NoHassleSteve

http://www.regulations.gov/freddocs/04-13792.htm

" Pursuant to the RFA, the Department encourages all affected
commercial entities to provide specific estimates, wherever possible,
of the economic costs that this rule will impose on them and the
benefits that it will bring to them and to the public. The Department
asks affected small businesses to estimate what these regulations will
cost as a percentage of their total revenues in order to enable the
Department to ensure that small businesses are not unduly burdened."

Might be good to fill their files with 1000 letters detailing the effect.


Truly the most reasonable approach is to have the photographers and content providers keep the model records... and have the webmasters keep the URL lists... And then each have the contact info for the other. That way, the entity with the most first-hand involvement with each facet has the records.

Oh.. and for those proposing to just rent a closet for an office:

"Sec. 75.4 Location of records.

Any producer required by this part to maintain records shall make
such records available at the producer's place of business."

"Sec. 75.5 Inspection of records.

(a) Authority to inspect. Investigators designated by the Attorney
General (hereinafter ``investigators'') are authorized to enter without
delay and at reasonable times (as defined in subsection (c)(1)) any
establishment of a producer where records under Sec. 75.2 are
maintained to inspect, within reasonable limits and in a reasonable
manner, for the purpose of determining compliance with the record-
keeping requirements of 18 U.S.C. 2257.
(b) Advance notice of inspections. Advance notice of record
inspections shall not be given.
(c) Conduct of inspections.
(1) Inspections shall take place during normal business hours and
at such places as specified in Sec. 75.4. For the purpose of this
part, ``normal business hours'' are from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m., local time,
and any other time during which the producer is actually conducting
business relating to producing depiction of actual sexually explicit
conduct."


So... basically.. you need to be with the records from 8 AM to 6 PM (all 7 days a week??) And they can just show up unannounced. Which, frankly..they can easily justify because that's the only way you "catch" the guilty. Which we are all presumed to be. e.g. That model is under 18 until YOU prove she isn't.

__________________
Tai Lynn - Asian model with 50% revshare
Teen Dolls with Alyssa Doll -- 60% payouts Spunkbucks PPS and Revshare
NS Cash -- sites with pornstars and fresh faces -- 60% payouts

GatorB

They can't and Ashhahahahaha and Bush know this. These new rules are strictly for putting adult webmaster out of busniess. PERIOD. Ashhahahahaha's worst nightmare is all adult webmasters actually complying with the law. Bush and Ashcrift think the net should be geared toward the 7 year old mind. They also think the US owns the internet. As far as I'm concerned the internet is no different between being out interantional waters. Laws of indivdual countries don't apply.

Tom_PMs

And "content" includes banners from sponsors that we host ourselves, correct? So I might need to get 2257 and model info for 5 year old hardcore banners?

Would swapping anything "hardcore" to softcore avoid all this? What a headache..

__________________

You've read it, you can't unread it.

GatorB

Well considering Ashhahahahaha had a statue outside his office covered up because it showed a bare breast you be the judge.

scoreman

BVF: 2257 is a record keeping law, and does not have language in the actual law that makes any allowances for models who are clearly 18+. Despite the committee notes listing the reason behind the law being age verification and protection of minors, the actual law itself does not differentiate between a model who clearly looks 18+ (like MILF) from a 18 year old model made to look like she is 14. The bottom line here is the law says if you choose to put naked pictures on the web, you will need model ids.

I also disagree with those who believe that softcore pics and video will be exempt. Sexually explicit imo will be naked pics and penetration will not be a qualifying factor. Ask any mom and dad across the nation if they want their 6 yr old looking at a webpage of a naked girl and they will likely say no, and it will be because to them its sexually explicit.

