Asshahahahaha's Draconian 2257 Changes - Ready For Jail? - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

SomeCreep · 07-19-2004, 12:20 AM

50 Asshahahahaha's Draconian 2257 Changes

Kevin2 · 07-19-2004, 03:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by SomeCreep
50 Asshahahahaha's Draconian 2257 Changes

50 and counting

... · 07-19-2004, 03:46 AM

Here is a sample email to mail to the DOJ:

To: [email protected] Subject: Docket No. CRM 103

As an adult webmaster, the 2257 has always effected me and I have complied with it. Mr. Ashhahahahaha's proposed amendments to it will
make it nearly impossible for almost every webmaster to stay compliant. Yes, we have the model's ID on file that shows she is above 18
but according to the modified law, we would also have to list every single image and movie that she has ever been in and list every
single URL (web page) where the image/movie of her can be found. Doing this, would take an incredible amount of man hours and since
most webmasters either work alone or with a few other people, this would seriouslly effect business productivity.

The other problem with the new 2257 is privacy. There are many large adult websites that have hundreds of affiliates (people who
promote the website rather than creating their own). The modified 2257 will require the people who own the adult websites to mail
each affiliate copies of the model's real name, address, ID's, etc. If the law came into effect, I don't think too many models would
want their information being so spread out. Tying into this is the fact that this law effects pornography on all mediums. Thus,
would a convienience store in Wyoming need to have all the previously mentioned information about models in the adult magazines they
sell? Just like an affiliate to an adult website, they are also selling material they did not make. The same goes for movie theatres
playing R-rated movies that feature sex and nudity.

I believe there is nothing wrong with 2257 as it stands now and that the new amendments to it will do absoultely NOTHING to put a halt
to child pornography (which is Mr. Ashhahahahaha's focus) as most if not all child pornography websites not only have no 2257 information
at all, but aren't even located in the United States (most are in Eastern Europe). The modified 2257 will hurt the adult industry and
will cause many people to lose their jobs and/or move their business offshore.

Is this what the Attorny General wants? A smaller, weakened, 'unmoral', adult industry? My view is that this is a blatant attack on
our first amendment rights. Mr. Ashhahahahaha can't downright ban pornography so he wants to end it by making it nearly impossible for
most webmasters to comply with 2257 (thus sending webmasters to jail).

Thank you for hearing me out. I will be at the poles in November.

bluff · 07-19-2004, 04:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ...
Here is a sample email to mail to the DOJ:

To: [email protected] Subject: Docket No. CRM 103

As an adult webmaster, the 2257 has always effected me and I have complied with it. Mr. Ashhahahahaha's proposed amendments to it will
make it nearly impossible for almost every webmaster to stay compliant. Yes, we have the model's ID on file that shows she is above 18
but according to the modified law, we would also have to list every single image and movie that she has ever been in and list every
single URL (web page) where the image/movie of her can be found. Doing this, would take an incredible amount of man hours and since
most webmasters either work alone or with a few other people, this would seriouslly effect business productivity.

The other problem with the new 2257 is privacy. There are many large adult websites that have hundreds of affiliates (people who
promote the website rather than creating their own). The modified 2257 will require the people who own the adult websites to mail
each affiliate copies of the model's real name, address, ID's, etc. If the law came into effect, I don't think too many models would
want their information being so spread out. Tying into this is the fact that this law effects pornography on all mediums. Thus,
would a convienience store in Wyoming need to have all the previously mentioned information about models in the adult magazines they
sell? Just like an affiliate to an adult website, they are also selling material they did not make. The same goes for movie theatres
playing R-rated movies that feature sex and nudity.

I believe there is nothing wrong with 2257 as it stands now and that the new amendments to it will do absoultely NOTHING to put a halt
to child pornography (which is Mr. Ashhahahahaha's focus) as most if not all child pornography websites not only have no 2257 information
at all, but aren't even located in the United States (most are in Eastern Europe). The modified 2257 will hurt the adult industry and
will cause many people to lose their jobs and/or move their business offshore.

Is this what the Attorny General wants? A smaller, weakened, 'unmoral', adult industry? My view is that this is a blatant attack on
our first amendment rights. Mr. Ashhahahahaha can't downright ban pornography so he wants to end it by making it nearly impossible for
most webmasters to comply with 2257 (thus sending webmasters to jail).

Thank you for hearing me out. I will be at the poles in November.

