Originally Posted by FightThisPatent (Post 12193142)

exactly. this thread is titled wrong... 2257 won't f*ck webmasters, lazy webmasters who don't follow THE LAW, who don't invest their time to organize their files correctly, who haven't spoken/retained an attorney that understands 2257, who haven't invested in software to help databbase the information, who don't pay attention to the legal responsibilities for presenting 'sexually explicit' images.......... are the ones that are f*cking themselves.

2257 is a "recordkeeping statue".. its intent is to ensure that minors are not used in adult content production, but its also a law for proper documentation of the ages of the performers.

It may seem silly to inspect images for content that is clearly over 18 (ie. granny model),. but the law is written to cover documentation of all images.

So it doesn't matter if you think its ridiculous that your content is clearly over 18 content and you shouldn't have to do the work necessary to be compliant.

All businesses have rules over them, whether they be general that apply to all like taxes to OSHA, etc... this industry happens to have a requirement for documentation in order to legally operate the business.

So compliance is not an option, it is a requirement for doing business. And for the 11+ years that this law has been on the books and those who have not been compliant, you are operating your business like operating a moonshine still during prohibition.

The sky is not falling. Only thing that will fall is the axe on the necks of webmasters who don't get their business compliant and get the luck of the draw to be inspected. And you are talking about a 5 year felony for failing to document.

Please take your business and your livelihood seriously and invest in both time and materials to address 2257 compliance.


Fight the wake-up call!

Originally Posted by knewon (Post 12192886)

My question is for non us citizens that host in the US...
If 2257 is not provided, could the hosting company be inspected for 2257?

Originally Posted by knewon (Post 12192886)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but most of the porn is hosted in the US even the webmasters are from out of the country.

Originally Posted by Bloomer (Post 12193759)

DO ANY OF YOU PEOPLE OUT HERE FIND IT A LITTLE ODD THAT TWO OF THE MOST POPULATED AND WEALTHY COUNTRIES ON THIS PLANET SIMPLY DO NOT WANT PORN BROADCASTING OVER THE INTERNET?

http://www.census.gov/geo/www/mapGal...s/2k_night.jpg

Originally Posted by Sands (Post 12193767)

I sincerely hope that sponsors see the situation for what it is, and the potential quagmire that a lot of their affiliates will be in if secondary producers will be required to be 2257 compliant. I know that there are some sponsors who already provide washed ID's and docs for their affiliates, but there are many that don't. I know that in the past month, I've emailed several of my sponsors asking if they would provide docs and ID's, and those that did reply told me to link to their 2257 page (which doesn't get me any closer to being compliant).

Could some sponsor/affiliate representatives who are reading this possibly make a few statements about whether or not they have some contingency plans? Are any of you willing to, or preparing to issue the necessary documents to your affiliates should they be required after May 1st? I'd really love to hear from them.

Originally Posted by Bloomer (Post 12193759)

DO ANY OF YOU PEOPLE OUT HERE FIND IT A LITTLE ODD THAT TWO OF THE MOST POPULATED AND WEALTHY COUNTRIES ON THIS PLANET SIMPLY DO NOT WANT PORN BROADCASTING OVER THE INTERNET?

Originally Posted by Sands (Post 12193767)

I sincerely hope that sponsors see the situation for what it is, and the potential quagmire that a lot of their affiliates will be in if secondary producers will be required to be 2257 compliant. I know that there are some sponsors who already provide washed ID's and docs for their affiliates, but there are many that don't. I know that in the past month, I've emailed several of my sponsors asking if they would provide docs and ID's, and those that did reply told me to link to their 2257 page (which doesn't get me any closer to being compliant).

Could some sponsor/affiliate representatives who are reading this possibly make a few statements about whether or not they have some contingency plans? Are any of you willing to, or preparing to issue the necessary documents to your affiliates should they be required after May 1st? I'd really love to hear from them.

Originally Posted by GatorB (Post 12193699)

Originally Posted by Bloomer (Post 12192827)

running an adult website is hosting actual content.

Originally Posted by GatorB (Post 12193784)

According to the law they HAVE to comply. If not the DOJ can simply have those in the US procecuted and those outside the US have the US banks and even Visa to stop doing business with them.

