2257 & the BIG guys it "may effect". - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

iBanker · 05-20-2005, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nate-MM2

Worst-case scenario you just have to move your server and you may lose your ability to travel to the US.

US laws are not applicable to Canadians.

This coming from a canadian.

(not an insult or meant to be mean, don't take it that way)

US companies, and there are a shitload of them, some of the BEST at that in my opinion. The laws will affect EVERYONE. It is ignorant to think otherwise.

Good discussion by the way Nate, keep this going, you are giving me new ideas by the minute and I appreciate it.

After Shock Media · 05-20-2005, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nate-MM2

That wouldn't make sense as you would be cutting off a huge traffic pool.

Since foreign webmasters aren't subject to 2257 regulations they'll just send it to non-US based sponsors.

You'll come back full circle to not being competitive in the market and falling by the wayside.

I am pretty sure he means that the traffic pool would remain, just the affiliates would reduce. The traffic is still there for the taking with or without the affiliates. It is not like the traffic is loyal to any affiliate, they go where the content is.

As for foreign webmasters not being subject to regulations. The US sponsors would be, so they would need to comply or not be an affiliate. Unless foreign webmasters only sold to foreign sponsors and kept everything foreign based, from hosting to transactions.

iBanker · 05-20-2005, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr.Fiction

Chargeback ratios were much higher before the concept of "free sponsor content" took off.

As long as surfers aren't being tricked into thinking that the content they are seeing is what's inside the site, you won't have a problem.

Look at a site like the old Sleazy Dream, he used his own content to promote AFF - I doubt they had a problem with chargebacks, because he made it clear that they were not getting that content if they signed up for his sponsor.

Great point there. Hitting the nail on the head.

Nate-MM2 · 05-20-2005, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iBanker

lol

Are you serious? C'mon bud, think about it.

Traffic would go up. If I dont have to cut checks for 60% to affiliates EVERY week, then I got a shitload of cash to blow on the best listings available. It's a wet dream. My traffic could double overnight.

Yes I'm serious.. I'm just hoping you aren't.

If this is such brilliant plan why not just close down your affiliate program now?

Where does 2257 even come into play with this? You seem to think you'd make more money without affiliates so why even cater to them in the current market?

AaronM · 05-20-2005, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr.Fiction

Look at a site like the old Sleazy Dream, he used his own content to promote AFF - I doubt they had a problem with chargebacks, because he made it clear that they were not getting that content if they signed up for his sponsor.

I'm sure you can come up with a better example than that.

Sleazy's AFF galleries were story based with pics to support the stories. The stories were about hooking up with people on AFF. Those galleries were never intended to sell the surfer on photo or video content. Most galleries are.

Nate-MM2 · 05-20-2005, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iBanker

US companies, and there are a shitload of them, some of the BEST at that in my opinion. The laws will affect EVERYONE. It is ignorant to think otherwise.

There is nothing keeping these 'great US companies' from setting up either entirely out of the US or starting a mirrored affiliate program outside of the US catering to non-US affiliates.

Look at the online gaming industry.

ravo · 05-20-2005, 01:40 PM

iBanker: This may be a stupid question, but going back to your original scenario (in Brazil), how can you meet this requirement of the (as proposed) regs?;

"Picture identification card means a document issued by the United States, a State government or a political subdivision thereof, or a United States territory that bears the photograph and the name of the individual identified, ..."

How many Brazilians have US ID? I haven't seen this issue brought up anywhere yet.

After Shock Media · 05-20-2005, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nate-MM2

There is nothing keeping these 'great US companies' from setting up either entirely out of the US or starting a mirrored affiliate program outside of the US catering to non-US affiliates.

Look at the online gaming industry.

And look at the casino guy who was arrested when he returned to the US.

iBanker · 05-20-2005, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nate-MM2

Yes I'm serious.. I'm just hoping you aren't.

If this is such brilliant plan why not just close down your affiliate program now?

Where does 2257 even come into play with this? You seem to think you'd make more money without affiliates so why even cater to them in the current market?

Becasue we have some really great affiliates that are honest, and we like working with them. I'm not knocking affiliates, I never would....

except that one son of a bitch that put in a bunch of fake checks this week and wondered why he wasn't getting paid...lol

....Im making a point, dont twist my words into something I didn't say. That shit pisses me off. I never said we would be better off without affiliates, I said was saying we could manage, we would find a way. Not to pat myself on the back, but our sites kick ass, and affiliates that are worth that salt tend to agree. We will figure out a way to work with them, US based or not.

