New 227 Regulations - scary
 

Full text can be found at: http://www.regulations.gov/freddocs/04-13792.htm



Here are some major points that pertain to webmasters as secondary record
keepers:



a.. Internet Definitions. To bring the regulations up to date with the
2003 Amendments, the definition of a producer has been modified in proposed
28 CFR 75.1. Persons who manage the content of computer sites or services
are considered secondary producers.
a.. A secondary producer is any person who produces, assembles,
manufactures, publishes, duplicates, reproduces, or reissues a book,
magazine, periodical, film, videotape, a computer-generated image, digital
image, or picture, or other matter intended for commercial distribution that
contains a visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct, or who
inserts on a computer site or service a digital image of, or otherwise
manages the content of a computer site or service that contains a visual
depiction of, actual sexually explicit conduct, including any person who
enters into a contract, agreement, or conspiracy to do any of the foregoing.


a.. Proposed 28 CFR 75.2(a)(1) would require computer site or service
producers to maintain a ``hard'' physical or electronic copy of the actual
depiction with the identification and age files, along with and linked to
all accession information, such as each URL used for that depiction. This
ensures that all of the data about all of the people in the depictions can
be accessed to ensure that none of the people in the depictions are minors.


a.. A producer who is a secondary producer as defined in Sec. 75.1(c) may
satisfy the requirements of this part to create and maintain records by
accepting from the primary producer, as defined in Sec. 75.1(c), copies of
the records described in paragraph (a) of this section. Such a secondary
producer shall also keep records of the name and address of the primary
producer from whom he received copies of the records.

no big deal just means all content sales must be accompanied by the documentation for the models as well as the license

All the more reason not to be operating out of the US. There is nothing wrong fundamentally with 2257 for the protection of minors, it's the never ending control that is imposed on folks and not just over 2257, but other "pending issues".

it's way fucking overboard - we're talking about serious jail time for failing to comply or bad record keeping. people should not be going to jail for that - jail is for people who knowingly shoot underage models.

content providers and purchasers should both be taking a look at 2257lookup.com - it is free for providers, and very cheap insurance for the buyers

Thanks for the info!

Good post.

:thumbsup

Keep in mind people, we live in a land where the jury holds the ultimate power.

No matter how much power prosecutors have, the ultimate power to fuck you up is not in their hands, but in the hands of 12 of your peers.

Never forget that. Its what keeps our government in check.

A quick summary of the proposed 2257 changes is that a webmaster is the Secondary Record Keeper, required to keep identification records of the models used in the images and videos
on their website, while cross-indexing each image URL to the content producer and model to be able to answer the question "Where did this picture come from?" and the directive, "and show me the documentation".



2257lookup.com (my new venture) is the answer to the problem of webmasters being able to fully comply with 2257. 2257lookup would spider a website and create a cross-index report that matches website filename to the actual filename and the content producer. In addition, we can then cross reference to the Model's information since the webmaster would now be required to have the model releases.

Pricing will be very reasonable for this report with details coming at InterNext.


-brandon

brilliant, let us know when it's ready.

my stuff is already in an index, but as you add or change pages you have to manually update index, big hassle.

what you are proposing is needed.

I have to say that after talking to Brandon about his technology I was truly amazed. . . . and that is not easily done.

good idea i am sure plenty of sites would love that and make alot of people life easier

What would this mean for those who lease content? I would have to keep id's on file for all models appearing in leased shit, and all plug in updates too?

What about live cams? I can't be expected to keep records of every model that appears on a network at any given time that I'm linking too?

Yup, after like 9 months in development, I was looking to spend time to educate people as to the possiblities of 2257 being used to shutdown the "frontline of obscenity", but now that Ashhahahahaha has decided to do my marketing for me, I can focus on making a good product to help webmasters get out of a real legal bind to comply with 2257.

The ImageDiff Engine (tm) is my own technology that can match up images that content producers provide to me, and be able to find a match with pictures on a website, no matter what size the image is.

Most of my time is getting as many content producers onboard into the system. If you are a content producer or produce content for your own site (exclusive), check out my website.. the service is free for you to participate in.

Companies that have signed up so far:

Matrix Content, Falcon Foto, Paul Markham, Focus Adult,
Max Pixels, Medium Pimpin, Zmaster, and Titan Media.

I have a lot more to go, but as you can see .. not bad for a starting list. I haven't done the official PR kick-off yet with a few more content producers that are in the closing stages of the agreement.

In a few weeks, I will be posting up articles and messages about the new 2257 stuff to help get people informed as well as to market my new venture.

I will also be constructing my own comments in regards to 2257 changes as well as encourage others to send in their comments. Public opinion is accepted until August 24th... so I'll be doing my part to "fight the 2257 headaches" and I hope you will voice your opinions on this matter.. afterall, they are writing a law that affects all webmasters and it sure would be nice to hear from the voices that are affected by the changes.


