a 2257 thread for all affils to read....

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Loki
    Confirmed User
    • Feb 2004
    • 4420

    #1

    a 2257 thread for all affils to read....

    First I hate to have to add yet another 2257 thread to the growing pile but I've looked over alot of them and some ppl are ONLY quoting part of a VERY important statement, and in doing so I'm sure alot of u.s. ppl are freaking the fuck out....

    Here is the statement as it pertains to secondary producers (READ IT ALL!)

    (2) A secondary producer is any person who produces, assembles,
    manufactures, publishes, duplicates, reproduces, or reissues a book,
    magazine, periodical, film, videotape, digitally- or computer-
    manipulated image, picture, or other matter intended for commercial
    distribution that contains a visual depiction of an actual human being
    engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct, or who inserts on a
    computer site or service a digital image of, or otherwise manages the
    sexually explicit content of a computer site or service that contains a
    visual depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually
    explicit conduct, including any person who enters into a contract,
    agreement, or conspiracy to do any of the foregoing.
    (3) The same person may be both a primary and a secondary producer.
    (4) Producer does not include persons whose activities relating to
    the visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct are limited to
    the following:

    (i) Photo or film processing, including digitization of previously
    existing visual depictions, as part of a commercial enterprise, with no
    other commercial interest in the sexually explicit material, printing,
    and video duplicators;
    (ii) Mere distribution; AFFILS
    (iii) Any activity, other than those activities identified in
    paragraphs (c) (1) and (2) of this section, that does not involve the
    hiring, contracting for, managing, or otherwise arranging for the
    participation of the depicted performers;
    AFFILS

    In short:

    if you ONLY Distro it, OR designed website with it you are safe from the extensive record keeping,

    Also I read & re-read the whole mess a few times, and though it does NOT say that "It would be acceptable for affils to just have a link to the sponsors 2257 page" with the above statement about the actual deff of a 2ndry producer affils and webdesigners DO NOT FALL UNDER THE SECONDARY PRODUCER CATAGORY.

    So to affils "The sky is NOT falling" but we as producers and sponsors have to do alot more work

    -Loki-
    MAKE MONEY WITH 3D TOONS!
    Need hosting? LokiCa$h Uses Amerinoc and love them!
    Skype: LokiPorn Or Email 3dloki|at|gmail.com
  • thonglife
    So Fucking Banned
    • Oct 2004
    • 1566

    #2
    Originally posted by vdc-Loki
    First I hate to have to add yet another 2257 thread to the growing pile but I've looked over alot of them and some ppl are ONLY quoting part of a VERY important statement, and in doing so I'm sure alot of u.s. ppl are freaking the fuck out....

    Here is the statement as it pertains to secondary producers (READ IT ALL!)

    (2) A secondary producer is any person who produces, assembles,
    manufactures, publishes, duplicates, reproduces, or reissues a book,
    magazine, periodical, film, videotape, digitally- or computer-
    manipulated image, picture, or other matter intended for commercial
    distribution that contains a visual depiction of an actual human being
    engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct, or who inserts on a
    computer site or service a digital image of, or otherwise manages the
    sexually explicit content of a computer site or service that contains a
    visual depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually
    explicit conduct, including any person who enters into a contract,
    agreement, or conspiracy to do any of the foregoing.
    (3) The same person may be both a primary and a secondary producer.
    (4) Producer does not include persons whose activities relating to
    the visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct are limited to
    the following:

    (i) Photo or film processing, including digitization of previously
    existing visual depictions, as part of a commercial enterprise, with no
    other commercial interest in the sexually explicit material, printing,
    and video duplicators;
    (ii) Mere distribution; AFFILS
    (iii) Any activity, other than those activities identified in
    paragraphs (c) (1) and (2) of this section, that does not involve the
    hiring, contracting for, managing, or otherwise arranging for the
    participation of the depicted performers;
    AFFILS

    In short:

    if you ONLY Distro it, OR designed website with it you are safe from the extensive record keeping,

    Also I read & re-read the whole mess a few times, and though it does NOT say that "It would be acceptable for affils to just have a link to the sponsors 2257 page" with the above statement about the actual deff of a 2ndry producer affils and webdesigners DO NOT FALL UNDER THE SECONDARY PRODUCER CATAGORY.

    So to affils "The sky is NOT falling" but we as producers and sponsors have to do alot more work

    -Loki-

    Wonder how this whole 2257 enforcement thing will affect Usenet or IRC?

