Got your 2257 documents? - GoFuckYourself.com

Paul Markham · 06-15-2004, 10:52 PM

If not you might like to think about getting them and organising them.

Quote:

WASHINGTON, D.C. ? Kat Sunlove of the Free Speech Coalition said her group probably won?t oppose proposed porn regulations that Attorney General John Ashhahahahaha announced on Monday.
Ashhahahahaha?s proposed rule for porn, which will be finalized after a public comment period, tightens the list of acceptable forms of identification for performers in sexually explicit videos, books, magazines and websites. It also requires that forms of identification be accessible to government agencies to ensure they are legitimate.

Sunlove, the executive director the Free Speech Coaltion, said the organization supports efforts to protect children from sexual abuse. And she maintained that underage actors are not used in adult entertainment.

"We don't need to," Sunlove said. "There are too many 18-year-olds that knock on the door on their birthday."

Ashhahahahaha proposed tougher records inspections Monday for the porn industry to ensure that no minors are being used in sexually explicit videos, books, magazines and websites.

The industry, for the most part, observes Section 2257 of federal law, which requires keeping actors? identifiable records.

Ashhahahahaha?s proposed regulation is based on the Protect Act, which calls for stiffer federal penalties for crimes against children and gives prosecutors new tools to fight child pornography.

The Protect Act, signed into law last year, bumped up first offense sentencing to 15 to 30 years for child pornographers. It also established or expanded other child protective services, such as the Amber alert program.

"These changes will put teeth into our efforts to ensure that children are not being used as performers in the sexually explicit productions of the media," Ashhahahahaha said. "There will be no excuses for anyone who takes part in abusing children for sexually explicit productions.?

This was on another board that begins with the letter X, don't want to break the rules.

Paul Markham · 06-15-2004, 11:03 PM

2257 is a sword to cut through this industry, if you do not have them you could be in big trouble.

Interesting thing is it could cut down on theft.

Snake Doctor · 06-15-2004, 11:13 PM

This could be good for the online adult industry.
Get rid of the k*ddie p*rn fuckers and cut down on content theft, making the content honest webmasters purchase more valuable.

The thing that concerns me is if the feds knock on my door are they going to want to see copies of the ID's for the girls on my site, or can I just point them to the provider I bought the content from?

nofx · 06-15-2004, 11:22 PM

damn ashcroft!

FightThisPatent · 06-16-2004, 06:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lenny2
The thing that concerns me is if the feds knock on my door are they going to want to see copies of the ID's for the girls on my site, or can I just point them to the provider I bought the content from?

If you purchased content from somewhere, you need to be able to point them to the content producer. As a webmaster with secondary record keeper responsibilities of 2257, you do not need to have the driver's license and 2257 info of the models, unless you shot the content yourself.

Check out the writeup of my new venture 2257lookup.com and how it helps to solve some potential problems for webmasters:

http://www.xbiz.com/news_piece.php?id=3846

-brandon

BVF · 06-16-2004, 06:15 AM

I'm not worried. I can provide what they need online. No need for them to even knock on my door.

KRL · 06-16-2004, 06:25 AM

I can't imagine any US based photographer shooting underage models and thinking they're going to get away with it.

You have to be a complete and total idiot to even chance that in the US. Overseas is where the problem is and this is all happening.

directfiesta · 06-16-2004, 06:37 AM

4 more years !! 4 more years!!!

FightThisPatent · 06-16-2004, 07:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by KRL

You have to be a complete and total idiot to even chance that in the US. Overseas is where the problem is and this is all happening.

True, but i see 2257 statue as being the way to shutdown the frontline of "obscenity" not just about protecting children from being exploited.

It seems to be very simple... if a webmaster can't tell the prosecutor where a suspected underaged or "obscene" picture was purchased from, then they have violated 2257 statue and can have their website(s) shutdown and go to jail.

The current approach by the Justice Department is to equate 2257 with protecting children... a very emotionally charged subject that the RIAA has used to equate P2P with CP.

The testing of the secondary record keeping responsibiltities of the webmasters for 2257 hasn't been done yet, but it's very possible.

