No she only had one, to my knowledge.

Tickler - do you have any other info about this, I would be interested in looking it up, thx

Ponygirl

ps - I have yet to see (or be lol) a topless woman walking down the street in my town, altho the precident was set not too far from here :D

so paul are you giving out the docs to webmasters that have bought content ??

Yup, he gives a nice pic of the model holding up two legible forms of ID plus signed model release in every set.

I have bought content from Paul in the past and I got all the docs.

I wish sponsors would at least give the docs for their banners...

They might (and I stress might) be able to "seize" a .com website reg'd or hosted in the USA. its like when the feds go after anyone, they love to seize property and make you show you are not guilty to get it back.

sieg heil g.w.

That has been the problem I have been experiencing. I've been switching banners to either soft or all text and a lot of sponsors do not have em..
Also, I bought a lot of content from a few companies and a few have not even responded to a request, and they are quite big. It would piss me off royally to can that content.
Some, of course, have gone out of biz and there's nothing that can be done about it. One content supplier that had superb bi content is gone. I bought a lot from them too..:( Another good gay provider is gone too..and that content is in one of my avs sites..:( Hard to replace gay biker content..:(

Anyone else like me have a Fucking Migraine YET????

Well When Sponsors do start posting all the stuff we will need what we need to do on the board is See if GG& Jim will make a sticky Post to those spons and Hey they Might even get a few referrals from WM's for the links to them :-)

Also Paul Wouldnt the Privacy Statement if any that you and a model signs between you and them , how would that play into this would it trump the law or would the law trump it???

And Also PLease some state exatly what is onsidered Sexually Explicit Now I hear so many damn things anymore I asked My lawyer but he had to look it up in the statutes and havent gotten the answer yet.

Okay dear you can start here:
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/Jdb-txt/...05BCSC0446.htm
It's actual court stuff, so a long read, and a lot to try digesting. Make your own conclusions.

I kive next to a beach which is mainly a younger crowd. So I see it occasionally. Have also seen it up at Washago. Also some of the dancers at my favorite strip club set outside on the patio topless working on their tans.


Paul, I can't find the actual article at the moment, but, it really doesn't really matter 1,2,3...pieces of ID. What I was getting at is under Sec. 75.2 Maintenance of records a)2) "Producers may rely in good faith on representations by performers regarding accuracy of the names" and I assume IDs.

Paul, also some reading for you:
http://www.avn.com/index.php?Primary...tent_ID=228409
Maybe they are trying to leave the back door open by requiring a US issued ID.

amber438:
Sec. 75.4 If the producer ceases to carry on the business, the records shall be maintained for five years thereafter.
Even if they have gone out of business, they are still required to maintain records for 5 years. So hopefully you can still retrieve some of the info.

RedCherry:
Just removing the pics might not be enough. This wording (including but not limited to Internet computer site or services) has me thinking that if you just have the content. it must be documented also.



One thing that does PO about this is that I 90% of the time only use softcore content and hold back the hardcore for maybe a future paysite. But, because the set(s) have hardcore in them, I still need to go through the BS.

A question for maybe Alex. Any takes on this wording from 75.8(d) "any known major entry points".


Found a side-by-each comparison of the old vs. proposed vs. actual 2257 here:
http://my.execpc.com/~xxxlaw/2257Tables5.24.05.htm

Some of you almost sound happy these new laws are going into effect. Some of us who have been trying to make a living at this work very hard only to see our progress get flushed down the drain by government proposals.
Social Darwinism shouldn't be aided by government entities simply demagoguing to a constiuant base. There is no "bright" side to this. Less competition is only good if you stand to make a profit from it. It's likely many of the unique sites put forth by the small webmaster/content provider will end up going out of business.

I wonder if taking down sites for which the primary producers won't supply 2257 documentation on the models will provide any protection. The regs require that we keep the documentation for five years even if the sites are down. Even if we take down the content we can't document, we're still liable for that documentation we couldn't get from the producers. It's all archived somewhere (Google?). Seems like they wrote the regs to be able to find you in noncompliance even if you take your sites down.

ann, that is one of the reasons that these new rules (not a new law, I should point out, as only the house, congress, and the president together can pass new laws) could get shut down by the courts.

Issues... issues...

Alex

Yesterday, as I removed several older sites, that bit of the law kept going through my mind. I was hoping that it might not target the "secondary producer" but it seems unlikely doesn't it?

Damned if you do, damned if you don't! |angry|

Regards,
SF

I read that any depiction of genitals would be considered explicit. Even a leg spread where you don't see much would be considered explicit.

Gunncat, let me say this: The adult online industry has been a business without rules, regulations, or oversight. The entry barrier (what it costs to get into the game) has varied between little and free (free host, free content, etc). No sales taxes, no government rules, not much of anything. As a result of this "low entry point" everyone and their ignorant cousin Hal have porn sites.

The business has been completely overwhelmed with bored soccer moms, college students looking for beer money, and an every increasing slice of people that "just like to be near pornstars". Every day, I compete with people who are not trying to make a living but are trying to make enough money for a night out on the town or so they can get a couple of extra cases of beer for the frat party.