    Comment

    • Basic_man
      Programming King Pin
      • Oct 2003
      • 27360

      #3
      Thanks for the clarification Loki
      UUGallery Builder - automated photo/video gallery plugin for Wordpress!
      Stop looking! Checkout Naked Hosting, online since 1999 !

      Comment

      • Loki
        Confirmed User
        • Feb 2004
        • 4420

        #4
        Originally posted by thonglife
        Wonder how this whole 2257 enforcement thing will affect Usenet or IRC?
        I'm sure all the dalnet and efnet cp rooms will comply

        and so will all the xdcc movie #'s and porn #'s


        -Loki-
        MAKE MONEY WITH 3D TOONS!
        Need hosting? LokiCa$h Uses Amerinoc and love them!
        Skype: LokiPorn Or Email 3dloki|at|gmail.com

        Comment

        • chadglni
          Confirmed User
          • Dec 2002
          • 6924

          #5
          Good job spreading false information. Any lurkers that only show up here for important info such as this might take your post as gospel and never come back.

          I would suggest you re-read the exact part you posted. If you don't see where you're wrong keep reading until you do.


          Sign up here - Dating Site affiliate program

          Comment

          • ronaldo
            Confirmed User
            • Jan 2002
            • 5475

            #6
            Boy, I sure interpret that differently than you.

            But, that's what the law is all about isn't it.

            Comment

            • chadglni
              Confirmed User
              • Dec 2002
              • 6924

              #7
              Originally posted by ronaldo
              Boy, I sure interpret that differently than you.

              But, that's what the law is all about isn't it.
              I'm sure everyone here is praying that this guy is the only one that read it right. I just don't think that's the case.


              Sign up here - Dating Site affiliate program

              Comment

              • Michael2017K
                Confirmed User
                • Jan 2003
                • 202

                #8
                chadglni, ronaldo, what the fuck does that shit up above mean to you?

                Comment

                • kane
                  Too lazy to set a custom title
                  • Aug 2001
                  • 20684

                  #9
                  I'm not a lawyer but I don't think you are correct. It says pretty clearly : "or who inserts on a computer site or service a digital image of, or otherwise manages the
                  sexually explicit content of a computer site or service that contains a
                  visual depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually
                  explicit conduct,"

                  Any webmaster that builds any site, free, avs, tgp gallery etc that has pics or movies on it is inserting content into a site.

                  Comment

                  • ronaldo
                    Confirmed User
                    • Jan 2002
                    • 5475

                    #10
                    Originally posted by chadglni
                    I'm sure everyone here is praying that this guy is the only one that read it right. I just don't think that's the case.
                    You know, I was gonna quote this part and say he's obviously mistaken....

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

                    HOWEVER, when you read further, you DO see this....

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

                    (ii) Mere distribution;

                    That's where ambiguity sets in and J.D. and his boys make their money.

                    Comment

                    • Loki
                      Confirmed User
                      • Feb 2004
                      • 4420

                      #11
                      so then tell me exactly what is your affils job classification?

                      Their "job/s" are to take your content (not saying you directly) that they had NOTHING TO DO WITH shooting etc, put it onto a webpage, gallery, site etc etc and send traffic to it to generate you sales.

                      Now as the GOV's deff of who MUST be maintaing and providing records that is PRODUCERS & SECONDARY PRODUCERS.

                      and by THEIR deffention:
                      (4) Producer DOES NOT INCLUDE persons whose activities relating to
                      the visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct are limited to
                      the following:
                      (i) Photo or film processing, including digitization of previously
                      existing visual depictions, as part of a commercial enterprise, with no
                      other commercial interest in the sexually explicit material, printing,
                      and video duplicators;
                      (ii) Mere distribution; AFFILS
                      (iii) Any activity, other than those activities identified in
                      paragraphs (c) (1) and (2) of this section, that does not involve the
                      hiring, contracting for, managing, or otherwise arranging for the
                      participation of the depicted performers; AFFILS

                      Show me where this WOULD NOT apply to Affils.

                      -Loki-
                      MAKE MONEY WITH 3D TOONS!
                      Need hosting? LokiCa$h Uses Amerinoc and love them!
                      Skype: LokiPorn Or Email 3dloki|at|gmail.com

                      Comment

                      • thonglife
                        So Fucking Banned
                        • Oct 2004
                        • 1566

                        #12
                        Originally posted by kane
                        I'm not a lawyer but I don't think you are correct. It says pretty clearly : "or who inserts on a computer site or service a digital image of, or otherwise manages the
                        sexually explicit content of a computer site or service that contains a
                        visual depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually
                        explicit conduct,"

                        Any webmaster that builds any site, free, avs, tgp gallery etc that has pics or movies on it is inserting content into a site.
                        What about a no-nude thumb hotlinking to a "sexually explicit" hosted gallery?

