New rules on 2257

[Paul Markham2]

This was posted by on elsewhere today and is VERY IMPORTANT.

What is different? What are the new requirements?

Full text can be found at: http://www.regulations.gov/freddocs/04-13792.htm

Here are some major points that pertain to webmasters as secondary record keepers:

a.. Internet Definitions. To bring the regulations up to date with the 2003 Amendments, the definition of a producer has been modified in proposed 28 CFR 75.1. Persons who manage the content of computer sites or services are considered secondary producers.

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


a.. Proposed 28 CFR 75.2(a)(1) would require computer site or service producers to maintain a ``hard'' physical or electronic copy of the actual depiction with the identification and age files, along with and linked to all accession information, such as each URL used for that depiction. This ensures that all of the data about all of the people in the depictions can be accessed to ensure that none of the people in the depictions are minors.


a.. A producer who is a secondary producer as defined in Sec. 75.1(c) may satisfy the requirements of this part to create and maintain records by accepting from the primary producer, as defined in Sec. 75.1(c), copies of the records described in paragraph (a) of this section. Such a secondary producer shall also keep records of the name and address of the primary producer from whom he received copies of the records.

You best keep up with this.

[Ms Naughty]

Is this a law yet?

I guess it soon will be since apparently US congressment don't read any of the bills.

[spazlabz]

Originally posted by grandmascrotum
Is this a law yet?

I guess it soon will be since apparently US congressment don't read any of the bills.
Not yet, but you can bet it will be. I love the part where if you run or manage an internet site you are considered a secondary producer. This is a little gem which means that everyone who has a single image on their sites better have a copy of their drivers license handy in case the men in black show up to inspect.. Just another example of how the justice department is aggressively going after the industry, and it's pretty hard to argue with this one since its sole purpose seems to be legitimizing whats being marketed.


spaz

[Paul Markham2]

Originally posted by spazlabz
Not yet, but you can bet it will be. I love the part where if you run or manage an internet site you are considered a secondary producer. This is a little gem which means that everyone who has a single image on their sites better have a copy of their drivers license handy in case the men in black show up to inspect.. Just another example of how the justice department is aggressively going after the industry, and it's pretty hard to argue with this one since its sole purpose seems to be legitimizing whats being marketed.


spaz The only ones who can argue with this are those who want to run an Amateur business. Let's face it we are pornographers, we put up pictures of people having sex, we need to be responsible.

Not just saying we have the address of someone who is the Custodian. How do we know the documents are there, how do we know we can get them and how do we know the models are 18+?

I know of photographers who have people selling their content on the net, content we rejected because of the documents.

Did you know one content provider gives a dead person as the Custodian of Records?

[Ms Naughty]

Did you know one content provider gives a dead person as the Custodian of Records?

Can you name names?

So does this essentially mean that content providers will have to photocopy and send out copies of every model's driver's licence to every single webmaster that has purchased sets of that model? Isn't that a bit of a breach of privacy for the models?

And it's a lot of mail to catch up on, for all the content I own. :(

Is there an industry advocate who goes to the US congress and lobbies about the effect this kind of legislation will have?

[Paul Markham2]

Originally posted by grandmascrotum
Can you name names?

So does this essentially mean that content providers will have to photocopy and send out copies of every model's driver's licence to every single webmaster that has purchased sets of that model? Isn't that a bit of a breach of privacy for the models?

And it's a lot of mail to catch up on, for all the content I own. :(

Is there an industry advocate who goes to the US congress and lobbies about the effect this kind of legislation will have? Assume it's everyone. Not sure if I should give it out.

Yes I think it means you will have to get the documentation for all the content that requires it.

If your lawyer told you not to bother, blame him. If you did not ask a lawyer blame yourself.

[Greenguy]

Paul - do you know if this will be retroactive? I have a shitload of content & I have all the licenses & whatnot that were required by the old law - but it'd be a huge pain in the ass to go back & get the new documentation that is now required on all this content.

Also, here's a thought - my local cable company has a few porn channels - if I'm reading this correctly, they'd now be required to maintain records on all the movies & shows they rebroadcast - that'd be a huge pain in the ass.

[Paul Markham2]

GreenGuy, I'm not a lawyer so don't take this as fact. But as I see it it will not retroactive. But any icontent you publish after the date of the change will be effected, regardless of when you bought it or it was shot.

So if you do not have the 2257 docs. go and get them, if you cannot get them take the content down.

If you published adult content without 2257 docs on the advice of a lawyer, blame him. If you did not ask a lawyer look in the mirror and blame HIM.

Your cable company have the documents, it's only the Internet that runs itself like this.

[Useless]

As someone who used to work for a major TV listings company, I can tell you, the cable companies do not have the 2257 documentation. They do the same thing we do when there is a problem. Point to the folks who produced the porn in the first place. The bill's intention is to force all 'secondary producers' to ensure that we are dealing with legit producers who themselves gather this data. Obviously we can't meet the models (as nice as that would be) so our responsibility is to deal only with those we are absolutely positive are doing business by the letter of the law. We must be able to produce the records in a timely manner if requested, but no one is going to kick down GreenGuy's gilded door and demand the records on the spot.

The sky in not falling. The clouds are just shifting a bit to the right.

[Greenguy]

I'm gonna have to get with a lawyer on this, because if it's like the original 2257, which has this disclaimer:

"Some of the aforementioned depictions appearing or otherwise contained in or owned by Greenguy Marketing contain only visual depictions of actual sexually explicit conduct made before July 3, 1995, and, as such, are exempt from the requirements set forth in 18 USC 2257 and CFR 75."

The I'd have to assume that any content produced before today (or whatever day) would have a similar rule.

Now, with the cable company thing - the movies/programs they show have basically the same 2257 that we have on the websites & it's displayed before and/or after the show. So the cable company doesn't have the actual 2257 material, just a license & the info, as required by the old law.

So now, they'd have to have copies of all the performer's ID's & whatnot, which is a lot of paperwork :)

[Greenguy]

Oh yeah - everyone should read this:

http://my.execpc.com/~xxxlaw/#news

[Paul Markham2]

Well I sold to Adult Cable TV and they insisted on having the documents.

Ask a lawyer and see what he says.

[airdick]

Originally posted by Greenguy
Also, here's a thought - my local cable company has a few porn channels - if I'm reading this correctly, they'd now be required to maintain records on all the movies & shows they rebroadcast - that'd be a huge pain in the ass.

Does your cable company actually show any hardcore?

The rule talks about "visual
depictions of actual sexually explicit conduct " and exempts "visual depictions of simulated
sexually explicit conduct"

It seems to me that softcore and mere nudity aren't subject to the recordkeeping rules.

[Paul Markham2]

Originally posted by Greenguy
I'm gonna have to get with a lawyer on this, because if it's like the original 2257, which has this disclaimer:

"Some of the aforementioned depictions appearing or otherwise contained in or owned by Greenguy Marketing contain only visual depictions of actual sexually explicit conduct made before July 3, 1995, and, as such, are exempt from the requirements set forth in 18 USC 2257 and CFR 75."

The I'd have to assume that any content produced before today (or whatever day) would have a similar rule.

Now, with the cable company thing - the movies/programs they show have basically the same 2257 that we have on the websites & it's displayed before and/or after the show. So the cable company doesn't have the actual 2257 material, just a license & the info, as required by the old law.

So now, they'd have to have copies of all the performer's ID's & whatnot, which is a lot of paperwork :) GreenGuy, how do you know the content was produced before a certain date without documents?

I forgot the content provider told you it was. LOL

They may list someone else as the document holder, but to assume they publish without seeing the documents is so ludicrous it beggars belief. Please show an organisation run that badly, my lawyer is looking for work.

[Paul Markham2]

Originally posted by airdick
Does your cable company actually show any hardcore?

The rule talks about "visual
depictions of actual sexually explicit conduct " and exempts "visual depictions of simulated
sexually explicit conduct"

It seems to me that softcore and mere nudity aren't subject to the recordkeeping rules. They would have the 2257 documents to make sure they had the rights to publish. If it was erotic they would want proof the models were allover age. These companies have in house lawyers, do you really think they run such a loose operation?

Model release to prove the models/actors gave their permission.
IDs to check the ages of anyone in an Adult Movie.

[Greenguy]

Originally posted by Paul Markham2
GreenGuy, how do you know the content was produced before a certain date without documents?

I forgot the content provider told you it was. LOL

They may list someone else as the document holder, but to assume they publish without seeing the documents is so ludicrous it beggars belief. Please show an organisation run that badly, my lawyer is looking for work. 99.44% of the people reading this board don't have ID's for the models they have on their websites. They buy a set of content & get a license to use it, along with the providers 2257 info so that they can publish it on their website. Like I said, I have a shitload of content - I think only one producer have ever offered to send me the model's ID info.

This also seems like it'd be a huge invasion of privacy for the models by sending copies of their ID's to 1000's of webmasters.

I should really shut the fuck up & see if I can get JD from XXXLaw.net over here :D

[Alphawolf]

any content you publish after the date of the change will be effected, regardless of when you bought it or it was shot.

Publish meaning 'upload' or publish meaning when the material was produced- as far as secondary producers are concerned?

The date is effective as of 6/29/04?

As a side curiosity, what about dating/matchmaking sites and picture rating sites like hotornot?

If it's not nude, it doesn't fall under 2257 does it?

If it's a nude pic then it is subject to 2257. So, sites like adultfriendfinder will need solid 2257 info on every person who submits a naked pic *and* a link to that documentation. Whoa.

What about people who use free content? Paysites will be required hence forth to include 2257 documentation in the free content downloads?

Basically, if you publish naked content on the 'net and live in the US, then you need to become a secondary custodian of records.

It's simply putting more liability (hence responisibilty) on every single free site out there. Say goodbye to the part timers based in the US.

As a broad stroke, I sorta think it's good to force 'us' to be more responsible. It will weed out those who aren't serious about the business and take things very casually.

Will Link Lists now require links to 2257 info for every submission?

a.. Proposed 28 CFR 75.2(a)(1) would require computer site or service producers to maintain a ``hard'' physical or electronic copy of the actual depiction with the identification and age files, along with and linked to all accession information, such as each URL used for that depiction. This ensures that all of the data about all of the people in the depictions can be accessed to ensure that none of the people in the depictions are minors.

So, every model's 2257 info has to be linked to from each page the model appears on?

How will models feel about sharing their drivers license or passport photo with the entire world?

Wouldn't blocking out their address be a modification on the document? Meaning, is there verbage in the law that allows one to black out their address?

Has to be for seconday producers. I would think.

Where is the link to the actual code? Where are you quating that from, Paul?

[Alphawolf]

I should realy shut the fuck up & see if I can get JD from XXXLaw.net over here

That would be like REALLY REALLY good.

matrix includes a license pic, but that doesn't include the model release form.

But, if one needs to link to it, then every content producer must link to all the required 2257 info whether it is purchased or not.

So, from now on every content provider and paysite that provides free content must link to all 2257 info. Model ID's and release forms are public domain. |badidea|

[airdick]

Originally posted by Alphawolf
If it's a nude pic then it is subject to 2257. So, sites like adultfriendfinder will need solid 2257 info on every person who submits a naked pic *and* a link to that documentation. Whoa.

What about people who use free content? Paysites will be required hence forth to include 2257 documentation in the free content downloads?

Basically, if you publish naked content on the 'net and live in the US, then you need to become a secondary custodian of records.


Am I missing something in my understanding of the 2257 rules? My reading has always been that sexually explicit content is covered, but mere nudity and simulated sexual acts are exempt.

