New 2257 regs published (link here)

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 8
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 template Next
  • PantieZ
    Confirmed User
    • Jan 2001
    • 1441
    #251
    Originally posted by DirtyWhiteBoy
    One of my good friends speaks and writes MONG... a SE Asian hill tribe language. We were joking that he should translate all my records to MONG. The kicker is, there are only a few people left on earth who can speak it, let along read and write it. It's a very rare & odd language.

    All Thai content (well over 200 girls) has ID's based off the Thai Buddhist calendar. They are 543 years ahead of the western calendar. Top that off with all records written in Mong... who ever is inspecting at my house is going to need back up and some coffee.

      Comment

      • FightThisPatent
        Confirmed User
        • Aug 2003
        • 4090
        #252
        For those jumping to the end of the thread, a great side-by-summary of the current and new 2257 regs (with changes highlighted), produced by one of the finest adult law court orators, JD:

        http://my.execpc.com/~xxxlaw/2257Tables5.24.05.htm


        Fight the Cliff Notes!

        http://www.t3report.com         (where's the traffic?) v5.0 is out! |
        http://www.FightThePatent.com         | ICQ 52741957

          Comment

          • tony299
            lurker
            • Aug 2002
            • 57021
            #253
            Originally posted by FightThisPatent
            For those jumping to the end of the thread, a great side-by-summary of the current and new 2257 regs (with changes highlighted), produced by one of the finest adult law court orators, JD:

            http://my.execpc.com/~xxxlaw/2257Tables5.24.05.htm


            Fight the Cliff Notes!
            THanks for posting and thank JD. If I read it right you have to have copy of each pic also on file . That will truly suck. Another question for my lawyer.

              Comment

              • James White
                Confirmed User
                • Apr 2004
                • 1405
                #254
                Originally posted by DirtyWhiteBoy
                One of my good friends speaks and writes MONG... a SE Asian hill tribe language. We were joking that he should translate all my records to MONG. The kicker is, there are only a few people left on earth who can speak it, let along read and write it. It's a very rare & odd language.

                All Thai content (well over 200 girls) has ID's based off the Thai Buddhist calendar. They are 543 years ahead of the western calendar. Top that off with all records written in Mong... who ever is inspecting at my house is going to need back up and some coffee.

                HAHAHA Thats the best thing ive heard in a long, long while.
                SIG TOO BIG! Maximum 120x60 button and no more than 3 text lines of DEFAULT SIZE and COLOR. Unless your sig is for a GFY top banner sponsor, you may use a 624x80 instead of a 120x60. Let me repeat... A 120 x 60 button and no more that 3 lines of DEFAULT SIZE AND COLOR text.

                  Comment

                  • James White
                    Confirmed User
                    • Apr 2004
                    • 1405
                    #255
                    OK, let me ask this, ive been reading this for hours.

                    Now, I saw a post saying that even though this law is going into effect June 23 that since FSC is going to contest it in some way, that it wont be truely in effect still? Or how does this work?
                    SIG TOO BIG! Maximum 120x60 button and no more than 3 text lines of DEFAULT SIZE and COLOR. Unless your sig is for a GFY top banner sponsor, you may use a 624x80 instead of a 120x60. Let me repeat... A 120 x 60 button and no more that 3 lines of DEFAULT SIZE AND COLOR text.

                      Comment

                      • clickhappy
                        Confirmed User
                        • Mar 2004
                        • 4027
                        #256
                        Originally posted by FightThisPatent
                        For those jumping to the end of the thread, a great side-by-summary of the current and new 2257 regs (with changes highlighted), produced by one of the finest adult law court orators, JD:

                        http://my.execpc.com/~xxxlaw/2257Tables5.24.05.htm
                        Wow JD pulled that together already in this short period of time? He knows 2257 forwards and backwards

                          Comment

                          • FightThisPatent
                            Confirmed User
                            • Aug 2003
                            • 4090
                            #257
                            Originally posted by clickhappy
                            Wow JD pulled that together already in this short period of time? He knows 2257 forwards and backwards

                            Rumour has it that when he snores, it sounds like "2 2 5 777777777777777" instead of zzzzzzz




                            While FSC is filing its injunction, DOJ can start their investigative process until the injunction gets approved i believe. Whether they will be waiting for June 24th (which is a friday, and for you corporate types, fridays are always the day that bad news comes in on) remains to be seen.

