New 2257 Regs Posted In Here! You Saw It From The Fag First! - GoFuckYourself.com

BoyAlley · 07-12-2007, 09:10 AM

Here you go breeders, here you go.

Direct from the Federal Registry, the new 2257 regs!

New 2257 Regs

BoyAlley · 07-12-2007, 09:12 AM

17 pages long of new regs is teh sux bad.

This will take some time to digest.

BoyAlley · 07-12-2007, 09:13 AM

Also remember that these are PROPOSED regs that the public can write in and comment on so that they Government can ignore us first before turning them into actual law.

directfiesta · 07-12-2007, 09:16 AM

will read that while on the can .....

but I personally don't give a shit about foreign laws.

Shoehorn! · 07-12-2007, 09:16 AM

Any drastic changes or new things added since last time?

stickyfingerz · 07-12-2007, 09:18 AM

Ill wait to make any changes till they are law.

Thanks for the update.

BoyAlley · 07-12-2007, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shoehorn!

Any drastic changes or new things added since last time?

A ton of them, yes. Here's the first I've come across so far:

Quote:

that producers of lascivious exhibition maintain records under section 2257

The new regs specifically includes COMPLETELY CLOTHED individuals that are posing in a sexually suggestive manner.

Also now includes simulated, not just actual, sexually explicit conduct.

CaptainHowdy · 07-12-2007, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoyAlley

The new regs specifically includes COMPLETELY CLOTHED individuals that are posing in a sexually suggestive manner.

... Now seriously...

GatorB · 07-12-2007, 09:22 AM

"In addition, by confirming that the statute and
regulations apply to ``secondary producers,'' the revised proposed rule
will make it more difficult for the purveyors of such material to
access the market."

GatorB · 07-12-2007, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoyAlley

A ton of them, yes. Here's the first I've come across so far:

The new regs specifically includes COMPLETELY CLOTHED individuals that are posing in a sexually suggestive manner.

Also now includes simulated, not just actual, sexually explicit conduct.

So does that mean HBO has to have 2257 docs for every movie it shows?

leedsfan · 07-12-2007, 09:25 AM

so basically every page with a sexual image on must now have the 2257 full information on it, as opposed to a 2257 link.

Man, that's going to be tough.

BoyAlley · 07-12-2007, 09:25 AM

Quote:

The proposed rule requires, per the statute, that the statement describing
the location of the records required by this part be affixed to every
page of a Web site (controlled by the producer) on which visual
depictions of sexually explicit conduct appear.

Apparently they're now saying that putting a link marked "18 U.S.C. 2257 Record-Keeping Requirements
Compliance Statement." on each of your pages, that goes to a page that has the address of where your records are, is no longer good enough.

They now want your name and address on EVERY PAGE that sexually explicit conduct appears?

IllTestYourGirls · 07-12-2007, 09:26 AM

This is exactly why Ron Paul needs to be elected. I don't see how an adult webmaster could vote for anyone else.

IllTestYourGirls · 07-12-2007, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoyAlley

Apparently they're now saying that putting a link marked "18 U.S.C. 2257 Record-Keeping Requirements
Compliance Statement." on each of your pages, that goes to a page that has the address of where your records are, is no longer good enough.

They now want your name and address on EVERY PAGE that sexually explicit conduct appears?

Finally I can stalk those sexy models! YES! Ill add that I'm sarcastic...

BoyAlley · 07-12-2007, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

So does that mean HBO has to have 2257 docs for every movie it shows?

No, there appear to be exceptions that are specifically written exclude hollywood from the regs.

Tom_PM · 07-12-2007, 09:28 AM

One definition of lascivious says: arousing sexual desire

Now how in the hell can you tell what arouses my sexual desire? lol

So if you post pics that arouse me, you better have docs. Or something.

IllTestYourGirls · 07-12-2007, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PR_Tom

One definition of lascivious says: arousing sexual desire

Now how in the hell can you tell what arouses my sexual desire? lol

So if you post pics that arouse me, you better have docs. Or something.

the word "hell" just sexually stimulated my pee-pee

GatorB · 07-12-2007, 09:29 AM

(g) Records are not required to be maintained by either a primary
producer or by a secondary producer for a visual depiction of sexually
explicit conduct that consists only of lascivious exhibition of the genitals or
pubic area of a person, and contains no other sexually explicit
conduct, whose original production date was prior to July 27, 2006.

