Content Providers - do you just give 2257 docs to anyone?

[Jace]

in other words, do you have a screening process, or can anyone with a credit card gain access to all info of a girl?

i think with the new laws coming into effect that content producers should start having tougher screening processes when it comes to selling content and who can gain access to models and porn star info....cause in essence, someone could pay a content producer $80 for his dream girls address

[AaronM]

[Jace]

the lack of response to this is baffling me

[contentjunky]

Okay heres the deal. The content we provide that is shot exclusively for contentjunky.com. When you buy it and download it or FTP it. It comes with the set of images in a zip folder along with 2257, model release, Ids. The id is usually a California drivers license and we BLOCK OR BLACK OUT THEIR REAL name and address and personal info. It gives you her birthdate which shows she is legal at the time of shooting. The model release form you get with your photo set has her matching information and signature with matching BIRTHDATE proving she is legal. So to answer your question. The PORN STAR Fan will not get her phone number, cell phone, address, drivers license number etc. if he posed as webmaster and bought content from us. We protect their full identity and give you what you need which is LEGAL AGE and her Model Release with her photo ID. I hope this helps.

[MandyBlake]

Originally posted by contentjunky
Okay heres the deal. The content we provide that is shot exclusively for contentjunky.com. When you buy it and download it or FTP it. It comes with the set of images in a zip folder along with 2257, model release, Ids. The id is usually a California drivers license and we BLOCK OR BLACK OUT THEIR REAL name and address and personal info. It gives you her birthdate which shows she is legal at the time of shooting. The model release form you get with your photo set has her matching information and signature with matching BIRTHDATE proving she is legal. So to answer your question. The PORN STAR Fan will not get her phone number, cell phone, address, drivers license number etc. if he posed as webmaster and bought content from us. We protect their full identity and give you what you need which is LEGAL AGE and her Model Release with her photo ID. I hope this helps.

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.

[hershie]

I am hoping some sanity gets applied to the final version of this proposed legislation, as I truly would rather go out of business than hand over ID's with real names and addresses to anyone buying my content.

[AaronM]

Originally posted by hershie
I am hoping some sanity gets applied to the final version of this proposed legislation, as I truly would rather go out of business than hand over ID's with real names and addresses to anyone buying my content.

So of course you have taken the time to draft and send a well written letter to the proper person.....Right?

[Jace]

Originally posted by contentjunky
Okay heres the deal. The content we provide that is shot exclusively for contentjunky.com. When you buy it and download it or FTP it. It comes with the set of images in a zip folder along with 2257, model release, Ids. The id is usually a California drivers license and we BLOCK OR BLACK OUT THEIR REAL name and address and personal info. It gives you her birthdate which shows she is legal at the time of shooting. The model release form you get with your photo set has her matching information and signature with matching BIRTHDATE proving she is legal. So to answer your question. The PORN STAR Fan will not get her phone number, cell phone, address, drivers license number etc. if he posed as webmaster and bought content from us. We protect their full identity and give you what you need which is LEGAL AGE and her Model Release with her photo ID. I hope this helps.

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...

[hershie]

Originally posted by AaronM
So of course you have taken the time to draft and send a well written letter to the proper person.....Right?

Thanks for the nudge; you are right, I need to be proactive and make my serious concerns represented and heard.

[Jace]

Originally posted by AaronM
So of course you have taken the time to draft and send a well written letter to the proper person.....Right?

i am in the process right now of informing people to do this

fuck having my shit in order, that pales in comparison to some freak having my wife's info...not to mention my model friends

[NLB]

Matrix Content is currently digitizing all model releases and IDs. These documents will be delivered to the webmaster locked with DRM in collaboration with 2257lookup.com. When required, the webmaster can have the documents unlocked for proof of compliance for 2257 regulations. This will also protect the personal information of the models, are most valued asset in this biz. Also protecting, you the webmaster. Have a great night.

[LadyMischief]

Nobody here is bothering to mention if this is retroactive or not :P

[FightThisPatent]

Originally posted by NLB
Matrix Content is currently digitizing all model releases and IDs. These documents will be delivered to the webmaster locked with DRM in collaboration with 2257lookup.com.

I have finally figured out the way to do the records.

I have talked to some content producers who are part of 2257lookup (like Norman from Matrix) to ask them if they could provide me with the digitized copy of the Model ID and Release.

I will take the .jpg images and covert them into an .AVI file which will then be encoded with DRM.

These files will be sent back to the content producer so they can hand them out with their image sets.

On the issue of blackened ID... some content producers block out everytying except the birthdate and the photo.

Others leave the real name and birthdate and photo.

