Sorry about this 2257 question - GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum

X

JimmiDean

Confirmed User

Join Date: Nov 2004

Posts: 3433
Share

Post
#1

Sorry about this 2257 question

06-17-2005, 02:12 AM

we are sick of hearing about it but I have a quick question.
Am I right to assume that i must remove my instant pic post board in the free area, as I can provide no documentation for this?
Thanks in advance.

My God there's Porn on here!

Still on the Beach !!!
Tags: None
AaronM

GFY Royality ;)

Join Date: Oct 2001

Posts: 46917
Share

Post
#2

06-17-2005, 02:16 AM

Remove it or don't...What's the difference?

People seem to be missing a major fact here......The regulations are retroactive back to 1995. You could close your entire operation down today but the DOJ still has a 5 year statute of limitations that allows them to come after you for anything you have done in those last 5 years......And if you are still in business then it's 7 years.

Perhaps this is a question that you should have asked a qualified attorney before you started your site.

SEE SIG!
Comment
JimmiDean

Confirmed User

Join Date: Nov 2004

Posts: 3433
Share

Post
#3

06-17-2005, 02:29 AM

Thanks for taking the time to reply,
We have spoken to our attorneys on this matter but I wanted to get a few points of view.
Going back four years and asking is probably not an option

My God there's Porn on here!

Still on the Beach !!!
Comment
Zester

Confirmed User

Join Date: Jul 2003

Posts: 5344
Share

Post
#4

06-17-2005, 04:35 AM

Originally posted by JimmiDean

Thanks for taking the time to reply,
We have spoken to our attorneys on this matter but I wanted to get a few points of view.
Going back four years and asking is probably not an option

that's what he had to say ?

* Mainstream ? $65 per sale
* new male contraception
Comment
BrainCash JF

Registered User

Join Date: Jun 2003

Posts: 81
Share

Post
#5

06-17-2005, 06:12 AM

if the images are not even more on your servers , it will be hard for them to accuse you of something because after all the regulation starts on 23th of july ....better remove them if you want to follow the rules

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, then you may use a 624x80 instead of a 120x60.
Comment
JimmiDean

Confirmed User

Join Date: Nov 2004

Posts: 3433
Share

Post
#6

06-17-2005, 07:15 AM

Thanks for the info BraincashJF, our Attorney advised us to close the pic post page before the deadline for obviouse reasons. We pay for an outside host and software program for this part of the site.
I was just questioning this as many sites seem to simple be "instant pic post boards" and they seem to have to interest in shutting down or looking for ways to comply

My God there's Porn on here!

Still on the Beach !!!
Comment
wjxxx

So Fucking Banned

Join Date: Feb 2005

Posts: 4448
Share

Post
#7

06-17-2005, 07:59 AM

You are from Canada so why you care about this ?
Comment
BrainCash JF

Registered User

Join Date: Jun 2003

Posts: 81
Share

Post
#8

06-17-2005, 08:12 AM

Originally posted by wjxxx

You are from Canada so why you care about this ?

yes you are totally right , this regulation does not apply to Canada since it's a US regulation

however , who knows how the new regulation will effect foreign businesses ? if you deal with US customers then better read that :

' In order to sell in the U.S.
market, foreign producers must comply with U.S. laws. This rule applies
equally to any sexually explicit material introduced into the stream of
commerce in the United States no matter where it was produced. 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. '

tough I really don't know what US fed can do to apply this comment....

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, then you may use a 624x80 instead of a 120x60.
Comment
GatorB

The Demon & 12clicks

Join Date: Oct 2001

Posts: 18208
Share

Post
#9

06-17-2005, 08:56 AM

Originally posted by AaronM

Remove it or don't...What's the difference?

People seem to be missing a major fact here......The regulations are retroactive back to 1995. You could close your entire operation down today but the DOJ still has a 5 year statute of limitations that allows them to come after you for anything you have done in those last 5 years......And if you are still in business then it's 7 years.