Now if you don't maintian the records how are you going to prove to the feds that the material was made before July 27, 2006?

BoyAlley · 07-12-2007, 09:30 AM

Quote:

it
clarifies that primary producers may redact non-essential information
from copies of records provided to secondary producers, including
addresses, phone numbers, social security numbers, and other
information not necessary to confirm the name and age of the performer.
However, the identification number of the picture identification card
presented to confirm name and age--such as drivers' license number or
passport number--may not be redacted, so that its validity may be
confirmed.

Redacted docs OK for secondary producers so long as it contains the above info.

IllTestYourGirls · 07-12-2007, 09:31 AM

ok just making this clear, these are PROPOSED right? Not law yet.

GatorB · 07-12-2007, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoyAlley

No, there appear to be exceptions that are specifically written exclude hollywood from the regs.

Why? I would think that a movie like "Not Another Teen Movie" would fall right into this. Adults pretending to be teens engaging in simulated sexual behavior? Um that doesn't apply?

BoyAlley · 07-12-2007, 09:31 AM

Live content producers MUST record PART of each live performance and maintain it:

Quote:

the proposed rule clarifies that producers of visual
depictions performed live on the Internet need not maintain a copy of
the full running-time of every such depiction. Rather, they may
maintain a copy that contains running-time sufficient to identify each
and every performer in the depiction and associate each and every
performer with the records needed to confirm his or her age.

ServerGenius · 07-12-2007, 09:31 AM

EXODUS.....movement of the porn people! Ohooooh-oh-oh

GatorB · 07-12-2007, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IllTestYourGirls

ok just making this clear, these are PROPOSED right? Not law yet.

No these are the new rules.

BoyAlley · 07-12-2007, 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

Why? I would think that a movie like "Not Another Teen Movie" would fall right into this. Adults pretending to be teens engaging in simulated sexual behavior? Um that doesn't apply?

No because it's mainstream hollywood and there are mainstream hollywood exceptions.

NinjaSteve · 07-12-2007, 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz

Ill wait to make any changes till they are law.

Thanks for the update.

Sounds like a good plan

Tom_PM · 07-12-2007, 09:33 AM

So a girl posing nude, spreading etc in pics I bought years ago require no documentation? Not too shabby. Unless I missed something.

Good question though GatorB.. I suppose you'd better file and save the receipts, and content licenses which you normally sign and date anyway.

BoyAlley · 07-12-2007, 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

No these are the new rules.

No these are PROPOSED rules. There's a period of public comment now before they're entered into law.

GatorB · 07-12-2007, 09:35 AM

DATES: Written comments must be received by September 10, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Written comments may be submitted to: Andrew Oosterbaan,
Chief, Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, Criminal Division,
United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20530; Attn:
``Docket No. CRM 104.''
Comments may be submitted electronically to: [email protected]
or to http://www.regulations.gov by using the electronic comment form provided

on that site. Comments submitted electronically must include Docket No.
CRM 104 in the subject box. You may also view an electronic version of
this rule at the http://www.regulations.gov site.

So write them. Not that it will do any good.

GatorB · 07-12-2007, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoyAlley

No these are PROPOSED rules. There's a period of public comment now before they're entered into law.

Yes I know.

IllTestYourGirls · 07-12-2007, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoyAlley

No these are PROPOSED rules. There's a period of public comment now before they're entered into law.

Then I guess people should start commenting. Have an address to make such comments?...oops thanks Gator

BoyAlley · 07-12-2007, 09:36 AM

Other than clarifying the foreign ID muck, that seems to be about it as far as I can tell.

Basically it just confirms that secondary producers are now as fucked as primary producers, and adds some more stupid unnecessary crap like having to put our address on EVERY SINGLE PAGE that a sexually explicit depiction appears instead of just using a link, that live cam houses have to record "part" of the performance, and that now even fully clothed people might be covered by 2257, etc. etc.

Sucks bad.

