Porn Site Chat/archive
Archive of chat with Chad Belville from ChadKnowsLaw.com - 6/29/06
13:54:07 chadknowslaw: hi hammer and every body~
13:54:18 Hammer: hello chad
13:54:19 King_Porn: Hi Chad, glad you could join us.
13:54:23 rockslammer: hi
13:54:55 Nikki_Licks: Hello everyone
13:54:56 masterporndude Logs in
13:54:59 chadknowslaw: I am so going to overcharge hammer for this
13:55:03 King_Porn: lol
13:55:14 rockslammer: better him than me ;)
13:55:14 Nikki_Licks: just grabbed a sandwich and a big glass of ice tea
13:55:47 Hammer: i hope the advertising kicks in soon so i can afford these high priced guests
13:55:48 chadknowslaw: gee Mike, you are getting a little out of hand with the iced tea. it is not even noon~
13:56:04 Hammer: he's been up since dawn
13:56:12 rockslammer: that means no free beer?
13:56:18 Nikki_Licks: Not yet...it will be bud time before you know it
13:56:40 Nikki_Licks: actually been up since 2:45 am
13:56:53 King_Porn: Iced tea here too, no beers
13:56:56 chadknowslaw: I think hammer said free beer for anybody in the room
13:56:58 rockslammer: since 11 pm here
13:57:05 Nikki_Licks: I meant budweiser time and not budsky time
13:57:10 King_Porn: That works Chad.
13:57:12 Nikki_Licks: lol
13:57:44 Nikki_Licks: Hammer has my address and we will gladly accept the delivery
13:57:45 daryls: everyone has his credit card #..order anything you want
13:58:19 Nikki_Licks: Okay then...I would like a juicy steak with serveal beers
13:58:20 Hammer: i have the keg right here next to me
13:58:21 King_Porn: They need to have wireless hotspots at bars
13:58:26 King_Porn: Wouldn't that be cool?
13:59:40 grimfang Logs in
13:59:43 Hammer: hey grim
13:59:53 Fight_the_Patent! Logs in
13:59:54 King_Porn: Hey Grimfang
13:59:58 Hammer: brandon worked with me when i developed my age verification script
13:59:59 grimfang: hey all
14:00:04 Hammer: hey brandon
14:00:07 rockslammer: hi
14:00:17 Hammer: well, it's 3:00 so let's officially start the chat
14:00:23 Hammer: Our guest today is world renowned adult entertainment attorney, Chad Belville, from http://www.chadknowslaw.com
14:00:34 Hammer: thanks for being with us today Chad
14:00:43 chadknowslaw: I still dont know about the whole "world renowned" bit
14:00:49 thickydix Logs in
14:00:57 Hammer: if you aren't now, you will be soon
14:01:04 Rcourt64 Logs in
14:01:20 Hammer: greeting rcourt
14:01:34 Hammer: good to have you here too brandon
14:01:35 Rcourt64: hello everyone
14:01:52 Fight_the_Patent!: where' the radio link?
14:01:54 Hammer: ok, so if anyone has any questions, fire away
14:02:05 Hammer: no radio show brandon, just a chat room
14:02:10 King_Porn: Let's talk 2257... 2257 as of today
14:02:15 Fight_the_Patent!: so i don't get to hear chad speak?!?!?! LOL
14:02:27 chadknowslaw: you get to have me type brandon dear
14:02:45 Fight_the_Patent!: chad gives good type
14:02:45 Rcourt64: well the one i ask on oprano? is it still consider prostitution if they performe for free instead of paying them to performe?
14:03:07 oprano Logs in
14:03:17 Hammer: howdy oprano
14:03:43 oprano: Someone spoke my name and I was summond
14:03:48 chadknowslaw: each state has its own definition of prostitution
14:03:49 cliff Logs in
14:03:58 Nikki_Licks: Chad can you enlighten us on the new labeling changes that went into effect or are they still pending. What should we be doing as webmasters to protect ourselves?
14:04:00 chadknowslaw: I was comparing california and florida this morning
14:04:07 Hammer: hello cliff
14:04:17 rockslammer: been 6 months since the FSC injunction what's next? trial or?
14:04:31 oprano: Hammer could have a radio show
14:04:45 chadknowslaw: hmm-- so many hands in the air and so many different questions
14:04:55 chadknowslaw: I need more fingers~
14:04:58 Hammer: someone just needs to handle the producing, oprano ;)
14:05:11 Nikki_Licks: I read something about some new labeling law that is either passed or in the works of trying to be passed
14:05:17 rick: I am interested in 2257 info. specifically is it ok to like non complient 2257 banners to the site that lists the 2257 info?
14:05:21 oprano: I hear there is an empty server
14:05:33 Fight_the_Patent!: u could record sessions and go podcasting.. rather than live streaming
14:05:42 oprano: Joan hopes everyone would label shit
14:05:56 Fight_the_Patent!: congress wants everyone to label shit
14:06:11 Hammer: i think gonzo and i should do a radio show ;)
14:06:17 Nikki_Licks: lol
14:06:22 Hammer: i don't have a problem with labelling my pages
14:06:35 Hammer: don't think it matters though since no foreign webmasters will
14:06:42 King_Porn: It depends on exactly how they want it labeled.
