fchan

discussion

Several changes and clarifications in policy

Pages:1 41 81 121 161 201 241 281 321
121Report
at 10 Mar 2008: 00:28

>>120

Okay, I concede the point. Cub art is illegal to create, distribute, or own in the United States.  Considering the link in >>120 is suffering from a serious case of tl;dr, here is the relevant part:

-----------------------------------------------------------

-EXPCITE-
    TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
    PART I - CRIMES
    CHAPTER 71 - OBSCENITY

-HEAD-
    Sec. 1466A. Obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children

-STATUTE-

(a) In General. - Any person who, in a circumstance described in subsection (d), knowingly produces, distributes, receives, or possesses with intent to distribute, a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that -

  (1)(A) depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and
     (B) is obscene; or
  (2)(A) depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; and
     (B) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value;

or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be subject to the penalties provided in section 2252A(b)(1), including the penalties provided for cases involving a prior conviction.

-----------------------------------------------------------

So there you go. Even though cub art hasn't been put before the court, if you go by the letter of the law it is illegal. While I may disagree with the law, it is still the law (until challenged and beaten or simply changed).  You can bitch all you want about it, but there it is.

122Report
at 10 Mar 2008: 00:30

>>121

Poster here.  Forgot to point out the great clause about "serious artistic value". Is Furry Art of serious artistic value? There's the question for the court.  I hope you all are registered to vote! (Since obviously everyone here is >= 18, right? ;)

123Report
dMilesFox at 10 Mar 2008: 00:34

>>120

You forgot to mention this...

"-HEAD-
    Sec. 1466A. Obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children"

Key word on that sentence. CHILDREN!!!

If you don't know what "children" means here is the definition.

"A child is a human being between birth and puberty.[1] The term may also define a relationship with a parent or authority figure, or signify group membership in a clan, tribe, or religion; or it can signify being strongly affected by a specific time, place, or circumstance, as in "a child of nature" or "a child of the Sixties."

Here, a link to wikipedia definition!...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children

124Report
at 10 Mar 2008: 00:40

>>123

I don't think the court will use Wikipedia to define such a critical component of the law.  Besides, you got no further than the summary and missed out on two very important phrases in the actual body of the law:

1) "a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing"
2) "depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct"

That's pretty clear.

125Report (sage)
LLz at 10 Mar 2008: 01:08

>>123
a) I'm not a lawyer.
b) According to the general provisions: http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/18C1.txt
"(2) Minor. - The term "minor" means a person who has not reached 18 years of age."
c) Quoting again for emphasis, from the law discussed here:
"(A) depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; and
(B) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value;"
Highlighting the part you should be focused on:
"depicts an image that is, or appears to be"
Quoting the exact phrase of note: "or appears to be"

126Report
at 10 Mar 2008: 01:54

>>125
Quoting the exact phrase of note: "or appears to be"

And in many /Toon/ images Tails and Klonoa -appear-
to be underage, its not a matter of cannon, its a
matter of personal interpretation. And such chars
cannot be excluded from the law just because ALOT
of furries out there happen to like pr0n of them.

What's good for AH is good for everywhere else.
Why be less strict in Toon? If you do that then
you're not really following this law, are ya?

127Report
LLz at 10 Mar 2008: 02:32

>>126
Sorry, you're inserting lore again. They do NOT appear to be underage. Maybe your presumptions of what looks underage is different from mine, but to many people, they do not appear as such. Expecially when you put them side-by-side with Mario (like in Mario vs Sonic at the Olympic Games).

Not to mention that most people don't draw exactly in Sonic/Klona style eitherways, and tend to make said characters look more mature. But if you think said image really looks underaged, it should be obvious enough for mods to agree with you, and you do have the benifit that mods are biased against cub art in general to begin with. Just report them.

128Report
dMilesFox at 10 Mar 2008: 02:35

>>124
Well use any dictionary then, same result! HA

Dont forget that at the beginning of that thing they refer to children, so, if they later mention, drawing, thats applies for CHILDREN, humans in other words, young ones!

A minor, how old its a character that does not exist and is not even a human!?  mmmmh good question ah!?

A fictional character only have an age inside his fantasy world, in real life, those characters do not have an age, so, how you can call that a minor!

Just to point this out, minor its a term used for humans, with animals the term it would be cub, the same applies for the furries.

129Report
dMilesFox at 10 Mar 2008: 02:44

>>127
Be realistic, everyone that knows sonic characters knows that sonic its a teen and tails a kid, just hear their voices! besides,  anyone with half brain can look for this info, or ask something or even look at the manual of a game where tails appears, there is the age.

