Join 3,551 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


This whole post is probably NSFW...
June 21, 2005 10:59 PM   Subscribe

The End of Internet P8rn? The updated 2257 regulations, which go into effect June 23, will expand the proof of age record-keeping requirements that producers of sexually explicit content must follow. Industry insiders are scrambling to prepare for the new regulations and claim they are too burdensome to 'net p9rn providers and are illogical. (The AVN links are NSFW) The Free Speech Coalition is seeking a temporary restraining order (Doc file) to enjoin the enforcement of the new regulations hoping to prevent what some predict to be an industry wide shutdown. Is this a matter of the law keeping up with technology, or an assault on .xxx?
posted by greasy_skillet (64 comments total) 1 user marked this as a favorite

 
This is at once both unsurprising and horrifying. It's unthinkable that anyone could look at these regulations and NOT conclude that the intent is to overburden any purveyor of adult content, and I have to admit that likely the majority of Americans right now are perfectly OK with that.
posted by wolftrouble at 11:18 PM on June 21, 2005


Well, I guess I see how this could be a hinderance for US porn companies, but will this just mean that porn will begin being hosted overseas more often?
posted by herting at 11:23 PM on June 21, 2005


This, like most forms of regulation, will homogenize the market as smaller producers leave and larger producers create automated compliance technologies...
posted by bugmuncher at 11:36 PM on June 21, 2005


Just another attempt by Americans at nannifying things on the 'net. Nothing to see here.
posted by clevershark at 11:41 PM on June 21, 2005


Sounds like it will no longer be a question of being proven guilty. It will be a question of proving you're innocent. We don't have to outlaw free speech, we just have to make it so burdensome and risky that no one will bother to do it. After this goes into effect the difference between doing a crime and just not being able to prove you didn't do it won't matter as much.
posted by 517 at 11:53 PM on June 21, 2005


Well, I guess I see how this could be a hinderance for US porn companies, but will this just mean that porn will begin being hosted overseas more often?

I'm not at all sure of the machinations of international politics, sanctions, and international aid etc., but I read somewhere (here?) that any nation that aids and abets someone who bypasses the will of the mighty US of A by using such tricky tactics might be in for a nasty surprise or two.

Would the USA get all heavy handed over pr0n?! Say it ain't so.
posted by uncanny hengeman at 12:06 AM on June 22, 2005


The End of Internet Porn? Yeah, right.
posted by grouse at 12:23 AM on June 22, 2005


porn purveyor: *stares at US porn regulations* "Hmmm looks like its a good time to move my company and its tax revenue offshore"

Tsk tsk trying to legislate the internet again when will they learn
posted by Rubbstone at 12:25 AM on June 22, 2005


Peightrn? Pninern? PTENRN.
posted by sklero at 12:52 AM on June 22, 2005


I'm not at all sure of the machinations of international politics, sanctions, and international aid etc., but I read somewhere (here?) that any nation that aids and abets someone who bypasses the will of the mighty US of A by using such tricky tactics might be in for a nasty surprise or two.

Can you be more specific? I can understand the USA clamping down on it's citizens who view porn stored on overseas servers, but I can't see how the USA has any say in the laws of other countries.
posted by salmacis at 12:54 AM on June 22, 2005


It's pronounced "pr0n"
posted by NinjaPirate at 1:01 AM on June 22, 2005


Can you be more specific? I can understand the USA clamping down on its citizens who view porn stored on overseas servers, but I can't see how the USA has any say in the laws of other countries.

Pissy little islands like the ones who host the .tv suffix. (Sorry to all you Tuvalu Islanders!!!) Big ol' US of A says, "So you want to be a wise guy and host all our internet pr0n sites? Well, how about that. We'll remember that next time our foreign aid budget is being formulated."

That's the scenario that was presented to me. I'm not stating it as a likelihood. I'm too ignorant on these matters to comment apart from parrot what I heard. I thought it was kinda relevant.

