2257 or .xxx which will it be? - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

ElvisManson · 06-06-2005, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Almighty Colin

The real battle will be with Visa

Very True.

rebel23 · 06-06-2005, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElvisManson

Very True.

EXACTLY. Visa will just say right, all adult sites have to be on .xxx, no .com or .net just like they ban certain words they will ban TLDs just as easily thus enforcing .xxx.

Of course this is in ICM's interest and notice they are employing all the sleazy DC lobbyists to help them advance their cause, soon they will set them loose on senators and on visa, just wait and see.

$70 for a domain , they are the scum of the earth in my book

xxxjay · 06-06-2005, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dopeman

as long as there is no retroactive action taken against affiliates who cannot now get the docs.

As it has been explained to me by an attorney there is no retroactivity with the new 2257. This is subject to debate and also the million dollar question.

Is a webpage published?

1. The day it goes live on the internet.
2. The day it goes live on the internet, then AGAIN ? when it is updates.
3. A webpage is published every time you log onto it.

From lawyers I have talked to, the DOJ will take the position that (3) ?A webpage is published every time you log onto it.?

Therefore retroactivity is moot.

GoodGuy · 06-06-2005, 04:07 PM

.xxx is scary... imagine if they force us to switch to .xxx and leave .com for non-adult purposes only...

what if i renewed 10 .com for 10 years (till 2015)?

will they force me to use only non-adult pages in these domains?

What if these domains contain adult words, like Fuck, shemale, sex, tit, pussy, etc?

dopeman · 06-06-2005, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xxxjay

As it has been explained to me by an attorney there is no retroactivity with the new 2257. This is subject to debate and also the million dollar question.

Is a webpage published?

1. The day it goes live on the internet.
2. The day it goes live on the internet, then AGAIN ? when it is updates.
3. A webpage is published every time you log onto it.

From lawyers I have talked to, the DOJ will take the position that (3) ?A webpage is published every time you log onto it.?

Therefore retroactivity is moot.

well i'm not sure the definition of 'publish' is key issue here. have secondary publishers always been required to maintain model IDs?:

Quote:

Finally, regarding personal
information about performers that must be transmitted to secondary
producers, the Department again notes, first, that such information is
already required by the current Part 75 regulations

so by publishing these new regulations, is this giving the DOJ the right to go back and force inspections on any secondary producer who ever published an image even of they have since taken them down before june 23rd?

if that's the case, sponsors are effectively leaving their affiliates out to dry by not giving out the proper documents.

FilthyRob · 06-06-2005, 04:19 PM

Your posts are always so well put Jay

xxxjay · 06-06-2005, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dopeman

well i'm not sure the definition of 'publish' is key issue here. have secondary publishers always been required to maintain model IDs?:

so by publishing these new regulations, is this giving the DOJ the right to go back and force inspections on any secondary producer who ever published an image even of they have since taken them down before june 23rd?

if that's the case, sponsors are effectively leaving their affiliates out to dry by not giving out the proper documents.

No. The new law redefines secondary producer.

Short answer to your second question is "yes", but it's not the sponsors hanging you. It is the goverment.

Answer to all questions is talk to a qualified lawyer. I have all of their numbers if you need them.

dopeman · 06-06-2005, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xxxjay

Short answer to your second question is "yes", but it's not the sponsors hanging you. It is the goverment.

Answer to all questions is talk to a qualified lawyer. I have all of their numbers if you need them.

well if that's the case, what can a lawyer tell me? if they can retroactively punish affiliates (even if they have taken down all images) we're just sitting ducks if the sponsors won't supply the docs. great.

Redrob · 06-06-2005, 08:01 PM

You have the power to kill both problems with your time, expertise, and money.

Go to: http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showthread.php?t=477622

For the answer.

thewebgarage · 06-06-2005, 08:57 PM

what about requiring a code in the metatag that labels the page as adult?

xxxjay · 06-07-2005, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thewebgarage

what about requiring a code in the metatag that labels the page as adult?

I had suggested that before - I think it is a great idea. Most people seemed to have slept on it though.

View Poll Results: Heavy 2257 enforcement or .xxx -- which would you rather deal with?
2257	31	47.69%
.xxx	34	52.31%
Voters: 65. You may not vote on this poll

06-06-2005, 04:19 PM	#56
FilthyRob Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Anaheim - CA Posts: 6,741	Your posts are always so well put Jay __________________ AKA - Clubsexy

06-06-2005, 08:57 PM	#60
thewebgarage Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: cali Posts: 1,002	what about requiring a code in the metatag that labels the page as adult? __________________ Big Boob trades icq 265907826

06-06-2005, 04:07 PM	#54
GoodGuy So Fucking Banned Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 881	.xxx is scary... imagine if they force us to switch to .xxx and leave .com for non-adult purposes only... what if i renewed 10 .com for 10 years (till 2015)? will they force me to use only non-adult pages in these domains? What if these domains contain adult words, like Fuck, shemale, sex, tit, pussy, etc?

06-06-2005, 08:01 PM	#59
Redrob Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: In a refrigerator box by the tracks. Posts: 4,791	You have the power to kill both problems with your time, expertise, and money. Go to: http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showthread.php?t=477622 For the answer.