2257 UPDATE*** We're fucked.. - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

Sarah_Jayne · 09-07-2004, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by LadyMischief
You're only fucked if you're unorganized and don't have a lawyer. Carry on then.

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

WarChild · 09-07-2004, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jdoughs
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.

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.

FightThisPatent · 09-07-2004, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sarah_webinc
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.

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

Goose · 09-07-2004, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by PiksalDesign
Why all the hype about 2257.

I must have missed something.

(like missing a train while standing ON the track, yes)

yep I'm with you in that!

xxxdesign-net · 09-07-2004, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jdoughs
It puts them all between a rock and a hard place.

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...

Quote:

BUT my checks come in US dollars and 80% are from US based companies.

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

FightThisPatent · 09-07-2004, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by WarChild
Interesting.

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.

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

WarChild · 09-07-2004, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by FightThisPatent

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.

jimmyf · 09-07-2004, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by crowkid
Why do you guys keep spitting lies and misleading stories...I'm not voting for John Kerry, hes not going to save porn, and George Bush isn't going to end porn, in fact, most of us, have been doing quite well these past couple years, I know I'm doing better :-) Wipe your ass with the 2257, its time to coninue to bank

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

or
BradShaw

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.

Sarah_Jayne · 09-07-2004, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by FightThisPatent
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?

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.

Slick · 09-07-2004, 02:46 PM

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 ??

RP Fade · 09-07-2004, 02:54 PM

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?

scoreman · 09-07-2004, 03:08 PM

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

Jdoughs · 09-07-2004, 03:08 PM

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.

titmowse · 09-07-2004, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by block
What exactly is the 2257??

http://frwebgate3.access.gpo.gov/cgi...ion =retrieve

Doctor Dre · 09-07-2004, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by PiksalDesign
Why all the hype about 2257.

I must have missed something.

(like missing a train while standing ON the track, yes)

Cauz this will change a lot about this industry

Anna_O · 09-07-2004, 03:27 PM

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

RayVega · 09-07-2004, 04:17 PM

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?)

WarChild · 09-07-2004, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by RayVega
(Corporatize...is that a word?)

incorporate.

freeadultcontent · 09-07-2004, 04:31 PM

are we fucked yet?

Methodcash Rick · 09-07-2004, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doctor Dre
Cauz this will change a lot about this industry

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"

FightThisPatent · 09-07-2004, 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by RP Fade
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?

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

FightThisPatent · 09-07-2004, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by RayVega

(Corporatize...is that a word?)

Apparently it is:

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

-brandon

the_wizz · 09-07-2004, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by WarChild
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.

You were a lumber jack??

Thats cool.

Did you ever dress in women's clothing??

AlienQ - BANNED FOR LIFE · 09-07-2004, 08:57 PM

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

pxxx · 09-07-2004, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by zentz
its a number

LMAO, this would answer a part of his question.

FightThisPatent · 09-07-2004, 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sarah_webinc
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.

Sounds like you got your stuff together.

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

freeadultcontent · 09-07-2004, 09:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by AlienQ
I just want to know what mongrels decide to say yes and approve it.

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.

Shags · 09-07-2004, 09:39 PM

Quote:

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

AlienQ - BANNED FOR LIFE · 09-07-2004, 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by freeadultcontent
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.

RP Fade · 09-07-2004, 09:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by FightThisPatent
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

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..

FightThisPatent · 09-07-2004, 09:50 PM

Quote:

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

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

masterE · 09-07-2004, 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by FightThisPatent
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.

I played, and won

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.

FightThisPatent · 09-07-2004, 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by RP Fade
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.

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

FightThisPatent · 09-07-2004, 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by RP Fade
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..

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

Paul Markham · 09-07-2004, 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jdoughs
Are you also gonna host in Canada, use Canadian sponsors, and only target Canadian surfers, Oh and take payments only in Canadian Dollars, not to mention only Canadian Models?

You must understand that what effects the US market place has a direct restult on us. If the US programs and businesses comply you can be damn sure all the Canadian ones will be right behind.

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.

masterE · 09-07-2004, 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by FightThisPatent
What does "license dvd content" mean?

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

Paul Markham · 09-07-2004, 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by eroswebmaster
No...but a US sponsor may term you for not complying with their new rules.

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.