                            What also remains to be seen is if the injunction will only cover FSC members. I have heard this buzzing around, and will be looking to see what's the story on this part.

                            It wouldn't hurt to pay your $300 right now as membership dues to FSC irregardless.


                            Fight the Buzzing!

                            http://www.t3report.com                             (where's the traffic?) v5.0 is out! |
                            http://www.FightThePatent.com                             | ICQ 52741957

                              Comment

                              • DWB
                                Registered User
                                • Jul 2003
                                • 31779
                                #258
                                Whew... they changed the ID part so other governments are accepted. I can sleep now.

                                  Comment

                                  • theking
                                    Nice Kitty
                                    • Sep 2002
                                    • 21053
                                    #259
                                    Originally posted by MrChips
                                    Five years in jail for sticking a few galleries up and not having some docs seems a bit harsh.

                                    How long does a drunk driver get when they kill someone whilst driving under the influence?
                                    Well...I know people that have been sentenced to 3 years in prison for DUI's for having X number of DUI's within ten years that do no involve accidents/injuries. In fact I have a friend that is currently in jail at this moment with a $20,000 bail and is probably going to be sentenced to 3 years in prison...at the least that is what the prosecution is asking for.
                                    When you're running down my country hoss...you're walking on the fighting side of me!

                                    FOR THE LYING LOWLIFE POSTING AS PATHFINDER...http://gfy.com/fucking-around-and-pr...athfinder.html

                                      Comment

                                      • orcastudios
                                        Registered User
                                        • Dec 2002
                                        • 20
                                        #260
                                        Originally posted by latinasojourn
                                        no you don't understand.

                                        the revised 2257 is only promulgated ostensibly for the "protection of children".

                                        the real purpose is to facilitate obscenity convictions.

                                        no where else in america is a simple clerical error a felonious event. NO WHERE.

                                        not is dealing with the IRS, stock market fraud, and sort of white collar crime, or anything else.

                                        the reason a clerical error is a felonious event in 2257 is so busts can be made.

                                        and once a bust is made on 2257 just watch the trades for an obscenity plea.

                                        this is why the penalties are onerous. IMO there will be less than .01% of actual underage performers found after 10,000 inspections of 2257 records.

                                        and there will be immediately 150 obscenity busts facilitated by people who will take the plea rather than stand in front of a jury with their videos of bound girls forced fucked and drinking piss.

                                        watch it happen.
                                        EXACTLY!

                                          Comment

                                          • Snake Doctor
                                            I'm Lenny2 Bitch
                                            • Mar 2001
                                            • 13449
                                            #261
                                            Bump for the night shift.

                                            Alot of discussion about this on the front page but no link to the actual regs.
                                            sig too big

                                              Comment

                                              • Donny
                                                As you wish...
                                                • May 2002
                                                • 13754
                                                #262

                                                  Comment

                                                  • Oberon
                                                    Confirmed User
                                                    • Jul 2003
                                                    • 190
                                                    #263
                                                    Originally posted by swedguy
                                                    It's completely impossible.

                                                    But they phrased it a little vague:

                                                    "URL associated with the depiction"

                                                    Is it the URL to the root of the domain?
                                                    Is it the URL to the entrance page?
                                                    Is it the URL to the picture?
                                                    Stop taking quotes out of context, and it'll make more sense. As I interpret it, that means that as a primary producer you are not required to keep a copy of the secondary producer's dynamic content in each iteration, but you ARE required to keep a copy of the image used by the secondary producer and any static URL associated with the publishing of that image by the secondary producer.

                                                      Comment

                                                      • Oberon
                                                        Confirmed User
                                                        • Jul 2003
                                                        • 190
                                                        #264
                                                        Originally posted by Nate-MM2
                                                        The record keeping information is per-model/per-set from the primary producer to the secondary producer. So you would get one set of records that would cover the entire set of 30 images regardless of whether some are explicit and some aren't.

                                                        It is up to you as a secondary producer to keep the URL records for the individual explicit photos and cross-reference that with the records you received from your content provider.
                                                        Exactly correct.

                                                        It is also, as far as I can tell, up to your primary producer to keep records of where YOU as a secondary, use it?

