The taboo stuff would be more akin to the problems a certain video company is having in Pittsburgh Pa right now among other places. But that is obscenity.

Record keeping is a stupid way to nitpick people into submission, since they can just as easily pull you into court for not having the id of a grandmother as they can a teen. Does that mean they can get a conviction? Hell if I know, since someone's going to have to go to court to set the precedent.

Personally, I wouldn't want to be the one spending 7 figures on legal fees to defend myself.

However, if the DOJ were to deliberately pick on those unable to defend themselves in order to get a precedent, they'd most likely not do it until after the election since you'd have the ACLU and other organizations jumping in to defend someone without means in a heartbeat. Which would not be the ideal strategy for a Republican administration not yet guaranteed of a win, from a political standpoint.

Once again, arguments can go either way. I can only relay what I hear and what I know, and mention that at least two of the folks I deal with have been prosecuted by the federal government before, one successfully and one less so. Neither of them were small frys when it happened and it cost them both a fortune, even for the 1980s...

No complaints here . . . I've spent the summer fishing and playing. How about you? Looks like you are staying busy, as usual.

If you've got the time you should come visit for a UT game.

well, not that you need it K, but...... YUP. Again.

gnite.

You should come out here for a game, you know how I feel about every place in Texas but Austin ;)

Gotta run, I've got an early flight but I'll be back tomorrow evening, drop me an icq and let's catch up on things in more detail.

If you are wrong, I think you should have to forfeit 3,000 posts from your postcount. :)

That is what it all boils down to. From there, all's you can you can is make yourself a less attractive target.

Will do, have a safe trip.

Sorry but i've started to move all my shit OFFSHORE !!!

What will be next !


__________________
Mangez d'la marde stie

i think it would be better to wait till we hear more concrete news therefore when shit does hit the fan,the producers of the content will give up the 2257 info to us more easily.At this point,they are sort of reluctant.

So any news on what the big thing to deter the new regs is?

I think they're reluctant because a lot of them just don't have it. Or maybe they have some type of docs but not the right ones. We're lucky, we had what we needed.

I don't know what JaceXXX's friend's info is, but I'm not too surprised. There's no way the proposed changes could go through as is.. there were just too many problems with it. I'm not saying we won't have changes, just not as fast as everyone seems to think.

I expected to see several changes to the proposal before it went into law, or at the very least one.

thank you.

I will not use names here because I do not want to imply anything about their money, because I dont kn ow how much they have.

But lets take a step into reality. Why in hell would they go after a big guy, who can put up a 5 or 6 million dollar battle in court.??? Someone who could drag out the whole thing for years??

They WILL NOT! They will grab 20 or 30 or 200 small guys and make the headlines, and sharpen their teeth on them. That way, they can get more donations from the christian groups, to go after a big guy.



jjust my :2 cents:

Tia. Before you use the expression NO WAY, keep in mind that we are talking about the US Govenrment, and the WORST administration that this country has ever seen.

They used 9-11 as an excuse to invade Iraq. Based on that, they will do any damn thing that they please.

Did you know that they have detained thousands of immigrants that are leagl in the US, and held them with out charges.

They can and will do what ever they want.

Care to make a friendly wager? :Graucho

I dont bet, but thanks for the offer. If you look back at some of the trials that the government has pulled off, you may find a funny little pattern, of them going after a few little guys before the big guy.

The did not just jump at Capone, they went after a few guys that worked for him first.

hehe..

well the only point I was making is that the proposal as it stands now has a lot of flaws, and I expect to see at least one change before it comes into law.. and actually, I agree with you about them going after a bunch of small webmasters first. It makes sense

And You have no idea how much I agree with you about the flaws.

In fact I would go as far to say, that it is just fucked!

I hope that I did not offend your eyes.

oh.. now that last line is just sweet to the bone! It's been a while since I heard something like that :)

Damn right. If you are reading this and would actually still seriously consider voting for Bush...you are an idiot, my fiend.

Well by now the chances of there really being anything to delay the regulation changes must be remote.