Nate-MM2 · 05-20-2005, 01:42 PM

I keep hearing the cries of how affiliates are such a burden on program owners but have yet to see the great migration of owners shutting down their programs...

Why is this? Less headaches and (apparently) more profitable to the program owners.

Why even keep the programs active?

Kimmykim · 05-20-2005, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slapass

if the program creates the database and places a few collection fields in their members areas. we could just input when and where we are using the content. No need to send me a pile of documents. It states they need to be available and the point being central locations. This would solve a lot of issues and is just memory and some scripting.

Very true.
There is nothing in the regulations (from the last time I read them carefully) that require a paper copy of the id; electronic form was totally fine. Nor does the law specifically state that the ids cant have the address etc blacked out on them.

2257 is not going to substantially change the affiliate model, what it will do is create one hell of a headache for the primary producers and one hell of a headache for anyone who has had sites for a long time and bought the content from multiple producers over the years.

Nate-MM2 · 05-20-2005, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iBanker

....Im making a point, dont twist my words into something I didn't say. That shit pisses me off. I never said we would be better off without affiliates, I said was saying we could manage, we would find a way.

You said a world without affiliates would be 'a wet dream' and your traffic would 'double overnight'

I'm not trying to twist your words around...

"Traffic would go up. If I dont have to cut checks for 60% to affiliates EVERY week, then I got a shitload of cash to blow on the best listings available. It's a wet dream. My traffic could double overnight."

iBanker · 05-20-2005, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nate-MM2

There is nothing keeping these 'great US companies' from setting up either entirely out of the US or starting a mirrored affiliate program outside of the US catering to non-US affiliates.

Look at the online gaming industry.

If the money comes back to an individual in the US, then you are liable. I, and many others won't move. In addition, we won't move and never come back.

And I'll take living in the US as opposed to Canada any day of the year.

iBanker · 05-20-2005, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ravo

iBanker: This may be a stupid question, but going back to your original scenario (in Brazil), how can you meet this requirement of the (as proposed) regs?;

"Picture identification card means a document issued by the United States, a State government or a political subdivision thereof, or a United States territory that bears the photograph and the name of the individual identified, ..."

How many Brazilians have US ID? I haven't seen this issue brought up anywhere yet.

Again, most of the people have not read of do not understand the regs. it has to be a GOVERNMANET issued ID not a US ID. Answer your question?

iBanker · 05-20-2005, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lord of the fungi

And look at the casino guy who was arrested when he returned to the US.

That is just ONE example that made the news.

iBanker · 05-20-2005, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nate-MM2

You said a world without affiliates would be 'a wet dream' and your traffic would 'double overnight'

I'm not trying to twist your words around...

"Traffic would go up. If I dont have to cut checks for 60% to affiliates EVERY week, then I got a shitload of cash to blow on the best listings available. It's a wet dream. My traffic could double overnight."

IF that happened, it would be. THAT is what I said. BUT it only works if OTHER programs cant use the affiliates either. Now I am starting to think you are just trying to be a pain in the ass.

Nate-MM2 · 05-20-2005, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iBanker

If the money comes back to an individual in the US, then you are liable. I, and many others won't move. In addition, we won't move and never come back.

And I'll take living in the US as opposed to Canada any day of the year.

... and right back to staying competitive in the market.

If this shit storm does hit as the doom-and-gloomers suggest, some affiliate programs will move. I don't doubt it for a second.

Processors will step-up to cater to them and they will be in a good position to start cutting in on market share.

FiReC · 05-20-2005, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slapass

if the program creates the database and places a few collection fields in their members areas. we could just input when and where we are using the content. No need to send me a pile of documents. It states they need to be available and the point being central locations. This would solve a lot of issues and is just memory and some scripting.

i like this idea

solonline · 05-20-2005, 01:49 PM

damn im just so glad we are moving our ass out of the US. With all this shit going down --- where the fuck is it gonna end. You got to face it their is a MASSIVE clamp down coming in the US for porn - this is just 1 way they are starting to turn the screw. And when they start they wont stop.