(Then the USA could go further and "do a Grenada" on their asses, I suppose!)
posted by uncanny hengeman at 1:27 AM on June 22, 2005


This is kind of funny. America IS porn. The porn industry is right up there with Aerospace, MacDonalds, Hollywood, Microsoft, etc. Actually, I don't have the industry income figures to compare, but in terms of visibility er, anyway, moving right along, pr0n is a major US export industry. And the US doesn't like the fact that it makes massive amounts of money selling products to eager consumers. So the US is damn well going to do something about it. That's the Can Do attitude!

This is about the only industry I can think of where business lobbying probably isn't going to not only win the day, but win a bunch of new rights in the process, and ease a bunch of restrictions to sweeten the deal.
posted by -harlequin- at 1:40 AM on June 22, 2005


but I can't see how the USA has any say in the laws of other countries

The carrot-hanging-from-a-stick of small trade tarrifs exceptions is a major one. The US often talks a lot of talk about free trade, but any country actually game or wanting tarif-laden-but-slightly-less-tarif-laden-than-before* trade with the USA has to basically do everything the USA says. In some areas this is justified (eg labour standards, etc), but in others, it's just bullying to get stuff. Puritan pr0n hosting regulations would fall into the later category :)

*AFAIK, the USA simply does not do free trade with anyone, compared to the free trade agreements some other countries have with each other.
There is not even free trade with Canada! (I got whacked with a $50 tarrif on a coat I bought in Canada. Was Not Amused)
posted by -harlequin- at 1:52 AM on June 22, 2005


Ah, for a second I was thinking that meant an end to free samples. Still scary though. But seriously though, Violations of the regs carry up to a five year prison term for a first offense and up to ten years for subsequent offenses!? That's a huge chunk of life, not for commiting or promoting child porn, but for failing to properly archive your files. And it's not as though a 17 and a half year old making porn videos is something the U.S. should be worried about, it's the girls who are really young and are being pressured in to the porn industry, or raped.
posted by Citizen Premier at 2:20 AM on June 22, 2005


This, like most forms of regulation, will homogenize the market as smaller producers leave and larger producers create automated compliance technologies...

The new game from the Parker Brothers: Pornopoly!
posted by Citizen Premier at 2:23 AM on June 22, 2005


Hey, it's like I'm some sort of elocution coach.
"The pr0n in A stays mainly in the courts."
posted by NinjaPirate at 2:24 AM on June 22, 2005


Oh, well, I'll just have to content myself with swimsuit catalogs....sniff....
posted by alumshubby at 3:37 AM on June 22, 2005


All you pervy database coders in California better get your resumes polished...

Anyway, I think these doom and nopr0n gloom scenarios are unlikely to occur, I'm sure this revision will be applied in a very judicious manner, to mete out punishment in a purely political manner!
posted by Jack Karaoke at 3:58 AM on June 22, 2005


I guess people will just have to get used to Europr0n.
posted by clevershark at 4:10 AM on June 22, 2005


You youngsters have been so spoilt with all this easily accessible porn. It'll do you good having to go back to looking at your mother's and sister's magazines with bad intent. You don't know what eroticism is until you've been forced to mentally undress the cookery lady in "Woman's Own" in order to get your rocks off. Probably.
posted by Decani at 4:19 AM on June 22, 2005


Companies are already starting to comply with this. A friend of mine with video editing experience just got hired by a porn producer to add compliance statements to all of their closing credits sequences.

You know, it'll be pretty funny when this law runs into hentai. "What? Adult material with no performers?" *Senatorial head asplode*
posted by Faint of Butt at 5:11 AM on June 22, 2005


What'll be even funnier is when computer graphics get so good, cheap, and easy that actual photography of live models becomes relatively unappealing. Let's see the US Congress and state legislatures try to deal with virtual pr0n that might have minors as subjects...but since they're not real but computer graphics, who can really say for certain?
posted by alumshubby at 5:49 AM on June 22, 2005


Can someone pls. summarize the new regulations for those of us who have neither access to AVN nor the inclination to wade through legislative mumbo jumbo?
posted by mkultra at 5:57 AM on June 22, 2005


Too bad you don't have a big, liberal, well connected country full of friendly people close to you that encourages economic immigration and where most of the citizens speak your language. Heck you can even visit for months at a time without a visa.
posted by Mitheral at 6:40 AM on June 22, 2005


