GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum (https://gfy.com/index.php)
-   Fucking Around & Business Discussion (https://gfy.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   Affiliate Question -- 2257 Docs & IDs (https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=923370)

pornlaw 08-23-2009 09:26 AM
Affiliate Question -- 2257 Docs & IDs
 
This issue was talked about in another thread....

How many, if any, of the big programs/sponsors are giving their affiliates the necessary 2257 docs and IDs under the new regs since secondary producers are now required to keep records as well.

Linking back to the sponsor's 2257 Notice is not compliant BTW.

Or, are most of the programs/sponsors hosting galleries now and no longer giving out content ?

Thanks....

moeloubani 08-23-2009 09:37 AM
can't that fall under a third party keeping the records for the affiliate, the third party being the sponsor?

DonovanTrent 08-23-2009 09:49 AM
I'm sure it could, as long as the affiliate has a contract with the sponsor company designating the sponsor as the third-party recordkeeper. I'd think that this could be easily added into affiliate program T&C, though it may be better to have it separate and on paper. I'm no attorney and I'm referring back to memory on reading the latest version of the regs, though. But this is one reason why my program will only have FHGs, at least for now.

Mr. Cool Ice 08-23-2009 09:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pornlaw (Post 16225120)
...is not compliant BTW.
PornLaw,
First, let me say, you have a GREAT service. A brilliant idea. So don't take this personally.

This industry was started by the Mafia, transitioned to people and companies who produced illegal porn in California (until Miller VS Cali) and other places in the USA (or world), and now rests in the hands of groups of people and companies who sell each other out, rip each other off, scam credit cards, cheat models and generally are bad people. From the DVD side to the web side, many are scumbags to the core. I'm not saying everyone is a piece of shit, but I'm saying the vast majority are. It's a mix of shit bags, risk takers and professionals. Sadly, the "professional" group is the smallest of them all.

With that said, do yo think these people worry about being compliant regarding anything, especially something that may not even become a problem? Do you think foreign webmasters give a piss about this law, regardless of they should or not?

Some of the "professionals" care. That's it. The rest are shit bags, risk takers and guys who fly by the seat of their pants, many from pay check to pay check. Getting 2257 from their sponsors is about as much of a concern as getting their colon checked. :2 cents: They just don't care.

Zorgman 08-23-2009 10:11 AM
I do not think the 80 odd sponsors I promote are going to send me all the models ID's of all their sites. That 5000+ paysites with say 100 models each one. That's 500,000 ID's. I do not think thats something that will happen anytime soon. If so, I will be going back to text linking.

Dirty Dane 08-23-2009 10:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Cool Ice (Post 16225198)
Do you think foreign webmasters give a piss about this law, regardless of they should or not?
I think the US law enforcement gives a piss too, if the webmaster is foreign. In fact, 2257 is illegal in many countries because it contradicts with laws regarding privacy. Another problem arise when US companies, like a billing processor or host, require 2257 compliance. How the hell is a foreign webmaster supposed to comply with something that may be illegal in is own country? :upsidedow

pornlaw 08-23-2009 10:56 AM
Quote:
PornLaw,
First, let me say, you have a GREAT service. A brilliant idea. So don't take this personally.
Thanks and I do agree with your basic premise on the industry.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonovanTrent (Post 16225174)
I'm sure it could, as long as the affiliate has a contract with the sponsor company designating the sponsor as the third-party recordkeeper. I'd think that this could be easily added into affiliate program T&C, though it may be better to have it separate and on paper. I'm no attorney and I'm referring back to memory on reading the latest version of the regs, though. But this is one reason why my program will only have FHGs, at least for now.
That is 100% legally correct. I am just not sure that an affiliate would want, according to Mr. Cool Ice, their personal freedom "in the hands of groups of people and companies who sell each other out, rip each other off, scam credit cards, cheat models and generally are bad people."

Would you really trust a program to handle your records as they handled their own ?

Quote:
Another problem arise when US companies, like a billing processor or host, require 2257 compliance. How the hell is a foreign webmaster supposed to comply with something that may be illegal in is own country?
Great point, but legally it is easy to get around privacy act regs in foreign countries by adding language to the model release.