I don't complain about these people, instead I offer them help to get traffic, listings on my link sites and such, and spend time here on this board to help people grow their business.

The US government has finally weighed in a put some rules into effect that will require US webmasters to do a certain amount of "non-income earning" work in order to maintain their business. US citizens will be required to maintain a bunch of extra records that they never had to before.

More importantly, these people will have to admit to who they are, and they will have to expose their real names and addresses to the public, and they won't be able to hide in the bushes anymore.

Each individual will have to make a choice as to how they will handle the situation as it is presented. It is a personal choice. Nobody is running you out of business, they are removing the rock many have been hiding under. If you can't handle the light, then it is time to move on.

Like I said, I don't wish bad on anyone, but I won't miss the competition either.

Alex

Though they differ in their perspectives the one thing my attorneys in both the US and the UK agree on is that these new rules will be tied up in court for quite some time. Though I am not going to assume that as I have been going through my content records. Though no matter what happens in the courts the US government will have gotten much of what it wants as panicky webmasters take down their sites.

Steve

Alex, well put and I understand where you are coming from.
However it doesn't change the fact that the US government shouldn't be passing laws that squash business. As a libertarian it's just one more reason to be purely disguested with The United States of America: This was once the country that threw tea into Boston Harbour for a 1/2 cent tax. I don't know if you as a Canadian(and I don't mean that as a bad thing) can really understand that, or anyone who isn't an american. This government has gone too far.

Gunncat, to be fair, I think that this is a better route to go than some of the other options the US government has to control porn, such as insane taxes, bizarre distribution restrictions, or some other massive meddle.

I think the one that is getting most people is the requirement to reveal their names, addresses, and such. Most people are comforable working in porn, they are comfortable with the content, but they are not comfortable with people around them knowing what they do. They don't want to expose their children, spouse, or others to the pain that could occur if anything bad happens. Many of them also know that in more conservative places, they might literally be run out of town.

That is the nature of this business, and it doesn't get easier.

We have all gotten off easy in the past, now it's time to pay the piper. We all lived in a fantasy land where we can be dirty pornographers at night, and on the PTA and coaching out kids' soccer team on the weekend. Once your neighbors know, I somehow think that all goes away.

Do you understand how fiendish the government plan is? Do you see how it is hard to stop?

They have gone too far, but not in the ways your thinking.

Alex

For sure man. I'm still in a state of shock really. My biggest concern is not my paysites, although some of those great content deals I got in the last 2 years don't seem so great now |dizzy| ; but the sponsor content I use. I don't have any problems buying content for promotion, I have houndreds of thousands of images I can use already, but I select my sponsors based on the unique content and quality of it.
We live in interesting times really, it will be interesting to see how things pan out in the next couple of years.

I agree with Alex, there are people in this business who have no right to be here and will be gone.

The real problem I have with this law is the revealing of models IDs, not webmasters. Webmasters have an option they can shut up shop. models have less of an option becasue I hear some sponsors want to distribute models IDs for content they already have. The model according to them has no say in the matter.

So long as models do not refuse to work for us, this law will not cost the industry one dime in revenue earned. No surfer will stop paying money for porn, in fact if it redduces the free porn available then it could mean more money earned. The content pirates could have a big problem with this law.

For some this law is the realisation that this is a business and not a game. If you do not want the neighbors to know you publish porn close down or get a legal front. But give the models, the life blood of this industry, the same respect.

At last we can see content is KING.

canadian
 

I have heard said many times that if you are a non US person, example canadian that thse rules will still apply if you use US hosting, well here is my 2 cents on this;

first there has already been several court cases in the US that tried to make hosting companies responsible for what those using their hosting has used it for, with all being turned down, this is like trying to make your local phone company responsible because someone makes prank calls

secondly, some US states have no phone soliciting laws, what did this do? the companies now call out of canada, using US phone infastructure to deliver the sales pitch through, so to say that because we are selling to the US we must comply doesn't wash

as a producer of videos also, yes this will effect me if I use a distributor in the US that makes copies in the US but as a webmaster no, exept for those link sites who will over react and try to enforce on me US rules that do not apply to non US people

As to cull the field; for sure it will, but only in the US, you'll now get swamped with newbie webmasters from everywhere else but US, think about that for a minute, these new rules haven't fixed a problem, just moved things offshore

those LL sites that enforce these rules on non US websites will find themselves only primarily with US created sites, other LL will spring up built and hosted outside US, listing stuff as has been, after all these rules don't touch the buyer, who can buy from non US sites, so in the end this might shift a lot of the money out of the US

Just my thoughts......

Anyone has the right to do anything they want. That's the whole idea behind capitalism. 10 years ago most people here were probably not in the porn business but doing something completely different. Just because you shoot a lot of content Paul, doesn't make you any better than someone that opened their own site, or promotes sponsors. One of the great things about the internet is that is was a whole new gold rush. Anyone can drop what they are doing and try to get a piece of it; no reason someone can't try to improve their financial situation.
When the dust settles, we'll likely see honest webmasters out of business because sponsors are bound by contract to protect their models which is completely understandable. Pirating, Fusker for example will still be there considering their servers are located in England.
This is the US government waging war against it's own citizens, and there is nothing good about it.

