Wired News: Blue Law Makes Webmasters See Red
SAN DIEGO — An adult industry trade association plans to head to court this week to fight new federal enforcement efforts that could catch thousands of online pørņ sites with their pants down.
Under penalty of federal prison terms, new interpretations of existing regulations would require sites that feature photographs or videos of sexual activity to keep records confirming that performers are of legal age.
So if you’re having trouble seeing profiles on Gay.com or even Yahoo.com, this is why… Gay.com has announced that they’ve had to take down ALL photos until they’re checked, because the maximum penalty is 10 years in prison per violation.
UPDATE 9/29/05: Closing comments, as this thread attracts a lot of adult spam.
• 
you wonder why you don’t hear about men being exploited? Because it does not happen.
Although, interestingly enough, I’m looking at a site right now that says in 2003, 10% of all rapes were committed against males.
So, just because nobody talks about it doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen.
Actually, tell your wife that a solid 95% of my friends are women. Which is sad. But, yeah, now that i think abut it, she is right. My point was is that it is not (again, these people are only my friends, so i might have missed something) as important a part of their lives and/or conversations. Also, I don’t think women tend to make it a purely sexual physical thing in the rather crass way that men have. (or I may just be idealizing my female friends. let me ask one) Yes, your wife is right. However, what I am hearing (and yes, i just called her and asked her) is that it doesn’t hold the same central point in women’s culture as it does in Men’s (espcially teenagers) Anyway, I might be off, but my central point still stands.
James Carter –
It does happen. I’ve worked with plenty of women who weren’t shy about making sexually based remarks. Some of them could give any man a run for his money when it came to such remarks.
It does happen – A couple years ago there was a diet soda commercial where a construction worker stopped every at the same time to drink the soda, and all the women who worked in the adjacent building rushed to the window to see him remove his shirt revealing a muscular chest.
It does happen – Often is the time I’ve heard women comment about a mans look – Hair, height, build, and yes, even his packet.
Don’t get me wrong, I have nothing against any of this. In fact it could make an otherwise dull job interesting if only for the conversations.
I’ve got a serious question for X-Ray here…
If all you do is bìŧçh and flame, WHY do you still come here? What POSSIBLE reason do you have to keep returning?
[on the whole question of who’s being exploited in pørņ] It depends on the pørņø. There are movies that show women being treated like garbage by men; there are movies where men are being treated like garbage by women; there are movies directed by women and movies where a director is all but irrelevant. Hugh Hefner is famous; so is Jenna Jameson. Some women barely make a living doing pørņ, while others can become rich. Saying pørņ exploits women is like saying comic books are for children: There are plenty of examples where it’s true, but it’s a stereotype when applied as a blanket statement.
And the discussion on the explotativeness of pørņ, or lack thereof, is a convenient way of dodging the question of whether this new regulation will do anything to curb child pornography. So far, everything I’ve read suggests it only places far more burdens on people and companies who post pørņ — without doing anything to curb child pørņ that wasn’t being done already.
What POSSIBLE reason do you have to keep returning?
Because we keep responded.
Sometimes, we just can’t help ourselves, I know.
But, if we stop, eventually he’ll give up and go find another board to troll.
Ok. I have examined what you have to say, and you are right. JosephW, I wasn’t going for a strict, taliban-like idea at all. Far from it. I am (I hope) as egalitarian as anyone can be. Michael Brunner, I didn’t want to give you the idea that I had a problem with women talking sexually. Perhaps I came off wrong on this one. My point was that women tend to be exploited by the pørņ industry, which I can see now is not always true. I got some bad information, and I thank you for correcting me. I am still not a big fan of pørņ, but I see your points. So, thanks for setting me straight on this one.
Re-examining the info,
James Carter
Hey, great news, folks!
The drapes have come down on the Spirit of Law statue at the Justice Department building!
The breast that haunted Ashcroft is being exposed again, in all it’s metal glory! 😉
“Pornography … tend[s] to show women as only sexual objects.”
In the research I’d mentioned earlier, I found that in many cases, while the woman involved was shown head-to-toe and clearly enjoying herself, the man was little more than a pëņìš and as little of his legs as could possibly be included.
Who’s being treated as “a sexual object”, a “slab of meat” in these images? 🙂
I’ve got a serious question for X-Ray here…
If all you do is bìŧçh and flame, WHY do you still come here? What POSSIBLE reason do you have to keep returning?”
—————
I am policing this site to expose liberal lies made here. For example, the haughty Peter David attempting to lie about Kerry’s vs. Bush’s college grades, etc. I am not a troll. I will be a part of this site as long as it is here.