Nate-MM2 · 05-20-2005, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iBanker

IF that happened, it would be. THAT is what I said. BUT it only works if OTHER programs cant use the affiliates either. Now I am starting to think you are just trying to be a pain in the ass.

I'm not trying to be a pain in the ass.

I just don't understand how a scenario would come about where other programs can't use affiliates either.

Look at the textile industry... US-based companies that can't make use of child labour still have to compete with the companies that do, even in their own domestic markets.

The same thing would happen in adult. You would have to compete with non-US programs that just took on all your affiliates.

slapass · 05-20-2005, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kimmykim

Very true.
There is nothing in the regulations (from the last time I read them carefully) that require a paper copy of the id; electronic form was totally fine. Nor does the law specifically state that the ids cant have the address etc blacked out on them.

2257 is not going to substantially change the affiliate model, what it will do is create one hell of a headache for the primary producers and one hell of a headache for anyone who has had sites for a long time and bought the content from multiple producers over the years.

Thanks Kimmy I thought my post was invisible. The older sites are nicely grandfathered as was pointed out by Aaronm yesterday. If done in a professional manner and an emphasis on compliance this could insulate the program from liability which is what the program owners are seeking. The US affiliates could easily comply and foreigners could do what they want. Anyone want to comment on the idea to see if it has holes?

The reg wants a database so they can find the info quickly to determine if the model is underage. There is a point to this. If we solve the issue of how they can determine that, we will be ok.

Nate-MM2 · 05-20-2005, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FiReC

i like this idea

In a perfect world it may work.

The problem is the timeline required for record keeping and that the onus falls back on the affiliate that 'published' the images on his own site.

If the sponsor closes up shop there is nobody to fulfill the requirements of having to keep the records for 'x' amount of years beyond that point.

Many people have trouble trusting their sponsor to even make payroll the next month, trusting the sponsor to keep you out of jail may be too big of a stretch for some.

BRISK · 05-20-2005, 01:54 PM

2257 gives non-Americans a good reason to stop sending traffic to American affiliate programs and to stop hosting in America.

Non-US affiliate programs and non-US hosting providers could benefit from 2257

Nate-MM2 · 05-20-2005, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slapass

Anyone want to comment on the idea to see if it has holes?

Read my post above re: sponsors closing up shop

Nate-MM2 · 05-20-2005, 01:59 PM

The other thing to consider would be US-based affiliates sending traffic to non-US based sponsor programs.

They would have little need to comply with 2257 laws as it becomes quite easy to cloud the ownership of sites & traffic sources if you have a sponsor program outside of the DOJ's jurisdiction cutting your cheques.

The affiliate would still be at risk but it would be a much lower risk than if he was sending his traffic to a US-based sponsor who could be bullied into giving up his information to the US government.

Nate-MM2 · 05-20-2005, 02:01 PM

I remember back when I first got started in the industry and Gamma actually used the fact that they don't report to the US government or IRS as a selling point of their click-thru program.

We could easily see a return to those days.

ravo · 05-20-2005, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iBanker

Again, most of the people have not read of do not understand the regs. it has to be a GOVERNMANET issued ID not a US ID. Answer your question?

Actually, I *have* read the proposed regs, and I'm trying to understand them. That's why I asked the question. The regs I read make reference specifically to US issued identification or "a passport issued by ... a foreign country". So the only acceptable ID outside the US is a passport. Ok, so there, I answered my own question.

DateDoc · 05-20-2005, 02:07 PM

I think the best thing a person can do right now is wait and see while at the same time working on becoming compliant at least to the old regs. A lot of people are getting worked up and bent out of shape over something that does not exist yet and is not enforceable. Once you have seen the new regs and they have been tested in court then you will know where you stand. As soon as they are published they will be challenged. Once that court decision is handed down it will be appealed. This cycle could go on for years. Laws are made by Congress. These new regulations (laws) were not so more than likely they will be shot down in court but don't count on it as anything can happen.

I think one of the reasons that these more stringent regs are coming to light is because of the proliferation of thumb preview TGPs. It seems like everyone has one. Is the thumb preview TGP dead? No, they will switch to face shots only with a lot more timid content. As for text link TGPs being affected I can't see how they can be required to have copies of the 2257 docs. Tamer banners on them - sure. However, to hold them to 2257 regs would require you to hold Yahoo, Google, MSN, AltaVista, Ask Jeeves, etc. to these regs also.

