Which Spons are Ready for 2257 Change?

[guitar riff]

I think alot of us webmasters want to know who is getting the required documents that we will need. Like for some of us that have used spons content in th epast will either need to know if they have or do not have the proper docs, so that we can add the info to our records or delete the whole kitten kaboodle. I dont know about any others but I want to get started on this ASAP so I dont STRESS OUT anymore.

I know in the search engine chat wednesday night TopBucksTrixxxie said Top Bucks would probrably know something by friday and Jay from OC Cash said they were working on this issue too.

[cd34]

I think many sponsors are going over the requirements right now -- the final text of the new law was only released Monday, in front of a holiday weekend.

I know several sponsors that are working feverishly right now to get things squared away, so, while there is a huge time crunch, I would imagine you'll see some announcements this week. The issue right now is that expsting content that was 2257 compliant didn't need the photo ID of the models as it was held by the primary producer. So, all of the content producers are being flooded with requests to get all of the existing content id/license agreements/model releases, etc. to forward to the sponsors so they can digitize it and forward it to the affiliates.

My personal guess is that you will see a lot of hosted galleries & freesites coming from sponsors in the interim.

[RawAlex]

Actually, my personal guess is that you will see some programs dropping sites and generally having a panic in the next little bit, as they come to realize that some of their content is not longer compliant (the ID not acceptable) and so on. Hold on to your shorts, it's gonna be a fun ride.

Alex

[guitar riff]

Damn this ride sucks I got a Wedgie :-)

[Paul Markham2]

A lot of content providers will not be allowing sponsors to give out 2257 documents to any affiliate who asks. They see the danger in going that route.

What this law means is no sexually explicit content to US based affiliates.

The companies that have models stalked because someone gave an ID out are going to be very lucky if they do not get sued. Best to use model releases that actually state you can freely distribute the models IDs.

The sites claim will be "The goverment made me do it" the counter claim will be, "Not with this content, it was not allowed and the goverment said if you can't comply close down"

This is not only a stalkers law, it's an ambulance chasing lawyers law as well.

[guitar riff]

Paul that theory is OK but one flaw doesnt matter if they are outside the US if they market to the US they are still responsible to the law.

And I agreee with the stalking theory not only the models but just wait til the bible thumpers in the bible belt find out timmy the holy roller does porn on the side.

And another note if ya think about it Ok you and any others that run a content site you show previews of the pics or movie still right . You market to webmasters in the US as well as anywhere else in the world So In other words You Are required to post the 2257 info also and that includes the model ID's your home address and name and so on ... am I correct in my reading of the amendment?

So what will happen down the road if all goes to shit and law stays the way it is written right now with no amendments to it . I see alot of girls not venturing down the porn road and risking the exposure.
Maybe I'm wrong but thats just my opinion

[Qon]

i won't be releasing any content for promotions.... not necessary, not gonna happen. no way i'm putting people's info out like that... if the government wants to verify that someone is of age, come on thru my spot & i'll let them & them only see it.




....

[cd34]

So Paul, by that same token, you're going to be limiting who you sell to?

I.e. you'll sell to sponsors, but not individual webmasters in the USA? Or did you not sell to small webmasters in the past?

[Qon]

Paul that theory is OK but one flaw doesnt matter if they are outside the US if they market to the US they are still responsible to the law.


this is not true.... if an affiliate is outside the US, he may be a 2ndary producer but there's no jurisdiction to prosecute him. he doesn't have to make any changes to his site. the responsibility lies with the content producer... they are the producers of the content & must abide the law ONLY if they are based in the US (though foreign operators SHOULD keep this info documented anyway)

US Laws never apply to those who are not us citizens AND live outside the us. period.


...

[Paul Markham2]

Paul that theory is OK but one flaw doesnt matter if they are outside the US if they market to the US they are still responsible to the law.

And I agreee with the stalking theory not only the models but just wait til the bible thumpers in the bible belt find out timmy the holy roller does porn on the side.

And another note if ya think about it Ok you and any others that run a content site you show previews of the pics or movie still right . You market to webmasters in the US as well as anywhere else in the world So In other words You Are required to post the 2257 info also and that includes the model ID's your home address and name and so on ... am I correct in my reading of the amendment?

So what will happen down the road if all goes to shit and law stays the way it is written right now with no amendments to it . I see alot of girls not venturing down the porn road and risking the exposure.
Maybe I'm wrong but thats just my opinion
I agree that if sponsors give out IDs there will be a slow drying up of models and this side of porn will be hurt.

As for the US authorities checking what I have in my filing cabinet, they are welcome to do this whenever they present themselves at my door with a Czech search warrant. Should they say I don't comply becasue I did not allow them access I wil get the EU to sue them.

[Paul Markham2]

I'm already 2257 compliant anyway and always have been. Plus there is no need to put up on the Net models IDs, this is the problem some do not even understand what the law says.

Give out IDs to everyone and some one will thinks he needs to post is all up on the Internet.

[guitar riff]

Yup I know you've always been 2257 compliant paul :-)

[Paul Markham2]

So Paul, by that same token, you're going to be limiting who you sell to?

I.e. you'll sell to sponsors, but not individual webmasters in the USA? Or did you not sell to small webmasters in the past?
I sell to sponsors and webmasters and will continue to do so. The sponsor can't give out the models ID though. So he can't distribute to US webmasters the hardcore part of the set.

I do see free content drying up rapidly, succesful webmasters buying and complying and the small ones shutting up shop.

This over all will have a good effect for those left, it will not remove one single surfer from the Net, but remeove a lot of free porn. Frukster just became illegal. |headbang|

Think positive not negative.

[guitar riff]

Yeah Paul in the long run it might make things a bit different for awhile but maybe things will be better Like now when Newbies come in thinking they can make a quick buck without spending a dime maybe when they realize they have to dump in some money and alot of time they will think twice now and I feel only the ones serious about the biz will survive.

I dont like the changes just like everyone else doesnt like m but I will have to comply with them its just another aspect of running a biz now will have more paperwork and clerical shit to do It makes the ol saying there is no such beast as easy money seem so true.

[Paul Markham2]

Everyone agrees this law is a hammer to crack a nail and will be over turned. But to think positive for a moment.

The Adult Net herd is in bad need of a cull, this could do it.

Some will drop out because they will not post their home address and can't afford an office. some will drop out because they do not have the money to buy new content that is compliant and some will drop out through fear.

It will not cost one single surfer and the good news is ites without 2257 documents just became illegal. Like Frukster.

[Chop Smith]

Sure is good to see this thread turn to postive thoughts. The sky is not falling, the color is just changing a bit.

[ngb1959]

Saw this at another board about IM LIVE:


The owners and operators of this website are not the primary producer (as that term is defined in 28 C.F.R. § 75.1(c)(2)) of any of the visual content contained in this website.However, Imlive.com may have copies of a record of the ages of those persons portrayed in any sexually explicit materials on this site. ImLive.com WILL NOT RELEASE THESE RECORDS TO ANYONE OTHER THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATE, OR HIS DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE, OR AS OTHERWISE REQUIRED BY OPERATION OF LAW.
In fulfilling its obligations under 18 U.S.C. § 2257, ImLive.com relies on the plain language of the statute and on the well-reasoned decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in Sundance Associates, Inc. v. Reno, 139 F.3d 804, 808 (10th Cir 1998), which held 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.

So which is it? are webmasters producers, or exempt as I'm Live states..."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"


It's clear that Imlive is either planning on going to court or is hoping others will in order to get certain aspects of the new law overturned. That part seems to be implying they are holding up precidence that the "secondary" producer section is not legaly binding. It's possible that ImLive is a member of the FSC and is part of the legal action that will be taking place soon. If in fact that part of the new law is overturned, then a lot of the 2257 discussions right now will become moot.

Any thoughts?

[Qon]

i think their just depending on the fact that its bullshit to expect people who didn't actually shoot the shit to keep records of the particpants age. i agree that is something that can't hold up in court



...

[Mr. Blue]

The law most likely won't stand as is...I think everyone agrees that parts of it will be altered eventually (after court challenges).

I do have a question though...Wouldn't U.S. Sponsors have to make their affiliates be 2257 compliant even if the person is outside the U.S.? I'm thinking they might hold themselves open for some liability if they supply free content and don't make their affiliates 2257 compliant...but I'm not a lawyer so this would only be guestimation on my part.

As for sponsors...the first ones that get their affiliates 2257 compliant content will do nicely for themselves...as the nervous affiliates will be jumping at the chance for a little peace of mind.

[Qon]

based on the law, its the 2ndary producers' responsibility... i'm not sure how that would affect the actual site owner though... as a sponsor, i don't see a reason to have to give affiliates (people u don't know nor will ever have personal contact with) should be required to (or entitled to) having my models' info. just cause they are advertising for me? thats bullshit



..

[guitar riff]

I bet alot of Webmasters are Kicking themselves in the nuts know saying damn why didn't I get content with all the 2257 info included. Alot of people i'm talking to will end up getting rid of ( Not using ) Over 1/2 of their Bought Content So More money wasted so we count our losses and move on I guess.

Just seems to me that the DOJ could find a few better things to waste money on like all the illegal immigration or something but that wont happen anytime soon .

And if they want to pass a law make one where the registered sex offenders in this country can't own or posess a computer. They take away their Viagra now Take away their Computers The sick FUCKS dont need them anyhow.

[domweb]

Wouldn't U.S. Sponsors have to make their affiliates be 2257 compliant even if the person is outside the U.S.?I am not a lawyer. Laymans opinion:

If the US gun manufacturers cannot be held responsible for the use of their product if it is sold legally, how can an adult sponsor be held liable for someone not following 2257 rules properly?

How can you tell if someone is following the rules? Is the sponsor supposed to periodically show up and check an affiliates records?

Not likely.

I would be truly interested to see the US Justice Dept trying to prosecute an EU webmaster for not following the US laws.

Remember folks...the US is NOT a World Government (despite what W thinks). Just cause we say it's illegal, doesn't mean a damn thing to someone outside the country who isn't a US citizen.

If the US could go after non-citizens outside of the country, they would have nailed Amsterdam for pot sales and bestiality porn. Germany's S&M salons would be shut down.

They only way to hit a non-US citizen is to freeze acoounts in the USA. So, unless you have a bank account in the US, I don't see how they can touch anyone but US citizens.

[domweb]

And if they want to pass a law make one where the registered sex offenders in this country can't own or posess a computer. They take away their Viagra now Take away their Computers The sick FUCKS dont need them anyhow.Sure...if you are a sex offender to children, I could see limiting computer access.

But keep in mind, that if YOU get busted for not having your 2257 records perfect...YOU are a sex offender.

If you played doctor with the next door neighbor when you where ten years old and got busted (happens these days) YOU are a sex offender.

If someone falsely accuses you of grabbing ass at a bar and you get convicted, YOU are a sex offender.

If you order in a call girl and get busted, YOU are a sex offender.

If you moon a passing car and get arrested, YOU are a sex offender.