Quote:
I do not think the 80 odd sponsors I promote are going to send me all the models ID's of all their sites. That 5000+ paysites with say 100 models each one. That's 500,000 ID's. I do not think thats something that will happen anytime soon. If so, I will be going back to text linking.
No probably not, but you dont need all the docs/IDs on content you arent promoting. Just the content that sits on your servers. That cuts the number back dramatically.

GatorB 08-23-2009 11:07 AM
I still think the whole secondary producer shit is bullshit can can be overturned if someone would push it.

Think about it, if I run a porno shop do I need 2257 docs for all the models in the movies I sell, rent or show in the private booths? No. Yet if I have the EXACT SAME movies on my website I do? Does this follow any logic whatsoever? The only people that know the girl is over 18 is the original producer. And if she's underage they could just very easily give me fake docs saying she's legal. So me having docs proves nothing and wastes everyones time. If the feds think some chick is under 18 why the fuck not go straight to the source? Isn't it easier to check with the actual producer of the movie than perhaps the 1000 websites that are showing that movie?

Dirty Dane 08-23-2009 11:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pornlaw (Post 16225336)
Great point, but legally it is easy to get around privacy act regs in foreign countries by adding language to the model release.
Well, models are not the problem I'm thinking of. 2257 requires you to put your name and place for inspection on your website (which of course make no sense if you live abroad), but no one can force you to do that because it contradicts with privacy rights. If US hosts or billing processors (those handling both affiliates and paysites) require everyone to comply 100% with US laws, they also require affiliates (as secondary producers) to do that. And what's the point in doing it really - US law enforcement can't make inspections abroad? So "Linking back to the sponsor's 2257 Notice is not compliant BTW." would at least be as compliant as possible, regarding foreign secondary producers... wouldn't it? Something is better than nothing. :)

On a sidenote: If 2257 is creating barriers between U.S. and foreign companies, the way it contradicts, isn't 2257 itself then non-compliant with international trade agreements?
Besides the constutional princip "innocent until proven guilty", I can't see 2257 nothing else than a political tool against adult industry - bot in U.S. .. AND international trade of it. A law "designed" to avoid people breaking another more serious laws... give me a break :error

DonovanTrent 08-23-2009 11:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pornlaw (Post 16225336)
That is 100% legally correct. I am just not sure that an affiliate would want, according to Mr. Cool Ice, their personal freedom "in the hands of groups of people and companies who sell each other out, rip each other off, scam credit cards, cheat models and generally are bad people."

Would you really trust a program to handle your records as they handled their own ?
I can agree to a point on that. However, your point becomes tainted when it's used purely to shill your own service. But that wouldn't have been your original reason for starting this thread, would it...? :winkwink:

Profits of Doom 08-23-2009 11:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DonovanTrent (Post 16225406)
I can agree to a point on that. However, your point becomes tainted when it's used purely to shill your own service. But that wouldn't have been your original reason for starting this thread, would it...? :winkwink:
He's not shilling anything, he is starting a discussion, which is the point of any message board, isn't it? He is a lawyer speaking from his area of expertise, how exactly is that tainting anything?

You've obviously never sat in a jail cell, or in front of a judge and jury deciding you freedom, over something you have sold that someone decided to get a stick up their ass over on that particular day and arrest you for. I have, and it is not a pleasant experience, and if it does ever happen to you you'd appreciate any good advice you could get from an attorney...

Mr. Cool Ice 08-23-2009 12:26 PM
I also don't think the powers that be will do large scale inspections. Like they did with the DVD industry, they may do a few, rattle a cage here or there, and then find better things to do.

Even the DVD companies that were in violation, were given a chance to correct the issues. It's not like they are coming in guns a blazing. At least not yet anyway.

Mr. Cool Ice 08-23-2009 12:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirty Dane (Post 16225233)
I think the US law enforcement gives a piss too, if the webmaster is foreign. In fact, 2257 is illegal in many countries because it contradicts with laws regarding privacy. Another problem arise when US companies, like a billing processor or host, require 2257 compliance. How the hell is a foreign webmaster supposed to comply with something that may be illegal in is own country? :upsidedow
US does not and can not enforce much of anything outside of its borders unless there is oil involved. Even then, they are not very good at it. They certainly are not going to look into any website or webmaster, who is foreign, in regards to if he is 2257 compliant or not. That's as absurd as saying they are going to crack down on foreign tourists in Amsterdam for smoking weed, because it's illegal (in most states) in the USA.

