What are you going to do about this 2257 shit?

[plateman]

Well said linkster - I am going to print out my 2257 docs. put in a folder and write on it where I bought it from with a email recipt..

And start doing free sites and watch the news when the time rolls around.. And this might go on for years..

And watch where I buy my content from..

Also us LL owners, Suppose we list a site that has bought pics. and the webmaster has 2257 docs. but not actual age proof..
and its a webmaster that is from another country.. We will have to check 2257 docs to be in comply ??

IMHO Adult webmasters should not bring attention on them selfs..

Look down a LLs gay or teen page and see all of the young guy or boy or young girl or young slut or young whore.. Now if I was working for Asscroft I would target those people first..

[airdick]

Originally posted by RawAlex
Airdick, I got bad news for you, please look up the definition of sexually explicit conduct:

E is the important one. Basically, if you can see the pink, it's sexual. Unless you are taking softcore images where the model doesn't show the coochie, doesn't touch her breasts, and doesn't similuate any sexual conduct, you are no exempt.

The way I read it, they left (E) out of 2257 on purpose.

Here is the critical part:

2257
(h)As used in this section -

(1) the term ''actual sexually explicit conduct'' means actual but not simulated conduct as defined in subparagraphs (A) through (D) of paragraph (2) of section 2256 of this title;

You quoted 2256 (2)(A) through (E)
but subparagraph (E) is not included in 2257. It also seems to me that the words "means actual but not simulated conduct" clearly exempt simulated sexual conduct from considertion.

I would assume that they left this out in order to cut some slack for R rated moves, erotic art, mainstream men's magazines, etc.

[xxxjay]

Originally posted by RawAlex
Linkster, so far with the exception of a very few, most of the people bringing up the subject are trying to sell tracking software or DRM type arrangements for content. There has been a ton of "the sky is falling" stuff.

Personally, I think the new "rule clarifications" are not that, but in fact new laws and amendments to laws, which, when taken to a court of law, will be thrown out because these new laws were not passed by the house, the senate, and signed by POTUS. While they can calify rules with these adminstrative orders, they cannot create new offences where none previously existed, nor can they create retroactive paperwork requirements for individuals and companies that were previously exempt.

A few will get nailed, but like Acacia, someone will take them to court and things will settle back down.

1 more reason for Americans to vote Bush and his bullies out of office.

Alex

I have nothing to gain from posting about 2257, I just was wondering how the community felt about this.

Bottom line is: The reg will go into effect on 8/24. Then we have 30 days to comply, so that's 9/24. If on 11/3 Bush loses the election and becomes a lame duck -- Asshat will probably take a few parting shots at the industry before he goes back to losing elections to dead men. Then, maybe, the country will return to some sanity.

Vote Kerry.

[Alphawolf]

I'm sorta glad I'm just starting out if anything comes of the new regulation.

I've been picking up sponsor content last couple days and I'm much more attuned to needing the 2257 information. Then again, some of my first posts here were questions on 2257 and really not many people seemed to care too much.

The bottom line is that no matter what- unless you are the producer you have no way of knowing any document is truly legit. Digital copies can be easily faked in photoshop.

It's not possible to police the Internet.

If they wanted to go after sites, I think it would be the more explicit teen sites, 'drunken girls' sites, voyeur sites, sites with a lot of content based outside the US (but company based in US), and basically the sites that insinuate rape, crap like that.

Maybe content sites themselves will be the first to be scrutinized.

...if at all.

The druken party girl sites are the easiest target IMO.

Was that charge on the guy who did Girls Gone Wild regarding 2257?

[chilihost]

IF this does go thru, I have a 3-part plan:

1) as an Australian who hosts in the USA, I will try as much as possible to comply. I will compile my docos and keep them here at my AU business location. I will put up 2257 links on all my domains with my AU address, knowing it will be impossible to verify my compliance and therefore hoping they will not be able to shut down my sites.

2) as a webmaster running my hunkmoney, I will supply non-sexually explicit banners to my US affiliates.

3) as a webhost, I will have (non-us) offshore servers available so I can give any chilihost clients the ability to quickly move their hosting offshore IF they need to, with no interruption in the high quality service they are used to.

IMHO, all webmasters, webhosts and affiliate programs should have a plan in place, but I will not miss the competition of those that don't


cheers,
Luke

[Useless]

Look at the thousands of sites out there that are not compliant with existing 2257 laws. Is anyone chasing them down? No. Why? Because there aren't any little red flags popping up. The DOJ isn't going to just start doing random audits of adult webmasters' records. If you have a site with obvious red flags (questionable content), you are up shit creek anyway. Bottom line - you will have to give the authorities damn good reason to break in your door and demand all of your records. We still live in a country where they must have probable cause to pursue us. They aren't going to chase their tails going after link lists and TGPs either. If they actually decide to enforce the new laws (which would be surprising), they are going to go after the content producers who provide us with the tasty porn in the first place.

