Slightly OT: Entertainment law question

Main Page | Report this Page

Movies Forum Index » Movie Production Forum » Slightly OT: Entertainment law question

Page 11 of 63 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 10, 11, 12 ... 61, 62, 63 Next

Author

Message

R. Michael Walker

Posted: Sat Jan 15, 2005 4:40 am

Guest

Quote:

You can get a Panasonic DVX100a off ebay new for under $3k, then you can
get plent of lighting stuff with the left over $2k. Some Kinos and some
arri 650s and 300s. Maybe even a 1k. ebay is your friend.

Eric

Mike Metzger wrote:

I've been given a budget of $5000 to buy a 3 chip camera and light kit.

Shooting mostly talent but also outdoor/B roll for informational and
motivational production for a non-profit/social service organization.

Your opinions would be greatly appreciated.

Mike Metzger

Mike Metzger

Posted: Sat Jan 15, 2005 9:51 am

Guest

Quote:

What about Mics and tripod and Stedi(device)(I LOVE my crane) and light
stands and Sandbags and cases for everything and a gaffer's kit and gels and
filters and...well, you get it I hope. PS just an anamorphic lens will set
you back $700 if you want to do true 16x9 with the DVX100. Of course there
are nice wide angle and tele add ons for it too. Are you doing single system
sound? Or do you need a mixer too?
Mike

"Eric LaRoche" <zerocontent@siliconfreaks.com> wrote in message
news:U_SdnSWpzJycV3XcRVn-sQ@adelphia.com...

You can get a Panasonic DVX100a off ebay new for under $3k, then you can
get plent of lighting stuff with the left over $2k. Some Kinos and some
arri 650s and 300s. Maybe even a 1k. ebay is your friend.

Eric

Mike Metzger wrote:

I've been given a budget of $5000 to buy a 3 chip camera and light kit.

Shooting mostly talent but also outdoor/B roll for informational and
motivational production for a non-profit/social service organization.

Your opinions would be greatly appreciated.

Mike Metzger

Guest

Posted: Sat Jan 15, 2005 3:45 pm

How do I sign up???
This is an amazing opportunity!

WOW

go screw yerself SPAMMER

R. Michael Walker

Posted: Sat Jan 15, 2005 9:43 pm

Guest

Well I use the far less expensive Lowell lights and have great luck with
them. I added a couple of Knock off Kinoflos from a CA company out in
Riverside and uses reflectors a bit. I bought all but the flos used and have
11 units from 250 Watts to 1K and have never wanted more...except course in
daylight where I am limited to close-ups or reflectors. Or all 7 of my 1Ks
close together! ProMax in La and OC make a great inexpensive crane for
around $400-699 as well as a steditracker for under $300 but a strong arm is
DEFINITELY required since they make no body brace for it. I see lights and
moving cameras that don't look like crap as the best was to get a "film
look" and to hold the viewer's attention. Lighting to me is the key to a
good image/look. So don't scrimp there. I have the DVX100 and have rented
the XL1 for the loner lenses. the main gripes I had are now a thing of the
past with the XL2 (Bad audio, etc all fixed). But all it did was catch up
with the other cameras. NOTHING to surpass them unless you have great credit
to rent or buy the professional lenses for the unit. Even the lens it now
comes with is nothing to write home about. Though it's no paper weight like
the older one with the XL1. Soft when you use it wide open...to me that's a
key way to achieve a film look (Wide Open aperture...NOT soft images).
Controls the depth of Field. I too go single system unless I need more than
2 mics. Then I use a mixer and still feed the mix into the camera. I tried
double sys with a computer and a Digital Disc recorder and found no
improvement to the final mix. I use mostly Sennheiser mics but also some AKG
studio style mics. Also with the lights the Manfrotto Avenger series or the
traditional Matthews are a necessity as are sandbags. Light aluminum stands
don't work well outside (Or inside when they bet bumped even a bit). The
Anamorphic lens softens the image and I hate that...but so does any software
solution. The "a" version internal fake 16x9 looks good if you are not going
to film. And the next attachment lens I'd get is the tele 1.6 (7). Less
depth of field! The standard lens is already the widest standard lens you
can get and in most case is plenty wide enough IMHO. But a .6(7) is also
nice if you have the extra cash. I'd get the crane and steditracker first.
If you want to talk more feel free to email me personally at
rmwpro@pacbell.net
Mike

"Mike Metzger" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:41E92E4F.6030004@nospam.net...

Quote:

Single system sound, and no 16x9. I've used the DVX100 and really liked
it. I've also used the XL1 and didn't like it as much, but didn't get much
time with it so maybe it's a familiarity thing. What about the newer Sony
stuff?

