Quote:
Originally posted by Lee@Aug 25 2004, 08:36 PM
Kimmy..
Was more asking about prosecutions rather than charges. As that was what Hammer was saying his version of 'the law' should it be passed is going to prevent.
Gonzo..
Ill be the Eggman if youll be the Walrus 
Regards,
Lee
|
I'm guessing you just weren't thinking correctly when you wrote that, because I have no 'version' of the law and the law is not going to prevent anything.
I never suggested that anyone should not keep records for all of the content they purchase. That would just be smart even if the law doesn't change, especially for anyone that uses teen content.
I suggested that 'if' the proposed changes go through and 'if' you worked from home and didn't want to put your home address on your websites as the location of the custodian of records or if you ran a thumb preview TGP and hosted the thumbs on your own server, that there was a solution. That solution being to use softcore content that was not covered under the 2256 definition of 'sexually explicit' since you would not be required to comply with the 'new' 2257 rules if you did.
Simple concept really. Certainly there is a lot of grey area surrounding the definition of 'sexually explicit' and 'lascivious' and I've chosen to use Eric Bernstein's and Larry Walters definitions. European Lee's attorney appears to be even more generous in what he says is allowed to be exempt.
This will all be a moot point if the proposed changes don't go through as they are now written and we don't all become secondary producers that will be required to act as our own custodian of records. I sincerely hope that is what happens, but I wouldn't bet on it, and waiting to find out and then scrambling to comply just doesn't seem to be a smart plan to me, especially for webmasters that have thousands of images on their sites that you would need to be able to prove was posted prior to the date the possible new law went into effect. Either way, whether you have to find the records or show that you don't need them because you posted the content on your site prior to the final date, someone has shown up at your door that you'd much rather wasn't there.
Alex, we can argue the point of whether or not Google should be included, but I don't see what purpose that serves. Most attorneys I've talked to believe that much of the proposed rules are unconstitutional and would never make it through a court. The problem is that someone has to be the first to get wacked and take it far enough in the court system to prove that point, but do you really want to stand there at your door telling the feds that they can go take a hike because Google didn't have to keep 2257 records so you didn't either? Good luck with that legal defense.