The government may want to limit accesibilty to porn but once they pull in companies like Yahoo and Google into the fray there will be some serious cash thrown around in defending their position.

Nate-MM2 · 05-20-2005, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BusterPorn

However, to hold them to 2257 regs would require you to hold Yahoo, Google, MSN, AltaVista, Ask Jeeves, etc. to these regs also.

The government may want to limit accesibilty to porn but once they pull in companies like Yahoo and Google into the fray there will be some serious cash thrown around in defending their position.

The government won't go after Yahoo or Google, so it's a non-issue.

And "they didn't prosecute them" isn't a defense in court.

Matt M · 05-20-2005, 02:22 PM

This is really an excellent discussion. I disagree that the government wont go after yahoo or google. I know we like to asume that this will happen. But I see them eing way to public, and the liberal media would have a field day. Just my

CDSmith · 05-20-2005, 02:29 PM

I intend to find the 2257 pages of each of my sponsors, and put a link to THOSE pages up on my galleries. If an inspector wants that information he/she can click on that link, go to the page with the information on it, and be happy about it.

That's what I intend to do. End of story.

They then have access to the 2257 records right from the content owner, there should be no complaining about it.

The Other Steve · 05-20-2005, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AaronM

I don't need to think about that at all. I don't market free sites and never will.

I could tell - there are so many who think just like you - that the world begins and ends with TGP - and that's ok because there are a lot of people who can think beyond the end of their nose and are still making money from free sites.

It's still quite profitable and free sites go on making sale long after TGP galleries have faded into oblivion.

If you work them right you can even get better SE placements than some of the paysites that you're promoting.

After Shock Media · 05-20-2005, 02:32 PM

Since this thread is also a lot about affiliates & sponsors and their future together. Why is it so hard to comprehend that the affiliate model could very well perish?
I know if someone is just an affiliate they may wish to fight it tooth and nail with round about arguments, or saying why has it not already been done. Though I have felt that the open affiliate model was getting closer to its death bed even before the proposed regulations where published. Assuming the proposed ones go through it just would give another reason to add to the pile that many have been talking about for a few years.
I know several programs that have been doing more and more stuff in house or with outsourced workers. I have seen numerous reports and heard many people speaking about the costs of affiliates besides their payouts and the percentage of fraud that is generated by them. We all have also witnessed the wide spread use and acceptance of sponsor hosted galleries, which in effect began to cut out one of the middle men already. This does not even include various programs that have switched to either invite only, closed affiliate programs, or no affiliates at all.
So again I ask the question, why does this seem so alien to some?

psili · 05-20-2005, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CDSmith

I intend to find the 2257 pages of each of my sponsors, and put a link to THOSE pages up on my galleries. If an inspector wants that information he/she can click on that link, go to the page with the information on it, and be happy about it.

That's what I intend to do. End of story.

They then have access to the 2257 records right from the content owner, there should be no complaining about it.

If this is all that had to be done, that'd be fucking fantastic. However, I don't think that'll cut it considering some of the legal jargon that's been thrown around. Yet, I'm currently clueless on the issue so seeking professional advice makes all the more sense to me.

Nate-MM2 · 05-20-2005, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lord of the fungi

Since this thread is also a lot about affiliates & sponsors and their future together. Why is it so hard to comprehend that the affiliate model could very well perish?
I know if someone is just an affiliate they may wish to fight it tooth and nail with round about arguments, or saying why has it not already been done. Though I have felt that the open affiliate model was getting closer to its death bed even before the proposed regulations where published. Assuming the proposed ones go through it just would give another reason to add to the pile that many have been talking about for a few years.
I know several programs that have been doing more and more stuff in house or with outsourced workers. I have seen numerous reports and heard many people speaking about the costs of affiliates besides their payouts and the percentage of fraud that is generated by them. We all have also witnessed the wide spread use and acceptance of sponsor hosted galleries, which in effect began to cut out one of the middle men already. This does not even include various programs that have switched to either invite only, closed affiliate programs, or no affiliates at all.
So again I ask the question, why does this seem so alien to some?

The majority of affiliates will have to go somewhere, restrictions will just get tighter.

