2257 solution? keepmyrecords.com

[ronaldo]

I didn't see this posted anywhere surprisingly, but it was mentioned yesterday on the PornProfessors.

Check out www.keepmyrecords.com and see what you think.

Apparently Eric Bernstein has said that this idea will fly.

What does everyone else think?

[MandyBlake]

That is a very cool idea, but is in direct violation of the new proposed regulations:
"...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."

[tony286]

The custodian of records has to be a employee of the company plain and simple.

[ronaldo]

Originally posted by MandyBlake
That is a very cool idea, but is in direct violation of the new proposed regulations:
"...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."

That was my original thought too, but as I said, Eric Bernstein did say that this idea would be fine.

I wasn't in on the conversation, so I'll try to get the owner of the site over here to explain.

[ronaldo]

Originally posted by tony404
The custodian of records has to be a employee of the company plain and simple.

Haha, hey Tony.

I guess I didn't have to go searching for him after all.

[tony286]

Originally posted by ronaldo
Haha, hey Tony.

I guess I didn't have to go searching for him after all.

My lawyer is making a dvd on the new changes I shot it and I am editing it for him. So I have been listening to 2257 changes and regs for 6 hrs straight . I know them pretty cold now lol

[gleem]

Originally posted by tony404
The custodian of records has to be a employee of the company plain and simple.

so doesn't that mean you can hire someone to take care of it like this service or some other (which I imagine will be popping up very soon)

since when you "hire them" they are your employee? Guess someone needs to define what "employee" qualifies.

[xclusive]

It should work because when they take your money they are acting as if they are working for you...

[crockett]

Originally posted by MandyBlake
That is a very cool idea, but is in direct violation of the new proposed regulations:
"...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."

not according to the Lawyer that was on the YNOT Radio yesterday. He said it's perfectly legal to store your records at a secondary location as long as that location was named as the record holder on your site and was accessible. Which means a off site office is fine but not a storage unit.

[Hammer]

Originally posted by ronaldo
Haha, hey Tony.

I guess I didn't have to go searching for him after all.

Wrong Tony, Ron. Tony D, the owner of keepmyrecords.com posts on this board as wesubmit. Tony404 is simply stating his opinion and I believe he is incorrect. According to Eric Bernstein, legal counsel for YNOT, and several other attorneys, this is perfectly legal.

For those of you posting in this thread about the records needing to be at the place of business, take the time to read the entire regualtion, especially where it says the records can be stored by an employee.

"Any person to whom subsection (a) applies shall maintain the records required by this section at his business premises, or at such other place as the Attorney General may by regulation prescribe and shall make such records available to the Attorney General for inspection at all reasonable times.

If the person to whom subsection (a) of this section applies is an organization the statement required by this subsection shall include the name, title, and business address of the individual employed by such organization responsible for maintaining the records required by this section."

Obviously, keepmyrecords.com is the organization employed to maintain the records.

[Phoenix]

cool stuff i posted this idea weeks ago

i hope it is a viable solution...most info does not need to be given to just anyone who asks for it

[ronaldo]

Originally posted by The Hammer
Wrong Tony, Ron.

Oops, my bad.

[tony286]

Originally posted by The Hammer
Wrong Tony, Ron. Tony D, the owner of keepmyrecords.com posts on this board as wesubmit. Tony404 is simply stating his opinion and I believe he is incorrect. According to Eric Bernstein, legal counsel for YNOT, and several other attorneys, this is perfectly legal.

For those of you posting in this thread about the records needing to be at the place of business, take the time to read the entire regualtion, especially where it says the records can be stored by an employee.

"Any person to whom subsection (a) applies shall maintain the records required by this section at his business premises, or at such other place as the Attorney General may by regulation prescribe and shall make such records available to the Attorney General for inspection at all reasonable times.

If the person to whom subsection (a) of this section applies is an organization the statement required by this subsection shall include the name, title, and business address of the individual employed by such organization responsible for maintaining the records required by this section."