Here is a plan folks that may work:

The SCORE Group plans to deliver to our affiliates the following:
a) A spreadsheet with all of our models, cross referenced with our FHGs, POTD, banners, buttons, etc. Many of our webmasters use images beyond what is provided through our free content sections of our program, and for that reason we plan to provide a spreadsheet with our entire model database. No easy feat, but its work that has to be done if this law passes as currently written.
b) Included with the spreadsheet will be a folder containing the ids. Our model directory will be cross referenced to where in the folder you can find which particular id.
c) The ids are kept in a two folders. In folder one all of the ids have only the models face and birthdate. The rest is blacked out. These ids will be freely viewable and will provide the webmasters reassurances that the ids are in fact in existence. In folder two is all of the ids unedited, only these ids sit inside of a password protected/encrypted folder.

The webmasters are not provided with the password to view the unedited images. In our opinion that information is only needed in the event of an inspection. In the event the feds come knocking, the package we deliver to our affiliates will contain contact information via multiple phone numbers. When the feds come knocking here is the scenario I see:
a) First the feds have to come on a business day (monday-Friday only 9-6pm I believe). So its not like the feds will come on a Sunday morning and the webmasters will not be able to reach us. I plan to provide cell numbers to quite a few parties here at The SCORE Group (myself being the top most number) so I find it hard to believe we will not be reachable.
b) The webmaster calls and tells me they have Federal Marshalls/FBI agents at their door. I plan to ask to speak with them. Get them on the phone, identify myself (it will probaly help that I am a bar licensed attorney in Florida for this planned discussion I will have with Federal agents). I plan to ask them for their names, badge numbers and for a copy of the search warrant or authorizing documents for the inspection faxed to my office for review. Once I know that its a legitimate search, I will without delay provide the password and the webmaster unzips the untouched ids.

I believe this plan will work for a number of reasons. The law, as written, does not require that the documents be in a non encrypted format. The reading of the law also provides a framework for how the searches will take place. The searches are suppose to be done in a manner that is not disruptive of the workplace and the protocol for the search is that after the search is conducted the Federal agents are suppose to provide to the record keeper a list of the deficiencies in their records. Notice it does not say that upon a missing record not being in possession you immediately go to jail. I believe in a record search, it will be a time consuming thorough process and in my plan the delay will be less than 15-30 minutes tops. The webmaster will be printing the untouched documents out before the Federal agents even probably get through page one of the list of models they would like to see ids on from the master list.

My plan here addresses our two primary concerns, model privacy and protection of confidential proprietary information. Just as Lightspeed does not want to give out Ms Stones' id neither do we want to divulge the names and addresses of our top models. I am also concerned about the liability we would face if one of our models was stalked or worse killed from an id disclosure we provided to an affiliate.

What my plan does not address unfortunately is the colossal mountain of work this plan will take for just us, let alone the affiliates. I feel very badly for the affiliates as I believe the burden of the lionshare of the work this law creates for the adult industry will be borne by the free site marketeers who have thousand and thousand of webpages they have created, many of which they have long lost memory of where exactly they are now.

__________________

Kingfish

I totally disagree with this 2257 spells out exactly what sexually explicit content is. Mommy and daddy don?t get to decide what the definition of sexually explicit is. It is defined for them in 2257. As I stated above the only thing to watch for are depictions that could reasonably be mistaken for sexually explicit. I gave the example of a girl with a hand over part of her puss because the viewer of such a depection could reasonably infer that she was masturbating instead of covering up. One thing I will say is that I hate to hear webmasters use the term softcore interchangeably with the term non-sexually explicit. Let me make it clear 2257 provides a specific definition of what is sexually explicit. It is not good enough to follow your seat of the pants definition of softcore. For example a softcore photo of a couple having intercourse, but not showing the actual penetration still falls under 2257. Furthermore if you take a sexually explicit image and put a star over or simply blur out the penetration you still fall under 2257 because it is still obvious what is occurring.

FightThisPatent

You guys are doing it right and being very proactive in not only with your 2257 compliance, but helping your webmasters with their 2257 compliance when they puchase from you.


I have similar ideas as you about encrypting the unblackened ID and releases for 2257lookup.

The problem with encrypting with a password, is that to do it right, you would have to have a separate password for each file, rather than a master password.

