I guess since I only have one URL and that's lindamight.com., it won't be hard to link my pictures to it.

I seem to remember looking at all of this stuff in a thread from a few months ago. The part that read "(E) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person" and simulated sexual conduct is *NOT* covered by 2257. You are quoting all of paragraph (2) of section Title 18 2256 for your definition, however "actual sexually explicit conduct" is defined in Title 18 2257 (h)(1) as a subset of Title 18 2256 paragraph (2) that excludes simulated sexual conduct and (E):

Title 18 2257 (h) As used in this section—
(1) the term “actual sexually explicit conduct” means actual but not simulated conduct as defined in subparagraphs (A) through (D) of paragraph (2) of section 2256 of this title;


The new rules are going to be bad enough as it is for webmasters in the USA, let's not make it any worse by reading extra stuff into the law that is not there.

Of course, the usual IANAL disclaimer applies here. Don't take my word for any of this, please seek the advice of an attorney to plan your compliance program.

You have one Domain. On that domain you have dozens if not hundreds of URL's. Each html, php, asp, cgi, or whatever page that displays your content is a different URL. I'm not really sure those that wrote the reg's fully understand the difference either.

We have to index exact urls correct, not just the main domain


edit: nevermind..you do

Just one question to EVERYONE that has content on their sites - the current version of 2257 (not this new one, the one that's been in place for some time now) requires you to list the address of the location of the records, which is supposed to be your main place of business & you are required to have the documents available during normal business hours.....this is not new.

A lot of you are saying that you didn't have this info in place already?

How far will they go? I just want to know when does the revolution begins? |bigfuckin

GG, I did, but I shut the doors on that biz a few months ago and have been scratching my head since, I just made a call and have a place to keep them at a business addy now.

I am ith you, and every biker I know (which is alot) They are going to be hearing thunder very soon on the white house..This is just another thing for everyone to realize that we are slowly losing our rights

I have documents at my place of business as well as my attorney's office. Thing is, I have my attorney's address listed, not my home. This new crap about the actual address rather than whatever is what is really doing a lot of us in. Even my corporate records show a post office box and that is supposedly legal. What a joke. |angry|

Linda

I'm with Linda... my business address has always been my PO Box and that's been more than adequate up to now. If it's good enough for my business paperwork, good enough for registering domains, good enough for my sponsors to send checks to, and good enough for my cell phone company to accept as my billing AND mailing address... well, you get the picture.

After talking with a close friend in the biz earlier tonight, I've come to the conclusion that I'm not going to get my panties in a total bunch about this until such time as I know without question that it has become an enforceable law without injunctions and with a lot fewer loopholes. I will continue doing what I've been doing and wait to hear what comes next, primarily because I'm not going through the trauma of tracking all of my old sites/pages if I don't absolutely have to... that's one chore I am definitely NOT looking forward to! This is one big ugly bridge I prefer to cross only when it comes to me. |dizzy|

I plan on sitting tight too. Of course I`ll be preparing as well. I just did a complete inventory of my content to start. It`s probably a good time to get any info you`re lacking in order. Less work down the road. Take the rest as it comes.

Greenguy, you use to be able to use a third party to hold those records. That is no longer permissible. It must be at your place of business (which I am sure some people will delve into further as to what the legal definition of this is... I know some people who sit in Starbucks reviewing sites 4 hours a day... is that their place of business? My place of business is on the internet!).

It is scary for many models (and secondary producers) to be forced to put their name address and other contact information in clear public site. I understanad the less than honest reason for the DOJ, which is to make it as uncomfortable as possible to be in the porn business. This all has nothing to do with protecting children... it has all to do with driving people out of business.

Alex

combine office space
 

I have all of my exclusive content databased and cross-referenced (since last August) - working on the licensed content - I stupidly believed the license that I received when purchasing would be good enough. Some sets will just be taken down - bought from foreign suppliers - obviously over the age of consent and most over the age of social security - but nevertheless - better safe than sorry.

