On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 6:48 PM, Andreas Kolbe
<jayen466@gmail.com> wrote:
Theo, that is completely wrong. Record-keeping requirements only apply to images where models were required to engage in actual sexually explicit conduct, and moreover, it only applies to images created from 1990 onward.
I reread the information I based my conclusion on. I must be missing some part that you are referring to. Even the definition of "secondary producers" and its distinction from "primary producers" is linked and explained at length in articles related to legislation 2257.
You gave the definition of sexually explicit content from Cornell law that I based my understanding on, " (v) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person." - is a giant definition to cover a lot of content, regardless of its purpose.
The single prosecution based on that law has been against the "Girls Gone Wild" producer, they weren't exactly charged for any other form of sexually explicit content beyond depiction of "genitals or pubic area" and lack of proper record-keeping.
Again, that is completely wrong. Facebook and the Wikimedia Foundation are already protected by 230(c) safe harbor provisions. Responsibility lies with the individual uploader or editor, who enjoys no such protection but is fully liable for their own actions.
Here in lies the burden on the service providers. The complete record of the uploader/editor/individual would lie with the service provider. Edit histories and contribution list provide next to no information on the real world identities of editors, not even where they are located. The only possible link, even the country of residence would be information only available to the service provider in the form of their IP address.
Outside prosecutors can not prosecute, or charge any editor based on their username, whether its User:someguy542 or User:Ladiesman232, there is no real world link without the IP records. That is where the burden comes on the service provider. In order to prosecute and get that information legally, the burden passes to the provider. This actually happens all the time, requests are made by prosecutors, law-enforcers, to legally get the information to prosecute, just not in cases of record-keeping violations. There have been new developments related to this, IP addresses not being directly culpable of actions as such, or not being culpable of the individual paying for the said IP connection but that's another discussion.
The thing is: Wikimedia keeps edit histories and contributions lists for decades. We have no idea what implementation of US law will look like in five or ten years' time, given political vagaries.
Yes, but those edit histories and contribution lists are useless in their public form. More so, in Wikimedia's case than say Facebook. The only relevant information is the IP address, which again open up a whole new door of privacy and how far Wikimedia would go to defend or infringe on it. I really don't know how long CU information is retained vs. edit histories, but if they are indeed kept for decades, it might turn into a liability. The speed at which IP addresses can change, even entire blocks move, even that history might become unusable in 1-2 years.
Regards
Theo