2257 - Things that make you go "Hmmm"

Interesting idea... All we need is a sacrificial lamb.

Anyone?

Anyone?

No.

No what this means is its going to be harder to do a amateur website. Someone wants to be in this business and keep their privacy, they will have to rent a office. Which is not bad it costs too little to get into this business.

Get it through your heads!

THE RULES YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT ARE NOT NEW!

They have been around for years.

Why start a thread questioning something that you clearly have no clue about?

The law has been there for years but nothing was ever done and there were no public investigations. The new 'law' forces the attorney general to report -- once a year -- on the investigations and prosecutions.

When the law first came out, I was publishing, and I remember the 'panic' all the publishers went through, worried about having to publish their home addresses if they worked from home, or "real" office addresses -- worry about weird customers showing up at their doors (I worried too). Then I went into video production and the saw the same thing happening.

This law was written for movie producers and magazine publishers, but unfortunately it includes all webmasters.

Too many people were lulled into a false sense of security and complacency and figured it was a law that no one gave a damn about, and people got lazy.

I remember one publisher in Boston who absolutely refused to comply and published that fact and dared the authorities to arrest her. Nothing ever happened.

Referring specifically to the Custodian of Records having to post his/her physical place of business, my understanding is that it applies to "primary producers," which means photographers and videographers, as well as webmasters who corporately hire same as employees, but not to a webmaster who simply buys from a primary producer. This kind of webmaster's job is to be able to name his suppliers, and many website operators have a page where they list in a general way their content suppliers and their custodial info.

as long as you can give up the paperwork to the proper authorities then your ok.... but only when they ask........

Aaron,

I know they are not new.

If anything, this is a good wake-up call to the business, and I applaud your efforts to get everyone in line.

A law is only as powerful as an authority's will to enforce it. There have been anti-sodomy laws on the books for years also - pending the Supreme Court's decision, people may actually take them seriously.

I think 2257 is going to really stick since we all believe something may be done to enforce it. And once it is enforced, everyone will fall in-line.

The ignorance towards it had gotten overwhelming, and a lot of people could be in trouble because of it.

It will be RATHER curious however to see the reaction from consumers, and I seriously think something like my above-described scenario WILL happen. It will be tragic for whoever it happens to. I have heard too many stalking stories already, and this could really empower the wrong element to track people down.

The only thing positive that may happen in the aftermath is that someone will recognize that adult webmasters have the same rights to privacy as other businesses, home-based or not. I think the discouragement aspect is just one of money that the DoJ sees in all this.

Yes, but there are millions of websites done by people who work out of their own home, use their own content, like girls who do 24/7 cam work, guys who shoot their own content for their own sites, etc

that is troubling about these girls who have their own websites.

Aaron says that using a lawyer and his office for 2257 puposes isn't acceptable. If she wants to keep her home address private it means she has to set up an office someplace else where she as producer is available during business hours? Or can she find some office that she can pay a few bucks for allowing her to store her records and answer the door if one day Mr. Ashhahahahaha drops by?

Are they going to go as far as look at the leases on offices to make sure these aren't just 'offices of convenience'?

The real question is: are any of these amateurs going to approach their Senator or Representative about the dangers this law creates for them?

The law was there before they were though. Common sense would dictate that they knew what they were getting into (Assuming they did even a tiny bit of research, which is quite obvious that most didn't/haven't/won't).

There is a very easy way for the amateurs to work with this law and greatly reduce their risk. I have posted it once or twice this week.

From the looks of it, we can all talk until we are blue in the face...People clearly are not listening.

Fuck em.

I think my last post nodded to that distinction: "...it applies to "primary producers," which means photographers and videographers, as well as webmasters who corporately hire same as employees, but not to a webmaster who simply buys from a primary producer."