2257 regs published in full

[Boogie]

Here is the full published version of the newly adopted 2257 regs.

I'm too tired to read em, hoping someone here can do that for us and summarize.

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20051800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2005/05-10107.htm

in 30 days she's law? I think.

just wish i could figure out what the law is :(

[mOrrI]

oh my god...
that's a lot of reading..... :S

[swedguy]

! EDIT !

So far it doesn't look good.

I took out the part with keeping records. Just a pain in the ass.


One thing that will become another pain in the ass if you crank out a lot of sites a day is this:

For any performer portrayed in such a depiction after June 23, 2005, the records shall include
(ii) Where the depiction is published on an Internet computer site or service, a copy of any URL associated with the depiction

[Qon]

laws are always written like this.... they should include a simplified version with key points bolded. then again, that would make it easy for u to protect yourself against it & thats probably not the point...




..

[HornyHeather]

Ouchhhhhhhhhhhh |angry|

[PR_Tom]

For any performer portrayed in such a depiction after June 23, 2005, the records shall include
(ii) Where the depiction is published on an Internet computer site or service, a copy of any URL associated with the depiction


I'd imagine that you publish a freesite on YOUR server. Where you submit links should be something totally different IMO.. but I'm not a lawyer!

[wolfie]

Ok.. I read about 1/4. Think I need nap or something.

[swedguy]

I'd imagine that you publish a freesite on YOUR server. Where you submit links should be something totally different IMO.. but I'm not a lawyer!
The "associated" part makes it kinda vague.

Is associated the root of the domain? http://www.domain.com/
A site: http://www.domain.com/site1/
The page where the pics are linked from: http://www.domain.com/site1/page1.html
Or the picture itself: http://www.domain.com/site1/01.jpg

[MadMax]

This is the same issue that was commented on in Asscrofts proposed regulations...these rules have been written by technologically bereft people who have no understanding of the realities of how the internet works, and are thus way too vague on many points...making it impossible to keep records satisfying every possible interpretation.

[RawAlex]

If my main business was thumbtgps, I would be looking for a new line of business starting today. It would appear that thumb tgps will require 2257 documents for every thumb they show.

At this point, there are two court judgements (sundance vs reno and American Library Ass'n v. Reno) regarding secondary producers. One (sundance) specifically nullifies the concepts in these rules. The other (ALA) vaguely accepts in passing the concept of secondary producers. You can understand why DOJ has gone with the vague ruling in their favor as opposed to the hard and direct ruling against thier ideas.

I am 100% confident that an injunction will be put in place directly, as there is clearly some contridictory rulings in the court system.

That being said, as of June 23rd, thumbtgps will be a VERY risky business.

Alex

[swedguy]

If my main business was thumbtgps, I would be looking for a new line of business starting today. It would appear that thumb tgps will require 2257 documents for every thumb they show.
Or make all the thumbs non-sexually explicit. Which could be quite interesting on a bukkake thumb ;)

[Toby]

...Or make all the thumbs non-sexually explicit. Which could be quite interesting on a bukkake thumb ;)I've been prepared for this since last Fall. The line below is from the submit page rules on both of my TGP's.

"No Sexually Explicit content on your uploaded Thumbnail.
Your gallery may contain Sexually Explicit content, but the featured thumb may not.
Nudity is OK, but no penitration, oral to genital, or genital to genital contact. If
your gallery contains this content then don't let the script create the thumbnail."

However, if the focus of either site were a hardcore niche it wouldn't be practical.

[RawAlex]

Actually, it doesn't appear to matter about a specific thumb - you could not, example, use a non-explicit image from a hardcore package and claim exemption. They appear to be specifying a single 2257 release per photoset or video made, with a requirement to cross reference every image from that set to the 2257 document to show it's use.

THE MOST IMPORTANT NEWS IN THIS RULE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MODEL RELEASES THEMSELVES, BUT WHERE THEY MUST BE. Third party custodians of records are OUT!

Two commenters commented that the implicit requirement that
records be kept at a place of business is unreasonable and argued that
the regulation should permit third-party custody of records. The
Department declines to adopt this comment. Permitting a third party to
possess the records would unnecessarily complicate the compliance and
inspection processes by removing the records from the physical location
where they were initially collected, sorted, indexed, and compiled. For
example, producers could provide false names and addresses to the third
party as a means to avoid scrutiny by law enforcement. Historically,
producers have used front corporations in order to evade both law
enforcement and tax authorities. Permitting third-party custodianship
would exacerbate this problem. Custodians could, for example, disclaim
any responsibility for the condition or completeness of the records or
be unable to provide additional information regarding the status of the
records. Permitting such third-party custodians in the final rule would
thus require additional regulations to ensure that the third-party
custodian could guarantee the accuracy

That means that the custodian of records for the ENTIRE INDUSTRY must be the actual places of business. It would appear that third party custodians will no longer be permitted after June23rd. It would also appear that this would apply to PRIMARY producers as well.

I think there is going to be some major screaming coming from California about this, as this would change almost everything in the porn industry.

Other interesting operating tidbits: It would appear that each person who works on the primary shoot of the content (camerman, lighting crew, gaffers, even craft truck operators) may be required to obtain, maintain, and cross reference all 2257 records themselves. The rule specifically declines to nominate a single "primary producer":

One commenter commented that the definition of producer is too
broad, such that one depiction may have multiple primary producers,
including, e.g., the photographer and a different individual who
digitizes the image. The commenter argued that the definition should be
written so that each depiction has only one primary producer. The
Department declines to adopt this comment. The Department does not
believe that logic, practicability of record-keeping or inspections, or
the statue dictates that there be one and only one primary producer for
any individual sexually explicit depiction. Any of the persons defined
as primary producers has easy access to the performers and their
identification documents and should therefore each have responsibility
individually and separately of maintaining the records of those
documents.

Thus, anyone in the scope of potentially being a primary or secondary producer:

(1) A primary producer is any person who actually films,
videotapes, photographs, or creates a digitally- or computer-
manipulated image, a digital image, or picture of, or digitizes an
image of, a visual depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual
sexually explicit conduct.
(2) A secondary producer is any person who produces, assembles,
manufactures, publishes, duplicates, reproduces, or reissues a book,
magazine, periodical, film, videotape, digitally- or computer-
manipulated image, picture, or other matter intended for commercial
distribution that contains a visual depiction of an actual human being
engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct, or who inserts on a
computer site or service a digital image of, or otherwise manages the
sexually explicit content of a computer site or service that contains a
visual depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually
explicit conduct, including any person who enters into a contract,
agreement, or conspiracy to do any of the foregoing.

Good luck everyone. I suspect there is going to be a few extra rooms available at internext now as many people will be gone on June 24th.

Alex

[RawAlex]

I've been prepared for this since last Fall. The line below is from the submit page rules on both of my TGP's.

"No Sexually Explicit content on your uploaded Thumbnail.
Your gallery may contain Sexually Explicit content, but the featured thumb may not.
Nudity is OK, but no penitration, oral to genital, or genital to genital contact. If
your gallery contains this content then don't let the script create the thumbnail."

However, if the focus of either site were a hardcore niche it wouldn't be practical.


Toby, to go further on that, if the thumb you use is to link to a hardcore set, and that image is included or was shot during that hardcore set, it is part of a hardcore depiction and therefore likely to be subject to documentation requirements.

ThumbTGPS are a very likely first target... head to the highest traffic sites around and start whacking!

Alex

[Mr. Blue]

Reading over it...it's actually pretty strict :D
Some of the finer points look pretty fucked up.

[Mr. Blue]

From a secondary producer vantage point this is what I gather:

1. You have to have a digital record of the model's identification on hand. This will inevitably lead to sponsor content providers having to provide this information to their affiliates...I think. Either that or sponsor content will dry up as we know it :D

2. A street address at which the records required by this part may be made available. Since most of us work out of our house this pretty much will make us the talk of most of our communities.

3. 20 hours a week availability for inspection. No notice need to be given.
(f) Other law enforcement authority. These regulations do not
restrict the otherwise lawful investigative prerogatives of an
investigator while conducting an inspection.
(g) Seizure of evidence. Notwithstanding any provision of this part
or any other regulation, a law enforcement officer may seize any
evidence of the commission of any felony while conducting an
inspection.
Make sure you hide the |potleaf| before they come and make sure you hide all your bittorrent files :D

[Toby]

Toby, to go further on that, if the thumb you use is to link to a hardcore set, and that image is included or was shot during that hardcore set, it is part of a hardcore depiction and therefore likely to be subject to documentation requirements.Yes, IF I were also hosting the galleries. As the TGP owner I'm only providing a link to content owned and hosted by someone else. Non-explicit thumbs are no different than text links in terms of how 2257 applies.

[HornyHeather]

Mr. Blue, I was reading it also, and you say 2.) A street address at which the records required by this part may be made available. Since most of us work out of our house this pretty much will make us the talk of most of our communities.

Concerns me, So I am gathering on my website I have to have my address listed for the gov?

[RawAlex]

Mr Blue, you are correct. Sponsors will be required to either provide the documents of require that the content be pulled no later than June 23rd, 2005, and that for all images produced or published since July 3rd, 1995.

Effectively, we will all be required to go back to all sponsor content sites we have an either obtain sponsor content 2257 documents or remove the content.

Further, for those playing the "I am not in the US" deal, remember that "including any person who enters into a contract, agreement, or conspiracy to do any of the foregoing." as a secondary or primary producer. Thus entering into a contract to promote a site (becoming an affiliate) os a US based program, or a program operated by a US citizen, or a site processed by a US company, or a site hosted by a US company makes you contractually obligated to follow the new rules. Basically, if any part of the production, distribtuion, whatever touches the US, you are obligated REGARDLESS OF WHERE YOU LIVE.

I am not clear on the implications for sponsor programs that accept traffic from sources that are not 2257 compliant.

Alex

[RawAlex]

Mr. Blue, I was reading it also, and you say 2.) A street address at which the records required by this part may be made available. Since most of us work out of our house this pretty much will make us the talk of most of our communities.

Concerns me, So I am gathering on my website I have to have my address listed for the gov?

Heather, either you address or you will need to rent office space and use that as your primary place of business. I am not sure that this would stand up if you never actually used the place of business. However, I think if the city / county issued you an occupation license for a business for an address, then it could be argued to be your place of business. You would be required to keep your records there (so mail slot addresses are NOT acceptible, and PO boxes have be specifically excluded).

Alex

[RawAlex]

Yes, IF I were also hosting the galleries. As the TGP owner I'm only providing a link to content owned and hosted by someone else. Non-explicit thumbs are no different than text links in terms of how 2257 applies.

Toby, I think that is wishful thinking. Read carefully how they define the source material, and look VERY closely at how they group it together. Can you prove that the thumb you are using is NOT from a sexually explicit set? "Fair use" does not trump 2257. Because they exempt you from having 1 record per image (instead 1 record per session), this means that they can use the sexually explicit terms to apply to the session rather than an individual image. Thus a softcore image in a series of hardcore images could be contrued as being part of a sexuality explicit photoset.

That is a knife edge that I don't think it worth basing your business (and chances of being Bubba's bitch in the federal butt slamming prison) on that fine distinction.

Alex

[HornyHeather]

Thank you Alex, I read it, but wanted to hear it from someone else...

|angry| |angry| |angry|

[RawAlex]

Thank you Alex, I read it, but wanted to hear it from someone else...

|angry| |angry| |angry|

Heather, more importantly, your business address must be published as part of your 2257 declaration online. It isn't just about telling the goverment (you don't actually have to register or anything) but you do have to have that valid address on your site(s).

Something tells me there is going to be a rush on business rentals this month.

Alex

[SirMoby]

Toby, I think that is wishful thinking. Read carefully how they define the source material, and look VERY closely at how they group it together. Can you prove that the thumb you are using is NOT from a sexually explicit set? "Fair use" does not trump 2257. Because they exempt you from having 1 record per image (instead 1 record per session), this means that they can use the sexually explicit terms to apply to the session rather than an individual image. Thus a softcore image in a series of hardcore images could be contrued as being part of a sexuality explicit photoset.

That is a knife edge that I don't think it worth basing your business (and chances of being Bubba's bitch in the federal butt slamming prison) on that fine distinction.

Alex
Intersting. So if a model goes in for a softcore shoot and while changing clothes she touches her crotch and a single photo is taken then the entire shoot is considered sexually explicit? Secondary producers would have no way of knowing that happened.

Maybe in the morning she's doing face photos and that afternoon does a hardcore scene. The face images are now subject?

[HornyHeather]

Alex maybe for the bigger guys, but us smaller webgirls are a bit different...

I am questioning the fact of keeping my records at a close friends? He actually does content with me, You think I could do that?

[Toby]

...a softcore image in a series of hardcore images could be contrued as being part of a sexuality explicit photoset.Definitely some food for thought. Under that interpretation even if I had a 100% non-explicit adult site, I'd still need to have to a statement from the original producer of each "set" stating that it is non-explicit. That's where I begin to have constitutional issues with 2257. This quickly becomes a situation of guilty until proven innocent.

I wish the FSC success in getting the court to throw this out.

[RawAlex]

Heather, depends on who you are shooting for. If it is for your own website, then you are a primary producer or at worst secondary producer either way you have to have records at your place of business. No third party record keepers will be allowed.

SirMoby: I might be wrong, but my take is this:

1 - They don't require 2257 per image, but one 2257 document per session. In other words, shoot 100 images, you still only need 1 document - but you need a cross referenced list to all of those images.

2 - If there is sexually explicit content, you need a 2257 document.

3 - because of 1, the document in 2 would cover all the images and imply sexual content.

My feeling is that once you require 2257 for a set, all the images in it may be part of a sexually explicit production, and therefore cannot be seperated out.

Remember also that the image is defined by it's initial production. A girl getting fucked in a picture is getting fucked - even if you crop down only to her face, the initial image is sexually explicit and therefore subject to 2257 - and your records would indicate this.

Me thinks tough times ahead for thumb tgps.

Alex

[SirMoby]

RawAlex,

If the primary producer shot 101 photos and sells me 100 non-sexually explicit photos I have no way of knowing about photo # 101 and certainly have no way of knowing if it's explicit or not.

All I have is what the producer sent me. I'm not publishing or reproducing anything explicit even though that set could be sold to someone else as explicit.

I think the thumbnail TGPs might be in the same boat. If they crop explicit images to make thumbs then they would be required to keep records. If someone else submits a non-sexually explicit thumb then the TGP owner is not reproducing something explicit.

[guitar riff]

Ok now what about sponsors that have free downloadable content if they are required to know where they are posted HOW IN THE FUCK will they be able to do that ???

I i didnt keep my hair short i'd prolly be yanking it all out right now with this reading LOL

[guitar riff]

Also with thumbtgp's i bet ya will see alot of them just have faces now .

Also if you didnt know it already but all .com domains are governed by the laws in the state of Georgia so ? is ok say ya live in germany and ya have a .com domain will this affect that certain site I mean since they wont be able to prosecute the offenders for non record keeping can it get yanked off line or ???

[RawAlex]

Sir Moby, I think ignorance is rarely an acceptable defence.

Whoever produces any book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, or other matter which—
(1) contains one or more visual depictions made after November 1, 1990 of actual sexually explicit conduct; and
(2) is produced in whole or in part with materials which have been mailed or shipped in interstate or foreign commerce, or is shipped or transported or is intended for shipment or transportation in interstate or foreign commerce;
shall create and maintain individually identifiable records pertaining to every performer portrayed in such a visual depiction.

The key is "other matter". A series of photo images is "other matter" - and this is doubly clear if the photoshoot was also videotaped.

Let me go a little further. Let's say you have a thumbtgp with 200 thumbs, all of them very softcore head shots, and one banner add with a girl suck a dick.

You have published a document with "one or more visual depictions made after November 1, 1990 of actual sexually explicit conduct". You now need to have documentation for EVERY image on the page.

Worse, if any 1 of those 200 thumbs is in fact an explicit image (known or unknown) then you again fall in it for all of the images.

It's not funny.

Alex

[RawAlex]

Ok now what about sponsors that have free downloadable content if they are required to know where they are posted HOW IN THE FUCK will they be able to do that ???

I i didnt keep my hair short i'd prolly be yanking it all out right now with this reading LOL

They don't have to. They are not the publisher of the secondary website, you are. YOU need to have the documents and YOU need to be able to trace the models on YOUR site. You need to know who the primary producer is.

There is no requirement implied for a content producer to maintain a list of every url of every use of thier content as primary producers that I could see.

Alex

[cellinis]

Just read it and can't make neither a head nor tail out of it! Another job for the lawyer I would say :(
A simple question to those more knowledgable... I post a gallery (video or picture) or a free site then I must have the physical 2257 records stored at my place and mentioned on my own domain, right?

[Emperor]

Hi guys,

I read a lot about softcore thumbs, cropped images, banners, etc.

But what about a text link site with no images ? That is to say not one single image on the entire page/site.

The text links would of course lead to hardcore galleries, external galleries that are not owned by the text link site.

What do you think ?

Emperor

[guitar riff]

You shouldnt need any info for text links because you are not diplaying sexually explicit content.

[guitar riff]

That brings to another point what is deemed as sexually explicit ??

