Would this help solve some of problems with the 2257 situation? - GoFuckYourself.com

Paul Markham · 06-03-2005, 03:45 AM

It seems to me that soft core, glamour and non sexually explicit content will not require 2257 documents or the publisher putting up his name and address.

So what sponsors are prepared to buy these sets with the rights to distribute them to affiliates?

Would they prefer them sold to 5, 10 or unlimited number of sponsors?

So discuss and give me opinions please.

Might even do the same for webmasters but they can always just select the images they want to use.

Anyone got an opinion?

Paul Markham · 06-03-2005, 04:53 AM

No one even got an opinion on this?

Relish XXX · 06-03-2005, 04:59 AM

Sounds a plan. I guess America is still sleeping.

AaronM · 06-03-2005, 05:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Relish XXX

Sounds a plan. I guess America is still sleeping.

Sleep is for pussies.

Donny · 06-03-2005, 05:04 AM

It's too early in the morning over here, C.

AaronM · 06-03-2005, 05:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DonovanPhillips

It's too early in the morning over here, C.

It's 5am.

Quit being lazy.

Donny · 06-03-2005, 05:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AaronM

It's 5am.

Quit being lazy.

I'm trying to decide what to blog about.

Paul Markham · 06-03-2005, 05:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AaronM

Sleep is for pussies.

So why are you awake?

CHMOD · 06-03-2005, 06:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by charly

It seems to me that soft core, glamour and non sexually explicit content will not require 2257 documents or the publisher putting up his name and address.

So what sponsors are prepared to buy these sets with the rights to distribute them to affiliates?

Would they prefer them sold to 5, 10 or unlimited number of sponsors?

So discuss and give me opinions please.

Might even do the same for webmasters but they can always just select the images they want to use.

Anyone got an opinion?

This is also my opinion.

If americans can seriously think that former president Clinton did not have any sexual relationship with Miss Lewinsky because he only got a blowjob and did not fuck her...

I can't imagne how they could see ( or a lawyer could define ) porn in softcore images. ( Solo pics showing tits... even showing pussy )

Snake Doctor · 06-03-2005, 06:38 AM

It would have to be only tits and ass.....sexually explicit is defined as (among other things) "lewd exhibition of the genitals"

Lewd is pretty subjective, so if you were going to try and bypass record keeping by using "softcore" then I'd make sure no persons genitalia were shown at all.

Paul Markham · 06-03-2005, 06:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CHMOD

This is also my opinion.

If americans can seriously think that former president Clinton did not have any sexual relationship with Miss Lewinsky because he only got a blowjob and did not fuck her...

I can't imagne how they could see ( or a lawyer could define ) porn in softcore images. ( Solo pics showing tits... even showing pussy )

Right, I can go up to oral as it's not sex and I can call an ex President as a witness.

AaronM · 06-03-2005, 06:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by charly

So why are you awake?

I am busy watching you get your ass handed to you on another board.

chase · 06-03-2005, 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lenny2

It would have to be only tits and ass.....sexually explicit is defined as (among other things) "lewd exhibition of the genitals"

Lewd is pretty subjective, so if you were going to try and bypass record keeping by using "softcore" then I'd make sure no persons genitalia were shown at all.

I thought that the 2257 regs specifically exclude section E, which is the lewd exhibition of genitals, from requiring 2257 docs and records.

Paul Markham · 06-03-2005, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AaronM

I am busy watching you get your ass handed to you on another board.

Those guys are getting all upset because I will not change my license as they want. The guy making the most noise admits he did not read the bloody license.

They are trying to blame me as if it's my fault the US goverment just stuck a poker up their arses.

Paul Markham · 06-03-2005, 12:31 PM

Shooting soft core that is still erotic interests me more than what we normally shoot.

I learned to shoot glamour first, back in the days when you had to make it look horny without showing the cat, whoops I meant pussy.

It's a lot easier today and this could be a lucrative market, few can shoot erotic properly.

