Anyone heard about the new 2257 database? - GoFuckYourself.com

KimJI · 08-20-2007, 04:34 AM

I have seen it on a danish news sites today, they are passing a law in the US about all models, must have their pictures added to a database, with a sample of each photoserie, websites they are used on, content shooter and license holder.

Only good new is, that the models private info are kept hidden, and age are the only part shown.

I cant find any solid info on the topic

AsianDivaGirlsWebDude · 08-20-2007, 04:36 AM

Thanks for sharing...not solid info...

ADG

Oracle Porn · 08-20-2007, 04:38 AM

maybe its only in your danish country?

KimJI · 08-20-2007, 04:41 AM

http://ekstrabladet.dk/nyheder/samfu...icle329074.ece

sorry, its all I know and that is why I ask here on the forum. Nice plug for Jenna :-D

They are reffeing to "New York Post." as the source

DeadFidel · 08-20-2007, 05:01 AM

No problem

KimJI · 08-20-2007, 06:00 AM

I send the journalist a email, and she send me this in return
http://www.nypost.com/seven/08192007...non_fisher.htm

But the page don't load for me

Dirty Dane · 08-20-2007, 06:11 AM

STASI 2.0

IllTestYourGirls · 08-20-2007, 08:01 AM

""The benefit of the rule is that children will be better protected from exploitation in the production of visual depictions of sexually explicit conduct by ensuring that only those who are at least 18 years of age perform in such depictions. The costs to the industry include slightly higher record-keeping costs," the agency argued."

How? Slightly? haha

stickyfingerz · 08-20-2007, 08:12 AM

Yes so this is different how? Reading the ny times article looks to be nothing diff.

MrPinks · 08-20-2007, 08:15 AM

"The department estimates that there are 500,000 Web sites, 200 DVD producers and 5,000 businesses nationwide that would be subject to the new rule. "

That number seems way off. 200 DVD producers? There has to be a shitload more that 200.

"The costs to the industry include slightly higher record-keeping costs,"

Looks like are requested comments from the FSC to show our concerns about increased costs aren't going to mean jack shit.

KimJI · 08-20-2007, 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz

Yes so this is different how? Reading the ny times article looks to be nothing diff.

It means there are more ways for you to get busted when you sell content yo don't won the right to and pocket the money.

stickyfingerz · 08-20-2007, 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KimJI

It means there are more ways for you to get busted when you sell content yo don't won the right to and pocket the money.

Umm they said nothing about a "central database" as you said. Nothing has changed.

directfiesta · 08-20-2007, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KimJI

It means there are more ways for you to get busted when you sell content yo don't won the right to and pocket the money.

again:

dready · 08-20-2007, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz

Umm they said nothing about a "central database" as you said. Nothing has changed.

Quote:

The Department of Justice wants to come up with an official list of every porn star in America - and slap stiff penalties on producers who don't cooperate.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/08192007...non_fisher.htm

tony286 · 08-20-2007, 09:34 AM

What do they consider a porn star?Also where is the FSC to rebutt this?

MrPinks · 08-20-2007, 09:51 AM

I guess anyone in any form of an adult film or photo. Ohh, I almost forgot, anyone that displays sexual coyness, whatever the fuck that is but that's what it says on the new proposed regulations.

FSC is busy counting your money and finding ways to fight copyright infringement, which they will ask for more donations to fund.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony404

What do they consider a porn star?Also where is the FSC to rebutt this?

JP-pornshooter · 08-20-2007, 10:30 AM

this sounds like the maccarthy times, cept then it was the commies they want to "register"

EZRhino · 08-20-2007, 11:30 AM

Sad that the 2257 rules do absolutly nothing to protect children.
Why does it seem to me that everytime I read mainstream articles or annoucments from the government, that every webmaster can afford to comply to thier rules. Not all of us are rich, hell some of us just get by.

08-20-2007, 04:34 AM	#1
KimJI Confirmed User Join Date: May 2007 Location: So fucking gone Posts: 1,839	Anyone heard about the new 2257 database? I have seen it on a danish news sites today, they are passing a law in the US about all models, must have their pictures added to a database, with a sample of each photoserie, websites they are used on, content shooter and license holder. Only good new is, that the models private info are kept hidden, and age are the only part shown. I cant find any solid info on the topic __________________ Trafficadept \| Best traffic I have ever tested \| web "@t" cuul.org

08-20-2007, 04:36 AM	#2
AsianDivaGirlsWebDude Purveyor, Fine Asian Porn Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: San Francisco Bay Area Posts: 38,323	Thanks for sharing...not solid info... ADG __________________ Asian Diva Girls - Exclusive Photos and Videos Asian Diva Girls Affiliate Program (50% ccBill Revshare)

08-20-2007, 04:38 AM	#3
Oracle Porn Affiliate Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Icq: 94-399-723 Posts: 24,433	maybe its only in your danish country? __________________

08-20-2007, 04:41 AM	#4
KimJI Confirmed User Join Date: May 2007 Location: So fucking gone Posts: 1,839	http://ekstrabladet.dk/nyheder/samfu...icle329074.ece sorry, its all I know and that is why I ask here on the forum. Nice plug for Jenna :-D They are reffeing to "New York Post." as the source __________________ Trafficadept \| Best traffic I have ever tested \| web "@t" cuul.org

08-20-2007, 06:00 AM	#6
KimJI Confirmed User Join Date: May 2007 Location: So fucking gone Posts: 1,839	I send the journalist a email, and she send me this in return http://www.nypost.com/seven/08192007...non_fisher.htm But the page don't load for me __________________ Trafficadept \| Best traffic I have ever tested \| web "@t" cuul.org

08-20-2007, 05:01 AM	#5
DeadFidel Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: This was my wife circa 2002 Posts: 6,760	No problem

08-20-2007, 06:11 AM	#7
Dirty Dane Sick Fuck Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: www Posts: 9,491	STASI 2.0

08-20-2007, 08:01 AM	#8
IllTestYourGirls Ah My Balls Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Under the gold leaf ICQ 388-454-421 Posts: 14,311	""The benefit of the rule is that children will be better protected from exploitation in the production of visual depictions of sexually explicit conduct by ensuring that only those who are at least 18 years of age perform in such depictions. The costs to the industry include slightly higher record-keeping costs," the agency argued." How? Slightly? haha __________________

08-20-2007, 08:12 AM	#9
stickyfingerz Doin fine Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 24,984	Yes so this is different how? Reading the ny times article looks to be nothing diff.

08-20-2007, 08:15 AM	#10
MrPinks Registered User Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: FL Posts: 1,767	"The department estimates that there are 500,000 Web sites, 200 DVD producers and 5,000 businesses nationwide that would be subject to the new rule. " That number seems way off. 200 DVD producers? There has to be a shitload more that 200. "The costs to the industry include slightly higher record-keeping costs," Looks like are requested comments from the FSC to show our concerns about increased costs aren't going to mean jack shit.

08-20-2007, 09:34 AM	#15
tony286 lurker Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: atlanta Posts: 57,021	What do they consider a porn star?Also where is the FSC to rebutt this?

08-20-2007, 10:30 AM	#17
JP-pornshooter Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: westcoast usa Posts: 4,007	this sounds like the maccarthy times, cept then it was the commies they want to "register"

08-20-2007, 11:30 AM	#18
EZRhino Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: couch Posts: 6,258	Sad that the 2257 rules do absolutly nothing to protect children. Why does it seem to me that everytime I read mainstream articles or annoucments from the government, that every webmaster can afford to comply to thier rules. Not all of us are rich, hell some of us just get by.