[Mr. Blue]

They don't have to. They are not the publisher of the secondary website, you are. YOU need to have the documents and YOU need to be able to trace the models on YOUR site. You need to know who the primary producer is.

There is no requirement implied for a content producer to maintain a list of every url of every use of thier content as primary producers that I could see.

Alex

Problem becomes if sponsors want affiliates to use sponsor provided free content then they'll have to provide all the necessary documentation for them to use that content...At least that what it appears to be by the first reading of it. So a 2257 link just to the sponsor won't be enough anymore? From the reading of the terms it looks to be that way.

Also wondering how these rules will be applied retro-actively...I know I'll have to go through some odd 300 galleries or so and make it complient (As I just 2257'ed to the sponsor 2257), but with the rules of most TGP that means blacklisting, lol.

The only thing I'm wondering about is that someone mentioned there might be a grey area where gallery makers / freesite designers wouldn't be secondary producers, but from my reading of it we are.

[Emperor]

Problem becomes if sponsors want affiliates to use sponsor provided free content then they'll have to provide all the necessary documentation for them to use that content...At least that what it appears to be by the first reading of it. So a 2257 link just to the sponsor won't be enough anymore? From the reading of the terms it looks to be that way.

I think that using sponsor-provided content is no different than using content you bought or even produced yourself. If you make a gallery with it and make that gallery available to the public you need the documentation.

I see what you're saying about posting the 2257 notification on the gallery page itself, man that will not only look ugly but it will have your personal information on it as well.

Soon we'll hear stories about people protesting (and probably getting violent) outside someone's home, and that they got their address from a sexy gallery.

Emperor

[kane]

Hi all,
I lurk a lot here and post occasionally.
I'll be talking to a lawyer in the next few weeks but want to get some peoples thoughts on this.

I don't shoot content, just build sites and tgp galleries so I would be a secondary producer. So it looks like I will have to have all 2257 docs for my content ( I have some of my own that I will have to get the docs for and then get some from sponsers however they plan to work this out.) and I will have to have some kind of a filing system showing the url associated with each pic/video.

These aren't a huge problem. It will be a pain in my ass but I can do it.

My questions are these: It said that this new filing system was only for sites/content produced after the active date. In this case june 23rd of next month ( oddly enough that's my birthday - a nice little birthday gift ) so does that mean I will only have to have this filing system for the sites I build after that date, or am I going to have to go back and do this for every site I have built before that date?

Also, they say the related url so can I just put the root www.domain.com and all the content on that domain or would I need to to put in the exact url of every site and every image?

just wondering what your thoughts on these things are.

[Greenguy]

From http://www.xxxlaw.net/


May 24 Update. Today's Federal Register publishes (http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20051800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2005/pdf/05-10107.pdf) the eagerly-awaited final rule adopting revisions in the Justice Department's regulations in implementation of 18 USC Section 2257. We have compiled a preliminary table (http://my.execpc.com/~xxxlaw/2257Tables5.24.05.htm) contrasting the existing regs, the proposals made last summer, and the final regulations promulgated today. We apologize for any formatting issues in lining up the parallel provisions. The regulations are surprising for both the changes that were made in response to numerous "Comments" submitted by the web community, and for the refusal of DOJ to change some of the most obnoxious provisions. The extensive commentary of Drew Oosterbaan, who heads CEOS, should be read carefully to understand DOJ's rationale. We were particularly troubled by the DOJ reliance on caselaw that is simply not on point to support the overreach of the provisions. Though we happy to see an expression - belated as it is - for the safety of the small businesses operating on the adult Internet, we are saddened that the rhetoric is not backed up by regulations that take the potential of harm into account. The regulations wholly ignore the massive economic cost of the warehousing of gigabyte upon gigabyte of streaming video. There is much more to say in careful analysis, but for the time being, it is important to quickly provide our clients, friends, and surfers with the information posted now. JDO

[PR_Tom]

The "associated" part makes it kinda vague.

Is associated the root of the domain? http://www.domain.com/
A site: http://www.domain.com/site1/
The page where the pics are linked from: http://www.domain.com/site1/page1.html
Or the picture itself: http://www.domain.com/site1/01.jpg

Well, it says "a copy of any URL associated with the depiction", so I would say if you use "01.jpg" on "test.html", then you'd list the full url to "test.html". If you cant see "01.jpg" from "index.html", then it's not associated with the depiction in my view. If it is, then the entire internet is associated also.

[bdld]

what are your thoughts about linking to a sexually explicit video? A simple text link leading to a .wmv file?
what about an image of a face leading to a movie file?

[Boogie]

Yeah I'm also interested in how sites like my link list, which only uses text, will be affected.

I dont see any specifics on that.

[Tommy]

maybe GG&J should consider making a 2257 section
I think theres gonna be a huge amount of topics on this

like sponsors posting info on their content and hosted gallerys
what webmasters are doing to comply etc etc
this is an important issue and webmasters should have easy access to infomation

anybody else like the idea

[f69j69b]

maybe GG&J should consider making a 2257 section
I think theres gonna be a huge amount of topics on this

like sponsors posting info on their content and hosted gallerys
what webmasters are doing to comply etc etc
this is an important issue and webmasters should have easy access to infomation

anybody else like the idea
|thumb sounds good to me

[HornyHeather]

maybe GG&J should consider making a 2257 section
I think theres gonna be a huge amount of topics on this

like sponsors posting info on their content and hosted gallerys
what webmasters are doing to comply etc etc
this is an important issue and webmasters should have easy access to infomation

anybody else like the idea

I agree also

[flyeruk]

maybe GG&J should consider making a 2257 section
I think theres gonna be a huge amount of topics on this

like sponsors posting info on their content and hosted gallerys
what webmasters are doing to comply etc etc
this is an important issue and webmasters should have easy access to infomation

anybody else like the idea

Good idea ;)

[RawAlex]

Tommy, I love the idea. I have already in the past asked sponsor program to provide information regarding their sponsor content, and how they will handle this situation. I am sure that some will provided the needed documents, and others will ask for all content to be removed (effectively removing the right to use the content).

Boogie, text links, text based sites, and such have NOTHING to do with 2257, except possibly for images using in site design, advertising, and such (and advertising is questionable, as it is not "editorial" material).

bdld: Linking to a movie a picture, whatever, if you link to something on your own servers, then you need documentation for each performer and all the rest that goes with it. Image, movie, clip, flash, whatever... the rules are the same. If you publish it, you are responsble for it - no matter who actually created it.

The issue is most problematic when we talk about thumbtgps - even something like remotely served thumbs. If you publish them (make the integral to your site) are you in fact a secondary producer? I think that without proof to the contrary, everything that appears to be on your domain is going to be your problem.

We will see.

Alex

[SexVideoContent]

maybe GG&J should consider making a 2257 section
I think theres gonna be a huge amount of topics on this

anybody else like the idea
This sounds like a very good idea to me.

[Tommy]

I wonder how google will deal with this

[RawAlex]

Tommy, the questions out there range from google to chat boards... to things like fusker, Mirc, and newsgroups. Each and every step along the way someone publishes sexually explicit material and there is no way to track the documents.

If the government starts OVER THERE I will be a happy man.

Alex

[Steve]

Good idea Tommy!

[nycfreak]

Tommy, I love the idea. I have already in the past asked sponsor program to provide information regarding their sponsor content, and how they will handle this situation. I am sure that some will provided the needed documents, and others will ask for all content to be removed (effectively removing the right to use the content).

Boogie, text links, text based sites, and such have NOTHING to do with 2257, except possibly for images using in site design, advertising, and such (and advertising is questionable, as it is not "editorial" material).

bdld: Linking to a movie a picture, whatever, if you link to something on your own servers, then you need documentation for each performer and all the rest that goes with it. Image, movie, clip, flash, whatever... the rules are the same. If you publish it, you are responsble for it - no matter who actually created it.

The issue is most problematic when we talk about thumbtgps - even something like remotely served thumbs. If you publish them (make the integral to your site) are you in fact a secondary producer? I think that without proof to the contrary, everything that appears to be on your domain is going to be your problem.

We will see.

Alex

Alex, if I use a system like Remote Thumbs are you still consider a secondary producer even if they are located in Panana?

[Wenchy]

Let me see if I've got this right:

1) I have to go back through all my domains and document every "picture trail" with a specific URL to each individual pic on every site/gallery/page/whathaveyou created or published since July 1995.

2) From this day forward I have to continue that ridiculously anal retentive documentation process for each and every page I upload and allow public access to.

3) I'm expected to publish my home address on the Internet (WTF?!?) for any Tom, Dick, or psycho serial killer to get their hands on (a VERY scary prospect for the females in this industry no matter which side of the camera they are on!! I thought this degree of privacy intrusion was left to those convicted of ch*ld molestation!)

4) If I use sponsor content, I have to go to that sponsor and acquire from them the model releases/personal information and keep that at my "place of business" (which can't be my PO Box anymore apparently)

Alex, you seem to have a good handle on this BS. Did I miss anything?

I'm not even going to start on how potentially detrimental these changes will be to everyone in terms of time, personnel and, ultimately, revenue streams; that's a rant that could go on for hours.

It's my humble opinion that we need both lawyers and the ACLU involved here... I see some blatant privacy law violations in this mess, both for WMs and models. Some information has no business being made available for public consumption, and there are very good reasons for that! I've read several of Juggernaut's posts, for example, in which he has detailed some of the weirdos his wife has to deal with as a cam girl. How's he going to feel knowing that he has to publish their home address on the Web?

The whole thing gives me the willies |shocking| Here's hoping to FSC achieves a great deal of success in their fight to stop the DOJ from getting away with this!

[RawAlex]

Wenchy, I spent 3 plus hours today reading what was published, as well as looking at JDO's summary... read directly, the rules are pretty darn easy to understand but are not very friendly (and in my mind likely not to pass a court test, but that is a different game).

Spend the time read them slowly. It's all there, but it's all ugly.

All comments I make are personal opinion only, really ask a lawyer (JDO is a good choice!).

1) That would appear to be correct.

2) That also would appear right

3) Your home address or the address of your place of buisness. This would be a very good time to rent a small office and go through the motions to obtain a business license and such. That would allow you to publish not your home address but the address of your business.

4) That would also appear correct. You will also need to do all the cross referencing to other material that you have published with the same model, their real names, any stage names, any other stage names they have used that you are aware of, and any names you may have assigned to them while designing a site ("mary fucks a turnip" would require you to make a stagename entry for "mary").

Basically, sponsor content, purchased content, self produced content - the rules are the same all around for website publishers, I don't see any way around it.

nycfreak: Consider that remotethumbs uploads thumbnails to your server, I think the answer is pretty obvious. Even if they move to a pure iframe situation, I am not clear that this would make your website exempt (you are publishing someone else's stuff, technically you are in some sort of control of the content of your website).

Alex

[Mr. Blue]

From reading all this over there's some serious areas for this to get way out of control and pretty much change the way a lot of us have been doing business:

A) Posting the addy of your business. Most of us work out of the home, we're hosed and have to put our home addy on the web. Just waiting for some Christian wacko that masturbated and felt it was a sin to come to your house and blow your brains out for posting the pics.

B) Sponsor content - sponsors if they wanted to comply with these regulations would have to divulge all kinds of information to their affiliates...not sure how many models are going to like that idea.

C) The inspection process is kinda big brother and kinda scary as you give up some of your rights regarding search and seizure: Sec. 75.5 Inspection of records...specificially "a law enforcement officer may seize any evidence of the commission of any felony while conducting an inspection." So while they're checking your records they can look for other things? MP3 you downloaded are a felony, hmm, bittorrent files, hmm, so if you give your home addy they can inspect you down to minutia beyond the mere records? From reading that it appears like its a yes.

[RawAlex]

Mr Blue:

a) As I mentioned, if you are doing this from home without a business address, and feel at risk, then you have two choices: Get out of the business or actually set up an office with an office address and use that. Not a PO box, but an actual office, with a business license and such.

b) It's going to be interesting to see which sponsors step up and which ones pussy out.

c) If you take route mention in a, then there is nothing to see.

I am thinking that a PC specifically dedicated to the job of record keeping,with nothing on it but an OS and a database program would be about right. How far they can inspect your office or home is something I have no idea on, except to say that I am sure it would make an interesting court case.

Alex

[Barron]

I spent all day reading the changes also. There are several questions I'm leaving to the lawyer to answer.

But, my lawyer is only one opinion. If any coders out there that are on staff or as independant contractors are contacting a lawyer, please get their opinion on this:



(2) A secondary producer is any person who produces, assembles,
manufactures, publishes, duplicates, reproduces, or reissues a book,
magazine, periodical, film, videotape, digitally- or computer-
manipulated image, picture, or other matter intended for commercial
distribution that contains a visual depiction of an actual human being
engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct, or who inserts on a
computer site or service a digital image of, or otherwise manages the
sexually explicit content of a computer site or service that contains a
visual depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually
explicit conduct, including any person who enters into a contract,
agreement, or conspiracy to do any of the foregoing.



...or conspiracy to do any of the foregoing. is a very powerful statement standing on its own.

However, this talks about "commercial interest" in the depictions.



(4) Producer does not include persons whose activities relating to
the visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct are limited to
the following:
(i) Photo or film processing, including digitization of previously
existing visual depictions, as part of a commercial enterprise, with no
other commercial interest in the sexually explicit material, printing,
and video duplicators;



I dont want to sound like the "doom and gloom" guy, but if coders create scripts for the purpose of placing sexually explicit depictions on the internet, we do have a commercial interest, we are getting paid. I know.. I know.. commercial interest means sales of profit from the showing of the depictions.

But, some wild card investigater might to make the stretch. So, if any of you coders are contacting a lawyer. Ask them about this so we can get more than one opinion and compare notes.

On the lighter side... They screwed up and left a big whole in all of this, and I dont need a lawyer to point it out. The new regs specifically called out TCP/IP.


(f) Internet means collectively the myriad of computer and
telecommunications facilities, including equipment and operating
software, which constitute the interconnected world-wide network of
networks that employ the Transmission Control Protocol/Internet
Protocol, or any predecessor or successor protocols to such protocol,
to communicate information of all kinds by wire or radio.


This will never happen, but wouldnt it be great if we all changed to IPX :)

http://www.nikmakris.com/cisco_ipx.asp

Back to reality...


_

[Wenchy]

Thanks for the reply, Alex. I'm working today and haven't had time to sit down and really go through this thing line by line, but I think I get the general idea... that being that small, independent, single-person businesses like myself are basically hosed in the extreme.

I work a full-time job and do adult on the side (full-time hours but you know the drill). Anyway, it's completely out of the realm of reality for me to rent an office space, no matter how small. I live in one of the most expensive cities in the country right now, and business rentals are even more outrageous than real estate.

So, basically what I'm getting here is that I can either (A) give up several months of hard work and dedication and a craft I truly enjoy, or (B) potentially place myself, my teenage son, and the other people who live here in jeopardy of harrassment or worse. Great f*cking options. And, no, I'm not going into "the sky is falling" mode, not by a long shot... I'm just trying to get a serious grip on WTF I'm up against.... and the more I read/absorb the more distressed I become :(

Edited to add: On a side note, I certainly hope that LLs, TGPs, et al are going to offer a "leniency period" for WMs who can't get their hands on adequate 2257 info for old sets of pics and have to remove pages from their domains.

[RawAlex]

Barron, the word "conspire" actually means to plan or to "agree to do" something - requires two or more people. Basic gist is this: Even if you are outside the US, but are working with someone who is in the US (like sponsor, payment processor, content provider, etc) and enter into a contractual agreement (like becoming an affiliate) then you are subject to the law - no matter where you are actually located.

The rules seem to specifically exclude script writers, companies that build html editors, and anyone else "once removed" from the situation, who is not handling actual content nor is in control of that content or website.

However, I just thought of something. This is going to be the death for counters with images on them.

Alex

[Barron]

Thanks for the reply, Alex. I'm working today and haven't had time to sit down and really go through this thing line by line, but I think I get the general idea... that being that small, independent, single-person businesses like myself are basically hosed in the extreme.

I work a full-time job and do adult on the side (full-time hours but you know the drill). Anyway, it's completely out of the realm of reality for me to rent an office space, no matter how small. I live in one of the most expensive cities in the country right now, and business rentals are even more outrageous than real estate.

So, basically what I'm getting here is that I can either (A) give up several months of hard work and dedication and a craft I truly enjoy, or (B) potentially place myself, my teenage son, and the other people who live here in jeopardy of harrassment or worse. Great f*cking options. And, no, I'm not going into "the sky is falling" mode, not by a long shot... I'm just trying to get a serious grip on WTF I'm up against.... and the more I read/absorb the more distressed I become :(


The part that concerns me for those that work a full-time job is the 20 hour per week requirement that have to make the files available. Do we really want law inforcement officials visiting our homes with the kids around.

Then take that a step further, which 20 hours are you going to designate? If done incorrectly you will find it hard to go on vacation, or even take a three day weekend off for holidays.

Your right, there is lots to think about on how we all will proccede.


_

[Preacher]

Ditto Wenchy...

Feels like only the big guys who do this full-time and have the resources to be Inc'd, have the office space, a lawyer and maybe even a compliance officer will weather the storm -- should this come to pass as written.

