1. You said 'nude' content was subject to 18 USC 2257. It is not. Sexually-explicit conduct as mandated by 18 USC 2257 includes touching a sexual body part. Plain old nudity is not a sexual image and is exempt from the record-keeping requirements of 18 USC 2257.

2. As a video producer, I can tell you there are very specific things we MUST put on a video, and not just anywhere. Check any adult video box cover and in teeny tiny print you'll most likely see the 18 USC 2257 notice. Check my video labels and you'll see it there, within 60 seconds of the start of the videotape, and at a specific time frame at the end of the video as well.

The most important thing is YOU can protest these changes. If you feel as a small business owner the cost to make all these changes and maintain this information (the URL where every single image is, for example -- on every TGP, every newsgroup, etc) is prohibitive, it's covered in the proposed legislation.

Hi Pam,

All box covers are just nude? What about the back of the box?

:(

BTW, I submitted a site for you to review about a week ago. What is your backlog on site reviews like?

JD - thank you for clearing up that misconception I had on the regulatory process - thought it would have to follow the normal route :)

I have to agree with Paul that there are some content producers out there that already do meet the proposed and old secondary producer requirements and the WMs buying their content have the required info when they sign the agreements up to and including the URL requirements - where I think most of us are a little fuzzy is the requirement of where and how to put the statement on our domains, as the way we have read it in the past is that it could be on the root domain index page and cover all sub sites on that domain, as long as it covered all of the content on the domain?

Pam makes a good point - there are provisions in the proposal to allow you to email or write to the contact point with what you think this will cause you in monetary costs and what you agree with or disagree with - since these guys are not savvy on the different aspects of the industry, it might be a good idea to somehow give them a big picture look at the different functions of WMs and how they use content so that they can revise or at least clarify the rule before acceptance.

Canada here I come... hosting in the States now seems like more trouble than it's worth... is a pity - I quite like my current host... :(

No no no! What I'm saying is if you have just nude images on your website, you don't have to worry about 18 USC 2257, just make sure you have proof they are over 18 (or 21 in 4 US states).

On the reviews, I see a backlog of about 80-100 sites, but I added 2 new reviewers this week so once they get their feet wet, we should begin to catch up.

I haven't done any reviews as I've been too damned busy launching 2 new sites, but by the end of the weekend those will be done and I can get back to reviews.

For some reason, I decided to look at all my older "Ultra" content. The ones with the girls wearing some sort of "Ultra" clothing and noticed that I do have pictures of the girls and guys holding their id's. That made me remember way back when we first got the content. I just took it all, made thumbs and threw it up on Ultrateen. I remember the photographer calling in a panic showing me a picture I had up of a girl not only holding her license but also her Social Security Card :) We ended up bitching at the guy and telling him we had no use for those pictures. I am kind of glad now that if I ever use those pictures again that the photographer didn't listen :)

Just a note...don't go to any ultra site. They will try to install some nasty software on your browser.

Sure. But from now on wouldn't everyone rather get documentation on every set whether it's 'just nude' or not?

Well, yes, but then again, I'm the one who always had disclaimers on her sites (since 1995) and put 2257 notices on galleries :)

I've always erred on the side of caution, it's best.

But remember, proof of age documentation and 18 USC 2257 are 2 different beasts -- both animals, just different types. For photos that aren't sexually explicit, you of course need documentation but you don't have to put the address where the records are kept on your website pages, for example.

It astounds me how many larger, well-known websites don't comply with 18 USC 2257 and have something on their sites like "we comply ..... contact our custodian at email@email.com" without listing a name or address, or have half-assed information at best. Check the links at some of the larger sponsors for examples.

I was stunned, amazed does not quite cover it, how many on the Adult Internet are ignorantor just don't care about the laws and the dangers they face.

Eveyone assumes that because they met on a chat board they must have everything straight. Even in a business rife with conmen.

Well Ashcroft has seen this and is coming after you, he's looking for some good positive publicity just before election time. These ammendments come into being in August, there is a 30 day compliance period, then you can bet there will be doors knocked on.

Now you may later be able to prove that under tjhe legislation you did not have to keep the records. That will be 12 months after the arrest date and $50,000 of your money into a lawyers bank account.

Be warned Ashcroft is not pissing into the wind one month before the election.

People were lulled into a sense of complacency with Ashcroft, Reno, etc never doing any investigations, even though the law, when written, mandated a yearly report to Congress.

I've actually contacted sponsors and asked for their 2257 link and was told by one "we don't give it out to the public". Uhm yeah, that's a sponsor *I* want to promote!

All the people who use a PO Box or MBE/UPS Store-type address may now sit up and think twice.

Having said that, if you are one of those who doesn't want to put their home address as the law requires, for fear of stalkers, why not get 1000 webmasters in the same boat together and protest the new legislation? Explain how putting the address can be detrimental to your physical health due to stalkers. Explain you'd like the option to have your attorney maintain the records rather than the current policy.

You HAVE the option to attempt to do something about it. Instead of just complaining about it, DO something.

