Which Spons are Ready for 2257 Change?

2005-05-29, 03:36 AM

Everyone agrees this law is a hammer to crack a nail and will be over turned. But to think positive for a moment.

The Adult Net herd is in bad need of a cull, this could do it.

Some will drop out because they will not post their home address and can't afford an office. some will drop out because they do not have the money to buy new content that is compliant and some will drop out through fear.

It will not cost one single surfer and the good news is ites without 2257 documents just became illegal. Like Frukster.

ngb1959 · 2005-05-29, 04:01 AM

Saw this at another board about IM LIVE:

The owners and operators of this website are not the primary producer (as that term is defined in 28 C.F.R. § 75.1(c)(2)) of any of the visual content contained in this website.However, Imlive.com may have copies of a record of the ages of those persons portrayed in any sexually explicit materials on this site. ImLive.com WILL NOT RELEASE THESE RECORDS TO ANYONE OTHER THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATE, OR HIS DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE, OR AS OTHERWISE REQUIRED BY OPERATION OF LAW.
In fulfilling its obligations under 18 U.S.C. § 2257, ImLive.com relies on the plain language of the statute and on the well-reasoned decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in Sundance Associates, Inc. v. Reno, 139 F.3d 804, 808 (10th Cir 1998), which held that entities which have no role in the "hiring, contracting for, managing, or otherwise arranging for the participation" of the models or performers, are exempt from the record-keeping requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 2257.

So which is it? are webmasters producers, or exempt as I'm Live states..."entities which have no role in the "hiring, contracting for, managing, or otherwise arranging for the participation" of the models or performers, are exempt from the record-keeping requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 2257"

It's clear that Imlive is either planning on going to court or is hoping others will in order to get certain aspects of the new law overturned. That part seems to be implying they are holding up precidence that the "secondary" producer section is not legaly binding. It's possible that ImLive is a member of the FSC and is part of the legal action that will be taking place soon. If in fact that part of the new law is overturned, then a lot of the 2257 discussions right now will become moot.

Any thoughts?

2005-05-29, 04:01 AM	#2
ngb1959 Oh no, I'm sweating like Roger Ebert Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: In A Box, A Big Old Box Posts: 501	Saw this at another board about IM LIVE: The owners and operators of this website are not the primary producer (as that term is defined in 28 C.F.R. § 75.1(c)(2)) of any of the visual content contained in this website.However, Imlive.com may have copies of a record of the ages of those persons portrayed in any sexually explicit materials on this site. ImLive.com WILL NOT RELEASE THESE RECORDS TO ANYONE OTHER THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATE, OR HIS DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE, OR AS OTHERWISE REQUIRED BY OPERATION OF LAW. In fulfilling its obligations under 18 U.S.C. § 2257, ImLive.com relies on the plain language of the statute and on the well-reasoned decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in Sundance Associates, Inc. v. Reno, 139 F.3d 804, 808 (10th Cir 1998), which held that entities which have no role in the "hiring, contracting for, managing, or otherwise arranging for the participation" of the models or performers, are exempt from the record-keeping requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 2257. So which is it? are webmasters producers, or exempt as I'm Live states..."entities which have no role in the "hiring, contracting for, managing, or otherwise arranging for the participation" of the models or performers, are exempt from the record-keeping requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 2257" It's clear that Imlive is either planning on going to court or is hoping others will in order to get certain aspects of the new law overturned. That part seems to be implying they are holding up precidence that the "secondary" producer section is not legaly binding. It's possible that ImLive is a member of the FSC and is part of the legal action that will be taking place soon. If in fact that part of the new law is overturned, then a lot of the 2257 discussions right now will become moot. Any thoughts? __________________ Ubuymenow Internet Shopping Dreamypleasures Free Porn

2005-05-29, 03:36 AM	#1
Paul Markham2 Guest Posts: n/a	Everyone agrees this law is a hammer to crack a nail and will be over turned. But to think positive for a moment. The Adult Net herd is in bad need of a cull, this could do it. Some will drop out because they will not post their home address and can't afford an office. some will drop out because they do not have the money to buy new content that is compliant and some will drop out through fear. It will not cost one single surfer and the good news is ites without 2257 documents just became illegal. Like Frukster.