2257 Rant

[jonnydoe]

OK...It seems that almost every other thread ends up with some 2257 shit. The final ruling on 2257 compliance will be in a few weeks and we will know a little bit better where we all stand. Of course, I am no attorney, but common sense comes into play here. I don't care if you are in Ubekistan or Utah, if you are promoting any kind of C+P you are in deep shit and should be. I don't think that anyone here at Cozy is in that situation. I really don't think many people or sponsors that are US-based are. You have to look at the "spirit of the law". This thing is after underaged performers or really more at unwilling underaged participants. If you live in Holland, the FBI is not going to come after you because you are promoting a famous pornstar, that is 35 years old, and expect you to have a copy of her driver's license. Even if you are in the states, if you are secondary they are not going to come after you unless you piss them off for some other reason.

My advice is:

Don't be stupid and promote a bunch of young chicks with pigtails and braces.

Get your system prepared to track 2257. Talk to your sponsors and see what they will do. I have some that give it all to me. I have some that are still copping out and waiting. I have some that will probably gamble on being off-shore.

What pisses me off:

#1) I haven't seen where they have used 2257 to tack on punishment for any C+P scumbag.

#2) This expansion is all part of the Adam Walsh Act, which I think every adult webmaster would agree that that kind of heinous crime should be punished to the fullest extent. In fact, I think these kinds of people (the C+P sickos) should get the death sentence (which is another debate entirely). So the way it looks now is that anyone who submits galleries, freesites, blogs, etc. will need to publish their home address on their work. The courts have already ruled that this kind of personal information can be re-dacted to protect performers...but what about us. I am a pretty easy going guy and I even get my occasional death threats.

Anyway I will probably get reamed for this thread but we all need to get real...

[Cozy Monica]

I think laws like this are used to give the government good face. They use it as an excuse to take down some of the more extreme people on the fringes of porn, and make society happy that they're doing something about that "filth".

It's unfortunate that laws like this do nothing to actually prevent the stuff it is supposed to prevent.

[Lana]

I'm sure Monica will agree, here in Canada if you get caught producing CP or brutal violence with sex, you get caught and go to jail. Simple.
I don't understand all the screaming broohaha and media hype and scary warnings that go on down there.
If it's illegal, stop it. And if it's not, let it be. Let's get the laws straight so everybody knows.
I don't mean to be rude but the greatest power in the world has to grow up a little when it comes to um you know that s*e*x* word.
You guys produce more porn than anybody but your government is the most anal in the western world.
America baffles me, but I absolutely love it.
I'm confused.

[balls_deep]

a very nice and welcome rant jonnydoe. Some very valid points and I can't disagree with a single one of 'em.

[razor]

Good points raised, jonny.

[Hammer]

Actually, I think you're missing the point.

2257 became a law about 12 years ago thanks to an underage porn actress named Tracy Lords. That law is a records keeping law which applied to people that 'produced' porn and was intended for use in videos and magazines.

Fast forward to 2005 and George Bush and his moral majority buddies and a sick fuck named John Ashcroft who all decide to take advantage of 2257 and modify it to include anyone that is involved in making adult websites and they decide to call them 'secondary producers'.

That didn't fly so the next step was to find a way to call us all something besides 'secondary producers' and make us all 'producers', even though we didn't actually 'produce' the porn.

How? By tacking it onto the Adam Walsh bill, which has nothing to do with the porn industry. They take a good law named after a poor child who was brutally murdered and bastardize it to fit their purposes.

In no way, shape, or form was any of this intended to stop CP. It was all intended to eliminate porn. Period.

[razor]

Good old fashioned politics.

[jonnydoe]

Originally posted by Hammer
It was all intended to eliminate porn. Period.

Good point and good luck to them there ;-) It will be interesting to see what the clarifications are regarding the record keeping requirements as they apply to most of us. I think I know what they will rule and it doesn't look good. Although I suppose that "secondary" has pretty well been stricken from the legislation and that we are all "primary" I don't think that we will really know where we stand until a "secondary" producer is actually inspected.

Waiting for the other shoe to drop...

[tickles]

So, does every library that has a book with an 'obscene' picture or stories that could be classified as written porn (e.g., romance novels) have to maintain the records? Every grocery store that carries these novels? These places are also 'producers' of this material -- yes?

This is ridiculous.

[Hammer]

I've never seen an obscene or explicit picture in a romance novel and 2257 has nothing to do with obscenity or the written word or illustrations. It's simply a law that requires anyone that produces 'explicit' photraphic or video content of actual human beings to keep documents to prove the model's aqes.

A grocery store in not a producer or secondary producer so your analogy doesn't work. The grocery store isn't selling obscene or explicit material in the first place, and in the second, they simply put it on the shelves for people to pick up. On the other hand, a webmaster actually handles the photos and videos. In many cases he resizes and crops them and then he places them on a page that he's designed to make money from and then he 'publishes' the material by uploading it to a server so it's available on the web.

[tickles]

My example wasn't very good.

My real question would be -- is distributing really 'producing'?

What about video feeds -- I don't actually serve that content via my server.

[Hammer]

Originally posted by tickles
My real question would be -- is distributing really 'producing'?

No, distributing is not producing, but publishing is. If you have an adult video store and all you do is sell or rent adult dvds, you would not need to keep records. But, if you produced the video, you would.

When it comes to photos, if you have an adult book store and simply sell adult magazines, you would not need to keep records, but if you produced the photos in the magazine or published the magazine, you would.

When it comes to the Net, if you host an adult website, you do not need to keep the records, but if you produced the explicit adult content on that website (photos or videos), or if you are the webmaster that published that content by placing it on your page and uploading it to your server, you would.

If you link to explicit content on a sponsors site, you do not need to keep records, unless the image you use to link to that site is explicit.

p.s. Everything I stated above assumes you are not using illegal content. For example, the adult video store does not need to comply with 2257, but they do need to comply with obscenity laws and if they rent or sell CP, rape, or any other illegal videos, they would obviously be breaking the law.

[tickles]

Thanks! I appreciate your feedback...

[jonnydoe]

Originally posted by Hammer
p.s. Everything I stated above assumes you are not using illegal content. For example, the adult video store does not need to comply with 2257, but they do need to comply with obscenity laws and if they rent or sell CP, rape, or any other illegal videos, they would obviously be breaking the law.

This is the root of my rant. The way the law is being portrayed is that even if you are using grannies (legal content) they can lock you up if you don't have the old lady's driver's license on file. Well...and the other part is that they are not using this law against the C+P creeps. They could tack time on just like they do with racketeering cases. They obviously are producing the content and don't have docs for it. Again, it will be interesting to see it tested on a "secondary".

Another point...what if the adult bookstore owner cuts a centerfold out of a Penthouse for display and merchandising purposes? I see that no differently than cropping a thumb or cutting a vid.

[Hammer]

Originally posted by jonnydoe
Another point...what if the adult bookstore owner cuts a centerfold out of a Penthouse for display and merchandising purposes? I see that no differently than cropping a thumb or cutting a vid.

Cutting a page out of a magazine is not 'publishing', but placing a photo on a web page and then uploading that page to a server is.

[jonnydoe]

but your honor ;-)

[balls_deep]

Originally posted by jonnydoe
but your honor ;-)

[Hammer]

Originally posted by jonnydoe
but your honor ;-)

One more outburst like that and I'll have the bailiff remove you from this courtroom.

[jonnydoe]

hehe...you'll have to have him scrape me up here is south Florida ;-)

[Sneaky]

Awesome Debate guys, I'm learning alot about 2257 from this one thread.