100 2257 updates
-
Custom Software Development, email: woj#at#wojfun#.#com to discuss details or skype: wojl2000 or gchat: wojfun or telegram: wojl2000
Affiliate program tools: Hosted Galleries Manager Banner Manager Video Manager
Wordpress Affiliate Plugin Pic/Movie of the Day Fansign Generator Zip Manager -
Hey,
just like Eve bit the apple and ruinned this before paradise,Traci Lords brought on 2257.SIG TOO BIG! Maximum 120x60 button and no more than 3 text lines of DEFAULT SIZE and COLOR. Unless your sig is for a GFY top banner sponsor, then you may use a 624x80 instead of a 120x60.Comment
-
=> its all the womens fault?Originally posted by johnvod
Hey,
just like Eve bit the apple and ruinned this before paradise,Traci Lords brought on 2257.
is that your conclusion heheComment
-
There are some seriously ignorant mother fuckers posting to this thread.
Oh wait......
It's GFY.
Comment
-
The intentions behind the statute are valid and just. It's the proposed means of carrying them out that are absurd. (I am referring to the proposed updates, not the existing statute.)Originally posted by johnvod
Hey,
just like Eve bit the apple and ruinned this before paradise,Traci Lords brought on 2257.Looking for PHP/MySQL solutions? Check out Cyboriginal - custom scripts, installation services and more.Comment
-
If the intentions really were to keep kids out of porn then I would agree - but they are not.Originally posted by Mishi
The intentions behind the statute are valid and just. It's the proposed means of carrying them out that are absurd. (I am referring to the proposed updates, not the existing statute.)
Valid and just??????????????????
Holy crap!!Left intentionally blank ... just like my brainComment
-
I am all for checking the age of talent,its just that i wish there was an easier way of being compliant such as getting an indemnification from the producer that would state that they have the 2257 for everything that they provide to the online secondary producer (considering if we were secondary)but,unfortunetely if they do and lie,we can't be indimnified from something possibly criminal.Indemnification only works for civil matter.SIG TOO BIG! Maximum 120x60 button and no more than 3 text lines of DEFAULT SIZE and COLOR. Unless your sig is for a GFY top banner sponsor, then you may use a 624x80 instead of a 120x60.Comment
-
Settle down, cowboy. Yes, I'm naive enough to believe that the original intentions of the law were indeed (at least, initially) to prevent underage performers from appearing in porn. Granted, I wasn't there. But I don't think that requiring primary producers to maintain accurate records is a burdensome statute.Originally posted by The Other Steve
If the intentions really were to keep kids out of porn then I would agree - but they are not.
Valid and just??????????????????
Holy crap!!
The "revised" statute is, I believe, a whole different story. It does nothing to fight CP. It creates an undue burden on those who were previously classified as secondary producers, and makes the DOJ's job that much more difficult. The proposed changes make the statute into a joke, IMO.
We're on the same side. Chill out.Looking for PHP/MySQL solutions? Check out Cyboriginal - custom scripts, installation services and more.Comment
-
If this was really about a crackdown on child porn then as part of the documentation they would require from you is "Date of Production" - which the new 2257 DOES NOT.
So this girl is 19 now. When was it filmed in 2004 or in 2001? One makes her a minor, one does not - but they don't even care about when it was produced.
This is a major, huge, massive failing in the new 2257 if you ask me and shows what the real intention of the regs are.Last edited by xxxjay; 08-25-2004, 02:36 AM.Comment
-
so is there a company who is looking into making a businuss out of this yet or not?
i would rather buy my 2257 records from a third party than go get them myself.SIG TOO BIG! Maximum 120x60 button and no more than 3 text lines of DEFAULT SIZE and COLOR. Unless your sig is for a GFY top banner sponsor, then you may use a 624x80 instead of a 120x60.Comment
-
Originally posted by Kimmykim
Logically speaking, is it easier to find an elephant and catch him to put on display or is it easier to catch 100 mice and put them on display? Especially if you only have a limited and equal amount of time to do the catching?
Did you miss the articles late last year and early this year about the DOJ hiring up tons of attorneys for the 2257 task force?
Elephants or mice... I think they plan to do a lot of hunting.
IIRC, one of the big adult attorneys attendted one of their conventions or something where they were recruiting the attorneys to be on this task force.Comment
-
In a word...WORD. The revisions are worthless, IMO. The only intention behind them is to make things more difficult for those of us who actually run our businesses in a legal manner.Originally posted by xxxjay
If this was really about a crackdown on child porn then as part of the documentation they would require from you is "Date of Production" - which the new 2257 DOES NOT.