If affiliate programs start to stop taking on new affiliates the market will slowly swing the power over to affiliate program owners and they will begin to realize that the market no longer requires the handholding of FHG's, custom tours & gigs of free content and custom advertising options.

If the remaining affiliate programs cut down on some of the extras that were needed before to stay competitive with the (now closed) other affiliate programs they can increase their profit margins and market share at the same time. That's too big of a bone for this dog to give up, and I know there are hundreds of others thinking along the same lines that I am.

The affiliate model will not die. It will just evolve.

CDSmith · 05-20-2005, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psili

If this is all that had to be done, that'd be fucking fantastic. However, I don't think that'll cut it considering some of the legal jargon that's been thrown around. Yet, I'm currently clueless on the issue so seeking professional advice makes all the more sense to me.

I simply don't care what else there is to it. And I'm not saying that because I'm in Canada, I'm saying it because their primary intent is to "have readily-available access to 2257 records and custodial information", and by me providing a direct link to that information I have fulfilled my obligation.

Fact is, me as an affiliate should not even have to do that for them, but the fact is obvious that either they (the US government) aren't smart enough to figure out who or what program owns what materials, or they are just trying to give guys like me one more little pain in the ass. I suspect the former, but I could be wrong.

So I suppose I will have to help them. If I'm using pics from "Proggie A Cash", then I will place a link to the 2257 information page for "Proggie A Cash" and that will be that. I will not be bothering my sponsors to provide me all their records.

You guys of course can do what you want.

iBanker · 05-20-2005, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nate-MM2

In a perfect world it may work.

The problem is the timeline required for record keeping and that the onus falls back on the affiliate that 'published' the images on his own site.

If the sponsor closes up shop there is nobody to fulfill the requirements of having to keep the records for 'x' amount of years beyond that point.

Many people have trouble trusting their sponsor to even make payroll the next month, trusting the sponsor to keep you out of jail may be too big of a stretch for some.

We agree on something

iBanker · 05-20-2005, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BusterPorn

The government may want to limit accesibilty to porn but once they pull in companies like Yahoo and Google into the fray there will be some serious cash thrown around in defending their position.

That is brilliant. Great post.

V_RocKs · 05-20-2005, 02:59 PM

Is Kazaa still online? Is bit torrent doing just fine? Is Gnutzilla doing OK after 7 years? And do people STILL buy music and DVD's?

I really doubt the government is going to charge 10,000 affiliates... I just so highly doubt that. I think 2257 was done in order to get the producers in the groove of obtaining PROPER identification. I highly doubt it will be used to persecute thousands of people. The backlash would be to great for that to happen.

iBanker · 05-20-2005, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by V_RocKs

Is Kazaa still online? Is bit torrent doing just fine? Is Gnutzilla doing OK after 7 years? And do people STILL buy music and DVD's?

I really doubt the government is going to charge 10,000 affiliates... I just so highly doubt that. I think 2257 was done in order to get the producers in the groove of obtaining PROPER identification. I highly doubt it will be used to persecute thousands of people. The backlash would be to great for that to happen.

I agree with you 99%. My problem is I would hate to be that 1% that they went against. Know what I mean?

Nate-MM2 · 05-20-2005, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by V_RocKs

I really doubt the government is going to charge 10,000 affiliates... I just so highly doubt that. I think 2257 was done in order to get the producers in the groove of obtaining PROPER identification. I highly doubt it will be used to persecute thousands of people. The backlash would be to great for that to happen.

They don't need to charge 10,000 affiliates.

For every 1 affiliate they charge probably another 100 will leave the business or not get started in the business because of it.

For affiliates without a protest agenda everybody has a point where the reward doesn't outweigh the risk any longer.

Snake Doctor · 05-20-2005, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CDSmith

I intend to find the 2257 pages of each of my sponsors, and put a link to THOSE pages up on my galleries. If an inspector wants that information he/she can click on that link, go to the page with the information on it, and be happy about it.

That's what I intend to do. End of story.

They then have access to the 2257 records right from the content owner, there should be no complaining about it.

Be glad that you're in Canada then, because none of what you just said comes anywhere close to complying with the regulations.

I love how people say "This is what the law says, but I don't like that, so this is what I'm going to do"

I hope you guys that think like this have fun filming your new gay reality site from prison

Nate-MM2 · 05-20-2005, 03:08 PM

As always in this industry, change breeds opportunity.