                        Comment

                        • ronaldo
                          Confirmed User
                          • Jan 2002
                          • 5475

                          #13
                          Originally posted by vdc-Loki
                          so then tell me exactly what is your affils job classification?

                          Their "job/s" are to take your content (not saying you directly) that they had NOTHING TO DO WITH shooting etc, put it onto a webpage, gallery, site etc etc and send traffic to it to generate you sales.

                          Now as the GOV's deff of who MUST be maintaing and providing records that is PRODUCERS & SECONDARY PRODUCERS.

                          and by THEIR deffention:
                          (4) Producer DOES NOT INCLUDE persons whose activities relating to
                          the visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct are limited to
                          the following:
                          (i) Photo or film processing, including digitization of previously
                          existing visual depictions, as part of a commercial enterprise, with no
                          other commercial interest in the sexually explicit material, printing,
                          and video duplicators;
                          (ii) Mere distribution; AFFILS
                          (iii) Any activity, other than those activities identified in
                          paragraphs (c) (1) and (2) of this section, that does not involve the
                          hiring, contracting for, managing, or otherwise arranging for the
                          participation of the depicted performers; AFFILS

                          Show me where this WOULD NOT apply to Affils.

                          -Loki-
                          I assume you didn't see my post directly above yours.

                          Comment

                          • Loki
                            Confirmed User
                            • Feb 2004
                            • 4420

                            #14
                            Originally posted by ronaldo
                            .........
                            HOWEVER, when you read further, you DO see this....

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

                            (ii) Mere distribution;

                            That's where ambiguity sets in and J.D. and his boys make their money.
                            Thanks for actualy reading the WHOLE thing

                            and that is EXACTLY what I meant in my very first few lines of my posts about these ppl are only SKIMMINGand then freaking out.

                            -Loki-
                            MAKE MONEY WITH 3D TOONS!
                            Need hosting? LokiCa$h Uses Amerinoc and love them!
                            Skype: LokiPorn Or Email 3dloki|at|gmail.com

                            Comment

                            • chadglni
                              Confirmed User
                              • Dec 2002
                              • 6924

                              #15
                              Originally posted by vdc-Loki
                              Thanks for actualy reading the WHOLE thing

                              and that is EXACTLY what I meant in my very first few lines of my posts about these ppl are only SKIMMINGand then freaking out.

                              -Loki-
                              Everyone has read the whole thing. In MY opinion, mere distribution would be the sales clerk selling a porno mag with explicit shit in it. Or me linking to your explicit site through text. And a secondary producer would be considered one who PUBLISHES the shit to a website.


                              Sign up here - Dating Site affiliate program

                              Comment

                              • chadglni
                                Confirmed User
                                • Dec 2002
                                • 6924

                                #16
                                Here, I'm going to post part of what you commented on above with some of the run on shit taken out. Lets see how it looks to you then....

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

                                I can highlight text too. So who's reading wrong? The part you bolded says EXCEPT those listed in this section.


                                Sign up here - Dating Site affiliate program

                                Comment

                                • kane
                                  Too lazy to set a custom title
                                  • Aug 2001
                                  • 20684

                                  #17
                                  to me it's confusing. One line says that people who put an image on a website are considered secondary producers. But then it says that people that distributes the content is not. I guess I don's see the difference. If I put some pics on a website and use that to send traffic to a sponser and get a commision from a sale how is that different from a store owner having a magazine that he sells and gets a commision on the sale.

                                  I can see it both ways here.

                                  ya gotta love the lawmakers

                                  Comment

                                  • kane
                                    Too lazy to set a custom title
                                    • Aug 2001
                                    • 20684

                                    #18
                                    Originally posted by thonglife
                                    What about a no-nude thumb hotlinking to a "sexually explicit" hosted gallery?
                                    I'm no lawyer but to me that would be fine. you aren't hosting any explicit material but before I did it I would check with a lawyer.

                                    Comment

                                    • NaughtyRob
                                      Two fresh affiliate progs
                                      • Nov 2004
                                      • 29602

                                      #19
                                      Good thread.
                                      [email protected]
                                      Skype: 17026955414
                                      Vacares Web Hosting - Protect Your Ass with Included Daily Backups

                                      Comment

                                      • chadglni
                                        Confirmed User
                                        • Dec 2002
                                        • 6924

                                        #20
                                        Originally posted by kane
                                        to me it's confusing. One line says that people who put an image on a website are considered secondary producers. But then it says that people that distributes the content is not. I guess I don's see the difference. If I put some pics on a website and use that to send traffic to a sponser and get a commision from a sale how is that different from a store owner having a magazine that he sells and gets a commision on the sale.

                                        I can see it both ways here.

                                        ya gotta love the lawmakers
                                        They said MERE distributors are not. You publish a website, you don't publish a magazine rack.


                                        Sign up here - Dating Site affiliate program

                                        Comment

                                        • Loki
                                          Confirmed User
                                          • Feb 2004
                                          • 4420

                                          #21
                                          instead of fighting back and forth all day on the wording these guys used, my bottom line is this:

                                          They claim that only Producers and secondary producers will be held liable for keeping all the proper records,

                                          you and I are using the exact SAME paragraphs, You are right and I am right, the simple reason for this is:

                                          They say one thing then contradict it in the exclusion paragraph.

                                          It also states in (iii) that if you do not have anything to do with getting the models for these shoots again your not lumped into the producer roles.

                                          I read this all to say that if you are just an affil then most likly (i) (ii) (iii) makes you safe from record hell.

                                          -Loki-
                                          -Loki-
                                          MAKE MONEY WITH 3D TOONS!
                                          Need hosting? LokiCa$h Uses Amerinoc and love them!
                                          Skype: LokiPorn Or Email 3dloki|at|gmail.com

                                          Comment

                                          • Serge Litehead
                                            Confirmed User
                                            • Dec 2002
                                            • 5190

                                            #22
                                            Promoting something you haven't built(published) is a mere distribution
                                            Promoting something you've built is mere destribution + makes you a producer (secondary for using whoever else's content).

                                            Comment

                                            • JH3000
                                              Registered User
                                              • May 2005
                                              • 18

                                              #23
                                              Originally posted by ronaldo
                                              You know, I was gonna quote this part and say he's obviously mistaken....

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

                                              HOWEVER, when you read further, you DO see this....

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

                                              (ii) Mere distribution;

                                              That's where ambiguity sets in and J.D. and his boys make their money.
                                              I will post this knowing that some people will just believe what they want to believe and will argue about this but...

                                              Some people will always debate on what is really required or not, but if you spend $100,000s in legal fees and go to jail, then it doesn't matter if you were right or not, they still succeed in screwing over the adult webmaster

                                              Well in articles that I have read today from actual industry legal experts they do say that as the changes would include all affiliates, and was intended to do so as a result of the popularity of TPGs. It would include any affiliate with nude images, including advertising.

                                              With regards to distribution, the misunderstanding here is what distribution is. A distributor is a store that merely sells videos, images, mags etc. They are distinguishing between a reseller and a producer. If you then post images, however you then become a secondary producer under the law. The problem rises any time you actually post nude or erotic images.

                                              Clearly stated here:
                                              (2) A secondary producer is any person who publishes a picture or other matter intended for commercial distribution that contains a visual depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct, or who inserts on a computer site or service a digital image of, or otherwise manages the sexually explicit content of a computer site or service that contains a
                                              visual depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually
                                              explicit conduct, including any person who enters into a contract,
                                              agreement, or conspiracy to do any of the foregoing.


                                              There are not ANY exceptions to this, they only include other information to clarify that mere distributors are not included in the new rule.

                                              The problem actually goes further. It becomes a legal question if even blurred or "censored" images may still require documentation under the law. Why? This is because this law includes "visual depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct", according to the people that created it, this includes images that may not be nude but are clearly engaging in these type of activities. So even if an image is censored some debate it may still require documentation if you *know* what they are doing.

                                              For these that still have not read the new 2257 regulations they can do so at the Federal Registry here if you still don't get it check out a legal authority like firstamendment.com

                                              Comment

                                              • MandyBlake
                                                The one and only!
                                                • Nov 2002
                                                • 17761

                                                #24
                                                i would definitely check with a lawyer on all this stuff
                                                Mandy's Playhouse
                                                Her First Fat Girl
                                                If you're interested in promoting my sites, ICQ me! 178411921

                                                Comment

                                                • cherrylula
                                                  lol
                                                  • Jan 2002
                                                  • 15969

                                                  #25
                                                  That makes sense.

                                                  What people are failing to realize also, is these reg are also aimed at PERFORMERS who don't file or pay their taxes. Its a nightmare for the gov to keep track of these people who work all over as contractors or for cash the same day they shoot. Therefore they want more info from the PRODUCERS as in the people who make the porn, which helps keep track of this as well.