Yeah, but the only good Canadian porn comes out of Montreal, and they hate us.
posted by klangklangston at 6:45 AM on June 22, 2005


That's what I'm saying, the market is wide open. Heck most places have all sorts of film credits and incentives.
posted by Mitheral at 7:17 AM on June 22, 2005


Thoughts while reading the CFR:

a) This regulation will do nothing whatsoever to limit the production of child porn.

b) Since the required documentation can be archived digitally, each production can be stored on a CD-rom with its accompanying documentation.

c) Files must be archived for five years AFTER a business goes belly-up??? Kept by whom?

d) You can thank Janet Reno for a large portion of this CFR. Say, wasn't she a liberal? heheh
posted by mischief at 7:27 AM on June 22, 2005


mkultra: Hold on, a writeup is on its way.
posted by Bugbread at 7:31 AM on June 22, 2005


I doubt that this will have any real effect on the internet porn business. If anything, it will shut out the ameteurs and small-time shops who don't have the resources to get their legal sh*t together. There's just too much money in online porn. Saying that this will shut down the industry is like saying that increased fuel efficiency standards will make the oil business completely non-profitable.
posted by afroblanca at 7:32 AM on June 22, 2005


the market is wide open

I dunno, I'm not sure anyone except the CRTC wants to see Anne Murray porn.
posted by aramaic at 7:36 AM on June 22, 2005


Following up afroblanca: Apparently much of this record-keeping has already been performed by primary producers due to legislation signed by Clinton (say, wasn't he a liberal?). This legislation expands that record-keeping to include secondary producers and website operators.

/sings "How old is that MILF in the pop-up?"
posted by mischief at 7:37 AM on June 22, 2005


Meh, store all of the information in the metadata of the JPG.
posted by delmoi at 7:41 AM on June 22, 2005


mkultra:

I've read through them, and while I agree that the penalties are harsh, the recordkeeping seems pretty easy.

You have to have a record for each movie/picture you make, including a copy of the picture/movie, the names of all actors/actresses, containing their real name and all known stage names. Producers may rely in good faith on representations by performers regarding accuracy of the names, other than legal names, used by performers. It has to be alphabetically sorted/sortable. The record has to have a copy of a photo ID for all actors/actresses. If it's on the internet, you have to provide a URL (any URL, if multiple URLs point at the same image/movie). It all needs to be cross-referenced. Any secondary producers (basically, if you display but didn't make the image), you still need to keep those records, but you don't need to make them yourself, you're allowed to use a copy of the original producer's records. The records only have to be up-to-date as of when the record is made (that is, if an actress later takes a new stage name, you don't need to put that in the record retroactively). The records need to be maintained separately (that is, you can't have the records as part of a giant MySQL file containing other things like prices, reviews, etc.) Records can be physical or digital. Records need to be kept at the place of business of the primary producer, and maintained for seven years (5 if the producer shuts down the business). Inspections can happen at any time during normal business hours, but advance notice must be given (they can't just show up at the door). If the producer does not maintain at least 20 normal business hours a week, he has notify the relevant inspecting authorities of when he's available. Inspections cannot happen more than once every four months. Inspections cannot interfere with normal business activities.

As far as labelling:

All materials must have a statement that must have:
- The name of the book, magazine, movie, etc. (or, if no name exists, some sort of unique identifier)
- The date of production/publication
- A street address where the records are kept
- Font must be 12 point or greater, or no smaller than second largest typeface on materials. It has to have legible contrast (no gloss black letters on a matte black background, or light canary yellow on cream)
- For printed materials, the notice has to be on the second page, or the copyright page.
- For video with ending credits, it has to appear at the end of the credits, and shown onscreen long enough to read.
- For video without credits, it needs to appear within 1 minute of the start of the film, and before the opening scene.
- For a website, all entry points or main URLs can either put the statement on those pages, or put a link entitled "18 U.S.C. 2257 Record-Keeping Requirements Compliance Statement" that points at it.

Other notes:

Regarding hentai/CG pron, or Cinemax simulated pron (no insertion), if the material does not show real people having real sexual contact, they can put a notice saying that it is exempt, and no records need be kept.

