Possible Solution to the 2257 Problem for TGP and Affiliates

Drugs are bad.

WTF are dokuments?

Learn to spell then perhaps you can read and comprehend things a bit more clearly.

I really want to see ArronM's response to this...

(edit)
Damn it, he beat me.

EBERYBADY GAT MISTEK MATE!

well i do 1099 all affiliates so they are employees technically..independent contractors

HEY!
He got a piont here! Beside freesites, I see tha as a basic AVS site so there should be the "2257" on it , other that that he/she could be right, RIGHT?

damn, why do you all slaughter a guy/girl for bad spelling?

Because I am tired of pointing out all the other places that they are fucking up in.

He does not have a valid point. If you had read and understood the proposed regulations then you would know this.

Sorry mate, didnt read it right!!

I stil dont see a problem with 2257 anyway! !

I still think they would be considered a secondary producer as they are the one publishing the content on their sites.

Eat Me.

Clear enough Aaron Moron.

Learn another language besides diarrhea of the mouth and you will know what dokuments are.

Not hosted galleries

Don't mind Aaron Moron... he is still trying to figure out what respect is.

hire a lawyer, learn the shit, THEN and only THEN can you call aaron a moron..chances are you won't though

at least he is spending his money for the better of us, and educating some of the people maybe can't afford to get their own lawyer

he is doing a good thing, and if you step back you would notice that

Here's a twist. If you run your sites on your SPONSOR's servers (free hosted or paid) does that mean anything? The servers hold the content and the 2257's are documented by the sponsor for that server. Am I making any sense?

Here's another twist. Abolish TGP's altogether. The new 2257's might make a dent in this.

Sounds great to me since TGP's aren't my thing.

LOL
that's really funny

Under paragraph 75.1 it says:

(4) Producer does not include persons whose activities relating to the visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct are limited to the following:
(i) Photo processing;
(ii) Mere distribution;
etc.

I would classify a free / affiliate / TGP as those type sites that merely distribute content that is managed by membership sites.

If that is true, only the photographer producer and the membership site that offers content as defined as a secondary producer would have to have copies of the 2257 documents.

Right?

Wrong, why is this so difficult to understand?

"A secondary producer is any person who .......................... or who inserts on a computer site or service a digital image of, or otherwise manages the content of a computer site ..........."

Affiliates and TGP are NOT agents or sales reps.

They are independant businesses that act as marketing and promotions and should be given a 1099 for money paid out.

Otherwise, W2/W4 stuff would be exchanged and then paysites would be liable for whatever was done by the affiliate or TGP.

If you own a domain and use pictures on that domain, and those pictures require 2257 compliance, then YOU, as a business owner, need to be compliant.

-brandon

You are correct sir... what we believe the definition of "produce" means as laymen, is different than what the word means in legal copyright world.

Words like reproduce, distribute, and produce, we look at more tangibly.. like we photocopy a paper document, that's reproduction. We hand out that paper to someone, that's distribution, and if we created the text on the paper, then that's production.

In the copyright language, taking an image from a CD and copying it to your website is reproducing it. When someone is downloading the image from you site for a web page, you are distributing it. When you make it available for people where another copy is made (ie. the image is downloaded), then that's "production".... but not in the sense of the photographer who first shot the image.

It is confusing, and i may be slightly off, but the point is what you think of words like "produce" are different then what the law or legal versions mean.. and lawyers and lawmakers all speak the same language, so they understand what it means.

This is why attorneys help to convey the legal terms to us.

-brandon

Thank you!

Do you own your own domain name? If so, then that's how you are doing business.

How is that any different then you paying for a webhost and the images are technically off of a shared (virtual) webhost? Does that mean the ISP should be responsible?

The answer is of course no... The current and proposed 2257 regulations are troublesome for those that aren't even complying with 2257 right now. It does require content producers to do a little more work and the webmasters to do a better job of record keeping, but in the bigger picture, the sky isn't falling.. it's just time to catch up the lagging issue of 2257 compliance.

Those that do their research and take steps to be 2257 compliant will not have a problem. Those running free sites, TGP, using content that you didn't license, etc.. will be the ones that have the most trouble in dealing with 2257.

While many paysites would love to see the TGP, AVS, and free sites go away, it is a symbiotic relationship where the free and TGP sites drive the traffic to the paysites.

So for those free and TGP sites, you need to first understand what you need to do to be compliant, and this is where having an attorney analyze your business and put in perspective of 2257 compliance, then you can talk to the sites you promote to see what they are going to do to support you.

It's going to cost you a couple hundred dollars for legal consulting time, but it's going to be worth it so you don't have to worry about getting a knock on your door from the DOJ.

If you don't have an attorney that already understands 2257, let me know and I can recommend some (see ICQ in sig). Most business lawyers don't understand 2257, so they would have to learn it, and that's not what you need. You do need to have the attorney already up to speed on 2257.

-brandon







-brandon