interesting questions. My first thought was that there are a lot of
reused images out there and those operators obviously aren't going to
have record information. Of course, those could probably mostly be
classified as copyright violations.
But even putting that aside, there's the question of site operators
who have purchased content. What's the difference between a publisher
or a distributor when it comes to web sites? Is the site operator
responsible for having the background information on file? Are they
going to have to dump thousands of dollars worth of material because
they don't have the information? Or is the onus of keeping the records
able to be pushed off onto the producer they purchased the content for
reuse from? What happens if that producer goes out of business? (Let's
assume it was just regular financial problems, and not legal issues.)
Who is responsible for the records then?
The second bullet point on page 2 makes it sound like if you're not
actually directly involved with the performers, then you're off the
hook and are just a "mere" distributor. But the term "service
producer" in the second to last bullet point on page 2 makes it sound
like the web site operator is responsible for the records. How do they
get them if they didn't create the material? If it comes with the
purchase, how do they establish its veracity?
And the whole "accession information, such as each URL used for that
depiction" is honestly impractical if not almost impossible
considering dynamic content feeds.
The intentions of the bill are good. But the language of it is vague
enough that it's hard to know exactly who is responsible and even then
the practicalities of has holes.
-Kevin
On Thu, 5 Aug 2004 11:58:46 -0400, Howie Hamlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why are you so upset about laws that are intended to prevent sexual expolits of children?
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Bill Wheatley
> To: CF-Community
> Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 11:55 AM
> Subject: Re: pain in the ass
>
> anyone you pay for their services (of being naked) is going to have to be tracked and in a seperate folder specifcally for this.
>
> William Wheatley
> Coldfusion Guru
>
> Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons,
> for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Larry C. Lyons
> To: CF-Community
> Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 11:53 AM
> Subject: Re: pain in the ass
>
> "But having to keep a link of every image ever used is going to be a
> big pain in the ass."
>
> A big pain in the ass - wouldn't that apply only to certain types of
> pron films and images?
>
> larry
>
> On Thu, 5 Aug 2004 11:43:24 -0400, Bill Wheatley
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > http://www.ibill.com/news/Title18USC2257.pdf
> > This is going to be a huge pain in the ass and not really help too much. Time to write a letter :>
> > I'll post it here for proofreading before i mail it off to the DoJ. Some of the rules are good like saying Drivers License & Passport only.
> > But having to keep a link of every image ever used is going to be a big pain in the ass.
> >
> > William Wheatley
> > Coldfusion Guru
> >
> > Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons,
> > for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.
> >
> >
>
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
