Proposed solution for 2257 problem with gallerymakers - GoFuckYourself.com

Giorgio_Xo · 07-25-2004, 09:34 PM

This could be an elegant solution to the problems with the new 2257 changes.

Currently, millions of images and videos owned by programs flows freely on third party marketing affiliates domains in the form of TGP galleries. The rule change would require an accountability of all URLs containing their explicit images to match to model identification.

The only quick fix is to have all U.S. programs require all affiliates migrate their galleries to mandatory free hosting domains owned by the program. This would allow for easy URL maintainance as the programs get to approve how the content is used and can spider the free host URLs for regulatory accountability.

This would require a coordinated effort of the hosting companies to migrating the millions of galleries to a few hundred program owned free host domains. (Programs could even charge for host as virtual hosts). Programs would have accounts with dozens of hosting companies.

All 2257 information would still be concentrated in the hands of the few programs.

Thumbnail gallery and link list owners would only use R rated thumbs to comply with softcore codes bypassing the need for 2257 maintainance.

This would also be a benefit to programs to clean up bad and dead affiliates.

I hope this post will generate some commentary.

GTS Mark · 07-25-2004, 09:37 PM

I was actually thinking about this solution a couple of days ago. I have been using my sponsor's hosting for sometime due to this reason maybe coming up, plus I save a wack of cash on hosting.

However I do have thousands of galleries hosted on my own servers currently.

I'd hate to pull them down as they pull in good revenue still.

DH

JulianSosa · 07-25-2004, 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DrinkingHard
I was actually thinking about this solution a couple of days ago. I have been using my sponsor's hosting for sometime due to this reason maybe coming up, plus I save a wack of cash on hosting.

However I do have thousands of galleries hosted on my own servers currently.

I'd hate to pull them down as they pull in good revenue still.

DH

Cant you just upload some pg rated pics over the ones that are there now ?

Oracle Porn · 07-25-2004, 09:40 PM

Well I'm moving to Israel.... fuck this US bullshit..

Oracle Porn · 07-25-2004, 09:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JulianSosa
Cant you just upload some pg rated pics over the ones that are there now ?

Giorgio_Xo · 07-25-2004, 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DrinkingHard
I was actually thinking about this solution a couple of days ago. I have been using my sponsor's hosting for sometime due to this reason maybe coming up, plus I save a wack of cash on hosting.

However I do have thousands of galleries hosted on my own servers currently.

I'd hate to pull them down as they pull in good revenue still.

DH

Easy. A simple redirect to the new URLs from the DNS level.

Giorgio_Xo · 07-25-2004, 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Oracle Porn
Well I'm moving to Israel.... fuck this US bullshit..

It doesn't matter where you are if the program you promote operates in the U.S. The U.S. program is obligated to account for all URLs regardless of which country there being served from.

Fletch XXX · 07-25-2004, 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Giorgio_Xo
It doesn't matter where you are if the program you promote operates in the U.S. The U.S. program is obligated to account for all URLs regardless of which country there being served from.

he better start saving his lunch money.

i doubt his mom is gonna pay for him to move, she just funded his vacation to Israel.

detoxed · 07-25-2004, 09:49 PM

Couldnt you just put your gallery domains in the sponsors name?

Giorgio_Xo · 07-25-2004, 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by detoxed
Couldnt you just put your gallery domains in the sponsors name?

Awesome idea, but third party domains usually host galleries from multiple programs. Since the program owner can't be made reasonable for content the program doesn't own, this wouldn't work most of the time.

grand · 07-25-2004, 10:04 PM

anyone got a link to the new rules?

riosluts · 07-25-2004, 10:06 PM

when will this law go into effect?

Giorgio_Xo · 07-26-2004, 08:41 AM

A bump for the morning crowd.