-brandon

Joesho · 06-16-2004, 07:34 AM

Good, I agree this is more of a help to reputable people than it is any kind of hinderence

Paul Markham · 06-16-2004, 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lenny2

The thing that concerns me is if the feds knock on my door are they going to want to see copies of the ID's for the girls on my site, or can I just point them to the provider I bought the content from?

Do you know which producer sold you which set and do you know he has the documents.

We are also assuming Ashhahahahaha does not define websites as publishing.

You don't have the documents, you don't KNOW they exist, you only think they do.

Doc911 · 06-16-2004, 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lenny2
This could be good for the online adult industry.
Get rid of the k*ddie p*rn fuckers and cut down on content theft, making the content honest webmasters purchase more valuable.

The thing that concerns me is if the feds knock on my door are they going to want to see copies of the ID's for the girls on my site, or can I just point them to the provider I bought the content from?

all you need is one of these for every picture on your site.

http://www.knealandbob.com/0614/2257.htm

Paul Markham · 06-16-2004, 07:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by KRL
I can't imagine any US based photographer shooting underage models and thinking they're going to get away with it.

You have to be a complete and total idiot to even chance that in the US. Overseas is where the problem is and this is all happening.

Tell that to the guys who shot Traci Lords, the guys who were recently pulled for shooting 17 year olds topless and don't argue they got off with it, ti cost them thousands to stay out of prison.

If you point the authorities to a producer and he can't come up with the documents, are you liable? Well we know you are if a girl is under age, but are you liable for pointing them to a guy who does not have the documents?

Also will Ashhahahahaha make websites liable? We do publish as in we alter images, add text, compile a page to be viewed. We are not straight resellers, like the local newstand.

Paul Markham · 06-16-2004, 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doc911
all you need is one of these for every picture on your site.

http://www.knealandbob.com/0614/2257.htm

Please do not take any notice of this guy, he clearly is not aware of the facts.

FACT, if the girl is 17 no such notice will save you.
Fact, if the girl did not sign a model release, no such notice will save you.
Fact, if the guy selling the content is not the owner, no such notice will save you.
Fact, if the police arrive at your door and start asking for the IDs of a model, no such notice will save you. They only have to say she's under age and you're going with them to jail if you can't produce the documents.

What if Ashhahahahaha decides the website is the primary producer of the website, banners and tours, etc.

Aslo what is sexually explicit is debateble, in court with you paying your lawyers.

Don't fuck around with your business, liberty and future. Just keep some records.

FightThisPatent · 06-16-2004, 08:16 AM

Primary Record Keeping vs. Secondary Record Keeping Requirements of 2257

A quick summary:

If you are a content producer, you need to have full printed documentation that verifies the age of your model. This includes a copy of their driver's license and a signed model release that includes the listings of all names that the model uses (ie. stage name, professional name, legal name, nickname, etc). In addition, you need to be able to cross index models with the production (ie. photo shoot, film shoot, dvd, etc).

Two quick questions to self-answer for content producers:

1) If a prosecutor asks you to bring up records of all modesl by the stage name of Trixie, could you do it?

2) If a prosecutor asks you to pull up all model records for those that participated in a particular photo or film shot, could you do it?

-----------------------------------------------------------

If you are webmaster that licenses/purchases content from content producers, you are required to maintain pointers to where you purchased the content. You should have a 2257 statement on your website that lists the address of the content producers used on your site. Don't just copy someone elses' 2257 page that lists all content producers, only list the ones that you are using.

Webmasters have the secondary record keeper requirements of pointing to the primary record keepers.

The issue that I see is if you are asked about where you purchased a specific image from, then you may have trouble answering that question.

If a prosecutor ever challenges you on the question of where did this specific picture come from, remember 2257lookup.com

More info about 2257 statue can be found on JD Obenberger's article: http://my.execpc.com/%7Exxxlaw/primer.html

Given the recent AVNonline article about 2257 (http://www.avnonline.com/index.php?P...tent_ID=106504) it's not hard to see that all the warnings that the legal guys have been saying for years about federal intervention is coming closer.