Let’s face it, my posts are the most provocative on this site. Until I got here, it was strictly a bastion of liberal fantasy. Not anymore!
Because now I am here. And I am staying. Any liberal lie will draw a response from me. And I will always have the last word. I ain’t leaving, ever. Get used to me!
“Who’s being treated as “a sexual object”, a “slab of meat” in these images?”
I gave up already! no fair!
seriously though, although I think that you all have excellent points, and I have been revising my thinking, I still feel that there is a much larger opportunity for exploitation in the Pornography industry, and, while admitting that it is not rampant, nor should pørņ be banned, someone should keep an eye out for the few times where exploitation takes place. I myself have done some research (On Wikipedia only! I know what you were thinking!) and have discovered that, yes, I was wrong. Actually, most of that post was wrong. I admit when I am wrong, and this is one of those times. In future I will double check my info. Thanks again for the corrections.
In other news, I am pìššëd that they took down the screen covering the statue…..now I have one less thing to laugh at my conservative friends over. Oh well, there is always No Child Allowed to Move Forward…I mean, Left Behind.
It is all just another step to totall control.
Look at smoking for instance 60’s smoke all you want but the dogooders starts smoking is bad. And they the compines to put a label on the box and everone was happy. But now this group has a base and a follwing so why stop there. lets ban it from Airplans but just short flights under 2 hours or so and that was passed and the group was happy. But they were bigger now so they go an nabd ban from all flights. And public offices take it outside smokelungs. Now you can only smoke outside 50 fet away from any building…BTW I am a non-smoker never once puffed..Any time a group starts it can stop themselves and just leave well enough alone. If a kid wants pørņ he will find a way to get pørņ as if he wants to smoke or have sex….
Antoer example and once again I do not condone or even do this. But Megans law the chld molester has to register once he gets out for kid touching ok fine great no problem. But now because the Group was made and got funding for what i belive was fair and just (at the time). Now they have gone as far as towns has made laws so no former kid toucher can even live in his town setting limits of 1/2 mile from any place kids go to. Not that defend this guy for what he did , but he paid the pelenty according to our laws enough wear a ankle braclet and tell us where you live thats it done.
Drinking laws same way used to be .10 was DWI but no more .08 I bet ya soon .06
gun laws same way. I am a advid shooter so I have seen this again,again and again.
This law act whatever won’t stop what it ment to. just take your rights away little by little. Untill even the comics you read and PAD writes will be deemed pornographic…..
Well, Pat, in the case of smoking….first, it was determined that smoking was bad for the smoker….hence the warning label. Then, it was determined that smoking by a pregnant woman was especially bad for the fetus…hence, changing the label. Recently, it’s been determined that second smoke is bad for others….hence the regulations limiting where you can smoke. It’s not about some secret agenda, it’s about the public, acting through the government, taking steps to try and protect itself from an inherantly dangerous product. It’s not illegal to smoke, but just like you can’t go around downtown firing your gun at random, you can’t smoke in certain situations where you might cause harm to others that have not chosen to engage in an inherantly dangerous activity.
You can see a parallel excalation regarding child molestation…usually following some triggering event (some prior-convicted child molester gets out of prison and harms another child) resulting in more restrictive laws. Each collection of these events indicates that this is a type of criminal activity that cannot be rehabilitated, and thus justifies increasing restrictions on those that have been convicted.
This current debate is about an extension of an already existing, 15 year old law and regulation being applied to cover advances in communication technology. It’s no more nor no less restrictive than it was in the past. The hard-core pørņ industry can still make the same images and video it made before. There’s been no limitation on content.
Bobb, I don’t think anyone is suggesting that this is placing new limits on the type of content that can be produced. It is, however, making the distribution of said content online much more onerous in that it is requiring Website owners to keep on file reams of information that they were not previously required to maintain. Further, it is inequitable, as it places requirements on online “merchants” (in this case, both sites that sell pørņ and/or give it away and/or private individuals that post their own homegrown material) to maintain these files where physical so-called bricks & mortar “merchants” (i.e. your local adult bookstore or corner store or, hey, even Barnes & Noble and Books a Million sell PENTHOUSE) are not. If they were requiring bricks & mortar “merchants” to follow the same rules, then I might not have as much of a problem, at least in part.
Further, it also makes Web site owners with public forums (such as these comments) responsible for the actions of others in that they will be required to have documentation for materials posted by others — a virtually impossible task. If this ruling stands, I think many online forums and personals sites will have to forego allowing users to post images altogether.
