Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [videoblogging] Re: XXX on Blip.tv

Expand Messages
  • Michael Sullivan
    ... Spam, Dupes, Tests, and non-vlog video content are some of the reasons why I have chosen not to pull in all the feeds that exist out there onto my site
    Message 1 of 29 , Jan 1, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      There's also a deluge of spam on open systems.  Actions to hold it
      back are worthy.

      Spam, Dupes, Tests, and non-vlog video content are some of the reasons why I have chosen not to pull in all the 'feeds' that exist out there onto my site at vlogdir.com.  Someone needs to take a few minutes of their time to add a videoblog entry to vlogdir.  This person, so far 99.9% of the time, is typcially the vlog/channel author.  They are interested to share and expose their content.
      My letting VLOGDIR be a user-driven and thus commuity-driven directory, it acts as a very passive filter.  I dont have to worry about removing crap... once or twice I had to remove a commercial entry that was not a vlog, just some infomercial... but I deal with it as they come in. 
      If I took in all the feeds from all the different sites out there, i'd have a headache that i dont need.... and more noise in the directory for the audience.    Though vlogdir is an open system, at this point i see a benefit to not sucking in a spitting out every single rs feed that may exist across a group of video hosting sites.  Less is More and all that.   I'm not saying it is right or wrong, just is what it is right now based on my opinion.... and specifically related to the core directory.  I could in an hour or so build a new page that takes in all the newest video posted and generate and aggreagate an RSS feed for it.  I might do that actually.  But that would be just a vlogospheric feed and not the actual directory.  So, their are ways to make availabel the actual video content that is being spewed out from all over... without potentially corrupting a directory with the everything and anything system.
      I have not had any porn vlogs added to vlogdir but if they come, i'll evaluate what to do (go ahead, insert joke here).


      On 1/1/06, Enric < enric@...> wrote:
      --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Halcyon Lujah <halcyon@c...> wrote:
      >
      > Wellll....
      >
      > as a part-time professional pornographer, I feel like I should say
      > *something*...
      >
      > Sexual content is just a type of content.  Like extreme sports.  If it
      > is labeled properly, I don't see the problem.
      >
      > Of course, if a site says , "NO PORN" then they have to undertake the
      > tide-fighting battle tof trying to keep adult off of an open system.
      >

      There's also a deluge of spam on open systems.  Actions to hold it
      back are worthy.

        -- Enric


      > I know that Veoh.com allows adult and gives you the ability to tag it
      > as such.  That way, unles you change your default settings, you would
      > never see the risque content in searches or on the site.
      >
      > -Halcyon
      > www.SpreadingThePink.com
      > www.PinkBroadcasting.com
      >
      >
      >
      > On 1/1/06, Paul Knight < paul.knight7@b...> wrote:
      > > Dear all,
      > >
      > > On the subject of Pornography, something seems to have slipped through
      > > the net and landed writhing on the pages of blip.tv It is also
      > > happening in Dailymotion.  Although a lot softer core.  The video I am
      > > talking about is called XXX and was posted by LeNoX.  I don't know
      > > about you but, although I have nothing against pornography, but for me
      > > these video sites both blip and dailymotion used to be a safe
      haven for
      > > me away from porn where I could concentrate, more on artistic
      value and
      > > creativity rather than having to suppress the urge to run to the
      > > bathroom every five minutes for tissue paper.  I have found that the
      > > worst thing you need when you have vloggers block is to get sucked
      into
      > > porn.  Or maybe I take this whole thing a bit too seriously, I wish to
      > > make films, I wish to share my creativity, it's enough when corpo's
      > > come on ranting about companies, I think that sucks also, big time.
      > >
      > > Paul Knight
      > >
      > >
      > > Do yourself a favour and Visit my Vlog
      > >
      > > http://pjkproductions.blogspot.com
      > >
      > > It's worth a laugh and work friendly.
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > Yahoo! Groups Links
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      >
      >
      > --
      > www.SpreadingThePink.com
      >







      Yahoo! Groups Links

      <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

      <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          videoblogging-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

      <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
          http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/






      --
      sull
      - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
      "The hybrid or the meeting of two media is a moment of truth and revelation from which new form is born"
      - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
      http://vlogdir.com - The Videoblog Directory
      http://videobloggers.org - Free Videoblog Hosting / Vlogosphere Aggregator
      http://interdigitate.com - on again off again personal vlog
    • Devlon
      We (you know who) replace the pornographic feed s thumbnail with an advisory-style image so the content isn t censored, or filtered, but at least grandma, or
      Message 2 of 29 , Jan 1, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        We (you know who) replace the pornographic feed's thumbnail with an advisory-style image so the content isn't censored, or filtered, but at least grandma, or little joey don't have bare asses, etc thrown in their faces. 

        We have to do this manually right now, and if the content is really nasty then we'd pull it.
        ...the porn, pull the porn off the site that is.  (Yeesh, hard to avoid the puns isn't it.)

        On 1/1/06, Michael Sullivan <sulleleven@...> wrote:
        There's also a deluge of spam on open systems.  Actions to hold it
        back are worthy.

