2257 Affiliate loophole

[arnette]

Maybe im being optimistic, but does this not provide an exemption for affiliates?

If the producer produces the book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, computer-generated image, digital image, picture, or other matter (including but not limited to Internet computer site or services) as part of his control of or through his employment with an organization, records shall be made available at the organization?s place of business.

From dictionary.com (is there a legal dictionary online?)

Main Entry: em·ploy·ment
Function: noun
1 : an activity or service performed for another esp. for compensation or as an occupation


The definition seems to fit the standard affiliate model.

Any comments?

[AsianDivaGirlsWebDude]

Tell it to the Department of Justice.

ADG Webmaster

[chadglni]

as part of his control of or

[arnette]

Originally Posted by chadglni

as part of his control of or

yes... or

[SmokeyTheBear]

heres a better exemption

§ 75.7 Exemption statement.

(a) Any producer of any book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, computer-generated image, digital image, picture, or other matter may cause to be affixed to every copy of the matter a statement attesting that the matter is not covered by the recordkeeping requirements of 18 U.S.C. 2257(a)?(c) and of this part if:
(1) The matter contains only visual depictions of actual sexually explicit conduct made before November 1, 1990, or is produced, manufactured, published, duplicated, reproduced, or reissued before May 26, 1992;
(2) The matter contains only visual depictions of simulated sexually explicit conduct; or,
(3) The matter contains only some combination of the visual depictions described in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section.
(b) If the primary producer and the secondary producer are different entities, the primary producer may certify to the secondary producer that the visual depictions in the matter satisfy the standards under paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3) of this section. The secondary producer may then cause to be affixed to every copy of the matter a statement attesting that the matter is not covered by the record-keeping requirements of 18 U.S.C. 2257(a)?(c) and of this part

[arnette]

Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear

heres a better exemption

§ 75.7 Exemption statement.

(a) Any producer of any book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, computer-generated image, digital image, picture, or other matter may cause to be affixed to every copy of the matter a statement attesting that the matter is not covered by the recordkeeping requirements of 18 U.S.C. 2257(a)?(c) and of this part if:
(1) The matter contains only visual depictions of actual sexually explicit conduct made before November 1, 1990, or is produced, manufactured, published, duplicated, reproduced, or reissued before May 26, 1992;
(2) The matter contains only visual depictions of simulated sexually explicit conduct; or,
(3) The matter contains only some combination of the visual depictions described in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section.
(b) If the primary producer and the secondary producer are different entities, the primary producer may certify to the secondary producer that the visual depictions in the matter satisfy the standards under paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3) of this section. The secondary producer may then cause to be affixed to every copy of the matter a statement attesting that the matter is not covered by the record-keeping requirements of 18 U.S.C. 2257(a)?(c) and of this part

That only applies to content made before November 1, 1990 or visual depictions of simulated sexually explicit conduct

that exemption isnt very useful at all in my opinion

[AsianDivaGirlsWebDude]

ADG Webmaster

[SmokeyTheBear]

Originally Posted by arnette

That only applies to content made before November 1, 1990 or visual depictions of simulated sexually explicit conduct

yup.. thats what it says

[arnette]

Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear

yup.. thats what it says

why do you think that exemption is more useful? how much content falls under those guidelines?

[chadglni]

Originally Posted by arnette

yes... or

The damn OR is including even more people, not excluding. What you posted said the producer of a website that is part of his control must keep records. Hate to break it to you but you are employed by nobody. That is your site, in your name, you are the producer. Gonna give all your sites to your sponsors and ask them to hire you now?

[arnette]

Originally Posted by chadglni

The damn OR is including even more people, not excluding. What you posted said the producer of a website that is part of his control must keep records. Hate to break it to you but you are employed by nobody. That is your site, in your name, you are the producer. Gonna give all your sites to your sponsors and ask them to hire you now?

I agree that the affiliate owns the site and is a producer. What i posted did NOT say that a producer of a website that is part of his control must keep records.

If affiliates fit the LEGAL definition of employment like they fit the dictionary.com definition, they will be exempt from having to maintain records themselves, the organization does it instead.

[chadglni]

Originally Posted by arnette

I agree that the affiliate owns the site and is a producer. What i posted did NOT say that a producer of a website that is part of his control must keep records.

If affiliates fit the LEGAL definition of employment like they fit the dictionary.com definition, they will be exempt from having to maintain records themselves, the organization does it instead.

Now go read the laws definitions as they usually explain it pretty well.

[arnette]

Originally Posted by chadglni

Now go read the laws definitions as they usually explain it pretty well.

