# Please explain the new Porn Laws **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [June 23, 2005, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-the-new-porn-laws/309591 "2005-06-23T21:06:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Pullet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/edb3f5/32.png) [@Pullet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pullet)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2005, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-the-new-porn-laws/309591/1 "2005-06-23T21:06:07Z")
Not sure if this deserved the Pit just because of the subject matter. Mods please correct if so. Has anyone else been following the new [Section 2257](http://www.boingboing.net/2005/06/22/rottencom_our_gaping.html) record keeping regulations? From what little I’ve picked up, apparently the rules are an attempt to make underaged pornography harder to make by requiring that legal identification of all participants be available both at the company where the film was shot and at any location where the film is available for purchase/download. So, if you are posting dirty pictures of yourself on your webpage, you have to list where people can find proof of your identity. Which is going to be your house. So maniacs can come and kill you. And the rules prevent listing a third location. The info has to be kept where the film is shot and just where that is has to be publically available. And also, if someone buys your photos and sells them out of their store, then they have to have copies of your legal information available at the store, too. So some maniac can buy photos of his favorite porn star to sell at his brand new internet store and get her home address. And it’s retro-active. All smut photographed since 1990 (I think) has to have this information. They’re supposed to track people down and make sure they were of age when the photos were taken. So lots and lots of smut sites or sites that just have adult humor, like various sites run by [rotten.com](http://www.dailyrotten.com/) are shutting down. Because the penalty for non-compliance is 5 year’s jail time. Not a fine. Hard time. Am I totally mislead? Why isn’t there a bigger freak out about this? Please help! ---
**Author:** ![askeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/eb9ed0/32.png) [@askeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/askeptic)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2005, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-the-new-porn-laws/309591/2 "2005-06-23T21:25:11Z")
Dude, I think you need to go back and read the actual text of the law again. Only producers need to maintain the information. They only have to show it to official gov’t inspectors. The material only has to contain a statement saying where the information is maintained. I think you are doing a chicken little about this. ---
**Author:** ![Pullet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/edb3f5/32.png) [@Pullet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pullet)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2005, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-the-new-porn-laws/309591/3 "2005-06-23T21:58:47Z")
Okay, you’re right. I misheard slightly. The main point of concern for me are secondary producers, defined [here](http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20051800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2005/05-10107.htm). This bit is near the bottom under “Definitions:” > [@](#): > > (2) 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. But it also says: > [@](#): > > (b) A producer who is a secondary producer as defined in Sec. > 75.1© may satisfy the requirements of this part to create and > maintain records by accepting from the primary producer, as defined in > Sec. 75.1©, copies of the records described in paragraph (a) of this > section. Such a secondary producer shall also keep records of the name > and address of the primary producer from whom he received copies of the > records. So yeah, I guess secondary producers have the option of satisfying the records requirement by getting copies of the star’s info from the primary producer. They did use the phrase “may satisfy.” It still seems like a good way for some maniac to justify getting the personal info of his favorite obession target. Also, if you are a secondary producer, but the photo is from some amature cam whore person, then the listing of where the performer’s personal info is kept is going to be their personal address, won’t it? ---
**Author:** ![askeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/eb9ed0/32.png) [@askeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/askeptic)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2005, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-the-new-porn-laws/309591/4 "2005-06-23T22:18:16Z")
Yes but only official federal inspectors are allowed to inspect those records. It is not like Joe Stalker can say give me Linda Lovetits address. I know there is a problem with kiddy porn (I don’t get those sick fuckers) So it seems reasonable to require verification of the age of people in Pics. ---
**Author:** ![Pullet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/edb3f5/32.png) [@Pullet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pullet)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2005, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-the-new-porn-laws/309591/5 "2005-06-23T22:30:54Z")
So the records, if requested by a secondary producer, come sealed up with a big “Do not Open Unless You are a Federal Inspector?” It still sounds wierd to me. ---
