DOJ starting to back off 2257? - GoFuckYourself.com

Murderous · 08-11-2005, 06:14 AM

Nice info...
http://xbiz.com/news_piece.php?id=9885

invertiga · 08-11-2005, 06:18 AM

good news for .us webmasters

Manga1 · 08-11-2005, 06:21 AM

"Websites containing no depictions of ?actual sexually explicit conduct? but that provide hyperlinks to third party websites which do contain such material have no record-keeping obligations."

TGPs will love this.

pr0 · 08-11-2005, 06:24 AM

now thats great news!

nothing wrong with mere nudity baby!

personals sites are saved!

twist · 08-11-2005, 06:30 AM

getting smart at last

blackfeet · 08-11-2005, 06:33 AM

good news indeed!!!

crockett · 08-11-2005, 06:36 AM

What I'm still unsure of is they mention the content before I think it was June 2005 as being free from the new record keeping requirements. So does that mean you can still use sexually explicit content from before that date and only link back to the primary producers 2257?

Also if you have no sexually explicit content but you do show naked pictures do you still need a 2257 statement? I mean if non sexually explicit content is exempt that would mean you are exempt from 2257 all together right? (I really don't think so but, that the way it seems like this reads)

pubenemy · 08-11-2005, 06:41 AM

Its definately a step in the right direction.

Murderous · 08-11-2005, 06:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manga1

"Websites containing no depictions of ?actual sexually explicit conduct? but that provide hyperlinks to third party websites which do contain such material have no record-keeping obligations."

TGPs will love this.

What I was thinking as well.

Dirty Dane · 08-11-2005, 07:11 AM

I can't really see what the "back off" should be?
Isn't this just clarifications of what we already knew, if you did not misread the regulations?

- The term ?actual sexually explicit conduct? does not include ?lascivious exhibitions of the genitals;? (i.e., mere nudity).; Has mere nudity ever been sexually explicit?

- Websites containing no depictions of ?actual sexually explicit conduct? but that provide hyperlinks to third party websites which do contain such material have no record-keeping obligations.; This does not help sites like thumbed TGPs much? A thumb is not a hyperlink alone....its also a picture. And 2257 never has, or do now apply to textlinks, but 2251 does, so if you feel "safe", you're fooling yourself.

- The foreign IDs... that is quite logic from the first place, but what does this help if you violate laws like EU data protection laws by giving out non-authorized IDs?

Only difference I see is the "before June 23, 2005", which for me just look like more work, because you need to be sure what is produced before and after. Besides its just delaying things, because after some time you will have a lot of newer content (if you want to stay fresh and make the good money).

Clarifications are no back off, its not even a compromise.

KRL · 08-11-2005, 07:27 AM

The main objective has already been accomplished. Webmasters and program owners now have much clearer respect for the law.

Murderous · 08-11-2005, 07:31 AM

well thumb TGP's don't have to be explicit.

08-11-2005, 06:14 AM	#1
Murderous Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 3,938	DOJ starting to back off 2257? Nice info... http://xbiz.com/news_piece.php?id=9885

08-11-2005, 06:24 AM	#4
pr0 rockin tha trailerpark Industry Role: Join Date: May 2001 Location: ~Coastal~ Posts: 23,088	now thats great news! nothing wrong with mere nudity baby! personals sites are saved! __________________ __________ Loadedca$h - get sum! - Revengebucks - mmm rebills! - webair (gotz sErVrz)

08-11-2005, 06:30 AM	#5
twist Confirmed User Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 415	getting smart at last __________________ I love big boobs.

08-11-2005, 06:36 AM	#7
crockett in a van by the river Industry Role: Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 76,818	What I'm still unsure of is they mention the content before I think it was June 2005 as being free from the new record keeping requirements. So does that mean you can still use sexually explicit content from before that date and only link back to the primary producers 2257? Also if you have no sexually explicit content but you do show naked pictures do you still need a 2257 statement? I mean if non sexually explicit content is exempt that would mean you are exempt from 2257 all together right? (I really don't think so but, that the way it seems like this reads) __________________ In November, you can vote for America's next president or its first dictator.

08-11-2005, 06:41 AM	#8
pubenemy Confirmed User Join Date: May 2004 Location: SW FL Posts: 990	Its definately a step in the right direction. __________________ ICQ: 22-920-445 Aim: OGpubenemy

08-11-2005, 06:18 AM	#2
invertiga Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: BNEQLDAUS Posts: 477	good news for .us webmasters

08-11-2005, 06:21 AM	#3
Manga1 Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Malakiaville Posts: 952	"Websites containing no depictions of ?actual sexually explicit conduct? but that provide hyperlinks to third party websites which do contain such material have no record-keeping obligations." TGPs will love this.

08-11-2005, 06:33 AM	#6
blackfeet Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 589	good news indeed!!!

08-11-2005, 07:11 AM	#10
Dirty Dane Sick Fuck Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: www Posts: 9,491	I can't really see what the "back off" should be? Isn't this just clarifications of what we already knew, if you did not misread the regulations? - The term ?actual sexually explicit conduct? does not include ?lascivious exhibitions of the genitals;? (i.e., mere nudity).; Has mere nudity ever been sexually explicit? - Websites containing no depictions of ?actual sexually explicit conduct? but that provide hyperlinks to third party websites which do contain such material have no record-keeping obligations.; This does not help sites like thumbed TGPs much? A thumb is not a hyperlink alone....its also a picture. And 2257 never has, or do now apply to textlinks, but 2251 does, so if you feel "safe", you're fooling yourself. - The foreign IDs... that is quite logic from the first place, but what does this help if you violate laws like EU data protection laws by giving out non-authorized IDs? Only difference I see is the "before June 23, 2005", which for me just look like more work, because you need to be sure what is produced before and after. Besides its just delaying things, because after some time you will have a lot of newer content (if you want to stay fresh and make the good money). Clarifications are no back off, its not even a compromise.

08-11-2005, 07:27 AM	#11
KRL Entrepreneur Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: USA Posts: 31,429	The main objective has already been accomplished. Webmasters and program owners now have much clearer respect for the law. __________________ If you would like to develop your domains, you can lease inexpensive foreign labor from the leaders in the field at iWebmasters.com TO LOWER YOUR COSTS AND INCREASE YOUR PRODUCTION! * * * * * * * * * * * * Domains Adult News KRL's Newsletter Biz Tips Just Listed Domains

08-11-2005, 07:31 AM	#12
Murderous Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 3,938	well thumb TGP's don't have to be explicit.