        Spam, Dupes, Tests, and non-vlog video content are some of the reasons why I have chosen not to pull in all the 'feeds' that exist out there onto my site at vlogdir.com.  Someone needs to take a few minutes of their time to add a videoblog entry to vlogdir.  This person, so far 99.9% of the time, is typcially the vlog/channel author.  They are interested to share and expose their content.
        My letting VLOGDIR be a user-driven and thus commuity-driven directory, it acts as a very passive filter.  I dont have to worry about removing crap... once or twice I had to remove a commercial entry that was not a vlog, just some infomercial... but I deal with it as they come in. 
        If I took in all the feeds from all the different sites out there, i'd have a headache that i dont need.... and more noise in the directory for the audience.    Though vlogdir is an open system, at this point i see a benefit to not sucking in a spitting out every single rs feed that may exist across a group of video hosting sites.  Less is More and all that.   I'm not saying it is right or wrong, just is what it is right now based on my opinion.... and specifically related to the core directory.  I could in an hour or so build a new page that takes in all the newest video posted and generate and aggreagate an RSS feed for it.  I might do that actually.  But that would be just a vlogospheric feed and not the actual directory.  So, their are ways to make availabel the actual video content that is being spewed out from all over... without potentially corrupting a directory with the everything and anything system.
        I have not had any porn vlogs added to vlogdir but if they come, i'll evaluate what to do (go ahead, insert joke here).


        On 1/1/06, Enric < enric@...> wrote:
        --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Halcyon Lujah <halcyon@c...> wrote:
        >
        > Wellll....
        >
        > as a part-time professional pornographer, I feel like I should say
        > *something*...
        >
        > Sexual content is just a type of content.  Like extreme sports.  If it
        > is labeled properly, I don't see the problem.
        >
        > Of course, if a site says , "NO PORN" then they have to undertake the
        > tide-fighting battle tof trying to keep adult off of an open system.
        >

        There's also a deluge of spam on open systems.  Actions to hold it
        back are worthy.

          -- Enric


        > I know that Veoh.com allows adult and gives you the ability to tag it
        > as such.  That way, unles you change your default settings, you would
        > never see the risque content in searches or on the site.
        >
        > -Halcyon
        > www.SpreadingThePink.com
        > www.PinkBroadcasting.com
        >
        >
        >
        > On 1/1/06, Paul Knight < paul.knight7@b...> wrote:
        > > Dear all,
        > >
        > > On the subject of Pornography, something seems to have slipped through
        > > the net and landed writhing on the pages of blip.tv It is also
        > > happening in Dailymotion.  Although a lot softer core.  The video I am
        > > talking about is called XXX and was posted by LeNoX.  I don't know
        > > about you but, although I have nothing against pornography, but for me
        > > these video sites both blip and dailymotion used to be a safe
        haven for
        > > me away from porn where I could concentrate, more on artistic
        value and
        > > creativity rather than having to suppress the urge to run to the
        > > bathroom every five minutes for tissue paper.  I have found that the
        > > worst thing you need when you have vloggers block is to get sucked
        into
        > > porn.  Or maybe I take this whole thing a bit too seriously, I wish to
        > > make films, I wish to share my creativity, it's enough when corpo's
        > > come on ranting about companies, I think that sucks also, big time.
        > >
        > > Paul Knight
        > >
        > >
        > > Do yourself a favour and Visit my Vlog
        > >
        > > http://pjkproductions.blogspot.com
        > >
        > > It's worth a laugh and work friendly.
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > Yahoo! Groups Links
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        >
        >
        > --
        > www.SpreadingThePink.com
        >







        Yahoo! Groups Links

        <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
             http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

        <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
            videoblogging-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

        <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
            http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/






        --
        sull
        - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
        "The hybrid or the meeting of two media is a moment of truth and revelation from which new form is born"
        - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
        http://vlogdir.com - The Videoblog Directory
        http://videobloggers.org - Free Videoblog Hosting / Vlogosphere Aggregator
        http://interdigitate.com - on again off again personal vlog

        SPONSORED LINKS
        Individual Fireant Typepad
        Use


        YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS






        --
        ~Devlon
        Blog: http://devlond.blogspot.com/
        Vlog: http://8bitme.blogspot.com

        http://mefeedia.com/ -OR- http://mefeedia.com/blog/
      • Stephanie Bryant
        Eddie, As of last week, the secondary producer clause was struck down (yay!). Blip.tv can t get into trouble for some jerk posting porn to their service. I say
        Message 3 of 29 , Jan 2, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Eddie,

          As of last week, the secondary producer clause was struck down (yay!).
          Blip.tv can't get into trouble for some jerk posting porn to their
          service.

          I say "can't," but everyone needs to be aware that individual DA's
          have prosecuted (and persecuted) people for selling/providing adult
          material even when the material was not sold, targeted, distributed or
          otherwise meant for their local community. So, while the law no longer
          requires blip.tv to have all the underage reporting and documentation,
          that's no guarantee that some overzealous "porn task force" at the FBI
          won't decide to take it upon themselves to go after them, and the
          resulting legal quagmire can land Enric and all the blip.tv servers in
          court for years. Also, if some jerk posts child porn, Enric has to
          remove it immediately, even if it's not theirs. [And it'd be smart to
          call the cops if that happened, in case you can track down the source
          and fry them over an open grill.]

