I dont live in the US, I only host there right now. :)

every sponsor i've talked to about this - and i emailed a lot of them - says they are still talking to their lawyers.

well, guys, we're out of time here. i need the next 30 days to do all my cross referencing - i'm starting to replace sponsor content and other content for which i have not been provided documents.

here's a lawyer's take on this new regulation:
http://ynotnews.ynotmasters.com/issu...204/page3.html

In this instance, he is a Canadian who is using sponsor & purchased content.

He has nothing to worry about, since he cannot be prosecuted by the US.

My response has nothing to do with the other situations mentioned.

That is the million dollar question. I'm yet to get a straight answer.

Bump

All of my content is uploaded to one domain and then pulled into each members area accordingly..... so this should help me bigtime in getting all mine together. I have all my ids on my server and all of my content loaded onto one domain...... so when I load it to a members area, it will have all the same paths, and the urls will be basically the same, saving the change of domain names....... thank god for a good content management script..... I KNEW this script would save my life one day and looks like time has come. LOL

I am HOPING to hear that it will be cool for people who use our program to just link to my 2257 info and that will be ok. I know I have it linked on my sites, as well as my privacy thing..... on all pages of my sites and members areas in fact....... but I am hoping to hear back that anyone can link to mine and it will be ok.

I know sometimes things that can SOUND so confusing aren't so bad once it is understood, but man, this is just confusing the hell out of me right now. BUT at least I am more compliant than I originally thought and it won't be too time consuming to get it exact. :winkwink:

From the Larry Walters article, I'm still not clear on a few things.

"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.
"

I'd like to see how this looks. So this cross referencing is for the pics you have before the date it goes into effect or is retroactive?
I read that it's retroactive. I"m not a lawyer. If this is so, we have to reference it on an html page under the performers name, her real name, the director, producer, and where it is on our ser vers?

I have content providers who've provided doc that say "we are in compliance and you just have to link to us here". That's their "US2257 complaint" guarantee. My matrix docs are just drivers license jpgs with everything blackened out.

One of my providers said not to worry about it, because once this administration gets voted out, this will all go away. Besides, his stuff is in 1000's of boxes and it would take him weeks to go throught it to find my docs, if it goes that way.

Is anyone getting a helpful sponsor/provider. I'd rather start with the ones who are cooperating and replace the others if I run out of time.

EDit: also.. one provider has a clause in the license that you may never post the real name of the models. This is a prob....

Since I have your attention. Are we suppose to have the docs for each model online behind a pass protected area or do we have to have them ready INCASE asshat and the gang come knocking?

The way I understand it from another post, we have to have it all documented on file on our computers in case they confront us for it. I just read it in another thread, but don't ask me which one, there are so damn many of them on this subject. But the way I understood it to read, we have to have it on our computers.... I always have mine on my server as well as on my computer though. Just to be safe..... but it isn't publically viewable.

Use hosts provided by sponsors, and post 2257 statement at whatever you deem your "principal URL" (link it to your sponsor's 2257 page). If you do that you're clean. Old fart will not come knocking at your door.

you can have physical copies or computer copies of the i.d.s

So it doesnt have to be publically viewable with or without a password??

From what I understood, storing it electronically only is NOT enough, you still need the physical papers...

Click here and see what they are saying... I think that is what they are saying here. Read what Jace is talking about......

From what I gather, YOUR info has to be accessible, but you can have a database of your content info on a file that isn't linked where everyone can find it.... I may be reading it wrong. I am like the rest of you, I am trying to understand all of this too.

Jace also gives a link there where we can give OUR feedback to it. :thumbsup

Nautilus - the law refers to the producer, not the host. you are the producer whether you are using your sponsor's hosting or your own.

Please explain your thinking behind this one?

If you think not giving out free content stops surfers logging onto the Interent to buy porn to membership sites, you need to rethink it.

It might tip the balance towards a few offshore sites with offshore webmasters but that's it.

Um no because most sponsors are in the USA. You think a sponsor is going to give out free hardcore content to foriegn webasters just because they can break US laws( all be then STUPID laws ) because they are not obligated to follow them? You think Ashhahahahaha can't go find out which sponor that foreign webmaster got the free content from and go after the sponsor?

That's in our license and model release, I would have thought it standard that you cannot post the girl under her real name.

Yeah right. The US goes after child pornographers from Rusisa and other places all the time. I can see Europe telling the US to fuck off when it comes to these laws, but Canada is right next door, we share boarders.

This will have great affect on the business as it is today.

It will mean the end of a lot of the free content or a big reduction in it's strength.

An end to the affiliate and free content system that has built itself into a bigger problem than benefit.

Will it lose one money spending surfer?

So for those who can get their act into gear it will be great act, for those who can't, MacDonalds are hiring.