BRISK · 07-26-2004, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Giorgio_Xo
It doesn't matter where you are if the program you promote operates in the U.S. The U.S. program is obligated to account for all URLs regardless of which country there being served from.

proof?

chase · 07-26-2004, 09:06 AM

It sounds like a good idea.
I was pondering this problem myself, and I came up with this:
If adult performers/models had to be licensed, it would solve a multitude of problems.
1) Age of the performer would obviously have to beproven to get licensed, and that proof would be on record with the licensing organization.
2) Any content featuring that performer could be referenced with his/her ID number rather than personal information, keeping the performers identity and location safe from the sickos.
3) Any use of that content could be registered with the governing body, giving the Feds easy access to any image's performers and IDs, within that licensing system's records.
4) The individual webmaster's location need not be divulged if the Feds can access all the info they need from that licensing body.

Granted, we may have less models due to licensing requirements, but on the other hand, the models we do have will most likely be more professional and reliable.

dirtysouth · 07-26-2004, 09:09 AM

I suggested it Saturday and was flamed.

Giorgio_Xo · 07-26-2004, 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by dirtysouth
I suggested it Saturday and was flamed.

Sorry. I wasn't around Saturday. Please feel free to add your two cents on the matter.

chase · 07-26-2004, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by dirtysouth
I suggested it Saturday and was flamed.

Have a link?

dirtysouth · 07-26-2004, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Giorgio_Xo
Sorry. I wasn't around Saturday. Please feel free to add your two cents on the matter.

Right on. You spelled it out a bit better than I.

I think it's a great idea. I hope sponsors will offer something like this.

Another thing is what about programs like remotethumbs? I'm not 100% clear but if I run 5 or so TGP's using remotethumbs to manage all of them then what does that make me? 3rd party producer? This is one of the things I'm going to discuss with my attorney this afternoon.

Elli · 07-26-2004, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by chase
It sounds like a good idea.
I was pondering this problem myself, and I came up with this:
If adult performers/models had to be licensed, it would solve a multitude of problems.
1) Age of the performer would obviously have to beproven to get licensed, and that proof would be on record with the licensing organization.
2) Any content featuring that performer could be referenced with his/her ID number rather than personal information, keeping the performers identity and location safe from the sickos.
3) Any use of that content could be registered with the governing body, giving the Feds easy access to any image's performers and IDs, within that licensing system's records.
4) The individual webmaster's location need not be divulged if the Feds can access all the info they need from that licensing body.

Granted, we may have less models due to licensing requirements, but on the other hand, the models we do have will most likely be more professional and reliable.

Nice idea in theory, but I highly doubt it would have much effectiveness. You're asking people who casually answer ads in the paper now and then to actually admit to an authority that they are porn models and to get licensed. I don't really see that happening.

dirtysouth · 07-26-2004, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by chase
Have a link?

http://www.gfyboard.com/showthread.p...hreadid=330653

Actually FightThisPatent gave some good info.

wyldblyss · 07-26-2004, 09:43 AM

Ok it's Monday and I'm stupid on Monday so keep this in mind.

So are you saying that every webmaster out there (thousands of them) transfer all of their galleries to sponsor free hosts?

1. I have a feeling many of them would be slow as shit.
2. Sponsors bandwidth would hit the roof. You say "free" so I assume you expect the sponsors to just basically pay the hosting bill of every webmaster out there?
3. This also puts a lot of extra time and expense onto the sponsor. They would have to monitor it for what would be thousands of webmasters to make sure their content is legal and complies with the regulations. If it doesn't I'm sure their ass would be the one that gets screwed.
4. How would it be handled if one webmaster uses 30 different programs? Are they supposed to keep track of all 30 of these new free hosts?
5. Would you have problems with your licenced content? After all, I licenced it, now it is on a domain owned by someone else? Would this require transferring all the licenses over?

