How will affiliate programs deal with the new 2257 regulations? - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

SomeCreep · 07-13-2004, 02:03 AM

50 new 2257 regulations

johnbosh · 07-13-2004, 02:03 AM

it sucks men

Paul Markham · 07-13-2004, 03:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by $5 submissions
Can anyone post to the official link for the 2257 regulations revision?

If you look down the page for this "Updated July 12, 2004. "

You will see the old law and the changes to it.

I'm split on this one. We needed to have a big over haul of 2257 in reletion to the Internet, but this might be going to far.

How many of you who have psted here have gone to the 2257 site and registered a comment on the changes to the law? You can do it here http://www.regulations.gov/freddocs/04-13792.htm and there are places which tell you how to comment on the alterations.

But be a bit more constructive than "It will put me out of business" Tell them about the effects on privacy, the advantage it will give to European companies, they think this will have an effect of less than $100m well maybe they are wrong.

Paul Markham · 07-13-2004, 03:35 AM

One of the ways around it will be to make the images that are being handed out soft core, so not falling into the needs to have 2257 info with avery affiliate.

But as I've read the law if you post up porn you need to have the 2257 documents and you need to check them.

So long as you're in the US, us in the free world can carry on much as we please.

jayeff · 07-13-2004, 04:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by DennisK
I think if you just make a page with all the content providers you bought from you should be safe. If they keep all the records for you it should be covered.
As far as I understand you only have to own the legal documents if you are dealing directly with the models. As a client from a content provider you are not dealing with the models so the content provider is responsible.

You really need to read the documents linked to elsewhere in this thread. Your understanding of the new requirements is way off: if YOU show visual depictions of sexually explicit material then YOU have to keep the records.

Logically, teen sites should be at the greatest risk. But although the new regulations are supposedly being put in place to protect minors, they are only related directly to record-keeping requirements. That opens up the possibility of them being used by anyone who wants to generate some publicity for themselves and picking almost anyone as a target.

If we deal with this the way we have Visa and Acacia, 65% will sit on their hands and hope it all goes away. 20% won't read the regs, but they will do what they think the regs require. 10% will find "loopholes" to exploit (even if they wouldn't fool a child of six and involve as much work as simply going along with the regs). 4% will brag about what they will do to anyone who tries to come after them. Maybe 1% will actually do what is required, not only protecting themselves, but if they had not been in such a tiny minority, possibly slowing or stopping the next trainload of crap coming down the tracks towards us.

On the blacking out thing, I see the potential danger to the models, but I can't believe the authorities will accept files/document-copies that are easily faked AND incomplete. Since the whole point of these changes has been to expand the number of people obliged to keep records, it doesn't seem likely we shall be able to say "if you want the complete records contact Joe Blow in fill-in-the-distant-country-here".

We are all busy interpreting these rules (in our favor) and arguing about whether or not they will be enforced. But given the penalties involved, does it really make sense to take the chance?

sexcam · 07-13-2004, 04:59 AM

Quote:

A computer site or service or Web address containing a
computer-generated image, digital image, or picture, shall contain the required statement on its homepage or principal URL.

That's in this page:
http://www.regulations.gov/freddocs/04-13792.htm

DennisK · 07-13-2004, 05:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by jayeff
You really need to read the documents linked to elsewhere in this thread. Your understanding of the new requirements is way off: if YOU show visual depictions of sexually explicit material then YOU have to keep the records.

Logically, teen sites should be at the greatest risk. But although the new regulations are supposedly being put in place to protect minors, they are only related directly to record-keeping requirements. That opens up the possibility of them being used by anyone who wants to generate some publicity for themselves and picking almost anyone as a target.

If we deal with this the way we have Visa and Acacia, 65% will sit on their hands and hope it all goes away. 20% won't read the regs, but they will do what they think the regs require. 10% will find "loopholes" to exploit (even if they wouldn't fool a child of six and involve as much work as simply going along with the regs). 4% will brag about what they will do to anyone who tries to come after them. Maybe 1% will actually do what is required, not only protecting themselves, but if they had not been in such a tiny minority, possibly slowing or stopping the next trainload of crap coming down the tracks towards us.

On the blacking out thing, I see the potential danger to the models, but I can't believe the authorities will accept files/document-copies that are easily faked AND incomplete. Since the whole point of these changes has been to expand the number of people obliged to keep records, it doesn't seem likely we shall be able to say "if you want the complete records contact Joe Blow in fill-in-the-distant-country-here".

We are all busy interpreting these rules (in our favor) and arguing about whether or not they will be enforced. But given the penalties involved, does it really make sense to take the chance?

Thanks for your comments
What I posted was an opinion I read on antoher board. I was not sure if it was the right opinion and that's why I posted it over here. Your comments made a lot of sense

jayeff · 07-13-2004, 05:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by DennisK
What I posted was an opinion I read on antoher board. I was not sure if it was the right opinion and that's why I posted it over here.

