p.s. I see a bleak future for the Male Performer of the Week series. Solo pictures of the male stars are not easy to find.

nietzsche said:
"I'm the Wyatt Earp of masturbation."

[Link]

On male pics - some creative cropping may be in order.

[Link]

It very specifically states that this records rule change applies to "whoever produces" the material, and:

"does not include distribution or any other activity which does not involve hiring, contracting for (,) managing, or otherwise arranging for the participation of the performers depicted"

This site has nothing to do with the production of anything, so why do you believe that it is going to require changes to this site?

[Link]

A secondary producer is any person who produces, assembles, manufactures, publishes, duplicates, reproduces, or reissues a book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, a
computer-generated image, digital image, or picture, or other matter intended for commercial distribution that contains a visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct, or who inserts on a computer site or service a
digital image of, or otherwise manages the content of a computer site or service that contains a visual depiction of, actual sexually explicit conduct, including any person who enters into a contract, agreement, or conspiracy to do any of the foregoing.

This site falls specifically within the boldface criteria and therefore will be required to maintain records.

[Link]

Now, a conservative way to go might be to not depend on Sundance since that ruling technically isn’t binding in California. I’d certainly err on the side of caution. But I think the secondary producer rules you quote were thrown out in this context a while ago.

[Link]

What is the date on what you linked to. It has Janet Reno so it looks like it may be a few years ago.

What Drew is concerned about is 'changes' that are being proposed, and those changes may make the Janet Reno thing obsolete.

[Link]

the URL:
http://lw.bna.com/lw/1998 0407/961501.htm

[Link]

Six years, they might be trying to supercede the older decisions.

DenverDon

[Link]

Sundance addressed how the term produces should be read in the context of statutory language. The new 2257 stuff quotes that same statutory language so I assumed that had not changed. New laws don't automatically reset rulings of this sort, only changes to the areas held unconstitutional make a difference.

If the 10th circuit holds the language unconstitutional there's almost no chance the 9th circuit would say otherwise. But, I agree there may be no virtue in being the test case. Maybe make a donation to the library association – they usually fight this king of thing tooth and nail.

[Link]

Sorry for the tone; I was in a hurry and did a cut & paste from a post I made elsewhere about the Paris Hilton tape and 2257. I don't think ADT should take the problem lightly, but rather say that "we need to take a defensive position against Asscroft's goons overreaching" instead of "it's illegal". Being confident of winning is of no comfort to the guy who has to spend the $$$, time & risk to win.

[Link]

When man invented fire, he didn’t say, 'hey, let’s cook', he said, 'great, now we can see naked bottoms in the dark.' - Coupling

[Link]

Can somebody well informed please enlighten me on this subject in detail?

This very topic means a lot to me, 'cause i'm Dutch and i live -in The Netherlands thank God- with an American beauty. She embraced the European freedoms we have. And slowly but surely she sees some horrible changes going on in the US. She already warned me for something like the above, and that it would happen one day. I want to know if the industry can do anything about this.

Sincerely,
Baby Grandpa

PS: also let me know when i got it all wrong and paniced too early!!

Edited by - Baby Grandpa on 7/2/2004 2:54:09 PM

[Link]

If the democrats start to make headway between now and end of summer, it would not surprise me if Bush and Co manufactured some sort of Middle East or North Korea crisis in the fall as an excuse to postpone the election...indefinitely? A move like this would be the next logical step.

Don't forget where you read it first.

[Link]

I really would like to know what US visitors of adultdvdtalk think of all this. Let me know. If you guys read my first reply, then you know why i'm so fanatic about this subject.

Edited by - Baby Grandpa on 7/2/2004 9:15:56 PM

[Link]

One thing we might want to consider is that the people doing it often have a good excuse, and probably believe that what they're doing is in the best interests of the country. That doesn't make them right, it just makes them human, not evil soul-sucking mummies hiding out in a rest home in Texas.

OK, so what the proposed revisions would do is require anyone who puts up a 'pornographic' image to have complete documentation on every person in the picture, including proof of DOB and any and all names they've ever gone by. Furthermore, it would require anyone linking to any such images on other servers to also have said documentation, and it would require that a record be kept of every URL that ever pointed to such a picture. While it might sound OK in theory, for anyone familiar with the scope of the issue it's a prescription for shutting down most, if not all, porn sites owned by citizens of the U.S. of A.

Yes, the individual owners can respond to the department with how they believe this ruling will affect their business, but, if Steph's reaction is any guide, most see that as a good way to become the department's next anti-porn target.

Did I miss (or misrepresent) anything?

Oh, can you have a whole industry gagged? Of course you can. Have you forgotten McCarthy, the Red Scare, and the Hollywood blacklist already?

[Link]

For starters, one of the biggest problems on the net right now are the damn Website Pirates! - These so-called webmasters who buy/rent our stuff, rip it down and put it up on their pay sites. 85% of the damn movie sites out there don't even have permission to use our videos yet alone have the docs to support them on their sites. We, like others, have lost a ton of money to these thieves - this could be a means to an end to put them down. Like others, we own several pay sites and have lost a bundle during the past several years becouse of places like AdultBouncer and Deluxepass

On the Down Side ......

Title 18 is nothing new .. we've been dealing with it for some time now, and the same problem as before will exist in the future with these revisions - who is going to enforce it?

Can you imagine how Usenet & newsgroups like Easynews or Pictureview is going to deal with this? How about the 10's of 1,000's of banners that have Sexually Explicit images? Not to mention the 100,000,000 sponsor pages out there that have been floating around for 8 years.