I'm not telling anyone to use their 2257 docs as rolling papers. Just saying to use some common sense. Stay laid back and groovy. I'll get nervous when Cleo looks nervous.

[Linkster]

Jay - didnt mean to sound like I was intimating that you had anything to gain I know that you don't

The other point that I kinda left out in that last post - it would be cutting off their nose to spite their face if they did come after the LL and TGP types - knowing that at this board we are a gathering of the biggest LL and TGP owners stopping by all of the time, we are also the most significant tool that the Justice Dept has for fighting the thing they are trying to curb with these Regs - I know for a fact that we have helped the FBI on many occassions tracking down CP purveyors and without our reports they would have a much harder job, as well as the financial and vocal support that we give the ASACP to do its work in trying to rid the world of the junk that this regulation is designed as a investigative tool for - not smart biz to take away your biggest source of information in the fight against CP

And I still have no inkling of any sponsor that is doing anything out of the ordinary for their content and I really don't expect to see 80,000 FHG's get pulled the day that this becomes active. I also don't see anyone reacting to the banner question - sure they have always provided non-explicit banners - thats just good biz - but they sure haven't provided me any 2257 paperwork to have on file very time I put up a banner on my LL or a free site

[Surfn]

Just one point to consider...

Larry Flynt has built an empire on porn. He has demonstrated that he will not shrink in the face of the court system regarding diminishing his empire. He is not afraid of speaking his mind.

If you are still with me...how many press interviews have you seen him complaining about how unfair or illegal this issue is?

My opinion is that he has already spoken with his attorneys who are experts in this area and they have explained to him this is a non issue that they can beat it any time he chooses. With that in mine he has kept quiet so they don't get any more publicity than they are already receiving.

[xxxjay]

Originally posted by Surfn
Just one point to consider...

Larry Flynt has built an empire on porn. He has demonstrated that he will not shrink in the face of the court system regarding diminishing his empire. He is not afraid of speaking his mind.

If you are still with me...how many press interviews have you seen him complaining about how unfair or illegal this issue is?

My opinion is that he has already spoken with his attorneys who are experts in this area and they have explained to him this is a non issue that they can beat it any time he chooses. With that in mine he has kept quiet so they don't get any more publicity than they are already receiving.

I retained Max Hardcore's lawyer. If he can get that dude off the hook -- I should be no problem.

[RawAlex]

Surfn, Larry's company was also a VERY early signature to Acacia. In all fairness, his legal advise is also hinged on "dollar risk factors" - the costs of doing X compared to Y.

Most of us are looking straight at "do I do time in a federal butt slamming prison".

Jay, you make it sound like you feel you are going to get the knock on the door tomorrow. Do you have any insight the rest of us don't?

Alex

[Surfn]

I've given a couple of my personal opinions. Not legal advice. I have no more to say on this matter publicly.

[Ramster]

What's this new law coming into effect?

I'm in a wait and see mode. I'll be sure to have 2257 records in place for what I have. For example, what about the thousands of sponsor content images I've used? How do I get records for that? I don't and I believe I only need to be complaint after the date so those should be fine right?

I think there might be some targets but it isn't going to be someone outside of the US at first, that's for sure so I'm safe...for now. If they come after me I'll move up north and built a nice two story igloo. |rasta|

[xxxjay]

Originally posted by RawAlex

Jay, you make it sound like you feel you are going to get the knock on the door tomorrow. Do you have any insight the rest of us don't?

No, I have no reason to think that, other than becasue I am easily found on the serch engines - that might make me an especially attractive target. I've had my share of legal problems in the past and would prefer to not have any more.

Originally posted by Ramster

I think there might be some targets but it isn't going to be someone outside of the US at first, that's for sure so I'm safe...for now. If they come after me I'll move up north and built a nice two story igloo. |rasta|

I've thought of that myself - list "your place of business" as the furthest spot away from airports, cities, and out in the sticks as possible. I doubt the G-men will be wanting to drive way the fuck out there.

[Bill]

Originally posted by xxxjay
I've thought of that myself - list "your place of business" as the furthest spot away from airports, cities, and out in the sticks as possible. I doubt the G-men will be wanting to drive way the fuck out there. [/b]

That's a big part of the reason I feel so secure. You guys living in the big cities will be the first to go. I'll have plenty of warning.

Not that I expect this even to be test cased.

This is targeted towards the cp and nonude and model site guys. I don't see it as an attack on hardcore in general.

Altho it's designed to be a big gun threatening everyone, I agree with that.

[Alphawolf]

Originally posted by xxxjay
I've thought of that myself - list "your place of business" as the furthest spot away from airports, cities, and out in the sticks as possible. I doubt the G-men will be wanting to drive way the fuck out there.