-brandon

Tom_PMs · 06-16-2004, 08:17 AM

charly, it would seem to me that this is a concern for content producers/providers, not so much their customers.
There is an expectancy on the part of the customer/webmaster that all the content providers records are in order. Providing a link to the providers recordkeeping contact info is what the webmasters should do, and I cant imagine they would have to do much more to be protected.

I think the main thrust of this release is that theres been no recordkeeping checks done in something like 15 years, and they want to begin doing it.

KraZ · 06-16-2004, 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by charly
Don't fuck around with your business, liberty and future. Just keep some records.

Listen to the man

We provide complete 2257 info (model releases, model photo with 2 IDs, close-ups of IDs) to all our clients.

I guess biggest issue is with blowouts where you get tons of content with some/most of IDs missing. Most blowout result in the company going out of business so when "|the police|" knock on your door asking for IDs, you'll be in deep shit territory.

Xenophage · 06-16-2004, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by KraZ
Listen to the man

We provide complete 2257 info (model releases, model photo with 2 IDs, close-ups of IDs) to all our clients.

I guess biggest issue is with blowouts where you get tons of content with some/most of IDs missing. Most blowout result in the company going out of business so when "|the police|" knock on your door asking for IDs, you'll be in deep shit territory.

right so since all companies have that possibility of going out of biz. If it is possible shoot your own exclusive content and have all the proper docs. Buying conent from others may end up being the fuck all of this biz

Doc911 · 06-16-2004, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by charly
Please do not take any notice of this guy, he clearly is not aware of the facts.

FACT, if the girl is 17 no such notice will save you.
Fact, if the girl did not sign a model release, no such notice will save you.
Fact, if the guy selling the content is not the owner, no such notice will save you.
Fact, if the police arrive at your door and start asking for the IDs of a model, no such notice will save you. They only have to say she's under age and you're going with them to jail if you can't produce the documents.

What if Ashhahahahaha decides the website is the primary producer of the website, banners and tours, etc.

Aslo what is sexually explicit is debateble, in court with you paying your lawyers.

Don't fuck around with your business, liberty and future. Just keep some records.

Thats right don't listen. Keep posting images on your server with no 2257 labeling.

1. I don't worry about whether the girl was underaged since most of my content is well established adult entertainers, With full paperwork on file at Legend in California.

2. I don't buy content from no-name producers. My 2257 points to Legend Video Inc.

3. I don't worry about the police showing up at the door since my sites comply with the labeling requirements of 2257.

When your ready to put down the playstation and become a real webmaster, get a lawyer first! 300-500 bucks a month will save your ass.

goBigtime · 06-16-2004, 09:12 AM

Just an idea....

But someone should come out with a little program for content producers and buyers that could embed a little point of origin ID including 2257 Custodian of records info - into the picture or movie itself.

Content providers would run this app to encode their information into the content before it's released.

Then you would run a reader program against it, with a password or whatever and you could identify what came from where very easily.

That, or keep original filenames & a cross referenced db.. but that is sometimes not possible for various reassons I'm sure.

Edit: I guess this is kind of what digimark is all about.. and I suppose resizing/resampling the image would probably render an id like that useless as well.

pussyluver · 06-16-2004, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by goBigtime
Just an idea....

But someone should come out with a little program for content producers and buyers that could embed a little point of origin ID including 2257 Custodian of records info - into the picture or movie itself.

Content providers would run this app to encode their information into the content before it's released.

Then you would run a reader program against it, with a password or whatever and you could identify what came from where very easily.

That, or keep original filenames & a cross referenced db.. but that is sometimes not possible for various reassons I'm sure.

Edit: I guess this is kind of what digimark is all about.. and I suppose resizing/resampling the image would probably render an id like that useless as well.

Orginal file names are a problem for some of my scripts and editing programs. For example fireworks chokes on some file names from content providers when I use batch process to resize for thumbs or resize to conserve bandwidth.

I like the idea of content providers including the 2257 in the image file itself (each and every one). Can that be done easily with jpg?? Or would we need a new standard??