**Author:** ![Pullet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/edb3f5/32.png) [@Pullet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pullet)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2005, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-the-new-porn-laws/309591/6 "2005-06-23T22:39:31Z")
I agree that kiddy porn makes no sense and we should do something to stop it. I don’t know what, but this doesn’t seem like the answer. From what I understood, porn producers were required to keep records of the ages of their stars already. I can see how trying to trace back the actual producers on a film that probably changed hands a dozen times before it hit the light of day would be extremely difficult. But this regulation seems like it does more to damage the personal safety of porn stars than anything else. And I don’t understand the need to basically make all porn since 1990 illeagal. Plus, they don’t seem to define just what is considered sexually explicit. Would an artistic nude count? Or a photo of a mother nursing? What about educational pregnancy videos or photos? So many questions! ---
**Author:** ![MandaJo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ac91a4/32.png) [@MandaJo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MandaJo)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2005, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-the-new-porn-laws/309591/7 "2005-06-23T23:04:18Z")
Is there any chance the porn industry is backing this? It seems like making all the old porn illegal (all those videos and DVDs must be replaced) and putting up substantial barriers-or even the appearence of substantial barriers-- to home-made porn would be a win-win situation for them. ---
**Author:** ![DougC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7feea3/32.png) [@DougC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DougC)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2005, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-the-new-porn-laws/309591/8 "2005-06-23T23:26:27Z")
- - - Another forum I frequent that allows posting porn images (stileproject/theForum) is moving their servers out of the US because of this law. As they said it, everyone down the line now is supposed to get the personal info of everyone involved in acting in any pornographic production that they host. The webmaster said that it was easier to move the servers out of the US than to comply with the law of correctly obtaining and keeping all contact info. > [@](#): > > Plus, they don’t seem to define just what is considered sexually explicit. Would an artistic nude count? Or a photo of a mother nursing? What about educational pregnancy videos or photos? - From my interest in figurative sculpture I can say that what most US federal judges accept as “pornographic” are images displaying lewd or lascivious behavior. Simple nudity is not considered pornographic in itself. I dunno if this is a supreme-court ruling or not, but I do remember that Bush senior passed some law in his days that prohibited “nude images of minors” as pornographic, and it soon got shot down in a court case. ~ ---
**Author:** ![Pullet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/edb3f5/32.png) [@Pullet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pullet)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2005, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-the-new-porn-laws/309591/9 "2005-06-23T23:58:38Z")
> [@Manda JO](#): > > Is there any chance the porn industry is backing this? It seems like making all the old porn illegal (all those videos and DVDs must be replaced) and putting up substantial barriers-or even the appearence of substantial barriers-- to home-made porn would be a win-win situation for them. I thought this at first too, but from what I understand, the major porn producers are upset at such stringent controls on their industry just on general priciple. This might apply more for Larry Flint than anyone else. Don’t have a cite. Heard it on the stileproject message boards, which are impossible to search. Thanks for the info, **DougC**. I was worried that things were going to get really crazy. Although, this does seem like a bad trend. ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2005, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-the-new-porn-laws/309591/10 "2005-06-24T00:17:29Z")
> [@Pullet](#): > > And I don’t understand the need to basically make all porn since 1990 illegal. I recall seeing some mainstream porn mags from the 70s in a now closed antique shop in Fells’ Point. It contained a fictional story involving a grown man, and a sixteen year old. As I recall, things were a little looser back then. True, it is fiction, but perhaps if they can outlaw all mags from that era, due to a lack of finding model releases form that period, they can erase signs of a different sexual era in America. I would not put it above the current government. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2005, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-the-new-porn-laws/309591/11 "2005-06-24T00:39:44Z")
hentai’s lookin’ better and better. ---
**Author:** ![ouryL](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ouryl/32/6067_2.png) [@ouryL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ouryL)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2005, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-the-new-porn-laws/309591/12 "2005-06-24T01:17:04Z")
> [@askeptic](#): > > Dude, I think you need to go back and read the actual text of the law again. Only producers need to maintain the information. They only have to show it to official gov’t inspectors. The material only has to contain a statement saying where the information is maintained. I think you are doing a chicken little about this. askeptic obviously hasn’t done what he espouses. The new law requires primary and secondary producers to maintain this info. A simple statement does not suffice. One must also possess clear copies of the persons full name and aliases, their current address at the time of production, a copy of the persons state or federal picture ID. The records must also contain a copy of the images themselves. Each individual mage must be documented. In a website, a thumdnail and the image it refers to must also be documented. Each virtual link to this image must also be documented. That person who has linked to this image is now deemed a secondary producer and must also maintain such records. All “live” images must be rendered as a hard copy also. Webcam operators must keep a record of your shows and document your activities. Shall I go on? 😕 ---
