2257 & the BIG guys it "may effect". - Page 4 - GoFuckYourself.com

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

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!

iBanker · 05-21-2005, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ContentProducer

Try months. We have one just about ready.

Well, I am a lot samrter than you, so this weekend should do fine

(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.

iBanker · 05-21-2005, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnnyhey

is that the 48 point version? wtf

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

Blow me....and while you are at it

iBanker · 05-21-2005, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by grumpy

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

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

iBanker · 05-21-2005, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex From San Diego

Looks like quite a few people have recently slept at a Holiday Inn.

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

iBanker · 05-21-2005, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-Reel

Great thread Chris

Bump

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)

Mr.Fiction · 05-21-2005, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YankBro

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. break loose.

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.

Nate-MM2 · 05-21-2005, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr.Fiction

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.

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.

Alex From San Diego · 05-21-2005, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iBanker

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

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

Yeah I saw the numbers

Mr.Fiction · 05-21-2005, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nate-MM2

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.

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.

05-21-2005, 06:04 PM	#157
J-Reel Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Boneprone's guest house Posts: 3,782	Great thread Chris Bump __________________ Scheck out the new girls at www.hawtmoney.com ICQ 177-447-671

05-21-2005, 07:36 AM	#151
WhoGivesaShit Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 307	150 posters

05-21-2005, 06:54 PM	#160
YankBro Registered User Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 81	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.