Free Speech Coalition meeting and remote 2257 server services

[Braincash Fred]

It seems that to be compliant, secondary producers are required to have the IDs & releases at their place of business. The question of remote server with IDs have been asked at the free speech coalition meeting today and all lawyers agreed that a remote server from a 3th party, can't be considered as your place of business. They compared this as doing business with a dentist or a doctor and assuming that you can use their office as your place of business. The 3 lawyers there concluded it was not a possible solution and that anyone who would recommend something like this is running into some serious troubles.

[DirtyRider]

Crazy indeed.

[European Lee]

Yeah but as long as the providers of these services make some money who cares who gets fucked over in the process

Regards,

Lee

[Jimbo]

so if I live in canada, I gotta have ids etc in canada at my business place but since my servers are in US I gotta go by the US laws?

wheres my business place Canada or US now?

[pornguy]

No matter what country you live in, if you are doing business with a US based business, then you better have 2257. The US will not stop at fucking with just US based companies.

[European Lee]

Originally Posted by pornguy

No matter what country you live in, if you are doing business with a US based business, then you better have 2257. The US will not stop at fucking with just US based companies.

Bush wants to liberate porn mongers and you saw what he did with Iraq

Regards,

Lee

[JimmiDean]

OMG I am about to be liberated ?

[baddog]

Originally Posted by Jimbo

so if I live in canada, I gotta have ids etc in canada at my business place but since my servers are in US I gotta go by the US laws?

wheres my business place Canada or US now?

that isn't what he said . . please try to keep up

[baddog]

Originally Posted by pornguy

No matter what country you live in, if you are doing business with a US based business, then you better have 2257. The US will not stop at fucking with just US based companies.

well, I would not go that far

[dopeman]

bump 888

[fetishpix]

Agreed.
It has to be YOUR own system.
This is what my2257.com is.

[GotGauge]

Not good for TopBucks affiliates, I think it is...

[kernelpanic]

Anyone considering relying on remote 2257 should be slapped. Seriously, with all the problems that servers and internet connections experience, keeping a local copy of everything (even if in digital form) is essential. Remote backup is a good idea, but keeping everything remote isn't in an atmosphere which presumes us guilty until we prove otherwise.

[MandyBlake]

that's what i figured.

[TheShark]

Originally Posted by Braincash Fred

It seems that to be compliant, secondary producers are required to have the IDs & releases at their place of business. The question of remote server with IDs have been asked at the free speech coalition meeting today and all lawyers agreed that a remote server from a 3th party, can't be considered as your place of business. They compared this as doing business with a dentist or a doctor and assuming that you can use their office as your place of business. The 3 lawyers there concluded it was not a possible solution and that anyone who would recommend something like this is running into some serious troubles.

Maybe they should re-read the regulations...

[TheShark]

Originally Posted by kernelpanic

Anyone considering relying on remote 2257 should be slapped. Seriously, with all the problems that servers and internet connections experience, keeping a local copy of everything (even if in digital form) is essential. Remote backup is a good idea, but keeping everything remote isn't in an atmosphere which presumes us guilty until we prove otherwise.

Any producer who provides model id records to its affiliates without the models' permissions is seriously courting trouble. IMHO, any attorney who advises his client to provide those records to affiliates should immediately call his malpractice insurer and up his policy limits to the absolute maximum he can get.

[Hank_Heartland]

Originally Posted by TheShark

Any producer who provides model id records to its affiliates without the models' permissions is seriously courting trouble. IMHO, any attorney who advises his client to provide those records to affiliates should immediately call his malpractice insurer and up his policy limits to the absolute maximum he can get.

This is really starting to be a 2257 catch22. You are damned if you give the rec ords to affiliates and you are damned if you don't. God forbid somethig should happen to one of these girls because you gave there info to wacked out fuckin affiliate you never even met. Remember the pornstar killed by that crazy photographer out east. I wish someone would figure out what people are supposed to do.