It’s legislation that is impractical at best, and in my mind, just plain wrong despite its good intent. Perhaps being an online professional for nearly a decade, I have a more in-depth understanding of the implications than some — I do feel that some here aren’t getting why this disturbs me so.
Let me try to put it as bluntly as possible: I’m all for requiring the documentation that producers already are required to keep. But the responsibility for the documentation should remain with the producers and not with the distributors.
Perhaps the best solution is for sites — or individual pages on sites — to carry the same notices already found in magazines and on videos/DVDs, announcing where records can be found. This doesn’t solve the amateur and/or Web forum issues, but I think it addresses what the intent of this legislation seems to be.
Let’s face it, my posts are the most provocative on this site.
If ‘provocative’ means the pile of šhìŧ your neighbor’s dog leaves on your lawn every morning, then, well, I guess you qualify.
Look at smoking for instance 60’s smoke all you want but the dogooders starts smoking is bad.
Well, smoking IS bad.
Jerry:
“No. Anyone who takes something of yours and/or uses it without your consent or some form of payment has engaged in theft.”
Well, I certainly won’t argue THAT point, but that wasn’t my question.
Jerry:
“Plus, your question has nothing to do with this law. It’s not about helping to enforce copyright. Go back and reread the story in the link.”
Jerry, I think you may have misunderstood my point. I wasn’t talking about the law, I was talking about responses like this from, for example, most recently, Julio Diaz: “But the responsibility for the documentation should remain with the producers and not with the distributors.”
Harlan Ellison sued the distributors and the providers…I’m just wondering if that makes people think that he’s a censor. Let me make it clear, I have no problem with what Mr. Ellison did; indeed, I think it was the right thing to do. I also have no problem with the law, for that matter.
Harlan Ellison sued the distributors and the providers…I’m just wondering if that makes people think that he’s a censor.
Censor? No. Part of the problem with being a litigous (sp) society? Imo, yes.
It’s why I brought up the newsgroup stuff earlier, which, iirc, is part of what Ellison was suing over.
Will ISP’s be responsible for the content posted on newsgroups? Most newsgroups are public and nobody controls them.
You could argue that hte ISP’s are the “distributor” while the person who postd to the news group is the “provider”.
But then, the same applies to networks like Kazaa: Kazaa is merely the method, but they are getting sued as a distributor because the RIAA claims that they *can* control the content.
Can Kazaa really do that? Can ISP’s with newsgroups? Can Yahoo, Microsoft or AOL with their IM programs?
Well, I guess the Supreme Court gets to decide in the end – and will shortly over Kazaa.
But going back to the pørņ, I prefer to view it the same way: for the internet, this is targetting provider and distributor. But that isn’t how it works in print, where only the provider is liable.
And nobody has *still* explained how this is going to stop child pørņ.
ArizoniaTeach –
Ellison suing the distributors was because they were informed that they were engaging in illegal activity (copyright violation), but they thumbed their noses at Ellison (always a bad idea), and continued to do so.
A parallel to this matter would be if a website was told that the material they were distributing was child pørņ, and they continued to carry the material.
In both cases, the distributor originally didn’t know they were violating the law, but upon being notified that they were, they decided to do so. Therefore, they opened themselves up to the reprecussions.
Telling someone to stop stealing you private property is not censorship.
ArizonaTeach, I think you’re comparing apples to oranges. In Harlan’s case, the distributor was facilitating theft by distributing Harlan’s works from copies stored on their server, and refused to remove the copies after Harlan brought it to their attention. Had they removed the stories when Harlan requested it, I would think that they had acted responsibly and I’m reasonably sure Harlan would have been satisfied, too (not presuming to speak for Harlan, of course), and would have only gone after the original perpetrator.
I don’t think Harlan is a censor, by any means. I think he was 100% in the right.
You also need to remember we’re talking civil law versus criminal law here. I don’t think anyone was being threatened with jail time in the case of Harlan’s suit against AOL.
If you want to apply this to the case of a pornographer whose work has been stolen, then I would side with them just as I would with Harlan. Taking the complete hypothetical into consideration, the online service would be responsible for removing the data when it was brought to their attention. No problem with that, either.
If you want to amend the legislation for a provision like this — that is, that sites/services cannot be held criminally responsible for an outside user placing undocumented pørņ on their site as long as the owner of the site removes it within a reasonable amount of time after notification, then I’m amenable to that.
There is a way to make this law work in the way that it was intended: eliminate the redundant “hard copy” requirement for all distributors and require that the merchant include the notification message detailing where the records are held physically apended electronically to each image or video clip (Photoshop can store this in an image’s file info; I don’t have as much experience with video, but I imagine most video software would allow for similar encoding). That way, each individual appearing in a pornographic image/clip is documented — same as they currently are — and the onerous requirements are eliminated.