                                                          Comment

                                                          • Oberon
                                                            Confirmed User
                                                            • Jul 2003
                                                            • 190
                                                            #265
                                                            Originally posted by faxxaff
                                                            Why should a foreign webmaster comply with US rules? The US has no jurisdiction over him and the sponsor can not be made liable for the acting of another person.
                                                            But the sponsor IS, to the best of my understanding, responsible for keeping records of locations of legitimate use...

                                                              Comment

                                                              • Oberon
                                                                Confirmed User
                                                                • Jul 2003
                                                                • 190
                                                                #266
                                                                Originally posted by GatorB
                                                                Two commenters commented that the definition of producer in the
                                                                proposed rule was too broad and would encompass a convenience store
                                                                that sold sexually explicit magazines or a movie theater that screened
                                                                R-rated movies. The Department declines to adopt this comment. As the
                                                                rule makes clear, mere distributors of sexually explicit material are
                                                                excluded from the definition of producers                                                                 and under no plausible
                                                                construction of the definition would a movie theater be covered merely
                                                                by screening films produced by others.


                                                                Ok so how is me making a TGP gallery different than a store selling a copy of Hustler? Logic would say I am only distributing the content. Hell I didn't shoot those fucking pics or movies. This law contridicts itself.
                                                                but you 'repackaged' them. So what if your TGP says 'hot nude 12 year olds' and shows other people's content of legal models? You are legitimately a secondary producer because you are changing how it is portrayed, and not just selling packaged content in a dust jacket.

                                                                  Comment

                                                                  • Oberon
                                                                    Confirmed User
                                                                    • Jul 2003
                                                                    • 190
                                                                    #267
                                                                    Originally posted by chadglni
                                                                    And to answer your question, a convenient store doesn't publish any thing. They don't copy any explicit pictures and "publish" them in their store. You on the other hand publish them when you put it on a domain. You can sell a website all day long you just can't publish an explicit picture to do it.

                                                                    The store also doesn't get to take Playboy and call it 'Bob's Slut Rag'. You, as a TGP owner, do.

                                                                      Comment

                                                                      • Oberon
                                                                        Confirmed User
                                                                        • Jul 2003
                                                                        • 190
                                                                        #268
                                                                        Originally posted by Tempest
                                                                        If you're just an affiliate, you're not selling anything. You're promoting/advertising someone elses site..

                                                                        See previous comments about the definition of secondary producers, and 'repackaging' versus 'distributing'

                                                                          Comment

                                                                          • Oberon
                                                                            Confirmed User
                                                                            • Jul 2003
                                                                            • 190
                                                                            #269
                                                                            Originally posted by Lenny2
                                                                            You forgot an important part of that.

                                                                            Foreign producers have the option of
                                                                            not complying with the rule, but then
                                                                            their access to the U.S. market is justly
                                                                            and lawfully prohibited.

                                                                            It also doesn't affect foreign webmasters the way you think. The DOJ specifically said "we do not currently excercise jurisdiction over foreign websites"

                                                                            The part that you're quoting refers to foreign producers who wish to sell their images/videos to U.S. companies. If they can't provide the documentation then the U.S. companies can't do business with them.
                                                                            Precisely.

                                                                              Comment

                                                                              • invza1
                                                                                Registered User
                                                                                • Mar 2003
                                                                                • 44
                                                                                #270
                                                                                Originally posted by James White
                                                                                OK, let me ask this, ive been reading this for hours.

                                                                                Now, I saw a post saying that even though this law is going into effect June 23 that since FSC is going to contest it in some way, that it wont be truely in effect still? Or how does this work?
                                                                                (1.) the FSC plans to file for an injunction, a temporary restraining order, and separate lawsuits, as many four.(2.) the judge may or may not grant the filings, however if granted, the legal proceedings could tie up the 2257 amendments anywhere from 2 to 7 years. (3.) you would have to join the FSC to be protected by anything they file. membership is $50 for an individual; $300 for a company.

                                                                                I wonder if an injunction/temporary restraint would prevent the govt from prosecuting on all 2257 changes or just specific ones.....has everyone read the latest article on AVN regarding this?

                                                                                  Comment

                                                                                  • Oberon
                                                                                    Confirmed User
                                                                                    • Jul 2003
                                                                                    • 190
                                                                                    #271
                                                                                    Originally posted by GatorB
                                                                                    And if the photogrhaper is LYING about the girls age what makes you think his records are going to be anymore accurate? Would he just have her come up with fake ID?




                                                                                    Which is why if there isn't an injunction I will make damn sure I don't have ANY webpages with ANY content on them.

