New 2257 Regs Posted In Here! You Saw It From The Fag First!

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 7
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 template Next
  • D
    Confirmed User
    • Jan 2006
    • 7412
    #101
    Originally posted by eroswebmaster
    While I don't agree with the whole secondary producer aspect of these new regulations, you guys debating over how this will stop CP are clearly missing a point.

    It's not JUST to protect clearly apparent adolescents or children from being exploited, but it is to ensure due diligence on the part of producers from letting another Traci Lords slip through...you know..those 15-16 year olds who have the bodies of over developed 18 year olds.
    Q. F. T.

    Personally, I think that 2257 legislation doesn't have to be bad thing... in essence, it's simply due diligence on the part of the producers - but I do feel that whatever laws are passed should apply to _everyone_ (Hollywood, included): as long as there's equality in that regard, industry discrimination and persecution is a nonissue, and that secondary producers should be exempt from the necessity of hard copies when a sworn affidavit will suffice in its stead.
    Last edited by D; 07-12-2007, 10:02 AM.
    -D.
    ICQ: 202-96-31

      Comment

      • BoyAlley
        So Fucking Gay
        • Nov 2004
        • 19714
        #102
        Originally posted by Balalsubturfyooj
        Hi all,

        I live in Canada and I think the 2257 is a good idea
        Just for the record, I think you're a stupid idiot.
        Last edited by BoyAlley; 07-12-2007, 10:03 AM.

          Comment

          • crockett
            in a van by the river
            • May 2003
            • 76818
            #103
            Originally posted by RawAlex
            Here is the funniest one:

            Many of today's magazine and runway models are under the age of 18. They appear in photos, in videos, and in print ads all over the country. They often have a "sexual coyness" about them, showing large amounts of skin, tight shirts without bras, or pants with the top button undone (for example). Based on the 2257 regulations, they would require proof that these models are over the age of 18.

            The entire fashion industry is fucked.

            Further, all those "junior Miss" pageants are fucked as well. The Jon-Benet case made it clear that many of those children appear in public, on videos, and in print wearing clothing that isn't appropriate for their age, and often posing in provocative or semi-provative ways. Again, they would all require 2257 documents with proof they are over 18. They aren't so they will have to stop.

            Further, the music industry is in for a shit kicking. Remember Britney Spears "hit me baby one more time" video? Schoolgirl uniform, cleavage, sexual overtones galore. She was 16. The new 2257 regulations would require a full model release to show her over 18, which wouldn't happen.

            Even further, channels like MTV will require (if I read the rules correctly) model releases for any performer that shows "sexual coyness", and would have to index and cross reference all performers, their real names, their photo IDs, and the dates of publication for these videos (and each replay).

            The FSC needs to get on the phone with the fashion, print, music, and television industries to point out how each of them would be severely beaten down by these regulations, creating a massive burden for all entertainment industries.
            Yea ironicly enough there was just a news article on the BBC yesterday saying "under 16 is too young for the runway"
            (couldn't find the bbc article but he's the same story..)

            http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...lifeStyle/home

            From what I recall, there has been what like 1 or 2 cases in the legit porn industry where a girl was found to be underage? Why don't they go attack the real problem and leave us alone.
            In November, you can vote for America's next president or its first dictator.

              Comment

              • eroswebmaster
                March 1st, 2003
                • Jul 2001
                • 20295
                #104
                Originally posted by Balalsubturfyooj
                "Finally, although it is not necessary to change the text of the
                regulations for this purpose, the Department hereby clarifies that a
                producer need not keep a copy of a URL hosting a depiction that the
                producer produced but over which he exercises no control."


                The above states clearly that webmaster who are for example associates of a adult program need not be bothered with her or hers associate program 2257 legal requirement, because the associate program need to be the one who provideds such legal documentation... Since adult webmasters who only use associate program(s) content and who do not manufactor adult content; having no control on the associate program are released from legal obligation... as stated above.
                Actually what I get from that, is that it is talking about primary producers, and not secondary producers.

                What I am reading is that if I am a producer, and give you content to promote my product, I exercise no control over the URL that it appears on, so therefore I do not need to keep a copy of that URL.
                For rent - ICQ 127-027-910
                Click here for more details

                  Comment

                  • »Rob Content«
                    Confirmed User
                    • Dec 2006
                    • 4348
                    #105
                    Originally posted by D
                    Q. F. T.

                    Personally, I think that 2257 legislation doesn't have to be bad thing... in essence, it's simply due diligence on the part of the producers - but I do feel that whatever laws are passed should apply to _everyone_ (Hollywood, included): as long as there's equality in that regard, industry discrimination and persecution is a nonissue, and that secondary producers should be exempt from the necessity of hard copies when a sworn affidavit will suffice in its stead.
                    You agree that images of someone fully clothed but posing in what may be considered a sexual manor should fall under 2257

                    80% Revshare or 30$ PPS on $1 trials: 200 Niches = Vidz.com Galleries / FLVs / Embeds
                    3 & 5mins FLVs | RSS & Tube Feeds | Matching Thumbs | FLV Browser & Exporter | No Prechecked Xsales
                    >> Mobile Redirection Script: mobile.vidz.com also paying 80% net Lifetime << ICQ: 198-394-557


                    ICQ - 436 795 438 E-mail rob /@/ cool-content dotcom

                      Comment

                      • crockett
                        in a van by the river
                        • May 2003
                        • 76818
                        #106
                        Originally posted by D
                        Q. F. T.

