2257 regs published in full

[PR_Tom]

Then wouldnt it be like making a supermarket keep records stating that all of their food is NOT expired at the time I purchased it? lol

This whole thing is a mess. Chances are that for my personal websites, I'll pull every image and block the web archive bot.

Surely there will be lawsuits because these regs are a huge mess.

[PR_Tom]

Also, if having "editorial control" is a key to whether or not records need keeping, wouldnt hotlinking or zero framing be exempt? If I full page frame a sponsor tour, I have absolutely no control whatsoever. But I need records of every image on the tour, right? Ridiculous

[RawAlex]

PR_tom, I will answer your last question first, because it is the easiest. It doesn't matter where the image ACTUALLY is, it is where it APPEARS to be. If you hotlink an image onto your site, well, it's part of your site (you published it as part of your website) - so hotlinking, zero frames, whatever... you control the domain, so you control what is on it.

Redirects are better than zero frames.

As for supermarkets, well... I will assure you that they know which employees can legally work for them and which can't. No green card, no SSN, well... no job.

The government doesn't have to come check for them to still keep accurate records.

Alex

[tortus32]

What if a site has no nudity. I would think I am in the clear with shoekittens.com as there is no nudity or sexual acts.

I might have to just dump my TGP's tho.
Uhg!

Bill

[tickler]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

Tickler, you are correct, that is the screwed up way it reads. The way around this of course is to have someone in each country be the primary producer, who then sells all the rights to the content to the US producer, who is now a secondary producer.

It does make it harder for "porn tourism", where performers go to different countries to shoot.

Alex

Alex THX. Probably makes a ton of current content invalid also if they get away with back dating.

Next question is if the 5 year rule is gonna fuck people, so that even pulling non-compliant content may not remove them from 2257 requirements?
If I was the DOJ, I would have been "scraping" the internet for the last few years and not just start the day everything gets active. Not counting google images, archives, ISP caches, etc. They do keep saying "clarifying".

As somebody mentioned about model IDs and ages and stuff. "Traci Lords would have been able to make every movie she made because she had California ID and she had a U.S. passport that were 100 percent valid; fraudulently obtained, but valid. "

BTW Paul, re. another thread, I found the reference for her again here:
http://www.avnonline.com/index.php?P...tent_ID=228369

[ardentgent]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

Airdick,the problem is, EVEN is you have nothing but softcore content you have to be able to prove the models are over 18. Otherwise you are in the shits by having a topless model and no way to prove her age.

Tell me exactly how you do that?

Think hard now!

Alex

If I use softcore content it will be sponsor content in which they have indicated that the models are over 18 or licensed content indicating the same. Furthermore, since 2257 would not apply I would not have to prove the model's age, the government would if they wanted to prosecute me. In addition, the way this NON-LAWYER- reads the statutes one has to knowingly use cp in order to be guilty of using cp.

[PR_Tom]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

PR_tom, I will answer your last question first, because it is the easiest. It doesn't matter where the image ACTUALLY is, it is where it APPEARS to be. If you hotlink an image onto your site, well, it's part of your site (you published it as part of your website) - so hotlinking, zero frames, whatever... you control the domain, so you control what is on it.

Redirects are better than zero frames.

As for supermarkets, well... I will assure you that they know which employees can legally work for them and which can't. No green card, no SSN, well... no job.

The government doesn't have to come check for them to still keep accurate records.

Alex

Yep I know, I've been advising people the same. But if Google for instance was granted an exception because they have no editorial control, then whats the difference.. It's not as if I have any say whatsoever if I frame a page full of text about oil painting, and then someone knocks on my door because a few weeks back, the site I'm framing put hardcore images on the page.
I'm ranting.

My comment about the supermarket was in response to someone elses apples and oranges comment. The burden is on us to prove the content is NOT illegal. Which I think would be similar to a supermarket having to prove their product was NOT expired when we buy it. Ridiculous. Again ranting.

[RawAlex]

PR_tom, I agree with you, it seems stupid but there are many things in life the same, like getting a smog inspection because you have to prove your legal before you can plate the car. We are on the permit side, not the law breaking side. Not innocent until proven guilty, more in violation unless we show we are conforming to the rules.

tickler: I think the whole back dating thing will be VERY VERY VERY hard for enforce, it's a well know that "The Constitution clearly forbids "Ex Post Facto" laws " - which is making something illegal after it has occurred, and then charging people. It is one of the many ways that this current screwfest of a rule set will probably get knocked over in court.

ardentgent: I wish you luck with it. If I was in the US I would not have a single image with naked anything without either model IDs or a notice from the sponsor that the content is not applicable to 2257. I wouldn't run naked in the middle.

Alex