Showing the real name is a serious privacy issue for the model and i think that any kind of blacked out ID could be considered "tampered" by the government.

I am conferring with our General Counsel, but I think we are going to suggest our content producers to include the blackened ID only revealing the birthdate AND have the DRM file as an alternate record.

Webmasters who subscribe to the 2257lookup service will get scanned to create the cross index report, and will also get all the DRM model info as well.

In the event that the DOJ comes knocking on your door and asks the question "who is the primary record keeper of THIS specific image" and then the directive "show me her model info"...

The webmaster will find the name of the file on their website, open up the 2257lookup report, move their finger over to the column that shows who is the content producer, along with which set the image came from along with the filename of the model DRM file.

The webmaster will go to a web page to request a license key (that might include the DOJ agent name, number, etc) and then get a timed license that will unlock the file and they can view the "movie" that shows the digital ID and release.

There is no charge to content producers to be apart of 2257lookup and a modest fee for webmasters to gain access to this service that will greatly assist secondary record keeping requirements.

The subscriptions to the service will ensure that the DRM server is always up and running so that the file can be unlocked.

This approach might be overkill and maybe never used, but it's one that will surely comply with any 2257 statues, current, proposed, or future...and content producers are interested and doing the work necessary to add this new functionality to 2257lookup.


-brandon

[Mutt]

brandon your tool looks great but if you think webmasters can use a third party like 2257lookup.com as a substitute for keeping their own database on their own premises you are i believe wrong. when the feds come knocking on somebody's door they can't go 'all the information is available at 2257lookup.com' or 'give me a few hours to get the documentation from 2257lookup.com'.

and i believe the changes are retroactive - the only exemptions are the same exemptions which were part of 2257 before.

[Jace]

Originally posted by Mutt
brandon your tool looks great but if you think webmasters can use a third party like 2257lookup.com as a substitute for keeping their own database on their own premises you are i believe wrong. when the feds come knocking on somebody's door they can't go 'all the information is available at 2257lookup.com' or 'give me a few hours to get the documentation from 2257lookup.com'.

and i believe the changes are retroactive - the only exemptions are the same exemptions which were part of 2257 before.

i do agree with that, when the government comes a knocking, it needs to be in order right then, not in a few days, which is what makes this so fucked up

[Jace]

Originally posted by NLB
Matrix Content is currently digitizing all model releases and IDs. These documents will be delivered to the webmaster locked with DRM in collaboration with 2257lookup.com. When required, the webmaster can have the documents unlocked for proof of compliance for 2257 regulations. This will also protect the personal information of the models, are most valued asset in this biz. Also protecting, you the webmaster. Have a great night.

are you going to have this with one passcode for the webmaster, so that when the government comes they can unlock everything at once when they need it? cause I don't think uncle same is going to wait for a few days for you to get it in order

[FightThisPatent]

Originally posted by Mutt
brandon your tool looks great but if you think webmasters can use a third party like 2257lookup.com as a substitute for keeping their own database on their own premises you are i believe wrong.

Mutt, you missed the point about the service.. the deliverable to the webmaster is a report that they will possess that does all the cross indexing of images to image set, model, and content producer.

It's not a third party database... it's a third party coming into a website to help maintain webmasters poor record keeping basically (sorry to sound harsh, but it's to the point)

2257lookup is not a substitute, it's only a tool to get towards full compliance. Still requires webmasters to do their part.


-brandon

[Tom_PMs]

I'm not at all comfortable as an affiliate webmaster with the idea that I'll get ALMOST all the information I will need to have on hand.
I'm sure the feds won't be sitting enjoying some tea while an affiliate tries to contact a content producer for an unlock code or something similar.
Why don't you rather require purchasers to #1) be adult webmasters (ie: proof of adult domain ownership with real whois information). #2) require purchasers of content to "sign" a non-disclosure contract or something. Stating they will not release information except to proper authorities.

I don't get the scrambling to keep things the same when changes need to be made.

Well, time will tell. Until such time, no content purchases for me. Simple.

[FightThisPatent]

Originally posted by JaceXXX
are you going to have this with one passcode for the webmaster, so that when the government comes they can unlock everything at once when they need it? cause I don't think uncle same is going to wait for a few days for you to get it in order

Some content producers have suggested using password zip of PDF. The only way this will work is if every model ID is individually passworded to the website.. therefore one unlock password only unlocks that file.

To do this is a huge logistical nightmare.

DRM provides a very elegant and simple solution that a license key can be issued for a limited period of time to view a specific file.

So if the DOJ asks to see the full records of a model, within a few minutes, the webmaster can be showing the full docs, and no other DRM encrypted file can be viewed.