I've got mics, sound gear including mixer, and tripod (no crane yet -
maybe someday!!) but NO lighting stuff at all. I've used the Pepper kit
and an Arri softbank - but just that 4 light kit sets you back $2k.

Any more suggestions would be appreciated.

Mike

R. Michael Walker wrote:
What about Mics and tripod and Stedi(device)(I LOVE my crane) and light
stands and Sandbags and cases for everything and a gaffer's kit and gels
and filters and...well, you get it I hope. PS just an anamorphic lens
will set you back $700 if you want to do true 16x9 with the DVX100. Of
course there are nice wide angle and tele add ons for it too. Are you
doing single system sound? Or do you need a mixer too?
Mike

"Eric LaRoche" <zerocontent@siliconfreaks.com> wrote in message
news:U_SdnSWpzJycV3XcRVn-sQ@adelphia.com...

You can get a Panasonic DVX100a off ebay new for under $3k, then you can
get plent of lighting stuff with the left over $2k. Some Kinos and some
arri 650s and 300s. Maybe even a 1k. ebay is your friend.

Eric

Mike Metzger wrote:

I've been given a budget of $5000 to buy a 3 chip camera and light kit.

Shooting mostly talent but also outdoor/B roll for informational and
motivational production for a non-profit/social service organization.

Your opinions would be greatly appreciated.

Mike Metzger

Mike Metzger

Posted: Tue Jan 18, 2005 12:58 am

Guest

Thanks for all the info. It's been a great help.
Happy filmmaking!
Mike

R. Michael Walker wrote:

Quote:

Guest

Posted: Tue Jan 18, 2005 4:22 pm

this forum has moved
http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/filmvideotoronto/

\"- Prof. Jonez©\"

Posted: Mon Jan 31, 2005 1:16 pm

Guest

michelle9384@yahoo.com wrote:

Quote:

I am trying to advise a client who is asking me the "best" city to
start an adult film business/internet pornography site. They are
choosing among Los Angeles, New York, and Miami.

It seems clear that at least 90% of the established adult production
houses are in Los Angeles/Van Nuys. However, many lesser known
businesses are creating media and/or based in Nevada, New York, and
Miami. That seems to be a key issue with regard to legality, i.e., is
the business in question just based in a city, or is it on less stable
ground because actual "production/filming" is taking place in that
city.

Why do so many companies choose greater Los Angeles? Is it because
LA/California is less likely to prosecute on obscenity charges than
other districts?

A Federal Judge Dismisses an Obscenity Prosecution on Privacy Grounds:
A Decision That, If Followed, Could Transform the Law

By JULIE HILDEN

Monday, Jan. 31, 2005

On January 20, U.S. District Judge Gary Lancaster - of the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania, in Pittsburgh - issued what I believe
may be a very important right to privacy decision.

Indeed, Judge Lancaster's ruling might - if other courts accept its logic -
profoundly affect the future of obscenity law in the United States. If so, it
will make speech in this country more free, and privacy more sacrosanct.

Judge Lancaster's opinion is remarkable in that it shows a federal trial judge's
willingness to admit what the U.S. Supreme Court will not: The emperor - here,
the law of obscenity - has no clothes.

Put bluntly, the law of obscenity, no matter how longstanding, has never
satisfied constitutional requirements, and it never will. Finally, a judge has
been brave enough to say as much. This opinion is notable for that reason - and
for Judge Lancaster's novel approach. His opinion attacks the obscenity laws on
privacy grounds - and thus may be more effective than pure free-speech attacks
mounted in the past.

The Defendants, Their Website, and the Federal Criminal Statutes Involved

To begin, it's worth noting the context, and background of the case. The
defendants in the case before Judge Lancaster were Extreme Associates, Inc.,
Robert Zicari, and Janet Romano. Zicari (a.k.a. Rob Black) and Romano (a.k.a.
Lizzy Borden) sell pornographic films through the mail, and through the "members
only" section of the Extreme Associates website.

The prosecution was brought under three federal obscenity statutes - one statute
that prohibits mailing matter that is "obscene, lewd, lascivious, indecent,
filthy or vile"; another statute that prohibits using the Internet to traffic in
such material; and a third statute that prohibits conveying such material in
interstate commerce.

The indictment purported to state ten law violations, including a conspiracy
charge. Each carried with it a potential prison sentence of up to five years,
and a fine.