Paul Markham · 06-03-2005, 11:53 PM

Bumping it for some feedback.

Mutt · 06-04-2005, 12:04 AM

you can show pussy, as long as it isn't a 'lascivious' display of the genitals. Playboy style nudes, no labia display - that's not sexually explicit - not to a reasonable person - be he a judge or a member of a jury. of course in the climate the United States is in right now a girl in bikini bottoms with a little camel toe might be construed as a lascivious display of the genitals.

Mr.Fiction · 06-04-2005, 12:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by charly

It seems to me that soft core, glamour and non sexually explicit content will not require 2257 documents or the publisher putting up his name and address.

So what sponsors are prepared to buy these sets with the rights to distribute them to affiliates?

Would they prefer them sold to 5, 10 or unlimited number of sponsors?

So discuss and give me opinions please.

Might even do the same for webmasters but they can always just select the images they want to use.

Anyone got an opinion?

Why don't you try offering some sets and see who, if anyone, buys them?

Paul Markham · 06-04-2005, 12:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mutt

you can show pussy, as long as it isn't a 'lascivious' display of the genitals. Playboy style nudes, no labia display - that's not sexually explicit - not to a reasonable person - be he a judge or a member of a jury. of course in the climate the United States is in right now a girl in bikini bottoms with a little camel toe might be construed as a lascivious display of the genitals.

As I said I learned to shoot when the UK magazine nmarket was very soft. This is going to be interesting. I wonder how many sponsors are willing to pay a little extra to get a set they can hand out to 1,000s.

That's always been the problem in the past and why free content has such a bad rep. Saturated and/or cheap crap.

Paul Markham · 06-04-2005, 12:47 AM

The question is would pictures like these convert?

But shot in todays style of setting.

adonthenet · 06-04-2005, 12:54 AM

i hate this thing =\

dasexi1 · 06-04-2005, 02:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by charly

The question is would pictures like these convert?

yup they would convert, maybe not as well for extreme hardcore niches...
I convert non nude stuff all the time, I personally think it converts better,
My niche is big booty black girls so it's all about the ass and if the ass is right it doesn't have to be naked with a pussy shot. The only reason I even make galleries with nude pics of my girls is because a lot of tgp's insist on it.

On another note...I actually had a guy leave comments in my blog complaining that I didn't have enough non nude

Paul Markham · 06-04-2005, 02:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dasexi1

yup they would convert, maybe not as well for extreme hardcore niches...
I convert non nude stuff all the time, I personally think it converts better,
My niche is big booty black girls so it's all about the ass and if the ass is right it doesn't have to be naked with a pussy shot. The only reason I even make galleries with nude pics of my girls is because a lot of tgp's insist on it.

On another note...I actually had a guy leave comments in my blog complaining that I didn't have enough non nude

I* think I might have too pick up a camera and do some work. But we will start with a soft edit of a few sets, testing the water.

jayeff · 06-04-2005, 03:07 AM

I understand why you don't want (or feel unable) to give out full, uncensored ID's to all and sundry. If that is your decision, you will find out in the coming months what it may cost you.

Assuming that your threads around this topic are not just part of your usual marketing strategy, I think you are wasting your time apparently hoping to limit the effect with the argument that softcore can be used to promote anything. It's not that I disagree with you, but it's just such an old debate and the opposing sides have been entrenched in their positions for years.

I believe it will be several months, possibly a couple of years, before this all shakes out. The new regulations will have to stand up to challenges. We don't know how many content providers will offer fully 2257-compliant hardcore, at what price, or to whom. Arising from that may be privacy law suits, the outcome of which could change the picture again. We don't know how many affiliates will take the safest route and switch to text-only promotions, or how long before a lot of them discover their limitations at writing good text and shift back to content of some sort.

I think these are what the Chinese might refer to as "interesting times" and content providers/producers could be in for the most interesting times of all.

