Inspections, yes. But ....What court cases? I haven't seen anything about anyone being charged with anything. Rolling over and paying fines, sets no president and is unproven.

Breeder?
I'd be insulted, if I wasn't in the same company as your Mother.

its an interesting issue..

2257 would be ILLEGAL in many countries.. so your kind of riding both rails...

You might be covering your ass in U.S.A. but you might get arrested when you go to canada :) food for thought..

Think its a fantasy , think again .. the u.s.a. has already done it to other foreigners, so i see no reason why it wont happen in reverse :)

Protecting your ass in the usa might lead to getting arrested in other countries :)

someone mentioned TGP's and thumbs.. i still see hardcore thumbs on google with no 2257 , i dont think tgp owners need to be worried until google stops displaying the same thumbs..

Smokey - search engines are specifically exempted in the new wording

....B) does not include activities that are limited to--

`(iv) the provision of a telecommunications service, or of an Internet access service or Internet information location tool (as those terms are defined in section 231 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 231))

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like an appeal for secondary producers is still possible according to #4. This is taken from http://avnonline.com/index_cache.php...tent_ID=286357.

Generally left for trial are (1) Internet chat rooms; (2) Web sites not under control of the record-keeper; (3) The regulations' facial requirements producers must comply with 2005 amended regulations with respect to pre-2005 depictions; and, as noted above (4) the validity of the secondary producer record-keeping, etc., requirements under the Adam Walsh Act.

Yeah, maybe that is why the held up in court is winning so much.

so rename your tgp "search engine tgp" lol problem solved..:thumbsup

infact ill coin the new term TGPIILT

Thumbnail Gallery Post Internet Information Location Tool

You know, I think it's great to try and prevent child porn as MUCH AS POSSIBLE. But the government also needs to be considerate. Here's a few of my takes on it.

It's great to have to keep documentation, always a smart thing to do. Always good to keep good documentation to always prove a models age. But do you really think that 2257 laws are really for helping stop child porn? My honest answer, No. What child porn maker is going to keep documentation for any of the girls on his site? None. Hell, I think the adult industry (all of us) have turned in more child porn sites than the FBI has probably busted. We all work in the industry and the respectable people in this industry will do as much as possible to keep the entire industry as clean as possible. But as all industries there are a few bad seeds and we try as hard as possible to help government officials weed out the bad seeds. Because that one bad seed filming children is giving us a bad name.

I feel this is a way to get the people that aren't going to keep up with the issues with 2257. Just to take down one company here and one company there. Which you know what, if the company doesn't keep their records straight, that's their own fault. They've had time to do it and get in compliance.

But I know that the first thing any news channel would say about a company that fucked up a record and they caught wind is, "Today in [some city, some state], FBI agents did a raid and found that their records weren't 100% compliant. Blah blah blah." Then mention some way how it is weeding out child porn, and basically say that the company was involved in child porn.

Just my :2 cents:!

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

So, whats the situation with people living outside the US but hosting on US servers? Should they move?

That is a question you should be asking a lawyer, however I would say if you live outside of the US - you have a lot less to be concerned with.

Are there any hosts outside of the US that allow adult content? I don't live in the US but all my sites are hosted with webhosts somewhere on American soil.

Missie

Any thoughts as to if this will affect text linking to hosted galleries?

I would say if you live outside of the US - you have a lot less to be concerned with.

The people hosting those galleries had better have their shit together...lol. Meanwhile foriegn webmasters will be linking with nice juicy fat thumbs. It's not fair.

Curious as to how they determine where to go to get the records? I mean if I have a 2257 link at the bottom of the page. And for this example lets say it's all images are from one company. The link says hey the custodian of records for these image or images can be found at this address. Go there and you will have the records for this. I believe it's bangbros that does this... For movie clips at the start of each one is a full on identification of the clip as well as where the custodian of records is. So you can come in and say this is in reference to clip id d8e8w can we take a look at your records for this. What am I missing here?

I mean fuck girls gone wild got nailed for not having proper records and he isn't getting his ass drilled right now. He paid a fine and did some community service.

Joe Francis has the best lawyers in the world and plenty of money to pay them. Do you have that luxury?

I don't have that luxury. Just was pointing out though.

Still going to wonder how they know what door to knock on. What's wrong with having your custodian of records located some place else besides where you do majority of your work? Have people at the other place where your records are. If they come...they come...show the the records they do their thing and continue on.

I'm pretty sure it doesn't matter what you link to, as long as there is no sexually-explicit content on your server. You could have all your thumbs be non-explicit...

nothing but hosted galleries will be left standing.

say good by to johnny gallery poster.

Will the supporters of GW Bush please stand up and take your medicine. As soon as the judge dissolves the agreement they will add secondary producers to their list and keep on inspecting.

Hope that the Congress forces removal of Gonzales and maybe the replacment will realize that 2257 enforcement is a waste of resources, but I doubt it. Congress, when it was Republican, requested enforcement of 2257.

It will take a different administration to sa what Jenet Reno said, it may be a law but there are more important issues like terror and crime. To this group of religious crackpots this is a jihad, opps crusade.

If the fbi contacts you, just say that you got all the documentation and they are free to come and inspect it..... If they against all odds should jump on a plane and visit you, say that you must have misplaced them and then move your sites.

this will change

no, not likely at all

If you are a US citizen anyplace in the world you need to comply.
If your sites are hosted in the US you need to comply.
If you are banking in the US you need to compy.
If you are processing credit cards in the US you need to comply
Give them time to learn from China and they will figure out how to add if oyu sell into the US market you need to comply

It ASTOUNDS ME the number of big webmasters here who have no idea that 4472 trumped Sundance....

And with non hardcore thumbnails.. you've still got the implied nudity that's in 4472..

Amen. Well said.

Yes it did BUT the deal between DOJ and the FSC held off enforcement. That deal is likely to disappear in May. So get ready to bend over.

You are speaking of secondary producer records, where you say "I am so-and-so, I am not the primary producer of any content on my site, but so-and-so (and so-and -so-else, and thus-and so, and so on...) provided the content, and here are their addresses"

Under 4472, that is no longer permitted. YOU have to have ALL of the records for ANYTHING that qualifies under 2257 and 4472 that is displayed on your URLs. This applies even if the images are being pulled from a different server; if the address bar at the top belongs to you, you need the docs on file. No exceptions.

Also, note that under 4472, the scope of what requires documentation is substantially expanded from 2257. Some forms of nonexplicit nudity are now regulated, as are simulated sex acts (except for those produced by Hollywood, thanks to lobbyists) and a bunch of other stuff.

It's likely that the expanded definitions may run afoul of the first amendment, but the secondary producer requirements are probably here to stay.

And... there has *never* been an injunction against enforcement of 4472, so since September '06, the FSC injunction was essentially rendered moot, because 4472 essentially eliminated the arguments that FSC made that got them the injunction in the first place.

Fuck yeah, the U.S. rocks! I'm glad my tax money has helped pay for things like this.

A lawyer told you that?

Thought I would toss this in. pulled this from the fsc site faq.

I feel much better reading that. As records are at a different location than where I work 99.9% of the time. :thumbsup

Cheers,
B

BUT.. the law says you have to maintain "NORMAL" business hours at least 20 hours per week.

So 20 hours per week you need to be at that other place

So Google needs docs?

I can't see how they are going to be able to regulate this. I can't hotlink an explicit image from a sponsor but a search engine can? What makes a TGP any different than a search engine? Both are just indexing data and linking to something that they do not produce.

or people that work for my company. the custodian of the records. :thumbsup

I don't need to be there. Just someone to let the peeps in if they come knocking.