Someone called DOJ. From another board

[MrPinks]

Supposedly someone called the DOJ. Here is the transcript

Now the scary part is this:
> I asked about linking sites. Where they just linked
> to, but showed NO
> Images what so ever. They said since they were
> promoting the site,
> which would in turn increase sales and revenues of
> the images on the
> site they were linking to, then they also had to
> have the
> information. They were providing advertising and
> marketing in order
> to increase traffic to, and increased exposure or
> sales. So they fell
> under the secondary producer role and the primary
> sites would have to
> make sure they had all the information and kept it
> updated for them.

I don't know how true it is but if it is true, most of us are fucked. Most affiliate programs are not giving out docs and simply going softcore. So therefore we do not have docs for their models. So we won't be able to promote them with text links? This shit is driving me nuts.

So, if you run a adult search engine or link list and the DOJ comes crashing through your door but you don't have the docs because you only use text links, you are screwed. You will go to jail and be labelled a sex offender for the rest of your life. This is soo fucked up.

[chadglni]

Ummmmmmmmm

[modF]

Google is goign to totally have thier hands full w/ this one if you need to have id's for linking to adult sites.....

[MrPinks]

I'm sure Google will work out some kind of "deal" witrh the DOJ.

[fusionx]

Originally Posted by MrPinks

Supposedly someone called the DOJ. Here is the transcript

Now the scary part is this:
> I asked about linking sites. Where they just linked
> to, but showed NO
> Images what so ever. They said since they were
> promoting the site,
> which would in turn increase sales and revenues of

This must have to do with the part about "conspiracy" to publish images, depictions, what-have-you. There were a few articles that mentioned this briefly. It's so broadly written the DOJ can make just about any claim, and on it's face, it seems possible. Whether it would ever hold up in court is an entirely different matter.

[InsaneMidget]

So are ISP's responsible for allowing surfers online to use linklists that promote sites as well? It's getting very gay...

[Spunky]

Well ..until I hear people are starting to go down..I aint doing shit

[wtfent]

The world must be ending. Next all the fish in the sea will die and then massive earth quakes will come and then fires. We are all going to fucking dieeeeee. ahhhhhhhh shit.

[wtfent]

Its funny. I was watching that old ass movie the 7 commandments or something like that. The 7 signs maybe. Thats what made me think about the earthquakes and dead fish. So like 2257 can be the 8th sign.

[GatorB]

Calling the DOJ and expecting the right or honest answers is like calling the IRS for tax advice. It's usually wrong.

[tony286]

I wonder if you called them to set up a viewing of your records, that you wanted to be compliant : A : would they show up ? B: if they did andthere was a problem would they arrest for clercial errors?

[pornguy]

I dont think that it would hold up, so I dont think that they will try it.

[riddler]

amazing, so now the Department of Justice is one person that you can just call and get free random legal advice? Amazing.. Please hook me up with this number so i can avoid the middle man (lawyers)

</sarcasm>

[seeric]

more propaganda

tired of this 2257 shit. get compliant. play their fucking game, which is obviously a tool for a hidden agenda and massive lobbying by christian activists.

thats the only way. they hold the power to lock up anyones ass, regardless.

if they cant get you on 2257, they can always pull out the patriot act.

[tony286]

Originally Posted by riddler

amazing, so now the Department of Justice is one person that you can just call and get free random legal advice? Amazing.. Please hook me up with this number so i can avoid the middle man (lawyers)

</sarcasm>

That would make sense you can call the irs for help with their regs

[MrPinks]

So... Any opinion if this will really effect text links/link list sites or not? Guys like Green Guy and other huge link lists would have their hands full trying to get records and most big sponsors are not giving out the docs. I wish there was a clear definition of the law in this case. If there is an injuction or restraining order then this will actually put us in the dark about what to do for a few more months.

[MrPinks]

Originally Posted by A1R3K

more propaganda

tired of this 2257 shit. get compliant. play their fucking game, which is obviously a tool for a hidden agenda and massive lobbying by christian activists.

thats the only way. they hold the power to lock up anyones ass, regardless.

if they cant get you on 2257, they can always pull out the patriot act.

But if this turns out to be true about using text links, most sites cannot become compliant. Some of the big producers are not giving out docs. Plus, you would need info on the sites you exchange links with. This is fucking rediculous.

Anyone have a place for me to crash in Canada?

[Mr.Fiction]

If Howard Stern mentions an adult site on his radio show, he has to have all of the 2257 for all models on the site because he might send some traffic there?



I doubt this thread is serious.

