That was an EXCELLENT summary of 2257! Well said! -Halcyon
On 1/2/06, Stephanie Bryant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 > > > > > > > -- www.SpreadingThePink.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/
