I laregely agree but you can be organizde but slightly fucked if content suppliers don't give us the full ids if that ends up being the requirement. For example, the hundreds of sets I have from you guys from the past.

However, the bit about hte lawyer is the key.l

Interesting.

US and Canadian forestry laws are also different. If I cut a tree down in Canada, and sell it to a US company for US dollars ... Which regulations would bind me in the cutting of that tree? US or Canadian? I happen to know it's Canadian. I know this because that was my job for many years prior to Porn.

So how is it different with Porn? Generation of traffic to a Canadian website should be bound by Canadian law. When the traffic is sent to a US sponsor, it becomes bound by US law. It seems to be that if the sponsor is compliant, that's all that REALLY matters.

I really don't know the answer and it could very well be you're right. I'm just trying to understand the logic that applies.

Most of the content producers that are participating in the 2257lookup service already provide jpeg images of model ID (with info blackened out).

For the proposed changes, this could be the documentation you need. We will have to see if the blackened-out ID are seeing as being "tampered" therefore not valid records.

Where webmasters really need to pay attention to 2257, is with the CURRENT 2257 statue.

Can you identify which content producer/provider you acquired an image from? For all of your images?

All you need to do is have a spreadsheet that tracks the URL of the images on your site and the other column is where you got the image from. This is what current 2257 requires. The requlation changes like having the model ID will surely be contested by industry attorneys, but you stil have to comply with the law.

Until the proposed change of having to have the model ID is official, content producers are not required, obligated, or should be giving you Model ID pics that are unblackened.

If you can't identify each image on your site as to where it came from, you have current 2257 problems.

This is where 2257lookup.com helps to solve the problem of identifying who is the content producer/provider of an image.


-brandon

yep I'm with you in that! :helpme

not really.. some sponsors have 1000's of affiliates... its impossible for the sponsors to verify every ref url of each of their affiliates to see if they use their EXPLICIT content on non-hosted galleries or sites.. and cannot really be held responsible for that...


irrelevant... have you talked to a lawyer about that..?

This is my understanding of the Canadian/international webmaster situation:


If you run a paysite, and you host outside of the US, use CC processor outside the US, and your business is outside the US, then you don't need to comply with 2257, because it is a US-based law.

Any deviation from the above puts in you a grey area that requires legal interpretation of how you are specifically doing your business.

ex:

If you are an affiliate in canada with your webserver in canada, and you are using sexually explicit images to promote a sponsor in the US, then it is unclear to me what issues the canadian webmaster would have since jurisdiction stops at the border. The paysite would presumably be 2257 compliant, so if they found your affiliate website, saw you were in canada, but then followed the links to the paysite.. they would then check with the paysite for 2257 compliance.

If the paysite was not compliant, then the paysite has some 2257 legal issues to deal with.




-brandon

I think that's pretty much precisely what I just said. So if I want to promote Nasty Dollars from Canada on a Candian server, I'd think only Nasty Dollars would need to be compliant.

don't know about wiping my ass with it but not 2 worried about it either.

if they come after me, might just tell'em fuck just take me 2 jail.

Told the IRS guy that came 2 my office, you just might as well take me 2 jail because I'm not fucking doing it... They wanted me 2 produce a bunch of records.

Well the young man just looked at kind of funny and walked away never 2 return.

do you people really think they want 2 put some little piss' e assed porn peddler in jail.

maybe Lensman:Graucho
or
BradShaw:1orglaugh
or
some big content person

every time I've gone 2 jail, the cops got pissed off at me big time, because I didn't ask 2 use the phone, fuck there games.

And I might add... it don't make one flying fuck who is Prez..

Kerry ain't going 2 do you one bit of fucking good... As a matter of fact if he's anything like Clinton you are in a world of hurt......

Vote kerry save the porn Ind.

crock of shit.

Yes because I have always kept all my content in folders according to who the supplier is the dates on which I bought them. So, locating where I bought them won't be an issue. If it blacked out ids are allowed then even if some suppliers won't give them then I am sure I have enough already not to hurt too bad when I take the others down. If the blacked out isn't okay then that is when it gets fun.