          We've been watching this very closely in my house, since hubby's biz
          depends on it. Check freespeechcoalition.com for updates on free
          speech issues in the adult industry if you're interested.

          On 1/1/06, Eddie Codel <eddie@...> wrote:
          > Seems like a bigger issue is how does someone like blip or Veoh deal
          > with the newly expanded 2257 reporting requirements? Wouldn't they be considered a
          > "secondary producer" in the eyes of the feds?

          --
          Stephanie Bryant
          mortaine@...
          Vlog: http://mortaine.blogspot.com
          Audioblog: http://bookramble.blogspot.com
        • Joshua Kinberg
          Stephanie, Can you point me to any documentation on this secondary producer clause and what it means? I ve been wondering about how sites like iFilm.com and
          Message 4 of 29 , Jan 2, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            Stephanie,

            Can you point me to any documentation on this "secondary producer
            clause" and what it means?

            I've been wondering about how sites like iFilm.com and YouTube.com
            persist seemingly without liability even though they willfully display
            content they have no right to broadcast (SNL clips and other content
            they do not have permission to distribute).

            Does this clause cover sites like this or does it only relate to pornography?

            -Josh


            On 1/2/06, Stephanie Bryant <mortaine@...> wrote:
            > Eddie,
            >
            > As of last week, the secondary producer clause was struck down (yay!).
            > Blip.tv can't get into trouble for some jerk posting porn to their
            > service.
            >
            > I say "can't," but everyone needs to be aware that individual DA's
            > have prosecuted (and persecuted) people for selling/providing adult
            > material even when the material was not sold, targeted, distributed or
            > otherwise meant for their local community. So, while the law no longer
            > requires blip.tv to have all the underage reporting and documentation,
            > that's no guarantee that some overzealous "porn task force" at the FBI
            > won't decide to take it upon themselves to go after them, and the
            > resulting legal quagmire can land Enric and all the blip.tv servers in
            > court for years. Also, if some jerk posts child porn, Enric has to
            > remove it immediately, even if it's not theirs. [And it'd be smart to
            > call the cops if that happened, in case you can track down the source
            > and fry them over an open grill.]
            >
            > We've been watching this very closely in my house, since hubby's biz
            > depends on it. Check freespeechcoalition.com for updates on free
            > speech issues in the adult industry if you're interested.
            >
            > On 1/1/06, Eddie Codel <eddie@...> wrote:
            > > Seems like a bigger issue is how does someone like blip or Veoh deal
            > > with the newly expanded 2257 reporting requirements? Wouldn't they be considered a
            > > "secondary producer" in the eyes of the feds?
            >
            > --
            > Stephanie Bryant
            > mortaine@...
            > Vlog: http://mortaine.blogspot.com
            > Audioblog: http://bookramble.blogspot.com
            >
            >
            >
            > Yahoo! Groups Links
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
          • Halcyon Lujah
            Secondary producer is a part of the 2257 wording which (in my understanding) is strictlly for porn, and used under the pretense of stopping child porn. (age of
            Message 5 of 29 , Jan 2, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              Secondary producer is a part of the 2257 wording which (in my
              understanding) is strictlly for porn, and used under the pretense of
              stopping child porn. (age of performers documentation, etc.)

              It is not related to using others' content.

              -Halcyon

              On 1/2/06, Joshua Kinberg <jkinberg@...> wrote:
              > Stephanie,
              >
              > Can you point me to any documentation on this "secondary producer
              > clause" and what it means?
              >
              > I've been wondering about how sites like iFilm.com and YouTube.com
              > persist seemingly without liability even though they willfully display
              > content they have no right to broadcast (SNL clips and other content
              > they do not have permission to distribute).
              >
              > Does this clause cover sites like this or does it only relate to pornography?
              >
              > -Josh
              >
              >
              > On 1/2/06, Stephanie Bryant <mortaine@...> wrote:
              > > Eddie,
              > >
              > > As of last week, the secondary producer clause was struck down (yay!).
              > > Blip.tv can't get into trouble for some jerk posting porn to their
              > > service.
              > >
              > > I say "can't," but everyone needs to be aware that individual DA's
              > > have prosecuted (and persecuted) people for selling/providing adult
              > > material even when the material was not sold, targeted, distributed or
              > > otherwise meant for their local community. So, while the law no longer
              > > requires blip.tv to have all the underage reporting and documentation,
              > > that's no guarantee that some overzealous "porn task force" at the FBI
              > > won't decide to take it upon themselves to go after them, and the
              > > resulting legal quagmire can land Enric and all the blip.tv servers in
              > > court for years. Also, if some jerk posts child porn, Enric has to
              > > remove it immediately, even if it's not theirs. [And it'd be smart to
              > > call the cops if that happened, in case you can track down the source
              > > and fry them over an open grill.]
              > >
              > > We've been watching this very closely in my house, since hubby's biz
              > > depends on it. Check freespeechcoalition.com for updates on free
              > > speech issues in the adult industry if you're interested.
              > >
              > > On 1/1/06, Eddie Codel <eddie@...> wrote:
              > > > Seems like a bigger issue is how does someone like blip or Veoh deal
              > > > with the newly expanded 2257 reporting requirements? Wouldn't they be considered a
              > > > "secondary producer" in the eyes of the feds?
              > >
              > > --
              > > Stephanie Bryant
              > > mortaine@...
              > > Vlog: http://mortaine.blogspot.com
              > > Audioblog: http://bookramble.blogspot.com
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > Yahoo! Groups Links
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              >
              >
              >
              > Yahoo! Groups Links
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >


              --
              www.SpreadingThePink.com
            • Enric
              ... LOL, Stephanie. I don t work at blip.tv or have a open server for video content. ;), Enric -===- Determine Media http://www.cirne.com ... be considered a
              Message 6 of 29 , Jan 2, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Stephanie Bryant <mortaine@g...>
                wrote:
                >
                > Eddie,
                >
                > As of last week, the secondary producer clause was struck down (yay!).
                > Blip.tv can't get into trouble for some jerk posting porn to their
                > service.
                >
                > I say "can't," but everyone needs to be aware that individual DA's
                > have prosecuted (and persecuted) people for selling/providing adult
                > material even when the material was not sold, targeted, distributed or
                > otherwise meant for their local community. So, while the law no longer
                > requires blip.tv to have all the underage reporting and documentation,
                > that's no guarantee that some overzealous "porn task force" at the FBI
                > won't decide to take it upon themselves to go after them, and the
                > resulting legal quagmire can land Enric and all the blip.tv servers in
                > court for years. Also, if some jerk posts child porn, Enric has to
                > remove it immediately, even if it's not theirs. [And it'd be smart to
                > call the cops if that happened, in case you can track down the source
                > and fry them over an open grill.]

                LOL, Stephanie. I don't work at blip.tv or have a open server for
                video content.

                ;),

                Enric
                -===-
                Determine Media
                http://www.cirne.com

                >
                > We've been watching this very closely in my house, since hubby's biz
                > depends on it. Check freespeechcoalition.com for updates on free
                > speech issues in the adult industry if you're interested.
                >
                > On 1/1/06, Eddie Codel <eddie@e...> wrote:
                > > Seems like a bigger issue is how does someone like blip or Veoh deal
                > > with the newly expanded 2257 reporting requirements? Wouldn't they
                be considered a
                > > "secondary producer" in the eyes of the feds?
                >
                > --
                > Stephanie Bryant
                > mortaine@g...
                > Vlog: http://mortaine.blogspot.com
                > Audioblog: http://bookramble.blogspot.com
                >
              • Stephanie Bryant
                My mistake-- sorry. I ve been away from vlogging for too long and forgot everyone s face. ... -- Stephanie Bryant mortaine@gmail.com Vlog:
                Message 7 of 29 , Jan 2, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  My mistake-- sorry. I've been away from vlogging for too long and
                  forgot everyone's "face."

                  On 1/2/06, Enric <enric@...> wrote:
                  > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Stephanie Bryant <mortaine@g...>
                  > LOL, Stephanie. I don't work at blip.tv or have a open server for
                  > video content.
                  >
                  > ;),
                  >
                  > Enric

                  --
                  Stephanie Bryant
                  mortaine@...
                  Vlog: http://mortaine.blogspot.com
                  Audioblog: http://bookramble.blogspot.com
                • Markus Sandy
                  ... actually, i was wondering about this too - i think she is referring to your original post where enric appears in the urls: ... -- My name is Markus Sandy
                  Message 8 of 29 , Jan 2, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Enric wrote:
                    --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Stephanie Bryant <mortaine@g...>
                    wrote:
                      
                    ... and the
                    resulting legal quagmire can land Enric and all the blip.tv servers ...
                        
                    LOL, Stephanie.  I don't work at blip.tv or have a open server for
                    video content.
                      

                    actually, i was wondering about this too - i think she is referring to your original post where "enric" appears in the urls:

                    Enric wrote:
                    LeNxO, http://enric.blip.tv/posts/?user=LeNxO, has reposted that porn
                    as "Nothing good", http://enric.blip.tv/file/8074.  There's also at
                    least one other new porn entry, firstcast, http://blip.tv/file/8082.
                    
                      






                    -- 
                    
                    My name is Markus Sandy and I am app.etitio.us
                    
                    http://apperceptions.org
                    http://digitaldojo.blogspot.com
                    http://node101.org
                    http://spinflow.org
                    http://wearethemedia.com
                    http://xpressionvlog.blogspot.com
                    
                    aim/ichat: markus.sandy@...
                    msn: msandy@...
                    skype: msandy
                    spin: markus@...
                    
                  • Stephanie Bryant
                    As Halcyon said-- this is only relating to pornography, not copyright. Under the new rules, sites that redistribute adult content (including websites) would
                    Message 9 of 29 , Jan 2, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      As Halcyon said-- this is only relating to pornography, not copyright.