14:06:44 oprano: Theres been a labeling system for years
14:06:56 rockslammer: meta content adult
14:07:01 Hammer: i've used icra on most of my pages
14:07:02 grimfang: will depend on the specific details required for the lables... size, wording, location, etc...
14:07:15 Nikki_Licks: Labeling pages is really not a problem, but will it be affective and work as they claim.
14:07:17 chadknowslaw: Rick--- you asked about non-compliant banners -- I think you mean sexually explicit banners
14:07:26 rick: yes
14:07:26 Hammer: i think there were a couple questions that sneaked by
14:07:34 Fight_the_Patent!: mine was a good one!
14:07:37 chadknowslaw: we have about 6 questions on the table
14:07:40 Fight_the_Patent!: scroll up
14:07:41 grimfang: but its silly to lable a page INSIDE the site, since they are already seeing porn if they are there..
14:07:54 Hammer: so let's give chad a chance to answer before firing off new ones
14:07:55 Nikki_Licks: Mine was next best :)
14:08:04 Nikki_Licks: Ok :)
14:08:05 Fight_the_Patent!: grinfang... exactly.. prposed law says 5 years jail if you miss a page
14:08:10 King_Porn: Not necessarily Grimfang if they came from a SE or a bookmark
14:08:12 oprano: dangling Chad?
14:08:24 grimfang: fucking search engines created that problem, not me
14:08:33 chadknowslaw: OK-- Rick -- You are asking about a banner that has explicit sex on it
14:08:42 Fight_the_Patent!: then do a javascirp redirect on the side door pages to the front door
14:08:48 King_Porn: That's ridiculious - 5 years prison if you miss a page
14:08:54 chadknowslaw: and that banner links to the site that has the 2257 link for that image
14:09:05 rick: yes, if it is linked to the site that provided it and the 2257 info... is it ok?
14:09:23 titmowse Logs in
14:09:38 Nikki_Licks: hello titmowse
14:09:57 Hammer: chad is typing ;)
14:09:58 chadknowslaw: Rick, in a law school exam, I think the answer would be that the 2257 link had to be on the same page as the banner, even though the banner linked to the site with the 2257 link
14:10:38 chadknowslaw: in real life, if you have an explicit banner that links back to your page with the 2257 link on it, you are not going to be convicted of violating 2257
14:10:39 Hammer: so banners really should be non explicit to be safe i think
14:10:41 thickydix: Should I woory about owning a paysite withe word "teen" in the domain. Of couurse all content is 2257 legal.
14:11:28 Fight_the_Patent!: thickydix, don't use the word "lolita" as an adjective for "teen"
14:12:34 chadknowslaw: 2257 is not a tested law. It will not be tested on a violation that is excruciatingly difficult to define the real violation
14:12:35 rick: so I would have to proivied the 2257 for the advretisers.
14:12:53 thickydix: so teen as long as not described as lolita or anything underage is fine?
14:13:07 cliff: but if you banners are from different sites, how to keep track of which 2257 it links to and if they drop the link, does that make you liable
14:14:04 chadknowslaw: this is just my opinion, but if you have an explict banner, and that links to your site, and your site has the 2257 link that applies to the image from that banner, the US DOJ is not going to spend the time to prosecute you and try convince 12 people you broke the law because your 2257 link was one click away
14:14:32 Hammer: agree chad, but i think the question is concerning banners provided by a sponsor
14:14:55 chadknowslaw: the more important question you need to ask yourself is "Do I have the information on the model in this image?"
14:14:56 Hammer: if they don't provide the docs along with the banner, even though it links to their site, it's hosted on the webmaster's site
14:15:09 rockslammer: good point as to constitutionally vague. I cant see a criminal case based on that - that is if the documentation exists somewhere
14:15:27 Hammer: so do you trust the sponsor to have the docs?
14:15:54 chadknowslaw: I do not believe a webmaster is risking being charged with a 2257 violation by having a banner on his site from a sponsor
14:15:57 Nikki_Licks: I would not trust anyone. I want to see the documentation
14:16:10 Hammer: better to build your own banners with content you have the docs for
14:16:11 rick: yes, they do supply the 2257 info for the site and advertising banner that I am displaying
14:16:24 chadknowslaw: but nikki, the sponsor does not want to give out model id's to every site that puts up a banner
14:16:40 chadknowslaw: the safest thing is for sponsors to use banners that are NOT sexually explicit
14:16:56 Nikki_Licks: I understand, but where do you draw the line at who you can beleive?
14:17:01 Hammer: which brings us to the definition of sexually explicit
14:17:04 gr8expectations: yes
14:17:06 thickydix: are titties considered sexually explict?
14:17:17 chadknowslaw: sexually explicit = masturbation or penetration
14:17:20 Hammer: is it still a - d but excluding lacivious displays of the genitals?
14:17:37 Hammer: can i show a chick with her legs spread?
14:17:37 chadknowslaw: and if you can't decide if an image really is masturbation or not, always err on the side of caution
14:17:52 chadknowslaw: display of genitals is not explicit
14:18:00 Hammer: can a guy have a hardon if his hands aren't on his penis?
