Perhaps you should read my reply to this cut and paste on the first board you pasted it on.

As I say, I realize that you have a vested interest in all this, with your new product. I've stated repeatedly that images do NOT have the same simple solutions as video content utilizing a DRM product.

However, from the standpoint of producing and distributing VIDEO content on the web, DRM is the most effective solution to these changes.

Do some research and then come tell me about the things DRM can actually do.

DRM may help some, in keeping them away from if they see who produced the content. It does not protect you from the regulation in anyway. It clearly states that you must have a hard physical or electronic copy of the actual depiction with the identification and age files if you produced the content. DRM doesn't do this.

Actually Section 75.2 does align anyone with a web page into the secondary producer category --

(2) A secondary producer is any person who produces, assembles,
manufactures, publishes, duplicates, reproduces, or reissues a book,
magazine, periodical, film, videotape, a computer-generated image,
digital image, or picture, or other matter intended for commercial
distribution that contains a visual depiction of actual sexually
explicit conduct, or who inserts on a computer site or service a
digital image of, or otherwise manages the content of a computer site
or service that contains a visual depiction of, actual sexually
explicit conduct, including any person who enters into a contract,
agreement, or conspiracy to do any of the foregoing.

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

By putting an image on your site, you are definitely reissuing the content and the inserting verbiage pretty much reiterates it.

Please explain to me the following since you seem to know more about DRM then me:

If a wembaster licenses video content from a video content producer who uses DRM, how does the use of DRM solve the problem of the webmaster (the secondary record keeper) of having model ID and model release info under the proposed 2257 regulations?


-brandon

No, sorry that isn't how it works.

If I write a book, you distribute the book, and a store sells the book, lets say I'm saying the book is true fact and it's not. The store doesn't get into trouble, the person that sold the book and distributed the book does.

That is what that paragraph is saying, you can't take one section of the regulation out of context you have to read the whole thing.

"A secondary producer is any person who produces, assembles, manufactures, publishes, duplicates, reproduces, or reissues a book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, a computer-generated image, digital image, or picture, or other matter intended for commercial distribution"

A TGP webmaster doesn't do any of the above.. This is talking about people that produce the content and people that resell, produce, duplicate, etc that content. Nowhere does it say display.

It's actually fairly simple.

And I'm going to cut and paste my answer from another board here so I don't have to type it again :)

Keep in mind, yet again -- this doesn't work for images, not unless you wanted to change your entire operation over to .asp, which is the only image DRM function Microsoft offers at this point. I don't know that DIVX or REAL etc have anything for images either.

After consulting with 3 DRM programmers as well as 3 attorneys, this will most likely satisfy the requirements of the new rules technically, for video only.

The easiest, and most effective way to do it and be able to keep it updated is to initiate an html call from a window popped through the DRM laws the first time a user -- defined by any number of unique identifiers -- views the content. The user then has the ability to click the 2257 link and see the information if they so desire. Rather than embedding the information in the encoding or the DRM, you host the 2257 information on a separate (segregated per the rules actually) server. When the license acquisition request is made, the DRM also knows exactly where that call originates, be it an IP in the case of P2P, or a url in the case of someone displaying the content on their site. These files are logged and should (keep in mind I'm not a lawyer but we've had 3 look at it so far) satisfy the cross indexing requirements. Thus, if an inspector came to your business, you could immediately produce the records they want, and by having the 2257 come in the process of an html call from a separate server, you can update the 2257 records any time you need to and they will be globally changed, you wouldnt have to go back and re-wrap, or God forbid, re-encode, the video in order to be current.

One could figure that if the government were looking at say, 5 sites, of equal size in revenue (or what they assumed to be equal), the ones that are the most comprehensive in their record keeping would be the last ones they would want to take on, especially if some of the targets were obviously using what they consider to be sloppy methods of record keeping

I'm most definitely with Brandon on this one, since the moment this came out the other day, one of the very well known net lawyers called stating it does work that way.

"who inserts on a computer site or service a
digital image of, or otherwise manages the content of a computer site
or service that contains a visual depiction of, actual sexually
explicit conduct, including any person who enters into a contract,
agreement, or conspiracy to do any of the foregoing."

If a TGP webmaster takes content and creates a page with it, then they become a secondary producer.

I'm sure the government has no clue what hosted galleries are, which would seem to me to be the exception to this rule, but I know this much -- I wouldn't want to be the one telling an inspector who came to my business that I had no records. Nor would I want to be the one footing the legal bill for the first case that comes out.

You are taking the word "publish" too literally. In the legal realm context, publish would mean putting a picture up on your website.
By allowing others to view the images, you are "distributing".


Answer these questions for yourself:

1) Do you show sexually explicit images (see 2256 definition) on your TGP?


2) Are there sexually explicit images physically located on your hard drive?



If you answered yes, then you do have 2257 issues.

You should really have your attorney weigh in on your specific situation given what has been proposed: http://www.regulations.gov/freddocs/04-13792.htm



-brandon

This would help for sure, but you can't display a person?s private information on that page. The hard or electronic record has do have DL, contract, etc, etc... This only helps direct them to the proper owner/distributor of the content and doesn't protect you from the regulation. This is a good way for paysites to help keep control of who owns the content though if anyone wants to know.

There's nothing that prevents you from having a dual layered data system on that server. The surfer would get the information as to the custodian of records, an inspector that came to your business could access all of the data from a secure connection inside your business.

The folks I am dealing with have always kept a separate computer in their office to handle 2257 requests, and adding a bit of online functionality to that database won't take more than a day or two :)

I understand all that you have written, but it still doesn't answer my question.

2257 requirements for secondary record keepers (webmasters) says they must have the model ID and model release info at their location.

The 2257 html page that pops open when the USER views a video is fine and is a great way to display the primary record keeper;s location, rather than embedding it into the video or the attributes of the video (sometimes people move and change locations).

What the process you have described does not cover, is the fact that the video content producer would need to give the webmaster the model info, which would NEVER be displayed on any HTML page.

These records are to be held in the event that a prosecutor has requested the information.

DRM may help to LABEL the primary record keeper;s address, which is the same displaying it on the actual video, but it does not solve the compliancy issue for the webmaster of having the actual records.


The new 2257 regulations have made significant changes to the way things used to be done.

Is the explanation that you received from the 3 attorney firms taking into account the new 2257 regulation changes?



-brandon

Brandon wrote:


the regulations say you must have an identification document and if that identification document (such as a birth certificate) doesn't have a picture ID then you must have a "picture identification card"


as proposed
75.1[b] "Picture identification card means a document issued by the United States government or a political subdivision thereof, or a United State territory that bears the photograph and the name of the individual identified, and provides sufficient specific information that it can be accessed from the issuing authority, edge a passport issued by the United States or a foreign country, driver's license issued by a State or the District of Columbia, or identification card issued by a State or District of Columbia."

I'm not a lawyer but upon my reading of that the picture identification card must meet 3 criteria
1) have a recent and recognizable picture
2) contain the name of the individual identified and
3) provide sufficient specific information that it can be accessed from the issuing authority

blacking out the address would not affect any of the required features of the document.

I'm out for some family time, but I'll have a look at this thread later.

Discussion is good on this, since there are many separate sides to the problem, and what works for one instance won't necessarily work for another.

I'm not sure how many of you recall a couple of years ago when some site owners were accused of using underage models by Katherine Graham when she was running for governor of Michigan -- but at the end of the day even if none of them were guilty, she got a ton of publicity for her campaign over it and they had to spend to defend themselves, right or wrong.

The date on this order is June 14th, and it was filed on June 24th. This means that by October 24th, some form of this can be signed into the system and that with a week or so to go before the elections, some people can use this to generate publicity in that same way.