If a webmaster does get called upon and you release the password to them, then every file of yours is open for viewing. The webmaster could post the password somewhere, tell a few friends, and all of a sudden, many people are viewing the private contact information of the models.

If you encrypt each file separately, then that would resolve the problem.

I am looking at using DRM to encrypt the images such that if there was a request to view records, that the DRM license server would be contacted (upon some kind of verification or documentation of the request), and a limited/timed license is granted to view the specific file.

I am working with some technology and legal partners on this angle.

2257lookup service is free for content producers to participate in, and will include this DRM solution where i give you the DRM files to pass onto your webmasters.

The webmasters are the ones who would be paying for the 2257lookup service, and would be a reasonable fee (i am thinking $100/year per domain that includes scanning of new images each quarter and receiving a cross-index report that matches all found images with image set, model, and content producer).

If you are a content producer that licenses images to webmasters, check out 2257lookup.com to participate. If you shoot exclusive content, you can also participate.

Here are the current participating content producers who support my efforts with 2257lookup:

Matrix Content, Falcon Foto, Paul Markham, Focus Adult, Ounique, Max Pixels, Medium Pimpin, Zmaster, Titan Media


-brandon
http://www.2257lookup.com

__________________

http://www.t3report.com (where's the traffic?) v5.0 is out! |
http://www.FightThePatent.com | ICQ 52741957

gazool

word....

__________________
High Converting CCBILL Programs
Amateur/CFNM -> http://www.boozedwomen.com/tour/
Best Selling Granny Site -> http://www.excitedwives.com/tour/


If I had a hammer....

BVF

Then if you're talking to Ellie, next time quote ELLIE and not me. Otherwise, I would be safe to assume that you're actually talking to me.

__________________

Black Pussy
Click On Mr Cosby..CCbill, 60/40, 136 FHG's....The Cos Loves Black Ghetto Pussy!!

GatorB

This is all bullshit! A porno shop doesn't have to have 2257 info on the movie they rent or sell. Someone please explain the difference? NONE. If Bush gets re-elected it will only get worse and I'll seriously have to consider getting out of this biz. Funny how republicans are SUPPOSED to be for LESS government and LESS regulation and are supposedly PRO-business. Anyone see the hypocrisy here?

Elli

That is an EXCELLENT plan, imo. It really sounds like it could work, and that the feds wouldn't have much to complain about. They might whine about not having ACCESS to the files right away, but they are still being kept on site, so they meet that requirement. Good thinking!!

__________________
email: [email protected]

Probono

That was the Republican party of 1964, Barry Goldwater. This new age Republican party is for defecit spending (as long as the money goes to the rich), bigger government, peaking into your bedroom to be sure you aren't having anal sex and controlling what you can read by using the patriot act to check your reading lists.

tony286

Thats a great plan. I was thinking they just dont knock on your door. Saying let me see your records because if they havent looked at your site. How would they know if what you are showing them jives with your sites? Will a certain pic they see throw a inspection because just looking at your records they wouldnt know what you had and didnt have.

tony286

You dont have to be there is no law, that says you have to be in your office 8 -6pm. It says the records have to be avaible for inspection, if you go to lunch the records are avaible you are just not there. I am also talking a office to work out of not just storage. When they come in for inspection of records they are also fishing. Office gives them alot less to fish for. In every real business there is a cost of doing business, with the new clampdown a cost of doing business in adult may become a office. Costs are good it thins the herd, free makes it too easy.

Honeyslut

When did American become so communist ?

Executive orders are so "1984" big brother .

__________________
http://nakedlunchnews.comWhat's up ? Naked Lunch News !

jayeff

I am extremely dubious about this approach:

1. "all such records shall be organized alphabetically, or numerically where appropriate, by the legal name of the performer (by last or family name, then first or given name), and shall be indexed or cross-referenced to each alias" ...how will this index and cross-referencing be possible if you only show the model face and birthdate?