Careful what you wish for. You might discover yourself on the cross of public opinion. Ask the Salem 'witches' about it.

[guitar riff]

Sure...if you are a sex offender to children, I could see limiting computer access.

Thats what I was referring to.

[MadMax]

There are a lot of ways to look at this, like any complex issue. There are literally dozens of causes for injunction and appeal in these regulations, and while the DOJ may be overzealous they're not stupid. They know exactly what was released, and what the likely results are. Odds are they want to go back to Congress and say "look, we're trying to do something here but the courts are tying our hands," then they'll do some actual enforcement on the current 2257 rules. This is just speculation, but it's worth mentioning.

It's also worth mentioning that when I buy "2257 compliant" hardcore content I rarely (if ever) get docs on the male model(s). It's like some big blind spot created by the Traci Lords incident, but I assure you the DOJ will not only be looking for docs on the female models. The rules are not gender specific, and enforcement won't be either.

Unless someone secures an injunction (read: FSC) we'll likely see free sponsor content go the way of the Dodo. They won't be allowed by these rules to release softcore pics from a hardcore set to skirt document release because of the wording of the rules. We'll also likely see hardcore banners disappearing, because under a strict interpretation you'd have to have docs for the pics the banners were created from.

In any case, I'll wait a bit before allowing panic to take hold. I've always felt there was too much "please" and not enough "tease" anyway. If we end up with a system where most or all of the free hardcore is only available on sponsor tours I think all our bottom lines will fatten up. My primary revenue stream comes from Fetish Philes, which doesn't host any hardcore images anyway. If I had to pull every one of my free sites and galleries I would be pissed, certainly, but it wouldn't be the end of the world. They've all made me money already and I would be upset to have to start over on FS and gals with a slightly different program...but it wouldn't be a total disaster.

I'm compliant with the current 2257 rules and I'm waiting to see what happens next.

This is just one more round of harassment from the DOJ. I'd personally prefer that airport security were better than before 9/11, but it isn't...the lines are just longer. The joke here is that all this chaos and confusion is designed to prevent the occasional use of a 17 YO model in an industry where 99.9% of the content producers wouldn't touch one with a 10 foot pole. Actual CPers don't run mainstream porn paysites. They trade their sickness across an underground network and don't give a flying fuck about 2257. How 'bout the DOJ actually go after them? Why isn't the media asking this question? Are we more worried about the occasional 17 YO like Traci Lords who secures fake identification because she wants to be in porn or the actual vicitims...the 8, 9, 10 YOlds who are getting abused every day? You'll never find their pics mixed in with a bunch of MILF Bukkake photos, so why bother looking?

I'd be happy to support any actual effort to remove CP from the internet, but at the end of the day that just isn't what's happening here.

Regardless, we'll find our way through this. And, as Paul said, a "culling of the herd" won't hurt those of us that are serious about business permanently...it will just slim down our wallets while we reorganize.

[MrYum]

Very well said MadMax |thumb

Yea, this is a pain in the ass. But, even IF this comes to fruition and we have to comply as the regs currently stand...it's not the end of the world. Yea, I'd most likely pull some domains until I can bring them up to speed. Yea, I'll lose use of about half my content...maybe more. But, this business and the folks that are serious about it are pretty resilient.

Also, there is no way in hell these regs will do a damn thing to stop CP. You're absolutely right...sponsors...ESPECIALLY US sponsors don't touch that crap anyway.

I'm sitting tight until we know more about what will be NECESSARY to comply with...cuz it appears pretty obvious that these regs are far too reaching. When the time comes, I'll either swap out free site images based on niche...with content I have all the docs on. Or, I'll yank the domains...most of em are old and pull very little traffic anyway...no big loss.

Speaking of which...time to get back to work! No matter how all this shakes out...I'm in this for the long term...and I need mo traffic! Here surfer surfer :D

[domweb]

If we end up with a system where most or all of the free hardcore is only available on sponsor tours I think all our bottom lines will fatten up. My primary revenue stream comes from Fetish Philes, which doesn't host any hardcore images anywayMax...I agree in principle to what you are saying. But consider one thing.

A big reason that Fetish Philes and other big link lists are successful (besides you busting your ass) is that you have ALOT of folks submitting sites to you.

If this law is not junked in the courts, I am betting your submissions will dry up fast. Unless I misunderstand your business model, most link list surfers come in for the free porn, find what they like and get upsold to the paysite.

So if the free sites go away...why would the vast majority of the public come to a link list for the first time? A Google or Yahoo search will turn up as many paysites.

True, your site covers an interesting variety of niches, not avialable in many places...but for the majority of link list owners I forsee problems with attracting new customers.

But hey, what the hell do I know? It'll be interesting to see it all shake out. Perhaps the link list is a much more resilient animal than I understand.

[Linkster]

domweb - most of us in the LL biz (at least the ones that have been around for a bit) already filter down the number of submitters due to overused sponsor content - and some do not accept any sponsor content.
The good submitters we have will continue on with their bought content that is documented (and Ive noticed over the last year that most of the submitters already have a 2257 link on their free sites) and only the submitters that we would have declined anyway will go out of biz.
I dont think the LL biz will be affected at all except for some minor annoyances when it comes to the advertising material we use (banners etc)

[Chop Smith]

...So if the free sites go away...why would the vast majority of the public come to a link list for the first time? A Google or Yahoo search will turn up as many paysites.

My opinion -
1. Sponsors will step up the production of hosted free sites and free hosted galleries. (Solves the hold damn issue)
2. Sponsors will make special deals with trusted webmasters to provide documentation for sponsor provided content. (Hell, I know about 20 or so LL and TGP owners that I would open my entire catalog to if they would actively promote my sites)
3. LL and TGP owners will increase their own production of free sites and galleries and submit to their "inter-circle". (Someone told me that 'networking' was important in this business.)

[RawAlex]

As Linkster said, link sites are for the most part already filtering out repeated and overused sponsor content, while rewarding the presence of fresh sponsor content, fresh paid content, and unique content created by amateurs to promote themselves. I recently moved to block certain sponsor content, and I am much more fussy these days about the actual content.

That being said, trusted submitters who have shown good taste will always be able to get good sponsor content listed, those posted I trust to use good content and use it well.

As for IMLIVE, let me just point out that they are not in the US:

Sobonito Investments Ltd.
1 Griva Digheni St.
Stavros Pittas court. 4th floor
Limassol 3030
CY

For them as such, this isn't a direct issue, but rather an issue for people who use their content and ads as a secondary producer. They have stated an opinion (and one that in legal terms I think is actually correct), and they are choosing how they will do business. It will be up to individual affiliates and partners to decide how they will handle promoting their program as a result.

Canadian citizenship is now open. ;)

Alex

[Toby]

...Canadian citizenship is now open. ;)Ummmm, can we move Canada south a bit first, like about 1500 miles? I'm not a big fan of snow. ;)

[RawAlex]

We tried... a couple of times Canada has tried to get one or more of the carribean islands to become part of Canada, but each time it failed. Too bad, if that happened, you would know EXACTLY where all the Canadian porn would come from!

Alex

[MadMax]

It'll be interesting to see it all shake out. Perhaps the link list is a much more resilient animal than I understand.

Linkster covered a couple of the major points, so I'll hit a couple more. The LL model is quite resilient for several reasons. Only about half of my submissions come from the US, the rest come from around the globe. I'd say about 50% of my submitters always use paid content, and the foreign webmasters will continue to use any hardcore free content they can get their hands on from the sponsors. They'll have a better chance of getting this content listed as well if US webmasters can't touch it anymore.

I think Chop was right on point when he said that we'll see a lot more HFS from sponsors, as well as a lot more FHG. They're going to need to make up for the promotion they'll lose from affiliates who can no longer use the free content they supply, so that in itself will provide a steady stream of fresh sites for LL owners to list.

Depending on how the "Secondary Producer" issue shakes out in the end, I think the biggest shakeup for LL owners will be that we'll have to drop a good number of our listings because submitters will be pulling the sites, and that will happen across the board. From that point on new submissions will have much more paid content, and those webmasters who are unable or unwilling to buy content will fade away.

Sponsors will be forced to offer more non-hardcore banners, and until they come up with them my advertising options will suffer, but I was about to revamp all my advertising anyway :)

The good submitters who buy content will continue unaffected, sponsors will have to cater even more to LL and TGP owners, and there will be less free hardcore overall. This, I believe, will be a benefit to LL owners in the long run. We'll also probably see a couple new ideas born of necessity.

Amusingly enough, I think the biggest change that will be brought on if these new rules fly is that there will be much more domestic porn production since the only acceptable forms of ID would be US issued identification.

Nice Job Gonzalez, I'm sure the Moral (sic) Majority will be very proud of you and your boss for making sure MORE porn gets produced in the US |thumb

[Paul Markham2]

Some good posts here. Just one point Max, overseas IDs are acceptable.

There is a need for some law to tighten up the Adult Internet, this one just went way to far and will be struck down IMO.

There are sites out there with models looking 15+ and some of them have too many for it to be a coincidence. Most from what I see are in Russia/Ukraine. The models look very unhappy.

Cutting down these sites abilities to hide behind a curtain is needed, this act will not hurt them IMO.

But the future is good for those who stay the course. Free content was already losing it's appeal and more will be buying content. Any business relies on a strong supply basis of it's content and contrary to what some think this is not the traffic business.

Free hard-core content will be tough to find, because you will need to get the models approval to give out her documents to anyone who asks. In the US where lawyers are looking for people and reasons to sue this could be an opportunity to make money. So forget about old content being 2257 compliant, it isn’t. Unless you have taken the model release to an attorney and he said it is.

All of a sudden the hardcore content available for free has taken a nosedive. Now think of all the pirate sites. None have documents. Tell them to remove the content or you report them for being non-compliant with a law that puts them in prison for 5 years.

I suspect someone like Frukster will get the first visit they can only go to hot link access and that's it. Reduction of peer to peer, google will have to change it's tack, unless I'm wrong this means less free porn.

Less kids working from their bedroom or dorm, less part timers and not a surfer less. Might even help to make surfing the adult net a more enjoyable experience.

I'm not shutting up shop. In fact I'm employing another full time picture corrector/video editor to help us cope with demand.

[Linkster]

domweb - just so there is no misunderstanding - if free content goes away - which I think it will - submissions wont dry up for LLs - it will just make less work for us having to dredge through the BS submits to get to the paid content submits which is about all we list.

You also asked why a surfer would go to a LL when looking at Google or Yahoo - the main reason is that the LLs pretty much hold the top positions for most words and phrases searched for on the adult side of the Search engines - with the TGPs coming in second - its very rare to see a paysite listed in the top listings except for their specific name of the site because they dont have a lot of crawlable content (outside the members protected area that Google can get to).
And I dont believe that will ever change.