Compdoctor · 07-12-2007, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoyAlley

No, there appear to be exceptions that are specifically written exclude hollywood from the regs.

That makes it unconstitutional under the bill or rights. you know where it talks about Equal Protection

but then, Bush is still in office.

IllTestYourGirls · 07-12-2007, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Compdoctor

That makes it unconstitutional under the bill or rights. you know where it talks about Equal Protection

but then, Bush is still in office.

Free to go fuck yourselves! Really Ron Paul 2008!

GatorB · 07-12-2007, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PR_Tom

So a girl posing nude, spreading etc in pics I bought years ago require no documentation? Not too shabby. Unless I missed something.

Nope. How can they expect you do have records of something when it wasn't required or even proposed to be required when you obtained the material? That's why porn movies made before 1990 don't have to have 2257 info.

Quote:

Good question though GatorB.. I suppose you'd better file and save the receipts, and content licenses which you normally sign and date anyway.

Well it doesn't matter WHEN you bought them. It matters when the content was origanally produced. Obviously if you bought it before July 27, 2006 then it was produced then.

ilbb · 07-12-2007, 09:41 AM

Quote:

The new regs specifically includes COMPLETELY CLOTHED individuals that are posing in a sexually suggestive manner.

That's crazy, will I need 2257 info for teasing pictures like these?

IllTestYourGirls · 07-12-2007, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ilbb

That's crazy, will I need 2257 info for teasing pictures like these?

YES! Their fucking ankles are showing! super sexy makes me hard!

GatorB · 07-12-2007, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoyAlley

Other than clarifying the foreign ID muck, that seems to be about it as far as I can tell.

Basically it just confirms that secondary producers are now as fucked as primary producers, and adds some more stupid unnecessary crap like having to put our address on EVERY SINGLE PAGE that a sexually explicit depiction appears instead of just using a link, that live cam houses have to record "part" of the performance, and that now even fully clothed people might be covered by 2257, etc. etc.

Sucks bad.

Yes and that's YOUR address not he address of the original producer as 99% of people that have 2257 links on their sites do.

So if you do this out of your home and then your REAL name and your REAL address and your REAL phone number needs to be listed.

Tom_PM · 07-12-2007, 09:43 AM

Quote:

The proposed rule requires, per the statute, that the statement describing
the location of the records required by this part be affixed to every
page of a Web site (controlled by the producer) on which visual
depictions of sexually explicit conduct appear.

"affixed"? Is linking "affixing"? Why not?

How about a mouseover tooltip ballon? It's in the code, it's on the page, it's affixed isn't it? hmmmm..

leedsfan · 07-12-2007, 09:46 AM

thats the way i read it. I'll give you more feedback in a couple of hours, as we're having a legal panel here at the show to discuss this very issue in detail

BoyAlley · 07-12-2007, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

Yes and that's YOUR address not he address of the original producer as 99% of people that have 2257 links on their sites do.

So if you do this out of your home and then your REAL name and your REAL address and your REAL phone number needs to be listed.

That's correct, a secondary producer is required by law to maintain and cross reference all records in the same way that a primary producer is, and the secondary producer's address must be on EVERY page of EVERY site that they own, and secondary producers must be available 20 hours per week at that location for inspection.

Tom_PM · 07-12-2007, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leedsfan

thats the way i read it. I'll give you more feedback in a couple of hours, as we're having a legal panel here at the show to discuss this very issue in detail

Perfect!

jigga · 07-12-2007, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoyAlley

That's correct, a secondary producer is required by law to maintain and cross reference all records in the same way that a primary producer is, and the secondary producer's address must be on EVERY page of EVERY site that they own, and secondary producers must be available 20 hours per week at that location for inspection.

wow eh, if this passes than there will be a ton of US webmasters closing up shop.

Tom_PM · 07-12-2007, 09:49 AM

Affixing is attaching. So what is linking? Seems to me it would be attaching one page to another, but I'm no lawyer! It'll all shake out.

BoyAlley · 07-12-2007, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PR_Tom

"affixed"? Is linking "affixing"? Why not?

How about a mouseover tooltip ballon? It's in the code, it's on the page, it's affixed isn't it? hmmmm..

