Now that really pisses me off. The situation is nearly exactly the same for us.

You're a better man than I am.

Of course, that isn't hard. ;-}

I have no idea exactly what the new requirements are yet. And as far as I can tell, nobody else does either, or am I misreading the statements about "technical details about compliance with the new law were to be released in January, but haven't been released yet.".

You posted text of the law, but laws are not written to be understandable by ordinary small businesspersons.

It's odd that this whole thing seems to have come out of left field - an obscure amendment to the patriot act renewal, right?

I'm wondering why so little has been said about this anywhere in the biz publications until this week - and most of what I had heard about the Adam Walsh act only mentioned it's complex scheme for registering sex offenders.

FSC phone constantly busy.

Linkster, I agree but that would be speculation. You know the AG was begging to keep his job so he could protect 'the children'.

Speaking of speculation! What happens to LinkForSex when it is required of you to have docs on images on a free site submitted to you? Based on my limited information, you can thank a staffer for getting that removed from the admendent and thus leading to discussion of the age verification requirement for Link Lists, TGPs and free sites.

BTW, this is a good time to book for XBIZ '07. Last year that lawyer siminar was worth the price of the entire trip.

Actually Chop - Im not so sure that the requirement isnt still there - it was removed from the 2257 changes but it wasnt removed from the amendments to the Walsh bill so Im waiting to see the implementing regs which havent reared out yet - but I assume they will right around the 15th or so

As far as the age verification - I wouldnt count that one down yet either - there are many amendments already in committee that may get attached to some budget or supplementary without anyone realizing its there - that require the age verification - I think the latest one is T Stevens bill that would require both that and a statement on every page of a website as well as code labels for filters

The FSC contribution phone line number has been constantly busy, I still haven't gotten thru to make a contribution earmarked for 2257 defense.

Phone: 1-818-358-9373

from this page:

http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/ContributeForm.htm

I run a few review sites, and when 2257 hit in June, I took down all 10,000 so of our images that day, and slowly went through, replacing all sample images with softcore images.

Keeping records as an affiliate living in Canada seems next to impossible for me, unless I was given a package by each affiliate with these cleansed ID's.

I think the moral of the story for us thus far has been take appropriate precautions and preparations, but not certainly no panic.

Yes, I'm left once more with the strong impression that the FSC is much more interested in protecting the XXX video industry players in the Valley than in protecting the concerns of thousands of scattered webmasters who are affiliates/secondary producers. |banghead|

And if FSC isn't gonna fight to strike these new Adam Walsh Act provisions down, then the only way they can be removed is if a secondary producer is tried and convicted under 2257, and manages to raise the $$$ to appeal and challenge the law in federal court - a process that usually takes several years.

While I also am wondering about the competence of the FSC's legal beagles, I'm not sure I'm following how this is about favoritism to the brick and mortar crowd.

Again, I'd like to know why this adam walsh act thing seems to be coming so completely out of left field?

Who knew about this before last weeks ruling?

And why hasn't it been an issue among us before this?

Has anyone here or in any of the other webmaster communities been trying to warn us about adam walsh, but we haven't listened?

I did, but then I follow this stuff. AVN did several articles about it over the past few months.

I think there was a vague perception (hope?) that the proposed rules - that would make Hollywood have to do laborious 2257 recordkeeping over their simulated sex scenes - was so ridiculous that the thing would never pass, and if it did, the MPAA would foot the bill to get it overturned.

The only part that is news to me is that the MPAA actually managed to get an exemption carved out for the big Hollywood studios, leaving the XXX community to bear the sole brunt of the 2257 re-write.

Ditto.

The first post about it on this board was in March of '06
http://www.greenguysboard.com/board/...ad.php?t=29681

Yeah, and I finished that post off with Hollywood would find some way around it. Seems to me there is a provision in the law for non equal treatment between parties.

Don't seem to mean much under Bushco, etc. though.

I never thought I would say this... I'm glad I live in the UK :)

Ok – we produce our own material – and we have all the required records. If I’m understanding this correctly, I now have to track additional dates such as when I digitally remove that huge pimple from Honeys ass (hope she doesn’t read this post ), when I edit raw video into a coherent track, when I add sound, headers, watermarks, etc…. then again when I package and label the video (or post it on a site) And again when I strip the 12 second clips for my free sites, when I post the free sites – Christ – it never ends…….. (and since it takes me forever to complete an edit, which date do I use???)

I also understand the reluctance of producers to release complete data on actors as this opens us up to huge civil suits if the data is misused. With the rapid rise in identity theft combined with the actors basic right to privacy, I’ll be hard pressed to hand just anybody the life story of my actors – many of which are friends and all of whom have entrusted me to maintain a certain level of privacy for them. Even if our contracts do allow me to release the information as required by law – where do we draw the line?|huh

Bottom line – we’ll comply because I have no intention of seeing a prison cell from the inside - now if I can just figure out what I’m supposed to comply with? I forwarded this post to my attorney maybe he can sort this out……… |banghead| |banghead| |banghead| |banghead| |skyfall|