2. "Each record shall be maintained for seven years from the date of creation or last amendment or addition. If the producer ceases to carry on the business, the records shall be maintained for five years thereafter." ...so the sponsor (in this context) goes out of business and can no longer be contacted with the ease you have described.

There is a possible 5-year prison sentence and a hefty fine hanging on these rules. With due respect even to a sponsor such as yourselves, you are asking for an enormous amount of trust on the part of the affiliate. NOT in terms of you possibly having photographed minors, but as you point out, this is a record keeping issue.

And if I would be concerned - if there were a knock on the door - that someone like you might be unavailable (for the password) or that errors might then be found, I can't think of more than a half a dozen other sponsors I would trust even that far.

jojojo

So what if I have a sponsor fpa with some chick on it - do I need to have 2257 for it?

Also for example what about promoting something like deluxepass.com - where you link to the 2257 from your tour like this:

http://usc2257.deluxepass.com/index....0000&studio=33

is simply linking to this sufficient?

And when you make galleries do you need to have this 2257 link on your galleries too?

would you need to have a list of all your gallery urls in paper format?

please advise...

__________________
Learn SEO - make $$ residually - icq me 333485092

GatorB

Originally posted by jojojo
So what if I have a sponsor fpa with some chick on it - do I need to have 2257 for it?

If she's naked or having sex YES.

Also for example what about promoting something like deluxepass.com - where you link to the 2257 from your tour like this:

http://usc2257.deluxepass.com/index....0000&studio=33

is simply linking to this sufficient?

From what I can tell YOU have to have PHSYICAL copies yourself.

And when you make galleries do you need to have this 2257 link on your galleries too?

YES. As well as a physical copies.

would you need to have a list of all your gallery urls in paper format?

Not sure but you have to have a list EVERY url of EVERY pic, banner etc you have somewhere.

GatorB

Probono

Bingo. Add selective enforcement because they cannot possibly visit every adult webmaster, model, producer etc; time and budget won't allow. It will be interesting if they use the law as intended and target teen based products where the models may be underage or just use it wholesale to target anyone they wish.

This is the tool that allows them to ignore first amendment issues. Now they can indimidate under the cloak of protecting underage people; somehting no one will argue is a good idea.

You would think they have better things to do with valuable resources while "we are at war"

gin

you sure? Would seem almost to easy if that was true... I thought even the old 2257 law stated some one has to be at the location where you list the 2257 address from normal business hours monday-friday

scoreman

Thanks for the input on our proposed plan.

Brandon, the multiple password comment was very good and something that I had not considered.

Jayeff, I believe the spreadsheet can be compiled in a way that details all content we provide to our affiliates and the existing content on our websites. The issue I know that will be problematic is new content, as we post nearly every day on many of our sites. The contact issue will likely not be a problem. Giving out three or four layers of cell phone contact numbers, I dont think this will be an issue.

Kingfish, if the feds have defined sexually explicit narrowly, then it may at least provide the adult industy with a clear idea of which content to be concerned with. There is nothing worse than the feds enacting laws that not only authorize criminal sanctions, but are also a bit nebulous as to what the conduct is that is illegal.

My plan has not been implemented and we all know that ideas are easy, implementation is real bitch. In the coming month or so we will be looking at this plan, and attempting to refine til we have something in place that address our concerns in releasing ids to secondary producers.

__________________

FightThisPatent

scoreman, hit me up on ICQ: 52741957


I have been focused on 2257 regulations in regards to webmasters using 2257lookup.com as a possible solution.

For content producers, let me highlight some key points in the current 2257 statue as well as what is proposed in new 2257 regulations:

In the current 2257 statute:

As a primary record keeper, you must keep a cross-index reference of your models by the production, the production date, the model real name, stage name, aliases, professional names, etc.

Having a photo iD and model release is not good enough. You need to be able to cross reference in every possible way.

Here are some sample questions to see if you can answer a hypothetical inquiry by DOJ:

DOJ: We have found that the model by the name of Girly Girl on the DVD called "Girly Gonzo" might be underaged. Show us her model ID and model release to prove she is over 18.