If the shit hits the fan I plan to be giving US-based affiliates alternative options to a mountain of documentation.

After Shock Media · 05-20-2005, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by V_RocKs

I think 2257 was done in order to get the producers in the groove of obtaining PROPER identification. I highly doubt it will be used to persecute thousands of people. The backlash would be to great for that to happen.

The Government never officially used the old 2257 laws. They never bothered to see if they were working or not. The DOJ publically said they never checked anyone for compliance. Ashcroft was supposed to and give an annual report to congress, yet again the DOJ showed up empty handed. Then they got the bright idea to "update" them. For what purpose? 2257 itself did not need updating, if they wanted to clarify anything they would of just updated 2256 which has the deffinitions on it.

As for a backlash, a backlash from whom? Do you really think that anyone that does not make money in porn gives a rats ass about what happens to us aside from a few organizations who may question the constitutionality of it?

The truth is the Government and specially the DOJ hates to loose. They relize it is near impossible to get an obscenity case to be found guilty, so like they always do when the front door closes, they kick in the back door.

Nate-MM2 · 05-20-2005, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lenny2

Be glad that you're in Canada then, because none of what you just said comes anywhere close to complying with the regulations.

I love how people say "This is what the law says, but I don't like that, so this is what I'm going to do"

I hope you guys that think like this have fun filming your new gay reality site from prison

His post didn't come across as legal advice and I agree with his viewpoint.

CDSmith · 05-20-2005, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nate-MM2

His post didn't come across as legal advice and I agree with his viewpoint.

You're right, it wasn't legal advice. I was going by what their main mission statement read as, which from what I understand of plain English means they want access to the information they want access to. I plan to comply and provide that access.

Lenny just loves to cock off at me whenever he gets the opportunity for some odd reason. I must smell good today.

V_RocKs · 05-20-2005, 03:26 PM

So why don't they force compliance? Why don't they enforce the state laws of New York against anal sex? Because we are currently fighting a war on terrorism and the war on drugs is keeping cops (good people) in nice homes and fat with incomes you can support a family on.

When you bust a drug lord in Miami, guess what? The gov't gets to auction off his shit. We are talking millions of dollars, plus the millions in cash that is confiscated. In effect, the drug lord PAYS for his own procescution. All of that money pays for the cops that busted him, the DA that prosecuted him, the jury that convicted him and the judge that presided over it all.

When you bust a band of college kids who run a piracy ring you get SQUAT... You get some fines levied that the kids will not pay off for 10 years and the total in fines might be only $250,000. Whoopie... Now you know why the recording industry goes after them in civil court. No one will waste money prosecuting them since drug cases pay to prosecute themselves. Hallelujah to the fucking war on drugs!

What do you get for prosecuting a porn magnate? Nothing... a lot of grief. Possibly not elected next year or appointed to your post because you put porn on the front page of news papers and a lot of conservetives weigh that against the single porn guy that got taken down and the grand scheme of things. More porn was probably sold because of the increased interest the case generated.

And that is why I think that worrying about spitting on the sidewalk is a lot of worrying and no substance.

Do I think in the back of my mind, "Shit! I could be the 1% that they fuck with!" Yes I do, but I have never won a lottery so I am sure I am just not that lucky.

iBanker · 05-20-2005, 03:35 PM

What cracks me up is how many threads there are on "would you hit it" and it get more views than business related threads.

Sorry, off topic.... back to work...

Nate-MM2 · 05-20-2005, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by V_RocKs

Do I think in the back of my mind, "Shit! I could be the 1% that they fuck with!" Yes I do, but I have never won a lottery so I am sure I am just not that lucky.

There is a lot more the government can do outside of explicitly charging somebody for not being 2257 compliant.

They can lean on Visa, who lean on the processors, who lean on the... and on it goes..

Mr.Fiction · 05-20-2005, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by V_RocKs

What do you get for prosecuting a porn magnate? Nothing... a lot of grief. Possibly not elected next year or appointed to your post because you put porn on the front page of news papers and a lot of conservetives weigh that against the single porn guy that got taken down and the grand scheme of things. More porn was probably sold because of the increased interest the case generated.

You think a porn "magnate" is closer to a broke college kid than to a rich drug dealer? And you think that conservatives will get angry if right wing politicians take down a porn site?