                        Personally, I think that 2257 legislation doesn't have to be bad thing... in essence, it's simply due diligence on the part of the producers - but I do feel that whatever laws are passed should apply to _everyone_ (Hollywood, included): as long as there's equality in that regard, industry discrimination and persecution is a nonissue, and that secondary producers should be exempt from the necessity of hard copies when a sworn affidavit will suffice in its stead.
                        No it doesn't have to be a bad thing, and "could" be a good thing.. That is if it were being used in the scope of it's intent, rather than as a harassment tool for a questionable govt.
                        In November, you can vote for America's next president or its first dictator.

                          Comment

                          • RawAlex
                            So Fucking Banned
                            • Oct 2003
                            • 9465
                            #107
                            Originally posted by D
                            Q. F. T.

                            Personally, I think that 2257 legislation doesn't have to be bad thing... in essence, it's simply due diligence on the part of the producers - but I do feel that whatever laws are passed should apply to _everyone_ (Hollywood, included): as long as there's equality in that regard, industry discrimination and persecution is a nonissue, and that secondary producers should be exempt from the necessity of hard copies when a sworn affidavit will suffice in its stead.
                            D, the problem here isn't the need for a 2257 regulation for the people who shoot the porn, but rather extending those record keeping requirements to people who had nothing to do with the production of the material.

                            Legal good faith requirements should come into place. A producer states by contract that the performers are over 18. They can provide a place of records (hech, even have a central clearing house of records, where individual companies pay $x per photoset or video to store records). The positive statement that the models are over 18 should be material enough for the distributors and resellers of that material. Secondard producers keeping records would be like your local wal-mart store being required to keep employment records for the people who made the products they sell. It might in some small way reduce the number of underage workers in factories overseas, but the burden to have this documentation at each and every store of the wal-mart chain would be over burdensome compared to it's apparently effect on the good intentioned goals of such a regulation.

                            It's time to tip off drudge and get a stink going. This stuff is evil.

                              Comment

                              • eroswebmaster
                                March 1st, 2003
                                • Jul 2001
                                • 20295
                                #108
                                Originally posted by VG.Content
                                You agree that images of someone fully clothed but posing in what may be considered a sexual manor should fall under 2257
                                Well that is what the original CP laws included, so I can't see why it would not be included in these laws.

                                There was a guy who did nothing but videotape gymnasts around the age of 12, but focused the camera only on their genitals. He was charged and convicted of CP.

                                My thinking is that they need this back door to avoid people creating non-nude sites with adolescent girls in lingerie in seductive poses...also to go after those who have already created such sites.
                                For rent - ICQ 127-027-910
                                Click here for more details

                                  Comment

                                  • tony299
                                    lurker
                                    • Aug 2002
                                    • 57021
                                    #109
                                    Based on this I would keep records on every thing on my sites dressed undressed, sexual not sexual. The sucky thing is until someone goes to court for a violation its all theory.

                                      Comment

                                      • yahoo-xxx-girls.com
                                        Confirmed User
                                        • Jul 2006
                                        • 3143
                                        #110
                                        Boyalley... everyone thinks your someones bitch !

                                        Originally posted by BoyAlley
                                        Just for the record, you're a stupid idiot.
                                        LOL fucking NOOB... any pro would want to protect the children !

                                        Did you spend too much time in the Joint ??? Did they think you were too young ???

                                        Those who I spoke to have a much different view of you then what you show here at GFY... Keep away from those young boys ! fucking pervert !!!

                                        Don't trust this fuck !

                                        .
                                        sig too big

                                          Comment

                                          • tony299
                                            lurker
                                            • Aug 2002
                                            • 57021
                                            #111
                                            Also a FYI make your 2257 info a gif so its not picked up by search engines.

                                              Comment

                                              • eroswebmaster
                                                March 1st, 2003
                                                • Jul 2001
                                                • 20295
                                                #112
                                                Originally posted by RawAlex
                                                D, the problem here isn't the need for a 2257 regulation for the people who shoot the porn, but rather extending those record keeping requirements to people who had nothing to do with the production of the material.
                                                If you had read what he was quoting, you would have seen he was agreeing to disagree with the regs that affected secondary producers.
                                                For rent - ICQ 127-027-910
                                                Click here for more details

                                                  Comment

                                                  • swampthing
                                                    Confirmed User
                                                    • Mar 2007
                                                    • 570
                                                    #113
                                                    Originally posted by crockett
                                                    Yea ironicly enough there was just a news article on the BBC yesterday saying "under 16 is too young for the runway"
                                                    (couldn't find the bbc article but he's the same story..)

                                                    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...lifeStyle/home

                                                    From what I recall, there has been what like 1 or 2 cases in the legit porn industry where a girl was found to be underage? Why don't they go attack the real problem and leave us alone.
                                                    because you got scumbags, like the guy who I point out in this thread...

                                                    http://www.gfy.com/showthread.php?t=750709

                                                    ....who obviously dont care how old the girls are, or if he can prove the age or not.