And yes, I realize it's very easy for me to sit back and say that since I'm not in that situation. I made that choice 10+ years ago when the law was first thrown at us.

I said this elsewhere and I'll say it again, there is strength in numbers. If ALL of us could get together quickly and put our heads together, we could protest the new proposed law and ask for change to be made. If you can get 1000 webmasters to complain from the small business point of view, it would get noticed.

This won't go away, but wouldn't it be better if we as a group could make it a little easier to swallow?

Pam nice thought but the idea of 1000 webmasters coming to gether is about as likely as 1000 cats doing the same thing.

Even then if they protested that they can't carry on working in a porn business from home if Ashcroft ammends a law "Designed to protect children" be sure Ashcroft will love that.

Might work if they had attorneys, but if that were the case I think most would have the documents.

However I'm not sure it actually says the webmaster has to be the Custodian of records, need to run back and check it.

Pam, the answer you would get for "detrminatal to your health" would be either get your lawyer / third party to be your official record keeper (you don't have to personally on site specific) or GET OUT OF THE BUSINESS if you don't like it.

Remember, most important, these are PROPOSED rules, and they have tried to PROPOSE thigns before and they died. Hundreds and thousands of bills get put on the order sheet for a year, and only a few dozen manage to squeek through in the end.

The sky ain't falling until they pass it - and even then, I am sure there are some interesting loopholes to be found to make it all work out in the end.

Alex

I've found it and here's what it says.

[QUOTE(3) A street address at which the records required by this part may be made available. The street address may be an address specified by the primary producer or, if the secondary producer satisfies the requirements of Sec. 75.2(b), the address of the secondary producer. A post office box address does not satisfy this requirement.
[/quote] Problem is I cannot find the bit about 75.2(b) in the statement.

Time to see a lawyer.

Can I just state at this point the benefits of having and checking the 2257 documents.

A) Shows they exist.
B) Shows the model is over 18.

+ plus if you add in the Model Release.

C) Shows the model signed away her rights to have her image published.
D) Shows who shot the content and owns the copyright.
E) Shows when the content was produced.

Now everything can be forged. But if you think having no documents and never checking anything negates you from the above responsibilities, remembering the content we are publishing, I think Ashcroft is right.

And that makes me mad as hell.

Can't we run a tight ship ourselves, do we constantly need people like Ashcroft and Visa to show us how we should run uor businesses?

When the law first came into being, I was publishing an adult magazine. I spoke to an attorney then. I've spoken to many attorney since then. In each instance I have been told I can not use an attorney's address.

This makes no sense to me, if I employ said attorney for $1 a year, that makes them an employee and I should be able to appoint them Custodian of Records.

I don't think they would say "get out of the business" since they very specifically mentioned how this would affect small businesses in the proposed changes.

Pam, Ashcroft is not looking to make friends in the porn business.

But I've read the law and unsure if secondary producers, need to be custodian of records. It's clear they need to have the records though.

[quote]Originally posted by Paul Markham2
[b]Pam nice thought but the idea of 1000 webmasters coming to gether is about as likely as 1000 cats doing the same thing.
[quote]

I disagree.

Get all the major sponsors -- the top 25 -- to email EVERY one of their webmasters. Flood the boards. Get AVN and Klix and whatever other online webmaster publications there are to mention it. Get the top 100 TGPs to email their top 50 trades. Get the smaller niche TGPs folks -- like me -- to email their trades. Etc etc etc

Pam, the webmasters could not pull together to fight Acacia, what makes you think they can pull together to fight the Whitehouse?

I WOULD LOVE TO BE PROVED WRONG, BUT THE REALIST IN ME SAYS IT WON'T HAPPEN

I never saw any effort to get everyone together. What I saw was fractured attempts by small groups without a clue. People were contacting First Amendment attorneys for advice instead of registered patent attorney. Things were too splintered.

www.impai.org and www.fightthepatent.com

All I'm doing is erring on the cautious side. When you see an iceberg on the horizen only a fool assumes IT will change course.

Neither has done much to get the word out.

I'm still curious about this part:

a.. Proposed 28 CFR 75.2(a)(1) would require computer site or service producers to maintain a ``hard'' physical or electronic copy of the actual depiction with the identification and age files, along with and linked to all accession information, such as each URL used for that depiction. This ensures that all of the data about all of the people in the depictions can be accessed to ensure that none of the people in the depictions are minors.

J.D., does this mean that the actual releases (with models' real names and addresses) have to be linked and freely accessible to surfers? I don't know any model so well-trained in martial arts and weaponry that she would ever agree to pose under such an arrangement.

You know in reading this again I misunderstood it during the initial hoopla. I thought (if this goes through 'as is' or very similar) we'd need to place a link on every page just pointing to the 2257 documents.

Now, after reading it again it seems we need to link to 2257 documents *and* maintain a URL list of every page where the image is used. |huh

What about content served up dynamically?

Explicit Banner ads served via script like on this board here. Sometimes explicit ads show, others they don't.

POTD links. Static URL, dynamically changing content.

