View Full Version : Americans !!!
NumptyNuts
06-21-05, 11:17 PM
what bit of - Im in the UK and therefore comply to UK laws don't they understand :-(
Just coz dont have any oil for em to take they want to instead take my lively hood with their half baked daft rules.
18 months ago it was acacia with their 'we own streaming' so licence it or else now its this dam 2257.
So can some else please answer me this -
If I host in the EU, Process in the EU then what laws of theirs should I comply to?
what bit of - Im in the UK and therefore comply to UK laws don't they understand :-(
Just coz dont have any oil for em to take they want to instead take my lively hood with their half baked daft rules.
18 months ago it was acacia with their 'we own streaming' so licence it or else now its this dam 2257.
So can some else please answer me this -
If I host in the EU, Process in the EU then what laws of theirs should I comply to?
Fuck All!
Just don't use US sponsors either and you don't have to answer to them at all, the only problem might be getting listed on TGP's, MGP's and LL's, but fuck them and all.
Elisha Jade
06-21-05, 11:35 PM
Would ccbill EU be classified as EU processing?
Would ccbill EU be classified as EU processing?
Well they have enforced their new policy on join pages for CCBill and CCBilleu so I would say not.
most likely the usual rule of the main office applies, and that will still be US based.
NumptyNuts
06-22-05, 12:19 AM
most likely the usual rule of the main office applies, and that will still be US based.
I would agree with this statement here. though I will try and get it clarified :)
ooooh don't you know ?
Of course he knows ... he's a processing guru ..
NumptyNuts
06-22-05, 12:49 AM
Processors are not really effected by the current rulings for 2257 - its just they may be dragged into it along with ISP's as this rule is expanded to cover more types of business and not just the main content provider.
"In order to sell in the U.S. market, foreign producers must comply with U.S. laws. This rule applies equally to any sexually explicit material introduced into the stream of commerce in the United States no matter where it was produced. Foreign producers have the option of not complying with the rule, but then their access to the U.S. market is justly and lawfully prohibited."
mellenig
06-22-05, 09:30 AM
Does anyone think the UK will try and push something through similar if they see it restricting porn in the US?
I read an article in the paper at the weekend that the british goverement where bringing in new spam laws in which where very similar to the ones that the US introduced 2 years back that made a lot of the US spammers move offshore.
I know I hate spam as well and any law that restricts it and clears my inbox is good in my book. But there is a lot of people who feel the same about our industry.
Does anyone think the UK will try and push something through similar if they see it restricting porn in the US?
I read an article in the paper at the weekend that the british goverement where bringing in new spam laws in which where very similar to the ones that the US introduced 2 years back that made a lot of the US spammers move offshore.
I know I hate spam as well and any law that restricts it and clears my inbox is good in my book. But there is a lot of people who feel the same about our industry.
This seem to be loosening up here to fit more in line with Europe, I can only see that continuing. I know Blair is a bit of a wally, but at least we are not yet govenred by Right wing Neo Conservative bible bashing fruit loops
ChemicalEyes
06-22-05, 09:49 AM
I know Blair is a bit of a wally, but at least we are not yet govenred by Right wing Neo Conservative bible bashing fruit loops
http://www.biggletech.com/stuff/forumpics/roflcopter.gif
Does anyone think the UK will try and push something through similar if they see it restricting porn in the US?
i for one am sure we will face something like that as well, on an EU level.
Sweden has some dyke-ish cunt politician who keeps bashing anything remotely erotic as degrading women.
mind that it will be sold with the same pitch as in the US, to protect children. and as soon as you mention protecting kids, you can sell people to practically everything.
Does anyone think the UK will try and push something through similar if they see it restricting porn in the US?
I read an article in the paper at the weekend that the british goverement where bringing in new spam laws in which where very similar to the ones that the US introduced 2 years back that made a lot of the US spammers move offshore.
I know I hate spam as well and any law that restricts it and clears my inbox is good in my book. But there is a lot of people who feel the same about our industry.
Yes of course we will, its just time before it happens... they question is where does the cross over from being hosted in the US appear?
dvtimes
06-22-05, 11:10 AM
I suspect that there will be no EU changes to porn.