                                                    I hate 2257, but this kind of shit, gives us all a black eye.

                                                      Comment

                                                      • TampaToker
                                                        Confirmed User
                                                        • May 2006
                                                        • 5828
                                                        #114
                                                        Boyalley can you post a link to were you got this from please?
                                                        Icq 247-742-205

                                                          Comment

                                                          • Tom_PM
                                                            Porn Meister
                                                            • Feb 2005
                                                            • 16443
                                                            #115
                                                            Originally posted by Balalsubturfyooj
                                                            "Finally, although it is not necessary to change the text of the
                                                            regulations for this purpose, the Department hereby clarifies that a
                                                            producer need not keep a copy of a URL hosting a depiction that the
                                                            producer produced but over which he exercises no control."


                                                            The above states clearly that webmaster who are for example associates of a adult program need not be bothered with her or hers associate program 2257 legal requirement, because the associate program need to be the one who provideds such legal documentation... Since adult webmasters who only use associate program(s) content and who do not manufactor adult content; having no control on the associate program are released from legal obligation... as stated above.

                                                            Isn't this more to the benefit of the sponsor programs, who's affiliates use their free content which they produced? Making it clear that the program doesnt need to record every url where someone might use the image, but which they have no control over. ie: an affiliate using free content on a TGP gallery.

                                                            Also, it doesnt say they dont have to keep the records, only that they dont need to record such urls as part of their records.

                                                            Be much better once lawyer brains pick through it and comment.
                                                            43-922-863 Shut up and play your guitar.

                                                              Comment

                                                              • Quick Buck
                                                                Confirmed User
                                                                • Feb 2006
                                                                • 1026
                                                                #116
                                                                Originally posted by Sarah_MaxCash
                                                                Those are the timebombs that will make is pass...now..if the child word means that fully clothed adults aren't an issue that is one thing but of course you have to prove they are an adult.

                                                                But then they drop the world 'child' and say:



                                                                Which just leaves me dumbfounded. With the difficulty in defining obscenity I love the idea that 'coyness' can be legally defined.

                                                                It does make me feel a bit better about being in the UK because there is no way that I can see the UK allowing the gov't of another country to inspect the homes of their citizens based on fully clothed coyness. Mineaswell let the Islamic countries come in and inspect for burkas.
                                                                I enjoy your posts Sarah.

                                                                Maybe the first lawsuit will be for "coyness" and "prurient interests"
                                                                $50 FREE TRIALS! Every Day til 2008!!!
                                                                Only at QuickBuck

                                                                  Comment

                                                                  • BoyAlley
                                                                    So Fucking Gay
                                                                    • Nov 2004
                                                                    • 19714
                                                                    #117
                                                                    Originally posted by Balalsubturfyooj
                                                                    LOL fucking NOOB... any pro would want to protect the children !

                                                                    Did you spend too much time in the Joint ??? Did they think you were too young ???

                                                                    Those who I spoke to have a much different view of you then what you show here at GFY... Keep away from those young boys ! fucking pervert !!!

                                                                    Don't trust this fuck !

                                                                    .
                                                                    1. I am not, nor have ever been, nor do I have any desire to be, involved with "young boys".

                                                                    2. I have never been accused by the authorities, charged, much less convicted of any crime, including never even receiving a traffic ticket in my life.

                                                                    3. Most people agree that these laws do NOTHING to protect children.

                                                                    4. You just proved my point, that you are indeed, a stupid idiot. Congrats to all the winners!
                                                                    Last edited by BoyAlley; 07-12-2007, 10:17 AM.

                                                                      Comment

                                                                      • tony299
                                                                        lurker
                                                                        • Aug 2002
                                                                        • 57021
                                                                        #118
                                                                        Originally posted by D
                                                                        Q. F. T.

                                                                        Personally, I think that 2257 legislation doesn't have to be bad thing... in essence, it's simply due diligence on the part of the producers - but I do feel that whatever laws are passed should apply to _everyone_ (Hollywood, included): as long as there's equality in that regard, industry discrimination and persecution is a nonissue, and that secondary producers should be exempt from the necessity of hard copies when a sworn affidavit will suffice in its stead.
                                                                        2257 is not a bad thing to have records on everyone you shoot, the problem is they are making it overly complicated to fuck with us. They know we have nothing to do with CP.

                                                                          Comment

                                                                          • eroswebmaster
                                                                            March 1st, 2003
                                                                            • Jul 2001
                                                                            • 20295
                                                                            #119
                                                                            Originally posted by tony404
                                                                            2257 is not a bad thing to have records on everyone you shoot, the problem is they are making it overly complicated to fuck with us. They know we have nothing to do with CP.
                                                                            I agree.
                                                                            For rent - ICQ 127-027-910
                                                                            Click here for more details

                                                                              Comment

                                                                              • swampthing
                                                                                Confirmed User
                                                                                • Mar 2007
                                                                                • 570
                                                                                #120
                                                                                Originally posted by tony404
                                                                                2257 is not a bad thing to have records on everyone you shoot, the problem is they are making it overly complicated to fuck with us. They know we have nothing to do with CP.
                                                                                do they?

                                                                                I wonder sometimes, when people like this....

                                                                                http://www.gfy.com/showthread.php?t=750709

                                                                                are allowed to continue to receive checks from us.

