GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum

GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum (https://gfy.com/index.php)
-   Fucking Around & Business Discussion (https://gfy.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   Content Providers - do you just give 2257 docs to anyone? (https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=329800)

Paul Markham 07-23-2004 12:23 AM

I wonder how many here had actually gone to the Goverment site and pointed this out to them?

Quote:

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before August 24, 2004.

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

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

Facsimile comments may be submitted to: (202) 514-1793. This is not a toll-free number. Comments

[[Page 35548]]

submitted by facsimile must include Docket No. CRM 103 on the cover sheet.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew Oosterbaan, Chief, Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, Criminal Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20530; (202) 514-5780. This is not a toll-free number.

No much better to just post about it on GFY, here we can really make a difference. :1orglaugh

Read what a pro says.

Quote:

NEW SECTION 2257 REGULATIONS

As noted in last month?s Update, a new set of regulations were introduced by Attorney General John Ashhahahahaha, substantially amending and clarifying the records keeping obligations of content producers and distributors of adult-oriented materials. The proposed regulations, located at http://www.regulations.gov/freddocs/04-13792.htm, are not final yet, but may take effect on or after August 24, 2004, when the period for public comment closes.

The most significant change is the requirement that all secondary producers (now including Webmasters who do not themselves produce content) must obtain copies of age-verification records and I.D.?s required by Section 2257, and maintain them in accordance with the law, in the same manner as primary content producers. §75.1(2). Compliance with the new regulations also means that any performers residing in countries outside of the United States must now produce a passport as the only means of identification, assuming that the regulations are approved as proposed. International or foreign driver?s licenses or country I.D. cards will not be acceptable for foreign models. Additionally, the required age records must be maintained and cross indexed in such a way that they are alphabetically and numerically (whatever that means) retrievable.

The other significant change is the updated requirement for the location of the Disclosure pertaining to the Custodian of Records. Under the proposed regulations, the Disclosure must be contained on the Web site?s ?home page? or ?main URL.? §75.8(d). The Disclosure must be in typeface not smaller that 11 points and must be displayed in black type, on a white, untinted background. §75.6(e). Moreover, under the proposed regulations, the Disclosure must be displayed in the same typeface as the names of the performer, director, producer, or owner, whichever is largest, and shall be no smaller in size than the largest of the names of the performers, director, producer, or owner.

There are a couple of other miscellaneous changes worth mentioning. First, Section 2257 obligations now apparently apply to any content produced on or before November 1, 1990. Given that the universally recognized effective date for the law was June 30, 1995, Webmasters will now need to determine which date to use, in consultation with their attorneys. Also, as alluded to above, those individuals required to keep records must maintain those records for a period of seven (7) years, unless the producer goes out of business, in which case the retention period is five (5) years. §75.4. In regards to Section 2257 inspections, inspections can only occur between the hours of 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. ? every day of the year, including weekends and holidays! §75.5(c)(1). Generally there can be no more than one inspection every four months of a particular individual?s records, unless there is reason to believe that continued violations are occurring. §75.5(d). Inspectors must produce valid credentials showing that they have the right to inspect the records, and they must explain the purpose of the inspection. §75.5(2). The Records Custodian may provide additional information to the inspectors bearing on any concerns identified during the inspections. §75.5(4). Finally, Section 2257 Records must be kept separate from all other business records. §75.2(e). Now, more than ever, is the time to make ensure that all Web site content complies with Section 2257, and begin preparing for the ultimate adoption of the new regulations.

SGS 07-23-2004 12:32 AM

A model stalker can now then be a more efficient model stalker by buying a few dollars worth of her content then pretending that the government requires her information so that he can get that actual information for himself?

If you cant get the information instantly you are breaking the law and if you can get access to it in seconds it means that its easy to beat the DRM protected system?

No matter what way you look at it a lot of personal information will be in the public domain in a matter of days. That?s the way the web is and always will be.

Paul Markham 07-23-2004 12:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by tony404
this is where the big players have to step up to the plate. the every person for themselves in adult online has to end for long term survival. during the meese commission the porn industry for the first time really banded together because they knew it could be their end. a big player stated he wasnt giving model releases out , he was protecting his girls. Talk wont protect your girls, getting a injunction will. also do you think scaring models from doing porn will upset johnny.johnny is not a stupid man.
I love the idea of the big players stepping up to the plate.