DWB · 06-04-2005, 03:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DonovanPhillips

I'm trying to decide what to blog about.

Donovan,
that girl that is posted with your 2257 blog is beautiful. The one you ask if you should give out her ID. Wow. That is exactly the kind of look that makes me weak in the knees.

V_RocKs · 06-04-2005, 03:46 AM

Only the last 2.. the others are basically dogs IMHO...

The first shows his.. oops.. her muff... So it is 2257.

So is anything where the pussy is visable through even opaque clothing. As in a camel toe pic.. even with SHORTS on....

Mutt · 06-04-2005, 04:02 AM

This is from an email from an 18 year old model who did her first test shoot for my shooter John today.

WAs curious why you needed the 3 pieces of ID and I just want to know how safe I will be doing this

If I sell this girl to a webmaster/program it will be in the contract that this girl's ID's not be given out to affiliates. I won't have it ever on my head that I played a part in a girl getting hurt. BUT the real answer is that she will be asked to go get a passport which doesn't feature any information that will lead to her residence - that's what producers/content providers should do, comply with 2257 but use ID's that give out nothing more than a name and photo.

Heiko · 06-04-2005, 06:53 AM

I'm a free site webmaster looking to switch over to all softcore images on my sites... i.e. erotic solo girl images where the pink is covered by a hand or clever posing, imagine early Playboy type stuff.

Produce a few sets with both hardcore and softcore versions and see how they sell... I'll be buying.

studio · 06-04-2005, 07:38 AM

charly,

I think it is the best way to fix the problem... When I shoot sets there is always content in the begining of the set that could be used without keeping 2257 records.

Also, if everyone was smart enough to only give this type of content away... IMHO sign ups would go up... There is just to many surfers out there using the free porn and nothing else. The porn pump has been primed... now is the time to cut back to just free softcore and make some real dollars!

The new 2257 could be the excuse to get those credit cards out of the cheap bastards pockets.

tradermcduck · 06-04-2005, 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heiko

I'm a free site webmaster looking to switch over to all softcore images on my sites... i.e. erotic solo girl images where the pink is covered by a hand or clever posing, imagine early Playboy type stuff.

Produce a few sets with both hardcore and softcore versions and see how they sell... I'll be buying.

Why not buy a hardcore set and only show the softcore pics of it ?!

Heiko · 06-04-2005, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tradermcduck

Why not buy a hardcore set and only show the softcore pics of it ?!

Because free sites usually have 20-30 images and it's very hard to find hardcore sets that have that many useful softcore images. Plus, I don't want to spend the time cropping and editing the hardcore images, it's not worth it for free sites.

I'm looking for nude pics, but with the pink covered. I've been searching for the past couple of weeks and haven't had much success. There's plenty of non-nude content and plenty of hardcore content, but very little softcore content available.

Snake Doctor · 06-04-2005, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mutt

that's what producers/content providers should do, comply with 2257 but use ID's that give out nothing more than a name and photo.

Having a date of birth on there would help just a bit don't ya think?

ModelPerfect · 06-04-2005, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chase

I thought that the 2257 regs specifically exclude section E, which is the lewd exhibition of genitals, from requiring 2257 docs and records.

I have yet to find that statement in the new regs, although it's in the old ones, and I don't feel confident the previous statement will still be in effect.

CURRENT 2257:
(h) As used in this section -
(1) the term ''actual sexually explicit conduct'' means actual
but not simulated conduct as defined in subparagraphs (A) through
(D) of paragraph (2) of section 2256 of this title;

The NEW 2257 makes no reference to either 2256 and seemingly does not exclude (e) which lists "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area ofany person". Can anybody provide reference to further discussion and/or clarification on this issue?

thepantyhamper · 06-04-2005, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lenny2

It would have to be only tits and ass.....sexually explicit is defined as (among other things) "lewd exhibition of the genitals"

Lewd is pretty subjective, so if you were going to try and bypass record keeping by using "softcore" then I'd make sure no persons genitalia were shown at all.

Lasivious display of the genitals is exempt from 2257. Only A-D defined in 2256 apply.

ModelPerfect · 06-04-2005, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thepantyhamper

Lasivious display of the genitals is exempt from 2257. Only A-D defined in 2256 apply.

Read my post just above yours

NTSS · 06-04-2005, 11:06 AM

Some nice pics in here....

SinisterStudios · 06-04-2005, 11:29 AM

I know im going to get my ass handed to me for this, but here goes. Wont the new 2257 regs get rid of alot of the free porn on the net (in the US that is) and actually help get the surfers to buy more? It might actually fix a problem we have all been screaming about for so long, that there is to much free porn out there. Dont get me wrong im not in favor of them 1 bit.
I could be wrong but this actually might make people more money, what does everyone else think?

stevo · 06-04-2005, 01:03 PM

Are content providers allowed to blur out the address on a models drivers license?

Heiko · 06-04-2005, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

Are content providers allowed to blur out the address on a models drivers license?

Not an issue for webmasters who only use content that doesn't require record keeping...

FilthyRob · 06-04-2005, 02:09 PM

Not much will help with the 2257 situation. I can see lots of people deleting and redirecting non compliate galleries and sites

FleshJoe2005 · 06-04-2005, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by charly

The question is would pictures like these convert?

But shot in todays style of setting.

These pics are hot and IMHO not requiring 2257 bookkeeping. You can even make your own FHG and then the problem is solved, for affiliates.

sweetcuties · 06-04-2005, 03:16 PM

For the past 5yrs or so, most of the stuff I submit and for my affiliates are non-nude/tease. Shit, even my sites are very soft... I have no problems converting

brand0n · 06-04-2005, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FleshJoe2005

These pics are hot and IMHO not requiring 2257 bookkeeping. You can even make your own FHG and then the problem is solved, for affiliates.

those are hot pics, but my hardcore traffic would laugh at that shit, and find it somewhere else.

spanky part 2 · 06-04-2005, 04:46 PM

I would love some softcore only content. I have a shitload of your content and am slowly going thru it to get softcore only.

If you have some softcore only sets please let me know.

[email protected]

Paul Markham · 06-05-2005, 12:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jayeff

I understand why you don't want (or feel unable) to give out full, uncensored ID's to all and sundry. If that is your decision, you will find out in the coming months what it may cost you.

Assuming that your threads around this topic are not just part of your usual marketing strategy, I think you are wasting your time apparently hoping to limit the effect with the argument that softcore can be used to promote anything. It's not that I disagree with you, but it's just such an old debate and the opposing sides have been entrenched in their positions for years.

I believe it will be several months, possibly a couple of years, before this all shakes out. The new regulations will have to stand up to challenges. We don't know how many content providers will offer fully 2257-compliant hardcore, at what price, or to whom. Arising from that may be privacy law suits, the outcome of which could change the picture again. We don't know how many affiliates will take the safest route and switch to text-only promotions, or how long before a lot of them discover their limitations at writing good text and shift back to content of some sort.

I think these are what the Chinese might refer to as "interesting times" and content providers/producers could be in for the most interesting times of all.

I agree with a lot of what you say.

The problem with handing out documents to all is going to hit both content providers and sponsors. The first models suing the big programs for giving their IDs to Joe Soap who lives around the block will come very soon (IMO) and cost sponsors a lot of money. The argument that the DOJ told them to give out IDs is so thin I doubt if a lawyer would give it.

Maybe the DOJ knew this and wrote the law to make sponsors slip up.

As for costing us business, well I'm not so sure. Bottom line is we shoot pretty good teen content that coverts very very well, we know from the stats here how well. So those looking for good content for a paysite or for frees sites to drive traffic will keep coming.

Sponsors will stop buying is the cry, well let them because affilistes who buy content will buy more. Let's face it sponsors who buy a $10 set and put it up as free content for 2 years are not a big part of the content buying market. They are not doing their new affilaites any help either, the newbies are being destroyed by getting old stuff that is totally saturated and where as it works for the sponsor it does not work for the affilaite.

No I believe that the 20% of affiliates driving 80% of the traffic realise the benefit of buying content and will continue to do so.

Whether soft core sells better than hardcore, this we will find out in the future. Most people say it does, but then post up hardcore. But with privacy issues and the new 2257 law this may change.

Paul Markham · 06-05-2005, 12:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mutt

This is from an email from an 18 year old model who did her first test shoot for my shooter John today.

WAs curious why you needed the 3 pieces of ID and I just want to know how safe I will be doing this

If I sell this girl to a webmaster/program it will be in the contract that this girl's ID's not be given out to affiliates. I won't have it ever on my head that I played a part in a girl getting hurt. BUT the real answer is that she will be asked to go get a passport which doesn't feature any information that will lead to her residence - that's what producers/content providers should do, comply with 2257 but use ID's that give out nothing more than a name and photo.

I think a lot of us will be looking very hard at our licenses. You could be liable for an "Invasion of Privacy" law suite if a model finds out. The first case will be the cruncher, if the shooter oand/or sponsor loses expect it to be followed by a flood of similar cases.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heiko

I'm a free site webmaster looking to switch over to all softcore images on my sites... i.e. erotic solo girl images where the pink is covered by a hand or clever posing, imagine early Playboy type stuff.

Produce a few sets with both hardcore and softcore versions and see how they sell... I'll be buying.

I'm going to be doing just that in the next few weeks, the price to sponsors with a license allowing distribution will be higher than to individual webmasters.

Let the sponsors give out their exclusive sets and saturate them, not my $10 sets.

Paul Markham · 06-05-2005, 12:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by studio

charly,

I think it is the best way to fix the problem... When I shoot sets there is always content in the begining of the set that could be used without keeping 2257 records.

Also, if everyone was smart enough to only give this type of content away... IMHO sign ups would go up... There is just to many surfers out there using the free porn and nothing else. The porn pump has been primed... now is the time to cut back to just free softcore and make some real dollars!

The new 2257 could be the excuse to get those credit cards out of the cheap bastards pockets.

I've already instructed Eva and Katka, the two other shooters, to shoot more softcore teasing pictures. The good stuff will be shot by me, they are both good shooters but I cut my teeth on softcore. Guess I will be board whoring a little less in the future.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SinisterStudios

I know im going to get my ass handed to me for this, but here goes. Wont the new 2257 regs get rid of alot of the free porn on the net (in the US that is) and actually help get the surfers to buy more? It might actually fix a problem we have all been screaming about for so long, that there is to much free porn out there. Dont get me wrong im not in favor of them 1 bit.
I could be wrong but this actually might make people more money, what does everyone else think?

Usually the guys doing the moaning are the ones sticking up the hardcore.

The future will be interesting.

Paul Markham · 06-05-2005, 12:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brand0n

those are hot pics, but my hardcore traffic would laugh at that shit, and find it somewhere else.

Will you be giving out models IDs to all who ask?

Quote:

Originally Posted by spanky part 2

I would love some softcore only content. I have a shitload of your content and am slowly going thru it to get softcore only.

If you have some softcore only sets please let me know.

[email protected]

Watch for our newsletters and expect an announcement shortly.

