2257 update - what's now for secondary producers? - GoFuckYourself.com

baycouples · 04-04-2007, 04:59 PM

Since the other 2257 thread got hijacked - I figured I post a new one here for those who are secondary producers.

My question is simple: for the sites like mine, which is an adult dating service, what is there to do about the X-rated pictures that people post on their own? Since we have no way of getting IDs from everybody who posts those pictures - will all of the adult dating services, like mine and AFF, etc., have to prohibit the use of X-rated pictures?

c-lo · 04-04-2007, 05:29 PM

I think prohibiting explicit pics would be the only solution...unless you want to keep a valid ID on hand for every member...

Maybe someone else has a better workaround, but I kinda doubt it...

later
c-lo

gornyhuy · 04-04-2007, 06:07 PM

It's over johnny, OVER!

fatdicksimon · 04-04-2007, 06:10 PM

it's not looking good.

RawAlex · 04-04-2007, 06:13 PM

Well, this is certainly going to raise about as many issues as it resolves (even if they get resolved in a shitty way).

Are you in editorial control of the postings, or is it like an ad in a newspaper? Will AVN require model releases for everyone that appears in an ad in their publications? Remember that the "new" 2257 changes the definitions of what is and what is not required to have model IDs.

Basically this is can of worms time, without any hope of their being any way to put back in the can what has already come out.

baycouples · 04-06-2007, 12:12 AM

Yes, but isn't it a little silly? And what is everyone else doing about it?

WWC · 04-06-2007, 12:27 AM

I would suggest contact Jeffrey Douglas or Greg Piccionelli for that...

GigoloMason · 04-06-2007, 12:41 AM

I would recommend discontinuing your business if you need legal advice from gfy

Major (Tom) · 04-06-2007, 02:04 AM

hr4472 made secondary producers bare the burden of record keeping when it was passed. The litigation in denver is complete bullshit and means nothing. Congress passed hr4472 to smack the fsc in the face for making such a challenge. hr4472 has been and is on the books since late 2006 (approx). I dont know why so many of you thought the litigation by the fsc mattered once hr4472 was passed.
Duke

Probono · 04-06-2007, 02:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DukeSkywalker

hr4472 made secondary producers bare the burden of record keeping when it was passed. The litigation in denver is complete bullshit and means nothing. Congress passed hr4472 to smack the fsc in the face for making such a challenge. hr4472 has been and is on the books since late 2006 (approx). I dont know why so many of you thought the litigation by the fsc mattered once hr4472 was passed.
Duke

I still does matter for those covered by it until the judge dissolves the agreement wit DOJ not to inspect those on the agreement. It only matters because the DOJ agreed. You are right in the broader level and unless someone pulls a rabbit out of a hat the agreement will be dissolved in May and the festivities will begin.

Gaybucks · 04-06-2007, 02:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Probono

I still does matter for those covered by it until the judge dissolves the agreement wit DOJ not to inspect those on the agreement.

That's true in principle, but when 4472 passed, it made pretty much everything in the Denver injunction moot. The principal argument on the secondary producer issue was that it was decided (in favor of secondary producers) in Sundance vs Reno, and 4472 was passed to essentially "undo" Sundance vs Reno.

So even if you are an FSC member, according to our attorney, you have not had protection against inspections for secondary records since 4472 passed.

Why no one has paid any attention to this until now is totally beyond me... I and quite a few others have been talking about it for months.

Probono · 04-06-2007, 02:37 AM

You and your lawyer are certainly correct. The DOJ has still held off, but regardless they will start in May.

No one paid attention is probably an overstatement. Most people of this board do not have lawyers and do not understand the laws. Only when AVN of Xbiz posts something do they pay heed until the last thread about it is off the first page of GFY.

Once the arrests begin and they will the ranks of webmasters with a nexus in the US will diminish significantly as real panic ensues.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaybucks

That's true in principle, but when 4472 passed, it made pretty much everything in the Denver injunction moot. The principal argument on the secondary producer issue was that it was decided (in favor of secondary producers) in Sundance vs Reno, and 4472 was passed to essentially "undo" Sundance vs Reno.

So even if you are an FSC member, according to our attorney, you have not had protection against inspections for secondary records since 4472 passed.

Why no one has paid any attention to this until now is totally beyond me... I and quite a few others have been talking about it for months.

Major (Tom) · 04-06-2007, 02:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaybucks

That's true in principle, but when 4472 passed, it made pretty much everything in the Denver injunction moot. The principal argument on the secondary producer issue was that it was decided (in favor of secondary producers) in Sundance vs Reno, and 4472 was passed to essentially "undo" Sundance vs Reno.

So even if you are an FSC member, according to our attorney, you have not had protection against inspections for secondary records since 4472 passed.

Why no one has paid any attention to this until now is totally beyond me... I and quite a few others have been talking about it for months.

yup!
The risk was here all along and people didnt even realize it. But at least they vaugely made mention of conceeding to allowing sanatized documents. That helps plenty.
The business is always changing. We have more to fear from .xxx than we do 2257. The thing is, this business is really starting to become a business. Many people are going to have to make a descision soon whether or not they want to be associated with smut or not. I guess thats the cost of being in this business. I do feel for the affiliate who now has to carry records, but we will supply them with them. Or, host their domain and let the burden fall on our shoulders. There are ways to make this work; the sky isnt falling.
Duke

V_RocKs · 04-06-2007, 03:20 AM

I talked to a lawyer. He said that secondary producers are the affiliate programs. Webmasters who do not create content but serve the affiliate programs content are not considered secondary producers...

So I asked why then is everyone posting that we are?

The response was, "Money, a lot of lawyers are making a lot of money telling you that you are."

Probono · 04-06-2007, 03:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by V_RocKs

I talked to a lawyer. He said that secondary producers are the affiliate programs. Webmasters who do not create content but serve the affiliate programs content are not considered secondary producers...

So I asked why then is everyone posting that we are?

The response was, "Money, a lot of lawyers are making a lot of money telling you that you are."

Get a new lawyer, one that can read. If you digitally touch or publish the image you are a secondary producer.

""Your obligations, if any, under 2257 are determined by your status as a
?producer? of regulated materials containing non-exempt visual depictions of
actual sexually explicit conduct. The statute speaks only of someone who
?produces? materials containing regulated visual depictions, and does not
reference ?primary producers? or ?secondary producers.? Rather, under 2257,
?produces? is defined to mean:
. . . to produce, manufacture, or publish any book, magazine,
periodical, film, video tape or other similar matter and
includes the duplication, reproduction, or reissuing of any
such matter, but does not include mere distribution or any
other activity which does not involve hiring, contracting for,
managing, or otherwise arranging for the participation of the
performers depicted.15 ""

and this is before the Adam Walsh Law which removes any distinctions.

Why · 04-06-2007, 04:02 AM

once bush is out they will refocus their energies elsewhere, the US has a huge fucking worldwide mess on its plate to be worrying about such frivolous matters.

Probono · 04-06-2007, 04:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Why

once bush is out they will refocus their energies elsewhere, the US has a huge fucking worldwide mess on its plate to be worrying about such frivolous matters.

The problem is that sinners are a priority at this time. The Christian Republic of America believes it is saving the world on several fronts at once. It is a tragedy of biblical proportions.

Worried · 04-06-2007, 10:51 AM

Don't you guys think the fbi will go after sponsors who are secondary sponsors like Maxcash or ARS first before they will go after small fry like affiliates??

xxxdesign-net · 04-06-2007, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RawAlex

Remember that the "new" 2257 changes the definitions of what is and what is not required to have model IDs.

Whats the new 2257 changes?

Linkster · 04-06-2007, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Probono

and this is before the Adam Walsh Law which removes any distinctions.

And this is the most important part - the Walsh bill - which is Law in the US right now as of June of 2006 got rid of the primary and secondary producers concept - everyone is just a producer now - I have no idea why anyone is worried about 2257 changes that the FSC was fighting - this new bill which is already a law is much stricter and also covers simulated sex - goes way beyond the 2257 everyone was so worried about before - and I guarantee you that there isnt a single sponsor out there that meets this new law

NaughtyAce · 04-06-2007, 02:17 PM

Consult your attorneys, I see a lot of bs on here and missleading statements.

To help you out Bay couples, I think you already knew the answer, don't let people post Xrated pictures.

But consult an attorney, I"m not one and neither is anyone else on here for the most part.

Probono · 04-06-2007, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NaughtyAce

Consult your attorneys, I see a lot of bs on here and missleading statements.

To help you out Bay couples, I think you already knew the answer, don't let people post Xrated pictures.

But consult an attorney, I"m not one and neither is anyone else on here for the most part.

GFY is no replacement for an attorney but you can get great miss- information mixed with good information; makes a fine casserole.

Jack_Daniels · 04-06-2007, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Probono

The problem is that sinners are a priority at this time. The Christian Republic of America believes it is saving the world on several fronts at once. It is a tragedy of biblical proportions.

With any luck the theocracy we're currently living under will be sent packing by the voters in '08.

Hopefully no one here will get fucked before that happens.

Major (Tom) · 04-06-2007, 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by V_RocKs

I talked to a lawyer. He said that secondary producers are the affiliate programs. Webmasters who do not create content but serve the affiliate programs content are not considered secondary producers...

So I asked why then is everyone posting that we are?

The response was, "Money, a lot of lawyers are making a lot of money telling you that you are."

Your lawyer is a retard. Tell him to icq me and i will tell him myself.

161-350-410
Duke

cybermike · 04-06-2007, 09:23 PM

Someone hold me

spacedog · 04-06-2007, 09:36 PM

let's put it this way folks... the programs that don't have their shit in order will get fined, because they got the big bucks to keep themselves out of jail..

the webmaster/affiliates that don't make big bucks will go to prison..

RawAlex · 04-06-2007, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spacedog

let's put it this way folks... the programs that don't have their shit in order will get fined, because they got the big bucks to keep themselves out of jail..

the webmaster/affiliates that don't make big bucks will go to prison..

Incorrect... you need to look at the numbers involved. If you have a dating site with 10,000 members and not a single piece of 2257, you are in deep! You need to read the law and see the dollars involved here. It is huge... tens of millions of dollars, and you can be sure that the DoJ would love nothing more than to collect an amount like that to make a point.

If I was a company like AFF, I would be trying to figure out a valid solution that will cover their asses.

spacedog · 04-06-2007, 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RawAlex

Incorrect... you need to look at the numbers involved. If you have a dating site with 10,000 members and not a single piece of 2257, you are in deep! You need to read the law and see the dollars involved here. It is huge... tens of millions of dollars, and you can be sure that the DoJ would love nothing more than to collect an amount like that to make a point.

If I was a company like AFF, I would be trying to figure out a valid solution that will cover their asses.

My point was, programs with cash pay huge fines.
regular/average affiliates can't afford 2 million dollar fines, so will end up going to prison.

Gaybucks · 04-06-2007, 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by V_RocKs

I talked to a lawyer. He said that secondary producers are the affiliate programs. Webmasters who do not create content but serve the affiliate programs content are not considered secondary producers...

So I asked why then is everyone posting that we are?

The response was, "Money, a lot of lawyers are making a lot of money telling you that you are."

Your lawyer is SERIOUSLY incompetent. If he knew the law at all, he would know that 4472 (the Adam Walsh act) eliminated the difference between primary and secondary producers. There is no "secondary producer" under 4472, everyone, whether republishing, displaying, printing or whatever to any image is a producer, and must have records.

I would run away from his advice as fast as I could if you don't want to end up in jail.

Paul Markham · 04-06-2007, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GigoloMason

I would recommend discontinuing your business if you need legal advice from gfy

You mean all these guys posting legal info are not lawyers

What about the moral issue of posting someones image on the Internet without being 100% certain it was from the actual model.

baycouples · 04-08-2007, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NaughtyAce

To help you out Bay couples, I think you already knew the answer, don't let people post Xrated pictures.

How come AFF gets to still do that?

GigoloMason · 04-08-2007, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by V_RocKs

I talked to a lawyer. He said that secondary producers are the affiliate programs. Webmasters who do not create content but serve the affiliate programs content are not considered secondary producers...

So I asked why then is everyone posting that we are?

The response was, "Money, a lot of lawyers are making a lot of money telling you that you are."

You need a new lawyer.

Bloomer · 04-08-2007, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by V_RocKs

I talked to a lawyer. He said that secondary producers are the affiliate programs. Webmasters who do not create content but serve the affiliate programs content are not considered secondary producers...

So I asked why then is everyone posting that we are?

The response was, "Money, a lot of lawyers are making a lot of money telling you that you are."

My guess on this one in itself is that he is going by last years laws and has little or no understanding of what is implied in the new 2257.
He is correct on this as of last year sure but you have to understand that you are talking to a lawyer here and given from what I know about other lawyers is that most of them gather out dated data.
This is what ties up most court systems in the first place people that arent current with whats exactly going on today but rather collecting paychecks and driving around in fancy cars.

baycouples · 04-09-2007, 11:56 AM

So, how come AFF gets to still do that?

Domains_Broker · 04-09-2007, 05:14 PM

Scary shit...

Bush and the Christian right have fucked this country up so bad I don't know how long the dust will take to settle. If YPN accepted non-US publishers I would have been in Cayman or Curacao long ago.

This used to be the land of the free, it is far from that now... porn aside. We need to elect an Atheist President!

If they're so uptight about 2257 etc. why doesn't BUsh start by cleaning up the churches of all the fucking child predators wearing those stupid fuckin costumes and chanting BS while waiving the incense in the air!!!

RawAlex · 04-09-2007, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baycouples

So, how come AFF gets to still do that?

Nobody else seems to have the balls, so I will.

Money. Cash. Moolah. Green.

Quite simply, even if AFF got raided / attacked / notified by the DoJ or whatever, they can afford to buy their way out of the situation. In a similar way to Zango buying their way out of serious shit.

Birds of a feather...

Domains_Broker · 04-09-2007, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RawAlex

Nobody else seems to have the balls, so I will.

Money. Cash. Moolah. Green.

Quite simply, even if AFF got raided / attacked / notified by the DoJ or whatever, they can afford to buy their way out of the situation. In a similar way to Zango buying their way out of serious shit.

Birds of a feather...

How true. that would be fun to follow on court tv

04-04-2007, 04:59 PM	#1
baycouples Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: San Jose, CA Posts: 1,341	2257 update - what's now for secondary producers? Since the other 2257 thread got hijacked - I figured I post a new one here for those who are secondary producers. My question is simple: for the sites like mine, which is an adult dating service, what is there to do about the X-rated pictures that people post on their own? Since we have no way of getting IDs from everybody who posts those pictures - will all of the adult dating services, like mine and AFF, etc., have to prohibit the use of X-rated pictures?

04-04-2007, 05:29 PM	#2
c-lo Confirmed User Join Date: May 2005 Location: On search pages, on ICQ @ 308 7 43669, and in the U.S. Posts: 925	I think prohibiting explicit pics would be the only solution...unless you want to keep a valid ID on hand for every member... Maybe someone else has a better workaround, but I kinda doubt it... later c-lo __________________ The AlphaPhaze Network Traffic & Hardlink Trades \| Sponsors \| Resources The adult marketing network you can trust

04-04-2007, 06:07 PM	#3
gornyhuy Chafed. Join Date: May 2002 Location: Face Down in Pussy Posts: 18,041	It's over johnny, OVER! __________________ icq:159548293

04-04-2007, 06:10 PM	#4
fatdicksimon Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 226	it's not looking good. __________________ icq: 199791893 holler at me

04-06-2007, 12:27 AM	#7
WWC #1 Adult Content Provider Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Glendale, Ca Posts: 11,577	I would suggest contact Jeffrey Douglas or Greg Piccionelli for that... __________________ [email protected] ICQ : 494-353-230 Follow WWC on Twitter CLICK HERE! " CONTENT PROVIDER OF THE YEAR! " ~ 2007 , 2008 & 2009 XBIZ AWARDS WINNER! .......www.WorldWideContent.com / www.WorldWideFeeds.com...... WWC Nominated " Content Licensor of The Year " 2010 XBiz Awards !!!

04-04-2007, 06:13 PM	#5
RawAlex So Fucking Banned Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: In a house. Posts: 9,465	Well, this is certainly going to raise about as many issues as it resolves (even if they get resolved in a shitty way). Are you in editorial control of the postings, or is it like an ad in a newspaper? Will AVN require model releases for everyone that appears in an ad in their publications? Remember that the "new" 2257 changes the definitions of what is and what is not required to have model IDs. Basically this is can of worms time, without any hope of their being any way to put back in the can what has already come out.

04-06-2007, 12:12 AM	#6
baycouples Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: San Jose, CA Posts: 1,341	Yes, but isn't it a little silly? And what is everyone else doing about it?

04-06-2007, 12:41 AM	#8
GigoloMason Confirmed User Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 742	I would recommend discontinuing your business if you need legal advice from gfy __________________

04-06-2007, 02:04 AM	#9
Major (Tom) Boomer Woffen Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Null Posts: 30,594	hr4472 made secondary producers bare the burden of record keeping when it was passed. The litigation in denver is complete bullshit and means nothing. Congress passed hr4472 to smack the fsc in the face for making such a challenge. hr4472 has been and is on the books since late 2006 (approx). I dont know why so many of you thought the litigation by the fsc mattered once hr4472 was passed. Duke __________________ My mother said, to get things done You'd better not mess with Major Tom

04-06-2007, 03:20 AM	#14
V_RocKs Damn Right I Kiss Ass! Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Cowtown, USA Posts: 32,409	I talked to a lawyer. He said that secondary producers are the affiliate programs. Webmasters who do not create content but serve the affiliate programs content are not considered secondary producers... So I asked why then is everyone posting that we are? The response was, "Money, a lot of lawyers are making a lot of money telling you that you are."

04-06-2007, 04:02 AM	#16
Why MFBA Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: PNW Posts: 7,230	once bush is out they will refocus their energies elsewhere, the US has a huge fucking worldwide mess on its plate to be worrying about such frivolous matters.

04-06-2007, 10:51 AM	#18
Worried Confirmed User Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 149	Don't you guys think the fbi will go after sponsors who are secondary sponsors like Maxcash or ARS first before they will go after small fry like affiliates??

04-06-2007, 02:17 PM	#21
NaughtyAce Traffic - Protect Content Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: San Diego Posts: 1,482	Consult your attorneys, I see a lot of bs on here and missleading statements. To help you out Bay couples, I think you already knew the answer, don't let people post Xrated pictures. But consult an attorney, I"m not one and neither is anyone else on here for the most part. __________________ Publisher manager http://Leads.TrafficHaus.com [email protected] Looking for Sales Support! - Contact Media Reps Looking for Traffic - Go to TrafficHaus.com Looking for Ad Block Prevention - Go to ReviveAds.com Looking for Copyright protection - Go to DigiRegs.com Looking for Video Marketing Software - Go to Partner.TrafficHaus.com

04-06-2007, 09:23 PM	#25
cybermike Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Ny Posts: 4,113	Someone hold me __________________ Hey surfers how about some The Best Porn Sites

04-06-2007, 09:36 PM	#26
spacedog Yes that IS me. Bitch. Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 14,149	let's put it this way folks... the programs that don't have their shit in order will get fined, because they got the big bucks to keep themselves out of jail.. the webmaster/affiliates that don't make big bucks will go to prison..

04-09-2007, 11:56 AM	#34
baycouples Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: San Jose, CA Posts: 1,341	So, how come AFF gets to still do that?

04-09-2007, 05:14 PM	#35
Domains_Broker Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Detroit Posts: 164	Scary shit... Bush and the Christian right have fucked this country up so bad I don't know how long the dust will take to settle. If YPN accepted non-US publishers I would have been in Cayman or Curacao long ago. This used to be the land of the free, it is far from that now... porn aside. We need to elect an Atheist President! If they're so uptight about 2257 etc. why doesn't BUsh start by cleaning up the churches of all the fucking child predators wearing those stupid fuckin costumes and chanting BS while waiving the incense in the air!!! __________________ DomainsBroker at Gmail Premium Expired Domains