14:18:10 masterporndude: So a girl touching herself could be construed as masturbation correct
14:18:16 chadknowslaw: a hard cock is not masturbation
14:18:27 rockslammer: are her panties on
14:18:35 Hammer: no, but it could be seen as lacivious
14:18:35 chadknowslaw: but you put that hand down there it starts to look more and more like masturbation
14:18:35 thickydix: how about lesbians kissing naked
14:18:39 rockslammer: sorry not to be facitious
14:18:46 masterporndude: I see
14:18:53 chadknowslaw: naked kissing is not penetration or masturbation
14:19:17 Hammer: what about simulated sex? is the new bill saying that both simulated and real intercourse are included?
14:19:56 chadknowslaw: the bill you are talking about I think is still in committee in the hosue
14:19:57 chadknowslaw: house
14:20:10 rockslammer: simulated won't fly in court but for discussion..
14:20:15 Hammer: soon to be signed by GW?
14:20:19 chadknowslaw: so any wording is still up in the air
14:20:23 Hammer: how does one prove simulated?
14:20:25 rockslammer: 4472 i believe
14:20:36 chadknowslaw: no -- still in committee in the house, not yet voted on and would then have to go to senate
14:20:52 rockslammer: it is in the seante now it passed the house
14:20:53 Hammer: if it looks like they're fucking, how do you prove they aren't or how does the prosecution prove they are?
14:21:29 thickydix: I purchase my own content, some exlusive, some not. At the moment I'm only involved with lesbians and teens. At what level does being in the US become a problem. Say I wanted to move in to hardcore sites, at what point is it not legal in the US?
14:21:30 Nikki_Licks: lol
14:21:57 Hammer: what is it you think is illegal thickdix?
14:22:00 grimfang: i thought the supreme court ruled that simulated sex with minors.. ie anime and cartoons, was legal.. as well as 'digital representations'.. that was last year, i thought.. maybe i am mistaken
14:22:30 grimfang: sick either way though
14:22:34 thickydix: I don't know. I know a lot of americans have companies off shore. Why is this?
14:22:44 oprano: whats sick?
14:22:51 Hammer: no reason to go offshore if you're not doing anything illegal
14:23:02 rockslammer: its a pain to funnel the money when off shore
14:23:06 grimfang: sick: digital drawings of CP
14:23:08 Fight_the_Patent!: hammer.. you can't build banners with someone else's pics... that would get you into copyright infringements
14:23:09 titmowse: offshore is for tax and law evasion IMHO
14:23:22 chadknowslaw: simulated sex -- the Supreme Court struck a law down that made simulated child porn a crime
14:23:22 Hammer: no it wouldn't ftp
14:23:25 thickydix: what is the questionable factor that makes one go out of the US?
14:23:29 oprano: dont promote or buy it
14:23:31 Hammer: i build banners all the time using content i purchased
14:23:35 Hammer: the sponsor doesn't care
14:23:52 Fight_the_Patent!: ya if you purchased, i was referring if you used images from the sponsor website, etc.
14:23:55 titmowse: one can always ask the sponsor beforehand
14:24:02 oprano: I recall having to buy all my content to make banners a short while back
14:24:12 masterporndude: Kind of what Hammers point was if You arent doing anything wrong there isnt a reason to hide
14:24:19 Hammer: you can use the sponsors content too in most cases, but that would defeat the purpose since you wouldn't have the docs
14:25:15 chadknowslaw: hammer, you only need the docs if the secondary producer requirement is upheld
14:25:31 Fight_the_Patent!: going offshore is not easy to do.. if you stay clean with 2257, and other good practices, like labelling, etc.. and maybe stay awy from "extreme content", then no reason to fel like need to go offshore
14:25:32 Hammer: true
14:26:00 Nikki_Licks: If you made banners form purchased content and the girl used in the design was not on the site, wouldn't that in a way be misleading to the surfer?
14:26:03 chadknowslaw: I agree brandon, and the only way to "go offshore" is to move
14:26:12 Rcourt64: Chad can I ask a quetion on florida law? or is that out of your jurisdiction?
14:26:17 Hammer: i think the thing that scared most webmasters before was the whole retroactive part
14:26:42 chadknowslaw: it does not matter if your servers, bank accounts, hosts, company incorporation, etc are in another country if your butt is still in Cobb COunty Georgia
14:26:48 Fight_the_Patent!: if u go offshore, you can no have no assets back here.. complete disconnect.. unles of course ou have good attorneys to do shell upon shell upon shell comopanies... takes alot of $$$ for tht
14:26:53 titmowse: don't forget the real name info for the models part hammer, glad they dumped that idea
14:27:00 oprano: hey Im in Cobb County!
