Page 1 of 1
No more school girl fetish for you!
Posted: 2003-02-24 10:19pm
by Trytostaydead
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... nography_2
I don't get it, what does this mean? Does this mean anime/hentai is also considered child pornography, or is it because it's purely computer made it goes under free speech? Does this mean Britney Spears is going out of business?
In all seriousness though, they need a law that works. Child porn is EVERYWHERE on the net! If you've been on the newsgroups or even your favorite warez sites.. and I'm not talking about your old nudist magazines either.. like full blown child porn.
Re: No more school girl fetish for you!
Posted: 2003-02-24 10:21pm
by Anarchist Bunny
Trytostaydead wrote:In all seriousness though, they need a law that works. Child porn is EVERYWHERE on the net! If you've been on the newsgroups or even your favorite warez sites.. and I'm not talking about your old nudist magazines either.. like full blown child porn.
And you would know this.... how?
Re: No more school girl fetish for you!
Posted: 2003-02-24 10:22pm
by Trytostaydead
anarchistbunny wrote:Trytostaydead wrote:In all seriousness though, they need a law that works. Child porn is EVERYWHERE on the net! If you've been on the newsgroups or even your favorite warez sites.. and I'm not talking about your old nudist magazines either.. like full blown child porn.
And you would know this.... how?
A) There used to be pop up ads through the links on warezlists
B) There's no thumbnail previews for newsgroups..
Posted: 2003-02-24 10:23pm
by Exonerate
Not to worry, all those school girls are 18+ anyways. Really.
Posted: 2003-02-24 10:23pm
by Spanky The Dolphin
Oh, brand new OLD news...
Posted: 2003-02-24 10:23pm
by neoolong
"The bill, which still requires House action, also plugs a loophole where pornographers could avoid prosecution by claiming that their sexually explicit material was computer-generated and involved no real children. Under an affirmative defense provision, the defendant would be required to prove that real children were not a part of the production."
I think it means that it is not child porn, if no actual children were involved.
So, hentai doesn't count, well unless they use child models.
Posted: 2003-02-24 10:23pm
by Kuja
It seems like a smarter law to me. The wording is better and more precise on both sides of the fence.
Posted: 2003-02-24 10:57pm
by RedImperator
Computer generate porn would be considered child porn under the law if the creator meant for consumers to believe real children were involved. Hentai wouldn't fall under that because it's obviously not real.
Posted: 2003-02-24 11:37pm
by Darth Wong
I think they're trying to anticipate the day when CGI characters actually look real. Not that we're there yet.
But I think most people would have trouble getting into CGI porn, no matter how well it was rendered. I think you have to know or believe that these are real people.
Posted: 2003-02-24 11:46pm
by BlkbrryTheGreat
Darth Wong wrote:I think they're trying to anticipate the day when CGI characters actually look real. Not that we're there yet.
But I think most people would have trouble getting into CGI porn, no matter how well it was rendered. I think you have to know or believe that these are real people.
If you can't tell the difference, how would you ever know? (Unless they, or someone, told you)
Posted: 2003-02-24 11:54pm
by Enlightenment
Darth Wong wrote:I think they're trying to anticipate the day when CGI characters actually look real. Not that we're there yet.
http://users.pandora.be/gds/maya/images ... /girls.jpg
Also the center tile at
http://www.lwhub.com
The artistic talent and software capability is out there today. The only thing keeping photorealistic character renderings out of the mainstream is the size (and therefore cost) of the renderfarm needed to render objects of this complexity at production rates. Fixing that problem is simply a matter for Moore's Law. I give it five years--at most--until photrealistic character rendering is within the grasp of a well-financed porn shop.
But I think most people would have trouble getting into CGI porn, no matter how well it was rendered. I think you have to know or believe that these are real people.
Don't a fair number of people get off on anime porn already? CGI would be a step up in realism.
Posted: 2003-02-24 11:58pm
by Shinova
From article wrote:The bill, which still requires House action, also plugs a loophole where pornographers could avoid prosecution by claiming that their sexually explicit material was computer-generated and involved no real children. Under an affirmative defense provision, the defendant would be required to prove that real children were not a part of the production.
It narrows the definition of "sexually explicit conduct" for prosecutions of computer-created child pornography and requires people who produce sexually explicit material to keep more extensive records so that they can prove that minors were not used in its making.
This would just mean that CGI porn or Hentai porn people just have to keep things more in order to have evidence that it's purely CGI, right?
On another note: Many hentai feature under 18s. Would those be affected by this law, or will they not be since they originate from Japan or something?