Again, I think if the people that wrote this legislation better understood how the Internet works, this legislation could have been better written and could have aavoided the messes. I’ve only been thinking about it for a day and I’ve already come up with a way to make it work without causing major upheavals.
That is, assuming that the intent of some of these lawmakers isn’t to make online distribution of pornography overwhelmingly onerous because they do not approve of pørņ at all and want to find any way to censor it that they legally can. I’m sure that in some cases, that’s EXACTLY why they wanted to pass this law.
I said: eliminate the redundant “hard copy” requirement for all distributors and require that the merchant include the notification message detailing where the records are held physically apended electronically to each image or video clip
But what I meant was “…require that the producer include the notification message…” Requiring this of the merchant would put us back at square one.
X-ray: “I am policing this site to expose liberal lies made here.”
When you typed that, I bet you stopped to gaze into the middle distance with narrowed eyes.
Julio, I see things differently. Here’s a major difference between Borders selling Penthouse, and Joe X posting the same explicit images found in an issue of Penthouse on his website (I’m not sure Penthouse contains images of explicit real sex that would fall under this regulation, but let’s assume it does).
At Border’s, you can tell that it’s Penthouse that’s the publisher…Border’s is just the vendor. Inside that issue of Penthouse you will find a reference to where their age verification of their performers can be obtained.
Now go to Joe X’s website. He’s just got some images posted…maybe he credits them, he probably doesn’t. In any case, he probably doesn’t (yet) have that notice that informs viewers where the age verification can be obtained, as Penthouse is required to do. Especially if Joe X doesn’t have some indication that his images are taken from Penthouse, there’s nothing to tell the viewer that Joe X isn’t the producer of the images.
As with almost all areas of the internet, our existing ideas and concepts are going to be tested against the ease of access and amount of information available. The purpose of this law is to prevent underage perfomers in acts of real sex for entertainment purposes. If we allow the internet to provide a loophole to this deterrent, what does that say about us?
ArizonaTeach,
I think I get what you’re saying but it’s still not quite right here. The point your’re making and the question/argument you present are square pegs for a round hole. They’re not about the subject.
Sure, Harlan sees somebody ripping him off, tells them to stop, they don’t, he sues the distributors and the providers and it’s all good. But that’s still copyright issues you’re talking about. Harlan is making the choice to sue or bless any site that he sees fit and to work out a deal for payment as he sees fit. His work, his copyrights and his choices.
This law would be like Harlan calling over the phone and letting PAD reprint a short story here and the government going after PAD on its own. It wouldn’t even help if Harlan told the government that everything was ok. The Feds come after this site and demand that PAD show written documents and records that he knows Harlan, had that phone chat, has the legal right to reprint something and that Harlan knew.
You’ve got a slightly different game going on under this law. Big Pørņ Films just gets started. BPF can do its thing and film its movies with little to fear other then mild harassment. Why? Because under all the other laws already out there they already have all of their “stars'” information (D.O.B., Soc Sec, etc.) on file and documented. They have given legal proof to the Feds that no worker under their employ is under the legal age to do their films.
Now, BPF has no problem with http://www.bobsbigpornwarehouses.site selling their films. They also have no problem with http://www.lookatpornclipsandpics.site showing stuff of theirs for free or having any number of other sites posting clips or images sent in by fans (thus we now leave copyright issues and your questions about Harlan in relation to this issue) because they see it as free ads and spreading the product name to a wider degree then they could.
Under this law though; the government can and will go after those sites, who are selling or showing bits from already documented legal BPF films, because the sites themselves don’t have the “stars'” files and documents in their records to show a Fed knocking at the door. BPF has already shown the Feds all the paperwork they have to to show that their workers are of age and legal. There should be no issue with any image or clip from any of their films because of that. This law says that there is an issue with any site that does not have those documents showing legal age showing a clip or pic even though the Feds know it’s legal because they already have BPF’s files on record. Plus, you can be facing ten years jail over this nonissue issue.
All of this under the crusade of stopping child pørņ. But, strangely, this law really doesn’t do squat about stopping the filming, showing or sale of child pørņ. So, what does it do? Step by step tactics against legal films and nothing else.
Bobb,
Go look up this law. Yes, I know it’s a pain to have to dig through all that legalese. But try. It doesn’t do anything to really stop child pørņ. It only makes people jump through hoops who shouldn’t have to. It also doesn’t leave an out for the obvious.