                                                  Affiliates should have nothing to do with this because we are just selling memberships. Its not our job or obligation to make sure these performers are legit through the companies they shoot for or to keep track of them and their stage names.

                                                  Think about it: What does the government really want? MONEY. They want money, and if they can tighten things up along those lines they can track down the people who owe them taxes. I mean seriously, how many big companies are even stupid enough to produce cp? They're not. Not in this country anyhow. Money is the name of the game here.

                                                  Comment

                                                  • diggz
                                                    Registered User
                                                    • Apr 2005
                                                    • 302

                                                    #26
                                                    Aside from the legal definitions.. what do you all look at as:

                                                    Primary Producers & Secondary Producers ?

                                                    Lets all put some examples on the table.

                                                    Here is my perspective:

                                                    Example = MILFHunter.com
                                                    Primary Producer = white guy (milf hunter), camera man (2257 responsible)
                                                    Secondary Producer = Nastydollars.com, anyone who purchases their content for re-distribution. (2257 responsible)
                                                    distributor = affiliates (doesnt really own any content, so there is no record keeping required)

                                                    Comment

                                                    • galleryseek
                                                      Confirmed User
                                                      • Mar 2002
                                                      • 8234

                                                      #27
                                                      Originally posted by diggz
                                                      Aside from the legal definitions.. what do you all look at as:

                                                      Primary Producers & Secondary Producers ?

                                                      Lets all put some examples on the table.

                                                      Here is my perspective:

                                                      Example = MILFHunter.com
                                                      Primary Producer = white guy (milf hunter), camera man (2257 responsible)
                                                      Secondary Producer = Nastydollars.com, anyone who purchases their content for re-distribution. (2257 responsible)
                                                      distributor = affiliates (doesnt really own any content, so there is no record keeping required)
                                                      it'd be nice if this were so.

                                                      Comment

                                                      • GotGauge
                                                        Confirmed User
                                                        • Nov 2001
                                                        • 3072

                                                        #28
                                                        Originally posted by cherrylula
                                                        That makes sense.

                                                        What people are failing to realize also, is these reg are also aimed at PERFORMERS who don't file or pay their taxes. Its a nightmare for the gov to keep track of these people who work all over as contractors or for cash the same day they shoot. Therefore they want more info from the PRODUCERS as in the people who make the porn, which helps keep track of this as well.

                                                        Affiliates should have nothing to do with this because we are just selling memberships. Its not our job or obligation to make sure these performers are legit through the companies they shoot for or to keep track of them and their stage names.

                                                        Think about it: What does the government really want? MONEY. They want money, and if they can tighten things up along those lines they can track down the people who owe them taxes. I mean seriously, how many big companies are even stupid enough to produce cp? They're not. Not in this country anyhow. Money is the name of the game here.

                                                        Taxes and Cleaning the internet, now go to Church.... LOL


                                                        ICQ 22264474
                                                        [email protected]

                                                        Comment

                                                        • Serge Litehead
                                                          Confirmed User
                                                          • Dec 2002
                                                          • 5190

                                                          #29
                                                          Originally posted by diggz
                                                          Aside from the legal definitions.. what do you all look at as:

                                                          Primary Producers & Secondary Producers ?

                                                          Lets all put some examples on the table.

                                                          Here is my perspective:

                                                          Example = MILFHunter.com
                                                          Primary Producer = white guy (milf hunter), camera man (2257 responsible)
                                                          Secondary Producer = Nastydollars.com, anyone who purchases their content for re-distribution. (2257 responsible)
                                                          distributor = affiliates (doesnt really own any content, so there is no record keeping required)
                                                          New regulations have most accent on who publishes content in definition of secondary producer, has nothing to do with who purchase it.
                                                          Your approach is better if true.

                                                          Comment

                                                          • diggz
                                                            Registered User
                                                            • Apr 2005
                                                            • 302

                                                            #30
                                                            Originally posted by holograph
                                                            New regulations have most accent on who publishes content in definition of secondary producer, has nothing to do with who purchase it.
                                                            Your approach is better if true.
                                                            Well in regards to what I wrote for a secondary producer "anyone who purchases their content for re-distribution." ... what I am saying is that if you, as a site owner, decide to purchase some of the milfhunter video sets, so you can launch a "mature" site.. then you will be responsible for 2257 record keeping, as you are now a secondary producer, just like nastydollars.com

                                                            Buy the content from nastydollars.. publish a website... = secondary producer
                                                            Last edited by diggz; 05-24-2005, 12:41 PM.

