GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum
Page 4 of 5 < 123 4 5 >
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)
-   -   2257 & the BIG guys it "may effect". (https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=469967)

RogerV 05-20-2005 08:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Fiction
Do you honestly believe that?

If you really think that, you need to talk to your lawyer right now.

There is no free speech lawyer in the United States who is worth talking to that will tell you that the government is just doing this to help "organize" the adult industry.

The right wing claim this is a change to help fight child porn, but it is an attempt to stifle legal free speech and will do nothing to fight child porn.

This is an attack on free speech. "Obscene" content is another issue altogether.
I totally understand! the companies who are fly by night and not orginized will have to worry if you comply to the regs you don't. It's as simple as that.

Trust me I know its a bitch but it can be done. the strong will survive

NaughtyRob 05-20-2005 08:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by iBanker
I really think I could pull off a digital solution. Gonna bat it around in my head over the weekend.
Try months. We have one just about ready.
:thumbsup

Scootermuze 05-20-2005 08:43 PM
It's hard to think that just because Gonzales signed something that all of a sudden everyone with sexually explicit content should expect a knock on the door.... His signature didn't automatically increase the number of people looking at sites...

They may approach people that have content that looks questionable enough for them to feel a need for a second look, but I can't see it going farther than that...

Not enough folks on staff ...

slapass 05-20-2005 09:42 PM
It is odd that my solution is shrug off as the sponsors are too flaky. I think they view us the affiliate as too flaky to hold these documents. I suppose we could get a digital solution like stats remote where we input some fields and it generates the files needed based on the sponsors info. But the affiliates and the sponsors are going to need to work together on it to work. Very few big sponsors have closed that i know of. They are the more logical choice of a depository then we are. As how many affiliates have closed up this year?

wimpy 05-20-2005 11:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by V_RocKs
Then again, you would still run into the whole thing about stalkers... I could pretend the detectives came looking for the info... I would imagine they would also have some kinda important papers with the papers they are looking for stated on them... Then I could fax that to you... but then you would still not know if I am just a stalker...
The stalker solution is simple. Just encrypt the 2257 info.

wimpy 05-20-2005 11:16 PM
Most people miss this simple fact: The Right in this country is out to shut down porn. After much thought, this is the mechanism they decided on to do it. Anyone who thinks it is anything else is delusional.

They hired 25 lawyers (prosecutors) who work on this full time. They didn't have that a year ago. Those lawyers are going to be doing something, that's for sure. ok, so no more cops looking at the sites, but so what? Before, the cops had no prosecutors who wanted the case. Now they do. Bingo.

Even if they can't take on everyone, all they have to do it take on 1% and the rest will shit their pants. That's their plan.

It won't work. But it will change things. A lot.

Nate-MM2 05-20-2005 11:53 PM
Another huge thing to consider is if they start taking obscenity pleas in exchange for lighter sentencing for 2257 violations they have access to a huge stream of cash since you can tie in obscenity charges as RICO violations and they can start siezing assets.

Mr.Fiction 05-21-2005 12:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RogerV
I totally understand! the companies who are fly by night and not orginized will have to worry if you comply to the regs you don't. It's as simple as that.

Trust me I know its a bitch but it can be done. the strong will survive
We were talking about intent. This was not done to "organize" the adult industry, it was done to try to shut it down. Do you really think that free speech hating right wingers want to help "organize" this industry? They want all porn to be illegal, and until they can pack enough courts to make that happen, they'll try to go around the Constitution by doing it some other way.

These people hate free speech. They want to be able to control everything that every American does or says, even in your bedroom. This is an attack on free speech.

GatorB 05-21-2005 02:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by iBanker
Here is where it gets really interesting. There is no way in hell, I intend on freely passing out copies of all 2257 for every Joe webmaster that comes along saying he needs it to ?comply?. So don?t ask???
If you are going to provide free content then you really don't have a choice. If I use your free content and the DOJ asks me for the paperwork and I tell them you REFUSED to give it to me. Well that won't be a fun day for either for us.

So if sponsors don't want to have to give out the 2257 info then they'll have to stop giving out free content. Of course then that my mean losing affiliates to sponsors that will.

GatorB 05-21-2005 02:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Fiction
We were talking about intent. This was not done to "organize" the adult industry, it was done to try to shut it down. Do you really think that free speech hating right wingers want to help "organize" this industry?
Yet this will be the downfall of the right wingers. See they don't consider porn a "legitimate" business so in their minds it can be shut down. Funny thing is when you start regulating porn you are basically legitimizing it as a business. After all if it isn't legitimate then why regulate it? Is prostitution outside of Nevada regulated? Is dope dealing regualted? No. Why? Because they aren't considered legitimate businesses. So the more you try to regualte smething the more you say "Ok this is a REAL business" and once you've established that, it's going to be hard for the right wingers to put that genie in the bottle. Just be glad they lack forward vision.

johnnyhey 05-21-2005 02:30 AM
Quote:
Each release is 6 pages long
is that the 48 point version? wtf

grumpy 05-21-2005 02:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by iBanker
Okay, without getting into a discussion on what could happen, or getting everyones different opinion on what 2257 is all about (because I have read all these posts and it is aparent that more than half the people either didn't read and of it, or don't understad the current regs as is), check this out:

I'm with JasonandAlex.com. Lets say we take our new tranny site for example:

www.sexyshemalesfrombrazil.com

Lets say we have a total of 50 scenes of exclusive content shot for that site, and that site only. I know for a fact we have all the proper documentation to abide to 2257 because we shot it all down in Brazil and our producer was pretty much told, if he didn't come back with the EXACT proper paperwork for any of the models he would not get paid. Period. Luckily, he knows what he was doing (Contact me if you want his name).

So anyway, 50 scenes were shot. Two people per scene, and 4 threesome scenes in there as well for total of 104 releases needing to be signed. This is also 104 copies of government issued IDs. Each release is 6 pages long, plus one page for the highly enlarged copy of their identification card (AGAIN, government issued). This is a total of 728 pages of 2257 documentation for ONE site already.

In addition to that, we scan in every release and 2257 related info and store it digitally as well. This takes approximately 2 days to do properly. The next step is putting everything into a database. Fact of the matter is, we act as if the Feds are coming in to check on this the minute the sight goes live, and they point at our members area at a specific girl and say "I want to see her ID and proof that she is 18 or above."

Now, for us this would take about 15 seconds to pull that up. We have a Master Spreadsheet for all of our sites and content, and we have an additional Master Spreadsheet for each and every site. Simply cross reference the stage name, to the spreadsheet, to the actor/actress real name, flip through the filing cabinet, broken down alphabetically, and yank it out. We have back ups of all of the originals in storage as well. The Master Spreadsheet for one site takes about 1.5 days to finish.

So before we go further, lets go over the cost of all of this up until now:

$450.00 - Legal work regarding documentation
$25.00 - Paper/Ink/Printing cost of original 2257
$25.00 ? Paper/Ink/Printing cost of 2257 backups.
$500.00 ? Payment of $10.00 per scene to producer for proper records and offsite 2257 work.
$700.00 ? Payment for Administrative Assistant to scan, copy, file, and create spreadsheets.

$1,700 ? Total

I know I missed a bunch of stuff as well, but I?m trying to keep this simple. Even if you call it $2,000 per site, it?s a fairly reasonable cost of doing business. No, I am not defending the 2257 rules and regs, just stating a fact.

Here is where it gets really interesting. There is no way in hell, I intend on freely passing out copies of all 2257 for every Joe webmaster that comes along saying he needs it to ?comply?. So don?t ask??

(I?ll come back and finish where I?m going with this: including how it affects TGPs from the programs perspective (both small and large), how it effects webmasters, the implementation of invite only webmasters, the costs associated with it, etc? I gotta get some work done really quick?

stop crying, you make good money from it. I applaude the regulations, there is to much shit flooting around.

Icy 05-21-2005 02:46 AM
To the ones that say that you don't need sponsor content to promote a paysite... well what about single girl sites? how are you going to promote them without the girl?
About this regulations, well for what i have read, they are not in the street yet so probably it will suffer tons of changes until it's finally released. We have been talking about this issue for months and from time to time something new is said and everybody start to talk like that they know it all but we don't know shit yet about how this will affect our bussines, we can guess how it will be, we can ask lawyers that dont' know shit either but at the end by now we can only guess. The first post has been really informative but most of the discussion is based only on guesses, the sky is not falling yet.

The Other Steve 05-21-2005 03:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by grumpy
stop crying, you make good money from it. I applaude the regulations, there is to much shit flooting around.
Sometimes I despair for the intelligence levels of some people who have posted in this thread.

grumpy 05-21-2005 04:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Steve
Sometimes I despair for the intelligence levels of some people who have posted in this thread.

you my sir are a funny guy.

faxxaff 05-21-2005 04:41 AM
I make my bucks thru textlinks and non-explicit banners. Looks like nothing will change for me and I can keep my cheap US server :-) Lucky bastard I am.

Rui 05-21-2005 04:51 AM
Changing times ahead no doubt about that...

xxxjay 05-21-2005 04:56 AM
This is a really good post.

xxxjay 05-21-2005 05:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by latinasojourn
this thread should be copied to the FSC as a court exhibit.
I agree - I just emailed the the link.

MsCheyenne 05-21-2005 06:06 AM
If webhosts are exempt
 
It reads as if webhosts will be exempt from 2257, in regard to maintaining a copy of the model's docs. Couldn't review sites, directory guides with galleries and tpgs, simply set up as a webhost and give their sponsors a free website? Could this also be an avenue to promote affliate programs that don't have free hosted galleries without everyone having to send a copy of their docs?

It is just a raw idea. What do you think?

Cheyenne

invza1 05-21-2005 06:07 AM
Quote:
stop crying, you make good money from it. I applaude the regulations, there is to much shit flooting around.
GRUMPY, it goes without saying that your comment is arrogant and thoughtless. You obviously think that since you live in Canada you're exempt from the burden of these amendments. If there was a new porn rule or law that adversely affected Canadians
and US residents werent affected my attitude wouldnt be 'stop crying'. Jesus Crist! You applaud the regulations because there is too much shit floating (oops you did type 'flooting' you Canadians and your 'o's) - (1.)child pornography is already illegal - the people making a killing from cp are not going to stop making it because of some 2257 amendments (2.) as far as obscenity goes the people doing fisting, golden showers, California mudslides, and beastiality aren't to stop making it because of 2257 amendments. So please tell me how any of the changes do anything about 'too much shit floating around'??? How about you take your garbage sites offline so then there will be less shit floating around.

Nysus 05-21-2005 06:20 AM
"Essentially we start doing a background check on them. Why? Because if his answer to number 3 above is NO for what ever reason, then I essentially have to send him copies of all the 2257 info for the site he is pushing. God forbid he wants to promote 10 sites of ours without free hosting, then I am sending him literally over 7,000 pages of information. And that is one affiliate. So 1,000 affiliates in a program (we have more than that, but keeping the numbers simple, imagine what nasty dollars has?lol) at that point costs me 7,000,000 pieces of paper. That paper needs to be printed on, and someone needs to be paid to do it. I?m not even going to guess what that costs, but essentially, we are no longer a porn company, WE ARE A PUBLISHING company."

Pretty sure you're wrong there. It's the producer / owned of the content that is required to hold onto the 2257, and affiliates would merely be 'licensed' for free to use your content but would have to link to a page that lists your main 2257 holder's name/address/contact information, etc...

Tell me if I'm wrong and why?

Matt

Nysus 05-21-2005 06:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnyhey
is that the 48 point version? wtf
Jokingly...

It's really big print ...

Matt

chadglni 05-21-2005 06:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDSmith
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.
That isn't immediate access to the information because when they ask said producer to "show me the documents for the girl on this url" it's not even his damn site. He might not remember all girls by looking at them, the page might have changed, and he damn sure won't have the legally required database listing every page that model is on because YOU would be the producer of that site, not him. Regardless of your opinion, your way would help nothing. Hell people do that now.

CDSmith 05-21-2005 07:01 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by chadglni
That isn't immediate access to the information because when they ask said producer to "show me the documents for the girl on this url" it's not even his damn site. He might not remember all girls by looking at them, the page might have changed, and he damn sure won't have the legally required database listing every page that model is on because YOU would be the producer of that site, not him. Regardless of your opinion, your way would help nothing. Hell people do that now.
It's better than nothing.