But if that's the case, perhaps they (the big players) could sub-contract out designers to create free-sites for them and pay a nominal commission or build fee.

Not trying to sound drastic, just trying to think outside the box.

[Barron]

Barron, the word "conspire" actually means to plan or to "agree to do" something - requires two or more people. Basic gist is this: Even if you are outside the US, but are working with someone who is in the US (like sponsor, payment processor, content provider, etc) and enter into a contractual agreement (like becoming an affiliate) then you are subject to the law - no matter where you are actually located.

The rules seem to specifically exclude script writers, companies that build html editors, and anyone else "once removed" from the situation, who is not handling actual content nor is in control of that content or website.

However, I just thought of something. This is going to be the death for counters with images on them.

Alex


I think coders are exempt also. It would be a real stretch to get a coder prosecuted, they/we dont have any control over what the person controlling the content is going to do.

Speaking of counters, I just had a thought about all the hardcore banners. Even if you have the age docs for the performers in the galleries, if the page has hardcore banners, you still have to edit the page. What pain this is all going to be...

_

[LindaMight]

maybe GG&J should consider making a 2257 section
I think theres gonna be a huge amount of topics on this

like sponsors posting info on their content and hosted gallerys
what webmasters are doing to comply etc etc
this is an important issue and webmasters should have easy access to infomation

anybody else like the idea

I think that is a most excellent idea! |angry|

[Mr. Blue]

Mr Blue:

a) As I mentioned, if you are doing this from home without a business address, and feel at risk, then you have two choices: Get out of the business or actually set up an office with an office address and use that. Not a PO box, but an actual office, with a business license and such.

Well, that's legal challenge one there as not every small business can afford a office space and the privacy concerns / danger of having your identity on the net like that will surely be the first point of challenge...clearly this puts a burden that will shutdown a lot of people in the biz. I did think of a cost effective way of handling this if a group of webmasters from a specific area rent out one small office space, have a server where you can ftp the required documentation. If one office handled x number of webmasters the cost wouldn't be that bad.

Also, while this may not effect the big players, it will somewhat as you're removing the body of webmasters that promote, support, etc, the system. LL's and TGP's would have to depend on sponsors more for FHG, HFS, etc, etc.


b) It's going to be interesting to see which sponsors step up and which ones pussy out.


Most won't, foreign companies certainly won't, and this leads to affiliates only using content in which they purchase or going to sponsors that provide the necessary documentation.


c) If you take route mention in a, then there is nothing to see.

I am thinking that a PC specifically dedicated to the job of record keeping,with nothing on it but an OS and a database program would be about right. How far they can inspect your office or home is something I have no idea on, except to say that I am sure it would make an interesting court case.


Yes I was thinking about a seperate comp set up with the database available, but it leads to a question of how broad something like this would be allowed for interpertation. You get a zealot inspector that demands to have access to all your comps...while I'm not worried so much about that...how far can they go when they do this inspection.

[quest]

Edited to add: On a side note, I certainly hope that LLs, TGPs, et al are going to offer a "leniency period" for WMs who can't get their hands on adequate 2257 info for old sets of pics and have to remove pages from their domains.


I thought this as well, though I will wait and see if there is an injunction from a fed court befor doing any removing.


I hope the FSC and the ACLU have great success...



Ben

[LindaMight]

Ok...so the way I figure it is:

I run my own site with my own content, namely myself and George are the models. I have two other people that are on the site in just a few updates and I have their Driver's licenses and signed waivers. Right now the records are kept at my corporate attorney's office because I work out of my home also.

So, if I am reading this right, I need to make sure the two people that I have info on have corresponding URL's where their images can be seen. AND, instead of the attorneys holding these MEASLY two files, now I have to do so and they have to be onsite. Now the onsite address is no longer the attorney, but either our home or we rent an office space and put a filing cabinet in there with two files in it? Or, four counting me and George. AM I GETTING THIS RIGHT?

|shocking| Linda

[HornyHeather]

Thanks for the reply, Alex. I'm working today and haven't had time to sit down and really go through this thing line by line, but I think I get the general idea... that being that small, independent, single-person businesses like myself are basically hosed in the extreme.

I work a full-time job and do adult on the side (full-time hours but you know the drill). Anyway, it's completely out of the realm of reality for me to rent an office space, no matter how small. I live in one of the most expensive cities in the country right now, and business rentals are even more outrageous than real estate.

So, basically what I'm getting here is that I can either (A) give up several months of hard work and dedication and a craft I truly enjoy, or (B) potentially place myself, my teenage son, and the other people who live here in jeopardy of harrassment or worse. Great f*cking options. And, no, I'm not going into "the sky is falling" mode, not by a long shot... I'm just trying to get a serious grip on WTF I'm up against.... and the more I read/absorb the more distressed I become :(

Edited to add: On a side note, I certainly hope that LLs, TGPs, et al are going to offer a "leniency period" for WMs who can't get their hands on adequate 2257 info for old sets of pics and have to remove pages from their domains.


I am in the exact same boat you are,
and me having 4 children, I just am not comfortable with my info being published, being I just had troubles with a stalker about 2 weeks ago. So hey maybe I will put my info up, so he can knock on my door...
None of us want this, and we all seen it coming, The government does what the fuck they want and dont care who likes it, it is what makes them happy...

Furthermore, the whole attitude about protecting children with this, is bull, what pedo is going to have any discalimer? Just another reason to take more rights away...Big Bad Gov taking away our rights, what else is new? And we the People sit here looking at each other with dismay...

[Tommy]

anybody who wants to remove a page from Tommys can just 404 the page, no worries

[Barron]

Ok...so the way I figure it is:

I run my own site with my own content, namely myself and George are the models. I have two other people that are on the site in just a few updates and I have their Driver's licenses and signed waivers. Right now the records are kept at my corporate attorney's office because I work out of my home also.

So, if I am reading this right, I need to make sure the two people that I have info on have corresponding URL's where their images can be seen. AND, instead of the attorneys holding these MEASLY two files, now I have to do so and they have to be onsite. Now the onsite address is no longer the attorney, but either our home or we rent an office space and put a filing cabinet in there with two files in it? Or, four counting me and George. AM I GETTING THIS RIGHT?

|shocking| Linda

Your almost correct...

You need two forms of ID, one of them has to be picture id from a US government source(drivers license will do). But, you have to have a copy of each depiction attached to a list of every url the depiction is on, attached to the age docs. And, you have to have the date of the shoot, date of publication and you have to have all that cross-referenced with any names the models might have used, including maiden names.

Oh, dont forget to have the url for all the thumbs, banners and the large pics. And dont forget that you have to store the webcam presentations as well.

Bottom line, its more than just two little files. Also, dont listen to me, contact your lawyer, I may be wrong.

-

[Wenchy]

Tommy... as always, you are a gentleman and a scholar. I'm not the least bit surprised that you were the first to step up to the plate |bow|

Here's another interesting thought I just had... there are those of us with children at home and these new rules require a business address which, in most cases, will coincidentally be the same address where those children reside. So what's to stop the bastards from waltzing in under the guise of a "2257 compliance check" and arresting us for some bullshit charge related to having minors and porn at the same address? Oh yeah... "out of control" doesn't even come close to describing how ugly things could get.

Shit, I really need to stop thinking about this. Either that or I need to plan to get my Xanan prescription refilled ASAP.

[HornyHeather]

Wow Wenchy...I didnt even think of it that way

[LindaMight]

Your almost correct...

You need two forms of ID, one of them has to be picture id from a US government source(drivers license will do). But, you have to have a copy of each depiction attached to a list of every url the depiction is on, attached to the age docs. And, you have to have the date of the shoot, date of publication and you have to have all that cross-referenced with any names the models might have used, including maiden names.

Oh, dont forget to have the url for all the thumbs, banners and the large pics. And dont forget that you have to store the webcam presentations as well.

Bottom line, its more than just two little files. Also, dont listen to me, contact your lawyer, I may be wrong.

-

So, if I just dump the pics and vids of the two other people and leave the site solely presenting just George and I, that means that every single image pertains to only us, including URL's and banners and thumbnails and videos. So since it's just us, do we have to link our names to every single image when we are the owners? And webcam can just go away I guess.
? |shocking|

Thanks for any help. I guess we're looking for office space.

Linda

[HornyHeather]

What are they considering explicit content? if anyone knows...??? Just sexual acts? or nudity also?

[RawAlex]

My take as webmaster of findpics: If you feel the need to 404 a site or whatever, no hard feelings. My bot will remove that site and that site only.

I will not, cannot, and will never bein the business of checking 2257 statements for validity. I am not a law enforcement agent, and I cannot do their work for them. I will continue to decline sites that appear to have CP on them, and I will continue to list adult sites.

Your lawyers will be able to better tell you what you will need to do about your sites.

... and yes, I agree that the home address disclosure is designed to create maximum pain, stress, and potential suffering for many individual webmasters and webmistresses. Doubly so for those who are "their own content". It's ugly and evil, and that is the exact intent of these rules: To drive you out of business.

Alex

[RawAlex]

What are they considering explicit content? if anyone knows...??? Just sexual acts? or nudity also?

"sexually explicit conduct” means actual or simulated—
(A) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;
(B) bestiality;
(C) masturbation;
(D) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
(E) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;"

Please note E... basically, show the fur (or area that would have the fur) and you are pretty much there. Masturbation is wide open, it could even involve just squeezing a breast and going "ooooo".

I dunno.

Alex

[HornyHeather]

lol Alex..Thank Ya....I may have a site to fall back on then

[Barron]

So, if I just dump the pics and vids of the two other people and leave the site solely presenting just George and I, that means that every single image pertains to only us, including URL's and banners and thumbnails and videos. So since it's just us, do we have to link our names to every single image when we are the owners? And webcam can just go away I guess.
? |shocking|

Thanks for any help. I guess we're looking for office space.

Linda


If its just you and George? I think this is a gray area that you need to discuss with your lawyer.

The stuff I read today didnt make allowances for the producer and the performer being the same person. It only talked about the producer and secondary producer being the same person.

If I was a performer and the producer of depictions for my own website, I would cover my bases and have all the info they require. Spending 5 years in jail is more of a chance than I personally would want to take on the subject of a gray area.

Again, I would speak to my attorney about this.

[Barron]

"sexually explicit conduct” means actual or simulated—
(A) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;
(B) bestiality;
(C) masturbation;
(D) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
(E) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;"

Please note E... basically, show the fur (or area that would have the fur) and you are pretty much there. Masturbation is wide open, it could even involve just squeezing a breast and going "ooooo".

I dunno.

Alex



I think this a good example of why all this needs to be in court. The word simulated was mentioned in the changes. And that brought to mind the exemption of HBO and the others because they are showing simulated, they are in the clear.



Sec. 75.7 Exemption statement.

(a) Any producer of any book, magazine, periodical, film,
videotape, digitally- or computer-manipulated image, digital image,
picture, or other matter may cause to be affixed to every copy of the
matter a statement attesting that the matter is not covered by the
record-keeping requirements of 18 U.S.C. 2257(a)-(c) and of this part
if:
(1) The matter contains only visual depictions of actual sexually
explicit conduct made before July 3, 1995, or is produced,
manufactured, published, duplicated, reproduced, or reissued before
July 3, 1995;
(2) The matter contains only visual depictions of simulated
sexually explicit conduct; or,

[RawAlex]

Barron, actually, I think you got it, very close. Actually, a performer who makes content is the primary producer. The person who puts it on the website (publishes the material) is the secondary producer. The primary and secondary producers can be the same people. There is nothing stopping them from also being a performer - but that does not exempt them from record keeping.

The goverment wants to be able to say "this URL, this picture... who is it, how old are they, do you have proof" no matter who is in the picture and who took the image.

Alex

[LindaMight]

I guess since I only have one URL and that's lindamight.com., it won't be hard to link my pictures to it.

[airdick]

"sexually explicit conduct” means actual or simulated—
(A) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;
(B) bestiality;
(C) masturbation;
(D) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
(E) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;"

Please note E... basically, show the fur (or area that would have the fur) and you are pretty much there. Masturbation is wide open, it could even involve just squeezing a breast and going "ooooo".

I dunno.

Alex

I seem to remember looking at all of this stuff in a thread from a few months ago. The part that read "(E) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person" and simulated sexual conduct is *NOT* covered by 2257. You are quoting all of paragraph (2) of section Title 18 2256 for your definition, however "actual sexually explicit conduct" is defined in Title 18 2257 (h)(1) as a subset of Title 18 2256 paragraph (2) that excludes simulated sexual conduct and (E):

Title 18 2257 (h) As used in this section—
(1) the term “actual sexually explicit conduct” means actual but not simulated conduct as defined in subparagraphs (A) through (D) of paragraph (2) of section 2256 of this title;


The new rules are going to be bad enough as it is for webmasters in the USA, let's not make it any worse by reading extra stuff into the law that is not there.

Of course, the usual IANAL disclaimer applies here. Don't take my word for any of this, please seek the advice of an attorney to plan your compliance program.

[Toby]

I guess since I only have one URL and that's lindamight.com., it won't be hard to link my pictures to it.You have one Domain. On that domain you have dozens if not hundreds of URL's. Each html, php, asp, cgi, or whatever page that displays your content is a different URL. I'm not really sure those that wrote the reg's fully understand the difference either.

[HornyHeather]

We have to index exact urls correct, not just the main domain


edit: nevermind..you do

[Greenguy]

Just one question to EVERYONE that has content on their sites - the current version of 2257 (not this new one, the one that's been in place for some time now) requires you to list the address of the location of the records, which is supposed to be your main place of business & you are required to have the documents available during normal business hours.....this is not new.

A lot of you are saying that you didn't have this info in place already?

[Robbo]

How far will they go? I just want to know when does the revolution begins? |bigfuckin

[HornyHeather]

GG, I did, but I shut the doors on that biz a few months ago and have been scratching my head since, I just made a call and have a place to keep them at a business addy now.

[HornyHeather]

How far will they go? I just want to know when does the revolution begins? |bigfuckin

I am ith you, and every biker I know (which is alot) They are going to be hearing thunder very soon on the white house..This is just another thing for everyone to realize that we are slowly losing our rights

[LindaMight]

Just one question to EVERYONE that has content on their sites - the current version of 2257 (not this new one, the one that's been in place for some time now) requires you to list the address of the location of the records, which is supposed to be your main place of business & you are required to have the documents available during normal business hours.....this is not new.

A lot of you are saying that you didn't have this info in place already?

I have documents at my place of business as well as my attorney's office. Thing is, I have my attorney's address listed, not my home. This new crap about the actual address rather than whatever is what is really doing a lot of us in. Even my corporate records show a post office box and that is supposedly legal. What a joke. |angry|

Linda

[Wenchy]

I'm with Linda... my business address has always been my PO Box and that's been more than adequate up to now. If it's good enough for my business paperwork, good enough for registering domains, good enough for my sponsors to send checks to, and good enough for my cell phone company to accept as my billing AND mailing address... well, you get the picture.

After talking with a close friend in the biz earlier tonight, I've come to the conclusion that I'm not going to get my panties in a total bunch about this until such time as I know without question that it has become an enforceable law without injunctions and with a lot fewer loopholes. I will continue doing what I've been doing and wait to hear what comes next, primarily because I'm not going through the trauma of tracking all of my old sites/pages if I don't absolutely have to... that's one chore I am definitely NOT looking forward to! This is one big ugly bridge I prefer to cross only when it comes to me. |dizzy|

[Robbo]

I plan on sitting tight too. Of course I`ll be preparing as well. I just did a complete inventory of my content to start. It`s probably a good time to get any info you`re lacking in order. Less work down the road. Take the rest as it comes.

[RawAlex]

Greenguy, you use to be able to use a third party to hold those records. That is no longer permissible. It must be at your place of business (which I am sure some people will delve into further as to what the legal definition of this is... I know some people who sit in Starbucks reviewing sites 4 hours a day... is that their place of business? My place of business is on the internet!).

It is scary for many models (and secondary producers) to be forced to put their name address and other contact information in clear public site. I understanad the less than honest reason for the DOJ, which is to make it as uncomfortable as possible to be in the porn business. This all has nothing to do with protecting children... it has all to do with driving people out of business.

Alex

[Gramma]

I have all of my exclusive content databased and cross-referenced (since last August) - working on the licensed content - I stupidly believed the license that I received when purchasing would be good enough. Some sets will just be taken down - bought from foreign suppliers - obviously over the age of consent and most over the age of social security - but nevertheless - better safe than sorry.

I do not want to post my home address either. I can hear the picketers now out front. It could conceivable turn ugly like abortion protests with actual killings taking place. Some of those bible thumpers get pretty radical.
It would be so great if 4 or 5 local webmasters that work like i do (in my p.j.s in the home office) - could pool resources and time and rent and office space in a larger city and share the 20 hrs you must be there. We'd all be familiar with the databases etc., and could perhaps all be 'employees' of each other's businesses.
Anybody in the St.Louis area want to talk about that?

[Toby]

...you use to be able to use a third party to hold those records...Well, in certain cases yes a third party could be designated. You were allowed to designate an employee as your Custodian of Records, i.e. a full time webmaster. Most of us that work from home don't have any employees other than me, myself and I, so a third party Custodian of Records has never been an option. Lawyers, Accountants, and Bookkeepers are contractors not employees, although many have used them as Custodians anyway.

