This is what USC 2257 means to me.
 

You see for me this is what 2257 is about, it's there to protect me.

Executive ran website touting girl prostitutes

Perverted postman delivers steamy schoolgirl sex videos

Under age street walkers

TEENS ON THE MAKE

What I was looking for and could not find was the case in America where some schoolgirls were selling sex to class mates. Sorry I could not find it.

There is the case of the teacher and the 14 year old, what if they decided to set up in business and sell content?

We do not live in a perfect world where no one would ever sell us a picture of an under age girl. I just feel trusting a stranger is a bit to risky.

its 7:30am here

and even though i read the whole post, its just not registering at the moment:(

Ditto ...

Ok for the sleepy.

We do not live in a perfect world where everyone is honest.

We live in a world where underage people get involved in prostition and porno, either by force or more often willingly for profit.

Without the documents to check I have no way of knowing the content is legal. With the documents I have a better chance.

Not 100%, but 80% is better than 50%.

Too many are advocating we trust suppliers when it comes to content, I'm saying trust yourself.

charly,

I think noone here has a problem with the basic sense of 2257.

What my problem is though, is that it is virtually impossible to do what the revised version asks for.

You are supposed to be able to reference ALL URLs that a specific girl's pics are on?! Thats _MADNESS_, at least it is in my oppinion.

Yeah thats crazy.. I really dont see what was so lacking about the old rules.

The biggest flaw, as has been pointed out (and assuming the law means what it appears to say) is the URL issue. At best it will be a pain and at worst - for those with dynamic sites - that requirement will be impossible to satisfy.

What otherwise bothers me is that say I get the required info from someone and then I am asked to prove the validity of that information. It would have been easy enough to miss, but I couldn't find any reference to what would be recognized as "due care". Is a court really going to accept a photoshopable file or an easily manipulated photocopy (with half the model's information blacked out)? This should be of particular concern if everyone else involved is outside US jurisdiction and the "secondary producer" is standing by himself in court.

The same applies if buying from brokers, even here in the US: the law would be meaningless if it were not necessary for anyone to prove the ID information is valid. But in this chain of people who have handled the supposedly valid data, whose is responsible for ensuring its validity?

One possible thing that has brought these new rules on is the fact that many (most?) sites out there are not 2257 compliant right now even if they have a 2257 link.

The idea of 2257 is that they can see a model on a site and then easily find out who has the age documents for that specific model.

How many times have you seen a site that has a "2257" link and then has a random list of every producer they've ever bought from? They make no attempt to match the producer up with each pic/photoset on their site.

This TOTALLY defeats the purpose, and now they'd have to go through you to first find out who the producer really is. Thus eliminating the surprise visit to the producer since you'll tell him they are coming.

The current rules would work just fine if people actually followed them. That includes gallery makers, who generally speaking make NO attempt whatsoever to comply.