Say you publish a picture of a girl groping her own tits and she has her o face on. Could it be argued she was masturbating?

If it can be argued, then, that masturbation only exists in your head as a projection of your own thoughts. She could as well be calling her cat.

An act of masturbation must be also explicit, according to the defintions used by the new regulations. If you don't see a pussy or you don't see a hand reaching a pussy, or dildo or anything that can unequivocally demonstrate an act of 'masturbation', then it may well not exist.

But I am not a lawyer.

They were hypothetical scenarios, but I don?t read anywhere in 2257, 2256 or the regulations where it says masturbation while clothed or masturbation by sensitive nipples is excluded from 2257 record keeping requirements. The definitions say merely a depiction of actual masturbation. I offer this merely as food for thought and to point out that essentially the AG can stretch the definition to include things most people wouldn?t think about.

How is everyone planning to keep these records? Anyone know of a script out there to help with this? I am sooooo glad that I have a Lot more non-explicit content then explict content on my servers, but I still have about 80 domains I have to go looking at to see what is what?

I am also curious on censored banners. It says actual or simulated, but if a banner has a big star over the private bits, does it fall under 2257?

That's why the lawyers get paid, because most politicians don't care about free speech or the constitution. Those in charge of the U.S. right now don't just dislike free speech, they hate it.

This law has never been tested at the Supreme Court. Who wants to be the first to take it there? :)

We're developing a software product to help manage the record keeping requirements. I have some screen shots up at http://www.manicproductions.com/komply/ and it should be going into beta before the end of the weekend.

It's something we started developing for in-house use and quickly decided to market to the masses since I think a lot of people are in the same boat as us (a lot of domains, even more sites and a shitload of content).

As for an opinion on the banner thing... I'm no lawyer, but we're going to go to just "non explicit" banners - rather be safe than sorry :)

http://www.manicproductions.com/komp...view_model.jpg

- CGI

My banners though are almost as bad as my content as far as all over the place. My later sites I have the banners on rotators, which I can easily change them out to non-explicit, but i've been building sites since 99 so some have the banners just embedded in the pages. :helpme

Thanks for the link on the script, I knew someone had to be coming out with something to make life easier on this one!

looks good. does it have a server scan feature?

Finally, one feature I didn't think to add (if you're referring to scanning the server for the content - the system will already spider the URLs where the content is published to archive a copy per the regs).

Because of the way the new regs read - the filenames for all of the content are already stored in the system so it will be trivial to add the ability to have it search servers for the content.

The software should be run on a machine at your business address in order to comply with the 2257 requirements (needs to be at your business address) so it will be done either with a script that runs on the server and is accessed remotely, or it will connect via ssh and scan the server that way (I'm leaning towards ssh due to the more secure nature).

The software will run on either UNIX or Windows and can run under an existing webserver install or, in the case of Windows, it provides it's own (using Apache+PHP+MySQL) as well as the few support files it needs (ImageMagick, wget, tar, gz).

Since this will makes our lives a lot easier, it's definatly high on the list of things to add.

- CGI

Silly question, but does this software also include printing options?

Of course.. you can print right from the record you're viewing, or tag records and export them to a PDF which you can download and print at will.

- CGI

Ummm you should edit that screenshot more you still have the models legal name and birthdate on it for the world to see

This is going to be a pian in the ass for everybody

The birthdate is shown, the legal name is not.. everything except the bday is just test data for that EXACT reason and there should be no problem with the bday on it's own.

- CGI

so if you're outside the US, just put up an address where the records are kept outside the US. The US authorities can't actually come and check.

wow I guess its the end of the adult internet

Non-sexual explicit nudity
 

I don't see any change in the 2257 regs covering this. If a site is declared to be non-sexually explicit and artistic, then it is not required to maintain records. I don't see this changing with the new 2257 reg update.

You can avoid all this 2257 bullshit by creating websites with no content and get SE traffic which you can feed to sponsors... see sig

Bump! 'cause I felt like it.