Rotten.com censored by new law

Post by **MKJ** » Sat Jun 25, 2005 2:36 pm

i think dave is a lot of things, but gullible is not one of them

Post by **Uaintseenme** » Sat Jun 25, 2005 2:38 pm

why not just implement every web browser with a child proof ( 17 and under ) lock? I'm sure Microsoft can think of a way to do that, I mean, just look at Longhorn for fucks sake.

Post by **Foo** » Sat Jun 25, 2005 2:40 pm

Look at the number of people here who's opinion is along the lines of (classic example 1st post 2nd page)
"good law, i don't need to see that shit"

Demonstrates the point that, once you realise this law's actual effect (and it's got fuck all to do with reducing the spread of child pornography in the US) you also realise how easy it is to get people to accept it despite being a complete load of bollocks.

But hey, small-time porn posters on the internet are helping to fund terrorism.

Sat Jun 25, 2005 6:08 pm

One major point you're forgetting here foo. No one here is posting these booty threads for a profit. Your free speech here is still in tact, you just can't try to turn a profit off it, and you still don't want to post child porn.

Post by **Dave** » Sat Jun 25, 2005 6:40 pm

Foo wrote:
Dave wrote:2257 really is a good thing. It forces potential child pornographers to think about what they're doing and keeps others legitimate. I'm sure it sends the 'bad guys' further underground, but it keeps it off the open net. Yahoo just killed all their sex related chat rooms in the last day or so, which also helps protect children from the same kinds of people
Bollocks. You won't find any underage content hosted in the US before or after this law is passed because the US is already sufficiently regulated for that. Any complaint made regarding underage content on a website in the US results in a takedown and the owner being arrested (if it's an accurate accusation).

The rest of the problem centers around sites hosted outside of the US, and files available on the darknet (neither of which is affected at all by this new law).

The tangible effect of this new law is all forms of pornographic content provision on the web become much more expensive to run, and linking to or pseudo-hosting (think, keeping one or two very softcore images on your webspace for bootay threads) is now illegal.

Anyone here who's ever participated in a booty thread would be a lawbreaker under this legislation.

But sure... it's a good thing, because it's 'for the kids'. Lol, so gullible.

Bollocks to you too. The law forces accountability and breaks the anonymity of the internet in one of the major areas that leads to the exploitation of children. It keeps the legit people legit, keeps the child pornographers from selling a product in the open. If someone has questions about a site's product, they can look for the 2257 warning and verify the site is selling something legal by contacting a real person.

Your personal booty point is irrelevant since no one here posts naked women and even if they did, the source for those images is probably a pr0n site that keeps records so there is a paper trail. I imagine rotten used a lot of content sent in to them from people who don't keep records. It appears to me that the only sites required to keep records are sites that act as original sources for pr0n.

Post by **Foo** » Sat Jun 25, 2005 6:52 pm

Dave wrote:Bollocks to you too. The law forces accountability and breaks the anonymity of the internet in one of the major areas that leads to the exploitation of children. It keeps the legit people legit, keeps the child pornographers from selling a product in the open.

There are no child porn sites hosted in the US. Show me a case where this law will have an immediate effect and take down a site which is peddling child porn.

If someone has questions about a site's product, they can look for the 2257 warning and verify the site is selling something legal by contacting a real person.

Fair enough point.

Your personal booty point is irrelevant since no one here posts naked women

Mostly irrelevant for this forum I agree but that's not true of many forums out there. Also, the definition "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person" seems fairly ambiguous to me, without wanting to get dragged off on a side debate.

and even if they did, the source for those images is probably a pr0n site that keeps records so there is a paper trail. I imagine rotten used a lot of content sent in to them from people who don't keep records.

See points after the quote below. Sources have to be provided for every image.

It appears to me that the only sites required to keep records are sites that act as original sources for pr0n.

heh. Here's the entire problem. The law that required THAT is already in place. it has been for 15 years. This 'update' adds a requirement for 'secondary sources' to do the same thing. Someone else has explained the impact of this better than I can:

What's new is anyone hosting sexual images has to have records. Before only the actual producers of the material had to maintain records.

So now any store, website, yahoo group, image hosting site, etc., is subject to criminal charges if they don't have records of every single sexual image on their site.