FightThisPatent · 06-16-2004, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by goBigtime

But someone should come out with a little program for content producers and buyers that could embed a little point of origin ID including 2257 Custodian of records info - into the picture or movie itself.

great idea, but some disadvantages:

1) you can embed text within the JPEG header, it takes up a little bit more disk space to the image. problem is that it can be automatically stripped out by resizing programs.

2) you can embed info within the EXIF header, but again, some programs can just wipe out that info

3) having content producers process their images with any kind of marking is a huge undertaking

4) having to pay for digital watermaking like digimarc or baytsp is not going to happen with most content producers

5) some clients may not want visible watermarks on the image.

My technology is based on image analysis, so doesn't require any pre-marking or any watermarking and is free for all content producers to participate.

One of my disadvantages is aggregating content producers as well as keeping up with updates, but it's not a problem as content providers are starting to find me as I begin my marketing campaign.

Content producers should use as many viable/practical ways to document their 2257 records, especially from a record keeping standpoint of having the right info on the models sitting in a filing cabinet at your offices.

Embedding a text pointer back to the content producer in the JPEG header is a great idea and if a content producer will take the time to do it, it could help to assist the webmasters with their secondary record keeping responsibilities.

Webmasters can help by pointing their content producers to my 2257lookup.com service. The more content producers that are in the database, the better the service that I can provide on matching images

-brandon

Lykos · 06-16-2004, 09:41 AM

Mine 2257 are just fine

Tom_PMs · 06-16-2004, 09:49 AM

You could do it fairly easily by just typing it up, save in binary, then do a copy/b to the end of the image or movie in DOS.

Then use a Batch file for multiples.

It's a sledghammer approach, but it wouldnt screw up the image or movie much. Just a blip.

tony286 · 06-16-2004, 10:07 AM

Well the first thing they will have to go thru are the sites that are in violation on the front page of their site. Emails addresses and po boxes dont cut it . lol Also if you think its online they dont have to knock on my door you are very wrong. Also this is fishing for them, they come to look at records and its a house with kids in it. I think records wont be the only thing to worry about.

06-15-2004, 11:03 PM	#2
Paul Markham Too old to care Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: On the sofa, watching TV or doing my jigsaws. Posts: 52,943	2257 is a sword to cut through this industry, if you do not have them you could be in big trouble. Interesting thing is it could cut down on theft. __________________ Blowout deal. 880 videos, 2,400 image sets, plus many RAW videos. $500. PM me for a deal. Skype Paulmarkham70

06-15-2004, 11:13 PM	#3
Snake Doctor I'm Lenny2 Bitch Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: On top of my soapbox Posts: 13,449	This could be good for the online adult industry. Get rid of the kddie prn fuckers and cut down on content theft, making the content honest webmasters purchase more valuable. The thing that concerns me is if the feds knock on my door are they going to want to see copies of the ID's for the girls on my site, or can I just point them to the provider I bought the content from? __________________ sig too big

06-15-2004, 11:22 PM	#4
nofx Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Virgin Mary's womb Posts: 16,826	damn ashcroft! __________________ Often times I wonder why There's love and hate, theres live or die. When sickness comes I must decide: When feelings go, theres suicide.

06-16-2004, 06:15 AM	#6
BVF Black Vagina Finder Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: The Midwest Posts: 13,975	I'm not worried. I can provide what they need online. No need for them to even knock on my door. __________________ Black Pussy Click On Mr Cosby..CCbill, 60/40, 136 FHG's....The Cos Loves Black Ghetto Pussy!!

06-16-2004, 06:25 AM	#7
KRL Entrepreneur Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: USA Posts: 31,429	I can't imagine any US based photographer shooting underage models and thinking they're going to get away with it. You have to be a complete and total idiot to even chance that in the US. Overseas is where the problem is and this is all happening. __________________ If you would like to develop your domains, you can lease inexpensive foreign labor from the leaders in the field at iWebmasters.com TO LOWER YOUR COSTS AND INCREASE YOUR PRODUCTION! * * * * * * * * * * * * Domains Adult News KRL's Newsletter Biz Tips Just Listed Domains

06-16-2004, 06:37 AM	#8
directfiesta Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Montreal, Quebec Posts: 29,682	4 more years !! 4 more years!!! __________________ I know that Asspimple is stoopid ... As he says, it is a FACT ! But I can't figure out how he can breathe or type , at the same time ....