Damn, there are little guys out here that it will take all their time just to do this 2257 shit It seem to me the only way to handle this shit is to just use softcore pics and by pass this shit

[TheShark]

Originally Posted by Hank_Heartland

This is really starting to be a 2257 catch22. You are damned if you give the rec ords to affiliates and you are damned if you don't. God forbid somethig should happen to one of these girls because you gave there info to wacked out fuckin affiliate you never even met. Remember the pornstar killed by that crazy photographer out east. I wish someone would figure out what people are supposed to do.

Yep. That's the problem in a nutshell. Except... there are two schools of thought on whether a producer is required to give model ids to affiliates. I am in the school that says they don't have to.

[Braincash Pat]

Thanks for the precisions Fred.

Its hard to keep up with all the BS on diffrent boards. For once it comes from the lawyers.

[Shap]

Originally Posted by Braincash Fred

It seems that to be compliant, secondary producers are required to have the IDs & releases at their place of business. The question of remote server with IDs have been asked at the free speech coalition meeting today and all lawyers agreed that a remote server from a 3th party, can't be considered as your place of business. They compared this as doing business with a dentist or a doctor and assuming that you can use their office as your place of business. The 3 lawyers there concluded it was not a possible solution and that anyone who would recommend something like this is running into some serious troubles.

Hey Fred are you sure model releases are required? I heard some of the FSC lawyers are saying Secondary procuders only require Model Ids and the Date of production. No releases necessary.

[Sly]

Originally Posted by GotGauge

Not good for TopBucks affiliates, I think it is...

No shit. I'm deleting all my Top Bucks stuff this weekend.

They are the only company I have seen as of yet offer and recommend a third party system. I sure hope other webmasters realize that.

[dopeman]

it's absolutely astonishing to me that some of the largest sponsors in this industry (who can afford top legal counsel) are coming to completely different interpretations of these regulations. i wonder if you ask 5 lawyers how to comply with this if you would get 5 different answers.

[V_RocKs]

Originally Posted by dopeman

it's absolutely astonishing to me that some of the largest sponsors in this industry (who can afford top legal counsel) are coming to completely different interpretations of these regulations. i wonder if you ask 5 lawyers how to comply with this if you would get 5 different answers.

More importantly... 5 different bills... just like Y2K... Only more expensive and time consuming.

[Centurion]

Is the injunction being filed this Friday (tomorrow) as planned?

[baddog]

Originally Posted by dopeman

it's absolutely astonishing to me that some of the largest sponsors in this industry (who can afford top legal counsel) are coming to completely different interpretations of these regulations. i wonder if you ask 5 lawyers how to comply with this if you would get 5 different answers.

Of course you would get 5 different opinions. Even the 3 attorneys on the panel in SD did not agree completely.

That is the thing about laws, they are subject to interpretation, which is why we have the Appellate and Supreme Courts

[baddog]

Originally Posted by Centurion

Is the injunction being filed this Friday (tomorrow) as planned?

They would not say when or where, but they implied this week, however, they also stressed that even if the injunction was granted this does not mean that the new regs do not go into affect.

[FightThisPatent]

Originally Posted by Braincash Fred

... all lawyers agreed that a remote server from a 3th party, can't be considered as your place of business. They compared this as doing business with a dentist or a doctor and assuming that you can use their office as your place of business. The 3 lawyers there concluded it was not a possible solution and that anyone who would recommend something like this is running into some serious troubles.

I asked this question at that panel because i have talked to a couple of companies who are creating 2257 compliant databases and have been getting legal opinions that you could have a remote server/database manage the records.

It was good to get some consensus from the attornies on this issue, and i hope that all those bright software developers who are going down the path of developing/releasing 2257 software based on the idea of remote database should get a second legal opinion.

it was clear to me, based on Clyde's and JD's viewpoint as defense attornies, that the DOJ may want to seize records and computers.. and thus the requirement and absolute necessity to have your electronic 2257 records on a dedicated machine, in case they decide they want to take the whole thing.