                      Under the new rules, sites that redistribute adult content (including
                      websites) would have had to maintain a separate copy of the
                      documentation (drivers license, model release form, age verification
                      form) of each actor appearing in every item they publish. Previously,
                      this documentation was only kept by the studio producing the material.
                      On the back of every porn DVD and in the fine print on every primary
                      producing adult website, you can find an address where these records
                      could be inspected during business hours. Any adult studio maintains
                      these records as a matter of their business practices. To require it
                      of every website owner who scans and posts a DVD cover for purposes of
                      selling that DVD is a fast way to putting porn websites out of
                      business or offshore (the way the rules were changed, without any
                      congressional oversight, means that there cannot be a significant
                      financial impact of the rules change-- Gonzales basically lied
                      flat-out in changing these rules when he said they didn't have an
                      impact).

                      Anyway, here's a fun entanglement with copyright, though: Under
                      current copyright laws, a copyright violation is a civil offense,
                      resulting in civil damages (fines). However, if the secondary producer
                      clause had remained, someone copying a DVD and re-publishing it would
                      not just be a copyright violation. The aggrieved party could then call
                      the FBI, tell the FBI "they don't have documentation" and have the
                      offender thrown in prison. The first offense is worth 5 years of hard
                      time. Each subsequent offense is worth 10 years, and the rules were
                      supposedly retroactive, meaning they could get you for not having
                      documentation even before you were required to keep it. I think most
                      of us can agree that 10 years in prison for breaking a copyright on a
                      legal product is excessive (10 years in prison for breaking child porn
                      laws is not).

                      These rules, by the way, don't actually catch child pornographers, who
                      work outside of the adult entertainment industry. The industry polices
                      its own and effectively shuts out anyone with ties to child porn.

                      --Stephanie

                      On 1/2/06, Joshua Kinberg <jkinberg@...> wrote:
                      > Stephanie,
                      >
                      > Can you point me to any documentation on this "secondary producer
                      > clause" and what it means?
                      >
                      > I've been wondering about how sites like iFilm.com and YouTube.com
                      > persist seemingly without liability even though they willfully display
                      > content they have no right to broadcast (SNL clips and other content
                      > they do not have permission to distribute).
                      >
                      > Does this clause cover sites like this or does it only relate to pornography?
                      >
                      > -Josh
                      >
                      >
                      > On 1/2/06, Stephanie Bryant <mortaine@...> wrote:
                      > > Eddie,
                      > >
                      > > As of last week, the secondary producer clause was struck down (yay!).
                      > > Blip.tv can't get into trouble for some jerk posting porn to their
                      > > service.
                      > >
                      > > I say "can't," but everyone needs to be aware that individual DA's
                      > > have prosecuted (and persecuted) people for selling/providing adult
                      > > material even when the material was not sold, targeted, distributed or
                      > > otherwise meant for their local community. So, while the law no longer
                      > > requires blip.tv to have all the underage reporting and documentation,
                      > > that's no guarantee that some overzealous "porn task force" at the FBI
                      > > won't decide to take it upon themselves to go after them, and the
                      > > resulting legal quagmire can land Enric and all the blip.tv servers in
                      > > court for years. Also, if some jerk posts child porn, Enric has to
                      > > remove it immediately, even if it's not theirs. [And it'd be smart to
                      > > call the cops if that happened, in case you can track down the source
                      > > and fry them over an open grill.]
                      > >
                      > > We've been watching this very closely in my house, since hubby's biz
                      > > depends on it. Check freespeechcoalition.com for updates on free
                      > > speech issues in the adult industry if you're interested.
                      > >
                      > > On 1/1/06, Eddie Codel <eddie@...> wrote:
                      > > > Seems like a bigger issue is how does someone like blip or Veoh deal
                      > > > with the newly expanded 2257 reporting requirements? Wouldn't they be considered a
                      > > > "secondary producer" in the eyes of the feds?
                      > >
                      > > --
                      > > Stephanie Bryant
                      > > mortaine@...
                      > > Vlog: http://mortaine.blogspot.com
                      > > Audioblog: http://bookramble.blogspot.com
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Yahoo! Groups Links
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >


                      --
                      Stephanie Bryant
                      mortaine@...
                      Vlog: http://mortaine.blogspot.com
                      Audioblog: http://bookramble.blogspot.com
                    • Stephanie Bryant
                      Yeah-- my boneheaded mistake. I know better, too! --Steph ... -- Stephanie Bryant mortaine@gmail.com Vlog: http://mortaine.blogspot.com Audioblog:
                      Message 10 of 29 , Jan 2, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Yeah-- my boneheaded mistake. I know better, too!