[Chop Smith]

Alex, I have been reading all the official releases, etc. It is apparent that you have spend considerable time on this. I just want to say thanks for sharing your opinions.

[RawAlex]

Chop, honestly, I think I should have been a lawyer. While this is not enjoyable stuff, I do enjoy reading it and understanding the implications both for my business and the business of my clients, customers, and of the affiliate programs I promote. Understanding the implications, the requirements, and how that could affect the future of the adult online business is worth the time and effort.

More importantly, let me say this: We may be at a unique cross roads for the adult online industry, where government regulation will come in and better define our business, and set a bar for minimum effort required to be in the business. I don't want anyone to suffer, and some of the changes are going to be painful. t will truly be interested to see where this all goes.

Toby, there is one potential hole in the rules, read closely:

If the producer is an organization, the statement shall also
contain the name, title, and business address of the individual employed by such organization who is responsible for maintaining the records required by this part.

I could technically employ someone for $1 per year to do the job. I think that this is the way that it has always been done, and could possibly give an "out" for some people.

HOWEVER, it appears that this would not apply to an individual, but only to an organization (such as incorporated company).

Alex

[Toby]

...HOWEVER, it appears that this would not apply to an individual, but only to an organization (such as incorporated company)It seems to me that nearly all of the rules were written to apply to "organizations". So much of the language just doesn't quite seem to "fit" when applied to individuals. Of course that won't keep them from applying the rules to all of us anyway.

[Mr. Blue]

It would be so great if 4 or 5 local webmasters that work like i do (in my p.j.s in the home office) - could pool resources and time and rent and office space in a larger city and share the 20 hrs you must be there. We'd all be familiar with the databases etc., and could perhaps all be 'employees' of each other's businesses.
Anybody in the St.Louis area want to talk about that?

I was thinking of the same. I'm checking the price of office space on the Island and it's going to cost me too much per month to swing that...so I need to think on some options here.

[plateman]

I have all of my exclusive content databased and cross-referenced (since last August) - working on the licensed content - I stupidly believed the license that I received when purchasing would be good enough. Some sets will just be taken down - bought from foreign suppliers - obviously over the age of consent and most over the age of social security - but nevertheless - better safe than sorry.

I do not want to post my home address either. I can hear the picketers now out front. It could conceivable turn ugly like abortion protests with actual killings taking place. Some of those bible thumpers get pretty radical.
It would be so great if 4 or 5 local webmasters that work like i do (in my p.j.s in the home office) - could pool resources and time and rent and office space in a larger city and share the 20 hrs you must be there. We'd all be familiar with the databases etc., and could perhaps all be 'employees' of each other's businesses.
Anybody in the St.Louis area want to talk about that?
greenguy said and its true that our whois is for everyone that knows about it to see who owns what and I havnt had any problems and I agree the models will suffer from it more - and I dont know WTF to do, I know I've come to far the have a bunch of mother fuckers run me out of biz... and if you think about it is our job any different than working at a porn store selling toys and movies and how offten does a porn store get picketed..

and I bet if it does pass it might help us full timers out and slow down the free flow of porn and drive out the weekend people and spamers and really how many people want to quit, they will probably take a chance on the 20 hours thing and a very small % of webmasters will maybe never get a visit - and look at the manpower and money to inspect a large # of webmsters - they cant keep up with welfare fraud and keeping the counrty safe and how manny lawmakers want blood on there hands when a 20 year old gets stalked and butchered when they find out how the stalker found them..

And I think they want anyone in the porn biz scared and to watch there shit and with the new law they can find us all easier...

[Ms Naughty]

I'm reading through the whole thing now. It reads like it was written by petulant Vogons.

"If you can't be bothered going to Alpha Centauri to look at the bypass plans, it's your own fault. Apathetic bloody planet, I've got no sympathy at all..."

[Wazza]

I'm reading through the whole thing now. It reads like it was written by petulant Vogons.
And there's a decent chance that Gag Halfrunt is the man pulling the strings...

|viking|

[Sinistress]

Okay, I've got a question about this part, (the part in bold)

The statute defines
``produces'' as ``to produce, manufacture, or publish any book,
magazine, periodical, film, video tape, computer-generated image,
digital image, or picture, or other similar matter and includes the
duplication, reproduction, or reissuing of any such matter, but does
not include mere distribution or any other activity which does not
involve hiring, contracting for, managing, or otherwise arranging for
the participation of the performers depicted.'' 18 U.S.C. 2257(h)(3).

I'm just not sure what my question is exactly, but that part stuck out to me...

[Sinistress]

Or is that the old regs? *getting mildly confused*

[Chop Smith]

Re-reading the thread, I notice several references to "If it passes...", "If it becomes law...", etc. The law has been in place for years (1988 as amended). What you are dealing with here is the rules and regulations for the Attorney General to enforce the existing law as enacted by Congress. You will recall that last year (June,2004), the Justice Department proposed the changes. This final rule and regulations are effective June 23, 2005. Therefore, you have 28 days to may sure you are complying.

The next step will be for the law, rules and regulations to be tested in the court system. This will mean that one of us poor bastards will be arrested, charged with a felony and spend everything he has earned and everything he can borrow to fight it. Based on history, our laws are enforced from the bottom up. Therefore, the test will be made against a small operator like myself or maybe even a free site builder that submits a few sites a week. I would almost bet that there example will be someone that can not afford to defend themselves.

Damn, did I say all of the above in public?

[swedguy]

Sinistress, I've been stuck on that part for the last 10 minutes too :)

Taken from xxxlaw's http://my.execpc.com/~xxxlaw/2257Tables5.24.05.htm :

(4) Producer does not include persons whose activities relating to the visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct are limited to the following:

(ii) Mere distribution;

(v) A provider of an electronic communication service or remote computing service who does not, and reasonably cannot, manage the sexually explicit content of the computer site or service.


Doesn't it sound like it could make Google Image not a producer?

If it is, why wouldn't a thumb TGP be included there too? The only thing they are doing is distributing.

[Sinistress]

Okay new question, last bit was the old one... again I'm not really sure how to word the question, but am going to put the bits in bold..

(c) Producer means any person, including any individual,
corporation, or other organization, who is a primary producer or a
secondary producer.
(1) A primary producer is any person who actually films,
videotapes, photographs, or creates a digitally- or computer-
manipulated image, a digital image, or picture of, or digitizes an
image of, a visual depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual
sexually explicit conduct.
(2) A secondary producer is any person who produces, assembles,
manufactures, publishes, duplicates, reproduces, or reissues a book,
magazine, periodical, film, videotape, digitally- or computer-
manipulated image, picture, or other matter intended for commercial
distribution that contains a visual depiction of an actual human being
engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct, or who inserts on a
computer site or service a digital image of, or otherwise manages the
sexually explicit content of a computer site or service that contains a
visual depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually
explicit conduct, including any person who enters into a contract,
agreement, or conspiracy to do any of the foregoing.
(3) The same person may be both a primary and a secondary producer.
(4) Producer does not include persons whose activities relating to
the visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct are limited to
the following:
(i) Photo or film processing, including digitization of previously
existing visual depictions, as part of a commercial enterprise, with no
other commercial interest in the sexually explicit material, printing,
and video duplicators;
(ii) Mere distribution;
(iii) Any activity, other than those activities identified in
paragraphs (c) (1) and (2) of this section, that does not involve the
hiring, contracting for, managing, or otherwise arranging for the
participation of the depicted performers;
(iv) A provider of web-hosting services who does not, and
reasonably cannot, manage the sexually explicit content of the computer
site or service; or
(v) A provider of an electronic communication service or remote
computing service who does not, and reasonably cannot, manage the
sexually explicit content of the computer site or service.
(d) Sell, distribute, redistribute, and re-release refer to
commercial distribution of a book, magazine, periodical, film,
videotape, digitally- or computer-manipulated image, digital image,
picture, or other matter that contains a visual depiction of an actual
human being engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct, but does not
refer to noncommercial or educational distribution of such matter,
including transfers conducted by bona fide lending libraries, museums,
schools, or educational organizations.
(e) Copy, when used:
(1) In reference to an identification document or a picture
identification card, means a photocopy, photograph, or digitally
scanned reproduction, and
(2) When used in reference to a sexually explicit depiction means
the sexually explicit image itself (e.g., a film, an image posted on a
web page, an image taken by a webcam, a photo in a magazine, etc.).
(f) Internet means collectively the myriad of computer and
telecommunications facilities, including equipment and operating
software, which constitute the interconnected world-wide network of
networks that employ the Transmission Control Protocol/Internet
Protocol, or any predecessor or successor protocols to such protocol,
to communicate information of all kinds by wire or radio.
(g) Computer site or service means a computer server-based file
repository or file distribution service that is accessible over the
Internet, World Wide Web, Usenet, or any other interactive computer
service (as defined in 47 U.S.C. 230(f)(2)). Computer site or service
includes without limitation, sites or services using hypertext markup
language, hypertext transfer protocol, file transfer protocol,
electronic mail transmission protocols, similar data transmission
protocols, or any successor protocols, including but not limited to
computer sites or services on the World Wide Web.
(h) URL means uniform resource locator.
(i) Electronic communications service has the meaning set forth in
18 U.S.C. 2510(15).
(j) Remote computing service has the meaning set forth in 18 U.S.C.
2711(2).
(k) Manage content means to make editorial or managerial decisions
concerning the sexually explicit content of a computer site or service,
but does not mean those who manage solely advertising, compliance with
copyright law, or other forms of non-sexually explicit content.

[Sinistress]

Sinistress, I've been stuck on that part for the last 10 minutes too :)

Taken from xxxlaw's http://my.execpc.com/~xxxlaw/2257Tables5.24.05.htm :

(4) Producer does not include persons whose activities relating to the visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct are limited to the following:

(ii) Mere distribution;

(v) A provider of an electronic communication service or remote computing service who does not, and reasonably cannot, manage the sexually explicit content of the computer site or service.


Doesn't it sound like it could make Google Image not a producer?

If it is, why wouldn't a thumb TGP be included there too? The only thing they are doing is distributing.

Yeah exactly, and the way that they define "Manage" ....technically would a lot of us not fall under "those who manage solely advertising" ????

[Chop Smith]

Doesn't it sound like it could make Google Image not a producer?

If it is, why wouldn't a thumb TGP be included there too? The only thing they are doing is distributing.

The way I read it - the thumb TGP would be publishing the thumb. If they publish the thumb then they are also considered a producer. Therefore they must have the proper documentation in their files.

[Robbo]

AVN has a few articles with comments from a few prominent attorneys. Might clarify a few things. Or confuse them depending on your ability to digest legal nomenclature. fyi nomenclature = mumbo jumbo

[swedguy]

The way I read it - the thumb TGP would be publishing the thumb. If they publish the thumb then they are also considered a producer. Therefore they must have the proper documentation in their files.
Google Images also publishes the thumb. Both could be considered "electronic communication service providers" (traffic sources). Google Images and a thumb TGP is basically the same thing, except Google Images has more ads than a thumb TGP.

But this part may be where a thumb TGP get included as publisher:

snipped from the section Sinistress posted: "...editorial or managerial decisions concerning the sexually explicit content of a computer site or service"

A thumb TGP makes editoral decisions regarding what they post, SE's don't.

[cellinis]

Google Images also publishes the thumb. Both could be considered "electronic communication service providers" (traffic sources). Google Images and a thumb TGP is basically the same thing, except Google Images has more ads than a thumb TGP.

But this part may be where a thumb TGP get included as publisher:

snipped from the section Sinistress posted: "...editorial or managerial decisions concerning the sexually explicit content of a computer site or service"

A thumb TGP makes editoral decisions regarding what they post, SE's don't.

Doesn't google (or any other search engine) make an editorial decision (based on their algorithms if not human intervention) on what kind of content from what site they publish?

As it is google uses our content (without any regards to copyrights) to sell its own advertisments around and now they should be exempt from a law that nearly puts half of us out of business?

Okay, I may sound pretty cheesed about it. I just paid a fortune to my lawyer |shocking|

[Mr. Blue]

The next step will be for the law, rules and regulations to be tested in the court system. This will mean that one of us poor bastards will be arrested, charged with a felony and spend everything he has earned and everything he can borrow to fight it. Based on history, our laws are enforced from the bottom up. Therefore, the test will be made against a small operator like myself or maybe even a free site builder that submits a few sites a week. I would almost bet that there example will be someone that can not afford to defend themselves.

Damn, did I say all of the above in public?

That's usually how it will happen and will happen here. I wouldn't be touching teen content with a ten foot pole right now. They'll most likely go after some small potatoes, ones doing teen sites, and ones that might have the 2257 on the net a little screwed up.

Hopefully the ACLU would pick up a case like that, but we'll see...maybe some injunctions, etc will be put into place to make this a little more acceptable.

[Chop Smith]

A thumb TGP makes editoral decisions regarding what they post, SE's don't.

So if you were on the jury, you would conclude that the Thumb TGP made an editorial decisions to publish the thumb supplied to him by a submitter?

I have a few sites with thumbs from free hosted galleries and hosted free sites. I bet I will take them down by 06/23.

[airdick]

Just one question to EVERYONE that has content on their sites - the current version of 2257 (not this new one, the one that's been in place for some time now) requires you to list the address of the location of the records, which is supposed to be your main place of business & you are required to have the documents available during normal business hours.....this is not new.

A lot of you are saying that you didn't have this info in place already?

I think 99% of paysites and affiliates that comply with the previous regulation rely on the Sundance vs. Reno decision and just list the custodian of records information provided by the primary producer:

"In fulfilling its obligations under Section 2257, relies on the plain language of the statute and on the well-reasoned decision of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in Sundance, which states that entities who merely distribute content, and have no role in procuring models or producing content, are exempt from on-site record keeping requirements."

[Ms Naughty]

The document makes reference to sites that onsell adult movies and says that publishing a picture of the DVD/Video cover on your site still makes you into a secondary producer who has to have documentation regarding the models on the cover. (A minefield for adult stores... and for those of us who review movies or use boxcovers to sell movies).

Five commenters commented that the definitions of producer and
secondary producer would encompass on-line distributors of pornography
who digitize the covers of videos, DVDs, and magazines but are not
involved in the actual production of the material. One of these
commenters also claimed that the definition of producer should be
changed to allow on-line distributors to rely upon records provided to
them by the immediately preceding secondary producer, in accordance
with the Department's representation to the court in American Library
Ass'n v. Reno. The Department declines to adopt these comments. The
definition of producer is of necessity broad enough to encompass those
who digitize images--even for distribution purposes--because in so
doing, a new sexually explicit depiction is created. The Department has
determined that it is not possible to change the definition in such a
way as to exclude distributors while not also creating an unacceptable
loophole in the coverage of the regulation.

So a thumb TGP AND Google Images would appear to be in the same basket.

Now that I've read the whole thing, so much of it seems like it could be challenged in a court.

I think whoever the unfortunate "low hanging fruit" is that gets taken to court, we should be prepared to put up a fighting fund for them. So much of our livelihoods will depend on how the court cases pan out, we need to help out whoever it is that gets targetted.

[Fonz]

Ok, after reading for a few hours most things are "pretty clear" for me. Just 1 question. Does this apply to banners and other promo materials also?

[Ms Naughty]

Airdick, you're right. I think most webmasters have been relying on the idea that your content provider is the custodian of records, and all 2257 documentation is held by that person. All we needed to do was state who the content provider was.

The new ruling tells us we were wrong to think this:

Thirty-six commenters commented that even if the effective date
were changed to July 3, 1995, the regulation would be overly burdensome
on secondary producers because producers would be required to obtain
records for thousands--even hundreds of thousands--of sexually explicit
depictions dating back a number of years. These commenters claimed that
secondary producers would likely be unable to locate many of those
records from primary producers who may have moved, shut down, or
otherwise disappeared. According to the commenters, those secondary
producers who could not locate such records would be forced to remove
the sexually explicit depictions, which would be a limit on
constitutionally protected material.
The Department declines to adopt these comments. Producers were on
notice that records had to be kept at least by primary producers for
depictions manufactured after July 3, 1995. In addition, commenters
were similarly on notice that the D.C. Circuit, in American Library
Ass'n v. Reno, had upheld the requirement that secondary producers
maintain records. The Department is not responsible if secondary
producers chose to rely on the Tenth Circuit's holding in Sundance and
not to maintain records while ignoring the D.C. Circuit's holding in
American Library Ass'n v. Reno. A prudent secondary producer would have
continued to secure copies of the records from primary producers after
July 3, 1995. If those records, which are statutorily required, are not
currently available, then the commenters are correct that they will be
required to comply with the requirements of all applicable laws,
including section 2257(f). They are incorrect, however, to claim that
this would result in an impermissible burden on free speech. As the
D.C. Circuit held, the government has a compelling state interest in
protecting children from sexual exploitation. If the producers (primary
and secondary) of sexually explicit depictions cannot document that
children were not used for the production of the sexually explicit
depictions, then they must take whatever appropriate actions are
warranted to comply with the child exploitation, obscenity, and record-
keeping statutes. The First Amendment is not offended by making it
unlawful knowingly to fail or refuse to comply with the record-keeping
or labeling provisions of this valid statute.

