2257 regs published in full

[Toby]

Originally Posted by Lindamight

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

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.

[HornyHeather]

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


edit: nevermind..you do

[Greenguy]

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?

[LindaMight]

Originally Posted by Greenguy

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?

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.

Linda

[Wenchy]

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.

[airdick]

Originally Posted by Greenguy

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?

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."

[Robbo]

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

[HornyHeather]

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.

[HornyHeather]

Originally Posted by Robbo

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

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

[Robbo]

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.

[RawAlex]

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

[Gramma]

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?

[Mr. Blue]

Originally Posted by Gramma

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?

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.

[plateman]

Originally Posted by Gramma

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?

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...

[rollergirl]

Gramma, You have mail.

[aphrophoto]

Just a thought, but how does all this effect the amateur exhibitionist type site of business model. Currently, from what Ive seen, the site owners only ask that the posters declare they are over 18. Some of those sites have thousands of individual submitted pics

[RawAlex]

Originally Posted by aphrophoto

Just a thought, but how does all this effect the amateur exhibitionist type site of business model. Currently, from what Ive seen, the site owners only ask that the posters declare they are over 18. Some of those sites have thousands of individual submitted pics

They would be, well, FUBAR... especially if the images are sexuality explicit (which includes pussy pictures, spreads, heck, might even include shots where you see some hair for all I can tell!)

Many many business models are non-functional as of june 23rd unless otherwise advised by a lawyer.

Alex

[Toby]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

...you use to be able to use a third party to hold those records...

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.

[Chop Smith]

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.

[RawAlex]

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:

If the producer is an organization, the statement shall also
contain the name, title, and business address of the individual employed by such organization who is responsible for maintaining the records required by this part.

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

[Toby]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

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

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.

[Ms Naughty]

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..."

[Wazza]

Originally Posted by grandmascrotum

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

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

|viking|

[Sinistress]

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...

[RawAlex]

Originally Posted by Sinistress

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...

There is a discussion in there about distribution. It is specifically aimed at the companies that transport adult material and the retailers that sell the "packaged good". Basically, it exempts stores from having to get 2257 documents for every model in every magazine.

Alex