GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum

GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum (https://gfy.com/index.php)
-   Fucking Around & Business Discussion (https://gfy.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   2257 update - something happened today that will make us happy (https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=345883)

Cassie 08-25-2004 07:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by NoCarrier
What revelation? You're still expecting something? :1orglaugh
glad i can make someone laugh :winkwink:

neewwman 08-25-2004 10:02 AM

What I can't believe is how brazenly transparent it is that the DOJ just wants to make life difficult for pornographers.

They absolutely don't care about protecting talent, which is the original purpose of the law.

Here's a very likely scenario. Crazed serial killer falls in love with a model's picture. So he sets himself up as a webmaster and finds out where he can buy content of her. Content producer gives him her real name and address. Next thing you know her head is cut off and she has a broom shoved two feet up her pussy.

KCat 08-25-2004 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by neewwman
What I can't believe is how brazenly transparent it is that the DOJ just wants to make life difficult for pornographers.

They absolutely don't care about protecting talent, which is the original purpose of the law.

Here's a very likely scenario. Crazed serial killer falls in love with a model's picture. So he sets himself up as a webmaster and finds out where he can buy content of her. Content producer gives him her real name and address. Next thing you know her head is cut off and she has a broom shoved two feet up her pussy.

You don't think girls considering getting into porn might head back to that waitressing job if they find out their IDs are going to be available to anyone with $50?

This industry would crumble without the talent.

NichePay_Manny 08-25-2004 12:38 PM

I think at the end it will all work out with 2257 issues:warning

zzgundamnzz 08-25-2004 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cassie
so what is this oh so great news?

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

Revelation is we all chipped in and got him a PDA, Gamecube, XBOX, or PS2...

gdog 08-25-2004 12:48 PM

You would think with all the taxes that are actually paid somewhat from the adult industry in the US they would have a little leverage with this and actually think this through.

If its gets out of control I will consider moving off shore for sure, whats the negative on that.

Processors do not care where they wire the money to, the got their cut out of it already.

Look forward to the news. I remember back in 2000 it was rumored that you could not show adult hardcore images on your tours. Some people took them down, I was running BA back then and we were one of them. We lost a lot of sales for that.

Is it possible for our industry to get more people in office to fight for us, nobody wants kids to see our sites, but the Internet is a big place and this happens.

Kids lose parents every day to smoking yet the goverment has not problem taxing the cigarettes and taking the money. Losing a parent is way worse then a kid seeing our sites I think.

What you gonna do, unfortunately this is out of our hands.

Sarah_Jayne 08-25-2004 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by neewwman
What I can't believe is how brazenly transparent it is that the DOJ just wants to make life difficult for pornographers.

They absolutely don't care about protecting talent, which is the original purpose of the law.

Here's a very likely scenario. Crazed serial killer falls in love with a model's picture. So he sets himself up as a webmaster and finds out where he can buy content of her. Content producer gives him her real name and address. Next thing you know her head is cut off and she has a broom shoved two feet up her pussy.

did you reword that and put it into an email to the DOJ before the deadline? If one model dies because of this it is blitz the media time. Not to mention that I wonder how long it takes for webmasters to be the target of the same type of people that bomb abortion clinics.

The Other Steve 08-25-2004 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sarah_webinc
did you reword that and put it into an email to the DOJ before the deadline?
Sarah - they don't care - there was a thread here a couple of days ago where someone related what J D Odenberger said at the seminar at Internext.

When he challenged a senior DOJ guy with that scenario the reply was that they didn't care.

Just talk to any dancer or sex worker and they will tell you the same thing. The very people who are supposed to protect the citizens of the US think of the talent as being worthless so why should they care?

hy777 08-25-2004 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kimmykim
Dude, I never said I was brilliant. But when two of the best attorneys in this business have the same conclusions and two more in-house ones agree, I'm going with what they say. If you really think that small tgps are the issue here, more power to you. Do what you feel is best for you, I'm not your attorney and I don't play one on tv.

If you want to get your 10k out and bet, I'm ready ;-}}}}

I know you never said you were brilliant. I did. I am afraid if I win that bet, all my 300 sites will be the ones that get shut down.

hy777 08-25-2004 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kimmykim
If the Democrats take office, they will most likely not choose to prosecute, just like they didn't during the Clinton administration. Which is fine. It's almost like de-criminalization.