-brandon

Great questions... given the clarification of secondary record keepers as being webmasters, you may have to have those records.

On live cams, another great point.... Having a model put up their home address is a serious invasion of privacy and also could put them in harm's way by stalkers.

Points like these need to be addressed to the proposed changes so that the law addresses these real issues.

-brandon

fightthispatent - you are accepting Matrix business?

Matrix Content was actually the first company to sign up. Their content is on so many websites, and they understood the problem that I saw about 2257 being used to shutdown websites.

Believe me, I understand the matrix issue (more than most), but they are helping to be part of the solution to this new problem.


-brandon

This is stupid and the penalties are insane. I can see a law like this being abused easily.

cool, was just curious.

The funny thing is that the existing 2257 law is already on the books that could be used to shut down obscenity.. the 1st amendment attornies have been saying this for years. By not being able to comply with existing 2257 laws, you can go to jail for 5 years.. it's already on the books.

Most of the new changes helped to clarify some vagueness in the current laws, but added alot of additional burdens to webmasters. I am thinking that no one talked to the average joe webmaster to understand the issues.

Comments can be made on the proposed changes:

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 103.''
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 103 in the subject box. You may also view an electronic version of this rule at the http://www.regulations.gov site.



-brandon

Im no lawyer but at first blush it appears that those running thumb based tgps, or those linking to freehosted galleries would also be under the gun... or am i missreading?

Nice informative post btw :thumbsup

With COPA being struck down again, it would seem that prosecutors could go about shutting down TGP using 2257, as a way of getting rid of free porn and easy access to porn by children.

TGP's seem to pose an easy target: easy access to free pictures, no 2257 statements, easy access to free pictures.... did i mention the easy access to free pictures?

COPA would have been a very easy way to shutdown the viewing of sexually explicit material on websites that weren't behind a membership doorway.

The Left may have scored a victory today with COPA being struck down, but the Right will just use the Right 2257 hook to score the blow.

The reason that I am involved in all of this, is because i believe that technology can provide solutions, not legislation, and certainly not putting people in jail for running a legal business.

Protecting children from seeing the "bad" stuff is a great concern to parents of children in the adult biz (probably more so than the average mainstream family that parks their kids in front of the TV or computer).

You will be reading more and more about how these new 2257 changes will help to "protect children from being exploited". The children that are being exploited are the ones that are in CP.. and that's clearly illegal and contraband.

The content producers who are shooting non-adults, are in the minority, but are causing additional laws to be made.

Is it really that rampant of a problem that underaged children (under 18) are being used in image and video production?

The best thing that webmasters can do right now is to get informed and educated about 2257 and their responsibilities. Those that don't pay attention will end up being the first to be taken down. Try the 2257 primer at: http://my.execpc.com/~xxxlaw/primer.html for some background info.


-brandon

Man, those are heavy.

It's more than that... you have to identify each individual image to the documentation of the model as well as the content producer.

The way it's done today is some content producers put copies of the driver's license with sensitive info blacked out.

This was not a necessary step, but many are doing it.

Under the new proposal, that's not enough for the webmaster, who now has more responsibilities (new ones) that were never clearly defined until now.



-brandon

Ya, it is very serious once you grasp these new proposed changes, and I believe most will end up sticking. I am not preaching doom and gloom in my posts.... I just want people to be informed of the facts and to raise the level awareness, because unlike Acacia, you can't stick your head in the sand on this issue.

A felony offense of up to 5 years in jail is a whole bunch more serious than patent extortion fees.


-brandon

yep, really don't think a jury would put you in jail for not having some records of a model, as long she was of legal age.

As an FYI to all webmasters this would apply to sponsor provided content (on your domain), and even if you copy a banner from a sponsor?s Webmaster area that was sexually explicit (as most are) you need 2257 info for those banners when this thing becomes effective. There are some good alternatives for some of you such as making sure that the content on your server/domain isn?t sexually explicit as defined by 18 U.S.C Section 2256 (2) (A)-(D) You can still show quite a bit this way.

Generally speaking jury nullification is a long shot. That is what you?re asking for. If the jury believes you did it, they will find you guilty. Keep in mind it is often inadmissible to inform the jury of what type of punishment the accused is facing.

This is a good point. Nudity alone does not reach the 2257 threshold (in theory.)

good post :thumbsup , this shit is getting way over board

At JadedVideo.com, we carry almost all manufactures and have a thumb and jpeg of all there box covers. I cant imagine arraging the collection of over 98,000 peices of documentation

It isn?t just in theory the statute spells it out specifically:

''sexually explicit conduct'' means actual or simulated -
(A)
sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;
(B)
bestiality;
(C)
masturbation;
(D)
sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
(E)
lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;

Note that 2257 takes (E) out of the definition, but I would be extremely careful with open leg shots where that hand is anywhere near the crotch.

