TopBucks-Important 2257 Announcement - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

woj · 06-14-2005, 01:18 PM

50..........

Topbuxom Lea · 06-14-2005, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vitasoy

Time to do some banner editing.... But Topbucks has always been one of my favourite sponsors

Thanks Vitasoy-we appreciate everyone's loyalty and support as we continue biz as usual. FYI-new banners will be made available in both non-sexually explicit and sexually explicit versions for whichever you prefer to promote.

Fred Quimby · 06-14-2005, 02:13 PM

Could you guys make some more geo targeted ads as well?

Thanks homies

Paparazzi · 06-14-2005, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Topbuxom Lee

Maja-
We understand that as a non-US webmaster you may also have your own
country's laws to abide by that conflict with the U.S.C. 2257 regulations.
We are unable to offer you legal advice on your specific situation and
encourage you to contact a local attorney regarding your relationship with a
U.S. based affiliate program and the risks associated with either complying
or not complying with the U.S.C. 2257 regulations.

TopBucks is not in the business to police the internet for use of our
content, however we feel our solution does provide a simple way for both
U.S. and non-U.S. webmasters to comply with U.S.C. 2257 regulations.

Hope that answers your question.

So you are saying non-US webmaster can keep the old banners up on old galleries/freesites etc?
I guess you are aware of the problems for tgp submitters changing content on submitted galleries...

Topbuxom Lea · 06-14-2005, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fred Quimby

Could you guys make some more geo targeted ads as well?

Thanks homies

Fred-
Yes, we'll be creating geo-targeted 2257 compliant banners as well.
Many of these 2257 projects are longer term but we will be continuing to create more advertising tools that comply over the next several weeks.

Topbuxom Lea · 06-14-2005, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paparazzi

So you are saying non-US webmaster can keep the old banners up on old galleries/freesites etc?
I guess you are aware of the problems for tgp submitters changing content on submitted galleries...

Yes, we're aware that some TGPs require that submitted sites are not edited. However, we hope and encourage TGP owners to not punish those trying to comply.

ronaldo · 06-14-2005, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Topbuxom Lee

Yes, we're aware that some TGPs require that submitted sites are not edited. However, we hope and encourage TGP owners to not punish those trying to comply.

That's a touch naive of you, don't you think.

Have you met Shemp? He's a hardass. j/k

Topbuxom Lea · 06-14-2005, 03:42 PM

Must you always bust my non-existent balls?

Snake Doctor · 06-14-2005, 03:48 PM

This is a good way for an affiliate to end up in jail.

My 2 cents to all affiliates, seek immediate legal counsel and ask them if this solution is adequate for you to be in compliance.

I know that based on the counsel I have been given that a solution like this DOES NOT equal compliance with the law. You must have copies of the records on hand at your place of business, cross referenced with all urls the content appears on, along with a copy of the depiction, along with a few other things.

This may be a great solution for topbucks, but topbuck's lawyers aren't going to defend you in court for a 2257 violation nor will they serve your prison time if you're caught violating the regulations.

GET A LAWYER NOW if you haven't already. If you can't afford one then perhaps it's time to find a new hobby.

tony286 · 06-14-2005, 03:49 PM

The records if its in digital form or paper have to be at the producers place of business. not online. If your lawyer is wrong will topbucks be paying for legal representation of their affiliates? This isnt a oops its a fifty dollar fine its jail time.

Shap · 06-14-2005, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lenny2

This is a good way for an affiliate to end up in jail.

My 2 cents to all affiliates, seek immediate legal counsel and ask them if this solution is adequate for you to be in compliance.

I know that based on the counsel I have been given that a solution like this DOES NOT equal compliance with the law. You must have copies of the records on hand at your place of business, cross referenced with all urls the content appears on, along with a copy of the depiction, along with a few other things.

This may be a great solution for topbucks, but topbuck's lawyers aren't going to defend you in court for a 2257 violation nor will they serve your prison time if you're caught violating the regulations.