                        --Steph

                        On 1/2/06, Markus Sandy <markus@...> wrote:
                        > Enric wrote:
                        > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Stephanie Bryant <mortaine@g...>
                        > wrote:
                        >
                        >
                        > ... and the
                        > resulting legal quagmire can land Enric and all the blip.tv servers ...
                        >
                        > LOL, Stephanie. I don't work at blip.tv or have a open server for
                        > video content.
                        >
                        >
                        > actually, i was wondering about this too - i think she is referring to your
                        > original post where "enric" appears in the urls:
                        >
                        > Enric wrote:
                        >
                        > LeNxO, http://enric.blip.tv/posts/?user=LeNxO, has
                        > reposted that porn
                        > as "Nothing good", http://enric.blip.tv/file/8074. There's also at
                        > least one other new porn entry, firstcast, http://blip.tv/file/8082.
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > --
                        >
                        > My name is Markus Sandy and I am app.etitio.us
                        >
                        > http://apperceptions.org
                        > http://digitaldojo.blogspot.com
                        > http://node101.org
                        > http://spinflow.org
                        > http://wearethemedia.com
                        > http://xpressionvlog.blogspot.com
                        >
                        > aim/ichat: markus.sandy@...
                        > msn: msandy@...
                        > skype: msandy
                        > spin: markus@...
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > ________________________________
                        > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
                        >
                        >
                        > Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web.
                        >
                        > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                        > videoblogging-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                        >
                        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                        >
                        > ________________________________
                        >


                        --
                        Stephanie Bryant
                        mortaine@...
                        Vlog: http://mortaine.blogspot.com
                        Audioblog: http://bookramble.blogspot.com
                      • Andreas Haugstrup
                        On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 23:28:15 +0100, Stephanie Bryant ... I d like to call bullshit on that. Democracies have checks in place to avoid
                        Message 11 of 29 , Jan 2, 2006
                        • 0 Attachment
                          On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 23:28:15 +0100, Stephanie Bryant <mortaine@...>
                          wrote:

                          > time. Each subsequent offense is worth 10 years, and the rules were
                          > supposedly retroactive, meaning they could get you for not having
                          > documentation even before you were required to keep it.

                          I'd like to call bullshit on that. Democracies have checks in place to
                          avoid retroactive legislation. As I refuse to believe the USA to have a
                          system silly enough to allow this kind of legislation I looked it up. And
                          indeed retroactive legislation is "Prohibited by Article I section 9
                          (applying to federal law) and section 10 (applying to state law) of the
                          U.S. Constitution."
                          <URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retroactive_legislation >

                          - Andreas, watching FUD at work.

                          --
                          <URL: http://www.solitude.dk/ >
                          Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology.
                        • Halcyon Lujah
                          That was an EXCELLENT summary of 2257! Well said! -Halcyon ... -- www.SpreadingThePink.com
                          Message 12 of 29 , Jan 2, 2006
                          • 0 Attachment
                            That was an EXCELLENT summary of 2257! Well said!

                            -Halcyon

                            On 1/2/06, Stephanie Bryant <mortaine@...> wrote:
                            > As Halcyon said-- this is only relating to pornography, not copyright.
                            >
                            > Under the new rules, sites that redistribute adult content (including
                            > websites) would have had to maintain a separate copy of the
                            > documentation (drivers license, model release form, age verification
                            > form) of each actor appearing in every item they publish. Previously,
                            > this documentation was only kept by the studio producing the material.
                            > On the back of every porn DVD and in the fine print on every primary
                            > producing adult website, you can find an address where these records
                            > could be inspected during business hours. Any adult studio maintains
                            > these records as a matter of their business practices. To require it
                            > of every website owner who scans and posts a DVD cover for purposes of
                            > selling that DVD is a fast way to putting porn websites out of
                            > business or offshore (the way the rules were changed, without any
                            > congressional oversight, means that there cannot be a significant
                            > financial impact of the rules change-- Gonzales basically lied
                            > flat-out in changing these rules when he said they didn't have an
                            > impact).
                            >
                            > Anyway, here's a fun entanglement with copyright, though: Under
                            > current copyright laws, a copyright violation is a civil offense,
                            > resulting in civil damages (fines). However, if the secondary producer
                            > clause had remained, someone copying a DVD and re-publishing it would
                            > not just be a copyright violation. The aggrieved party could then call
                            > the FBI, tell the FBI "they don't have documentation" and have the
                            > offender thrown in prison. The first offense is worth 5 years of hard
                            > time. Each subsequent offense is worth 10 years, and the rules were
                            > supposedly retroactive, meaning they could get you for not having
                            > documentation even before you were required to keep it. I think most
                            > of us can agree that 10 years in prison for breaking a copyright on a
                            > legal product is excessive (10 years in prison for breaking child porn
                            > laws is not).
                            >
                            > These rules, by the way, don't actually catch child pornographers, who
                            > work outside of the adult entertainment industry. The industry polices
                            > its own and effectively shuts out anyone with ties to child porn.
                            >
                            > --Stephanie
                            >
                            > On 1/2/06, Joshua Kinberg <jkinberg@...> wrote:
                            > > Stephanie,
                            > >
                            > > Can you point me to any documentation on this "secondary producer
                            > > clause" and what it means?
                            > >
                            > > I've been wondering about how sites like iFilm.com and YouTube.com
                            > > persist seemingly without liability even though they willfully display
                            > > content they have no right to broadcast (SNL clips and other content
                            > > they do not have permission to distribute).
                            > >
                            > > Does this clause cover sites like this or does it only relate to pornography?
                            > >
                            > > -Josh
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > On 1/2/06, Stephanie Bryant <mortaine@...> wrote:
                            > > > Eddie,
                            > > >
                            > > > As of last week, the secondary producer clause was struck down (yay!).
                            > > > Blip.tv can't get into trouble for some jerk posting porn to their
                            > > > service.
                            > > >
                            > > > I say "can't," but everyone needs to be aware that individual DA's
                            > > > have prosecuted (and persecuted) people for selling/providing adult
                            > > > material even when the material was not sold, targeted, distributed or
                            > > > otherwise meant for their local community. So, while the law no longer
                            > > > requires blip.tv to have all the underage reporting and documentation,
                            > > > that's no guarantee that some overzealous "porn task force" at the FBI
                            > > > won't decide to take it upon themselves to go after them, and the
                            > > > resulting legal quagmire can land Enric and all the blip.tv servers in
                            > > > court for years. Also, if some jerk posts child porn, Enric has to
                            > > > remove it immediately, even if it's not theirs. [And it'd be smart to
                            > > > call the cops if that happened, in case you can track down the source
                            > > > and fry them over an open grill.]
                            > > >
                            > > > We've been watching this very closely in my house, since hubby's biz
                            > > > depends on it. Check freespeechcoalition.com for updates on free
                            > > > speech issues in the adult industry if you're interested.
                            > > >
                            > > > On 1/1/06, Eddie Codel <eddie@...> wrote:
                            > > > > Seems like a bigger issue is how does someone like blip or Veoh deal
                            > > > > with the newly expanded 2257 reporting requirements? Wouldn't they be considered a
                            > > > > "secondary producer" in the eyes of the feds?
                            > > >
                            > > > --
                            > > > Stephanie Bryant
                            > > > mortaine@...
                            > > > Vlog: http://mortaine.blogspot.com
                            > > > Audioblog: http://bookramble.blogspot.com
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            >
                            >
                            > --
                            > Stephanie Bryant
                            > mortaine@...
                            > Vlog: http://mortaine.blogspot.com
                            > Audioblog: http://bookramble.blogspot.com
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > Yahoo! Groups Links
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >


                            --
                            www.SpreadingThePink.com
                          • Paul Knight
                            Wooof!! nicely siad andreas, By the way it was me who posted this originally.... Leave Enric alone, he s a nice guy. Paul ... Do yourself a favour and Visit
                            Message 13 of 29 , Jan 2, 2006
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Wooof!! nicely siad andreas,

                              By the way it was me who posted this originally.... Leave Enric alone,
                              he's a nice guy.

                              Paul

                              On 2 Jan 2006, at 22:37, Andreas Haugstrup wrote:

                              > On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 23:28:15 +0100, Stephanie Bryant
                              > <mortaine@...
                              > wrote:
                              >
                              > > time. Each subsequent offense is worth 10 years, and the rules were
                              > > supposedly retroactive, meaning they could get you for not having
                              > > documentation even before you were required to keep it.
                              >
                              > I'd like to call bullshit on that. Democracies have checks in place
                              > to 
                              > avoid retroactive legislation. As I refuse to believe the USA to have
                              > a 
                              > system silly enough to allow this kind of legislation I looked it up.
                              > And 
                              > indeed retroactive legislation is "Prohibited by Article I section 9 
                              > (applying to federal law) and section 10 (applying to state law) of
                              > the 
                              > U.S. Constitution."
                              > <URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retroactive_legislation >
                              >
                              > - Andreas, watching FUD at work.
                              >
                              > --
                              > <URL: http://www.solitude.dk/ >
                              > Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology.
                              >
                              > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
                              >
                              > ▪  Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web.
                              >  
                              > ▪  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                              >  videoblogging-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                              >  
                              > ▪  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
                              > Service.
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              Do yourself a favour and Visit my Vlog

                              http://pjkproductions.blogspot.com

                              It's worth a laugh and work friendly.
                            • Stephanie Bryant
                              ... Feel free, Andreas. Calling bullshit on it is exactly what the Free Speech Coalition s been doing since day 1. What you have to understand is that this was
                              Message 14 of 29 , Jan 2, 2006
                              • 0 Attachment
                                On 1/2/06, Andreas Haugstrup <solitude@...> wrote:
                                > On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 23:28:15 +0100, Stephanie Bryant <mortaine@...>
                                > wrote:
                                >
                                > > time. Each subsequent offense is worth 10 years, and the rules were
                                > > supposedly retroactive, meaning they could get you for not having
                                > > documentation even before you were required to keep it.
                                >
                                > I'd like to call bullshit on that. Democracies have checks in place to
                                > avoid retroactive legislation. As I refuse to believe the USA to have a
                                > system silly enough to allow this kind of legislation I looked it up. And
                                > indeed retroactive legislation is "Prohibited by Article I section 9
                                > (applying to federal law) and section 10 (applying to state law) of the
                                > U.S. Constitution."
                                > <URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retroactive_legislation >

                                Feel free, Andreas. Calling bullshit on it is exactly what the Free
                                Speech Coalition's been doing since day 1. What you have to understand
                                is that this was not a law that was passed by Congress. It's a change
                                to the rules that an old law gave the DOJ the power to make. The rules
                                change underwent only the barest amount of oversight, and now the
                                system of checks and balances has to go to work to overturn it and
                                show it to be unconstitutional.