So, basically, all-in-all, it means each porn producer needs to either hire some guy to make a MySQL database, and buy a computer to store data on (or a closet, if the materials are books or videotapes). That's about it. It certainly doesn't seem like it would crush the industry. And if some enterprising company made a PornDB with a nice frontend and all the standard entry fields built in, the whole thing could be accomplished with a computer, a closet, and anyone who knows how to type.

From what I can tell, the big hubbub is about banner ads and thumbnails: if you have porny banner ads or thumbnails, you're a secondary provider, so you need to have records, which is pretty damn hard to do. Of course, since you can get the records from the primary, it's not impossible, but it's tough if your thumbnail production is an automated crawler affair. The other biggie (which I honestly don't think is a big deal) is that you have to have a copy of everything you've sold/published, which means that for live webcam things, you need to get a video grab of all your webcasts. Still, with 120 GB harddrives under $70, that doesn't seem to be as big a deal as folks are making out.

In fact, the only people I see who would really be negatively impacted by this are non pron companies (I'm thinking Google Image Search). Google displays pr0n in image search, and this would require them to get a copy of records for every place they crawl. Then again, there's a part that says if secondary producers and primary producers don't match, secondary producers are exempted (which seems to contradict what was said earlier, but this wouldn't produce problems for porn providers, because it says they don't have to maintain records, but they can if they want, so any secondary provider could take the safe road and just ask the primary provider for a copy of records. As such, porn folks wouldn't be impacted, but unintentional porn folks like Google might).

All in all, the problem is greatly overstated. At worst, this would spell the end of graphic porn banners and automated thumbnail sites, and there's enough porn on the internet that losing them would not spell the end of internet porn.

mischief : "Files must be archived for five years AFTER a business goes belly-up??? Kept by whom?"
If the organization is dissolved, the individual who was responsible for maintaining the records on behalf of the organization, as described in Sec. 75.6(b), shall continue to maintain the records for a period of five years after dissolution.
posted by Bugbread at 7:53 AM on June 22, 2005


delmoi : "Meh, store all of the information in the metadata of the JPG."

Can't do that. Records have to be independant from other info. But you could put the info in the metadata and then set up a script to crawl your metadata to populate your database.

(Holy fuck, for a second there I actually sounded like a coder)
posted by Bugbread at 7:54 AM on June 22, 2005


American porn sucks anyway. All fake tits and pancake makeup. But at least they shave their pits.
posted by fungible at 8:11 AM on June 22, 2005


You could also just hop down to mexico, film there and distribute from there.
posted by delmoi at 8:23 AM on June 22, 2005


Ah, finally got around to reading the Wired article, and now I see what the problem is:

This legislation doesn't affect porn made before 1995, but it affects everything after. I was thinking in terms of how easy it would be to create records for all the porn you produce, but the issue is the porn that's out there now. Pretty much everything post-1995 has no records, so enacting the law would make it all illegal (unless the original producer produces the records). So there may be a bit of a dry spell for a while...or, conversely, a blossoming of porn production as companies race to make a bunch of new porn to fill the gap vacated by losing the last ten years' worth of porn overnight. So, admittedly, not so good, but not the end of the world, and no issue at all for the major porn companies, who can create records for their back catalogue.
posted by Bugbread at 8:29 AM on June 22, 2005


"If the organization is dissolved, the individual who was responsible for maintaining the records on behalf of the organization"

... and if he or she is dead?
posted by mischief at 8:30 AM on June 22, 2005


For every site shut down, you can simply go to Yahoo Messenger, there are ALWAYS eager people willing to show you just about anything you want on their own personal web cams, and for free no less.
posted by benjh at 8:30 AM on June 22, 2005


Er...there was a page two to the Wired article. Adult industry lawyer (is that a real title?) Eric Bernstein seems to be thinking just what I was thinking:
"There are going to be a lot of people who go out of business, and a lot of people who fill the gap and go into business," Bernstein said. "You'll see fewer and fewer people buying content from others unless they literally get the records. You'll see new production and new content coming out of this."

