This shouldn't matter in a practical sense because non-US citizens aren't governed by US laws.

They would have a hard time (impossible) stopping somebody selling to US citizens on the internet. Online gaming has faced the same problem and came away with successful solutions.

If you're just an affiliate, you're not selling anything. You're promoting/advertising someone elses site..

And if the photogrhaper is LYING about the girls age what makes you think his records are going to be anymore accurate? Would he just have her come up with fake ID?

Which is why if there isn't an injunction I will make damn sure I don't have ANY webpages with ANY content on them.

I for one am currious how many websites/webpages out there will actually be in compliance on June 23rd.

You forgot an important part of that.

Foreign producers have the option of
not complying with the rule, but then
their access to the U.S. market is justly
and lawfully prohibited.

It also doesn't affect foreign webmasters the way you think. The DOJ specifically said "we do not currently excercise jurisdiction over foreign websites"

The part that you're quoting refers to foreign producers who wish to sell their images/videos to U.S. companies. If they can't provide the documentation then the U.S. companies can't do business with them.

It can't be applied to paysite owners either, or content producers for that matter.

And don't they have a place in their stats that say SALES? But your not selling anyhting. Who here promotes websites for FREE here without any expectation of getting paid? Anyone?

You're really reaching now man.

It doesn't matter what he does, what matters is that you asked for and received a copy of a government issued ID. If for whatever reason the ID is a fake, you still did your due diligence and any lawyer worth his salt could defend you easily.

So basically they are admiting they are dumbfucks because there is no way this law can do what they want it to do if over half the websites on the planet can not be made to comply and all it does is put Americans at a disadvatage. Good going Bush.

They're referring to foreign producers selling content to secondary producers in the U.S.....they're not referring to foreign websites selling subscriptions.

Ok so now I can go and ask any producer for a model's ID and I can get it? Hmmmm better hope I'm not a stalker. And if they are not obligated to provide with such ID then how do I get this ID?

I didn't get the sale.. the sponsor did.. and I get paid a commision... You're just ranting now..

The purpose of the law (which is a good law....it's the regulations written to specify enforcement of the law that are fucked up) is to ensure that children aren't used as participants in pornography.

U.S. laws are intended to protect U.S. children, protecting children that live in other countries is the job of the other governments.

:2 cents:

Yeah ok. So a car SALESman doesn't actually get SALES because he doesn't own the cars the dealership does?

You actually have to buy a license for the set first... you can't just go asking at random.

I doubt many producers will be providing un-edited information to Joe Webmaster that just paid $27 for 3 sets of photo content.

These laws ALREADY exist and have existed. The original 2257 laws have been in existence for well over a dozen years. What is wrong with those. What flaw is in those laws that they new ones? How would they know of such flaws since there has NEVER ever been ONE inspection of 2257 records since thier inception.

What exactly would they edit? They have to give you the girls real name for you to be compliant, anyone with some sense can find her from there.

Yes but doesn't the DOJ want the info not blacked out shit? Oh I see they come I give them the "edited" info and they haul ME off for having "edited" info and not the real thing.

I posted this earlier....dude you really need to take a chill pill BTW.

In the comments section the DOJ said that if a primary producer refuses to provide a secondary producer with documentation, they're in violation of the regulations.

Now me personally, I'm not going to wait for the DOJ to show up at my door and then say "I asked for the ID but didn't get it"
I'm going to remove any content that I don't have ID's for (assuming the regs go into effect as scheduled)
However, if you paid money for content and now the producer refuses to give you the docs in violation of the law you may have grounds to sue and recover the monies you paid for the content plus attorney fees.

(Remember, I'm not a lawyer, I just play one on TV.....don't take ANYTHING I say as legal advice.)

Not sure I agree with that since they use the term "producer" to refer to both secondary and primary producers in some places.. and they seem to be making it clear that if you sell to the US, they expect you to meet the "labeling" requirements like any other product being sold in the US... Of course, they then go on to say they don't exercise jurisdiction so who the hell knows..

They won't give you the real name.

If you force the issue they'll just tell you to fuck off. Keeping a steady stream of fresh models keeps the big buyers coming back. They aren't going to risk pissing off a model to satisfy a webmaster making a $30 content purchase.

The trusted buyers & paysite owners will be the ones getting the documents for compliance.

It was just brought to my attention that that link is no longer vaild try this one if you want it HTML
2257 html link

Please explain how you have ANY idea what I am feeling right now over a computer? I am actually quite calm. It's called Devil's Advocate and I think it serves a purpose.

Now I said that a couple of days ago and several people called me stupid and an idiot. Not sure if you were one of them.