14:27:03 Hammer: lol
14:27:12 Hammer: that's the same as offshore
14:27:18 Nikki_Licks: Cobb County...used to live there lol
14:27:24 chadknowslaw: even with shell companies if your body is in the US, you are in the US
14:27:33 oprano: Im still here
14:27:41 Hammer: i'm not moving offshore
14:27:52 titmowse: i wish big corporations were beholding to offshore laws :(
14:27:53 chadknowslaw: and trying to set up offshore to avoid 2257 will cause more trouble than it is worth
14:27:58 Fight_the_Patent!: would lose money converting to euros LOL
14:28:00 Hammer: it's not hard to promote hardcore sites with non explicit content
14:28:09 chadknowslaw: much easier to meet 2257 requirements
14:28:21 Hammer: so if they say the webmaster is a secondary producer, i just won't use content that would require me to comply
14:28:41 chadknowslaw: yes hammer
14:28:48 rockslammer: i dont think 2257 is the real issue personally -- the thrust seems to be the obscenity angle now
14:28:49 Hammer: also, i believe if the bill passes, any content you are already using is exempt
14:29:02 King_Porn: As it stands now, webmasters are not secondary producers, correct?
14:29:06 chadknowslaw: but consider that we are probably 2 to 3 years away from a final decision in the FSC case
14:29:08 rockslammer: forfeiture etc
14:29:20 titmowse: chad, what do you think about the fcc possible requiring a ratings system as mention in this new proposed site lebeling bill?
14:29:37 rockslammer: u are assuming an appeal in the FSC case chad
14:29:50 chadknowslaw: I do not believe the FCC has the authority to implement a ratings system for the internet
14:30:12 grimfang: do you anticipate a shift in the governments strategy that would target things at the ISP level rather than at the individual level? That would certainly be the only way for them to deal with all the non -US sites that don't necessarilly have to comply with our standards...
14:30:29 chadknowslaw: TV is too great an ocean for them to regulate, and that is finite. Internet is almost infinite and impossible
14:30:33 Hammer: Our guest today is world renowned adult entertainment attorney, Chad Belville, from http://www.chadknowslaw.com
14:30:44 rockslammer: sounds like the chinese politburea
14:30:46 Fight_the_Patent!: many webmasters are forgetting one major aspect of 2257, that is in the 10+year law, is you need to do know where you got your images from... so if DOJ poiints to a young looking pic on your site, if you can't show them who the content producer is, then you have violated 2257... so much focus on being secondary producer or not in the new regulations, has caused loss of focus on what is on the books
14:30:56 chadknowslaw: yes, rockslammer, regardless of the outcome at the trial court I believe FSC will be appealed
14:31:07 titmowse: sorry chad. i meant the ftc:
14:31:09 rockslammer: i agree on that
14:31:18 Hammer: i still have to laugh at all this obscenity stuff when every single hotel i've stayed in over the last couple years has had a porn channel
14:31:50 Hammer: yes it does
14:31:51 Fight_the_Patent!: but those vidoes have been behind closed doors and not like the equivalent of a billboard that anyone can see in the open
14:32:19 Hammer: they can be seen by any kid that clicks the channel on the tv
14:32:39 Fight_the_Patent!: sure, but that is still not in the open.. a kid could pop in a porn dvd at home....
14:32:45 Hammer: mom and dad leave the room, nothing to stop the kid from clicking the adult channel
14:32:46 rockslammer: well you have to order that channel as an xtra?
14:33:30 Fight_the_Patent!: at hotel, the porn video is added to the bill, so if mom and dad are out, kid coud be watching.. but that's covered under the parents applying a CC.. and would be the parents fault
14:33:40 chadknowslaw: you have to consider the resources of the DOJ. They do not have unlimited investigators nor prosecutors. I have been in contact with FBI agents on another matter and they tell me that a lot of their resources are being shifted to trying to find terrorists. they dont have the manpower to keep up with all the crimes that are taking place.
14:34:24 Hammer: let's seque into the Ray Guhn case
14:34:44 thickydix: As an affiliate of some programs, is it stupid of me to host their banners on my domain?
14:34:44 titmowse: clue me in, i'm stoopid
14:34:45 Hammer: what about the legality of producing porn in states besides california?
14:34:57 grimfang: ahh.. its attached as a rider to the net neutrality bill.. fun stuff.. hopefully the senate will vote against it.. the house passes anything that comes up these days
14:34:59 Rcourt64: ya thanks hammer
14:35:02 rockslammer: well where do I apply at the us department of porno for my label
14:35:06 chadknowslaw: I just do not see a 2257 charge coming out of a website that has no child porn, has a link to its 2257 custodian, and the custodian has a copy of every models ID
14:35:09 titmowse: oh my, there's a 900 lb gorilla
14:35:28 chadknowslaw: I think the net neutrality bill got killed yesterday~
14:35:41 titmowse: the senate didn't pass the net neutrality bill :(
14:35:42 Hammer: the CashTitans case, titmowse
14:35:42 grimfang: checking into it now
14:35:45 rockslammer: the freedom of internet admndment did
14:36:00 Hammer: arrested in escambia county florida
14:36:03 rockslammer: the main bill is going to a vote i believe
14:36:11 Hammer: charged with racketeering and prositution
14:36:20 oprano: in other words keep records like you should have been doing all along
14:36:31 chadknowslaw: yes oprano.
14:36:39 titmowse: ahhh...so what was the racketeering based on?
14:36:39 oprano: this is a business not a hobby.