[pr0]

Bullshit

[digifan]

Originally Posted by pr0

Bullshit

[riddler]

Originally Posted by tony404

That would make sense you can call the irs for help with their regs

since this is a message board its real hard to tell if youre being sarcastic, I really hope you are, because the IRS hasnt helped my brother with a person filing his tax return in another state, first year they said it was fixed and little does he know this year again the guy filed it again, fuck the irs and their help

[Jace]

if what they are saying about linking to explicit sites is true, and they do decide to come after people, we are looking at the end of an era in porn and affiliate promotions...plain and simple

[taibo]

bullshit indeed

[MrPinks]

Originally Posted by JaceXXX

if what they are saying about linking to explicit sites is true, and they do decide to come after people, we are looking at the end of an era in porn and affiliate promotions...plain and simple

Which is exactually what the DOJ wants to do, Shut down the adult industry

[JD]

how much money would the Gov lose if the porn biz died? Think about it. What cut does uncle sam get from taxes n shit from porn? A LOT if you ask me.

If drugs could be tracked and taxed without the religious whack-jobs spazing the fuck out you bet your ass that they'd be legal!

[dopeman]

Originally Posted by SPeRMiNaToR

If drugs could be tracked and taxed without the religious whack-jobs spazing the fuck out you bet your ass that they'd be legal!

why can't they be tracked and taxed?

[WiredGuy]

Talk to someone who can represent your interests, not the DOJ's. That's like asking your enemy's attorney for legal advice.
WG

[dopeman]

Originally Posted by WiredGuy

Talk to someone who can represent your interests, not the DOJ's. That's like asking your enemy's attorney for legal advice.
WG

agreed, however that answer demonstrates just how broad their definition of 'secondary producer' is. text links. that would also include text ads. if you send ANY traffic to the sponsor, you are a secondary producer regardless if the click is on an image or a text link.

in reality this is horseshit, but it's very telling just how aggressive they are being with their interpretations.

[MrPinks]

So would the major search engines be "an exception"?

[IPK]

Originally Posted by MrPinks

So would the major search engines be "an exception"?

who cares, their enemy is porn, they're clearly not going to utilize these laws to go after google

[Nightwind]

This is pure bullshit as mentioned several times before.

[MrPinks]

Originally Posted by Nightwind

This is pure bullshit as mentioned several times before.

What is your proof that this is bullshit. Do you mean that the call to the DOJ is bullshit or are you simply stating that these regs. are bullshit. I don't want to sound like an ass but I just was wondering what you meant because I hope, like many other, that this call to the DOJ is just that, pure bullshit and text links are still good to use without docs.

[Dameian]

One toke. You poor fool. Wait till you see those goddamn bats.

[MrPinks]

Originally Posted by Dameian

One toke. You poor fool. Wait till you see those goddamn bats.

[GonZo]

Originally Posted by riddler

amazing, so now the Department of Justice is one person that you can just call and get free random legal advice? Amazing.. Please hook me up with this number so i can avoid the middle man (lawyers)

</sarcasm>

I bet Brad Shaw has it along with his contact at the FBI in Dallas!

[DWB]

I'd sell out now.

[Dameian]

Ha! Extremely funny to see Gonzo post right after I quote Hunter Thompson.

[Dameian]

"18 U.S.C. 2257 does not apply to all erotic content. First, 2257 is limited to 'visual
depictions,' so wholly textual works are excluded from its regulatory scope.

As quoted from "THE 2257 CLIENT HANDBOOK: A Guide to Complying with the Federal
Record Keeping and Labeling Laws in 2005" by First Amendment Attorneys Paul J. Cambria, Jr. Roger W. Wilcox, Jr.

------------------------------------------------

Beyond that, here are my personal thoughts. As worthless as they may be in an environment where people are typically more concerned about having their say in a "Would you hit it!" thread than one that actually has significance to our industry's future:

1. Not al TGPs profit from all text links on their site. Therefore the "conspiracy" argument is at least partially flawed and difficult to define/enforce.

2. Do you have any idea of how much such an interpretation of this regulation treads on the First Amendment? If not. Wow.

3. When trying to set a precedence, the key is to avoid as much grey area as possible. Text links to other sites with text descriptions (once again falling under free speech) presents quite a lot of grey matter to deal with for the DOJ. They are not, at least initially, going to target text based sites.

4. You can not rightfully expect to call an attorney on the opposing end of a legal battle and hear anything other than distressing rhetoric aimed at demoralizing you and your cause. What do you expect them to say? "No, no Mr. Pornographer don't worry... you're doing GREAT! Keep at it and good luck!"