Id love to, do you know of any online references?

[arnette]

hey guys, law.com's legal dictionary provides these, i think its a very strong argument.
anyone see the faults?

employment
n. the hiring of a person for compensation.

employee
n. a person who is hired for a wage, salary, fee or payment to perform work for an employer.

[broke]

Originally Posted by arnette

anyone see the faults?

The main fault would be that affiliates are not employees, but rather independant contractors.

[arnette]

Originally Posted by broke

The main fault would be that affiliates are not employees, but rather independant contractors.

you dont think an affiliate fits the definition "a person who is hired for a wage, salary, fee or payment to perform work for an employer." ?

[chadglni]

Originally Posted by arnette

you dont think an affiliate fits the definition "a person who is hired for a wage, salary, fee or payment to perform work for an employer." ?

You are never hired. This type of argument has been shot down in the courts too many times to count. Lots of people wanting to be an "employee" for various reasons.

[baddog]

Originally Posted by arnette

you dont think an affiliate fits the definition "a person who is hired for a wage, salary, fee or payment to perform work for an employer." ?

You are amazing. You are going to keep asking until someone says yes, an affilaite is an employee.

Sorry, sweetheart, it is not the case. Unless you are getting an hourly wage from the company, you are nothing but a contractor . . . at best.

[chadglni]

The first sponsor I checked....

7.
Legal:

I.
Relationship: -- Associate is at least 18 years of age, and is neither an employee nor an independent contractor of CLICKCASH.COM or WebPower, Inc. No Partnership is being created pursuant to this Agreement. No partnership relationship exists, and both parties expressly disclaim any benefits or liabilities arising from any claim of a partnership relationship from any quarter.

[broke]

Originally Posted by arnette

you dont think an affiliate fits the definition "a person who is hired for a wage, salary, fee or payment to perform work for an employer." ?

No.


For an affiliate to be considered even a 100% commissioned sales employee sponsors would have to have all affiliates fill our W4's and the sponsors would have to start withholding state and federal income taxes from commission checks.

The sponsors would also have to match some of the federal taxes withheld from affiliate checks and would have to start paying unemployment tax.

This is just a short list off the top of my head at 5:20AM of things that would have to change in order for affiliates to be considered "employees" and I'm sure there are many, many, more; but you get the idea.


Not only would it be a logistical nightmare for programs to "hire" affliates on any large scale, the overhead would probably render the whole idea cost prohibitive.

[baddog]

I am trying to keep from laughing too loud here.

I could just see it if all affiliates were employees. The unemployment lines would get pretty crowded

[arnette]

ok, ill stop arguing with you guys

im just saying that employees are exempt and in my mind affiliates fit the defintion of employee i found at law.com

im no lawyer, i dont even live in america, im just stating an observation.

[V_RocKs]

Originally Posted by arnette

Maybe im being optimistic, but does this not provide an exemption for affiliates?

If the producer produces the book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, computer-generated image, digital image, picture, or other matter (including but not limited to Internet computer site or services) as part of his control of or through his employment with an organization, records shall be made available at the organization?s place of business.

From dictionary.com (is there a legal dictionary online?)

Main Entry: em·ploy·ment
Function: noun
1 : an activity or service performed for another esp. for compensation or as an occupation


The definition seems to fit the standard affiliate model.

Any comments?

No bro... it is referrering to employment as in a director or producer working under a studio. The studio (MGM) holds the records, not the producer or the director.

[V_RocKs]

Sorry, I am stoned and I could see the context so fucking clearly...

Pretty funny to me... rotfl

[V_RocKs]

Originally Posted by arnette

you dont think an affiliate fits the definition "a person who is hired for a wage, salary, fee or payment to perform work for an employer." ?

On this one.. no... You are a contractor. It is in the terms of service that you will not be an employee and will be providing a service as an outside contractor.

Continuing to see it your way would be like calling the guy who drops off tortillas at stores an employee of the stores. He is his own boss.

[arnette]

Originally Posted by V_RocKs

No bro... it is referrering to employment as in a director or producer working under a studio. The studio (MGM) holds the records, not the producer or the director.

actually what its saying is that if someone classed as a producer by the code is producing as an owner or employee of an organization, the organization needs to keep 2257s, not the producer



on the main point, ive started some reading, its true that affiliates are not employees under the IRS definition, but its definition differs from that of common law.

[More Booze]

And once again im proud to NOT be an American.

[baddog]

Originally Posted by More Booze

And once again im proud to NOT be an American.

and we are glad not to have you

[V_RocKs]

You do not have 200 employers... the end