True.

But this is the regime magazines and video distributors have lived under for years, I've complied to these laws for over a decade.

At the moment we have anarchy, you assume the person selling you the content has the documents, that they're legal and can be produced. Now Ash hahahahaha has said the days of assumption are over.

So you have to give every picture a set number, you then have to have the recourds filed in a computer under that set number. Show me any set on my sites and in 60 seconds I can produce the 2257 documents, the ammended ones with ALL contact details removed. In the next 50 seconds I can produce the unaltered ones.

For those who are business like to run a good ship this law is a good thing. For those who are too lazy or too stupid to organise themselves, it's a bad thing.

I agree it will make life different, as a webmaster you will need to have documents, as a TGP site owner it could be very hard as you will have to check the 40 submissions that go up every day onto your site to see if they have the documentation. What happens if those images are changed is unclear. I'n mot sure if it addresses the issue of content you do not host but merely give access to. If that is the case I think the AVS system might be the worse hit.

What it will go someway towards doing is getting rid of thieves scammers and conmen. Aslo those out to make a fast buck will now have to slow down and work a bit harder.

And the comments about juries convicting you are foolish, before that point you will have settled due to the sheer cost of defending your rights.

SO KEEP A FEW RECORDS

As I read this it doesn?t apply to TGPs unless the TGP domain itself has sexually explicit images on it. A TGP is just a list of galleries. Don?t put sexually explicit preview images, sexually explicit banners, or your own sexually explicit gallery on the TGP domain and you don?t have to comply. The new regs would apply to gallery builders that use sexually explicit images in their galleries. If you?re a gallery builder and you don?t want to keep the records build softcore galleries.

As I read your comments, I cant help but think that Ass hahahah is forcing us to change our business models because he believes that the regulations will be too onerous for us to comply with and he will therefore be able to shut us down. Many of you are saying just to change what we display. If that were the case then no BDSM, or any sexually explicit content will be allowed to be shown. Everything will turn "Vanilla". I can't believe that any of us would want that.

Brandon is offering us an out. He has great content producers signing up to his service to help out the webmasters and tgp owners and anyone else who will need this information.

All of the content producers signing up with him are doing it because they don't want Ass hahaha shutting us down. They are putting aside their collective egos and helping out with no expectation of reward other than to keep the webmasters safe.

I wish Brandon the best of luck with his venture and I am sure the rest of us do as well.

Agreed.. at the most they should give fines for this kind of thing. Don't you guys have enough people in your jails?

Ugh what a fuckin headache for those licensing content from primary producers.. now you gotta backtrack and try to get hard copies of all the records. Really cool when they retroactively change the rules.

So to those in the know on this type of thing, assuming this went through, approx when would be the earliest this could take effect and we'd have to be compliant?

The proposed changes are in a public comment timeout for the next 90 days.... from there.. I don't know what happens next since like everyone else, I don't pay attention to our government process.


2257lookup.com will be going live by Internext for creating the cross-indexing report so that you can immediately become compliant with current 2257 requirements and proposed 2257 changes.

As it stands now, even without the new changes, webmasters are not compliant with 2257 by just having a 2257.html page that lists content producers. On inquiry, you need to know where a specific image came from... an answer that most webmasters won't be able to answer.


-brandon

Welcome to the Christian Republic of America.

Conservative Republic of A merican P ower



:Graucho


-brandon

I started out in this business using sponsor content (with their watermark). Does this mean I will have to backtrack and get information for sites I made 3 years ago? And what are the chances of going to jail over something like this. Even if I am compliant from now forward, what about a site from years back that isn't compliant?

Yeah, but when you throw a handful of one group of people in there it makes it easier to control the rest...

Actually, 18 USC 2257 applies to foreign producers as well, so moving your business offshore or operating outside the United States, while it may solve certain problems, will not solve your 2257 headaches.