Otherwise the guy who started the thread would be back here with the news and we would also be seeing it in other places.

100 2257 updates

Hey,

just like Eve bit the apple and ruinned this before paradise,Traci Lords brought on 2257.

=> its all the womens fault? :glugglug

is that your conclusion hehe

There are some seriously ignorant mother fuckers posting to this thread.


Oh wait......















































It's GFY. :glugglug

The intentions behind the statute are valid and just. It's the proposed means of carrying them out that are absurd. (I am referring to the proposed updates, not the existing statute.)

If the intentions really were to keep kids out of porn then I would agree - but they are not.

Valid and just??????????????????

Holy crap!!

I am all for checking the age of talent,its just that i wish there was an easier way of being compliant such as getting an indemnification from the producer that would state that they have the 2257 for everything that they provide to the online secondary producer (considering if we were secondary)but,unfortunetely if they do and lie,we can't be indimnified from something possibly criminal.Indemnification only works for civil matter.

Settle down, cowboy. Yes, I'm naive enough to believe that the original intentions of the law were indeed (at least, initially) to prevent underage performers from appearing in porn. Granted, I wasn't there. But I don't think that requiring primary producers to maintain accurate records is a burdensome statute.

The "revised" statute is, I believe, a whole different story. It does nothing to fight CP. It creates an undue burden on those who were previously classified as secondary producers, and makes the DOJ's job that much more difficult. The proposed changes make the statute into a joke, IMO.

We're on the same side. Chill out.

If this was really about a crackdown on child porn then as part of the documentation they would require from you is "Date of Production" - which the new 2257 DOES NOT.

So this girl is 19 now. When was it filmed in 2004 or in 2001? One makes her a minor, one does not - but they don't even care about when it was produced.

This is a major, huge, massive failing in the new 2257 if you ask me and shows what the real intention of the regs are.

so is there a company who is looking into making a businuss out of this yet or not?

i would rather buy my 2257 records from a third party than go get them myself.

Did you miss the articles late last year and early this year about the DOJ hiring up tons of attorneys for the 2257 task force?

Elephants or mice... I think they plan to do a lot of hunting.


IIRC, one of the big adult attorneys attendted one of their conventions or something where they were recruiting the attorneys to be on this task force.

In a word...WORD. The revisions are worthless, IMO. The only intention behind them is to make things more difficult for those of us who actually run our businesses in a legal manner.

I am not for the new regulations, but this discussion got me thinking, did anyone ever think about how one COULD do what 2257 asks for in a good manner?

Meaning, the point of 2257, we all agree I'm sure, is to make sure minors do not appear in porn, and if they do, to easily find the people breaking the law. Now, to do this, how else do you expect this to work than to be able to point out the produce of every single picture or video you use?

Isn't this really the only way to actually achive this anyway or does anyone have another bright idea?

Of course, the new regulation makes us all keep records, which is, in my oppinion, total crap and the gov is just trying to make it easier for them to find illegal pictures since they do nolonger have to ask you and then the produce you tell them, but can just go to you. The other stupid thing is that they expect you to be able to list all other URLs a specific pic is on, thats just stupid.

But those things set aside, isn't it a valid thing for the government to expect us to help them find CP? So at least being able to pinpoint the producer of every picture anywhere on our sites needs to be possible, no?

And to face 5 years in jail if you can't?

5 years for a clerical error?

so what is this oh so great news?

this thread is 3 pages and the thread starter has yet to reveal this revelation.

What revelation? You're still expecting something? :1orglaugh

yeah and now this is near 'fact' on another board

It would be interesting to see the feds take on large affiliate programs. Taking down one affiliate program would affect more people than taking down one secondary producer. They could do this now, but the new regs would make this a hell of a lot easier.

:2 cents:

rolf :1orglaugh

oh my god, i know...it has been a WHOLE 13 HOURS...rofl...considering I posted this at 9pm last night and it is now 10am, ain't much going on in the night time with our government....

about to give a call to that person who started on this though