While it sounds good at first...to me it sounds like "hey webmasters, I have come up with a great idea to get rid of the 2257 headache...just give it to the sponsor for them to deal with!" I think sponsors will have enough to keep them busy keeping track of all of their own 2257 requirments without taking on the responsibility and expense of doing it for all the webmasters. If they did I would forsee at least a couple full time people devoted to nothing but taking care of the 2257 of the webmasters. Sounds good for the webmasters, but sounds like hell for the sponsors...and a large expense for them to....and legal problems because ultimately if you put everything in their hands it is their ass on the line.

Chase: Damn! They should have someone like you in gov't. What you purpose is a perfect solution. No one models without a gov't licence. A central database for those that use a models material to just enter into the database a URL that it is on and photographers can enter information regarding new sets etc. Everything centrally located, no mess, no fuss.

chase · 07-26-2004, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Elli
Nice idea in theory, but I highly doubt it would have much effectiveness. You're asking people who casually answer ads in the paper now and then to actually admit to an authority that they are porn models and to get licensed. I don't really see that happening.

Yeah, you're probably right, Elli. I'm trying to fight my way out of a wet paper bag on this one....but you know, I have kids. And this law that is meant to protect kids is putting MINE in danger by requiring that our address be available to any Tom, Dick, and Harry that sees any of my sites.
It fucking sucks.

chase · 07-26-2004, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by wyldblyss
Ok it's Monday and I'm stupid on Monday so keep this in mind.

So are you saying that every webmaster out there (thousands of them) transfer all of their galleries to sponsor free hosts?

1. I have a feeling many of them would be slow as shit.
2. Sponsors bandwidth would hit the roof. You say "free" so I assume you expect the sponsors to just basically pay the hosting bill of every webmaster out there?
3. This also puts a lot of extra time and expense onto the sponsor. They would have to monitor it for what would be thousands of webmasters to make sure their content is legal and complies with the regulations. If it doesn't I'm sure their ass would be the one that gets screwed.
4. How would it be handled if one webmaster uses 30 different programs? Are they supposed to keep track of all 30 of these new free hosts?
5. Would you have problems with your licenced content? After all, I licenced it, now it is on a domain owned by someone else? Would this require transferring all the licenses over?

While it sounds good at first...to me it sounds like "hey webmasters, I have come up with a great idea to get rid of the 2257 headache...just give it to the sponsor for them to deal with!" I think sponsors will have enough to keep them busy keeping track of all of their own 2257 requirments without taking on the responsibility and expense of doing it for all the webmasters. If they did I would forsee at least a couple full time people devoted to nothing but taking care of the 2257 of the webmasters. Sounds good for the webmasters, but sounds like hell for the sponsors...and a large expense for them to....and legal problems because ultimately if you put everything in their hands it is their ass on the line.

Chase: Damn! They should have someone like you in gov't. What you purpose is a perfect solution. No one models without a gov't licence. A central database for those that use a models material to just enter into the database a URL that it is on and photographers can enter information regarding new sets etc. Everything centrally located, no mess, no fuss.

LOL, Thanks. Good point about the sponsors though-if their responsibilities grow, and their bandwidth expenses grow, our payout will shrink.

Giorgio_Xo · 07-26-2004, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by wyldblyss
Ok it's Monday and I'm stupid on Monday so keep this in mind.

So are you saying that every webmaster out there (thousands of them) transfer all of their galleries to sponsor free hosts?

1. I have a feeling many of them would be slow as shit.
2. Sponsors bandwidth would hit the roof. You say "free" so I assume you expect the sponsors to just basically pay the hosting bill of every webmaster out there?
3. This also puts a lot of extra time and expense onto the sponsor. They would have to monitor it for what would be thousands of webmasters to make sure their content is legal and complies with the regulations. If it doesn't I'm sure their ass would be the one that gets screwed.
4. How would it be handled if one webmaster uses 30 different programs? Are they supposed to keep track of all 30 of these new free hosts?
5. Would you have problems with your licenced content? After all, I licenced it, now it is on a domain owned by someone else? Would this require transferring all the licenses over?