                                                            Comment

                                                            • jimmyf
                                                              OU812
                                                              • Feb 2001
                                                              • 12651

                                                              #31
                                                              Originally posted by thonglife
                                                              Wonder how this whole 2257 enforcement thing will affect Usenet or IRC?
                                                              it won't, they will just rock along the same old same Usenet will anyways.
                                                              Epic CashEpic Cash works for me
                                                              Solar Cash Paysite Plugin
                                                              Gallery of the day freesites,POTD,Gallery generator with free hosting

                                                              Comment

                                                              • wyldblyss
                                                                Confirmed User
                                                                • Nov 2003
                                                                • 5779

                                                                #32
                                                                To hell with all of that...wtf is sexually explicit? Seems like a dumn question, but since it is not clearly defined...it means that it is open to interpretation...and that can be scary.

                                                                The asshole inspecting might think that sexual explicit is topless....another guy might think there has to be some insertion....another two naked people together but only kissing...

                                                                Comment

                                                                • TheJimmy
                                                                  ICQ- five seven 0 2 5 5 0
                                                                  • Jan 2001
                                                                  • 10747

                                                                  #33
                                                                  Originally posted by chadglni
                                                                  Good job spreading false information. Any lurkers that only show up here for important info such as this might take your post as gospel and never come back.

                                                                  I would suggest you re-read the exact part you posted. If you don't see where you're wrong keep reading until you do.

                                                                  HEY, get back to work man!


                                                                  .heh
                                                                  Investor with 5m - 15m USD to invest. Do you have a site or network of sites earning 50k - 200k a month income? Email your contact and preliminary data to: domain.cashventures (at) gmail.com....Please...no tire kickers...serious offers and inquiries only.

                                                                  Comment

                                                                  • jimmyf
                                                                    OU812
                                                                    • Feb 2001
                                                                    • 12651

                                                                    #34
                                                                    Originally posted by ronaldo
                                                                    Boy, I sure interpret that differently than you.

                                                                    But, that's what the law is all about isn't it.
                                                                    interpret differently, well that's want the judges and lawyers do
                                                                    Epic CashEpic Cash works for me
                                                                    Solar Cash Paysite Plugin
                                                                    Gallery of the day freesites,POTD,Gallery generator with free hosting

                                                                    Comment

                                                                    • Dopy
                                                                      Confirmed User
                                                                      • Feb 2001
                                                                      • 1572

                                                                      #35
                                                                      Distributor ambiguity.

                                                                      Man with pics on porn site does.

                                                                      Man with dirty book on news stand does not.

                                                                      Remembering that man with dirty book on news stand has the explicit images.

                                                                      There must be something missing ?

                                                                      Comment

                                                                      • GotGauge
                                                                        Confirmed User
                                                                        • Nov 2001
                                                                        • 3072

                                                                        #36
                                                                        Originally posted by wyldblyss
                                                                        To hell with all of that...wtf is sexually explicit? Seems like a dumn question, but since it is not clearly defined...it means that it is open to interpretation...and that can be scary.

                                                                        The asshole inspecting might think that sexual explicit is topless....another guy might think there has to be some insertion....another two naked people together but only kissing...
                                                                        I seen this

                                                                        2256. Definitions for chapter

                                                                        Release date: 2004-08-06

                                                                        For the purposes of this chapter, the term-
                                                                        (1) ?minor? means any person under the age of eighteen years;
                                                                        (2) ?sexually explicit conduct? means actual or simulated-
                                                                        (A) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;
                                                                        (B) bestiality;
                                                                        (C) masturbation;
                                                                        (D) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
                                                                        (E) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;


                                                                        ICQ 22264474
                                                                        [email protected]

                                                                        Comment

                                                                        • RawAlex
                                                                          So Fucking Banned
                                                                          • Oct 2003
                                                                          • 9465

                                                                          #37
                                                                          Loki, you really don't understand. Distribution is only for things like the actual SALE of DVDs or magazines (or movement thereof to retailers). Creating a website is (for the purposes of these rules) an act of publishing or producing clearly spelled out in the law.

                                                                          Sorry, but affiliates using sponsor content are in a heap of shit right now unless the programs provide documentation for all those images and movies.

                                                                          Alex

                                                                          Comment

                                                                          • thonglife
                                                                            So Fucking Banned
                                                                            • Oct 2004
                                                                            • 1566

                                                                            #38
                                                                            Originally posted by RawAlex
                                                                            Loki, you really don't understand. Distribution is only for things like the actual SALE of DVDs or magazines (or movement thereof to retailers). Creating a website is (for the purposes of these rules) an act of publishing or producing clearly spelled out in the law.

                                                                            Sorry, but affiliates using sponsor content are in a heap of shit right now unless the programs provide documentation for all those images and movies.

