Free Speech Coalition Meeting in Vegas at the Lingerie Convention - Synopsis

MrYum · 2005-10-11, 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedCherry

I did talk to Clyde afterwards, and one thing he was pretty confident on was the overturning of the secondary producer requirements of 2257. I was happy to hear that. Lets all hope that comes about.

Thanks very much for the update

Think the above referenced section is the biggie for a lot of free site builders...this one included. Would sure be great to see that portion go away.

RedCherry · 2005-10-11, 11:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrYum

Thanks very much for the update

Think the above referenced section is the biggie for a lot of free site builders...this one included. Would sure be great to see that portion go away.

I agree, and I DO NOT want to see the part added about lavicious depictions of the genital area added, or for them to interpert that even if clothed would need 2257. I just want to smack some of these people that make the laws.

MrYum · 2005-10-12, 12:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedCherry

I agree, and I DO NOT want to see the part added about lavicious depictions of the genital area added, or for them to interpert that even if clothed would need 2257. I just want to smack some of these people that make the laws.

I know darlin...it's a fuckin sad time these days in the states

I've joined both the FSC and ACLU...want to support anyone willing to take up the fight. Otherwise, we're pretty much fucked...with no lube.

Hell, even bought some great domain names to get the public involved, but don't have time to develop them and still make a living. If you know anyone with the time and interest...pm me...hell, I'll give em a domain!

CatsEye · 2005-10-12, 01:14 AM

Thank you very much for posting your notes on what they had to say!

It's part nerve-wracking and part encouraging; still, hearing anything from them about what's going on really is helpful.

Cheers-
CatsEye

KG Gary · 2005-10-12, 05:43 AM

It's great that so many people are out there fighting these ridiculous proposals, and hopefully they'll make enough difference to protect US webmasters. That secondry producer nonsense really sucks.

Being in the UK I'd read a few scary reports that this would be applied to adult webmasters based ANYWHERE in the world, as we would be offering our "non-2257 compliant" material to US citizens. I was extremely concerned as a budding UK LL owner, so I emailed the ICO (information commisioner's office) here in the UK back in July with a few questions and recieved this response:

"If you are a web operator based in the UK then you will not be subject to this law. On the other hand, if you are a web host whose client is a US based web operator – that is, you merely host the site using equipment in the UK and do not determine the content of that site – then it is your client that will be subject to the US law"

I know it's not much help to most of you folks, but wanted to share the info anyway in case any UK webmasters were worried.

Is there a chance that non-US site owners will be affected by US LL owners etc not listing their sites due to not having a proper 2257 statement? Isn't that where this "secondry producer" comes into play?

Just because 2257 doesn't (hopefully) affect non-US webmasters doesn't mean we shouldn't support the fight!

2005-10-12, 01:14 AM	#4
CatsEye Trying is the first step towards failure Join Date: May 2005 Location: Washington (no, the NICE one.) Posts: 128	Thank you very much for posting your notes on what they had to say! It's part nerve-wracking and part encouraging; still, hearing anything from them about what's going on really is helpful. Cheers- CatsEye

2005-10-12, 05:43 AM	#5
KG Gary I can now put whatever I want in this space Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: South East UK Posts: 744	It's great that so many people are out there fighting these ridiculous proposals, and hopefully they'll make enough difference to protect US webmasters. That secondry producer nonsense really sucks. Being in the UK I'd read a few scary reports that this would be applied to adult webmasters based ANYWHERE in the world, as we would be offering our "non-2257 compliant" material to US citizens. I was extremely concerned as a budding UK LL owner, so I emailed the ICO (information commisioner's office) here in the UK back in July with a few questions and recieved this response: "If you are a web operator based in the UK then you will not be subject to this law. On the other hand, if you are a web host whose client is a US based web operator – that is, you merely host the site using equipment in the UK and do not determine the content of that site – then it is your client that will be subject to the US law" I know it's not much help to most of you folks, but wanted to share the info anyway in case any UK webmasters were worried. Is there a chance that non-US site owners will be affected by US LL owners etc not listing their sites due to not having a proper 2257 statement? Isn't that where this "secondry producer" comes into play? Just because 2257 doesn't (hopefully) affect non-US webmasters doesn't mean we shouldn't support the fight!