Interestingly, each alleged violation also came out of a "sting" operation in
which a postal inspector, acting undercover, became a member of the defendants'
website, and ordered the defendants' films. Thus, rather than acting on any
aggrieved person's complaint of having been offended, the government seems to
have been acting simply on its own, targeting the films its own prosecutors
happened to find especially offensive.

This kind of law enforcement is arbitrary and idiosyncratic at best, and at
worst, selective prosecution, in which the government chooses
especially-disliked persons and companies to target - doing so based on the
content of their speech. Enforcement that turns on such individualized judgment
makes a mockery of the very concept of law. And when the cherry-picking is done
based on the content of speech (here, the content of the films at issue), it is
especially noxious. Corollary to the concept that speech must be free, is the
concept that speech cannot be punished based on its content.

The Traditional, Unsuccessful Attack on Obscenity Laws

Selective enforcement and content-discrimination, however, may be among the
least of obscenity law's problems. Lawyers have long tried to attack obscenity
law as a simple, straightforward First Amendment violation: These laws directly
target speech, when the First Amendment plainly says that to do so, is
forbidden. (The Court has long held that films and photos count as "speech" as
fully as newspaper reports do.)

Yet the courts have always rebuffed these attacks - carving out obscenity as an
area of law that, anomalously, is thought to be somehow outside the First
Amendment's scope. Now, however, Judge Lancaster has accepted new arguments,
grounded in the right of privacy, that other courts may find more persuasive
than those that have typically been raised. Before looking at those new
arguments, though, it's worth focusing briefly on the traditional, failed
attacks.

Why didn't simple First Amendment attacks on obscenity laws ever persuade the
Supreme Court? Perhaps the Court was simply uncomfortable with putting speech
with sexual content in the same category as the political speech on which our
democratic system is based - viewing these kinds of speech as such strange
bedfellows, it felt it had to put them in separate areas of law.

The Supreme Court should have resisted its discomfort, and yielded to logic. For
example, "I know it when I see it" is obviously an insufficiently clear standard
for a law, especially a criminal law. Yet this was Justice Potter Stewart's
not-very-reassuring reassurance as to how he figured out what was, and was not,
obscenity. (The comment occurred in Stewart's concurring opinion in the 1964
case of Jacobellis v. Ohio - in which the Court reversed a state Supreme court's
judgment that a particular film was obscene.)

Less famously, and even less reassuringly, the Justice also mused, in the same
dissenting opinion, that he might never be able to "intelligibly" figure out
what he meant by the kind of "hard-core pornography" he deemed to fall within
obscenity law. When a Supreme Court Justice is confessing that he doesn't know
what the law means, and probably never will, how is a layperson supposed to
figure it out?

The truth is that - Supreme Court decisions to the contrary -- obscene speech,
simply because it is speech, plainly is within the First Amendment's
protections. A quick look at the wording of the First Amendment ought to
establish that.

Yet this argument has been repeated so many times, with so little success, that
lawyers have virtually given up on making it.

Fortunately, however, the lawyers for the defendants in the Extreme Associates
case took a different tack: They categorized pornographic speech - indeed, even
obscene speech - not just as speech, but also as part of readers' and viewers'
sexual liberty and sexual privacy. And Judge Lancaster wisely accepted, and
eloquently elucidated, these arguments.

Putting the First Amendment Issue Aside: Agreeing that the Obscenity Law Applies

Before analyzing Judge Lancaster's holding, it's useful to see what he did not
hold: He did not hold that these materials were non-obscene. To the contrary, he
assumed that they were.

The assumption was quite reasonable: Most would agree that the material Extreme
Associates sells is repellent; it depicts women being defecated on, and also
depicts them - fictionally - being gang-raped, and having their throats slit.
But these are not "snuff films" or "rape films": The women's participation is
consensual. If it were not, the crimes could, of course, be constitutionally
prosecuted, and the films themselves constitutionally confiscated.

Indeed, for the purposes of this dispute, even the defendants agreed that this
material is obscene under the currently-applicable test for obscenity -- set
forth by the Supreme Court in Miller v. California. For the Miller test to be
satisfied, and speech to be constitutionally proscribed as obscene, the Court
held, the material at issue must depict or describe sexual conduct in a patently
offensive way (as defined by the community); the conduct must be specifically
described in the law; and the work must, taken as a whole, lack serious literary
or artistic value and must appeal to a prurient interest in sex. The films at
issue here seem to pass the test - and thus, would be deemed, by most, to be
obscene under its definitions.