I dont see the serious free site makers changing their biz too much - they are mostly already compliant and even among the serious submitters we have too many sites to list every day

Madmax - I dont think many sponsors will be coming out with any more softcore banners as they would still have to meet the 2257 for the source pics they use - and the ones that were really concerned back when COPA became an issue again have already made up their softcore banners and tours but will still have to meet all of the requirements of this new rule

[RedCherry]

I know I'm going through my old sites and removing any sexually explicit content from the site, and marking off the domains as I go. Pain in the butt, but have to do it. Only content I have pic ids and model releases will I leave up, and then limited. Prob going to get the Komply script too to help document my sites.

I just THANK GOD all the content I have shot for my site doesn't fall under the regs. :) I still quote 2257, but none of it is explicit.

[Sinistress]

We tried... a couple of times Canada has tried to get one or more of the carribean islands to become part of Canada, but each time it failed. Too bad, if that happened, you would know EXACTLY where all the Canadian porn would come from!

Alex

Actually that's not entirely accurate, because there was an offer to the Canadian government not too long ago from some small island in the Caribbean, and our government turned it down. I'll see if I can find you a link...

[Sinistress]

Okay yeah its a string of about 40 islands it looks like "Turks & Caicos" in the Caribbean, and the idea of the "region" becoming Canada's 11th Province has been presented to our federal government twice before now, and shot down both times. Its in the works of being presented again, with some interested politicians on both sides, (lower level politicians that have yet to present the idea to Parliament)

[pornrex]

Okay yeah its a string of about 40 islands it looks like "Turks & Caicos" in the Caribbean, and the idea of the "region" becoming Canada's 11th Province has been presented to our federal government twice before now, and shot down both times. Its in the works of being presented again, with some interested politicians on both sides, (lower level politicians that have yet to present the idea to Parliament)
I for one sure hope that this does come to fruition. IT would be nice for Canadians to have a place to go to where its warm during the cold winter months and have the dollar at par full time. And besides, Turks & Caicos are absolutely gorgeous destinations. Can you just imagine how many Canadians would rush to secure some form of residency down there should this process be accepted? WOW!
Count me in if that happens!!

[tickler]

I'll be on the first flight down when it happens!

For Paul, I figure you are doing the right thing based on several points!

1) Since I have worked in systems for a long time, most people do not realize there are rules laid out for information that is gathered. Like when you fill out a personnel form, that information can only be used for the purpose gathered like checks, and benefits, etc. The company can not turn around and sell it to some vacuum cleaner company.

So I hope all your models info have a statement permitting you to disclose the information to other parties.

2) Been doing some reading up on this latest bit of BS. Particulaly with regards to Canada which has some of the toughest privacy laws in the world. Providing personal data without authority can result in fines from $10,000-$100,000 depending on how the charges are laid(read misdemeanor or felony for the US crowd).

There was already a somewhat similar case in Canada which probably lays some ground work for any 2257 challenge. It basically laid out that personal information on Canadians can not be disclosed to the US DOJ, even if requested under the US PATRIOT Act, which would have likely get a more favorable reception!

Oh well!

Finally, some of you may not know that it is legal for women to go topless in Canada. Just wish a bunch had shown up to say hello to Bush when he was here! |shocking|

One final point.
Several people have mentioned Traci Lords. As a lawyer said on another board, she did have the 2 required pieces of ID. This newest regulation says nothing about the producer having to be able to distinguish fake IDs. What's a passport from Zambia look like?

[Paul Markham2]

One final point.
Several people have mentioned Traci Lords. As a lawyer said on another board, she did have the 2 required pieces of ID. This newest regulation says nothing about the producer having to be able to distinguish fake IDs. What's a passport from Zambia look like?
No she only had one, to my knowledge.

[ponygirl]

There was already a somewhat similar case in Canada which probably lays some ground work for any 2257 challenge. It basically laid out that personal information on Canadians can not be disclosed to the US DOJ, even if requested under the US PATRIOT Act, which would have likely get a more favorable reception!


Tickler - do you have any other info about this, I would be interested in looking it up, thx

Ponygirl

ps - I have yet to see (or be lol) a topless woman walking down the street in my town, altho the precident was set not too far from here :D

[Tommy]

so paul are you giving out the docs to webmasters that have bought content ??

[Lemmy]

so paul are you giving out the docs to webmasters that have bought content ??
Yup, he gives a nice pic of the model holding up two legible forms of ID plus signed model release in every set.

[gt68lt70]

so paul are you giving out the docs to webmasters that have bought content ??

I have bought content from Paul in the past and I got all the docs.

I wish sponsors would at least give the docs for their banners...

[spookyx]

I am not a lawyer. Laymans opinion:


They only way to hit a non-US citizen is to freeze acoounts in the USA. So, unless you have a bank account in the US, I don't see how they can touch anyone but US citizens.

They might (and I stress might) be able to "seize" a .com website reg'd or hosted in the USA. its like when the feds go after anyone, they love to seize property and make you show you are not guilty to get it back.

sieg heil g.w.

[amber438]

I wish sponsors would at least give the docs for their banners...

That has been the problem I have been experiencing. I've been switching banners to either soft or all text and a lot of sponsors do not have em..
Also, I bought a lot of content from a few companies and a few have not even responded to a request, and they are quite big. It would piss me off royally to can that content.
Some, of course, have gone out of biz and there's nothing that can be done about it. One content supplier that had superb bi content is gone. I bought a lot from them too..:( Another good gay provider is gone too..and that content is in one of my avs sites..:( Hard to replace gay biker content..:(

[guitar riff]

Anyone else like me have a Fucking Migraine YET????

Well When Sponsors do start posting all the stuff we will need what we need to do on the board is See if GG& Jim will make a sticky Post to those spons and Hey they Might even get a few referrals from WM's for the links to them :-)

[guitar riff]

Also Paul Wouldnt the Privacy Statement if any that you and a model signs between you and them , how would that play into this would it trump the law or would the law trump it???

And Also PLease some state exatly what is onsidered Sexually Explicit Now I hear so many damn things anymore I asked My lawyer but he had to look it up in the statutes and havent gotten the answer yet.

[tickler]

Tickler - do you have any other info about this, I would be interested in looking it up, thx

Okay dear you can start here:
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/Jdb-txt/SC/05/04/2005BCSC0446.htm
It's actual court stuff, so a long read, and a lot to try digesting. Make your own conclusions.


ps - I have yet to see (or be lol) a topless woman walking down the street in my town, altho the precident was set not too far from here :D
I kive next to a beach which is mainly a younger crowd. So I see it occasionally. Have also seen it up at Washago. Also some of the dancers at my favorite strip club set outside on the patio topless working on their tans.


Paul, I can't find the actual article at the moment, but, it really doesn't really matter 1,2,3...pieces of ID. What I was getting at is under Sec. 75.2 Maintenance of records a)2) "Producers may rely in good faith on representations by performers regarding accuracy of the names" and I assume IDs.

Paul, also some reading for you:
http://www.avn.com/index.php?Primary_Navigation=Articles&Action=View_Article&Content_ID=228409
Maybe they are trying to leave the back door open by requiring a US issued ID.

amber438:
Sec. 75.4 If the producer ceases to carry on the business, the records shall be maintained for five years thereafter.
Even if they have gone out of business, they are still required to maintain records for 5 years. So hopefully you can still retrieve some of the info.

RedCherry:
Just removing the pics might not be enough. This wording (including but not limited to Internet computer site or services) has me thinking that if you just have the content. it must be documented also.



One thing that does PO about this is that I 90% of the time only use softcore content and hold back the hardcore for maybe a future paysite. But, because the set(s) have hardcore in them, I still need to go through the BS.

A question for maybe Alex. Any takes on this wording from 75.8(d) "any known major entry points".


Found a side-by-each comparison of the old vs. proposed vs. actual 2257 here:
http://my.execpc.com/~xxxlaw/2257Tables5.24.05.htm

[GunnCat]

Some of you almost sound happy these new laws are going into effect. Some of us who have been trying to make a living at this work very hard only to see our progress get flushed down the drain by government proposals.
Social Darwinism shouldn't be aided by government entities simply demagoguing to a constiuant base. There is no "bright" side to this. Less competition is only good if you stand to make a profit from it. It's likely many of the unique sites put forth by the small webmaster/content provider will end up going out of business.

[Ann Omness]

I wonder if taking down sites for which the primary producers won't supply 2257 documentation on the models will provide any protection. The regs require that we keep the documentation for five years even if the sites are down. Even if we take down the content we can't document, we're still liable for that documentation we couldn't get from the producers. It's all archived somewhere (Google?). Seems like they wrote the regs to be able to find you in noncompliance even if you take your sites down.

[RawAlex]

ann, that is one of the reasons that these new rules (not a new law, I should point out, as only the house, congress, and the president together can pass new laws) could get shut down by the courts.

Issues... issues...

Alex

[Smutferret]

Sec. 75.4 If the producer ceases to carry on the business, the records shall be maintained for five years thereafter.

Yesterday, as I removed several older sites, that bit of the law kept going through my mind. I was hoping that it might not target the "secondary producer" but it seems unlikely doesn't it?

Damned if you do, damned if you don't! |angry|

Regards,
SF

[gt68lt70]

And Also PLease some state exatly what is onsidered Sexually Explicit Now I hear so many damn things anymore I asked My lawyer but he had to look it up in the statutes and havent gotten the answer yet.

I read that any depiction of genitals would be considered explicit. Even a leg spread where you don't see much would be considered explicit.

[RawAlex]

Some of you almost sound happy these new laws are going into effect. Some of us who have been trying to make a living at this work very hard only to see our progress get flushed down the drain by government proposals.
Social Darwinism shouldn't be aided by government entities simply demagoguing to a constiuant base. There is no "bright" side to this. Less competition is only good if you stand to make a profit from it. It's likely many of the unique sites put forth by the small webmaster/content provider will end up going out of business.

Gunncat, let me say this: The adult online industry has been a business without rules, regulations, or oversight. The entry barrier (what it costs to get into the game) has varied between little and free (free host, free content, etc). No sales taxes, no government rules, not much of anything. As a result of this "low entry point" everyone and their ignorant cousin Hal have porn sites.

The business has been completely overwhelmed with bored soccer moms, college students looking for beer money, and an every increasing slice of people that "just like to be near pornstars". Every day, I compete with people who are not trying to make a living but are trying to make enough money for a night out on the town or so they can get a couple of extra cases of beer for the frat party.

I don't complain about these people, instead I offer them help to get traffic, listings on my link sites and such, and spend time here on this board to help people grow their business.

The US government has finally weighed in a put some rules into effect that will require US webmasters to do a certain amount of "non-income earning" work in order to maintain their business. US citizens will be required to maintain a bunch of extra records that they never had to before.

More importantly, these people will have to admit to who they are, and they will have to expose their real names and addresses to the public, and they won't be able to hide in the bushes anymore.

Each individual will have to make a choice as to how they will handle the situation as it is presented. It is a personal choice. Nobody is running you out of business, they are removing the rock many have been hiding under. If you can't handle the light, then it is time to move on.