14:36:43 rockslammer: i dont understand the racketeering - this is a state indictment
14:36:48 rick Logs Out
14:36:58 Fight_the_Patent!: just like al capone.. they will find other ways to bust porn... having drugs was one thing mentioned in that case
14:37:01 rockslammer: unless fl has a state statute
14:37:01 chadknowslaw: buy content from providers that you trust, do not use images you question, and keep records of models you shoot
14:37:21 chadknowslaw: I looked at the state statute
14:37:34 oprano: Ive often wondered when there was going to be a drug raid at one of these shows.
14:37:45 chadknowslaw: Prostitution" means the giving or receiving of the body for sexual activity for hire but excludes
14:37:53 chadknowslaw: activity between spouses
14:38:03 Rcourt64: ya ok keep records fro age verification, what about the prostitution part??
14:38:08 Nikki_Licks: I saw greatsexcontent is not giving out doc's
14:38:09 chadknowslaw: that is the florida law
14:38:21 oprano: dont buy the content then
14:38:25 Hammer: so if you hire a married couple you can shoot them having sex and pay them for it?
14:38:28 Fight_the_Patent!: in the 60's it was all free love
14:38:29 Rcourt64: so if they perform for free it legal???
14:38:36 gr8expectations: lol, you can pay your wife for a BJ in florida?
14:38:36 Nikki_Licks: I won't buy the content
14:38:38 rockslammer: so if you pay 2 people to fornicate and dont participate?
14:38:57 oprano: Rcourt I aint paying to see your ass breed haahhaha
14:39:01 Hammer: here's the story on ynot for anyone that isn't up on it. http://www.ynot.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=news_article&sid=10922
14:39:08 masterporndude Logs Out
14:39:09 titmowse: thnx
14:39:13 chadknowslaw: in california if you pay people to have sex for a video it is not prostitution
14:39:26 chadknowslaw: the california law is somewhat similiar to florida
14:39:26 Hammer: right, but everywhere else it is, yes?
14:39:36 chadknowslaw: everywhere else is UNTESTED
14:39:43 titmowse: but isn't cali like about the only state where performance is legal
14:39:52 chadknowslaw: there is a ruling in a lower court in New York
14:39:52 rockslammer: so they coped a plea
14:39:58 titmowse: untested. good to know
14:39:59 Hammer: so this is a good thing because someone is finally testing it somewhere besides california
14:39:59 chadknowslaw: that follows the CA rule
14:40:01 rockslammer: not trial no test
14:40:13 Hammer: does the california ruling set a precedent for this case?
14:40:24 chadknowslaw: but the NY court was not New York's highest court, so it is not controlling in NY
14:40:42 thickydix: Even if you purchase all your content. Are there any US state that you just don'twant to live and be in the adult business?
14:40:58 grimfang: utah
14:41:05 Nikki_Licks: lol
14:41:06 Fight_the_Patent!: maybe michigan
14:41:07 Hammer: this whole issue was tied into an escort sting in florida
14:41:22 Hammer: so the producing porn issue seems odd to me
14:41:29 Fight_the_Patent!: PA.. where extreme associates was targeed
14:41:34 Hammer: As part of the investigation, an undercover officer approached the defendants claiming to be interested in performing in videos. According to the affidavit, the officer was told that the company had been filming in the area for about five years, and had filmed over 100 women in the vicinity. The undercover officer also was allegedly told to recruit friends who might be interested.
14:41:40 rockslammer: anywhere really
14:41:42 chadknowslaw: there are also allegations that those arrested in FL held sex parties, paid women to have sex with them as "auditions"
14:41:50 chadknowslaw: I do not know if that is true or not
14:42:03 Hammer: According to an affidavit filed in the case, the website's principles recruited and paid local men and women to engage in obscene group sexual activity. It is also alleged in the affidavit that the men hired people to engage in private parties, in which the defendants were also involved.
14:42:04 oprano: was bound to happen sooner or later
14:42:12 rockslammer: be nice to see the actual indictment
14:42:26 rockslammer: not posted anywhere
14:42:30 chadknowslaw: but that would not be the same thing as paying models for performing on video. That would be just a group
14:42:32 gr8expectations: sounds like a sillt way to operate a buisness to me
14:42:35 gr8expectations: silly
14:42:38 titmowse: so, what about the single model...if there's no participatory sex, is it still prostitution?
14:42:41 Hammer: According to the authorities, the site at issue had approximately 5,000 registered subscribers paying $30 a month; the AP reports do not identify the website(s) by name.
14:42:57 grimfang: people actually pay male performers for amatuer content these days?
14:42:58 oprano: cumonherface.com
14:43:04 oprano: cashtitians.com
14:43:15 Hammer: i think the site is down now, isn't it gonzo?
14:43:22 oprano: both of which are down. My guess is that the gear was confisctated
14:43:29 Hammer: i think so
14:43:47 chadknowslaw: Sexual activity" means oral, anal, or vaginal penetration by, or union with, the sexual organ of another; anal or vaginal penetration of another by any other object; or the handling or fondling of the sexual organ of another for the purpose of masturbation; however, the term does not include acts done for bona fide medical purposes.
