a 2257 thread for all affils to read....
 

First I hate to have to add yet another 2257 thread to the growing pile but I've looked over alot of them and some ppl are ONLY quoting part of a VERY important statement, and in doing so I'm sure alot of u.s. ppl are freaking the fuck out....

Here is the statement as it pertains to secondary producers (READ IT ALL!)

(2) A secondary producer is any person who produces, assembles,
manufactures, publishes, duplicates, reproduces, or reissues a book,
magazine, periodical, film, videotape, digitally- or computer-
manipulated image, picture, or other matter intended for commercial
distribution that contains a visual depiction of an actual human being
engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct, or who inserts on a
computer site or service a digital image of, or otherwise manages the
sexually explicit content of a computer site or service that contains a
visual depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually
explicit conduct, including any person who enters into a contract,
agreement, or conspiracy to do any of the foregoing.
(3) The same person may be both a primary and a secondary producer.
(4) Producer does not include persons whose activities relating to
the visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct are limited to
the following:
(i) Photo or film processing, including digitization of previously
existing visual depictions, as part of a commercial enterprise, with no
other commercial interest in the sexually explicit material, printing,
and video duplicators;
(ii) Mere distribution; AFFILS
(iii) Any activity, other than those activities identified in
paragraphs (c) (1) and (2) of this section, that does not involve the
hiring, contracting for, managing, or otherwise arranging for the
participation of the depicted performers; AFFILS

In short:

if you ONLY Distro it, OR designed website with it you are safe from the extensive record keeping,

Also I read & re-read the whole mess a few times, and though it does NOT say that "It would be acceptable for affils to just have a link to the sponsors 2257 page" with the above statement about the actual deff of a 2ndry producer affils and webdesigners DO NOT FALL UNDER THE SECONDARY PRODUCER CATAGORY.

So to affils "The sky is NOT falling" but we as producers and sponsors have to do alot more work :(

-Loki-

Wonder how this whole 2257 enforcement thing will affect Usenet or IRC? :1orglaugh

Thanks for the clarification Loki

:1orglaugh I'm sure all the dalnet and efnet cp rooms will comply

and so will all the xdcc movie #'s and porn #'s :helpme


-Loki-

Good job spreading false information. Any lurkers that only show up here for important info such as this might take your post as gospel and never come back.

I would suggest you re-read the exact part you posted. If you don't see where you're wrong keep reading until you do.

Boy, I sure interpret that differently than you.

But, that's what the law is all about isn't it.

I'm sure everyone here is praying that this guy is the only one that read it right. I just don't think that's the case.

chadglni, ronaldo, what the fuck does that shit up above mean to you?

I'm not a lawyer but I don't think you are correct. It says pretty clearly : "or who inserts on a computer site or service a digital image of, or otherwise manages the
sexually explicit content of a computer site or service that contains a
visual depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually
explicit conduct,"

Any webmaster that builds any site, free, avs, tgp gallery etc that has pics or movies on it is inserting content into a site.

You know, I was gonna quote this part and say he's obviously mistaken....

(2) A secondary producer is any person who produces, assembles,
manufactures, publishes, duplicates, reproduces, or reissues a book,
magazine, periodical, film, videotape, digitally- or computer-
manipulated image, picture, or other matter intended for commercial
distribution that contains a visual depiction of an actual human being
engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct, or who inserts on a
computer site or service a digital image of, or otherwise manages the
sexually explicit content of a computer site or service that contains a
visual depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually
explicit conduct, including any person who enters into a contract,
agreement, or conspiracy to do any of the foregoing.

HOWEVER, when you read further, you DO see this....

(4) Producer does not include persons whose activities relating to
the visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct are limited to
the following:

(ii) Mere distribution;

That's where ambiguity sets in and J.D. and his boys make their money.

so then tell me exactly what is your affils job classification?

Their "job/s" are to take your content (not saying you directly) that they had NOTHING TO DO WITH shooting etc, put it onto a webpage, gallery, site etc etc and send traffic to it to generate you sales.

Now as the GOV's deff of who MUST be maintaing and providing records that is PRODUCERS & SECONDARY PRODUCERS.

and by THEIR deffention:
(4) Producer DOES NOT INCLUDE persons whose activities relating to
the visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct are limited to
the following:
(i) Photo or film processing, including digitization of previously
existing visual depictions, as part of a commercial enterprise, with no
other commercial interest in the sexually explicit material, printing,
and video duplicators;
(ii) Mere distribution; AFFILS
(iii) Any activity, other than those activities identified in
paragraphs (c) (1) and (2) of this section, that does not involve the
hiring, contracting for, managing, or otherwise arranging for the
participation of the depicted performers; AFFILS

Show me where this WOULD NOT apply to Affils.

-Loki-

What about a no-nude thumb hotlinking to a "sexually explicit" hosted gallery?

I assume you didn't see my post directly above yours.

Thanks for actualy reading the WHOLE thing :)

and that is EXACTLY what I meant in my very first few lines of my posts about these ppl are only SKIMMINGand then freaking out.