Of course, it's easy to see that it's a good practice to have model releases/contracts/licenses/etc on hand for any sort of content, but this is seperate issue from the specifc recordkeeping and labeling requirements of 2257.

[Useless]

Yes, get someone who truly understands the law to give us some interpretations. I think these threaded conversations by laymen only serve to spread hysteria and false assumptions are stated as law. Pedantic assertions will get us only so far...

[Greenguy]

Originally posted by airdick
Am I missing something in my understanding of the 2257 rules? My reading has always been that sexually explicit content is covered, but mere nudity and simulated sexual acts are exempt.

Of course, it's easy to see that it's a good practice to have model releases/contracts/licenses/etc on hand for any sort of content, but this is seperate issue from the specifc recordkeeping and labeling requirements of 2257. 2257 covers both hardcore stuff as well as proof of age.

[Alphawolf]

Here is the full thing:

http://www.regulations.gov/freddocs/04-13792.htm

[Alphawolf]

Originally posted by Greenguy
2257 covers both hardcore stuff as well as proof of age.

And consent, right? The model knowlingly was paid to have pictures taken with the understanding those pictures were to be licensed/sold to others for diplay.

[Paul Markham2]

My last piece of advise on the matter.

GO SEE A LAWYER

I've shown you the problem and some seem to want to avoid keeping a few records.

As I read it and I'm not a lawyer, you publish porn you need to know the model is over age, consented to be published and ready to show the documents when/if the authorities ask for them.


I've been 2257 compliant over 15 years and it really is not a problem doing it. Assuming you buy from a content provider who will supply them.

[Alphawolf]

I agree Paul.

I think webmasters who deal with building free sites, LL's and TGP's are wondering about how to provide the information in practice.

On free sites with banners that are explicit, there may need to be a link to 2257 info on the model(s) of the banner.

Voyeur sites will look pretty silly linking to 2257 info.

Basically, even if someone has bought content from just you for everything there will be a lot of work to do and specifics to sort out.

Putting 2257 info in every instance where there is a model will take away from the fantasy.

What about video box covers and print screens?

On Demand video (AEBN), web cam sessions, MPG's, WMV's, etc...

How much money would it take for someone like AEBN to become compliant in practice?

The proposal even covers USENET transmissions.

Even if one is 100% 2257 compliant in *their* content, to actually comply with this code in practice will be a bitch and a half.

[Paul Markham2]

Well so far it all looks like good news, no more sites trawling Usenet for content..|smooch|

No more people assuming that the guy who sold it to them is straight and has the records.

Box covers are alright because they they have the 2257.

Voyeur sites will have to hide it a bit, but at least it will stop people putting up content that is not agreed to. You film your next door neighbors having sex in their garden you can no longer publish it.

Yes some of the Lease Plug Ins might have a problem.

But will it cost us one single surfer?

Will it get rid of a few idiots?

Could be a blessing in disguise.

[xxxlaw]

Greenguy wrote me this morning inviting me to take a look at this thread, and seeing all of the confusion, I'm glad I did.

The posts suggest much confusion that can be at least partly relieved by looking at the existing regulations and the parallel provisions in the the new, proposed regs. No, they are not in effect now.

Many of the provisions getting the loudest response are essentially provisions that have always been there - I'm talking about the secondary producer requirements -expressly for video and magazines, and by necessary implication for the Internet.

There is an issue as to whether the secondary producerr requirements are valid. The only courts to condisder the question answered in the negative in the Sundance Case. But the issue cannot be said to be finally disposed of, and here the Justice Department is, reasserting the same provisions More information to follow in a publis.hed article (and even more to our retaining clients!)

[Alphawolf]

I just read through board tracker with all the threads you started. :)

A blessing? Perhaps in a roundabout way. To you- clearly.

I'm glad I just started out. :D

Regarding the box covers- someone will need to scan all the documents then load them to a server and then go through all the products where there are pictures and link to a copy of the 2257 docs.

I tend to think responsible companies will tend to lean more towards the safe side and just document everything.

I read it (85%) and still am not sure if it is retroactive or not?

It's gonna be a bunch of shit for a lot of people and companies.

What is the kicker is that electronic versions of documents can very easily be manipulated. |sad|

Oh, well.

[Linkster]

Jim - you pointed out the most important thing that has been missed here - this is proposed legislation - that means that it has to go through the standard public comment period, then once it gets to congress, it has to pass both bodies, and then "maybe" it will be published in the Fed Registrar as a real law. Of course, it will then more than likely be challenged in the courts which will "probably" reverse it or at least stop it from being enforced until the suits can be answered which will take way longer than the people sitting in office have left in their terms :)

Its a good idea to know exactly what 2257 does and how it affects you right now, but until the comment period is over for the proposed regs, and all of the comment are incorporated into the revisions, its probably not something to get all fluffed about today.

[Alphawolf]

Jim didn't comment in this thread unless he did then deleted it.

There were a few comments on other boards that indicated it's not a new law but additions to an existing one.

The inference was that it would go through.

But it's all webmaster speculation. :D

xxxlaw,

So, this can very well be opposed and tossed out?

[xxxlaw]

To clear up serious misunderstanding:

1. It is important to understand that this proposal DOES NOT go to Congress. Congress gave authority to DOJ to promulgate regulations to impliment Section 2257 at Section (g) of the Act.

2. When the Attorney General promulgates it, 60 days from publication, it is a "real" law. Your opportunity to challenge it on any grounds is NOW. Full email address of the person to whom to address comments is in the proposal, found on xxxlaw.net.

3. You cannot assume that anyone will file suit to protect your interests nor that a court will grant an injunction to stay its enforcement.

4. It is downright wrong to believe that the regulations will have no effect when the present incumbants leave office. The existing regs were promulaged by J. Reno in the Clinton Administration and remain on the books until or unless repealed or amended.

[Alphawolf]

JD Obenberger,

Thank you for using some of your valuable time to give us all a freebie here and clarifying some important points.

[Useless]

I second that!

[Greenguy]

JD - 1st off, thank you very much for stopping by - we do appreciate it :)

Now, let me see if I can ask a few questions that I think are on all our minds:

1 - the old law stated that the only person that could legally ask for the 2257 info was the Attorney General him/herself. Is that still true? If not, what gov't agencies can ask to see the documents?

2 - I think most of us that have purchased content in the past have posted the 2257 info on our domains & then just filed away the license in a drawer. This was taken from your page at http://my.execpc.com/~xxxlaw/primer.html :
"...The Statute and Regulation in question, taken together, require that records, when they must to be maintained, be maintained on a content producer’s premises...."
Does the law define a "content producer" as the one that shoots the content or would I be considered a "content producer" by buying a license to the images & using them on my website?

I of course have a few follow up questions based on your replies to those 2 :)

[xxxlaw]

1. Section 2257 at para. (c) requires that any person who is subject to the Act will make the records available to the AG at his place of business at all reasonable times, and it gives the AG power to create rules regarding the kind of records to be maintained. The old reg at 28CFR75.5 requried that covered persons make the records available to the AG "or his delegee". The power to delegate this is something that is surely implied in the statute. The AG's involved since enactment - Reno and Ashccroft - never delegated the power.

2. I wrote in the Primer: "The producers . . . must create certain records of the name and date of birth of the performers, those records must permit the retrieval of information by the various names of the performer and by the name or number of the work, ..." and so indexing is mandatory. The validity of secondary producer requirements is complex and disputed - and the debate is discussed in the Primer. The new regs perpetuate this old issue.

[xxxlaw]

Just a bit more on my way out the door . . .
The whole issue of who is a person who "produces" is the key to solution of the question of the validity of the secondary producer issue. Congress says 2257 only applies to a producer, and it largely defines a producer in negative terms of who is not a producer - and though its language is torturous, it seems plain to me and plain to at least the Tenth Circuit that someone with no connection with the images except purchasing them from a middleman as already made is not the kind of person that Congress meant to include. This is a very complex - and dangerous issue - and I've always advised compliance by webmasterwith the secondary producer requirements even if its legitimacy is a matter of some legal doubt. Get the records and have nothing to do with original producers who won't give you the records.

Glad to read Paul M.'s comments. I've seen his excellent 2257 records supporting his excellent content as I've done 2257 reviews for clients.

[Greenguy]

Ok - that makes things, ummmm, still unclear - LOL - but I do understand what you are saying.

Is it safe to say, to sum things up, that we should get any & all documentation on the content that we have in our posession or buy in the future?

[Extreme John]

Good stuff....

Time to sell and avoid the bullshit.

Looks like everyone will need about 3000sq.ft to hold filing cabinets and logging info, paperwork, etc.

Perhaps holding the models depicted in the acts captive for eternity in a backroom might be a good added leverage too.

[Alphawolf]

Originally posted by Greenguy
Ok - that makes things, ummmm, still unclear - LOL - but I do understand what you are saying.

Is it safe to say, to sum things up, that we should get any & all documentation on the content that we have in our posession or buy in the future?

Well, regardless of the outcome of the final words on the law, it seems prudent to get 2257 with any new content from today forward for shit sure.

To not do so would be plain stupid IMO.

[Paul Markham2]

Originally posted by xxxlaw

Glad to read Paul M.'s comments. I've seen his excellent 2257 records supporting his excellent content as I've done 2257 reviews for clients. Thanks JD, if you want a few more boards to go and post on I can give you a long list. It seems many of the people in this business refuse to accept their responsibiliies.

This is a very complex - and dangerous issue - and I've always advised compliance by webmasterwith the secondary producer requirements even if its legitimacy is a matter of some legal doubt. Get the records and have nothing to do with original producers who won't give you the records.
I think this says it all.

[pam]

Originally posted by Alphawolf
[B]

What about video box covers and print screens?



1. You said 'nude' content was subject to 18 USC 2257. It is not. Sexually-explicit conduct as mandated by 18 USC 2257 includes touching a sexual body part. Plain old nudity is not a sexual image and is exempt from the record-keeping requirements of 18 USC 2257.

2. As a video producer, I can tell you there are very specific things we MUST put on a video, and not just anywhere. Check any adult video box cover and in teeny tiny print you'll most likely see the 18 USC 2257 notice. Check my video labels and you'll see it there, within 60 seconds of the start of the videotape, and at a specific time frame at the end of the video as well.

The most important thing is YOU can protest these changes. If you feel as a small business owner the cost to make all these changes and maintain this information (the URL where every single image is, for example -- on every TGP, every newsgroup, etc) is prohibitive, it's covered in the proposed legislation.

[Alphawolf]

Hi Pam,

All box covers are just nude? What about the back of the box?

:(

BTW, I submitted a site for you to review about a week ago. What is your backlog on site reviews like?

[Linkster]

JD - thank you for clearing up that misconception I had on the regulatory process - thought it would have to follow the normal route :)

I have to agree with Paul that there are some content producers out there that already do meet the proposed and old secondary producer requirements and the WMs buying their content have the required info when they sign the agreements up to and including the URL requirements - where I think most of us are a little fuzzy is the requirement of where and how to put the statement on our domains, as the way we have read it in the past is that it could be on the root domain index page and cover all sub sites on that domain, as long as it covered all of the content on the domain?

Pam makes a good point - there are provisions in the proposal to allow you to email or write to the contact point with what you think this will cause you in monetary costs and what you agree with or disagree with - since these guys are not savvy on the different aspects of the industry, it might be a good idea to somehow give them a big picture look at the different functions of WMs and how they use content so that they can revise or at least clarify the rule before acceptance.

[Wazza]

Canada here I come... hosting in the States now seems like more trouble than it's worth... is a pity - I quite like my current host... :(

[pam]

Originally posted by Alphawolf
Hi Pam,

All box covers are just nude? What about the back of the box?