Like I said, I don't wish bad on anyone, but I won't miss the competition either.

Alex

[Steve]

ann, that is one of the reasons that these new rules (not a new law, I should point out, as only the house, congress, and the president together can pass new laws) could get shut down by the courts.

Issues... issues...

Alex

Though they differ in their perspectives the one thing my attorneys in both the US and the UK agree on is that these new rules will be tied up in court for quite some time. Though I am not going to assume that as I have been going through my content records. Though no matter what happens in the courts the US government will have gotten much of what it wants as panicky webmasters take down their sites.

Steve

[GunnCat]

Alex, well put and I understand where you are coming from.
However it doesn't change the fact that the US government shouldn't be passing laws that squash business. As a libertarian it's just one more reason to be purely disguested with The United States of America: This was once the country that threw tea into Boston Harbour for a 1/2 cent tax. I don't know if you as a Canadian(and I don't mean that as a bad thing) can really understand that, or anyone who isn't an american. This government has gone too far.

[RawAlex]

Gunncat, to be fair, I think that this is a better route to go than some of the other options the US government has to control porn, such as insane taxes, bizarre distribution restrictions, or some other massive meddle.

I think the one that is getting most people is the requirement to reveal their names, addresses, and such. Most people are comforable working in porn, they are comfortable with the content, but they are not comfortable with people around them knowing what they do. They don't want to expose their children, spouse, or others to the pain that could occur if anything bad happens. Many of them also know that in more conservative places, they might literally be run out of town.

That is the nature of this business, and it doesn't get easier.

We have all gotten off easy in the past, now it's time to pay the piper. We all lived in a fantasy land where we can be dirty pornographers at night, and on the PTA and coaching out kids' soccer team on the weekend. Once your neighbors know, I somehow think that all goes away.

Do you understand how fiendish the government plan is? Do you see how it is hard to stop?

They have gone too far, but not in the ways your thinking.

Alex

[GunnCat]

Gunncat, to be fair, I think that this is a better route to go than some of the other options the US government has to control porn, such as insane taxes, bizarre distribution restrictions, or some other massive meddle.

I think the one that is getting most people is the requirement to reveal their names, addresses, and such. Most people are comforable working in porn, they are comfortable with the content, but they are not comfortable with people around them knowing what they do. They don't want to expose their children, spouse, or others to the pain that could occur if anything bad happens. Many of them also know that in more conservative places, they might literally be run out of town.

That is the nature of this business, and it doesn't get easier.

We have all gotten off easy in the past, now it's time to pay the piper. We all lived in a fantasy land where we can be dirty pornographers at night, and on the PTA and coaching out kids' soccer team on the weekend. Once your neighbors know, I somehow think that all goes away.

Do you understand how fiendish the government plan is? Do you see how it is hard to stop?

They have gone too far, but not in the ways your thinking.

Alex

For sure man. I'm still in a state of shock really. My biggest concern is not my paysites, although some of those great content deals I got in the last 2 years don't seem so great now |dizzy| ; but the sponsor content I use. I don't have any problems buying content for promotion, I have houndreds of thousands of images I can use already, but I select my sponsors based on the unique content and quality of it.
We live in interesting times really, it will be interesting to see how things pan out in the next couple of years.

[Paul Markham2]

I agree with Alex, there are people in this business who have no right to be here and will be gone.

The real problem I have with this law is the revealing of models IDs, not webmasters. Webmasters have an option they can shut up shop. models have less of an option becasue I hear some sponsors want to distribute models IDs for content they already have. The model according to them has no say in the matter.

So long as models do not refuse to work for us, this law will not cost the industry one dime in revenue earned. No surfer will stop paying money for porn, in fact if it redduces the free porn available then it could mean more money earned. The content pirates could have a big problem with this law.

For some this law is the realisation that this is a business and not a game. If you do not want the neighbors to know you publish porn close down or get a legal front. But give the models, the life blood of this industry, the same respect.

At last we can see content is KING.

[wesley]

I have heard said many times that if you are a non US person, example canadian that thse rules will still apply if you use US hosting, well here is my 2 cents on this;

first there has already been several court cases in the US that tried to make hosting companies responsible for what those using their hosting has used it for, with all being turned down, this is like trying to make your local phone company responsible because someone makes prank calls

secondly, some US states have no phone soliciting laws, what did this do? the companies now call out of canada, using US phone infastructure to deliver the sales pitch through, so to say that because we are selling to the US we must comply doesn't wash

as a producer of videos also, yes this will effect me if I use a distributor in the US that makes copies in the US but as a webmaster no, exept for those link sites who will over react and try to enforce on me US rules that do not apply to non US people

As to cull the field; for sure it will, but only in the US, you'll now get swamped with newbie webmasters from everywhere else but US, think about that for a minute, these new rules haven't fixed a problem, just moved things offshore

those LL sites that enforce these rules on non US websites will find themselves only primarily with US created sites, other LL will spring up built and hosted outside US, listing stuff as has been, after all these rules don't touch the buyer, who can buy from non US sites, so in the end this might shift a lot of the money out of the US

Just my thoughts......

[GunnCat]

Anyone has the right to do anything they want. That's the whole idea behind capitalism. 10 years ago most people here were probably not in the porn business but doing something completely different. Just because you shoot a lot of content Paul, doesn't make you any better than someone that opened their own site, or promotes sponsors. One of the great things about the internet is that is was a whole new gold rush. Anyone can drop what they are doing and try to get a piece of it; no reason someone can't try to improve their financial situation.
When the dust settles, we'll likely see honest webmasters out of business because sponsors are bound by contract to protect their models which is completely understandable. Pirating, Fusker for example will still be there considering their servers are located in England.
This is the US government waging war against it's own citizens, and there is nothing good about it.

[RawAlex]

Wesley, while it is true that this will more directly cull from the US webmasters, you have to understand that there is also a trickel down effect.

If sponsors stop giving out free content, many of the "new" webmasters in other countries will be forced to invest to be in business. Many of them won't have the money to buy content, and as a result, won't get into the business to start with. It might also change the way new affiliates are signed up, possibly making some programs close for new affiliates or otherwise limiting their exposure in some countries.

It also means that all those webmasters from "those" countries who have been hiding under US po boxes and whatnot will either have to declare themselves as american and be compliant or declare themselves as "other" and get kicked out of programs.

Changing the rules of the same, no matter how many players are directly affected will in the end touch everyone in the game. How much, where, and when is still subject for discussion.

Alex

[Paul Markham2]

Gunncat, I do not consider myself any better than people who opened a site last week, last year or shot porn for 30 years.

I do consider I know more about porn than a lot of them. But some opened porn sites very recently and their knowledge of porn is amazing, especially in some niches and probably better than mine. However these are the niches they've been jerking off to for years. |dizzy|

Did not know Fusker was hosted inthe UK, from the way it seems immune and able to do as it please I would have never thought it was hosted there.

[xxxjay]

we are still getting ramped up for the whole 2257 debacle. We have a final meeting with our legal council on the 9th to finalize our strategy to make sure everyone’s asses are covered.

[SI]

If sponsors stop giving out free content, many of the "new" webmasters in other countries will be forced to invest to be in business.
How about non-US sponsors? For example someone from Europe using european hosting/sponsor/domain register company and build free sites for LL. If LL owners will not enforce on this euro-webmaster US laws, he'll be ok. IMHO

[rollergirl]

I agree with Alex, there are people in this business who have no right to be here and will be gone.

The real problem I have with this law is the revealing of models IDs, not webmasters. Webmasters have an option they can shut up shop. models have less of an option becasue I hear some sponsors want to distribute models IDs for content they already have. The model according to them has no say in the matter.

So long as models do not refuse to work for us, this law will not cost the industry one dime in revenue earned. No surfer will stop paying money for porn, in fact if it redduces the free porn available then it could mean more money earned. The content pirates could have a big problem with this law.

For some this law is the realisation that this is a business and not a game. If you do not want the neighbors to know you publish porn close down or get a legal front. But give the models, the life blood of this industry, the same respect.

At last we can see content is KING.


Many of these webmasters you'd like to see go down are your customers.

I think everyone is concerned about the safety of those working in our LEGAL business, not just models.

[Steve]

If you do not want the neighbors to know you publish porn close down or get a legal front.

You have a point. The real protection against neighbors and friends knowing that you are in porn is to get a legal front with a business name and address. When I started six years I set up a legal business name and address before I uploaded my first porn page. I've never given any host,sponsor,content provider etc. my home address. You have to treat adult entertainment like any other business and invest some money upfront.

Steve

[Wenchy]

It's not my neighbors I worry about... it's stalkers, sickos, pissed off wives, and all the other psycho/sociopaths out there.

Add to that the fact that I have been running a legitimate business out of my home for over 10 years in the other field I work in and NEVER has anyone come to me and said that I had to publish my personal, private information out in the open just to be considered an honest businesswoman. Hell, even the IRS takes me at my word AND accepts my PO Box as my valid business address!

Next you'll all be suggesting that anyone who runs a net-based business, adult or mainstream, should get an office... stop and think about what you are suggesting for a minute. How many people ON THIS BOARD got into this business because one of the primary perks was being able to work at home?

It's not a crime to work at home, but what they are proposing as far as publishing names and addresses for models and WMs alike... well, I have my suspicions that borders on being illegal. We do have privacy rights in this country and I don't believe the DOJ or anyone else has the right to violate those for something as ridiculous as bogus bookkeeping issues.

Go ahead and flame me if you want to, I'm frankly beyond caring. I'm entitled to my opinion and now you've been entitled to it as well :D

[guitar riff]

Wesley thats not what I understand about the law. Hosts aren't responsible for this that true but if you use any form of US business IE.. Hosting, processing, sponsor programs, leased stuff then you are bound by the laws of the US because you are conducting business through the united states. I pretty sure thats the rule Ill be sure tomorrow have an appt with a lawyer again tomorrow.

[rollergirl]

It's not my neighbors I worry about... it's stalkers, sickos, pissed off wives, and all the other psycho/sociopaths out there.

Add to that the fact that I have been running a legitimate business out of my home for over 10 years in the other field I work in and NEVER has anyone come to me and said that I had to publish my personal, private information out in the open just to be considered an honest businesswoman. Hell, even the IRS takes me at my word AND accepts my PO Box as my valid business address!

Next you'll all be suggesting that anyone who runs a net-based business, adult or mainstream, should get an office... stop and think about what you are suggesting for a minute. How many people ON THIS BOARD got into this business because one of the primary perks was being able to work at home?

It's not a crime to work at home, but what they are proposing as far as publishing names and addresses for models and WMs alike... well, I have my suspicions that borders on being illegal. We do have privacy rights in this country and I don't believe the DOJ or anyone else has the right to violate those for something as ridiculous as bogus bookkeeping issues.

Go ahead and flame me if you want to, I'm frankly beyond caring. I'm entitled to my opinion and now you've been entitled to it as well :D

So well put. |pink

[Paul Markham2]

Many of these webmasters you'd like to see go down are your customers.