Ok now, what happens if all of the sponsors out there with hosted galleries, take their documents for all of their past galleries and toss it into a file for all of their affiliates to download and keep for their records. Then whenever they add a new hosted gallery, they simply just link to a file that you can download and toss in with the rest of them ?? For example, for Teen Sluts hosted gallery numbered 104, you could just have document ts104 for that gallery.

Why wouldn't something like that work ??

It's one thing to get photo suppliers and producers like Matrix, ect to comply with 2257. How are companies like adult-legal who have licensed out 1000's of dvds going to get the publishers to provide them with 2257 info so in turn, they can give it to the customers that legally licensed those DVDS from them?

Great, just what we needed...more FAKE DRAMA...

I dont doubt most of the points made in this thread but i do beleive just relying on the fact that you live in/host in Canada to save your work is pretty much suicidal.

With months of notice prior to the enactment of this law it only makes sence to protect yourself and your business. Having to run your ass off to edit 1000's of pages worth of content is a total pain in the ass, but less of one done over time.

It just makes sence to read the laws and to be compliant with them. Im not prepared to lose any % of my income over this so i will be acting accordingly, until i see the scope of whats happening. I wont be relying on the fact that im Canadian.

Cauz this will change a lot about this industry

As I understand, where you host is not really an issue, since the host is not responsible for what's hosted?

Hate to say it, but (if they actually enforce it, which I doubt) this will be GOOD for us corporations with attorneys and compliance personel.

Another example of how regulation will produce consolidation. The mom and pops will disolve by going out of business or selling to us which will result in more of a marketshare for us.

The moral of the story: Get serious about this business and corporatize or get out. Again, if it is enforced...

(Corporatize...is that a word?)

incorporate.

are we fucked yet?

Honestly, I doubt it will change it very much..

A lot will do everything they can to become ( or already are ) compliant, and the rest will simply bury their heads in the sand, and think, "Oh, they'll never find my little ole' site"

Confused by some of the wording in your post about "legal licensing" of DVD to customers, etc.

Distributors of "sexually explicit" DVD don't have to have 2257 documentation from content producers.



-brandon

Apparently it is:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&i...=Google+Search



:Graucho

-brandon

You were a lumber jack??

Thats cool.

Did you ever dress in women's clothing??

I just want to know what mongrels decide to say yes and approve it.

LMAO, this would answer a part of his question. :1orglaugh

Sounds like you got your stuff together. :thumbsup


You still need to be able to identify where you got a specific image.

Do a test on one of your own sites... pretend you are from the DOJ, and pick out any image on your website. Can you find out within a "reasonable period of time" of where that image came from (ie. who is the content producer)? For those reading along, you can play the home version of this game as well.

The issue about blackened ID is a very important and serious issue since it speaks to the privacy and safety of the models involved, IF the proposed 2257 changes of requiring secondary record keepers (webmasters) to have records.

This aspect will surely be challenged by attorneys and most likely will win in getting that part of 2257 changed. But what will still remain is the record keeping requirement of knowing where each specific image came from in case of DOJ inquiry.

-brandon

Same person who drafted it, our ever so loving Attorney General. There was no "commission" to ensure ones beliefs or personal agenda would not interfere, to make sure it is not biased, or basicly anything that is done with most laws set by congress. This is just a revision, so it needs nobody but him to say yes and approve it.

Now think about the dip fuck webmasters that support these folks.

What I meant is I run xxx.com for example. On xxx.com, I use licensed dvd content, images, movies, ect I licensed/purchased from adultlegal.com or some other DVD distributor/licensor/provider. As the owner/operator of xxx.com and located in the US, I need to have 2257 documentation on the content I am using. And this 2257 documentation has to come directly from the DVD publisher since they produced the content. Am I mistaken?

So the issue is, how forthcoming and cooperative are these DVD publishers in providing webmasters that licensed their content with the necessary 2257 documentation for each model, scene, ect..

Hope this makes more sense..

The hosting provider is not responsible or liable for 2257 violations.

Where hosting does matter (and not size) goes towards the issue of jurisdiction.

If the website is hosted with a provider within the US, the DOJ can make the hosting provider shutdown your website if they are not able to track you down to answer their 2257 inquiries.


-brandon

I played, and won :thumbsup I've made it a point to keep detailed records of every set, every producer, and where each image is located (including my hosted galleries, tours, etc.) I'm not using any content that doesn't have 2257 docs already. It really isn't that big of a hassle if you just stay on top of it.