Logically speaking, is it easier to find an elephant and catch him to put on display or is it easier to catch 100 mice and put them on display? Especially if you only have a limited and equal amount of time to do the catching?

Using your own logic, if you are armed with a shotgun you don't even have to catch the mice, you can kill all 100 (and more) at once. Whereas you won't catch/kill one elephant. What weapons do you think the DOJ has? Flyfishing rods?

tony286 08-25-2004 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by KCat
You don't think girls considering getting into porn might head back to that waitressing job if they find out their IDs are going to be available to anyone with $50?

This industry would crumble without the talent.

They will still model greed is a blinding thing. Also these people talking about now people will know your address. You were supposed to have a physcial address on your site all along thats not a new thing. Also a porn girl gets killed by a stalker , they wont present it as the Government fucked up . They will present how scummy and irresponsible the adult business is and how they are willing to give someones personal records away to anyone with $50 .

RicardoB 08-25-2004 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nate-MM2
Yes and no.... if the only paper trail you have are hosting bills from out of the country along with cheques from sponsors that process transactions outside of the country you should be fine as your ownership of any actual websites would be difficult to prove.

If you process in the US you are basically SOL...

Finally I thought I was beginning to think I was the only one that realised this.

And there even are ways to keep the Bills out of US :)

tony286 08-25-2004 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by RicardoB
Finally I thought I was beginning to think I was the only one that realised this.

And there even are ways to keep the Bills out of US :)


Now this if you have money coming into this country you can be traced. Then they can also get you on Tax evasion which can make record keeping violations look like a parking ticket.
The last big porn crackdown thats how they got alot of porn people on Tax evasion.

Sarah_Jayne 08-25-2004 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The Other Steve
Sarah - they don't care - there was a thread here a couple of days ago where someone related what J D Odenberger said at the seminar at Internext.

When he challenged a senior DOJ guy with that scenario the reply was that they didn't care.

Just talk to any dancer or sex worker and they will tell you the same thing. The very people who are supposed to protect the citizens of the US think of the talent as being worthless so why should they care?

yeah, I have no doubt that they don't care but that doesn't mean I didn't write them. It is the same reason I vote even though most of the time the person I vote for doesn't win.

RicardoB 08-25-2004 02:51 PM

True if they don't report the money but that's not what I am hinting at.

I'll try to explain(Hope my English is good enough)

Here lies the difference:

When the money comes in from unchecked country you can put it in your administration as all kinds of things it does not have to be adult related and you will pay the same taxes.

Hope that makes sense I could explain it better in Dutch but think that wouldn't help much here :)

The Other Steve 08-25-2004 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sarah_webinc
yeah, I have no doubt that they don't care but that doesn't mean I didn't write them. It is the same reason I vote even though most of the time the person I vote for doesn't win.
Ah - another member of Don Quixote.com - I thought I saw you at the last chapter meeting :thumbsup

GatorB 08-25-2004 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ProjectNaked
2257 IS NOT GOING AWAY. If you would like to continue to work in the "adult" industry you should be preparing, not fantasizing.


:2 cents:

The orgianl 2257 passed in 1988 but didn't take effect until the mid 1990's because of lawsuits. Look at COPA. passd in 1998 still not law( hopefully NEVER ) you think SOMEONE doesn't already have a lawsuit ready to go as soon as these rule become law? Someone files a case, gets an injunction and 5 years until MAYBE the SC hears the case.

J.R. 08-25-2004 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sly_RJ
Are you telling me I shouldn't have sold all my sites? Fuck!
Those sites are illegal in this country anyway..

:winkwink:

Imageauction 08-25-2004 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by xxxjay
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.

This isn't just in the new 2257 but the date of production is not codified into law. I posed this question to the legal panel at Internext and Larry Walters agreed it was a huge oversight but obenberger and picconelli just argued that they recommend clients keep that information and didn't address my core question of why it wasn't included in the law and regs.

I am tempted to NOT keep the date of filming and piss the government off but screw them its not in the law or the regs. If they are making it so anal to keep I might as well be anal about doing it exactly by the book.

TAKE THE 2257 survey

http://www.2257.com/survey/

graphicsbytia 08-25-2004 10:59 PM

JaceXXX

So.. did you hear from your friend?

clickhappy 08-25-2004 11:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by graphicsbytia
JaceXXX

So.. did you hear from your friend?

i want to know too.
is there a follow up to this?

Dravyk 08-26-2004 01:30 AM

If this thread were on TV it would be called a non-news event. :sleep

Jeppe 08-26-2004 05:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by graphicsbytia
JaceXXX

So.. did you hear from your friend?


BrainClaude 08-26-2004 05:59 AM

I think itS, better get ready anyway and have everything in order :)

Cheers

Claude

Khun 08-26-2004 06:16 AM

With each 2257 thread, the bahamas look nicer and nicer.

Cassie 08-26-2004 07:32 AM

still waiting for that announcement........

crockett 08-26-2004 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Imageauction
This isn't just in the new 2257 but the date of production is not codified into law. I posed this question to the legal panel at Internext and Larry Walters agreed it was a huge oversight but obenberger and picconelli just argued that they recommend clients keep that information and didn't address my core question of why it wasn't included in the law and regs.

I am tempted to NOT keep the date of filming and piss the government off but screw them its not in the law or the regs. If they are making it so anal to keep I might as well be anal about doing it exactly by the book.

TAKE THE 2257 survey

http://www.2257.com/survey/

yea that is a major fuck up by the DOJ.. in theory you could film a under aged girl wait till she turns 18 and use the content, that's pretty fucked up.

Doctor Dre 08-26-2004 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by sarah_webinc
Good CYA because you just know suddenly this is going to be 'fact' on all the boards even if it turns out he was wrong.
Let's just hope ...

clickhappy 08-26-2004 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by graphicsbytia
JaceXXX

So.. did you hear from your friend?


madthumbs 08-26-2004 10:31 PM

bump

European Lee 08-26-2004 10:33 PM

http://askbuff.com/suffer.jpg

150 :thumbsup

Regards,

Lee

Kimmykim 08-26-2004 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by hy777
Using your own logic, if you are armed with a shotgun you don't even have to catch the mice, you can kill all 100 (and more) at once. Whereas you won't catch/kill one elephant. What weapons do you think the DOJ has? Flyfishing rods?
Using my own logic, if I were armed with a shotgun, I'd shoot a few elephants and watch all the mice run for cover. Much easier and much less hassle.

All I can say is pornographers should be glad I'm on their side and not running the fed on this one. I'd have gotten rid of all of you years ago, onshore, offshore, living on Mars, if that was what my job was.

So where's the big update?

I haven't heard anything from Cambria or Douglas about it yet and it's been at least two days since this thread was started.

graphicsbytia 08-27-2004 02:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kimmykim
Using my own logic, if I were armed with a shotgun, I'd shoot a few elephants and watch all the mice run for cover. Much easier and much less hassle.

All I can say is pornographers should be glad I'm on their side and not running the fed on this one. I'd have gotten rid of all of you years ago, onshore, offshore, living on Mars, if that was what my job was.


oh ya.. we're just thrilled

RicardoB 08-27-2004 05:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kimmykim
Using my own logic, if I were armed with a shotgun, I'd shoot a few elephants and watch all the mice run for cover. Much easier and much less hassle.

All I can say is pornographers should be glad I'm on their side and not running the fed on this one. I'd have gotten rid of all of you years ago, onshore, offshore, living on Mars, if that was what my job was.

So where's the big update?

I haven't heard anything from Cambria or Douglas about it yet and it's been at least two days since this thread was started.

I think we can call that the Epassporte approach as it seems to be how they handle stuff. :1orglaugh

graphicsbytia 08-27-2004 05:24 AM

what I need is help repairing the navigation system on my F-14 fighter jet.. any suggestions Kimmy?

Tat2Jr 08-28-2004 01:52 PM

Was this just a "gotcha" thread? No updates? No nothing?

exposed 08-28-2004 01:55 PM

yeah whats the new news

baddog 08-28-2004 02:53 PM

much ado about nothing


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:16 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123