2257 and SPONSOR content? - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

basschick · 07-24-2004, 04:15 PM

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

Ray@TastyDollars · 07-24-2004, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tam
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.

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

StarkReality · 07-24-2004, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tam
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.

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

Tam · 07-24-2004, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ray
So it doesnt have to be publically viewable with or without a password??

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.

basschick · 07-24-2004, 10:34 PM

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.

Paul Markham · 07-24-2004, 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ray
If they do stop giving out content, they will lose too much money. Just with me they'll lose of 80k/year generated from free sponsor content.

Ray

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.

GatorB · 07-24-2004, 11:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Giorgio_Xo
Move away from the USA. Problem solved.

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?

Paul Markham · 07-24-2004, 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bopha

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....

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

GatorB · 07-24-2004, 11:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by emmanuelle
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.

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.

Paul Markham · 07-24-2004, 11:15 PM

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.

GatorB · 07-24-2004, 11:19 PM

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.

ppk · 07-24-2004, 11:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by GatorB
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?

GatorB · 07-24-2004, 11:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ppk
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.

Paul Markham · 07-24-2004, 11:30 PM

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

Quote:

SUMMARY: This proposed rule amends the record-keeping and inspection requirements of 28 CFR part 75 to bring the regulations up to date with current law, to improve understanding of the regulatory system, and to make the inspection process effective for the purposes of the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act of 1988, as amended, relating to the sexual exploitation and other abuse of children.

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: [email protected] 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.

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

GatorB · 07-24-2004, 11:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by charly
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.

Nautilus · 07-25-2004, 04:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by basschick
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.

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.

Dirty Dane · 07-25-2004, 04:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by OldJeff
No, actually if this goes into effect, sponsors will no longer be able to give away content, (except in hosted galley form possibly).

The cross referencing requirement makes it impossible to do so legally.

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

More Booze · 07-25-2004, 04:35 AM

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....

Johny Traffic · 07-25-2004, 04:46 AM

Quote:

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....

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

VeriSexy · 07-25-2004, 04:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by r3ap3r
How does this not apply to Canadian or other countries for that matter. Even if you site and server is in Canada, you are doing business with companies in the US.

If this does not apply to Canadian, I would like to know how you arrived to that statement. I am Canadian also.

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/

bopha · 07-25-2004, 05:10 AM

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"

VeriSexy · 07-25-2004, 05:33 AM

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?

FightThisPatent · 07-25-2004, 08:47 AM

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

shaneFPS · 07-25-2004, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by VeriSexy
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?

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

VeriSexy · 07-25-2004, 03:43 PM

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?"

chase · 07-25-2004, 05:58 PM

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?

Dirty Dane · 07-25-2004, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by VeriSexy

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

Sounds like something from good old CCCP

xxxjay · 07-26-2004, 01:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by bopha
\
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?
\

That is the million dollars question.

07-24-2004, 04:15 PM	#51
basschick Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: el lay, ca usa Posts: 2,540	you can have physical copies or computer copies of the i.d.s __________________ Got Gay and For Women Traffic?

07-24-2004, 10:34 PM	#55
basschick Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: el lay, ca usa Posts: 2,540	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. __________________ Got Gay and For Women Traffic?

07-24-2004, 11:15 PM	#60
Paul Markham Too old to care Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: On the sofa, watching TV or doing my jigsaws. Posts: 52,943	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. __________________ Blowout deal. 880 videos, 2,400 image sets, plus many RAW videos. $500. PM me for a deal. Skype Paulmarkham70

07-25-2004, 05:33 AM	#72
VeriSexy Join The Royal Family Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 25,463	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? __________________ Looking for a KICK ASS TEEN SPONSOR? Check out ROYAL CASH - THE KING OF TEEN! Incredible webmaster tools FHGs, Morphing Blog and RSS Feeds, Embedded FLV & WMV Videos. With TOP RATIO Sites like TeenStarsOnly.com - Earn $$ with our New Site & Bonus Payouts!! ATMovs.com \| iTeenVideo.com \| TeenSexMovs.com \| TeenSexMania.com

07-25-2004, 08:47 AM	#73
FightThisPatent Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 4,090	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 __________________ http://www.t3report.com (where's the traffic?) v5.0 is out! \| http://www.FightThePatent.com \| ICQ 52741957

07-24-2004, 11:19 PM	#61
GatorB The Demon & 12clicks Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: SallyRand is a FAGGOT Posts: 18,208	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.

07-25-2004, 04:35 AM	#68
More Booze Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 5,116	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....

07-25-2004, 05:10 AM	#71
bopha Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 1,882	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"

07-25-2004, 03:43 PM	#75
VeriSexy Join The Royal Family Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 25,463	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?" __________________ Looking for a KICK ASS TEEN SPONSOR? Check out ROYAL CASH - THE KING OF TEEN! Incredible webmaster tools FHGs, Morphing Blog and RSS Feeds, Embedded FLV & WMV Videos. With TOP RATIO Sites like TeenStarsOnly.com - Earn $$ with our New Site & Bonus Payouts!! ATMovs.com \| iTeenVideo.com \| TeenSexMovs.com \| TeenSexMania.com

07-25-2004, 05:58 PM	#76
chase Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Tampa Bay Posts: 6,019	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?