                                                                                    I for one am currious how many websites/webpages out there will actually be in compliance on June 23rd.
                                                                                    Any that want to a) sell content legally to a US-based company
                                                                                    b) sell content legally to a US consumer market.

                                                                                      Comment

                                                                                      • Oberon
                                                                                        Confirmed User
                                                                                        • Jul 2003
                                                                                        • 190
                                                                                        #272
                                                                                        Originally posted by Lenny2
                                                                                        They're referring to foreign producers selling content to secondary producers in the U.S.....they're not referring to foreign websites selling subscriptions.
                                                                                        Actually, they would be. If it 'enters the US market stream' it's applicable. Basically they're defining it as a product labelling law. Read the responses to comments again. Sort of like having an ingredients list on hot dogs so consumers can see it's not full of sawdust.

                                                                                          Comment

                                                                                          • Oberon
                                                                                            Confirmed User
                                                                                            • Jul 2003
                                                                                            • 190
                                                                                            #273
                                                                                            Originally posted by Nate-MM2
                                                                                            You actually have to buy a license for the set first... you can't just go asking at random.

                                                                                            I doubt many producers will be providing un-edited information to Joe Webmaster that just paid $27 for 3 sets of photo content.
                                                                                            They will be if they want to be compliant. No distinctions are made on volume or respectability of the secondary producer, primaries are required to provide full info upon request to remain compliant.

                                                                                              Comment

                                                                                              • Oberon
                                                                                                Confirmed User
                                                                                                • Jul 2003
                                                                                                • 190
                                                                                                #274
                                                                                                Originally posted by Tempest
                                                                                                Not sure I agree with that since they use the term "producer" to refer to both secondary and primary producers in some places.. and they seem to be making it clear that if you sell to the US, they expect you to meet the "labeling" requirements like any other product being sold in the US... Of course, they then go on to say they don't exercise jurisdiction so who the hell knows..
                                                                                                As a primary producer outside the US, if you sell to a secondary in the US, you can have non-US govt-issue documentation for your models, or US ID, whichever.

                                                                                                As a secondary producer outside the US, this is really inapplicable to you unless you sell subscriptions to US consumers, in which case, you must maintain records, but you can rely upon your primary producer's info and not be forced to check it, though you do have to keep a record of where you got the info.

                                                                                                As a primary producer in the US you definitely have to comply. There is some discussion in other threads about whether you have to have US-issue ID for models if the shoot is outside the US, which IMHO would be a valid argument but isn't explicitly stated in the regulations as written. As written, US-based primary producers must have US ID for models, whether foreign or domestic.


                                                                                                As a secondary producer in the US, you must get the required records from your primary producer, whether they are based in the US or outside of it.

                                                                                                As a 'broker' I don't believe the onus is upon you for any maintenance of records, you are simply a 'distributor'.

                                                                                                  Comment

                                                                                                  • Oberon
                                                                                                    Confirmed User
                                                                                                    • Jul 2003
                                                                                                    • 190
                                                                                                    #275
                                                                                                    Originally posted by Nate-MM2
                                                                                                    They won't give you the real name.

                                                                                                    If you force the issue they'll just tell you to fuck off. Keeping a steady stream of fresh models keeps the big buyers coming back. They aren't going to risk pissing off a model to satisfy a webmaster making a $30 content purchase.

                                                                                                    The trusted buyers & paysite owners will be the ones getting the documents for compliance.
                                                                                                    and the $30 website owners will be the ones reporting them for non-compliance to the DOJ.... so?

                                                                                                      Comment

                                                                                                      • Oberon
                                                                                                        Confirmed User
                                                                                                        • Jul 2003
                                                                                                        • 190
                                                                                                        #276
                                                                                                        Originally posted by Tempest
                                                                                                        You're funny... The bill of sale/contract isn't with the salesman.. it's with the dealership....

                                                                                                        Not a good analogy. A better analogy would be that of an advertising company that prepares a flyer for the sale of cars on a car lot, using the car lot's images. In no way does the advertising company own the car or the image, but they are still a producer in that they 'package' it and 'present it' uniquely.

                                                                                                          Comment

                                                                                                          • Oberon
                                                                                                            Confirmed User
                                                                                                            • Jul 2003
                                                                                                            • 190
                                                                                                            #277
                                                                                                            Originally posted by swedguy
                                                                                                            Exactly.