-brandon

[Tom_PMs]

Originally posted by FightThisPatent
Some content producers have suggested using password zip of PDF. The only way this will work is if every model ID is individually passworded to the website.. therefore one unlock password only unlocks that file.

To do this is a huge logistical nightmare.

DRM provides a very elegant and simple solution that a license key can be issued for a limited period of time to view a specific file.

So if the DOJ asks to see the full records of a model, within a few minutes, the webmaster can be showing the full docs, and no other DRM encrypted file can be viewed.

-brandon

brandon, how within a few minutes? A phone call? Email? ICQ? (none good enough)
I'm not following the whole unlock method proposed.
Thanks

[FightThisPatent]

I have great support from the content producers to do the DRM thing.... it will require work for some of them to scan their stuff to digital format, but in the end, it seems to be the best way to use technology to solve this legal logistic.

2257lookup is proceeding with this feature along with the cross-indexing report... If webmasters want to get their documentation up to speed, then 2257lookup.com can help.

If $100/year per domain to have quarterly scans done (more scans can be done for added service) is too much, then a webmaster can open an excel spreadsheet and do all of this manually.

I started development of this service over 7 months ago to help webmasters be proactive.

The following content producers are onboard: Matrix Content, Falcon Foto, Paul Markham, Focus Adult, Ounique, Max Pixels, Medium Pimpin, Zmaster, Titan Meda, and a few more in the signing up process.

Whether you have exclusive content producer, a distributor, or content producer... 2257lookup is free for you to participate, and it does help you and the webmaster on the way to being 2257 compliant.

This is why the names above are onboard... they recognize that their participation will help their webmasters who are on the frontline of prosecutions.



-brandon

[FightThisPatent]

Originally posted by Tom_PM
brandon, how within a few minutes? A phone call? Email? ICQ? (none good enough)
I'm not following the whole unlock method proposed.
Thanks

I am working through this last step (great question by the way).

I am envisioning it to work in the following way:.

Once the specific model DRM file has been found to be the one that is in question, the webmaster double clicks the file and it opens up Windows Media Player.

The player detects the DRM encryption and pops open a webpage that takes you to 2257lookup to register for a license.

The webmaster enters some info (ie. their domain, the name of the DOJ agent, etc)... the domain is verified to be a 2257lookup subscriber, and upon validation, the "video" file is played.

This can happen within minutes and doesn't require any human beings to be involved.

This is why subscribers who pay for the 2257lookup service ensure that the server is always online and available.

-brandon

[tony286]

Originally posted by Tom_PM
I'm not at all comfortable as an affiliate webmaster with the idea that I'll get ALMOST all the information I will need to have on hand.
I'm sure the feds won't be sitting enjoying some tea while an affiliate tries to contact a content producer for an unlock code or something similar.
Why don't you rather require purchasers to #1) be adult webmasters (ie: proof of adult domain ownership with real whois information). #2) require purchasers of content to "sign" a non-disclosure contract or something. Stating they will not release information except to proper authorities.

I don't get the scrambling to keep things the same when changes need to be made.

Well, time will tell. Until such time, no content purchases for me. Simple.

I agree with you , also as a affiliate do you want to find out there is a problem with those records with the feds standing over your shoulder. To put your trust in anyone when there is a chance of jail but yourself is madness. It says alot about this industry where no one trusts their business partners. Also it all has to be cross referenced to the url of the image on the secondary producers site. How can he do that with a zip file?

[FightThisPatent]

The following is directed towards content producers:

Assuming you have all your model ID docs digitized and you blackened out all the info, only showing birthdate... then what?

You can go through your records to find all the webmasters that licensed your images, and then find which sets they licensed, then you will know which model ID package to send, and then you send it out to them in one big zip file?





For the webmaster:

You receive a zip file of all the blackened ID;s.. now what?

DOJ man asks you to show the model ID for a specific photo of an image that you had resized and renamed and threw on your server. How will you be able to match up the model ID with the photo?



-brandon

[newbreed]

Originally posted by FightThisPatent


DOJ man asks you to show the model ID for a specific photo of an image that you had resized and renamed and threw on your server. How will you be able to match up the model ID with the photo?



-brandon

Then they should have kept better records from the point of purchase. It's easy to do. Who you bought it from, when, what URL, original file name, new file name (if name changed), site owners url of each page the content is used on. Excel spreadsheet for each domain.

[FightThisPatent]

Originally posted by newbreed
Then they should have kept better records from the point of purchase. It's easy to do. Who you bought it from, when, what URL, original file name, new file name (if name changed), site owners url of each page the content is used on. Excel spreadsheet for each domain.