What influence does all this have on non-US webmasters that submit galleries with (US) sponsor content and that are hosted at (US) servers by the sponsor? >> I.e., the submitter doesn't really own anything.

Tipsy · 07-19-2004, 04:22 AM

As has been said people really do need to be pro-active on this and start being so now. However, we all know that as with those people closed by the Acacia thing, instead many will simply bury their heads in the sand and then be amazed when they suddenly find themsleves deeply in the shit.

Is the wording the way the law will be or can/will there still be small changes? As it stands it really is far too vague on certain crucial points.

Tipsy · 07-19-2004, 04:23 AM

Oh and...bye bye US hosted thumbnail TGPs

sirrobin · 07-19-2004, 04:27 AM

Land of the free ?

cayne · 07-19-2004, 04:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by xxxdesign-net
I believe you can use US models if you want... or US content providers... like you previously did... THose new rules doenst seems to be about models but about webmasters needing to have proper records, etc.. for all models on their sites.. As a non US citizen. you dont need to follow those new rules... even if you have US models on your site.. (but I might be wrong..)

So that law only affect US citizens? I've heard that it's enough to move your webspace to Canada, is that right?

Anyway I'm completly swamped with all these national - international regulations.

#1 In germany it's forbidden to show "pornographic" material to an underaged audience - that means that you need a "enter-page" with a credit-card check (ID No. is not enough - because they say it too easy to bypass) -> total bullshit

#2 I'm hosting my website in the U.S. - with a U.S. hosting company - don't know if the german law still affects me.

#3 This new 2257 law makes the whole thing even more difficult...

sad story...

Nathan · 07-19-2004, 05:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by RocHard
Let me ask you some questions just to stir shit up.....

- If I purchase content from AaronM, Aaron is considered the "primary producer" and I am considered the "secondary producer". News flash to Ashhahahahaha: I didn't produce anything. The end client is not a secondary producer or a producer at all - That's like calling me a "secondary manufactuer" of Ford cars because I own a Mustang.

- How does this affect video stores? Does this mean that every video store will have to have 2257 information on every model in every video ever produced?

- How will this affect "R" rated movies. Will movie theatres have to keep 2257 info on some of it's movies?

- Define sexually explicit content for me. Seems to me like most of the content being produced isn't "sexually explicit". Does 2257 laws even apply to most of what we do?

RocHard,

USC 2257 75.1 (c) 4 says:
" (4) Producer does not include persons whose activities relating to the visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct are limited to the following:
(i) Photo processing;
(ii) Mere distribution;"

So your first 2 questions should be answered by this.

Also, to everyone, like AaronM said, the problem really is not so huge for content producers, it might be huge for webmasters depending on how you interpret the regulations. But like I said multiple times, the regulations can be interpreted in many ways because they are simply unclear and that alone makes them hard to enforce. 75.2 is the most important part, where (3) (b), (c) and (d) are the most important in terms of webmasters. Those paragraphs are so unclear its sad. To me it means, old records do not have to be updated, you may do it though. But once you update records or setup new ones 1 month after the regulation gets into effect, only then you have to keep them up to date. (b) also says that secondary producers can just get a copy of the records from the primary producer and keep the primary producers name and address on file. Thats all. If its old records, to me (3) (c) applies so nothing has to be extended. For newer records, I am not sure if you would have to keep all URLs of the content somewhere. But honestly, make a little CMS system or use one of the ones out there, and it should be easy. And then give them a 300 page printout of all the URLs and watch them verify them all by typing each one in... Oh FUN!

EDIT: although I am not a lawyer and really do not know much about this, as far as I know 2257 is not a _LAW_ its a _REGULATION_ to explain how the child protection law this is used with needs to be applied and followed and checked for by law enforcement and the people it effected. But I could be totally wrong there.

... · 07-19-2004, 05:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nathan
RocHard,

USC 2257 75.1 (c) 4 says:
" (4) Producer does not include persons whose activities relating to the visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct are limited to the following:
(i) Photo processing;
(ii) Mere distribution;"

If a site bought content from a provider and put it on its site, wouldn't it be 'mere distribution'? Sounds the same as a magazine stand ordering issues of Playboy to sell to customers.

Kevin2 · 07-19-2004, 06:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ...
If a site bought content from a provider and put it on its site, wouldn't it be 'mere distribution'? Sounds the same as a magazine stand ordering issues of Playboy to sell to customers.

