AmbientShade opened this issue on Jun 27, 2005 · 107 posts
soulhuntre posted Mon, 27 June 2005 at 9:32 PM
Folks really, really need to read up on things before they panic.
Title 18, section 2257 sucks and is bad law - but it isn't "new" and it certainly isn't as draconian as some are making it sound. Read the analysis for yourself, because I am not a lawyer, but here is the gist:
Now on to some specific comments...
"The responsibility for those records falls on the "producer" of the content, those who actually made it (took the pics, shot the movie, etc). A contact number/address for that record custodian must be provided on the website."
This is kind of misleading. It is currently NOT sufficient to refer the record issues to the original producer. Secondary producers must keep duplicate records on their own premises.
"How it will (if at all) affect 3D erotic art or rendered images depicting "simple nude" characters remains to be seen."
The AG guidelines (what changed) for Title 18, section 2257 >specifically< limits itself to actual humans.
"It imposes no obligations on producers of material that does not include actual, sexually explicit conduct. Thus, there is no obligation under this provision regarding graphic representations of mere erotic nudity or of simulated sex. But it does cover the waterfront of actual, sexual conduct: It includes all varieties of sexual intercourse, vaginal, anal, or oral, straight or gay, and bestiality, masturbation, and sadistic or masochistic abuse. The determination of whether the act applies to images that do not clearly display penetration or the other covered activities is simple: If it was really going on, the Section applies, even if the actual sexual conduct can't be seen in the image, due to obscuring, covering, or any other reason. (There are compelling and eminently practical reasons why that the wise content provider should harvest identity documents and information in every graphic depiction of erotic nudity whether, strictly speaking, required by the Statute, or not, and should maintain them as though covered by the Statute.)" - qouting from XXXLaw.net
Another common error...
"Wording also appears to exclude "Distributors" (as opposed to "Producers") and therefore site operators would only seem to be responsibe for record keeping on content they themselves have produced."
I suggest you read up on the "secondary producers" component... taken as a whole with the other definition in the statute it absolutely does include people who do not take the images but do arrange to display them. Don't take too much heart from the "commercial distribution" aspect, it is often interpreted in an extremely broad way.
" (2) A secondary producer is any person who produces, assembles,
manufactures, publishes, duplicates, reproduces, or reissues a book,
magazine, periodical, film, videotape, or other matter intended for
commercial distribution that contains a visual depiction of actual
sexually explicit conduct" - quote from the law
On other topics...
*"Late last week. The US government, in it's wisdome, declared that the local town or city governments can take your land away from you. Even if you own it outright. They are required to buy you out(at a significantly reduced price) before booting your ss out into the street."
This has been true for a long, long time. The recent ruling only >slightly< expanded these powers.
"Here is another little tid-bit.. (insert Native America sob story here"
Why, exactly, should this be something I need to consider? I didn't do it. No one alive today (that I know of) did it, and the sane among us refuse to carry the guilt of the sins of our fathers.