I agree - it was a bit foggy.

Thanks for clearing that up. :)

TP; It isn't about this current 2257 thing blowing over - I can tell you without a doubt (and I know lawyers that will back me up on this) you are operting illegally, your content is not in line with EXISTING US law, and you are taking a mighty huge risk that cannot be removed by "giving the company to one of the girls".

You must be able to prove your models are 18. "They showed me a card once" isn't proof. You need to have a copy of those IDs on file along with full model releases. Read 2257 as it sits. Your not following the law even BEFORE the administrative clarifications. More importantly as the photographer (based in the US) you need 2257 paper work for any images you take and then allow use of on the site. You can't get out of it by transferring control.

Basically, your screwed up, you didn't understand the law, and now 100% of the content YOU have created to date is not legally usable.

I won't be listing your sites, and I have removed anything of your I found.

Get a lawyer... you'll need one someday soon.

Alex

Ouch!

RawAlex does make a good point.

TP posting what you do on the boards is a bad thing as well. The DOJ reads these boards...I know that for a fact.

Not true. "Sexually explicit content" is defined in Sec. 2257 rules as anything described by 18 U.S.C Section 2256 (2) (A)-(D). You can see the full definition of "sexually explicit conduct" here:


http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2256.html

but note that Sec. 2257 regulations do not include Sec. 2256 (2)(E)! Further, they make an exception if the conduct is merely simulated and not actual.

So neither simple nudity, nor even spread beaver shots, are subject to Section 2257. Now, as soon as she puts a vibe in her pussy, voila! You are now subject to all 2257 rules regarding that content.

The biggest problem for a lot of folks is that you used to have to allow inspections "at all reasonable times." Whereas under the new language, there must be an authorized employee present at the physical location of the records at all times between 8am-6pm local time, seven days a week! If you go to lunch or take off for InterNext, and the DoJ shows up while you're gone, (and you know they'll try to do just that) you can get up to 5 years for violation, and they don't even have to look at your records!

Screw recordkeeping - even if it's all perfect, if you're a one-person operation, you can never leave town at all, or even your home except at night.

Ethics aside, and just talking legality regarding 2257, there is nothing in the regulations regarding off-site linking.
As long as no explicit images are actually stored on your domains or websites, you are nor repsonsible for 2257 recordkeeping. So a text-only TGP is totally exempt from 2257, whereas one that captures explicit thumbnails is subject to 2257.

I see a lot of talk about LLs & TGPs not linking to sites without 2257 info, but my attorneys say mere linking (to anything other than obvious CP, which is always an exception) is not an issue under 2257.

If anyone has in fact been told differently, please advise what language in the rulemaking would make a webmaster responsible for what is on another webmaster's domain?

Because it was never made clear what agency was responsible for doing inspections. Now congress has clarified that it's the Dept. of Justice, and having come under major fire from the Religious Reich for not doing inspections, Ashcroft intends to do lots and lots of 'em.

The new language was specifically drawn up to make it almost impossible to be in actual compliance, and it's easy, and better "good press," for Ashcroft to bust a bunch of little webmasters who can't afford to fight back ("1500 porn peddlers busted nationwide in CP crackdown!") than it is to comb through Larry Flynt's files.

And again, remember you don't even have to be in violation of your recordkeeping. All they have to do is wait until you're not home, since you must have someone present at the location between 8am-6pm seven days a week.

It sounds extreme, but you are really being held prisoner in your own office.

Lassiter, those are some excellent posts. Very informative.

lassiter, if you are willing to stake your life and 20 years of time in a butt slamming federal prison on that, well, more power to you. If your planning your business on the distinction between sexual and non sexual, well, why not just run some "molly model" sites too?

No model releases, no 2257 info - I won't list him.

Alex

Those sites may well be covered under some other type of law, but we're talking about specifically what types of materiual come under 2257 regulations, and only actual sexually explicit content is covered, under the specific wording of the law.