For all these reasons, Miller was not an issue here. So Judge Lancaster's ruling
concentrated on two other precedents: Lawrence v. Texas and Stanley v. Georgia

Applying Lawrence: Judge Lancaster Defines Liberty to Including Viewing Sexual
Films

In Lawrence, the court struck down a law criminalizing same-sex sodomy. In so
doing, it held that the constitution's definition of liberty includes the right
of adults to conduct consensual personal relationships "in the confines of their
homes and their own private lives." And it underlined that that is true even
when those relationships' "overt expression" is through "intimate conduct." In
short, liberty includes the liberty to have sexual relations.

From this, Judge Lancaster concluded that this liberty also includes the liberty
to view sexual material in the privacy of one's home. In support of this
argument, the judge pointed to the Supreme Court's holding in Stanley v.
Georgia.

In Stanley, the Court had held that a state cannot criminalize the mere
possession of sexual material in one's home even if it is obscene. The reason?
Because, the Court said, there is a "right to receive information and ideas
regardless of their social worth."

Plainly, this right does not depend on the kind of serious literary or artistic
value to which Miller referred. To the contrary, the right recognized in
Stanley, by the Court's own language, can apply to valueless, worthless
material - valueless and worthless, that is, as viewed under the standards of
the community.

Thus, Judge Lancaster correctly concluded that this right - the right to
privately read and view -- can protect even material (like Extreme Associates'
films) that is not independently protected by the Miller test.

Applying Lawrence Once Again: Judge Lancaster Rejects Purely "Moral" State
Interests

In addition, the Lawrence Court also reached another conclusion highly relevant
to the Extreme Associates case. It concluded that the fact that a given law is a
longstanding prohibition grounded in widely-held moral beliefs is not, in
itself, a reason for a court to hold that law to be constitutional.

More than longtime consensus, is needed; depending on the applicable standard of
review, either a "rational basis" or a "compelling interest" is required. Put
bluntly: A thousand prosecutors can be wrong.

No wonder, then, that Judge Lancaster rejected the government's contention that,
as he summarized it, "because the federal obscenity statutes have withstood
constitutional attack for more than thirty-five years, this court lacks the
authority to find that they are unconstitutional."

Judge Lancaster pointed out, to the contrary, that:

[A]fter Lawrence, the government can no longer rely on the advancement of a
moral code, i.e. preventing consenting adults from entertaining lewd or
lascivious thoughts as a legitimate, let alone compelling, state interest.

Precluded from citing any longstanding moral interest, the government in Extreme
Associates put forward another putative state interest in an attempt to justify
charging the defendants with violations of the criminal obscenity laws: An
interest in protecting children, and unconsenting adults, from seeing such
material.

But Judge Lancaster did not find this interest convincing. He pointed out that
the website already protected children and unconsenting adults by erecting a
number of gates: To buy a film, the purchaser had to use a credit card, purchase
a membership, and receive and use a password.

And in any event, Judge Lancaster noted, even if the criminal law of obscenity
marginally did serve these interests, it was far too blunt an instrument to do
so constitutionally. The Supreme Court has made clear that adults should not
lose rights to view material just because a "determined minor" can figure out a
way to access that material, too.

This second ruling by Judge Lancaster was also very convincing. Especially since
civil penalties are an option, and the site does use a credit-card requirement
to screen out most minors, it seems grossly excessive for the defendants to face
jail sentences of up to five years under the law. When it comes to the First
Amendment, especially, the punishment must fit the offense far better than this.

In addition, the Supreme Court has long held that adults cannot, in effect, be
sent back to the nursery when it comes to First Amendment rights: Just as a few
industrious sixteen-year-olds are doubtless going to sneak pornographic
magazines from behind the cash register, so too will they figure out a way to
get a credit card and download pornographic films. We may want to take measures
to stop them, but such measures should not include treating all adults accessing
a give site like sixteen-year-olds, in the fear that a few sixteen-year-olds
will masquerade as adults and gain access to the site.

A Possible End to Recent Abusive Use of the Obscenity Laws

Over the past several years, the Ashcroft Justice Department has launched an
all-out assault on materials it has deemed obscene. Judge Lancaster's opinion
underlines one reason why we should be concerned about this campaign: It's not
just about speech, but also about individual privacy and individual liberty.

Obscenity law is an embarrassment to constitutional law: It is perpetuated even
by judges who as much as admit that its application is extremely subjective -
and thus that potential violators lack notice as to when they may be
overstepping.

It's elementary: Vague criminal laws violate due process. And laws banning
speech precisely because of the effect it may have on the listener or viewer
violate the First Amendment. Yet courts have pretended to ignore these two
truths when it comes to obscenity law.