According to 18 USC 2257 (a)(1) and (2), the statute applies to "Whoever produces any book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, or other matter which ... contains one or more visual depictions made after November 1, 1990 of actual sexually explicit conduct; and ... is produced in whole or in part with materials which have been mailed or shipped in interstate or foreign commerce, or is shipped or transported or is intended for shipment or transportation in interstate or foreign commerce;"

In other words, assuming the depiction is one covered by the statute, once it is put into interstate or foreign commerce, it is covered under the statute and the record keeping and custodian statement provisions apply.

The problem with a 2257 prosecution is that's essentially strict liability - you either violate the statute or you don't. The jury ultimately decides only issues of fact - whether or not you actually maintained the records or posted the appropriate disclosure, etc.

Once that's decided, the judge interprets matters of law, including sentencing guidelines that include any minimum sentence. And the gentle folks at the federal government, you'll recall, just upped the sentencing minimum for 2257 violations from 2 years to 5 years in the Protect Act last year.

Your tax dollars at work...

[Michael (mccoymg) is the the General Counsel for my company Cydata Services, which operates 2257lookup.com and also runs his own practice with adult clients and deals with 2257 issues.]


An issue that keeps coming up is about foreign content producers and their 2257 responsibilities.

Your answer points to the fact that foreign content producers are responsible, but what are the ramifications if they don't have proper documentation, if in their own country they don't have similar 2257 requirements, and doing business in the US?

What liabilty is there for webmasters under the current and proposed 2257 statues on their liabilities if licensing content from a foreign content producer that doesn't have proper 2257 documentation?

Lastly, what happens after 90 days of the public review of the proposed changes? Does Congress vote on it? Does the President have to sign it?


-brandon

My reply was directed at the scenario of a domestic producer trying to take his business abroad or "go offshore." The problem with this is that, to the extent an American national is involved, the "foreign" producer will fall under the statute and records will need to be maintained and custodian statements affixed.

The issue of a domestic webmaster dealing with a 100% foreign company, i.e. absolutely no domestic investment whatsoever, either through a holding company or any other ancillary device, is more complex. Opinions vary whether the completely foreign producer is responsible for the record keeping provisions. The statute has never been tested and although the general rule is that non-citizens are not subject to the rule of US legislation, the jurisdictional question is unsettled, extremely complex, and subject to a number of variables.

One thing that is clear, however, is that the domestic webmaster would still be responsible for the affixation of the custodian of records disclosure, since they are clearly placing the depictions in interstate commerce. The problem arises, of course, that they may receive incomplete documentation or no documentation at all from a foreign provider.

Secondly, depending on the type of content, there is the issue of how "close" the webmaster is to the production of the content. That is, in the case of custom ordered, exclusive content from a foreign source, the webmaster is more likely to be deemed a producer of the material and subject to the statute.

Third, separate and aside from a 2257 analysis, even if a webmaster's content source is not subject to any record keeping regulation, it is a terrible idea to display content for which there is no age verification procedure. In the case of foreign content, you may get little or nothing in the way of records. What if just one of those images contains an underage model? It is extraordinarily dangerous to use content in that instance, and yet another reason webmasters should only license content from a reputable source.

Interesting reading in this thread.

My first comment is that people with video content should be looking at DRM... it would seem to me that the nature of DRM will create compliance with certain parts of this whole thing automatically.

DRM won't help 2257 compliance... DRM is mainly about protecting from piracy.

If people are putting their video out on P2P using DRM, then there are many things that one has to understand about current and proposed 2257 statutes.. like having the proper documentation.

Whether with videos or images, if the prosecutors come knocking and asking for 2257 records, one needs to be able to comply.

Video content should be protected with DRM to keep people from stealing the content.

-brandon

The DRM and P2P notion brings out a good point, how does one track the URL for the new purposed of the regulations when the file is literally spread across thousands or millions of people's P2P servers?

What Ash hahahahaha is trying to do is look good for his voters. This is an ammendment to an existing law, a tightening up. It passes around August, the election is November 2nd.

So reckon Ashhahahahaha is going to be very active with these new powers around September to November 1st. He will want lots of reasons for people to go out and vote for him.