I think everyone is concerned about the safety of those working in our LEGAL business, not just models.
Well as customers they will have the documents required. But yes some will decide this is not worth it and leave and for them on a personal level I'm sad. But this is business not a social club.

I have the responsibility of paying the 9 people who work for me and this is what I'm trying to do.

I'm also concerned about webmasters safety and models. Never said otherwise.

[Paul Markham2]

Wesley thats not what I understand about the law. Hosts aren't responsible for this that true but if you use any form of US business IE.. Hosting, processing, sponsor programs, leased stuff then you are bound by the laws of the US because you are conducting business through the united states. I pretty sure thats the rule Ill be sure tomorrow have an appt with a lawyer again tomorrow.
The law as I said it states if you have the ability to alter the content you are liable, if not you are not.

Making hosts not liable, like book shops and newsstands.

[lassiter]

I read that any depiction of genitals would be considered explicit. Even a leg spread where you don't see much would be considered explicit.

That is one of the few relatively clear things about this whole mess. The definition is contained in Sec. 2256:

(2) “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.

So yeah, spread beaver shots appear to be considered sexually-explicit.

[ardentgent]

That is one of the few relatively clear things about this whole mess. The definition is contained in Sec. 2256:

(2) “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.

So yeah, spread beaver shots appear to be considered sexually-explicit.

I believe that 2257 states that only A-D apply. E is exempt.

[kalle7]

Plus there is no need to put up on the Net models IDs, this is the problem some do not even understand what the law says.

Give out IDs to everyone and some one will thinks he needs to post is all up on the Internet.

We dont have to put up on the Net models IDs? Do I understand your post correctly?

Sorry for asking perhaps obvious questions, but I am a little |dizzy| these days lol

[Paul Markham2]

That is one of the few relatively clear things about this whole mess. The definition is contained in Sec. 2256:

(2) “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.

So yeah, spread beaver shots appear to be considered sexually-explicit.
Seems a lot of free content just went soft core.

Which sponsor would be interested in buying sets that could be distributed to affilaites with no worries of 2257?

They would be brand new, semi-exclusive, just for affiliates and a reasonable price.

[RawAlex]

You don't have to post the model's IDs online. This is a popular mistake. You don't have to indentify the models. Those items stay IN YOUR RECORDS. You do however have to have those records in your principle place of business, organized as per the new 2257 rules, and you must have a 2257 disclaimer on your sites that lists your principle place of business (and your real name) so that the DOJ can inspect those records.

NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER post model personal information online.

Alex

[ardentgent]

Seems a lot of free content just went soft core.

Which sponsor would be interested in buying sets that could be distributed to affilaites with no worries of 2257?

They would be brand new, semi-exclusive, just for affiliates and a reasonable price.

Paul, is it your opinion that pictures not fitting the definition of sexually explicit as defined in 2257 are not covered by 2257? So if I make a gallery that does not meet the definition of sexually explicit, just nudity at "worse"I do not have to do anything regarding the statute- no exemption statement, nada?

[RawAlex]

Paul, the problem is if they use softcore content to promote a hardcore site with hardcore banners, then their publication contains one or more images of sexual content and then they need 2257 for everything in the publication.

There is little or no way to slip out of this one easily.

Alex

[Paul Markham2]

We dont have to put up on the Net models IDs? Do I understand your post correctly?

Sorry for asking perhaps obvious questions, but I am a little |dizzy| these days lol
No you do not have to put up the models ID on the Internet.

What you have to do is go see a lawyer who understands this law and can advise you.

Or get out of porn.

Or risk going to jail for 5 years.

[Paul Markham2]

Paul, is it your opinion that pictures not fitting the definition of sexually explicit as defined in 2257 are not covered by 2257? So if I make a gallery that does not meet the definition of sexually explicit, just nudity at "worse"I do not have to do anything regarding the statute- no exemption statement, nada?
That is my understanding of the law. However a grey area is what the rest of the set contianed and I must get over and read that bit again to see what it says.

Paul, the problem is if they use softcore content to promote a hardcore site with hardcore banners, then their publication contains one or more images of sexual content and then they need 2257 for everything in the publication.

There is little or no way to slip out of this one easily. Not if you don't use their banner.

A lot of free porn just went soft.

[lassiter]

I believe that 2257 states that only A-D apply. E is exempt.

That was in the Ashcroft language as proposed, and what was keeping what few free sites I have left up and running. But I don't see an exemption for "E" in the new actual regulations that were issued. Can anyone authoritatively indicate where "E" is exempt under the new regs?

[kalle7]

You don't have to post the model's IDs online. This is a popular mistake. You don't have to indentify the models. Those items stay IN YOUR RECORDS. You do however have to have those records in your principle place of business, organized as per the new 2257 rules, and you must have a 2257 disclaimer on your sites that lists your principle place of business (and your real name) so that the DOJ can inspect those records.

NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER post model personal information online.

Alex


That is excellent news. Thanks Alex! Made the future much more brighter |thumb

[RawAlex]

Paul, I agree that softcore may be a way to go... but I think most webmasters will find that when they are competing against hardcore sites from outside the US, they are pretty much doomed. Further, I am not clear that using softcore material to promote a hardcore site would exempt you from rules - the premise is hardcore, no?

More importantly, model IDs should be required anyway, because nobody wants to have a topless 16 year old on their site.

Just as importantly, even if you material is 100% exempt, I think you still have to declare as a secondary producer, and as such, your name and address is still going to be out there for all to see.

Good fun.

Alex

[Paul Markham2]

Paul, I agree that softcore may be a way to go... but I think most webmasters will find that when they are competing against hardcore sites from outside the US, they are pretty much doomed. Further, I am not clear that using softcore material to promote a hardcore site would exempt you from rules - the premise is hardcore, no?

More importantly, model IDs should be required anyway, because nobody wants to have a topless 16 year old on their site.

Just as importantly, even if you material is 100% exempt, I think you still have to declare as a secondary producer, and as such, your name and address is still going to be out there for all to see.

Good fun.

Alex
Agreed. the future for US affiliates is bought content with IDs, softcore or hosted. Will be a few exceptions but I guess that's it.

And the world will see where you work from.

[airdick]

That was in the Ashcroft language as proposed, and what was keeping what few free sites I have left up and running. But I don't see an exemption for "E" in the new actual regulations that were issued. Can anyone authoritatively indicate where "E" is exempt under the new regs?

In the same place it has always been exempt, at 18 USC Section 2257(h).

What has happened is that the DOJ ammended the regulations (28 CFR 75.1 through 75.8) used to implement 18 USC Section 2257, but the wording of 2257 remains the same.

[ngb1959]

your name and address is still going to be out there for all to see.

Where do we list our name and address ??

Thanks.


Nina


|pink |pink |pink

[lassiter]

In the same place it has always been exempt, at 18 USC Section 2257(h).

What has happened is that the DOJ ammended the regulations (28 CFR 75.1 through 75.8) used to implement 18 USC Section 2257, but the wording of 2257 remains the same.

Hmmm, ok. But...the only place I can find the complete language of Sec. 2257 is at
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002257----000-.html

where, for example, it states that (i) Whoever violates this section shall be imprisoned for not more than 2 years, and fined in accordance with the provisions of this title, or both. Whoever violates this section after having been convicted of a violation punishable under this section shall be imprisoned for any period of years not more than 5 years but not less than 2 years, and fined in accordance with the provisions of this title, or both.

And yet the 28 CFR Part 75 rule states:

The statute requires the producers of
such matter to ``ascertain, by examination of an identification
document containing such information, the performer's name and date of
birth,'' to ``ascertain any name, other than the performer's present
and correct name, ever used by the performer including maiden name,
alias, nickname, stage, or professional name,'' and to record this
information. 18 U.S.C. 2257(b). Violations of these record-keeping
requirements are criminal offenses punishable by imprisonment for not
more than five years for a first offense and not more than ten years
for subsequent offenses. See 18 U.S.C. 2257(i).

So either Gonzalez is misquoting existing law regarding the first- and second-offense penalties for violation, or else the changes to Part 75 themselves serve to amend existing law, or else the law has been amanded by Congress in the past year without anyone (including Cornell Law School) noticing.

[ardentgent]

Paul, I agree that softcore may be a way to go... but I think most webmasters will find that when they are competing against hardcore sites from outside the US, they are pretty much doomed. Further, I am not clear that using softcore material to promote a hardcore site would exempt you from rules - the premise is hardcore, no?

More importantly, model IDs should be required anyway, because nobody wants to have a topless 16 year old on their site.

Just as importantly, even if you material is 100% exempt, I think you still have to declare as a secondary producer, and as such, your name and address is still going to be out there for all to see.

Good fun.

Alex

The statute applies to producers of sexually explicit matter.

In our discussion of this issue think there is unnecessary confusion because some of us are talking a from the perspective of a paysite owner and others are talking from the perspective of an affiliate.

If I make a tgp gallery with softcore images ( non-sexually explicit per the definition A-D of 2256) I don't think I have to worry about any documentation or record keeping or disclaimers even if I link to a sponsor with sexually explicit pictures on their server. Does this make sense?

[plateman]

Agreed. the future for US affiliates is bought content with IDs, softcore or hosted. Will be a few exceptions but I guess that's it.

And the world will see where you work from.
I bought some markham content and the models reside overseas so is it legal to use by a US webmaster ??

[Paul Markham2]

I bought some markham content and the models reside overseas so is it legal to use by a US webmaster ??
The law is confusing on this one. But it's been explained to me that I'm the producer so it's legal. They list the IDs that are acceptable so non US models shot by non US people are acceptable.

Just my opinion.

[ed146]

Btw I have some of your teen content Paul. However, since the documents are on pictures am I still vulnerable for providing valid documents or pictures with models showing them documents would suffice? Since the wording on 2257 is ambiguous at this point, I am clueless.

Here is the article
https://www.ynot.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=news_article&sid=9454&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

[Paul Markham2]

Btw I have some of your teen content Paul. However, since the documents are on pictures am I still vulnerable for providing valid documents or pictures with models showing them documents would suffice? Since the wording on 2257 is ambiguous at this point, I am clueless.

Here is the article
https://www.ynot.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=news_article&sid=9454&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0
So print them out to be double sure.

[wolfie]

No you do not have to put up the models ID on the Internet.

What you have to do is go see a lawyer who understands this law and can advise you.

Or get out of porn.

Or risk going to jail for 5 years.
True true!
And hopely all understand this.

It's just crazy to add all online. Models may be in serious danger after that if anybody can read their stuff plus cheaters will just crap IDs from a web.

My opinion for best way to keep records is in your own computer, backups in DVDs or similar.

There's always risk when post that kind information to web, especially if using some free or cheap program to try secure those.

Also I have feeling that there must be law that give you jail if do that.

[RawAlex]

ardentgent, it truly is not clear to me that softcore porn promotions are going to be exempt, and more importantly, I am not clear that they exempt people from the worst part of this law, meeting the requirements to publish a custodian of records, list an office, and so on.