                                                                            Alex
                                                                            How about all those forums and Yahoo profiles with naughty pictures? Sure are gonna be a lot of pissed off people. Yet another uninforceable law. Well, time to clean up all this spam with websites trying to sell me Vicodin and Xanax without a prescription.
                                                                            Last edited by thonglife; 05-24-2005, 02:03 PM.

                                                                            Comment

                                                                            • chadglni
                                                                              Confirmed User
                                                                              • Dec 2002
                                                                              • 6924

                                                                              #39
                                                                              Originally posted by thonglife
                                                                              How about all those forums and Yahoo profiles with naughty pictures? Sure are gonna be a lot of pissed off people. Yet another uninforceable law. Well, time to clean up all this spam with websites trying to sell me Vicodin and Xanax without a prescription.
                                                                              Service providers have always been exempt. That would be up to the person posting the porn on the profile or group to keep the docs.


                                                                              Sign up here - Dating Site affiliate program

                                                                              Comment

                                                                              • thonglife
                                                                                So Fucking Banned
                                                                                • Oct 2004
                                                                                • 1566

                                                                                #40
                                                                                Originally posted by chadglni
                                                                                Service providers have always been exempt. That would be up to the person posting the porn on the profile or group to keep the docs.
                                                                                Thx for the info.

                                                                                Comment

                                                                                • Kingfish
                                                                                  Confirmed User
                                                                                  • Sep 2002
                                                                                  • 668

                                                                                  #41
                                                                                  This thread should be closed it starts off with a very damaging incorrect reading of the regulations. If you follow that advice, your next worry will be what to do if you drop the soap in the prison shower.

                                                                                  Comment

                                                                                  • JH3000
                                                                                    Registered User
                                                                                    • May 2005
                                                                                    • 18

                                                                                    #42
                                                                                    Originally posted by wyldblyss
                                                                                    To hell with all of that...wtf is sexually explicit? Seems like a dumn question, but since it is not clearly defined...it means that it is open to interpretation...and that can be scary.

                                                                                    The asshole inspecting might think that sexual explicit is topless....another guy might think there has to be some insertion....another two naked people together but only kissing...
                                                                                    Under this rule all nudity, including photo "art" is sexually explicit for the purpose of the rule.

                                                                                    You are 100% right in that this is exactly where issues will be raised most however. Legal experts are debating that anything that implies sex can be sexually explicit. This means that they do not necessarily EVEN need to be nude to fall into this trap.

                                                                                    The interpretation/enforcement by officials will be the lawyers bread and butter here.

                                                                                    Comment

                                                                                    • Matt_WildCash
                                                                                      Confirmed User
                                                                                      • Jan 2003
                                                                                      • 1699

                                                                                      #43
                                                                                      I think you guys need to read this part carefully, affilates are not distrubutors like a magazine shop, they create,change rework images and video and republish.

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

                                                                                      Try the New XMovies.com and make more $$$ with your Traffic

                                                                                      Comment

                                                                                      • Kingfish
                                                                                        Confirmed User
                                                                                        • Sep 2002
                                                                                        • 668

                                                                                        #44
                                                                                        Originally posted by JH3000
                                                                                        Under this rule all nudity, including photo "art" is sexually explicit for the purpose of the rule.

                                                                                        You are 100% right in that this is exactly where issues will be raised most however. Legal experts are debating that anything that implies sex can be sexually explicit. This means that they do not necessarily EVEN need to be nude to fall into this trap.

                                                                                        The interpretation/enforcement by officials will be the lawyers bread and butter here.
                                                                                        I can see the bad advice continues.

                                                                                        Comment

                                                                                        • Loki
                                                                                          Confirmed User
                                                                                          • Feb 2004
                                                                                          • 4420

                                                                                          #45
                                                                                          Originally posted by Kingfish
                                                                                          This thread should be closed it starts off with a very damaging incorrect reading of the regulations. If you follow that advice, your next worry will be what to do if you drop the soap in the prison shower.
                                                                                          I've read and reread the entire 16 pages at least 10 times today word for word, The excerpts posted by me and others are there but it gets contradicted(sic) in the deffs at the bottom of the whole thing (What I posted) I'm taking a shitload of heat for this post here and on other boards, due to wordings the DOJ chose to use. The regs say EVERYONE is liable and THEN it says that only producers and secondary producers are.

                                                                                          the actual deff of producer and 2ndry producer falls on the DOJ and only the DOJ, what WE think is correct or not means shit. but in the DOJ's wording affils are & are NOT 2ndry producers


                                                                                          the only thing I was trying to point out is that after the sentance about inserting images on a site, it goes on to say that if you mearly distro content or have nothing to do with making the content (iii) then you are NOT a secondary producer.