:(

BTW, I submitted a site for you to review about a week ago. What is your backlog on site reviews like?

No no no! What I'm saying is if you have just nude images on your website, you don't have to worry about 18 USC 2257, just make sure you have proof they are over 18 (or 21 in 4 US states).

On the reviews, I see a backlog of about 80-100 sites, but I added 2 new reviewers this week so once they get their feet wet, we should begin to catch up.

I haven't done any reviews as I've been too damned busy launching 2 new sites, but by the end of the weekend those will be done and I can get back to reviews.

[Jim]

For some reason, I decided to look at all my older "Ultra" content. The ones with the girls wearing some sort of "Ultra" clothing and noticed that I do have pictures of the girls and guys holding their id's. That made me remember way back when we first got the content. I just took it all, made thumbs and threw it up on Ultrateen. I remember the photographer calling in a panic showing me a picture I had up of a girl not only holding her license but also her Social Security Card :) We ended up bitching at the guy and telling him we had no use for those pictures. I am kind of glad now that if I ever use those pictures again that the photographer didn't listen :)

Just a note...don't go to any ultra site. They will try to install some nasty software on your browser.

[Alphawolf]

Originally posted by pam
No no no! What I'm saying is if you have just nude images on your website, you don't have to worry about 18 USC 2257, just make sure you have proof they are over 18 (or 21 in 4 US states).


Sure. But from now on wouldn't everyone rather get documentation on every set whether it's 'just nude' or not?

[pam]

Well, yes, but then again, I'm the one who always had disclaimers on her sites (since 1995) and put 2257 notices on galleries :)

I've always erred on the side of caution, it's best.

But remember, proof of age documentation and 18 USC 2257 are 2 different beasts -- both animals, just different types. For photos that aren't sexually explicit, you of course need documentation but you don't have to put the address where the records are kept on your website pages, for example.

It astounds me how many larger, well-known websites don't comply with 18 USC 2257 and have something on their sites like "we comply ..... contact our custodian at email@email.com" without listing a name or address, or have half-assed information at best. Check the links at some of the larger sponsors for examples.

[Paul Markham2]

Originally posted by pam
Well, yes, but then again, I'm the one who always had disclaimers on her sites (since 1995) and put 2257 notices on galleries :)

I've always erred on the side of caution, it's best.

But remember, proof of age documentation and 18 USC 2257 are 2 different beasts -- both animals, just different types. For photos that aren't sexually explicit, you of course need documentation but you don't have to put the address where the records are kept on your website pages, for example.

It astounds me how many larger, well-known websites don't comply with 18 USC 2257 and have something on their sites like "we comply ..... contact our custodian at email@email.com" without listing a name or address, or have half-assed information at best. Check the links at some of the larger sponsors for examples. I was stunned, amazed does not quite cover it, how many on the Adult Internet are ignorantor just don't care about the laws and the dangers they face.

Eveyone assumes that because they met on a chat board they must have everything straight. Even in a business rife with conmen.

Well Ashcroft has seen this and is coming after you, he's looking for some good positive publicity just before election time. These ammendments come into being in August, there is a 30 day compliance period, then you can bet there will be doors knocked on.

Now you may later be able to prove that under tjhe legislation you did not have to keep the records. That will be 12 months after the arrest date and $50,000 of your money into a lawyers bank account.

Be warned Ashcroft is not pissing into the wind one month before the election.

[pam]

People were lulled into a sense of complacency with Ashcroft, Reno, etc never doing any investigations, even though the law, when written, mandated a yearly report to Congress.

I've actually contacted sponsors and asked for their 2257 link and was told by one "we don't give it out to the public". Uhm yeah, that's a sponsor *I* want to promote!

All the people who use a PO Box or MBE/UPS Store-type address may now sit up and think twice.

Having said that, if you are one of those who doesn't want to put their home address as the law requires, for fear of stalkers, why not get 1000 webmasters in the same boat together and protest the new legislation? Explain how putting the address can be detrimental to your physical health due to stalkers. Explain you'd like the option to have your attorney maintain the records rather than the current policy.

You HAVE the option to attempt to do something about it. Instead of just complaining about it, DO something.

And yes, I realize it's very easy for me to sit back and say that since I'm not in that situation. I made that choice 10+ years ago when the law was first thrown at us.

I said this elsewhere and I'll say it again, there is strength in numbers. If ALL of us could get together quickly and put our heads together, we could protest the new proposed law and ask for change to be made. If you can get 1000 webmasters to complain from the small business point of view, it would get noticed.

This won't go away, but wouldn't it be better if we as a group could make it a little easier to swallow?

[Paul Markham2]

Pam nice thought but the idea of 1000 webmasters coming to gether is about as likely as 1000 cats doing the same thing.

Even then if they protested that they can't carry on working in a porn business from home if Ashcroft ammends a law "Designed to protect children" be sure Ashcroft will love that.

Might work if they had attorneys, but if that were the case I think most would have the documents.

However I'm not sure it actually says the webmaster has to be the Custodian of records, need to run back and check it.

[RawAlex]

Pam, the answer you would get for "detrminatal to your health" would be either get your lawyer / third party to be your official record keeper (you don't have to personally on site specific) or GET OUT OF THE BUSINESS if you don't like it.

Remember, most important, these are PROPOSED rules, and they have tried to PROPOSE thigns before and they died. Hundreds and thousands of bills get put on the order sheet for a year, and only a few dozen manage to squeek through in the end.

The sky ain't falling until they pass it - and even then, I am sure there are some interesting loopholes to be found to make it all work out in the end.

Alex

[Paul Markham2]

I've found it and here's what it says.

[QUOTE(3) A street address at which the records required by this part may be made available. The street address may be an address specified by the primary producer or, if the secondary producer satisfies the requirements of Sec. 75.2(b), the address of the secondary producer. A post office box address does not satisfy this requirement.
[/QUOTE] Problem is I cannot find the bit about 75.2(b) in the statement.

Time to see a lawyer.

[Paul Markham2]

Originally posted by RawAlex
Pam, the answer you would get for "detrminatal to your health" would be either get your lawyer / third party to be your official record keeper (you don't have to personally on site specific) or GET OUT OF THE BUSINESS if you don't like it.

Remember, most important, these are PROPOSED rules, and they have tried to PROPOSE thigns before and they died. Hundreds and thousands of bills get put on the order sheet for a year, and only a few dozen manage to squeek through in the end.

The sky ain't falling until they pass it - and even then, I am sure there are some interesting loopholes to be found to make it all work out in the end.

Alex Can I just state at this point the benefits of having and checking the 2257 documents.

A) Shows they exist.
B) Shows the model is over 18.

+ plus if you add in the Model Release.

C) Shows the model signed away her rights to have her image published.
D) Shows who shot the content and owns the copyright.
E) Shows when the content was produced.

Now everything can be forged. But if you think having no documents and never checking anything negates you from the above responsibilities, remembering the content we are publishing, I think Ashcroft is right.

And that makes me mad as hell.

Can't we run a tight ship ourselves, do we constantly need people like Ashcroft and Visa to show us how we should run uor businesses?

[pam]

Originally posted by RawAlex
Pam, the answer you would get for "detrminatal to your health" would be either get your lawyer / third party to be your official record keeper (you don't have to personally on site specific) or GET OUT OF THE BUSINESS if you don't like it.

When the law first came into being, I was publishing an adult magazine. I spoke to an attorney then. I've spoken to many attorney since then. In each instance I have been told I can not use an attorney's address.

This makes no sense to me, if I employ said attorney for $1 a year, that makes them an employee and I should be able to appoint them Custodian of Records.

I don't think they would say "get out of the business" since they very specifically mentioned how this would affect small businesses in the proposed changes.

[Paul Markham2]

Pam, Ashcroft is not looking to make friends in the porn business.

But I've read the law and unsure if secondary producers, need to be custodian of records. It's clear they need to have the records though.

[pam]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Paul Markham2
[B]Pam nice thought but the idea of 1000 webmasters coming to gether is about as likely as 1000 cats doing the same thing.
[QUOTE]

I disagree.

Get all the major sponsors -- the top 25 -- to email EVERY one of their webmasters. Flood the boards. Get AVN and Klix and whatever other online webmaster publications there are to mention it. Get the top 100 TGPs to email their top 50 trades. Get the smaller niche TGPs folks -- like me -- to email their trades. Etc etc etc

[Paul Markham2]

Pam, the webmasters could not pull together to fight Acacia, what makes you think they can pull together to fight the Whitehouse?

I WOULD LOVE TO BE PROVED WRONG, BUT THE REALIST IN ME SAYS IT WON'T HAPPEN

[pam]

I never saw any effort to get everyone together. What I saw was fractured attempts by small groups without a clue. People were contacting First Amendment attorneys for advice instead of registered patent attorney. Things were too splintered.

[Paul Markham2]

www.impai.org and www.fightthepatent.com

All I'm doing is erring on the cautious side. When you see an iceberg on the horizen only a fool assumes IT will change course.

[pam]

Neither has done much to get the word out.

[lassiter]

I'm still curious about this part:

a.. Proposed 28 CFR 75.2(a)(1) would require computer site or service producers to maintain a ``hard'' physical or electronic copy of the actual depiction with the identification and age files, along with and linked to all accession information, such as each URL used for that depiction. This ensures that all of the data about all of the people in the depictions can be accessed to ensure that none of the people in the depictions are minors.

J.D., does this mean that the actual releases (with models' real names and addresses) have to be linked and freely accessible to surfers? I don't know any model so well-trained in martial arts and weaponry that she would ever agree to pose under such an arrangement.

[Alphawolf]

Originally posted by lassiter
I'm still curious about this part:

a.. Proposed 28 CFR 75.2(a)(1) would require computer site or service producers to maintain a ``hard'' physical or electronic copy of the actual depiction with the identification and age files, along with and linked to all accession information, such as each URL used for that depiction. This ensures that all of the data about all of the people in the depictions can be accessed to ensure that none of the people in the depictions are minors.


You know in reading this again I misunderstood it during the initial hoopla. I thought (if this goes through 'as is' or very similar) we'd need to place a link on every page just pointing to the 2257 documents.

Now, after reading it again it seems we need to link to 2257 documents *and* maintain a URL list of every page where the image is used. |huh

What about content served up dynamically?

Explicit Banner ads served via script like on this board here. Sometimes explicit ads show, others they don't.

POTD links. Static URL, dynamically changing content.

What if it's served up inside frames or a chromeless pop-up window?

Or cases where one hotlinks from one of their own domains to display images on another domain?

Man, big sponsors will not have fun with that at all. |sad|

This URL list can't be public can it?

"Here are all the URL's where images of porn star 'x' appear:"

Talk about a comprehensive site map!

Do we all need to know if each other's PAGES are 2257 compliant?

The proposal states URL, not Domain. Hmmmm.

Google will have a pretty tough time with their cached pages and Google Images, huh?

http://images.google.com/images?q=explicit+penetration&ie=UTF-8&hl=en

Those explicit pictures are running off Google's servers. Hope they can get the 2257 info for all those images related to that link above.

That is by far the easiest way for kids to view explicit images...

Adult Yahoo groups with explicit images in their files folder?

Yahoo Image search:

http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images?srch=1&p=explicit+penetration&ei=UTF-8&fr=fp-tab-img-t&n=10&fl=0

The Internet archive? (waybackmachine)

If they show if off their server they are no different than anyone else showing it.

:)

[Mishi]

Originally posted by Paul Markham2
www.impai.org and www.fightthepatent.com

All I'm doing is erring on the cautious side. When you see an iceberg on the horizen only a fool assumes IT will change course.

Brilliant. I'm going to steal this one (hope you don't mind, Paul).