Let's hope that Judge Lancaster's novel approach can shock other judges into
realizing what they've already known: Obscenity law is unconstitutional for
multiple reasons - it strikes blows to fairness, free speech, and sexual
privacy, as well.

Quote:

Or, is it simply to be among their peers and
distributors who are established there...a momentum thing.

One disadvantage to LA seems to be that a large fee has to be paid to
the city for any filming that is taking place. I heard $1,500 from
one source!

Miami seems like it would be adult-friendly to some degree. Is it
less adult-production-friendly than LA?

Is New York out of the question in this regard? Where does it fall?
Thanks for any help.

Michelle

Richard

Posted: Mon Jan 31, 2005 3:42 pm

Guest

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 11:16:22 -0700 "- Prof. Jonez©" wrote:

Quote:

michelle9384@yahoo.com wrote:
I am trying to advise a client who is asking me the "best" city to
start an adult film business/internet pornography site. They are
choosing among Los Angeles, New York, and Miami.

It seems clear that at least 90% of the established adult production
houses are in Los Angeles/Van Nuys. However, many lesser known
businesses are creating media and/or based in Nevada, New York, and
Miami. That seems to be a key issue with regard to legality, i.e., is
the business in question just based in a city, or is it on less stable
ground because actual "production/filming" is taking place in that
city.

Why do so many companies choose greater Los Angeles? Is it because
LA/California is less likely to prosecute on obscenity charges than
other districts?

A Federal Judge Dismisses an Obscenity Prosecution on Privacy Grounds:
A Decision That, If Followed, Could Transform the Law

First, a state can prosecute only on state issues.
The state can not restrict the use of the internet simply because traffic
may come into that state.
Further, the state can not restrict interstate commerce simply because said
business may happen to travel within that state.
As federal law has already made it mandatory for the state to accept such
traffic, the state can not reject it.

As I see it, the postal employee knowingly entered into a contract with the
website and knowingly asked for the material.
It was not as if he had received a plain envelope which contained the
obscene material, which he did not want to begin with.
Therfor, there was no grounds for prosecution.
Furthermore, the postal employee was out of his jurisdiction since he had
not used the mail system accept after subscribing to the material he
requested.

Several years ago, the USPS ran a "sting" operation in which it sent out
several mailings offering photos of nude young boys 10 to 13 years old.
Two men from Cincinnati responded to that mailing.
One took the action to court and he was subsequently found not guily because
the mailing did not define precisely what was being ordered.
The other man? He was found dead after committing suicide. His note said he
did not want to be an embarassment to the juinor high boys he taught.

In another case involving the USPS, a postal employee noticed a certain
postcard and took it to his supervisors. The person sending the card was
located and prosecuted.
Case dismissed.
The man had taken an innocent little photo of his 12 year old daughter who
sat on his lap, wearing a skirt, with the skirt raised back just enough to
show the uncovered genital area.
Since there was no sexual contact involved, the post card was finally sent
to it's destination by the USPS.

In my humble opinion, prosecutors seem to use these knds of things as a
means to show their populace they are on the job, specially at election
time.
Not so much for the fact that they will win or lose, for the publicity.

wereoboy

Posted: Wed Feb 02, 2005 6:55 am

Guest

"Richard" <Anonymous@127.001> wrote in message
news:ctm58m01di0@news1.newsguy.com...

Quote:

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 11:16:22 -0700 "- Prof. Jonez©" wrote:

michelle9384@yahoo.com wrote:
I am trying to advise a client who is asking me the "best" city to
start an adult film business/internet pornography site. They are
choosing among Los Angeles, New York, and Miami.

It seems clear that at least 90% of the established adult production
houses are in Los Angeles/Van Nuys. However, many lesser known
businesses are creating media and/or based in Nevada, New York, and
Miami. That seems to be a key issue with regard to legality, i.e., is
the business in question just based in a city, or is it on less stable
ground because actual "production/filming" is taking place in that
city.

Why do so many companies choose greater Los Angeles? Is it because
LA/California is less likely to prosecute on obscenity charges than
other districts?

A Federal Judge Dismisses an Obscenity Prosecution on Privacy Grounds:
A Decision That, If Followed, Could Transform the Law

First, a state can prosecute only on state issues.
The state can not restrict the use of the internet simply because traffic
may come into that state.
Further, the state can not restrict interstate commerce simply because
said
business may happen to travel within that state.
As federal law has already made it mandatory for the state to accept such
traffic, the state can not reject it.