                                                                                                            If I had hotdog cart in New York, then I'm on US soil selling to americans.

                                                                                                            But if my sexually explicit material is not on US soil, but accessible from the US. They can't do anything.
                                                                                                            Kinda like standing on the Mexican side of the US/Mexican border flashing your tits. US Police can't do anything about it.

                                                                                                            I'm not 100% sure on this one. So correct me if I'm wrong.
                                                                                                            IF they really wanted to go after a non-US webmaster (one-man show), I guess they could make so if he enters US soil, he would get arrested. But if you have a corporation, you as a person is pretty safe.
                                                                                                            That depends. If you're taking money from US citizens across the fence to flash your tits, you're in the US consumer market and yes, they can do something about it.

                                                                                                              Comment

                                                                                                              • Webby
                                                                                                                Too lazy to set a custom title
                                                                                                                • Oct 2002
                                                                                                                • 14956
                                                                                                                #278
                                                                                                                Originally posted by MrChips
                                                                                                                Five years in jail for sticking a few galleries up and not having some docs seems a bit harsh.

                                                                                                                How long does a drunk driver get when they kill someone whilst driving under the influence?
                                                                                                                Agree MrChips! Basically it's all bollocks and more insanity.

                                                                                                                The basis of 2257 is fine - ie.. for the protection of minors, but after that it's just bullshit. A dunk driver who kills needs to be stuffed in a jail cell for 10 years.

                                                                                                                Creative pornographers need a tax break for enhancing the economy - it sure needs it.

                                                                                                                I'm pleased I don't live or come under any laws of the US.
                                                                                                                XXX TLD's - Another mosquito to swat.

                                                                                                                  Comment

                                                                                                                  • Oberon
                                                                                                                    Confirmed User
                                                                                                                    • Jul 2003
                                                                                                                    • 190
                                                                                                                    #279
                                                                                                                    Originally posted by Nate-MM2
                                                                                                                    The way I read it was that it is up to the secondary producer to make sure he/she has all the correct documentation from the primary producer.

                                                                                                                    The primary producer is under no obligation to provide that information to all of their customers.

                                                                                                                    The onus is on the secondary to ask for it, the obligation of the primary is to reciprocate and provide it.

                                                                                                                      Comment

                                                                                                                      • Oberon
                                                                                                                        Confirmed User
                                                                                                                        • Jul 2003
                                                                                                                        • 190
                                                                                                                        #280
                                                                                                                        Originally posted by Nate-MM2
                                                                                                                        You don't publish the model's info on the internet.

                                                                                                                        The privacy issue was raised in regards to stalkers posing as webmasters wanting to purchase content or as affiliates wanting to use free content in order to promote a website.
                                                                                                                        And the DOJ response was 'tough, deal with it, our agenda is more important'.

                                                                                                                          Comment

                                                                                                                          • Webby
                                                                                                                            Too lazy to set a custom title
                                                                                                                            • Oct 2002
                                                                                                                            • 14956
                                                                                                                            #281
                                                                                                                            Originally posted by Oberon
                                                                                                                            That depends. If you're taking money from US citizens across the fence to flash your tits, you're in the US consumer market and yes, they can do something about it.
                                                                                                                            DUH?? :-) No, the laws of the US do not apply to any other country or any webmaster who does not live or host servers within US territory. Some may like to think so, but dream on.

                                                                                                                            Other countries do have laws in place to basically protect children and they can instigate an action against a webmaster within that country if he/she violates these laws. However, this does not mean listening to crap about 2257 from any US government officer - US laws do not apply in other countries.
                                                                                                                            XXX TLD's - Another mosquito to swat.

                                                                                                                              Comment

                                                                                                                              • Oberon
                                                                                                                                Confirmed User
                                                                                                                                • Jul 2003
                                                                                                                                • 190
                                                                                                                                #282
                                                                                                                                Originally posted by GatorB
                                                                                                                                What if you don't do any of that you are just showing the work just like a porno theater would show a movie? Doesn't a theater owner have creative license on how the movie is shown? Doesn't he pick what color the walls are the seats the carpet? How is that different than webpage?
                                                                                                                                Because the DOJ says so. If challenged in court, IMHO all that might happen is to get the requirement extended to theaters. It won't work the reverse way given the political pressure behind this and any effort spent thinking otherwise is a waste.

