Which Spons are Ready for 2257 Change?

[guitar riff]

I think alot of us webmasters want to know who is getting the required documents that we will need. Like for some of us that have used spons content in th epast will either need to know if they have or do not have the proper docs, so that we can add the info to our records or delete the whole kitten kaboodle. I dont know about any others but I want to get started on this ASAP so I dont STRESS OUT anymore.

I know in the search engine chat wednesday night TopBucksTrixxxie said Top Bucks would probrably know something by friday and Jay from OC Cash said they were working on this issue too.

[cd34]

I think many sponsors are going over the requirements right now -- the final text of the new law was only released Monday, in front of a holiday weekend.

I know several sponsors that are working feverishly right now to get things squared away, so, while there is a huge time crunch, I would imagine you'll see some announcements this week. The issue right now is that expsting content that was 2257 compliant didn't need the photo ID of the models as it was held by the primary producer. So, all of the content producers are being flooded with requests to get all of the existing content id/license agreements/model releases, etc. to forward to the sponsors so they can digitize it and forward it to the affiliates.

My personal guess is that you will see a lot of hosted galleries & freesites coming from sponsors in the interim.

[RawAlex]

Actually, my personal guess is that you will see some programs dropping sites and generally having a panic in the next little bit, as they come to realize that some of their content is not longer compliant (the ID not acceptable) and so on. Hold on to your shorts, it's gonna be a fun ride.

Alex

[guitar riff]

Damn this ride sucks I got a Wedgie :-)

A lot of content providers will not be allowing sponsors to give out 2257 documents to any affiliate who asks. They see the danger in going that route.

What this law means is no sexually explicit content to US based affiliates.

The companies that have models stalked because someone gave an ID out are going to be very lucky if they do not get sued. Best to use model releases that actually state you can freely distribute the models IDs.

The sites claim will be "The goverment made me do it" the counter claim will be, "Not with this content, it was not allowed and the goverment said if you can't comply close down"

This is not only a stalkers law, it's an ambulance chasing lawyers law as well.

[guitar riff]

Paul that theory is OK but one flaw doesnt matter if they are outside the US if they market to the US they are still responsible to the law.

And I agreee with the stalking theory not only the models but just wait til the bible thumpers in the bible belt find out timmy the holy roller does porn on the side.

And another note if ya think about it Ok you and any others that run a content site you show previews of the pics or movie still right . You market to webmasters in the US as well as anywhere else in the world So In other words You Are required to post the 2257 info also and that includes the model ID's your home address and name and so on ... am I correct in my reading of the amendment?

So what will happen down the road if all goes to shit and law stays the way it is written right now with no amendments to it . I see alot of girls not venturing down the porn road and risking the exposure.
Maybe I'm wrong but thats just my opinion

[Qon]

i won't be releasing any content for promotions.... not necessary, not gonna happen. no way i'm putting people's info out like that... if the government wants to verify that someone is of age, come on thru my spot & i'll let them & them only see it.




....

[cd34]

So Paul, by that same token, you're going to be limiting who you sell to?

I.e. you'll sell to sponsors, but not individual webmasters in the USA? Or did you not sell to small webmasters in the past?

[Qon]

Originally Posted by guitar riff

Paul that theory is OK but one flaw doesnt matter if they are outside the US if they market to the US they are still responsible to the law.

this is not true.... if an affiliate is outside the US, he may be a 2ndary producer but there's no jurisdiction to prosecute him. he doesn't have to make any changes to his site. the responsibility lies with the content producer... they are the producers of the content & must abide the law ONLY if they are based in the US (though foreign operators SHOULD keep this info documented anyway)

US Laws never apply to those who are not us citizens AND live outside the us. period.


...

Originally Posted by guitar riff

Paul that theory is OK but one flaw doesnt matter if they are outside the US if they market to the US they are still responsible to the law.

And I agreee with the stalking theory not only the models but just wait til the bible thumpers in the bible belt find out timmy the holy roller does porn on the side.

And another note if ya think about it Ok you and any others that run a content site you show previews of the pics or movie still right . You market to webmasters in the US as well as anywhere else in the world So In other words You Are required to post the 2257 info also and that includes the model ID's your home address and name and so on ... am I correct in my reading of the amendment?

So what will happen down the road if all goes to shit and law stays the way it is written right now with no amendments to it . I see alot of girls not venturing down the porn road and risking the exposure.
Maybe I'm wrong but thats just my opinion

I agree that if sponsors give out IDs there will be a slow drying up of models and this side of porn will be hurt.

As for the US authorities checking what I have in my filing cabinet, they are welcome to do this whenever they present themselves at my door with a Czech search warrant. Should they say I don't comply becasue I did not allow them access I wil get the EU to sue them.

I'm already 2257 compliant anyway and always have been. Plus there is no need to put up on the Net models IDs, this is the problem some do not even understand what the law says.

Give out IDs to everyone and some one will thinks he needs to post is all up on the Internet.

[guitar riff]

Yup I know you've always been 2257 compliant paul :-)

Originally Posted by cd34

So Paul, by that same token, you're going to be limiting who you sell to?

I.e. you'll sell to sponsors, but not individual webmasters in the USA? Or did you not sell to small webmasters in the past?

I sell to sponsors and webmasters and will continue to do so. The sponsor can't give out the models ID though. So he can't distribute to US webmasters the hardcore part of the set.

I do see free content drying up rapidly, succesful webmasters buying and complying and the small ones shutting up shop.

This over all will have a good effect for those left, it will not remove one single surfer from the Net, but remeove a lot of free porn. Frukster just became illegal.

Think positive not negative.

[guitar riff]

Yeah Paul in the long run it might make things a bit different for awhile but maybe things will be better Like now when Newbies come in thinking they can make a quick buck without spending a dime maybe when they realize they have to dump in some money and alot of time they will think twice now and I feel only the ones serious about the biz will survive.

I dont like the changes just like everyone else doesnt like m but I will have to comply with them its just another aspect of running a biz now will have more paperwork and clerical shit to do It makes the ol saying there is no such beast as easy money seem so true.

Everyone agrees this law is a hammer to crack a nail and will be over turned. But to think positive for a moment.

The Adult Net herd is in bad need of a cull, this could do it.

Some will drop out because they will not post their home address and can't afford an office. some will drop out because they do not have the money to buy new content that is compliant and some will drop out through fear.

It will not cost one single surfer and the good news is ites without 2257 documents just became illegal. Like Frukster.

[Chop Smith]

Sure is good to see this thread turn to postive thoughts. The sky is not falling, the color is just changing a bit.

[ngb1959]

Saw this at another board about IM LIVE:


The owners and operators of this website are not the primary producer (as that term is defined in 28 C.F.R. § 75.1(c)(2)) of any of the visual content contained in this website.However, Imlive.com may have copies of a record of the ages of those persons portrayed in any sexually explicit materials on this site. ImLive.com WILL NOT RELEASE THESE RECORDS TO ANYONE OTHER THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATE, OR HIS DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE, OR AS OTHERWISE REQUIRED BY OPERATION OF LAW.
In fulfilling its obligations under 18 U.S.C. § 2257, ImLive.com relies on the plain language of the statute and on the well-reasoned decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in Sundance Associates, Inc. v. Reno, 139 F.3d 804, 808 (10th Cir 1998), which held 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.

So which is it? are webmasters producers, or exempt as I'm Live states..."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"


It's clear that Imlive is either planning on going to court or is hoping others will in order to get certain aspects of the new law overturned. That part seems to be implying they are holding up precidence that the "secondary" producer section is not legaly binding. It's possible that ImLive is a member of the FSC and is part of the legal action that will be taking place soon. If in fact that part of the new law is overturned, then a lot of the 2257 discussions right now will become moot.

Any thoughts?

[Qon]

i think their just depending on the fact that its bullshit to expect people who didn't actually shoot the shit to keep records of the particpants age. i agree that is something that can't hold up in court



...

[Mr. Blue]

The law most likely won't stand as is...I think everyone agrees that parts of it will be altered eventually (after court challenges).

I do have a question though...Wouldn't U.S. Sponsors have to make their affiliates be 2257 compliant even if the person is outside the U.S.? I'm thinking they might hold themselves open for some liability if they supply free content and don't make their affiliates 2257 compliant...but I'm not a lawyer so this would only be guestimation on my part.

As for sponsors...the first ones that get their affiliates 2257 compliant content will do nicely for themselves...as the nervous affiliates will be jumping at the chance for a little peace of mind.

[Qon]

based on the law, its the 2ndary producers' responsibility... i'm not sure how that would affect the actual site owner though... as a sponsor, i don't see a reason to have to give affiliates (people u don't know nor will ever have personal contact with) should be required to (or entitled to) having my models' info. just cause they are advertising for me? thats bullshit



..

[guitar riff]

I bet alot of Webmasters are Kicking themselves in the nuts know saying damn why didn't I get content with all the 2257 info included. Alot of people i'm talking to will end up getting rid of ( Not using ) Over 1/2 of their Bought Content So More money wasted so we count our losses and move on I guess.

Just seems to me that the DOJ could find a few better things to waste money on like all the illegal immigration or something but that wont happen anytime soon .

And if they want to pass a law make one where the registered sex offenders in this country can't own or posess a computer. They take away their Viagra now Take away their Computers The sick FUCKS dont need them anyhow.

[domweb]

Originally Posted by Mr. Blue

Wouldn't U.S. Sponsors have to make their affiliates be 2257 compliant even if the person is outside the U.S.?

I am not a lawyer. Laymans opinion:

If the US gun manufacturers cannot be held responsible for the use of their product if it is sold legally, how can an adult sponsor be held liable for someone not following 2257 rules properly?

How can you tell if someone is following the rules? Is the sponsor supposed to periodically show up and check an affiliates records?

Not likely.

I would be truly interested to see the US Justice Dept trying to prosecute an EU webmaster for not following the US laws.

Remember folks...the US is NOT a World Government (despite what W thinks). Just cause we say it's illegal, doesn't mean a damn thing to someone outside the country who isn't a US citizen.

If the US could go after non-citizens outside of the country, they would have nailed Amsterdam for pot sales and bestiality porn. Germany's S&M salons would be shut down.

They only way to hit a non-US citizen is to freeze acoounts in the USA. So, unless you have a bank account in the US, I don't see how they can touch anyone but US citizens.

[domweb]

Originally Posted by guitar riff

And if they want to pass a law make one where the registered sex offenders in this country can't own or posess a computer. They take away their Viagra now Take away their Computers The sick FUCKS dont need them anyhow.

Sure...if you are a sex offender to children, I could see limiting computer access.

But keep in mind, that if YOU get busted for not having your 2257 records perfect...YOU are a sex offender.

If you played doctor with the next door neighbor when you where ten years old and got busted (happens these days) YOU are a sex offender.

If someone falsely accuses you of grabbing ass at a bar and you get convicted, YOU are a sex offender.

If you order in a call girl and get busted, YOU are a sex offender.

If you moon a passing car and get arrested, YOU are a sex offender.

Careful what you wish for. You might discover yourself on the cross of public opinion. Ask the Salem 'witches' about it.

[guitar riff]

Originally Posted by domweb

Sure...if you are a sex offender to children, I could see limiting computer access.

Thats what I was referring to.

[MadMax]

There are a lot of ways to look at this, like any complex issue. There are literally dozens of causes for injunction and appeal in these regulations, and while the DOJ may be overzealous they're not stupid. They know exactly what was released, and what the likely results are. Odds are they want to go back to Congress and say "look, we're trying to do something here but the courts are tying our hands," then they'll do some actual enforcement on the current 2257 rules. This is just speculation, but it's worth mentioning.

It's also worth mentioning that when I buy "2257 compliant" hardcore content I rarely (if ever) get docs on the male model(s). It's like some big blind spot created by the Traci Lords incident, but I assure you the DOJ will not only be looking for docs on the female models. The rules are not gender specific, and enforcement won't be either.

Unless someone secures an injunction (read: FSC) we'll likely see free sponsor content go the way of the Dodo. They won't be allowed by these rules to release softcore pics from a hardcore set to skirt document release because of the wording of the rules. We'll also likely see hardcore banners disappearing, because under a strict interpretation you'd have to have docs for the pics the banners were created from.

In any case, I'll wait a bit before allowing panic to take hold. I've always felt there was too much "please" and not enough "tease" anyway. If we end up with a system where most or all of the free hardcore is only available on sponsor tours I think all our bottom lines will fatten up. My primary revenue stream comes from Fetish Philes, which doesn't host any hardcore images anyway. If I had to pull every one of my free sites and galleries I would be pissed, certainly, but it wouldn't be the end of the world. They've all made me money already and I would be upset to have to start over on FS and gals with a slightly different program...but it wouldn't be a total disaster.

I'm compliant with the current 2257 rules and I'm waiting to see what happens next.

This is just one more round of harassment from the DOJ. I'd personally prefer that airport security were better than before 9/11, but it isn't...the lines are just longer. The joke here is that all this chaos and confusion is designed to prevent the occasional use of a 17 YO model in an industry where 99.9% of the content producers wouldn't touch one with a 10 foot pole. Actual CPers don't run mainstream porn paysites. They trade their sickness across an underground network and don't give a flying fuck about 2257. How 'bout the DOJ actually go after them? Why isn't the media asking this question? Are we more worried about the occasional 17 YO like Traci Lords who secures fake identification because she wants to be in porn or the actual vicitims...the 8, 9, 10 YOlds who are getting abused every day? You'll never find their pics mixed in with a bunch of MILF Bukkake photos, so why bother looking?

I'd be happy to support any actual effort to remove CP from the internet, but at the end of the day that just isn't what's happening here.

Regardless, we'll find our way through this. And, as Paul said, a "culling of the herd" won't hurt those of us that are serious about business permanently...it will just slim down our wallets while we reorganize.