                                                                                          I'm deff not a lawyer nor would I want to be I dont feel I gave any advice unless you call what I said about posting a link to your sponsors 257 links on your sites to be advice, and if thats the case I'm far from the first person to voice that idea.

                                                                                          My only point that I'm trying to make (and like I said getting killed over) is the sky is not actualy falling just yet. This thing says one thing then changes from start to finish. I'm gonna sit back now and see what the lawyers have to say about all of this crap.

                                                                                          -Loki-
                                                                                          MAKE MONEY WITH 3D TOONS!
                                                                                          Need hosting? LokiCa$h Uses Amerinoc and love them!
                                                                                          Skype: LokiPorn Or Email 3dloki|at|gmail.com

                                                                                          Comment

                                                                                          • Snake Doctor
                                                                                            I'm Lenny2 Bitch
                                                                                            • Mar 2001
                                                                                            • 13449

                                                                                            #46
                                                                                            Loki you're an idiot, and you should be kicked in the fucking teeth for giving people a false sense of security.

                                                                                            Everything Loki is saying is bullshit!!!


                                                                                            Of course, if you're willing to take something a person named Loki posted on a messageboard as legal advice, and let 5 years of your freedom hang in the balance, then you probably deserve what you get.
                                                                                            sig too big

                                                                                            Comment

                                                                                            • JH3000
                                                                                              Registered User
                                                                                              • May 2005
                                                                                              • 18

                                                                                              #47
                                                                                              Originally posted by wyldblyss
                                                                                              To hell with all of that...wtf is sexually explicit? Seems like a dumn question, but since it is not clearly defined...it means that it is open to interpretation...and that can be scary.

                                                                                              The asshole inspecting might think that sexual explicit is topless....another guy might think there has to be some insertion....another two naked people together but only kissing...
                                                                                              Under this rule all nudity, including photo "art" is sexually explicit for the purpose of the rule.

                                                                                              You are 100% right in that this is exactly where issues will be raised most however. Legal experts are debating that anything that implies sex can be sexually explicit. This means that they do not necessarily EVEN need to be nude to fall into this trap.

                                                                                              The interpretation/enforcement by officials will be the lawyers bread and butter here.

                                                                                              Comment

                                                                                              • Loki
                                                                                                Confirmed User
                                                                                                • Feb 2004
                                                                                                • 4420

                                                                                                #48
                                                                                                Originally posted by Lenny2
                                                                                                Loki you're an idiot, and you should be kicked in the fucking teeth for giving people a false sense of security.

                                                                                                Everything Loki is saying is bullshit!!!


                                                                                                Of course, if you're willing to take something a person named Loki posted on a messageboard as legal advice, and let 5 years of your freedom hang in the balance, then you probably deserve what you get.
                                                                                                thanks for the great laugh there Lenny, If you consider my post advice then so be it, as I stated I gave no advice and simply pointed out that there was a huge portion of double talk as to who is and is not a secondary producer. I'm amazed at how many lawyers are here on GFY that know how wrong I am for pointing out this big double talk.

                                                                                                was just trying to stop the chicken little bullshit, tired of seeing everyone yelling doom and gloom without the full facts, or legal advice.

                                                                                                but I forget ppl just want drama

                                                                                                -Loki-
                                                                                                MAKE MONEY WITH 3D TOONS!
                                                                                                Need hosting? LokiCa$h Uses Amerinoc and love them!
                                                                                                Skype: LokiPorn Or Email 3dloki|at|gmail.com

                                                                                                Comment

                                                                                                • pornpf69
                                                                                                  Too lazy to set a custom title
                                                                                                  • Jun 2004
                                                                                                  • 15782

                                                                                                  #49
                                                                                                  as I already said: FUCK 2257! I am not an US citizen!

                                                                                                  Comment

                                                                                                  • stev0
                                                                                                    Confirmed User
                                                                                                    • Aug 2003
                                                                                                    • 6801

                                                                                                    #50
                                                                                                    Originally posted by wyldblyss
                                                                                                    To hell with all of that...wtf is sexually explicit? Seems like a dumn question, but since it is not clearly defined...it means that it is open to interpretation...and that can be scary.

                                                                                                    The asshole inspecting might think that sexual explicit is topless....another guy might think there has to be some insertion....another two naked people together but only kissing...
                                                                                                    The defninition for sexually explicit is in 2256

                                                                                                    Comment

                                                                                                    Working...