American TGP/MGP owners: What are your plans?
 

Are you going to sit tight for now and see what others are doing before you make any changes? Are you going to change your sites completely to text? Or are you going to comply 100% with the documentation laws?

I am thinking about cropping all of my thumbs from non-explicit images from the gallery. These types of thumbs might not get as many clicks, but I still think images are better than words. Plus I think most surfers are smart enough to realize that if they click a thumbnail of some hot slut in a bikini that the full gallery will have her getting fucked, etc...

keep doing what im doing until my server gets raided or my door gets kicked in.

Well, all of my TGP's have always been text.

But here's a bump for you. I'm interested in seeing what the game plan is, as well.


later
c-lo

If you follow the rules thumb TGPs aren't a problem. I just with sponsors would put JUST ONE softcore image on each of their FHGs.

I certainly hope ignoring the threat isn't the game plan.

I just couldn't sleep well knowing I may wake to the sound of my door breaking off the hinges.


later
c-lo

i am buying content with supplied 2257 docs... i will no longer host any image/video that i dont personally have 2257 docs for...

Some new 2257 additions I am unaware of?

If you use all FHG's, where the sponsors have 2257 docs.. you don't really have shit to worry about.

all depends on what you have on your server.

one isn't responsible for what someone else has on their server.

It hasn't passed yet! Calm down!

Can anyone say for certain what it means to me as a TGP owner?

I posted some specific questions about this myself in a thread that so far no one but myself has viewed lol: http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showthread.php?t=638330

Can't believe how this is being ignored. Did everyone become numbed by last year's 2257 experience? Because this one is very real folks, and could have a much greater impact on the industry

sure hasn't ...

http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-...6072701025.jpg

Bush Signs Bill to Monitor Child Molesters

By TOM RAUM
The Associated Press
Thursday, July 27, 2006; 6:54 PM

Grab your ankles......

UM, yes it has,,,

this will be interesting

The newly passed amendments now require you to have physical possession of your own records for each image served from your own site/domain/server..

If you use a thumb from a fhg, you need 2257 docs, unless it's a nn thumb

Yea, that's why I think i'm gonna just say fuck it and use all nn thumbs, that way I won't be looking over my shoulder for the feds lol...

How does this apply to google then, they have a ton of nakes images on their webpages that they dont have 2257 on those people.

That's a whole different problem for google to worry about, this thread is about what tgp/mgp owners plan to do...

Or, you guys talk about TGP. what about AFF. They have a ton of pictures on their site that they dont have 2257 on. I am sure this would affect them as well.

Anyone address how this would work with an iframe? if you have iframe on your site that displays another webpage, its not on your server, and technically its not on your page.

I am wondering about this too.. like webcams iframes, or any plugins like perfect gonzo or spacash plugins etc...

we are so fucked!

You silly americans have definitely voted for the wrong politicians!

Seriously though, I think that we will all have to wait and see. The current speculated requirements, whether or not they are completely correct I couldn't say, seem to be completely unworkable in the real world. With any luck some high court will soon tell the Government to take their bill and shove it.

The bill is great for the whole John Walsh cause, but the part about the internet needs to go............

lol, I wonder if FSC should start arguing that we are giving an unfair advantage to foriegn (non US citizen) webmasters who don't have to deal with any of this bullshit!

What I find interesting is that a non US citizen who has their business based in their home country (i.e. incorporated out of the US) but lives & operates in the US can probably get away without observing 2257

aaaaargggh

I live in Canada but my server is U.S. based... looks like i'm gonna have to make a switch pretty soon

I'm in the same boat. This is a real piss off as I'm just getting a new site off the ground. The most annoying thing is that I can't find a Canadian host with as good of a rep as my US host.

tell me about it, i doubt i'm going to find a Canadian host that has a rep I can just send an ICQ to when i need something.

http://ezprovider.net/ I've been down for a couple minutes about twice in 3-4 years.

I'm just going to make all the thumbs look like this
http://www.69khz.info/censored.jpg

sit near your door in the dark with a big gun wait for the bang

The Sky Is Falling?

I've already started my plans... I'm down to like 1 tgp and a free site or two... and I'm re-enrolled in college following a non-adult path - just trying to make ends meet in the meantime. :D

When I asked about using iframes during last year's 2257 stuff, I was told that it doesn't matter if it's not on your server, if an image appears on your webpage you're responsible for it

1. I went all softcore last year when the new 2257 stuff came around. I have less traffic yet better conversions.

2. Anyone trying to come up with ways around the 2257 regs ( iframes, image hosted on sponsor computer ) -- YOU'RE FUCKING KIDDING, RIGHT? If you put it on your fucking website, you published it. Get that through your head, already.

it really fucks the people who have been making galleries and free sites for the past 10 years. they are just supposed to delete all that stuff and lose all that money and search engine traffic? they should be able to sue the government for loss of income due to this, or at least get grant to cover the costs of becoming compliant.

psili I did the same, however be aware that these new regs treat softcore nudes the same as hardcore - so documentation would be required

if you want to sell your sites cheap to a european who doesn't give a fuck about 2257 hit me up!

did the same. Has the defintion of softcore changed?

Dunno.

But I'll probably remove any topless from the photo of the day just for the hell of it.

I just reread the reg and did not see where this is true. Shit this is hardto keep up with.

and me :)

got this from FSC page

"Clause (v) of section 2256(2)(A) of title 18, United States Code" is part of the definition of "sexually explicit conduct," and reads, "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person." Lascivious exhibition had previously been entirely excluded from the requirements of §2257, but with H.R. 4472's changes to the law, lascivious exhibition will apparently now be included if the material also depicts sexual intercourse, bestiality, masturbation or sadistic or masochistic abuse, all referenced in clauses (i) through (iv) of §2256(2)(A).

I'm pretty sure even basic nudity needs documents now. I'm gonna make all my thumbs completely non-explicit, but link to the explicit gallery of course...

it might be worth your while to find out if cropping a nude pic to not show the nudity would make it exempt, before you start cropping a bunch of them... I'm not sure that it does

That's the one question no one seems to have a real answer for. If anyone knows let me know! I'll crop from explicit images all day...

God bless America

I don't see where this would cover topless. Sure maybe dick, ass and pussy shots.. but I can't see how that statment could cover topless.