14:43:51 Hammer: if you didn't pay the male performer it might be prostition for sure
14:44:15 Hammer: so if a doctor is the stunt cock, you're safe
14:44:17 chadknowslaw: that if your model fit into that definition, and you paid the model, in FL they would call it prostitution
14:44:31 chadknowslaw: no such thing as safe hammer
14:44:44 Hammer: i always feel safe in a hospital
14:44:50 titmowse: self pleasuring on film? chad, would that be considered sexual activity?
14:44:59 rockslammer: prostitution is a felony in FL?
14:45:04 chadknowslaw: as a prosecutor, I know I could indict a ham sandwich. I just would have a hard time getting a conviction
14:45:06 rockslammer: or the conspiracy is
14:45:07 Hammer: so we hire doctors and nurses and shoot in a florida hospital and we're golden
14:45:14 King_Porn: lol
14:45:23 chadknowslaw: self pleasuring on film WOULD fit the definition of this Florida law
14:45:32 titmowse: thnx chad
14:45:51 Hammer: i'm looking forward to seeing how this one plays out
14:46:06 chadknowslaw: I hope that ray guhn take this to trial
14:46:17 Hammer: what do you think about the idea that only FSC members are protected right now, chad?
14:46:20 chadknowslaw: I believe JD obenberger is representing him
14:46:24 grimfang: ok.. this one came up yesterday, since we are on the subject sort of... the new Pimp Tax... thoughts on that?
14:46:47 chadknowslaw: and I like JD's style. I dont like to see plea agreements on these cases. Fight it -- balls to the wall
14:46:49 titmowse: well, can't blame them if they don't want to go to trial. keep this in mind newbies...fighting thois stuff can break you
14:47:04 Hammer: they can afford it
14:47:07 chadknowslaw: AH< teh FSC membership issue
14:47:27 chadknowslaw: OK. This is my OPINION. But there is sound legal reasoning
14:47:33 oprano: a lot of people have
14:48:01 grimfang: fsc exemptions are unfair and discriminatory as hell.. caters to an individual lobby/special intrest..
14:48:03 Hammer: legal opinion coming up folks, not legal advice
14:48:09 chadknowslaw: Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil procedure say that a preliminary injuction is only binding on the parties to the suit BUT BUT BUT
14:48:23 chadknowslaw: the parties include the DOJ
14:48:24 chadknowslaw: AND
14:48:43 chadknowslaw: the DOJ MUST apply laws equally under the COnstitution
14:48:47 chadknowslaw: SO
14:49:40 chadknowslaw: I do not believe the DOJ can apply a law to one person [ a member] but then apply it to another { non-member] without running into a contstitutional roadblock
14:50:09 grimfang: its the whole 'equal protection' matter
14:50:16 rockslammer: i joined the FSC this month, business is good and if they use the money to lobby thats fine with me
14:50:48 grimfang: nothing wrong with supporting them, rockslammer.. i just will not be bullied into it or extorted
14:50:50 titmowse: and still, have they yet to arrest anyone on 2257?
14:51:01 chadknowslaw: If the City of Atlanta makes it a crime for a black person to ride on a city bus, and NAACP files suit and gets an injunction against enforcement of the law, you cannot tell me that the City of Atlanta bus driver would only allow black people on his bus that had an NAACP card
14:51:10 chadknowslaw: that would violate equal protection
14:51:31 rockslammer: no one has ever been conviced on 2257 just a few pleas to it as a lesser
14:51:47 chadknowslaw: also, at this point, only the Attorney General HIMSELF has the authority to inspect records
14:51:48 rockslammer: they dont want t o take it to a criminal trial
14:51:48 oprano changes name to gonzo
14:51:55 chadknowslaw: he has not appointed any inspectors
14:52:10 Hammer: i volunteer
14:52:14 rockslammer: so gozo gets to go to my barn to look at the cds
14:52:19 Rcourt64: no busses for gonzo then lol
14:52:23 chadknowslaw: <kicks hammers ass for helping the enemy>
14:52:26 rockslammer: ill take glossys of that
14:52:48 gonzo: I dont ride da bus
14:52:52 Hammer: oh, just because i was doing the inspecting wouldn't mean i was helping the enemy
14:53:02 thickydix: is there any way to get text of todays disscussion?
14:53:14 Hammer: i'll be posting the transcript in the archives
14:53:19 chadknowslaw: there have a been a handful of 2257 guilty pleas, but those were part of a larger indictment-- involving child porn -- easy to have a 2257 violation since CP producers usually do not keep records
14:53:21 thickydix: thanks
14:53:37 grimfang: so.. do you think the DOJ trys to take advantage of the ignorance of the average adult webmaster? Are they counting on a lot of misconceptions, fear, and confusion in the industry?
