2257 Changes: In Case You Don't Know, No You Know
 

ADDITIONS, CHANGES AND CLARIFICATIONS
RE: 18 U.S.C. 2257
Source: Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 133, Page 38033-39

These are NOT the final rules!

NEW Record Keeping Rules for Secondaries:

"Lascivious exhibition of the genitals" is now part of the definition of "actual sexually explicit conduct," (the recording of which triggers the statute) purportedly retroactively back to July 27, 2006. Note: By some courts' view, the genital area may be clothed and yet fall within this definition. See, for example, U.S. v. Knox 32 F.3d 733 (C.A.3,1994)
Applies only to images recorded on or after July 27, 2006.*
Can accept a duplicate of ID and with the address and other unnecessary data deleted, but must contain photo, serial number, name, and DOB.
Must otherwise index and cross-reference as if a primary (but with additional burdens).
Secondaries are subject to inspections just as primaries have been.
CHANGES:

Live web cams must record sufficient material to identify performer and must otherwise comply with record-keeping (may be in conflict with pending FSC v. Gonzalez injunction).
Websites must put entire 2257 statement (designating e.g., custodian and street address), rather than previously approved hypertext.
Primaries may delete "non-essentials" from ID copies provided to secondaries (but must contain photo, serial number, name, and DOB).
CLARIFICATIONS:

Producers (foreign or domestic) filming overseas may rely on government-issued ID other than USA-issued.
Primary producers with performances recorded before June 23, 2005, may rely upon non-government ID, such as employer or school ID.
Fight Back:

FSC is launching an industry-wide campaign to encourage participation for the 2257 public comment period.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDS SEPTEMBER 10, 2007
Visit freespeechcoalition.com for help in formatting and transmitting your comments (Guide will be soon available).

I look forward to seeing the guide :thumbsup

We all need to participate in this, hopefully many will...:winkwink:

i predict text (currently safe for US webbies) sites coming under the gun in the future as well :/ Because they link to (provide) porn :(

Thanks for the post :thumbsup

Def. need to keep supporting the FSC, constant bullshit.

Time to start blurring images...

Thanks for the update

Doubtful. Then sites like Google and Yahoo would be truely fucked. That now would be taken to court and maybe 10 years later be ruled unconstitutional.

I'm gonna ship big black felt pens with memberships .. so the dudes can black out the naughty bits ..
can't wait to see things in a couple years .. holy moving backwards batman

Sites like google and yahoo have have a get out of jail free pass since this whole thing came to be.

"Lascivious exhibition of the genitals" is now part of the definition of "actual sexually explicit conduct," (the recording of which triggers the statute)


what a fucken crock of muther fucking shit...

At the seminar, a point was brought up about URLs and the lawyers agreed that as it's written, every address with what is deemed explicit would need the ENTIRE 2257 statement - which would also mean that every image would need to be on an HTML with the statement below it. Now when you build thousands of galleries a year, you know what that will do to the TGP/MGPs/Free Sites/Blogs & their submitters? Programs can probably handle the transition but a lot of you, will have to go back and change the galleries, scripts will have to be modified to scan and accept HTML pages from the thumb - the actual thumb will probably need it's own HTML page too.... Brace yourselves if it's not clarified, modified or removed from the new recordkeeping rules!

http://faculty.sxu.edu/mdr1/khajurah...11maithuna.jpg

ADG

I'm sure that was prodcued before July 1995.

couldn't have said it better myself...

fucking fuckity fuck...

Lascivious: arousing sexual desire

Damn, that means if these rules were in effect when I was a kid that the Sears Catalog, National Geographic, and later the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition would have to carry 2257 labels. :upsidedow

ADG

This industry needs a Nick Naylor... I will volunteer for the job!!! :)

I think many wont write for one of two reasons, they are afraid of shining a spot light on themselves or will choose to ignore it just like they have done all along.

I don't think as many will ignore this one, as long as we can educate past all 'message boards', which only accounts for 5% of all active webmasters.

I didn't write in on .xxx, it was clear that the hate group hated the people making money and the people making money just wanted to do what the others wanted. I knew from day 1 that it would never go through, so I didn't care either way.

This on the other hand, has me a little more worried. One thing being they don't care wtf we or some judge says, that's just scary. I will write in this one, but I wouldn't mind something to go off of.. I will email to my webmasters, I will post it in my yard, I will get my folks to email in.

Man I could go out there right now and come up with at least 100 sites not in compliance just with their 2257 statement thats without any deep digging. I would say probably 90 percent of all adult webmasters arent in compliance.
You have to remember you got a ton of small mom pops.

I was just working with a client who was a little out of compliance, he had the records but the statement was wrong and in the wrong spot. Little thing, but still something.


