Cam site owners and sites who have cam sites listed need 2257 comments on this articl - GoFuckYourself.com

Jimatcohf · 05-29-2005, 05:06 PM

Cam owners is this true http://www.xbiz.com/news_piece.php?id=8927 are cam site owners going to have to record every second of video now. what about sites that dont have thier own girls but are using brandlabeled sites. Jesus i hate to sound like chicken little but damm, very important topic so newbies and sufers leave the thread alone need some real answers here

chadglni · 05-29-2005, 05:09 PM

Oh damn. lol

wjxxx · 05-29-2005, 05:11 PM

David! · 05-29-2005, 05:16 PM

I am awaiting iFriends' stance on this. They process millions of dollars every month.

chadglni · 05-29-2005, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PussyMan

I am awaiting iFriends' stance on this. They process millions of dollars every month.

I would say that ifriends is one of the few that could record every streaming show that goes through their system. Tons of it is already recorded for upsells anyhow.

Pleasurepays · 05-29-2005, 05:24 PM

i am just basically guessing, but its not too far off. dont be an ass and argue about numbers. i was just thinking about this to see what the numbers might be like.

assume a site has live 1 on 1 video chat with a 15% of total online time in private sessions (a low average) - 1 day equals 1440 minutes X 15% = 216 minutes per room, per day but we can say 200 minutes.

200 minutes for a site that has around 75 cams online 24hrs daily, - 75 X 200 minutes = 15,000 minutes of video per day. 450,000 minutes of total video per month or 18,750 hrs of video per month.

225,000 hrs of video per year

1,575,000 hrs of video per 7 years

thats just the private sessions ONLY... NOT ALL VIDEO, teaser chat etc etc.

Ifriends could not do it with over 1000 - 2000 cams online 24hrs a day. I doubt the technology exists to store this much data for 7 years.

?We told them, in three months, [the recordings] will hit a terabyte of storage, and that?s with very high compression,? Douglas said.

Justice?s response, he said, was ?It?s no big deal.? The department justified the decision by saying webmasters could keep low-quality, black-and-white recording of the feeds and speculated that as-yet-undeveloped storage technology would ease the burden by lowering costs."

i don't see how it would be possible to comply - much less be sucessfully targeted for non-compliance.

Nightwind · 05-29-2005, 05:27 PM

Heh the DOJ must be loving this.

them.

chadglni · 05-29-2005, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

i am just basically guessing, but its not too far off. dont be an ass and argue about numbers. i was just thinking about this to see what the numbers might be like.

assume a site has live 1 on 1 video chat with a 15% of total online time in private sessions (a low average) - 1 day equals 1440 minutes X 15% = 216 minutes per room, per day but we can say 200 minutes.

200 minutes for a site that has around 75 cams online 24hrs daily, - 75 X 200 minutes = 15,000 minutes of video per day. 450,000 minutes of total video per month or 18,750 hrs of video per month.

225,000 hrs of video per year

1,575,000 hrs of video per 7 years

thats just the private sessions ONLY... NOT ALL VIDEO, teaser chat etc etc.

Ifriends could not do it with over 1000 - 2000 cams online 24hrs a day. I doubt the technology exists to store this much data for 7 years.

?We told them, in three months, [the recordings] will hit a terabyte of storage, and that?s with very high compression,? Douglas said.

Justice?s response, he said, was ?It?s no big deal.? The department justified the decision by saying webmasters could keep low-quality, black-and-white recording of the feeds and speculated that as-yet-undeveloped storage technology would ease the burden by lowering costs."

i don't see how it would be possible to comply - much less be sucessfully targeted for non-compliance.

I'd say pretty much impossible for anyone that isn't a "big dog" in cams. Ifriends, Imlive, Lars, etc. etc. could do this if they had to. I wonder if they could be considered a service provider? I'm sure their lawyers are all over it either way.

