2257 regs published in full

[Toby]

Originally Posted by Boogie

Once again, I'm not entirely sure why we need docs as affilates of these programs...

The 10th Circuit Court has already agreed with you once, in Sundance Associates v. Reno. They essentially said that entities which have no role in the "hiring, contracting for, managing, or otherwise arranging for the participation" of the models or performers, are exempt from the record-keeping requirements of 18 U.S.C. 2257.

I will be watching with great interest to see how the court rules this time.

[plateman]

Yeah and very good reading been keeping tabs on this thread and a big thank you for raw alex...

[rollergirl]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

One last important note: This is not a new law, this is not a new act of congress. It might look like it, but in reality it is some sort of administrative clarification. That too is subject to a previous court decision shooting it down, but that is another issue.

Alex

Hmm.. yes.. I see what you are saying, but third party doc holders are no longer allowed with this new revision. This would cover the sponsor content. Many purchased content providers just told us to LINK to their 2257 page or sent the address for the custodial of records for the content we bought from them. So everyone who was in compliance as it were might not still be. Cross referencing is new too right? Clarifications would seem more like revisions IMHO. BTW .. even upon asking for the right documentation (as I said before) for content we purchased from reputable and popular providers.. I got the 'no can do'. Only one provider we asked stepped up to the plate and sent over every thing we needed ASAP. We've been buying content since 1998. HELLOOOOOOOO

Thank you for taking the time to give insight though.

[ngb1959]

OMG this is confusing as hell.

I only use sponsor content. I put a link to their 2257 on my sites.

So do I have to have actual paper documents (print out of sponsor's 2257 page?) in my possession?

Can someone just put it in a nutshell for me. Kind of having brain cramps after reading all of these pages.

Thanks.

Nina

[terry]

Thanks Alex.

[rollergirl]

Originally Posted by ngb1959

OMG this is confusing as hell.

I only use sponsor content. I put a link to their 2257 on my sites.

So do I have to have actual paper documents (print out of sponsor's 2257 page?) in my possession?

Can someone just put it in a nutshell for me. Kind of having brain cramps after reading all of these pages.

Thanks.

Nina

Well, I think that is the boat that many of us are in. I believe that you need the models documents for all the performers,if you host any of the content. This is how I read it. Now, will the sponsors give that up so we can continue to use it?

[Toby]

Originally Posted by ngb1959

OMG this is confusing as hell...
...Can someone just put it in a nutshell for me.

I'm in the essentially same boat, my main site uses only sponsor content. One of the biggest things that is changing is the definition of secondary producer. Under the revision that takes effect next month we are now classified as secondary producers and must keep the same records as the primary producer, for each and every model in each and every photo set (or portion thereof) you host on your own site.

As Katie has already found out, very few sponsors are going to be willing to give out that information to every affiliate.

If the court allows this to stand as written, it will cause major changes within the entire adult industry.

[terry]

Does anyone know if in all this the billing companies can get implicated? By this I mean will they go after my ccbill account? If I read correctly they can go after my hosting as it is in the US.

[Toby]

I don't see that billing companies have any obligations in relation to compliance with 2257.

However, you can bet your last dollar that if you get inspected and are found to not be in compliance, they'll use the seizure provisions to go after any funds not yet paid by CCbill or whatever other billing company is used. They have absolutely no intentions of playing nice.

[ngb1959]

What about the people that buy the subscriptions to the sites....I guess they have to have documentation too. I don't know, almost just kidding here.

Well, if it goes through, I'm going to put all mainstream on my existing sites and get banned from every one of the link lists on the internet.

But I'm not going to act rashly - just frustrated since I'm just starting to make decent money in this business.

Ok, enough ranting for today.

Have a good day/night all.

Nina

[emmanuelle]

Alex- since you are in Canada, and do not own a paysite (and thus need to be accountable to affiliates and billing companies) I would think that you are one of the lucky ones who can push hardcore easily, and perhaps have the advantage over others.

[emmanuelle]

Depending on which person's interpretation you believe, text links to explicit content, or hotlinked content may escape the requirements.

Could somebody not spend the $60 to set up a Canadian company and a hosting account in Canada to use as a content server?

[terry]

Originally Posted by emmanuelle

Could somebody not spend the $60 to set up a Canadian company and a hosting account in Canada to use as a content server?

Emmanuelle, know of any Canadian hosting companies we could use?

[emmanuelle]

There are a few, a couple here in Montreal but their names escape me at the moment. Mr Hoe knows more about the local hosting scene than I do, maybe he can help you.

[tickler]

Originally Posted by grandmascrotum

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.

