I have an idea how to fix the gallery problem with 2257 - GoFuckYourself.com

421Fill · 08-04-2004, 12:15 AM

The new rules are going to cause one of two things to happen to ALL the existing galleries out there. Either, they will be deleted (causing 404 redirects), or there will be html added to them (adding the 2257 required info to the page). Both of these can and will get one blacklisted with some of the tgp scripts out there, automatically.

I have an idea though that could fix this dilemna. 2257 Amnesty Day. Either a industry wide day to have everyone collectively make the required deleteions or additions of html, while on the same day (or period of time) the TGP owners could set the scripts to delete only for that day, as opposed to delete and blacklist.

If not an industry wide day, then each TGP owner could set his own date, and post it on the rules page. This would be the most likely approach as the TGP owners don't all have the same schedules.

In addition to this, the TGP owners could (and should) make it a rule to get listed that the galleries are 2257 compliant, thus giving the owner at least some galleries to use after he deletes a shitpot from his database.

In the case of html being added to the galleries, I still think these galleries should be deleted from the database, because too many cheats would sneak in nasty code while supposedly just adding 2257 required info.

Thoughts? Ideas? Criticisms?

creegan · 08-04-2004, 12:18 AM

everybody work together?

living in a fairy tale

freeadultcontent · 08-04-2004, 12:19 AM

How do you propose affixing the requirements to the gallery design wise ect. White background, 11pt font, all that shit?

421Fill · 08-04-2004, 12:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by freeadultcontent
How do you propose affixing the requirements to the gallery design wise ect. White background, 11pt font, all that shit?

The attorney on YNOT today, said that the white background part applied to videos, and that there is a second sentence that says the surfer would need to be able to see the info in a normal and reasonable fashion, thus not needing the white background, though he does reccommend that the font be 11pt. at least.

freeadultcontent · 08-04-2004, 12:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by turbo
The attorney on YNOT today, said that the white background part applied to videos, and that there is a second sentence that says the surfer would need to be able to see the info in a normal and reasonable fashion, thus not needing the white background, though he does reccommend that the font be 11pt. at least.

Find me where they say videos please.

sixxxth_sense · 08-04-2004, 12:24 AM

bullshit it will never work..

i tell u right now more then 80% of webmaster will ignore thise new law!

creegan · 08-04-2004, 12:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by sixxxth_sense
bullshit it will never work..

i tell u right now more then 80% of webmaster will ignore thise new law!

that's a very conservative estimate

421Fill · 08-04-2004, 01:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by freeadultcontent
Find me where they say videos please.

This is the part he's referring to:

(e) For the purposes of this section, the required statement shall
be displayed in the same typeface as the names of the performers,
director, producer, or owner, whichever is larger, and shall be no
smaller in size than the largest of the names of the performers,
director, producer, or owner, and in no case in less than 11pt type, in
black on a white, untinted background. For any electronic or other
display of the notice that is limited in time, the notice must be
displayed for a sufficient duration and of a sufficient size to be
capable of being read by the average viewer.

It does not specify video, but it's what he said, and he said it as if it was common knowledge. To me the fact that it mention that it be the same typeface as the performers, director, producer or owner, indicates a movie, as there are no performers or directors on a webpage, only models and producers/secondary producers. He then went on to say that the second sentence was intended as an or, and that it refers to webpages, though honestly, 'displayed for sufficient duration' seems to refer to movies again, but again, just saying what his interpretation was.

421Fill · 08-04-2004, 01:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by freeadultcontent
How do you propose affixing the requirements to the gallery design wise ect. White background, 11pt font, all that shit?

Also, for the html that you add with the required info, just make it in a table with a white bgcolor and the required font size. Use the same table on all of your pages. So, even if the attorney interprets that part incorrectly, it's still easily doable.

421Fill · 08-04-2004, 01:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by sixxxth_sense
bullshit it will never work..

i tell u right now more then 80% of webmaster will ignore thise new law!

I think you are correct, but I also believe that hosts will be required to close down accounts that are not compliant (if that's not already a requiremetn)... if not immediately, then someday.

421Fill · 08-04-2004, 12:21 PM

Basic_man · 08-04-2004, 12:46 PM

This will never work!

freeadultcontent · 08-04-2004, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by turbo
This is the part he's referring to:

(e) For the purposes of this section, the required statement shall
be displayed in the same typeface as the names of the performers,
director, producer, or owner, whichever is larger, and shall be no
smaller in size than the largest of the names of the performers,
director, producer, or owner, and in no case in less than 11pt type, in
black on a white, untinted background. For any electronic or other
display of the notice that is limited in time, the notice must be
displayed for a sufficient duration and of a sufficient size to be
capable of being read by the average viewer.