14:53:57 chadknowslaw: so those 2257 guilty pleas came about by the defendant pleading guilty to that charge in exchange for something else
14:54:08 titmowse: of course grim, look how they conflate COP with CP
14:54:21 titmowse: COPA i mean
14:54:34 chadknowslaw: hell , there has been so much confusion, and NO ENFORCEMENT of 2257 , but many webmasters got out of the business or took content down
14:54:40 chadknowslaw: they certainly did make an effect
14:54:54 Hammer: i think the doj knew most of their changes wouldn't fly but knew that it would scare a lot of people out of the biz
14:55:03 chadknowslaw: so 2257 has worked even though not a single person has been inspected
14:55:13 Hammer: it also got a lot of content removed
14:55:14 titmowse: zip content pretty much dumped all their porn content
14:55:19 rockslammer: playing poker IMHO
14:55:21 Hammer: yep
14:55:47 Hammer: any producer that didn't have the proper docs deserved to dump all their content
14:55:49 chadknowslaw: I really need to be appointed to the job of attorney general
14:55:54 King_Porn: Yep, alot of cozy members purchased from Zip Content
14:55:57 Hammer: the law has been around since '95
14:56:09 Hammer: i vote for chad
14:56:22 Hammer: just don't let the power go to your head chad
14:56:35 chadknowslaw: it takes a presidential appointment hammer. And GWB and I do not agree on just about everythign
14:56:41 Hammer: any other legal questions besides 2257?
14:56:43 titmowse: in fact, i would imaging a lot of the porn content for sale these well, zip dropped it because of the model's identity exposure.
14:56:55 rockslammer: we have that in common chad
14:57:00 titmowse: shit...ignore me. i can't type
14:57:01 Hammer: i have GW's ear, i'll put a good word in for you
14:57:14 grimfang: ok.. so here's my next question: for those of us who survived this 'great duck and run' caused by the initial 2257 panic.. could the argument be made that we benifited from it? it certainly thinned the herd a bit, less competition... etc...
14:57:22 rockslammer: i got a copyright question
14:57:24 chadknowslaw: that is a good issue. those models do not expect to have their ID shot around the internet to anybody that applies for an affiliate account
14:57:26 Hammer: zip could have issued redacted id's
14:57:34 gonzo: we most certainly benefitted from it.
14:57:44 rockslammer: u up on that chad?
14:57:51 rockslammer: title 17
14:57:54 chadknowslaw: copyright?
14:57:57 rockslammer: right
14:58:09 rockslammer: parody with a screenshot of a site
14:58:11 chadknowslaw: I do some work with copyright
14:58:18 rockslammer: not original work
14:58:22 thickydix: As I do not have years and years of content, it seems pretty cut and dry that if you have legal models and keep tight records, there should be no problems?
14:58:33 chadknowslaw: what is the purpose of the parody?
14:58:42 King_Porn: I have some Zip content that was thrown in the garbage.
14:58:54 gonzo: I have lots that is worthless
14:58:55 titmowse: i know KP. i'm sorry :(
14:59:01 rockslammer: to get a poor cam girl to put a shoe on her head and make us look stupid
14:59:15 rockslammer: its not defamation
14:59:16 titmowse: you too gonzo
14:59:32 gonzo: cost of doing business
14:59:47 titmowse: so are mink coats, gonzo ;)
14:59:47 King_Porn: The biggest thing for most newbiew webmasters is probably getting free content from sponsors and no documentation aside from as 2257 link.
14:59:53 rockslammer: rather strange
14:59:57 chadknowslaw: if you want to parody a copyrighted work, there are 4 factors to look at to determine if it is fair use
15:00:10 rockslammer: ok
15:00:18 gonzo: I need a new coat
15:00:19 grimfang: gonzo looks good in a fur coat..got the photos to prove it
15:00:26 chadknowslaw: 1. Purpose of the use [commercial use -- to make money-- does not go in your favor]
15:00:26 titmowse: lol
15:00:37 gonzo: models dig fat guys in fur coats
15:00:42 Rcourt64: lol
15:00:43 Nikki_Licks: Is there anyone selling content with redacted ID's?
15:00:45 rockslammer: they used it to attract traffic and donations
15:00:48 chadknowslaw: 2. the nature of the work. a webpage is kind of neutral there
15:00:51 grimfang: and pink boas and krispy kreame hats
15:00:58 rockslammer: it was a live broadcast
15:01:08 Hammer: yes, nikki
15:01:09 rockslammer: video on the page
15:01:18 gonzo: I could use a boa.
15:01:26 chadknowslaw: 3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used. If you use the entire website, that is worse than using one screen shot
15:01:27 Hammer: i have a lot of ounique id's that have the model's address blacked out
15:01:57 rockslammer: the entire page with little changed -- not an original work
15:02:04 chadknowslaw: and 4. effect of the use on the market for the copied material. if your parody negatively affects the market for the copyrighted material, that weighs against you
15:02:15 Nikki_Licks: Ok, Thanks.