Funny about that. I was going to ask around the boards who the male actor was that appeared in a scene with a shemale 'cause he wasn't listed on the box cover.

Now I am going to have to track down porn stars that aren't even listed.

RawAlex:
Interesting thought last night. I pretty sure that our privacy laws will not allow us to fully comply with the regs. So it sorta puts us in a catch-22 situation.

Now a NAFTA injuntion might just be possible. Gotta see what the legal eagles think!

[Barron]

Originally Posted by Toby

every photo set (or portion thereof) you host on your own site.

I'm seeing the phrase photo set used alot. Also, the word server is used alot by people that are posting.

...otherwise manages the
sexually explicit content of a computer site or service that contains a
visual depiction

The regs are very specific about the word "depiction", that is singular, not plural.

The regs say "computer site or service". It makes no distinction between a "server" where its "located" or "who" the server belongs to or "who the domain belongs to".

If you have an image of sexually explicit conduct and crop the image to just the girls face, you now have a "new depiction". If you create a banner from a hardcore image, your banner is now a "new depiction".

But, that is just my opinion, contact a lawyer for his/her opinion.


_

EDIT:

crop the image to just the girls face, you now have a "new depiction" with nothing sexually explicit in the depiction.


-

[Prawnie]

Thankyou Alex for your time in this matter. It certainly has helped me out. Time is running out as we all know. Objections will hopefully be raised, however as I live in the UK, I am ignorant as to how the process in the US courts would develop.
I have scanned through the thread, my question is this?

Being the secondry producer living offshore of the US, with my business also offshore, how likely is it that the guys wearing dark glasses come knocking on my door? Being that my content is hosted on a US server, I use a US billing company and practically every sponser and primary producer is gonna laugh at me when I ask for personal details of the models we use on our sites?
Also, if the problem is big enough and the trend for people to "unload" their biz to offshore escalates, does the US judicial system and government have the powers to "persuade" foreign courts and organisations to track down "offenders" for their own gain? More to the point, would they bother going to such lengths to track down a foriegner who is breaking a US law?

I apologise if this has been asked before but I have just printed off the ruling and despite reading it many times, all I can make of it is it makes a really cool paper hat

[emmanuelle]

Originally Posted by Prawnie

Also, if the problem is big enough and the trend for people to "unload" their biz to offshore escalates, does the US judicial system and government have the powers to "persuade" foreign courts and organisations to track down "offenders" for their own gain? More to the point, would they bother going to such lengths to track down a foriegner who is breaking a US law?

I can't see you being extradited for a clerical error

[Toby]

Prawnie, an article I was reading last night pointed out that the DOJ doesn't have enough resources to adequately investigate the CP cases it has now. I don't forsee many "inspections" taking place here in the US, let alone overseas. I do think there will be some inpections, arrests, and prosecutions. I think they will be few but very noisy.

The tragic part is that those who do get prosecuted, even if found innocent will have already lost everything long before being exhonorated.

[LindaMight]

Originally Posted by WolfTexas

Very good point. Agreed! This is going to shake up the industry and possibly put some legitimacy on some of the business. It will kill our site, because we jumped in at the wrong time and have no capital built up to support the process, but for those of our friends that have been in business a while with the resources to follow through, it will be an astounding benefit.

What saddens me is that there won't be the outlet for people with sexual desires to exhibit. Business is fine, but self expression is now hindered. Oh well. Such is life in modern Christian dominated America.

I guess our class system is going to continue to be built along religious lines, and politics is the avenue. So much for separation of church and State.

Those that continue in the industry, be warned. Our religiously based extreme rightwing government is fast approaching a time when webmasters, models and affiliated parties will all be prosecuted as sex offenders. Then all the overly inclusive generalities mentioned here and everywhere else about child molesters and pedophiles will incorporate not just those with definitive problems in making good judgements (true molesters and pedophiles), but also legitimate (albeit illegitimate in the eyes of Jonny Gov) business people who will have to register as sex offenders and suffer the lifelong abuse of not being able to provide for themselves or families because our beloved government has been put in place to legislate morality at the expense of personal safety and decency.

As a further explanation, please remember, that not all sex offenders are currently people that abduct or molest children, but sometimes people that are in a consentual relationship (even some without proven sexual activity) where someone got mad and decided to prosecute for rape or a similar, perhaps even legitimate, story, that get lumped in and ostricized as being dangers to society.

We, too, as industry "personnel" could be lumped into this group if our current administration and legislative bodies continue down this road. The ACLU, et al, haven't aided in stemming this tide as much as was once the case. And this is due in large part to the DOJ or similar bodies "shoring up" policies that will benefit their theocratic agendas in the name of either getting re-elected or proving their "worth" to task of their job.