Obviously, keepmyrecords.com is the organization employed to maintain the records.

Well my lawyer said that person has to be a employee of the company. Also if keep my records is wrong will they send a lawyer to help their client who thought they were being compliant?

[crockett]

so how much is keep my records going to charge anyway? nothing is listed on their site about a price.

[crockett]

Originally posted by tony404
Well my lawyer said that person has to be a employee of the company. Also if keep my records is wrong will they send a lawyer to help their client who thought they were being compliant?

Maybe ask a second laywer, these laws are so vague it always comes down to a educated opinion. That or bring up what the Ynot lawyer has said, to your lawyer and see what he thnks then.

[wesubmit]

Yes Indeed it is a completely legal way for all webmasters to handle their records. Basically with your records here at our secure location you will simply put the company name, my name and the physical address of the company. In the event a Federal or Law Enforcement Agency needs to see your records they would come here where our staff will assist them throughout the process and then provide a report about the entire review to the client.

Anyone that would like to talk with me further feel free to contact me. Our toll free number is on our site.

Thanks again to all helping out
Tony D

[Oracle Porn]

Originally posted by tony404
The custodian of records has to be a employee of the company plain and simple.

that's correct, and if he keeps your records for you, and you pay him, he is your employee.

[hershie]

Originally posted by tony404
So I have been listening to 2257 changes and regs for 6 hrs straight . I know them pretty cold now lol

Tell your attorney "Thanks" for unnecessarily scaring the shit out of so many webmasters and models via your mouth. Hopefully your legal advice is indeed just too narrow an intrepretation.

[tony286]

Originally posted by crockett
Maybe ask a second laywer, these laws are so vague it always comes down to a educated opinion. That or bring up what the Ynot lawyer has said, to your lawyer and see what he thnks then.

Well based that they are vague would you rather have your records at your office in as close to compliant as possible or hope that having them in someone elses office is ok. I wish that was the case this has been a pain in the ass, there is nothing more that I would like then to be able to ship my records off to someone to keep. . Also if they dont keep the records correctly who is reponsible ask Eric that .

[sarettah]

I posted this as a thread on my home board and then saw this thread, so I figured I would drop this here...


Hope it helps some folks in their search for sanity in the legalese...

2257 resources I know about. Please add what you know about.

http://uscode.house.gov/DOWNLOAD/18C110.DOC Current 2257 wording on the House of Reps server (you got to look through it cause it is the entire chapter 110 that they have there)

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2257.html Current 2257 from cornell law (easier to read)

http://www.regulations.gov/freddocs/04-13792.htm 2257 changes as published in the Federal Register

http://2257lookup.com (Brandon's site)

http://www.keepmyrecords.com (Tony's)

http://www.xxxlaw.net First Amendment and Adult Entertainment Law (look for 2257 in their table of contents)

http://www.embalaw.com Eric M. Bernstein & Associates, LLC (the guy that was on with Hammer on YNOT radio)

2257EZ.com My Site

[tony286]

Originally posted by hershie
Tell your attorney "Thanks" for unnecessarily scaring the shit out of so many webmasters and models via your mouth. Hopefully your legal advice is indeed just too narrow an intrepretation.

The chance of going to jail is scary shit, this isnt fuck around time.

[AaronM]

Just marking my territory.

AaronM was here.

[FUCKuPAYme]

Originally posted by tony404
Well based that they are vague would you rather have your records at your office in as close to compliant as possible or hope that having them in someone elses office is ok. I wish that was the case this has been a pain in the ass, there is nothing more that I would like then to be able to ship my records off to someone to keep. . Also if they dont keep the records correctly who is reponsible ask Eric that .

Exactly who are you going to trust with your life?

the record keeper has to be the custodian for 5 years.

this is going to weed out many companies

[SetTheWorldonFire]

This 2257 thing really needs to made clear.

some lawyers are saying this and others saying that.

what's the deal?