Pleasurepays · 05-29-2005, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chadglni

I'd say pretty much impossible for anyone that isn't a "big dog" in cams. Ifriends, Imlive, Lars, etc. etc. could do this if they had to. I wonder if they could be considered a service provider? I'm sure their lawyers are all over it either way.

i doubt they could do it or would even if they had the will. look at imlive right now - 6000 plus cams online. i gave a scenario with only 75 cams. 6000/75=80. 80x1.5mil = 12,000,000 hrs of cam video being recorded for 7 years. i can't imagine that happening.

and i am sure you are 100% correct... no doubt a lot of attorneys are looking at this right now and not necessarily just the big cam companies, because of all the worst and weakest parts of the new 2257 rules, this seems to be probably the weakest and most rediculous and a good point of attack.

Webby · 05-29-2005, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

i doubt they could do it or would even if they had the will. look at imlive right now - 6000 plus cams online. i gave a scenario with only 75 cams. 6000/75=80. 80x1.5mil = 12,000,000 hrs of cam video being recorded for 7 years. i can't imagine that happening.

and i am sure you are 100% correct... no doubt a lot of attorneys are looking at this right now and not necessarily just the big cam companies, because of all the worst and weakest parts of the new 2257 rules, this seems to be probably the weakest and most rediculous and a good point of attack.

Law or no law - place that in front of a judge and ask for a judgement - that old term, "the law is an ass" would be clearly in mind :-)

And the purpose?? What was that again?? Ah yea, it's to protect children

It's too insane!

s9ann0 · 05-29-2005, 05:56 PM

I guess its the end of webcams as well as the adult internet!

chadglni · 05-29-2005, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

i doubt they could do it or would even if they had the will. look at imlive right now - 6000 plus cams online. i gave a scenario with only 75 cams. 6000/75=80. 80x1.5mil = 12,000,000 hrs of cam video being recorded for 7 years. i can't imagine that happening.

and i am sure you are 100% correct... no doubt a lot of attorneys are looking at this right now and not necessarily just the big cam companies, because of all the worst and weakest parts of the new 2257 rules, this seems to be probably the weakest and most rediculous and a good point of attack.

Ifriends already archives gigs and gigs of recorded camshows. They charge extra for you to look at them. If they are required to record every live cam session my money is on them doing it. I don't see Imlive or Lars closing their doors either. Small camsites I definately see having major problems.

Jimatcohf · 05-29-2005, 06:01 PM

what about the 2nd part to my question, if im just displaying a branded version of thier sites say streamray from lars, am i still the one responsible for 2257 information and recording all that video on my side as well

chadglni · 05-29-2005, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimatcohf

what about the 2nd part to my question, if im just displaying a branded version of thier sites say streamray from lars, am i still the one responsible for 2257 information and recording all that video on my side as well

If it's your url I would say yes. If you link to a url on one of their domains then no. (from my understanding of the regulations. I'm not a lawyer)

pornguy · 05-29-2005, 06:04 PM

Those statments about the storage comefrom someone who is ignorant, and willing to show that.

Webby · 05-29-2005, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spanno

I guess its the end of webcams as well as the adult internet!

Na! :-) Porn existed long before the US was ever heard of and will be there long after it's gone.

Seriously... there are implications to the US adult industry thru this shit. It is an "inconvenience" to US webmasters or those who continue to host within US territory.

It also means there is substantially more interest in avoiding the US in terms of hosting/sponsors and all ancilliary services and is economic in nature. Another factor is... why should any corp want to conduct biz in the US in the adult sector - it's just a pain in the butt.

Sure.. the DOJ can raise the effort to block links into the US from foreign servers - I'm sure that will be very effective :-)

Contrary to the purported purpose of this amended act - it shows nada interest in actually protecting children, but is simply a face job.

Pleasurepays · 05-29-2005, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Webby

Law or no law - place that in front of a judge and ask for a judgement - that old term, "the law is an ass" would be clearly in mind :-)

And the purpose?? What was that again?? Ah yea, it's to protect children

It's too insane!

this is not to protect kids. this is to attack porn! people should not forget this. Bush promised he would do it... he never elaborated on how really. we all don't need to be attorneys to know that prosecuting obscenity is not easy in the US and an easier route is to simply create regulations that most cannot or will not comply with and then start taking people down.

people often forget that the courts frequently agree with you and what you just said. its not likely that a judge would rule that this makes sense or that compliance is reasonable or even possible. people gave comments as the complications this would present as rules were drafted, but that is much different than proving it in court.

the government can make a new law tomorrow that we have to park our cars on the moon but it would not be too likely that the government could get a conviction and they would have to be aware that when it gets challenged in court (or they test it in court) its not going to hold up and can only backfire on them.

anyway.. its all very interesting. not really my problem since we don't operate as a US entity and maintain all records anyway. will be interesting to see where this goes. its definately one more deterrent for people thinking about starting a cam site.