06-03-2005, 03:45 AM	#1
Paul Markham Too old to care Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: On the sofa, watching TV or doing my jigsaws. Posts: 52,943	Would this help solve some of problems with the 2257 situation? It seems to me that soft core, glamour and non sexually explicit content will not require 2257 documents or the publisher putting up his name and address. So what sponsors are prepared to buy these sets with the rights to distribute them to affiliates? Would they prefer them sold to 5, 10 or unlimited number of sponsors? So discuss and give me opinions please. Might even do the same for webmasters but they can always just select the images they want to use. Anyone got an opinion? __________________ Blowout deal. 880 videos, 2,400 image sets, plus many RAW videos. $500. PM me for a deal. Skype Paulmarkham70

06-03-2005, 04:53 AM	#2
Paul Markham Too old to care Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: On the sofa, watching TV or doing my jigsaws. Posts: 52,943	No one even got an opinion on this? __________________ Blowout deal. 880 videos, 2,400 image sets, plus many RAW videos. $500. PM me for a deal. Skype Paulmarkham70

06-03-2005, 04:59 AM	#3
Relish XXX Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: www.adultlabel.com Posts: 4,904	Sounds a plan. I guess America is still sleeping. __________________

06-03-2005, 06:38 AM	#10
Snake Doctor I'm Lenny2 Bitch Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: On top of my soapbox Posts: 13,449	It would have to be only tits and ass.....sexually explicit is defined as (among other things) "lewd exhibition of the genitals" Lewd is pretty subjective, so if you were going to try and bypass record keeping by using "softcore" then I'd make sure no persons genitalia were shown at all. __________________ sig too big

06-03-2005, 12:31 PM	#15
Paul Markham Too old to care Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: On the sofa, watching TV or doing my jigsaws. Posts: 52,943	Shooting soft core that is still erotic interests me more than what we normally shoot. I learned to shoot glamour first, back in the days when you had to make it look horny without showing the cat, whoops I meant pussy. It's a lot easier today and this could be a lucrative market, few can shoot erotic properly. __________________ Blowout deal. 880 videos, 2,400 image sets, plus many RAW videos. $500. PM me for a deal. Skype Paulmarkham70

06-03-2005, 05:04 AM	#5
Donny As you wish... Industry Role: Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 13,754	It's too early in the morning over here, C.

06-03-2005, 11:53 PM	#16
Paul Markham Too old to care Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: On the sofa, watching TV or doing my jigsaws. Posts: 52,943	Bumping it for some feedback. __________________ Blowout deal. 880 videos, 2,400 image sets, plus many RAW videos. $500. PM me for a deal. Skype Paulmarkham70

06-04-2005, 12:04 AM	#17
Mutt Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 34,431	you can show pussy, as long as it isn't a 'lascivious' display of the genitals. Playboy style nudes, no labia display - that's not sexually explicit - not to a reasonable person - be he a judge or a member of a jury. of course in the climate the United States is in right now a girl in bikini bottoms with a little camel toe might be construed as a lascivious display of the genitals. __________________ I moved my sites to Vacares Hosting. I've saved money, my hair is thicker, lost some weight too! Thanks Sly!

06-04-2005, 12:47 AM	#20
Paul Markham Too old to care Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: On the sofa, watching TV or doing my jigsaws. Posts: 52,943	The question is would pictures like these convert? But shot in todays style of setting. __________________ Blowout deal. 880 videos, 2,400 image sets, plus many RAW videos. $500. PM me for a deal. Skype Paulmarkham70

06-04-2005, 12:54 AM	#21
adonthenet Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 16,753	i hate this thing =\

06-04-2005, 03:07 AM	#24
jayeff Confirmed User Join Date: May 2001 Posts: 2,944	I understand why you don't want (or feel unable) to give out full, uncensored ID's to all and sundry. If that is your decision, you will find out in the coming months what it may cost you. Assuming that your threads around this topic are not just part of your usual marketing strategy, I think you are wasting your time apparently hoping to limit the effect with the argument that softcore can be used to promote anything. It's not that I disagree with you, but it's just such an old debate and the opposing sides have been entrenched in their positions for years. I believe it will be several months, possibly a couple of years, before this all shakes out. The new regulations will have to stand up to challenges. We don't know how many content providers will offer fully 2257-compliant hardcore, at what price, or to whom. Arising from that may be privacy law suits, the outcome of which could change the picture again. We don't know how many affiliates will take the safest route and switch to text-only promotions, or how long before a lot of them discover their limitations at writing good text and shift back to content of some sort. I think these are what the Chinese might refer to as "interesting times" and content providers/producers could be in for the most interesting times of all.