GET A LAWYER NOW if you haven't already. If you can't afford one then perhaps it's time to find a new hobby.

I couldn't have said it better. Topbucks seem to be the first company to come out with a solution that may screw affiliates that don't know better

bigdog · 06-14-2005, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony404

The records if its in digital form or paper have to be at the producers place of business. not online. If your lawyer is wrong will topbucks be paying for legal representation of their affiliates? This isnt a oops its a fifty dollar fine its jail time.

topbucks better have the OJ dream team and the Michael Jackson dream team for affiliates

3piece chicken Dinner · 06-14-2005, 04:00 PM

so I will not have the doc's for hardcore content at my place of business? Nor will I be able to access this database so I might cross reference my urls with the proper model info, by name, stage name ect. Unless the DOJ is at my door? And at that point if they let it all slide, I get to sit and prey that you have all the model info. I also get to hope you have it all in the neat and orderly fashion that the DOJ has requested. And by god I sure hope my work hours are the same as yours, heaven forbid my work hours fall outside yours and the DOJ shows up I make the call and I can't get ahold of someone.

TBH this doesn't appear to be close to a viable solution for a US webmaster.
I'm not trying to bust your balls here, but damn man this isn't even close.

A lot of programs have made decisions that are not popular, I would have prefered that you say your going to allow your hardcore to be used by non-us webmasters who can do so without violating any laws. And us webmasters will need to use complaint materials ( a.k.a Softcore) only. I for one would have not been insulted. The Business is tough. But I am afraid that this is going to further encourage a webmaster to make a grave error that neither your company nor his non existant attny will be able to save him from.

I like topbucks and will continue to support you and use softcore content to do so, but man o man this is a dangerous path to lead people down.

___________________________
This space NOT for Rent

Snake Doctor · 06-14-2005, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shap

I couldn't have said it better. Topbucks seem to be the first company to come out with a solution that may screw affiliates that don't know better

And the amount of people who don't know better is frightening.

I was reading a newbie board last night, and the MODERATOR/OWNER of the newbie board said this "Oh it's not just sexually explicit images that you need docs for, it's any image of anyone, so now CNN and Fox News will have to have a copy of the president's ID to publish a picture of him.....that's why this law won't hold up once it's challenged in court"

And all the newbs were falling in line and singing in tune with the chorus. It's fucking scary.

3piece chicken Dinner · 06-14-2005, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lenny2

And the amount of people who don't know better is frightening.

Lenny once again I can't agree enough. After posting my comment above I got to thinking. There were really only 3-4 ways to do this.

Give out Id's
Not Give out Id's

Those two can be made sense of.

give out altered id's ie. BrainCash. I like it, don't know if it will work, but I liked it.

OR say Fuck 'em Like OC Cash- which oddly enough still made a bit of sense.

All of the companies thus far exhibited that they had ( or their counsel) an understanding for this law.

I just can not fathom how they came to this decision. the more I think the more I feel it was a way to give the green light to non-us affiliates. I'm afraid in the process they may be confusing the situation for an unsuspecting webmaster who will feel, the program said it's ok so it must be ok.

Allison · 06-14-2005, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3piece chicken Dinner

so I will not have the doc's for hardcore content at my place of business?

If you have a computer at your place of business, you'll be able to access the documents.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3piece chicken Dinner

Nor will I be able to access this database so I might cross reference my urls with the proper model info, by name, stage name ect. Unless the DOJ is at my door?

We are cross referencing all urls submitted to our 2257 system by webmasters & all referring urls that have our images on them into our system. Soon you will have a section in your TopBucks account that shows all the cross referenced URLS and the images and corresponding episodes those images came from.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3piece chicken Dinner

And at that point if they let it all slide, I get to sit and prey that you have all the model info. I also get to hope you have it all in the neat and orderly fashion that the DOJ has requested.

Before the 23rd, all webmasters will have a public listing of all images & episodes registered in our 2257 database as compliant. We are providing access to attorneys, webmasters, and third party companies to audit our 2257 database and publicly post their comments as to our compliance. Our system is in a neat and orderly fashion. You can preview the database & organization level at http://www.topbucks2257.com/.

Also, there are additional features we will be creating in our system that we feel will help re-assure webmasters that all the data is in order.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3piece chicken Dinner

And by god I sure hope my work hours are the same as yours, heaven forbid my work hours fall outside yours and the DOJ shows up I make the call and I can't get ahold of someone.

The 1800# we are offering is a 24 HOUR service. It will be banned by 5 TopBucks employees 24 hours per day.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3piece chicken Dinner

I like topbucks and will continue to support you and use softcore content to do so, but man o man this is a dangerous path to lead people down.

This is exactly why we offered both the database solution and "non sexually explicit" content. We realize that some webmasters may not feel comfortable with the database solution and others will.

~Alli

__________________________

Allison · 06-14-2005, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lenny2

My 2 cents to all affiliates, seek immediate legal counsel and ask them if this solution is adequate for you to be in compliance.

Hi Lenny2, we encourage webmaster to seek their own legal advice about their individual situation and we also know each attorney will have different recommendations. Additionally, we encourage webmasters to learn more about the solution by previewing it at http://www.topbucks2257.com and contacting us regarding their questions so we may clarify any confusion as well as built additional features.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lenny2

I know that based on the counsel I have been given that a solution like this DOES NOT equal compliance with the law. You must have copies of the records on hand at your place of business, cross referenced with all urls the content appears on, along with a copy of the depiction, along with a few other things.

Section 75.2f Records required to be maintained under this part my be kept EITHER in hard copy OR in DIGTAL FORM, provided that they include scanned copies of forms of identifcation and that there is a custodian of records who can authentican each digital record.

Our database solution does include DIGITAL COPIES of all ID's which will be available at any of our webmasters' place of business upon investigation. All images will be cross referenced with each episode in our database & we will be scanning all referring urls and urls entered by our webmasters for these images in order to include the proper cross referencing of published urls. Copies of the depictions are also held within the database.

~Alli

New Hope · 06-14-2005, 05:37 PM

you seem to be conveniently omiting the portions of the law that make your solution non-feasible.

what idiot lawyer came up with this solution?

TheShark · 06-14-2005, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by New Hope

you seem to be conveniently omiting the portions of the law that make your solution non-feasible.

A strong statement not backed up by anything substantive. Just what "portions of the law" (surely, you meant "regulations?") did Allison omit that you contend make the TopBucks solution "non-feasible?" I, for one, am very curious to see your well informed and thoughtful legal analysis.

Quote:

Originally Posted by New Hope

what idiot lawyer came up with this solution?

An interesting conclusion that doesn't appear to be supported by anything substantive (Hmmm.. TWO statements by you in one post, both suffering from the same

).

Since you haven't had the opportunity to review their complete solution, on what fatual and legal bases do you stand in your contention that it doesn't/won't work?

garutch · 06-14-2005, 06:55 PM

2257 does not appear to require the primary producer to provide the secondary producer with records. But the secondary producer is still on the hook. See 75.2(3)(b) -- the secondary producer can satisfy 2257 if they have received records from the primary but there is no rule forcing the primary to produce records. Thus, the secondary producer is forced not to use content from primary's that do not produce records.

Topbucks gets credit for trying to think thru a solution. Its says alot about a business community that sticks together. Just remember that "at the end of the day" each producer subject to 2257 must keep their own records under 75.2(a) at the producer's place of business under 75.4. You either have the records or you do not. Have an audit done now and see where you stand. You'll sleep better. Good luck out there and stick together.

TheShark · 06-14-2005, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by garutch

2257 does not appear to require the primary producer to provide the secondary producer with records. But the secondary producer is still on the hook. See 75.2(3)(b) -- the secondary producer can satisfy 2257 if they have received records from the primary but there is no rule forcing the primary to produce records. Thus, the secondary producer is forced not to use content from primary's that do not produce records.

Topbucks gets credit for trying to think thru a solution. Its says alot about a business community that sticks together. Just remember that "at the end of the day" each producer subject to 2257 must keep their own records under 75.2(a) at the producer's place of business under 75.4. You either have the records or you do not. Have an audit done now and see where you stand. You'll sleep better. Good luck out there and stick together.

This is a common misconception... and misreading of the regulations. Section 75.4 states in relevant part, "Any producer required by this part to maintain records shall make such records available at the producer's place of business." What the regulations don't say is that the records shall be stored at the producer's place of business.

I know, I know, the responses to the comments make some noise about the records being located at a producer's place of business. But that is a purely antiquated, paper-centric view. The comment responses are viewed somewhat like legislative history. But the rules of statutory construction frown on reference to legislative history if the plain-language of the statute/regulation can provide an unambiguous interpretation.

But, what do I know... I only argue statutory construction in the Federal Circuits (so far, batting 1000).

dopeman · 06-14-2005, 08:09 PM

I noticed that Topbucks is not making documentation available for some of their content, and that content should not be used after June 23rd.

so in your estimation, if affiliates cannot get documentation for content they have used in the past, they are 'compliant' if they take it down before the 23rd and are not going to get zapped for pictures they have published in the past?

tony286 · 06-14-2005, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheShark

This is a common misconception... and misreading of the regulations. Section 75.4 states in relevant part, "Any producer required by this part to maintain records shall make such records available at the producer's place of business." What the regulations don't say is that the records shall be stored at the producer's place of business.

I know, I know, the responses to the comments make some noise about the records being located at a producer's place of business. But that is a purely antiquated, paper-centric view. The comment responses are viewed somewhat like legislative history. But the rules of statutory construction frown on reference to legislative history if the plain-language of the statute/regulation can provide an unambiguous interpretation.

But, what do I know... I only argue statutory construction in the Federal Circuits (so far, batting 1000).

Not having records digital or not in your place of business is nuts. The doj comes in : Your connection is down, the hosting facility is hit by a earthquake
Your best bet is to have them at your place of business on multiple computers if going the digital route. They are doing word play it has to be in your office period. Once again this isnt a fifty dollar fine ,its jail time.

kahnx · 06-15-2005, 06:07 AM

and how about cartoon/hentai content? must be comply with 2257 ?

ronaldo · 06-15-2005, 06:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony404

Not having records digital or not in your place of business is nuts. The doj comes in : Your connection is down, the hosting facility is hit by a earthquake
Your best bet is to have them at your place of business on multiple computers if going the digital route. They are doing word play it has to be in your office period. Once again this isnt a fifty dollar fine ,its jail time.

Don't get me wrong here. I certainly wouldn't want to be the one sitting in the courtroom in this situation.

However, do you truly believe that they would gain a conviction if you couldn't access documentation because there was an earthquake and your power was out? How would it make them look trying to convict someone in those circumstances? They're trying to "Protect our children", and the forces of nature could now play a part?

I'm not a lawyer by any stretch (thank god), but I still don't believe that once you walk into court showing the records that show, without a doubt, that the women in question are over 18, that they're going to win a conviction.

These regulations have so many holes in them it's beyond comprehension.

You can ONLY have one piece of ID associated with a model to prove that she is 18? Who's trying to protect our children? The DOJ, or the photographer that doesn't TRUST only one piece of ID and wants more proof?

I'm not sure what your privacy laws are like in the U.S. but eventually these regulations are going to have to be amended. They'll be around in one form or another, but some judge is going to see how ridiculous they are.