So this girl is 19 now. When was it filmed in 2004 or in 2001? One makes her a minor, one does not - but they don't even care about when it was produced.
This is a major, huge, massive failing in the new 2257 if you ask me and shows what the real intention of the regs are.Looking for PHP/MySQL solutions? Check out Cyboriginal - custom scripts, installation services and more.Comment
-
I am not for the new regulations, but this discussion got me thinking, did anyone ever think about how one COULD do what 2257 asks for in a good manner?
Meaning, the point of 2257, we all agree I'm sure, is to make sure minors do not appear in porn, and if they do, to easily find the people breaking the law. Now, to do this, how else do you expect this to work than to be able to point out the produce of every single picture or video you use?
Isn't this really the only way to actually achive this anyway or does anyone have another bright idea?
Of course, the new regulation makes us all keep records, which is, in my oppinion, total crap and the gov is just trying to make it easier for them to find illegal pictures since they do nolonger have to ask you and then the produce you tell them, but can just go to you. The other stupid thing is that they expect you to be able to list all other URLs a specific pic is on, thats just stupid.
But those things set aside, isn't it a valid thing for the government to expect us to help them find CP? So at least being able to pinpoint the producer of every picture anywhere on our sites needs to be possible, no?"Think about it a little more and you'll agree with me, because you're smart and I'm right."
- Charlie MungerComment
-
And to face 5 years in jail if you can't?
5 years for a clerical error?Left intentionally blank ... just like my brainComment
-
so what is this oh so great news?
this thread is 3 pages and the thread starter has yet to reveal this revelation.ICQ: 309756847
]Comment
-
What revelation? You're still expecting something?Originally posted by Cassie
so what is this oh so great news?
this thread is 3 pages and the thread starter has yet to reveal this revelation.
Comment
-
yeah and now this is near 'fact' on another boardComment
-
It would be interesting to see the feds take on large affiliate programs. Taking down one affiliate program would affect more people than taking down one secondary producer. They could do this now, but the new regs would make this a hell of a lot easier.
GetSCORECash.com | In the Biz Since 1991
Big Tits | Granny & MILFs | Amateurs | Big Booty | Foot Fetish | BBW | Teens
Hosted Embeds | MP4s | RSS Feeds | FHGs | Model DirectoryComment
-
rolfOriginally posted by Sly_RJ
Are you telling me I shouldn't have sold all my sites? Fuck!
UUGallery Builder - automated photo/video gallery plugin for Wordpress!
Stop looking! Checkout Naked Hosting, online since 1999 ! 
Comment
-
oh my god, i know...it has been a WHOLE 13 HOURS...rofl...considering I posted this at 9pm last night and it is now 10am, ain't much going on in the night time with our government....Originally posted by Cassie
so what is this oh so great news?
this thread is 3 pages and the thread starter has yet to reveal this revelation.
about to give a call to that person who started on this thoughComment
-
glad i can make someone laughOriginally posted by NoCarrier
What revelation? You're still expecting something?
ICQ: 309756847
]Comment
-
What I can't believe is how brazenly transparent it is that the DOJ just wants to make life difficult for pornographers.
They absolutely don't care about protecting talent, which is the original purpose of the law.
Here's a very likely scenario. Crazed serial killer falls in love with a model's picture. So he sets himself up as a webmaster and finds out where he can buy content of her. Content producer gives him her real name and address. Next thing you know her head is cut off and she has a broom shoved two feet up her pussy.
Porn Wealth Everything the newbie adult webmaster needs to know. Buy it, or sell it through our 50% affiliate program!Comment
-
You don't think girls considering getting into porn might head back to that waitressing job if they find out their IDs are going to be available to anyone with $50?Originally posted by neewwman
What I can't believe is how brazenly transparent it is that the DOJ just wants to make life difficult for pornographers.
They absolutely don't care about protecting talent, which is the original purpose of the law.
Here's a very likely scenario. Crazed serial killer falls in love with a model's picture. So he sets himself up as a webmaster and finds out where he can buy content of her. Content producer gives him her real name and address. Next thing you know her head is cut off and she has a broom shoved two feet up her pussy.
This industry would crumble without the talent.
~ 300+ FHGs, 100,000 pics to use plus a rockin' Video of the Day download! ~Comment
-
I think at the end it will all work out with 2257 issues
Comment
-
Revelation is we all chipped in and got him a PDA, Gamecube, XBOX, or PS2...Originally posted by Cassie
so what is this oh so great news?
this thread is 3 pages and the thread starter has yet to reveal this revelation.
Comment
-
You would think with all the taxes that are actually paid somewhat from the adult industry in the US they would have a little leverage with this and actually think this through.