Look at 7-11s and ABC stores. You have to show ID if you want some booze. But have you ever seen some droid behind the counter who so lacks the skills of “obvious” that it’s funny? My dad is in his late 60’s and has more white hair and wrinkles then a sharpay (sp) puppy that fell in a tub of bleach (please do not forward this to my dad 😉 .) I’ve seen him in the last year have to show ID because, “it’s the law.”
Now put that droid logic here. You have an image or clip of two people who clearly look in their late 30’s (thus taking away any interest in it from a child pørņ veiwer to begin with.) This law doesn’t care. You have to show their IDs to a Fed droid. If you’re not the creator of the work or the employer of the people in question you will likely not have those IDs. Therefore, you face time in jail for breaking a child pørņ law despite the obvious legal age of the subjects in question.
Bonus Round:
Can you bust a site for child pørņ without this law? Yes. There are already laws out there to do that. If a site shows an image that is clearly involving persons who are not of legal age then they get busted now. If the images are questionable they get a knock on the door and they have to play 20,000 questions with the Feds. If the site’s home is in another country then it’s a whole other ball of wax. But we do have laws and agreements in some places for that as well and this law or its striking down will not effect any of that in the least.
Posted by Craig J. Ries: “If ‘provocative’ means the pile of šhìŧ your neighbor’s dog leaves on your lawn every morning, then, well, I guess you qualify.”
—————–
Thank you!
To me, the hatred of liberals is like a badge of honor.
P.S. You’re supposed to be ignoring me! Get with the program.
Sleepy: “I am policing this site to expose liberal lies made here.’ When you typed that, I bet you stopped to gaze into the middle distance with narrowed eyes.”
——-
You lose the bet.
X-ray: “You lose the bet.”
Afer that response, I’m picturing your heroic pose in front of a window. Then: lightning flash for dramatic effect!
PAD:In this context? No. Of course, people in some parts of Georgia would disagree, but that’s not what’s being discussed.
But aye, there’s the rub. Some overzealous prosecutor in GA, or more likely in Florida or Alabama is gonna seize on this and abuse it. Even if the charges are dropped after a lengthy battle, it’ll disrupt whoever’s business it is and probably put people out of work.
Oh and now that the curtain is down from the statues, can we get an $8600 refund from Ashcroft?
Michael
X-Ray: “To me, the hatred of liberals is like a badge of honor.”
Too much talk radio.
You people are not doing a very good job of ignoring me!
>>Dramatic lightning flash!
Now that we’ve had a fun thread going for awhile, there remains the real question:
How many guys out there looking for a chance to look at hardcore pørņ for free and on the job are sending in their apps to the Justice Department as we speak? 🙂
X-Ray: “You people are not doing a very good job of ignoring me!”
Heard that one already. Very quick response, too; do you do anything else on a Saturday besides staring at the PAD site, clicking “refresh” without blinking?
No!
You?
I always found it ridiculous that people think it’s okay to look at pictures of naked 18-year-olds on the Internet, but looking at pictures of naked 17-year-olds is wrong and immoral, just because the U.S. government made that the magical cut-off date for legality.
People are dumb. If a teenager wants to appear naked on the Internet, let them! What difference does it make?
The 17/18 thing is the fine line argument but pointless because an age had to be set. Why not vote at 17? Or 16? Because 18 (in most states) is the rule. Why not drive at 14? Why not drink in bars at 16? Why protect people under 18 with legal contract rules? Why not let someone talk a 12 year old into a binding legal contract that they can’t carry out so they can be sued?
You have to set parameters when you set rules. If you don’t you could get things like judge A sending you to jail for watching a pørņ film with 20 year olds because he feels that they’re too young and judge B being fine with films featuring 15 year olds.
Besides, I think that most people talking about stopping child pørņ are thinking about the sickos who produce, watch and enjoy the stuff with 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 year olds.
It’s been twenty minutes. Where are you, X-ray? Absorbed in building your bomb?
Sorry, I didn’t see your response up there. Got me!
I disagree with you, so now I’m building a bomb?
Classic. Also funny. Also typical liberalism.
Jerry I have looked up the law. It’s my review of it (and legalese doesn’t bother me, I’m a lawyer) that convinces me that there’s nothing wrong or unduly burdensome with this application. I’ve seen posters here state that every website that posts pictures is going to have to gather and collect this information for every single image they post. That statement is so far from the truth that I wonder if some people even read the top blurb.
I’ve also worked the liquor store scene, and spoken to cops about the need to card. In most cases, it’s easy to tell…I guess you’d call that using obvious skills. But try handling a Friday night rush on a Big Ten college campus, and see how well using common sense serves you in determining age.