DOJ: This image has 4 girls and 1 guy in it. Show us all the records of the models in this photo (you would then need to figure out what set that photo came from to be able to then look into your records).


DOJ: We have determined that a model by the stage name of MeSoHorny is underage and we know you used her in some productions. Show us the records of all instances of a model by the name of MeSoHorny.



While the cross-indexing could be done in spreadsheet form, the number of production titles and models could grow beyond the ability of a spreadsheet to do the queries, and would really require a database to be able to do all the mapping.



Proposed new 2257 regulations:

I need to go back and focus on the ones specific to Primary Record Keepers, but the one that stood out the most was that Primary Record Keepers must keep track of every image on the web that is theirs by having a URL list to each individual image.

This is incredibly burdensome, but i think i can understand the reason.

Should they find a model that is indeed under 18, they want to be able to track down every instance of that image and have it removed.. or actually, to probably prosecute the webmaster for having that image.


Magazine stands don't have this kind of requirements nor responsibiility, but yet, the new 2257 regulations specifically state URL.


2257lookup service does provide a solution to content producers.. that as webmasters are signing up to be scanned for assistance in their 2257 compliance... that images that tie back to specific content producers could be provided so that have some kind of list.

Nothing is perfect, whether not every content producer is in my system or that every webmaster uses it.

The intent is to show an intent to comply with the law, rather than a careless disregard and ignorance of the law.

Consultation with an attorney is very important to understand your specific needs and requirements for 2257 compliance.

There will be many articles by attorneys and other interested parties like myself to help educate and inform people of the issues and on my part, to seek practical solutions that are more than just me plugging my own service.



-brandon

__________________

http://www.t3report.com (where's the traffic?) v5.0 is out! |
http://www.FightThePatent.com | ICQ 52741957

r3ap3r

How to you think this will affect Canadian TGP Websites on Canadian Servers? Would we have to collect 2257 info from US TGP Submitters?

tony286

THe question I am curious about the feds come in . How patient will the feds be while making phone calls or bring up brandons site up? Will they say the records are supposed to be here and ready they are not ready we are arresting you. I am assuming the goal will be find the littlest thing to cart these people off to jail. Also is Score talking to the other big companies to band together to take legal action instead of waiting for the shoe to drop? You guys really dont want the first 2257 battle fought by some little mom pop webmaster with no money.

FightThisPatent

2257 states that the answers to their queries need to be done in a "reasonable period of time". This phrase has not been used or challenged... If the DOJ is in your office, what is reasonable? 10 minutes? and hour? a few hours?

I would venture to guess that within an hour should be "reasonable." since the records are supposed to be at the business location.

As far as 2257lookup is concerned, the webmaster would have a report in their hand that did the cross indexing of image name back to image set, model ID, and content producer.. so the answer as to who is the model and content producer could be presented within minutes (assuming of course that the image in question was one that a match could be found.)

Once the model has been identified, the next issue would be to present the model ID and model release.

Given a DRM solution that I am proposing, it could be a matter of minutes before the webmaster was issued a license. There would be a web-based interface to do the request so no phone calls would be necessary to track someone down.

So within a few minutes of identifying the image with the model, the webmaster would be able to show model ID info.

I am reviewing this proposed idea with some attorneys.. it's an open question as to whether having blackened out model id and releases is sufficient, or whether it would not be valid enough (ie. blackened out document could be considered as being "tampered").

And also, if having a local copy of the unblackened ID, but encrypted, would constitute possession.

All of this is subjective to many legal interpretations..

What it's going to come down to is the "mom and pop" sites or the newbie webmaster, or the non-2257 compliant webmaster being easy targets.

Those that have no 2257 disclaimers of any kind are easy pickings.

Anyone carrying teen or young looking pics, would be easy targets, especially images that are out in the open (ie. TGP, free sites, tours, etc).

The above types to me, IMO, would be the ones that would be the first targets.

Given history of obscenity proscecutions, the targets haven't been the big names, they have been the "low hanging fruit" that were easy pickings.