As I see it, the postal employee knowingly entered into a contract with
the
website and knowingly asked for the material.
It was not as if he had received a plain envelope which contained the
obscene material, which he did not want to begin with.
Therfor, there was no grounds for prosecution.
Furthermore, the postal employee was out of his jurisdiction since he had
not used the mail system accept after subscribing to the material he
requested.

Several years ago, the USPS ran a "sting" operation in which it sent out
several mailings offering photos of nude young boys 10 to 13 years old.
Two men from Cincinnati responded to that mailing.
One took the action to court and he was subsequently found not guily
because
the mailing did not define precisely what was being ordered.
The other man? He was found dead after committing suicide. His note said
he
did not want to be an embarassment to the juinor high boys he taught.

In another case involving the USPS, a postal employee noticed a certain
postcard and took it to his supervisors. The person sending the card was
located and prosecuted.
Case dismissed.
The man had taken an innocent little photo of his 12 year old daughter who
sat on his lap, wearing a skirt, with the skirt raised back just enough to
show the uncovered genital area.
Since there was no sexual contact involved, the post card was finally sent
to it's destination by the USPS.

In my humble opinion, prosecutors seem to use these knds of things as a
means to show their populace they are on the job, specially at election
time.
Not so much for the fact that they will win or lose, for the publicity.

Dear Readers,

I have a 32 year old film currently being screened by a major Film Festival,
and I'd like to ask you folks how much trouble you think I may be currently
in, if any.

It's a 32 year old film of a Summer Sleepaway Camp in America. Twleve
minutes long. I've entitled it CAMP CHAOS. There are several scenes of
nudity. Several ppl "moon" <pull their pants or bathing suits off completely
by themselves>

There is some frontal nudity also. One in a scene close=up and another scene
shot from a distance. These are all mostly young ppl.

The scene I've become the most concerned and worried about for now is two
campers, identical twins it looks like. First they appear to be rubbing
noses. Then one of them reaches over and palms the other one's skinny little
ass, on top of his bathing suit.

That's about it really. Then some other campers come over and /try/ to pull
one of the twins' bathing suits off, which they don't. That's the end of the
scene.

Is this art, considering the work "as a whole" as it is a rare film of a
sleepaway summer camp in America during the early 70s, or am I about to get
picked up for purveying kiddie korn, indecency, obscenity and the like?

It's not like I did anything clandestine or anything like that. I've
submitted this work to a major Film Festival in hopes of winning a prize and
some attention.

Perhaps I was a little "reckless" in submitting this film to a major Film
Festival currently in progress the way it is. I'm just a one man show here.
I appreciate your feedbacks. Who knows? Maybe it will be considered as a
great Film.

The main thing is your feedbacks to me today about this situation. Thanks
for your help!

\"- Prof. Jonez©\"

Posted: Thu Feb 03, 2005 4:38 am

Guest

wereoboy wrote:

Quote:

"Richard" <Anonymous@127.001> wrote in message
news:ctm58m01di0@news1.newsguy.com...
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 11:16:22 -0700 "- Prof. Jonez©" wrote:

michelle9384@yahoo.com wrote:
I am trying to advise a client who is asking me the "best" city
to start an adult film business/internet pornography site.
They are choosing among Los Angeles, New York, and Miami.

It seems clear that at least 90% of the established adult
production houses are in Los Angeles/Van Nuys. However, many
lesser known businesses are creating media and/or based in
Nevada, New York, and Miami. That seems to be a key issue with
regard to legality, i.e., is the business in question just
based in a city, or is it on less stable ground because actual
"production/filming" is taking place in that city.

Why do so many companies choose greater Los Angeles? Is it
because LA/California is less likely to prosecute on obscenity
charges than other districts?

A Federal Judge Dismisses an Obscenity Prosecution on Privacy
Grounds:
A Decision That, If Followed, Could Transform the Law

First, a state can prosecute only on state issues.
The state can not restrict the use of the internet simply because
traffic may come into that state.
Further, the state can not restrict interstate commerce simply
because said business may happen to travel within that state.
As federal law has already made it mandatory for the state to
accept such traffic, the state can not reject it.

As I see it, the postal employee knowingly entered into a contract
with the website and knowingly asked for the material.
It was not as if he had received a plain envelope which contained
the obscene material, which he did not want to begin with.
Therfor, there was no grounds for prosecution.
Furthermore, the postal employee was out of his jurisdiction since
he had not used the mail system accept after subscribing to the
material he requested.

Several years ago, the USPS ran a "sting" operation in which it
sent out several mailings offering photos of nude young boys 10 to
13 years old. Two men from Cincinnati responded to that mailing.
One took the action to court and he was subsequently found not
guily because the mailing did not define precisely what was being
ordered.
The other man? He was found dead after committing suicide. His note
said he did not want to be an embarassment to the juinor high boys
he taught.