I’ve not seen one rational discussion that supports the idea that this application is going to be adding a huge and unreasonable burden on people that want to display acts of sex on the web.
Let me toss this out to you: say we allow the web to be free from this age verification requirement. Video producers, in turn, no longer have to get this information for material they intend to distribute solely on the internet. Gone are the protections that shield minors from getting caught up in the hard-core pørņ world that exist for other mediums. THIS is the flip side of the implication coin that would result if we were to not enforce the law on internet sources. And all so that a very small population of people can post images of explicit sex on their home page without having to go through the “hassle” of keeping a record of age? Images that in most cases are stolen anyway?
That’s the thing that gets me here. Everyone I see arguing that this is a form of illegal censorship is basically saying that they’re OK with making it easier for the pørņ-industry to prey on kids.
Bobb,
I don’t think most the posts mean every image. Maybe we’re just being a wee sloppy on that. If it is obvious that the same two people are in one hundred images on your site then I know you only have to get the ID on the two people and it covers evry shot of them on the site.
“That’s the thing that gets me here. Everyone I see arguing that this is a form of illegal censorship is basically saying that they’re OK with making it easier for the pørņ-industry to prey on kids.”
No. But nothing in this looks like it does the job that well anyhow. There are laws that are much clearer and better for tracking down and shutting down child pørņ. No one is saying they want it to be easy to prey on kids or that they want to see the laws thrown out (except for maybe sorta kinda that one post.) But my reading of this law (maybe not quite as good as a lawyer’s reading) makes it look like it can be used to go after legal sites and harass them.
Look, you’re a lawyer. Your understanding of legalese is better by schooling then my limited cop understanding of it. If you can break down the legalese to real speak for everybody (just not the whole law word for word, ok 😉 ) and explain why the law can’t be used to harass legal sites or be abused to an extreme level then please do. I have no problem with being proven wrong here. I just dont like laws that look or read like this because so many get used by Pols withh an axe to grind and a base to pander too. Plus, I can’t find anything that this law does that can’t be done now by both copyright laws (stolen images) or child prøņ laws. If you can say what it will do that can’t be done now then please throw that into the debate.
Just for the record, I didn’t say most posters, just that I’ve seen posters making statements that expand the range of this law.
The way I understand the requirements of this law, i don’t see how it’s burdensome. All you need to have on record is the real (birth) name of the performers, their birth info., and the aliases they have performed under. You keep this in an accessible format…someone mentioned that it has to be in paper format, but that’s not in the law. And I agree with you, it’s not for every image, just every perfomer. If you use repeats, you don’t need to keep a seperate paper record for each image or video, just each performer.
I don’t see why a computer record wouldn’t be sufficient. Keep the records that way, and you don’t need to increase any physical storage space for anyone. And since this is all PC storage, maybe some hosts would want to upgrade their hard drive, but for most PC savvy folks, they’re just looking for excuses to upgrade.
For those that use these images illegally, they’re going to be in trouble. The reason being, when you pay for the right to use the images, now the seller can also include the electronic files that contain the required information. And the law includes a provision for those that are not the originators of the images. They need to have the verification available, and hae a statement on their site where that verification can be found (“on the PC where these images reside” might be enough), but they are not held responsible for accuracy of the information…the orignal producer is the only one held to this.
Why don’t regular anti-child pørņ laws address these issues? It’s in the nature of the images this regulation is intended to cover. This is intended to cover the pørņ industry, and prevent thse use of underage performers in it. It’s intended to prevent the next Traci Lords from coming around. Lords lied about her age, and the industry went ahead and didn’t verify her information. As a result, she had a very notorious career before the age of 18…all of which is legally child pornagraphy. This law is practically a direct result, forcing the adult pørņ industry to take responsibility to ensure that it’s performers were of legal age.
Copyright law only covers a portion of this issue. I don’t think one of the goals is to stop the unauthroized use of pørņ…that’s just a side effect.
Bobb, not sure if your comments refer to my responses, but they seem to. Let me try to spell this out as clearly as possibe:
I’m not opposed to this kind of documentation, which is already kept on file be responsible, legitimate pørņ producers. What I’m opposed to is treating Web site owners differently than bricks and mortar pørņ purveyors. I’d have no probem with Web sites having to run the notices that appear in magazines and on videos directing concerned parties to the producers’ files of records for age verification. I just don’t believe that a Web site owner should have to duplicate said records when the same isn’t required of a b&m adult book store.