Pleasurepays · 05-29-2005, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pornguy

Those statments about the storage comefrom someone who is ignorant, and willing to show that.

if you are talking about me... i am definately ignorant of what it would take to store terrabytes of data. why would i know? its not like I have 200 satellites in orbit mapping the earth in my spare time or something.

even with maximum compression and black and white, it is still an insane amount of data. i know because i have been doing this since late 97'. can you tell me of any project where someone has stored 50-100-1000-5000 video streams going 24/7 for 7 years?

will76 · 05-29-2005, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

look at imlive right now - 6000 plus cams online.

more like 350 not 6,000

Snake Doctor · 05-29-2005, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimatcohf

very important topic so newbies and sufers leave the thread alone need some real answers here

If you need real answers then consult an attorney, simple as that.

Do you really think that starting a thread on GFY is the way to get real answers to your questions about the law?
All you're going to get is guesses and speculation from people that aren't licensed to practice law, if you're wiling to let 5 years of your freedom be dictated by something you read on a chat board then you deserve whatever you get.

Webby · 05-29-2005, 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

this is not to protect kids. this is to attack porn! people should not forget this. Bush promised he would do it... he never elaborated on how really. we all don't need to be attorneys to know that prosecuting obscenity is not easy in the US and an easier route is to simply create regulations that most cannot or will not comply with and then start taking people down.

Well PP - truth be known, I was well-aware of this and just waiting for the followup laws to get a clue of the final objective or where this path is ultimately leading :-)

There are loads of issues, apart from "child protection" and involve privacy, censorship and hell knows what else. When ya think of it, the US is currently under attact in many areas at the moment, and not by some terrorists, but by narrow-minded people with an agenda and often with very strong and arrogant religeous beliefs that they know better.

Equally... by appealing to that minority element, politicians can raise issues and abuse for their own benefit.

It is ironic that 2257 had primarily a valid purpose of child protection and is now being abused by a warped legislature - leaves a bad taste considering the numbers of child abuse issues within the US!!

Dunno... but I smell a hell of a lot of court cases stemming from this law... ranging from "rights violations" to "violations of international trade" to basic issues of assault on individuals (models) because their personal data was released under this law.

I won't be complying with this shit - but certainly be taking all reasonable measures to ensure any content does not feature minors. (what's new?)...

Pleasurepays · 05-29-2005, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by will76

more like 350 not 6,000

yeah, you are right. i did not look closely and noticed the number showing the total registered, not online. although it did seem a little strange after i posted. ifriends usually has a couple thousand online these days.

my bad.

venus · 05-29-2005, 08:11 PM

I had my webcam before bush was president and I will have it after he is president.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spanno

I guess its the end of webcams as well as the adult internet!

Jimatcohf · 05-29-2005, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lenny2

If you need real answers then consult an attorney, simple as that.

Do you really think that starting a thread on GFY is the way to get real answers to your questions about the law?
All you're going to get is guesses and speculation from people that aren't licensed to practice law, if you're wiling to let 5 years of your freedom be dictated by something you read on a chat board then you deserve whatever you get.

Lenny, im not asking for legal advice here, of course I will listen to my atty on this, what i was curious to find out is what other owners were doing, how is lars going to handle this, how is ifriends, how is imlive, camz. the list goes on, for me to shut down my cam site is merely a drop in my bucket, trust me i have way more to worry about than my cam site, however it is a valid and understandable question. Thank you for your imput but i am really after some of the big boys to step up and state how they are going to handle this. I have had streamray on one of my sites for a while, and hope that I can keep them there, they do very well. I just would like some good answers from some of the big cam guys to make me feel better if i put thier feeds in my members area that I am not going to have anything to worry about.