The more that webmasters and content producers can demonstrate compliance all the way up to full compliance, the less likely they will be targeted.


-brandon

__________________

http://www.t3report.com (where's the traffic?) v5.0 is out! |
http://www.FightThePatent.com | ICQ 52741957

Honeyslut

Look the felons have more privacy rights than models

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...ror_database_1

__________________
http://nakedlunchnews.comWhat's up ? Naked Lunch News !

tony286

Good points and I agree about the low hanging fruit. Also they arrest one mom pop that will probably scare 100 out of business.

FightThisPatent

It might be possible for DOJ to see a canadian website as "importing" into the US, and if they have a question about obscenity or age of the model, the open border connections to Canada may allow DOJ to come into Canada.

Other countries would probably be more difficult, but I am guessing that Canada may comply with DOJ investigations.


I am thinking that US-based targets would be more of a first target then Canadian ones.

2257 is now the focus by DOJ to shut down pornography. 2257 enforcement will be seen in the light of protecting children from being used in production (ie. CP).

Is it really a rampant problem of children being used in production? Maybe from folks over in Russia and other places, but given the Traci Lords issue, i would guess that most content producers know better.

COPA was struck down twice, so now, in the name of 2257, it will be used to shut down websites.

Look at the Patriot Act. Ash-hahahahaha reported to Congress that through the Patriot Act, CP bad guys were put in jail.

The Patriot Act was intended to fight against terrorism, but with its broad reaching language, it's justification for its existance is now to be used to fight CP (and more power to them for shutting down CP operators and websites).

2257 language can be used to shutdown "obscenity", all in the name of ensuring that children are not being used in production and taking advantage of a burdensome documentation requirement that almost ALL webmasters are failing in.

Ask yourself this one simple question:

If the DOJ asked you where you got a SPECIFIC image from (ie. who is the content producer), could you answer that question?

(pointing your 2257.html page is not the answer)

If you can't, you go to jail for 5 years.


-brandon

__________________

http://www.t3report.com (where's the traffic?) v5.0 is out! |
http://www.FightThePatent.com | ICQ 52741957

FightThisPatent

An interesting thought that was presented to me (paraphrasing the conversation):

If people are submitting their opinions to DOJ about what is wrong with the proposed regulations, and what could be done better, that the education process could help to define things more narrowly.

The new regs were supposed to remove the vagueness (ie. it now defines who is a secondary record keeper, whereas the current 2257 statue is vague), but then the new regs present some very vague new additions.

When the proposed regulations are amended to 2257 statue, then when it comes time for the first prosecution, the vagueness could go infavor of the defendant...



-brandon

__________________

http://www.t3report.com (where's the traffic?) v5.0 is out! |
http://www.FightThePatent.com | ICQ 52741957

Kevin2

(g) Computer site or service means a computer server-based file repository or file distribution service that is accessible over the Internet, World Wide Web, Usenet

There are 100,000's of pics added to Usenet everyday and for those news servers in the USA that publish the pics via an html page they will be considered secondary producer. They don't even have the rights to publish those pics because they never purchased a license to display them. It seems this will be the end of xxx binary groups.

__________________

Webmasters Trade Traffic!!!

tony286

What about yahoo groups also?

Turbowned

Test

Kevin2

Tony you are correct I forgot about them.

__________________

Webmasters Trade Traffic!!!

Kimmykim

Actually they can come to your business, once in every four month period, between the hours of 8 am and 6 pm, or any other time they can assume you would be conducting normal business.

They can copy any records they wish to and take them with them.

This isn't a joke by any means but I think the Score guys are on the right track -- as a matter of fact some of my video clients in the Valley are doing a similar setup.

The only thing I am curious about, scoreman, is how you guys intend to "police" the end users URLs where they post your content, that cross-indexing looks to be a total bitch for images no matter how you slice it.

tony286

If there is a place to give public opinions where can we do that and we should be doing that in droves.