They're willing to risk the life of a model to protect our children? Fine. We all know it's only gonna take ONE idiot stalker out there to make these regs look bad. We've all focused on the safety of the model. What about the model's underage siblings who reside at the address on record for a particular model? Are they not the same children the DOJ says they're trying to protect? Are they gonna stand up and take responsibility if the 14 year old sister of a performer is raped and murdered? Or is it okay to now risk HER life because she's part of a performers FAMILY, no matter how oblivious they were to her occupation?

If the DOJ is serious about wanting to protect our children, as opposed to simply bringing down our industry, I ask this question one more time.

How many underage models have KNOWINGLY been shot by reputed members of our industry (Not CP slingers), since Traci Lords? I'm not aware of any. It seems the adult industry was pretty conscientious about keeping people under 18 out of our industry under the old 2257 regs...the ones that didn't force a violation of privacy on adult performers.

Sorry for the rant. This whole thing just makes me so damn angry.

Good job Topbucks.

Turf · 06-15-2005, 06:41 AM

Quote:

How many underage models have KNOWINGLY been shot by reputed members of our industry (Not CP slingers), since Traci Lords? I'm not aware of any. It seems the adult industry was pretty conscientious about keeping people under 18 out of our industry under the old 2257 regs...the ones that didn't force a violation of privacy on adult performers.

Alexandria quinn ? i think her name was... but then again you said Knowingly, so dont know if she counts or not.

QuaWee · 06-15-2005, 08:00 AM

thank you kindly

TheShark · 06-15-2005, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ronaldo

You can ONLY have one piece of ID associated with a model to prove that she is 18?

Thanks, Ronaldo, for bringing up this topic. I THOROUGHLY DISAGREE with my colleague who has put forth the

interpretation that you MAY keep ONLY ONE piece of identification. The accurate interpretation of the regulation is that a producer is required to keep AT LEAST ONE. Which is very different than saying ONLY ONE MAY be kept.

ronaldo · 06-15-2005, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheShark

Thanks, Ronaldo, for bringing up this topic. I THOROUGHLY DISAGREE with my colleague who has put forth the

interpretation that you MAY keep ONLY ONE piece of identification. The accurate interpretation of the regulation is that a producer is required to keep AT LEAST ONE. Which is very different than saying ONLY ONE MAY be kept.

Two lawyers with differing opinions? Bah, now I've seen everything.

garutch · 06-15-2005, 11:40 AM

I love the disagreements and interpretations. Reminds me of playing judge as a kid. So much of the meaningful interpretation will not take until this stuff is litigated. I disagree with Rob that the statute that says "shall make available" means the primary producer must GIVE the records to the secondary producer. It simply does not say that. If it does, then Topbucks solution is no good. Secondary producers will be sending demand letters to primary producers and this community will fall apart. Again, the only way to beat this type of record keeping obligation is for the community to come up with best practices like a Trustee.org type certification. Now is the time to find out who your real trusted partners are. And also to rely on good lawyers like Rob and JD.

andrej_NDC · 06-15-2005, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kahnx

and how about cartoon/hentai content? must be comply with 2257 ?

yeah, you must have IDs of the caricatures, to be sure they are over 18

xxxjay · 06-15-2005, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3piece chicken Dinner

Lenny once again I can't agree enough. After posting my comment above I got to thinking. There were really only 3-4 ways to do this.

Give out Id's
Not Give out Id's

Those two can be made sense of.

give out altered id's ie. BrainCash. I like it, don't know if it will work, but I liked it.

OR say Fuck 'em Like OC Cash- which oddly enough still made a bit of sense.

All of the companies thus far exhibited that they had ( or their counsel) an understanding for this law.

I just can not fathom how they came to this decision. the more I think the more I feel it was a way to give the green light to non-us affiliates. I'm afraid in the process they may be confusing the situation for an unsuspecting webmaster who will feel, the program said it's ok so it must be ok.

Believe me guys - Topbucks is a top notch program. They went to their lawyer, laid things out, and he came back to them with a plan and they announced it. There is so much gray area here -- that is why the difference in opinions.