Regardless if they don't comply saying "My sponsor won't hand over the docs" is not an excuse. You will still be in trouble. So will your sponsor, but they have better lawyers.

Originally Posted by Bloomer (Post 12193802)

Sorry Im not Owned by you or anyone else thanks you can suck the shit out of my sneakers!

I tried to play nice and you kept up your shit !

Originally Posted by Sands (Post 12193817)

Sure, I understand that part. This is compulsory, and there are no excuses. I'm just curious if any sponsors or affiliate reps will comment or talk about what they're doing in anticipation of an unfortunate ruling come May 1st, if they are doing anything at all; not for their own sake, but for the sake of their affiliates, preferably in the form of issuing ID's and docs.

Originally Posted by MrPinks (Post 12193799)

I think that based on the way the law is going, all sponsors should provide the docs. It's that simple. If they provided us with the docs, there wouldn't be a problem. It is the only solution that will work.

Originally Posted by GatorB

I suggest e-mailing them or calling them directly.

Originally Posted by GatorB (Post 12193823)

YOU started shit. You said something retarded. You were called out. Instead of taking it like a man and admitting you were wrong you act like a little bitch.
By the way don't try hotlinking pics hosted by tripod, dipshit.

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz (Post 12193810)

As usual you are retarded.

http://www.komix.it/img/ico/ChickenLittle.jpg

Originally Posted by Bloomer (Post 12193877)

Again read back to the point of where I said I didnt want to argue with you !

Originally Posted by Sands (Post 12193850)

I think so too. I'd feel much more comfortable actually hearing (seeing) them say it. It'd also be nice to know if they're actively preparing as we speak, or if they're taking a wait and see approach (just in case I have to pull images and video from my site and wait).

I'm not exactly expecting them to show up one by one in this thread and sound off with their plans and preparations regarding the issue. It'd probably be more fruitful for them to email their affiliates rather than post on a message board. Still, it'd be good to have some sponsors in on this conversation.



Suggestion noted.

Originally Posted by GatorB (Post 12193895)

Then stop and quit trying to prove you need IDs for cartoons. The only one disagreeing with anything I've said IS YOU. Considering you lack of knowledge on this topic well..........

Originally Posted by Bloomer (Post 12193889)

Yes and do you have all that stuff of yours sorted out with that black and white yet?

Why dont you hold your dual monitors close and pray!

Originally Posted by GatorB (Post 12193906)

Now I really don't care for Sticky and he knows it, but you just made yourself look even more retarded. If that's possible.

Originally Posted by Bloomer (Post 12193903)

let me ask you a question?
Do you know who I am?

Originally Posted by GatorB (Post 12193936)

Yes. A fucking retard.

Originally Posted by GatorB (Post 12193936)

Yes. A fucking retard.

Originally Posted by directfiesta (Post 12193948)

Just another note:

All foreign ( non-us residing ) models, shot in the USA, are not compliant....

They need to have ID's issued by a USA authority....

OK, correction : Mexicans are compliant :winkwink:

Originally Posted by directfiesta (Post 12193959)

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

I must admit that this is a grand slam ....

On the other hand, both stop arguing for the sake of it .... Thread will be more informative.

Originally Posted by FightThisPatent (Post 12193142)

2257 is a "recordkeeping statue".. its intent is to ensure that minors are not used in adult content production, but its also a law for proper documentation of the ages of the performers.

Originally Posted by Linkster (Post 12193977)

One important point thats being missed in all of this discussion is that what has been passed is the Adam Walsh Act which implemented huge changes to the 2257 law - it includes simulated sex now not just "actual sex" -

Originally Posted by Linkster (Post 12193977)

One important point thats being missed in all of this discussion is that what has been passed is the Adam Walsh Act which implemented huge changes to the 2257 law - it includes simulated sex now not just "actual sex" - you can see the law changes at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/...aNdQA:e115994: which gives the sect 500 changes to 2257 and is implemented by HR 4472 which was signed into law some time ago - if you dont know whats in that law you might take a good look as it totally changes the definitions of producers (definitely gets rid of the distinction between primary and secondary producers - they are all the same now) and many more
This went into effect 90 days after Bush signed it in July 2006 - and is what the Judge in the 2257 case is talking about when he says Congress basically redefined the 2257 law and overruled Sundance

Originally Posted by Bloomer (Post 12194006)

SOMEONE PLEASE GIVE THIS OTHER GUY A FUCKING CIGAR AND THANK YOU!
http://tokenasian.animeblogger.net/w...nt/RAW1001.jpg

Originally Posted by Bloomer (Post 12193981)

GET A GRIP ON THIS KID
when shooting outside of the United States, any government's picture identification including the person's legal name, photo and date of birth is acceptable, even if the producer's office is in the United States; shooting within the United States or its territories requires that same type of identification, but only issued by the United States or a state government.