In addition, he said, "vintage" porn -- produced before July 3, 1995 -- may become more popular because the new enforcement regulations don't require age records for older content.
And the other issue is: the people who film you fucking know your real name, no change there. But now the people who are secondary producers (websites, etc.) will know your real name, too. Not all of them, of course, just the ones who get that info from your own company, but it does present a much bigger chance of leakage.

mischief : "... and if he or she is dead?"

Well, then, I suppose they could throw the dead person in prison, but I doubt that will happen, so probably the same as anything else that happens when you die: you don't need to do your taxes, you don't need to pay back debts, you don't need to fulfil other contractual obligations, etc. The responsibility is with the guy who managed the data, so if he's dead, there's nobody to get in trouble. Or so it would seem to me.
posted by Bugbread at 8:37 AM on June 22, 2005


alumshubby and Faint Of Butt: Actually, SCOTUS has already dealt with the issue of computer generated kiddie pr0n and, in a strange twist, they actually got it right.

In Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002) the Supremes considered the constitutionality of the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 ("CPPA"). The CPPA expanded the federal prohibition on child pornography to include not only pornographic images made using actual children but also "any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture," that "is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct," and any sexually explicit image that is "advertised, promoted, presented, described, or distributed in such a manner that conveys the impression" it depicts "a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct"

Thus, as the Supreme Court noted: "ยง 2256(8)(B) bans a range of sexually explicit images, sometimes called 'virtual child pornography,' that appear to depict minors but were produced by means other than using real children, such as through the use of youthful-looking adults or computer-imaging technology."

The Supremes found this expansion unconstitutional. Under earlier Supreme Court precedent, some things are obscene and can be banned simply because they are obscene and thus have no protectible value (Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973)). Pornography actually involving the exploitation of children can also be banned -- whether or not it is obscene under Miller -- because of the state's interest in protecting children (New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982)). But if material is not obscene under Miller AND no actual children were harmed in its making, the Supremes held that banning it is simply too much of an imposition on free speech.

The Government went all out in this case and made every imaginable argument. They argued that this stuff is indistinguishable from real kiddie porn and so it makes it harder to prosecute the real bad guys; the argued that it's disgusting and has no protectible free speech value; they argued that virtual kiddie pr0n is essentially the same as Ferber material and so should be subject to regulation under that theory; they argued that it's used to seduce actual children (!!) and finally they argued that real pedophiles will be moved to commit crimes if they have this stuff to "inspire" them.

Justice Kennedy's rejection of this last point is worth taking a look at in full, as it is a rare thing in this day and age:

The Government submits further that virtual child pornography whets the appetites of pedophiles and encourages them to engage in illegal conduct. This rationale cannot sustain the provision in question. The mere tendency of speech to encourage unlawful acts is not a sufficient reason for banning it. The government "cannot constitutionally premise legislation on the desirability of controlling a person's private thoughts." Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 566 (1969). First Amendment freedoms are most in danger when the government seeks to control thought or to justify its laws for that impermissible end. The right to think is the beginning of freedom, and speech must be protected from the government because speech is the beginning of thought.

Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. at 253.

"The right to think is the beginning of freedom" . . . stirring words. If only the government had been able to make some argument that "The Terrorists" were using virtual kiddie pr0n, you wonder if that kind of quote would have found its way into the opinion.
posted by The Bellman at 8:42 AM on June 22, 2005


This is bad for those who like their pr0n stars born after the 1995 watershed.
posted by NinjaPirate at 8:44 AM on June 22, 2005


NinjaPirate : "This is bad for those who like their pr0n stars born after the 1995 watershed."

Not necessarily. If they're still in action, there will be an increased demand for new stuff, so they'll probably produce more, which means people who've already bought their old stuff will have more of their stuff, total, than they would otherwise.

That is, if on the average, 1 movie is produced per year (yes, I know that's not accurate, but I want my numbers simple, and the basic idea stands), they'll have produced 10 movies so far. By the end of 2006, they would have produced 11, by the end of 2007, they'd have produced 12, etc.

If their back catalogue (and everyone else's) vanishes, there will be a greater demand to create a new stock, meaning they might produce 3 a year. That means by 2006, they will have produced 13, by the end of 2007 they will have produced 16.