It specifically excludes the use of "pop-ups" and "links" and specifically states that your name and address must appear on each page of the site where there's explicit material.

jonesonyou · 07-12-2007, 09:50 AM

Good thing the Intern is in the office today. The Job of the Intern is to read this to me and make the necessary changes. Thanks for the headsup.

GatorB · 07-12-2007, 09:51 AM

Fuck these bullshit rules. I hope someone sues the government after this is all passed( and you kow it will be ) and ties this is court for years like COPA. No way secondary prodcuers should have to keep records.

Ok so say Scene 1 from Ass Fucked BIATCHES #87 is on 1000 sites. Why would the government bother checking 1000 sites who had NOTHING to do with making of this movie, when it would be easier to check the records of the ORGINAL PRODUCER who actually made the product in the first place? Seems like an incredible waste of time, manpower and money.

BoyAlley · 07-12-2007, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonesonyou

Good thing the Intern is in the office today. The Job of the Intern is to read this to me and make the necessary changes. Thanks for the headsup.

ilbb · 07-12-2007, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jigga

wow eh, if this passes than there will be a ton of US webmasters closing up shop.

Yep, if I was US webmaster I would rather go work to MCDonald.

Tom_PM · 07-12-2007, 09:52 AM

Like if I mouseover the yellow "New Thread" button and it shows the alt text balloon saying "Post New Thread", thats a "pop-up"? No wayyyy arghhhhhh

07-12-2007, 09:10 AM	#1
BoyAlley So Fucking Gay Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 19,714	New 2257 Regs Posted In Here! You Saw It From The Fag First! Lawds Mercy! Here you go breeders, here you go. Direct from the Federal Registry, the new 2257 regs! New 2257 Regs Last edited by BoyAlley; 07-12-2007 at 09:11 AM..

07-12-2007, 09:16 AM	#4
directfiesta Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Punta Cana, DR Posts: 29,914	will read that while on the can ..... but I personally don't give a shit about foreign laws. __________________ I know that Asspimple is stoopid ... As he says, it is a FACT ! But I can't figure out how he can breathe or type , at the same time ....

07-12-2007, 09:16 AM	#5
Shoehorn! Die With Your Boots On Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Hawaii Posts: 22,872	Any drastic changes or new things added since last time? __________________

07-12-2007, 09:25 AM	#11
leedsfan leedsfan Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: purgatory Posts: 2,564	so basically every page with a sexual image on must now have the 2257 full information on it, as opposed to a 2257 link. Man, that's going to be tough. __________________ Advertise on Sex2ube.com New Tube Content Packages Save $10K +

07-12-2007, 09:26 AM	#13
IllTestYourGirls Ah My Balls Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Under the gold leaf ICQ 388-454-421 Posts: 14,311	This is exactly why Ron Paul needs to be elected. I don't see how an adult webmaster could vote for anyone else. __________________

07-12-2007, 09:12 AM	#2
BoyAlley So Fucking Gay Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 19,714	17 pages long of new regs is teh sux bad. This will take some time to digest.

07-12-2007, 09:13 AM	#3
BoyAlley So Fucking Gay Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 19,714	Also remember that these are PROPOSED regs that the public can write in and comment on so that they Government can ignore us first before turning them into actual law.

07-12-2007, 09:18 AM	#6
stickyfingerz Doin fine Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 24,984	Ill wait to make any changes till they are law. Thanks for the update.

07-12-2007, 09:22 AM	#9
GatorB The Demon & 12clicks Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: SallyRand is a FAGGOT Posts: 18,208	"In addition, by confirming that the statute and regulations apply to ``secondary producers,'' the revised proposed rule will make it more difficult for the purveyors of such material to access the market."

07-12-2007, 09:28 AM	#16
Tom_PM Porn Meister Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 16,443	One definition of lascivious says: arousing sexual desire Now how in the hell can you tell what arouses my sexual desire? lol So if you post pics that arouse me, you better have docs. Or something. __________________ 43-922-863 Shut up and play your guitar.

07-12-2007, 09:29 AM	#18
GatorB The Demon & 12clicks Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: SallyRand is a FAGGOT Posts: 18,208	(g) Records are not required to be maintained by either a primary producer or by a secondary producer for a visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct that consists only of lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of a person, and contains no other sexually explicit conduct, whose original production date was prior to July 27, 2006. Now if you don't maintian the records how are you going to prove to the feds that the material was made before July 27, 2006?

