Paul, the problem is if they use softcore content to promote a hardcore site with hardcore banners, then their publication contains one or more images of sexual content and then they need 2257 for everything in the publication.

There is little or no way to slip out of this one easily.

Alex

No you do not have to put up the models ID on the Internet.

What you have to do is go see a lawyer who understands this law and can advise you.

Or get out of porn.

Or risk going to jail for 5 years.

That is my understanding of the law. However a grey area is what the rest of the set contianed and I must get over and read that bit again to see what it says.

Not if you don't use their banner.

A lot of free porn just went soft.

That was in the Ashcroft language as proposed, and what was keeping what few free sites I have left up and running. But I don't see an exemption for "E" in the new actual regulations that were issued. Can anyone authoritatively indicate where "E" is exempt under the new regs?

That is excellent news. Thanks Alex! Made the future much more brighter |thumb

Paul, I agree that softcore may be a way to go... but I think most webmasters will find that when they are competing against hardcore sites from outside the US, they are pretty much doomed. Further, I am not clear that using softcore material to promote a hardcore site would exempt you from rules - the premise is hardcore, no?

More importantly, model IDs should be required anyway, because nobody wants to have a topless 16 year old on their site.

Just as importantly, even if you material is 100% exempt, I think you still have to declare as a secondary producer, and as such, your name and address is still going to be out there for all to see.

Good fun.

Alex

Agreed. the future for US affiliates is bought content with IDs, softcore or hosted. Will be a few exceptions but I guess that's it.

And the world will see where you work from.

In the same place it has always been exempt, at 18 USC Section 2257(h).

What has happened is that the DOJ ammended the regulations (28 CFR 75.1 through 75.8) used to implement 18 USC Section 2257, but the wording of 2257 remains the same.

your name and address is still going to be out there for all to see.

Where do we list our name and address ??

Thanks.


Nina


|pink |pink |pink

Hmmm, ok. But...the only place I can find the complete language of Sec. 2257 is at
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/h...7----000-.html

where, for example, it states that And yet the 28 CFR Part 75 rule states:

So either Gonzalez is misquoting existing law regarding the first- and second-offense penalties for violation, or else the changes to Part 75 themselves serve to amend existing law, or else the law has been amanded by Congress in the past year without anyone (including Cornell Law School) noticing.

The statute applies to producers of sexually explicit matter.

In our discussion of this issue think there is unnecessary confusion because some of us are talking a from the perspective of a paysite owner and others are talking from the perspective of an affiliate.

If I make a tgp gallery with softcore images ( non-sexually explicit per the definition A-D of 2256) I don't think I have to worry about any documentation or record keeping or disclaimers even if I link to a sponsor with sexually explicit pictures on their server. Does this make sense?

I bought some markham content and the models reside overseas so is it legal to use by a US webmaster ??

The law is confusing on this one. But it's been explained to me that I'm the producer so it's legal. They list the IDs that are acceptable so non US models shot by non US people are acceptable.

Just my opinion.

Btw I have some of your teen content Paul. However, since the documents are on pictures am I still vulnerable for providing valid documents or pictures with models showing them documents would suffice? Since the wording on 2257 is ambiguous at this point, I am clueless.

Here is the article
https://www.ynot.com/modules.php?op=...rder=0&thold=0

So print them out to be double sure.

True true!
And hopely all understand this.

It's just crazy to add all online. Models may be in serious danger after that if anybody can read their stuff plus cheaters will just crap IDs from a web.

My opinion for best way to keep records is in your own computer, backups in DVDs or similar.

There's always risk when post that kind information to web, especially if using some free or cheap program to try secure those.

Also I have feeling that there must be law that give you jail if do that.

ardentgent, it truly is not clear to me that softcore porn promotions are going to be exempt, and more importantly, I am not clear that they exempt people from the worst part of this law, meeting the requirements to publish a custodian of records, list an office, and so on.

You get into very questionable areas when you are promoting hardcore sites with softcore content, or using hardcore terms around softcore content.

Imagine a "child art" site (I hate the term). They do fall into a legal hole that says "art is good". However, if you mention fucking or anything on that part, it loses it's art status and becomes, well, porn.

Without keeping records and without having proper model identification, how do you prove it isn't child porn as per 2256? How do you prove that the entire work is exempt (IE, the photoshoot wasn't mixed hard and soft material)?