At the though of being arrested, and having the media drag my name through the mud, not to mention the friends/family problems this would cause. I'm not going to take any chances.

Sure, *they* would think that this would make it harder for people to find free porn, well at least free porn put there by people in the US to make a profit. In a way, it's almost like outsourcing another billion dollar a year industy.

out of the US? why..?

Time for the mgp's and tgp's to move there shit out of the USA, Canada maybe?

Erm, those look like proposed regulations?

Or am I missing something....

Seeking a real response, I don't need any more 2257 spam in this thread...

Yes, they are proposed by Attorney General Ash-hahahahaha with a 90 day public review. I am lacking in my civics knowledge on these next steps, but presume that it goes to Congress and then the rest of the law amending process.

Public opinion or lobbying for points in the 2257 proposed changes might help to alter some of the points, but on the whole, it would seem this could get passed.

So proposed? Yes

Likely to be passed with the terms described? Yes

Unlike COPA, these 2257 amendments don't cross free speech.




-brandon

Yes, they a proposed but after the comment period they become the real deal.

ANybody looking for a roomate in Amsterdam?

I am ready to move. :(

Seems more like they are trying to make porn to hard to be worth the trouble.

How funny that YOU should ask!

:Graucho

True.

But this is the regime magazines and video distributors have lived under for years, I've complied to these laws for over a decade.

At the moment we have anarchy, you assume the person selling you the content has the documents, that they're legal and can be produced. Now Ash hahahahaha has said the days of assumption are over.

So you have to give every picture a set number, you then have to have the recourds filed in a computer under that set number. Show me any set on my sites and in 60 seconds I can produce the 2257 documents, the ammended ones with ALL contact details removed. In the next 50 seconds I can produce the unaltered ones.

For those who are business like to run a good ship this law is a good thing. For those who are too lazy or too stupid to organise themselves, it's a bad thing.

I agree it will make life different, as a webmaster you will need to have documents, as a TGP site owner it could be very hard as you will have to check the 40 submissions that go up every day onto your site to see if they have the documentation. What happens if those images are changed is unclear. I'n mot sure if it addresses the issue of content you do not host but merely give access to. If that is the case I think the AVS system might be the worse hit.

What it will go someway towards doing is getting rid of thieves scammers and conmen. Aslo those out to make a fast buck will now have to slow down and work a bit harder.

And the comments about juries convicting you are foolish, before that point you will have settled due to the sheer cost of defending your rights.

SO KEEP A FEW RECORDS

As I read this it doesn?t apply to TGPs unless the TGP domain itself has sexually explicit images on it. A TGP is just a list of galleries. Don?t put sexually explicit preview images, sexually explicit banners, or your own sexually explicit gallery on the TGP domain and you don?t have to comply. The new regs would apply to gallery builders that use sexually explicit images in their galleries. If you?re a gallery builder and you don?t want to keep the records build softcore galleries.

As I read your comments, I cant help but think that Ass hahahah is forcing us to change our business models because he believes that the regulations will be too onerous for us to comply with and he will therefore be able to shut us down. Many of you are saying just to change what we display. If that were the case then no BDSM, or any sexually explicit content will be allowed to be shown. Everything will turn "Vanilla". I can't believe that any of us would want that.

Brandon is offering us an out. He has great content producers signing up to his service to help out the webmasters and tgp owners and anyone else who will need this information.

All of the content producers signing up with him are doing it because they don't want Ass hahaha shutting us down. They are putting aside their collective egos and helping out with no expectation of reward other than to keep the webmasters safe.

I wish Brandon the best of luck with his venture and I am sure the rest of us do as well.

Agreed.. at the most they should give fines for this kind of thing. Don't you guys have enough people in your jails?

Ugh what a fuckin headache for those licensing content from primary producers.. now you gotta backtrack and try to get hard copies of all the records. Really cool when they retroactively change the rules.

So to those in the know on this type of thing, assuming this went through, approx when would be the earliest this could take effect and we'd have to be compliant?

The proposed changes are in a public comment timeout for the next 90 days.... from there.. I don't know what happens next since like everyone else, I don't pay attention to our government process.


2257lookup.com will be going live by Internext for creating the cross-indexing report so that you can immediately become compliant with current 2257 requirements and proposed 2257 changes.

As it stands now, even without the new changes, webmasters are not compliant with 2257 by just having a 2257.html page that lists content producers. On inquiry, you need to know where a specific image came from... an answer that most webmasters won't be able to answer.


-brandon

Welcome to the Christian Republic of America.

Conservative Republic of A merican P ower



:Graucho


-brandon

I started out in this business using sponsor content (with their watermark). Does this mean I will have to backtrack and get information for sites I made 3 years ago? And what are the chances of going to jail over something like this. Even if I am compliant from now forward, what about a site from years back that isn't compliant?

Yeah, but when you throw a handful of one group of people in there it makes it easier to control the rest...