I wonder what how this applies to Google and Yahoo and there images search? Are they going to dump that or perhaps they will be the ones to sue.

Don't they hotlink the images?

A) I doubt that matters to Ashhahahahaha since his intent is getting dirty pics off the net so kindergardners can surf in peace at the expense of our freedom.

B) they also have a CACHE of not only pics web webpages and those ARE served from their own servers.

How many of you have actually been to the site and registered a comment on these alterations?


Here's the link. Get writing and be more constructive than "It will put me out of business"

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

A) Since Ashhahahahaha wants this law solely for the purpose to make it easier for him to ban porn MY concerns are of no concern to him. The fact the he is ignorant to think the US controls the internet means he's too ignorant to understand our concerns.

B) Yes let's give the government a head start on invading my privacy and preparing my cell at some federal prison.

Also I wonder if Yahoo is going to finally get rid of their adult groups. No, you can't SEARCH for them but they are out there and you can find them. Those are defiantely a 2257 disaster for Yahoo just waiting for Ahshahahahaha to pounce on.

True but if you're using only free hosts provided by sponsors your name is nowhere to be found. If they want 2257 for your gallery/free site/cj/whatever else they'll come directly to your sponsor.

As an additional layer of defense I'd recommend issuing 2257 IDs for every set of free content they post to any sponsor. Webmasters will be able to keep track of what and where they're using then; and if there is an emergency link "investigators" to sponsor's online 2257 database.

Such scheme looks clean to me. 1) Chances they'll be able to find you are almost non-existant 2) If for whatever reason (neighbor reported etc) they came knocking at your door you're still compliant - you have categorized records which will be filled with real IDs in a moment.

Why not just place the links as a watermark in the pics. Then if your documents are in order, and you keep them at same url all the time, no one have to worry. Can't be easier :winkwink:

ok, I dont want to start a new 2257-thread so I post my question here.

You cant have a Thumb-TGP hosted in the US anymore with these laws, right?

I mean, you would not be able to accept submissions as before and so on, it would probably even be hard to get all the papers for every thumb even if you only use hosted galleries.... :helpme

Very good point, I guess two things will happen, either youll have to make thumbs not of a sexual nature, eg the womans face, or youll have to hotlink thumbs from galleries

Get hosting in Canada and find non US sponsors. I found a Canadian host with pretty good prices. I think if a ton of webmasters started using these guys their can order more bulk bandwidth and get prices even lower.

http://www.bchosting.com/

Get hosting in Canada and use Non US sponsors, who don't use US processing. Good luck with that.


I've written three letters to one particular sponsor who offers up a huge batch of beautiful content and they insist that aside from cross referencing they are in compliance. I sent the Larry Wa lters link and they still insist they are compliant. I copied this section

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).


Now.. will they come back as compliant? Maybe THEY are, but will they provide for their affiliates.. after three letters.. dunno.


I can't be the only webmaster who is asking for this stuff, this program is big and advertises....


I guess now the selling point of programs will be, "we will provide what you need to be compliant" instead of "Win a car"

They can get non US processing. I think someone made a post about this company. Anyone use them? I am sure there are a few sponsors from Canada.

http://www.moneris.com/index.php

What if US sponsors setup companies in Canada with Canadian hosting and billing?

My continually updated FAQ on 2257 issues:

http://www.2257lookup.com/2257ForWebmasters.html


(some posts for content producers as well, just haven't separated it out since it's somewhat intermixed)


-brandon

Most over seas processors are brances of US based processors. If the sponcer is US based they have to follow US rules no matter if they process/host in Russia. It simply does not matter.

Shane

Read this off another forum, very scary if all true

basschick

"Bean - it requires ALL webmasters to be available in their primary place of business from 8 - 6 on mon - fridays, including holidays. it further requires that you put the address of your primary place of business on your website in black on white.

how many people who work at home want the address where their children or parents are placed on an adult website?

and if all that is kewl, try this - you must have all i.d.'s cross indexed alphabetically and by EVERY webpage url.

did i mention this includes banners and full page ads?

and if you aren't in that place of business when they come by, or you don't have the proper indexing, you can go to jail for five years.

you don't think some part of that is a little unreasonable?"

There should be a central organization that issues performers llicenses or IDs, and if webmasters submitted their use of that performer's content to be filed under that performer's ID and listed the information on the actual site (Just the performers' ID or license number, which could be verified with the issuing organizations' records), then the problem this law is meant to prevent will no longer be a problem, right? Even STD test results could be kept as a matter of record. It seems so simple to me, granted, expensive, but still. Am I overlooking some major reason this isn't plausible, besides funds?

Sounds like something from good old CCCP http://eyetuke.netfirms.com/rotflmao.gif

That is the million dollars question.