(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 [JDO: No "commercial" purpose included here.] 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.

sumphatpimp · 07-19-2004, 06:46 AM

this new regulation states that the records inspector is to visit the producer or webmaster every 4 months.
anyone figure just what that is going to cost the tax payers?
thats a lot of money just to chase a red herring.

it was on the news months ago that Ashcrash is not going to serve a second term with Bush, if he gets reelected so this may all be a grandstand play befoe he leaves.

but very expensive no matter what.

think of all the inspectors they would have to hire.

"The Dog" · 07-19-2004, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by tony404
There is still due process it has to go before a jury, everyone has made a clerical error at one time in their lives. If all your ducks are in a row and you miss one url or missed cross referencing one model. I think its important to follow to the letter but the feds dont want to be flipant either because everytime they go to court there is always a chance they can lose. They will want quick wins , home runs.

Typically the way it works in this country is they lock people up first.............
Then they sort everything out
ask seymore butts. Their intent is to put us out of business even if they don't get a conviction. The same behavior has been repeated over and over again here in Los Angeles.
J.M. Productions, Seymore Butts etc.
They show up, confiscate your shit and start locking people up.
then they lose in court....
But so what?? How much money does the company lose from lost sales, lost production days, and legal fees????

tony286 · 07-19-2004, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by "The Dog"
Typically the way it works in this country is they lock people up first.............
Then they sort everything out
ask seymore butts. Their intent is to put us out of business even if they don't get a conviction. The same behavior has been repeated over and over again here in Los Angeles.
J.M. Productions, Seymore Butts etc.
They show up, confiscate your shit and start locking people up.
then they lose in court....
But so what?? How much money does the company lose from lost sales, lost production days, and legal fees????

Not true is Rob Black sitting in jail waiting for his day in court? No he is working and producing videos.

Elli · 07-19-2004, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ...
Here is a sample email to mail to the DOJ:

To: [email protected] Subject: Docket No. CRM 103

As an adult webmaster, the 2257 has always effected me and I have complied with it. Mr. Ashhahahahaha's proposed amendments to it will
make it nearly impossible for almost every webmaster to stay compliant. Yes, we have the model's ID on file that shows she is above 18
but according to the modified law, we would also have to list every single image and movie that she has ever been in and list every
single URL (web page) where the image/movie of her can be found. Doing this, would take an incredible amount of man hours and since ...

Excellent stuff! Spell check first, though. "Effected" in the first paragraph should be "affected."

... · 07-19-2004, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Elli
Excellent stuff! Spell check first, though. "Effected" in the first paragraph should be "affected."

Damnit. I thought it was 'effected'!

dig420 · 07-19-2004, 09:40 AM

where are all the conservative webmasters in this thread to tell u show good this is for the country?

tony286 · 07-19-2004, 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by dig420
where are all the conservative webmasters in this thread to tell u show good this is for the country?

Yep I am waiting for Loryn and 12 Clicks to come out defending bush. lol

amacontent · 07-19-2004, 09:47 AM

Ive already started revamping my records files..

Giorgio_Xo · 07-19-2004, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by amacontent
Ive already started revamping my records files..

Joe. Do you list your New York address?

Elli · 07-19-2004, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ...
Damnit. I thought it was 'effected'!

No worries.

An effect is a thing: "Caffeine has an effect on me."

And affect is what something does to another thing:
"Caffeine affects me."

"Effect" can also have a verb form, but it's in a different context slightly, so we'lljust leave it alone for now.

Kimmykim · 07-19-2004, 09:58 AM

Morning guys

I think some of you have overlooked a couple of provisions in the wording that you might want to have your attorneys reconsider.

The very nature of creating the database can be considered the action from which the compliance starts. So if you create the database, you'll need to have every bit of your content be compliant, meaning all the models "government" names and any aliases etc they've used. From the wording it appears to a couple of the attorneys that I have heard opinions from as to the extent of the alias tracking that it may be only aliases they have used in work you represent or have the rights to use. So if a model went by ten names, but only worked for you as 5 of them, your database would include the 5 to be compliant, along with the "government" name.

The cross indexing of the location of any content you've sold -- or allowed out for use -- is a key provision in this whole mess. By re-interpreting the meaning of secondary producer -- and by classifying anyone who creates, inserts, etc this content into a web page as a secondary producer, the whole thing turns into one big mess. Under a strict interpretation, if you give your resellers free content to use to promote, then you are responsible for knowing exactly where they use that content upon inspection.