Posted: 2003-02-25 12:11am
by GrandMasterTerwynn
Enlightenment wrote:Darth Wong wrote:I think they're trying to anticipate the day when CGI characters actually look real. Not that we're there yet.
http://users.pandora.be/gds/maya/images ... /girls.jpg
Also the center tile at
http://www.lwhub.com
The artistic talent and software capability is out there today. The only thing keeping photorealistic character renderings out of the mainstream is the size (and therefore cost) of the renderfarm needed to render objects of this complexity at production rates. Fixing that problem is simply a matter for Moore's Law. I give it five years--at most--until photrealistic character rendering is within the grasp of a well-financed porn shop.
But I think most people would have trouble getting into CGI porn, no matter how well it was rendered. I think you have to know or believe that these are real people.
Don't a fair number of people get off on anime porn already? CGI would be a step up in realism.
Errrm, I hate to break it to you, but that chick looks about as real as Pamela Lee Anderson's breasts.
Posted: 2003-02-25 01:03am
by Enlightenment
Posted: 2003-02-25 01:36am
by Shinova
Last two are good. The others, one can tell that they're obviously fake.
Posted: 2003-02-25 01:43am
by Darth Wong
That's some pretty impressive shit, although the big downfall of CGI has always been physically realistic movement, which would be a killer in porn. Not that I'm saying it's never going to be possible, but I don't know how to put a timeframe on development since some of the key problems in physical realism don't seem to have improved over the last 10 years even while texture and geometric realism has.
Posted: 2003-02-25 11:24am
by Peregrin Toker
Shinova wrote:On another note: Many hentai feature under 18s. Would those be affected by this law, or will they not be since they originate from Japan or something?
Erm... I thought that animated characters didn't have any biological age as such??
Posted: 2003-02-25 11:53am
by Baron Mordo
neoolong wrote:"Under an affirmative defense provision, the defendant would be required to prove that real children were not a part of the production."
If I'm reading this right, it means that the burden of proof is on the defendant's side in these cases now. Which is a legalistic nightmare.
Posted: 2003-02-25 12:00pm
by Ted
GrandMasterTerwynn wrote:Errrm, I hate to break it to you, but that chick looks about as real as Pamela Lee Anderson's breasts.
Then you admit she looks real!
Pam Anderson had her implants removed, you know.
Posted: 2003-02-25 12:57pm
by neoolong
Baron Mordo wrote:neoolong wrote:"Under an affirmative defense provision, the defendant would be required to prove that real children were not a part of the production."
If I'm reading this right, it means that the burden of proof is on the defendant's side in these cases now. Which is a legalistic nightmare.
Yes. Which is why they would have to keep all their stuff in order. But then again, you can't prove a negative. So this is an interpretative matter of how much they have to "prove."
Posted: 2003-02-25 01:05pm
by Stormbringer
neoolong wrote:Baron Mordo wrote:neoolong wrote:"Under an affirmative defense provision, the defendant would be required to prove that real children were not a part of the production."
If I'm reading this right, it means that the burden of proof is on the defendant's side in these cases now. Which is a legalistic nightmare.
Yes. Which is why they would have to keep all their stuff in order. But then again, you can't prove a negative. So this is an interpretative matter of how much they have to "prove."
In the legal sense this probably wouldn't be too hard. Mostly a matter of keeping accurate records and keeping the renders stored and such I would assume.
Posted: 2003-02-25 07:45pm
by Enlightenment
Darth Wong wrote:That's some pretty impressive shit, although the big downfall of CGI has always been physically realistic movement, which would be a killer in porn.
Since the advent of relatively affordable motion-capture rigs, physically realistic movment is now largely a matter of spending enough money to hire a half-decent body motion actor.
Posted: 2003-02-25 07:47pm
by ArmorPierce
Ted wrote:Then you admit she looks real!
Pam Anderson had her implants removed, you know.
No she didn't, she just said she did but later when asked by Howard Stern she admitted that she got them removed and got smaller ones put in.
Posted: 2003-02-25 07:59pm
by LadyTevar
Except for the movement, the CGI in the FinalFantasy movie, "Spirits Within" was good enough to fool a friend of mine. And the CGI scenes in FFX were beautifully rendered, with extremely good body movement.
As for motion-capture, I'll simply point to LoTR:TT. GollumGollum
Posted: 2003-02-25 08:04pm
by Grand Admiral Thrawn
Enlightenment wrote:Darth Wong wrote:That's some pretty impressive shit, although the big downfall of CGI has always been physically realistic movement, which would be a killer in porn.
Since the advent of relatively affordable motion-capture rigs, physically realistic movment is now largely a matter of spending enough money to hire a half-decent body motion actor.
You want to hire a midget? You'll need one.