Personally ..... I Think ( yea .... I sometimes have a thought or two ) that this isn't going anywhere yet. It's really designed to go after sites that continue to promote underage content not sites that are legit. This revision will allow law enforcement to retrieve documents without having to go through the courts. I heard that there are just 7 people who police the internet in this area - HELL!!!! I have a hard enough time keeping track of the 64 sponsors we have. There are some good points that could be looked at, as well as the bad - Privacy Issues, control, enforcement are going to be the downfall of this proposal. It will end up going back to the "drawing board" for a long time. Look at COPA - that was knocked down 5 years ago and still hasn't gained any ground since last weeks Supreme Court ruling.

Sorry .... I'm rambling ..... I'll Shut up - lol

Good Night Everyone
Mandi*

[Link]

Ashcroft beating up on the adult industry to curry favor with the Bush base is almost to be expected. They really don't care if they "win" any court cases... they merely need to be seen as fighting against us evil doers.
And, as has been correctly pointed out, ADT does not have the resources to fight with the government. They can put you out of business just by accusing you.

[Link]

The Los Angeles Times ran a disturbing op/ed piece by a freelance journalist from the U.K. who flew into LAX on both a pleasure and working visit. Thing is, since her "papers" didn't expressly state her journalistic credentials, the woman was held in a detention cell at the airport for the entire weekend.

She was fingerprinted. She was made to sit on a metal bench for an entire night. Later, the journalist was whisked to downtown L.A. for "questioning."

Bottom line: The journalist was allowed only to fly back to the U.K. on the next available flight.

All because her "papers weren't in order."

Sir, you are witnessing the beginnings of fascism.

This is not the United States of yore, defender of freedom and liberty at home and abroad.

The Sept. 11 tragedy has been exploited by the Bush occupation government in order to put in place social controls they had planned for us all along.

An October surprise in order to justify suspending the November 2 elections indefinitely? Though doing so may result in an all-out civil war, one cannot put anything past this regime. "Administration" is not the word for the present government. "Regime" is. Junta . That sort of thing.

And, believe me, Vancouver, British Columbia, ain't lookin' so cold no more. If cost-of-living were not an issue, I'd consider The Netherlands.

None of this is wild imagining. It's all very real. After all, the first Bush press secretary, Ari Fleischer, did say just days after the Sept. 11 attacks, "Watch what you say and what you do."

The U.S. of A. you have thought you've known is fast fading. And at least 40 percent of the public is willing to go along with all this.

Sorry for the rant. But I see the Ashcroft Effect everywhere.

Porn and "drugs" were at the top of his return-to-the-'50s agenda before the attacks. Now the reverend Ashcroft is gunning for them. Blank check.

Edited by - cygnus5 on 7/5/2004 12:41:31 PM

[Link]

- Saki [faqs]

[Link]

- Saki [faqs]

[Link]

I just today loaded an upload to my site that took off all of the hardcore images (I think).

Unlike most my problem was not in getting the proper documentation on my shots since most of my work was with companies I am on fairly good terms with I probably could have done so. The problem came with the requirement that I post the 2257 statement on the images as is required by law. In the past I just posted the statement from the company but due to the proposed changes I would have to make my own statement with my address on it.

Like a lot of web based people I work out of my home and as such really don't want to post my home address on the web for all to see.

Edited by - lee_carver on 7/7/2004 12:24:27 AM

[Link]

Let's vote for Mary Carey for president!

[Link]

All to true. I can think of several ways for someone to find out my address. That doesn't mean I should post it any way.

Mandi -

Are you referring to giving all the required documentation to any web site that wants to post images?

Good idea about making the government post their addresses. Unfortunately they would deem that a violation of their right to privacy.

[Link]

1) Maybe a seperate 'sticky' thread for the new policy is a good idea? Now it is kinda lost on the first page of an 'older' thread, that already has 3 pages (when using the default 15 posts per page setting).
(OK, I haven't read all the forums yet, so if this has already been done elsewhere, pardon me.)

2) Is the posting of the new image policy also the sign I asked for in my first post in this thread, the sign that we should start looking at all the pictures on ADT serverspace? IOW, should I begin to go through my pictures now and remove the ones that are not conform with the new policy or can this wait?




nickdel said:
"There's nothing that will wilt my dick quicker than some jerkoff screaming in my ear."

[Link]

I don't know how long it will take Steph to read this thread so I have emailed her to point her to your post.

You have a good point, and a good question, and I will be interested in the answer also. email can be a faster, more direct, way to assure that she reads it sooner.

FYI, many times she is busy with admin things, answering emails, and posting reviews. Also she doesn't necessarily read all of the threads when she is busy with other things.

[Link]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but these pics should be okay?

Internal Cumbustion 3

AZN Super Idols

Jan Dvorak Story

Ass Cleavage 2

But what about puppet fellatio?

Or this one?

Okay, I'm pretty sure that last one has to go.

[Link]

- Saki [faqs]

[Link]

I'm really kinda surprised at the 'spreads' being okay, not that I'm complaining.

I have a few sets of pics to movies that I never reviewed for various reasons, and probably should post last-chance links...

[Link]

Apparently the rational was that the spread shot was informational/educational; where as the clit-frigging shot was a graphic depiction of sex and prosecutable.

It's a wonder republicans reproduce.

-T.C.

[Link]

Walter, the law won't go into effect until at least Sept. From there we have 30 days to comply. I have started going thru our covers (6,000 reviewed so far) as I know it's going to take us all that time to "clean up" the site.

[Link]