Confession, it’s good for the soul.

A certain Whiney Maryland Spectre (WMS), who appears to dislike it when Running Wolf Blog (RWB) uses his real name, must feel better today.  RWB hopes that all the good things happening in the world of the WMS has helped to alleviate the pain WMS has recently been complaining about.  RWB hopes WMS doesn’t overdue the celebrating and actually aggravate the issue behind the pain.

Despite the WMS’s well earned celebratory moment, RWB is prouder of the WMS for his confession the other day.  Confession is, after all, good for the soul.

Two days ago RWB published an article about the WMS’s producing pornography. In that article, RWB was very clear about the terms production/producer/producing.   Specifically, RWB was referring to section 2257, which defines the record keeping responsibilities of porn producer, and who is defined as a producer under the law.  According to WMB’s confession the WMB is not a first producer, but is a second producer in that he took porn already in existence (or so WMS claims) and posted it to twitter.  So everything RWB posted has been proven as true by the WMS’s own confession.  And here, for your reading pleasure, is that confession.

Screenshot 2014-07-01 09.58.06Screenshot 2014-07-01 09.58.39Screenshot 2014-07-01 09.59.11Screenshot 2014-07-01 09.59.32

So again, RWB thanks the WMS for the confession.  You’ll note that the WMS confesses to every aspect alleged by RWB.  The WMS admits to having the pornography, and disseminating the pornogrphy by posting it to both his blog and to Twitter.  That meets the definition of second producer exactly, and this confession (minus the ramblings about Mr. Hoge) matches what was posted by RWB earlier.

I’m sure today’s celebrations were aided by the weight lifted of of the WMS’s soul by confessing to this issue.

RWB would like to also note it’s concurrence that pornography is not automatically obscene.  But would also like to point out that what is obscene, and which may include some pornography, is not decided on a national basis, but a community standard basis.  So what is not obscene in NYC may be obscene in Gadsden, Alabama.

10 thoughts on “Confession, it’s good for the soul.

  1. It’s about time.

    When I first read his tweets, er, twits, I LOLed at his cluelessness. Once again Bill steps on his ying yang.

    And this is the guy lecturing everybody (including some attorneys) today on the meaning of his “victory”.

    (BTW, it looks like you’re his BFF again)

    • Bill’s “friends” are whoever isn’t writing bad about him. What Bill doesn’t understand is I write the same about him as I do about anyone else. Today, things didn’t go well for Hoge. Any other view is disingenuous. I don’t write to gloat or humiliate or anything else. I write to what I think is the truth. Sometimes that’s in Bill’s favor, sometimes it isn’t. It’s as simple as that.

  2. But that neither answers whether WMS has either the proper documents on record for the secondary production (pro tip: not likely); nor whether he has releases for the use of copyrighted images (pro tip: he definitely doesn’t and was subjected to a DMCA takedown notice by the owner; coincedentally not the subject of the photo).


    • No, the WMS’s confession does not, in fact, answer the question RWB put forth in the article “Question’s of Bill Schmalfeldt.” However, it does remove any doubt as to the activity involved. And his blanket answer of “None of your fucking business” is accurate to this question. It really isn’t. Only the properly appointed court investigator has the right to look at the files in question. That’s why I reached out to the FBI. And I’m not surprised I had about as much success with them as the WMS did with the authorities in Texas over the similar issue.

      I find it quite humorous that he got a DMCA, btw.

      • Actually, you do have your answer to that question. If a DMCA was issued, then clearly BS did not have the proper paperwork required for his pornography. Or perhaps I should say…his revenge pornography.

      • Well, that’s not so clear. DMCA regards ownership. 2257 regards the record keeping. But it would generally mean that he didn’t have a certificate of records from the first producer, much less any information about the body models.

      • Nah, He used a photo of Mr. Hoge that is part of WJJH3’s professional portfolio if you will. The rights are retained by the photographer (although there is the question of “work for hire” that I did not know of). The photographer filed the DMCA. The lack of (porn) paperwork is actually not relevant to a DMCA filing. Just the copyright releases and model waivers.

      • But that’s the point. If the owner of the copyright filed a DMCA, he clearly didn’t give BS the proper paperwork needed to comply with 2257.

Comments are closed.