CENSORED BY U.S. GOVERNMENT

[Rob Lister]

They have the model physically present, for starters, and will need paperwork anyway in order to pay the model.

??? And what necessitates that paperwork?

 

[TragicMonkey]

??? And what necessitates that paperwork?

I'm assuming the employer plans to pay Social Security tax on his employees, as is the law. There will also be paperwork involved in employment contracts, as well as benefits if offered.

There's a well-established industry. It's not all amateurs in basements, or Paris Hilton with a camcorder.

 

[Rob Lister]

I'm assuming the employer plans to pay Social Security tax on his employees, as is the law. There will also be paperwork involved in employment contracts, as well as benefits if offered.

There's a well-established industry. It's not all amateurs in basements, or Paris Hilton with a camcorder.

I suspect not, to say the least. Independent contractors, all. Maybe a release form or two. I don't know. But I do know that Tracy Lords was a primary player in all of this. IIRC (probably don't) she even had fake ID provided to her by Bob Guchioni (sp? Publisher of Penthouse, her first gig). Didn't matter. A lot of people went to jail because of her. If you currently own an antique video of her in her 'younger' days you'd could go to jail as well, or that is my understanding.

I think that supports your point to some extent but the point extends beyond that. The point is putting pressure, as much pressure as possible, to let the industry, such as it currently exists and evolves, know that they are being closely watched.

P.S. If I had my dithers, the age of consent for that type of business would be at least 21, not 18. That's just me.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I suspect not, to say the least. Independent contractors, all. Maybe a release form or two. I don't know. But I do know that Tracy Lords was a primary player in all of this. IIRC (probably don't) she even had fake ID provided to her by Bob Guchioni (sp? Publisher of Penthouse, her first gig). Didn't matter. A lot of people went to jail because of her. If you currently own an antique video of her in her 'younger' days you'd could go to jail as well, or that is my understanding.

Ah, well, didn't all that happen twenty years ago? I wasn't watching porn then, what with being a child at the time. From the documentaries I've seen, there do indeed exist some professional studios with meticulous paperwork. The HIV testing alone requires keeping good records. I'm sure that there are backwoods producers that pay people fifty bucks and film in their basement, but that's not the only way to do it. There's big money in porn, and where there's big money, there exists a need for organization and professionalism.

I think that supports your point to some extent but the point extends beyond that. The point is putting pressure, as much pressure as possible, to let the industry, such as it currently exists and evolves, know that they are being closely watched.

Which behavior seems to me to be harrassing a legal enterprise following the law to produce a legal product solely because the government doesn't like it. If a cop stopped you every twenty feet on your drive home to demand you show him your paperwork and take a breathalyzer, would you consider this a justifiable use of his authority?

P.S. If I had my dithers, the age of consent for that type of business would be at least 21, not 18. That's just me.

I don't see how the age of consent for sex can be lower than the age at which one can appear pornographically. It's legal for a 16 year old (in Virginia) to have sex, but if they film it or photograph it, anyone who buys a copy is liable to arrest? How does that make sense?

 

[corplinx]

Alright, I've been trying to not post to this thread but.....


When you go to a porn website, you are making a good faith transaction. You pay the site either with currency, by clicking ads, or just increasing the site's worth by increasing the view count. In return you get your pornography. In theory, it should be a good faith transaction. You shouldn't have to worry about whether or not the material can land you in jail.

In regular commerce, we respect good faith transactions. If you purchase an item from Sears and it turns out the item is stolen or infringes on some legality you need not worry.

Now, viewers of pornographic videos don't have to worry about viewing minors in sexual acts thanks to laws currently on the books (the infamous Tracy Lords law). Now, this law was written in a pre-internet vacuum.

Right now if you are caught with child pornography on your computer, "I thought she looked 18 officer" won't cut it. If they extend laws to cover american internet websites, then it protects you the consumer (of porn) and facilitates good faith transactions.