Re: [Foundation-l] Legal requirements for sexual content -- help, please!

On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 5:54 PM, wrote: > > The foundation does not "own and operate" the site in the way that Fox > news owns and operates their site. > The foundation merely ensures that the site operates, functions, runs. > It does not edit the contents of the site. That is the fundamental f

Re: [Foundation-l] Legal requirements for sexual content -- help, please!

What I'm advocating for now is voluntary compliance, for the following reasons (and nobody has tried to address #3 yet): It's a proven system of record keeping that verifies information like names of subjects, stage names, date of birth, name of photographer, consent (implied by completing a

Re: [Foundation-l] Legal requirements for sexual content -- help, please!

ort. > > I am not a US citizen and I do not know US laws. But if law requires > record keeping for explicit content so that it is possible to verify > that the content is legal, it's meaningful that re-users also keep the > name and contact info of the person who keeps the initial USC 2

Re: [Foundation-l] Legal requirements for sexual content -- help, please!

ifically to meet that law's > detailed requirements, whether we would not be perhaps admitting in > advance that us law applies to us in this respect, and forfeiting our > defense that we are not a producer? > > David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_

Re: [Foundation-l] Legal requirements for sexual content -- help, please!

I contacted Drew Sabol; professor, attorney, and owner of a 2257 record-keeping service called 2257services.net . His opinion is the Wikipedia is something like a social networking site that accepts user submission. The Department of Justice (DOJ) put out an update t