[Dameian]

And plus...

5. Palpatine like TOTALLY told Luke that the rebellion would be crushed... but like.. they totally won!!!

[TheJimmy]

Originally Posted by chadglni

Ummmmmmmmm

I was thinking the same thing...


Seriously, I bet they can scew that text link issue to explicit content under some RICO laws, it's what I've been thinking for years now...

One of the main reasons I haven't sent to any nude join pages or explicit hardcore sites in ages...


shitty, but if they wanted to press it and argue it, it could be done...esp in this current political climate...


. :/

[iwantchixx]

I'm guessing this is all bullshit.

Like fuck I would put up with a government telling me how to name my files, that I can't remove images and videos from my server once I'm done with them and when I can link to someone.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by MrPinks

I'm sure Google will work out some kind of "deal" witrh the DOJ.

lmfao, Google is the DOJ. They're not going to be the ones in court over this.

[MrPinks]

Originally Posted by Dameian

"18 U.S.C. 2257 does not apply to all erotic content. First, 2257 is limited to 'visual
depictions,' so wholly textual works are excluded from its regulatory scope.

As quoted from "THE 2257 CLIENT HANDBOOK: A Guide to Complying with the Federal
Record Keeping and Labeling Laws in 2005" by First Amendment Attorneys Paul J. Cambria, Jr. Roger W. Wilcox, Jr.

------------------------------------------------

Beyond that, here are my personal thoughts. As worthless as they may be in an environment where people are typically more concerned about having their say in a "Would you hit it!" thread than one that actually has significance to our industry's future:

1. Not al TGPs profit from all text links on their site. Therefore the "conspiracy" argument is at least partially flawed and difficult to define/enforce.

2. Do you have any idea of how much such an interpretation of this regulation treads on the First Amendment? If not. Wow.

3. When trying to set a precedence, the key is to avoid as much grey area as possible. Text links to other sites with text descriptions (once again falling under free speech) presents quite a lot of grey matter to deal with for the DOJ. They are not, at least initially, going to target text based sites.

4. You can not rightfully expect to call an attorney on the opposing end of a legal battle and hear anything other than distressing rhetoric aimed at demoralizing you and your cause. What do you expect them to say? "No, no Mr. Pornographer don't worry... you're doing GREAT! Keep at it and good luck!"

Thanks for the post!
18 U.S.C. 2257 does not apply to all erotic content. First, 2257 is limited to 'visual depictions,' so wholly textual works are excluded from its regulatory scope. But has this all changed?

[LiveDose]

Originally Posted by spunky

Well ..until I hear people are starting to go down..I aint doing shit

what if you're first...?

[ricks]

i doubt that the doj would comment on the law (and particularly a grey area of the law, linking to images) over the phone or tell you what is compliant or not

[SGS]

Just reading some of these posts makes you realize that the US DOJ must be rubbing their hands and laughing hysterically as they wait to get started.

[Dameian]

No, the proposed regulation has not changed. These regulations were released last month, and they have not been altered by the DOJ. It is actually unlawful for the DOJ to do so after it has been published in the circular.

What you must understand is this: What the DOJ is going to say vs. what a good First Amendment Attorney will say are going to be two vastly unique and adversely different things. You can not logically expect the opposing side of the argument to say what you want them will say. I do not want to be redundant (and I am fucking tired), so reference my previous post for the 4 major reasons (I could think of at the time) why text only TGPs have very little to worry about initially.

Beyond that, your best course of action is to speak with a good first amendment attorney and follow the guidelines they give you.

Does doing so completely exempt you from potential litigation? No. The reason being this: Most of this is up for interpretation. It WILL take litigation to better define the grey areas, unless what is released tomorrow @ 1:30PM somehow manages to negate what I've stated here.

I highly doubt that will be the case.


Regardless: If you'd like to read more of the 2257 Handbook we were given, have at it:

http://www.caughtnude.com/THE_2257_HANDBOOOK.pdf

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by MrPinks

Thanks for the post!
18 U.S.C. 2257 does not apply to all erotic content. First, 2257 is limited to 'visual depictions,' so wholly textual works are excluded from its regulatory scope. But has this all changed?

Yes an anime is exempt and even porn made before 1995 is exempt. As soon as one of these people can explain how one gets 2257 docs on TEXT then I'll worry about text.

[Dameian]

Originally Posted by GatorB

Yes an anime is exempt and even porn made before 1995 is exempt. As soon as one of these people can explain how one gets 2257 docs on TEXT then I'll worry about text.

TADOW.

Exactly.

[Dameian]

Ahem. 50?