Now with Klonoa, at the first game you can see he is a very young kid, and on the second he is a teen, well, almost.

Now, "Appears to be underage". how old is Tails in Real Life!?

Do you know?, you don't know!? go ask his mother, oh wait, you can't. Tails does not have a mother in real life, and guess what he is not real either! and other thing, his species and anatomy doesn't exist too.

What about all the copyright characters that are here!? what do u say about that!? including sonic and tails, klonoa too!

130Report
LLz at 10 Mar 2008: 02:47

>>128
Just to note: the only reason why cub is illegal is due to affiliation to humans Hence it's still better to use the term "minor" for accuracy's sake. I highly doubt anyone can make a case about minors when purely animalistic (aka no human traits at all) representation are involved. Not to mention that it's usually harder to determine the age of an animal without human qualities.

Also, I think we can forgo both dictionary and wiki definitions when I've already provided the legal definition...

131Report
at 10 Mar 2008: 02:50

I'm sure there are pedofurs who -do- fap to Tails and Klonoa because of how they look. And if Fchan allows exceptions to the "law," what sort of message does that send to the pedofurs? That cub porn is okay so long as it involves a popular cartoon or game character that everyone likes? You can't act morally superior to others while defending something that's pretty close to what you say you're fighting against.

132Report
dMilesFox at 10 Mar 2008: 02:52

Other thing, The words "Appears to be underage" can not be used on any court u know!.

Lets write down an example...

* If I look like an assassin, that give u the right to put me in Jail.

the word "Appears" is not a valid word inside a court

Maybe for me I can say, hey look that super sexy and beautiful lady over there, and u can say, nah, I don't like that woman, her face its ugly!

As u can see, that word cant work inside a court of any kind because every single person in the world will have different points of view  on the same subject!

133Report
at 10 Mar 2008: 02:53

I got an idea, let's just use Dog Years, lol.

134Report
dMilesFox at 10 Mar 2008: 02:59

Legal definitions? mmmh

Ok, you are saying that the meaning of a word, the definitions doesn't count at all!? mm interesting!

but, all legal matters use words so if I said "white" just inside a single chat, it means other thing than if I mention the same word, white inside a legal term!?

Interesting!

Come on, white its white, no matter where or how u use it! The same applies for minor and children.

135Report (sage)
LLz at 10 Mar 2008: 03:00

>>129
I'm quite sure Sonic Rush never mentioned the age of characters at all. Not to mention that there's so many different voices of Sonic, and that there's so many different versions of Sonic (seriously, do you think the Archie version of Sonic is teen?). Not to mention you can hear voices through paper.

The thing about Klonoa is that all the adults in the game looks to be the same age as Klonoa, which leads to a discreptancy. Hence it's likely the appearance of age is lore and situation-based.

And I've already mentioned that practically all pornographic art here of copyright falls under parody. There's sufficient difference (namely, that they're all sexual) to differenciate from the real thing.

Again, if you think said image really looks underaged, it should be obvious enough for mods to agree with you, and you do have the benifit that mods are biased against cub art in general to begin with. Just report them.

136Report (sage)
LLz at 10 Mar 2008: 03:04

>>132
Don't ask me, ask the legislation. They put it there.

>>134
Unfortunately, yes. It sucks, it's stupid, but when legislations say "minor", they mean a person aged 18 and below (unless they put another section to say otherwise). Irregardless of how many dictionaries you pull out.

137Report
dMilesFox at 10 Mar 2008: 03:07

>>135
If you want to search the info where there is none, is ok for u! but u know the info its available someplace else.

You don't have the games right!? (klonoa) sure u don't! otherwise you have never say that!

Let me see if I understand, if I register my character in order to be copyrighted so anyone can place porn art with him! its that right!? cuz u are saying this!...

"And I've already mentioned that practically all pornographic art here of copyright falls under parody. There's sufficient difference (namely, that they're all sexual) to differenciate from the real thing."

If thats right, LETS REGISTER ALL OUR CHARACTERS, that way we can create PARODIES about them !! YAY.

138Report
dMilesFox at 10 Mar 2008: 03:09

>>136
You say it, not me!

".. but when legislations say "minor", they mean a person aged 18 and below..."

A PERSON!!! not a furry!

139Report
LLz at 10 Mar 2008: 03:13

>>137
Even if info exist, it doesn't change the fact that people can draw characters older than they usually are. On a side note, Archie comics have done a "future" version of Tails, so that breaks the "info" point anyhow.

I have the game. Though only the GBA one. Is it my fault that sprites make everything look small?