Fight the third opinion!

[AlienQ - BANNED FOR LIFE]

I got a 2257 Program to and its called MS Excell...
Bill Gates wrote it for me.

[Mr.Fiction]

Originally Posted by FightThisPatent

I asked this question at that panel because i have talked to a couple of companies who are creating 2257 compliant databases and have been getting legal opinions that you could have a remote server/database manage the records.

It was good to get some consensus from the attornies on this issue, and i hope that all those bright software developers who are going down the path of developing/releasing 2257 software based on the idea of remote database should get a second legal opinion.

it was clear to me, based on Clyde's and JD's viewpoint as defense attornies, that the DOJ may want to seize records and computers.. and thus the requirement and absolute necessity to have your electronic 2257 records on a dedicated machine, in case they decide they want to take the whole thing.

Fight the third opinion!

I assume this refers to sponsors who are offering remote 2257 data to their affiliates? Couldn't you have local software that just imports the relevant data from the remote database to your local machine for the images/models you're using?

What is the main point of using a remote database in the first place other than centralized distribution of the data by sponsors?

[FightThisPatent]

Originally Posted by Mr.Fiction

I assume this refers to sponsors who are offering remote 2257 data to their affiliates? Couldn't you have local software that just imports the relevant data from the remote database to your local machine for the images/models you're using?

the point i was addressing was on the content producer (primary record keepers) side.

for webmasters (secondary record keepers), having a link for affiliates to point to for the 2257 info, probably falls into the same scope of my question, that following the regulations of the amended 2257 would mean having to have the model ID/2257 docs locally to the business.

for the original 2257 regulations, linking to a remote server for the model ID would seem to be practical and in compliance and makes sense to me, since acording to the original 2257 regulations, the webmaster's job was to be able to point to the source of where they acquired the images, and then DOJ would go there to investigate.

one of the interpretations of why they shifted additional burden onto webmasters is that they feel content producers are historically hiding behind shell corporations and hiding from IRS, so therefore finding them and the records may be harder (this point was actually addressed in the DOJ comments).

so if some sponsor programs are providing links into their system for the records, it still is in this dark gray area of whether that is ok. i believe the general consensus is that it's not, but there are some attorneys who believe that to be true.

it's going to take some inspections starting (presumably) next week, in order to test out all these theories.


Fight the who can it be knocking at my door?!

[FightThisPatent]

One comment that i found very interesting from the attorneys on the panel is they said that web designers could be considered secondary recordkeepers.

I have never heard this before, but here is my take on why they might have said this.

A related issue that was brought up (going down a tangent) was what if you took an image that was sexually explicit, and then you cropped out the "bad" part, and just showed what would appear to be not sexually explicit.

Technically, that image still requires 2257 documentation, because the law reads that documentation must go with sexually explicit images...

therefore, if sexually explicit images are given to a web designer, who crops out the 'bad" parts and creates a new work, they must have the documentation.

This new revelation about web designers having to have documentation is quite odd to me, since web designers don't publish the work, they hand it over to the company that contacted with them, and the website owner would be the secondary record keeper.

Clyde DeWitt brought up the reference about firms that designed VHS box covers had to address the 2257 issue.

I haven't found clarification yet for this new issue since i am stil decompressing from the show, but i will try to find some clarifications on this issue.

I don't think this to be a panic issue, since the focus by DOJ is probably more so on the website side, and that the points brought up by the attorneys was a very technical and legal viewpoint.


Fight the If you dream about sexually explicit images then you are a secondary producer!

[AlienQ - BANNED FOR LIFE]

Aint that a fucken bitch FTP???
Fucken christ.

[Braincash Fred]

Originally Posted by TheShark

Maybe they should re-read the regulations...

Between you who is protecting yourself in your signature and 3 free speach coalition lawyers, I will select what the 3 free speach lawyers are suggesting.

There is no way your business place can be at the hosting facilities even if you buy a server at the hosting facilities. If it's your own hosting company then they said it's possible.

