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

SirKenin -> RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 (6/25/2005 11:33:57 AM)
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. [:@]

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

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

MadameDahlia -> RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 (6/25/2005 1:45:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Domin81 Yawns and stretches in Canada. How many more years of George Bush? Too bloody many.

GreyStorm -> RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 (6/26/2005 8:14:40 AM)
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?

Faramir -> RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 (6/26/2005 8:36:15 AM)
Yes but the TRO is limited - it only applies to FSC members and the plaintifs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

KarbonCopy -> RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 (6/26/2005 4:43:40 PM)
god bless Canada grins and burns pirated software non-illegaly

roger28 -> RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 (6/26/2005 4:51:31 PM)
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.

roger28 -> RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 (6/26/2005 4:59:23 PM)
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?

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875