                                                                                  Comment

                                                                                  • MrPinks
                                                                                    Registered User
                                                                                    • Oct 2003
                                                                                    • 1767
                                                                                    #121
                                                                                    Totally agree with you. Wish they would see it this way.

                                                                                    Originally posted by D
                                                                                    Q. F. T.

                                                                                    Personally, I think that 2257 legislation doesn't have to be bad thing... in essence, it's simply due diligence on the part of the producers - but I do feel that whatever laws are passed should apply to _everyone_ (Hollywood, included): as long as there's equality in that regard, industry discrimination and persecution is a nonissue, and that secondary producers should be exempt from the necessity of hard copies when a sworn affidavit will suffice in its stead.

                                                                                      Comment

                                                                                      • Juilan
                                                                                        Sultan of Swing
                                                                                        • Feb 2004
                                                                                        • 15141
                                                                                        #122
                                                                                        Something I have never understood is who is liable in the following scenario: You are the secondary producer and have custodian of records name and address of the Primary producer posted clearly for a set used on your site. You are doing this to comply with 2257.

                                                                                        The FBI visits you. They need to verify that the primary producer's content you are using is legit so they need to verify name, age and date of production. Since date of production was before that 2005 exempt date you were never provided docs from the Primary.

                                                                                        You tell FBI to contact that producer at address provided. Turns out Primary producer gave false name or address OR doesn't respond to you or FBI in given 72 hour notice. So who gets fucked here. The secondary for not verifying primary's info as real? Do we need IDS of primary producers now? Does secondary go to jail in this instance wtf
                                                                                        Last edited by Juilan; 07-12-2007, 10:22 AM.
                                                                                        My Best Converting VOD Sponsor |

                                                                                          Comment

                                                                                          • Quick Buck
                                                                                            Confirmed User
                                                                                            • Feb 2006
                                                                                            • 1026
                                                                                            #123
                                                                                            Originally posted by GatorB
                                                                                            Why? That means anything after 1995 you needs docs
                                                                                            I was being facetious.
                                                                                            $50 FREE TRIALS! Every Day til 2008!!!
                                                                                            Only at QuickBuck

                                                                                              Comment

                                                                                              • BoyAlley
                                                                                                So Fucking Gay
                                                                                                • Nov 2004
                                                                                                • 19714
                                                                                                #124
                                                                                                Originally posted by tony404
                                                                                                2257 is not a bad thing to have records on everyone you shoot, the problem is they are making it overly complicated to fuck with us. They know we have nothing to do with CP.
                                                                                                Of COURSE it's a good idea to have age verification for content that we produce on file. I don't think most people in the industry would disagree with that really. But exactly like you say, it's these ridiculous, burdensome regulations that we all have a problem with.

                                                                                                  Comment

                                                                                                  • Quick Buck
                                                                                                    Confirmed User
                                                                                                    • Feb 2006
                                                                                                    • 1026
                                                                                                    #125
                                                                                                    Originally posted by RawAlex
                                                                                                    Where is the law is there a "you aren't a porn company so you are exempt" clause? I must have missed that one.
                                                                                                    The law says any company that is governed by the FCC is exempt becaue they answer to another authority about sexual conduct.
                                                                                                    $50 FREE TRIALS! Every Day til 2008!!!
                                                                                                    Only at QuickBuck

                                                                                                      Comment

                                                                                                      • Tom_PM
                                                                                                        Porn Meister
                                                                                                        • Feb 2005
                                                                                                        • 16443
                                                                                                        #126
                                                                                                        Well, if they ever try to nail someone on pure record keeping errors, it'll probably be someone with a 100% lack of regard for it. Not one-off small errors that are easily corrected. I dont think they want to bring charges on anything but actual CP. Which I dont think they'll do in our industry since no legit adult business would ever consider such a thing.

                                                                                                        And if some "legit" photo/movie studio IS involved, I'll be the first to call for their nuts on a stick.
                                                                                                        43-922-863 Shut up and play your guitar.

                                                                                                          Comment

                                                                                                          • »Rob Content«
                                                                                                            Confirmed User
                                                                                                            • Dec 2006
                                                                                                            • 4348
                                                                                                            #127
                                                                                                            Originally posted by tony404
                                                                                                            2257 is not a bad thing to have records on everyone you shoot, the problem is they are making it overly complicated to fuck with us. They know we have nothing to do with CP.
                                                                                                            It's kind of funny, Dateline NBC has done more to protect children then the US Gov has.

                                                                                                            Our industry is lumped into the same thing as these people and we all know that we are very separate. They use CP as a way to piggy back and try and fuck us.

                                                                                                            It's funny when some type of CP happens it's on the national news, everyone is covering it, when someone from the house I believe it was about 18 months ago got caught trading messages and etc with an underage boy, asking if he was getting hard, if he would take his shorts off etc and it was hushed up real quick.