The reason I say this, is that many EU countries have very relaxed views on porn. Which you could say is healthy.
The reason the USA has gone down this path is down to the huge religious community, which is often right wing. And unlike UK politics, religion does influence much of the laws.
Do not forget that until only a few years ago, it was an offence to say Hell on USA TV.
In fact if you look at USA films from 1940's, you could see some very rude stuff, which would now be banded on USA TV shows now.
Also the FBI have there own agenda on porn in the USA. They have been going after it for years.
Also porn is not legal in the USA its just that its not illegal (due to freedom of speech act).
Elisha Jade
06-22-05, 11:27 AM
Plus our data protection act clashes with it...
I wouldn't really mind complying with something like that - its just paperwork apart from giving out models IDs I don't think its safe. Plus they have made the guidelines pretty loose to try and catch people out.
Anyone know when today the free speech coalition is going up against 2257?
Plus our data protection act clashes with it...
I wouldn't really mind complying with something like that - its just paperwork apart from giving out models IDs I don't think its safe. Plus they have made the guidelines pretty loose to try and catch people out.
Anyone know when today the free speech coalition is going up against 2257?
I have heard the argument that the Data protection act means that its illegal for us to keep or give out such records. It doesn't. The data protection act is a law that states, if you keep personal data on a computer then you have to tell the data protection department, pay them £30 for a licence then That's that.
We do not have any privacy laws in this country that would mean we couldn't keep these records on file. its done in many industries, in fact its the law with many non adult industries that these ID's are kept on file. for example Airport security.
Keeping I.D's and selling them with content doesn't. break any laws that I've ever heard of. I have spoken to many european and UK content producers, who from now on will be selling all content with 2257 compliant I'd's They are not breaking any laws in doing so. You will see over time that pretty much 100% of all content brokers and sellers will be supplying the correct I'd's. I certainly wouldn't be buying any from a content producer if they wasn't supplying those docs.
I cant see one legal reason why we couldnt follow these laws. I'm not saying anyone should, all I'm saying if someone does they are not breaking UK or European law in doing so
I think you'll find the Data Protection Act contains more than just:
"The data protection act is a law that states, if you keep personal data on a computer then you have to tell the data protection department, pay them £30 for a licence then That's that."
When you start reading it for instance it has 8 principles of good practice and 6 conditions one of which is "..the individual has consented to the processing". So as I understand it, you can't give the real name, address and photo ID of your model to a third party (i.e. an affiliate) without first asking the permission of the model. That's why the Data Protection Act contradicts 2257.
There are also 7 rights under the Act one of which is "The right to prevent processing. Anyone can ask a data controller not to process information relating to him or her that causes substantial unwarranted damage or distress to them or anyone else". It's worth reading the Act at:
http://www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk/eventual.aspx?id=34
Elisha Jade
06-22-05, 01:10 PM
I have no problem joining the data protection act but i think you have to ask the individual models "can i send your ID and contact information to all of my affiliates" which many of them are gonna tell us to bog off hehe
When you start reading it for instance it has 8 principles of good practice and 6 conditions one of which is "..the individual has consented to the processing". So as I understand it, you can't give the real name, address and photo ID of your model to a third party (i.e. an affiliate) without first asking the permission of the model. That's why the Data Protection Act contradicts 2257.
[/url]
I dont doubt, that maybe the program couldnt give the affiliate the content and I'D's if the model wouldnt allow it, but that has nothing to do with a secondary producer keeping records. If you cant give the ID's the secondary producer cant use it. If you can then they can. Keeping models ID's on record yourself is what all primary and some secondary producers do now, its the way the records are kept thats different and the fact that the secondary producer has to keep them as well, that doesnt break the data protection act
Example 1. If I, joe blogs, buys content, it comes with ID's, if I keep the records in the way 2257 now states, how am I breaking the data protection act?
Example 2. If I, joe blogs, makes content, I take copies of ID's, if I keep the records in the way 2257 now states, how am I breaking the data protection act?