Place of Business:

Somewhere in Alaska or:

http://geography.about.com/library/weekly/aa102700a.htm

[Monkey Spanker]

I am too much of a small fry to get all flustered about it right now. If Cleo ain't worried then I damn sure ain't|rasta|

I notice on other boards and here as well where alot of non-US webmasters are looking for non-US hosts and are moving all of their stuff outside of America. Sounds intelligent at first if this will indeed all come to pass but a point was just brought up on another board so I thought I would ask it here also to see how the gang here responds to it.

What about .com, .net and .org? They are all governed by the US correct? So moving your host and all other facets outside of the country doesn't protect your domain if it falls into one of those categories correct? They may not be able to come and arrest you or check your records at your place of business but if you are not compliant they could possibly take your domain from you and shut it down.

If that is the case then it is not just US webmasters that need to worry because I do not know of any truly successful webmaster that doesn't have the bulk of their business on a .com, .net or .org

Any of the 2257 gurus have any comments on that?

[RawAlex]

Monkey Spanker, .COM is not a "us only" first level. It is an international one. If you were using a .us domain, there MIGHT MAYBE VERY SLIGHTLY be a chance.

If they cannot easily repossess .com domains from KP and other illegal sites, why would you think they would do it for a 2257 violation that they cannot legally check or obligate?

US law does not apply to non-us citizens.

Alex

[Monkey Spanker]

I never said that US law would apply to non-US citizens. The domain is US though and governed out of the state of Virginia for the US as is .net and .org so the domain itself would fall under US jurisdiction for 2257. non-US webmasters are free to do as they please as long as it abides by their countries laws but they might have to do it with a non US domain.

Ultimately the US controls the internet wether anyone likes it or not.

"The United States controls the root-file because the A-root-server is located in the United States and thus precluding other governments from physical access and NSI Verisign, which physically controls the root file is contractually obligated to secure written approval from the Department of Commerce before adding any TLD's to the root. This all gives the United States the power to threaten a country with the prospect of taking away all of it's domain names."

"ICANN, located in California controls the DNS and allocates IP's to regional internet registries, but still needs the defacto approval of the US to do so."

I don't know about you, but to me that sounds like they can pretty much do what the hell they want to when it comes to domains.

[T Pat]

Originally posted by Horny Dude
TJPat...that is scary because we have run into alot of girls over there who are 14+ and will do anything and tell you anything to earn money.

I'm a little twisted but I'm no sicko, I detest child porn and would never photograph a girl that I thought might be underage.
Sure you can get underage girls in TJ if you know where to look or who to ask, you can also get any drug or order an ass kicking or a murder, just because you can do something doesn't mean you have to.
All but three of the girls I've photographed were out of the two biggest brothels in TJ, the owners are not going to put there multimillion dollar operations in jeopardy or invite any more scrutiny by getting caught employing underage girls.
About 6 months ago an El Salvadorian girl described to my wife and I in detail how she was forced into being a sex slave in an underground pedophile brothel in LA when she was 12 years old and what it was like.
The Fucking Story Haunts Me! There isn't a day that goes by that I don't think about her story, and the pain you could see in her eyes and hear in her voice. Your hitting a raw nerve please don't insult me by insinuating that I might mistakenly photograph an underage girl.

[1freepornfinder]

Originally posted by xxxjay
I retained Max Hardcore's lawyer. If he can get that dude off the hook -- I should be no problem.

The problem is... how much with it cost you?...

I agree with your previous post.... vote Kerry..

[Cleo]

Originally posted by TijuanaPat
All the girls will give you a quick glimpse at there sex worker cards but there is no way in hell I'm going to get them all to let me photograph there ID's
because there are two things you can bank on when it comes to Mexican Whores,
1, there using a fake name
2, there lieing about there age

Not sure what other list sites think of this but I'm not sure if I should continue listing your sites.

[xxxjay]

Originally posted by 1freepornfinder
The problem is... how much with it cost you?...

I agree with your previous post.... vote Kerry..

$275 / hr...standard lawyer rates.

Yes, vote Kerry and it will take a lot of wind out of the sails of this thing.

[Bill]

Don't just vote - donate cash.

<rhetoric>
America has the best government money can buy - don't let the christian fascists and their corporate puppet masters buy your freedom to conduct this small business out from under you.
</rhetoric>

[T Pat]

Cleo all the girls I have photographed have had valid health cards which means they are over 18, By Mexican Law The Brothels can not hire girls under 18.
Once working in the brothels all the girls use fake names and 22 year olds claim to be 18 or 19 and 30 year olds claim to be 24 or 25. No one is or claims to be under 18.

This thread has made my mind up.
I don't see how anyone is going to comply with all proposed 2257 regs, and think this will all die down
I've had my sites setup to sell to a Mexican National (even though it's like giving my first born away) for a couple months.
I'll do consulting work for Tijuana Whores and consentrate on main stream for awhile
I've already posted more than I should have, this is my last post on this subject

[Alphawolf]

TP,

I think Cleo thought girls would lie about being 18, not about 18 or over girls shaving a few years off.