One other note -- this law is designed for the internet. It's not meant to create problems initially for video stores and so on. Thus all the references to the internet and URLs and so forth.

Tom_PMs · 07-19-2004, 10:14 AM

I dont see why banners and FPA's and other advertisement would be exempt. If they have images of models engaged in sexually explicit activities, then you better include your banners in your referencing.

I think this is far too hard on producers, yes. But I feel that affiliates being considered secondary producers is absolutely ridiculous. Uploading an image should not be considered "producing" it.

If that's all I'm doing with the images, then I feel I should be protected by consumer law. I was sold a product, everything pointed to it being legal. I was even given rights to use the images on my websites. I was even given freedom to use some of the images specifically in making banners or advertisements.

blah, this thing reeks especially badly for people who essentially just bought images and uploaded them.

tony286 · 07-19-2004, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kimmykim
Morning guys

I think some of you have overlooked a couple of provisions in the wording that you might want to have your attorneys reconsider.

The very nature of creating the database can be considered the action from which the compliance starts. So if you create the database, you'll need to have every bit of your content be compliant, meaning all the models "government" names and any aliases etc they've used. From the wording it appears to a couple of the attorneys that I have heard opinions from as to the extent of the alias tracking that it may be only aliases they have used in work you represent or have the rights to use. So if a model went by ten names, but only worked for you as 5 of them, your database would include the 5 to be compliant, along with the "government" name.

The cross indexing of the location of any content you've sold -- or allowed out for use -- is a key provision in this whole mess. By re-interpreting the meaning of secondary producer -- and by classifying anyone who creates, inserts, etc this content into a web page as a secondary producer, the whole thing turns into one big mess. Under a strict interpretation, if you give your resellers free content to use to promote, then you are responsible for knowing exactly where they use that content upon inspection.

One other note -- this law is designed for the internet. It's not meant to create problems initially for video stores and so on. Thus all the references to the internet and URLs and so forth.

I spoke to my lawyer last week and I will again but I dont think you need the url of content given out or sold . The secondary producers need full model releases and ids and he has to have the urls back to the model releases.

Elli · 07-19-2004, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kimmykim
Morning guys

The cross indexing of the location of any content you've sold -- or allowed out for use -- is a key provision in this whole mess. By re-interpreting the meaning of secondary producer -- and by classifying anyone who creates, inserts, etc this content into a web page as a secondary producer, the whole thing turns into one big mess. Under a strict interpretation, if you give your resellers free content to use to promote, then you are responsible for knowing exactly where they use that content upon inspection.

That's how I read it, too. EVERYONE is responsible for knowing the full and exact location of every picture they have produced or used. That way if one model is found to be underage, the feds can contact any one who has shot her or used her photos in order to track down all of her work.

It's a beaurocratic nightmare. Hey, what about the paperwork reduction act? Could we get that to apply here?

Elli · 07-19-2004, 11:26 AM

Isn't this the kind of paperwork that multinational companies have to deal with? They hire entire departments of drones to do it for them.

Really, it would be a simple database with a few key index fields, BUT the act of keeping it updated would be a nightmare for anyone selling content or using content that isn't their own.

As it is, it looks like the very next time I take pictures of myself, I'm going to have to update everything?? I have no idea where tons of my pictures are, and there's no way of removing them from sites that I don't know where they're at. So starting fresh is really a non-starter.

Another thought: by their definition, any computer with HTML, TCP/IP, or FTP set up could be a 'server'. So what if a member downloads one of my pictures, then lets someone else ftp it off him? Am I responsible for knowing the IP addy of his computer now that he is serving my photo from it?

FightThisPatent · 07-19-2004, 11:35 AM

2257 & The Markham Order. Confused? Worried? Not sure what to do? We're gonna speak with Brandon from fightthepatent.com and 2257lookup.com AND Hammer from The Porn Professors is gonna stop by.

Check out the video feed today at 3PM EST/2PM CST/12PM PST/8PM GMT and join in the chat at http://www.theronstewartshow.com/live/ynot.php OR, you can access just the chat at irc.theadultwebmaster.com channel-#ynotradio

Tom_PMs · 07-19-2004, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Elli
Isn't this the kind of paperwork that multinational companies have to deal with? They hire entire departments of drones to do it for them.

