2257 regs published in full

[RawAlex]

Barron, doesn't matter what the entry point is. The DOJ clearly stated they want a 2257 disclosure ON THE ROOT OF THE DOMAIN (and the root of any third level sub-domains). They specifically said that the root of the domain covers subfolders.

Now, it would not HURT to have all of those subfolders link to the single 2257 document (rather than having seperate declarations for each one), but there appears to be no legal requirement (I quoted them earlier in the thread on this subject).

We have the same thing when it comes ot driving, and you would be a fool to think these 2257 things are anything but a way to trip people up, and to nail them for other non-related offenses (such as pirated software, movie files, of whatever other signs of a felony they find during the normal course of inspection.

Make all the 2257 declarations you want, but the DOJ has told you IN AS MANY WORDS exactly what you need. For me, a gallery or subfolder site isn't a major entry, it's a minor reference inside a site. Otherwise, technically, ALL folders, ALL html files are potentially an entry point.

Alex

[ardentgent]

Two quick questions for anyone who knows:

Was any disclaimer required prior to June 25, 2004?

If a gallery is completely softcore, no- nudity at all, is any disclaimer required?

[SexVideoContent]

Originally Posted by ardentgent

If a gallery is completely softcore, no- nudity at all, is any disclaimer required?

Don't quote me on this because I don't know for certain, but the regs only cover sexually explicit images, actual or simulated, so non-nude shouldn't require a statement at all AFAIK.

In fact putting a statement where there shouldn't be one could I suppose get you in as much trouble as not having one where there should be one, if they wanted to be really pissy about it - and keep in mind the AG was quoted saying "overcompliance is a felony".

That being said, I would be careful about using NN content if for instance the model had her hand in her panties... I suppose someone could argue that whatever she's doing there might be 'simulated sexual conduct' in an instance like that, if they thought (or thought they could convince someone) that the model was masturbating under her panties.

Softcore however could require it. Anything with penetration or even touching (whether by self, a device, or another model) of the nether regions would require it, and there's some debate as to whether a full nude would require it or not. I've read the law and it looks to me like nudes would be exempt so long as there is no touching going on, however others who've read the same laws think otherwise for some reason.

What you can be certain of though regardless of whether nudes are still legal without 2257 or not is that a nude image is going to cause an inspector to look closer at everything else.

No where in the regs does it mention anything about nude breasts requiring 2257 however (it only mentioned 'genitals' and the 'pubic region') so it looks like topless content is still fair game.

Hope that helps.

[Dracula]

Today I gathered all the ids I need for my unused content (mostly shemale, imagine the fun )

So now, on every free site I make, I have to put a link to a specific 2257 page with the text and the ids for that content).
I think I will make a new 2257 page for every new set...

And if I get an European host all those problems will be solved?

[Toby]

Originally Posted by Dracula

...So now, on every free site I make, I have to put a link to a specific 2257 page with the text and the ids for that content...

I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to by "ids for that content", but if you're referring to the model identification and proof of age information, that goes in your private files only, NEVER on a web page. Your 2257 statement should simply state your name and the location of your records (address of your primary place of business). That won't change so no need to make a custom 2257 page for each free site you build.

[Dracula]

Originally Posted by Toby

I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to by "ids for that content", but if you're referring to the model identification and proof of age information, that goes in your private files only, NEVER on a web page. Your 2257 statement should simply state your name and the location of your records (address of your primary place of business). That won't change so no need to make a custom 2257 page for each free site you build.

I see now, I was really confused about the ids. Since I am in Europe, in a site investigation how the Feds will see my papers? I am pretty sure they will not come here. And what if the owner is an offshore company (Bermuda, Gibraltar etc).?

[Toby]

Originally Posted by Dracula

...Since I am in Europe, in a site investigation how the Feds will see my papers?...

That's their problem.
I suppose in theory they could make arrangements for the appropriate European authorities to inspect your documentation, but they'd need to have some pretty substantial cause to believe they'd find something major to go to the trouble. There's more than enough fish for them to fry here at home.

[Barron]

I should have phrased that better.

I agree, from a webmastering stand point, putting a statement on each free site or tgp is overkill.

I agree that one statement at the root of the domain is enough, or as they say, a link that opens a new window.

The link on the entry point would be to the statement.

I agree that the root of the domain is the entry point. I have no control over what urls the SE's list, they are not entry points.

I agree that the DOJ are smart enough to go to the root of the domain to find the statement.

I can see how my post might cause everyone to think that I'm saying there should be a statement for each free site or tgp. The link on the entry point would be to the statement at the root of the domain.

I agree that they could ask for all sorts or things. But, I'm thinking the simple request to see search warrant, for anything non-2257, would deter there requests. But then again, that would, EDIT: would not, stop them from coming back with one.

"At the place of business", I'm thinking I should setup the computer out in a shed, or maybe the garage, on the front porch? It gets damn cold in Minnesota.

What I disagreed with is that there is no need for a link to the statement on free sites and tgps. Hopefully I am completely wrong. But until a lawyer, an investigator or the courts tell me different, I'm will put the link on there.


_

[Barron]

Rawalex, you type faster than me. I didnt see your last post


-