Now, if you don't own their old stuff, that's not good. By the end of 2006, their whole stock will only be 3 videos, instead of the 11 they would have had otherwise. By the end of 2007, they'd have 6, which is better, but not as good as the 12 they'd have had otherwise.

So for people who bought/downloaded their stuff, it's good. For people who are getting into porn now, it's bad.

Plus, if they worked for reputable, large companies, it doesn't matter much either way, as the companies know their real names, have copies of their IDs, and know their stage names, so they can produce the records now. The only guaranteed losses are of backstock produced by companies that no longer exist, or by companies too small or unmotivated to hire a database guy and buy a computer. Some companies may find backstock logging too much of a pain to bother with, and just ditch the backstock and focus on new stuff, but either way it doesn't necessarily mean it's bad for folks who like post-1995 porn, just that it really depends on the performer and company.
posted by Bugbread at 9:03 AM on June 22, 2005


.
posted by drezdn at 9:18 AM on June 22, 2005


So, how does this work? Does somebody basically have to surf all of the porn sites all day as his job? How does one apply?
posted by Ironmouth at 9:29 AM on June 22, 2005


This thread has a lot of anxious hang wringing and shifty eyes looking for ways to get the fix. IMO the people who come first are the people who at impressionable ages are exposed to ALL ANAL ALL THE TIME and the not-small-minority who become addicted , having an impact for better or worse on their personal lives. If you want all anal all the time, then it should be available, but it should not be thrown at us as is currently. Internet porn is never going away but it should be segmented and isolated, that is the cultural norm, there are "blocks" and "bars" and "parlors" and now "XXX TLD's".
posted by stbalbach at 9:31 AM on June 22, 2005


As for the comment above about virtual child porn, the Supreme Court ruled that prosecutions cannot be based on virtual child porn. Justice Thomas filed a special concurrence.
posted by Ironmouth at 9:33 AM on June 22, 2005


stbalbach : "If you want all anal all the time, then it should be available, but it should not be thrown at us as is currently. Internet porn is never going away but it should be segmented and isolated, that is the cultural norm, there are 'blocks' and 'bars' and 'parlors' and now 'XXX TLD's'."

Fine and dandy, but you realize that has nothing to do with the legislation being discussed, and that the legislation discussed has nothing to do with that, right?
posted by Bugbread at 10:02 AM on June 22, 2005


bugbread writes "Not all of them, of course, just the ones who get that info from your own company, but it does present a much bigger chance of leakage."

This can be a huge exposure, look at a company like Met who seems to have freebies hosted everywhere. Pose for them or have your photographer sell to them and your name and address are free for the taking.

I wonder if we'll see some religous zealot group start going after smaller operators who may not have their ducks in a row ala the BSA. There also doesn't seem to be any common carrier exemption so outfits like Yahoo groups and Flickr could be in for a world of trouble.
posted by Mitheral at 10:07 AM on June 22, 2005


Sorry, I didn't mean to understate the leakage risk. I just meant to point out that registration does not ipso facto expose your real name to everyone, but only to folks within your company circle. That is, it's an exposure risk, not an exposure guarantee.
posted by Bugbread at 10:17 AM on June 22, 2005


Wow, bugbread. Thanks!
posted by mkultra at 10:17 AM on June 22, 2005


Mitheral : "I wonder if we'll see some religous zealot group start going after smaller operators who may not have their ducks in a row ala the BSA."

I think that's pretty much a guarantee, though I don't really find a lot of fault with that (with the legislation itself, perhaps, but not so much for targetting people who aren't following the legislation once it passes).

One of the big problems with the BSA is targetting companies where individual employees have installed pirated software on company computers. That is, the company is not necessarily in a position to know what is on its computers, especially if its a small company, and the BSA targets that to an unfair degree. Unless porn companies have lots of situations with employees hosting pornography on the company site without the site owners knowing, or selling pornography via the company without the company knowing (which I'd say is about 98% unlikely and 100% unlikely, respectively), unlike the BSA situation, a porn company which takes a fall for this does so entirely due to their own negligence / intentional noncompliance. I'd say the BSA situation is more like a group of religious zealots targetting Yahoo or Google for unknowingly hosting porn, which is far more reprehensible.