Sure, one world American order may be coming sooner or later, but it's not here yet. :winkwink:

epitome 08-23-2009 12:48 PM
I like thought provoking threads like this one.

So, according to the new regs, if you thumbnail and host on your server and/or make even the slightest modification to a tiny file, are you then a secondary producer?

DonovanTrent 08-23-2009 01:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Profits of Doom (Post 16225429)
He's not shilling anything, he is starting a discussion, which is the point of any message board, isn't it? He is a lawyer speaking from his area of expertise, how exactly is that tainting anything?

You've obviously never sat in a jail cell, or in front of a judge and jury deciding you freedom, over something you have sold that someone decided to get a stick up their ass over on that particular day and arrest you for. I have, and it is not a pleasant experience, and if it does ever happen to you you'd appreciate any good advice you could get from an attorney...
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/...500_AA280_.jpg

Profits of Doom 08-23-2009 01:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DonovanTrent (Post 16225657)
I don't have a cavalier attitude when it comes to my freedom. You want light, stick to the would you hit it threads. This isn't one of them...

DonovanTrent 08-23-2009 01:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Profits of Doom (Post 16225677)
I don't have a cavalier attitude when it comes to my freedom. You want light, stick to the would you hit it threads. This isn't one of them...
Boy aren't you the fuckin' ray of sunshine. I was referring to him saying "Would you really trust a program to handle your records as they handled their own ?" which, as any marketer knows, would be followed with "Our program... etc." I was giving him a gentle prod. Dial it down, Braveheart.

Profits of Doom 08-23-2009 01:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DonovanTrent (Post 16225727)
Boy aren't you the fuckin' ray of sunshine. I was referring to him saying "Would you really trust a program to handle your records as they handled their own ?" which, as any marketer knows, would be followed with "Our program... etc." I was giving him a gentle prod. Dial it down, Braveheart.
Awww, did you get your little feelings hurt? Don't be mad, son.

You said he was just shilling his service, and that tainted his point that you shouldn't trust program owners to handle records that you are ultimately responsible for when many of them can barely keep their own shit together. How exactly is his point tainted? He is right, in the end you can only count on yourself to cover your own ass...

DonovanTrent 08-23-2009 01:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Profits of Doom (Post 16225781)
Awww, did you get your little feelings hurt? Don't be mad, son.

You said he was just shilling his service, and that tainted his point that you shouldn't trust program owners to handle records that you are ultimately responsible for when many of them can barely keep their own shit together. How exactly is his point tainted? He is right, in the end you can only count on yourself to cover your own ass...
Nah, no hurt feelings, mom. My side hurts a bit from laughing at you getting your panties all in a firey twist, though. But I'll get over that.

I'm a bit concerned that you might pop a vein from the skyrocketing blood pressure though. It's ok, I'm sure Michael can hold his own on this one without you being his personal Mighty Mouse. You can relax now, cool down, think about fluffy kittens.

Profits of Doom 08-23-2009 02:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DonovanTrent (Post 16225810)
Nah, no hurt feelings, mom. My side hurts a bit from laughing at you getting your panties all in a firey twist, though. But I'll get over that.

I'm a bit concerned that you might pop a vein from the skyrocketing blood pressure though. It's ok, I'm sure Michael can hold his own on this one without you being his personal Mighty Mouse. You can relax now, cool down, think about fluffy kittens.
Your feelings really did get hurt, that's so cute...

You seem to be having some trouble, so let me explain to you how internet message boards work, so that you don't have this same issue in the future.

Sometimes you make a statement that other people disagree with, and in turn they tell you why they disagree with it. You don't get to pick and choose who reads and responds to what you write. You see how that works?

You made a stupid statement, I disagreed with it. No one is getting their panties in a wad except you, so try and take a little of your own advice...

DonovanTrent 08-23-2009 02:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Profits of Doom (Post 16225915)
Your feelings really did get hurt, that's so cute...

You seem to be having some trouble, so let me explain to you how internet message boards work, so that you don't have this same issue in the future.

Sometimes you make a statement that other people disagree with, and in turn they tell you why they disagree with it. You don't get to pick and choose who reads and responds to what you write. You see how that works?