You get into very questionable areas when you are promoting hardcore sites with softcore content, or using hardcore terms around softcore content.

Imagine a "child art" site (I hate the term). They do fall into a legal hole that says "art is good". However, if you mention fucking or anything on that part, it loses it's art status and becomes, well, porn.

Without keeping records and without having proper model identification, how do you prove it isn't child porn as per 2256? How do you prove that the entire work is exempt (IE, the photoshoot wasn't mixed hard and soft material)?

I am really not comfortable with trying to dodge something like this. Your in porn or your not, come on out of the closet.

Alex

[Mr. Blue]

I think everyone needs to settledown a little and take a deep breath. That's exactly what I did and instead of guessing what will happen with all the specifics or hoping for an injuction that will change this (which I think will happen), but I'm moving on dealing with the facts. Here's my personal plan:

1. Continue writing pages and document them so they're 100% compliant with the new regulation.

2. Move off free sponsor content unless the sponsor is going to provide you with the necessary information.

3. Euro content...honestly this for me is a grey area. Each week a different lawyer has a different take on the law. Personally I'm just going to pull the Euro content I used. There's plenty of U.S. content providers that can supply you with the needed documentation...why get cute and chance it? If / When the DOJ comes to inspect my records do I really want to argue the law with them? Umm, no...I'll leave that for other people to do.

http://www.ynot.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=news_article&sid=9465

One lawyer after another keeps coming up with a different take on it.

4. Softcore / Hardcore - Softcore taken from a Hardcore set, lol, whatever...document everything. If you use primarily softcore they'll probably be less likely to investigate you...but again when / if they come for inspection do you really want to be arguing, "But spreading her pussy lips isn't sexually explicit!" Just have the documentation even on the softcore stuff. It takes around 15 minutes to catalog this shit a day.

5. Separate computer with my documentation on it. I assembled a cheap ass comp that can handle basic spreadsheets, that has a big enough HD, and when / if the time comes all my info will be on that comp. Also I'm making duplicate records so if they do need to take away info from my place...I have it all ready for them.
Price of a CD-R: A few pennies
Price of some printed up spreadsheets: Pennies
Getting those fucks out of my house 10 minutes quicker: Priceless

6. Home address...well, this is one of those, put up or shut up moments. It sucks, but no sense in arguing how much it sucks :D My one suggestion here would be for your 2257 page...make sure you use the noindex meta tag so google doesn't spider that page. Might even be worth writting a robot.txt file to specify that page not be indexed. If you have the money for an office...good for you...if you don't put your house address. If you don't want to put your house address...do mainstream pages :D I do rather nicely in mainstream. ;)

I think its worth riding this storm out...porn on the net will be different 6 months from now, but more profitable for those that weather the storm.

[RawAlex]

Mr blue, exanding on point 6, you might want to put your contact info as an jpg or gif, with the right sized fonts and all... that will make the content not be indexed, and make it easy to replace if you move or change business offices later.

Alex

[Mr. Blue]

Mr blue, exanding on point 6, you might want to put your contact info as an jpg or gif, with the right sized fonts and all... that will make the content not be indexed, and make it easy to replace if you move or change business offices later.

Alex

Excellent Idea!!!

[RawAlex]

Lassiter, you need to read this:

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

You are looking at the previous / existing / want congress and the house passed laws... the DOJ has magically taken a marker pen to them and re-written them without bother to do the boring, slow, and required thing about getting new or revised laws passed by the house, senate, and signed by the president.

Read'em and weep.

Alex

[wolfie]

Ok.. this come to my mind more as joke but what if I rent some "closet" from middle of nowhere and use that address. Then blue suits can go and see DVD inside it. |jackinthe

Anyway, I'm going to use robots.txt file. At least it blocks major SEs.

[Mr. Blue]

Ok.. this come to my mind more as joke but what if I rent some "closet" from middle of nowhere and use that address. Then blue suits can go and see DVD inside it. |jackinthe

Anyway, I'm going to use robots.txt file. At least it blocks major SEs.

I'm doing the same...I still don't want the major se's indexing the page. Not like I can make the page a secret, but at least I don't have to advertise it.

[RawAlex]

Wolfie, no problem, but you have to work 20 hours per week in that closet, and it has to be your principle place of business. If they figure out you work at home 80 hours a week, well... it's not your principle place of business, now is it?

Alex

[wolfie]

Wolfie, no problem, but you have to work 20 hours per week in that closet, and it has to be your principle place of business. If they figure out you work at home 80 hours a week, well... it's not your principle place of business, now is it?

Alex
|pokefun| Imagine that!
That was a joke obviously.

[ardentgent]

That was in the Ashcroft language as proposed, and what was keeping what few free sites I have left up and running. But I don't see an exemption for "E" in the new actual regulations that were issued. Can anyone authoritatively indicate where "E" is exempt under the new regs?

E is exempt, not in the regs but in the statute itself. Title 18 Part I Chapter 110 Sub 2257, (h)(1)

[Greenguy]

I have been posting sponsor 2257 announcements over on our news (http://www.greenguysboard.com/news.html) page - but here's a quick list for those of you that might have missed them:

Brain Cash (http://www.greenguysboard.com/announcements/05/050601braincash.html)

Free Ticket Cash / Free Ezine Bucks (http://www.greenguysboard.com/announcements/05/050608freeticketcash.html)

Evil Genius Cash (http://www.greenguysboard.com/announcements/05/050608evilgeniuscash.html)

Extreme Paychecks (http://www.greenguysboard.com/announcements/05/050608extremepaychecks.html)

I will update this list as they come in :)

[Paul Markham2]

We are ready with free hosted galleries and will have some soft and hardcore in there. We will also include some free softcore content for affiliates very soon.

Also we will be selling softcore sets for sponsors only. The sets will be on limited sales, probably around 5 times and will include a license to distribute them to as many affiliates as the buyer wishes.

Cost $2 an image.

[Greenguy]

TNA Cash (http://www.greenguysboard.com/announcements/05/050609tnacash.html) released a statement.

[SmithsMedia]

http://www.fetish-video-cash.com all ready and compliant - says something for us brits :-)

[Linkster]

ARS posted their first installment yesterday on their board:
http://stats.adultrevenueservice.com/v6/board/viewtopic.php?t=2878

[Gawdy]

I think there is going to be alot of people out there not compliant and even more who dont even know the law exists. Theres a whole bunch of webmasters who have never even visited a forum

[plateman]

Looks like its gonna get tuff and I chatted with one of my main sponsors and they said they been trying for months to get the docs from the studios and no good getting it.. a lot of those DVD rip sites are gonna be hurting along with the webmasters promoting them with there content - DAM

[Useless]

I'm going to post this from an email I just received from Nubiles. Mostly because they said:
This is not our final statement on 2257 and webmasters do NOT HAVE PERMISSION TO POST THIS EMAIL ON ANY BBS BOARD OR WEBSITE!!!!!!!!!Idiots.
If you have not consulted a lawyer then you really don't NEED these documents because these rules of record keeping are so strict and complex that if you don't keep the records indexed as the law states the potential time you are doing is huge.
What? So, if I don't have a lawyer I may as well not comply? Is that what I'm reading?

And they are yet another sponsor offering to host your HTML pages and images as a way around having proper documentation. Of course, in order for that to work legally, they'd also have to own your domains. They didn't mention that part, but I'm pretty sure that's true.

[Wild_Unicorn]

I have tried reading all of this 2257 stuff so much and am confused to shit by it all.

I live in the UK but host in the US, I have records for 90% of content I have... Am I still liable to this new law?

If so if I moved all my sites to a non US host, would I have to comply with these laws considering the sponsors I am promoting are in the states?

[mrMagoo]

I have tried reading all of this 2257 stuff so much and am confused to shit by it all.


You are not alone. Some of the reasons this is so confusing are:
we have what the statute say, then we have what the regulations say

we have producers, sponsors, and promoters each with different points of views (and judging by some sponsors statements agendas also) say

we have what lawyers say and what the courts have said

The actual statute is very clear, explicit, and could for the most part be understood by a young person (with the exception of definition of sexually explicit, ie when does lascivious depition of the genitals become masturbation)

The regulations are much more complex and open to endless interpretation

The statute applies to two classes of people: those that produce the material and those that ship or transfer it in interstate commerce.

For those that produce the statute requires certain record keeping. For those that ship it in interstate commerce it requires an attached notice of where and who maintains the records.

The regulations conflate these two classes and unlawfully impose the record keeping burden on those who are involved in "mere distribution or any other activity which does not involve hiring, contracting for managing, or otherwise arranging for the participation of the performers depicted"

The DOJ says it can ignore the clear meaning of the staturtory language and replace it with what it feels is better. The only court I know of that looked at this specific issue disagreed.

The statute also says that the record keeper needs to:
"ascertain, by examination of an identification document containing such information, the performer’s name and date of birth, and require the performer to provide such other indicia of his or her identity as may be prescribed by regulations";and
"ascertain any name, other than the performer’s present and correct name, ever used by the performer including maiden name, alias, nickname, stage, or professional name".

This requirement can only be satisfied by someone who is involved in "hiring, contracting for managing, or otherwise arranging for the participation of the performers" since it requires some type of actual contact with them in order to "require the performer to provide such" and such...

Since I am not a producer I can't require the performer to do shit, and that is why the statute exempts me from the record keeping burden.

Of course the DOJ disagrees. The DOJ not only wants to impose a record keeping burden on those explicitly exempt by congress, it desires to impose the costly and time consuming creation of a web site indexing database scheme and the dangerous multiplication of personal model information.

The intent of the statute is clear: the protection of children from abuse.

The intent of the DOJ regulations is clear: to wage war on constitutionally protected expression, and to harass those engaged in protected expression that it finds offensive, but that the supreme court has ruled we as adults have a right to create, view, and publish.

Then of course we have us and non-us webmasters. I'm a us webmaster that is hosted in the us.

I don't know the answers to non-us webmasters questions but here is my thoughts. I'm not hosted in Europe, but I bet I have sold stuff to Europeans and frankly I don't give a fucking shit what the European laws are. As an American in America, I'm only subject to laws enacted by elected political institutions in America, or so the constitution tells me so.

|yawn|

[rollergirl]

I think there is going to be alot of people out there not compliant and even more who dont even know the law exists. Theres a whole bunch of webmasters who have never even visited a forum


Correct, and many of those with stolen pics or whatever won't be putting their home addy on the web anyway. If they pay for the privacy protection of their WHOIS no one will know much about their sites anyway.
Wouldn't they be a Pain in the neck to locate for inspections.

Then again.. there will be the forthcoming webmasters who are doing things by the book and will have a flashing ARROW sign AND a Yahoo map pointing to their front door.

|angry|

[tickler]

(E) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person.
Everytime I read this I shake my head.

Why do they have both "genitals" and "pubic area" in the statement?