**Author:** ![Pullet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/edb3f5/32.png) [@Pullet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pullet)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2005, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-the-new-porn-laws/309591/13 "2005-06-24T02:49:21Z")
Frick. Is that seriously what we’re looking at, **ouryL**? I had a feeling that the inforcers would be as stringent with interpritation as they could. Can I move my thread to the pit? I so want to swear. $^%#&\*@(ass)&&@@%#@!@&# ---
**Author:** ![ouryL](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ouryl/32/6067_2.png) [@ouryL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ouryL)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2005, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-the-new-porn-laws/309591/14 "2005-06-24T03:58:14Z")
> [@Pullet](#): > > Frick. Is that seriously what we’re looking at, **ouryL**? I had a feeling that the inforcers would be as stringent with interpritation as they could. > > Can I move my thread to the pit? I so want to swear. > > $^%#&\*@(ass)&&@@%#@!@&# The laws are so broadly drawn that they can be read that way. Go read the this article from [AVN](http://www.avn.com/index.php?Primary_Navigation=Articles&Action=View_Article&Content_ID=227697). ---
**Author:** ![ouryL](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ouryl/32/6067_2.png) [@ouryL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ouryL)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2005, 4:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-the-new-porn-laws/309591/15 "2005-06-24T04:50:21Z")
> [@ouryL](#): > > The laws are so broadly drawn that they can be read that way. Go read the this article from [AVN](http://www.avn.com/index.php?Primary_Navigation=Articles&Action=View_Article&Content_ID=227697). O, I forgot: It’s retroactive to 1995. :eek: ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2005, 5:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-the-new-porn-laws/309591/16 "2005-06-24T05:02:33Z")
Do you see any shortage of porn on the Internet? Neither do I. ---
**Author:** ![Pullet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/edb3f5/32.png) [@Pullet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pullet)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2005, 5:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-the-new-porn-laws/309591/17 "2005-06-24T05:31:35Z")
Interesting link, **ouryL**. While it seems that the law was rewritten to make slightly more sense, it still looks like a huge, ineffective pain in the butt. For example, what’s with this? > [@](#): > > Another problem, which seems minor but will have a big impact, is Sec. 75.6(e): “For the purposes of this section, the required [2257] statement shall be displayed in typeface that is no less than 12-point type or no smaller than the second-largest typeface on the material and in a color that clearly contrasts with the background color of the material.” > > How anyone ascertains what is “12-point type” on a computer display is problematic enough, but it will cause video and DVD package designers no end of headaches. > > “That’s interesting,” mused Cambria, “because if you have a title and then you have a sub-title, the label’s typeface would have to be at least as big as the sub-title. That’s a crock of shit.” But, if **Walloon** is correct, when we’ve got a lot of something we should come up with a bunch of random rules to cut back on it. :rollyeyes: ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2005, 5:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-the-new-porn-laws/309591/18 "2005-06-24T05:39:59Z")
No, that’s not my point. My point is that in real world terms, the law appears to have zilch effect on the amount of porn available. Its intention is to stop child pornography, and judging by amount of porn easily available on the Internet, it is being enforced narrowly and sensibly. Unlike Chicken Little. ---
**Author:** ![Pullet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/edb3f5/32.png) [@Pullet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pullet)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2005, 6:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-the-new-porn-laws/309591/19 "2005-06-24T06:11:19Z")
It only went into effect today. I know of two websites that have shut down because of it and a third that moved out of the country. Of course, it could only move out of the country because the owner was not an American citizen. If he had been, it wouldn’t have mattered where he moved his servers to. Granted, 3 websites, so far, ain’t all that much. It remains to be seen what will happen, but it doesn’t look good to me. This law is requiring jail time for poor record keeping. Any poor record keeping. I could see punishing some webmaster for posting kiddie porn, whittingly or no, but just any old porn? And with jail time? Seems like a waste of prison space. But whatever. We won’t know what will happen until it happens. Y’all can keep making fun of me for being cautious. I came here looking for additional help understanding this issue. Now I understand it and why it hasn’t made a bigger stink on national news. Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2005, 6:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-the-new-porn-laws/309591/20 "2005-06-24T06:49:47Z")
18 U.S.C. 2257 is not new; it has been on the books since 1992 and enforced since 1995. The 1992 statute > [@](#): > > requires the producers of such matter to "ascertain, by examination of an identification document containing such information, the performer’s name and date of birth,’’ to "ascertain any name, other than the performer’s present and correct name, ever used by the performer including maiden name, alias, nickname, stage, or professional name,’’ and to record this information. What just went into effect was an amendment to 18 U.S.C. 2257. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-the-new-porn-laws/309591.md?page=2)