Originally Posted by kernelpanic

Can we get a fucking lawyer in here already?

Originally Posted by chadglni

Everyone has read the whole thing. In MY opinion, mere distribution would be the sales clerk selling a porno mag with explicit shit in it. Or me linking to your explicit site through text. And a secondary producer would be considered one who PUBLISHES the shit to a website.

Originally Posted by Oberon

And no matter where you got the image, or whether it's owned by someone else and used with permission, the act of creating and owning the web site makes YOU the publisher, and therefore the secondary producer.

Join the main discussion

Originally Posted by cherrylula

That makes sense.

What people are failing to realize also, is these reg are also aimed at PERFORMERS who don't file or pay their taxes. Its a nightmare for the gov to keep track of these people who work all over as contractors or for cash the same day they shoot. Therefore they want more info from the PRODUCERS as in the people who make the porn, which helps keep track of this as well.

Affiliates should have nothing to do with this because we are just selling memberships. Its not our job or obligation to make sure these performers are legit through the companies they shoot for or to keep track of them and their stage names.

Think about it: What does the government really want? MONEY. They want money, and if they can tighten things up along those lines they can track down the people who owe them taxes. I mean seriously, how many big companies are even stupid enough to produce cp? They're not. Not in this country anyhow. Money is the name of the game here.

Originally Posted by GatorB

Just LINKING to a pic not hosted on YOUR site doesn't mean you have to follow 2257. If that was the case all SE would have to be 2257 compliant.

Originally Posted by diggz

Aside from the legal definitions.. what do you all look at as:

Primary Producers & Secondary Producers ?

Lets all put some examples on the table.

Here is my perspective:

Example = MILFHunter.com
Primary Producer = white guy (milf hunter), camera man (2257 responsible)
Secondary Producer = Nastydollars.com, anyone who purchases their content for re-distribution. (2257 responsible)
distributor = affiliates (doesnt really own any content, so there is no record keeping required)

Originally Posted by chadglni

And a secondary producer would be considered one who PUBLISHES the shit to a website.

Originally Posted by wyldblyss

To hell with all of that...wtf is sexually explicit? Seems like a dumn question, but since it is not clearly defined...it means that it is open to interpretation...and that can be scary.

The asshole inspecting might think that sexual explicit is topless....another guy might think there has to be some insertion....another two naked people together but only kissing...

Originally Posted by GatorB

Yes and I also believe if I hire someone to build me a website he is also exempt and it's ME the website owner that has to have the 2257 info. So no as the designer of the website you are expempt, but as the onwer you aren't. At least that's how I interpret the exemption.

Originally Posted by Oberon

if it's a text link, no, it's not an explicit image, you don't need the documentation. If it's a thumbnail image you have hotlinked, it appears on your page, yes, you DO need documentation.

Same with banners.

Originally Posted by vdc-Loki

you forgot to include the rest of that sentance :(

that does not involve the
hiring, contracting for, managing, or otherwise arranging for the
participation of the depicted performers;


IE you insert images on a website BUT did not hire, pay, contract etc the model in the image

Is it sinking in yet? the doubletalk? the "loopholes" if you wish to call it that.

It does say it, OTHER then the stuff from para c, 1 & 2 but when you KEEP READING theres MORE

-Loki-

Originally Posted by vdc-Loki

whos wrong lol, all I'm doing is qouting the doj here, and taking alot of shit for doing so, Distributors are NOT prodcers end of story.

Theres links all over today to the full 16 page final verdict go read it, if you already have then you know the DOJ said DISTRIBUTORS are NOT producers.

Simple as that, affils did NOT hire, pay, contract etc the models they make the galleries, freesites, tgp's etc etc and acording to this final verdict that makes them distributors.

YES it mentions inserting images into a website BUT it goes on to say "That does NOT involve the hiring....." get it??

-Loki-

Originally Posted by Oberon

Wrong, that only changes you to a secondary producer and not a primary.

Originally Posted by GatorB

Yes I was clarifying. So for example if I had a TGP with text links going to FHG I do not need the 2257 info. Of course it would be wise to make sure the FHG has the link to their 2257 info though before I link to them.

Originally Posted by Mayor

When was the last 2257 violation case under the old rules (just wonderin)

Do you think the hotels will have to carry records for the movies?

Originally Posted by thonglife

Yes, Hilton employees be forewarned. Also, they are going to start filling our prisons with webmasters. :1orglaugh
The prison system is way too strained on resources. Interstate cocaine middleman versus adult webmaster.