I'm twisted up about this...it's going to create a monster record-keeping issue. On the positive side, that could give us all a leg up when it comes to defending ourselves and our industry, and it could conceivably weed out some of the non-professionals.

On the other hand, well, like I said, it's going to create a monster record-keeping issue. I have no problem with having copies of model ids and releases on hand, but linking every freaking url? It takes me too long to build a free site as it is.

And I have a vague feeling that this law would NOT be used against rogue webmasters. I don't recall exactly what the latest report was - something along the lines that there have been no investigations into 2257 since the law was put into effect (sorry, very sloppy, but it's late and I'm tired) - in other words, they don't seem to care about enforcing the law; they just want to keep us jumping through hoops. As long as that's the case, legit webmasters will continue to find themselves doing more and more work to remain legitimate, while rogue webmasters will continue to do nothing and remain untouched.

I'm going to put my thinking cap on (as opposed to the usual tin-foil hat) and try to come up with viable ways of dealing with this (likely inevitable) change.

JD - Great to see you here! *waves wildly*

[venturi]

This kind of stuff is exactly why I have come to respect Paul Markham so much. I used to think he was a pompous asshole, but the truth is that he sincerely cares.

Here he is living in the Czech republic and yet he understands more about US laws than 90% of the "webmasters" posting on all the boards combined.

What is going to come out of this whole deal? I dunno, but even if nothing happens it should be a wake up call to all people selling, buying, using content on their sites. Get legal and then some. If you don't you are a fool.

Your business is in the UK/EU/Whatever? So the fuck what. Sure, US law means dick in Albania - but why push the buttons? Is it really worth it?

Bottom line is get every bit of legal documentation you can from your content producers. If they won't release the model releases (blanking out real name, address, etc. is acceptable as long as the DOB and a picture is legible) then walk away. I know that I myself will be contacting all the folks that I've bought content from over the years and updating our docs.

[Wazza]

These moves strike me as a means of chopping off or limiting our supply of content - afterall if you were a model doing adult work, would you really want your real name and address being given to every wm?

[pam]

Originally posted by Alphawolf
You know in reading this again I misunderstood it during the initial hoopla. I thought (if this goes through 'as is' or very similar) we'd need to place a link on every page just pointing to the 2257 documents.

Now, after reading it again it seems we need to link to 2257 documents *and* maintain a URL list of every page where the image is used. |huh

What about content served up dynamically? :)

I thought I'd discussed that here, but could have been elsewhere :)

That's why I said each content provider would need to hire full-time employees to do nothing but keep track of where their content is. Same with sponsors giving free content from a content provider.

This would be a hardship, financially, on small businesses, and there is a provision in the proposed law where small businesses can complain about this.

Imagine if you have content of someone who appears to be underaged and are asked to provide proof of age. Now, let's say you *cough* borrowed the images without permission. ......

[Paul Markham2]

Originally posted by Mishi


And I have a vague feeling that this law would NOT be used against rogue webmasters. I don't recall exactly what the latest report was - something along the lines that there have been no investigations into 2257 since the law was put into effect (sorry, very sloppy, but it's late and I'm tired) - in other words, they don't seem to care about enforcing the law; they just want to keep us jumping through hoops. As long as that's the case, legit webmasters will continue to find themselves doing more and more work to remain legitimate, while rogue webmasters will continue to do nothing and remain untouched.
Ashcroft has to admit to a Senate enquiry his office had never examined document under 2257, he then went off an ammended the law.

This law comes out just before the election, be sure he's not done this for the fun of it.

[Paul Markham2]

Thanks venturi


Originally posted by Wazza
These moves strike me as a means of chopping off or limiting our supply of content - afterall if you were a model doing adult work, would you really want your real name and address being given to every wm? No where on 2257 does it say about giving out addresses.

[Paul Markham2]

Originally posted by pam


Imagine if you have content of someone who appears to be underaged and are asked to provide proof of age. Now, let's say you *cough* borrowed the images without permission. ...... This is one of the good things about this law.

Theft is not a joke, maybe I should come down and *cough* borrow your car without your permission.

[pam]

Originally posted by Paul Markham2
This is one of the good things about this law.

Theft is not a joke, maybe I should come down and *cough* borrow your car without your permission.

I file DMCA notices every day. Believe me, I know theft is no joke.

[Paul Markham2]

Yes this will change the industry and for the worse, but it's going to happen and the present system/law does not work.

Don't write your complaints here, go to the site given and register them there. Fro now assume this is going into law, give yourself as much time as possible to find those records.

Will be interesting to see the first post of a content provider refusing or being unable to supply. Or a company who went out of busines and cannot be found.

[pam]

Originally posted by Paul Markham2
Yes this will change the industry and for the worse, but it's going to happen and the present system/law does not work.

Don't write your complaints here, go to the site given and register them there. Fro now assume this is going into law, give yourself as much time as possible to find those records.

Will be interesting to see the first post of a content provider refusing or being unable to supply. Or a company who went out of busines and cannot be found.

Or, someone with content they 'borrowed' who then posts and begs someone for a copy of a model release and IDs for the photos they stole.

[Alphawolf]

To add to Google and Yahoo beng Secondary Producers of porn, all the web based USENET archives will be going away. At the very least they need to eliminate all their adult feeds.

But due to the nature of usenet, and the fact they archive stuff, a binary image can go through anywhere. Bye-bye www.********* and the like.

[Alphawolf]

Originally posted by RawAlex
Remember, most important, these are PROPOSED rules, and they have tried to PROPOSE thigns before and they died. Hundreds and thousands of bills get put on the order sheet for a year, and only a few dozen manage to squeek through in the end.

The sky ain't falling until they pass it - and even then, I am sure there are some interesting loopholes to be found to make it all work out in the end.
Alex

Did you see the post by xxxlaw?


To clear up serious misunderstanding:

1. It is important to understand that this proposal DOES NOT go to Congress. Congress gave authority to DOJ to promulgate regulations to impliment Section 2257 at Section (g) of the Act.

2. When the Attorney General promulgates it, 60 days from publication, it is a "real" law. Your opportunity to challenge it on any grounds is NOW. Full email address of the person to whom to address comments is in the proposal, found on xxxlaw.net.

3. You cannot assume that anyone will file suit to protect your interests nor that a court will grant an injunction to stay its enforcement.

4. It is downright wrong to believe that the regulations will have no effect when the present incumbants leave office. The existing regs were promulaged by J. Reno in the Clinton Administration and remain on the books until or unless repealed or amended.


__________________
JD Obenberger

[Alphawolf]

I'd like to know if the proposal would make the new law retroactive?

[Paul Markham2]

Originally posted by pam
Or, someone with content they 'borrowed' who then posts and begs someone for a copy of a model release and IDs for the photos they stole. Waiting for that to happen, but I doubt it. Already had two clients contact us asking for documents the "Lost".

[Paul Markham2]

Originally posted by Alphawolf
I'd like to know if the proposal would make the new law retroactive? Need to talk to a lawyer on this one but if you're publishing it after the date of the ammendments passing I would guess that's the date that counts.

[porn tony]

I would like to know
how it would efect promoting live cams
with a sample chat applet on my site ?

[Alphawolf]

Originally posted by Paul Markham2
Waiting for that to happen, but I doubt it. Already had two clients contact us asking for documents the "Lost".

Paul, won't you be linking to all 2257 info? Once someone hits agree on your site they can view images.

[Paul Markham2]

Originally posted by Alphawolf
Paul, won't you be linking to all 2257 info? Once someone hits agree on your site they can view images. I'm waiting on a lawyers opinion of exactly what we have to do, in fact two lawyers.

[Paul Markham2]

Originally posted by porn tony
I would like to know
how it would efect promoting live cams
with a sample chat applet on my site ? I'm pretty sure you will need 2257 documents.

[Paul Markham2]

I think it's time for the serious webmaster and paysite owners to go talk to a lawyer, like we are doing.

Then see how they comply.

some will not and run the risk of getting a visit from the authorities, but many will get out of the business. This will be good for the professionals left, becasue there will not be one less surfer.

Everyone is complaining about free porn, this might be the best thing to reduce it.


Think positive see how you can work it, not how it will work you.

[Alphawolf]

I'm waiting to see what Sponsors say about this. I'm gonna hit them up on message boards if they have 'em.

For those who don't read g f y a guy who seems really into this posted this:

I just got feedback from a webmaster who got a response from his attorney that having blackened out ID's won't cut it....

If the webmaster is required to be in possession of the full driver's license, then that's a serious privacy issue and a safety issue for the models.

I'll post up what responses I can get from legal folks about this.


-brandon


__________________
Learn more about Acacia and other patent abuse cases at

http://www.FightThePatent.com
<br>
Acacia Therapy Hotline: ICQ 52741957

I thought it was important otherwise I wouldn't snag and quote a whole post like that.

If lawyers are going to state we need the actual photo ID with license that's not a good thing at all. |sad|

I have just 1 stinkin' site up- nearly all softcore and just started in the industry.

It seems pretty odd to me that those of you who make a living off this aren't providing feedback from what your lawyers told you.

I was really going to get down and dirty and go through *every* sponsor I am with and start posting links to every hosted gallery they have.

BUT...unless what is on the boards is all 'hype', a lot of sponsors will toss in the towel, I think.

It's not really hype because the actual document is there to see and read. Did everyone read it all the way through? It has some pretty speciifc straight forward wording. |sad|

There is not much time for the Sponsors to get a system in place.

[RawAlex]

AW, read the law - there is no distinction in the types of records required between primary and secondary providers. Full model release with photo ID will be required. Address and full information must be clear so that authorities can check to make sure that person exists, is an adult, etc. Blacked out documents just won't cut it.

However, this is more than likely going to violate all sorts of privacy laws, so I expect this one to die a horrible COPA style death... years and years turning in circles in court.

Alex

[lassiter]

Originally posted by RawAlex

However, this is more than likely going to violate all sorts of privacy laws, so I expect this one to die a horrible COPA style death... years and years turning in circles in court.


Maybe so. Two issues here then.

1.) Will a court , as with COPA, issue an injunction against enforcement of this new regulation pending a final decision?
(Plus, to get that injunction, someone with "legal standing" will have to spend some serious $$$ to file that privacy case - meaning a porn model with very deep pockets. How likely is that, I wonder?)

2.) Since this is merely a "regulation" and not an actual congressionally-passed law, does that change the degree of interest the courts might have in issuing an injunction? By that I mean, if the law that gave the Justice Dept. this regulatory authority in the first place is considered constitutional and valid, then I'm thinking that a regulation issued under that law may well be considered prima facie valid as well.

I sure hope we as an industry can come up with some way to fight this trend. Ashcroft & company sound like they've figured out that they can simply hyper-regulate us all out of business without even having to deal with the swamp of 1st amendment and obscenity
issues. If the industry can no longer hire models because of privacy and security issues, then even the guys who are crowing now about how this will help "get rid of the unprofessional newbies" etc. are gonna be out of business too. |goodnight

[Paul Markham2]

Originally posted by lassiter
Maybe so. Two issues here then.

1.) Will a court , as with COPA, issue an injunction against enforcement of this new regulation pending a final decision?
(Plus, to get that injunction, someone with "legal standing" will have to spend some serious $$$ to file that privacy case - meaning a porn model with very deep pockets. How likely is that, I wonder?)

2.) Since this is merely a "regulation" and not an actual congressionally-passed law, does that change the degree of interest the courts might have in issuing an injunction? By that I mean, if the law that gave the Justice Dept. this regulatory authority in the first place is considered constitutional and valid, then I'm thinking that a regulation issued under that law may well be considered prima facie valid as well.