                                                                                                            80% Revshare or 30$ PPS on $1 trials: 200 Niches = Vidz.com Galleries / FLVs / Embeds
                                                                                                            3 & 5mins FLVs | RSS & Tube Feeds | Matching Thumbs | FLV Browser & Exporter | No Prechecked Xsales
                                                                                                            >> Mobile Redirection Script: mobile.vidz.com also paying 80% net Lifetime << ICQ: 198-394-557


                                                                                                            ICQ - 436 795 438 E-mail rob /@/ cool-content dotcom

                                                                                                              Comment

                                                                                                              • BoyAlley
                                                                                                                So Fucking Gay
                                                                                                                • Nov 2004
                                                                                                                • 19714
                                                                                                                #128
                                                                                                                Originally posted by Quick Buck
                                                                                                                The law says any company that is governed by the FCC is exempt becaue they answer to another authority about sexual conduct.
                                                                                                                Which by its very nature, also exempts them from records inspections, and 5 years jail time if they don't cross reference properly, because of course they don't even have to cross reference or catalog their records at all.
                                                                                                                Last edited by BoyAlley; 07-12-2007, 10:27 AM.

                                                                                                                  Comment

                                                                                                                  • tony299
                                                                                                                    lurker
                                                                                                                    • Aug 2002
                                                                                                                    • 57021
                                                                                                                    #129
                                                                                                                    Originally posted by swampthing
                                                                                                                    do they?

                                                                                                                    I wonder sometimes, when people like this....

                                                                                                                    http://www.gfy.com/showthread.php?t=750709

                                                                                                                    are allowed to continue to receive checks from us.
                                                                                                                    From what I read that guy is not in the US. This is a whore industry, anything for a buck.Poor taste yes,cp no.

                                                                                                                      Comment

                                                                                                                      • tony299
                                                                                                                        lurker
                                                                                                                        • Aug 2002
                                                                                                                        • 57021
                                                                                                                        #130
                                                                                                                        Originally posted by BoyAlley
                                                                                                                        Which by its very nature, also exempts them from records inspections, and 5 years jail time if they don't cross reference properly, because of course they don't even have to cross reference or catalog their records at all.
                                                                                                                        Of course because those companies also throw their money around to get their way.Our industry on the other hand is very cheap for things involving our survival, I think the big fish see these things as a great opportunity to get rid of little fish but that is short sighted. 15 billion dollar industry and we are so easy to pick off very sad.

                                                                                                                          Comment

                                                                                                                          • yahoo-xxx-girls.com
                                                                                                                            Confirmed User
                                                                                                                            • Jul 2006
                                                                                                                            • 3143
                                                                                                                            #131
                                                                                                                            eroswebmaster did you read the new 2257 ?

                                                                                                                            Originally posted by eroswebmaster
                                                                                                                            Actually what I get from that, is that it is talking about primary producers, and not secondary producers.

                                                                                                                            What I am reading is that if I am a producer, and give you content to promote my product, I exercise no control over the URL that it appears on, so therefore I do not need to keep a copy of that URL.
                                                                                                                            Manufacturers and associate programs who sell content or who make their content available are the ones who have control in the first place... now webmasters who are promoting your content "exercise no control" of the required URLs hosting the the depiction(s)...


                                                                                                                            "Finally, although it is not necessary to change the text of the
                                                                                                                            regulations for this purpose, the Department hereby clarifies that a
                                                                                                                            producer need not keep a copy of a URL hosting a depiction that the
                                                                                                                            producer produced but over which he exercises no control."


                                                                                                                            Do you understand now ?




                                                                                                                            .
                                                                                                                            sig too big

                                                                                                                              Comment

                                                                                                                              • eroswebmaster
                                                                                                                                March 1st, 2003
                                                                                                                                • Jul 2001
                                                                                                                                • 20295
                                                                                                                                #132
                                                                                                                                Originally posted by PR_Tom
                                                                                                                                Well, if they ever try to nail someone on pure record keeping errors, it'll probably be someone with a 100% lack of regard for it. Not one-off small errors that are easily corrected. I dont think they want to bring charges on anything but actual CP. Which I dont think they'll do in our industry since no legit adult business would ever consider such a thing.

                                                                                                                                And if some "legit" photo/movie studio IS involved, I'll be the first to call for their nuts on a stick.
                                                                                                                                True that, however how will this affect you as a site owner when your affiliates in the U.S. are now subject to the same rules, and consequences for not following those rules as you are?

                                                                                                                                As an affiliate in the U.S., do you want to put your freedom at risk based upon the organizational skills of the company you are promoting?
                                                                                                                                For rent - ICQ 127-027-910
                                                                                                                                Click here for more details

                                                                                                                                  Comment

                                                                                                                                  • Tom_PM
                                                                                                                                    Porn Meister
                                                                                                                                    • Feb 2005
                                                                                                                                    • 16443
                                                                                                                                    #133
                                                                                                                                    Yeah hollywood gets a pass. Wasn't there a porn dvd seller who got hell because one movie depicted a murder, and he argued that hollywood films have much much more violent depictions of murder in every movie they put out.
                                                                                                                                    Maybe the real objection was bad acting, heh.
                                                                                                                                    43-922-863 Shut up and play your guitar.