Exactly... and this is what I will be always promoting to people on how they can continue to keep up with their record keeping.

If everyone did as you suggested, there would be no need for 2257lookup. Necessity is the mother of all inventions, and given the real problem of poor record keeping, I saw the answer.

Some people have developed content management software that can help with 2257 compliance. These kinds of tools are great for keeping records straight, much like someone using Quicken, or Peachtree, etc for accounting.

I use a excel to balance my checkbook, where I could have used Quicken. Webmasters can use excel to keep up with 2257 compliance, or they can use other third party tools and services.. it's up to each business owner to figure out what works best for them.

-brandon

[tony286]

Brandon with your product will be it able to cross reference back to the url on the webmasters site?

[FightThisPatent]

Originally posted by tony404
Brandon with your product will be it able to cross reference back to the url on the webmasters site?

Yes. A web spider would enter into the members area with a given username/password and download all images.

Each image is processed to find matches using ImageDiff Engine (tm), my code that can match same images of different sizes regardless of filename).

A report is created that matches the URL of each image on the website to the image set, the model, and the content producer.

This report is emailed to the webmaster to be stored at their primary business. A scan is done once a quarter to catch updates (more frequent scans is an option).

DRM version of model ID along with blackened ID versions will also be bundled up.

So with the 2257lookup report, you can link an image to the content producer and to the right model ID to show.

The flaw in this service is if the content producer is not in my system, then a blank shows up for the info on the report.

This is where a webmaster would let me know, through a process of elimination, which content producer i need to contact to get them into the system.

The service is free for all content producers to participate and requires them to sign an agreement that protects their property, and have me index their images (i send out external hard drives to people).

-brandon

[Not Working]

Originally posted by newbreed
Then they should have kept better records from the point of purchase. It's easy to do. Who you bought it from, when, what URL, original file name, new file name (if name changed), site owners url of each page the content is used on. Excel spreadsheet for each domain.

The truth of the matter is that owners of companies who have webmasters working for them may not be as diligent as they should in maintaining records. Can you tell who each and every girl is on your site? If you can, that would be very rare. I am sure some of the larger programs cant. It would be the owners responsibility to have all the proper documentation in place. If just one of his webmasters doesnt properly log a set of photos on the site and the DOJ come a knockin, it is his ass in jail. Not the webmasters.

For that very reason, what Brandon is proposing makes all the sense in the world. If you dont find it invaluable, then please dont prevent others from feeling secure, for what he brings to the table, benefits us all.

[Mutt]

Originally posted by FightThisPatent
Mutt, you missed the point about the service.. the deliverable to the webmaster is a report that they will possess that does all the cross indexing of images to image set, model, and content producer.

It's not a third party database... it's a third party coming into a website to help maintain webmasters poor record keeping basically (sorry to sound harsh, but it's to the point)

2257lookup is not a substitute, it's only a tool to get towards full compliance. Still requires webmasters to do their part.


-brandon

ok now i understand - it's a centralized3rd party service to take the workload off content providersin getting the required documentation to customers. hmmm....... will webmasters have to show you proof they actually have a license for the content they want the documentation for?

[FightThisPatent]

Originally posted by Mutt
ok now i understand - it's a centralized3rd party service to take the workload off content providersin getting the required documentation to customers. hmmm....... will webmasters have to show you proof they actually have a license for the content they want the documentation for?

That's a great question...

It is one of the logistical issues that has come up in introducing the new functionality of delivering model ID (encrypted) to webmasters.

There is the potential that a webmaster could have stolen images and then with the 2257lookup service, be able to atleast save themselves from 2257 inquiry....

Being able to validate with the content producers on domains that have licensing is a big logistical challenge.

That's the best answer i have for now, I will be doing some more research into that.

What;s your take? What if you were part of 2257lookup, would it be an issue to you if a webmaster received the DRM files if they had stolen your content?

2257lookup was not designed to be "centralized3rd party service to take the workload off content providersin getting the required documentation to customers"... it's original intent is the creation of a cross-indexed report.

The recent 2257 changes made it clear to me that this posed a new problem of getting model info out to webmasters, so I have undertaken the challenge.

Only webmasters who are subscribers to 2257lookup would get the model info from 2257lookup.

For those thinking ahead... a webmaster could come to a content producer to ask for the info, and the content producer (who could be overwhelmed with customer service to answer everyone), could direct people to 2257lookup.. which would require them to subscribe to the service.