I sure hope we as an industry can come up with some way to fight this trend. Ashcroft & company sound like they've figured out that they can simply hyper-regulate us all out of business without even having to deal with the swamp of 1st amendment and obscenity issues. If the industry can no longer hire models because of privacy and security issues, then even the guys who are crowing now about how this will help "get rid of the unprofessional newbies" etc. are gonna be out of business too. |goodnight The models privacy is a very valid point and needs to be challenged. If buying a $50 set of Jenna Jameson gets the buyer her home address and contact details this will put her in danger and I'm not sure if Ashcroft has considered this.

You need to go to the site and register these thoughts, I will so you do it as well.

As for a webmasters privacy, well that will not cut it I'm afraid, they will tell you to get the porn business out of your home IMHO.

[Opti]

Originally posted by RawAlex
AW, read the law - there is no distinction in the types of records required between primary and secondary providers. Full model release with photo ID will be required. Address and full information must be clear so that authorities can check to make sure that person exists, is an adult, etc. Blacked out documents just won't cut it.

However, this is more than likely going to violate all sorts of privacy laws, so I expect this one to die a horrible COPA style death... years and years turning in circles in court.

Alex

I can't imagine no one thought about privacy.. I read into it that they dont believe an adult performer's personal information should be private if they want to "sell their wares"

[Paul Markham2]

Originally posted by RawAlex
AW, read the law - there is no distinction in the types of records required between primary and secondary providers. Full model release with photo ID will be required. Address and full information must be clear so that authorities can check to make sure that person exists, is an adult, etc. Blacked out documents just won't cut it.
Can you show me where it requires the models address and full information. I can't find it on the regulations, all it says is name and date of birth.

Maybe I'm wrong, I've only been 2257 compliant 15 years.

[Paul Markham2]

You see for me this is what 2257 is about, it's there to protect me.

Executive ran website touting girl prostitutes (http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/03/11/nweb11.xml&sSheet=/news/2002/03/11/ixhome.html)

Perverted postman delivers steamy schoolgirl sex videos (http://www.nichexxx.com/archives/000231.html)

Under age street walkers (http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1439722002)

TEENS ON THE MAKE (http://www.asiaweek.com/asiaweek/98/0710/feat_1_cinema.html)

What I was looking for and could not find was the case in America where some schoolgirls were selling sex to class mates. Sorry I could not find it.

But we do not live in a perfect world where no one would ever sell us a picture of an under age girl. I just feel trusting a stranger is a bit to risky.

[Alphawolf]

Paul, 3 of those examples are outside the United States.

In general, if someone is knowingly doing a crime, do you think they will comply with the new 2257 law?

You think they care- at all about laws?

2257 is a US law. The Internet is not a physical place with borders.

[Paul Markham2]

Originally posted by Alphawolf
Paul, 3 of those examples are outside the United States.

In general, if someone is knowingly doing a crime, do you think they will comply with the new 2257 law?

You think they care- at all about laws?

2257 is a US law. The Internet is not a physical place with borders. Exactly my point. They can sell you pictures of under age girls, call themselves Custodians and you are in the shitter.

But as you well know no American would ever do anything like that, American girls would never pose nude and sexual before there 18th birthday and it's totally unthinkable that an American would sell you these pictures.

The tooth fairy and Father Xmas will be coming to my birthday party next month.

GET REAL IT COULD HAPPEN TO YOU.

Do you not remember the case of 14 year old American girls selling oral sex to class mates? Have you so much faith in Americans that you are prepared to put your liberty into strangers hands?

Give me one good reason other than lazyness why you do not want to check the documents.

[lassiter]

Originally posted by Paul Markham2

Give me one good reason other than lazyness why you do not want to check the documents.

I don't mind the security of checking the documents. What I'm worried about is any rule that would allow surfers to see the documents. Even with an address blocked out, knowing a model's real name can lead to some very nasty harrassment and even physical danger to that model if we're required to have an accessible link that the general public can see (not to mention the Google data being easily collated).

[Paul Markham2]

I hive not seen anywhere that it says the documents are to be shown to surfers. Did I read it wrong?

[lassiter]

Originally posted by Paul Markham2
I hive not seen anywhere that it says the documents are to be shown to surfers. Did I read it wrong?

Well, it depends on the interpretation of the language.

Proposed 28 CFR 75.2(a)(1) would require computer site or service producers to maintain a ``hard'' physical or electronic copy of the actual depiction with the identification and age files, along with and linked to all accession information, such as each URL used for that depiction. This ensures that all of the data about all of the people in the depictions can be accessed to ensure that none of the people in the depictions are minors.

A copy of the "actual depiction", linked to "each url used for that depiction" to ensure that "all of the data" about "all of the people in the depictions" can be "accessed."

First question is probably "accessed by whom?" The answer to that determines whether the "link" to "all the data" needs to be clickable from "each URL."

This obviously needs to be clarified, and quickly by the Justice Dept. Even if my lawyer told me I don't have to provide a link to "all" the model's data from "every URL" in which her images appear, if my lawyer's interpretation turns out to differ from the Justice Dept.' s interpretation, I could still face 5 years in jail for not letting my surfers find out my models' real names and addresses (remember it says ALL the data - no exceptions stated for addresses, etc.).

Knowing the Ashcroft boys, this sort of ambiguity and confusion is exactly their intention, though, so no clarification is likely to be made before someone is charged by the feds as a test case.

[airdick]

IANAL, but it seems to me that records have to be made available to investigators designated by the Attorney General for inspection at your place of business. I don't see any requirement to have the actual records linked from the pages containing the content or otherwise available to the general public.

(excerpt from Sec. 75.4 Location of records.)

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

(excerpt from Sec. 75.6 Statement describing location of books and records.)

"(3) A street address at which the records required by this part may
be made available. The street address may be an address specified by
the primary producer or, if the secondary producer satisfies the
requirements of Sec. 75.2(b), the address of the secondary producer. A
post office box address does not satisfy this requirement."


(excerpt from Sec. 75.5 Inspection of records)

"(a) Authority to inspect. Investigators designated by the Attorney
General (hereinafter ``investigators'') are authorized to enter without
delay and at reasonable times (as defined in subsection (c)(1)) any
establishment of a producer where records under Sec. 75.2 are
maintained to inspect, within reasonable limits and in a reasonable
manner, for the purpose of determining compliance with the record-
keeping requirements of 18 U.S.C. 2257."

[Paul Markham2]

Originally posted by lassiter
Well, it depends on the interpretation of the language.

Proposed 28 CFR 75.2(a)(1) would require computer site or service producers to maintain a ``hard'' physical or electronic copy of the actual depiction with the identification and age files, along with and linked to all accession information, such as each URL used for that depiction. This ensures that all of the data about all of the people in the depictions can be accessed to ensure that none of the people in the depictions are minors.

A copy of the "actual depiction", linked to "each url used for that depiction" to ensure that "all of the data" about "all of the people in the depictions" can be "accessed."

First question is probably "accessed by whom?" The answer to that determines whether the "link" to "all the data" needs to be clickable from "each URL."

This obviously needs to be clarified, and quickly by the Justice Dept. Even if my lawyer told me I don't have to provide a link to "all" the model's data from "every URL" in which her images appear, if my lawyer's interpretation turns out to differ from the Justice Dept.' s interpretation, I could still face 5 years in jail for not letting my surfers find out my models' real names and addresses (remember it says ALL the data - no exceptions stated for addresses, etc.).

Knowing the Ashcroft boys, this sort of ambiguity and confusion is exactly their intention, though, so no clarification is likely to be made before someone is charged by the feds as a test case. By having a piece of paper or a computer file with the IDs and a list of the URLs the models appears on you cover that part of the act, no where does it say, "put it up on the net and link it to the pictures"

I can see why it's been done and the error they made. Would you know the name of every model on your site and could you access the documents easily? I've already had two clients contact me asking for 2257 documentation they "Lost". Problem is they can't remember what sets they bought from me and one asked me to go through their site checking to see which models are mine and supplying the documents. They had me listed as the Custodian, but it seems did not know which images I was custodian of records for.

These amendments are vague, more reason to fear them, but not an excuse to ignore them.

[Mishi]

Originally posted by airdick
IANAL, but it seems to me that records have to be made available to investigators designated by the Attorney General for inspection at your place of business. I don't see any requirement to have the actual records linked from the pages containing the content or otherwise available to the general public.

(excerpt from Sec. 75.4 Location of records.)

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

(excerpt from Sec. 75.6 Statement describing location of books and records.)

"(3) A street address at which the records required by this part may
be made available. The street address may be an address specified by
the primary producer or, if the secondary producer satisfies the
requirements of Sec. 75.2(b), the address of the secondary producer. A
post office box address does not satisfy this requirement."


(excerpt from Sec. 75.5 Inspection of records)

"(a) Authority to inspect. Investigators designated by the Attorney
General (hereinafter ``investigators'') are authorized to enter without
delay and at reasonable times (as defined in subsection (c)(1)) any
establishment of a producer where records under Sec. 75.2 are
maintained to inspect, within reasonable limits and in a reasonable
manner, for the purpose of determining compliance with the record-
keeping requirements of 18 U.S.C. 2257."

IAANAL (I am also not a lawyer) but I agree with your interpretation. Essentially, as far as I can tell, this new regulation extends the responsibilities of "primary producers" (ie, those who make the pikkies and videos) to cover typical paysite, freesite and gallery owner. And it might possibly require even more of said paysite/freesite/gallery owner than it does of the primary producer. It would be impossible for the primary producer to track every url on which the images are used. It will be a royal pain in the ass for us site owners to do. But is it impossible? I'm not sure. It depends on how the regulation is interpreted. It would be a pain in the ass (but not impossible) for me to log all the urls where given content is featured.

But what about banners? Do I need ID for every model in every ad on every site? That would be problematic in the extreme.

I will mention again; I'm not a lawyer (not even a law student) so I really have no clue. What troubles me is that I suspect any given lawyer will have a different interpretation of this regulation, and we won't have a solid definition or interpretation without somebody acting as a test case. Personally, I don't want to be that case, so I'm going to do everything I can to cover my ass.

No, the sky isn't falling - but it's definitely time to break out the umbrellas.

[Alphawolf]

But what about banners? Do I need ID for every model in every ad on every site? That would be problematic in the extreme.

Why would 'banners' be excluded from the law?

An image is an image.

Graphics, including banners- if explicit, would have to fall under the same law.

Everyone has 2257 info on their explicit banners, buttons, FPA's and advertising materials, right? |jester|

BTW, I agree with you about lawyers having different takes on this proposal until a case goes to court. |sad|

[Opti]

off topic - would be good to turn this thread into a condensed version as a newsletter article.

[NotThatKevin]

"At the same time, a requirement is proposed to
be added that the identification card used to verify identification by
the producer must be independently accessible by government entities in
order to ensure its legitimacy. Thus, driver's licenses--which are
routinely accessed through the States' departments that manage such
licensing and motor vehicle registration--are a prime form of
identification. "

According to this piece of proposed legislation USA webmasters will only be able to deal with content providers that can provide them with a USA drivers license or other approved ID document than can be accessed by government entities.

[Chop Smith]

Originally posted by NotThatKevin
[B]"According to this piece of proposed legislation USA webmasters will only be able to deal with content providers that can provide them with a USA drivers license or other approved ID document than can be accessed by government entities.

Kevin it is good to see your post.

This does not sound too good. I have 410 different models with 150,000+ images. Last week I made an effort to see how close to compliance I would be if this thing is adopted. At that point it looked like about 20% of my content would need to come down. In lieu of the US driver license, I guess all of that good Chez content will also have to go.