                                                                                                                                      Comment

                                                                                                                                      • BoyAlley
                                                                                                                                        So Fucking Gay
                                                                                                                                        • Nov 2004
                                                                                                                                        • 19714
                                                                                                                                        #134
                                                                                                                                        Brief Xbiz article about the new regs:

                                                                                                                                        http://www.xbiz.com/news/81855

                                                                                                                                          Comment

                                                                                                                                          • eroswebmaster
                                                                                                                                            March 1st, 2003
                                                                                                                                            • Jul 2001
                                                                                                                                            • 20295
                                                                                                                                            #135
                                                                                                                                            Originally posted by Balalsubturfyooj
                                                                                                                                            "Finally, although it is not necessary to change the text of the
                                                                                                                                            regulations for this purpose, the Department hereby clarifies that a
                                                                                                                                            producer need not keep a copy of a URL hosting a depiction that the
                                                                                                                                            producer produced but over which he exercises no control."


                                                                                                                                            Do you understand now ?




                                                                                                                                            .
                                                                                                                                            Read the reg that you are quoting...they are using the word "producer," and not secondary producer, so therefore they are not talking about webmasters.
                                                                                                                                            For rent - ICQ 127-027-910
                                                                                                                                            Click here for more details

                                                                                                                                              Comment

                                                                                                                                              • yahoo-xxx-girls.com
                                                                                                                                                Confirmed User
                                                                                                                                                • Jul 2006
                                                                                                                                                • 3143
                                                                                                                                                #136
                                                                                                                                                PR_Tom do yourself a favor and re read the new 2257

                                                                                                                                                Originally posted by PR_Tom
                                                                                                                                                Isn't this more to the benefit of the sponsor programs, who's affiliates use their free content which they produced? Making it clear that the program doesnt need to record every url where someone might use the image, but which they have no control over. ie: an affiliate using free content on a TGP gallery.

                                                                                                                                                Also, it doesnt say they dont have to keep the records, only that they dont need to record such urls as part of their records.

                                                                                                                                                Be much better once lawyer brains pick through it and comment.
                                                                                                                                                I understand your point, but under US law there is not difference between a primary and secondary producer... they are both producers !

                                                                                                                                                an associate has no control over the content being provided by the associate program... besides this almost every adult associate program asks the question on where to find the website(s) that their content is located on !!!

                                                                                                                                                .
                                                                                                                                                sig too big

                                                                                                                                                  Comment

                                                                                                                                                  • BoyAlley
                                                                                                                                                    So Fucking Gay
                                                                                                                                                    • Nov 2004
                                                                                                                                                    • 19714
                                                                                                                                                    #137
                                                                                                                                                    Originally posted by eroswebmaster
                                                                                                                                                    Read the reg that you are quoting...they are using the word "producer," and not secondary producer, so therefore they are not talking about webmasters.
                                                                                                                                                    "Secondary Producers" have the exact same record keeping requirements as "Primary Producers" (with the exception that their docs can be partially redacted):

                                                                                                                                                    http://www.xbiz.com/news/81855

                                                                                                                                                    In the new proposed regulations, the Justice Department states that the Adam Walsh Act also “confirmed that the statute applies to secondary producers as currently (and previously) defined in the regulations.”
                                                                                                                                                    Last edited by BoyAlley; 07-12-2007, 10:42 AM.

                                                                                                                                                      Comment

                                                                                                                                                      • yahoo-xxx-girls.com
                                                                                                                                                        Confirmed User
                                                                                                                                                        • Jul 2006
                                                                                                                                                        • 3143
                                                                                                                                                        #138
                                                                                                                                                        Originally posted by BoyAlley
                                                                                                                                                        "Secondary Producers" have the exact same record keeping requirements as "Primary Producers" (with the exception that their docs can be partially redacted):

                                                                                                                                                        http://www.xbiz.com/news/81855
                                                                                                                                                        100% Wrong !
                                                                                                                                                        sig too big

                                                                                                                                                          Comment

                                                                                                                                                          • eroswebmaster
                                                                                                                                                            March 1st, 2003
                                                                                                                                                            • Jul 2001
                                                                                                                                                            • 20295
                                                                                                                                                            #139
                                                                                                                                                            Originally posted by BoyAlley
                                                                                                                                                            "Secondary Producers" have the exact same record keeping requirements as "Primary Producers" (with the exception that their docs can be partially redacted):

                                                                                                                                                            http://www.xbiz.com/news/81855
                                                                                                                                                            Read what I was respnoding too...and you will understand why I typed that in as my answer.
                                                                                                                                                            For rent - ICQ 127-027-910
                                                                                                                                                            Click here for more details

                                                                                                                                                              Comment

                                                                                                                                                              • Sands
                                                                                                                                                                Confirmed User
                                                                                                                                                                • Feb 2007
                                                                                                                                                                • 3134
                                                                                                                                                                #140
                                                                                                                                                                "Finally, although it is not necessary to change the text of the
                                                                                                                                                                regulations for this purpose, the Department hereby clarifies that a
                                                                                                                                                                producer need not keep a copy of a URL hosting a depiction that the
                                                                                                                                                                producer produced but over which he exercises no control."

                                                                                                                                                                This would apply to the sponsors who supply material to affiliates, or content providers to customers.

                                                                                                                                                                If I, as a webmaster, publish an image on my website, I am now a producer. Even if I got that image from a sponsor, and would normally be a secondary producer, that label has been erased and am now in line with the "big boys", so to speak.

                                                                                                                                                                I produced the content because I published it. I have control over it because I'm publishing it. Therefore, I must keep records.

