Pixies Place Forums - View Single Post - New Picture Posting Q & A

Quote:

Originally Posted by jseal

Booger,

No sir, that is incorrect. The thread title reads, “New Picture Posting Q & A” and the following is the first post to the thread:

The second post to the thread was explicitly about the law:

I posted a couple of questions I had about the new policy. Those questions were well within the scope of the thread title and the limits expressed by Lilith in the initial post.

Lilith, while neither providing an answer to either question, nor offering to find out, acknowledged that the question was not out of line.

If you will notice the line you had quoted above from lilith states.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lilith

This is an area where I hope to be able to adddress your questions and concerns regarding the new policy enacted to comply with recent U.S.law.

I you notice it say regarding the new policy enacted to comply with recent U.S.law. If you notice it say to comply with the law. It dose not say and the law. The second post was some one asking what the law was not a question about the law itself. This is your first question in this thread if you will note it is about the new law not the new policy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jseal

Lilith,

What parts of 18 U.S.C. § 2257 are at issue?

As Pixies doesn’t produce the images in question it isn’t a Primary producer. Sec. 75.1 Definitions, C, (1)

I presume that the concern is about (2), in particular the part I’ve underlined: “A secondary producer is any person who produces, assembles, manufactures, publishes, duplicates, reproduces, or reissues a book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, digitally- or computer- manipulated image, picture, or other matter intended for commercial distribution that contains a visual depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct, or who inserts on a computer site or service a digital image of, or otherwise manages the sexually explicit content of a computer site or service that contains a visual depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct, including any person who enters into a contract, agreement, or conspiracy to do any of the foregoing.”

Even so, Pixies is not a producer per (4) (ii)

“Producer does not include persons whose activities relating to the visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct are limited to the following:
…
(ii) Mere distribution;”

Pixies, while a commercial site, gets no revenue from the availability of the pictures at the site.

Perhaps I am looking at the statute incorrectly, or perhaps I am looking at the wrong parts of the statute, but I see no requirement for Pixies to maintain the records commercial pornographers must. It is the criminal penalties associated with inadequate or insufficient record keeping which is at issue here, is it not?