It also have been discussed that releasing ID to a 3th party with a non disclosure agreement is valid. Any girl that shoot in porn movie should expect that in the course of regular business their information will be provided to a thirth party. Of course giving them away on the web for any reason is not legal.

[fraggle]

we are organising a chat with FSC president in a couple hours
for those interested

http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showthread.php?t=481500

[Braincash Fred]

Originally Posted by fraggle

we are organising a chat with FSC president in a couple hours
for those interested

http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showthread.php?t=481500

Michelle is really nice and it worth attending for sure but it would have been way better to have the same with the Free Speech lawyers like in San Diego

[pstation]

Originally Posted by AlienQ

I got a 2257 Program to and its called MS Excell...
Bill Gates wrote it for me.

MS Access would be better

[fraggle]

Originally Posted by Braincash Fred

Michelle is really nice and it worth attending for sure but it would have been way better to have the same with the Free Speech lawyers like in San Diego

yeah should be a good one

kicks off in 30 mins

[Raven]

It is my understanding, from that meeting...that the ONLY time a remote server is of use...is for BACKING up.....copies.....in case your shit is seized....

For instance..my records are at my place of business....that doesn't mean to say I cannot have a back up COPY on a server.

Thanks for the info....You guys were awesome at the show...

[Barefootsies]

Originally Posted by Braincash Fred

It seems that to be compliant, secondary producers are required to have the IDs & releases at their place of business. The question of remote server with IDs have been asked at the free speech coalition meeting today and all lawyers agreed that a remote server from a 3th party, can't be considered as your place of business. They compared this as doing business with a dentist or a doctor and assuming that you can use their office as your place of business. The 3 lawyers there concluded it was not a possible solution and that anyone who would recommend something like this is running into some serious troubles.

It's about time sire.

[Braincash Fred]

Originally Posted by FightThisPatent

it was clear to me, based on Clyde's and JD's viewpoint as defense attornies, that the DOJ may want to seize records and computers.. and thus the requirement and absolute necessity to have your electronic 2257 records on a dedicated machine, in case they decide they want to take the whole thing.

Fight the third opinion!

Nothing is again't having your records back up on a remote server and it makes a lot of sense. But having the infos on files at your business place is mendatory. The governement will never wait until you get the ID downloaded... They want to come at your door, aks for them and leave with them for further analyse. You need to have everything on file and ready to go.

[Braincash Fred]

Originally Posted by Raven

It is my understanding, from that meeting...that the ONLY time a remote server is of use...is for BACKING up.....copies.....in case your shit is seized....

For instance..my records are at my place of business....that doesn't mean to say I cannot have a back up COPY on a server.

Thanks for the info....You guys were awesome at the show...

You are right and it's funny to see that a "lawyer" don't even understand this

[TheShark]

Originally Posted by Braincash Fred

You are right and it's funny to see that a "lawyer" don't even understand this

The proper grammatical statement would be, "You are right and it's funny to see that a "lawyer" doesn't even understand this."
But, I suspect, your native language is Quebecouis. As such, you aren't able to properly understand English. Which, of course, confirms that you can't properly understand the plain language of the English language regulation stated at 28 CFR Part 75. N'est-ce pas?
(Je suis Acadienne. <grin>)

[mcmc]

Originally Posted by TheShark

The proper grammatical statement would be, "You are right and it's funny to see that a "lawyer" doesn't even understand this."
But, I suspect, your native language is Quebecouis. As such, you aren't able to properly understand English. Which, of course, confirms that you can't properly understand the plain language of the English language regulation stated at 28 CFR Part 75. N'est-ce pas?
(Je suis Acadienne. <grin>)

Get a designer for your website

[mcmc]

Interesting thread! Im with TheShark. Its just too dangerous to give away those IDs to webmasters. Maybe some of them will give it away to their customers? You never know and once everyone has those IDs, you cant control the situation anymore. Its too late then.