While it sounds good at first...to me it sounds like "hey webmasters, I have come up with a great idea to get rid of the 2257 headache...just give it to the sponsor for them to deal with!" I think sponsors will have enough to keep them busy keeping track of all of their own 2257 requirments without taking on the responsibility and expense of doing it for all the webmasters. If they did I would forsee at least a couple full time people devoted to nothing but taking care of the 2257 of the webmasters. Sounds good for the webmasters, but sounds like hell for the sponsors...and a large expense for them to....and legal problems because ultimately if you put everything in their hands it is their ass on the line.

Chase: Damn! They should have someone like you in gov't. What you purpose is a perfect solution. No one models without a gov't licence. A central database for those that use a models material to just enter into the database a URL that it is on and photographers can enter information regarding new sets etc. Everything centrally located, no mess, no fuss.

As of the change, gallery makers would be required either to show 2257 or take their galleries down for any U.S. sponsor. So massive feat of migration is a better choice for many than to simply delete the galleries.

wesbob2k4 · 07-26-2004, 10:02 AM

Been thinkin about these new laws ever sence i first heard about em on the cecash radio. THere tryin to realllllly make it hard for adult webmasters. Even the ones who dont spam and do it all light could have an effect from this. Its no worse then VA trying to pass a porn law. I dont remember exactly what it was but they were trying to ban either the makeing of or buying of porn in VA.

wyldblyss · 07-26-2004, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Giorgio_Xo
As of the change, gallery makers would be required either to show 2257 or take their galleries down for any U.S. sponsor. So massive feat of migration is a better choice for many than to simply delete the galleries.

Why just delete or migrate? I mean from what I understand all a secondary producer would require is the model release and a copy of her I.D. Doesn't everyone have that? I know that might sound like a dumb question, but I have it for every set that I have purchased. All that a gallery would require is a link to the 2257 which from what I understand would refer them to the primary producer...which isn't a whole lot different than it is now except that the 2257 would have to be on everything.

I think it is more of a headache for the content providers keeping all of the models info up to date.

Giorgio_Xo · 07-26-2004, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by wyldblyss
Why just delete or migrate? I mean from what I understand all a secondary producer would require is the model release and a copy of her I.D. Doesn't everyone have that? I know that might sound like a dumb question, but I have it for every set that I have purchased. All that a gallery would require is a link to the 2257 which from what I understand would refer them to the primary producer...which isn't a whole lot different than it is now except that the 2257 would have to be on everything.

I think it is more of a headache for the content providers keeping all of the models info up to date.

All sponor owned content will require a 2257 in affiliate hands plus a list of all URLs cross indexed with the model information.

wyldblyss · 07-26-2004, 12:16 PM

Well then maybe sponsors should discontinue free content and instead provide more hosted galleries. I personally don't use free content, I purchase my own.

chase · 07-26-2004, 01:52 PM

There are several problems...
First and formost is the safety of the models/performers. Now anyone who purchases content from a broker will have access to the models' personal information and location, putting her at risk (and her children, if any, whom this whole law is SUPPOSED to be protecting...I guess adult performers' children aren't entitled to the same level of protection as everyone else's in this country). All you need is a credit card to get content from a broker...there is no industry registartion for webmasters, so anyone can buy it and get that model's home address, and SSN if it is one of the IDs used.
Second is the webmasters' safety. With the exception of amateur webmasters, who are their own models and have the biggest risk of all, I don't think we are as much at risk as the models...however, that doesn't mean there isn't the possiblility of some holy-roller who decides to shoot porn peddlers rather than abortion doctors. Again, our children are at risk here. If they don't care about us and our safety, claiming that we make the choice to put ourselves in the line of fire by being pron webmasters, well, what about our kids? (Basically that arguement sounds to me like if the cops were to not persue any rape or murder of strippers or hookers because "they asked for it" by being in their field of work. Now that would cause one hell of an uproar, wouldn't it?)
I can deal with it being a pain in the ass to keep records of every url and whatnot. What really concerns me is the safety issue, and even more so, how the lawmakers involved in this decision have not an iota of thought towards the threat this proposes to adults who lawfully choose their line of work to be adult, and more importantly, their children that this law is SUPPOSED to be protecting!
Furthermore, it is hardly the amateur girl or couple who has a website and relies on promo pack exchanges for a large part of traffic that is perpetuating KP, so why are they the targets, in practice, of this law? They are the ones who are being exposed the most, and whose major traffic source is being torn apart.
I don't really have a position on gun control, but this reminds me of something I heard once about it: The law abiding citizens will suffer, because even if they follow the laws, the criminals will not.