[Peter Romero]

Originally posted by AaronM
Just marking my territory.

AaronM was here.

and what is your opinion on this Aaron?

[crockett]

Originally posted by tony404
Well based that they are vague would you rather have your records at your office in as close to compliant as possible or hope that having them in someone elses office is ok. I wish that was the case this has been a pain in the ass, there is nothing more that I would like then to be able to ship my records off to someone to keep. . Also if they dont keep the records correctly who is reponsible ask Eric that .

well tony, you have to look how record keeping is done in all forms of business such as tax records and so on. It perfectly legal to store your tax records at off site locations and it looks as if the 2257 can also be stored off site.

I think if it came down to a court room argument, as long as you were not trying to deceive anyone. Then I think you would be fairly safe. The only thing I see as possibly bad in this, is if enough webmasters use something like this. I think it would be more likely that your records would be checked.

What I mean is, if they can go to one location and check 50 companies records, then that's going to look better at the end of the year when they have to do their reports. If nothing else it would be more efficient and cost effective for the govt. But then again when has that ever played any part of what they do lol

[ronaldo]

Originally posted by SetTheWorldonFire
This 2257 thing really needs to made clear.

some lawyers are saying this and others saying that.

what's the deal?

Easy.

It's a law made BY lawyers, FOR lawyers.

Who is gonna benefit the most from this law?

The underage models they claim to be protecting? I don't think so.

The lawyers will make a shitload of money on this one.

[hershie]

Originally posted by tony404
The chance of going to jail is scary shit, this isnt fuck around time.

Then stop fucking around saying your "opinion" is the law. You have a habit of pontificating on lots of matters for the sake of sounding like someone that is an expert with the definitive answer. Why just yesterday you decided to tell everyone reading a thread in which someone was looking for BBW content that my models did not meet your expert benchmark for qualification as a BBW. Were you trying to hurt my business intentionally so anyone else looking for content wouldn't click on my link or just being more of an expert.

Lots of people have been reading your knowledgebale sounding "opinins" that you state as "fact" and have possibly decided to leave the business because of your statements over the last few weeks. So you are right, this isn't fuck around time mister.

[Snake Doctor]

I'm thinking worst case scenario with a service like this is that they can AT LEAST go through all the hassle of databasing all your information and cross referencing the model id's with the image urls and such.
And then they can send you a digital copy of your records that you only need to update moving forward.

And of course they'll have a copy as well to serve as backup in case your records are seized, or there's a fire, or whatever.

[wesubmit]

I will be glad to talk with each of your personally and settle your fears and concerns in regards to what is a serious matter. Toll Free number so don't be shy and it is official the basic cost of the service will be $24.95 per month. Other costs will be on a per client basis based on the volume of records, condition of those records etc. There really was no other fair way to price as every webmaster's situation will vary.

Look Forward to speaking in person with anyone interested
Tony D

[tony286]

Originally posted by hershie
Then stop fucking around saying your "opinion" is the law. You have a habit of pontificating on lots of matters for the sake of sounding like someone that is an expert with the definitive answer. Why just yesterday you decided to tell everyone reading a thread in which someone was looking for BBW content that my models did not meet your expert benchmark for qualification as a BBW. Were you trying to hurt my business intentionally so anyone else looking for content wouldn't click on my link or just being more of an expert.

Lots of people have been reading your knowledgebale sounding "opinins" that you state as "fact" and have possibly decided to leave the business because of your statements over the last few weeks. So you are right, this isn't fuck around time mister.

I have never said my opinion is fact. I have stated what I was told by my lawyer nothing more nothing less. You attacking me has nothing to do with 2257 it has to do with you getting mad because I said your models were not big enough to be bbw. I am sorry if I upset you but they are light for bbw.Also if you dont like opinions this isnt the board for you.If you had a problem with that address it dont use this as an excuse.