[chilihost]

Just to add to this thread, hunkmoney (http://www.hunkmoney.com) is 100% ready for 2257.

cheers,
Luke

[Greenguy]

A couple more from our news (http://www.greenguysboard.com/news.html) page:

Top Bucks (http://www.greenguysboard.com/announcements/05/050614topbucks.html)

Party Doll Cash (http://www.greenguysboard.com/announcements/05/050614partydollcash.html)

ARS (http://www.greenguysboard.com/announcements/05/050613ars.html)

As always, pay attention to the news (http://www.greenguysboard.com/news.html) :)

[Greenguy]

More statements (some will appear in tomorrow's news (http://www.greenguysboard.com/news.html))

Brain Cash (http://www.greenguysboard.com/announcements/05/050615braincash.html)

Compu Dollars (http://www.greenguysboard.com/announcements/05/050615compudollars.html)

Dollars 4 Babes (http://www.greenguysboard.com/announcements/05/050616dollars4babes.html)

Fetish Affiliates (http://www.greenguysboard.com/announcements/05/050616fetishaffiliates.html)

Twisted Cash (http://www.greenguysboard.com/announcements/05/050616twistedcash.html)

Flynt Digital (http://www.greenguysboard.com/announcements/05/050616flyntdigital.html)

Naughty America (http://www.greenguysboard.com/announcements/05/050616naughtyamerica.html)

MPL Studio Cash (http://www.greenguysboard.com/announcements/05/050616mplstudiocash.html)

[BrianXXX]

I read all this, and in the end I still don't know what the fucking gov't says, as a freesite builder, I exactly have to do! Anyone have example, description? I am so dizzy from it all I am feeling like I'm trippin'.

Basically, what, for free sites, would be MINIMUM compliance?

Point me to it if I missed it, but in normal english, not gov'ment-law'yer-ize.

[Paul Markham2]

I read all this, and in the end I still don't know what the fucking gov't says, as a freesite builder, I exactly have to do! Anyone have example, description? I am so dizzy from it all I am feeling like I'm trippin'.

Basically, what, for free sites, would be MINIMUM compliance?

Point me to it if I missed it, but in normal english, not gov'ment-law'yer-ize.
Assuming you're in America go see a lawyer or risk 5 years in prison, .

That's the best advice you will get.

[Toby]

...Basically, what, for free sites, would be MINIMUM compliance?
Limiting the scope to free site galleries and assuming you reside in the US. For every photo set you use to build a free site you must Maintain a file with:

1. Copies of the model's photo ID's. Two forms of ID are now required, and must be issued by a U.S. City, State or Federal gov't agency. These copies must include the model's full name and enough other info that law enforcement can access the original records from the issuing agency.

2. Some document, usually a standard model release, that establishes when the original photos were taken.

3. All known stage names and aliases used by the model.

4. A record of all URL's on your sites that any image, thumbnail, banner, etc. appears on (anything made from images from that set of photos).

If there are multiple models in a set, you need separate files for each.

If the same model appears in a different photo set used for another free site, you need a totally separate file of records.

That's about as minimal as I can make it, and I've probably left out a few things. I'm sure that others will fill in any gaps that I missed.

In my opinion they've deliberately made the record keeping so complex that there is no way that you can be 100% compliant and still have enough time left to do your regular webmaster work.

As Paul suggested, advice from a lawyer knowledgable in this area would be a very good idea.

[plateman]

I emailed cybernet and tony said they will not release the docs so its hot link to there images or try and find the unique content they have or take about 12 to 15 sites down and I was making a little every month from them - sucks every bit helped..

[Toby]

Hotlinking to images from a page hosted on your site doesn't get you around having to maintain 2257 records. The page displaying the images is still being published on your site. Linking to hosted galleries is about the only way around maintaining 2257 records for galleries with sexually explicit images, and it better be a text link or a thumb made from a non-explicit photo set.

[Linkster]

Toby - think about what you just said - and then think about what a sponsor who had a head on their shoulders would do - I know the first thing I would be doing is offering a sponsor free host and offer to host all of the content right on my sponsor server - that way the content never goes anywhere else and the affiliates still get to submit - of course convincing the TGPs and LLs to take sponsor hosted stuff might get in the way a little but Im sure that could be overcome with some guarantees from the sponsor.

There are ways to make this stuff work for you instead of against you

[Toby]

I'm not so sure sponsor provided hosting is the answer. If you want to get technical, you're still the publisher, it just happens to be hosted on the sponsor's domain instead of your own.

Now, a modified version of free hosted galleries and hosted free sites, that allow you to insert recip codes via an admin console would probably do the trick. But again, getting TGP's and LL's to accept them is another issue.

[plateman]

I know what I can do to keep my se listings is have the LL drop the sites and link my main page to two hosted galleries on those cybernet sites that make me a little bling and then look for content to replace what I have and maybe loose a few sites kinda hard and costly to replace a site with "machine sex" as a title to stay within LL rules.. but lately I been busy replacing old ARS content and have been actually like building new sites because those sites were listed at 1 or 2 places so they are borne again LOL

And yes I used a mix of bought content and sponsor - but it just kills me to turn off the sites that have sponsor movie content or old sponsor content that they cant get the docs for.. take outback cash I make a little from them almost every month and I used some of there and some bought content and it looks like I cant get the docs from either of the content I used.. So I am I think if this 2257 passes I'll gamble and leave the stuff there till I get it replaced with 2257 legal content...

[lokiporn]

we have been getting a number of 2257 inquiries. we will have an online record-keeping system made available to webmasters, fulfilling all the necessary requirements for 2257, on june 20th.

For everybody with this sponsor.

[xsiteu]

I have just sent their free hosting (ndhosting) a message asking them what they are doing. As the host only has Nasty content I tought it should be easy for them to make the domain complient.

[xsiteu]

This note is the first of several updates to all of our webmasters regarding the new Justice Department regulations for 18 U.S.C. 2257 which will go into effect on June 23, 2005. In order to abide by the rules set forth in this regulation, Lindamight.com regrets we must take the following action: *Free content: At this time lindamight.com will discontinue offering free content for promotion of our site. If you are using free content from Lindamight.com you should remove it now. Though we are in possession of OUR id's for this content we are not going to be providing them to webmasters and would ask that you remove any “explicit content” advertising our site. Explicit content includes actual sexual conduct including all varieties of sexual intercourse, vaginal, oral, anal, gay, straight, masturbation and sadistic or masochistic abuse. Also, any depictions of the genitals would fall within this definition. As the last email explained, all explicit banners should be removed and replaced by either the generic banner available through CCBill on our site, or a text link could be made of your choice. If you have any questions, please email either lindamight@aol.com, or georgemight@aol.com. Thank you and I hope to continue to remain successful in the affiliate program. Linda

and also this on the same day

In keeping with compliance of the new 2257 regulations, all explicit banners have been removed from the Affiliate Program. There is only one banner that will work and in order for you to continue to make $$$, the change requires that you change your banner that promotes my site to the generic banner that is available. This banner can be found at http://www.lindamight.com/Banners/banner1.jpg. Please remember, if you leave the current banner on your site, it will not go through and neither of us will make a sale. If you wish to make your own banners to suit your tastes that is fine, or you can just create a text link. Thank you for your cooperation and email me if there are any questions. Linda

Its this second e-mail that is interesting as it suggests that sending sales from explicit banners will result in the sales not being processed for both Linda Might and the webmaster.

Linda Might use CCBILL. I just wonder how this is going to work. Are CCBILL going to police this?

I am a non US webmaster using non US hosting yet I am being told that my sales will not be recorded if I continue to use their explicit banners or content. (Cant really see how one can promote her big clit without any image at all - but that is a seperate issue)

In other posts I have read:

Green Guy:
Well, not 50 - but a lot of programs are no longer allowing the use of the content that they did in the past & if you don't have permission to use the content, then you're breaking their TOS, not to mention copyright laws.

Anyone know why all these sponsors can not cater for non US webmasters.

I just got the statement from Guerillatraffic and they say (see last sentance)


We will also be providing hardcore content as usual. Within the 2257 hardcore zip files we will provide the correct documentation with the model addresses blacked out. Webmasters will have the model's full name, DOB and picture. We are ONLY using content that we have documentation for and we will be fully organized and fully compliant with the 2257 regulations. In the event an affiliate is questioned for 2257 compliance by the relevant authorities our documents will be fully accessible to you. We will also have a softcore downloads section, and a hardcore downloads section with no 2257 documentation for non US citizens.

So they seem to think they can do it.

It is unfair on American webmasters I know but we are not doing this to you. You are doing it to yoursleves - a new type of prohabition doomed to failure.

If American programs try to force this on non us webmasters then I fear tickler is correct when he predicts

Especially foreign WMs being forced to pull stuff sucks, because of some dumb US regulation. As it comes down, it will be replaced with foreign sponsors that don't mind affilates promoting their sites with hardcore

I have more than 10 different paid hosting and most of it is US based. It looks like I may have to move to Non US hosting. I don't want to but this is going to force me. I feel sorry for the hosts in this to.

[Greenguy]

A couple more to add from the news (http://www.greenguysboard.com/news.html)

Max Cash (http://www.greenguysboard.com/announcements/05/050616maxcash.html)

WEG Cash (http://www.greenguysboard.com/announcements/05/050617wegcash.html)

[Paul Markham2]

This is the solution we came up with.

We tried to launch some sets that were exempt of the regulation and it does not seem to have worked. Well not many sales so far.

Content shot before 1995, for affiliates only. (http://www.bargainbasementcontent.com/content.php?aModelNick=&aSetId=9622&link=AND&searching=on)

Softcore content on Paulm Markahm Content Store, again for affiliates only. (http://www.paulmarkham.com/softcore.php)


As for sponsors hosting well they already do that and the problem with it is the quality of content they give out in FHGs. They need to seriously rethink that business model if it's to fly.

[tickler]

Its this second e-mail that is interesting as it suggests that sending sales from explicit banners will result in the sales not being processed for both Linda Might and the webmaster.

Linda Might use CCBILL. I just wonder how this is going to work. Are CCBILL going to police this?
The 2257 and .xxx Conference - Day 2
http://www.avnonline.com/index.php?Primary_Navigation=Web_Exclusive_News&Action=View_Article&Content_ID=230103
"Epoch co-founder Clay Andrews told the crowd that several webmasters have approached
his company about processing overseas in order to avoid 2257, a solution that’s not a
solution at all.

Since 2257 came down we’ve had a lot of requests to move to offshore processing.
We decline them, he said. It doesn’t matter where you process."

WTF, are the processors policing also?

Anybody that was there get anymore on this?

[Useless]

Just received Spunky Cash's official statement and I don't mind telling you, it's EXACTLY what I like to see and is in line with what OC Cash has already said. The biggest difference being that Spunky is Canadian based. I'm damned pleased to see programs stand up and state the obvious; the new regs are a crock of shit. |thumb
Spunky Productions Inc. is a Canadian based adult entertainment company. As such, it falls under the purview of Canadian law and those of its province, British Columbia.