If its gets out of control I will consider moving off shore for sure, whats the negative on that.
Processors do not care where they wire the money to, the got their cut out of it already.
Look forward to the news. I remember back in 2000 it was rumored that you could not show adult hardcore images on your tours. Some people took them down, I was running BA back then and we were one of them. We lost a lot of sales for that.
Is it possible for our industry to get more people in office to fight for us, nobody wants kids to see our sites, but the Internet is a big place and this happens.
Kids lose parents every day to smoking yet the goverment has not problem taxing the cigarettes and taking the money. Losing a parent is way worse then a kid seeing our sites I think.
What you gonna do, unfortunately this is out of our hands.Busty Amateurs is Back - Meet the Girls | Read the BLOG | See the UPDATES
High conversions and high retention, almost 1000 hosted galleries 995 PAYS
Samples Big Boobs | Busty Babes | Strap Ons | Hardcore | Amateurs | VideosComment
-
did you reword that and put it into an email to the DOJ before the deadline? If one model dies because of this it is blitz the media time. Not to mention that I wonder how long it takes for webmasters to be the target of the same type of people that bomb abortion clinics.Originally posted by neewwman
What I can't believe is how brazenly transparent it is that the DOJ just wants to make life difficult for pornographers.
They absolutely don't care about protecting talent, which is the original purpose of the law.
Here's a very likely scenario. Crazed serial killer falls in love with a model's picture. So he sets himself up as a webmaster and finds out where he can buy content of her. Content producer gives him her real name and address. Next thing you know her head is cut off and she has a broom shoved two feet up her pussy.Comment
-
Sarah - they don't care - there was a thread here a couple of days ago where someone related what J D Odenberger said at the seminar at Internext.Originally posted by sarah_webinc
did you reword that and put it into an email to the DOJ before the deadline?
When he challenged a senior DOJ guy with that scenario the reply was that they didn't care.
Just talk to any dancer or sex worker and they will tell you the same thing. The very people who are supposed to protect the citizens of the US think of the talent as being worthless so why should they care?Left intentionally blank ... just like my brainComment
-
I know you never said you were brilliant. I did. I am afraid if I win that bet, all my 300 sites will be the ones that get shut down.Originally posted by Kimmykim
Dude, I never said I was brilliant. But when two of the best attorneys in this business have the same conclusions and two more in-house ones agree, I'm going with what they say. If you really think that small tgps are the issue here, more power to you. Do what you feel is best for you, I'm not your attorney and I don't play one on tv.
If you want to get your 10k out and bet, I'm ready ;-}}}}Comment
-
Using your own logic, if you are armed with a shotgun you don't even have to catch the mice, you can kill all 100 (and more) at once. Whereas you won't catch/kill one elephant. What weapons do you think the DOJ has? Flyfishing rods?Originally posted by Kimmykim
If the Democrats take office, they will most likely not choose to prosecute, just like they didn't during the Clinton administration. Which is fine. It's almost like de-criminalization.
Logically speaking, is it easier to find an elephant and catch him to put on display or is it easier to catch 100 mice and put them on display? Especially if you only have a limited and equal amount of time to do the catching?Comment
-
They will still model greed is a blinding thing. Also these people talking about now people will know your address. You were supposed to have a physcial address on your site all along thats not a new thing. Also a porn girl gets killed by a stalker , they wont present it as the Government fucked up . They will present how scummy and irresponsible the adult business is and how they are willing to give someones personal records away to anyone with $50 .Originally posted by KCat
You don't think girls considering getting into porn might head back to that waitressing job if they find out their IDs are going to be available to anyone with $50?
This industry would crumble without the talent.Last edited by tony286; 08-25-2004, 01:34 PM.Comment
-
Finally I thought I was beginning to think I was the only one that realised this.Originally posted by Nate-MM2
Yes and no.... if the only paper trail you have are hosting bills from out of the country along with cheques from sponsors that process transactions outside of the country you should be fine as your ownership of any actual websites would be difficult to prove.
If you process in the US you are basically SOL...
And there even are ways to keep the Bills out of US
Comment
-
Originally posted by RicardoB
Finally I thought I was beginning to think I was the only one that realised this.
And there even are ways to keep the Bills out of US
Now this if you have money coming into this country you can be traced. Then they can also get you on Tax evasion which can make record keeping violations look like a parking ticket.
The last big porn crackdown thats how they got alot of porn people on Tax evasion.Comment
-
yeah, I have no doubt that they don't care but that doesn't mean I didn't write them. It is the same reason I vote even though most of the time the person I vote for doesn't win.Originally posted by The Other Steve
Sarah - they don't care - there was a thread here a couple of days ago where someone related what J D Odenberger said at the seminar at Internext.