Kevin2

This is going to be virtually impossible to manage. I can't see where it says that the original producer is responsable to know where his images are being distributed and by who. Can anyone help me out here? If it's true then one slip from an affiliate and the sponsor is liable??

My understanding (which may be wrong) is that the affiliate is regarded as a secondary producer and they are responsible for linking the required info to the images. Same goes for a webmaster who purchases content. Surely they don't expect the content provider to have a link with all the docs to every image on every site that all there hundreds of customers have?

__________________

Webmasters Trade Traffic!!!

Matt 26z

To comment on the proposed regs...


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


-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


-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

dready

The wording is so vague, by the looks of it they could ask the Primary Producer for a list of every single URL their licenced images have been used all down the line. This is virtually impossible. Leased content will be the only way to go. Or do everything in house and only give out non-explicit content for promotion.

__________________
ICQ: 91139591

Rankings

not the first thing...yet

__________________

19+ Years Serving the Adult/SEO Industry

ICQ: 610-814
Skype: xratedseo

jayeff

I am having a real hard time with the picture of an office full of FBI agents waiting while I contact someone for a password for every record they want to check: especially as this won't just involve you and Mr Score-Cash if your solution catches on. I could conceivably need to contact dozens of sponsors and content providers, all in different time zones and with very different ideas about how to man their contact numbers and process calls.

There is nothing reasonable about $100 per domain for someone who has several hundred domains...

I can see the problems content producers would like to solve, but I really believe you will have to find another way to do it.

If I buy content from someone and put it on the 'Net, my personal liberty may depend on me keeping the required, cross-referenced records in good order. With what is at stake and in this, possibly the least professional of all industries, there is no way I'm going to wait until the FBI are in my office to find out whether the records are any good.

And the practical aspect. Some producers will send me the full records. Others will do their own encryption. Still others will belong to this service or that service. Apart from already seeing the vultures circling with dollar signs in their eyes and making this hugely expensive, how exactly could I possibly reconcile all these different systems as the regulations require?

Many models don't work exclusively for one photographer. If I don't know that FTP269 is the same model as SC9976 (because I don't get to see her real name), how am I supposed to be able to cross-reference her records as required?

FightThisPatent

1) use of 2257lookup is completely up to you and I have low expectations of webmasters signing up for it.

2) if you have hundreds of domains, hopefully you are making big bucks that the cost of being 2257 compliant is something you factor in as a cost of doing business.

3) if you have hundreds of domains and aren't going to do anything proactive to be 2257 compliant with current and propopsed regulations, then you could always just put money aside in case you get called on.

4) consult with your attorney over your legal exposure of not being 2257 compliant.


Here are my suggestions to start to become 2257 compliant to the current 2257 statue that doesn't require you to use my sevice:


For current images on your websites:

1) create a spreadsheet for each website and locate each image filename and match it to the content producer you purchased from. Record the name that you called the image, the URL on your site to the image, the set name where the image came from, and the content producer.


For when you add new images to your websites:

1) since you just received new images from a content producer, you can more easily update your spreadsheet. Record the name that you called the image, the URL on your site to the image, the set name where the image came from, and the content producer.




For the new 2257 regulations (if you want to be proactive):


Once you have identified each image to the content producer and to the set name, contact your content producer and ask for the model ID and releases (if they have them already like some do, they will have the blackened ID versions) for the sets you have.

Some content producers won't be able to give you the info since they don't have their records in digital format.

Those that do, will have to manually pull out model info based on your submited list.. expect a delay on them fulfilling your request.


The way 2257lookup solves the problem is this: Webmasters who subscribe to the service for $100/domain/year will have a report that will include all the elements mentioned above, as well as being sent the necessary model records (the DRM encrypted files as well as the blackened model ID version) from 2257lookup since I am going to be working with content producers in getting them to be 2257 compliant.


I have been working on 2257lookup months prior to ash-o-hahahahaha addig 2257 to his vocabulary and at that time, the service was to be a proactive effort to be 2257 compliant. With the new regulations it now becomes a reactive effort for webmasters to get 2257 compliant... the reason... if Ash-o-hahahahaha has taken the time to create new regulations, kinda makes sense that he will go enfore them.