Really, it would be a simple database with a few key index fields, BUT the act of keeping it updated would be a nightmare for anyone selling content or using content that isn't their own.

As it is, it looks like the very next time I take pictures of myself, I'm going to have to update everything?? I have no idea where tons of my pictures are, and there's no way of removing them from sites that I don't know where they're at. So starting fresh is really a non-starter.

Another thought: by their definition, any computer with HTML, TCP/IP, or FTP set up could be a 'server'. So what if a member downloads one of my pictures, then lets someone else ftp it off him? Am I responsible for knowing the IP addy of his computer now that he is serving my photo from it?

I think you should copy and paste that almost exactly as it is and mail it off to the "comment" address.

If I right click and save your sig image, you'd never know it. But it sounds like you'd be responsible for knowing it. It's just ridiculous in so many ways..

xxxdesign-net · 07-19-2004, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kimmykim
if you give your resellers free content to use to promote, then you are responsible for knowing exactly where they use that content upon inspection.

what if resellers just grab your content from hosted gals or member area... ? Big programs will have the impossible task to check out every referring url...

Btw.... what about AVS networks... are avs sites the property of the webmaster.. or property of the AVS network..? If its the later... they'll all need to re start from scratch it seems...

xxxdesign-net · 07-19-2004, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Elli
Isn't this the kind of paperwork that multinational companies have to deal with? They hire entire departments of drones to do it for them.

Really, it would be a simple database with a few key index fields, BUT the act of keeping it updated would be a nightmare for anyone selling content or using content that isn't their own.

As it is, it looks like the very next time I take pictures of myself, I'm going to have to update everything?? I have no idea where tons of my pictures are, and there's no way of removing them from sites that I don't know where they're at. So starting fresh is really a non-starter.

Another thought: by their definition, any computer with HTML, TCP/IP, or FTP set up could be a 'server'. So what if a member downloads one of my pictures, then lets someone else ftp it off him? Am I responsible for knowing the IP addy of his computer now that he is serving my photo from it?

You are a canadian right.. you dont have to obey US rules.. Unless maybe if your company/site, is incorporated in the US... but not sure..

Elli · 07-19-2004, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by xxxdesign-net
You are a canadian right.. you dont have to obey US rules.. Unless maybe if your company/site, is incorporated in the US... but not sure..

Let's not get hung up on semantics. I am positive there are countless other American girls in the same boat. Say I'm speaking for them, then.

Elli · 07-19-2004, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Elli
Let's not get hung up on semantics. I am positive there are countless other American girls in the same boat. Say I'm speaking for them, then.

Speaking of, where are Ivy and Vanilla and all them at?

Cman · 07-19-2004, 12:49 PM

I am a Canadian and am very concerned about this new law. I have my sites hosted in the US.

I read through this thread and from what I can gather, most of you seem to think "foreign" people will be exempt from this law.

Do you think I should switch to Canadian hosting, or should it be ok to stay with US hosting as long as I don't live in the states?

Please let me know if anyone finds out for sure. Don't forget about us up here, we don't want to go to jail either

Really though, I don't see how they could do anything to Canadians, because they wouldn't have jurisdiction or authority to do so would they? If the RIAA can't sue me for sharing music, then I don't see how the gov't or whatever could sue me for this.

The only way I believe I would be endangered is if the US asks my gov't to "hand me over" which I doubt they would go through the trouble of even worrying about, unless I was a big time felon, which I'm not.

aiken · 07-19-2004, 02:45 PM

Keep in mind that it's not just us that this affects -- it affects surfers, too. I've asked our users to write to DOJ to protest the proposed changes.

If you've got loyal customers, this would be an excellent time to get them involved!

Cheers
-b

tony286 · 07-19-2004, 02:51 PM

Thats a great thing if everyone did this , it could show them everyone isnt with the christian right.

tony286 · 07-19-2004, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by FightThisPatent
2257 & The Markham Order. Confused? Worried? Not sure what to do? We're gonna speak with Brandon from fightthepatent.com and 2257lookup.com AND Hammer from The Porn Professors is gonna stop by.

Check out the video feed today at 3PM EST/2PM CST/12PM PST/8PM GMT and join in the chat at http://www.theronstewartshow.com/live/ynot.php OR, you can access just the chat at irc.theadultwebmaster.com channel-#ynotradio

Good show today but your 2257 lookup doesnt cover secondary processors. If the DOJ comes in and asks a secondary producer asks who is this girl. If you just tell them where it comes from and dont have a model release and ID . They are in violation.