Giorgio_Xo · 07-26-2004, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by chase
There are several problems...
First and formost is the safety of the models/performers. Now anyone who purchases content from a broker will have access to the models' personal information and location, putting her at risk (and her children, if any, whom this whole law is SUPPOSED to be protecting...I guess adult performers' children aren't entitled to the same level of protection as everyone else's in this country). All you need is a credit card to get content from a broker...there is no industry registartion for webmasters, so anyone can buy it and get that model's home address, and SSN if it is one of the IDs used.
Second is the webmasters' safety. With the exception of amateur webmasters, who are their own models and have the biggest risk of all, I don't think we are as much at risk as the models...however, that doesn't mean there isn't the possiblility of some holy-roller who decides to shoot porn peddlers rather than abortion doctors. Again, our children are at risk here. If they don't care about us and our safety, claiming that we make the choice to put ourselves in the line of fire by being pron webmasters, well, what about our kids? (Basically that arguement sounds to me like if the cops were to not persue any rape or murder of strippers or hookers because "they asked for it" by being in their field of work. Now that would cause one hell of an uproar, wouldn't it?)
I can deal with it being a pain in the ass to keep records of every url and whatnot. What really concerns me is the safety issue, and even more so, how the lawmakers involved in this decision have not an iota of thought towards the threat this proposes to adults who lawfully choose their line of work to be adult, and more importantly, their children that this law is SUPPOSED to be protecting!
Furthermore, it is hardly the amateur girl or couple who has a website and relies on promo pack exchanges for a large part of traffic that is perpetuating KP, so why are they the targets, in practice, of this law? They are the ones who are being exposed the most, and whose major traffic source is being torn apart.
I don't really have a position on gun control, but this reminds me of something I heard once about it: The law abiding citizens will suffer, because even if they follow the laws, the criminals will not.

I agree with your points but until the changes occur no one can challenge the new rules in Federal Court. Who will step forward to sue AssClown after the change? Someone could file an immediate injunction on August 23.

chase · 07-26-2004, 02:00 PM

I'm suprised lawyers aren't jumping all over this to do so in order to be a part of a landmark case.

Tom_PMs · 07-26-2004, 02:07 PM

I suggested just using a frame to load up the thumbs/images hosted on a compliant domain.
Alot of people do this anyway just because it's a time saver.

However, that might not be any good because using a frame, you're still causing the images to be inserted on your page I guess.

So now I suggest using old style black rectangles over 96% of the images and saying "Censored by the DOJ".

Or something..

Actually, moving to non-sexually explicit content would avoid the whole mess, and probably enhance sales in the long term(?).

What a mess..