I dont believe keeping the records the way 2257 states breaks the data protection act. Maybe giving them out does, though I'm not sure. If it does it means that all the content brokers are breaking the law giving out the id's as they all do now
drunken
06-22-05, 02:56 PM
This seem to be loosening up here to fit more in line with Europe, I can only see that continuing. I know Blair is a bit of a wally, but at least we are not yet govenred by Right wing Neo Conservative bible bashing fruit loops
good one! :thumbsup:
I have no problem joining the data protection act but i think you have to ask the individual models "can i send your ID and contact information to all of my affiliates" which many of them are gonna tell us to bog off hehe
You are maybe right, maybe they will. But sending out I.D's is only the same as what content producers have been doing for years. When I buy content from a broker or producer, they send me the I.D's with it. The only difference is that affiliates have traditionally got the content for free. If the same affiliate went and bought the content they would have got the ID's anyway
Elisha Jade
06-22-05, 06:00 PM
Oh me too.. but a lot of them state that we cant regive them out to affiliates.. i guess im thinking more of myself modelling I know I wouldn't want to give my address details out to every affiliate who signed up but thats where topless promotional pics might work :)
I do think some form of 2257 is a good idea to keep your documents in order and make sure you arent shooting content or buying content of 17 year olds.. but then I think that it could potentially cause stalkers / rape / murder of models with their addresses being given out to every tom dick and harry - It doesnt take much for a "psycho fan" to create a simple website and signup to promote them.... but then 2257 is good news for european webmasters I guess with respect to people pulling down their sites.
all the various data protection laws can easily be wiped away. a little crisis, a bit of terror, and the majority over here will say "yes, fuck me up my arse to protect me from the evil terrorists" - just like the merkins do.
Shandy McAndy
06-22-05, 08:09 PM
I will be pointing my 2257 link to a big hot turd picture
We have always had to keep *full* 2257 style ID’s and information for the Video, DVD and television market as have the Video, DVD and television producers in the US.
The issue of 2257 and the online business is really only such a mess due to bad bookkeeping by the online businesses in general. We have been producing and publishing our own content since the mid 1980’s and we have every single piece of required documentation from every shoot.
The big problem area is where 2257 covers secondary producers as there is no way that the *good* programs who are in the business for the long term or the half decent models with even an ounce of common sense will ever allow their personal information to be distributed. Several models have already taken professional legal advice on this and there is already a threat of several legal problems if their information filed with existing model release documents are made public.
regarding the models personal data the 2257 is a real worry. i agree with Elisha that its an issue regarding safety for the models.
I have no issue keeping docs that prove the models are of legal age etc etc but the whole secondary producer saga is over the top
domd
xx
Elisha Jade
06-23-05, 02:08 AM
I have a headache :( lol... you seen all that crap going on another board about 2257 an a deal with the DOJ ?
I have a headache :( lol... you seen all that crap going on another board about 2257 an a deal with the DOJ ?
erm no? what the deal?
domd
xx
Elisha Jade
06-23-05, 02:17 AM
They havent mentioned.. i dont know if it was just to try and get people to view the board or not.. but XBiz just posted this..
http://xbiz.com/news_piece.php?id=9236
Yet if you read the actual court documents in reply to the FSC requests...which are here: http://xbiz.com/pdf/2257restraining.pdf it looks like the DOJ is really going to fight this to win - so I really dont know what to believe.
They havent mentioned.. i dont know if it was just to try and get people to view the board or not.. but XBiz just posted this..
http://xbiz.com/news_piece.php?id=9236
Yet if you read the actual court documents in reply to the FSC requests...which are here: http://xbiz.com/pdf/2257restraining.pdf it looks like the DOJ is really going to fight this to win - so I really dont know what to believe.
Looks like its gonna be an exciting few days, I just read the xbiz article, a couple of highlights were
While FSC attorney Jeffrey Douglas told XBiz that he could not reveal details, he said there will be an announcement tomorrow at 1:30 p.m., and it will be “big news and good news.”
&
Justice further asserted to the Court that a restraining order would greatly increase the likelihood of distribution of child pornography.
vBulletin® v3.7.2, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.