I'll put it this way and then I'm off to the beach. It's entirely possible for video to be handled this way and satisfy the requirements of the new rules.

If the producer, either secondary or primary, who has the actual documents, uses this system, it would be able to satisfy the requirements. If you don't have the documents, then you really can't protect yourself in any way, shape or form, now can you?

We have a common middle ground now in our discussion...

DRM does provide a good way to display to the surfer the custodian of records (primary record keeper), which satisfies the content producer's responsibilties.

Having records of the model releases on site as a webmaster, would go towards satisfying their secondary record keeper responsibilities.



-brandon

You assume that it means to display, if distributing ment display then it would say that.

In the magazine world, vhs/dvd's, etc.. Distributor isn?t the store the sells them, it's the person that sold it to the store. The store is the merchant.

-- If person (1) shoots the content he needs 2257 info

-- (person 2) If they sell/give the content to a person that
cleans/duplicates the content he needs 2257 info if it's a different business.
-- (person 3) If that person sells/gives it to a distributor that will sell the vids/pics then he needs 2257 info.

-- If the PAYSITE owner which purchased the content from (person 3) does not sell it to another company/person and only displays it and sells it as a merchant then he does not need 2257 information on each model. Even though it would be smart of him to have it.

-- If a webmaster (non paysite owner) gets the content from from the PAYSITE owner he does not need 2257 info on each model. Even though it would be smart of him to display where he got the content from.

I'm not looking to deep into who a distributor is, I'm talking about what the legal term used for distributor is. A distributor is not a merchant.

The new regulations say a secondary producer is one who "manages the content of a computer sit or service" and that is defines as "means to make editorial or managerial decisions concerning the content of a computer site or service"

Are you making editorial decisions about what content goes on a website? Then you are a secondary producer and YOU must keep copies of the IDs and cross reference everything.

in my laymen understanding and reading of the definitions, I agree with you.

I am sure i will find varying degrees of answers from attorneys on this very issue, since it's still a gray area...

I think that if you are showing intent to comply with the law and have been given ID that has been blacked out, then until the statue is clearly defined in regards as to what is proper identification, this measure atleast offers some defense for webmasters and content producers.

I know of several content producers who already do this.

-brandon

Then you are considered a "secondary producer," who must keep exact copies of all model info. Read it again.

I just wanted to clarify since additional posts were made while I was editing my last post. I agree that a TGP operator should be classified as a distributor since they don't make any editorial decisions about the content (assuming they really DON'T make any editorial decisions about the content).

What we interpret words to mean is very different in the legal realm.

I ran into the word "reproduce" in my agreement with content producers. Some content producers and myself saw that word, and took it to mean that i would be making copies of the images.

My attorney said that if I receive images from a content producer (on CD/DVD/HD) and copy to another location (ie. to my HD), then I am REPRODUCing the images.

Whereas the common thinking of reproduction is like photocopying a document so you have 2 sets.

Same is true with words like distribute, etc... they have meaning in context to copyright law, but our common context is different.



-brandon

(2) A secondary producer is any person who produces, assembles, manufactures, publishes, duplicates, reproduces, or reissues a book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, a computer-generated image, digital image, or picture, or other matter intended for commercial distribution that contains a visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct, or who inserts on a computer site or service a digital image of, or otherwise manages the content of a computer site or service that contains a visual depiction of, actual sexually explicit conduct, including any person who enters into a contract, agreement, or conspiracy to do any of the foregoing.

This is really the only dangerious paragraph for paysite owners / free site owners. It is only because it's not 100% clear. Every lawyer is going to read it a little differently.

After reading the whole regulation, and other references of secondary producer it would still stand that a paysite owner is a merchant but should still have 2257 information. A free site owner that purchases content should as well but but if they get content from a paysite they should link to that persons 2257 information.

As I said you can't read this one paragraph at a time.

The key word in the above paragraph is "commercial distribution". That is business to business purchase of a product/content.

