ahhh....shit.. glad I branched out into non-adult shit

Guys wake the fuck up.

Which US sponsor will PAY YOU for sales achieved by breaking the 257 laws. I suspect NONE.

And also..whose gonna process your illegally gained sales?

Yes i see your point.

No-one will kick in your door to arrest you, but mainly because you wont be breaking the 2257 laws. And if you do break them, no-one will pay you. You are right, no-one wants to term a honest affiliate. But guess what, you break the 2257 laws, your not an honest affiliate, your an illegally working one.

Thanks god I'm canadian !

Epic cash?

No seriously.. thats exactly my concern.. but lexactly like spam.. sponsors might look the other.. I dont think sponsors can get in trouble for what an affiliate has listed on his site..

BUT sponsors need to wake the fuck up and tell us how they handle all this... Will they offer to host my non-hosted gals,.. can I use a link to their 2257 page.., etc..

If I were to move my hosting to Canada, wouldn't that mean I was operating a Canadian Business in Canada with US clients (affiliate programs)? How can I be breaking US laws, when I'm not operating in the US?

I'm by no means a lawyer, I'm just thinking out loud here.

I'll believe it when I see the official transcripts from the post 8/24/04 meetings..

:thumbsup :thumbsup Same here.

Here is some food for thought.... is your host non-us as well?

I dont think any sponsors will pay for signups achieved by breaking federal laws. It puts them all between a rock and a hard place. I also live in Canada and have hosts, sponsors and content from here. BUT my checks come in US dollars and 80% are from US based companies.

I will have no choice but to protect myself and my business by following the same group of guidelines (2257) that the rest of my industry must follow. Its the only surefire way to stay affloat, and to stay true to my business partners, and sponsors.

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..