06-16-2004, 07:34 AM	#10
Joesho want to get in shape Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: on the lake Posts: 12,329	Good, I agree this is more of a help to reputable people than it is any kind of hinderence __________________ Got any domains to sell? I proudly host all my stuff at www.rackco.com

06-16-2004, 08:16 AM	#15
FightThisPatent Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 4,090	Primary Record Keeping vs. Secondary Record Keeping Requirements of 2257 A quick summary: If you are a content producer, you need to have full printed documentation that verifies the age of your model. This includes a copy of their driver's license and a signed model release that includes the listings of all names that the model uses (ie. stage name, professional name, legal name, nickname, etc). In addition, you need to be able to cross index models with the production (ie. photo shoot, film shoot, dvd, etc). Two quick questions to self-answer for content producers: 1) If a prosecutor asks you to bring up records of all modesl by the stage name of Trixie, could you do it? 2) If a prosecutor asks you to pull up all model records for those that participated in a particular photo or film shot, could you do it? ----------------------------------------------------------- If you are webmaster that licenses/purchases content from content producers, you are required to maintain pointers to where you purchased the content. You should have a 2257 statement on your website that lists the address of the content producers used on your site. Don't just copy someone elses' 2257 page that lists all content producers, only list the ones that you are using. Webmasters have the secondary record keeper requirements of pointing to the primary record keepers. The issue that I see is if you are asked about where you purchased a specific image from, then you may have trouble answering that question. If a prosecutor ever challenges you on the question of where did this specific picture come from, remember 2257lookup.com More info about 2257 statue can be found on JD Obenberger's article: http://my.execpc.com/%7Exxxlaw/primer.html Given the recent AVNonline article about 2257 (http://www.avnonline.com/index.php?P...tent_ID=106504) it's not hard to see that all the warnings that the legal guys have been saying for years about federal intervention is coming closer. -brandon __________________ http://www.t3report.com (where's the traffic?) v5.0 is out! \| http://www.FightThePatent.com \| ICQ 52741957

06-16-2004, 08:17 AM	#16
Tom_PMs Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 2,049	charly, it would seem to me that this is a concern for content producers/providers, not so much their customers. There is an expectancy on the part of the customer/webmaster that all the content providers records are in order. Providing a link to the providers recordkeeping contact info is what the webmasters should do, and I cant imagine they would have to do much more to be protected. I think the main thrust of this release is that theres been no recordkeeping checks done in something like 15 years, and they want to begin doing it.

06-16-2004, 09:12 AM	#20
goBigtime Confirmed User Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 7,761	Just an idea.... But someone should come out with a little program for content producers and buyers that could embed a little point of origin ID including 2257 Custodian of records info - into the picture or movie itself. Content providers would run this app to encode their information into the content before it's released. Then you would run a reader program against it, with a password or whatever and you could identify what came from where very easily. That, or keep original filenames & a cross referenced db.. but that is sometimes not possible for various reassons I'm sure. Edit: I guess this is kind of what digimark is all about.. and I suppose resizing/resampling the image would probably render an id like that useless as well. Last edited by goBigtime; 06-16-2004 at 09:15 AM..

06-16-2004, 09:41 AM	#23
Lykos Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: World Posts: 31,027	Mine 2257 are just fine __________________

06-16-2004, 09:49 AM	#24
Tom_PMs Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 2,049	You could do it fairly easily by just typing it up, save in binary, then do a copy/b to the end of the image or movie in DOS. Then use a Batch file for multiples. It's a sledghammer approach, but it wouldnt screw up the image or movie much. Just a blip.

06-16-2004, 10:07 AM	#25
tony286 lurker Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: atlanta Posts: 57,021	Well the first thing they will have to go thru are the sites that are in violation on the front page of their site. Emails addresses and po boxes dont cut it . lol Also if you think its online they dont have to knock on my door you are very wrong. Also this is fishing for them, they come to look at records and its a house with kids in it. I think records wont be the only thing to worry about.