Your prerogative, naturally. But
I'm still looking for someone to explain where in 2257 your liability to list or not list comes in, assuming you aren't actually hosting his images on your domains. I'm not being argumentative - this is crucial to my staying in business myself at this point, since I cannot stay in my office without a break from 8-6 7 days a week between now and whenever I quit or die. Presumably you have a way to do this as well?

And let me clarify I'm not taling about suspect content - I'm talking about simple nudity and spread shots from respected content providers, sponsor banners, etc.
I am advised that only actual "hardcore," masturbation, and BDSM are covered by 2257. Potentially underage Tijuana girls are not an issue I have any desire to defend. ;)

Yeah - Lassiter has been doing his homework.

Jay,

You see the lawyer tomorrow, right?

Do you have a list of questions you'll be asking him?

Well, I have to. But PLEASE, y'all, keep in mind that what I post here was advice I got from my attorney. I'm not a lawyer, and I don't even play one on TV, so everyone here needs to get actual competent advice from their OWN legal eagles.

For me, it comes down to either eliminating all "actual sexually-explicit" content from my domains, specifically so I'm not liable to inspection, or making myself a literal prisoner in my home/office.
So knowing what I can do "safely" and what I can't is sort of important lol.

But someone else's lawyer may have a whole other interpretation of some of these issues, and if so, I hope they get shared here.

I've also been reminded that we still don't know what the final language will actually be on this new rulemaking. We'll all find out around the 24th of August, I guess.

I don't do hardcore, so I'll just check for anything that looks too real; and should have no problems...

BTW, don't forget who signed COPA!

I have two lawyers retained currently. One doing corperate stuff and another 1st amendment lawyer. I also have a friend that is the lawyer for Adultcheck that I've talked with a lot.

All of the major 1st amendment lawyers are meeting this week and are proposing a response to the new 2257 regulations that will include the economic impact to the US.

I am meeting with him (Max Hardcore's lawyer) on the 9th. Yes, I will have a long list of questions.

Bill Clinton

I didn't know that. It's the AG that is really pushing this through.

Along with the IRS, FBI and other three letter acronyms.

|waves|

My point is that no politician is gonna come out in favor of porn; and that includes most beaurocrats. That's why the battle to save this business will be fought in the courts...

Exactly. COPA was signed in late 97 or early 98 by Slick Willy and Janet Reno fought to uphold it in numerous lawsuits. Ashcroft is leading this new charge so those of you who think the Democrats are your friends are mistaken as ALL politicians will stand behind anything that can on the surface look like it is beneficial "for the children". Any politician who openly opposes this stuff will be made to look like he/she supports K*P from the other side of the aisle.

We basically stand alone on this issue and can only hope the letter writing campaigns but most of all the lawyers arguing against it can turn this whole mess into something more realistic.

I agree 100%. The new regs, whatever their final form, will still be on the books under a Kerry or Bush administration. The best we can hope for there is that Kerry's attorney general will not spend a lot of manpower or money doing random inspections where there is no real reason to believe that KP is involved. But even if Kerry wins, it will still be several months before the dust settles and we have any real sense of where the new administration is going to go with this. And of course, if Bush is re-elected, it will continue to be guaranteed random searches for all.

My logic says that, since Bush wouldn't be running again, he would be more likely to concentrate on the economy and the war on terrorism than on porn. If all these warnings, etc. are more than a tactic being used by the terrorists (their object IS to inspire fear!), Ashcroft might have his hands full.

Kerry, on the other hand would be trying to secure his own reelection while attempting to regain power in Congress for the Dems; and we all know that he will sa or do anything to secure that power. Face it, porn will always be a target. How many of us drive down the street with our porn url emblazoned on our car? Maybe those who have made it to the point where that car is a Hummer...

But Democrats are far more liberal than Republicans... (as a whole) so we should be less of a target with a Democrat in power. Vote Kerry :)