                                                                                                                                                                At least this is how I've come to understand what I've read so far.

                                                                                                                                                                  Comment

                                                                                                                                                                  • yahoo-xxx-girls.com
                                                                                                                                                                    Confirmed User
                                                                                                                                                                    • Jul 2006
                                                                                                                                                                    • 3143
                                                                                                                                                                    #141
                                                                                                                                                                    Look all... I do understand where your coming from, however the 2257 record is not the guts of this... the "custodian of records" is !

                                                                                                                                                                    Any adult webmaster can have a 2257 record made up however thats only the half of it... the "custodian of record" information is not held or made available to the general public... Such is protected under US law !!!

                                                                                                                                                                    I understand what you all are saying, but I don't think you understand the issue fully !


                                                                                                                                                                    .
                                                                                                                                                                    sig too big

                                                                                                                                                                      Comment

                                                                                                                                                                      • Tom_PM
                                                                                                                                                                        Porn Meister
                                                                                                                                                                        • Feb 2005
                                                                                                                                                                        • 16443
                                                                                                                                                                        #142
                                                                                                                                                                        Originally posted by Balalsubturfyooj
                                                                                                                                                                        I understand your point, but under US law there is not difference between a primary and secondary producer... they are both producers !

                                                                                                                                                                        an associate has no control over the content being provided by the associate program... besides this almost every adult associate program asks the question on where to find the website(s) that their content is located on !!!

                                                                                                                                                                        .
                                                                                                                                                                        I'm sorry but I dont think you're making sense here

                                                                                                                                                                        Of course an affiliate has no control over the content being offered as free content by a sponsor program. Never have, never will.

                                                                                                                                                                        The point is that the sponsor program has no control over the URL where affiliates may use the content, therefore do not need to track those URL's. This was only a point to clarify, and NOT a new proposal as it says. They simply made it clear what most people already knew.

                                                                                                                                                                        If you as an affiliate go to a sponsors free content and download it and host it on your own URL, you of course do not need to record every OTHER url where that content may appear. Unless they are on URL's which you control as well, lol.

                                                                                                                                                                        My only point was that the clarification was probably brought on by programs wanting to be sure the DOJ didnt consider affiliates as part of their control.

                                                                                                                                                                        So if you are thinking this clarification means affiliates dont need to keep records at all for "free content", thats a huge error.. IMHO
                                                                                                                                                                        43-922-863 Shut up and play your guitar.

                                                                                                                                                                          Comment

                                                                                                                                                                          • Sands
                                                                                                                                                                            Confirmed User
                                                                                                                                                                            • Feb 2007
                                                                                                                                                                            • 3134
                                                                                                                                                                            #143
                                                                                                                                                                            Originally posted by Balalsubturfyooj
                                                                                                                                                                            Look all... I do understand where your coming from, however the 2257 record is not the guts of this... the "custodian of records" is !

                                                                                                                                                                            Any adult webmaster can have a 2257 record made up however thats only the half of it... the "custodian of record" information is not held or made available to the general public... Such is protected under US law !!!

                                                                                                                                                                            I understand what you all are saying, but I don't think you understand the issue fully !


                                                                                                                                                                            .
                                                                                                                                                                            It's obviously not protected under US law if we're required to publish it on every page where sexually explicit content appears.

                                                                                                                                                                              Comment

                                                                                                                                                                              • yahoo-xxx-girls.com
                                                                                                                                                                                Confirmed User
                                                                                                                                                                                • Jul 2006
                                                                                                                                                                                • 3143
                                                                                                                                                                                #144
                                                                                                                                                                                Originally posted by Sands
                                                                                                                                                                                It's obviously not protected under US law if we're required to publish it on every page where sexually explicit content appears.
                                                                                                                                                                                The location of the records is not private or protected, but rather the "actors" info is what is protected under US law.

                                                                                                                                                                                I thought this was a given !

                                                                                                                                                                                .
                                                                                                                                                                                sig too big

                                                                                                                                                                                  Comment

                                                                                                                                                                                  • Sands
                                                                                                                                                                                    Confirmed User
                                                                                                                                                                                    • Feb 2007
                                                                                                                                                                                    • 3134
                                                                                                                                                                                    #145
                                                                                                                                                                                    Originally posted by Balalsubturfyooj
                                                                                                                                                                                    The location of the records is not private or protected, but rather the "actors" info is what is protected under US law.

                                                                                                                                                                                    I thought this was a given !

                                                                                                                                                                                    .
                                                                                                                                                                                    Yes, some of the information can be redacted, such as the address of the models. The only information that needs to appear in the ID's is that which is needed to verify the model's ID, such as any license numbers.

                                                                                                                                                                                    I don't think that's the issue at hand, though. You need to go back and read your own posts.
                                                                                                                                                                                    Last edited by Sands; 07-12-2007, 10:58 AM.

                                                                                                                                                                                      Comment

                                                                                                                                                                                      • BoyAlley
                                                                                                                                                                                        So Fucking Gay
                                                                                                                                                                                        • Nov 2004
                                                                                                                                                                                        • 19714
                                                                                                                                                                                        #146
                                                                                                                                                                                        Originally posted by Sands
                                                                                                                                                                                        It's obviously not protected under US law if we're required to publish it on every page where sexually explicit content appears.
                                                                                                                                                                                        I'm guessing that clicking on a link that says:

                                                                                                                                                                                        "18 U.S.C. 2257 Record-Keeping Requirements Compliance Statement."