-Loki-

Everyone has read the whole thing. In MY opinion, mere distribution would be the sales clerk selling a porno mag with explicit shit in it. Or me linking to your explicit site through text. And a secondary producer would be considered one who PUBLISHES the shit to a website.

Here, I'm going to post part of what you commented on above with some of the run on shit taken out. Lets see how it looks to you then....

(2) A secondary producer is any person who publishes a picture or other matter intended for commercial distribution that contains a visual depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct, or who inserts on a computer site or service a digital image of, or otherwise manages the sexually explicit content of a computer site or service that contains a
visual depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually
explicit conduct, including any person who enters into a contract,
agreement, or conspiracy to do any of the foregoing.

I can highlight text too. So who's reading wrong? The part you bolded says EXCEPT those listed in this section.

to me it's confusing. One line says that people who put an image on a website are considered secondary producers. But then it says that people that distributes the content is not. I guess I don's see the difference. If I put some pics on a website and use that to send traffic to a sponser and get a commision from a sale how is that different from a store owner having a magazine that he sells and gets a commision on the sale.

I can see it both ways here.

ya gotta love the lawmakers

I'm no lawyer but to me that would be fine. you aren't hosting any explicit material but before I did it I would check with a lawyer.

Good thread.

They said MERE distributors are not. You publish a website, you don't publish a magazine rack.

instead of fighting back and forth all day on the wording these guys used, my bottom line is this:

They claim that only Producers and secondary producers will be held liable for keeping all the proper records,

you and I are using the exact SAME paragraphs, You are right and I am right, the simple reason for this is:

They say one thing then contradict it in the exclusion paragraph.

It also states in (iii) that if you do not have anything to do with getting the models for these shoots again your not lumped into the producer roles.

I read this all to say that if you are just an affil then most likly (i) (ii) (iii) makes you safe from record hell.

-Loki-
-Loki-

Promoting something you haven't built(published) is a mere distribution
Promoting something you've built is mere destribution + makes you a producer (secondary for using whoever else's content).

I will post this knowing that some people will just believe what they want to believe and will argue about this but...

Some people will always debate on what is really required or not, but if you spend $100,000s in legal fees and go to jail, then it doesn't matter if you were right or not, they still succeed in screwing over the adult webmaster

Well in articles that I have read today from actual industry legal experts they do say that as the changes would include all affiliates, and was intended to do so as a result of the popularity of TPGs. It would include any affiliate with nude images, including advertising.

With regards to distribution, the misunderstanding here is what distribution is. A distributor is a store that merely sells videos, images, mags etc. They are distinguishing between a reseller and a producer. If you then post images, however you then become a secondary producer under the law. The problem rises any time you actually post nude or erotic images.

Clearly stated here:
(2) A secondary producer is any person who publishes a picture or other matter intended for commercial distribution that contains a visual depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct, or who inserts on a computer site or service a digital image of, or otherwise manages the sexually explicit content of a computer site or service that contains a
visual depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually
explicit conduct, including any person who enters into a contract,
agreement, or conspiracy to do any of the foregoing.

There are not ANY exceptions to this, they only include other information to clarify that mere distributors are not included in the new rule.

The problem actually goes further. It becomes a legal question if even blurred or "censored" images may still require documentation under the law. Why? This is because this law includes "visual depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct", according to the people that created it, this includes images that may not be nude but are clearly engaging in these type of activities. So even if an image is censored some debate it may still require documentation if you *know* what they are doing.

For these that still have not read the new 2257 regulations they can do so at the Federal Registry here if you still don't get it check out a legal authority like firstamendment.com

i would definitely check with a lawyer on all this stuff

That makes sense.

What people are failing to realize also, is these reg are also aimed at PERFORMERS who don't file or pay their taxes. Its a nightmare for the gov to keep track of these people who work all over as contractors or for cash the same day they shoot. Therefore they want more info from the PRODUCERS as in the people who make the porn, which helps keep track of this as well.

Affiliates should have nothing to do with this because we are just selling memberships. Its not our job or obligation to make sure these performers are legit through the companies they shoot for or to keep track of them and their stage names.

Think about it: What does the government really want? MONEY. They want money, and if they can tighten things up along those lines they can track down the people who owe them taxes. I mean seriously, how many big companies are even stupid enough to produce cp? They're not. Not in this country anyhow. Money is the name of the game here.

Aside from the legal definitions.. what do you all look at as:

Primary Producers & Secondary Producers ?

Lets all put some examples on the table.

Here is my perspective:

Example = MILFHunter.com
Primary Producer = white guy (milf hunter), camera man (2257 responsible)
Secondary Producer = Nastydollars.com, anyone who purchases their content for re-distribution. (2257 responsible)
distributor = affiliates (doesnt really own any content, so there is no record keeping required)

it'd be nice if this were so.

Taxes and Cleaning the internet, now go to Church.... LOL

New regulations have most accent on who publishes content in definition of secondary producer, has nothing to do with who purchase it.
Your approach is better if true.

Well in regards to what I wrote for a secondary producer "anyone who purchases their content for re-distribution." ... what I am saying is that if you, as a site owner, decide to purchase some of the milfhunter video sets, so you can launch a "mature" site.. then you will be responsible for 2257 record keeping, as you are now a secondary producer, just like nastydollars.com

Buy the content from nastydollars.. publish a website... = secondary producer

it won't, they will just rock along the same old same Usenet will anyways.