07-12-2007, 09:31 AM	#20
IllTestYourGirls Ah My Balls Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Under the gold leaf ICQ 388-454-421 Posts: 14,311	ok just making this clear, these are PROPOSED right? Not law yet. __________________

07-12-2007, 09:31 AM	#23
ServerGenius Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Amsterdam Posts: 9,377	EXODUS.....movement of the porn people! Ohooooh-oh-oh __________________ \| http://www.sinnerscash.com/ \| ICQ: 370820 \| Skype: SinnersCash \| AdultWhosWho \|

07-12-2007, 09:33 AM	#27
Tom_PM Porn Meister Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 16,443	So a girl posing nude, spreading etc in pics I bought years ago require no documentation? Not too shabby. Unless I missed something. Good question though GatorB.. I suppose you'd better file and save the receipts, and content licenses which you normally sign and date anyway. __________________ 43-922-863 Shut up and play your guitar.

07-12-2007, 09:35 AM	#29
GatorB The Demon & 12clicks Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: SallyRand is a FAGGOT Posts: 18,208	DATES: Written comments must be received by September 10, 2007. ADDRESSES: Written comments may be submitted to: Andrew Oosterbaan, Chief, Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, Criminal Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20530; Attn: ``Docket No. CRM 104.'' Comments may be submitted electronically to: [email protected] or to http://www.regulations.gov by using the electronic comment form provided on that site. Comments submitted electronically must include Docket No. CRM 104 in the subject box. You may also view an electronic version of this rule at the http://www.regulations.gov site. So write them. Not that it will do any good.

07-12-2007, 09:36 AM	#32
BoyAlley So Fucking Gay Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 19,714	Other than clarifying the foreign ID muck, that seems to be about it as far as I can tell. Basically it just confirms that secondary producers are now as fucked as primary producers, and adds some more stupid unnecessary crap like having to put our address on EVERY SINGLE PAGE that a sexually explicit depiction appears instead of just using a link, that live cam houses have to record "part" of the performance, and that now even fully clothed people might be covered by 2257, etc. etc. Sucks bad.

07-12-2007, 09:46 AM	#40
leedsfan leedsfan Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: purgatory Posts: 2,564	thats the way i read it. I'll give you more feedback in a couple of hours, as we're having a legal panel here at the show to discuss this very issue in detail __________________ Advertise on Sex2ube.com New Tube Content Packages Save $10K +

07-12-2007, 09:49 AM	#44
Tom_PM Porn Meister Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 16,443	Affixing is attaching. So what is linking? Seems to me it would be attaching one page to another, but I'm no lawyer! It'll all shake out. __________________ 43-922-863 Shut up and play your guitar.

07-12-2007, 09:50 AM	#46
jonesonyou Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Lincoln, NE Posts: 3,853	Good thing the Intern is in the office today. The Job of the Intern is to read this to me and make the necessary changes. Thanks for the headsup. __________________ Completely Real Amateur girls doing awesome things! Signup to promote Nebraskacoeds Today! Hit me up on ICQ/AIM 473324556/jasonnecoeds for exclusive content to promote with! And any ?'s

07-12-2007, 09:51 AM	#47
GatorB The Demon & 12clicks Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: SallyRand is a FAGGOT Posts: 18,208	Fuck these bullshit rules. I hope someone sues the government after this is all passed( and you kow it will be ) and ties this is court for years like COPA. No way secondary prodcuers should have to keep records. Ok so say Scene 1 from Ass Fucked BIATCHES #87 is on 1000 sites. Why would the government bother checking 1000 sites who had NOTHING to do with making of this movie, when it would be easier to check the records of the ORGINAL PRODUCER who actually made the product in the first place? Seems like an incredible waste of time, manpower and money.

07-12-2007, 09:52 AM	#50
Tom_PM Porn Meister Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 16,443	Like if I mouseover the yellow "New Thread" button and it shows the alt text balloon saying "Post New Thread", thats a "pop-up"? No wayyyy arghhhhhh __________________ 43-922-863 Shut up and play your guitar.