150 posters

If this is the case, why aren't all of the top companies who depend largely on affiliate traffic getting together and getting lawyers involved to stop the ridiculous / outside logic of what's really only needed? It wouldn't look too good if programs started to allow their affiliates to go to jail for using legal content, but not having the papers for it.

Matt

If the owner of the review site (now host) itself had no editorial input on the sponsors "free" sites, this could probably work, however, this is a very grey area.

When I was running my freehost I thought this same thing... that I would be exempt. After talking to no less than three attorneys on the matter, I was presented with three virtually different opinions - none of which made me feel warm and fuzzy. Though it states hosts are exempt, (and remember it doesn't differeniate between paid or free), most freehosting scripts provide an easy method of including headers / footers and deleting / editing account holders pages. That said, this "editorial ability" could be used as the "who does not manage" loophole built into the proposed changes.

In simpler terms, paid hosts and bannerless freehosts should / will be ok but it could be argued, (I doubt successfully, but who the hell knows), that any host that in anyway displays advertising on a page could be held responsible for the content of the entire page.

I really disagree with this part. If the paysite had a database that was updated based on where the picutures were published on teh web. We could link to that.

Mr police officer asks for proof model A on www.yourdomain.com. You look at said domain and it is "big US Sponsor" with link in the bottom that gives them access to the info.

To those who says the sponsors are not going to keep you out of jail. bullcocky. A sponsor goes out business. pull the content.

It is NOT about sexually explicit material but about material of SEXUALLY EXPLICIT CONDUCT. This different wording makes a huge difference.

As per their own definition, sexually explicit conduct implies:

- At least two persons regardless of sex.
- Or one person either masturbating or showing genitals in lustful ways.
- In addition, it covers bestiality and SM behaviour.

A picture of the upper part of a naked woman with no signs of touching genitals, fainting in an orgasm is NOT sexually explicit conduct - as per this defintion.

This is what I did and I'm in the USA, if they want to come and get my old white ass they are more than welcome 2 it. I ain't going to do there work for'm Fuck'm.. period.

Going to jail (been there many times) for me has never been a problem and it ain't going 2 start being one now.

Great thread Chris :thumbsup

Bump

Best post of the thread!

http://retrakker.antville.org/static...ges/badass.jpg

http://www.gofuckyourself.com/images.../xyxthumbs.gif

Well, I am a lot samrter than you, so this weekend should do fine :) :321GFY




(that was a joke for you peons that didn't get it)

I see the new 2257 regs as just a way to justify increased governmental control over the adult industry as a whole. I don't think the main point is to snag site owners or affiliates for improper documentation. By placing the 'assumed guilty' stamp on all adult content they now have power to knock on every smut peddler's door in the country without any crime ever having been committed. They can basically 'out' every home-based webmaster to their community just for kicks.

All the TGP and free site owners and affiliates who aren't password protecting their content from minors seem to be the targets of all this. One out of place ID and everything you own is seized, not to mention a child pornography charge and nice front-page write-up in the local newspapers. Life will suck for sure.

Even if you beat the CP charges they'll slap you with an obscenity rap for allowing minors to view adult content without verification. I doubt the Justice Dept. is going to stop with just the new 2257 regs. If they can work all this back to Visa and Mastercard and some sort of RICO theory then all hell will break loose. These guys maybe assholes but they're definately not stupid.

Fuck you shitbag. Like I would expect you to know the first fucking thing about it.

Blow me....and while you are at it :321GFY

:321GFY Wasn't cry shit-stick. Just opening up a discussion. :321GFY

I thought you were leaving for NY today? See the numbers from last night and today? :) :winkwink:

Thanks bud :)

It is pathetic how many people have no clue the implications that 2257 involves. After reading everyone's posts and discussing this openly, I have decided not to share anymore thoughts on it.

It is just to frustrating, and I'd rather go hit the bars with my girl instead.

(To those of you who contributed information of value to this thread, thanks :) even if I disagreed with you)

A jury would have to convict you of a "child porn charge" without any evidence. Do you think many juries are going to convict someone of "child porn" because their valid paperwork, which proves the models are of legal age, are not in alphabetical order? Maybe someone too stupid or poor to hire good lawyers. Even if you did get convicted for a filing error, you have a pretty strong appeal if they try to make it stick as a "child porn" case and you can prove the models are all of legal age.

I don't see any indication that the target of this law is any specific group of sites. They are going after all porn, not just free porn or internet porn or TGPs. If you see somewhere in the regulations where they single out TGPs, please post that link.

With child porn you are tried in both the courts of law and the court of public opinion.

I've had malicious child pornography production allegations levied against me in the past (I've never produced any content in my life) and some of the content providers that I explained the situation to and requested documentation from have treated me differently from that day on.

Luckily I got a heads up before the raid and pulled all the HD's out of my computers so they couldn't shut the business down. The investigation was dropped and I luckily never ended up in court.

Who says I didn't leave and arrive already...LOL

Yeah I saw the numbers :thumbsup

Unfortunately, those running the country right now are trying to link all legal porn to child porn and the media often helps them with this lie. How many times do you hear a politician use the words "porn" and "child porn" as if there was no difference?

These new 2257 rules are being promoted by the Justice Department as a way to try to stop evil porn producers from using children in their movies. It's bullshit. The new rules don't do anymore than the old ones to protect kids.

These right wingers care more about attacking free speech than they do about protecting children. If they really cared about kids, they would leave legal porn alone and use their resources to protect kids.