In short, no, I’m not saying the Web should be free of this documentation. I’m simply saying that the burden of verification belongs on the producers and not the distributors. You’re making the assumption that producers of Internet-exclusive pørņ content have been exempt of this record-keeping in the past.. I’m not sure whether that’s true, but if it is, I’ve no problem with closing that loophole. I just don’t think it’s necessary or equitable to require every distributor of content to duplicate the records. Yes, document, but do it at the production level.
(Think of it this way: substitute “comics” for “pørņ,” and what I’m saying is make DC and Marvel keep records, not Diamond or your local comic shop. Self-publishing or posting your own original exclusive content online? Then you’re responsible for the record keeping.)
I have no problem with requiring sites to include the original producers’ age verification notices — in fact, I think it’s a good idea. This could either be done publicly on their sites or via embedding the info into the images and video clips. I’d prefer the ofrmer because the latter is an assistance to people that steal copyrighted materials — if the documentation notice is embedded, the thief is automatically protected. I have no problem with theives being made to pay for their theft, and since they’re unlikely to be prosecuted for copyright violations, let it be on their heads if they choose to steal something and then not refer to the proper documentation.
As to the chilling effect this could have on sites that allow posting of pictures: you’re just not seeing the enormity of this as it would affect even a medium-volume site. Part of my job is maintaining and moderating an active message board, but I only work 40 hours a week and nobody else polices it, so on a weekend, it can be nearly three days before I catch something posted that’s not allowed on our boards. So someone posts something that violates this law on Friday evening, and there’s little chance it will be seen by anyone in a position to do anything about it until Monday morning — much less determine the origin of the image and whether documentation is on file. Start threatening criminal charges, and most large forums are going to decide its not worth the manpower to keep their forums monitored 24-7, nor is it worth the legal risk, so it’s either no images allowed or bye-bye forum.
I’ll come to the half way ground on some of your points but still have issues with most of this.
On Traci Lords:
“This law is practically a direct result, forcing the adult pørņ industry to take responsibility to ensure that it’s performers were of legal age.”
We don’t need a law to deal with the age of pørņ actors. We’ve had 18 U.S.C. 2257 for around 15 or so years. That was intended to prevent the next Traci Lords from coming around and has to the best of my knowledge.
“Why don’t regular anti-child pørņ laws address these issues? It’s in the nature of the images this regulation is intended to cover. This is intended to cover the pørņ industry….”
Uhmmmm….. I’ve never come across an anti-child pørņ law that said, “this law covers all media or subject matter except the pørņ industry itself.” Am I’m missing something here or did you miss a line inbetween thought and type?
And, again, none of what you posted addresses the problems of fan sites or other sites that the creators and actors in pørņ don’t mind being up and using the images. If a site is using images that the Feds know are legal images of legal aged actors because they’re from an already documented worker from a legal film company; why isn’t that enough? If Patty Pørņ is a known actress and her films are legal then it should be, duh, obvious that any clip or pic from her films are of an actress of legal age and are in fact legal. This new law is almost like saying that every store that sells a cold and flu med has to prove with its own tests and trials that it’s safe or else despite the FDA already having done so.
It just looks like a needless law that adds nothing and can be used to harass legal sites for no reason other then the law makers not liking the content.
Julio, the major difference between a brick and mortar store carrying a magazine and a web site hosting an image is that, at the physical store, you aren’t just buying a single image (or maybe you can…I’ve never been inside a dedicated pørņ outlet)…you’re buying a magazine with a publisher attached. At the website, all you see is the image…no publisher, no way to trace the image, see who the publisher is, or tell whether the image was created by the webhost or someone else.
Jerry, this isn’t a new law…it’s an old law (15 years) being applied to address changing media situations. Patty Pørņ may bery well be a “recognized” of age performer…now. But how long has her career been? Did she make anything when she was 17? Do all her films have copyright dates, and are the accurate? 2257 requires the industry to plice itself, and why should that industry have a web-loophole? The glaring problem with allowing web images to be exempt from this requirement is that it removes the requirement for the industry to police itself. Which allows for the next Traci Lords to come along. And while these images may eventually be discovered as violating other anti-child pørņ laws, the images were still taken. And maybe that next 15 year-old Traci Lords, much as I believe Ms. Lords herself has said, will later regret a decision she makes when she’s 14.
Existing anui-pørņ laws didn’t prevent Traci Lords (and who knows how many other underage girls) from falling into the hard-core pørņ industry. 2257 works at closing that gap by forcing the industry to police itself. There is some additional burden placed on those wanting to post explicit images on their web-site, but I for one think that to be a bearable cost. it’s not excessive or even difficult to create and maintain. And if it serves to keep our children out of the pørņ industry, at least until they are of legal age to make such decisions on their own, I really fail to see how anyone could oppose this application of this law.