06-04-2005, 03:46 AM	#26
V_RocKs Damn Right I Kiss Ass! Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Cowtown, USA Posts: 32,409	Only the last 2.. the others are basically dogs IMHO... The first shows his.. oops.. her muff... So it is 2257. So is anything where the pussy is visable through even opaque clothing. As in a camel toe pic.. even with SHORTS on....

06-04-2005, 04:02 AM	#27
Mutt Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 34,431	This is from an email from an 18 year old model who did her first test shoot for my shooter John today. WAs curious why you needed the 3 pieces of ID and I just want to know how safe I will be doing this If I sell this girl to a webmaster/program it will be in the contract that this girl's ID's not be given out to affiliates. I won't have it ever on my head that I played a part in a girl getting hurt. BUT the real answer is that she will be asked to go get a passport which doesn't feature any information that will lead to her residence - that's what producers/content providers should do, comply with 2257 but use ID's that give out nothing more than a name and photo. __________________ I moved my sites to Vacares Hosting. I've saved money, my hair is thicker, lost some weight too! Thanks Sly!

06-04-2005, 06:53 AM	#28
Heiko Registered User Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Kansas City Posts: 84	I'm a free site webmaster looking to switch over to all softcore images on my sites... i.e. erotic solo girl images where the pink is covered by a hand or clever posing, imagine early Playboy type stuff. Produce a few sets with both hardcore and softcore versions and see how they sell... I'll be buying.

06-04-2005, 07:38 AM	#29
studio Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Oshkosh, WI ICQ #251860879 Posts: 1,095	charly, I think it is the best way to fix the problem... When I shoot sets there is always content in the begining of the set that could be used without keeping 2257 records. Also, if everyone was smart enough to only give this type of content away... IMHO sign ups would go up... There is just to many surfers out there using the free porn and nothing else. The porn pump has been primed... now is the time to cut back to just free softcore and make some real dollars! The new 2257 could be the excuse to get those credit cards out of the cheap bastards pockets. __________________

06-04-2005, 11:06 AM	#36
NTSS Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Da Hood Posts: 5,688	Some nice pics in here.... __________________ ICQ: 150-803-430 Email: marketing7(at)cox(dot)net

06-04-2005, 11:29 AM	#37
SinisterStudios Confirmed User Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: New Joisey Posts: 3,087	I know im going to get my ass handed to me for this, but here goes. Wont the new 2257 regs get rid of alot of the free porn on the net (in the US that is) and actually help get the surfers to buy more? It might actually fix a problem we have all been screaming about for so long, that there is to much free porn out there. Dont get me wrong im not in favor of them 1 bit. I could be wrong but this actually might make people more money, what does everyone else think? __________________ SEOIP.com Multiple IP Webhosting Shared and Dedicated IP's - Multiple Class A's - From $1.99/ip

06-04-2005, 01:03 PM	#38
stevo Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Orlando, Florida Posts: 2,051	Are content providers allowed to blur out the address on a models drivers license?

06-04-2005, 02:09 PM	#40
FilthyRob Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Anaheim - CA Posts: 6,741	Not much will help with the 2257 situation. I can see lots of people deleting and redirecting non compliate galleries and sites __________________ AKA - Clubsexy

06-04-2005, 03:16 PM	#42
sweetcuties Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Somewhere Posts: 5,859	For the past 5yrs or so, most of the stuff I submit and for my affiliates are non-nude/tease. Shit, even my sites are very soft... I have no problems converting __________________

06-04-2005, 04:46 PM	#44
spanky part 2 Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 1,981	I would love some softcore only content. I have a shitload of your content and am slowly going thru it to get softcore only. If you have some softcore only sets please let me know. [email protected]