                                                                                                                                  Comment

                                                                                                                                  • Oberon
                                                                                                                                    Confirmed User
                                                                                                                                    • Jul 2003
                                                                                                                                    • 190
                                                                                                                                    #283
                                                                                                                                    Originally posted by Webby
                                                                                                                                    DUH?? :-) No, the laws of the US do not apply to any other country or any webmaster who does not live or host servers within US territory. Some may like to think so, but dream on.

                                                                                                                                    Other countries do have laws in place to basically protect children and they can instigate an action against a webmaster within that country if he/she violates these laws. However, this does not mean listening to crap about 2257 from any US government officer - US laws do not apply in other countries.
                                                                                                                                    So you're telling me that if I'm standing in Mexico throwing sawdust-containing hot dogs across the border to US citizens who are throwing me money, the import / export and trade laws can't do anything about it?

                                                                                                                                    I really really think you're wrong. But I'm not a lawyer, either, so I'll keep an open mind until someone posts something more informative on this one.

                                                                                                                                      Comment

                                                                                                                                      • Oberon
                                                                                                                                        Confirmed User
                                                                                                                                        • Jul 2003
                                                                                                                                        • 190
                                                                                                                                        #284
                                                                                                                                        Originally posted by MiLo TurboNegro
                                                                                                                                        Didnt got the part were it says that the minute you had the copy of the documents you became custodian of records. Is that so?

                                                                                                                                        Also, since we are on the asking bandwagon, isnt this like a root scheme? meaning that if the primary producer keeps records, the secondary producer needs to keep his records AND the primary records, and vice versa? as a combined database?

                                                                                                                                        I believe that each company has a designated custodian of records, and that definition is set forth quite concretely elsewhere. Don't quote me.

                                                                                                                                        As for the maintenance of records... it's my interpretation that the primary is required to record all instances of use, whether on their own behalf or by a secondary, while the secondary is required to obtain a copy of the model's documentation and track their own usage.

                                                                                                                                          Comment

                                                                                                                                          • Oberon
                                                                                                                                            Confirmed User
                                                                                                                                            • Jul 2003
                                                                                                                                            • 190
                                                                                                                                            #285
                                                                                                                                            Originally posted by Nightwind
                                                                                                                                            So, i still can't figure out if a TGP that doesn't have sexually explict material such as only having mugshots. These thumbs link to sexually explict material, is he still responsible to have the 2257 crap at his home/internet? I hope someone understands what i mean, because i sure as hell can't figure out this legal gibberish.
                                                                                                                                            No. As a TGP owner, i.e. secondary producer, one would only be responsible for what actually appears on pages within your control. Sites linked to from that page that are outside your control, the records would be maintained by whomever is responsible for the individual site.

                                                                                                                                              Comment

                                                                                                                                              • Oberon
                                                                                                                                                Confirmed User
                                                                                                                                                • Jul 2003
                                                                                                                                                • 190
                                                                                                                                                #286
                                                                                                                                                Originally posted by PR_Tom
                                                                                                                                                If you dont have sexually explicit materials on your hosting under your control, then it can't apply of course. In theory, everything on the internet links to everything else (or has a chance to), so yeah it would be impossible to carry documents for the entire contents of the internet, hehe.

                                                                                                                                                If you have code on your page to hotlink sexually explicit material, then my understanding has been that you WOULD be required to have documents on the hotlinked image however. Anyone clarify that? Hotlinking is "causing to be displayed" on your page afterall.

                                                                                                                                                Correct. You are 'publishing' that image by virtue of it appearing on your page.

                                                                                                                                                  Comment

                                                                                                                                                  • Oberon
                                                                                                                                                    Confirmed User
                                                                                                                                                    • Jul 2003
                                                                                                                                                    • 190
                                                                                                                                                    #287
                                                                                                                                                    Originally posted by clickhappy
                                                                                                                                                    i dont know if im reading this wrong, but is this saying that webmasters just have to list the records of the company who sells the content? Like we do now?

                                                                                                                                                    We dont have to list our own addresses if we post images, just the primary producers?
                                                                                                                                                    No, it means that you can accept the model info as valid when you receive it from the primary producer, but you have to keep a record of who the primary producer you received it from was.

                                                                                                                                                    As a secondary producer, any page you create with that content should list your custodian of records as the repository of 2257 info.