It does not specify video, but it's what he said, and he said it as if it was common knowledge. To me the fact that it mention that it be the same typeface as the performers, director, producer or owner, indicates a movie, as there are no performers or directors on a webpage, only models and producers/secondary producers. He then went on to say that the second sentence was intended as an or, and that it refers to webpages, though honestly, 'displayed for sufficient duration' seems to refer to movies again, but again, just saying what his interpretation was.

Sorry for responding next day (last night got insane).

Ok this is the fucked up part. Noted adult lawyer Dewitt thinks it also applies to websites. So do my personal attornies (I got 2nd opinion to see how they may interpret it differently). There is no such thing as "common knowledge" when it comes to law. It is how it is written and how arguing parties in a trial can use legal definitions to interprete it.

Couple of points now:

"For the purposes of this section, the required statement shall
be displayed in the same typeface as the names of the performers, director, producer, or owner, whichever is larger, and shall be no smaller in size than the largest of the names of the performers, director, producer, or owner, and in no case in less than 11pt type, in black on a white, untinted background."

It is speaking of the format in which 2257 must be displayed (on all previously listed rules).
Web site content does have "performers" (models), directors (camera person), "producer" (see secondary producer & or whom arranged or paid for production), "owner" (copyright holder & or owner of website). These are not just limited to video production as you can see. Not to mention video is a big part of web sites.

"For any electronic or other display of the notice that is limited in time, the notice must be displayed for a sufficient duration and of a sufficient size to be capable of being read by the average viewer."

Key words are "Any" "Electronic" "Other". All of which clearly would cover web sites as they are not excluded. "That is limited in duration" meaning assuming it is limited in duration it must be displayed long enough to be read by a typical person.
Yes parts are intended for video's but it does not exclude the others and just gives a display time rule if it is a video. See our point?

421Fill · 08-04-2004, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by freeadultcontent
Sorry for responding next day (last night got insane).

Ok this is the fucked up part. Noted adult lawyer Dewitt thinks it also applies to websites. So do my personal attornies (I got 2nd opinion to see how they may interpret it differently). There is no such thing as "common knowledge" when it comes to law. It is how it is written and how arguing parties in a trial can use legal definitions to interprete it.

Couple of points now:

"For the purposes of this section, the required statement shall
be displayed in the same typeface as the names of the performers, director, producer, or owner, whichever is larger, and shall be no smaller in size than the largest of the names of the performers, director, producer, or owner, and in no case in less than 11pt type, in black on a white, untinted background."

It is speaking of the format in which 2257 must be displayed (on all previously listed rules).
Web site content does have "performers" (models), directors (camera person), "producer" (see secondary producer & or whom arranged or paid for production), "owner" (copyright holder & or owner of website). These are not just limited to video production as you can see. Not to mention video is a big part of web sites.

"For any electronic or other display of the notice that is limited in time, the notice must be displayed for a sufficient duration and of a sufficient size to be capable of being read by the average viewer."

Key words are "Any" "Electronic" "Other". All of which clearly would cover web sites as they are not excluded. "That is limited in duration" meaning assuming it is limited in duration it must be displayed long enough to be read by a typical person.
Yes parts are intended for video's but it does not exclude the others and just gives a display time rule if it is a video. See our point?

good points. but like I said in the next post, it's also easy to do. Sure it will look bad in some designs, but eventually the surfer will recognize the required info for what it is, and tune them out just like the 'Parental Advisory' warnings on cds. Personally, I think how it will look is the least of our worries.

sarettah · 08-04-2004, 03:05 PM

A possible better solution is to use the wording of the regs against them.

the regs state that the location of the statement for a website is on its homepage or mainpage.

"(d) A computer site or service or Web address containing a
computer-generated image, digital image, or picture, shall contain the required statement on its homepage or principal URL."

So, since most galleries do not use the mainpage (index.htm, index.html, default.htm, default.html) and many of us have that page set up as our warning page (which of course gets bypassed when they click from the tgp/linklist/whatever) to the gallery. May I suggest that you place all your 2257 statements on your warning/home page.