This is the bit that made me think the Vogons had written this whole document.

I also think this is one of the bits the lawyers will fight over. "A prudent secondary producer"??

It's like: "We're going with this judgement... It's not our fault if you chose to conduct business according to a whole other ruling which we in our infinite wisdom are choosing to ignore..."

By the way, shall I add the obligatory IANAL disclaimer? Because, while I've read the document, I'm only offering my views on this.

[Ms Naughty]

Fonz, I suspect banners come into it as well - same as DVD boxcovers...

OK... I'll step out of this debate, I'm starting to sound like I know what I'm talking about.

[Chop Smith]

...I'm starting to sound like I know what I'm talking about.

That is the big problem here. After reading and re-reading, we are all guessing. Today, I will be talking to my legal adviser. He will be guessing also but he will get paid for his guess.

My decision is to comply according to my best guess.

[swedguy]

So if you were on the jury, you would conclude that the Thumb TGP made an editorial decisions to publish the thumb supplied to him by a submitter?

I have a few sites with thumbs from free hosted galleries and hosted free sites. I bet I will take them down by 06/23.
I don't know anything about this really, I'm just trying to understand it a little bit better before I get some news from the lawyer. So don't take anything I say seriously, I'm just a pronographer ;)

To me there is no real difference between Google Images and a thumb TGP. Both provides the same service, both stores the images locally.

But if there is a difference (legally) between for example Google Images and a thumb TGP, I would say that it is because we choose what we want on the site. Google spiders the web and just adds what it finds, with no editing.

[tickler]

To me there is no real difference between Google Images and a thumb TGP. Both provides the same service, both stores the images locally.

But if there is a difference (legally) between for example Google Images and a thumb TGP, I would say that it is because we choose what we want on the site. Google spiders the web and just adds what it finds, with no editing.
One uses an "AI and the other uses a real person(plus scripts) to do the editing, maybe.

Also there seems to be an indication that they don't want to persure dynamic generated pages. Might be a hole that people can exploit. If so, TGPs/MPGs/LL might have to start allowing it if they want any WM content for their sites.

I don't have a problem with the record keeping for the most part, except, for the putting addresses on the web pages part where the general public can access them.

[guitar riff]

UMM where did everyone get the rule must be in office 20 hrs a week I seem to be reading things diferently maybe

this says 10 hrs a day

(b) Advance notice of inspections . Advance notice of record inspections shall not be given.

(c) Conduct of inspections.

(1) Inspections shall take place during normal business hours and at such places as specified in § 75.4. For the purpose of this part, ‘‘normal business hours’’ are from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m., local time, and any other time during which the producer is actually conducting business relating to producing depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct.

[swedguy]

I don't worry so much about this, I think it's good actually. Takes away a bit of the Wild West in this business.

The only thing that will be a gangstah dick in my ass, is to map each set with every URL they're on. Give me a year and I might finish it. But a month? It's just not possible.
If someone came to me and asked what set it is and show me the papers, it would take me couple of minutes and I could show it to them.

[xxxjay]

Hey Guys - Raw Alex is probably one of the most knowledgeable 2257 guys that you will see and he is very helpful, but nothing (I repeat nothing) is going to help you more than hiring your own lawyer and seeing just how this new 2257 effects YOUR business model.

[rollergirl]

Gramma, You have mail.

[RawAlex]

xxxjay: You are correct. Any advice given around here is on a "what I think it is" point of view. Contacting a lawyer and getting their advice and working within guidelines they provide is always the best thing.

That being said, there are a ton of questions out there that can be pretty much answered by a plain reading of the rules as published, and this can encourage people to start to work on the things they will need to get things done.

grandmasscrotum: You said "I also think this is one of the bits the lawyers will fight over. "A prudent secondary producer"??" - you have to remember that while there is a whole preamble and discussion of comments received as so on, that is truly not the rules just commentary. The real rules are further down the document and those are the things you need to truly be concerned with. The rest is a narrative that can help you understand what the rules say, but the rules themselves and the wording of those rules are the only things that can truly matter. The guidance provided by the preamble is great, however, at making it easier to understand the DOJ's intent regarding this new rules.

Alex

[RawAlex]

Okay, I've got a question about this part, (the part in bold)

The statute defines
``produces'' as ``to produce, manufacture, or publish any book,
magazine, periodical, film, video tape, computer-generated image,
digital image, or picture, or other similar matter and includes the
duplication, reproduction, or reissuing of any such matter, but does
not include mere distribution or any other activity which does not
involve hiring, contracting for, managing, or otherwise arranging for
the participation of the performers depicted.'' 18 U.S.C. 2257(h)(3).

I'm just not sure what my question is exactly, but that part stuck out to me...



There is a discussion in there about distribution. It is specifically aimed at the companies that transport adult material and the retailers that sell the "packaged good". Basically, it exempts stores from having to get 2257 documents for every model in every magazine.

Alex

[Ms Naughty]

Gramma? Me? I don't see any mail :(

[RawAlex]

Sinistress, I've been stuck on that part for the last 10 minutes too :)

Taken from xxxlaw's http://my.execpc.com/~xxxlaw/2257Tables5.24.05.htm :

(4) Producer does not include persons whose activities relating to the visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct are limited to the following:

(ii) Mere distribution;

(v) A provider of an electronic communication service or remote computing service who does not, and reasonably cannot, manage the sexually explicit content of the computer site or service.


Doesn't it sound like it could make Google Image not a producer?

If it is, why wouldn't a thumb TGP be included there too? The only thing they are doing is distributing.


Google image is a producer. If you read through the entire text, there was some attempts made to make exceptions for certain types of activities, but that the DOJ stopped short of creating exceptions because they knew us sneaky little bastards would drive a truck through any little hole they created.

For a thumbtgp, it's pretty clear. You have images on your website, thumbs you have created (a new image!), and therefore you need 2257 documents for any sexually explicit image.

Now if you think going softcore will help you out, your not entirely right. If the image was originally hardcore (you have to store and indentify the original image) or came from a hardcore set, it may be subject to 2257. If any other images on your site are hardcore (even on banners) they could consider your publication to sexually explicit, and as such, require 2257 for all images.

Basically, you need a model release for every image, every time, without exception.

Thus, thumbtgps are really in the shit.

Alex

[Gramma]

nah .. GRAMMA .. me :)

[RawAlex]

Ok, after reading for a few hours most things are "pretty clear" for me. Just 1 question. Does this apply to banners and other promo materials also?

Fonz, I don't see anything that specifically exempts advertsing, but I think there is a way around that one. I am waiting for some comments from outside before I can add anything on that.

Alex

[aphrophoto]

Just a thought, but how does all this effect the amateur exhibitionist type site of business model. Currently, from what Ive seen, the site owners only ask that the posters declare they are over 18. Some of those sites have thousands of individual submitted pics

[swedguy]

RawAlex, Thanks |thumb

I read through most of it and didn't see anything specific that could be interpreted as a SE and those kind of services. So I figured they want to exempt them in some way, but I guess they didn't. That answered many questions. If they would exempt them in some way, as you said, it could and would get exploited.

[RawAlex]

Just a thought, but how does all this effect the amateur exhibitionist type site of business model. Currently, from what Ive seen, the site owners only ask that the posters declare they are over 18. Some of those sites have thousands of individual submitted pics

They would be, well, FUBAR... especially if the images are sexuality explicit (which includes pussy pictures, spreads, heck, might even include shots where you see some hair for all I can tell!)

Many many business models are non-functional as of june 23rd unless otherwise advised by a lawyer.

Alex

[Greenguy]

Those amateur submit sites are technically illegal under the old law (which is why I never started one)

[Wizzo]

UMM where did everyone get the rule must be in office 20 hrs a week I seem to be reading things diferently maybe

this says 10 hrs a day

(b) Advance notice of inspections . Advance notice of record inspections shall not be given.

(c) Conduct of inspections.

(1) Inspections shall take place during normal business hours and at such places as specified in § 75.4. For the purpose of this part, ‘‘normal business hours’’ are from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m., local time, and any other time during which the producer is actually conducting business relating to producing depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct.

That's the old, here's the new:

Inspections shall take place during the producer's normal business hours and at such places as specified in Sec. 75.4. For the purpose of this part, ``normal business hours'' are from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., local time, Monday through Friday, or any other time during which the producer is actually conducting business relating to producing depiction of actual
sexually explicit conduct. To the extent that the producer does not maintain at least 20 normal business hours per week, producers must provide notice to the inspecting agency of the hours during which records will be available for inspection, which in no case may be less
than twenty (20) hours per week.

[LowryBigwood]

A lot of good info in this thread, but I'm still not clear on a couple of points.

I've got about 500 freesites online, mostly all sponsor content... I either have to go to every page of every freesite and get 2257 docs on all banners and content, or yank them by june 23rd?

If I was to remove all sexual related images from my servers, I do not have to worry about 2257 or inspections at all? Is that correct?

And, what about hosted galleries, hosted freesites, etc, I can link to them, and not have to worry about 2257 regs, right?

Sorry, if these questions have been answered in detail, I am somewhat confused by all this taking place.

Thanks in advance.

[sue-fl]

|cry| My head is spinning! I've only been doing this for a year. Have a little over 100 free sites that I have submitted. Just got my link list site online. Am working on my tgp text site now.

I don't make the bucks like a lot of you do. I do this at home hoping to earn a few extra bucks a months.

Get an office, lawyer wtf?? No way I can make sense of doing that. I don't make enough from doing this to even begin to pay for that.

I'm afraid that the best advice I'm going to be given is to give up all I've done and paid for in the last year. |cry|

I also have other people who live with me and my husband works at a very high security job.......so I guess I'm screwed as posting my house address online I don't want to do.

I'm just ranting as I understand very little of this. I don't and would never consider putting anything illegal on line. How the f***k can the goverment get away with screwing up my mind like this?

I guess I'll be out of here by June 23 and that really sucks, because I feel like I'm just starting to get some where and make a few bucks.... |angry|

[LindaMight]

So I link all of my images which are thousands, to me and George, and ditch the two other updates that feature anyone else. Now everything, images, mpegs, etc., are strictly the two of us. I get an office, I maintain records for George and myself linking to all images on lindamight.com, including banners, etc. The office space not only is "space", but there's electricity, phone lines, etc. to consider. And I have to be there 20 hours a week? I haven't looked to see if swastikas are appearing on our flags...cuz I thought I lived in the "freedom rings" USA. The USA I was born in is NOT the USA I live in today. Sorry...didn't mean to go on a rant.

Linda

[SexVideoContent]

I've got about 500 freesites online, mostly all sponsor content... I either have to go to every page of every freesite and get 2257 docs on all banners and content, or yank them by june 23rd?

If I was to remove all sexual related images from my servers, I do not have to worry about 2257 or inspections at all? Is that correct?

I'm not sure about that for certain but that's what I'm doing. The regs only mention sexually explicit images and video, they don't mention anything at all about html pages and text links without images.

I just hope I don't end up getting my partner accounts all shitcanned after removing the images. Even if I do though it's better by far than the alternative.

[RawAlex]

Lowry, Sue: First off, remember that there is still 27 days before these new "rules" (I use the term lightly) go into effect. In between now and then, it is likely that someone (probably FSC) will seek and be granted an injunction, as there are contradictory court rulings at play here that need to be resolved. The government is using one ruling that may not be entirely on point versus another ruling (sundance vs reno) that very specifically addressed the type of wording at work here. In case you missed it, Janet Reno as AG attempted to get similar rules and restrictions put in place on secondary producers... the court were not impressed.

That being said, let me try to give you my opinion on your questions, I hope they help:

Lowry, first and foremost, if it isn't on your servers, then you didn't publish it. If you didn't publish it, it isn't your problem. Hosted galleries, hosted free sites, whatever - those are the responsilbity of those people who made and published them, not you. In a similar fashion, a text link list or tgp is pretty much a safe bet at this point from what I can see. Thumbtgps are going to be a whole other kettle of fish I think.

All your sponsor content free will require 2257 documents, and you will need to list urls per image, cross reference as per the regulations etc. Sponsor content, purchased content, or content you shoot yourself - the rules appear to be all the same in all cases as the publisher.

Basically, if you don't have the documentation for these things by June 23rd, you are technically breaking the "rules"...

Sue, sadly you are exactly the type of person these new rules are aimed at. The DOJ appears to be attempting to shame you out of business. It is attempting to get individuals to declare their homes as their "business address" for their adult business. If you are unable or uncomfortable providing this information, then I am afraid that you might be sol. I wouldn't run out and shut everything down on the 23rd, but I would be seriously spending the time looking for potions.

I am starting to get a sneaky feeling that this information may be used in other ways to drive people out of business. Once the address is published, could they not turn around and provide that info to local authorities, which could collection buisness taxes and apply zoning laws to your "adult" business?

I am seeing a really weird trend here.

Alex

[RawAlex]

I'm not sure about that for certain but that's what I'm doing. The regs only mention sexually explicit images and video, they don't mention anything at all about html pages and text links without images.

I just hope I don't end up getting my partner accounts all shitcanned after removing the images. Even if I do though it's better by far than the alternative.

Here is one other issue: Even if the images on your site are no sexually oriented (IE: you select only the topless images from a photoset) you may still need the documentation unless the primary producer declares the images to be exempt. Basically, if you have an image on your site, you should have documents.

SVC: I don't think any partner account situation will ban you if you contact them with a list of sites you are removing or modifying. I think everyone at this point will be very sensitive to the situation.

Alex

[airdick]

If any other images on your site are hardcore (even on banners) they could consider your publication to sexually explicit, and as such, require 2257 for all images.


Where do read this in the regulations? Can you provide any citations to back this up?


Basically, you need a model release for every image, every time, without exception.



While most model releases I've seen include some of the information required under 2257 like stage names and a written description of the ID cards that are included, isn't the bulk of the typical boilerplate adult model release "other records" that are required to be segregated (28 CFR 75.2 (e)) under the regulation?

28 CFR 75.2 (e) Records required to be maintained under this part shall be segregated from all other records, shall not contain other records, and shall not be contained within any other record.

[Robbo]

I am starting to get a sneaky feeling that this information may be used in other ways to drive people out of business. Once the address is published, could they not turn around and provide that info to local authorities, which could collection buisness taxes and apply zoning laws to your "adult" business?

I am seeing a really weird trend here.

Alex

Of course they`ll take the backdoor approach. Why else would they call it getting fucked up the ass?

And to anyone worried about posting thier home address. Simple solution. Set up video surveillance of your home and or signage declaring so. It`s pretty cheap and easy with a cam and video recorder or even your computer. ;)

[RawAlex]

Airdick, I am not really sure, but I suspect this would mean that you cannot mix your model releases with your accounting information, or mix it with other non-related stuff. In other words, you need a file / cabinet / or database area specifically assigned to the job of model releases 2257 information, and cross reference materials. I know some people who put their model releases with their account stuff (file the model release with the payment info, the production costs, etc, all in one folder). That wouldn't be acceptable anymore I don't think.

Also, read the whole new 75. It is VERY specific as to what needs to be in each record.

Alex

[Sinistress]

Okay, another question... this time about the exemption clause (around the very bottom of the document)

(b) If the primary producer and the secondary producer are
different entities, the primary producer may certify to the secondary
producer that the visual depictions in the matter satisfy the standards
under paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3) of this section. The secondary
producer may then cause to be affixed to every copy of the matter a
statement attesting that the matter is not covered by the record-
keeping requirements of 18 U.S.C. 2257(a)-(c) and of this part.

Isn't what this means that freesite builders etc simply have to affix a statement saying basically that we are exempt, and give a link to the primary producer's 2257 stuff?

I suppose it would still be in a webmasters best interest to ensure that they have the stuff on hand, but it would save a lot of us from having to actually publicize our home addresses, wouldn't it?

RawAlex, thoughts?

[Sinistress]

Okay nvm that's my misunderstanding (or wishing to read loopholes where there don't seem to be any)

[LindaMight]

Of course they`ll take the backdoor approach. Why else would they call it getting fucked up the ass?

And to anyone worried about posting thier home address. Simple solution. Set up video surveillance of your home and or signage declaring so. It`s pretty cheap and easy with a cam and video recorder or even your computer. ;)

I don't think the video surveillance is the answer to a home office. There are many other considerations regarding the home address other than a possible stalker. Kids being home, the feds visiting, having every spam/advertising/freakazoid out there knowing your address, etc.

Linda

[Sinistress]

I'm all for turning on my cam, but I'm not keen on the idea of video surveillance 24/7... I think if anything that would be even more an invasion of privacy than giving out the address would...

[eksites]

Understanding that this is just "armchairing" at this point, has there been any prelim consensus on purely PG rated cropped thumbs? For example, the top entry at the moment on my anal blog http://www.analsexblog.info/anal-sex-blog is a slightly smart ass commentary on an anal FHG, and the cropped thumb is part of the punchline. I've been planning to go to that type of entry (or thumbs of just a girl's face, etc) as a link to an FHG.

If the pic on my server is pg rated... and not "of an actual human doing actual sex stuff", what's the armchair verdict?

