6-23-05 how many sites will be in compliance?

**Doctor Dre** · 05-25-2005, 07:27 PM

Definitly A ... the big compagnies will probably be ready.

**Babagirls** · 05-25-2005, 07:28 PM

i'll go out on a limb and say maybe (B), but i think you may be right about (A).

**After Shock Media** · 05-25-2005, 07:28 PM

P.S. Hope there is no hard feelings between us Gator.

**StickyGreen** · 05-25-2005, 07:29 PM

no one's gonna do shit...

**GatorB** · 05-25-2005, 07:29 PM

Originally posted by Lord of the fungi

P.S. Hope there is no hard feelings between us Gator.

About what?

**seeric** · 05-25-2005, 07:30 PM

hehe.

until the first person gets nailed. then watch the chaos ensue.

**Mutt** · 05-25-2005, 07:30 PM

A ......... and a year from now ............ A

only question is how many get inspected and charged/convicted - nobody knows.

**After Shock Media** · 05-25-2005, 07:31 PM

Originally posted by GatorB

About what?

Good enough answer. I just come off as abrasive on occassion.

**GatorB** · 05-25-2005, 07:32 PM

Well I for one will be going to many a thumb TGP and in fact regular TGPS and checking galleries to see how few if ANY have the proper 2257 statements on them

**NoCarrier** · 05-25-2005, 07:32 PM

I agree, less than 10%

You just have to read all the threads to realise how the majority of people, even after a year, is still clueless with the new regulations.

Here they are, running everywhere..

**latinasojourn** · 05-25-2005, 07:32 PM

here's the basic problem.

and i don't have a definitive answer on this, and i wish someone could tell me.

the question: are existing keeper of records info grandfathered in?

for example, you have content you bought from a vendor who gave you his keep of record info.

and you've dutifully put his keeper of record info on your website.

now maybe the original producer has gone bellyup like so many have done---no way to contact him.

do you have to take down all the content you do not physically hold the records for because you are a secondary producer?

and are the content vendors that are still solvent going to give you copies of the records so you can comply?

i wish i had the straight scoop on that.

**GatorB** · 05-25-2005, 07:33 PM

Originally posted by Lord of the fungi

Good enough answer. I just come off as abrasive on occassion.

I come off an asshole most of the time or perhaps an idiot. Just ask AaronM

**After Shock Media** · 05-25-2005, 07:33 PM

To answer your question. Just like before with the old regs the number will be under 10%.

**GatorB** · 05-25-2005, 07:36 PM

Originally posted by latinasojourn

the question: are existing keeper of records info grandfathered in?

for example, you have content you bought from a vendor who gave you his keep of record info.

and you've dutifully put his keeper of record info on your website.

now maybe the original producer has gone bellyup like so many have done---no way to contact him.

do you have to take down all the content you do not physically hold the records for because you are a secondary producer?

You do NOT have to have phsyical copies they can be digital, BUT they must include SCANS of the original copies. If the company went belly up from what I can tell the DOJ's reply is "tough shit"

and are the content vendors that are still solvent going to give you copies of the records so you can comply?

They HAVE to or THEY are in violation.

**tony286** · 05-25-2005, 07:38 PM

I would say a

**DateDoc** · 05-25-2005, 07:42 PM

Originally posted by GatorB

You do NOT have to have phsyical copies they can be digital, BUT they must include SCANS of the original copies. If the company went belly up from what I can tell the DOJ's reply is "tough shit"

They HAVE to or THEY are in violation.

If you are hosting the content YOU are in violation if you do not have the docs.

**geeksta** · 05-25-2005, 07:51 PM

what do you guys think this is going to do to the free "fileshare" porn?

personally, after all the hard work the professionals do, paying their models, investing money, etc only to see their work stolen and up on fileshare networks.. i hope the DOJ goes after these first and foremost. they have never been in compliance.

**GatorB** · 05-25-2005, 07:55 PM

Originally posted by BusterPorn

If you are hosting the content YOU are in violation if you do not have the docs.

And this has what to do with anything.

Three commenters commented that the record-shifting requirements
under Sec. Sec. 75.2(a) and (b) are impermissibly burdensome.
According to the commenters, primary producers would resist turning
over records that contain trade secrets, such as the identities of
performers. The Department declines to adopt these comments. The D.C.
Circuit Court clearly held in American Library Ass'n v. Reno that the
record-keeping requirements were not unconstitutionally burdensome. Any
primary producer who fails to release the records to a secondary
producer is simply in violation of the regulations and may not use the
excuse that the records contain alleged trade secrets to avoid
compliance.

6-23-05 how many sites will be in compliance?

6-23-05 how many sites will be in compliance?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment