2257 enforcement deadline rapidly approaching

Dear god i hate politicians

Scare tactics 101. If you're not compliant by now it's your own fault.

Could care less, the pre June-2005 content is all going to be grandfathered into being comliant if it adheres to the "old" 2257 regs anyway.

Just make sure you have full docs on content post-June 2005 and you're fine. The rest is scare bullshit.

i would guess that it's not too likely that they are going to enforce this while at the same time it is getting torn apart in court. among other things, i imagine there would be major liability issues on the part of the DOJ.

that's fucking stupid.

Yep. Most sites have pre-june 2005 content anyway. If you are not yet compliant it's your own fault

most websites aren't even compliant with the current 2257 on the books for the last 10 years.

here's a play at home game test for webmasters:

Pick out any image on your site.. an image on a tour, or a photo in one of your galleries (free or paysite), can you identify which content producer the image came from?

The answer is not, go look at my 2257.html page

The correct answer is to be able to point the DOJ agent to the specific content producer's contact info for that specific image.

I have seen alot of 2257.html pages that simply copy/paste other people's 2257 page... listing content producers that they didn't even use.

The new regulations are certainly more cumbersome and many are just out right ridiculous, and FSC is pushing hard to get those things taken out, including the whole bit about secondary record keepers... but what I believe will still remain, is the ability to answer the simple question above.

Some suggestions for being able to answer the "simple question":

1) put images from a content producer in a folder that when you view the source URL location, that the folder name gives you a clue as to which content producer the image came from.

ie /gallery/MatrixContent/set1 /gallery/MatrixContent/set2 etc

2) create an excel spreadsheet that matches up image URL to content producer

ie: /gallery/asian/folder1/fds0003.jpg = Amazing Content


3) if you are using plug-ins, be sure to list some text below or near the link that takes a person to the plug-in that can tie back to the content producer listed on your 2257.html page

4) be sure to list ONLY the content producers used on your website. no PO box addresses

5) consult with an attorney that understands 2257 if you failed the above test and haven't done any of the above steps yet.


Fight the PSA!

wow, that sucks...hope everyone get shit in order

hopefully most everyone is compliant, however, from what i've seen there are a ton of different ways everyone is doing it...

glad I chose to host 0 nude or sexually suggestive content several years ago...


for those remaining in the nude/hardcore biz, get your shit in order if you live in the US...seriously not a firepit worth playing with...


:/

Good post FightThisPlanet, I do exactly that with abbreviated directories because I don't trust my record-keeping skills.

I even name the pics/vids after the producer/set/dvd rip just for that circumstance, as well as use that info as a name for the image/vid. Just easier that way.

For anyone that hasnt caught on... as long as all your content is pre-june 2005 the new "updated" 2257 changes don't mean shit to your business - assuming you already had all required documents on file.

Any content made after june 25, you will need full 2257 BS for.

First of all, just because some DOJ attorney makes a statement of 'clarification' to Judge Miller that they are not concerned about content created prior to June 23, 2005 doesn't mean diddly squat... the current regulations, which are now in force, state that all of the content created since July 5, 1995 must be compliant. So unless or until the DOJ, Congress or Judge Miller say otherwise, to rely on some statement made by a US attorney or a quote from a news article on AVN, XBiz or Klixxx as being the be all, end all would be the epitome of stupidity. Just ask any attorney and they'd tell you the same thing. Judge Miller has until August 31 to make his ruling or else the DOJ will most certainly be ready, willing and legally able to start their inspections.

for some reason i see little happening because of 2257. im in canada so im not compliant. it sucks that the US government are employing such nazi-esk laws but this industry has faced so many 'scares' and they their bark is always worse than the bite. better to be safe that sorry but time will tell i guess.

Are we neglecting the fact that in most cases these WMs would fall under the definition of sec. producer and therefore would have no legal obligation under the "current 2257" (I assume you mean the one prior to July this year) to have any records nor have a statement since this was thrown out by the 10th Circuit a few years back?

Not a lawyer here, but I was of the impression that this was one of the big sticking points that the FSC was going against as the "new" 2257 ignored this decision.

You need to learn a bit more about the federal court system. The Sundance decision ONLY applies to the 10th circuit, not the entire country. The only time a federal judicial decision applies to the entire country is when it is handed down by the US Supreme Court. The only reason the DOJ didn't appeal the Sundance decision to SCOTUS was they wanted a stronger case to test the decision. The DOJ could technically force the issue and start inspections against webmasters outside of the 10th circuit if they wanted to, especially if they wanted a good legal fight.

The 'popular' opinion is that Judge Miller is somehow constrained to make his decision based upon the Sundance case... but it's quite possible that he might not agree with that decision and could make provisions to legislate from the bench and essentially overturn Sundance based upon new circumstances brought about by the regulations.

Quite frankly, I'm surprised there hasn't been a decision as of yet. I expected it to be fairly quick in this particular instance since Sundance already exists.

The case doesn't have anything to do with 'community standards' it's merely the requirements to keep records and who should keep them that is in question.