                                                                                                                                                                                        Was too much work for the government to do?

                                                                                                                                                                                        I, for one, am sick and tired of having to update all of my pages every 6 months with new wording, updating my databases, and re-coding templates. "Burdensome" to put it mildly.

                                                                                                                                                                                        And how ugly are all of our websites and member's areas going to look with our name and address stamped at the bottom of every page in large sized fonts?

                                                                                                                                                                                        Cripe Might........

                                                                                                                                                                                          Comment

                                                                                                                                                                                          • BoyAlley
                                                                                                                                                                                            So Fucking Gay
                                                                                                                                                                                            • Nov 2004
                                                                                                                                                                                            • 19714
                                                                                                                                                                                            #147
                                                                                                                                                                                            Originally posted by Sands
                                                                                                                                                                                            Yes, some of the information can be redacted, such as the address of the models. The only information that needs to appear in the ID's is that which is needed to verify the model's ID, such as any license numbers.

                                                                                                                                                                                            I don't think that's the issue at hand, though. You need to go back and read your own posts.
                                                                                                                                                                                            Address can be redacted, but their name can not be. HUGE privacy violation if you ask me to be handing that out to secondary producers, and I can't imagine many sponsors doing it.
                                                                                                                                                                                            Last edited by BoyAlley; 07-12-2007, 11:04 AM.

                                                                                                                                                                                              Comment

                                                                                                                                                                                              • Sands
                                                                                                                                                                                                Confirmed User
                                                                                                                                                                                                • Feb 2007
                                                                                                                                                                                                • 3134
                                                                                                                                                                                                #148
                                                                                                                                                                                                It's a raw deal all around. Wholly intolerable, and I'm hoping that the adult biz community can come together much in the same way it did in response to .XXX, and perhaps through a concentrated effort these proposed regulations will be successfully rebuffed.

                                                                                                                                                                                                  Comment

                                                                                                                                                                                                  • RawAlex
                                                                                                                                                                                                    So Fucking Banned
                                                                                                                                                                                                    • Oct 2003
                                                                                                                                                                                                    • 9465
                                                                                                                                                                                                    #149
                                                                                                                                                                                                    Originally posted by PR_Tom
                                                                                                                                                                                                    I'm sorry but I dont think you're making sense here

                                                                                                                                                                                                    Of course an affiliate has no control over the content being offered as free content by a sponsor program. Never have, never will.

                                                                                                                                                                                                    The point is that the sponsor program has no control over the URL where affiliates may use the content, therefore do not need to track those URL's. This was only a point to clarify, and NOT a new proposal as it says. They simply made it clear what most people already knew.

                                                                                                                                                                                                    If you as an affiliate go to a sponsors free content and download it and host it on your own URL, you of course do not need to record every OTHER url where that content may appear. Unless they are on URL's which you control as well, lol.

                                                                                                                                                                                                    My only point was that the clarification was probably brought on by programs wanting to be sure the DOJ didnt consider affiliates as part of their control.

                                                                                                                                                                                                    So if you are thinking this clarification means affiliates dont need to keep records at all for "free content", thats a huge error.. IMHO
                                                                                                                                                                                                    Tom, the point is this: Programs such as Topbucks that have required affiliates to list all the URLs where their content is used are off the hook. There is no reason to ask for that information, and they will not be required to keep it.

                                                                                                                                                                                                    Programs like Naughty America will not have to mandate 2257 statements on websites, as they are NOT obliged to follow up on where their content is used, nor will their bear any responsilibity if the content is misused by a US webmaster or that a 2257 statement isn't present on individual webmasters websites.

                                                                                                                                                                                                    Essentially, the programs just have to put redacted model information with every set they give to affiliates, and it is UP TO THE AFFILIATES to do what they think is right or wrong, based on their own judgement and advice from their legal people.

                                                                                                                                                                                                    It is at this point the only positive I can extract from all this.

                                                                                                                                                                                                      Comment

                                                                                                                                                                                                      • RawAlex
                                                                                                                                                                                                        So Fucking Banned
                                                                                                                                                                                                        • Oct 2003
                                                                                                                                                                                                        • 9465
                                                                                                                                                                                                        #150
                                                                                                                                                                                                        Originally posted by BoyAlley
                                                                                                                                                                                                        I'm guessing that clicking on a link that says:

                                                                                                                                                                                                        "18 U.S.C. 2257 Record-Keeping Requirements Compliance Statement."

                                                                                                                                                                                                        Was too much work for the government to do?

                                                                                                                                                                                                        I, for one, am sick and tired of having to update all of my pages every 6 months with new wording, updating my databases, and re-coding templates. "Burdensome" to put it mildly.

                                                                                                                                                                                                        And how ugly are all of our websites and member's areas going to look with our name and address stamped at the bottom of every page in large sized fonts?

                                                                                                                                                                                                        Cripe Might........
                                                                                                                                                                                                        You need to learn about SSI.

                                                                                                                                                                                                          Comment

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