                                                                                                                                                      Comment

                                                                                                                                                      • Oberon
                                                                                                                                                        Confirmed User
                                                                                                                                                        • Jul 2003
                                                                                                                                                        • 190
                                                                                                                                                        #288
                                                                                                                                                        Originally posted by GatorB
                                                                                                                                                        explain this to me


                                                                                                                                                        So if the primary producer tells me that the images don't have to comply with 2257 then I can take him at his word and put a statement on my site that says the images don't have to comply with 2257? And if the pimary producer is LYING about that????????
                                                                                                                                                        Then he's fucked, not you, because the onus is not on you to check the info provided by your primary producer, similar to how the primary producer has no obligation to check for model's aliases beyond what he / she provides.

                                                                                                                                                          Comment

                                                                                                                                                          • Oberon
                                                                                                                                                            Confirmed User
                                                                                                                                                            • Jul 2003
                                                                                                                                                            • 190
                                                                                                                                                            #289
                                                                                                                                                            Originally posted by GatorB
                                                                                                                                                            Isn't that what google images does?

                                                                                                                                                            Google, though, falls under the 'cannot reasonably control the content hosted' clause.

                                                                                                                                                              Comment

                                                                                                                                                              • Webby
                                                                                                                                                                Too lazy to set a custom title
                                                                                                                                                                • Oct 2002
                                                                                                                                                                • 14956
                                                                                                                                                                #290
                                                                                                                                                                Originally posted by Oberon
                                                                                                                                                                So you're telling me that if I'm standing in Mexico throwing sawdust-containing hot dogs across the border to US citizens who are throwing me money, the import / export and trade laws can't do anything about it?

                                                                                                                                                                I really really think you're wrong. But I'm not a lawyer, either, so I'll keep an open mind until someone posts something more informative on this one.
                                                                                                                                                                If you seriously think any interpretation of an act produced by US lawmakers is going to be heeded in the courts of any other nation - ya gotta be joking! :-)

                                                                                                                                                                The whole concept of nations and their right to produce laws is a matter for them and has no bearing whatsover on the legal processes and courts of any other countries.

                                                                                                                                                                To say this, I don't have to be a lawyer. Tho I do know a few lawyers in different countries and they would bust out laughing at the idea of laws of one country being "enforced" in another.

                                                                                                                                                                I have nada problem dealing with any US govt officer if he even addresses this issue - it's made up of two words. I never agreed (nor has any nation), to comply with laws created by US lawmakers as regards the internet - each country has their own laws on this.
                                                                                                                                                                XXX TLD's - Another mosquito to swat.

                                                                                                                                                                  Comment

                                                                                                                                                                  • Oberon
                                                                                                                                                                    Confirmed User
                                                                                                                                                                    • Jul 2003
                                                                                                                                                                    • 190
                                                                                                                                                                    #291
                                                                                                                                                                    Originally posted by goBigtime
                                                                                                                                                                    hmm.... aside from what gator was talking about with TGP's...

                                                                                                                                                                    both the movie theatre and store owners ultimately make the decision about what individual movies or magazines are displayed or offered to the end user. Interesting.

                                                                                                                                                                    In my non-legal opinion, I would think that a link-only TGP (no thumbnails, no banners requiring 2257) would be ok according to the COMMENTS made by the DOJ. There may be other things that contradict what was said there, but in that one comment.... a link-only TGP linking to offsite galleries sounds like distribution to me.

                                                                                                                                                                    Actually because you control what the page says about the link, it's still 'publishing' and subject to obscenity laws, but it doesn't fall under 2257 regulations at all if no images are used.

                                                                                                                                                                      Comment

                                                                                                                                                                      • Oberon
                                                                                                                                                                        Confirmed User
                                                                                                                                                                        • Jul 2003
                                                                                                                                                                        • 190
                                                                                                                                                                        #292
                                                                                                                                                                        Originally posted by GatorB
                                                                                                                                                                        Yeah like The Hun. Now won't that suck for them? I want to see the look on Gonzales' face when he realizes he can't touch him for 2257 or the banners with chicks sucking off horses either.

                                                                                                                                                                        Ah, but if the banner is displayed on a us-based site owned by you, you have to have 2257 info for the image in it or YOU are in violation as a us producer because you 'published' it by featuring it on your site.