Protestant America is slowly reverting to the age of the Crusades, and we're looking down the barrel of the gun. Be careful how you proceed!

For those of you with nothing to lose, and everything to gain, I applaud your decision to perservere, but if the revisions to 2257 don't get derailed, we won't be part of the new success. We're too small, and too remote to avoid the disaster of being prosecuted for the many things that this Pandora's box is bound to impose on the industry. We won't risk it.

In this case, I am not bitter, but it is growing more and more apparent, that in the "modern America" the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

Wolf.

PS...in most states, we've all done something that can be construed as a sex offense. Have you ever leared at anyone without their knowledge (underage or not) and thought illicit or lacivious thoughts? That's a sex offense in at least half the states of our country. Beware the thought police!

I don't like this grim forecast. In fact, it is the only message that I have read on five different message boards and pages and pages of messages that has scared me. If all of the above holds true, we should all close down NOW and never look back.

Linda

[Barron]

Originally Posted by Toby

Prawnie, an article I was reading last night pointed out that the DOJ doesn't have enough resources to adequately investigate the CP cases it has now. I don't forsee many "inspections" taking place here in the US, let alone overseas. I do think there will be some inpections, arrests, and prosecutions. I think they will be few but very noisy.

The tragic part is that those who do get prosecuted, even if found innocent will have already lost everything long before being exhonorated.

I agree with this. With the lack of manpower, I envision the inspectors not caring about photographs they see where the models are obvisously way over 18. And then the only ones they will seek age docs on are the ones that really are "ify" as to rather or not they are 18.

I would really like to think that the DOJ are really using this as a tool to increase the jail time for the people who deal in cp. "We no longer have to prove you are dealing in cp. Now YOU have to prove your model IS 18. Let me see the docs!"

Speaking of that, does anybody know anybody that has acctually been inspected for age documentation? I mean, something more than just casual, "While we're here, lets see them". I'm talking about a visit for the sole purpose of inspection of docs.

Does anyone know anyone thats happened to? Aside from Traci Lords.


-

[LindaMight]

On a side note, aside from being scared of Wolf's prediction....

We have done it, we have rented office space, signed the lease today, effective June 1st, and am going to actually set up an office that will house not only one of our computers, but it will also house our documents that pertain to the identity of George and myself linked to all of the images and videos on my website. My other two friends that show up in just a few updates....well I am going to just ditch the pictures and the video. It didn't add a whole lot to the site. And even though I have their documentation, I figure the less I have to deal with the better. George and I are linking our own pictures to every single URL on our website and every mpeg and banner. And they will all be cross-referenced with our real names, stage names, and our company name. PLUS we have an appointment with our corporate attorney who took care of our incorporation six years ago to go over any details that we've missed.

My big question is this...... we do not show our faces in hardly any images or videos....nor did we show faces of the two friends of our. So, if we do not show faces, what good is the real ID anyway? How would anyone know it is me, or George, or either of our friends. ?? And would that not be the case with each and every porn picture where the face is obscure?

Linda

[Prawnie]

Originally Posted by Toby

Prawnie, an article I was reading last night pointed out that the DOJ doesn't have enough resources to adequately investigate the CP cases it has now. I don't forsee many "inspections" taking place here in the US, let alone overseas. I do think there will be some inpections, arrests, and prosecutions. I think they will be few but very noisy.

The tragic part is that those who do get prosecuted, even if found innocent will have already lost everything long before being exhonorated.

Thanks Toby and Barron. I read also about the lack of resources available. That last statement you wrote really hits home.

[Toby]

Barron, To my knowledge there's never been so much as a knock on someone's door.

One thing that does need to be kept in mind, these new regulations allow the DOJ to appoint local law enforcement to perform the inspection. I'm not sure that will happen much since the Fed's tend to be pretty territorial and don't care much for sharing the spotlight.

[Barron]

Originally Posted by LindaMight

On a side note, aside from being scared of Wolf's prediction....

My big question is this...... we do not show our faces in hardly any images or videos....nor did we show faces of the two friends of our. So, if we do not show faces, what good is the real ID anyway? How would anyone know it is me, or George, or either of our friends. ?? And would that not be the case with each and every porn picture where the face is obscure?

Linda

Put yourself in the position of the inspector. You are looking at a picture of a guy and girl that is having sexual intercourse. The woman has breasts and pubic hair. Ok, the girl has reached puberty. The guy has pubic hair. Ok, he has reached puberty. But, since I cant see the faces, are the models 16 or 26?

Without a clear indication that the models are over 18, or at least an indication that a reasonable person could tell by looking at the faces, I would be looking for the 2257 info, wouldnt you?


-