You made a stupid statement, I disagreed with it. No one is getting their panties in a wad except you, so try and take a little of your own advice...
You win, you're a better keyboard warrior than me. No sense in trying to explain degrees of response. Every board's got one. Back to the discussion at hand.

pornlaw 08-23-2009 06:51 PM
Quote:
Think about it, if I run a porno shop do I need 2257 docs for all the models in the movies I sell, rent or show in the private booths? No. Yet if I have the EXACT SAME movies on my website I do? Does this follow any logic whatsoever? The only people that know the girl is over 18 is the original producer.
Part of 2257 is so that not only can the DOJ/FBI determine the age of a performer, but it is also to be able to remove the underage content quickly from the open market. Having secondary producers keep records is a way of acheiving that goal. I dont buy it, but its their plausible excuse. The reason why the analogy doesnt work with a porno shop is because if XXX DVD Company sells a movie, they usually have records as to who they sold movies to and thus a sale involving a underage model can be traced to a store with a request that the movie be pulled off the shelf.

Without giving docs to secondary and without keeping records of whom gets that content, if XXX Internet Company shoots an underage model there may be no way of knowing to whom the content has been distributed and it cannot be removed from the market.

Quote:
So, according to the new regs, if you thumbnail and host on your server and/or make even the slightest modification to a tiny file, are you then a secondary producer?
You are the secondary producer as soon as you host the thumbnail. Modifications make no difference in that analysis. The modification analysis really only applies to ISPs/tubes/social networking sites and whether they monitor/alter the content thus making them liable as a secondary producer.

Quote:
I can agree to a point on that. However, your point becomes tainted when it's used purely to shill your own service. But that wouldn't have been your original reason for starting this thread, would it...?
Its more about education than shilling. But if someone learns something about 2257 and decides that www.2257Safe.com is a good investment I wont complain.

Quote:
They certainly are not going to look into any website or webmaster, who is foreign, in regards to if he is 2257 compliant or not.
Thats true and Agent Joyner even said as much at the 2007 Hollywood XBiz show.

Quote:
I also don't think the powers that be will do large scale inspections. Like they did with the DVD industry, they may do a few, rattle a cage here or there, and then find better things to do.
They do, but one inspection of a large program/sponsor could result in violations by hundreds of affiliates. A sweep resulting in hundreds/thousands of sites being shut down would appeal to the conservative right wing. A DVD company inspection will only amount to one company being in violation. Not that sexy.

Quote:
I have, and it is not a pleasant experience, and if it does ever happen to you you'd appreciate any good advice you could get from an attorney...
Thank you. I have been in many jails on visiting side of the bars and it is not a fun place to be even to visit. Not many in the industry have had that experience and I suppose that is why they are not too concerned with most of laws. Most people I advise are standing on the shoulders of giants -- the guys that did spend time in jail fighting for First Amendment rights so that those on this board can make money off an industry that a mere 20 yrs ago was completely illegal.

tony286 08-23-2009 06:57 PM
I dont understand you can be a third party custodian of record but the sponsor of the affiliate cant? Hmmm interesting.

DonovanTrent 08-23-2009 07:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pornlaw (Post 16226417)
Its more about education than shilling. But if someone learns something about 2257 and decides that www.2257Safe.com is a good investment I wont complain.
That is totally fair enough and agreed. Clearer heads prevail. :thumbsup

DonovanTrent 08-23-2009 07:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tony404 (Post 16226435)
I dont understand you can be a third party custodian of record but the sponsor of the affiliate cant? Hmmm interesting.
Contractual agreement. Check the terms laid out in 2257 for third-party custodians and you'll see. It's actually pretty straightforward if you're used to reading legalese.

tony286 08-23-2009 07:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DonovanTrent (Post 16226452)
Contractual agreement. Check the terms laid out in 2257 for third-party custodians and you'll see. It's actually pretty straightforward if you're used to reading legalese.
so sponsors couldnt amend their agreements?

DonovanTrent 08-23-2009 07:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tony404 (Post 16226480)
so sponsors couldnt amend their agreements?
I mentioned that above and Michael commented on it as well. Probably best to have a separate agreement, and it comes down to "who do you trust."

epitome 08-23-2009 07:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pornlaw (Post 16226417)
Thank you. I have been in many jails on visiting side of the bars and it is not a fun place to be even to visit. Not many in the industry have had that experience and I suppose that is why they are not too concerned with most of laws. Most people I advise are standing on the shoulders of giants -- the guys that did spend time in jail fighting for First Amendment rights so that those on this board can make money off an industry that a mere 20 yrs ago was completely illegal.
:thumbsup

A public thank you to you and the people you represent and will represent on behalf of the industry as a whole.

epitome 08-23-2009 07:14 PM
I will say this much ... I smell a big opportunity brewing in this thread.