Jimatcohf · 05-30-2005, 12:21 PM

bump for the day crowd

Terry · 05-30-2005, 12:26 PM

Jim, from what I have read, my guess is since you are not the one hosting the cams portion on your own domain then no you dont have to worry about 2257 for that one.

05-29-2005, 05:06 PM	#1
Jimatcohf Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: south east Posts: 277	Cam site owners and sites who have cam sites listed need 2257 comments on this articl Cam owners is this true http://www.xbiz.com/news_piece.php?id=8927 are cam site owners going to have to record every second of video now. what about sites that dont have thier own girls but are using brandlabeled sites. Jesus i hate to sound like chicken little but damm, very important topic so newbies and sufers leave the thread alone need some real answers here __________________ [email protected] ICQ: 318490299

05-29-2005, 05:09 PM	#2
chadglni Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: PEI, Canada Posts: 6,924	Oh damn. lol __________________ Sign up here - Dating Site affiliate program

05-29-2005, 05:16 PM	#4
David! By the wrath of Agamemnon Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Miami Posts: 6,501	I am awaiting iFriends' stance on this. They process millions of dollars every month. __________________ .

05-29-2005, 05:24 PM	#6
Pleasurepays BANNED - SUPPORTING TUBES Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: I live in a pile of boogers Posts: 11,913	i am just basically guessing, but its not too far off. dont be an ass and argue about numbers. i was just thinking about this to see what the numbers might be like. assume a site has live 1 on 1 video chat with a 15% of total online time in private sessions (a low average) - 1 day equals 1440 minutes X 15% = 216 minutes per room, per day but we can say 200 minutes. 200 minutes for a site that has around 75 cams online 24hrs daily, - 75 X 200 minutes = 15,000 minutes of video per day. 450,000 minutes of total video per month or 18,750 hrs of video per month. 225,000 hrs of video per year 1,575,000 hrs of video per 7 years thats just the private sessions ONLY... NOT ALL VIDEO, teaser chat etc etc. Ifriends could not do it with over 1000 - 2000 cams online 24hrs a day. I doubt the technology exists to store this much data for 7 years. ?We told them, in three months, [the recordings] will hit a terabyte of storage, and that?s with very high compression,? Douglas said. Justice?s response, he said, was ?It?s no big deal.? The department justified the decision by saying webmasters could keep low-quality, black-and-white recording of the feeds and speculated that as-yet-undeveloped storage technology would ease the burden by lowering costs." i don't see how it would be possible to comply - much less be sucessfully targeted for non-compliance. Last edited by Pleasurepays; 05-29-2005 at 05:26 PM..

05-29-2005, 05:27 PM	#7
Nightwind Confirmed User Join Date: May 2005 Location: ICQ: 303-282-636 Posts: 4,786	Heh the DOJ must be loving this. them. __________________

05-29-2005, 05:11 PM	#3
wjxxx So Fucking Banned Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 4,448

05-29-2005, 05:56 PM	#11
s9ann0 Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Boston Posts: 4,873	I guess its the end of webcams as well as the adult internet!

05-29-2005, 06:01 PM	#13
Jimatcohf Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: south east Posts: 277	what about the 2nd part to my question, if im just displaying a branded version of thier sites say streamray from lars, am i still the one responsible for 2257 information and recording all that video on my side as well __________________ [email protected] ICQ: 318490299

05-29-2005, 06:04 PM	#15
pornguy Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Homeless Posts: 62,911	Those statments about the storage comefrom someone who is ignorant, and willing to show that. __________________ PornGuy skype me pornguy_epic AmateurDough The Hottes Shemales online! TChicks.com \| Angeles Cid \| Mariana Cordoba \| MAILERS WELCOME!

05-30-2005, 12:21 PM	#25
Jimatcohf Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: south east Posts: 277	bump for the day crowd __________________ [email protected] ICQ: 318490299

05-30-2005, 12:26 PM	#26
Terry Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Montreal Posts: 1,604	Jim, from what I have read, my guess is since you are not the one hosting the cams portion on your own domain then no you dont have to worry about 2257 for that one. __________________ TengaCash ICQ: 6776764