That's bullshit. You can't go back and arrest someone for something they did that wasn't illegal. That's like saying tomorrow the drinking age goes up to 25 so then the cops can arrest all those under 25 that have been drinking before then.

Oh by the way if he closed hs site down TODAY who can the DOJ arrest him after the 23rd? It doesn't exist anymore. And don't bring up that archive.org shit, because all that stuff is hosted on THEIR servers.

Perhaps this is a question that you should have asked a qualified attorney before you started your site.

Nice smug samrtass response. Quit thinking your shit don't stink and that you are better than anyone else. You aren't.

Last edited by GatorB; 06-17-2005, 08:57 AM.
Comment
AaronM

GFY Royality ;)

Join Date: Oct 2001

Posts: 46917
Share

Post
#10

06-17-2005, 09:05 AM

Originally posted by GatorB

That's bullshit. You can't go back and arrest someone for something they did that wasn't illegal. That's like saying tomorrow the drinking age goes up to 25 so then the cops can arrest all those under 25 that have been drinking before then.

Oh by the way if he closed hs site down TODAY who can the DOJ arrest him after the 23rd? It doesn't exist anymore. And don't bring up that archive.org shit, because all that stuff is hosted on THEIR servers.

Nice smug samrtass response. Quit thinking your shit don't stink and that you are better than anyone else. You aren't.

Once again you show your stupidity on this issue.

FYI, Over the last 2+ days, I have spent multiple hours discussing 2257 with well qualified attorneys and THEY are the ones who mentioned this to me.

If you read the DOJ's comments on the 1995 retroactive thing, they specifically state that you should have been doing things their way all along and if you had a better understanding of the current regs then you would know this.

I'm tired of debating 2257 issues with you. Is Eric M. Bernstein your attorney or something because the two of you seem to know fuck all about these laws.

Last edited by AaronM; 06-17-2005, 09:08 AM.
Comment
GatorB

The Demon & 12clicks

Join Date: Oct 2001

Posts: 18208
Share

Post
#11

06-17-2005, 09:20 AM

Originally posted by AaronM

Once again you show your stupidity on this issue.

FYI, Over the last 2+ days, I have spent multiple hours discussing 2257 with well qualified attorneys and THEY are the ones who mentioned this to me.

If you read the DOJ's comments on the 1995 retroactive thing, they specifically state that you should have been doing things their way all along and if you had a better understanding of the current regs then you would know this.

I understand them just fine. How come these are NEW rules if they have existed since 1995? The 1995 thing is about the CONTENT. Meaning any CONTENT made after July 3,1995 falls under 2257. Show me where the SECONDARY producer requirement has existed since 1995? I fact under Sundance is not suppose to exist at all. Also show me how the DOJ could even prove that say in 1998 you didn't have a 2257 statement on your website? I mean unless you never updated it. That's just retarded. I think the DOJ has enough people to go after that are currently running websites than to chase after ghosts.

Fact is the REAL purpose of the DOJ is to have as many of us shut down as possible. Now IF I do and I can still be busted then what's my motivation for shutting down? If I haven't been complying and because of that I can still get busted what my motivation for complying now? See that doesn't make any sense.

If I am wrong, I will personally cut off both my balls if ANYONE is ever convicted of violating these new 2257 rules beause of a website they ran that went offline before June 23, 2005
Comment
PantieZ

Confirmed User

Join Date: Jan 2001

Posts: 1441
Share

Post
#12

06-17-2005, 10:08 AM

[QUOTE=BrainCash JF]yes you are totally right , this regulation does not apply to Canada since it's a US regulation

however , who knows how the new regulation will effect foreign businesses ? if you deal with US customers then better read that :

' In order to sell in the U.S.
market, foreign producers must comply with U.S. laws. ........QUOTE]

which side of the internet is US ?
Comment
AaronM

GFY Royality ;)

Join Date: Oct 2001

Posts: 46917
Share

Post
#13

06-17-2005, 10:16 AM

Originally posted by GatorB

I understand them just fine. How come these are NEW rules if they have existed since 1995? The 1995 thing is about the CONTENT. Meaning any CONTENT made after July 3,1995 falls under 2257. Show me where the SECONDARY producer requirement has existed since 1995? I fact under Sundance is not suppose to exist at all. Also show me how the DOJ could even prove that say in 1998 you didn't have a 2257 statement on your website? I mean unless you never updated it. That's just retarded. I think the DOJ has enough people to go after that are currently running websites than to chase after ghosts.