Oh well, I love girls from the South (US) anyway.

[NotThatKevin]

The law is not retroactive according to that link GG posted. When and if it's approved it will only apply on new sets shot from that date onwards. By the way even tho you have some of our content that are girls from other countries they all have a USA drivers license and live in the USA :)

[Paul Markham2]

Adopting a rule that only US documents will be acceptable will make the market an open field day for foriegners. Unfortunately the US does not produce enough good or cheap content.

I think it also says overseas documents such as passports are acceptable.

[NotThatKevin]

Originally posted by Paul Markham2
I think it also says overseas documents such as passports are acceptable.

Only if that document can be accessed and verified to be valid by the USA authorities.

At the same time, a requirement is proposed to be added that the identification card used to verify identification by the producer must be independently accessible by government entities in
order to ensure its legitimacy.

The Authorities want be be able to verify the reliability of the documents. For example the USA authorities will not have the rights to access the Czech republics database of it's citizens to verify the validity and age of a model.

[Chop Smith]

Think I better get back in my lurking mode, but

As many of you who know me off the board know that as a CPA, I made my living practicing before the most vicious regulatory agency in the US. Get ready! When Congress gives an agency the right to write their own regulations, it is tough. The 'sky ain't falling' but it is about to rain like hell. Sooner or later 2257 regs will be tested in court.

One other small rant - when the regs are finally adopted, you comply. Otherwise, you get out. It is that simple.

[Mishi]

Originally posted by NotThatKevin
The law is not retroactive according to that link GG posted. When and if it's approved it will only apply on new sets shot from that date onwards. By the way even tho you have some of our content that are girls from other countries they all have a USA drivers license and live in the USA :)

Yes...and to play the devil's advocate, how are you going to prove a set in question was shot after the regulation came into effect? Tell the nice man from the DA's office, and expect him to believe you?

People, make no mistake - Ashcroft is PISSED OFF that COPA was set back once again. We are less than four months away from the US election, and the religious right are seeing their lives flash before their eyes. I have never seen a group of politicians more desperate to make an impact. WE are the target. This is not going to go away.

[NotThatKevin]

Originally posted by Mishi
Yes...and to play the devil's advocate, how are you going to prove a set in question was shot after the regulation came into effect? Tell the nice man from the DA's office, and expect him to believe you?

People, make no mistake - Ashcroft is PISSED OFF that COPA was set back once again. We are less than four months away from the US election, and the religious right are seeing their lives flash before their eyes. I have never seen a group of politicians more desperate to make an impact. WE are the target. This is not going to go away.

I do see what you are saying Mishi. The nice man from the DA's office can just be a prick and give you a rough time but at the end of the day the guy from the DA's office has to accept the date on any legal document that was signed by the model and witnesses as is the case with any other legal document in the USA.

You are 100% correct that this band of politicians wants to make an impact and we the adult community are the target.

[xxxlaw]

Notice to all:

I've posted a two-column table on the proposed regulations - comparing all of the terms side by side, indicating by strikethrough what language is to be deleted and indicating the new language in color. It's a fairly elaborate chart but it makes it simple to see what's new and to compare it with the old regulations.

http://www.xxxlaw.net
Click on "What's New".

Feel free to post this link wherever the webmasters graze. As a matter of fact, I'd appreciate it.

Thanks for all of the kind words you folks posted, expecially misha; You all made me feel quite welcome in this rare visit to the boards.

Regards,

J. D. Obenberger

[NotThatKevin]

Thank you xxxlaw this is great :)

[venturi]

JD, THANK YOU for putting that up - makes it tons easier to understand the scope of the changes for us non-legalize fluent folks.

Ashcroft is calling this a "clarification"??? WTF, it's a total rewrite! Section 75.5 changed from a brief sentence to a 60 part diatribe!!!

I'm not saying these changes (many of them) are for the better, but pushing such sweeping modifications through as a "clarification" just doesn't wash with me.

[Greenguy]

Joe - that's awesome - thank you so much for putting it together & posting the link over here - very much appreciated!

[Paul Markham2]

Can you give us a non legalese version of what it means please.

Do webmasters have to have 2257.

Can we remove the models address?

What documents are required fro non US photographers?

Will it apply to content shot before the September deadline or will it apply to pages published after that date?

Feel free to ask any other ones I missed.

[stev0]

Originally posted by Paul Markham2
The only ones who can argue with this are those who want to run an Amateur business. Let's face it we are pornographers, we put up pictures of people having sex, we need to be responsible.

Not just saying we have the address of someone who is the Custodian. How do we know the documents are there, how do we know we can get them and how do we know the models are 18+?

I know of photographers who have people selling their content on the net, content we rejected because of the documents.

Did you know one content provider gives a dead person as the Custodian of Records?

I'm sure alot of models that posed in the past would feel very uncomfortable with anyone that buys $5 worth of content having their full name and contact info though....

[plateman]

Well One good thing about all of this is to buy content from a good legal source That knows the law.. And to keep good files and records..

[Dravyk]

Thought I'd chime in here with some thoughts and comments.

First, having looked at various threads on various boards about this same topic, I do have to hand it to everyone here at GG&J, that this has been the best discusssion I've seen thus far on the subject.

I also wanna give a big hand to Joe, as I believe this is (so far) the only posting I've seen anywhere from a legal professional.


I guess the most unanswered question though is: What should we do? And I think the reason there are no clear cut answers, is because there won't be any until someone gets prosecuted and the law gets challenged and a court makes a decision. (Is this sad thinking the true answer here? Anyone?)

I think in terms of prevention there are very limited things we can do right now, because to follow the (proposed) law to the full extent that a liberal reading of it would suggest is, basically, an impossibility. To get every record from every content provider (highly improbable), and then to some how attach each image to an URL and to a record is most definitely impossible.

And evern were it actually fully and totally possible, then the effort, time and money would so outrageously great that everyone closing shop would be a more desirable option. (Which, IMHO, is what Aschhead wants in the first place.) So again, what DO we do? How can people follow a rule that requires an impossible task? Now that's what I'd like to hear a legal opinion on.

[Paul Markham2]

And evern were it actually fully and totally possible, then the effort, time and money would so outrageously great that everyone closing shop would be a more desirable option. (Which, IMHO, is what Aschhead wants in the first place.) So again, what DO we do? How can people follow a rule that requires an impossible task? Now that's what I'd like to hear a legal opinion on. You write to Mr Ashcroft, via the site, telling him this.

[Dravyk]

Originally posted by Paul Markham2
You write to Mr Ashcroft, via the site, telling him this. Sounds like a bit of a Catch 22 though, doesn't it? Hi Mister Enemy, here is all of my business information, where I live, how much I make, my IRS ID number and this is how much it would cost to make the changes you propose?

I'm thinking you're safer being out of the country, maybe you should write him, Paul. :)

[Paul Markham2]

I've already written and if your attitude is to lie low and hope it goes away you are dreaming.

[Dravyk]

Originally posted by Paul Markham2
I've already written and if your attitude is to lie low and hope it goes away you are dreaming. I guess you don't know me that well then, Paul.

But I'm also not going to put my foot into a bear trap and think it's the answer to all my prayers either. :)

[NotThatKevin]

Originally posted by Paul Markham2
I've already written and if your attitude is to lie low and hope it goes away you are dreaming.

If you believe Ashcroft is going to take any note of what you or any of us write then your are living in lala land mate

This is Ascroft were talking about not Clinton |jester|

[Paul Markham2]

He has to take notice it's the law.

And when the first girl get's stalked and murdered we can point a finger and say "Told you so" and he knows that.

Write and make a difference, you don't have to give your details.

[lassiter]

Originally posted by NotThatKevin
If you believe Ashcroft is going to take any note of what you or any of us write then your are living in lala land mate

This is Ascroft were talking about not Clinton |jester|

I suspect you're right.

"Hey, look, those disgusting perverted satanic pornographers are all upset about the new regulations. We must be doing something right."

Face it, the US Justice Dept. is not in this to worry about our business problems. They're deliberately trying to cause us business problems, it looks like. |angry|

Still, I do support letting our opinions be known. Well-reasoned and politely, though - no sense inviting oneself to become a target by threatening the Attorney General with bodily harm, etc.

[xxxjay]

Can anybody say weather moving your servers offshore and setting up a foriegn company being a solution to this problem?

What it would take to comply with this is damn near impossible. I think I'd be better offshore.

Any thoughts? I'd love to hear what JD has to say about this.

[lassiter]

Originally posted by xxxjay

What it would take to comply with this is damn near impossible. I think I'd be better offshore.


The issue that may just shut me down is that the DoJ apparently is going to now enforce the requirement that both primary and secondary producers must have an actual employee present at the "principal place of business" at all times between 8am and 6pm local time 7 days a week. Even if you're full-time (I'm not), you can't leave for lunch or a doctor's appointment, or any other reason, 'cause if the DoJ shows up for a snap inspection and no one is home, BAM - you're shut down and face up to 5 years in jail.

My own attorney says this language dates from pre-Internet days and was originally meant to apply to XXX video producers and distributors. But my attorney also pointed out that the new regs reemphasize this language, and pointeldy provide NO exception for net-based businesses. He thinks this means they intend to enforce this provision against net businesses, else there would have been an update or modification to the requirement. This is also a regulation, not a law, so if charges were brought under Sec. 2257, it would not be a criminal trial with a jury, but simply a civil hearing in which the only question would be "were you out of compliance or not?" Constitutional issues or the general unfairness of the rule would probably not be allowed to be considered by the judge.

So if you're not big enough to hire a full-time employee or two yet, that will actually work from the same office the 2257 records are kept, you are running a very big risk by even leaving for an hour or two, even on weekends. |sad|

[xxxjay]

Yes, but my question is, by having a company set up outside the US with a corp, servers, and bank accounts in aonther country put you outside the Feds jurisdiction?

If nothing else, I think it would make you a less attactive target.

[lassiter]

Originally posted by xxxjay
Yes, but my question is, by having a company set up outside the US with a corp, servers, and bank accounts in aonther country put you outside the Feds jurisdiction?

I'm NOT a lawyer - but I'd hazard a guess that if the "principal place of business" and therefore the place where the 2257 records would theoretically be kept is in fact not in the US, that DoJ could have no jurisdiction.
I don't even think the servers would have to be out of the USA - just the actual location of both the incorporation and the real physical address of the "principal place of business." Remember ISPs (which would include webhosts, no?) are specifically exempt from liability under Sec. 2257.

[xxxjay]

OK - here's another question. I just talked to a lawyer and he said that the new regs applied only to page published after the 8/24 deadline.

I'm not sure that I believe this 100%. Isn't every time you log onto a webpage isn't it published again? How about modifying it?

[lassiter]

Again, standard disclaimer - I'm not a lawyer, but I'm trying to quote him from possibly faulty notes and memory - I have not received a written letter outlining all this yet.

I was told it only applies to pictorial or video content produced after 8/24. So an existing free site with existing content would be covered under the older set of regs, but if you changed or added any sexually-explicit content that had been shot after 8/24, the site would then be liable under the new regs. The content on the site (which does include banners, if they are sexually-explicit) is the part covered by Sec. 2257, so say, a TGP with only text links to outside sponsor-hosted galleries and no explicit images otherwise would not fall under 2257 at all, since no explicit content is actually under your control. But for any gallery or video accesible from a domain you control, you have to have recordkeeping on file for that content and those models. Again - that's content produced after 8/24, and the content provider (primary producer) is responsible for providing you that information.

In short, it's basically a mess.

One more clarification - It looks like any newly created site after 8/24 falls under the new regs regarding the 2257 contact information that must be put on the main page of the site. What I wrote about content above applies to the model recordkeeping part of the rules. Two different things as far as the 8/24 date goes.

Plus, I should say I'm still not sure from my discussion whether the new content/model recordkeeping rules actually apply to content shot after 8/24, or to content bought or licensed after 8/24. I'm not sure my lawyer can tell, either.

[xxxjay]

Supposedly the "grandfathering in" is true:

Section 75.2 paragraph D.

Although I honestly can't make sense of it.

[RawAlex]

It is typical government BS when the rules are not carefully considered. This is Assclown and his merry (but certainly not gay) men attempting to write laws without bothering to get them passed by the house and senate.

The dates are not clear. The grandfathering isn't clear. The actual record required are not clear. 2257 has always been about the person creating the content, never about the publisher. Now it is about both. I think they will get themselves slapped stupid for trying this. Supreme court will love it.

In the mean time, stay low, fly under the radar!

Alex

[chilihost]

Question:
According to http://www.xxxlaw.net on the 2257 table:
"Producer does not include....A provider of Web-hosting services who does not manage the content of the computer site or service"

So my interpretation is that hosting in the USA is irrelevant, its only where the primary and secondary producers of content live that matters.

if this is correct, then any one whose "presence" is outside the USA and is hosted on my USA-based servers does not need to worry about this, right?


cheers,
Luke

[NotThatKevin]

I think what will happen is that when they do a whois on a domain and see that it belongs to someone outside the USA they won't bother. If they don't believe the whois info and approach the hosting service and he confirms the owner is not a USA citizen they will move on. They have thousands more in the USA they can bother.

[Alphawolf]

Near the bottom of this thread:

http://www.pornstarkings.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=410204c4269cffff;act=ST;f=1;t=2251;st=0

...Jace consulted with his lawyer.

[xxxjay]

That Jace dude is so negative - I would just ignore his posts.

2 things that I know for sure right now, and that is if this IS NOT a worst case scenerio:

1. Any page you publish AFTER 8/24 had better be in check.

2. As a layer of protection - move your business (at least on paper) OFFSHORE. It is much easier to move on to the guy who didn't move offshore and lives in North Carolinia that it does to go after a Panama based company. Even though just that is not enough.

The more walls you put between you and them - the better off you are. Plus, you can observe the fate of the people who do NOTHING and get cased up before you do.

"1oz of protection is worth a pound of cure"

[RawAlex]

Jay, careful with that logic... sometimes the feds like nothing more than to come down on someone who is playing games. No matter how far offshore your company is, if you are the one person publishing adutl material for that company (you make the pages, you FTP the stuff, etc) the you are not exempt.

Yes, it would be harder for them, yes, they are more likely to go after the obvious ones, and YES, if they want to get you, they will, no matter how many shell companies you hide behind.

Alex

[Alphawolf]

Originally posted by xxxjay
That Jace dude is so negative - I would just ignore his posts.

Regardless of being negative he saw a lawyer and shared what his lawyer told him.

1. Any page you publish AFTER 8/24 had better be in check.

How the hell will anyone ever know what pages out of the millions out there were FTP'd after 8/24?

2. As a layer of protection - move your business (at least on paper) OFFSHORE. It is much easier to move on to the guy who didn't move offshore and lives in North Carolinia that it does to go after a Panama based company. Even though just that is not enough.

Did you talk to a lawyer yet?

[xxxjay]

Originally posted by Alphawolf
Regardless of being negative he saw a lawyer and shared what his lawyer told him.



How the hell will anyone ever know what pages out of the millions out there were FTP'd after 8/24?



Did you talk to a lawyer yet?

Yes, I have talked with SEVERAL lawyers about this.

The most confusing thing is the date of publishing thing and if this law is retroactive or not - which I have had a variety of answers to, even from lawyers:

Some said all pages published prior to the change in regulations would be subject to the old regulations and some say pages published after 8/24 would have to comply with the new 2257.

If it effects everything after 8/24 - no biggie...just comply. If not - there are much larger ramifications.

[bret]

what about hot linking? if i hot link a banner (or any image for that matter) off of someone else's server, who is considered to be the secondary publisher?

[Alphawolf]

I wondered about hotlinking too.

This is pure speculation like the majority of the posts- but I'd think if it's visible on www.yourdomain.com then you need to have a 2257 statement somewhere.

If that was a way around the regulation then all people had to do would be to get a host outside the US and hotlink from their US based domains.

I doubt "It's not actually on my domain - you just see it on my domain" will be a good defense.

From a non technical standpoint it is reasonable for people to think you are responsible for what is shown on your domain.

Probably none of those question like you came up with would be anwered until a case went to court. :(

[Alphawolf]

Originally posted by xxxjay
If it effects everything after 8/24 - no biggie...just comply. If not - there are much larger ramifications.

The lawyers cannot understand if it is retroactive or not? That's a pretty big gap in understanding to have.

Did your lawyer get into specifics at all? Meaning- any advise in what to do in a practical sense on our websites?

[RawAlex]

It really isn't clear. With 2257 as it was, there was a specifric date (sometime in 1995, I think it is) where the law took effect. All images produced before that were exempt from 2257 (and you will see that on many websites notices).

The new "rules" are not really laws, they are "administrative clarifications", essentially Assclowns way of attempting to screw up all the porn sites. The wording to their changes is less than clear, and there is no real effective date. It is not clear from the text if the new rules for secondary producers (ie: website owners) applies to all 2257 material since 1995 or just new material going forward from the effective date of these new "clarifications".

I personally think these "clarifications" won't float in a court of law, but it won't stop assclown from being, well, an ass.

Good luck to all my american friends.

Alex

[The Other Steve]

I think that there is an effective date and that is the date that the AG - or his appointed officer - signs off on the new regulation.

That date will be announced in the government gazette - or whatever the official US government publication is called.

And as someone pointed out - it's not easy to challenge a regulation in court. In fact if someone is charged under this regulation the court will probably not be allowed to consider the fairness or constitutionality of the regulation.

[Bill]

I think you guys are getting a bit more agitated about this than is necessary.

Admittedly, there is a certain risk, but it is probably significantly less than the risk you take driving to the store for groceries.

The feds never acted on the old 2257, what makes you think you are so big a porner that they are going to spend thousands of dollars to come make a surprise visist to your home to check your 2257 records?

Even with big name cases like E.A., they could have made dozens of arrests based on a similar strategy, but they do one, as a scare tactic.

Jay, arguably, has more risk than the average webmaster. If the feds do decide to test case this, he has way more chances than me to be targeted. But I STRONGLY doubt they will even test case this. This looks like classic fed obfustucation, writing punitive regs to threaten and bluster, and as a CYA thing politically, but with no means for enforcement.

I'm not planning on making any changes other than a slight addition to my current 2257 declaration. Then watch and wait- we'll probably see big warning signs before enforcement, and the legal eagles will have a better idea of how to interpret the regs, practically speaking, after more time has passed.

[lassiter]

Originally posted by RawAlex
It really isn't clear. With 2257 as it was, there was a specifric date (sometime in 1995, I think it is) where the law took effect. All images produced before that were exempt from 2257 (and you will see that on many websites notices).


The law took effect in 1992. May 1995 was the cutoff date after which all content had to be compliant. But the new rule does away with that and makes content going back to 1990 or 1992 liable under the rules. It certainly creates a real mess for a lot of video companies that market older back-catalog videos, though probably it's less crucial for webmasters. Still, it gives a sense of how deliberately punitive the new regulations are.

[xxxjay]

Originally posted by Bill
Jay, arguably, has more risk than the average webmaster. If the feds do decide to test case this, he has way more chances than me to be targeted. But I STRONGLY doubt they will even test case this. This looks like classic fed obfustucation, writing punitive regs to threaten and bluster, and as a CYA thing politically, but with no means for enforcement.

I agree with that. I hope you are saying it's becasue of all my good SE listing than how I operate my site.

I am talking to a lawyer on Tuesday that says he can make my whole site 2257 compliant by the deadline by Tuesday.

That I have just 99 domains to go after that...fuck.

[Bill]

Yes, your se positions and the fact that you are a "colorful character", just the sort they would want for a perp walk, ha ha ha!

I've never seen anything on any of your pages that would lead me to a second thought on 2257 or model age.

If they bust you because you didn't have your releases in alphabetical order I'll donate to your defense fund man. If they bust me because I put my "Zena's" before my "Alicia's", I'll happily do the time, because I think the whole country is going to laugh in their rat-eyed fed faces.

At the beginning of this year the 2257 rumors started, and a lot of the content guys were saying "watch out for the upcoming 2257 busts...". And this was under the old regs. Nothing has happened.

They are witless bullies who are incompetent to do a single thing about the worst kind of spam or rape TGPs. Admittedly, this being an election year, puffed up "political" arrests are more likely- but is arresting a bunch of working joes like you and I going to look good on the Evening Spews?

[lassiter]

Originally posted by Bill
Admittedly, this being an election year, puffed up "political" arrests are more likely- but is arresting a bunch of working joes like you and I going to look good on the Evening Spews?

If the resulting headlines read "local internet pornographer arrested at his home for violating federal child porn regulations" (which would technically be true, even if utterly misleading and bogus) it would be pretty much impossible to get anything else across.

[The Other Steve]

Agreed - in all of this we should never presume that we will get any sort of hearing based on 'we're just ordinary business people who couldn't get our records right'.

Instead it will be a case of 'depraved sex fiend who was out to corrupt our kids has been caught in a clever DOJ sting.'

No one is going to want to even know you when that happens and the entire community will applaud as you're carted of to jail.

Don't look at this from a reasonable point of view - look at it from the point of view of a far right wing religious loonie and you may start to feel the cold clammy touch of fear.

[xxxjay]

Originally posted by lassiter
If the resulting headlines read "local internet pornographer arrested at his home for violating federal child porn regulations" (which would technically be true, even if utterly misleading and bogus)

I agree 100%. They can spin that so easily.

[xxxjay]

Originally posted by Bill
I STRONGLY doubt they will even test case this. This looks like classic fed obfustucation, writing punitive regs to threaten and bluster

Lawyers I have talked to say that they will be very aggressive about this. I wouldn't sleep on it.

[Paul Markham2]

Just remember the only way you can prove the date of publication is by having the records to hand in your office. So when the feds ever do visit you can point to the documents proving the date you put the page up.

Assuming publication is the date you put it up and not the day it was last read.

As for this never being acted on, dream on, it's coming out at the time of the Republican convention. A nice time for Ashcroft to stand up and declare he's fighting for the moral majority to protect our children. He will of course need a few scape goats to display as well.

By the time this law is revealed as unworkable he will be back in or voted out and he will not care.

NEVER UNDER ESTIMATE THE ENEMY.

[xxxjay]

Originally posted by Paul Markham2

Assuming publication is the date you put it up and not the day it was last read.


That is the million dollar question right there.

[lassiter]

Originally posted by xxxjay
That is the million dollar question right there.

Heh - a lot of sites have dynamic pages, that show the date of creation as the current date when you do a "view page info" search, since literally the page content is being created "on the fly."

[xxxjay]

Ok – I’ve have now officially consulted with three different attorneys on the “date of publishing” issue. Of course, the industry would like to state that it is the date a site went online, while the government will most likely take a much harder stance.

Fact is, what constitutes “date of publication” is nebulous – even in the written law.

Also, there is some case law (the Sundance case) that defines what “secondary producers” are and points to flaws in the new 2257. There are also constitutionality (Ashcroft can’t just create a whole new breed of criminals) and well as blatant privacy issues.

2257 IS bad news, but all the cards are not yet on the table.

[lassiter]

Originally posted by xxxjay

Fact is, what constitutes “date of publication” is nebulous – even in the written law.

