GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum
Page 2 of 2 < 1 2
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum (https://gfy.com/index.php)
-   Fucking Around & Business Discussion (https://gfy.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   Programs: Where can I get my 2257 documents? (https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=468678)

RawAlex 05-18-2005 08:08 AM
Allison, with due respect to your learned lawyers, I think that the DOJ intention is to make the rules as difficult to comply with as possible. The cross reference requirements, the single image to model release matching, the secondary producter provisions, etc, are all created specifically to make it somewhere between hard and impossible for people to have complete records AT THEIR BUSINESS LOCATION. I read no provision for remote access to third party locations for those documents.

It is clear also that they have made no provision for "custodian of records" this time around. You can't have your lawyer, your buddy, or some guy selling his services be your custodian of records - you have to have the records. This is another reason why I am not sure that electronic access would pass muster.

The idea is good, but I am not sure of the reality of the situation.

Scoreman, thanks for that info. I would like to see what more programs are considering doing here.

Alex

DutchTeenCash 05-18-2005 08:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by goBigtime
Exactly.

So if you are an affiliate and your sponsor is now offering a LINK to their records and only allowing you access as you need them (when DOJ is standing in front of you saying... "Show me the records for X").... you, the affiliate, need to trust your sponsor program like never before to have their shit together in that case... or it's your ass.

And if you don't think they'll come after the small guys.... just remember the 'low hanging fruit example' back when Acacia first popped up on the scene.
true, ppl will become more n more careful promoting teens who look too young. Ill put my hand in the fire (dutch saying sorry) thats everythings 2257 compliant.

Luckely most content providers and photographers supply headshots with 2 IDs nowadays, makes it a lot easier.

Rui 05-18-2005 09:26 AM
the amount of workload something like this means is scary...shiiiittt

dready 05-18-2005 09:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rui
the amount of workload something like this means is scary...shiiiittt
That's why it can be challenged as an undue burden.

RawAlex 05-18-2005 02:04 PM
We can hope. In the mean time, what are programs planning to do about free content?

Alex

Mr.Fiction 05-18-2005 02:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by scoreman

These regs will be good for some (mostly lawyers) and significantly worse for others. For example, while paysites and freesites have alot of problems, places like premium newgroup providers like Easynews.com or Yahoo Groups will have to dramatically change their policies. Much of their business model relies on non documented postings. We could see these companies just phase out adult content altogether. This could result in a higher demand for adult product if the US Govt passes regs that restrict the proliferation of adult content in free areas. I think no matter what happens here you will see the better sites survive and grow stronger from all this.
Certain types of companies have been generally held non-liable for the actions of their customers. AOL or Yahoo is probably not going to be held responsible if some user posts a naked photo without 2257 info, the same as they aren't going to be held responsible if someone posts a death threat.

There was a thread yesterday saying that forums like GFY would have to keep 2257 information. That's ridiculous - Lensman cannot be held responsible if a GFY member posts a death threat on this board, and he will almost certainly not be held responsible if someone posts a photo without 2257 info.

There is a difference between a porn company posting movies to make a profit and a hosting company, ISP, or adult forum, where users may make their own posts or post their own content.

There would be serious free speech issues if Yahoo was suddenly legally responsible for all of the content posted or created by their members.

mikeylikesit 05-19-2005 04:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RawAlex
We can hope. In the mean time, what are programs planning to do about free content?

Alex
i'd like to know the answer to that too

vicki 05-19-2005 05:49 AM
This is a great thread. Serious issues, serious discussion and hopefully soon some serious solutions.

I don't believe even sponsor hosted content and/or galleries would help if its passed in its current form... meaning if the site giving access to the SHG must have compliance on their access site. (even sponsors offering links to compliance on each of their galleries would still leave the originating feeder site in non-compliance.)

Converting all the feeder sites to text-based-only still leaves the issue of banner ads etc.

We definately need some clarification on this before we can truly brainstorm for solutions.

Heck .. even consider Googles image search, as I see it even they would be liable to provide 2257. They certainly can't provide onsite compliance for all the naught pictures they show.

Rorschach 05-19-2005 05:52 AM
makes me glad that none of my site have got a single picture on them

xclusive 05-19-2005 05:59 AM
best thread i've read in awhile

xxxjay 05-19-2005 06:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by vicki
This is a great thread. Serious issues, serious discussion and hopefully soon some serious solutions.

I don't believe even sponsor hosted content and/or galleries would help if its passed in its current form... meaning if the site giving access to the SHG must have compliance on their access site. (even sponsors offering links to compliance on each of their galleries would still leave the originating feeder site in non-compliance.)

Converting all the feeder sites to text-based-only still leaves the issue of banner ads etc.

We definately need some clarification on this before we can truly brainstorm for solutions.

Heck .. even consider Googles image search, as I see it even they would be liable to provide 2257. They certainly can't provide onsite compliance for all the naught pictures they show.
OK, Here is a scenario for you?you are supposed to cross reference every image on every url with the appropriate 2257 documents, so say you have a banner server that serves banners randomly on pages?the DOJ comes knocking on your door with a screenshot of www.yoursite.com/somepage.html and asks for the 2257...how the hell can you account for something like that? Other than going to text based banners?this would be totally impossible.

Just another example of how stupid these fucking regulations are.

mikeylikesit 05-19-2005 06:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by xxxjay
OK, Here is a scenario for you?you are supposed to cross reference every image on every url with the appropriate 2257 documents, so say you have a banner server that serves banners randomly on pages?the DOJ comes knocking on your door with a screenshot of www.yoursite.com/somepage.html and asks for the 2257...how the hell can you account for something like that? Other than going to text based banners?this would be totally impossible.

Just another example of how stupid these fucking regulations are.
they are not stupid for the people trying to rid the world of porn... it's fucking ridiculous man

WW4L

hy777 05-19-2005 06:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by scoreman
The larger programs will all likely have spent the time and money to get their records in order, but I think you will see nearly all the programs take a wait and see approach to releasing the docs to the affiliates. Giving out all the model ids and releases to our affiliates is something we will do IF its clear to us that its needed and we have no choices left. Here is the main problem: if we release this information prematurely we give away very important info (specifically model names and addresses) and in the meantime, the regs get tied up in litigation and eventually die in court, we cannot recover the info we released and prevent its distribution and disclosure to the wrong people (both competitors and stalkers). We can't unring the bell once its been rung.

These regs will be good for some (mostly lawyers) and significantly worse for others. For example, while paysites and freesites have alot of problems, places like premium newgroup providers like Easynews.com or Yahoo Groups will have to dramatically change their policies. Much of their business model relies on non documented postings. We could see these companies just phase out adult content altogether. This could result in a higher demand for adult product if the US Govt passes regs that restrict the proliferation of adult content in free areas. I think no matter what happens here you will see the better sites survive and grow stronger from all this.
Scoreman, thank you for giving us the point of view of a large sponsor.

A wait and see attitude is logical given the importance of the data sponsors may need to release but the question is,

1) will your big affiliates have the necessary time to accomodate their sites to fit the new regulations? You mention free sites, what about those affiliates with extensive networks?

2) Will sponsors provide the necessary tools or are affiliates on their own? Having the documentation is a small part of the problem. Affiliates may have to face another hurdle: creating scripts that will handle their own crossed-reference material... and where is that technology going to come from? Most affiliates will not have the manpower to comply within 30 days.

Finally, according to your analysis, blogs may also become casualties of war. The only way around this will be getting doumented content and keeping records straight as much as paysites will have to do.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:33 AM.
Page 2 of 2 < 1 2
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123