Profits of Doom 08-23-2009 07:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pornlaw (Post 16226417)
Thank you. I have been in many jails on visiting side of the bars and it is not a fun place to be even to visit. Not many in the industry have had that experience and I suppose that is why they are not too concerned with most of laws. Most people I advise are standing on the shoulders of giants -- the guys that did spend time in jail fighting for First Amendment rights so that those on this board can make money off an industry that a mere 20 yrs ago was completely illegal.
The first time I was ever arrested was for promoting prostitution, and it was a fucking nightmare. This was before we had retained Louis Sirkin, and we had a local attorney that was pretty much worthless. We had the old dancer peep shows in our arcade area, and on that particular day the undercover vice officers went into the back, did a show with one of the girls, and then arrested her for prostitution because, in their opinion, even though she was on one side of the glass and the male officer was on another, they paid her to masturbate, which was supposed to be paying for a sexual act.

I got called in, and they immediately arrested me for promoting prostitution, even though I had independent contractor agreements with all the dancers that stated they weren't my employees. I was taken down to the Montgomery County Jail in Dayton, Ohio and booked, and was then told there was no bail until I saw a judge, which probably wouldn't be until Monday (this was a Friday night).

I was put in a cell block filled with drug dealers, armed robbers, and various other criminals, most of whom I saw every day because they lived in the violent housing project that was next door to my store, Parkside Homes. I'm a pretty big guy and can take care of myself, but being in a county jail full of violent criminals is a whole different fucking world.

Eventually my attorney showed up, and they were able to get me in front of a judge the next morning, so I only ended up spending the night that first time (in the future I wouldn't be so lucky). What worse is the judge agreed that i did nothing wrong and released me, so I now had an arrest on my record and spent the night in jail, and all because vice decided it was time to start fucking with us.

People have no clue how one cop with an axe to grind can change your whole world in an instant...

tony286 08-23-2009 07:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pornlaw (Post 16226417)
Part of 2257 is so that not only can the DOJ/FBI determine the age of a performer, but it is also to be able to remove the underage content quickly from the open market. Having secondary producers keep records is a way of acheiving that goal. I dont buy it, but its their plausible excuse. The reason why the analogy doesnt work with a porno shop is because if XXX DVD Company sells a movie, they usually have records as to who they sold movies to and thus a sale involving a underage model can be traced to a store with a request that the movie be pulled off the shelf.

Without giving docs to secondary and without keeping records of whom gets that content, if XXX Internet Company shoots an underage model there may be no way of knowing to whom the content has been distributed and it cannot be removed from the market.



You are the secondary producer as soon as you host the thumbnail. Modifications make no difference in that analysis. The modification analysis really only applies to ISPs/tubes/social networking sites and whether they monitor/alter the content thus making them liable as a secondary producer.



Its more about education than shilling. But if someone learns something about 2257 and decides that www.2257Safe.com is a good investment I wont complain.



Thats true and Agent Joyner even said as much at the 2007 Hollywood XBiz show.



They do, but one inspection of a large program/sponsor could result in violations by hundreds of affiliates. A sweep resulting in hundreds/thousands of sites being shut down would appeal to the conservative right wing. A DVD company inspection will only amount to one company being in violation. Not that sexy.



Thank you. I have been in many jails on visiting side of the bars and it is not a fun place to be even to visit. Not many in the industry have had that experience and I suppose that is why they are not too concerned with most of laws. Most people I advise are standing on the shoulders of giants -- the guys that did spend time in jail fighting for First Amendment rights so that those on this board can make money off an industry that a mere 20 yrs ago was completely illegal.
porn has been safe since 1989 because in 1993 clinton came and saw it as unimportant. Think about it when was the last case porn actually won? If 911 didn't happen porn would of been job one for Mr Ashcroft. That's why when I hear the right wingers here wanting republicans in power. if there isnt something else to keep them busy we will be seriously fucked on a level most cant imagine.