I have a hell of a question about the new 2257.. One being, I don't personally, ever.. produce, see, validate, change, crop, cut, see, download or process ANY content, pictures or videos.. It's all done before I even buy it and the content actually isn't owned by me, but everything is leased.. Yet I host it.

(quick edit, I do have all the records though)

I agree with Tony, I doubt many will write. And I also agree with Sperminator, I can see text sites being a target after this is law. Fucking bullshit. I thought of some realistic solutions to 2257 the other night and wrote them down. I will post them in this thread later on. As I say "realistic" I mean that they will never go into effect since this entire law is getting out of hand.

So overall whats everyone's take on the new 2257, with the FSC and everything else, does everyone see themselves jumping to resolve any issues right away?

Good point, I dont know how many people are aware of the burdensome of this rule. Whether every image needs to be on its own html page or whether some sort of reference system is created per each web page referencing each image to the 2257 info and date is pretty much impossible.

Even if these rules only apply back so far its would be our burden to prove that and its probably better to do it for everything.

unfortunately the big problem with 2257 is until someone is arrested and dragged into court on a non age related 2257 violation.We wont have a clear understanding.

If everyone in the adult industry did exactly as 2257 (including new proposals) required, and all record keeping was in perfect order in every case..

Better yet.. if every adult webmaster just took down their sites altogether... no more pay sites.. no more tgps.. no more adult search engines.. no more adult anything....

It wouldn't, and won't, change the growing problem with cp one bit..

Nothing to do with protecting children.. Everything to do with harassing the adult industry...

That's my take..

You are right, like someone doing cp has records. its bullshit.

I enjoy being Canadian and caring less about this :D

Life is good :D

i brought up this issue about gfy infact..

what will sites like gfy.com do ?


ban nude pics on gfy ? and banners ?
require users to post 2257 with every picture/video ?
will they have 2257 for gfy banners that rotates along with the banner ?

I couldn't have said that better!! This is a war on our industry, and nothing to do with anything else.

That fact alone should be grounds enough to show the law is overly burdensome with the intent to be confusing.

btw there is one big OUT to 2257..


these new regs can be removed if we industry can prove a certain amount of cost this would cause to the american economy

because this would effect a HUGE portion of the net not just porn. this will effect all american hosting companies and domain registrars , severely affecting their ability to compete in a global market.. this will affect billing companies the same way add onto that the cost each site will have to spend to document every image/video will be HUGE $$$

Btw incase you guys hadn't thought of this. Those saying text sites might be included.

Well if a simple text link would require you to have 2257 for a gallery full of images. Think about a text link to a trade site. You would then need 2257 info on all your trades sites which of course is impossible. So I can't see how they could possibly get away with that.

I know the FSC is trying to fight this for us.. But I have been a little, shocked if you would, that some of the large multi million dollar companies haven't stood up to really fight this head on. We are the only sin industry that just lays down and hopes it gets better..

You are so right, considering the amount of money the industry makes.Unless its at their front door nothing happens but buy a six figure car and fancy watches oh yeah.

Well think of it like this..

If anyone "can" comply with the new regulations it would be those very multi million dollar companies. So this is their chance to get rid of a lot of competition.

Technically, even if you had to create HTML page for each picture, the pic is still in a directory. You can just right-click, choose properties, and copy-paste to source...ending up the same way as non-html galleries.
Off course you can avoid this with htaccess for common browsers, but still there are browsers, ways of surfing and software that can access/hotlink the pic directly, outside the html page.
So basically, it makes no sense requiring that, because you would break the law anyway.

I think the larger you are the harder it will be to fully comply. Large companies have 100's of paysites, tours and member areas to update. Many have purchased other TGP's and free sites, which need the same. Verses myself who has 5 paysites and a hand full of content driven free sites, all with my own content though.

We already have the records, the extra work that would be required would be a much larger burden the larger you are.

Yes but you are forgetting, they have the money and the manpower to be able to comply. They also tend to shoot their own content or have good relationships with the people whom shoot their content.

So they "can" get the required id's and so on with out too much hassle. So it becomes a point of just updating their old stuff. Sure that's tedious and might cost them some money, however once they are up to date it's not going to be hard for them to just add this as "one more thing to do".

Affiliates on the other hand or smaller mom and pop operations don't have the money or the man power to do the same in most cases. Nor will affiliates be able to easily get a hold of the required records.

This is nothing more than a way to put the "little guys" out of the biz so the govt can easier regulate the bigger companies. The bigger companies might not like the idea of the regulations, but they do it know will reduce competition, which means they make more money in the long run.

what about google yahoo msn... "Cached' pages?
those pages host on their ips!