NP. I wasn't taking a poke at you. The fact is that I live in one of the states which used to be on the banned list at ZMaster and UrentDVDs (for example) - https://www.urentdvds.com/zipcodes.html - won't ship to today. So when regs like this come along with a 5-year penalty attached, I can't afford to be complacent about them.

One of the things I haven't been able to find in the new rules is who is actually responsible for checking the validity of the records. That bothers me because I can't believe that if the worst comes to the worst, waving a photocopy I got from a post office box 5 thousand miles away is actually going to get me off the hook.

At least if I buy from someone who has a bricks-and-mortar address in the US, I might have some company during the trial

freeadultcontent · 07-13-2004, 11:22 AM

New day bump cause its important. Sorry it is biz related.

bcooter · 07-13-2004, 12:41 PM

This would be an interesting case if it ever went to court. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me this would be a 4th ammendment issue of unreasonable searches. When professional performers have to put themselves at risk by giving their name and home address right along side every picture of themself, for the means of government searches, that is unreasonable. Maybe it will take a model getting stalked and killed for the "department" to realize this.

But, didn't we really bring it upon ourselves by promoting sites like Little April? Sure, she may be 18, but it seems the site was sitting there taunting the government. HAHA, this girl is little, and she looks 15. I know we have heard all the controversy when the site came out, but I still refuse to promote it. What is the point of promoting a girl that looks 15 instead of helping to fight against CP by not promoting things that even resemble it.

I have a feeling, if this goes through, people promoting her site will see the first lawsuits.

jayeff · 07-13-2004, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bcooter
professional performers have to put themselves at risk by giving their name and home address right along side every picture of themself

Some wierd stuff comes out on these threads in place of facts: there is absolutely nothing in the new regulations which would require that information to be posted on a website.

The webmaster has to keep it however, and since anything is possible, I suppose there is a risk that someone might pose as a webmaster and buy content to get model info.

The Constitutional issues some have tried to raise are surely distractions because your address is routinely required in all kinds of situations. I suppose someone could claim it is proprietary information (protecting the exclusivity of a model from their competition), but I'm not planning on finding myself in the middle of someone else's test case

07-13-2004, 10:14 PM

Great replies all. Right now it's just a game of hurry up and wait. I do have an issue with passing out ID's as well. Privacy laws are contradicting possible regulations and it's not a good thing. I've seen some great responses and if they blacking out and numbering system is sufficient, then this will be the way to go!

07-13-2004, 02:03 AM	#51
SomeCreep :glugglug Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Where the Wild Things Are Posts: 26,118	50 new 2257 regulations __________________ Webair Hosting I use and recommend Webair for hosting.

07-13-2004, 03:35 AM	#54
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	One of the ways around it will be to make the images that are being handed out soft core, so not falling into the needs to have 2257 info with avery affiliate. But as I've read the law if you post up porn you need to have the 2257 documents and you need to check them. So long as you're in the US, us in the free world can carry on much as we please. __________________ Blowout deal. 880 videos, 2,400 image sets, plus many RAW videos. $500. PM me for a deal. Skype Paulmarkham70

07-13-2004, 11:22 AM	#59
freeadultcontent Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: "evitcepsrep ruoy egnahc" Posts: 9,976	New day bump cause its important. Sorry it is biz related. __________________ Exclusive Ethnic & Microniche Sites

07-13-2004, 12:41 PM	#60
bcooter Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Detroit Posts: 797	This would be an interesting case if it ever went to court. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me this would be a 4th ammendment issue of unreasonable searches. When professional performers have to put themselves at risk by giving their name and home address right along side every picture of themself, for the means of government searches, that is unreasonable. Maybe it will take a model getting stalked and killed for the "department" to realize this. But, didn't we really bring it upon ourselves by promoting sites like Little April? Sure, she may be 18, but it seems the site was sitting there taunting the government. HAHA, this girl is little, and she looks 15. I know we have heard all the controversy when the site came out, but I still refuse to promote it. What is the point of promoting a girl that looks 15 instead of helping to fight against CP by not promoting things that even resemble it. I have a feeling, if this goes through, people promoting her site will see the first lawsuits. __________________ Where I make All My Non-Adult Money

07-13-2004, 02:03 AM	#52
johnbosh Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: The Netherlands, Rotterdam Posts: 8,965	it sucks men

07-13-2004, 10:14 PM	#62
shermo Guest Posts: n/a	Great replies all. Right now it's just a game of hurry up and wait. I do have an issue with passing out ID's as well. Privacy laws are contradicting possible regulations and it's not a good thing. I've seen some great responses and if they blacking out and numbering system is sufficient, then this will be the way to go!