Mr. Billy 08-23-2009 07:32 PM
I will not host any sponsor content without seeing the docs. The secondary producer does not need to verify the accuracy of the docs, but he must verify that the docs are available and that the sponsor indicates they are accurate.

After I have viewed them or received copies, I will be content to list a sponsor as the custodian of records if there is a written agreement between that sponsor and myself to that effect.

If I have not seen the documents, I do not believe can say I have done my due diligence. Having copies on hand simplifies that issue.

And yes, I have the 2257safe banner in my sig, but I guarantee you that is not the reason for my stand on this issue.

This statement taken from the DOJ Q and A on 2257 compliance is the reason I feel the way I do.......Ohhh and I don't wish to do time or pay large fines........

Q. Is a secondary producer required to check identification documents of performers?

A. A secondary producer is not required to check identification requirements. The secondary producer is required to maintain records that identify the primary producer for any depiction and that verify that the primary producer checked the legal age of performers prior to the date of original production.

http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/optf/l...nce-guide.html

tony286 08-23-2009 07:32 PM
by the way micheal when my office lease is up in a year I will be comin a callin.

DonovanTrent 08-23-2009 07:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Profits of Doom (Post 16226523)
People have no clue how one cop with an axe to grind can change your whole world in an instant...
I actually do know the feeling, though in a different area of business. That's one reason I had to laugh at the assumption you made above. We actually see eye to eye on the subject, you just took what I wrote waaaaay more seriously than it was intended.

DonovanTrent 08-23-2009 07:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Billy (Post 16226559)
I will not host any sponsor content without seeing the docs. The secondary producer does not need to verify the accuracy of the docs, but he must verify that the docs are available and that the sponsor indicates they are accurate.

After I have viewed them or received copies, I will be content to list a sponsor as the custodian of records if there is a written agreement between that sponsor and myself to that effect.

If I have not seen the documents, I do not believe can say I have done my due diligence. Having copies on hand simplifies that issue.

And yes, I have the 2257safe banner in my sig, but I guarantee you that is not the reason for my stand on this issue.

This statement taken from the DOJ Q and A on 2257 compliance is the reason I feel the way I do.......Ohhh and I don't wish to do time or pay large fines........

Q. Is a secondary producer required to check identification documents of performers?

A. A secondary producer is not required to check identification requirements. The secondary producer is required to maintain records that identify the primary producer for any depiction and that verify that the primary producer checked the legal age of performers prior to the date of original production.

http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/optf/l...nce-guide.html
This is an excellent practice. I would add that it applies just as well to licensed content as it does to sponsor content.

Mr. Billy 08-23-2009 07:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DonovanTrent (Post 16226625)
This is an excellent practice. I would add that it applies just as well to licensed content as it does to sponsor content.
I am on this one with you. I totally agree and there are some very good content providers who do not provide the docs. For one example Max Pixels. They do not provide the model release. It is really upsetting because there is some great content out there for a niche that I cannot use.

tony286 08-23-2009 08:03 PM
I think if affiliates are given info then the signing up to be an affiliate has to become much more involved than it is today.

Iron Fist 08-23-2009 08:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pornlaw (Post 16226417)
Its more about education than shilling. But if someone learns something about 2257 and decides that www.2257Safe.com is a good investment I wont complain.
I have to admit.. awesome front page images.... does anyone still use tape reels in their datacenter?

http://www.2257safe.com/images/stories/demo/backups.jpg

mikesouth 08-23-2009 08:07 PM
if there is any real justice left in this country this law will be struck down eventually

Face it the government is requiring you to PROVE that you did not commit a crime THAT NEVER HAPPENED.

All the will forcing you to surrender your 4th amendment rights in the process.

I can not believe that good attorneys cant have a field day with this travesty...Its a joke.

Or at least it should be.

DonovanTrent 08-23-2009 08:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikesouth (Post 16226685)
if there is any real justice left in this country this law will be struck down eventually

Face it the government is requiring you to PROVE that you did not commit a crime THAT NEVER HAPPENED.

All the will forcing you to surrender your 4th amendment rights in the process.

I can not believe that good attorneys cant have a field day with this travesty...Its a joke.

Or at least it should be.
:2 cents:

I have no problem with age verification and record-keeping, we SHOULD have to do that. But it could be so simple, it's far more draconian than it needs to be.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:47 PM.
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123