You don't have to register. Your character is automatically copyrighted. People can still make porn out of it unless you prove it to be infringing on commercial rights and/or slander and such.

Know your laws.

140Report
at 10 Mar 2008: 03:13

From now on, "models" will take the place of the term "characters" and all models will need to provide proper ID and age statements in order to have images of them on this website, lol.

141Report (sage)
LLz at 10 Mar 2008: 03:14

>>138
Unfortunately, they also include the term "appears to be" in the same legislation. A cop-out, but it means that cub art can be targetted because of it.

142Report
dMilesFox at 10 Mar 2008: 03:19

>>139
"Even if info exist, it doesn't change the fact that people can draw characters older than they usually are. On a side note, Archie comics have done a "future" version of Tails, so that breaks the "info" point anyhow."

And that illustrates the fact that this is fictional, not real, so how somehting that is not real, have an age!!?

Buy the real game, the play station ones!

And who told u the characters are automatically copyrighted, yeah right, you need to pay for the right to make your characters copyrighted, and thats applied for each country where u wanna use that or any other character registered!. I know this cuz I have registered many of my characters.

And I know my laws, my dad, and aunt are lawyers! so I understand all this!

143Report
dMilesFox at 10 Mar 2008: 03:20

>>141
As I said before, that word its not valid on any court. I know about that!

144Report
at 10 Mar 2008: 03:53

Im pretty shure the laws against underaged art only applys to those depicting underaged humans. why the hell would it matter if if its depicting a young animal? Im pretty shure you guys made a mistake here, cause most likely furs are going to protest this up and down the street till you remove the no cub art rule.

145Report
LLz at 10 Mar 2008: 03:55

>>142
Still missing the point: it's not the age that matters, it's the perceived age, based on visual alone.

There's no reason why I should do so. I've played the game, I've made conclusions based on it. Maybe you should ask the lawyers to play the game as well?

http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/17C4.txt tells me that in the USA, works are automatically copyrighted. Many countries follow the US system of copyright. It may be possible that you're confusing with trademark, which registration is required, and better at protecting characters eitherway, in that more restrictions of use are granted.

Meybe you should ask your dad to comment here then. He should know more about this topic and can give better opinions, since several of yours have been proven flawed.

a) You automatically assume that a law isn't valid even though I posted a link to an law school, and that it's been repeatedly mentioned in this thread. It took me 1 minute to simply check google.
b) You know nothing about parody and copyright laws. Either that or you're confused with trademark laws.
c) You know nothing about legal definitions.
d) Canonical age: You keep harping about whether canonical age is a point, when it's obviously out of point. If you're trying to prove it's out of point, you obviously missed the many times I've mentioned that it's the perceived age that matters.

>>143
So you're saying that http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/18C71.txt is somehow not legal, despite being written into legislation? Again, send complaints to the legislation/government offices, I didn't write that piece. I do not need to post where in that link it is, since the term is easily searchable.

146Report
rockythefox at 10 Mar 2008: 03:55

as of recent federal laws images that depict human children regardless of it being drawn cg or photo is considered cp, but anything with non human (example anthro) characters that seem under age isnt subject to such a law because you can not determine its age due to the fact the character in question could be drawn in a world where all the characters regardless of age look like that.

147Report (sage)
LLz at 10 Mar 2008: 03:59

>>146
I find that unlikely. Source please.

148Report
rockythefox at 10 Mar 2008: 04:09

http://www.adultweblaw.com/laws/childporn.htm

there you go

149Report
at 10 Mar 2008: 04:12

>>145
"It's not the age that matters, it's the
-perceived- age, based on visual alone."

And I ''percieve'' Tails, Klonoa, Arthur, etc.
to be underage based on visual characteristics
and I'm sure any law officer would agree if
you were to let him browse through your 'art'

If Fchan is going to push these rules,
they should do it to the FULL extent.
Not allow exceptions just because it's
a popular character within the fandom.
It's hypocritical to rally against cubs
then turn around and allow other stuff
that is pretty much the same damn thing.

150Report
at 10 Mar 2008: 04:14

......You people are scared you'll get in trouble for letting people post fake images of imaginary naughty things happening to pretend animal-people hybrids who are fictionally represented as 'under aged' cartoons?????

Grow a pair, for real.

151Report
rockythefox at 10 Mar 2008: 04:17

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2256.html

and heres a clarification according to law school text books.

a minor is a person under the age of 18.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person

and person is defined as a human being according to the dictionary and thus anything other than a human is not subject to this us law

152Report
LLz at 10 Mar 2008: 04:18

>>148
Last modified: 01 May 2005 12:31:25
It's a little out of date.