It's also nice that there's a mandatory limit of one investigation every 4 months, avoiding religious types being able to harrass at will. Basically, in a worst case scenario, you have three audits per year, and as anyone who has been audited knows, as long as you have your ducks in a row, it's a painless if boring process. At least it's not like the IRS, where you may think your ducks are in a row but the rules are so complicated you can never be confident.
posted by Bugbread at 10:25 AM on June 22, 2005


"People are pretty freaked out," said porn webmaster Jim McAnally, who estimates that more than half of hard-core websites, including some of his, will have to dump significant numbers of photos and videos. "This will affect people from top to bottom."

Can you spot the innuendo?
posted by dickumbrage at 12:46 PM on June 22, 2005


10 years seems somewhat draconian. I wonder if a PornPAC would be doomed to failure from the outset. I mean, they have money equal to major industries, but I can't imagine a politician accepting money from it. Sort of reduces their ability to fight stuff like this.
posted by absalom at 1:17 PM on June 22, 2005


It took more than a screenful of text to describe this law, bugbread. Are you sure that it's a s simple as you posit?

[PornPAC] ...I can't imagine a politician accepting money from it.

This is politicians you're talking about, right? You honestly believe politicians won't accept big money from industry X? Sounds naive and wishful to me.
posted by five fresh fish at 2:12 PM on June 22, 2005


five fresh fish : "It took more than a screenful of text to describe this law, bugbread. Are you sure that it's a s simple as you posit?"

Yep. An entire law you can fit in a few screenfuls? Hell, EB and I can barely fit a coherent response to a post in a full screenful, let alone an entire law. How to fill in my timesheet at work involves more than a full screenfull of text. And handing over the day's outages (I work in a network monitoring call center) can often involve 3 or more pages of raw text, and that text changes every day.

Let me put it this way: If you read what I wrote twice, you'll probably remember 90% of the law (maybe forgetting details like "the font has to be no smaller than the second largest font on the package"). If you spent an hour, you'd have the whole thing down pat, down to the itty bitty. An hour to understand regulations is nothing. These companies probably spent longer than that figuring out how to install their billing software or how to apply for a business license.

As with most laws, the devil is in the details, but what I posted is the details.
posted by Bugbread at 2:39 PM on June 22, 2005


Hmm, virtually all the content of the last ten years eliminated and new content to be produced to replace it?! Maybe this law isn't so bad after all. ;-P
posted by mischief at 3:30 PM on June 22, 2005


bugbread : "let alone an entire law"

In the interests of fairness, I should qualify. That wasn't the whole law/regulations, just the things they have to do. There were other parts like definitions of what a film is, as opposed to an image, and what a producer is, and the like, but the actual things-you-have-to-do is more or less all way up there.
posted by Bugbread at 3:48 PM on June 22, 2005


Does somebody basically have to surf all of the porn sites all day as his job? How does one apply?

My thought too. In my homestate, liquor inspectors have had the sweetest gig as far as regulatory officials (at least, those with no ethical problems regarding payoffs). The possibilities from this law boggle my mind.
posted by MetalDog at 4:52 PM on June 22, 2005


Two commenters commented that the definition of producer in the proposed rule was too broad and would encompass a convenience store hat sold sexually explicit magazines or a movie theater that screened R-rated movies. The Department declines to adopt this comment. As the rule makes clear, mere distributors of sexually explicit material are excluded from the definition of producers and under no plausible construction of the definition would a movie theater be covered merely by screening films produced by others.

How is a web site that "screens" movies any different from a movie theater that does so? That's where I get confused. How is a website that distributes content not produced in-house anything other than a "mere distriubutor"?
posted by hades at 5:41 PM on June 22, 2005


hades: because they defined it that way.
posted by mischief at 5:51 PM on June 22, 2005


I feel for the workers. America is needlessly shipping jobs overseas left and right.
posted by mrgrimm at 3:25 PM on June 23, 2005


More disscussion over at boingboing detailing how this is effecting rotten.com.
posted by Mitheral at 9:55 AM on June 24, 2005


« Older There are actually three different kinds of zombie...  |  Who Pagan Bullies Are and What... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments