2257 regs published in full

[RawAlex]

Originally Posted by HornyHeather

What are they considering explicit content? if anyone knows...??? Just sexual acts? or nudity also?

"sexually explicit conduct” means actual or simulated—
(A) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;
(B) bestiality;
(C) masturbation;
(D) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
(E) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;"

Please note E... basically, show the fur (or area that would have the fur) and you are pretty much there. Masturbation is wide open, it could even involve just squeezing a breast and going "ooooo".

I dunno.

Alex

[HornyHeather]

lol Alex..Thank Ya....I may have a site to fall back on then

[Barron]

Originally Posted by LindaMight

So, if I just dump the pics and vids of the two other people and leave the site solely presenting just George and I, that means that every single image pertains to only us, including URL's and banners and thumbnails and videos. So since it's just us, do we have to link our names to every single image when we are the owners? And webcam can just go away I guess.
? |shocking|

Thanks for any help. I guess we're looking for office space.

Linda

If its just you and George? I think this is a gray area that you need to discuss with your lawyer.

The stuff I read today didnt make allowances for the producer and the performer being the same person. It only talked about the producer and secondary producer being the same person.

If I was a performer and the producer of depictions for my own website, I would cover my bases and have all the info they require. Spending 5 years in jail is more of a chance than I personally would want to take on the subject of a gray area.

Again, I would speak to my attorney about this.

[Barron]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

"sexually explicit conduct” means actual or simulated—
(A) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;
(B) bestiality;
(C) masturbation;
(D) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
(E) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;"

Please note E... basically, show the fur (or area that would have the fur) and you are pretty much there. Masturbation is wide open, it could even involve just squeezing a breast and going "ooooo".

I dunno.

Alex

I think this a good example of why all this needs to be in court. The word simulated was mentioned in the changes. And that brought to mind the exemption of HBO and the others because they are showing simulated, they are in the clear.

Sec. 75.7 Exemption statement.

(a) Any producer of any book, magazine, periodical, film,
videotape, digitally- or computer-manipulated image, digital image,
picture, or other matter may cause to be affixed to every copy of the
matter a statement attesting that the matter is not covered by the
record-keeping requirements of 18 U.S.C. 2257(a)-(c) and of this part
if:
(1) The matter contains only visual depictions of actual sexually
explicit conduct made before July 3, 1995, or is produced,
manufactured, published, duplicated, reproduced, or reissued before
July 3, 1995;
(2) The matter contains only visual depictions of simulated
sexually explicit conduct; or,

[RawAlex]

Barron, actually, I think you got it, very close. Actually, a performer who makes content is the primary producer. The person who puts it on the website (publishes the material) is the secondary producer. The primary and secondary producers can be the same people. There is nothing stopping them from also being a performer - but that does not exempt them from record keeping.

The goverment wants to be able to say "this URL, this picture... who is it, how old are they, do you have proof" no matter who is in the picture and who took the image.

Alex

[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.

[airdick]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

"sexually explicit conduct” means actual or simulated—
(A) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;
(B) bestiality;
(C) masturbation;
(D) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
(E) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;"

Please note E... basically, show the fur (or area that would have the fur) and you are pretty much there. Masturbation is wide open, it could even involve just squeezing a breast and going "ooooo".

I dunno.

Alex

I seem to remember looking at all of this stuff in a thread from a few months ago. The part that read "(E) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person" and simulated sexual conduct is *NOT* covered by 2257. You are quoting all of paragraph (2) of section Title 18 2256 for your definition, however "actual sexually explicit conduct" is defined in Title 18 2257 (h)(1) as a subset of Title 18 2256 paragraph (2) that excludes simulated sexual conduct and (E):

Title 18 2257 (h) As used in this section—
(1) the term “actual sexually explicit conduct” means actual but not simulated conduct as defined in subparagraphs (A) through (D) of paragraph (2) of section 2256 of this title;


The new rules are going to be bad enough as it is for webmasters in the USA, let's not make it any worse by reading extra stuff into the law that is not there.

Of course, the usual IANAL disclaimer applies here. Don't take my word for any of this, please seek the advice of an attorney to plan your compliance program.

[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?

[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

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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...

[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..."