Unlike most I really care about my fellow webmasters and dont want to see anyone go to jail . People should be alarmed. To have a flippant atitude when there is a man in charge of the DOJ that spent $8000 to cover lady justices tits is nuts.

[MandyBlake]

Originally posted by crockett
not according to the Lawyer that was on the YNOT Radio yesterday. He said it's perfectly legal to store your records at a secondary location as long as that location was named as the record holder on your site and was accessible. Which means a off site office is fine but not a storage unit.

WEll that's not what it says in the new regulations:

"...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."

I'm just reading it as it's written.

[baddog]

Originally posted by gleem
so doesn't that mean you can hire someone to take care of it like this service or some other (which I imagine will be popping up very soon)

since when you "hire them" they are your employee? Guess someone needs to define what "employee" qualifies.

my thoughts exactly, why can't I be your employee?

[baddog]

Originally posted by SetTheWorldonFire
This 2257 thing really needs to made clear.

some lawyers are saying this and others saying that.

what's the deal?

laws are always subject to interpretation . . . nature of the beast

[Basic_man]

Pretty nice idea! I think this site will become big very soon!

[wesubmit]

Originally posted by MandyBlake
WEll that's not what it says in the new regulations:

"...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."

I'm just reading it as it's written.

Now read the next section and it goes into the fact that it can happen. I agree it is contradicting itself but the next section deals with a company such as mine etc.

Tony D

[billywatson]

Just one question -- doesn't a contact NAME have to be listed according to 2257?

If so, just where is that on keepmyrecords.com?

I love the idea...but are they *even* compliant??

[biglou]

I like it, but I'd feel even better if it were based outside of the US (thereby making it more difficult for the Ass-troopers to inspect them.)

[freeadultcontent]

Originally posted by AaronM
Just marking my territory.

AaronM was here.

Pee'ing on AaronM's leg, made mine too.

[421Fill]

I think that a company like this, as well as it's clients would and should expect to be inspected often. But that's not a bad thing... being inspected is only bad if you're not compliant, or using illegal content.

This type of service could be the godsend of the amateur models that work from home.

[Not Working]

The quote fromthe regts that you keeprefering to doesnt state that an employee can keep the records, it states that the producer in either his role controling this information or his role as an employee is responsible. Also I believe that the Custodian of Records MUST BE an owner of the company.

If you can show elsewhere where I am wrong, please correct me.

[sarettah]

Originally posted by numbersguy
The quote fromthe regts that you keeprefering to doesnt state that an employee can keep the records, it states that the producer in either his role controling this information or his role as an employee is responsible. Also I believe that the Custodian of Records MUST BE an owner of the company.

If you can show elsewhere where I am wrong, please correct me.

If you read 75.4 it sounds like you are right, but if you continue to 75.6 then you can see the loophole.

Sec. 75.4 Location of records.

Any producer required by this part to maintain records shall make
such records available at the producer's place of business. Each record shall be maintained for seven years from the date of creation or last amendment or addition. If the producer ceases to carry on the business, the records shall be maintained for five years thereafter. 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. If the organization is dissolved, the individual who was responsible for maintaining the records on behalf of the organization, as described in Sec. 75.6(b), shall continue to maintain the records
for a period of five years after dissolution.


Sec. 75.6 Statement describing location of books and records.

part 3 secion c:

If the producer is an organization, the statement shall also
contain the name, title, and business address of the individual
employed by such organization who is responsible for maintaining the records required by this part.


So, by the statement of "If the producer is an organization" they seem to be saying that the organization may employ someone strictly to keep the records.

75.4 and 75.6 do seem to be conradictory. But so do many parts of this whole mess as did the original 2257.

[FightThisPatent]

After going through all the million 2257 threads, reading the many mispresentations and misunderstandings on 2257, and doing alot of talking with legal folk, I have compiled a summary that touches upon a number of issues.

You can read the 2257 summary at:
http://www.2257lookup.com/2257Summary.html


Hope it helps,
brandon



ps. keepmyrecords.com is not a competitor to 2257lookup and serves a different niche

[wesubmit]

Originally posted by billywatson
Just one question -- doesn't a contact NAME have to be listed according to 2257?