15:02:17 Hammer: number 4 is a biggie
15:02:17 chadknowslaw: weigh those factors to determine if you can use
15:02:33 Hammer: i think most parodies negatively affect the original
15:02:50 gonzo: I know mine have hahaha
15:03:00 Hammer: google shut down boobles parody pretty quick
15:03:10 rockslammer: we made money the kiddie terrorists pushed out alexa to 418 for a few days
15:03:11 Hammer: lol gonzo
15:03:11 grimfang: no such thing as bad publicity.. parody can generate interest in the original source
15:03:27 gonzo: Epassport does a good job on thier own though
15:03:28 rockslammer: but the models being abused
15:03:30 Hammer: i don't agree with that KP
15:03:42 rockslammer: that my real probelem
15:03:43 Hammer: bad publicity has shut down many a company
15:04:11 gonzo: ask pimpdogg hahahaha
15:04:14 grimfang: true.. but rarely from a parody.. the bad pr usually stems from their own actions
15:04:15 chadknowslaw: you do understand that a private company can decide not to do business with you for any reason, so you can have a legal parody on your website and your host can still decide, on their own, that they hate it and shut it off
15:04:24 titmowse: wish paraody had shut down jerry falwell
15:04:35 Hammer: i'm working on a paroday site right now called Rozy Academy
15:04:41 King_Porn: lol
15:04:53 chadknowslaw: larry flynt's parody with jerry falwell went to the US supreme court
15:04:54 titmowse: you trying to twist my panties hammer?
15:05:00 Hammer: ;)
15:05:07 King_Porn: And I'm working on one called CornSitePros.com
15:05:09 chadknowslaw: larry won
15:05:10 gonzo: Ive been working on a parody site for years.... hahah
15:05:21 Hammer: larry flynt is the king of parodies
15:05:23 titmowse: yes, chad. flynt won...didn't hurt old jerry one damned bit
15:05:35 chadknowslaw: <chad notices the conversation has taken a turn towards the sophomoric>
15:05:44 Hammer: lol
15:05:50 chadknowslaw: jerry sure got his pride hurt though
15:06:03 grimfang: i think it goes back to the purpose of the parody again.. is the goal to have fun, or to damage the other guy?
15:06:08 titmowse: well, as you were saying chad...
15:06:17 rockslammer: http://livejasminrev.ytmnd.com/
15:06:18 thickydix: Senate Approves Web Labeling, did you already hit on this?
15:06:26 rockslammer: tell me what you think of this
15:06:27 chadknowslaw: wouldn't you have your feelings hurt if a big bad porn mag suggested that your first sex was with your mom in an outhouse?
15:06:40 rockslammer: pretty sad in my opinion
15:06:47 Hammer: wow rockslammer
15:06:52 titmowse: i was trying to get chad to comment. it's the ftc that would require ratings
15:06:56 rockslammer: see what i mean
15:07:06 Hammer: that's damaging IMO
15:07:13 rockslammer: we may let the romainans at them
15:07:25 chadknowslaw: senate approval does not make a law
15:07:42 Hammer: would you call that a parody?
15:07:42 titmowse: oh, i realize that chad...i know it's not a law yet
15:07:50 grimfang: without the music, thats not a parody rockslammer
15:07:55 grimfang: thats just a screenshot
15:08:12 rockslammer: thats my case but it is up to the board of directors
15:08:15 Hammer: i think it's mean but not a paroday
15:08:34 titmowse: but it is part of their big-ass telecommunications/overhall bill they're hot to pass
15:08:36 rockslammer: its a page jack IMO
15:08:54 grimfang: yeah.. its stolen screenshot, basically
15:09:00 chadknowslaw: OK ladies and gentlemen, I have got to take off
15:09:02 Hammer: it does fit the definition though. A literary or artistic work that imitates the characteristic style of an author or a work for comic effect or ridicule.
15:09:04 rockslammer: infringement
15:09:10 Hammer: that page was made to ridicule
15:09:13 grimfang: thanks for taking the time chad!
15:09:20 chadknowslaw: riducule is OK
15:09:21 King_Porn: Thanks for the time Chad.
15:09:24 gr8expectations: earlier we were talking about explicit photos, what about text. If you use non-explicit photos, but verbose sexual descriptions, that is OK?
15:09:27 Hammer: thanks chad, we all appreciate your time today
15:09:32 Hammer: Our guest today is world renowned adult entertainment attorney, Chad Belville, from http://www.chadknowslaw.com
15:09:32 thickydix: this was helpful. THANKS!
15:09:34 titmowse: thank you chad. maybe you will do this gain. that would be great!
15:09:46 gr8expectations: thanks chad
15:09:47 chadknowslaw: I would be honored
15:09:51 chadknowslaw: ;-)
15:09:53 Hammer: if i can afford it, chad will be a regular. lol
15:09:54 rockslammer: a proper parody would have been their original work and no a sreenshot and defacement
15:10:09 grimfang: well.. if Titmouse would visit here a bit more often, she might bump into chad here on occassion.. hint hint...
15:10:15 chadknowslaw: yeah, I can pay for all that radio I listen to
15:10:20 rockslammer: to say nothing of the treatment of the girl
15:10:25 titmowse: and don't forget to post on campus and if you ever want to write an article for us, just email admin@cozyfrog.com. we'll link your law practice/site
15:10:35 daryls: thanks
15:11:03 rockslammer: interesting convo chat
15:11:06 thickydix: not to be a pain, but when might the transcript be available
15:11:07 rockslammer: chad*
15:11:20 rockslammer: drop by YNOT some time
15:11:24 Hammer: six months to a year, thickydix
15:11:29 Hammer: j/k
|
