Talk:Porn 2.0

Inconsistencies

This page says:

"Although 18 U.S.C. 2257 could very easily have caused the demise of the Porn 2.0 movement, a recent decision by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals found that the 2257 legislation was unconstitutional and violated first amendment rights.[6] While the government may still appeal the decision, this was a substantial vote of confidence for the viability of the Porn 2.0 model."

But looking at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_Protection_and_Obscenity_Enforcement_Act#Legal_challenges

"On October 23, 2007, the 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled the federal record-keeping statute unconstitutional, holding that the law is overbroad and facially invalid.[1] The Sixth Circuit subsequently reheard the case en banc and issued an opinion on February 20, 2009, upholding the constitutionality of the record-keeping requirements, albeit with some dissents."

The two are inconsistent. Does the Feb 20, 2009 decision completely overturn the Oct 23, 2007 one, once again making Porn 2.0 essentially impossible to comply with 2257? --76.218.202.164 (talk) 08:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Redtube really needs an article... 216.227.23.179 (talk) 08:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

"... 18 U.S.C. 2257 in 1988 ... required that all producers of sexually explicit material keep detailed records of the age and identity of all models that they shoot. While this posed no difficulty for professional producers of commercial pornography..."

Actually, it posed considerable difficulty to producers, many had to abandon entire back-catalogues which were documented to standards different to 18 USC 2257 and lost substantial assets because of it. It also introduces costly legal risk. Have changed 'no' to 'some'. 196.210.145.181 (talk) 19:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Unnecessary

This page is unnecessary. Everything in this page is either redundant with Web 2.0 and Pornography#Legal status, insultingly obvious, or trivial. If nobody contests it, I will merge this into Web 2.0 on Saturday, 6 March 2010. C4757p (talk) 19:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I will perform this merge at a later date (7 March 2010 if possible) due to an unforeseen busy schedule. C4757p (talk) 18:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Keep - strongly disagree. Two related but separate topics. - Stillwaterising (talk) 03:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Since this merge is now contested, please re-propose as a merge Afd if still desired. Thank you. - Stillwaterising (talk) 14:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Article conflict

The section Porn_2.0#Age_and_identity conflicts with information in another article. This article states that the 2008 6th Court of Appeals decision has paved the way for the legitimacy of the Porn 2.0 movement. The third paragraph of Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act states that that the case was reheard and the decision was overturned in Feb. of 2009. - Stillwaterising (talk) 03:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The situation with the Porn 2.0 sites, is that increasingly a large portion of their content could be considered child porn. Mainly homemade videos underage teen girls produce for their boyfriends, that are then distributed on the web. Being this content has existed on these sites for several years, and to my knowledge no legal action has been taken against them, I think it's safe to assume that these laws are unenforceable. One reason being, how does one differentiate between an anonymous 16 year old and an 18 year old? And is the producer also a victim? The amount of resources required to enforce such laws is best allocated to other "crimes".Eelb53 (talk) 21:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Recent Alexa ranks

Pornhub – 54 (36 in US) Youporn – 64 (81 in US) Redtube – 106 (106) XTube – 503 (271 in US) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don-golione (talk • contribs) 16:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Vote down

This article is entirely unencyclopedic. Also, there are large contradictions when mentioning "user-generated content" and "copyright infringement". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.188.153.26 (talk) 08:28, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any specific complaints? Someguy1221 (talk) 08:45, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Porn 2.0. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071029153112/http://machinist.salon.com:80/blog/2007/10/24/porn_law/ to http://machinist.salon.com/blog/2007/10/24/porn_law/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)