Title 18 U.S.C. 2257

Written by Don_One

I have a bad feeling about this.

My homage to my favorite films of all time (Eps. I - VI) aside, I thinkrepparttar soon-to-take-effect Title 18, Section 2257 laws will hold up in court. Despiterepparttar 142680 feeling by many adult webmasters thatrepparttar 142681 law is oppressive, unconstitutional, and merely another ploy byrepparttar 142682 government to harassrepparttar 142683 adult industry.

If you dont know,repparttar 142684 current statute Title 18 U.S.C. 2257 - in a nutshell - requires that primary producers of pornographic material (those studios and production companies who actually hirerepparttar 142685 adult talent and film them, and also those entities who run affiliate programs and provide content for resale by porn webmasters) keep detailed and accurate records of all models depicted in an adult manner (read, either nudity or sexual activity is involved). These records should ascertain, most importantly but not solely, thatrepparttar 142686 adult performer is indeed old enough to perform adult work. Up till now, like I said,repparttar 142687 onus to retain those records rested only with primary producers.

Enter late June, 2005: this statute shall extend to secondary producers, as well. That is, it will soon become incumbent on all porn webmasters to keep such records.

Porn, by its very nature, is a visual medium. Its very difficult (as Ive found out time and time again) to promoterepparttar 142688 material without photographs, because words can only take you so far. In porn - asrepparttar 142689 advertising clich goes - you sellrepparttar 142690 sizzle, notrepparttar 142691 steak. What Im trying to do is make a case forrepparttar 142692 necessity of graphic displays.

Where do I begin to nitpick at this law? We (and Im including myself in this group) as porn webmasters are expected to keep records on all models portrayed. Includingrepparttar 142693 ones that weve never seen before andrepparttar 142694 ones with barely a body part contained in an image and/or video. The only way we can keep accurate records in such circumstances is if we obtain them directly fromrepparttar 142695 manufacturer of said photos and videos. As much as primary producers need us to sell their wares, I dont think that theyre ready just yet to share those private adult performer files and make them public. Ive always maintained that porn studio and production execs are a rather secretive lot.

Zyprexa Settlement - $690,000,000

Written by Michael@Monheit.com - Michael Monheit, Esquire

Eli and Lilly Company stock moved little Friday after Thursday night's announcement of a whopping $690 million Zyprexa settlement. Plaintiff lawyers and Eli Lilly and Co. late on June 9 announced an agreement in principle to settle a majority of Zyprexa claims for $690 million.

Whilerepparttar Zyprexa cases were consolidated inrepparttar 142664 U.S. District Court forrepparttar 142665 Eastern District of New York,repparttar 142666 Zyprexa settlement will encompass some state and federal claims acrossrepparttar 142667 country.

The Zyprexa lawsuit involved nearly 8,000 patients. A majority of them reported diabetic complications after takingrepparttar 142668 anti-psychotic medication.

A plaintiff's negotiator on Friday said it's a win for all patients because Lilly added a warning torepparttar 142669 Zyprexa product label.

According to plaintiffs counsel, Mr. Seeger, "There were doctors that we know of that were prescribingrepparttar 142670 drug for mood swings and depression and for people who didn't sleep well at night. We had people who had developed diabetic comas, some died, some recovered."

Eli Lilly maintains its top selling drug is safe for patients with bi-polar disorder and schizophrenia.

Cont'd on page 2 ==>
ImproveHomeLife.com © 2005
Terms of Use