New 2257 Regs Posted In Here! You Saw It From The Fag First!
Here you go breeders, here you go.
Direct from the Federal Registry, the new 2257 regs!
New 2257 Regs
Direct from the Federal Registry, the new 2257 regs!
New 2257 Regs
-
Last edited by BoyAlley; 07-12-2007, 09:11 AM. -
17 pages long of new regs is teh sux bad.
This will take some time to digest. -
Also remember that these are PROPOSED regs that the public can write in and comment on so that they Government can ignore us first before turning them into actual law.
Comment
-
will read that while on the can .....
but I personally don't give a shit about foreign laws.I know that Asspimple is stoopid ... As he says, it is a FACT !
But I can't figure out how he can breathe or type , at the same time ....Comment
-
Any drastic changes or new things added since last time?
Comment
-
Ill wait to make any changes till they are law.
Thanks for the update.
Comment
-
A ton of them, yes. Here's the first I've come across so far:
The new regs specifically includes COMPLETELY CLOTHED individuals that are posing in a sexually suggestive manner.that producers of lascivious exhibition maintain records under section 2257
Also now includes simulated, not just actual, sexually explicit conduct.
Last edited by BoyAlley; 07-12-2007, 09:21 AM.Comment
-
-
"In addition, by confirming that the statute and
regulations apply to ``secondary producers,'' the revised proposed rule
will make it more difficult for the purveyors of such material to
access the market."Comment
-
so basically every page with a sexual image on must now have the 2257 full information on it, as opposed to a 2257 link.
Man, that's going to be tough.Comment
-
Apparently they're now saying that putting a link marked "18 U.S.C. 2257 Record-Keeping RequirementsThe proposed rule requires, per the statute, that the statement describing
the location of the records required by this part be affixed to every
page of a Web site (controlled by the producer) on which visual
depictions of sexually explicit conduct appear.
Compliance Statement." on each of your pages, that goes to a page that has the address of where your records are, is no longer good enough.
They now want your name and address on EVERY PAGE that sexually explicit conduct appears?Comment
-
This is exactly why Ron Paul needs to be elected. I don't see how an adult webmaster could vote for anyone else.
Comment
-
One definition of lascivious says: arousing sexual desire
Now how in the hell can you tell what arouses my sexual desire? lol
So if you post pics that arouse me, you better have docs. Or something.43-922-863 Shut up and play your guitar.
Comment
-
(g) Records are not required to be maintained by either a primary
producer or by a secondary producer for a visual depiction of sexually
explicit conduct that consists only of lascivious exhibition of the genitals or
pubic area of a person, and contains no other sexually explicit
conduct, whose original production date was prior to July 27, 2006.
Now if you don't maintian the records how are you going to prove to the feds that the material was made before July 27, 2006?Comment
-
it
clarifies that primary producers may redact non-essential information
from copies of records provided to secondary producers, including
addresses, phone numbers, social security numbers, and other
information not necessary to confirm the name and age of the performer.
However, the identification number of the picture identification card
presented to confirm name and age--such as drivers' license number or
passport number--may not be redacted, so that its validity may be
confirmed.
Redacted docs OK for secondary producers so long as it contains the above info.Comment
-
ok just making this clear, these are PROPOSED right? Not law yet.Comment
-
Live content producers MUST record PART of each live performance and maintain it:
the proposed rule clarifies that producers of visual
depictions performed live on the Internet need not maintain a copy of
the full running-time of every such depiction. Rather, they may
maintain a copy that contains running-time sufficient to identify each
and every performer in the depiction and associate each and every
performer with the records needed to confirm his or her age.Comment
-
EXODUS.....movement of the porn people! Ohooooh-oh-ohComment
-
So a girl posing nude, spreading etc in pics I bought years ago require no documentation? Not too shabby. Unless I missed something.
Good question though GatorB.. I suppose you'd better file and save the receipts, and content licenses which you normally sign and date anyway.43-922-863 Shut up and play your guitar.Comment
-
DATES: Written comments must be received by September 10, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Written comments may be submitted to: Andrew Oosterbaan,
Chief, Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, Criminal Division,
United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20530; Attn:
``Docket No. CRM 104.''
Comments may be submitted electronically to: [email protected]
or to http://www.regulations.gov by using the electronic comment form provided
on that site. Comments submitted electronically must include Docket No.
CRM 104 in the subject box. You may also view an electronic version of
this rule at the http://www.regulations.gov site.
So write them. Not that it will do any good.Comment
-
Other than clarifying the foreign ID muck, that seems to be about it as far as I can tell.
Basically it just confirms that secondary producers are now as fucked as primary producers, and adds some more stupid unnecessary crap like having to put our address on EVERY SINGLE PAGE that a sexually explicit depiction appears instead of just using a link, that live cam houses have to record "part" of the performance, and that now even fully clothed people might be covered by 2257, etc. etc.
Sucks bad.Comment
-
Comment
-
Nope. How can they expect you do have records of something when it wasn't required or even proposed to be required when you obtained the material? That's why porn movies made before 1990 don't have to have 2257 info.
Well it doesn't matter WHEN you bought them. It matters when the content was origanally produced. Obviously if you bought it before July 27, 2006 then it was produced then.Good question though GatorB.. I suppose you'd better file and save the receipts, and content licenses which you normally sign and date anyway.Comment
-
That's crazy, will I need 2257 info for teasing pictures like these?The new regs specifically includes COMPLETELY CLOTHED individuals that are posing in a sexually suggestive manner.
Comment
-
"affixed"? Is linking "affixing"? Why not?The proposed rule requires, per the statute, that the statement describing
the location of the records required by this part be affixed to every
page of a Web site (controlled by the producer) on which visual
depictions of sexually explicit conduct appear.
How about a mouseover tooltip ballon? It's in the code, it's on the page, it's affixed isn't it? hmmmm..43-922-863 Shut up and play your guitar.Comment
-
thats the way i read it. I'll give you more feedback in a couple of hours, as we're having a legal panel here at the show to discuss this very issue in detailComment
-
That's correct, a secondary producer is required by law to maintain and cross reference all records in the same way that a primary producer is, and the secondary producer's address must be on EVERY page of EVERY site that they own, and secondary producers must be available 20 hours per week at that location for inspection.Comment
-
Affixing is attaching. So what is linking? Seems to me it would be attaching one page to another, but I'm no lawyer! It'll all shake out.43-922-863 Shut up and play your guitar.Comment
-
-
Good thing the Intern is in the office today. The Job of the Intern is to read this to me and make the necessary changes. Thanks for the headsup.
Completely Real Amateur girls doing awesome things! Signup to promote Nebraskacoeds Today!
Hit me up on ICQ/AIM 473324556/jasonnecoeds for exclusive content to promote with! And any ?'sComment
-
Fuck these bullshit rules. I hope someone sues the government after this is all passed( and you kow it will be ) and ties this is court for years like COPA. No way secondary prodcuers should have to keep records.
Ok so say Scene 1 from Ass Fucked BIATCHES #87 is on 1000 sites. Why would the government bother checking 1000 sites who had NOTHING to do with making of this movie, when it would be easier to check the records of the ORGINAL PRODUCER who actually made the product in the first place? Seems like an incredible waste of time, manpower and money.Comment
-
Like if I mouseover the yellow "New Thread" button and it shows the alt text balloon saying "Post New Thread", thats a "pop-up"? No wayyyy arghhhhhh43-922-863 Shut up and play your guitar.Comment
... Now seriously...
Comment