I don't know if it would fly, but usually, if you interpret a law literally, you have a good defense in the courts.

And no, I am not a lawyer and FUCK NO, I will not pay your fees if you do this and it doesn't fly

421Fill · 08-04-2004, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sarettah
A possible better solution is to use the wording of the regs against them.

the regs state that the location of the statement for a website is on its homepage or mainpage.

"(d) A computer site or service or Web address containing a
computer-generated image, digital image, or picture, shall contain the required statement on its homepage or principal URL."

So, since most galleries do not use the mainpage (index.htm, index.html, default.htm, default.html) and many of us have that page set up as our warning page (which of course gets bypassed when they click from the tgp/linklist/whatever) to the gallery. May I suggest that you place all your 2257 statements on your warning/home page.

I don't know if it would fly, but usually, if you interpret a law literally, you have a good defense in the courts.

And no, I am not a lawyer and FUCK NO, I will not pay your fees if you do this and it doesn't fly

That's exactly what my boss said yesterday, but I told her what Eric said on the rasio show yesterday:

If the page is accessible without having to go to your main mage, then it's a main page as well. I'm not saying he's right, just that it makes sense to me in a way. Actually, I'd prefer it if Eric was wrong on this one, because that would take care of half of the problem.

crockett · 08-04-2004, 03:13 PM

The law still hasn't gone in to affect and we still do not know what we will be required to do. The lawyer on Ynot said yesterday.. that once the comment period is up if they decide to not change anything it will go into affect in 30 days from that point.. However if they do decided to change things it will have another comment period for the changes made..

So all in all we still have at the very least another month after the regulation is approved.

freeadultcontent · 08-04-2004, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by crockett
The law still hasn't gone in to affect and we still do not know what we will be required to do. The lawyer on Ynot said yesterday.. that once the comment period is up if they decide to not change anything it will go into affect in 30 days from that point.. However if they do decided to change things it will have another comment period for the changes made..

So all in all we still have at the very least another month after the regulation is approved.

Yes and I am fully aware of that. I am just attempting to get everything up to speed assuming these changes take place as they are currently worded. A 30 day grace period is not long when you have so many things to bring into new compliance. In the event things are further altered, it will be back to the attornies and again handled before it is finalized. I do not want nor desire to fall behind and end up non compliant for even a day.

freeadultcontent · 08-04-2004, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sarettah
"(d) A computer site or service or Web address containing a
computer-generated image, digital image, or picture, shall contain the required statement on its homepage or principal URL."

This can be interpreted legally by deffinition of course (thankfully laws are done that way). I would reason that if you did force yourself to use a root index.html page on any gallery domain that in turn linked to all of your galleries and your gallery clearly had a homepage link on it then by all means you should be in the clear. You would end up with one massive friggen index.html page in your root though.

crockett · 08-04-2004, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by freeadultcontent
Yes and I am fully aware of that. I am just attempting to get everything up to speed assuming these changes take place as they are currently worded. A 30 day grace period is not long when you have so many things to bring into new compliance. In the event things are further altered, it will be back to the attornies and again handled before it is finalized. I do not want nor desire to fall behind and end up non compliant for even a day.

yes but the lawyer said it's very unlikly that the govt will just ignore the comments. If they did it could mean the regulations changes might not hold up in a court of law. So there will very likey be another comment period pluss the 30 days to comply.

Why put more work on yourself if you don't know what the regs will be, just get yourself as prepared as you can and wait to make changes untill the rules are confirmed.

EscortBiz · 08-04-2004, 04:23 PM

how about every porn URL ads a 2257.html page and it should be known to law enforcement to check that too

freeadultcontent · 08-04-2004, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by crockett
yes but the lawyer said it's very unlikly that the govt will just ignore the comments. If they did it could mean the regulations changes might not hold up in a court of law. So there will very likey be another comment period pluss the 30 days to comply.

Why put more work on yourself if you don't know what the regs will be, just get yourself as prepared as you can and wait to make changes untill the rules are confirmed.

Because one day I will be right and I do recall porns dark period. I just am getting everything pre set in order to make it easier to comply with future changes which we all know some will occure.

sixxxth_sense · 08-04-2004, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by creegan
that's a very conservative estimate

man 80% of gallery submitter arent' in th eUS and they dont give 2 flying fucks about what US thingkkS!

freeadultcontent · 08-04-2004, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sixxxth_sense
man 80% of gallery submitter arent' in th eUS and they dont give 2 flying fucks about what US thingkkS!