I do not want to post my home address either. I can hear the picketers now out front. It could conceivable turn ugly like abortion protests with actual killings taking place. Some of those bible thumpers get pretty radical.
It would be so great if 4 or 5 local webmasters that work like i do (in my p.j.s in the home office) - could pool resources and time and rent and office space in a larger city and share the 20 hrs you must be there. We'd all be familiar with the databases etc., and could perhaps all be 'employees' of each other's businesses.
Anybody in the St.Louis area want to talk about that?

Well, in certain cases yes a third party could be designated. You were allowed to designate an employee as your Custodian of Records, i.e. a full time webmaster. Most of us that work from home don't have any employees other than me, myself and I, so a third party Custodian of Records has never been an option. Lawyers, Accountants, and Bookkeepers are contractors not employees, although many have used them as Custodians anyway.

Alex, I have been reading all the official releases, etc. It is apparent that you have spend considerable time on this. I just want to say thanks for sharing your opinions.

Chop, honestly, I think I should have been a lawyer. While this is not enjoyable stuff, I do enjoy reading it and understanding the implications both for my business and the business of my clients, customers, and of the affiliate programs I promote. Understanding the implications, the requirements, and how that could affect the future of the adult online business is worth the time and effort.

More importantly, let me say this: We may be at a unique cross roads for the adult online industry, where government regulation will come in and better define our business, and set a bar for minimum effort required to be in the business. I don't want anyone to suffer, and some of the changes are going to be painful. t will truly be interested to see where this all goes.

Toby, there is one potential hole in the rules, read closely:

I could technically employ someone for $1 per year to do the job. I think that this is the way that it has always been done, and could possibly give an "out" for some people.

HOWEVER, it appears that this would not apply to an individual, but only to an organization (such as incorporated company).

Alex

It seems to me that nearly all of the rules were written to apply to "organizations". So much of the language just doesn't quite seem to "fit" when applied to individuals. Of course that won't keep them from applying the rules to all of us anyway.

I was thinking of the same. I'm checking the price of office space on the Island and it's going to cost me too much per month to swing that...so I need to think on some options here.

greenguy said and its true that our whois is for everyone that knows about it to see who owns what and I havnt had any problems and I agree the models will suffer from it more - and I dont know WTF to do, I know I've come to far the have a bunch of mother fuckers run me out of biz... and if you think about it is our job any different than working at a porn store selling toys and movies and how offten does a porn store get picketed..

and I bet if it does pass it might help us full timers out and slow down the free flow of porn and drive out the weekend people and spamers and really how many people want to quit, they will probably take a chance on the 20 hours thing and a very small % of webmasters will maybe never get a visit - and look at the manpower and money to inspect a large # of webmsters - they cant keep up with welfare fraud and keeping the counrty safe and how manny lawmakers want blood on there hands when a 20 year old gets stalked and butchered when they find out how the stalker found them..

And I think they want anyone in the porn biz scared and to watch there shit and with the new law they can find us all easier...

I'm reading through the whole thing now. It reads like it was written by petulant Vogons.

"If you can't be bothered going to Alpha Centauri to look at the bypass plans, it's your own fault. Apathetic bloody planet, I've got no sympathy at all..."

And there's a decent chance that Gag Halfrunt is the man pulling the strings...

|viking|

Okay, I've got a question about this part, (the part in bold)

The statute defines
``produces'' as ``to produce, manufacture, or publish any book,
magazine, periodical, film, video tape, computer-generated image,
digital image, or picture, or other similar matter and includes the
duplication, reproduction, or reissuing of any such matter, but does
not include mere distribution or any other activity which does not
involve hiring, contracting for, managing, or otherwise arranging for
the participation of the performers depicted.'' 18 U.S.C. 2257(h)(3).

I'm just not sure what my question is exactly, but that part stuck out to me...

Or is that the old regs? *getting mildly confused*

Re-reading the thread, I notice several references to "If it passes...", "If it becomes law...", etc. The law has been in place for years (1988 as amended). What you are dealing with here is the rules and regulations for the Attorney General to enforce the existing law as enacted by Congress. You will recall that last year (June,2004), the Justice Department proposed the changes. This final rule and regulations are effective June 23, 2005. Therefore, you have 28 days to may sure you are complying.

