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

[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.

[Hammer]

Everyone that was serious about this business in the first place found a way to comply with the law. The ones that folded either had no way to become legal, weren't true business people or weren't making enough money with their site to make it worth the hassle to comply. Either way, I say good riddance to them.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by 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.

Well actually if my understanding of US law is right they can't make it impossible to stay in business. I think what they wanted to do was make it tougher for many and look like they were tackling the problem to their supporters. As far as the Internet is concerned I'm sure they know it would just be taking over by off shore sites, like with gambling.

Originally Posted by Hammer

Everyone that was serious about this business in the first place found a way to comply with the law. The ones that folded either had no way to become legal, weren't true business people or weren't making enough money with their site to make it worth the hassle to comply. Either way, I say good riddance to them.

Exactly true.

[softball]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Well actually if my understanding of US law is right they can't make it impossible to stay in business. I think what they wanted to do was make it tougher for many and look like they were tackling the problem to their supporters. As far as the Internet is concerned I'm sure they know it would just be taking over by off shore sites, like with gambling.

Exactly true.

OK, here is a cunundrum. You work in Canada. You keep records. The DOJ drops by and asks for them. What is wrong with this?
Firstly, they have no legal authority. They are just tourists in my country.
It is illegal to give out this information by Canadian law.
Now, what would you do?

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by rhetorical

OK, here is a cunundrum. You work in Canada. You keep records. The DOJ drops by and asks for them. What is wrong with this?
Firstly, they have no legal authority. They are just tourists in my country.
It is illegal to give out this information by Canadian law.
Now, what would you do?

I live and work in CZ and the DOJ has no power here.

And I'm sure the DOJ knows this and knows they can't put through a law that will close down an industry by the back door, they even addressed this issue in the ammenments.

Yes they will try to make it tougher for people to open porn businesses, they will try to reign in some of the extreme porn, however what they willnot do is ban porn.

[softball]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

I live and work in CZ and the DOJ has no power here.

And I'm sure the DOJ knows this and knows they can't put through a law that will close down an industry by the back door, they even addressed this issue in the ammenments.

Yes they will try to make it tougher for people to open porn businesses, they will try to reign in some of the extreme porn, however what they willnot do is ban porn.

Ya know if the shit hit the fan, I would just move to Holland. No big deal. However, I think Canada is a better choice at the moment.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by rhetorical

Ya know if the shit hit the fan, I would just move to Holland. No big deal. However, I think Canada is a better choice at the moment.

And I think the DOJ know this. They might not be the sharpest tools in the box but after what happened to gambling they can't be that stupid to think they can stop porn.

But if you have a tin foil hat you are protected.

Yes it will be tough for individual businesses and a lot might have to tighten up how they operate. But they will not stop porn.