Originally Posted by chadglni

They said MERE distributors are not. You publish a website, you don't publish a magazine rack.

Originally Posted by ClevelandSlim

finally... the shit was gettin funny, but this statement by chadglni was just too fuckin ridiculously humerous. because making a website has been technically known as "publishing" you can see a difference here between a site owner sticking a thumb on his page to send traffic to the sponsored site where the actual records keeping is maintained. well, what if they change "publish" to "build" it's still the same fuckin thing... you can build a webpage AND just like a store owner can build his store. then placing the magazines inside on a rack would classify him as a secondary producer.

the fact remains, as long as the statute reads the way it does, it can go either way. the free speech challenges need to include this, and the many other sections that can be interpreted too many different ways to be clarified.

Originally Posted by GatorB

So I guess what we need is a way to "distribute" porn over the web without "publishing" it. Any ideas?

Originally Posted by Oberon

Mail-order. Send me money, I'll mail you your HARDCORE CONTENT RIGHT NOW.

Originally Posted by GatorB

A) I said OVER THE WEB

B) Mail order can get you into trouble especially if you are mailing to places like Utah or Alabama.

Originally Posted by nikad

no, hosting providers are the equivalent to paper providers, they are not responsible.
Can't you see that the main problem is going to be for content producers and paysite owners??? Even if we are all " secondary producers" the only shit we should do to be compliant isi to have a copy of the records form the sponsors we are promoting and a fucking link on the homepage of the site, what is so difficult to understand?

Originally Posted by nikad

We are not distributors. We are publishers.
We are not distributors. We are publishers.
We are not distributors. We are publishers.
We are not distributors. We are publishers.
We are not distributors. We are publishers.
We are not distributors. We are publishers.
We are not distributors. We are publishers.
We are not distributors. We are publishers.
We are not distributors. We are publishers.
We are not distributors. We are publishers.

Originally Posted by vdc-Loki

First I hate to have to add yet another 2257 thread to the growing pile but I've looked over alot of them and some ppl are ONLY quoting part of a VERY important statement, and in doing so I'm sure alot of u.s. ppl are freaking the fuck out....

Here is the statement as it pertains to secondary producers (READ IT ALL!)

(2) A secondary producer is any person who produces, assembles,
manufactures, publishes, duplicates, reproduces, or reissues a book,
magazine, periodical, film, videotape, digitally- or computer-
manipulated image, picture, or other matter intended for commercial
distribution that contains a visual depiction of an actual human being
engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct, or who inserts on a
computer site or service a digital image of, or otherwise manages the
sexually explicit content of a computer site or service that contains a
visual depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually
explicit conduct, including any person who enters into a contract,
agreement, or conspiracy to do any of the foregoing.
(3) The same person may be both a primary and a secondary producer.
(4) Producer does not include persons whose activities relating to
the visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct are limited to
the following:
(i) Photo or film processing, including digitization of previously
existing visual depictions, as part of a commercial enterprise, with no
other commercial interest in the sexually explicit material, printing,
and video duplicators;
(ii) Mere distribution; AFFILS
(iii) Any activity, other than those activities identified in
paragraphs (c) (1) and (2) of this section, that does not involve the
hiring, contracting for, managing, or otherwise arranging for the
participation of the depicted performers; AFFILS

In short:

if you ONLY Distro it, OR designed website with it you are safe from the extensive record keeping,

Also I read & re-read the whole mess a few times, and though it does NOT say that "It would be acceptable for affils to just have a link to the sponsors 2257 page" with the above statement about the actual deff of a 2ndry producer affils and webdesigners DO NOT FALL UNDER THE SECONDARY PRODUCER CATAGORY.

So to affils "The sky is NOT falling" but we as producers and sponsors have to do alot more work :(

-Loki-

Originally Posted by Kevin2

Hit me up 146156431? I want to ask about your hosting prices?

Originally Posted by ClevelandSlim

finally... the shit was gettin funny, but this statement by chadglni was just too fuckin ridiculously humerous. because making a website has been technically known as "publishing" you can see a difference here between a site owner sticking a thumb on his page to send traffic to the sponsored site where the actual records keeping is maintained. well, what if they change "publish" to "build" it's still the same fuckin thing... you can build a webpage AND just like a store owner can build his store. then placing the magazines inside on a rack would classify him as a secondary producer.

the fact remains, as long as the statute reads the way it does, it can go either way. the free speech challenges need to include this, and the many other sections that can be interpreted too many different ways to be clarified.