In Canada, the right to privacy is a right taken very seriously. In order to align Canada with the European Union's directive regarding the protection of data, the federal government enacted the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA for short). Quebec has been a leader in fashioning privacy protection for its citizens, including constitutional protection for Aa right to respect for his private life@ in Section 5 of the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, RSQC, c-12, Section 5. The European community has developed, throughout the 1990's, a directive that was passed by the Council of Ministers in October 1995 and came into force in October 1998, obliging all member states to block the flow of personal data to states without Aadequate protection@, subject to the derogations listed in Article 26. America maintained that self-regulation was a preferred approach to dealing with privacy issues. America is not in line with the European community on this subject.

In Canada, Federal legislation generally applies to federally regulated organizations and applies to provincial organizations where a province has not implemented its own equivalent protections. British Columbia has implemented the Personal Information Protection Act. That Act has been recognized as equivalent legislation by the Canadian government. Accordingly, Spunky Productions Inc.'s electronic data falls under the Personal Information Protection Act of British Columbia. As such, there are certain rights that adult entertainment performers have under that Act and certain obligations that SEG has pursuant to that Act as well.

Spunky Productions Inc.'s Canadian counsel, in consultation with US attorneys, is of the view that the new Regulations are unconstitutional under US law.

The Tenth Circuit's decision in Sundance Assoc., Inc. v. Reno, 139 F.3d 804 (10th Cir. 1998) held that the record keeping rule did not apply to secondary producers as it exceeded the Department's statutory authority. It was held to be unconstitutional. Spunky Productions Inc. is of the view that this is the correct interpretation of the legislation and the Sundance case was decided on that particular point. In contrast, the American Library Ass'n v. Reno, 33 F.3d 78 (D.C. Cir. 1994) decision did not deal with the specific point. However that case is being interpreted as an implied endorsement of the approach taken by the drafters of the new 2257 Regulations. The Free Speech Coalition has filed for injunctive relief in the U.S. District Court District of Colorado based on this analysis.

Spunky Productions Inc. will not, at this time, be releasing any model identification based on the foregoing analysis. Spunky Productions Inc. intends to honour its commitment to its adult entertainment models to respect and be vigilant in the protection of their right to privacy.

[Sammy4u]

I know I don't get over here enough but I know some of my affiliates do so here is how we are dealing with the new 2257 regs:


We know it has been troubling for many companies, but times are changing and we all have to adapt to these new appended laws. SammySmack is currently working with our affiliates to make sure this transition goes smoothly.

Starting on June 22, 2005 we will be pulling all promotional content with “other models” in it. Any affiliates continuing to use that promo material will not be compliant.

Affiliates that would like to use our hardcore content may contact us with the following information: Affiliate ID, Name, Company Name and URL.

These requests will be reviewed on a case by case basis and upon our approval we will release the proper documents to our affiliates. We will not be releasing docs for anyone except Brett and myself.

We would like to remind any current and future affiliates that use our Free Hosted Galleries and Free Sites that you should not be affected.

If you have any questions or comments please don't hesitate to contact us.

ICQ:
Sammy: 178-294-423
Brett: 136-726-857

E-mail:
Sammy – Sammy@sammy4u.com
Brett – Brett@sammy4u.com

[Greenguy]

As usual, a couple more:

Sammy Smack (http://www.greenguysboard.com/announcements/05/050618sammysmack.html)

Mega Porn Bucks (http://www.greenguysboard.com/announcements/05/050618megapornbucks.html)

Sweet Money (http://www.greenguysboard.com/announcements/05/050618sweetmoney.html)

Hawgs Cash (http://www.greenguysboard.com/announcements/05/050618hawgscash.html)

[Greenguy]

Giga Cash (http://www.greenguysboard.com/announcements/05/050619gigacash.html)

Lunar Cash (http://www.greenguysboard.com/announcements/05/050619lunarcash.html)

[Greenguy]

A couple more from today's news (http://www.greenguysboard.com/news.html):

Digibucks (http://www.greenguysboard.com/announcements/05/050621digibucks.html)

Pride Bucks (http://www.greenguysboard.com/announcements/05/050621pridebucks.html)

Fresh Checks (http://www.greenguysboard.com/announcements/05/050621freshchecks.html)

[Pusher]

I agree with Paul...a likely result of the new 2257 regs will be a decline in the amount of free porn (especially hardcore) on the net.

That means surfers will have to PAY to get the hardcore stuff!

LONG LIVE GONZALEZ :D

[jaYMan]

After a month of counsel with our attorney, we have came to a decision regarding the new 2257 laws that effect US webmasters.

RavenRiley.com fully supports all legitimate efforts to eradicate child pornography from the net and punish any who produce it. However, we do not believe the new regulations published by the Attorney General will have any success in reducing CP but will instead reduce the amount of legal, constitutionally protected adult expression. Webmasters have already begun taking down pages. Producers have withdrawn content. Legitimate free speech is being silenced.

We believe that the Department of Justice has exceeded its authority by requiring so-called “secondary producers” to maintain copies of records kept by us. We also believe that the additional records-keeping requirements are unconstitutionally burdensome and will eventually be struck down.

RavenRiley.com also supports compliance with laws that are in effect. Therefore, we are taking certain measures so that our program is in compliance with the new regulations until they are enjoined or struck down. We believe the private, personal information of all models deserves to be protected and we will not provide copies of any model ID’s to any affiliates. RavenRiley.com is not a law firm, so we won’t be giving you any advice on what to do with the content you already have up! No permission is given by RavenRiley.com to put up any new pages or sites using previously released hardcore content. All new content provided to affiliates will not be sexually explicit, and no banners or ads will feature hardcore scenes. We have rented space for our new offices and accordingly will be storing all of our records at the new location, so please take note of our new Custodian of Records information.

Our Affiliates are the reason RavenRiley.com has become such an immensely popular website this year. We are committed to providing sexy content that keeps surfers coming back. The great material our affiliates and surfers love will still be on our hosted sites and galleries and will be fully compliant. We will continue to add hot new content every week and continue to provide live, streaming and very hot hardcore video for our members.
If anyone would like to contact us about this, please feel free.

[lassiter]

I agree with Paul...a likely result of the new 2257 regs will be a decline in the amount of free porn (especially hardcore) on the net.

That means surfers will have to PAY to get the hardcore stuff!

LONG LIVE GONZALEZ :D

That seems pretty much wrong to me, and here's why.

There is plenty of free porn available from non-US sites. Scads of Russian and East European sites feature tons of non-2257-compliant hardcore, often with models that are clearly under US legal age.

As smaller US affiliate webmasters are driven out of the market by the burden of 2257, or switch to softcore-only free sites and galleries, the surfers will not somehow magically be motivated to pay for hardcore content, but will rather get their "free" hardcore fix from Euro and Asian-based sites that will happily move in to fill the vacuum left behind, and the overall amount of porn featuring models of questionable legal age will likely increase rather than decrease thanks to 2257.

Aside from the illogic of the argument, a pornographer supporting the policies of crazed fundamentalist porn-haters just seems outright irrational and foolish to me.
I'm pretty damn sure that the Bush/Gonzalez policies on porn are not intended to increase the bottom line profits of webmasters.

[Tommy]

I think its onnly gonna make a short term difference

I think a lot of us webmasters will back away from hardcore stuff but after time will go back to it

if you think about it
lets say you were gonna go buy some content in a month or 2 and build some sites or gallerys

your gonna know who has shitty ids and who doesnt

you would make sure you would be getting the ids and document the new sites as you build them

in 2 months there are gonna be a shitload of scripts and what not

the hard part is going over all this older stuff in 30 days

[Mr. Blue]

I think its onnly gonna make a short term difference


I think even if these regs go unchanged in about a month everyone will be rolling again. Most of the problems have occurred because of content providers not being able to provide (those that can't will pretty much turn to dust and blow away) and sponsor content that people couldn't get id's for.

A month from now, everyone will be up to speed...they'll know which content providers will provide them with unsanitized documents, and we'll all be do some hardcore again.

Maybe in a few days we can just do what you suggested...get a list of content providers that provide 100% compliant documentation with no grey areas...this means no sanitized docs as far as I'm concerned. Others may differ in the sanitized/unsanitized thing, but if I'm doing hardcore galleries (My specialty btw), I'm going to make damn sure I have no grey areas.

[Greenguy]

They are just pouring into the news (http://www.greenguysboard.com/news.html) now:

Make Bling (http://www.greenguysboard.com/announcements/05/050622makebling.html)

Perfecto Dollars (http://www.greenguysboard.com/announcements/05/050622perfectodollars.html)

Puppy Cash (http://www.greenguysboard.com/announcements/05/050622puppycash.html)

Fetish Affiliates (http://www.greenguysboard.com/announcements/05/050622fetishaffiliates.html)

Raven Riley (http://www.greenguysboard.com/announcements/05/050622ravenriley.html)

Innocent Cash (http://www.greenguysboard.com/announcements/05/050622innocentcash.html)

Fat Pay Checks (http://www.greenguysboard.com/announcements/05/050622fatpaychecks.html)

Georgia Cash (http://www.greenguysboard.com/announcements/05/050622georgiacash.html)

Pancho Dog (http://www.greenguysboard.com/announcements/05/050622panchodog.html)

Join Right Now (http://www.greenguysboard.com/announcements/05/050622joinrightnow.html)

Reality Sites (http://www.greenguysboard.com/announcements/05/050622realitysites.html)

IA Cash (http://www.greenguysboard.com/announcements/05/050622iacash.html)

[Far-L]

Dear Affiliates,

We thank you for your patience while we determined our official stance regarding 2257 compliance. Since the inception of the original record keeping act requirements of 2257 Xplor Media doing business as Homegrown Video has maintained records according to the requirements. New Destiny Internet Group will continue to be the exclusive licensor for Homegrown Video and Xplor Media content for the internet. As always Xplor and New Destiny are committed to maintaining documentation and upholding the law.

Like many other companies, we have been working around the clock to make sure that all our records are properly maintained and indexed and cross referenced.

We have judiciously waited to the last minute to make an announcement in order to obtain vast legal advice and to make a reasonable decision.

Online stores which feature our products will be provided soft-core versions of our box covers for display.

Affiliates will have the following requirements:

Affiliates of Homegrown Video can only use our soft-core pictures and clips for galleries and only soft-core banners will be permitted. Webmasters that wish to design their own banners and templates for galleries must get design approval from New Destiny Internet Group.

We are confident that we have made the best decisions possible to protect not only our clients and affiliates but also the confidentiality of the models we feature in our content. We thank all our clients and affiliates for their continued support of Homegrown Video. We look forward to serving you well into the future.

If there are any questions then please feel free to contact me directly.

Farrell Timlake
President, Homegrown Video
timlake AT homegrownvideo.com

[Greenguy]

I'm getting sick of posting these :D

There's a shitload more on today's news page (http://www.greenguysboard.com/news.html) & that's where they will be from here on out.