What country do you live in?

05-20-2005, 01:40 PM	#57
ravo Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Skype: ravo.fpctraffic Posts: 5,448	iBanker: This may be a stupid question, but going back to your original scenario (in Brazil), how can you meet this requirement of the (as proposed) regs?; "Picture identification card means a document issued by the United States, a State government or a political subdivision thereof, or a United States territory that bears the photograph and the name of the individual identified, ..." How many Brazilians have US ID? I haven't seen this issue brought up anywhere yet. __________________ AdultAdBroker - Buy and Sell Your Flat Rate Banners, Links, Tabs, Pops, Email Clicks and Members' Area Traffic - updated November 2025

05-20-2005, 01:54 PM	#73
BRISK Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 12,240	2257 gives non-Americans a good reason to stop sending traffic to American affiliate programs and to stop hosting in America. Non-US affiliate programs and non-US hosting providers could benefit from 2257 __________________ I post on GFY so that when people ask me what I do, I can tell them that I work with the mentally retarded.

05-20-2005, 02:07 PM	#78
DateDoc Outside looking in. Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: To Hell You Ride Posts: 14,243	I think the best thing a person can do right now is wait and see while at the same time working on becoming compliant at least to the old regs. A lot of people are getting worked up and bent out of shape over something that does not exist yet and is not enforceable. Once you have seen the new regs and they have been tested in court then you will know where you stand. As soon as they are published they will be challenged. Once that court decision is handed down it will be appealed. This cycle could go on for years. Laws are made by Congress. These new regulations (laws) were not so more than likely they will be shot down in court but don't count on it as anything can happen. I think one of the reasons that these more stringent regs are coming to light is because of the proliferation of thumb preview TGPs. It seems like everyone has one. Is the thumb preview TGP dead? No, they will switch to face shots only with a lot more timid content. As for text link TGPs being affected I can't see how they can be required to have copies of the 2257 docs. Tamer banners on them - sure. However, to hold them to 2257 regs would require you to hold Yahoo, Google, MSN, AltaVista, Ask Jeeves, etc. to these regs also. The government may want to limit accesibilty to porn but once they pull in companies like Yahoo and Google into the fray there will be some serious cash thrown around in defending their position. __________________

05-20-2005, 02:22 PM	#80
Matt M Confirmed User Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: The Beach Posts: 738	This is really an excellent discussion. I disagree that the government wont go after yahoo or google. I know we like to asume that this will happen. But I see them eing way to public, and the liberal media would have a field day. Just my __________________ No Thanks, I have my own...... ICQ: 156837862

05-20-2005, 02:29 PM	#81
CDSmith Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: May 2001 Location: My network is hosted at TECHIEMEDIA.net ...Wait, you meant where am I located at? Oh... okay, I'm in Winnipeg, Canada. Oops. :) Posts: 51,460	I intend to find the 2257 pages of each of my sponsors, and put a link to THOSE pages up on my galleries. If an inspector wants that information he/she can click on that link, go to the page with the information on it, and be happy about it. That's what I intend to do. End of story. They then have access to the 2257 records right from the content owner, there should be no complaining about it. __________________ *Promote Wildmatch, ImLive, Sexier.com, and more!!* ALWAYS THE HIGHEST PAYOUTS: Big Bux/ImLive SIGNUP ON NOW!!! Put some PUSSYCA$H in your pocket. ICQ me at: 31024634

05-20-2005, 01:42 PM	#60
Nate-MM2 So Fucking Banned Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Vancouver, CANADA Posts: 263	I keep hearing the cries of how affiliates are such a burden on program owners but have yet to see the great migration of owners shutting down their programs... Why is this? Less headaches and (apparently) more profitable to the program owners. Why even keep the programs active?

05-20-2005, 01:49 PM	#69
solonline Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: EU- Posts: 718	damn im just so glad we are moving our ass out of the US. With all this shit going down --- where the fuck is it gonna end. You got to face it their is a MASSIVE clamp down coming in the US for porn - this is just 1 way they are starting to turn the screw. And when they start they wont stop.