Also... I guess I'll be starting with "story galleries" sooner than anticipated. ;)

[Wenchy]

I've been thinking on this a lot since yesterday (who needs sleep anyway?), and I've come up with the following observations:

1) I would like for someone to explain to me just exactly how in the hell ANY of this is going to protect children!! This isn't about them, it's about legal porn and the fact that a specific group of right-wing politicians don't like the fact that it's so readily available and there's nothing they can do to stop it.

2) IMHO, the US government has finally hit upon a way to do the impossible... police the internet. They've been wanting to do that since Al Gore was around and just hadn't been clever enough to put it all together; thus these changes in the regs.

3) I can't help but notice the irony of the fact that Carl's Jr. can put a commercial on prime-time network TV of a scantily clad P*ris H*ilton all but masturbating and the government doesn't even raise an eyebrow, but credit-card-carrying adults are being told what they can and can't do on the internet (when you get right down to it, the new rules have implications far beyond just WMs - they slap the hands of the over-21 crowd on a global level).

4) Personally I blame the email spammers, the BBSs, the chat rooms (and yes this includes those that are supposedly "monitored"), and Google et al for a lot of this. Unfortunately, WMs who consider themselves businesspersons and who take this seriously are but a small percentage of those tossing porn around on the Net, and now we're paying for the indiscretions and lack of concern of the rest of the group. Anyone who moves forward with these new regs in place may find they have a lot more traffic and revenue in the coming months as the bottom feeders get tossed out and/or arrested (can you say "test case"? I knew you could).

As I said, just my observations. With time I think I've gone from being freaked out and worried to being so pissed off I can't see straight... and something tells me I'm not alone. |angry|

[LindaMight]

Right on Wenchy! Let's get the bottom feeders out of here. The Feds should clamp down on those that steal the "legit" stuff, pirate the pics, and then "toss them around" and end up making money on copyrighted material! I know because I have caught many and have lived to see a reimbursement. I've had my fill of pirates and thieves....and if this law, Big Brother as it is, and as against it I am, is enforced, I hope the thieves are too stupid to even know what 2257 is. |headbang|

Linda

[RawAlex]

1) wasn't the intention. The intention is to drive people out of business.

2) it is the same as using zoning laws to shut down adult businesses. The material is legal (and the DOJ admitted it in the news) but using other laws in agressive ways has the same results as rendering it illegal.

3) we are all stinking pornographers lumped in with the morons that do cp and such. I warned about this many times before, and now it has come true.

4) you are blaming the right people except you forgot the spyware / adult redirect / adult popup people.

Sadly, none of this changes the facts that june 23rd is coming.

Alex

[swedguy]

I just went through my stuff and this is how many pages I found that are associated with one or more than one image: 304,759

Anyone want a job as a 2257 URL Mapping Documentation Specialist? |pink


I think I need to go see the |pink |pink

[sue-fl]

As I said, just my observations. With time I think I've gone from being freaked out and worried to being so pissed off I can't see straight... and something tells me I'm not alone. |angry|


Well put Wenchy! I was freaked out earlier also but now just plain pissed. What I do is all legal and there is no way I shouldn't be able to do it if I want. I'm going to forget for today. I'll just print it all out and read it till I can figure out what I need to know. And keep doing what I am now. For the simple reason I like what I do..... |peace|

[Jel]

Another thought - I was in the process of subbing a free site and gathering recips - all those freesites out there that have a recip with an image on them - I'm of the assumption they are also all covered by the new regs, and as such we have to either get the 2257 info, which is impossible, or change a hell of a lot of recips to text based ones :(

[Barron]

GRRR.... I just stumbled on to a new wrinkle. The definition of "Picture identification card" was changed.

All the content that I have were the model used a foriegn passport, which was legal at the time, is now unuseable. The id card has to be issued in the United States.

There is one more thing I have to weed out because of all this!

When is the injunction going to be filed, I think we are really going to need that.


_

EDIT:

There is a provision for the producer AND the performer if BOTH are not from the United States. But in my case, the producer is in the US so the provision doesnt count. Damn it!

_

[Robbo]

Barron ditto on that! I don`t have photo ids for but a freaction of my content. And I don`t reasonably expect all these content "primary produders" will be stepping up to share all that info with every person that has obtained said content.

[Toby]

I think the "retroactive" aspects of these new regulations are going to be one of the major reasons the court tosses them back at the DOJ. That simply isn't legal. One of the basic concepts we learned in Jr. High Civics class, ex-post facto laws are not constitutional.

[rollergirl]

What is the likelyhood of sponsor programs handing out their docs for the free content they distributed so freely to their affiliates over the years.

Last summer, I had tried to get docs from FTV and a few others and got blown off.

While I can see 'why' they don't want to hand over that info to affiliates it's a catch 22 down the food chain line. Without the docs we can't promote, we lose, they lose.


I'm not expecting anything, but to remove content. |shocking|

[Barron]

|bananna| |bananna| |bananna|
|pink |pink |pink


My lawyer is still going over the regs so I havent had a chance to ask my questions. But, as I read posts and re-read the regs, I think I just found a huge loop hole!

If I'm right, the industry will change, but the record keeping will not be as extensive as we think. And, we'll all make more money!

As soon as I get an opinion from the lawyer, I'll let ya'll know :)


-

[SirMoby]

In other words, you need a file / cabinet / or database area specifically assigned to the job of model releases 2257 information, and cross reference materials.
I'm thinking about purchasing 2 laptops just for the purpose of maintaining records. Having a backup of the database may not be good enough if you can't get it loaded within a few minutes.

[cd34]

Jim,

Since I have your advertising button for the board on a few of my sites, and you're holding a cigar in a sexually explicit manner, I need you to forward a model release for my 2257 statement.

:)

Figured we needed a little levity.

[Cleo]

This reminds me of when the state I live in tried to outlaw drug paraphernalia.

The law got passed and all but then when they went to enforce it they realized that it was so broad in scope that it was illegal to even sell a garden hose since you would use a garden hose to water your marijuana plants.

All the head shops pulled all their merchandise and a few people even got arrested but in the end the law was repealed and I once again all the head shops are selling drug paraphernalia.

[Sinistress]

This reminds me of when the state I live in tried to outlaw drug paraphernalia.

The law got passed and all but then when they went to enforce it they realized that it was so broad in scope that it was illegal to even sell a garden hose since you would use a garden hose to water your marijuana plants.

All the head shops pulled all their merchandise and a few people even got arrested but in the end the law was repealed and I once again all the head shops are selling drug paraphernalia.
God no! Not Garden hoses!!! lol

[LindaMight]

Regarding the home address or "place of business conducted" reg and not wanting my home address broadcast all over the net,,,, I have an opportunity tomorrow to look at an office space that is 200 sq ft and is priced so reasonable and includes utilities and parking, I know it won't last. My question now is......am I jumping the gun in renting out space if there is a chance I won't have to do so?
A year's lease is a fair amount of money for an office that will seldom get used other than to hold documents and be around for the big invasion!

|angry|
Linda

[RawAlex]

Linda, truly... consult a lawyer before you spend any money on any thing.

Alex

[Wenchy]

Will we need to send 2257 info to GG&J to cover our avatars? There are some mighty perverted little pixels floating around here :D

(I couldn't help myself... all in the name of cd's levity heehee)

[RawAlex]

wenchy, actually i think you will see many sigs and avatars will be blocked banned or chatboard no longer accept not sure how that get handled.

Alex

[Sinistress]

Hentai industry will drastically grow in popularity lol

[HornyHeather]

Linda, I rented my space, was cheap thru a friend, but I am on a month to month basis...And there is someone there 8 hours a day...best part if they would come in, I am only 2 blocks down the road..

Think of one thing, are you going to be there if they coma knocking? or will someone be there? Just giving you some of my thoughts on it.

[Sinistress]

I guess one idea might be for a group of webmasters that live in the same general area to rent an office space together, share it, keep documentation there, and have "shifts" that total up to 20 hrs a week where one of 'em will go in & ...do whatever. It could be set up however they want...

[tickler]

Of course they`ll take the backdoor approach. Why else would they call it getting fucked up the ass?

And to anyone worried about posting thier home address. Simple solution. Set up video surveillance of your home and or signage declaring so. It`s pretty cheap and easy with a cam and video recorder or even your computer. ;)
And I was thinking a wood-chipper under a trap door on the front step! |devil|

On the comment about paying someone a $1 to maintain the records. How about if we hired the content providers to maintain the stuff as they already have it?

[Cleo]

I just had a paysite owner call me a bit upset about all of this. They wanted to hire someone to find the URLs of all their stuff and put together the required 2257 stuff at a rather large cost. I suggested that before they spend a lot of money paying someone to do this they should hire a lawyer to advise them on these types of matters. This lead to the question on how does one go about finding a lawyer for this type of matters?

So besides readonly calling lawyers out of the Yellow Pages what is the best way to find a local lawyer who is knowledgable in this type of stuff?

[PhoneMistress]

http://www.martindale.com/xp/Martindale/home.xml

Off the top of my head Martindale-Hubbell is a good start. You can search by area of expertise and check the rating of an attorney assuming s/he is listed.

[Ms Naughty]

Just a thought I am having.

RawAlex is saying that cropping an image doesn't help because the original was hardcore.

But that section about DVD boxcovers that I quote earlier says that if you publish an image of a boxcover, it's considered to be a whole new image. Well, wouldn't publishing a cropped photo constitute creating a "new image". If it doesn't depict sexually explicit behavior, then it's not under the 2257 laws.

I was pondering this because I found myself wondering about my sites where I'm selling DVDs and I've copied the boxcover from the online store - "republishing it" according to the DOJ. If I censor the boxcover so that it is no longer explicit, I've just published a softcore photo...

So this becomes one of those unenforceable laws like Cleo talked about. How are the people at the DOJ going to KNOW that the softcore pictures you're using are really softcore or were originally hardcore. They can only go on what they see.

Again, just vague speculation on my part.

[cd34]

I don't know if Steve Workman is still a gun for hire -- he is in Ft. Lauderdale and had been working with CEN almost exclusively a while back, but, still had his practice.

SexBizLaw.com/Fred Lane has a section on 2257 and has a listing of attorneys behind lock & key ($29.95 membership for a month)

When I was looking for an attorney and accountant, I grabbed the yellow pages and said:

I work with legal adult entertainment sites, before I waste any more of your time or mine, do you have a problem with that? You don't want an attorney that will drop you because he doesn't want his name associated with an undesirable case.

After knocking out 85% of the attornies and accountants, I interviewed a few until I found someone that I liked working with.

Or, recommendations from other people. I'll try and find out who a few clients have retained. I know a few have recently signed retainers.

[LindaMight]

Linda, I rented my space, was cheap thru a friend, but I am on a month to month basis...And there is someone there 8 hours a day...best part if they would come in, I am only 2 blocks down the road..

Think of one thing, are you going to be there if they coma knocking? or will someone be there? Just giving you some of my thoughts on it.

Ok, I've changed my strategy. I am going to ask my attorney (the one who now holds the ID's for my two guests and George and I), if he would like to be on our Board of Directors. Then I am going to ask him if I can pay a small fee to house a computer and all of the documents relating to my website. He is the attorney I sought when we incorporated and he runs things strictly by the books when it comes to corporations. So, what better person to be on my Board of Directors? This might solve the problem of someone having to be at the office all the time in case of inspection. Then again, I haven't asked him yet either.

And as I work on this computer updating my website, and as I work for my "real" job on this computer from home, I am going to each day link all of the lindamight images to models, (again, all four of us), an hour a day until done.
|angry| Linda

[tofu]

lots of work ahead, for err'body....

BTW - I missed you all!

[HornyHeather]

That is probabley your best bet, House your PC? You will have to go there everytime you want to update?
I have been linking my galleries to my 2257 since I heard this may happen months back and already have a jump on my urls to pictures, although I have a long way to go, I think your strategy might work, an hour a day till its done..Yeah I think I may not go insane from that! LOL

Question, I had a model that I do have a copy of her id, and she signed releases, however I lost contact with her months back, Do I have to have her current location? Cause I dunno where she is now? She split and left her husband Ugh!

[HornyHeather]

Wait a sec... Now being my Members Area is locked from the public..I still have to do it in there? That doesnt even sound right, nobody can see them except for paying members. Although the asses that made these damned laws are idiots

[LindaMight]

That is probabley your best bet, House your PC? You will have to go there everytime you want to update?
I have been linking my galleries to my 2257 since I heard this may happen months back and already have a jump on my urls to pictures, although I have a long way to go, I think your strategy might work, an hour a day till its done..Yeah I think I may not go insane from that! LOL

Question, I had a model that I do have a copy of her id, and she signed releases, however I lost contact with her months back, Do I have to have her current location? Cause I dunno where she is now? She split and left her husband Ugh!

Yep an hour a day....every f**king day...til it's done....every single f**king day...:)

I am not sure about the model who moved, BUT, it seems to me that a lot of people move and don't notify every single person they have been associated with, but then we're dealing with Big Brother here too. I would think that as long as it was the address where she lived when she modeled and you have her ID, if the Feds want to find her, they will.

|dizzy| |dizzy| |angry|

[HornyHeather]

You have a point there...LOL

[RawAlex]

I have never seen anything that would require you to keep up to date information on a model - only information up to date at the time of filming. However, that is one of the reasons why it is important to execute a new model release each time you film (plus is shows consent for each episode you shoot). It means that if address info changes, you will get the latest info.

MORE PAPER! :)

grandmascrotum: The problem is you are required to store the original image. The model release traces back to the original HARDCORE image, not to your new "cropped" image. Under that logic, a CP image of a naked 14 year old cropped would suddenly jump the fence and be legal... even if the underlying image isn't. Not exactly sure how that would work.

DVD box covers as a whole are a work of themselves, but they too have models and source images and so on... I am really not sure where the line gets drawn, but I can say without a doubt: When you are not sure, err on the side of being sure.

Alex

Alex

[SirMoby]

Don't the regulations clearly state that the url will be required for images published AFTER June 23, 2005? I've read section 75.2 (a) 1 a few times it it seems that

"For any performer portrayed in such a depiction after June 23, 2005, the records shall include"

(ii) Where the depiction is published on an Internet computer site
or service, a copy of any URL associated with the depiction or, if no
URL is associated with the depiction, another uniquely identifying
reference associated with the location of the depiction on the
Internet.

I'm prepared to go back to every url I have but it seems this paragraph means that we don't have to.

[Mr. Blue]

Driver's licenses with some stuff blacked out is legit to use as proof? It has name, dob, and picture.

Also, umm, inspection of the records...if you just kept this stuff burned on a dvd and when they came for an inspection you just gave them that...would that suffice or would they need a way to access the files at your residence? Honestly the idea of tossing them a dvd with all the info and telling them to fuck off (in a nice way of course) sounds less intrusive.

[HornyHeather]

Sir Moby I am thinking the same thing..at least that is what it looks like

[RawAlex]

SirMoby, you have to read further. The no URL thing is for dynamically generated pages or scripted pages where you cannot always say that the image will appear on such and such a page - or that the image on that page may be different on each visit (picture a daily gallery page, example). Otherwise, it is URL to IMAGE records, from what I could see.

Mr Blue, it's your place of business. Please read the whole section that describes exactly how a visit will happen.

... and they will happen, I am sure.

Alex

[HornyHeather]

Alex do you think there is a slim chance in hell anything will be changed by then? Just curious

[RawAlex]

Heather, I feel that one or more groups will move to get an injunction in court before the effective date. There would appear to me to be enough items of interest within the rules as well as "on point" judgements to merit some time before the courts.

That being said, I would not base my business entirely on hoping the courts do the right thing. Depending on the venue, injunctive relief could be refused but an appeal put in line for a later date.

I am hoping. I wouldn't count on it.

Alex

[Qon]

how does this affect companies who are based in the us but have foreign offices where their records are stored?

[RawAlex]

damnq, us based means that it is likely the rules apply to you - and doubly important, you need to think about model IDs for your overseas models.

Alex

[Wenchy]

SirMoby, you have to read further. The no URL thing is for dynamically generated pages or scripted pages where you cannot always say that the image will appear on such and such a page - or that the image on that page may be different on each visit (picture a daily gallery page, example). Otherwise, it is URL to IMAGE records, from what I could see.

Alex
Hmm, you've got me thinking. So... (merely conjecture here and a ton of wishful thinking) if I use a banner rotator that would make me exempt by virtue of the "dynamic" nature of the page, provided I'm interpreting this correctly. Interesting... veddy interesting |devil|

That having been said, in further ponderings over the course of the day, I've almost decided that this whole debacle could turn out to be a good thing (provided they drop the retroactive shit!).

And before you all decide to come after me with pitchforks, hear me out...

I've been screaming for years that giving away free hardcore porn was tantamount to shooting ourselves in the foot. Furthermore, I'm also an advocate of text over banners whenever, wherever, and as often as possible. I have absolutely no doubt that softcore content providers will be coming out of the woodwork in the very near future which will provide us with "safe" and "compliant" filler for our pages. Sponsors will also begin creating "2257 compliant" ad tools, merely to save themselves the agony of mountains of paperwork.

If we're smart we can use this whole stinking mess to our advantage. "Hey, Joe Surfer... you want hardcore? Your freeloading days are over, pallie... too bad, so sad. Cough up the green or do without!" We could all see a HUGE jump in revenues if we're smart enough to seize the opportunity in front of us.