>>149
That's a large assumption you have there, that I've said images drawn exactly in their styles. And again, if it resembles cub, report it. You would note that in the few times someone complained about cub art in toon, I've (a) asked them where it is, (b) asked them to report it, and (c) reported it anyway because said people complained without even bothering to report said images. NOT all Tails/Klonoa/Arthur images are drawn child-like. You shouldn't be biased against a character just because it's sometimes depicted young.

153Report
at 10 Mar 2008: 04:21

>>150

Exactly, and this is why we're so lulzworthy.
And that "Cartoon ID" system is hilarious,
Perhaps furs need a legal drinking age too.

154Report
rockythefox at 10 Mar 2008: 04:23

>>152
 my recent post >>151 shows a more upto date example and even gives a viable reason furry art isnt included according to the way they worded the law themselves. so until they reword the law to include character not person or model art of a non human nature isnt subject to the law

155Report
LLz at 10 Mar 2008: 04:29

>>154
And I've noted, the key word which brings contention is "appears to be". Until they reword that part, cub art is targettable.

>>150
Considering the number of silly lawsuits I've seen, being paranoid is probably a better option.

>>153
Time Travel makes for messy bookkeepping. Not to critize, but a "Cartoon ID" system would fail horribly.

156Report
rockythefox at 10 Mar 2008: 04:32

so basically until the laws are changed to reflect characters of a non human nature by specifically mentioning them the way any of the laws are worded right now mean art of a non human nature is not subject to the child pornography law.

>>150 no im not scared to post that stuff because i know its not wrong we just had this huge debate on sl about it and the linden lab admins finally allowed cub stuff to continue because recent things said in the supreme court made it obviously clear that only human characters are subject to such laws.

157Report
rockythefox at 10 Mar 2008: 04:35

>>155

your still missing the point of the words minor and person.

minor is any person under the age of 18.

person is any individual human.

158Report
at 10 Mar 2008: 04:42

Oh, Furfandom... without you there'd be no lulz... ^^

Let's step back and take a look at ourselves and the hilarity of this situation. Here we are, on a website, arguing over ANTHRO PORNOGRAPHY. Most of which we already have, since Fchan is mostly repeat threads of the same stuff. Nothing really new or different, and the common threads most of us have their contents saved to our HD's anyway, amirite? And Fchan doesn't exactly have a monopoly on the Furry Image Board business. There's plenty other Chans to go to folks, and Google Image is pretty useful too.

159Report
TwoTails at 10 Mar 2008: 04:43

Cowards.
I normally try to stay above such bullshit, but really,
what I see here is the same reason this site is often despised..
And this used to be my favorite next to FA.

Though I wonder if this is just an excuse to force your wills on everyone, some typical power abuse?

However, I'm growing out of cub stuff, sure its loads of fun in the later teens to draw and collect,
the thrill of doing what we aren't supposed to.
But now I agree that I've seen some cub stuff thats disturbing to say the least(cub/adult,rape,coughsp3cough,etc >_<),
I barely can bring myself to even draw cute but nonviolent chibi yiff these days.
However, I don't go on some prickish drama trip and do everything I can to ruin peoples hobbies because I don't agree with them.

News flash, obeying laws or even social pressure that take away free speech and rights just leads to more lost rights, then eventually no freedom at all.
(so as long as such rights don't DIRECTLY lead to harm people against their will)
And so people surrender to tyrants, things fall, fun dies, and so on.

But you'll say, "if we don't, fchan will be ruined ", yea well, it'll probably happen either way, so whats the point?
Also, a few legal tricks, improve disclaimers, get gov ip blockers, or maybe some proxy tricks if its not beyond you.

This wasn't meant to insult anyone personally, I'm just so sick of everyone surrendering to the thought police.

But whatever, if one keeps giving up or don't ever want to try, then good riddance.

160Report
LLz at 10 Mar 2008: 04:50

>>157
And "appears to be" means some form of resemblence. Since it's not exactly a quantifiable value, there's a large range of what can be constituted as resemblence, including cub. Just how much difference must there be before it is no longer "appears to be"?

Also, cound we have a link to the SL ruling? I can't seem to find it on the SL website, and it's vastly more useful than all of the arguements thus far.

>>159
I don't know about you, but it's generally advisable NOT to break rules while you're trying to get them changed. And it's not as if cub art is banned on the net.

346Add Reply
Name Sage? - captcha =
First Page - Last 40 - Entire Thread

Powered by: Shiichan Version 3956
The contents of this page are asserted to be in the public domain by the posters.
The administrators claim no responsibility for thread content.
Manage