2257 and live chat?

[Clare]

I site i know shut down their live chat component until they coudl comply with 2257. I am going to meet with a lawyer about this as I have been wanting to add live chat/webcam shows to my site www.spankedsweeties.com for a while but I was wondering if that is something 2257 is pushing for - that if we do not have paperwork on a member he cannot chat on the paysite or something.

[Greenguy]

2257 would only apply to the people on your site & not to your members.

[Hammer]

I think people make 2257 a lot more difficult than it really is.

1. Do you show naked people on your website partcipating in sexually explicit conduct?
2. You need to comply with 2257.

Like Greenguy said, obviously a member is not content on your website, you are only responsible for the people that perform on cam.

Now, I guess it's possible that your members could be using cams of their own so your cam operators can see them, but since they aren't content on your website, it wouldn't matter.

[Wazza]

You own a paysite yet you wouldn't have the first clue about 2257... seriously, for your own protection - ask that lawyer about your entire operation...

[Talleyrand]

Hi Hammer.
I want to make a directory with a lot of links, but the images will be only banners or pics 2257.
Must I have some records? Can I go to jail for it? T.I.A.

Talleyrand

Originally Posted by Hammer

I think people make 2257 a lot more difficult than it really is.

1. Do you show naked people on your website partcipating in sexually explicit conduct?
2. You need to comply with 2257.

Like Greenguy said, obviously a member is not content on your website, you are only responsible for the people that perform on cam.

Now, I guess it's possible that your members could be using cams of their own so your cam operators can see them, but since they aren't content on your website, it wouldn't matter.

[Greenguy]

Originally Posted by Talleyrand

Hi Hammer.
I want to make a directory with a lot of links, but the images will be only banners or pics 2257.
Must I have some records? Can I go to jail for it? T.I.A.

Talleyrand

If the new law goes thru, yes.

[Hammer]

Originally Posted by Talleyrand

Hi Hammer.
I want to make a directory with a lot of links, but the images will be only banners or pics 2257.
Must I have some records? Can I go to jail for it? T.I.A.

It depends on the images you use. You can link to all the hardcore sexually explicit content you want if you do it with text links or softcore banners and images, and avoid the 2257 issue entirely.

2257 applies only to 'sexually explicit' content that is actually on your own domain. Many sponsors are providing softcore banners for their affliates to use.

[Talleyrand]

Originally Posted by Hammer

It depends on the images you use. You can link to all
the hardcore sexually explicit content you want if you do it with text links or softcore banners and images, and avoid the 2257 issue entirely.

2257 applies only to 'sexually explicit' content that is actually on your own domain. Many sponsors are providing softcore banners for their affliates to use.

Ah! I just was thinking to change from adult industry to another!

My idea is to have only text links and banners very softcore, (like some ll), because only text is not nice.

Thank you very much.

Talleyrand

[tickler]

Originally Posted by Hammer

2257 applies only to 'sexually explicit' content that is actually on your own domain. Many sponsors are providing softcore banners for their affliates to use.

Some sponsors are now providing hot-linkable hardcore banners, which according to them bypasses your need for 2257 requirements. Now to see if the LL will allow us to hot-link banners from another domain.

Originally Posted by CamZ_Dan

We are a plug in so all of the content is displayed on our URL therefore you have no 2257 obligation and can still have the live content that your members are wanting.

I know me and RawAlex went back and forth a few times over this issue as to whether iFraming actually moves the content off your domain, and thus negates the 2257 requirements. So do you and your lawyers feel that this is a way to avoid the problem?

[Useless]

Originally Posted by Talleyrand

Hi Hammer.
I want to make a directory with a lot of links, but the images will be only banners or pics 2257.
Must I have some records? Can I go to jail for it? T.I.A.

Talleyrand

2257 really only applies to Americans. If you reside in another country, you don't have to worry about it.

[Talleyrand]

Originally Posted by Useless Warrior

2257 really only applies to Americans. If you reside in another country, you don't have to worry about it.

My sites are in USA and I want to work in accord with the law of USA.

Talleyrand

[Useless]

Originally Posted by Talleyrand

My sites are in USA and I want to work in accord with the law of USA.

Talleyrand

But the question is, my dear friend, where are YOU? Where the content is hosted doesn't matter. If you are a citizen of another nation living in that nation, not the U.S., then you really don't have to worry about 2257. There are Americans who think they can avoid 2257 by hosting elsewhere, but that won't save them. The U.S. can only apply their laws to those residing in the U.S. They cannot go to your country with a search warrant from an American court and ask to see your 2257 records off of U.S. soil. You are safe from 2257.

[tigermom]

Originally Posted by Useless Warrior

2257 really only applies to Americans. If you reside in another country, you don't have to worry about it.

What if I ever want to visit the US? They could possibly hold my name and info and refuse entry? not grant me a visa maybe...

I guess if the new law goes through, non-American hosts will have a ball. Silly how the American government is driving business away...

[RawAlex]

Clare, I also think that the newer 2257 rules may require you to record and archive all live performances. I am not 100% on this, perhaps Far-L or someone from a cam company can comment on this.

As Wazza said, if you are not 100% sure on 2257, find a lawyer that is and pay the fees required to obtain and understand that infomation.