                                In the original rules, there could be a situation in which an underage
                                actor appeared in a work and was later discovered to be underage (a la
                                Traci Lords). Destroying copies of that work from the records-keeping
                                files would be an offense worth 10 years in prison, but keeping a copy
                                of that work would be a child pornography charge, also worth
                                significant prison time. An exception was quickly articulated for such
                                cases, but the original rules, as written, were terrible, draconian,
                                and full of clauses to criminalize an otherwise legitimate industry.

                                Oh, and the clause that will require independent webcam girls to
                                publish their business addresses (usually also their private homes) on
                                the Internet still stands, with the argument that nobody's been killed
                                yet, so these women don't deserve the most basic privacy protection.

                                This isn't FUD. It's what's happening. Nobody wants to cover it in the
                                mainstream press, because the law in question has the word "underage"
                                in it, so the most simplistic sound-byte impression is that if you
                                oppose these rules, then you're in favor of child porn. That's the
                                real FUD.

                                --Stephanie

                                --
                                Stephanie Bryant
                                mortaine@...
                                Vlog: http://mortaine.blogspot.com
                                Audioblog: http://bookramble.blogspot.com
                              • Enric
                                ... servers ... ... Ha, yea I missed the reference that searches from your blog on blip.tv reference from one s blog landing page (i.e., enric.blip.tv ). I
                                Message 15 of 29 , Jan 2, 2006
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Markus Sandy <markus@a...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  > Enric wrote:
                                  >
                                  > >--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Stephanie Bryant <mortaine@g...>
                                  > >wrote:
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >>... and the
                                  > >>resulting legal quagmire can land Enric and all the blip.tv
                                  servers ...
                                  > >>
                                  > >>
                                  > >
                                  > >LOL, Stephanie. I don't work at blip.tv or have a open server for
                                  > >video content.
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  >
                                  > actually, i was wondering about this too - i think she is referring to
                                  > your original post where "enric" appears in the urls:
                                  >
                                  > Enric wrote:
                                  >
                                  > >LeNxO, http://enric.blip.tv/posts/?user=LeNxO, has reposted that porn
                                  > >as "Nothing good", http://enric.blip.tv/file/8074. There's also at
                                  > >least one other new porn entry, firstcast, http://blip.tv/file/8082.
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  >
                                  >

                                  Ha, yea I missed the reference that searches from your blog on blip.tv
                                  reference from one's blog landing page (i.e., "enric.blip.tv"). I
                                  should have searched from the blip.tv home page. I can see it would
                                  confuse the authoring source.

                                  -- Enric

                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > --
                                  >
                                  > My name is Markus Sandy and I am app.etitio.us
                                  >
                                  > http://apperceptions.org
                                  > http://digitaldojo.blogspot.com
                                  > http://node101.org
                                  > http://spinflow.org
                                  > http://wearethemedia.com
                                  > http://xpressionvlog.blogspot.com
                                  >
                                  > aim/ichat: markus.sandy@m...
                                  > msn: msandy@a...
                                  > skype: msandy
                                  > spin: markus@a...
                                  >
                                • Enric
                                  ... Except on 3vil ;) ... have ... up. ... section 9Â
                                  Message 16 of 29 , Jan 2, 2006
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Paul Knight <paul.knight7@b...>
                                    wrote:
                                    >
                                    > Wooof!! nicely siad andreas,
                                    >
                                    > By the way it was me who posted this originally.... Leave Enric alone,
                                    > he's a nice guy.
                                    >
                                    > Paul

                                    Except on 3vil ;)


                                    >
                                    > On 2 Jan 2006, at 22:37, Andreas Haugstrup wrote:
                                    >
                                    > > On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 23:28:15 +0100, Stephanie Bryant
                                    > > <mortaine@g...>Â
                                    > > wrote:
                                    > >
                                    > > > time. Each subsequent offense is worth 10 years, and the rules were
                                    > > > supposedly retroactive, meaning they could get you for not having
                                    > > > documentation even before you were required to keep it.
                                    > >
                                    > > I'd like to call bullshit on that. Democracies have checks in place
                                    > > toÂ
                                    > > avoid retroactive legislation. As I refuse to believe the USA to
                                    have
                                    > > aÂ
                                    > > system silly enough to allow this kind of legislation I looked it
                                    up.
                                    > > AndÂ
                                    > > indeed retroactive legislation is "Prohibited by Article I
                                    section 9Â
                                    > > (applying to federal law) and section 10 (applying to state law) of
                                    > > theÂ
                                    > > U.S. Constitution."
                                    > > <URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retroactive_legislation >
                                    > >
                                    > > - Andreas, watching FUD at work.
                                    > >
                                    > > --
                                    > > <URL: http://www.solitude.dk/ >
                                    > > Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology.
                                    > >
                                    > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
                                    > >
                                    > > ▪  Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web.
                                    > > Â
                                    > > ▪  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                    > > Â videoblogging-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                    > > Â
                                    > > ▪  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
                                    > > Service.
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > Do yourself a favour and Visit my Vlog
                                    >
                                    > http://pjkproductions.blogspot.com
                                    >
                                    > It's worth a laugh and work friendly.
                                    >
                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.