My paysites aren't be as much of a problem as the free content sponsor galleries and TGP's will be though. I guess if worse comes to worse I'll just sell them and or turn the TGP's into text TGP's.

I need to breakdown your post into two parts.

This first part raises a yellow flag.

What does "license dvd content" mean? Does it mean that the content producer where you purchased a license, allowed you to sample the DVD, to create internet-viewable videso? Allowed you to take still shots from movies to show as images on a website?

You need to check the fine details of your licensing that specifically allows for sampling and use of DVD content into other mediums.

If you don't have explicit permission (granted via the license) then you have a potential copyright infringement issue.

-brandon

Assuming that you do have the rights to be able to sample a DVD and convert to internet mediums, then yes, you do have 2257 documentation issues.

The places that you got your DVD content from could be considered distributors, therefore they wouldn't have to hold or be in possession of any 2257 documents.

If you take the DVD content and use it on your website and the content was sexually explicit, then you would need to get the docs.

Your distributor would most likely blow you off and you would have to technically go to the actual content producer.. and good luck in getting video guys to give you model ID and releases.

At this point, the issue of having model ID is not part of the law. We'll have to see what happens after Sept 24th.. and if this part is rollled into 2257, then expect to see some premptive lawsuits filed to challenge the new changes.

If the proposed changes of having to have model ID in your possession as being a secondary record keeper does stick, then yes, you do have an issue (and most video content will have the same issue) of being 2257 compliant.

Images are easier to deal with since most content producers already have some form of model ID they hand out. Video is more difficult because there are could be multiple people in the video and clips.


-brandon

If your office is not in the US you only need to put up the 2257 statement, after that you are in the clear.

The DOJ has not authority to view my records and con go kiss my arse.

8/24 was the date the law was amended. 9/24 is the 30 days you have to get it into order. Don't believe me, ask a lawyer.

I think he means CD, as in licensing an entire collection that is deivered on CD instead of download etc.

I could be wrong though, but that's what I get from reading his post :2 cents:

Why would they do that as they are not responsible for what a non US affiliate posts?

Plus with all the US affiliates who might think it's easier to leave the business or just deal with hosted galleries, non US ones might be a very attractive proposition.

The sponsor who wants your traffic.

Current 2257 requirements to keep records are not terribly burdensome if you keep good records and make a point to document each time you add new content.

but the problem is human nature, to slack on documentation or complete ignorance of the what to do.

2257 statue has been a law for almost a decade and the requirements to be able to track and document your images is already in place.

The proposed 2257 changes made things harder, but the current 2257 statue is still very much applicable, despite the new changes.


-brandon

you had better read the law, the primary and secondary producers have to have records at their place of business

Why does it seem that the sky is always falling? Could it be Drama as always?

This is why change to ths law was needed. Some brokers were constantly telling us that clients did not need to see documents, in fact in law it was not required.

In some cases the broker even listed the content producer as the Custodian and had not seen the documents themselves, or had seen them and not realised they were a joke.

The biggest reason I had for rejecting content from suppliers was the quality of the documentation.

Leaving the client to trust the seller that the content was legal. Not a good situation.

yo, slang and colloquials are words

looking up words in the dictonary is valid for playing scrabble

hmmmm

:Graucho

-brandon

Hello together, I am looking for a link to the actual new 2257 regulations. Can somebody help?

Let's get this US and non US thing straight.

If you are in the US you should have all the documents, to prove the content is legal. You also need to comply with the new record keeping requirements of cross referencing and filing the documents, in case the DOJ decide to call on you. You also need a statement on your site that is compliant with the new regulations.

If you are not in the US you need the statement, then after that the US DOJ needs to come and inspect your records to verify you comply with the rest of the law.

For this they need a search warrant from your courts. Chances are they will not bother unless they can prove to the court you are doing something illegal, like CP.

But I would still advise EVERYONE to get the documents to show the content is legal when they publish porn.

www.2257.com

Thank you for the link.

The text there contain the new changes, correct?

names and proper nouns are not allowed in Scrabble . . . and you would never get away with a colloquialism playing against my dad :1orglaugh

Yes..this part is clear..I have legally licensed the DVDS which are signed by the distributor and publisher. Copyright infringements are irrelevant in our case. All our stuff is 100% legally licensed.