One thing Ali is 110% correct on is get yourself a lawyer and talk to him to see how 2257 really applies to you. This is something 95% of you guys haven't done and there are about 10 guys in the US that I feel are qualified to talk about this. Email me [email protected] and I will be happy to give you their names and numbers.

Topbuxom Lea · 06-15-2005, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xxxjay

Believe me guys - Topbucks is a top notch program. They went to their lawyer, laid things out, and he came back to them with a plan and they announced it. There is so much gray area here -- that is why the difference in opinions.

One thing Ali is 110% correct on is get yourself a lawyer and talk to him to see how 2257 really applies to you. This is something 95% of you guys haven't done and there are about 10 guys in the US that I feel are qualified to talk about this. Email me [email protected] and I will be happy to give you their names and numbers.

Jay-
We always appreciate your support. Your advice to webmasters is wise and one that should be heeded.

TheShark · 06-15-2005, 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by garutch

I disagree with Rob that the statute that says "shall make available" means the primary producer must GIVE the records to the secondary producer. It simply does not say that.

I think you may have misunderstood me. I emphatically do NOT believe that the primary producer must give the records to secondaries. I strongly endorse the efforts of TopBucks who are making their records "available" at their secondaries businesses... very much like the offering from those brilliant lads over at 2257-compliance.com.

Shap · 06-16-2005, 11:58 AM

http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showthread.php?p=7577196

It's not too late for TopBucks to change their policy and not be misleading their affiliates.

06-14-2005, 01:18 PM	#51
woj <&(©¿©)&> Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 47,882	50.......... __________________ Custom Software Development, email: woj#at#wojfun#.#com to discuss details or skype: wojl2000 or gchat: wojfun or telegram: wojl2000 Affiliate program tools: Hosted Galleries Manager Banner Manager Video Manager Wordpress Affiliate Plugin Pic/Movie of the Day Fansign Generator Zip Manager

06-14-2005, 02:13 PM	#53
Fred Quimby Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Long Island, NY Posts: 5,430	Could you guys make some more geo targeted ads as well? Thanks homies __________________

06-14-2005, 03:42 PM	#58
Topbuxom Lea Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 1,313	Must you always bust my non-existent balls? __________________ Lea Marketing Miglet ICQ: 263003699 Topbucks/Pluginfeeds Twitter: @porntechgeek @TopBucksmobile @pinkvisual Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/imalespectrum

06-14-2005, 03:48 PM	#59
Snake Doctor I'm Lenny2 Bitch Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: On top of my soapbox Posts: 13,449	This is a good way for an affiliate to end up in jail. My 2 cents to all affiliates, seek immediate legal counsel and ask them if this solution is adequate for you to be in compliance. I know that based on the counsel I have been given that a solution like this DOES NOT equal compliance with the law. You must have copies of the records on hand at your place of business, cross referenced with all urls the content appears on, along with a copy of the depiction, along with a few other things. This may be a great solution for topbucks, but topbuck's lawyers aren't going to defend you in court for a 2257 violation nor will they serve your prison time if you're caught violating the regulations. GET A LAWYER NOW if you haven't already. If you can't afford one then perhaps it's time to find a new hobby. __________________ sig too big

06-14-2005, 06:55 PM	#70
garutch Registered User Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Bay Area Posts: 12	Maintaining your own records 2257 does not appear to require the primary producer to provide the secondary producer with records. But the secondary producer is still on the hook. See 75.2(3)(b) -- the secondary producer can satisfy 2257 if they have received records from the primary but there is no rule forcing the primary to produce records. Thus, the secondary producer is forced not to use content from primary's that do not produce records. Topbucks gets credit for trying to think thru a solution. Its says alot about a business community that sticks together. Just remember that "at the end of the day" each producer subject to 2257 must keep their own records under 75.2(a) at the producer's place of business under 75.4. You either have the records or you do not. Have an audit done now and see where you stand. You'll sleep better. Good luck out there and stick together. __________________ SIG TOO BIG! Maximum 120x60 button and no more than 3 text lines of DEFAULT SIZE and COLOR. Unless your sig is for a GFY top banner sponsor, you may use a 624x80 instead of a 120x60. Let me repeat... A 120 x 60 button and no more that 3 lines of DEFAULT SIZE AND COLOR text.