In another case involving the USPS, a postal employee noticed a
certain postcard and took it to his supervisors. The person sending
the card was located and prosecuted.
Case dismissed.
The man had taken an innocent little photo of his 12 year old
daughter who sat on his lap, wearing a skirt, with the skirt raised
back just enough to show the uncovered genital area.
Since there was no sexual contact involved, the post card was
finally sent to it's destination by the USPS.

In my humble opinion, prosecutors seem to use these knds of things
as a means to show their populace they are on the job, specially at
election time.
Not so much for the fact that they will win or lose, for the
publicity.

Dear Readers,

I have a 32 year old film currently being screened by a major Film
Festival, and I'd like to ask you folks how much trouble you think I
may be currently in, if any.

It's a 32 year old film of a Summer Sleepaway Camp in America. Twleve
minutes long. I've entitled it CAMP CHAOS. There are several scenes of
nudity. Several ppl "moon" <pull their pants or bathing suits off
completely by themselves

There is some frontal nudity also. One in a scene close=up and
another scene shot from a distance. These are all mostly young ppl.

The scene I've become the most concerned and worried about for now is
two campers, identical twins it looks like. First they appear to be
rubbing noses. Then one of them reaches over and palms the other
one's skinny little ass, on top of his bathing suit.

That's about it really. Then some other campers come over and /try/
to pull one of the twins' bathing suits off, which they don't. That's
the end of the scene.

Is this art, considering the work "as a whole" as it is a rare film
of a sleepaway summer camp in America during the early 70s, or am I
about to get picked up for purveying kiddie korn, indecency,
obscenity and the like?

It's not like I did anything clandestine or anything like that. I've
submitted this work to a major Film Festival in hopes of winning a
prize and some attention.

Perhaps I was a little "reckless" in submitting this film to a major
Film Festival currently in progress the way it is. I'm just a one man
show here. I appreciate your feedbacks. Who knows? Maybe it will be
considered as a great Film.

The main thing is your feedbacks to me today about this situation.
Thanks for your help!

You sound like a moron, who should be punished for simply being
an imbecile, regardless of the content of your film.

wereoboy

Posted: Thu Feb 03, 2005 7:04 am

Guest

Quote:

wereoboy wrote:
"Richard" <Anonymous@127.001> wrote in message
news:ctm58m01di0@news1.newsguy.com...
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 11:16:22 -0700 "- Prof. Jonez©" wrote:

michelle9384@yahoo.com wrote:
I am trying to advise a client who is asking me the "best" city
to start an adult film business/internet pornography site.
They are choosing among Los Angeles, New York, and Miami.

It seems clear that at least 90% of the established adult
production houses are in Los Angeles/Van Nuys. However, many
lesser known businesses are creating media and/or based in
Nevada, New York, and Miami. That seems to be a key issue with
regard to legality, i.e., is the business in question just
based in a city, or is it on less stable ground because actual
"production/filming" is taking place in that city.

Why do so many companies choose greater Los Angeles? Is it
because LA/California is less likely to prosecute on obscenity
charges than other districts?

A Federal Judge Dismisses an Obscenity Prosecution on Privacy
Grounds:
A Decision That, If Followed, Could Transform the Law

First, a state can prosecute only on state issues.
The state can not restrict the use of the internet simply because
traffic may come into that state.
Further, the state can not restrict interstate commerce simply
because said business may happen to travel within that state.
As federal law has already made it mandatory for the state to
accept such traffic, the state can not reject it.

As I see it, the postal employee knowingly entered into a contract
with the website and knowingly asked for the material.
It was not as if he had received a plain envelope which contained
the obscene material, which he did not want to begin with.
Therfor, there was no grounds for prosecution.
Furthermore, the postal employee was out of his jurisdiction since
he had not used the mail system accept after subscribing to the
material he requested.

Several years ago, the USPS ran a "sting" operation in which it
sent out several mailings offering photos of nude young boys 10 to
13 years old. Two men from Cincinnati responded to that mailing.
One took the action to court and he was subsequently found not
guily because the mailing did not define precisely what was being
ordered.
The other man? He was found dead after committing suicide. His note
said he did not want to be an embarassment to the juinor high boys
he taught.

In another case involving the USPS, a postal employee noticed a
certain postcard and took it to his supervisors. The person sending
the card was located and prosecuted.
Case dismissed.
The man had taken an innocent little photo of his 12 year old
daughter who sat on his lap, wearing a skirt, with the skirt raised
back just enough to show the uncovered genital area.
Since there was no sexual contact involved, the post card was
finally sent to it's destination by the USPS.