Bobb, we’re finally getting in the same page. What I propose is that the Web site be forced to carry the same notice that a printed magazine or a DVD contains, identifying the producer and the producer’s record house. Keep the burden on the producer, as it already is. Again, I don’t have a problem with the notices, I only have a probelm with who is required to maintain them. These notices could appear on every page of the site or could be embedded electronically into the images/videos. I have no problem with making the average pørņ site responsible for posting these notices; I do have a problem with them being responsible for maintaing records on content that they did not produce. I responsible producer should already be keeping these records; if they’re not (or if previously, a loophole meant that they weren’t required to), then close the loophole and prosecute the producers.
As far as third party posting to a site (as in semi-anonymous users on a message board or personals site), I think in those cases the site owner should be notified of the images and then given a brief time period to either remove the image or obtaain documentation if they would like to let it stand.
As written, this law will have a massive effect on message boards and personals sites as we know them — even non-adult sites. If it stands as written, many large forums will simply either disallow images or cease to exist because they cannot afford the man-hours necessary for such a large undertaking. Apply the rules and exemptions I suggest above, andthen I’m 100% on your side.
From the news reports;
“The new regulations are scheduled to go into effect June 23.”
The bits causing the dust up are new. They’re not themselves 15 years old. They also don’t seem to do much to stop child pørņ that the laws already on the books don’t already do.
But, at this point, lets agree that we can find some common middle ground but have our own ideas about the rest of it. I don’t care about legal pørņ or its fate one way or the other as it is. I just dislike laws that seem made to play bit by bit games with legal activities and extra laws or regs that add extra paper in the code books and little else. You feel one way and I the other about this one.
Julio, the problem I have with your reasoning is that the web isn’t just a distributor. It is a unique animal that is distribution by way of publication. Every web page is a published document, and therefore they have the same burdens that a print publisher has. B&N is not publishing their elicit material, ONLY distributing it; a website publishes to distribute.
Where I’m coming from will probably invalidate my opinion to most of the people here, but here it is: I believe in absolutes. I believe in objective right and wrong. Pørņ is wrong in my opinion. Sex belongs in a marriage and nowhere else.
Having said that, though, I believe in free speech. Regulating things is okay to a certain degree (and I applaud this resolution), but despite thinking pørņ is wrong, I would be loath to outlaw it. Pørņ, like burning a flag, is a weird animal covered by the first amendment. I’d love it if every pornographer repented and never produced another elicit image, but as long as the people producing and buying it are willing participants, the government should have no say in the matter, EXCEPT for legislating it to protect the unwilling and underage.
Jerry and Julio, I think we’d all agree that this application isn’t the best fit to the internet issue. That’s going to be the case in a variety of fields as existing laws and regulations get applied to this new beast that people are just beginning to learn the power of. Just think about this: When I was in school, you had to learn things only from books, and that meant going to the library and finding the books you needed. And that was pretty much the model for the 60 years prior to that.
I’ve been out of high school for 16 years, and today, with just a simple Google search, kids in school have access to 100 times more information than I would have found spending a day at the library. That’s a huge leap in the way we process, record, and access information that our society is still stuggling to assimilate. This is really just another example of the struggles we’re going to see.
Fair enough.
I will try one more shot at the loophole existing anti-child pørņ laws leave without this application (or one like it).
Let’s take the case of Traci Lords, and bump it up to today. Erase from everyone’s brain the knowledge that she’s underage. And instead of having her work for a direct to DVD producer, she works for a web-only producer. Since the producer doesn’t produce anything that is sent through the mail, his product (.jpg files or something similar) is, under the old application of 2257, no subject to the age verification requirements. So Ms. Lords lies about her age, and the producer doesn’t take any action to verify. He then goes on to make several internet-only movies using Ms. Lords.
Legally, all these images are illegal, as they feature an underage performer. But the producer didn’t intend to make an illegal image, and he thought it was legal. (I’m unaware if there’s an intent aspect to child pørņ, or if possession is enough to convict)
Addiitonally, all the images the producer sells are illegal, yet again, those that download the images think they are getting legal material. Can any of them be prosecuter? Should they?
Now consider that a secondary site starts making these same images available, but markets them as featuring an underage performer. Those that download this image can be charged, UNLESS they can somehow prove that they saw an thumbnail image, recognized the performer, and thought “but I know she’s not underage…her bio says so…”
It’s this kind of situation 2257 was passed to address, which existing anti-child pørņ laws don’t do a good job of preventing. By placing the burden on the producer, 2257 provides an extra level of protection to keep underage performers from becoming involved in the industry.