Trust me... anybody who knows me will tell you I'm certainly no Pollyanna and I realize there are still questions about what is deemed "obscene" and whether or not "censored" pictures fall into that category, but things are what they are and I for one am open to exploring alternatives that will keep me in business for a long time to come. If we are forced to change, surfers will be forced to change with us and that could be a good thing IMHO.

(Pardon the long post... I'm working a ton and a half of overtime lately and I don't have the luxury of posting my thoughts one at a time! ;) )

[Qon]

damnq, us based means that it is likely the rules apply to you - and doubly important, you need to think about model IDs for your overseas models.

Alex


alex, wasn't asking if the rules apply... i know they apply. it just doesn't say anywhere in the law that my records keeping location has 2 b in the US. if my primary place of business is not my US location, but my foreign location, technically that's the place i would keep them housed anyhow... its not breaking the law, just makes it more difficult for them to enforce it on those who keep records outside of the continental US.



...

[N J]

maybe GG&J should consider making a 2257 section
I think theres gonna be a huge amount of topics on this

like sponsors posting info on their content and hosted gallerys
what webmasters are doing to comply etc etc
this is an important issue and webmasters should have easy access to infomation

anybody else like the idea

Definately in for this! |thumb

[RawAlex]

damnq, I agree, nothing says you have to have the records in the US, but remember this:

Any producer required by this part to maintain records shall make such records available at the producer's place of business

Where exactly do you do the business of producing websites. As a primary producer, you might have your records is thailand or where ever it is you shoot your stuff, that could be the place of business for the primary producer. However, as secondary producer (actually putting the stuff on websites) if you do that business from within the US, then your records as secondary producer likely need to be there.

I wouldn't build, create, or operate websites in the US without having the 2257 info in the office. That's my take, anyway.

Your domain is registered in Florida. That is where they are going to go looking.

Alex

[Qon]

damnq, I agree, nothing says you have to have the records in the US, but remember this:



Where exactly do you do the business of producing websites. As a primary producer, you might have your records is thailand or where ever it is you shoot your stuff, that could be the place of business for the primary producer. However, as secondary producer (actually putting the stuff on websites) if you do that business from within the US, then your records as secondary producer likely need to be there.

I wouldn't build, create, or operate websites in the US without having the 2257 info in the office. That's my take, anyway.

Your domain is registered in Florida. That is where they are going to go looking.

Alex



i'm not saying this applies to me, btw.... i'm just asking a question :). but if the person creates websites, manages websites & conducts the production of all of it overseas even though the principle physical office is in the US, then they are entitled to store them & make them available at either location. i know most people will not be able to do this, but for those who can..... interesting option.



...

[RawAlex]

damnq, it's pretty unavoidable - a US based company better have records in the US. I wouldn't want DOJ knocking on my door (It's a bit far for them to go, but that is another story) and asking for records, and all I can say is "no, they are in XXXXXXXXXXXXna". I think you can see how that really wouldn't fly, especially if the US company or individual is the beneficial owner of the content or the websites.

Some people are suggesting stuff can be done with offshore trusts, holding companies, double blind trusts (a trust, held be a trust) etc. Besides some practical issues, everyone needs to spend time looking at the tax code to see what would do to them, and what you would have to declare anyway.

If you are a US citizen running porn sites, well, I think every lawyer would say "keep the records".

Alex

[Qon]

ok, you're missing my point.... i'll leave it @ that ;)




..

[RawAlex]

NO, actually, I think I understand completely - but I think you are confusing primary and secondary producer. If the person or company in the US is involved in the publication of a website then they are secondary producer and need records, even if most of the work is done outside. If the US company is the beneficial owner of the websites in any way, then they are likely secondary producers and need records.

The only way this works is if everyone involved is outside the US, the company is outside the US, and all the people who work on, produce, or pay for production of the content are outside the US. Once you get a solid connection to the US, someone is keeping records.

I know some people are going to try putting it all offshore, but unless they put themselves offshore too, they are running a huge risk (google for tax evasion offshore trust and similar terms). The DOJ ain't joking! ;)

Alex

[WolfTexas]

I've been screaming for years that giving away free hardcore porn was tantamount to shooting ourselves in the foot. Furthermore, I'm also an advocate of text over banners whenever, wherever, and as often as possible. I have absolutely no doubt that softcore content providers will be coming out of the woodwork in the very near future which will provide us with "safe" and "compliant" filler for our pages. Sponsors will also begin creating "2257 compliant" ad tools, merely to save themselves the agony of mountains of paperwork.

If we're smart we can use this whole stinking mess to our advantage. "Hey, Joe Surfer... you want hardcore? Your freeloading days are over, pallie... too bad, so sad. Cough up the green or do without!" We could all see a HUGE jump in revenues if we're smart enough to seize the opportunity in front of us.

Trust me... anybody who knows me will tell you I'm certainly no Pollyanna and I realize there are still questions about what is deemed "obscene" and whether or not "censored" pictures fall into that category, but things are what they are and I for one am open to exploring alternatives that will keep me in business for a long time to come. If we are forced to change, surfers will be forced to change with us and that could be a good thing IMHO.

(Pardon the long post... I'm working a ton and a half of overtime lately and I don't have the luxury of posting my thoughts one at a time! ;) )

Very good point. Agreed! This is going to shake up the industry and possibly put some legitimacy on some of the business. It will kill our site, because we jumped in at the wrong time and have no capital built up to support the process, but for those of our friends that have been in business a while with the resources to follow through, it will be an astounding benefit.

What saddens me is that there won't be the outlet for people with sexual desires to exhibit. Business is fine, but self expression is now hindered. Oh well. Such is life in modern Christian dominated America.

I guess our class system is going to continue to be built along religious lines, and politics is the avenue. So much for separation of church and State.

Those that continue in the industry, be warned. Our religiously based extreme rightwing government is fast approaching a time when webmasters, models and affiliated parties will all be prosecuted as sex offenders. Then all the overly inclusive generalities mentioned here and everywhere else about child molesters and pedophiles will incorporate not just those with definitive problems in making good judgements (true molesters and pedophiles), but also legitimate (albeit illegitimate in the eyes of Jonny Gov) business people who will have to register as sex offenders and suffer the lifelong abuse of not being able to provide for themselves or families because our beloved government has been put in place to legislate morality at the expense of personal safety and decency.

As a further explanation, please remember, that not all sex offenders are currently people that abduct or molest children, but sometimes people that are in a consentual relationship (even some without proven sexual activity) where someone got mad and decided to prosecute for rape or a similar, perhaps even legitimate, story, that get lumped in and ostricized as being dangers to society.

We, too, as industry "personnel" could be lumped into this group if our current administration and legislative bodies continue down this road. The ACLU, et al, haven't aided in stemming this tide as much as was once the case. And this is due in large part to the DOJ or similar bodies "shoring up" policies that will benefit their theocratic agendas in the name of either getting re-elected or proving their "worth" to task of their job.

Protestant America is slowly reverting to the age of the Crusades, and we're looking down the barrel of the gun. Be careful how you proceed!

For those of you with nothing to lose, and everything to gain, I applaud your decision to perservere, but if the revisions to 2257 don't get derailed, we won't be part of the new success. We're too small, and too remote to avoid the disaster of being prosecuted for the many things that this Pandora's box is bound to impose on the industry. We won't risk it.

In this case, I am not bitter, but it is growing more and more apparent, that in the "modern America" the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

Wolf.

PS...in most states, we've all done something that can be construed as a sex offense. Have you ever leared at anyone without their knowledge (underage or not) and thought illicit or lacivious thoughts? That's a sex offense in at least half the states of our country. Beware the thought police!

[RawAlex]

As I mentioned elsewhere, the May23rd edition of Business Week had a very interesting article regarding the evangelistic christians in the south, how they have propped up Bush in the last election, and how they now want to get paid back bigtime. Most of these groups (names like Orsteen, cerflo dollar and others) run mega churches, often preaching to tens of thousands of people each week. They have wide reaching television programs (Orsteen claims 7 million viewers a week) and the have best selling books. Their goal is a literal interpretation of the bible as directly what god said, and that makes porn a big no-no.

Their stated goal is to get enough seats in the senate to be able to get past the fillibuster, so they can install as many hyper conservative judges as possible into the federal courts - including 2 or even 3 potential supreme court seats in the next few years.

It would take probably 20 - 30 years to undo the damage this would cause.

The crusade isn't against us directly. It's against all things "non christian" in america, all the things they see as bad. We are but one of those things.

Alex

[ArtWilliams]

Also with thumbtgp's i bet ya will see alot of them just have faces now .

Also if you didnt know it already but all .com domains are governed by the laws in the state of Georgia so ? is ok say ya live in germany and ya have a .com domain will this affect that certain site I mean since they wont be able to prosecute the offenders for non record keeping can it get yanked off line or ???

Is this true? I would be interested in a URL if you have one. I thought that all domain names were the property of ICANN and we has holders of the names have an exclusive right to use them. ICANN is a international private/public partnership according to my research. This is not to be confused with the contract you have with the company from which you bought the domain and the state of the contract listed in the terms of service or user agreement.

More info if you have it please. Thanks.

-- Art

[Qon]

ok, lemme clarify once more.

business A is incorporated & maintains a business office in the US for accounting & collection purposes. business A does most of its production and work (online & offline) at another office not in the continental US. business A maintains all its records at its PRIMARY place of business overseas (us company operating with permission in a foreign country)

business B is incorporated & maintains a biz office in the continental US AND does most of its production & work (online & offline) at that very office in the US. biz B maintains all records at that office as required by the regs.

now, the problem lies in inspection where they may find some sort of discrepancy or violation. which biz do you think they are more likely to attempt to prosecute & do an inspection on? no one is breaking the law, both businesses are complying, its just less likely they will be going out of the continental US to conduct an inspection as that would involve money, time & jurisdictional issues.

this however is NOT feasible for the majority of invidividuals who are in the online adult biz as a "side job" because most cats have no idea how to live in another country nor would they want to. but it certainly looks like an option. the only way they could force you to produce documents in court is if there is some question of a model's age that would convince a judge to compell the company to produce them. if you aren't fuckin with "teen" shit, that won't happen.

talk to your attorney, but i do think i'm correct (i've already sent this info to mine to be sure).



..

[WolfTexas]

The crusade isn't against us directly. It's against all things "non christian" in america, all the things they see as bad. We are but one of those things.

Alex

Dually noted, and agreed. This is perhaps the widest sweeping step towards Christian National Socialism that has ever been seen. What is going on isn't genocide such as Nazi Germany in the early to mid 1900's, but instead a Theocide to generate the Christian homeland.

Your mention of being paid back is true. And they found the perfect fall guy for the job. President Bush. He's seeing his job idealistically, and not with malice in his mind (he's not that smart). What we all need to be aware of, is the OTHER elected officials and appointed members to the legal and governmental systems of our country.

I used to vote republican nationally, and largely democrat locally. My sense for fair play has definitely garnered a needed overturn or our populated rightwing bodies and return to a middle ground where, those of us with extreme liberal views and those of us with extreme conservative views are moderated with a sense of fair play. Ahhh, utopian thought. How simpleminded of me, eh?

Wolf.

[SexVideoContent]

If we're smart we can use this whole stinking mess to our advantage. "Hey, Joe Surfer... you want hardcore? Your freeloading days are over, pallie... too bad, so sad. Cough up the green or do without!" We could all see a HUGE jump in revenues if we're smart enough to seize the opportunity in front of us.

Trust me... anybody who knows me will tell you I'm certainly no Pollyanna and I realize there are still questions about what is deemed "obscene" and whether or not "censored" pictures fall into that category, but things are what they are and I for one am open to exploring alternatives that will keep me in business for a long time to come. If we are forced to change, surfers will be forced to change with us and that could be a good thing IMHO.
I think you're absolutely right for US based webmasters and US based paysites.

However I also think that the majority of TGP submitters are not based in the US and this will probably not affect them in the slightest. When you also consider that some of the biggest paysites are foreign based and have no need to comply with 2257 or any US laws for that matter, this is probably not going to affect the availability of hardcore and free hardcore at all. TGP owners (the biggest of which are all foreign based anyway) will probably start accepting more galleries hardcore galleries from foreigners instead of the softcore from the US.

I sincerely hope I'm wrong about that, but it seems like a good possibility.

Actually since foreign companies will now have a bigger share of the profits, there could very well be a large increase in the number of hardcore websites run by foreign companies, and since they will not be as concerned about US obscenity laws, there might very well be a huge increase in the number of extreme hardcore sites available on the foreign market.

If Bush thought the internet was 'dirty' now just wait until he sees what giving an advantage to countries that permit bestiality and such does.

[RawAlex]

damnq, I agree with you - except for one little thing:

Company "a" with the accounting & collection office in the US is collecting for what? Porn site access? They are the commercial part of selling those websites. They are entered into a commercial agreement or conspiracy (I love that word in a ruling) to sell porn. While I am not real sure on this, it makes them part of the commericization and as a result, they may have to have records.

You need to watch this law closely, it is written backwards - it state exception rather than who is included. Unless you specifically find an exclusion that coveres you 100%, then you are included.

I don't disagree with you, but I think it is much closer to the edge than you think.

Alex

[SexVideoContent]

They have wide reaching television programs (Orsteen claims 7 million viewers a week) and the have best selling books. Their goal is a literal interpretation of the bible as directly what god said, and that makes porn a big no-no.


This is exactly why I have mentioned (on another board) the possibilty of using some ad space on TGP's and LL's as a news forum. Between only a few of the big players in this industry they have the ability to make a headline or two reach more people in one day than most newspapers and some large television networks. This industry has concerns about its freedoms, why not use this to an advantage? Forget for a second the thought of using every last pixel to advertise something with a ref code and instead use a very small portion of TGP's and LL's as a legitimate source of news to communicate to the masses issues that may affect their freedoms.

This not only would give a voice to people in this industry but would also further help protect adult websites as a legitimate source of news deserving of the protection of free speech.

And people might pay attention to headlines about their rights being violated if they see a pair of tits next to the story |mml|

[RawAlex]

... and finally this:

the revisions and "administrative rule clarifications" of USC 18 section 2256 and 2257 are significant parts of your business. They have repercussions for you and your business that can greatly affect your life, not just you bank account. You could spend up to 10 years in a federal butt slammin' prison. You could end up with all of your assets, business and person, seized as evidence and locked up for years before you see the end of it.

You could be labeled as a CP provider, even if you think all your models are over 18. Think of the headline "Bob can't prove model age, feds shut down site" followed by a nice article about how it is likely some of your models were underage or using fake ID, or how you might helped them with fake ID, etc.

There is some potential you could become a registered sex offender.

Consult a lawyer, one that is versed in 2257 and the adult industry. Don't trust the lawyer down the street unless they have spent time on the subject. There is 15 years of history in this law, it isn't something you can pickup overnight and understand. Don't base your business on "software solutions" or "offshore hideouts" that people are offering without first getting a good and vlaid legal opinion about what it all means.

For individual webmasters, cam girls, and others... sorry, but in plain terms, sucks to be you right now. You are left with a few very poor choices, most of which involve revealing your home address, full name, and other materials to the public at large. I know that for many of you, this represents a hardship so high, that you are likely to leave the business or completely change the way you do business, which in the end will remove either the fun and/or profit you have been making in the past. The government is saying to you "either in the pool or out of the pool, no just dipping your toe in the water". For that, I am truly sorry, and I am sad for you.

I am sad that I am already getting emails, PMs, and ICQs from people either selling sites or telling me that stuff will go 404. Upheaval is not good for business, and people are getting hurt. It sucks in a most major way.

Chatboards, discussion groups, and such are a great way to share the pain and share the results of discussions with lawyers and others. But at the end of the day, the only sound (and bankable) advice will come straight from a lawyer, not anyone posting on a board. While I am confident that I understand the new 2257 rules fairly well, my answers are all IMHO stuff and not something to make your business decisions from. this is a great place to share so much, but your decisions must be based on facts, not rumors.

Careful out there!

Alex

[Tommy]

I would like to point out to everybody here that we owe Raw Alex a huge thank you, and a huge favor

he has spent a lot of time and effort to help us out by anwsering questions and by reading and I am sure rereading the new laws

[PhoneMistress]

Thank you, Alex. I have been reading bits and pieces on all of the boards and rarely do I post. I must say that your comments have been greatly appreciated.

[cellinis]

Tommy,
I second that mate! Alex has really worked a lot on this for almost everyone else. (If I were a girl, I'd give you a big hug... but considering I ain't, it just might be contrued as homosexuality that in Christian America might label both of us heretics...) damn I am blabbing... going over and making inventory of free sites and galleries and other things seems to be getting to my head lol.

I am still unclear how they can apply the law backwards when the changed law only comes into effect June 23 2005. This just can't be legal!

[rollergirl]

I was wondering and it was mentioned earlier, is this retroactive in that images created after June 23 are under this revision. I can abide reasonably with new content, but retroactive seems unconstitutional. Things that were fine under the old version should not be problems under the revison. Is there any clarification on this??