He's not likely to get our vote, he looking to shore up the right.

Go ask a lawyer what you should do.

Just had a client on ICQ, it seems they lost all their 2257 documents. Not the content just the documents????? They also do not know which sets on their site are from us, so the 2257 page listing the Custodians is pretty innefective.

So can I go to my records and check what they bought and send them the documents. While I applaud their actions to get compliant I have to wonder what happened with the documents.

I now have a few hours work to cover their arses, due to their negligence. They are good clients so what should I charge them for this service and what should I do with guys who have not bought for a year?

So what does this mean for a Canadian webmaster with hosting (and therefore servers) that are located in the U.S?

someone else said it, but it was in the middle of paragraphs, so it's worth mentioning on it's own...

banners have photos on them, and therefore would also need i.d. to be legal under this law.

This is an important issue, I'm glad Gary has brought this up.

Agree... the best thread ever... learn, learn and learn:thumbsup

This thread is heavy......

Going slightly off topic:

A video file that is sexualy explicit that is wrapped in DRM and distributed on P2P opens up a big liability front. Your video file may end up in a "hostile zone" in some West Virginia town like Extreme Associates case, and the DA there decides that your material is obscene and that it was imported into his district.

Websites have an advantage, but not exactly full protection, that there could be limitations and disclaimers as to where the content can be viewed, age verification ,etc.

With P2P, it's wide open and given the RIAA and MPAA focus on trying to shutdown P2P based on their belief that child p*rn is being used on P2P, it wouldn't be too far of stretch to think that prosecutors are watching the P2P scene.


Going back on topic:

Probably the best way to deal with video 2257 compliance is to include a URL to the 2257 info on the video.

So for every video clip, put in the URL with some kind of 2257 compliance statement at the beginning of your video clip, and this should keep you out of trouble.



-brandon

You need to comply with 2257.


-brandon

Here is a question , they passed this. They grab you because some pics from a promo pack swap you dont have 2257. The model in question is in her 30's and looks it. How are they going to get a conviction? They tell the jury we are protecting children and there is the pic of the 30 yr old behind them. I cant see it , I think all the teen sites are going to have to get militant about this.

Interesting scenario... while the premise behind 2257 and especially the new proposed changes is to "prevent children from being used in sexually explicit production", the real intent in my observation is to use 2257 to shutdown p*rn.

So when they pick on an easy target that doesn't have any 2257 statements or records, they won't need to show the jury that the model was an adult, they just show that the webmaster failed to comply with a federal statue, thus committed a felony.

It really is scary where this is all going....something that I have been hearing from attorneys on conference panels.... and now that the Attorney General has 2257 on his agenda, it's a tool to further the agenda of removing smut.



-brandon

I've just read through the entire proposed rules here: http://www.regulations.gov/freddocs/04-13792.htm

... and there is NO WAY the typical adult webmaster can easily keep the records in the manner in which they are going to require.

This isn't as simple as printing out the ID's and then filing them away in a folder. They want everyone to have actual computer databases containing the following...

- full model name
- maiden name
- nickname
- alias
- government issued ID
- URL's of every individual photo you've got online
- every "stage name" the model has ever used
etc...

It's crazy.

And they say nothing about secondary producers (paysite owners, affiliates) being able to keep censored out ID's where the home address isn't visable.

I have started a 2257 FAQ at:
http://www.2257lookup.com/2257ForWebmasters.html


Since there are alot of great questions being asked on various boards, I have pulled them all together on one page that i will continually update.


-brandon

Wrong.

DRM is the single best protection a video can have. DRM, by its nature, also falls right into natural compliance with the new rules.

Since DRM is customizable to so many levels, you, as the license server for the DRM, could decide to disallow IPs from any region -- West Virginia, Pittsburgh (where the Extreme case actually is), Los Angeles, you name it - you would simply deny the license acquisition based on the users IP address matching a database you wouldn't serve. If the license will not authenticate, then the user cannot view the video.