You're funny... The bill of sale/contract isn't with the salesman.. it's with the dealership....

There are no new laws, just new regulations.
Regulations specify how the law will be enforced, and the DOJ has the authority to write such regulations.

The law is still the same, the regulations were updated "to reflect the growth of the internet in the past five years and the proliferation of pornography on the internet"

Exactly.

If I had hotdog cart in New York, then I'm on US soil selling to americans.

But if my sexually explicit material is not on US soil, but accessible from the US. They can't do anything.
Kinda like standing on the Mexican side of the US/Mexican border flashing your tits. US Police can't do anything about it.

I'm not 100% sure on this one. So correct me if I'm wrong.
IF they really wanted to go after a non-US webmaster (one-man show), I guess they could make so if he enters US soil, he would get arrested. But if you have a corporation, you as a person is pretty safe.

The way I read it was that it is up to the secondary producer to make sure he/she has all the correct documentation from the primary producer.

The primary producer is under no obligation to provide that information to all of their customers.

Page 29614

Paragraph 3

I was, and you are....but that's beside the point.

Nothing in the proposed regulations that we were discussing the other day made mention of this requirement for primary producers.

There's actually nothing in the new regulations that say this either. It's in the DOJ's response to comments section. Which none of us knew about when we were having that discussion.

Don't worry, you're still an idiot.

question is - anyone who signs up with the FSC is protected with this injunction that will be locked up in court for years? or does it blanket the whole industry?

webmaster paradise was one of the first to support the FSC and have been in close contact with their executive director and will work with them for as long as it takes

Missed that part, thanks for pointing that out.

By the letter of the law it only protects their members, but for practical matters it would generally cover the whole industry.

You may still be prosecuted though if you aren't named in the injunction.

I can't see it happening though.

I got scanned drivers licenses on the content I bought 2 years ago, I wouldn't even consider buying it if I didn't. Funny since I'm not in the US and it wasn't even required in the US then. Most content producers need the small purchasers.

Seriously though folks.....we can discuss this until we're blue in the face (and we probably will) but you still NEED to hire an attorney and have them explain the law and regulations to you and tell you what you need to do in order to comply.

Saying that "so and so from a message board told me this was ok" won't cut it in front of a judge, you need a lawyer that specializes in this industry, PERIOD.

You might want to wait until tomorrow to call one though, since these regs were published just a couple hours ago and they probably haven't had time to read them yet :winkwink:

Blah blah BS and we all know it. If Gore had won in 2000 these "rules" wouldn't even exist today. Like I said I'm not worried I don't deal in much content anymore and I guess I won't start now. Too much BS.

Not that it's MY problem but how many here think any newbie webmaster is going to even KNOW about these rules let alone comply with them. Fucking Joe Blow making a TGP gallery is going to get all this info and cross reference with descriptions? How long is that going to take.

Image 001.jpg at http://bushsuckscock.com/gallery01.html

Decription blonde girl wearing pink bra sucking cock of black male holding cock in right hand while in kneeling position while looking to the left. Black male has smile on face.

Female name Jane Doe AKA Hot Slut 123 Fuckbush Street Denver Co 69696 DOB 1-1-80. Male Tyrone Black AKA Mandango 6969 69th street Compton CA 06969 DOB 2-7-72

and fucking so on. And that's for one pic. don't forget you need one for each thumb too.

Yeah that is definitely interesting there. I'm not sure how valid their commentary is VS. actual law though? Because if a movie theatre explicitly gets an exemption (by their commentary, not necessarily by law... they did deny the request after all), then shouldn't a paysite displaying the content to the end user get the same exemption? If they didn't create the content, or contract the content to be produced, then isn't that paysite basically a eletronic movie theatre of sorts?

Again it will come down to how large of a percentage of the market is going to insist on compliance and how far primary producers are willing to go in order to be able to sell to that market.

We are also going to be looking into indemnity for content producers that are not able or are unwilling to comply with the regulations as long as they actually have the correct documentation themselves.

I don't think that's true.
When the ACLU got an injunction against COPA, the law was unenforcable period. The injunction didn't only apply to card carrying ACLU members.

Also, the FSC has said they won't divulge thier membership list to anyone, ever.

:2 cents:

I was still right. So nice for you to acknowledge that and apologize.

Yeah, just imagine some sickfuck obsessed by some model wants to find out here real name and where she lives :helpme



BTW from what I understand you do not need to make this info publicly available on the internet as posted by someone earlier in this thread. In the regs it just says the records need to be kept in digital or textual form ordered by last name, with cross references and so on. Or did I miss some part ?

You won't find much pity for a business person ignorant of the law on either side of the argument at hand.