Wesley, while it is true that this will more directly cull from the US webmasters, you have to understand that there is also a trickel down effect.

If sponsors stop giving out free content, many of the "new" webmasters in other countries will be forced to invest to be in business. Many of them won't have the money to buy content, and as a result, won't get into the business to start with. It might also change the way new affiliates are signed up, possibly making some programs close for new affiliates or otherwise limiting their exposure in some countries.

It also means that all those webmasters from "those" countries who have been hiding under US po boxes and whatnot will either have to declare themselves as american and be compliant or declare themselves as "other" and get kicked out of programs.

Changing the rules of the same, no matter how many players are directly affected will in the end touch everyone in the game. How much, where, and when is still subject for discussion.

Alex

Gunncat, I do not consider myself any better than people who opened a site last week, last year or shot porn for 30 years.

I do consider I know more about porn than a lot of them. But some opened porn sites very recently and their knowledge of porn is amazing, especially in some niches and probably better than mine. However these are the niches they've been jerking off to for years. |dizzy|

Did not know Fusker was hosted inthe UK, from the way it seems immune and able to do as it please I would have never thought it was hosted there.

we are still getting ramped up for the whole 2257 debacle. We have a final meeting with our legal council on the 9th to finalize our strategy to make sure everyone’s asses are covered.

How about non-US sponsors? For example someone from Europe using european hosting/sponsor/domain register company and build free sites for LL. If LL owners will not enforce on this euro-webmaster US laws, he'll be ok. IMHO

Many of these webmasters you'd like to see go down are your customers.

I think everyone is concerned about the safety of those working in our LEGAL business, not just models.

You have a point. The real protection against neighbors and friends knowing that you are in porn is to get a legal front with a business name and address. When I started six years I set up a legal business name and address before I uploaded my first porn page. I've never given any host,sponsor,content provider etc. my home address. You have to treat adult entertainment like any other business and invest some money upfront.

Steve

It's not my neighbors I worry about... it's stalkers, sickos, pissed off wives, and all the other psycho/sociopaths out there.

Add to that the fact that I have been running a legitimate business out of my home for over 10 years in the other field I work in and NEVER has anyone come to me and said that I had to publish my personal, private information out in the open just to be considered an honest businesswoman. Hell, even the IRS takes me at my word AND accepts my PO Box as my valid business address!

Next you'll all be suggesting that anyone who runs a net-based business, adult or mainstream, should get an office... stop and think about what you are suggesting for a minute. How many people ON THIS BOARD got into this business because one of the primary perks was being able to work at home?

It's not a crime to work at home, but what they are proposing as far as publishing names and addresses for models and WMs alike... well, I have my suspicions that borders on being illegal. We do have privacy rights in this country and I don't believe the DOJ or anyone else has the right to violate those for something as ridiculous as bogus bookkeeping issues.

Go ahead and flame me if you want to, I'm frankly beyond caring. I'm entitled to my opinion and now you've been entitled to it as well :D

Wesley thats not what I understand about the law. Hosts aren't responsible for this that true but if you use any form of US business IE.. Hosting, processing, sponsor programs, leased stuff then you are bound by the laws of the US because you are conducting business through the united states. I pretty sure thats the rule Ill be sure tomorrow have an appt with a lawyer again tomorrow.

So well put. |pink

Well as customers they will have the documents required. But yes some will decide this is not worth it and leave and for them on a personal level I'm sad. But this is business not a social club.

I have the responsibility of paying the 9 people who work for me and this is what I'm trying to do.

I'm also concerned about webmasters safety and models. Never said otherwise.

The law as I said it states if you have the ability to alter the content you are liable, if not you are not.

Making hosts not liable, like book shops and newsstands.

That is one of the few relatively clear things about this whole mess. The definition is contained in Sec. 2256:

(2) “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.

So yeah, spread beaver shots appear to be considered sexually-explicit.

I believe that 2257 states that only A-D apply. E is exempt.

We dont have to put up on the Net models IDs? Do I understand your post correctly?

Sorry for asking perhaps obvious questions, but I am a little |dizzy| these days lol

Seems a lot of free content just went soft core.

Which sponsor would be interested in buying sets that could be distributed to affilaites with no worries of 2257?

They would be brand new, semi-exclusive, just for affiliates and a reasonable price.

You don't have to post the model's IDs online. This is a popular mistake. You don't have to indentify the models. Those items stay IN YOUR RECORDS. You do however have to have those records in your principle place of business, organized as per the new 2257 rules, and you must have a 2257 disclaimer on your sites that lists your principle place of business (and your real name) so that the DOJ can inspect those records.

NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER post model personal information online.

Alex

Paul, is it your opinion that pictures not fitting the definition of sexually explicit as defined in 2257 are not covered by 2257? So if I make a gallery that does not meet the definition of sexually explicit, just nudity at "worse"I do not have to do anything regarding the statute- no exemption statement, nada?