-brandon

__________________

http://www.t3report.com (where's the traffic?) v5.0 is out! |
http://www.FightThePatent.com | ICQ 52741957

FightThisPatent

If I end up doing my job right, I should have most of the content producers in my system so you will only need to go to one source to take care of being 2257 compliant.


The 2257lookup service spiders all the images on your website and creates the initial report of its findings. As new content producers enter the system, I don't need to spider again.. i can re-run the process and send you an updated report as soon as new matches are found.

Here are the current participating content producers who support my efforts with 2257lookup:

Matrix Content, Falcon Foto, Paul Markham, Focus Adult, Ounique, Max Pixels, Medium Pimpin, Zmaster, Titan Media


These are just the inital ones that I contacted... I will certainly be expanding to include as many other content producers as possible, since their participation is at no cost.

The "vultures" you see circling around are not from services and attorneys geared towards helping webmasters be 2257 compliant, those birdies are DOJ prosecutors looking for easy pickings.


-brandon

__________________

http://www.t3report.com (where's the traffic?) v5.0 is out! |
http://www.FightThePatent.com | ICQ 52741957

dready

It's possible this could be fought as an exceptional burden to small business as this is easily going to cost us over $100M to implement.

As I said before.. it still isn't clear if the Primary Producer will have to keep these URL lists. It doesn't say the copyright holder is the Primary; it's the person who took the pics. A photographer doing exclusive shoots for people and then relinquishing ownership to his/her client is still the Primary... the fact that he/she then has to keep track of every single URL those pics end up is rediculous.

__________________
ICQ: 91139591

FightThisPatent

I believe this is the intent of the new regulations and a way to use 2257 to shutdown the "frontline of pornography" by being able to bust webmasters who display "objectionable" content in the name of saving children, to satisfy the religious right's agenda.

Political Action Committees and other lobby groups can lobby executive folks (like the president, Ash-o-hahahahaha, etc).. not just limited to Congress.


It will take the first prosecution to wake everyone up on this most serious issue. The first easy target will most likely be small time operators with no financial ability to defend themselves.

I seriously doubt that the ACLU or EFF will come in on this one.

Maybe FSC? IMPA? IFA?

SOL? LOL


You can ignore my 2257lookup servce if you want, but atleast get informed of the issues:

JD's 2257 Primer (attorney):
http://my.execpc.com/%7Exxxlaw/primer.html

JD's 2257 breakdown between current and proposed regulations:
http://my.execpc.com/~xxxlaw/2257Table.htm

My running FAQ on 2257 related issues:
http://www.2257lookup.com/2257ForWebmasters.html



-brandon

__________________

http://www.t3report.com (where's the traffic?) v5.0 is out! |
http://www.FightThePatent.com | ICQ 52741957

dready

As I run a content brokerage that mostly resells content... I'm curious if that falls under the category of 'mere distribution' therefore exempting me from 'Producer' status? Any guesses on that?

__________________
ICQ: 91139591

scoreman

It's a real shame aint it? Behind every dark cloud is a sunshine moment hehehe.

__________________

Giorgio_Xo

No. This only applies to U.S. slaves of the new Republic of Gilead and its Christian military followers.

__________________
Make Levees, Not War

Giorgio_Xo

Everyone! It is alot less expensive to simply leave the United States than to comply with the laws of this military government. We do not live in a free society. The cost of maintaining all the paperwork is unreasonable and unrealistic and unnecessary. All it takes is a $1000 airplane ticket to free yourself from the clutches of Assclown. This is the 1920s and 1950s all over again. Thousands of Americans were forced to leave the U.S. because of their art and political beliefs.

Time to move.

__________________
Make Levees, Not War

Calvinguy

Usenet groups are mirrors of mirrors and are worldwide. No matter what kind of group and server you connect to they are almost identical.

Maybe the servers that physically stands in US will be shutdown but the usenet will still be here...