07-25-2004, 09:34 PM	#1
Giorgio_Xo Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Las Vegas, NV Posts: 4,263	Proposed solution for 2257 problem with gallerymakers This could be an elegant solution to the problems with the new 2257 changes. Currently, millions of images and videos owned by programs flows freely on third party marketing affiliates domains in the form of TGP galleries. The rule change would require an accountability of all URLs containing their explicit images to match to model identification. The only quick fix is to have all U.S. programs require all affiliates migrate their galleries to mandatory free hosting domains owned by the program. This would allow for easy URL maintainance as the programs get to approve how the content is used and can spider the free host URLs for regulatory accountability. This would require a coordinated effort of the hosting companies to migrating the millions of galleries to a few hundred program owned free host domains. (Programs could even charge for host as virtual hosts). Programs would have accounts with dozens of hosting companies. All 2257 information would still be concentrated in the hands of the few programs. Thumbnail gallery and link list owners would only use R rated thumbs to comply with softcore codes bypassing the need for 2257 maintainance. This would also be a benefit to programs to clean up bad and dead affiliates. I hope this post will generate some commentary. __________________ Make Levees, Not War

07-25-2004, 09:40 PM	#4
Oracle Porn Affiliate Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Icq: 94-399-723 Posts: 24,433	Well I'm moving to Israel.... fuck this US bullshit.. __________________

07-25-2004, 10:04 PM	#11
grand Confirmed User Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 310	anyone got a link to the new rules? __________________ NichedSites has exclusive sites in every niche TwistysCash Rocks!!! They're always giving away free cash

07-25-2004, 10:06 PM	#12
riosluts Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 5,250	when will this law go into effect? __________________

07-26-2004, 08:41 AM	#13
Giorgio_Xo Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Las Vegas, NV Posts: 4,263	A bump for the morning crowd. __________________ Make Levees, Not War

07-25-2004, 09:37 PM	#2
GTS Mark Vrume Mark Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 20,912	I was actually thinking about this solution a couple of days ago. I have been using my sponsor's hosting for sometime due to this reason maybe coming up, plus I save a wack of cash on hosting. However I do have thousands of galleries hosted on my own servers currently. I'd hate to pull them down as they pull in good revenue still. DH

07-25-2004, 09:49 PM	#9
detoxed vip member Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 17,798	Couldnt you just put your gallery domains in the sponsors name?

07-26-2004, 09:06 AM	#15
chase Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Tampa Bay Posts: 6,019	It sounds like a good idea. I was pondering this problem myself, and I came up with this: If adult performers/models had to be licensed, it would solve a multitude of problems. 1) Age of the performer would obviously have to beproven to get licensed, and that proof would be on record with the licensing organization. 2) Any content featuring that performer could be referenced with his/her ID number rather than personal information, keeping the performers identity and location safe from the sickos. 3) Any use of that content could be registered with the governing body, giving the Feds easy access to any image's performers and IDs, within that licensing system's records. 4) The individual webmaster's location need not be divulged if the Feds can access all the info they need from that licensing body. Granted, we may have less models due to licensing requirements, but on the other hand, the models we do have will most likely be more professional and reliable.

07-26-2004, 09:09 AM	#16
dirtysouth Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Mobtown Posts: 2,613	I suggested it Saturday and was flamed. __________________ no sig

07-26-2004, 09:43 AM	#22
wyldblyss Confirmed User Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: The Buck Starts Here Posts: 5,779	Ok it's Monday and I'm stupid on Monday so keep this in mind. So are you saying that every webmaster out there (thousands of them) transfer all of their galleries to sponsor free hosts? 1. I have a feeling many of them would be slow as shit. 2. Sponsors bandwidth would hit the roof. You say "free" so I assume you expect the sponsors to just basically pay the hosting bill of every webmaster out there? 3. This also puts a lot of extra time and expense onto the sponsor. They would have to monitor it for what would be thousands of webmasters to make sure their content is legal and complies with the regulations. If it doesn't I'm sure their ass would be the one that gets screwed. 4. How would it be handled if one webmaster uses 30 different programs? Are they supposed to keep track of all 30 of these new free hosts? 5. Would you have problems with your licenced content? After all, I licenced it, now it is on a domain owned by someone else? Would this require transferring all the licenses over? While it sounds good at first...to me it sounds like "hey webmasters, I have come up with a great idea to get rid of the 2257 headache...just give it to the sponsor for them to deal with!" I think sponsors will have enough to keep them busy keeping track of all of their own 2257 requirments without taking on the responsibility and expense of doing it for all the webmasters. If they did I would forsee at least a couple full time people devoted to nothing but taking care of the 2257 of the webmasters. Sounds good for the webmasters, but sounds like hell for the sponsors...and a large expense for them to....and legal problems because ultimately if you put everything in their hands it is their ass on the line. Chase: Damn! They should have someone like you in gov't. What you purpose is a perfect solution. No one models without a gov't licence. A central database for those that use a models material to just enter into the database a URL that it is on and photographers can enter information regarding new sets etc. Everything centrally located, no mess, no fuss.