Also, there is some case law (the Sundance case) that defines what “secondary producers” are and points to flaws in the new 2257. There are also constitutionality (Ashcroft can’t just create a whole new breed of criminals) and well as blatant privacy issues.

Damn, I hate being so pessimistic abut it all, but from what your attorney is saying (and it is much the same as mine told me), it sounds like we won't know the full meaning or validity of this until someone gets popped and decides to spend some major $$$ fighting it rather than taking a plea bargain. |goodnight

[bret]

Originally posted by Paul Markham2
...A nice time for Ashcroft to stand up and declare he's fighting for the moral majority to protect our children. He will of course need a few scape goats to display as well...

speaking time is scarce at the conventions, there is no way anyone would be allowed to get up and preach about anti-porn laws. the point of the conventions is to kick off the "meet the candidate" portion of the campaign...

they know the general public does not give two fucks about anti-porn laws/regulations/etc, no candidate would ever allow someone to waste "costly" speaking time on a non-voting issue.

[xxxjay]

Originally posted by lassiter
Damn, I hate being so pessimistic abut it all, but from what your attorney is saying (and it is much the same as mine told me), it sounds like we won't know the full meaning or validity of this until someone gets popped and decides to spend some major $$$ fighting it rather than taking a plea bargain. |goodnight

I'm afraid this is true.

[chilihost]

If anyone is interested, I have just completed signing up a contract with a new data centre that is NOT in the USA. We will have our first servers in place within a week and will be able to offer offshore hosting for a price that is not much more than our current rates.

This will give any chilihost clients the ability to quickly move their hosting offshore if they need to for any reason, with no interruption in service. Best off, all chilihost clients will continue to receive the high quality service they are used to and will not have to worry about dealing with dodgy offshore operators.

Like I have said, the new 2257 regs specifically exclude hosting companies. Imho, where you host is irrelevant. However, I have had requests for a non-US hosting solution and am happy to be able to offer this service to all existing and new clients.


cheers!
Luke

[lassiter]

Originally posted by chilihost

Like I have said, the new 2257 regs specifically exclude hosting companies. Imho, where you host is irrelevant.

As far as 2257 goes, that just means that hosting companies themselves are exempt from prosecution. Still, you have a good service if further restrictions should come down the tubes.

AFAIK, the only way to not be under 2257 reporting and inspection rules, as either a primary or secondary producer, is if you are a.) not using any sexually-explicit content on any domain or site you own or control, or b.) your country of incorporation AND your "primary place of business" are both located outside of the USA or its territories, and/or c.) you do not intend to offer content or affiliate programs to US webmasters.

[xxxjay]

Originally posted by lassiter
you do not intend to offer content or affiliate programs to US webmasters.

If this thing flies - there will be no us webmasters.

[chilihost]

Originally posted by lassiter
As far as 2257 goes, that just means that hosting companies themselves are exempt from prosecution. Still, you have a good service if further restrictions should come down the tubes.

When I said where you host is irrelevant, I guess my point was that no matter where you host, if you are US-based and deal with sexually explicit content you have to comply with 2257.

But like you said earlier, "it sounds like we won't know the full meaning or validity of this until someone gets popped" so no one really knows what lies ahead, I am just trying to keep options available!


cheers,
Luke

[xxxjay]

Originally posted by lassiter
you do not intend to offer content or affiliate programs to US webmasters.

Right there is a very good point. If your run an affiliate program, isn't it better you take care of the people that have always taken care of you? Rather that leave them hung out to dry?

If I ran an affiliate program (which I will be doing in the next week or so *wink* - *nudge*) -- I would be bending over backwards to make sure my affiliates won't be going down for promoting my shit.

I can't believe how so many programs are sleeping on this shit! Remember, you are only as big as your affiliate base.

We need to be more proactive or this will be the end of us.

[chilihost]

I am pretty happy that we decided to go with hosted galleries and hosted free sites instead of handing out content. That will make compliance as easy as adding a 2257 statement with my address on it.

But what about banners? I am thinking of getting some new banners created that are not sexually explicit for US based webmasters. That way they don't have to worry about the record keeping.

cheers,
Luke

[lassiter]

Originally posted by chilihost
But what about banners? I am thinking of getting some new banners created that are not sexually explicit for US based webmasters. That way they don't have to worry about the record keeping.


Yes, every sponsor should be doing this.

OK, it may be hard to promote, say, "triple penetration pussy-piercers" with softcore banners, but that's just an opportunity for the designers to exercise some creativity. :)

[madmaxtgp]

I've read, and reread this thread, and others..And I get the jist of it all, but what I am unclear of still....Is for instance, if I buld a tgp gallery with 16 pictures, does the 2257 info have to point to each individual picture, or just that page?

[lassiter]

Originally posted by madmaxtgp
I've read, and reread this thread, and others..And I get the jist of it all, but what I am unclear of still....Is for instance, if I buld a tgp gallery with 16 pictures, does the 2257 info have to point to each individual picture, or just that page?

Good question. I'm guessing the gallery URL itself. Since, after all, your jpeg images are .htaccess protected to avoid direct hotlinking and therefore aren't accesible to anyone except thru the gallery page. right? :)

[Dravyk]

Originally posted by The Other Steve
In fact if someone is charged under this regulation the court will probably not be allowed to consider the fairness or constitutionality of the regulation.
Disgaree. That's why courts exist and precisely what they do.

[The Other Steve]

Disagree you might but I think I picked that little tit-bit up from something a lawyer said.

Let's hope I'm wrong.

[lassiter]

Originally posted by Dravyk
Disgaree. That's why courts exist and precisely what they do.

That may br the case if you were to actually spend the money to file suit yourself as a plaintiff against the enforcement of the regulation. But as a defendant in a civil regulatory action, all that can usually be considered is "the preponderance of the evidence." In other words, does the evidence show that you were in compliance, or does it not? At least that's the background I've been given.

[SlickRick]

I have a question here.

Now we are not bartenders, we are not up to date on the looks of a fake ID. (If we shoot our own content) What issues would someone have if the person shooting content of a person that showed ID statting they were legal age but were infact under age. After all its not like opening a business bank account where you have to show your add from the newspaper of your "DBA Doing Business As," and whatever docs you need to get that account open. Traci Lords as we all know was an underage porn star, who's to really say someone didnt get her a fake ID.


On the other end what would happen to someone who bought content and had the proper licenses to show at any given that content was legal so they thought until someone discovers the person was using a fake ID and was under age.

[madmaxtgp]

honestly, get up to date on that kind of thing, if its questionable, dont shoot her. Period. Why take the risk, one naked model who is questionable, is not worth the risk of some jail time.

[SlickRick]

Originally posted by madmaxtgp
honestly, get up to date on that kind of thing, if its questionable, dont shoot her. Period. Why take the risk, one naked model who is questionable, is not worth the risk of some jail time.


I am not having that problem, I buy licensed content and have docs. just threw that in, meaning we dont see the ID's of the people we buy from whatever content producing company. It could happen, after all you cant cut the person in half and count the rings.

[madmaxtgp]

very true, that was not a personal attack on what you said, more general, I should have stated that.

It's a definite risk, but My though on that would be do everything you can, better safe than sorry

[SlickRick]

Originally posted by madmaxtgp
very true, that was not a personal attack on what you said, more general, I should have stated that.

It's a definite risk, but My though on that would be do everything you can, better safe than sorry


No worries I didnt take it as an attack.

my rule is if it could happen it would happen to me. I have been cursed with a streak of bad luck lately. |sad|

not with this issue but other things.

[madmaxtgp]

No worries I didnt take it as an attack.

my rule is if it could happen it would happen to me. I have been cursed with a streak of bad luck lately.

not with this issue but other things

Sorry to hear that, hope your luck changes ;)

[SlickRick]

No big deal. If life was easy it would be fucking boaring. :)

[AcidMaX]

I think I am more confused now that I read this thread. Riddle me this:

1. Are the sites that are already on my servers subject to this new regulation , or are we unsure of that?

2. Does this law apply to simply nude girls or is it just for masturbation, hardcore type content?

3. Is this law proposed? or is it set in stone for 8/24 and I better have my shit together?

4. What type of documenation? Just a valid drivers license? Do we need a 2nd piece of ID as well? Didn't someone say this had to be a us or us verifiable document? Does tha mean content producers will need to produce a passport at minimum for us US webmasters?

Thanks in advance.

Andy

[xxxjay]

Originally posted by AcidMaX
I think I am more confused now that I read this thread. Riddle me this:

1. Are the sites that are already on my servers subject to this new regulation , or are we unsure of that?

2. Does this law apply to simply nude girls or is it just for masturbation, hardcore type content?

3. Is this law proposed? or is it set in stone for 8/24 and I better have my shit together?

4. What type of documenation? Just a valid drivers license? Do we need a 2nd piece of ID as well? Didn't someone say this had to be a us or us verifiable document? Does tha mean content producers will need to produce a passport at minimum for us US webmasters?

Thanks in advance.

Andy

1 = yes, but there is some debate on the topic

2 = if a boob is showing, would get the docs

3 = written, but there is a "comment period" till 8/24. It is very doubtful anything will change.

4 = Legal ID, yes, no, yes, yes but none seem to be concerned.

[chilihost]

On the ID question, it has to be issued by a US state or the district of columbia. For overseas ID it has to be a passport which is verifiable by US officials.

75.1 Definitions
(b) Picture identification card means a document issued by the United States, a State government or a political subdivision thereof, or a United States territory that bears the photograph and the name of the individual identified, and provides sufficient specific information that it can be accessed from the issuing authority, e.g., a passport issued by the United States or a foreign country, driver’s license issued by a State or the District of Columbia, or identification card issued by a State or the District of Columbia.


cheers,
Luke

[Alphawolf]

Originally posted by xxxjay
1 = yes, but there is some debate on the topic

Regarding whether one's content that is FTP'd prior to 8/24:

How would a potential investigator decide if your images were FTP'd before 8/24?

Does "published" mean when the images were taken or as far as secondary producers are concerned...when we upload the images to our server for the 1st time?

It would sure suck to have a server crash and have to upload all your older content all over again if published = time it becomes visible on the site.

[xxxjay]

My guess is every time your page is logged into it "published". Whenever your page is edited - I would also assume that means "published".

Don't expect a lot of flexibity from Assclown and his cronies here. The best thing we can do is vote Bush out of office and get an AG that is less concerned with pushing his right wing religious agenda down your throat. The rules will still be in place, but force driving this inquisition will no longer be there.

[lassiter]

Originally posted by chilihost
On the ID question, it has to be issued by a US state or the district of columbia. For overseas ID it has to be a passport which is verifiable by US officials.



Not quite. New rules will now require 2 photo IDs for ALL models, both of which must be from a "government-accessible database." University and employment IDs are specifically not allowed by the new rules. My attorneys advise the only safe interpretation is that for each model for whom you are the custodian of records, you must have on file copies of BOTH a state-issued drivers license AND a US passport. Content with foreign models without US passports cannot be used, since the DoJ would not have access to foreign government databases to verify the documents actually exist.

[Alphawolf]

Originally posted by lassiter
Content with foreign models without US passports cannot be used, since the DoJ would not have access to foreign government databases to verify the documents actually exist.

That could be a big problem if others are advised the same thing.

[xxxjay]

Originally posted by Alphawolf
That could be a big problem if others are advised the same thing.

One thing that may work to our advantage is that this law is so burley that courts will recognise the ridiculousness of it, just like they did with the COPA ruling.

One of Ashfuck's downfalls if he often oversteps his bounds and I think people can see that.