Greenguy's Board - 2257 regs passed

Greenguy's Board (http://www.greenguysboard.com/board/index.php)

- General Business Knowledge (http://www.greenguysboard.com/board/forumdisplay.php?f=10)

- - 2257 regs passed (http://www.greenguysboard.com/board/showthread.php?t=19752)

madmax, they don't need to europeans to play ball.

If your hosting is in the us.
If your connectivity comes from a us based company
if your paychecks come from the us
if your processing is in the us
if you are processing with a us based company
if your sponsors are in the us.

If they can't get to you directly, they can enjoin and get nasty with each of the above and make your life a living hell.

Exactly how much money will you make when the checks stop showing up and your servers have no connectivity?

Your not exempt. None of us are.

Alex

whenever a storm is brewing its time to buckel up prepare if it blows over then at least your ready for the next one..

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fido

I understand if § 2257 forces content producers to keep records about models. Surely good thing. What I do not understand is why I sould have on my site 2257 page. How can that page will be helpful to someone? I see, lets say, some free site with a model that looks very young. I click a 2257 link on that free site and it will show me a list of, lets say, 50 content producers. Now what? What is that 2257 page good for, could someone clarify this to me, please? Thanks.

Ditto.

I'm primarily a video editor. And on my samples page, I show some of my work... do I need to list the 2257 info for all my clients? And if so, who's to say that it's accurate, and how will showing 20 addresses be of any benefit to anyone?

I do have some thumb preview TGP's as well... do I need have a 2257 page with info for every gallery I show a thumb for?

Quote:

Originally Posted by RawAlex

That gets my back up. Not you Alex - but the thought of what these arseholes might be able to do.

I'd like to think that there's some protection afforded by sovereignty.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RawAlex

All true, I was commenting solely on the criminal prosecution aspect :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by RawAlex

Also if you use a .com domain you are goverened by the laws in the state of Georgia.

Quote:

Originally Posted by guitar riff

Also if you use a .com domain you are goverened by the laws in the state of Georgia.

That's the single most terrifying thing I've read all year. No, strike that - in my entire life. |shocking|

Off to hide the goats...

this is gonna be interesting to see how it plays out... my personal opinion is that as soon as it is listed in the national registry there are gonna be guys in suits and black glasses knocking on some doors of some pretty big people in our industry before any recourse or lawsuits can get through... they want to make an example of somebody to scare the rest of us... hopefully that is just my paranoid opinion but with the republican party looking to push so many judges into office and do away with the filibusters and such who knows what is gonna happen

The current breed of republicans really like to scream about being democratic and how to be democratic and then turn around and tell people what they can and can not do and be general pain in the rear.

Taken from http://www.xxxlaw.net/

Quote:

Attorney General Gonzales Signs Order Adopting Revised Regulations Implementing Section 2257

The United States Justice Department announced this afternoon that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has signed a final rule containing changes to the Justice Department regulations implementing 18 USC Section 2257. These changes will become effective thirty days after their publication in the Federal Register unless their enforcement is enjoined by a federal court. Until they are published, we cannot know how closely they resemble the changes proposed last June by the Justice Department. A table comparing the existing regulations with the June 2004 proposal is found here. A detailed article highlighting the differences, published last Summer in AVN Online, is found here.

Contrary to at least one GFY-posted account, the sky may not actually be falling. The promulgation points however to a present intention on the part of DOJ to actually enforce Section 2257 for the first time. Indeed, there may be something falling on the heads of those who have not taken the law seriously, but it will not be the sky. The press release does put quotation marks around the term "pornography producers", a term that does not exist in the present statute or regulations or the proposed regulation, and hints that the final version has been modified, probably in the direction of the so-called "secondary producer" requirements; Though at least one US Court of Appeals has found the provisions to work beyond the authority of the Justice Department, the existing regulations have always required web publishers who buy content made by others to obtain and retain and make available for inspection the original documents and alias information obtained by the original content producers. Substantial parts of the proposal made last Summer were unconstitutional on their face - notably the inspection requirement that mandated availability for inspection of the records from 8am to 6pm. The burden this onerous requirement would place on part-time webmasters would eliminate substantial constitutionally protected expression. The proposal also required the long-term archiving of terabyte upon terabyte of live, streaming content for many years - and the expensive segregation of this data from the working servers of sites. All of this was related to Justice by this firm during the comment period, and we will shortly know whether any of the hardship was taken into account in the final rule.

The Free Speech Coalition can be expected to take point at the forward edge of this battle by initiating litigation. Understand though, that an injunction against the enforcement of the changes alone will be of little value. The existing regulations provide the Justice Department with very effective tools for all of the purposes underlying the statute and regulation. It is my best hunch that Justice would not be promulgating the changes without plans to enforce in the immediate future.

All available information will be posted here as it becomes available. JDO

Quote:

Originally Posted by RawAlex

Yeah - this isn't a war on US based porn...this is a war to rid the internet or porn...while I would feel a little more comfortable being outside of the USA....I wouldn't take that much comfort in it. If the evil materials are making it to computers in the US -- that is all they really care about...I mean it's not like we just run into other countries and impose our will on them because we think they would be better off sharing in our values...ahh...err...scrath that last comment.

IMO this IS a cause for alarm...the best thing that can happen is a good injuction that will keep it tied up in court, but with Bush appointing all of his flunkies to the bench...I doubt we will find a sypathetic ear!

Well, while I still have free speech enough to say it.

Albert gonzales is a anti-obscenity coward who hides behind existing laws instead of attempting to pass his own.

He warps their meaning and intent to hassel 'clean' webmasters, using laws that were meant as tools to fight child pornopgrahers. He does this because he is too blind to see a difference between us and them.

He is, like Tom Bolton, one of the worst peices of trash in the bush administration and will be remembered for his attempts to shred the constitution.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boogie

if you think about it you could have seen this coming from a mile away... he was appointed and named "obscenity" as one of his 7 deadly sins that he must fight.... he then re-opens cases in the courts for appeal that have been shot down in the past... the Anti-Obscenity War Machine is on the war path and it is just gonna get worse..... click my sig |thumb

Hey Kinky. I for sure knew this was coming. I also voted accordingly in the 2004 election. :) I even campaigned for the guy who wasnt so apeshit about 'obscenity'

but that's all said and done and the free speech coalition is definately our best hope here! :) so click his sig already!

Quote:

Originally Posted by xxxjay

...I mean it's not like we just run into other countries and impose our will on them because we think they would be better off sharing in our values...ahh...err...

hehehe!

And those turkeys already said that they wouldn't let us legalize pot in Canada, eh! That went over real well!

Charging foreign WMs when there is no relevant law in their own country could be a real hazzle for the Bush folks.

Remember the fun and games with the foreign companies doing business in Cuba.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tickler

Remember the fun and games in Iraq?

Best thing that could happen here is someone find "Mr. Albert Gonzales" In their records for joining a porn site or multible ones. But then that might be impossible given the name and amount of "Gonzales" In the country. God I wish the wife would stop talking in her sleep. She just threw off my train of thought. Screaming out some shit in Romanian man I hate that shit..

This is probably beyond my comprehension... but anyway I look at it, I can't see no reasons for this 2257 rule other than to get rid of porn (or at the very least, free porn) from the internet... I personally think it would be the biggest singular mistake that will do much more harm than good. (and not just to me... who like most of you would have to look for something else to do, but for the community in general).
Porn came before democracy and republics... I wish these politicians would brush up there history...grrr