The shitstorm scenario of 2257

[GenXer]

Paul Markham, I think that the PRODUCERS , the ones responsible for shooting the content, procuring models etc should be required to keep the documentation. I do NOT agree that webmasters, sponsor programs should be held accountable if a producer of content is not doing their jobs correctly. That is what the photographers are SUPPOSED to do, when photographing the content , is verify that the models are of age, as you are the one procuring the models. That is how it has always worked as you deal with these models FACe to FACE, and we do NOT! Also, it does give more privacy to the models if only the photographer and producers they dealt with and trust are the ones who have their personal information and ID's, and not every webmaster on the internet! I completely agree with the 10 Court of Appeals on the Sundance vs. Reno case that the responsibility should lie with the primary producer to keep records. I also do believe that webmasters should post who their sponsors are on the 2257 statement and the content providers that their sponsors use, as well as content providers listed if the webmaster does not use sponsor content but purchases it themselves directly from a content provider.

[Vink]

What about men stalking men. Remember the Steven Spielberg stalker.
http://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,2258,00.html
The DOJ acts like it was adult industry people that flew the planes into the twin towers.
Where is this generation's Larry Flint? Fighting it out in court. Paying his fine in pennies. Larry was the man!

[tickler]

Originally Posted by Vink

The DOJ acts like it was adult industry people that flew the planes into the twin towers.

Actually another WM on a sponsor board suggested that twisted person like W. might label us "bad" people and try to use the patriot act against us.

[ponygirl]

ok, I have to butt in with a point that is bothering me...there is concern for privacy of both models and webmasters, and that is a HUGE problem.
BUT...I also am hearing this "so what, it'll weed out the little guys, the cottage industry, the part timers" etc...so basically the only ones that can be in business are the "big guys" who have the money for offices, lawyers, record keeping and whatnot?? Look at what is happening around the world. Someday 1 corporation will own everything and then where will we be? no competition means no choice. I think we should be supporting the little guys, not trying to drive them out of business. Just because I work from my basement doesn't mean I'm not serious about it or that I'm just a fly by night type of operation.
It is very sad to me that so many single sites or webmasters are feeling that they will no longer be able to work in this industry because some narrow minded hypocrites think they know what is best for everyone else, and they are afraid of the repercussions of going public in a LEGAL industry that some people don't like.

IT'S JUST SEX FOLKS!
If they want to kill cp, do it but let us run our businesses just like everyone else has the right to.

Ponygirl

Originally Posted by ponygirl

ok, I have to butt in with a point that is bothering me...there is concern for privacy of both models and webmasters, and that is a HUGE problem.
BUT...I also am hearing this "so what, it'll weed out the little guys, the cottage industry, the part timers" etc...so basically the only ones that can be in business are the "big guys" who have the money for offices, lawyers, record keeping and whatnot?? Look at what is happening around the world. Someday 1 corporation will own everything and then where will we be? no competition means no choice. I think we should be supporting the little guys, not trying to drive them out of business. Just because I work from my basement doesn't mean I'm not serious about it or that I'm just a fly by night type of operation.
It is very sad to me that so many single sites or webmasters are feeling that they will no longer be able to work in this industry because some narrow minded hypocrites think they know what is best for everyone else, and they are afraid of the repercussions of going public in a LEGAL industry that some people don't like.

IT'S JUST SEX FOLKS!
If they want to kill cp, do it but let us run our businesses just like everyone else has the right to.

Ponygirl

Yes there are many one man bands who run a tight ship and some big companies who do not. I worked in London on my own for years and had everything legal and above board. Was even raided by police with a search warrant and they commented that my paperwork was correct and I even paid taxes. They found nothing and the paper work saved me a big lawyers bill or even prison time. Some models boyfriend had reported me for shooting underage models. The accusation false, the search warrant real.

GenXer if I motivate some to be more careful then I'm getting through to you.

Some people publish porn from a sponsor, they bought from a broker, representing a producer who holds the legal proof the model is over 18 and signed a model release stating the content could be sold. Often buyer, broker and producer are in different countries. They then give that content to affiliates.

Some can sit back and not point out the folly of this, some cannot.

So far there have been 4 underage models caught doing porn in the US. Everytime a DA looked at the case and thought of his chances of putting someone in prison. He must of considered the measures the publishers took to ascertain the models age.

Do you think he would of been more likely to get a conviction on "I do not need to have the documents because of 2256/Sundance nad did not know she was 17" or "I checked her documents which were fradulently obtained but would convince anyone"

Now add to the first one, "I got the content from a broker who got it from a guy in Russia"

you are right opinions and reputations are being formed. Think of all the companies giving you content they had no PROOF was LEGAL.

[Mr. Blue]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham2

Do you think he would of been more likely to get a conviction on "I do not need to have the documents because of 2256/Sundance nad did not know she was 17" or "I checked her documents which were fradulently obtained but would convince anyone"

So you're saying the Sundance vs. Reno verdict was a bad thing? That because secondary producers didn't have to maintain model records it would be harder to convict a CP? Correct me if I'm wrong, been working a lot tonight and I may be misreading this

Originally Posted by Mr. Blue

So you're saying the Sundance vs. Reno verdict was a bad thing? That because secondary producers didn't have to maintain model records it would be harder to convict a CP? Correct me if I'm wrong, been working a lot tonight and I may be misreading this

No what I'm saying is Sundance led to a lot of pornographers publishing porn without seeing the documents. Sundance in that light was bad.

Maintaining and checking records are different things. Because you do not need to maintain records does not absolve you from a CP conviction.

My stand is based on knowledge of the industry going back nearly 3 decades. There are many less than honest people thoughout this business, even in the US. By seeing and checking the records you are making an attempt to verify the existance and validity of the records.

Now whether those records should be handed out to someone who signs up to an affiliate program is a worrying situation which needs a better solution than what Gonzales came up with.

Sundance was a good decision about maintaining records. Some used it as an excuse to not check or allow others to check the legality of porn.

Originally Posted by GenXer

Paul Markham, I think that the PRODUCERS , the ones responsible for shooting the content, procuring models etc should be required to keep the documentation. I do NOT agree that webmasters, sponsor programs should be held accountable if a producer of content is not doing their jobs correctly. That is what the photographers are SUPPOSED to do, when photographing the content , is verify that the models are of age, as you are the one procuring the models. That is how it has always worked as you deal with these models FACe to FACE, and we do NOT! Also, it does give more privacy to the models if only the photographer and producers they dealt with and trust are the ones who have their personal information and ID's, and not every webmaster on the internet! I completely agree with the 10 Court of Appeals on the Sundance vs. Reno case that the responsibility should lie with the primary producer to keep records. I also do believe that webmasters should post who their sponsors are on the 2257 statement and the content providers that their sponsors use, as well as content providers listed if the webmaster does not use sponsor content but purchases it themselves directly from a content provider.

And you think as a pornographer you can take the word of a person you have never met, never will meet and could be in another country?

Tell that to the judge.