I don't need to show you anything but I will tell you...AGAIN....that if you had a good understanding of the current law that you would know that secondary producers were still supposed to have the ID's back then. The law was not worded as clearly as it should have been which is why the new regs directly address the issue more clearly.

Sundance is not an issue here. The DOJ clearly stated their feelings on this.

I don't claim to know it all but I do know way more about 2257 than you and 99.9% of this board. I even corrected a few attorneys on different panels at Cybernet and they acknowledged that I was correct.

Will people be prosecuted based on their past websites alone? Not likely but that doesn't mean that this information can not be used as an additional charge to coerce a plea bargain out of a scarred webmaster.
Comment
Barefootsies

Choice is an Illusion

Join Date: Feb 2005

Posts: 42635
Share

Post
#14

06-17-2005, 10:17 AM

Originally posted by JimmiDean

we are sick of hearing about it but I have a quick question.
Am I right to assume that i must remove my instant pic post board in the free area, as I can provide no documentation for this?
Thanks in advance.

You're forgiven.

Should You Email Your Members?

Link1 | Link2 | Link3

Enough Said.

"Would you rather live like a king for a year or like a prince forever?"
Comment
dopeman

Confirmed User

Join Date: Jan 2005

Posts: 294
Share

Post
#15

06-17-2005, 10:22 AM

Originally posted by AaronM

Will people be prosecuted based on their past websites alone? Not likely but that doesn't mean that this information can not be used as an additional charge to coerce a plea bargain out of a scarred webmaster.

spot - fucking - on. it's not unreasonable to consider them attacking small affiliates FIRST to get them to plea to both rack up some 'prosecutions' as well as possibly use them to get to the larger sponsors.

SPONSORS - TAKE CARE OF YOUR AFFILIATES. make them sign a non disclosure, get their ID, ask for a cash bond deposit or something. but don't think that the feds are going to be happy with knocking out a few TGP operators. they will come for you. this isn't a 'nice thing to do'. if affiliates are the front line of the attack, and they go down, that means you could be next.
Comment
JimmiDean

Confirmed User

Join Date: Nov 2004

Posts: 3433
Share

Post
#16

06-17-2005, 11:34 AM

Thanks Barefootsies, and AaronM
I never thought this would open a can of worms.

My God there's Porn on here!

Still on the Beach !!!
Comment
mardigras

Bon temps!

Join Date: Feb 2003

Posts: 14194
Share

Post
#17

06-17-2005, 11:43 AM

Originally posted by GatorB

If I am wrong, I will personally cut off both my balls if ANYONE is ever convicted of violating these new 2257 rules beause of a website they ran that went offline before June 23, 2005

You don't think prosecutors will use archives to shore up cases?

.
Comment
JimmiDean

Confirmed User

Join Date: Nov 2004

Posts: 3433
Share

Post
#18

06-17-2005, 11:54 AM

No I agree with Gator on this one but at this point it is pure speculation.
Sorry Gator I ment to thank you for your post not Aaron.
I need some sleep.

My God there's Porn on here!

Still on the Beach !!!
Comment
GatorB

The Demon & 12clicks

Join Date: Oct 2001

Posts: 18208
Share

Post
#19

06-17-2005, 12:03 PM

Originally posted by mardigras

You don't think prosecutors will use archives to shore up cases?

Once again with MILLIONS of webpages out there that are LIVE why would the DOJ spend all their time at archive.org to go after people without current websites? There is ZERO chance at a conviction. No jury will convict someone of a crime over something that does not longer exist and when it did, wasn't violating any laws.

Fact is secondary producers were NOT required to have the docs before now. Prove that they were. Were they required to have a 2257 page with the names and adresses of the PRIMARY producers? Yes, but that's a different issue and one that the DOJ could have been prosecuting for YEARS now already. They didn't.