Like they did against Acacia? :1orglaugh

Paul Markham 07-23-2004 12:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by SGS
A model stalker can now then be a more efficient model stalker by buying a few dollars worth of her content then pretending that the government requires her information so that he can get that actual information for himself?

If you cant get the information instantly you are breaking the law and if you can get access to it in seconds it means that its easy to beat the DRM protected system?

No matter what way you look at it a lot of personal information will be in the public domain in a matter of days. That?s the way the web is and always will be.

This is the truth as the ammendments stand today.

Even with Brandons system the affiliate still needs the documentation.

Go point out to the Press that Ashc roft is writing a stalkers charter. Remember an election is coming up, even tell Kerry he wants more ammo to hit these arse wipes with.

Paul Markham 07-23-2004 12:51 AM

My previous post had the wrong URL in it, go here and comment.

Posting here is a total waste of time.

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

StarkReality 07-23-2004 01:06 AM

It's really scary, but as it looks for me, it's an all or nothing thing.

If it becomes law, there is no option for blacking out anything, using any kinds of protected electronical documentation only, any kind of online service. If you have non-softcore content anywhere, no matter if you are a content provider, paysite owner, affiliate, you need papers on file, physically, complete.

Kimmykim 07-23-2004 01:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by MandyBlake
Yeah but you will HAVE to give out your ids with full disclosure of her name and all identifying info...if this all goes thru.
And I'm not just talking out of my ass. I just finished spending the day with my lawyer.

Could you show me the specific part of the proposition that states this? Not an interpretation but the actual definition please?

Kimmykim 07-23-2004 01:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by JaceXXX
now here comes the bombshell....after this comes into effect, none of my sites will be giving away content to webmasters unless I know you personally....period
Interesting. If I were a US reseller and I were sending out my traffic, would I be sending it to a sponsor that gave me free content without documentation or one that was compliant?

It really doesn't matter who goes offshore and who doesn't. If the affiliates with the sales are US, then the sponsor better be able to make that affiliate in compliance to get that traffic.

Imageauction 07-30-2004 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kimmykim
Could you show me the specific part of the proposition that states this? Not an interpretation but the actual definition please?
They can't KimmyKim because there is no such statement in the proposed regulations. I get totally frustrated here and on other boards because of the total amount of misinformation, rumors and lies that are being promulgated about the law and the regulations.

If I had time, I'd pick through every single post but I don't. ARGGHH

Paul Markham 07-31-2004 01:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by JaceXXX
the person buying the content will then be in violation of the new 2257 laws...period

this is what is scary....the news laws say that the person that has the images MUST have the full 2257, WITHOUT blacked out parts

you all better do some seriously better screening for your clients

i am about to write an article about this to educate girls on this matter.....EVERY girl should know this before shooting...

We will continue to supply IDs and model release withthe girls contact information removed.

Can you imagine the US Govermetn taking someone to court because they did not have the girls home address?

They are not that stupid.

Paul Markham 07-31-2004 01:51 AM

I just solved the Contact information and altering the documents situation.

We will scan all the IDs and Model Releases, and supply the scan with the content.

But on the scan we will lay paper over the pert that has the conact information.

We are not altering the documents, we are just blocking some of the NON REQUIRED information.

Let them prosecute on that.

tony286 07-31-2004 02:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kimmykim
Could you show me the specific part of the proposition that states this? Not an interpretation but the actual definition please?
Kimmy Kim maybe you didnt know this but thats why you pay lawyers for their educated opinion. My lawyer said it and JD said it at WA. These men studied and know the law. People that throw out what are they going to take someone to court for a blacked out address. Well folks this is the internet so they are not going to go to LA or Atlanta where you are right it would be very hard for that to happen but now if they go after webmasters say in AL or TN or Iowa where in the god fearing juries eyes they are gulity already there might be a chance for success. This " Let them prosecute on that." There not going to come after you , your client will be the one fucked. You feel strongly about this I respect that will you be sending the lawyer to defend them? It's fucked plain and simple and unfortunately until someones balls are in the fire we wont know what will happen. This is where the big players are going to have step up to the plate.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:57 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123