Now personally, if you're all for keeping out child pornography sites in America, just censor the incoming flow of traffic from other countries. There isn't any hosted via HTTP in America because the laws governing it are already very clear and are fully effective in removing offending material.

Post by **4g3nt_Smith** » Sat Jun 25, 2005 6:53 pm

Dave wrote:
Foo wrote:
Dave wrote:2257 really is a good thing. It forces potential child pornographers to think about what they're doing and keeps others legitimate. I'm sure it sends the 'bad guys' further underground, but it keeps it off the open net. Yahoo just killed all their sex related chat rooms in the last day or so, which also helps protect children from the same kinds of people
Bollocks. You won't find any underage content hosted in the US before or after this law is passed because the US is already sufficiently regulated for that. Any complaint made regarding underage content on a website in the US results in a takedown and the owner being arrested (if it's an accurate accusation).

The rest of the problem centers around sites hosted outside of the US, and files available on the darknet (neither of which is affected at all by this new law).

The tangible effect of this new law is all forms of pornographic content provision on the web become much more expensive to run, and linking to or pseudo-hosting (think, keeping one or two very softcore images on your webspace for bootay threads) is now illegal.

Anyone here who's ever participated in a booty thread would be a lawbreaker under this legislation.

But sure... it's a good thing, because it's 'for the kids'. Lol, so gullible.
Bollocks to you too. The law forces accountability and breaks the anonymity of the internet in one of the major areas that leads to the exploitation of children. It keeps the legit people legit, keeps the child pornographers from selling a product in the open. If someone has questions about a site's product, they can look for the 2257 warning and verify the site is selling something legal by contacting a real person.

Your personal booty point is irrelevant since no one here posts naked women and even if they did, the source for those images is probably a pr0n site that keeps records so there is a paper trail. I imagine rotten used a lot of content sent in to them from people who don't keep records. It appears to me that the only sites required to keep records are sites that act as original sources for pr0n.

No,, it keeps the legit people down by having to keep ludicrous records, and the illegal stuff is still just that, illegal. And the booty point is the truth, if you make the post, you have to have records of the stuff as well, since you "produced" a work (the post) that contained the material. I know a guy running a free gallery site (the ones with thumbnails that link to pages hosted elsewhere) and he's talking about having to sell the site to a non-US entity because he would have to go and find all this information out about every single performer, all just to have a thumbnail and a link.

Post by **Tormentius** » Sat Jun 25, 2005 6:57 pm

Dave wrote:
Foo wrote:
Dave wrote:2257 really is a good thing. It forces potential child pornographers to think about what they're doing and keeps others legitimate. I'm sure it sends the 'bad guys' further underground, but it keeps it off the open net. Yahoo just killed all their sex related chat rooms in the last day or so, which also helps protect children from the same kinds of people
Bollocks. You won't find any underage content hosted in the US before or after this law is passed because the US is already sufficiently regulated for that. Any complaint made regarding underage content on a website in the US results in a takedown and the owner being arrested (if it's an accurate accusation).

The rest of the problem centers around sites hosted outside of the US, and files available on the darknet (neither of which is affected at all by this new law).

The tangible effect of this new law is all forms of pornographic content provision on the web become much more expensive to run, and linking to or pseudo-hosting (think, keeping one or two very softcore images on your webspace for bootay threads) is now illegal.

Anyone here who's ever participated in a booty thread would be a lawbreaker under this legislation.

But sure... it's a good thing, because it's 'for the kids'. Lol, so gullible.
Bollocks to you too. The law forces accountability and breaks the anonymity of the internet in one of the major areas that leads to the exploitation of children. It keeps the legit people legit, keeps the child pornographers from selling a product in the open. If someone has questions about a site's product, they can look for the 2257 warning and verify the site is selling something legal by contacting a real person.
Your personal booty point is irrelevant since no one here posts naked women and even if they did, the source for those images is probably a pr0n site that keeps records so there is a paper trail. I imagine rotten used a lot of content sent in to them from people who don't keep records. It appears to me that the only sites required to keep records are sites that act as original sources for pr0n.

Wrong. It doesn't enforce accountability and won't do a single fucking thing to protect children. There was legislation there already before this in order to investigate and shut down questionable sites like that.

It also isn't only the original sources responsibility to keep records, its anyone who hosts an image or video clip. You don't even need to be making a profit to be affected by this law. Its funny to see US citizens buying this line of bullshit the same way they did the Patriot act.