-brandon

[Mutt]

fucking stupid ass Ashhahahahaha - he wants you to believe he's out to protect all these 16 and 17 year olds but he's exposing a couple of thousand girls not much older to potential real danger.

and as it stands now i don't believe your model id's can have blacked/blurred out information. no court will allow this part to stand where you are putting thousands of young womens' safety at risk.

if there's a pornographer alive who votes Bush it proves one of two things about the webmaster - he's either a certifiable imbecile or he puts more importance on other issues like terrorism, economy etc than his adult business - which is fine.

[Mutt]

Originally posted by FightThisPatent
That's a great question...

It is one of the logistical issues that has come up in introducing the new functionality of delivering model ID (encrypted) to webmasters.

There is the potential that a webmaster could have stolen images and then with the 2257lookup service, be able to atleast save themselves from 2257 inquiry....

Being able to validate with the content producers on domains that have licensing is a big logistical challenge.

That's the best answer i have for now, I will be doing some more research into that.

What;s your take? What if you were part of 2257lookup, would it be an issue to you if a webmaster received the DRM files if they had stolen your content?

2257lookup was not designed to be "centralized3rd party service to take the workload off content providersin getting the required documentation to customers"... it's original intent is the creation of a cross-indexed report.

The recent 2257 changes made it clear to me that this posed a new problem of getting model info out to webmasters, so I have undertaken the challenge.

Only webmasters who are subscribers to 2257lookup would get the model info from 2257lookup.

For those thinking ahead... a webmaster could come to a content producer to ask for the info, and the content producer (who could be overwhelmed with customer service to answer everyone), could direct people to 2257lookup.. which would require them to subscribe to the service.



-brandon

that was the only good thing i could see out of this crap - that content thieves would be hung out to dry.

please do something in your service to make sure you're not aiding a content thief getting in compliance.

[tony286]

Originally posted by Mutt
fucking stupid ass Ashhahahahaha - he wants you to believe he's out to protect all these 16 and 17 year olds but he's exposing a couple of thousand girls not much older to potential real danger.

and as it stands now i don't believe your model id's can have blacked/blurred out information. no court will allow this part to stand where you are putting thousands of young womens' safety at risk.

if there's a pornographer alive who votes Bush it proves one of two things about the webmaster - he's either a certifiable imbecile or he puts more importance on other issues like terrorism, economy etc than his adult business - which is fine.

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.

[Jace]

this is fucked up shit....FUCKED

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

just think of what this will do to american tgp's

[tony286]

Originally posted by JaceXXX
this is fucked up shit....FUCKED

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

just think of what this will do to american tgp's

is that a really bad idea to know your partners. Getting real names and real phone numbers? Also what percent of actually give you sales worth keeping? 10% 20% it will be time to get rid of the dead weight.

[BBWTori]

Originally posted by JaceXXX

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

I'd LOVE to see this article when it is written

[Jace]

Originally posted by tony404
is that a really bad idea to know your partners. Getting real names and real phone numbers? Also what percent of actually give you sales worth keeping? 10% 20% it will be time to get rid of the dead weight.

no shit...dead weight is a bad thing....and it is time to drop it from the boat

[BBWTori]

Originally posted by LadyMischief
Nobody here is bothering to mention if this is retroactive or not :P

It is NOT retroactive.

"This requirement is not a retroactive application, but a requirement that any future change in the records must ensure that all records relating to that performer are
complete."

So you do not need to go back and contact people you photographed 5 years ago for example to be in compliance.

[jayeff]

Originally posted by BBWTori
It is NOT retroactive.

"This requirement is not a retroactive application, but a requirement that any future change in the records must ensure that all records relating to that performer are
complete."

So you do not need to go back and contact people you photographed 5 years ago for example to be in compliance.

Partly correct. I read the regulations as meaning that you will need to update the records of models you photographed previously and use again.

On another note, I agree with Tom_PM and a couple of others. While I understand the concern for models' privacy and proprietary information, I'm not going to run the risk of being a test case to find out whether the courts will buy into the concept of protected records. Nor do I want to have no way to know until the feds are there and I have (hopefully) retrieved an unlock code, whether the records are actually complete.

That apart, there is no way that Brandon's system, even if it were to become the most popular and the best, will be the only one. The task of conforming with these new regulations is bad enough. The prospect of attempting to cross reference partial records within different systems turns it into a nightmare.

I have domains that have been registered for years. I have been buying content since 1996. Etc. Is it really too much to expect content producers to provide me with the records that by law I shall be required to have, in a straightforward manner so that I can cross-reference them as required and have them available for inspection without depending on a third party?

Given what is at stake, I don't believe that is an unreasonable expectation.

[Paul Markham]

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

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.

Read what a pro says.

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]

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]

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?

[Paul Markham]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.