Alex

[juggernaut]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

Clare, I also think that the newer 2257 rules may require you to record and archive all live performances. I am not 100% on this, perhaps Far-L or someone from a cam company can comment on this.

As Wazza said, if you are not 100% sure on 2257, find a lawyer that is and pay the fees required to obtain and understand that infomation.

Alex

From what I have been reading I have not seen a change to this. It seems to be very much on the low end of issues with the entire 2257. It's one of the main reasons I shut down my main site as recording the streams is near impossible and to costly. But like you said this person should get a lawyer because from what I'm seeing that requirement is not going to change anytime soon.

[Sergio_TeenBoys]

It gets more and more complicated

[Greenguy]

Originally Posted by Sergio_TeenBoys

It gets more and more complicated

How so?

[CamZ_Dan]

2257 is a concern for many people as well it should be. When it comes to live it proposes a few difficult challenges.

All of the 2257 requirements are the same for live as they are for any other covered content all live performances must be archived and stored for a period of 7 years. This in particular is an extreme cost to individuals trying to maintain the storage. All records must be kept and maintained.

For live there is a solution for webmasters and Amateurs (those with their own sites) wanting to add live content to their site and still not have the headache of 2257. At CamZ we are the primary producers of the content. We are a plug in so all of the content is displayed on our URL therefore you have no 2257 obligation and can still have the live content that your members are wanting.

As a performer the same holds true. As long as for that one hour show you do for camz there is no other commercial interest in the show other then doing it for the bennies that CamZ gives you for doing them there are no 2257 requirements.

In other word it all falls on us we have no secondary producers of our content. All of the pages are completely customizable to give the look and feel to the members that they have not left your site.

Good luck

[Hammer]

Putting explicit content inside an iframe or hotlinking to explicit content on your sponsors server is a very bad idea.

Do you think the stooge that works for the DOJ and is inspecting your website is going to take the time to check if the banner that shows a chick giving a guy a blowjob is actually hotllinked, or that the picture showing a girl that appears to be under age having anal sex is actually within an iframe and do you seriously think a judge would care if once it got to court you pointed out that fact?

Do you really want to be explaining to some feds sitting in your house that the picture they think is on your website is actually hosted somewhere else and isn't really on your website, it's just an illusion? And if they don't listen or don't care, do you really want to spend time and money defending yourself in court to prove your point just because some sponsor told you they THOUGHT it was okay?

I've talked to a lot of attorneys about 2257 and almost all of them think that hotlinking will be problematic.

The content is on your website for the world to see, and I don't care where it's hosted, if it looks like it's on your website, it's on your website.

[Useless]

Originally Posted by Hammer

The content is on your website for the world to see, and I don't care where it's hosted, if it looks like it's on your website, it's on your website.

Why do you always seem so fucking angry? Not hugged enough in your developing years? It would be far simpler for me to hide my dislike for you if you didn't come off as such a dickhead in every single post.

[tickler]

Originally Posted by Hammer

Putting explicit content inside an iframe or hotlinking to explicit content on your sponsors server is a very bad idea.

Do you think the stooge that works for the DOJ and is inspecting your website is going to take the time to check if the banner that shows a chick giving a guy a blowjob is actually hotllinked, or that the picture showing a girl that appears to be under age having anal sex is actually within an iframe and do you seriously think a judge would care if once it got to court you pointed out that fact?

Do you really want to be explaining to some feds sitting in your house that the picture they think is on your website is actually hosted somewhere else and isn't really on your website, it's just an illusion? And if they don't listen or don't care, do you really want to spend time and money defending yourself in court to prove your point just because some sponsor told you they THOUGHT it was okay?

I've talked to a lot of attorneys about 2257 and almost all of them think that hotlinking will be problematic.

The content is on your website for the world to see, and I don't care where it's hosted, if it looks like it's on your website, it's on your website.

Well if you noticed, I was asking the sponsors, who have very good lawyers, why they seem to feel that these options were viable, and not problematic. And since I don't see a law degree from you, I will wait wait for their comments.

As far as some "stooge" from the DOJ, I really don't care if he has the lowest form of monkey brain. The law is so fucked up that they don't even know what they are talking about. Hell, they don't even know what an IP is! Take a look at how their expert internet witness shot them down in the hearings.

Finally, since I spend way too much of my time explaining "facts" to lawyers and having them go and get laws changed that are messed up. I am quite willing to use real logic, and not some "song and dance", double-talking, latin quoting BS, that comes from most lawyers if I need to see a judge.
As somebody used to say: "Just the facts!"

[Hammer]

Do you seriously think I care what you think about me or whether you like me or not? I wouldn't even care if you were actually someone that was successful in this business.

I think the one that comes off like a dickhead is the one that tells someone that they are 'safe from 2257'. What a completely irresponsible thing to say on an adult webmaster board.

[Useless]

Originally Posted by Hammer

I think the one that comes off like a dickhead is the one that tells someone that they are 'safe from 2257'. What a completely irresponsible thing to say on an adult webmaster board.

Fuck you, pencil neck. Will he get arrested for 2257? No, he will not. That seems pretty fucking safe to me.

[Greenguy]

I think a couple of people need to call lawyers & a couple more need to stop acting like them.

[Useless]

Originally Posted by Greenguy

I think a couple of people need to call lawyers & a couple more need to stop acting like them.

I am an attorney.


(Prove me wrong!)