It doesn't get much more simple that that.

If you don't like Microsoft, use DIVX for your encoding.

By encoding a file into DRM format, it doesn't automatically add the 2257 information.

You have to type that information into a field that can then be embeded.

DRM does provide for a nice easy way of identifying the 2257 info, it still requires work to do it. (DRM is a great solution for protection against piracy).

For those that don't use DRM, you could include a 2257 statement at the beginning of the video.

Think DVD and VHS... those don't use DRM, but are affected by 2257 statue as well, and they display the record keeper information at the very beginning of each clip.




-brandon

At Lightspeed Cash we are very agressive with our 2257 information. Every set of photos is given and ID number, printed up, and stored with the proper model release form. Copies of the model's ID is also stored with this information.

If any law enforcement agency was to contact me about a certain photo, I would be able to identify the model, and provide copies of model release form "instantly".

Not true, once the new law goes into effect (if it does) then from that day forward you would have to be compliant.

I just got feedback from a webmaster who got a response from his attorney that having blackened out ID's won't cut it....

If the webmaster is required to be in possession of the full driver's license, then that's a serious privacy issue and a safety issue for the models.

I'll post up what responses I can get from legal folks about this.


-brandon

The problem is that the new 2257 regulations require the webmaster to have 2257 documentation.

So if the prosecutors knock on LS door, you guys are all set to answer their questions.

if the prosecutors knock on a website that has LS pictures and the webmaster doesn't have the 2257 docs, then they go to jail.

This was the interpreted understanding of current 2257, the new regulations make it more defined and add way to many additions that is impossible for full compliance.


Content producers and webmasters should be voicing their opinion within the 90 day public hearing time and send email to voice their thoughts.


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

Written comments may be submitted to: Andrew Oosterbaan,
Chief, Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, Criminal Division,
United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20530; Attn:
``Docket No. CRM 103.''
Comments may be submitted electronically to: [email protected]
or to http://www.regulations.gov by using the electronic comment form provided

on that site. Comments submitted electronically must include Docket No. CRM 103 in the subject box. You may also view an electronic version of this rule at the http://www.regulations.gov site.





-brandon



ps. you may want to send your opinions via web-based email so that your website address doesn't popup on their list of websites to check out.

If you had the records and could match them up a lawyer would crush this in court. No way in the world could they inforce and win on every single thumbnail on your site having to have an instant match.

Their is leased content, banners, promos, etc.. It's 100% impossible to stay up on it like that, even more so when you have 1000's of domains and peoples content.

As I said, a good lawyer would crush them in court with this.. Just because it's a law right now doesn't mean they can win the case.

"The record-keeping requirements apply to ``[w]hoever produces'' the
material in question. 18 U.S.C. 2257(a). The statute defines
``produces'' as ``to produce, manufacture, or publish any book,
magazine, periodical, film, video tape, computer generated image,
digital image, or picture, or other similar matter and includes the
duplication, reproduction, or reissuing of any such matter, but does
not include mere distribution or any other activity which does not
involve hiring, contracting for[,] managing, or otherwise arranging for
the participation of the performers depicted.'' 18 U.S.C. 2257(h)(3)."

This is pretty clear, if I purchase content, leased content, etc. I do not have to provide the 2257 information about each person within that content.

I'm not producing or publishing the content. I'm only distributing the content, which does not involve directly working for that company.

You are missing it then. See gkremen's first post that has the cliff notes version of the full document.

If you don't believe my interpretation, that's fine.. please show your attorney these new 2257 regulations and have him interpret it for you and then post back here so you can correct me.



-brandon


ps. I have already checked with my attorney.

I read the whole thing, it's pretty clear cut.. If you fall into the category of being the producer of the content you need to have some solid records and your shit together.

If you are a TGP webmaster you are not the producer or manufacture. You did not publish it in any form. And seeming you don't work for the company that did produce it you do not fall under duplication, reproduction, or reissuing of the content.. At this point you don't fall under this regulation and nothing below applies to you.