Curious to know what % of sponsors do you think are in the US?

08-04-2004, 12:15 AM	#1
421Fill Super Mario Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Swenson's Avatar Posts: 19,602	I have an idea how to fix the gallery problem with 2257 The new rules are going to cause one of two things to happen to ALL the existing galleries out there. Either, they will be deleted (causing 404 redirects), or there will be html added to them (adding the 2257 required info to the page). Both of these can and will get one blacklisted with some of the tgp scripts out there, automatically. I have an idea though that could fix this dilemna. 2257 Amnesty Day. Either a industry wide day to have everyone collectively make the required deleteions or additions of html, while on the same day (or period of time) the TGP owners could set the scripts to delete only for that day, as opposed to delete and blacklist. If not an industry wide day, then each TGP owner could set his own date, and post it on the rules page. This would be the most likely approach as the TGP owners don't all have the same schedules. In addition to this, the TGP owners could (and should) make it a rule to get listed that the galleries are 2257 compliant, thus giving the owner at least some galleries to use after he deletes a shitpot from his database. In the case of html being added to the galleries, I still think these galleries should be deleted from the database, because too many cheats would sneak in nasty code while supposedly just adding 2257 required info. Thoughts? Ideas? Criticisms? __________________ RELEASE THE EPSTEIN FILES!!!

08-04-2004, 12:18 AM	#2
creegan Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 223	everybody work together? living in a fairy tale __________________ gfy'ers remind me of the causeheads from pcu

08-04-2004, 12:19 AM	#3
freeadultcontent Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: "evitcepsrep ruoy egnahc" Posts: 9,976	How do you propose affixing the requirements to the gallery design wise ect. White background, 11pt font, all that shit? __________________ Exclusive Ethnic & Microniche Sites

08-04-2004, 12:21 PM	#11
421Fill Super Mario Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Swenson's Avatar Posts: 19,602	bump __________________ RELEASE THE EPSTEIN FILES!!!

08-04-2004, 12:46 PM	#12
Basic_man Programming King Pin Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Montreal Posts: 27,360	This will never work! __________________ UUGallery Builder - automated photo/video gallery plugin for Wordpress! Stop looking! Checkout Naked Hosting, online since 1999 !

08-04-2004, 12:24 AM	#6
sixxxth_sense So Fucking Banned Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: T.O. Posts: 2,430	bullshit it will never work.. i tell u right now more then 80% of webmaster will ignore thise new law!

08-04-2004, 03:05 PM	#15
sarettah see you later, I'm gone Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 14,127	A possible better solution is to use the wording of the regs against them. the regs state that the location of the statement for a website is on its homepage or mainpage. "(d) A computer site or service or Web address containing a computer-generated image, digital image, or picture, shall contain the required statement on its homepage or principal URL." So, since most galleries do not use the mainpage (index.htm, index.html, default.htm, default.html) and many of us have that page set up as our warning page (which of course gets bypassed when they click from the tgp/linklist/whatever) to the gallery. May I suggest that you place all your 2257 statements on your warning/home page. I don't know if it would fly, but usually, if you interpret a law literally, you have a good defense in the courts. And no, I am not a lawyer and FUCK NO, I will not pay your fees if you do this and it doesn't fly __________________ All cookies cleared!

08-04-2004, 03:13 PM	#17
crockett in a van by the river Industry Role: Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 76,806	The law still hasn't gone in to affect and we still do not know what we will be required to do. The lawyer on Ynot said yesterday.. that once the comment period is up if they decide to not change anything it will go into affect in 30 days from that point.. However if they do decided to change things it will have another comment period for the changes made.. So all in all we still have at the very least another month after the regulation is approved. __________________ In November, you can vote for America's next president or its first dictator.

08-04-2004, 04:23 PM	#21
EscortBiz Fuck Checks, CASH only! Join Date: May 2002 Location: New York City Posts: 19,422	how about every porn URL ads a 2257.html page and it should be known to law enforcement to check that too __________________ Spanking, Medical Fetish, Sleeping, Strap-on Anal Lesbians, Girls Fucking Guys, Handjob site REAL HOT, Shemales, Anal and Ass Licking sites 100% Real EXCLUSIVE with amazing retention, ccbill payouts, lots of content FREE FTP HOSTING Promote the largest and oldest member paid escort site, Converts 10 times better then any dating site, CCBill payouts ICQ# 158802076