New rules on 2257

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?