06-14-2005, 03:49 PM	#60
tony286 lurker Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: atlanta Posts: 57,021	The records if its in digital form or paper have to be at the producers place of business. not online. If your lawyer is wrong will topbucks be paying for legal representation of their affiliates? This isnt a oops its a fifty dollar fine its jail time.

06-14-2005, 04:00 PM	#63
3piece chicken Dinner Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: On your plate Posts: 1,065	so I will not have the doc's for hardcore content at my place of business? Nor will I be able to access this database so I might cross reference my urls with the proper model info, by name, stage name ect. Unless the DOJ is at my door? And at that point if they let it all slide, I get to sit and prey that you have all the model info. I also get to hope you have it all in the neat and orderly fashion that the DOJ has requested. And by god I sure hope my work hours are the same as yours, heaven forbid my work hours fall outside yours and the DOJ shows up I make the call and I can't get ahold of someone. TBH this doesn't appear to be close to a viable solution for a US webmaster. I'm not trying to bust your balls here, but damn man this isn't even close. A lot of programs have made decisions that are not popular, I would have prefered that you say your going to allow your hardcore to be used by non-us webmasters who can do so without violating any laws. And us webmasters will need to use complaint materials ( a.k.a Softcore) only. I for one would have not been insulted. The Business is tough. But I am afraid that this is going to further encourage a webmaster to make a grave error that neither your company nor his non existant attny will be able to save him from. I like topbucks and will continue to support you and use softcore content to do so, but man o man this is a dangerous path to lead people down. ___________________________ This space NOT for Rent

06-14-2005, 05:37 PM	#68
New Hope Registered User Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 15	you seem to be conveniently omiting the portions of the law that make your solution non-feasible. what idiot lawyer came up with this solution?

06-14-2005, 08:09 PM	#72
dopeman Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 294	I noticed that Topbucks is not making documentation available for some of their content, and that content should not be used after June 23rd. so in your estimation, if affiliates cannot get documentation for content they have used in the past, they are 'compliant' if they take it down before the 23rd and are not going to get zapped for pictures they have published in the past?

06-15-2005, 06:07 AM	#74
kahnx Registered User Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 4	and how about cartoon/hentai content? must be comply with 2257 ?

06-15-2005, 08:00 AM	#77
QuaWee Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: boogers Posts: 5,791	thank you kindly __________________ i luv mainstream

06-15-2005, 11:40 AM	#80
garutch Registered User Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Bay Area Posts: 12	Misinterpretation I love the disagreements and interpretations. Reminds me of playing judge as a kid. So much of the meaningful interpretation will not take until this stuff is litigated. I disagree with Rob that the statute that says "shall make available" means the primary producer must GIVE the records to the secondary producer. It simply does not say that. If it does, then Topbucks solution is no good. Secondary producers will be sending demand letters to primary producers and this community will fall apart. Again, the only way to beat this type of record keeping obligation is for the community to come up with best practices like a Trustee.org type certification. Now is the time to find out who your real trusted partners are. And also to rely on good lawyers like Rob and JD. __________________ SIG TOO BIG! Maximum 120x60 button and no more than 3 text lines of DEFAULT SIZE and COLOR. Unless your sig is for a GFY top banner sponsor, you may use a 624x80 instead of a 120x60. Let me repeat... A 120 x 60 button and no more that 3 lines of DEFAULT SIZE AND COLOR text.

06-16-2005, 11:58 AM	#85
Shap Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: May 2001 Posts: 8,313	http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showthread.php?p=7577196 It's not too late for TopBucks to change their policy and not be misleading their affiliates.