07-19-2004, 12:20 AM	#51
SomeCreep :glugglug Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Where the Wild Things Are Posts: 26,118	50 Asshahahahaha's Draconian 2257 Changes __________________ Webair Hosting I use and recommend Webair for hosting.

07-19-2004, 04:22 AM	#55
Tipsy Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: See sig Posts: 6,989	As has been said people really do need to be pro-active on this and start being so now. However, we all know that as with those people closed by the Acacia thing, instead many will simply bury their heads in the sand and then be amazed when they suddenly find themsleves deeply in the shit. Is the wording the way the law will be or can/will there still be small changes? As it stands it really is far too vague on certain crucial points. __________________ Ignorance is never bliss.

07-19-2004, 04:23 AM	#56
Tipsy Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: See sig Posts: 6,989	Oh and...bye bye US hosted thumbnail TGPs __________________ Ignorance is never bliss.

07-19-2004, 09:47 AM	#69
amacontent STANLEY CUP CHAMPION ! Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 12,875	Ive already started revamping my records files.. __________________ Joe Loughlin [email protected] TEAM- joeloughlin. Telegram - AMA_JOE https://www.amaproduction.com

07-19-2004, 10:14 AM	#73
Tom_PMs Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 2,049	I dont see why banners and FPA's and other advertisement would be exempt. If they have images of models engaged in sexually explicit activities, then you better include your banners in your referencing. I think this is far too hard on producers, yes. But I feel that affiliates being considered secondary producers is absolutely ridiculous. Uploading an image should not be considered "producing" it. If that's all I'm doing with the images, then I feel I should be protected by consumer law. I was sold a product, everything pointed to it being legal. I was even given rights to use the images on my websites. I was even given freedom to use some of the images specifically in making banners or advertisements. blah, this thing reeks especially badly for people who essentially just bought images and uploaded them. __________________ You've read it, you can't unread it.

07-19-2004, 03:46 AM	#53
... Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Gunter glieben glauchen globen Posts: 370	Here is a sample email to mail to the DOJ: To: [email protected] Subject: Docket No. CRM 103 As an adult webmaster, the 2257 has always effected me and I have complied with it. Mr. Ashhahahahaha's proposed amendments to it will make it nearly impossible for almost every webmaster to stay compliant. Yes, we have the model's ID on file that shows she is above 18 but according to the modified law, we would also have to list every single image and movie that she has ever been in and list every single URL (web page) where the image/movie of her can be found. Doing this, would take an incredible amount of man hours and since most webmasters either work alone or with a few other people, this would seriouslly effect business productivity. The other problem with the new 2257 is privacy. There are many large adult websites that have hundreds of affiliates (people who promote the website rather than creating their own). The modified 2257 will require the people who own the adult websites to mail each affiliate copies of the model's real name, address, ID's, etc. If the law came into effect, I don't think too many models would want their information being so spread out. Tying into this is the fact that this law effects pornography on all mediums. Thus, would a convienience store in Wyoming need to have all the previously mentioned information about models in the adult magazines they sell? Just like an affiliate to an adult website, they are also selling material they did not make. The same goes for movie theatres playing R-rated movies that feature sex and nudity. I believe there is nothing wrong with 2257 as it stands now and that the new amendments to it will do absoultely NOTHING to put a halt to child pornography (which is Mr. Ashhahahahaha's focus) as most if not all child pornography websites not only have no 2257 information at all, but aren't even located in the United States (most are in Eastern Europe). The modified 2257 will hurt the adult industry and will cause many people to lose their jobs and/or move their business offshore. Is this what the Attorny General wants? A smaller, weakened, 'unmoral', adult industry? My view is that this is a blatant attack on our first amendment rights. Mr. Ashhahahahaha can't downright ban pornography so he wants to end it by making it nearly impossible for most webmasters to comply with 2257 (thus sending webmasters to jail). Thank you for hearing me out. I will be at the poles in November.

07-19-2004, 04:27 AM	#57
sirrobin Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 453	Land of the free ?

07-19-2004, 06:46 AM	#62
sumphatpimp Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 5,235	this new regulation states that the records inspector is to visit the producer or webmaster every 4 months. anyone figure just what that is going to cost the tax payers? thats a lot of money just to chase a red herring. it was on the news months ago that Ashcrash is not going to serve a second term with Bush, if he gets reelected so this may all be a grandstand play befoe he leaves. but very expensive no matter what. think of all the inspectors they would have to hire.

07-19-2004, 09:40 AM	#67
dig420 Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: May 2001 Posts: 9,240	where are all the conservative webmasters in this thread to tell u show good this is for the country?

07-19-2004, 09:58 AM	#72
Kimmykim bitchslapping zebras!!!!! Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: In a shack by the beach Posts: 16,015	Morning guys I think some of you have overlooked a couple of provisions in the wording that you might want to have your attorneys reconsider. The very nature of creating the database can be considered the action from which the compliance starts. So if you create the database, you'll need to have every bit of your content be compliant, meaning all the models "government" names and any aliases etc they've used. From the wording it appears to a couple of the attorneys that I have heard opinions from as to the extent of the alias tracking that it may be only aliases they have used in work you represent or have the rights to use. So if a model went by ten names, but only worked for you as 5 of them, your database would include the 5 to be compliant, along with the "government" name. The cross indexing of the location of any content you've sold -- or allowed out for use -- is a key provision in this whole mess. By re-interpreting the meaning of secondary producer -- and by classifying anyone who creates, inserts, etc this content into a web page as a secondary producer, the whole thing turns into one big mess. Under a strict interpretation, if you give your resellers free content to use to promote, then you are responsible for knowing exactly where they use that content upon inspection. One other note -- this law is designed for the internet. It's not meant to create problems initially for video stores and so on. Thus all the references to the internet and URLs and so forth.

07-19-2004, 11:26 AM	#76
Elli Reach for those stars! Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Vancouver, BC Posts: 17,991	Isn't this the kind of paperwork that multinational companies have to deal with? They hire entire departments of drones to do it for them. Really, it would be a simple database with a few key index fields, BUT the act of keeping it updated would be a nightmare for anyone selling content or using content that isn't their own. As it is, it looks like the very next time I take pictures of myself, I'm going to have to update everything?? I have no idea where tons of my pictures are, and there's no way of removing them from sites that I don't know where they're at. So starting fresh is really a non-starter. Another thought: by their definition, any computer with HTML, TCP/IP, or FTP set up could be a 'server'. So what if a member downloads one of my pictures, then lets someone else ftp it off him? Am I responsible for knowing the IP addy of his computer now that he is serving my photo from it? __________________ email: [email protected]

07-19-2004, 11:35 AM	#77
FightThisPatent Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 4,090	2257 & The Markham Order. Confused? Worried? Not sure what to do? We're gonna speak with Brandon from fightthepatent.com and 2257lookup.com AND Hammer from The Porn Professors is gonna stop by. Check out the video feed today at 3PM EST/2PM CST/12PM PST/8PM GMT and join in the chat at http://www.theronstewartshow.com/live/ynot.php OR, you can access just the chat at irc.theadultwebmaster.com channel-#ynotradio __________________ http://www.t3report.com (where's the traffic?) v5.0 is out! \| http://www.FightThePatent.com \| ICQ 52741957

07-19-2004, 12:49 PM	#83
Cman Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Canada Posts: 697	I am a Canadian and am very concerned about this new law. I have my sites hosted in the US. I read through this thread and from what I can gather, most of you seem to think "foreign" people will be exempt from this law. Do you think I should switch to Canadian hosting, or should it be ok to stay with US hosting as long as I don't live in the states? Please let me know if anyone finds out for sure. Don't forget about us up here, we don't want to go to jail either Really though, I don't see how they could do anything to Canadians, because they wouldn't have jurisdiction or authority to do so would they? If the RIAA can't sue me for sharing music, then I don't see how the gov't or whatever could sue me for this. The only way I believe I would be endangered is if the US asks my gov't to "hand me over" which I doubt they would go through the trouble of even worrying about, unless I was a big time felon, which I'm not. __________________ I could put stuff here, but you don't care. Last edited by Cman; 07-19-2004 at 12:52 PM..

07-19-2004, 02:45 PM	#84
aiken Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Kona, HI Posts: 204	Keep in mind that it's not just us that this affects -- it affects surfers, too. I've asked our users to write to DOJ to protest the proposed changes. If you've got loyal customers, this would be an excellent time to get them involved! Cheers -b __________________ ICQ: 12005327

07-19-2004, 02:51 PM	#85
tony286 lurker Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: atlanta Posts: 57,021	Thats a great thing if everyone did this , it could show them everyone isnt with the christian right.