                                                                                                                                                                          Comment

                                                                                                                                                                          • Oberon
                                                                                                                                                                            Confirmed User
                                                                                                                                                                            • Jul 2003
                                                                                                                                                                            • 190
                                                                                                                                                                            #293
                                                                                                                                                                            Originally posted by RawAlex
                                                                                                                                                                            There is no exemption for bbses and chat boards... they need 2257 documents for posted images. "would you hit this" threads may be a thing of the past VERY soon.

                                                                                                                                                                            Alex

                                                                                                                                                                            Their only argument for exemption would be that they have no control over the content, which is weak.

                                                                                                                                                                              Comment

                                                                                                                                                                              • darnit
                                                                                                                                                                                Confirmed User
                                                                                                                                                                                • Jul 2001
                                                                                                                                                                                • 2439
                                                                                                                                                                                #294
                                                                                                                                                                                I suppose the same would apply to counters that featured explicit content - even if that image choice was out of the webmasters control.

                                                                                                                                                                                Also just to clarify - im planning to remove all sponsor provided content from my server - if I do so before the law goes into affect then there is no retroactive prosecution allowed, correct?

                                                                                                                                                                                One other question re: "publishing" if content is on the server but not linked or displayed in any html would the random act of the jpg being on the server still be considered in breech?

                                                                                                                                                                                  Comment

                                                                                                                                                                                  • xxxice
                                                                                                                                                                                    Confirmed User
                                                                                                                                                                                    • Feb 2002
                                                                                                                                                                                    • 5042
                                                                                                                                                                                    #295
                                                                                                                                                                                    text tgps are ok ?

                                                                                                                                                                                      Comment

                                                                                                                                                                                      • darnit
                                                                                                                                                                                        Confirmed User
                                                                                                                                                                                        • Jul 2001
                                                                                                                                                                                        • 2439
                                                                                                                                                                                        #296
                                                                                                                                                                                        Originally posted by vanderweb
                                                                                                                                                                                        text tgps are ok ?
                                                                                                                                                                                        yes they are.

                                                                                                                                                                                          Comment

                                                                                                                                                                                          • xxxice
                                                                                                                                                                                            Confirmed User
                                                                                                                                                                                            • Feb 2002
                                                                                                                                                                                            • 5042
                                                                                                                                                                                            #297
                                                                                                                                                                                            Originally posted by darnit
                                                                                                                                                                                            yes they are.
                                                                                                                                                                                            Ok what about my logo it is an adult cartoon ?
                                                                                                                                                                                            Is this ok as well ?

                                                                                                                                                                                              Comment

                                                                                                                                                                                              • Oberon
                                                                                                                                                                                                Confirmed User
                                                                                                                                                                                                • Jul 2003
                                                                                                                                                                                                • 190
                                                                                                                                                                                                #298
                                                                                                                                                                                                Originally posted by darnit
                                                                                                                                                                                                I suppose the same would apply to counters that featured explicit content - even if that image choice was out of the webmasters control.

                                                                                                                                                                                                Also just to clarify - im planning to remove all sponsor provided content from my server - if I do so before the law goes into affect then there is no retroactive prosecution allowed, correct?

                                                                                                                                                                                                One other question re: "publishing" if content is on the server but not linked or displayed in any html would the random act of the jpg being on the server still be considered in breech?
                                                                                                                                                                                                Re: publishing, if the image can be viewed by the general public, one would assume it's being published by you. Hence it would really depend on how your server access is configured; whether images can be directly accessed or only through pages.

                                                                                                                                                                                                  Comment

                                                                                                                                                                                                  • darnit
                                                                                                                                                                                                    Confirmed User
                                                                                                                                                                                                    • Jul 2001
                                                                                                                                                                                                    • 2439
                                                                                                                                                                                                    #299
                                                                                                                                                                                                    Originally posted by vanderweb
                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ok what about my logo it is an adult cartoon ?
                                                                                                                                                                                                    Is this ok as well ?
                                                                                                                                                                                                    cartoons are fine.... only applies to actual human beings

                                                                                                                                                                                                      Comment

                                                                                                                                                                                                      • xxxice
                                                                                                                                                                                                        Confirmed User
                                                                                                                                                                                                        • Feb 2002
                                                                                                                                                                                                        • 5042
                                                                                                                                                                                                        #300
                                                                                                                                                                                                        Thanks for your help

                                                                                                                                                                                                          Comment

                                                                                                                                                                                                          Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 template Next
                                                                                                                                                                                                          Working...