New 2257 Regs Posted In Here! You Saw It From The Fag First! Lawds Mercy!
 

will read that while on the can .....

but I personally don't give a shit about foreign laws.

Any drastic changes or new things added since last time?

Ill wait to make any changes till they are law. :winkwink: Thanks for the update.

:1orglaugh... Now seriously...

"In addition, by confirming that the statute and
regulations apply to ``secondary producers,'' the revised proposed rule
will make it more difficult for the purveyors of such material to
access the market."

So does that mean HBO has to have 2257 docs for every movie it shows?

so basically every page with a sexual image on must now have the 2257 full information on it, as opposed to a 2257 link.

Man, that's going to be tough.

This is exactly why Ron Paul needs to be elected. I don't see how an adult webmaster could vote for anyone else.

Finally I can stalk those sexy models! YES! Ill add that I'm sarcastic...

One definition of lascivious says: arousing sexual desire

Now how in the hell can you tell what arouses my sexual desire? lol

So if you post pics that arouse me, you better have docs. Or something.

the word "hell" just sexually stimulated my pee-pee

(g) Records are not required to be maintained by either a primary
producer or by a secondary producer for a visual depiction of sexually
explicit conduct that consists only of lascivious exhibition of the genitals or
pubic area of a person, and contains no other sexually explicit
conduct, whose original production date was prior to July 27, 2006.

Now if you don't maintian the records how are you going to prove to the feds that the material was made before July 27, 2006?

ok just making this clear, these are PROPOSED right? Not law yet.

Why? I would think that a movie like "Not Another Teen Movie" would fall right into this. Adults pretending to be teens engaging in simulated sexual behavior? Um that doesn't apply?

Live content producers MUST record PART of each live performance and maintain it:

EXODUS.....movement of the porn people! Ohooooh-oh-oh

No these are the new rules.

No because it's mainstream hollywood and there are mainstream hollywood exceptions. :2 cents:

Sounds like a good plan

So a girl posing nude, spreading etc in pics I bought years ago require no documentation? Not too shabby. Unless I missed something.

Good question though GatorB.. I suppose you'd better file and save the receipts, and content licenses which you normally sign and date anyway.

DATES: Written comments must be received by September 10, 2007.

ADDRESSES: 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 104.''
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 104 in the subject box. You may also view an electronic version of
this rule at the http://www.regulations.gov site.

So write them. Not that it will do any good.

Yes I know.

Then I guess people should start commenting. Have an address to make such comments?...oops thanks Gator

That makes it unconstitutional under the bill or rights. you know where it talks about Equal Protection




but then, Bush is still in office.

Free to go fuck yourselves! Really Ron Paul 2008!

Nope. How can they expect you do have records of something when it wasn't required or even proposed to be required when you obtained the material? That's why porn movies made before 1990 don't have to have 2257 info.

Well it doesn't matter WHEN you bought them. It matters when the content was origanally produced. Obviously if you bought it before July 27, 2006 then it was produced then.

That's crazy, will I need 2257 info for teasing pictures like these?

http://static.flickr.com/91/265440169_7a805b4a59_o.jpg

YES! Their fucking ankles are showing! super sexy makes me hard! :thumbsup

Yes and that's YOUR address not he address of the original producer as 99% of people that have 2257 links on their sites do.

So if you do this out of your home and then your REAL name and your REAL address and your REAL phone number needs to be listed.

"affixed"? Is linking "affixing"? Why not?

How about a mouseover tooltip ballon? It's in the code, it's on the page, it's affixed isn't it? hmmmm..

thats the way i read it. I'll give you more feedback in a couple of hours, as we're having a legal panel here at the show to discuss this very issue in detail

Perfect! :thumbsup

wow eh, if this passes than there will be a ton of US webmasters closing up shop.

Affixing is attaching. So what is linking? Seems to me it would be attaching one page to another, but I'm no lawyer! It'll all shake out.

Good thing the Intern is in the office today. The Job of the Intern is to read this to me and make the necessary changes. Thanks for the headsup.

Fuck these bullshit rules. I hope someone sues the government after this is all passed( and you kow it will be ) and ties this is court for years like COPA. No way secondary prodcuers should have to keep records.

Ok so say Scene 1 from Ass Fucked BIATCHES #87 is on 1000 sites. Why would the government bother checking 1000 sites who had NOTHING to do with making of this movie, when it would be easier to check the records of the ORGINAL PRODUCER who actually made the product in the first place? Seems like an incredible waste of time, manpower and money.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh :1orglaugh

Yep, if I was US webmaster I would rather go work to MCDonald.

Like if I mouseover the yellow "New Thread" button and it shows the alt text balloon saying "Post New Thread", thats a "pop-up"? No wayyyy arghhhhhh