Porn makers distance themselves from some... porn makers?

[Grump]

"But in 6 years how much have they actually achieved in shutting down porn?"

Quite a bit actually. 2257 ring a bell? Change who existing laws apply to, add in retroactive enforcement of these new applications of exisiting laws and they could shut down quite a few. Didn't even need a vote.

Several programs folded right after the new 2257 rules were introduced, one that I know of was for certain directly because of the new rules. Still others made significant changes because of these new rules for existing laws.

Will it succeed? Probably not but some damage has already been done.

Many of the same people who will gasp in horror at extreme porn will have the same reaction to Gay porn.

Those who want thier opinions made into laws are a real danger to the rest of us.

[gonzo]

Originally Posted by Grump

"But in 6 years how much have they actually achieved in shutting down porn?"

Quite a bit actually. 2257 ring a bell? Change who existing laws apply to, add in retroactive enforcement of these new applications of exisiting laws and they could shut down quite a few. Didn't even need a vote.

Several programs folded right after the new 2257 rules were introduced, one that I know of was for certain directly because of the new rules. Still others made significant changes because of these new rules for existing laws.

Will it succeed? Probably not but some damage has already been done.

Many of the same people who will gasp in horror at extreme porn will have the same reaction to Gay porn.

Those who want thier opinions made into laws are a real danger to the rest of us.

Very solid points!

[Hammer]

Originally Posted by Grump

Several programs folded right after the new 2257 rules were introduced, one that I know of was for certain directly because of the new rules.

Exactly the point Paul is making. Those programs didn't need to fold and the whole issue of secondary producers ended up being thrown out. Now it's coming back in this new bill, but it too will end up tied up in the courts thanks to the FSC. So, at this point, no one has been investigated or prosecuted for 2257 violations and haven't been since the law first went into effect in 1995.

The same thing happened when Acacia came along, people were running for the hills.

If you want to work in the adult industry you need to realize that this is not a risk-free business and be prepared to deal with some possible legal hassles at some point. This is a business for people with brass balls and if they don't have them they need to stick to something safe, like selling insurance.

Where would we all be right now if Larry Flynt was as big a pussy as those program owners and webmasters that all actually believed that our government could pass a law and make it retroactive.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by Grump

Several programs folded right after the new 2257 rules were introduced, one that I know of was for certain directly because of the new rules. Still others made significant changes because of these new rules for existing laws.

You mean people who were publishing porn without the documentation to prove the models were over 18.

Are they also the kind of people you want to protect?

We are pornographers, we chose this profession to make money, with that comes some risks and responsibilities. Buying porn without documentation is reckless and could encorage someone in countries less regulated to put under age people in front of a camera.

Or don't you think that matters and we should be totally exempt?

[softball]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

You mean people who were publishing porn without the documentation to prove the models were over 18.

Are they also the kind of people you want to protect?

We are pornographers, we chose this profession to make money, with that comes some risks and responsibilities. Buying porn without documentation is reckless and could encorage someone in countries less regulated to put under age people in front of a camera.

Or don't you think that matters and we should be totally exempt?

2257 is way more insidious than that. It also puts the talent at extreme risk. If you are turning over personal info to any guy with twenty bucks that says he wants a photo set to "publish", is that acceptable?

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by rhetorical

2257 is way more insidious than that. It also puts the talent at extreme risk. If you are turning over personal info to any guy with twenty bucks that says he wants a photo set to "publish", is that acceptable?

Very true and something that needs to be looked at to protect models. But removing the need for people to buy porn without the necessary documents does nothing to protect 16/17 year olds from doing porn. And I know 2257 is not a 100% fail safe, but it's better than nothing.

And I think 2257 proves my point, how much less porn is there on the Internet today compared to last year?

Yes it closed down a few small publishers, but how much did it reduce the amount of porn on the Net? Seems the tin foil hat is working.

[Grump]

"You mean people who were publishing porn without the documentation to prove the models were over 18."

No, or I would have said that. Want to guess my weight next?

I meant the people who found the proposed record keeping rules, such as every url where every image is displayed, to be impossible to comply with. This is of course exactly the reaction that was intended by the government when these rules were created, to make compliance impossible.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by Grump

I meant the people who found the proposed record keeping rules, such as every url where every image is displayed, to be impossible to comply with. This is of course exactly the reaction that was intended by the government when these rules were created, to make compliance impossible.

Very good and valid point. So you think they changed the law so it would be easy to bring down.

You see they really love porn but wanted to make it look like they were trying to stop it.

Trust me if they really wanted to make it tough they could. But they were going for appearance more than effect.

You just proved it.

[Grump]

I think they thought the new 2257 rules would be allowed. Just like the new labeling proposal now in the Senate, The Internet Safety Act ( http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-6083983.html?tag=nl and http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/pdf/ne/20...tSafetyAct.pdf ) the goal is to make it tough for companies to be legal and compliant in this business, and easier for prosecutions to happen.

How many of us have time to go back and label every single page containing sexualy explicit content? Hell- I have AVS sites I haven't even seen since they were built back in the late 90s.

"It would impose up to 15 years in prison--an increase from the five years suggested in the original proposal--on any commercial site operator who fails to place "clearly identifiable marks or notices" prescribed by the federal government in either the site's code or on the pages themselves..."

This is another attempt to do what they can't do with new laws. As you (Paul) pointed out above, no law banning porn would pass yet they can make it almost impossible to stay in business and be legal.