The next step will be for the law, rules and regulations to be tested in the court system. This will mean that one of us poor bastards will be arrested, charged with a felony and spend everything he has earned and everything he can borrow to fight it. Based on history, our laws are enforced from the bottom up. Therefore, the test will be made against a small operator like myself or maybe even a free site builder that submits a few sites a week. I would almost bet that there example will be someone that can not afford to defend themselves.

Damn, did I say all of the above in public?

Sinistress, I've been stuck on that part for the last 10 minutes too :)

Taken from xxxlaw's http://my.execpc.com/~xxxlaw/2257Tables5.24.05.htm :

(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;

(v) A provider of an electronic communication service or remote computing service who does not, and reasonably cannot, manage the sexually explicit content of the computer site or service.


Doesn't it sound like it could make Google Image not a producer?

If it is, why wouldn't a thumb TGP be included there too? The only thing they are doing is distributing.

Okay new question, last bit was the old one... again I'm not really sure how to word the question, but am going to put the bits in bold..

(c) Producer means any person, including any individual,
corporation, or other organization, who is a primary producer or a
secondary producer.
(1) A primary producer is any person who actually films,
videotapes, photographs, or creates a digitally- or computer-
manipulated image, a digital image, or picture of, or digitizes an
image of, a visual depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual
sexually explicit conduct.
(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;
(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;
(iv) A provider of web-hosting services who does not, and
reasonably cannot, manage the sexually explicit content of the computer
site or service; or
(v) A provider of an electronic communication service or remote
computing service who does not, and reasonably cannot, manage the
sexually explicit content of the computer site or service.
(d) Sell, distribute, redistribute, and re-release refer to
commercial distribution of a book, magazine, periodical, film,
videotape, digitally- or computer-manipulated image, digital image,
picture, or other matter that contains a visual depiction of an actual
human being engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct, but does not
refer to noncommercial or educational distribution of such matter,
including transfers conducted by bona fide lending libraries, museums,
schools, or educational organizations.
(e) Copy, when used:
(1) In reference to an identification document or a picture
identification card, means a photocopy, photograph, or digitally
scanned reproduction, and
(2) When used in reference to a sexually explicit depiction means
the sexually explicit image itself (e.g., a film, an image posted on a
web page, an image taken by a webcam, a photo in a magazine, etc.).
(f) Internet means collectively the myriad of computer and
telecommunications facilities, including equipment and operating
software, which constitute the interconnected world-wide network of
networks that employ the Transmission Control Protocol/Internet
Protocol, or any predecessor or successor protocols to such protocol,
to communicate information of all kinds by wire or radio.
(g) Computer site or service means a computer server-based file
repository or file distribution service that is accessible over the
Internet, World Wide Web, Usenet, or any other interactive computer
service (as defined in 47 U.S.C. 230(f)(2)). Computer site or service
includes without limitation, sites or services using hypertext markup
language, hypertext transfer protocol, file transfer protocol,
electronic mail transmission protocols, similar data transmission
protocols, or any successor protocols, including but not limited to
computer sites or services on the World Wide Web.
(h) URL means uniform resource locator.
(i) Electronic communications service has the meaning set forth in
18 U.S.C. 2510(15).
(j) Remote computing service has the meaning set forth in 18 U.S.C.
2711(2).
(k) Manage content means to make editorial or managerial decisions
concerning the sexually explicit content of a computer site or service,
but does not mean those who manage solely advertising, compliance with
copyright law, or other forms of non-sexually explicit content.

Yeah exactly, and the way that they define "Manage" ....technically would a lot of us not fall under "those who manage solely advertising" ????

The way I read it - the thumb TGP would be publishing the thumb. If they publish the thumb then they are also considered a producer. Therefore they must have the proper documentation in their files.

