As Halcyon said-- this is only relating to pornography, not copyright. Under the new rules, sites that redistribute adult content (including websites) would have had to maintain a separate copy of the documentation (drivers license, model release form, age verification form) of each actor appearing in every item they publish. Previously, this documentation was only kept by the studio producing the material. On the back of every porn DVD and in the fine print on every primary producing adult website, you can find an address where these records could be inspected during business hours. Any adult studio maintains these records as a matter of their business practices. To require it of every website owner who scans and posts a DVD cover for purposes of selling that DVD is a fast way to putting porn websites out of business or offshore (the way the rules were changed, without any congressional oversight, means that there cannot be a significant financial impact of the rules change-- Gonzales basically lied flat-out in changing these rules when he said they didn't have an impact).
Anyway, here's a fun entanglement with copyright, though: Under current copyright laws, a copyright violation is a civil offense, resulting in civil damages (fines). However, if the secondary producer clause had remained, someone copying a DVD and re-publishing it would not just be a copyright violation. The aggrieved party could then call the FBI, tell the FBI "they don't have documentation" and have the offender thrown in prison. The first offense is worth 5 years of hard time. Each subsequent offense is worth 10 years, and the rules were supposedly retroactive, meaning they could get you for not having documentation even before you were required to keep it. I think most of us can agree that 10 years in prison for breaking a copyright on a legal product is excessive (10 years in prison for breaking child porn laws is not). These rules, by the way, don't actually catch child pornographers, who work outside of the adult entertainment industry. The industry polices its own and effectively shuts out anyone with ties to child porn. --Stephanie On 1/2/06, Joshua Kinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Stephanie, > > Can you point me to any documentation on this "secondary producer > clause" and what it means? > > I've been wondering about how sites like iFilm.com and YouTube.com > persist seemingly without liability even though they willfully display > content they have no right to broadcast (SNL clips and other content > they do not have permission to distribute). > > Does this clause cover sites like this or does it only relate to pornography? > > -Josh > > > On 1/2/06, Stephanie Bryant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Eddie, > > > > As of last week, the secondary producer clause was struck down (yay!). > > Blip.tv can't get into trouble for some jerk posting porn to their > > service. > > > > I say "can't," but everyone needs to be aware that individual DA's > > have prosecuted (and persecuted) people for selling/providing adult > > material even when the material was not sold, targeted, distributed or > > otherwise meant for their local community. So, while the law no longer > > requires blip.tv to have all the underage reporting and documentation, > > that's no guarantee that some overzealous "porn task force" at the FBI > > won't decide to take it upon themselves to go after them, and the > > resulting legal quagmire can land Enric and all the blip.tv servers in > > court for years. Also, if some jerk posts child porn, Enric has to > > remove it immediately, even if it's not theirs. [And it'd be smart to > > call the cops if that happened, in case you can track down the source > > and fry them over an open grill.] > > > > We've been watching this very closely in my house, since hubby's biz > > depends on it. Check freespeechcoalition.com for updates on free > > speech issues in the adult industry if you're interested. > > > > On 1/1/06, Eddie Codel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Seems like a bigger issue is how does someone like blip or Veoh deal > > > with the newly expanded 2257 reporting requirements? Wouldn't they be > > > considered a > > > "secondary producer" in the eyes of the feds? > > > > -- > > Stephanie Bryant > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Vlog: http://mortaine.blogspot.com > > Audioblog: http://bookramble.blogspot.com > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > -- Stephanie Bryant [EMAIL PROTECTED] Vlog: http://mortaine.blogspot.com Audioblog: http://bookramble.blogspot.com Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