If so, just where is that on keepmyrecords.com?

I love the idea...but are they *even* compliant??

That site has no content on it so I have no reason for a Custodian of Records, however I already am carrying the tag on all my sites I have put up recently.

Address, location and phone number are listed on the site already including two landmarks so they do not even have to look for the street number.

Tony

[pornguy]

I think that with some of the new proposals that they have, there is going to be some major conflicts with the old laws.

I also believe that this is being done for a reason.

It will make it much easier for the feds to make some arrests and put a few people into jail. The you will see small companies bailing out of the adult business very fast.






PG

[hershie]

Originally posted by tony404
I have never said my opinion is fact. I have stated what I was told by my lawyer nothing more nothing less. You attacking me has nothing to do with 2257 it has to do with you getting mad because I said your models were not big enough to be bbw. I am sorry if I upset you but they are light for bbw.Also if you dont like opinions this isnt the board for you.If you had a problem with that address it dont use this as an excuse.

Unlike most I really care about my fellow webmasters and dont want to see anyone go to jail . People should be alarmed. To have a flippant atitude when there is a man in charge of the DOJ that spent $8000 to cover lady justices tits is nuts.

Don't try to feed me this bullshit. You have been spouting off about the new 2257 regs for a few weeks now and there were plenty of instances where you came across like you were speaking "facts" and freaking people out about record keeping...and this isn't even law yet, not to mention how misguided it now seems you were all along.

Of course I am pissed about you deciding you are the judge and jury on what qualifies as a bbw and trying to hurt my business saying my bbw content doesn't meet your qualifications. Maybe your "opinion" is bang on or maybe you are a lunatic who only sees super size bbws as true bbws, but regardless, you never said it was your "opinion", you made a statement as if it was "fact" like you are a know-it-all, just like you have been doing for weeks on 2257. If I was vengeful, I never would have mentioned this incident with my content store, but thought it just supported a theme when it came to your "opinions" and how you present them on GFY .

[hershie]

Good discussion here: http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showth...adid=336306&s=

[Rochard]

I would imagine every attorney would have a different opinion here. Our attorney states that we must list a custodian of records, and that it need not be at our physical business address. In our case, we list our attorney as our record keeper and he has all of our records.

This site was posted on GFY a few days ago and I looked them over. They are records storage company, not a law firm. They store your records, but I don't read anything about them making sure you are legal in regards to 2257 laws.

[wesubmit]

Couple quick things, in regards to Looking at if a client is legal we will be reviewing their records but we are not attorney's that is true if you were referring to Keep My Records.

I also have installed Live Chat on the site for those that would like to talk to us without calling.

Look forward to talk to lots of you soon.

[Jace]

Originally posted by hershie
Don't try to feed me this bullshit. You have been spouting off about the new 2257 regs for a few weeks now and there were plenty of instances where you came across like you were speaking "facts" and freaking people out about record keeping...and this isn't even law yet, not to mention how misguided it now seems you were all along.

Of course I am pissed about you deciding you are the judge and jury on what qualifies as a bbw and trying to hurt my business saying my bbw content doesn't meet your qualifications. Maybe your "opinion" is bang on or maybe you are a lunatic who only sees super size bbws as true bbws, but regardless, you never said it was your "opinion", you made a statement as if it was "fact" like you are a know-it-all, just like you have been doing for weeks on 2257. If I was vengeful, I never would have mentioned this incident with my content store, but thought it just supported a theme when it came to your "opinions" and how you present them on GFY .

i am done chatting about the 2257 shit in GFY, cause I will have my own lawyer, and those that don't can suck my nuts....

but dude, your bbw is just heavier girls, IT AIN'T BBW BY ANY MEANS....just cause a girl has some big tits and flabby thighs, doesn't mean she is BBW...ROFL