Post by **Dave** » Sat Jun 25, 2005 7:12 pm

Ludicrous? They pay their talent don't they? They already know who they are so they dont need to do any more work. They just throw up a contact address on the internet so Johnny Law can contact them in case they have doubts about the validity of their product. Your opinion on 'production' is wrong. Google the term 'tgp' and look how many of the results have 2257 warnings at the bottom. There's no shortage of porn on those pages, yet they don't seem to put warnings on there. I just read through the law and it says anyone who 'produces', not 'displays'.

Post by **Foo** » Sat Jun 25, 2005 7:13 pm

Read the bit about 'secondary producers' and understand what that means.

Post by **Dave** » Sat Jun 25, 2005 7:15 pm

"the term “produces” means to produce, manufacture, or publish any book, magazine, periodical, film, video tape or other similar matter and includes the duplication, reproduction, or reissuing of any such matter, but does not include mere distribution or any other activity which does not involve hiring, contracting for managing, or otherwise arranging for the participation of the performers depicted;"

Post by **Dave** » Sat Jun 25, 2005 7:18 pm

Foo wrote:Read the bit about 'secondary producers' and understand what that means.

'producer' is specifically defined. In rotten's case, they become an end distribution point. For rotten to win, they'd have to prove they didn't solicit the creation of their material and were simply providing a distribution point.

Post by **Dave** » Sat Jun 25, 2005 7:23 pm

foo wrote:Someone else has explained the impact of this better than I can:

What's new is anyone hosting sexual images has to have records. Before only the actual producers of the material had to maintain records.

So now any store, website, yahoo group, image hosting site, etc., is subject to criminal charges if they don't have records of every single sexual image on their site.

I have no idea who this person is so their analysis is inconsequential because I have no idea who they are.

Post by **Foo** » Sat Jun 25, 2005 7:28 pm

Can you link me to that?

Post by **Dave** » Sat Jun 25, 2005 7:30 pm

It's already been linked once in this thread, but have at it

http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/uscod ... -000-.html

Post by **Foo** » Sat Jun 25, 2005 7:32 pm

That's an out-of-date version of the code. For a start, the starting date has already been moved from 1990 to 1995.

There's nothing in that version regarding secondard producers and that was the biggest point of contention.

I'm looking for the latest version but not having much luck, I'm afraid.

Post by **Dave** » Sat Jun 25, 2005 7:35 pm

"Release date: 2004-08-06"

They updated it in the last 10 months? I dont see any one posting fulltext or a link to a current version

Post by **Dave** » Sat Jun 25, 2005 7:36 pm

On and if you do find the 'current version' make sure its sourced from someone reliable, preferably in a .edu or .gov domain.

Post by **Dave** » Sat Jun 25, 2005 7:39 pm

I believe this is the document you're looking for:
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2005/05-10107.htm

Took about 30 seconds to track down with site:gov 18 usc 2257

Keep It Real · Post by **Keep It Real** » Sat Jun 25, 2005 7:44 pm

Foo wrote:
Dave wrote:2257 really is a good thing. It forces potential child pornographers to think about what they're doing and keeps others legitimate. I'm sure it sends the 'bad guys' further underground, but it keeps it off the open net. Yahoo just killed all their sex related chat rooms in the last day or so, which also helps protect children from the same kinds of people
Bollocks. You won't find any underage content hosted in the US before or after this law is passed because the US is already sufficiently regulated for that. Any complaint made regarding underage content on a website in the US results in a takedown and the owner being arrested (if it's an accurate accusation).

The rest of the problem centers around sites hosted outside of the US, and files available on the darknet (neither of which is affected at all by this new law).

The tangible effect of this new law is all forms of pornographic content provision on the web become much more expensive to run, and linking to or pseudo-hosting (think, keeping one or two very softcore images on your webspace for bootay threads) is now illegal.

Anyone here who's ever participated in a booty thread would be a lawbreaker under this legislation.

But sure... it's a good thing, because it's 'for the kids'. Lol, so gullible.

bootay threads are being persecuted

Post by **Geebs** » Sun Jun 26, 2005 5:42 pm

Dave owned this thread.

Post by **plained** » Sun Jun 26, 2005 6:00 pm

Magnum