To hell with all of that...wtf is sexually explicit? Seems like a dumn question, but since it is not clearly defined...it means that it is open to interpretation...and that can be scary.

The asshole inspecting might think that sexual explicit is topless....another guy might think there has to be some insertion....another two naked people together but only kissing...

HEY, get back to work man! :)


.heh

interpret differently, well that's want the judges and lawyers do :1orglaugh

Distributor ambiguity.

Man with pics on porn site does.

Man with dirty book on news stand does not.

Remembering that man with dirty book on news stand has the explicit images.

There must be something missing ?

I seen this

2256. Definitions for chapter

Release date: 2004-08-06

For the purposes of this chapter, the term-
(1) ?minor? means any person under the age of eighteen years;
(2) ?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;

Loki, you really don't understand. Distribution is only for things like the actual SALE of DVDs or magazines (or movement thereof to retailers). Creating a website is (for the purposes of these rules) an act of publishing or producing clearly spelled out in the law.

Sorry, but affiliates using sponsor content are in a heap of shit right now unless the programs provide documentation for all those images and movies.

Alex

How about all those forums and Yahoo profiles with naughty pictures? Sure are gonna be a lot of pissed off people. Yet another uninforceable law. Well, time to clean up all this spam with websites trying to sell me Vicodin and Xanax without a prescription.

Service providers have always been exempt. That would be up to the person posting the porn on the profile or group to keep the docs.

:thumbsup Thx for the info.

This thread should be closed it starts off with a very damaging incorrect reading of the regulations. If you follow that advice, your next worry will be what to do if you drop the soap in the prison shower.

Under this rule all nudity, including photo "art" is sexually explicit for the purpose of the rule.

You are 100% right in that this is exactly where issues will be raised most however. Legal experts are debating that anything that implies sex can be sexually explicit. This means that they do not necessarily EVEN need to be nude to fall into this trap.

The interpretation/enforcement by officials will be the lawyers bread and butter here.

I think you guys need to read this part carefully, affilates are not distrubutors like a magazine shop, they create,change rework images and video and republish.

(2) A secondary producer is any person who produces, assembles,
manufactures, publishes, duplicates, reproduces, or reissues a book,
magazine, periodical, film, videotape, digitally- or computer-
manipulated image, picture, or other matter intended for commercial
distribution that contains a visual depiction of an actual human being
engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct, or who inserts on a
computer site or service a digital image of, or otherwise manages the
sexually explicit content of a computer site or service that contains a
visual depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually
explicit conduct, including any person who enters into a contract,
agreement, or conspiracy to do any of the foregoing.

I can see the bad advice continues.

I've read and reread the entire 16 pages at least 10 times today word for word, The excerpts posted by me and others are there but it gets contradicted(sic) in the deffs at the bottom of the whole thing (What I posted) I'm taking a shitload of heat for this post here and on other boards, due to wordings the DOJ chose to use. The regs say EVERYONE is liable and THEN it says that only producers and secondary producers are.

the actual deff of producer and 2ndry producer falls on the DOJ and only the DOJ, what WE think is correct or not means shit. but in the DOJ's wording affils are & are NOT 2ndry producers


the only thing I was trying to point out is that after the sentance about inserting images on a site, it goes on to say that if you mearly distro content or have nothing to do with making the content (iii) then you are NOT a secondary producer.

I'm deff not a lawyer nor would I want to be I dont feel I gave any advice unless you call what I said about posting a link to your sponsors 257 links on your sites to be advice, and if thats the case I'm far from the first person to voice that idea.

My only point that I'm trying to make (and like I said getting killed over) is the sky is not actualy falling just yet. This thing says one thing then changes from start to finish. I'm gonna sit back now and see what the lawyers have to say about all of this crap.

-Loki-

Loki you're an idiot, and you should be kicked in the fucking teeth for giving people a false sense of security.

Everything Loki is saying is bullshit!!!


Of course, if you're willing to take something a person named Loki posted on a messageboard as legal advice, and let 5 years of your freedom hang in the balance, then you probably deserve what you get.

Under this rule all nudity, including photo "art" is sexually explicit for the purpose of the rule.

You are 100% right in that this is exactly where issues will be raised most however. Legal experts are debating that anything that implies sex can be sexually explicit. This means that they do not necessarily EVEN need to be nude to fall into this trap.

The interpretation/enforcement by officials will be the lawyers bread and butter here.

:1orglaugh thanks for the great laugh there Lenny, If you consider my post advice then so be it, as I stated I gave no advice and simply pointed out that there was a huge portion of double talk as to who is and is not a secondary producer. I'm amazed at how many lawyers are here on GFY that know how wrong I am for pointing out this big double talk.

was just trying to stop the chicken little bullshit, tired of seeing everyone yelling doom and gloom without the full facts, or legal advice.

but I forget ppl just want drama

-Loki-

as I already said: FUCK 2257! I am not an US citizen!

The defninition for sexually explicit is in 2256