When he challenged a senior DOJ guy with that scenario the reply was that they didn't care.
Just talk to any dancer or sex worker and they will tell you the same thing. The very people who are supposed to protect the citizens of the US think of the talent as being worthless so why should they care?Comment
-
True if they don't report the money but that's not what I am hinting at.
I'll try to explain(Hope my English is good enough)
Here lies the difference:
When the money comes in from unchecked country you can put it in your administration as all kinds of things it does not have to be adult related and you will pay the same taxes.
Hope that makes sense I could explain it better in Dutch but think that wouldn't help much here
Comment
-
Ah - another member of Don Quixote.com - I thought I saw you at the last chapter meetingOriginally posted by sarah_webinc
yeah, I have no doubt that they don't care but that doesn't mean I didn't write them. It is the same reason I vote even though most of the time the person I vote for doesn't win.
Left intentionally blank ... just like my brainComment
-
The orgianl 2257 passed in 1988 but didn't take effect until the mid 1990's because of lawsuits. Look at COPA. passd in 1998 still not law( hopefully NEVER ) you think SOMEONE doesn't already have a lawsuit ready to go as soon as these rule become law? Someone files a case, gets an injunction and 5 years until MAYBE the SC hears the case.Originally posted by ProjectNaked
2257 IS NOT GOING AWAY. If you would like to continue to work in the "adult" industry you should be preparing, not fantasizing.
Comment
-
Those sites are illegal in this country anyway..Originally posted by Sly_RJ
Are you telling me I shouldn't have sold all my sites? Fuck!
Comment
-
This isn't just in the new 2257 but the date of production is not codified into law. I posed this question to the legal panel at Internext and Larry Walters agreed it was a huge oversight but obenberger and picconelli just argued that they recommend clients keep that information and didn't address my core question of why it wasn't included in the law and regs.Originally posted by xxxjay
If this was really about a crackdown on child porn then as part of the documentation they would require from you is "Date of Production" - which the new 2257 DOES NOT.
So this girl is 19 now. When was it filmed in 2004 or in 2001? One makes her a minor, one does not - but they don't even care about when it was produced.
This is a major, huge, massive failing in the new 2257 if you ask me and shows what the real intention of the regs are.
I am tempted to NOT keep the date of filming and piss the government off but screw them its not in the law or the regs. If they are making it so anal to keep I might as well be anal about doing it exactly by the book.
TAKE THE 2257 survey
http://www.2257.com/survey/SIG TOO BIG! Maximum 120x60 button and no more than 3 text lines of DEFAULT SIZE and COLOR. Unless your sig is for a GFY top banner sponsor, then you may use a 624x80 instead of a 120x60.Comment
-
JaceXXX
So.. did you hear from your friend?Comment
-
i want to know too.Originally posted by graphicsbytia
JaceXXX
So.. did you hear from your friend?
is there a follow up to this?Comment
-
-
Originally posted by graphicsbytia
JaceXXX
So.. did you hear from your friend?Comment
-
I think itS, better get ready anyway and have everything in order
Cheers
ClaudeSIG TOO BIG! Maximum 120x60 button and no more than 3 text lines of DEFAULT SIZE and COLOR. Unless your sig is for a GFY top banner sponsor, then you may use a 624x80 instead of a 120x60.Comment
-
With each 2257 thread, the bahamas look nicer and nicer.Sig is on vacation... (I wish I could vacation as long as my sig has...)Comment
-
-
yea that is a major fuck up by the DOJ.. in theory you could film a under aged girl wait till she turns 18 and use the content, that's pretty fucked up.Originally posted by Imageauction
This isn't just in the new 2257 but the date of production is not codified into law. I posed this question to the legal panel at Internext and Larry Walters agreed it was a huge oversight but obenberger and picconelli just argued that they recommend clients keep that information and didn't address my core question of why it wasn't included in the law and regs.
I am tempted to NOT keep the date of filming and piss the government off but screw them its not in the law or the regs. If they are making it so anal to keep I might as well be anal about doing it exactly by the book.
TAKE THE 2257 survey
http://www.2257.com/survey/In November, you can vote for America's next president or its first dictator.Comment
-
Let's just hope ...Originally posted by sarah_webinc
Good CYA because you just know suddenly this is going to be 'fact' on all the boards even if it turns out he was wrong.Originally posted by rayadp05Comment
-
Originally posted by graphicsbytia
JaceXXX
So.. did you hear from your friend?Comment
-
bumpComment
Ricardo's Rants
Comment