05-20-2005, 01:59 PM	#75
Nate-MM2 So Fucking Banned Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Vancouver, CANADA Posts: 263	The other thing to consider would be US-based affiliates sending traffic to non-US based sponsor programs. They would have little need to comply with 2257 laws as it becomes quite easy to cloud the ownership of sites & traffic sources if you have a sponsor program outside of the DOJ's jurisdiction cutting your cheques. The affiliate would still be at risk but it would be a much lower risk than if he was sending his traffic to a US-based sponsor who could be bullied into giving up his information to the US government.

05-20-2005, 02:01 PM	#76
Nate-MM2 So Fucking Banned Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Vancouver, CANADA Posts: 263	I remember back when I first got started in the industry and Gamma actually used the fact that they don't report to the US government or IRS as a selling point of their click-thru program. We could easily see a return to those days.

05-20-2005, 02:32 PM	#83
After Shock Media It's coming look busy Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn". Posts: 35,299	Since this thread is also a lot about affiliates & sponsors and their future together. Why is it so hard to comprehend that the affiliate model could very well perish? I know if someone is just an affiliate they may wish to fight it tooth and nail with round about arguments, or saying why has it not already been done. Though I have felt that the open affiliate model was getting closer to its death bed even before the proposed regulations where published. Assuming the proposed ones go through it just would give another reason to add to the pile that many have been talking about for a few years. I know several programs that have been doing more and more stuff in house or with outsourced workers. I have seen numerous reports and heard many people speaking about the costs of affiliates besides their payouts and the percentage of fraud that is generated by them. We all have also witnessed the wide spread use and acceptance of sponsor hosted galleries, which in effect began to cut out one of the middle men already. This does not even include various programs that have switched to either invite only, closed affiliate programs, or no affiliates at all. So again I ask the question, why does this seem so alien to some? __________________ [email protected] ICQ:135982156 AIM: Aftershockmed1a MSN: [email protected]

05-20-2005, 02:59 PM	#89
V_RocKs Damn Right I Kiss Ass! Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Cowtown, USA Posts: 32,422	Is Kazaa still online? Is bit torrent doing just fine? Is Gnutzilla doing OK after 7 years? And do people STILL buy music and DVD's? I really doubt the government is going to charge 10,000 affiliates... I just so highly doubt that. I think 2257 was done in order to get the producers in the groove of obtaining PROPER identification. I highly doubt it will be used to persecute thousands of people. The backlash would be to great for that to happen.

05-20-2005, 03:08 PM	#93
Nate-MM2 So Fucking Banned Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Vancouver, CANADA Posts: 263	As always in this industry, change breeds opportunity. If the shit hits the fan I plan to be giving US-based affiliates alternative options to a mountain of documentation.

05-20-2005, 03:26 PM	#97
V_RocKs Damn Right I Kiss Ass! Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Cowtown, USA Posts: 32,422	So why don't they force compliance? Why don't they enforce the state laws of New York against anal sex? Because we are currently fighting a war on terrorism and the war on drugs is keeping cops (good people) in nice homes and fat with incomes you can support a family on. When you bust a drug lord in Miami, guess what? The gov't gets to auction off his shit. We are talking millions of dollars, plus the millions in cash that is confiscated. In effect, the drug lord PAYS for his own procescution. All of that money pays for the cops that busted him, the DA that prosecuted him, the jury that convicted him and the judge that presided over it all. When you bust a band of college kids who run a piracy ring you get SQUAT... You get some fines levied that the kids will not pay off for 10 years and the total in fines might be only $250,000. Whoopie... Now you know why the recording industry goes after them in civil court. No one will waste money prosecuting them since drug cases pay to prosecute themselves. Hallelujah to the fucking war on drugs! What do you get for prosecuting a porn magnate? Nothing... a lot of grief. Possibly not elected next year or appointed to your post because you put porn on the front page of news papers and a lot of conservetives weigh that against the single porn guy that got taken down and the grand scheme of things. More porn was probably sold because of the increased interest the case generated. And that is why I think that worrying about spitting on the sidewalk is a lot of worrying and no substance. Do I think in the back of my mind, "Shit! I could be the 1% that they fuck with!" Yes I do, but I have never won a lottery so I am sure I am just not that lucky.

05-20-2005, 03:35 PM	#98
iBanker Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: San Diego, moving to Portland. Posts: 2,758	What cracks me up is how many threads there are on "would you hit it" and it get more views than business related threads. Sorry, off topic.... back to work... __________________ www.JasonandAlex.com Christopher's ICQ: 268-843-170