1.6 and US Code Title 18, Section 2257

While the updated TOS for SL addresses included copyright issues with the DMCA, I have yet to see 2557 compliance addressed. While this only deals with adult material, I foresee this to become an issue now that in-game video is available.

I'd guess very few adult theaters will be legally licensing adult content. USC 18, 2257 is important because it provides a way for proof of model age, consent of production/sale and all that other good stuff through a custodian of records. When content is bought through legit brokers or direct from the producer, 2257 information is always provided. The buyer of this material is then expected to post this information in a prominent location for all to see.

Will USC 18, 2257 be addressed?

http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002257----000-.html

Why?

What is the difference between my inviting people over to my RL house to watch a movie as opposed to inviting people to my Virtual SL home to watch a movie?

It's not being copied, only streamed from a server to an SL TV/Movie screen.

Briana Dawson

A better analogy would be that you get a movie and make a copies of it and mail a copy to each of your friends and they each watch it at their own house.

The case law is that streaming video over the internet constitutes "a copy" of the material. Whether you think it "should" or not doesn't matter. I think it remains to be seen whether Linden can actually escape all responsibility for such matters by claiming to be a passive intermediary. (I actually think they can, but we'll see if it pans out that way.)

Buster

Like in real life, if you're watching some porno at home with friends, it's not a public place of viewing. That's why I said adult theaters in my initial post. I'd lump them in as public in SL along with adult dance spots, gentlemen's clubs, etc. For as much work as these dedicated entrepreneurs spend, copying a text file (that comes with all legally licensed adult material) to a notecard and putting it in a dispenser takes very little for effort for the good that it does.

All that is required for the club, theater, public place to make available is contact information for the custodian of records. This person or company, the custodian of records, is who holds the real documents like photo identification, model release statements, rights of consent, etc.

This law has very little to with copyright but more to do with keeping everything on the up and up, in the way of legal aged models, drug and disease tests, possible ventures into the realm of explicit, etc.

I think the main difference between real-life homes and clubs vs. in-world homes and clubs is that you have lesser control over who has exposure to the video stream in-world. Even if you turn ban on your land, or restrict land access by group, what's to stop someone from using the camera controls to zoom in and take a peek? I think this is another case where case law/US code has failed to keep up with the times.

I have an interesting view of the internet:

The Internet is another nation, and is not covered by the United States of America or any nation. Many red neck cities say, that because the computer is in their town its under their law. BUNK. The Internet is international. If my community outlaws say for example, witchcraft material, they cannot do a single thing to prevent me from obtaining it on the internet.

My view is that the internet is another nation and that the laws of the US do not apply.

Ok. its an extreme view... Tell me what you think?

Believe it or not, the answer to that view has been answered, at least in the US courts. It all comes down to where the content is being served from, where the servers are located. So yes, hosting out of the US would free you from having to post 2257. Though if it resided on LL's servers like uploaded pictures do, then a simple listing of the contact information would be required still.

BTW: I have nothing against the Internet Adult Market, Hell I've made money off of it for years. So before anyone accuses me of being anti-porn, let me state I'm far from it. I just think it's better to be safe then sorry, haply I only say this from second hand experience but it's more then a few cases.

Section 2257 deals with the record-keeping responsibilities of producers and the physical transfer of media. The applicability to streamcasting is questionable.

From where do you duduce this?

Amazon.com Is in Washington State yet they do not pay sales tax or require people to list it.

They can't Paolo. The stream does not load regardless of distance, or the fact you're hovering over the plot.

This is a good thing Mags,

My community outlaws alcoholic beverages...I'm glad I can still get a free Margarita online

Has it occured to anyone that the video stream does not actually go through the LL servers but direct from source to your computer? All you need do is stream from a service provider in a country where it IS legal...

Perhaps a minor point, but your avatar actually has to be within the boundaries of the plot to view that plot's stream; just shifting your camera onto the plot does not work. So for this purpose, land banning actually works.

Briana, I know we are only talking pennies here but if you receive dwell while you are showing these, it may be a violation of the law. That dwell can be converted to real dollars. As I read it, the law is clear cut.

The issue will be whether anyone wants to do something about it. I doubt they will unless they decide to target the host that permits all these unauthorized showings.

I don't believe the view is extreme but it is a bit simplistic. If your community outlaws anything from witchcraft to kiddie porn, red neck or not, and you access it you would be in violation of the law. Who knows if you would actually be convicted?

Commerce is what is covered by the United States and all nations who subscribe to the UCC. That is the issue here more so than who has access to what information.

Technically, it doesn't work that way. By 'technically,' I mean legally, not technology. You are correct in how the stream comes to you but you are bound by the laws of where you sit, not the laws of the country delivering the information.

I know the arguement some will toss back at me will be online gaming and how it is so blurry (at least in the U.S.) what is legal and what is not. The issue here is not delivery of information. The issue is unauthorized use of copyrighted material. It is not relevant whether you can see the movie while panning your camera through someones property or whether you are having close friends over to your SL house to watch a movie. As long as you are receiving dwell you are in violation of the law.

The question once again, is will this law be enforced? If I jaywalk and a cop watches me but has better things to do then write me up for jaywalking, I still broke the law. He/she just chose not to enforce it. That is what it comes down to.

Actually, you're wrong. Individual nations/municipalities can and do censor what gets from the internet to your home. Just look at China for starters. Basically, your redneck town could decide that it will be illegal for you to visit CNN.com, for example. They would require all network providers to filter out CNN's IP addresses for all IP addresses in that town.

Now look at France, which has filed a complaint against Google's upcoming book-search feature. France suggests that Google's feature will be more heavily English-biased and France doesn't like the idea... so they require that Google block this service to all French IP addresses.

Third, take Canada. Several years ago there was much debate over the ability of Canadians to view American TV via internet streaming. The websites were required to block Canadian IP addresses.

Of course, there are ways around anything that involves the net, but these examples prove that your government does have control over what you do with the internet. So, if your redneck neighbor feels you're practicing witchcraft and reports to the local redneck police... when the police find witchcraft material on your computer, you could be arrested and prosecuted under those redneck laws of yours.

Who are you mystery man? This is a smart post yet you only have seven posts to your name. If you're not an alt we should chat sometime.

~Ulrika~

What this post is talking about is creating your "own" pornos (in real life) and streaming them into Second Life. No way to proove age.

Everything could change if congress passes the piracy inducement act, because SL is inducing it's users to pirate.

However, that doesn't seem terribly likely.

AOL, Verizon, and other ISPs do not have to deal with 2557 compliance because they are service providers. Why should Second Life?

The DMCA stuff pretty much eliminates SL's responsibilities when it comes to things like that, from what I understand, because it's the PLAYERS who own the content, and therefore it's the PLAYERS who would have to comply with any other laws.

Flawed argument here, bub- You can buy cigarettes from other countries with no sales tax, can't you?

No. Actually, you're required to pay the cigarette tax to your state yourself. It's just that the seller isn't required to automatically charge the tax at the time of purchase. Michigan requires online tobacco sellers to report all Michigan residents who purchase tobacco online. The sellers do this, and the state sends letters to the purchasers informing them of their tax obligation.

As for SL's DMCA responsibility, it's the same for AOL, Verizon and other ISP providers. These providers are more than a service, they are hosts. In the case of streaming audio/video, they don't host the content directly, but SL hosts the URL links to that content. So, SL would be obligated to remove those URL links if a DMCA takedown request is issued.

that's not extreme it's common sence, nicely put Magnum!!