2257 Battle rages on...

[wshandcock]

The thing i don't understand is how the government allows such blatant disregard of copyright law. Can the adult film industry go after the tube site like the recording industry went after Napster years ago

[stickyvicky]

We try. We all hire lawyers and spend money, we send out DMCA notices... for example my costs to run the VNA are way higher now, because I have to have a legal company on staff full time. We send out legal notices all day long, every single day. Rokkerr used to be the one doing it, but now that we have 14 sites and the stealing is rampant, we had to hire someone else to do it. They keep feelers out and take stuff down the minute it pops up, but it takes the tube site a few days to respond, then they take it down for one day, then put it back up the next day with a different url and a different name on the vid, so it's different. Then the lawyer has to send out another DMCA notice for it, even though it's the same video. It's ridiculous, like playing "whack a mole".

[wshandcock]

Is amazing when Lawyers get involved how much the price for everything goes up . People complain about the high coast of Rx Drugs and medical care in The US,but will sue a Dr over anything in a heartbeat . If they knew how much money the drug companies and Physicians spend on legal fees and preventive legal fees they would be amazed

[stickyvicky]

More on the trial if anyone is interested.. kind of a long read... but think it's proving that 2257 has absolutely 0 effect on child pornography....
http://www.xbiz.com/news/163811

[Anthony_JK]

What gets me about all this is that most of the authorities already know that 2257's not going to put any dents in the availability and accessibility of kiddie porn, since those most likely to pursue that kind of illegal activity will simply find other ways of getting their fix....yet they still insist that this is a legitimate means of controlling who gets into porn. Considering that it's still quite rare to find any established production company who would even dare to recruit an underage performer (and before you scream "Traci Lords!!" and "Alexandra Cooper!!" and "Lupe Fuentes!!" at me, remember that in those cases, it was the performer who initiated the act of faking their age info to get in, not the producers) for fear of unleashing the full wrath of the authorities on ALL adult sexual material, I'd say that peer pressure combined with targetted investigation of actual suspected underage exploiters would do a much better job than this overwraught scheme of keeping sensitive records of every performer now and forever.

Plus...I'd suspect that 2257, in keeping those records available and accessible, makes it far too easy for someone to pilfer personal data and exploit it for their own ends. Remember Donny Long and the original Porn Wikileaks, and how he stole personal data to smear performers?

And, it's becoming more and more obvious by the "experts" the DoJ are calling in to defend these regs that they knew next to nothing about how adult media works...or, like Gail Dines, simply don't want to know because they are more interested in wiping out the adult industry for their own reasons and profit.

Anyways....kudos to Mark Kernes at AVN for his reporting and his analysis.

Oh....and I put in some thoughts of my own at my blog regarding the "Feminist Porn SmackOff" (war of words) between Nina Hartley and Gail Dines regarding their diametrically opposing views on porn and 2257:

http://redgarterclub.com/RGClubNetwork/ ... 7-smackof/

[stickyvicky]

Last day of the trial! http://www.xbiz.com/news/164085

[stickyvicky]

Wow! 2257 is UNCONSTITUTIONAL? You don't say?
AAAHHHHHGGGGG !!! We have all been saying that for years! This thread was started in 2009... the first post read "this battle is going to take a long time"....
http://www.xbiz.com/news/216003

[Anthony_JK]

That ruling, Vicky, only covered the Fourth Amendment issues of the government going after performer records without a warrant. The issue of whether the 2257 and 2257A regs actually do violate the First Amendment right of free expression is still on the table, and still to be litigated. But, significant teeth have been rendered out of this regulation to reduce it's impact.

So, not quite totally unconstitutional yet, but progress.

[stickyvicky]

https://mikesouth.com/free-speech-coali ... ans-65594/

Here is the latest on this! the FSC has been doing a great job on this!

[WalterB]

I would think it's at least a big step forward.