07-26-2004, 10:02 AM	#26
wesbob2k4 Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 122	Been thinkin about these new laws ever sence i first heard about em on the cecash radio. THere tryin to realllllly make it hard for adult webmasters. Even the ones who dont spam and do it all light could have an effect from this. Its no worse then VA trying to pass a porn law. I dont remember exactly what it was but they were trying to ban either the makeing of or buying of porn in VA.

07-26-2004, 12:16 PM	#29
wyldblyss Confirmed User Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: The Buck Starts Here Posts: 5,779	Well then maybe sponsors should discontinue free content and instead provide more hosted galleries. I personally don't use free content, I purchase my own.

07-26-2004, 01:52 PM	#30
chase Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Tampa Bay Posts: 6,019	There are several problems... First and formost is the safety of the models/performers. Now anyone who purchases content from a broker will have access to the models' personal information and location, putting her at risk (and her children, if any, whom this whole law is SUPPOSED to be protecting...I guess adult performers' children aren't entitled to the same level of protection as everyone else's in this country). All you need is a credit card to get content from a broker...there is no industry registartion for webmasters, so anyone can buy it and get that model's home address, and SSN if it is one of the IDs used. Second is the webmasters' safety. With the exception of amateur webmasters, who are their own models and have the biggest risk of all, I don't think we are as much at risk as the models...however, that doesn't mean there isn't the possiblility of some holy-roller who decides to shoot porn peddlers rather than abortion doctors. Again, our children are at risk here. If they don't care about us and our safety, claiming that we make the choice to put ourselves in the line of fire by being pron webmasters, well, what about our kids? (Basically that arguement sounds to me like if the cops were to not persue any rape or murder of strippers or hookers because "they asked for it" by being in their field of work. Now that would cause one hell of an uproar, wouldn't it?) I can deal with it being a pain in the ass to keep records of every url and whatnot. What really concerns me is the safety issue, and even more so, how the lawmakers involved in this decision have not an iota of thought towards the threat this proposes to adults who lawfully choose their line of work to be adult, and more importantly, their children that this law is SUPPOSED to be protecting! Furthermore, it is hardly the amateur girl or couple who has a website and relies on promo pack exchanges for a large part of traffic that is perpetuating KP, so why are they the targets, in practice, of this law? They are the ones who are being exposed the most, and whose major traffic source is being torn apart. I don't really have a position on gun control, but this reminds me of something I heard once about it: The law abiding citizens will suffer, because even if they follow the laws, the criminals will not.

07-26-2004, 02:00 PM	#32
chase Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Tampa Bay Posts: 6,019	I'm suprised lawyers aren't jumping all over this to do so in order to be a part of a landmark case.

07-26-2004, 02:07 PM	#33
Tom_PMs Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 2,049	I suggested just using a frame to load up the thumbs/images hosted on a compliant domain. Alot of people do this anyway just because it's a time saver. However, that might not be any good because using a frame, you're still causing the images to be inserted on your page I guess. So now I suggest using old style black rectangles over 96% of the images and saying "Censored by the DOJ". Or something.. Actually, moving to non-sexually explicit content would avoid the whole mess, and probably enhance sales in the long term(?). What a mess.. __________________ You've read it, you can't unread it.