What if it's served up inside frames or a chromeless pop-up window?

Or cases where one hotlinks from one of their own domains to display images on another domain?

Man, big sponsors will not have fun with that at all. |sad|

This URL list can't be public can it?

"Here are all the URL's where images of porn star 'x' appear:"

Talk about a comprehensive site map!

Do we all need to know if each other's PAGES are 2257 compliant?

The proposal states URL, not Domain. Hmmmm.

Google will have a pretty tough time with their cached pages and Google Images, huh?

http://images.google.com/images?q=ex...ie=UTF-8&hl=en

Those explicit pictures are running off Google's servers. Hope they can get the 2257 info for all those images related to that link above.

That is by far the easiest way for kids to view explicit images...

Adult Yahoo groups with explicit images in their files folder?

Yahoo Image search:

http://images.search.yahoo.com/searc...mg-t&n=10&fl=0

The Internet archive? (waybackmachine)

If they show if off their server they are no different than anyone else showing it.

:)

Brilliant. I'm going to steal this one (hope you don't mind, Paul).

I'm twisted up about this...it's going to create a monster record-keeping issue. On the positive side, that could give us all a leg up when it comes to defending ourselves and our industry, and it could conceivably weed out some of the non-professionals.

On the other hand, well, like I said, it's going to create a monster record-keeping issue. I have no problem with having copies of model ids and releases on hand, but linking every freaking url? It takes me too long to build a free site as it is.

And I have a vague feeling that this law would NOT be used against rogue webmasters. I don't recall exactly what the latest report was - something along the lines that there have been no investigations into 2257 since the law was put into effect (sorry, very sloppy, but it's late and I'm tired) - in other words, they don't seem to care about enforcing the law; they just want to keep us jumping through hoops. As long as that's the case, legit webmasters will continue to find themselves doing more and more work to remain legitimate, while rogue webmasters will continue to do nothing and remain untouched.

I'm going to put my thinking cap on (as opposed to the usual tin-foil hat) and try to come up with viable ways of dealing with this (likely inevitable) change.

JD - Great to see you here! *waves wildly*

This kind of stuff is exactly why I have come to respect Paul Markham so much. I used to think he was a pompous asshole, but the truth is that he sincerely cares.

Here he is living in the Czech republic and yet he understands more about US laws than 90% of the "webmasters" posting on all the boards combined.

What is going to come out of this whole deal? I dunno, but even if nothing happens it should be a wake up call to all people selling, buying, using content on their sites. Get legal and then some. If you don't you are a fool.

Your business is in the UK/EU/Whatever? So the fuck what. Sure, US law means dick in Albania - but why push the buttons? Is it really worth it?

Bottom line is get every bit of legal documentation you can from your content producers. If they won't release the model releases (blanking out real name, address, etc. is acceptable as long as the DOB and a picture is legible) then walk away. I know that I myself will be contacting all the folks that I've bought content from over the years and updating our docs.

These moves strike me as a means of chopping off or limiting our supply of content - afterall if you were a model doing adult work, would you really want your real name and address being given to every wm?

I thought I'd discussed that here, but could have been elsewhere :)

That's why I said each content provider would need to hire full-time employees to do nothing but keep track of where their content is. Same with sponsors giving free content from a content provider.

This would be a hardship, financially, on small businesses, and there is a provision in the proposed law where small businesses can complain about this.

Imagine if you have content of someone who appears to be underaged and are asked to provide proof of age. Now, let's say you *cough* borrowed the images without permission. ......

Ashcroft has to admit to a Senate enquiry his office had never examined document under 2257, he then went off an ammended the law.

This law comes out just before the election, be sure he's not done this for the fun of it.

Thanks venturi


No where on 2257 does it say about giving out addresses.

This is one of the good things about this law.

Theft is not a joke, maybe I should come down and *cough* borrow your car without your permission.

I file DMCA notices every day. Believe me, I know theft is no joke.

Yes this will change the industry and for the worse, but it's going to happen and the present system/law does not work.

Don't write your complaints here, go to the site given and register them there. Fro now assume this is going into law, give yourself as much time as possible to find those records.

Will be interesting to see the first post of a content provider refusing or being unable to supply. Or a company who went out of busines and cannot be found.

Or, someone with content they 'borrowed' who then posts and begs someone for a copy of a model release and IDs for the photos they stole.

To add to Google and Yahoo beng Secondary Producers of porn, all the web based USENET archives will be going away. At the very least they need to eliminate all their adult feeds.

But due to the nature of usenet, and the fact they archive stuff, a binary image can go through anywhere. Bye-bye www.********* and the like.

Did you see the post by xxxlaw?

I'd like to know if the proposal would make the new law retroactive?

Waiting for that to happen, but I doubt it. Already had two clients contact us asking for documents the "Lost".

Need to talk to a lawyer on this one but if you're publishing it after the date of the ammendments passing I would guess that's the date that counts.

I would like to know
how it would efect promoting live cams
with a sample chat applet on my site ?

Paul, won't you be linking to all 2257 info? Once someone hits agree on your site they can view images.