I am really not comfortable with trying to dodge something like this. Your in porn or your not, come on out of the closet.

Alex

I think everyone needs to settledown a little and take a deep breath. That's exactly what I did and instead of guessing what will happen with all the specifics or hoping for an injuction that will change this (which I think will happen), but I'm moving on dealing with the facts. Here's my personal plan:

1. Continue writing pages and document them so they're 100% compliant with the new regulation.

2. Move off free sponsor content unless the sponsor is going to provide you with the necessary information.

3. Euro content...honestly this for me is a grey area. Each week a different lawyer has a different take on the law. Personally I'm just going to pull the Euro content I used. There's plenty of U.S. content providers that can supply you with the needed documentation...why get cute and chance it? If / When the DOJ comes to inspect my records do I really want to argue the law with them? Umm, no...I'll leave that for other people to do.

http://www.ynot.com/modules.php?op=m...ticle&sid=9465

One lawyer after another keeps coming up with a different take on it.

4. Softcore / Hardcore - Softcore taken from a Hardcore set, lol, whatever...document everything. If you use primarily softcore they'll probably be less likely to investigate you...but again when / if they come for inspection do you really want to be arguing, "But spreading her pussy lips isn't sexually explicit!" Just have the documentation even on the softcore stuff. It takes around 15 minutes to catalog this shit a day.

5. Separate computer with my documentation on it. I assembled a cheap ass comp that can handle basic spreadsheets, that has a big enough HD, and when / if the time comes all my info will be on that comp. Also I'm making duplicate records so if they do need to take away info from my place...I have it all ready for them.
Price of a CD-R: A few pennies
Price of some printed up spreadsheets: Pennies
Getting those fucks out of my house 10 minutes quicker: Priceless

6. Home address...well, this is one of those, put up or shut up moments. It sucks, but no sense in arguing how much it sucks :D My one suggestion here would be for your 2257 page...make sure you use the noindex meta tag so google doesn't spider that page. Might even be worth writting a robot.txt file to specify that page not be indexed. If you have the money for an office...good for you...if you don't put your house address. If you don't want to put your house address...do mainstream pages :D I do rather nicely in mainstream. ;)

I think its worth riding this storm out...porn on the net will be different 6 months from now, but more profitable for those that weather the storm.

Mr blue, exanding on point 6, you might want to put your contact info as an jpg or gif, with the right sized fonts and all... that will make the content not be indexed, and make it easy to replace if you move or change business offices later.

Alex

Excellent Idea!!!

Lassiter, you need to read this:

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2...f/05-10107.pdf

You are looking at the previous / existing / want congress and the house passed laws... the DOJ has magically taken a marker pen to them and re-written them without bother to do the boring, slow, and required thing about getting new or revised laws passed by the house, senate, and signed by the president.

Read'em and weep.

Alex

Ok.. this come to my mind more as joke but what if I rent some "closet" from middle of nowhere and use that address. Then blue suits can go and see DVD inside it. |jackinthe

Anyway, I'm going to use robots.txt file. At least it blocks major SEs.

I'm doing the same...I still don't want the major se's indexing the page. Not like I can make the page a secret, but at least I don't have to advertise it.

Wolfie, no problem, but you have to work 20 hours per week in that closet, and it has to be your principle place of business. If they figure out you work at home 80 hours a week, well... it's not your principle place of business, now is it?

Alex

|pokefun| Imagine that!
That was a joke obviously.

E is exempt, not in the regs but in the statute itself. Title 18 Part I Chapter 110 Sub 2257, (h)(1)

I have been posting sponsor 2257 announcements over on our news page - but here's a quick list for those of you that might have missed them:

Brain Cash

Free Ticket Cash / Free Ezine Bucks

Evil Genius Cash

Extreme Paychecks

I will update this list as they come in :)

We are ready with free hosted galleries and will have some soft and hardcore in there. We will also include some free softcore content for affiliates very soon.

Also we will be selling softcore sets for sponsors only. The sets will be on limited sales, probably around 5 times and will include a license to distribute them to as many affiliates as the buyer wishes.

Cost $2 an image.