AVN has a few articles with comments from a few prominent attorneys. Might clarify a few things. Or confuse them depending on your ability to digest legal nomenclature. fyi nomenclature = mumbo jumbo

Google Images also publishes the thumb. Both could be considered "electronic communication service providers" (traffic sources). Google Images and a thumb TGP is basically the same thing, except Google Images has more ads than a thumb TGP.

But this part may be where a thumb TGP get included as publisher:

snipped from the section Sinistress posted: "...editorial or managerial decisions concerning the sexually explicit content of a computer site or service"

A thumb TGP makes editoral decisions regarding what they post, SE's don't.

Doesn't google (or any other search engine) make an editorial decision (based on their algorithms if not human intervention) on what kind of content from what site they publish?

As it is google uses our content (without any regards to copyrights) to sell its own advertisments around and now they should be exempt from a law that nearly puts half of us out of business?

Okay, I may sound pretty cheesed about it. I just paid a fortune to my lawyer |shocking|

That's usually how it will happen and will happen here. I wouldn't be touching teen content with a ten foot pole right now. They'll most likely go after some small potatoes, ones doing teen sites, and ones that might have the 2257 on the net a little screwed up.

Hopefully the ACLU would pick up a case like that, but we'll see...maybe some injunctions, etc will be put into place to make this a little more acceptable.

So if you were on the jury, you would conclude that the Thumb TGP made an editorial decisions to publish the thumb supplied to him by a submitter?

I have a few sites with thumbs from free hosted galleries and hosted free sites. I bet I will take them down by 06/23.

I think 99% of paysites and affiliates that comply with the previous regulation rely on the Sundance vs. Reno decision and just list the custodian of records information provided by the primary producer:

"In fulfilling its obligations under Section 2257, relies on the plain language of the statute and on the well-reasoned decision of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in Sundance, which states that entities who merely distribute content, and have no role in procuring models or producing content, are exempt from on-site record keeping requirements."

The document makes reference to sites that onsell adult movies and says that publishing a picture of the DVD/Video cover on your site still makes you into a secondary producer who has to have documentation regarding the models on the cover. (A minefield for adult stores... and for those of us who review movies or use boxcovers to sell movies).

So a thumb TGP AND Google Images would appear to be in the same basket.

Now that I've read the whole thing, so much of it seems like it could be challenged in a court.

I think whoever the unfortunate "low hanging fruit" is that gets taken to court, we should be prepared to put up a fighting fund for them. So much of our livelihoods will depend on how the court cases pan out, we need to help out whoever it is that gets targetted.

Ok, after reading for a few hours most things are "pretty clear" for me. Just 1 question. Does this apply to banners and other promo materials also?

Airdick, you're right. I think most webmasters have been relying on the idea that your content provider is the custodian of records, and all 2257 documentation is held by that person. All we needed to do was state who the content provider was.

The new ruling tells us we were wrong to think this:

This is the bit that made me think the Vogons had written this whole document.

I also think this is one of the bits the lawyers will fight over. "A prudent secondary producer"??

It's like: "We're going with this judgement... It's not our fault if you chose to conduct business according to a whole other ruling which we in our infinite wisdom are choosing to ignore..."

By the way, shall I add the obligatory IANAL disclaimer? Because, while I've read the document, I'm only offering my views on this.

Fonz, I suspect banners come into it as well - same as DVD boxcovers...

OK... I'll step out of this debate, I'm starting to sound like I know what I'm talking about.

That is the big problem here. After reading and re-reading, we are all guessing. Today, I will be talking to my legal adviser. He will be guessing also but he will get paid for his guess.

My decision is to comply according to my best guess.

I don't know anything about this really, I'm just trying to understand it a little bit better before I get some news from the lawyer. So don't take anything I say seriously, I'm just a pronographer ;)

To me there is no real difference between Google Images and a thumb TGP. Both provides the same service, both stores the images locally.

But if there is a difference (legally) between for example Google Images and a thumb TGP, I would say that it is because we choose what we want on the site. Google spiders the web and just adds what it finds, with no editing.