Originally Posted by Linkster (Post 12193977)

One important point thats being missed in all of this discussion is that what has been passed is the Adam Walsh Act which implemented huge changes to the 2257 law - it includes simulated sex now not just "actual sex" - you can see the law changes at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/...aNdQA:e115994: which gives the sect 500 changes to 2257 and is implemented by HR 4472 which was signed into law some time ago - if you dont know whats in that law you might take a good look as it totally changes the definitions of producers (definitely gets rid of the distinction between primary and secondary producers - they are all the same now) and many more
This went into effect 90 days after Bush signed it in July 2006 - and is what the Judge in the 2257 case is talking about when he says Congress basically redefined the 2257 law and overruled Sundance

Originally Posted by GatorB (Post 12194028)

Do you have the 2257 docs on that pic?

Originally Posted by SPeRMiNaToR (Post 12193725)

:thumbsup :thumbsup Exactly. but what about AFFILIATES... paysite owners sound have been compliant since day 1 but affiliates are the ones that are going to get the short end of the stick here...

Originally Posted by Linkster (Post 12193977)

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/...aNdQA:e115994:

Originally Posted by FightThisPatent (Post 12194154)

excellent point.. especially the practice of affiliates who receive images from sponsors to use on their own sites.

it seems like FHG are safer for affiliates since the images are hosted with the sponsor who has (supposedly) all the docs.

Even taking screenshots of a paysite to put on an affiliate site creates some 2257 issues....

I think alot of sponsors have a good handle on 2257, in having an attorney who understands 2257, as well as receiving the 2257 docs from their content suppliers or from shooting for themselves.

I think 2257 is another issue that will illuminate the squeezing of the affiliates to a smaller group (ie whales), that have the relationships to sponsors that could get the docs and continue their affiliate marketing promotions.



Fight the downsizing!

Originally Posted by Bloomer (Post 12194185)

Simply all they really have to do is provide a date of birth documentation of each model that they offer to any Webmaster for any FHG.

The rest of any models info can be held with the origional producer!

Originally Posted by pornguy (Post 12193833)

It does not mean that you are getting fucked, It means that you will have to work a little harder

Originally Posted by baycouples (Post 12194264)

What about adult dating services like AFF, etc.? How would they have to handle that?

Originally Posted by Bloomer (Post 12194306)

Well when you sign up on an adult site you provide proof of age ,it is alot different!

They now have supposed proof of age and verification through your E-mail and IP address But this is going to put a complete stop to all those FAKE profiles on them I can tell you that!

The way I look at it is that This is a GREAT THING that will happen if it does and I personally hope it does cause it WILL call out all the fucking scum we all have been dealing with for the last three years to say the laest it is going to TIGHTEN up the REINS so to speak going to call a spade a spade and bring to light a whole bunch of shit!:thumbsup

Originally Posted by baycouples (Post 12194328)

I don't get it still. What about legitimate members uploading their X-rated pictures. Wouldn't those NOT be allowed anymore since the dating sites have no ID proof for those?

Originally Posted by Bloomer (Post 12194348)

They may tighten up on the memberships like I just said sure But thats a GOOD THING!
That means that when you sign up to a date site your not just signing up to a site that has a bunch of FAKE profiles that some SHITBAG put up in hopes of making a few bucks off a honey new member!

There will actually have to be REAL FUCKIN PEOPLE ON THAT SHIT!:banana

Originally Posted by baycouples (Post 12194364)

One has nothing to do with another. I have all real people on the site and never post fake profiles but it seems that I will have to stop accepting X-rated pictures since I can't collect IDs for all of them. And those who post fake profiles will just post PG13 pictures of fake profiles. So, that won't change probably.