TNA Cash released a statement.

http://www.fetish-video-cash.com all ready and compliant - says something for us brits :-)

ARS posted their first installment yesterday on their board:
http://stats.adultrevenueservice.com...pic.php?t=2878

I think there is going to be alot of people out there not compliant and even more who dont even know the law exists. Theres a whole bunch of webmasters who have never even visited a forum

Looks like its gonna get tuff and I chatted with one of my main sponsors and they said they been trying for months to get the docs from the studios and no good getting it.. a lot of those DVD rip sites are gonna be hurting along with the webmasters promoting them with there content - DAM

I'm going to post this from an email I just received from Nubiles. Mostly because they said:
Idiots.
What? So, if I don't have a lawyer I may as well not comply? Is that what I'm reading?

And they are yet another sponsor offering to host your HTML pages and images as a way around having proper documentation. Of course, in order for that to work legally, they'd also have to own your domains. They didn't mention that part, but I'm pretty sure that's true.

I have tried reading all of this 2257 stuff so much and am confused to shit by it all.

I live in the UK but host in the US, I have records for 90% of content I have... Am I still liable to this new law?

If so if I moved all my sites to a non US host, would I have to comply with these laws considering the sponsors I am promoting are in the states?

You are not alone. Some of the reasons this is so confusing are:
we have what the statute say, then we have what the regulations say

we have producers, sponsors, and promoters each with different points of views (and judging by some sponsors statements agendas also) say

we have what lawyers say and what the courts have said

The actual statute is very clear, explicit, and could for the most part be understood by a young person (with the exception of definition of sexually explicit, ie when does lascivious depition of the genitals become masturbation)

The regulations are much more complex and open to endless interpretation

The statute applies to two classes of people: those that produce the material and those that ship or transfer it in interstate commerce.

For those that produce the statute requires certain record keeping. For those that ship it in interstate commerce it requires an attached notice of where and who maintains the records.

The regulations conflate these two classes and unlawfully impose the record keeping burden on those who are involved in "mere distribution or any other activity which does not involve hiring, contracting for managing, or otherwise arranging for the participation of the performers depicted"

The DOJ says it can ignore the clear meaning of the staturtory language and replace it with what it feels is better. The only court I know of that looked at this specific issue disagreed.

The statute also says that the record keeper needs to:
"ascertain, by examination of an identification document containing such information, the performer’s name and date of birth, and require the performer to provide such other indicia of his or her identity as may be prescribed by regulations";and
"ascertain any name, other than the performer’s present and correct name, ever used by the performer including maiden name, alias, nickname, stage, or professional name".

This requirement can only be satisfied by someone who is involved in "hiring, contracting for managing, or otherwise arranging for the participation of the performers" since it requires some type of actual contact with them in order to "require the performer to provide such" and such...

Since I am not a producer I can't require the performer to do shit, and that is why the statute exempts me from the record keeping burden.

Of course the DOJ disagrees. The DOJ not only wants to impose a record keeping burden on those explicitly exempt by congress, it desires to impose the costly and time consuming creation of a web site indexing database scheme and the dangerous multiplication of personal model information.

The intent of the statute is clear: the protection of children from abuse.

The intent of the DOJ regulations is clear: to wage war on constitutionally protected expression, and to harass those engaged in protected expression that it finds offensive, but that the supreme court has ruled we as adults have a right to create, view, and publish.

Then of course we have us and non-us webmasters. I'm a us webmaster that is hosted in the us.

I don't know the answers to non-us webmasters questions but here is my thoughts. I'm not hosted in Europe, but I bet I have sold stuff to Europeans and frankly I don't give a fucking shit what the European laws are. As an American in America, I'm only subject to laws enacted by elected political institutions in America, or so the constitution tells me so.

|yawn|

Correct, and many of those with stolen pics or whatever won't be putting their home addy on the web anyway. If they pay for the privacy protection of their WHOIS no one will know much about their sites anyway.
Wouldn't they be a Pain in the neck to locate for inspections.

Then again.. there will be the forthcoming webmasters who are doing things by the book and will have a flashing ARROW sign AND a Yahoo map pointing to their front door.

|angry|

Everytime I read this I shake my head.

Why do they have both "genitals" and "pubic area" in the statement?

Just to add to this thread, hunkmoney is 100% ready for 2257.

cheers,
Luke

A couple more from our news page:

Top Bucks

Party Doll Cash

ARS

As always, pay attention to the news :)