What's your solution? You conveniently left that part of your post out.

jayeff 05-21-2005 07:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nysus
It's the producer / owned of the content that is required to hold onto the 2257, and affiliates would merely be 'licensed' for free to use your content but would have to link to a page that lists your main 2257 holder's name/address/contact information, etc...
It's good that you have a reasonable handle on the old 2257 regs, but where have you been the last few months? Unless what has just passed into law is considerably softer than the original proposals, one major difference is that everyone displaying sexually explicit material is now responsible for keeping their own records.

As someone else noted, the only way to get affiliates who want to use more than heavily censored content off the hook, is if the sponsor hosts the content and the affiliate is therefore not the page/site operator.

Nysus 05-21-2005 07:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayeff
It's good that you have a reasonable handle on the old 2257 regs, but where have you been the last few months? Unless what has just passed into law is considerably softer than the original proposals, one major difference is that everyone displaying sexually explicit material is now responsible for keeping their own records.

As someone else noted, the only way to get affiliates who want to use more than heavily censored content off the hook, is if the sponsor hosts the content and the affiliate is therefore not the page/site operator.
The news link xxxjay posted in a different thread mentioned the producer having to have proper identification on hand to be able to prove age, it mentions nothing about publishers of content, other than the 'old' 2257 (unless there has been a big update I missed, is possible) which states that any publishers must state where the content's producer is and their contact information, so they can quickly check to see if models are of age.

Matt

Alex From San Diego 05-21-2005 07:16 AM
Looks like quite a few people have recently slept at a Holiday Inn.

chadglni 05-21-2005 07:18 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDSmith
It's better than nothing.

What's your solution? You conveniently left that part of your post out.
I don't use explicit pics on my pages now. I also live in Canada. The only reason I'm concerned with this crap at all is because the majority of companies I work with are US based. If they have problems it will cause trouble for everyone.

jayeff 05-21-2005 07:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nysus
The news link xxxjay posted in a different thread mentioned the producer having to have proper identification on hand to be able to prove age
As far as I'm aware, the Federal Register has not been updated so that we can know precisely what was passed into law. But the key elements of the proposals that were published last Fall, ahead of the "consultation" phase were:

1. Anyone who displays sexually explicit material will be required to keep identification/age records that formerly only the primary producers had to keep. In other words, linking to records held by someone else will no longer be adequate.

2. There are new and more complex rules about what records must be kept and how they should be indexed.

3. The records have to available on demand (at least) during normal business hours.

WhoGivesaShit 05-21-2005 07:36 AM
150 posters

Nysus 05-21-2005 07:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayeff
As far as I'm aware, the Federal Register has not been updated so that we can know precisely what was passed into law. But the key elements of the proposals that were published last Fall, ahead of the "consultation" phase were:

1. Anyone who displays sexually explicit material will be required to keep identification/age records that formerly only the primary producers had to keep. In other words, linking to records held by someone else will no longer be adequate.

2. There are new and more complex rules about what records must be kept and how they should be indexed.

3. The records have to available on demand (at least) during normal business hours.
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

Lycanthrope 05-21-2005 07:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MsCheyenne
It reads as if webhosts will be exempt from 2257, in regard to maintaining a copy of the model's docs. Couldn't review sites, directory guides with galleries and tpgs, simply set up as a webhost and give their sponsors a free website? Could this also be an avenue to promote affliate programs that don't have free hosted galleries without everyone having to send a copy of their docs?

It is just a raw idea. What do you think?

Cheyenne
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.

slapass 05-21-2005 07:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayeff
In other words, linking to records held by someone else will no longer be adequate.
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.

hy777 05-21-2005 08:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayeff
1. Anyone who displays sexually explicit material will be required to

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.

jimmyf 05-21-2005 08:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDSmith
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.
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.

J-Reel 05-21-2005 06:04 PM
Great thread Chris :thumbsup

Bump

Mr.Fiction 05-21-2005 06:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmyf
Going to jail (been there many times) for me has never been a problem and it ain't going 2 start being one now.
Best post of the thread!

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

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

iBanker 05-21-2005 06:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ContentProducer
Try months. We have one just about ready.
:thumbsup
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)

YankBro 05-21-2005 06:54 PM
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.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:57 AM.
Page 4 of 5 < 123 4 5 >
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123