Think about what you are saying. You are saying the DOJ is going to ask someone to PROVE the had docs BEFORE June 23, 2005? For what purpose? What difference does that make? And like I said they weren't required until now. Now you can make a case that the DOJ THINKS they SHOULD have been required. But as AaronM says the rules were VAGUE. Well VAGUE in court spells REASONABLE DOUBT.

Fact is I will have ZERO live webpages that require a 2257 statement on June 23, 2005. I am not worrried in the slightest that I will be prosecuted over something that no longer exists.
Comment
AaronM

GFY Royality ;)

Join Date: Oct 2001

Posts: 46917
Share

Post
#20

06-17-2005, 12:07 PM

Originally posted by JimmiDean

No I agree with Gator on this one but at this point it is pure speculation.
Sorry Gator I ment to thank you for your post not Aaron.
I need some sleep.

Of course you agree with Gator. He gave you the answer you WANTED to hear and I gave you the correct answer which is NOT what you wanted to hear.
Comment
GatorB

The Demon & 12clicks

Join Date: Oct 2001

Posts: 18208
Share

Post
#21

06-17-2005, 12:10 PM

Originally posted by AaronM

Of course you agree with Gator. He gave you the answer you WANTED to hear and I gave you the correct answer which is NOT what you wanted to hear.

Please. Now who think he's all that. Like I said I am not worried. I am NOT getting docs to sites that don't exist. I am not worried. If the DOJ tried to get me they would be laughed out of court. The DOJ has a better chance at getting The Hun exitrdicted and convicted for 2257 violations than a webmaster of now functed websites.
Comment
AaronM

GFY Royality ;)

Join Date: Oct 2001

Posts: 46917
Share

Post
#22

06-17-2005, 12:12 PM

Originally posted by GatorB

Please. Now who think he's all that.

When it comes to 2257... Brandon Shalton and I ARE all that.

Don't be jealous just because you THINK you know the things and I really do.

Last edited by AaronM; 06-17-2005, 12:13 PM.
Comment
JimmiDean

Confirmed User

Join Date: Nov 2004

Posts: 3433
Share

Post
#23

06-17-2005, 12:15 PM

No Aaron you misunderstood me.
I understand your point that there will be exposure no matter what due to the ability to go back five years.
but the answer you gave me was "Remove it or don't...What's the difference?"
not really an answer.
I do value your opinion and was just looking for peoples point of view on this issue.
you did not to share yours.

My God there's Porn on here!

Still on the Beach !!!
Comment
AaronM

GFY Royality ;)

Join Date: Oct 2001

Posts: 46917
Share

Post
#24

06-17-2005, 12:19 PM

Originally posted by JimmiDean

No Aaron you misunderstood me.
I understand your point that there will be exposure no matter what due to the ability to go back five years.
but the answer you gave me was "Remove it or don't...What's the difference?"
not really an answer.
I do value your opinion and was just looking for peoples point of view on this issue.
you did not to share yours.

Ah...Gotcha. Fair enough.
Comment
JimmiDean

Confirmed User

Join Date: Nov 2004

Posts: 3433
Share

Post
#25

06-17-2005, 12:32 PM

Cheers my friend.......
but I could still use an answer take it down ?

My God there's Porn on here!

Still on the Beach !!!
Comment
AaronM

GFY Royality ;)

Join Date: Oct 2001

Posts: 46917
Share

Post
#26

06-17-2005, 12:35 PM

Originally posted by JimmiDean

Cheers my friend.......
but I could still use an answer take it down ?

I would. No reason to run unnecessary risk.
Comment
JimmiDean

Confirmed User

Join Date: Nov 2004

Posts: 3433
Share

Post
#27

06-17-2005, 12:37 PM

Yep ....I agree.
Sucks because it was just getting rolling and doing a good job at return traffic etc.
Of well down she goes.

My God there's Porn on here!

Still on the Beach !!!
Comment

Previous template Next

Working...