Paul Markham · 09-07-2004, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jdoughs
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?

The sponsor who wants your traffic.

FightThisPatent · 09-07-2004, 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by masterE
I played, and won 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.

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

baddog · 09-07-2004, 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MissMiranda

Does anyone know if there are companies out in the world that can act as a custodian of records?

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

spherex · 09-07-2004, 10:18 PM

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

Paul Markham · 09-07-2004, 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by RP Fade
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?

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.

baddog · 09-07-2004, 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by FightThisPatent
Apparently it is:

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

-brandon

hmmm

FightThisPatent · 09-07-2004, 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by baddog
hmmm

yo, slang and colloquials are words

looking up words in the dictonary is valid for playing scrabble

hmmmm

-brandon

Validus · 09-07-2004, 10:36 PM

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

Paul Markham · 09-07-2004, 10:41 PM

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.

Paul Markham · 09-07-2004, 10:51 PM

Quote:

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

www.2257.com

Validus · 09-07-2004, 10:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by charly
www.2257.com

Thank you for the link.

The text there contain the new changes, correct?

baddog · 09-07-2004, 11:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by FightThisPatent
yo, slang and colloquials are words

looking up words in the dictonary is valid for playing scrabble

hmmmm

-brandon

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

RP Fade · 09-07-2004, 11:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by FightThisPatent
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

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.

09-07-2004, 02:54 PM	#61
RP Fade Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 3,343	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? __________________ HomemadeCash.com - Homemade & GF sites powered by NScash.com HomemadeVideoPass.com - The only all homemade mega site OurHomemadePorno.com - Real couples fucking on camera Contact ICQ: 400-786-531 Email: fade AT nscash.com

09-07-2004, 03:08 PM	#62
scoreman Confirmed User Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Miami, Florida Posts: 1,491	Great, just what we needed...more FAKE DRAMA... __________________

09-07-2004, 03:08 PM	#63
Jdoughs Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Great White North Posts: 5,794	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. __________________ LinkSpun - Premier Adult Link Trading Community - ICQ - 464/\281/\250 Be Seen By New Webmasters/Affiliates * Target out webmasters/affiliates based on niches your sites are for less than $20 a month. AmeriNOC - Proudly hosted @ AmeriNOC!

09-07-2004, 03:27 PM	#66
Anna_O Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Sweden Posts: 5,773	As I understand, where you host is not really an issue, since the host is not responsible for what's hosted? __________________ Fetish by Anna Paysite - Nylons Bondage Latex Lesbians Glamour Annas Dungeon - 70k / day Fetish TGP ICQ 246797915

09-07-2004, 04:17 PM	#67
RayVega Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: New York ICQ#348007554 Posts: 4,212	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?) __________________ Ray "The Don" Vega Managing Director Private Equity Fund [email protected]

09-07-2004, 02:46 PM	#60
Slick Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Houghton, MI Posts: 7,338	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 ??

09-07-2004, 04:31 PM	#69
freeadultcontent Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: "evitcepsrep ruoy egnahc" Posts: 9,976	are we fucked yet? __________________ Exclusive Ethnic & Microniche Sites

09-07-2004, 08:57 PM	#74
AlienQ - BANNED FOR LIFE best designer on GFY Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: IALIEN.COM - High Definition Video and Photographic Productions -ICQ 78943384 Posts: 30,307	I just want to know what mongrels decide to say yes and approve it. __________________ NAKED HOSTING FTW!11 I'm On The INSANE PLAN $9.95/mo! \| The Alien Blog Adult News Worth Reading Updated Daily \| Content For Sale! 641 PICS 216 MINUTES OF VIDEO $350.00 \|ICQ: 78943384 \|

09-07-2004, 10:18 PM	#91
spherex Registered User Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Colorado Posts: 43	Why does it seem that the sky is always falling? Could it be Drama as always? __________________ ICQ: 344785543

09-07-2004, 10:36 PM	#95
Validus Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Calgary, Canada Posts: 4,012	Hello together, I am looking for a link to the actual new 2257 regulations. Can somebody help?

09-07-2004, 10:41 PM	#96
Paul Markham Too old to care Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: On the sofa, watching TV or doing my jigsaws. Posts: 52,943	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. __________________ Blowout deal. 880 videos, 2,400 image sets, plus many RAW videos. $500. PM me for a deal. Skype Paulmarkham70