[Toby]

Katie, this includes anything produced after July 3, 1995

[SexVideoContent]

I was wondering and it was mentioned earlier, is this retroactive in that images created after June 23 are under this revision. I can abide reasonably with new content, but retroactive seems unconstitutional. Things that were fine under the old version should not be problems under the revison. Is there any clarification on this??
I think the arguement they're going to make is that every time an image appears on someone's monitor, it is at that moment being 'republished' and subject to the new regs. So it doesn't really matter when it was uploaded to the server initially according to them.

[abe]

Hey Alex. Tommy is right. You're doing a great job here. It's much appreciated :)

[Linkster]

I guess the only real question I have in the back of my mind right now - I tend to think of Google and a thumb tgp as the same thing - as I never touch the thumbs - its all done by script when the submitter is submitting - seems that would be the exact same thing the Googleimage bot is doing
More importantly is the question of the Google/Yahoo/Archive.org caches of pages - I think these would have a bunch more implications than the thumb tgps as they are actually (although again by machine) storing copies of pages including images and serving those images from their servers - sounds like secondary publisher to me but then Im not a lawyer.

[cd34]

Another attorney representing three of my clients:

Larry Walters:
http://www.firstamendment.com/

[cellinis]

Hey Linkster
You can be sure they will not be affected. Before they go down for 2257, they should be indicted on copyright infringement. Storing (read Stealing) my content, publishing it on their own servers, without my explicit permission, and then selling it (as internet archives)... I can rant on but this is besides the point.
My lawyer says new 2257 can not be applicable to content produced/published before the changes in the laws were made. But again, it is just one legal opinion and there will be many other that will follow.
Retroactive application of law is both illogical and illegal in most parts of the world... take an analogy that comes to my mind. Age of marriage today, 18 years. Age of marriage a 100 years ago, 14 (or 16, I can't remember). Somebody go tell my grandpa he is a bastard lol You better be wearing a Kevlar jacket!
But the issue will only be clarified after a couple of court decisions... so we can only try and comply and then hope for the best. I know I can't fully comply with the new rules but well...

[pornrex]

I would like to point out to everybody here that we owe Raw Alex a huge thank you, and a huge favor

he has spent a lot of time and effort to help us out by anwsering questions and by reading and I am sure rereading the new laws
Thanks Raw Alex...in this troubled sea of beaurocratic garbage, you have indeed been a beacon - at least to me.

[rollergirl]

Katie, this includes anything produced after July 3, 1995
Thank you :)

Cleaning house, I have so many content providers that won't give me the docs I need. Nice! One told me they were in a box in his garage and it would take too long to find them for me. (That was last summer when I started getting my docs in order).

Sponsor content.. don't see us getting the docs for that either. Sigh

[Boogie]

Once again, I'm not entirely sure why we need docs as affilates of these programs.

I think a strong case can be made that says

The photographer is the primary publisher
Nastydollars is the secondary publisher

I am the small reseller similar to a news stand that sells the finished article.

Or is that too big of a stretch?

[RawAlex]

One last important note: This is not a new law, this is not a new act of congress. It might look like it, but in reality it is some sort of administrative clarification. That too is subject to a previous court decision shooting it down, but that is another issue.

As a result, this is a law that has an effective date of July 3rd, 1995. You didn't know it but you may have been breaking the law for 10 years.

Seriously. Ask a laywer.

Alex

[Qon]

thanks for the replies alex... i just wanted to point it out for discussion but i will definitely see what my attorney thinks... i forwarded the full document to her & will of course get her opinion on what i asking. good luck everyone!



...

[SirMoby]

I would like to point out to everybody here that we owe Raw Alex a huge thank you, and a huge favor

he has spent a lot of time and effort to help us out by anwsering questions and by reading and I am sure rereading the new laws
Sometimes we forget the most obvious things and the fact thta RawAlex deserves a big thank you (maybe even donations) is obvious.

Thank you RawAlex. Thank you Tommy for reminded me.

[Toby]

Once again, I'm not entirely sure why we need docs as affilates of these programs...The 10th Circuit Court has already agreed with you once, in Sundance Associates v. Reno. They essentially said that entities which have no role in the "hiring, contracting for, managing, or otherwise arranging for the participation" of the models or performers, are exempt from the record-keeping requirements of 18 U.S.C. 2257.

I will be watching with great interest to see how the court rules this time.

[plateman]

Yeah and very good reading been keeping tabs on this thread and a big thank you for raw alex... |waves|

[rollergirl]

One last important note: This is not a new law, this is not a new act of congress. It might look like it, but in reality it is some sort of administrative clarification. That too is subject to a previous court decision shooting it down, but that is another issue.

Alex
Hmm.. yes.. I see what you are saying, but third party doc holders are no longer allowed with this new revision. This would cover the sponsor content. Many purchased content providers just told us to LINK to their 2257 page or sent the address for the custodial of records for the content we bought from them. So everyone who was in compliance as it were might not still be. Cross referencing is new too right? Clarifications would seem more like revisions IMHO. BTW .. even upon asking for the right documentation (as I said before) for content we purchased from reputable and popular providers.. I got the 'no can do'. Only one provider we asked stepped up to the plate and sent over every thing we needed ASAP. We've been buying content since 1998. HELLOOOOOOOO

Thank you for taking the time to give insight though. |thumb

[ngb1959]

OMG this is confusing as hell.

I only use sponsor content. I put a link to their 2257 on my sites.

So do I have to have actual paper documents (print out of sponsor's 2257 page?) in my possession?

Can someone just put it in a nutshell for me. Kind of having brain cramps after reading all of these pages.

Thanks.

Nina

[terry]

Thanks Alex.

[rollergirl]

OMG this is confusing as hell.

I only use sponsor content. I put a link to their 2257 on my sites.

So do I have to have actual paper documents (print out of sponsor's 2257 page?) in my possession?

Can someone just put it in a nutshell for me. Kind of having brain cramps after reading all of these pages.

Thanks.

Nina

Well, I think that is the boat that many of us are in. I believe that you need the models documents for all the performers,if you host any of the content. This is how I read it. Now, will the sponsors give that up so we can continue to use it?

[Toby]

OMG this is confusing as hell...
...Can someone just put it in a nutshell for me.I'm in the essentially same boat, my main site uses only sponsor content. One of the biggest things that is changing is the definition of secondary producer. Under the revision that takes effect next month we are now classified as secondary producers and must keep the same records as the primary producer, for each and every model in each and every photo set (or portion thereof) you host on your own site.

As Katie has already found out, very few sponsors are going to be willing to give out that information to every affiliate.

If the court allows this to stand as written, it will cause major changes within the entire adult industry.

[terry]

Does anyone know if in all this the billing companies can get implicated? By this I mean will they go after my ccbill account? If I read correctly they can go after my hosting as it is in the US.

[Toby]

I don't see that billing companies have any obligations in relation to compliance with 2257.

However, you can bet your last dollar that if you get inspected and are found to not be in compliance, they'll use the seizure provisions to go after any funds not yet paid by CCbill or whatever other billing company is used. They have absolutely no intentions of playing nice.

[ngb1959]

What about the people that buy the subscriptions to the sites....I guess they have to have documentation too. I don't know, almost just kidding here.

Well, if it goes through, I'm going to put all mainstream on my existing sites and get banned from every one of the link lists on the internet.

But I'm not going to act rashly - just frustrated since I'm just starting to make decent money in this business.

Ok, enough ranting for today.

Have a good day/night all.

Nina

|pink |pink |pink

[emmanuelle]

Alex- since you are in Canada, and do not own a paysite (and thus need to be accountable to affiliates and billing companies) I would think that you are one of the lucky ones who can push hardcore easily, and perhaps have the advantage over others.

[emmanuelle]

Depending on which person's interpretation you believe, text links to explicit content, or hotlinked content may escape the requirements.

Could somebody not spend the $60 to set up a Canadian company and a hosting account in Canada to use as a content server?

[terry]

Could somebody not spend the $60 to set up a Canadian company and a hosting account in Canada to use as a content server?

Emmanuelle, know of any Canadian hosting companies we could use?

[emmanuelle]

There are a few, a couple here in Montreal but their names escape me at the moment. Mr Hoe knows more about the local hosting scene than I do, maybe he can help you.

[tickler]

The document makes reference to sites that onsell adult movies and says that publishing a picture of the DVD/Video cover on your site still makes you into a secondary producer who has to have documentation regarding the models on the cover.
Funny about that. I was going to ask around the boards who the male actor was that appeared in a scene with a shemale 'cause he wasn't listed on the box cover.

Now I am going to have to track down porn stars that aren't even listed.

RawAlex:
Interesting thought last night. I pretty sure that our privacy laws will not allow us to fully comply with the regs. So it sorta puts us in a catch-22 situation.

Now a NAFTA injuntion might just be possible. Gotta see what the legal eagles think!

[Barron]

every photo set (or portion thereof) you host on your own site.




I'm seeing the phrase photo set used alot. Also, the word server is used alot by people that are posting.




...otherwise manages the
sexually explicit content of a computer site or service that contains a
visual depiction



The regs are very specific about the word "depiction", that is singular, not plural.

The regs say "computer site or service". It makes no distinction between a "server" where its "located" or "who" the server belongs to or "who the domain belongs to".

If you have an image of sexually explicit conduct and crop the image to just the girls face, you now have a "new depiction". If you create a banner from a hardcore image, your banner is now a "new depiction".

But, that is just my opinion, contact a lawyer for his/her opinion.


_

EDIT:

crop the image to just the girls face, you now have a "new depiction" with nothing sexually explicit in the depiction.


-

[Prawnie]

Thankyou Alex for your time in this matter. It certainly has helped me out. Time is running out as we all know. Objections will hopefully be raised, however as I live in the UK, I am ignorant as to how the process in the US courts would develop.
I have scanned through the thread, my question is this?

Being the secondry producer living offshore of the US, with my business also offshore, how likely is it that the guys wearing dark glasses come knocking on my door? Being that my content is hosted on a US server, I use a US billing company and practically every sponser and primary producer is gonna laugh at me when I ask for personal details of the models we use on our sites?
Also, if the problem is big enough and the trend for people to "unload" their biz to offshore escalates, does the US judicial system and government have the powers to "persuade" foreign courts and organisations to track down "offenders" for their own gain? More to the point, would they bother going to such lengths to track down a foriegner who is breaking a US law?

I apologise if this has been asked before but I have just printed off the ruling and despite reading it many times, all I can make of it is it makes a really cool paper hat :)

[emmanuelle]

Also, if the problem is big enough and the trend for people to "unload" their biz to offshore escalates, does the US judicial system and government have the powers to "persuade" foreign courts and organisations to track down "offenders" for their own gain? More to the point, would they bother going to such lengths to track down a foriegner who is breaking a US law?





I can't see you being extradited for a clerical error

[Toby]

Prawnie, an article I was reading last night pointed out that the DOJ doesn't have enough resources to adequately investigate the CP cases it has now. I don't forsee many "inspections" taking place here in the US, let alone overseas. I do think there will be some inpections, arrests, and prosecutions. I think they will be few but very noisy.

The tragic part is that those who do get prosecuted, even if found innocent will have already lost everything long before being exhonorated.

[LindaMight]

Very good point. Agreed! This is going to shake up the industry and possibly put some legitimacy on some of the business. It will kill our site, because we jumped in at the wrong time and have no capital built up to support the process, but for those of our friends that have been in business a while with the resources to follow through, it will be an astounding benefit.

What saddens me is that there won't be the outlet for people with sexual desires to exhibit. Business is fine, but self expression is now hindered. Oh well. Such is life in modern Christian dominated America.

I guess our class system is going to continue to be built along religious lines, and politics is the avenue. So much for separation of church and State.

Those that continue in the industry, be warned. Our religiously based extreme rightwing government is fast approaching a time when webmasters, models and affiliated parties will all be prosecuted as sex offenders. Then all the overly inclusive generalities mentioned here and everywhere else about child molesters and pedophiles will incorporate not just those with definitive problems in making good judgements (true molesters and pedophiles), but also legitimate (albeit illegitimate in the eyes of Jonny Gov) business people who will have to register as sex offenders and suffer the lifelong abuse of not being able to provide for themselves or families because our beloved government has been put in place to legislate morality at the expense of personal safety and decency.

As a further explanation, please remember, that not all sex offenders are currently people that abduct or molest children, but sometimes people that are in a consentual relationship (even some without proven sexual activity) where someone got mad and decided to prosecute for rape or a similar, perhaps even legitimate, story, that get lumped in and ostricized as being dangers to society.

We, too, as industry "personnel" could be lumped into this group if our current administration and legislative bodies continue down this road. The ACLU, et al, haven't aided in stemming this tide as much as was once the case. And this is due in large part to the DOJ or similar bodies "shoring up" policies that will benefit their theocratic agendas in the name of either getting re-elected or proving their "worth" to task of their job.

Protestant America is slowly reverting to the age of the Crusades, and we're looking down the barrel of the gun. Be careful how you proceed!

For those of you with nothing to lose, and everything to gain, I applaud your decision to perservere, but if the revisions to 2257 don't get derailed, we won't be part of the new success. We're too small, and too remote to avoid the disaster of being prosecuted for the many things that this Pandora's box is bound to impose on the industry. We won't risk it.

In this case, I am not bitter, but it is growing more and more apparent, that in the "modern America" the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

Wolf.

PS...in most states, we've all done something that can be construed as a sex offense. Have you ever leared at anyone without their knowledge (underage or not) and thought illicit or lacivious thoughts? That's a sex offense in at least half the states of our country. Beware the thought police!

I don't like this grim forecast. In fact, it is the only message that I have read on five different message boards and pages and pages of messages that has scared me. If all of the above holds true, we should all close down NOW and never look back.

Linda

[Barron]

Prawnie, an article I was reading last night pointed out that the DOJ doesn't have enough resources to adequately investigate the CP cases it has now. I don't forsee many "inspections" taking place here in the US, let alone overseas. I do think there will be some inpections, arrests, and prosecutions. I think they will be few but very noisy.

The tragic part is that those who do get prosecuted, even if found innocent will have already lost everything long before being exhonorated.


I agree with this. With the lack of manpower, I envision the inspectors not caring about photographs they see where the models are obvisously way over 18. And then the only ones they will seek age docs on are the ones that really are "ify" as to rather or not they are 18.

I would really like to think that the DOJ are really using this as a tool to increase the jail time for the people who deal in cp. "We no longer have to prove you are dealing in cp. Now YOU have to prove your model IS 18. Let me see the docs!"

Speaking of that, does anybody know anybody that has acctually been inspected for age documentation? I mean, something more than just casual, "While we're here, lets see them". I'm talking about a visit for the sole purpose of inspection of docs.

Does anyone know anyone thats happened to? Aside from Traci Lords.


-

[LindaMight]

On a side note, aside from being scared of Wolf's prediction....

We have done it, we have rented office space, signed the lease today, effective June 1st, and am going to actually set up an office that will house not only one of our computers, but it will also house our documents that pertain to the identity of George and myself linked to all of the images and videos on my website. My other two friends that show up in just a few updates....well I am going to just ditch the pictures and the video. It didn't add a whole lot to the site. And even though I have their documentation, I figure the less I have to deal with the better. George and I are linking our own pictures to every single URL on our website and every mpeg and banner. And they will all be cross-referenced with our real names, stage names, and our company name. PLUS we have an appointment with our corporate attorney who took care of our incorporation six years ago to go over any details that we've missed.

My big question is this...... we do not show our faces in hardly any images or videos....nor did we show faces of the two friends of our. So, if we do not show faces, what good is the real ID anyway? How would anyone know it is me, or George, or either of our friends. ?? And would that not be the case with each and every porn picture where the face is obscure?

Linda |banghead| |banghead| |banghead|

[Prawnie]

Prawnie, an article I was reading last night pointed out that the DOJ doesn't have enough resources to adequately investigate the CP cases it has now. I don't forsee many "inspections" taking place here in the US, let alone overseas. I do think there will be some inpections, arrests, and prosecutions. I think they will be few but very noisy.

The tragic part is that those who do get prosecuted, even if found innocent will have already lost everything long before being exhonorated.

Thanks Toby and Barron. I read also about the lack of resources available. That last statement you wrote really hits home. :(

[Toby]

Barron, To my knowledge there's never been so much as a knock on someone's door.

One thing that does need to be kept in mind, these new regulations allow the DOJ to appoint local law enforcement to perform the inspection. I'm not sure that will happen much since the Fed's tend to be pretty territorial and don't care much for sharing the spotlight.

[Barron]

On a side note, aside from being scared of Wolf's prediction....

My big question is this...... we do not show our faces in hardly any images or videos....nor did we show faces of the two friends of our. So, if we do not show faces, what good is the real ID anyway? How would anyone know it is me, or George, or either of our friends. ?? And would that not be the case with each and every porn picture where the face is obscure?

Linda |banghead| |banghead| |banghead|


Put yourself in the position of the inspector. You are looking at a picture of a guy and girl that is having sexual intercourse. The woman has breasts and pubic hair. Ok, the girl has reached puberty. The guy has pubic hair. Ok, he has reached puberty. But, since I cant see the faces, are the models 16 or 26?

Without a clear indication that the models are over 18, or at least an indication that a reasonable person could tell by looking at the faces, I would be looking for the 2257 info, wouldnt you?


-