You've got TGP's who automatically display all submitted galleries. They are truly not making any editorial decisions.

Then you've got TGP's who do make editorial decisions (gallery reviewing) based on what their surfers will like to see. So yes, most TGP's are in fact making editorial decisions.

If this is in fact the case, then the days of submitting galleries are over in just 4 months.

Hopefully they'll update the document so it's more clear before submitting it to congress. Clearly, whoever wrote all this for the government does not know how the online adult industry works.

I agree with Brandon, we should be giving them our input (input they can actually use).

This is actually where we need a governing group of individuals who represent the online adult industry and could just take these concerns to the DOJ for us. But until then......


Public comment info -


-Online form----------------
http://www.regulations.gov

Advanced search, then fill in CFR: 28 PART: 75

Direct link to that result:

http://comments.regulations.gov/EXTE...TOKEN=36626900


-email---------------------
[email protected]
Subject: "Docket No. CRM 103"


-Snail Mail----------------
Andrew Oosterbaan
Chief, Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section
Criminal Division
United States Department of Justice
Washington, DC 20530
Attn: Docket No. CRM 103


-Fax-----------------------
202-514-1793
Include "Docket No. CRM 103" on the cover sheet

I just wanted to copy and paste something that I read on Greenguy's Board by xxxlaw who is JD Obenberger an :


"To clear up serious misunderstanding:

1. It is important to understand that this proposal DOES NOT go to Congress. Congress gave authority to DOJ to promulgate regulations to impliment Section 2257 at Section (g) of the Act.

2. When the Attorney General promulgates it, 60 days from publication, it is a "real" law. Your opportunity to challenge it on any grounds is NOW. Full email address of the person to whom to address comments is in the proposal, found on xxxlaw.net.

3. You cannot assume that anyone will file suit to protect your interests nor that a court will grant an injunction to stay its enforcement.

4. It is downright wrong to believe that the regulations will have no effect when the present incumbants leave office. The existing regs were promulaged by J. Reno in the Clinton Administration and remain on the books until or unless repealed or amended."

End quote.

I am not good with legal talk, I think this means that it WON'T go to congress and will go in effect in 60 days?

thanks for the info, to be honest I should read more about this..

samuel

JD rocks....

August 24th is the last day of the public inquiry, then after that, 30 more days, and then it goes into law.

Great clarification by JD (thanks for posting it here phogirl)... it confirmed what I had heard.

-brandon

Distributor = the man that owns the quickie mart who is selling the magazines in entireity.

Publisher= the person who makes the magazine, or puts the images on the internet in a published fashin ie: you make an adult site, that "sites" front page is like a magazines front page, you are distributing the "site"
But when they open the website ie: join, then you ARE without a doubt 100% no if ands buts about it, the publisher, as you have now published said images onto the internet.

It has always been worded that way, and that is why every single big porn company would NEVER buy content from anyone without having un doctored images ie: drivers license and so on.

That means if you sell plugins you are considered a secondary producer and better have your information .

Spoke to my lawyer today he was saying those who focus on teen niche will be under a bigger spot light. It's hard to win a 2257 case with a pic of a older looking women but with some teen pic where the girl looks she could be younger will be a prime target. He said remember the goal is not just to arrest people its to win convictions. So they will focus where they think they have the best shot.

Yawn.

Is anyone here a members of the ACLU? Wouldnt it somehow be againzt the law to give out peoples real names...and an address or anything that could give their information to just anyone?

Again, the government has no idea how things work in this industry in terms of content.

Under these new rules a psycho stalker could decide he wants to know who a certain model really is. Then 10 seconds later he's the member of that sites affiliate program, has access to free content for promotion and also model ID's.

Very, very bad stuff. This puts so many women in great danger.

you need picture ID from the US government? so what do you do with all the foreign people releases then? they have picture ID and everything, but not from the US.

You guys do realize this means no more ******* right?

Maybe it was a freudian slip and the US plans for everyone (in the world) to have US identification in the near future.