In my humble opinion, prosecutors seem to use these knds of things
as a means to show their populace they are on the job, specially at
election time.
Not so much for the fact that they will win or lose, for the
publicity.

Dear Readers,

I have a 32 year old film currently being screened by a major Film
Festival, and I'd like to ask you folks how much trouble you think I
may be currently in, if any.

It's a 32 year old film of a Summer Sleepaway Camp in America. Twleve
minutes long. I've entitled it CAMP CHAOS. There are several scenes of
nudity. Several ppl "moon" <pull their pants or bathing suits off
completely by themselves

There is some frontal nudity also. One in a scene close=up and
another scene shot from a distance. These are all mostly young ppl.

The scene I've become the most concerned and worried about for now is
two campers, identical twins it looks like. First they appear to be
rubbing noses. Then one of them reaches over and palms the other
one's skinny little ass, on top of his bathing suit.

That's about it really. Then some other campers come over and /try/
to pull one of the twins' bathing suits off, which they don't. That's
the end of the scene.

Is this art, considering the work "as a whole" as it is a rare film
of a sleepaway summer camp in America during the early 70s, or am I
about to get picked up for purveying kiddie korn, indecency,
obscenity and the like?

It's not like I did anything clandestine or anything like that. I've
submitted this work to a major Film Festival in hopes of winning a
prize and some attention.

Perhaps I was a little "reckless" in submitting this film to a major
Film Festival currently in progress the way it is. I'm just a one man
show here. I appreciate your feedbacks. Who knows? Maybe it will be
considered as a great Film.

The main thing is your feedbacks to me today about this situation.
Thanks for your help!

You sound like a moron, who should be punished for simply being
an imbecile, regardless of the content of your film.

Ok, thank you for your feedback.

Anyone else care to make a comment on my passage?

Thank you if you do.

Robert Morein

Posted: Fri Feb 04, 2005 2:13 am

Guest

"wereoboy" <scottamerica@ixpres.com> wrote in message
news:42021281_2@news.vic.com...
[snip]

Quote:

Ok, thank you for your feedback.

Anyone else care to make a comment on my passage?

Thank you if you do.

Here's my offer:

If you promise to cut out the "I'm the greatest filmmaker -- I'm the biggest
thing on the Internet -- I'm the only one who counts -- your work is
obsolete -- yadayada"

If you promise to cut that shit out and be a normal, regular guy, just one
of us, I'll help you.

We don't want to help you because we remember that you think you're better
than us. You're no god. We don't want any of that superiority shit and
disrespect from you.

If you respect us, and behave like one of us, you will be accepted here.

Otherwise, NO.

wereoboy

Posted: Fri Feb 04, 2005 8:08 am

Guest

"Robert Morein" <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:25qdnWiFoeoHvZ7fRVn-iw@comcast.com...

Quote:

"wereoboy" <scottamerica@ixpres.com> wrote in message
news:42021281_2@news.vic.com...
[snip]

Ok, thank you for your feedback.

Anyone else care to make a comment on my passage?

Thank you if you do.

Here's my offer:

If you promise to cut out the "I'm the greatest filmmaker -- I'm the
biggest
thing on the Internet -- I'm the only one who counts -- your work is
obsolete -- yadayada"

If you promise to cut that shit out and be a normal, regular guy, just one
of us, I'll help you.

We don't want to help you because we remember that you think you're better
than us. You're no god. We don't want any of that superiority shit and
disrespect from you.

If you respect us, and behave like one of us, you will be accepted here.

Otherwise, NO.

Yes but it's true. I /AM/ better than you and mY Films /ARE/ better than

your films. You don't have a chance with me around.

"September 11, 2001: The biggest event in the History of America"-NY
Independent Video and Film Guide

How do you explain ^this^ away now ....

Robert Morein

Posted: Fri Feb 04, 2005 11:59 am

Guest

Sorry, Scott, then we won't help you.

wereoboy

Posted: Fri Feb 04, 2005 12:15 pm

Guest

I'm soooo stupid that I'm missing all the fingers on my left hand.
I'm horribly disfigured.

I can't play the guitar no more so I'm a worthless human being.
That's why I'm so offensive and everyone hates me.

Page 11 of 63 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 10, 11, 12 ... 61, 62, 63 Next All times are GMT - 5 Hours The time now is Fri Jul 25, 2008 11:44 am Movies Forum Index