I don't think you are getting the point. Democrats were the ones leading the charge then and the Republicans are the ones leading it now. Regardless of who is in office they will sell you down the river in a heart beat if it means they will get a few more votes next election or gain some power in congress.

Reno fought tooth and nail against the ACLU over this, all you have to do is a search for keywords copa and janet reno and you will find numerous case dockets and articles.

We are basically fucked regardless of the political party. Republicans are conservative and Democrats are only liberals on the surface when it might get them votes.

I say fuck them all and VOTE GREEN GUY FOR PRESIDENT!

try this search
"porn prosecutions janet reno"
most results call Reno and Clinton friends of Porn
and talk about how prosecutions halted under them.....

OK, I will give you that(although most of those sites with articles are very conservative).

I still find it hard to call any politician a friend. I am doing a write in vote for Green Guy anyway =)

I think we agree with each other...
Green Guy would be the best choice....
but Kerry would be better than Bush...
(the lesser of two evils) :)

I'd go for that, or maybe Larry Flynt in the Whitehouse. :)

For those of you that are Bush apologists, here is something to keep in mind before you vote republican again: The Supreme Court justices that voted to rule COPA unconsitutional were Democratic appointees, whereas the judges that supported COPA are right-wing extremists that the GOP appointed.

Every time someone says "don't vote democrat, they aren't friends of porn either" I have to laugh.

Republicans BY DEFINIITION are against porn. They have a whole christian religeous core group that just flips over porn.

Neither side is a "friend" of porn... the republicans are enemies, that is for sure. The democrats are "neutral to not happy" about porn. It's easy to see which side will try to screw you out of business.

Alex

Jay Glad ya posted this I just wish more spons would let us Know Exactly what they are doing about this so we all arent running around like a goose with his head up his ass when its time to get all the stuff in order.

Perhaps the sponsor's attorneys have ordered them to remain tight-lipped about this until a final decision has been hand down. They do make feel a bit left out in the rain though.

Where does candidate GreenGuy stand on foreign affairs? Is it truly an affair if she doesn't speak English?

Lassiter, it is not just "my perogative" but a requirement for everyone in this business: We need to feel comfortable that all the models we link to, send traffic to, whatever are over 18. I wouldn't like to KP knowingly, and based on what has been said in this thread, I have no way to know that the images that TP is promoting are legal. Therefore, it is GOOD BUSINESS and totally logical for me to not link to it. I would be willing to be actual dollars that at least one of the girls there is not of legal age - and i would never lose the bet because TP can't prove it. If he can't prove it to me, he can't prove to the police / feds/ whoever might want to check those things.

Alex

I agree. They have been quite silent on this issue. Especially considering their affiliatees can not send traffic from jail.

Which point begs the question - how important are affiliates?

Not totally. David Souter voted against COPA, and he was an appointee of George I.

In a business that revolves around them: Very Important.

Does the industry really was to re-shape it's whole business model?

It may have to.

Jay,

Anything to share with what you discussed with the lawyer?

I totally agree, I have already outlined how I am going to help my hunkmoney affiliates and my chilihost hosting clients....and I am not even in the US, I just care for my affiliates and clients! This lack of info from all other sponsors is a real worry.


cheers,
Luke

I wouldn't really expect them to state anything until it is set in stone what they are doing.

Sponsors don't want to spook affiliates.

When it comes to things like banners and such, you start getting into the legal "never never land" of "paid promotional space", and are you in fact a publisher of the banner or are you merely using provided promotional materials in return for payment?

Sponsor hosted galleries are a no brainer, you are not the publisher, they are.

Sponsor content would, normally, require a full model release to be used. I think that single model programs (like lightspeed, example) might be VERY hesitant to let their models real names and info loose on the net. The personal security issues and rights to privacy far outweigh the 2257 records requirements. So far I have not seen or heard about any of the great legal minds looking at it from the privacy side of things. I am sure someone has, just haven't seen it yet.

The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

Alex

That's why I'm gradually swapping out my hardcore banners for soft, even though it means possibly switching out some of the sites I promote as well. I doubt there are going to be any model releases forthcoming for the people appearing in those banners.

Yes indeed - it will be interesting to see how major sponsors end up playing this.
I presume many of them are waiting to see what the final language of 2257 looks like after the comment period ends before deciding on a policy/strategy. Of course, that means affiliates won't have any lead time at all. As usual. |pissed|

What a lot of people have not considered is that there is a period after the comment where the comments will be considered. If the DOJ just blows this off, then all the 1st ammendment lawyers will file suit against the goverment for not considering their opinion. There is a possibility the comments will be considered and then there will be another comment period of shorter duration. That is why you are probably seeing the flim-flamming on the part of the sponsors. They probably won't do anything till they have to.

If the crackdown does come - it will be interesting to see how affiliate programs will be surviving without affiliates.

I wish I could believe that would happen, but taking on the Feds over regulatory stuff would require a hell of a lot of money, would take a long time (possibly a couple of years) to be heard, and would require a unified, cooperative effort.

Given how totally "every entity for itself" the industry was, and still is, over Acacia, I don't see a remote possibility for any effective industry counteraction.

I'd love to be pleasantly surprised, though. |jackinthe

How does sponsor banners work out with 2257?

Do we just list our sponsors as the custodian of record on the 2257 page?

Respectfully, this is the first time I feel I have to disagree with you on this one. As we speak, there is a massive meeting of the all the top 1st ammendment lawyers and they WILL issue a comment on 2257.

The DOJ (by law) is not even allowed to READ the comments till after 8/24. Aftter that they have it has to be considered. If they just ignore this (or even give that impression) -- the 1st amendmant guys will take action by way of a suit against the goverment.

It is their world and we are just living in it, but never underestimate the top legal minds in the US. They are not working for the DOJ...they are driving expensive cars in Beverly Hills and they work for us.

It works the same as your own content....
If it is totally totally softcore (look at lassiter & xxxjay's posts) then you don't need 2257.
If the banner isn't softcore then under the new rules (unless they change them) you have to have the 2257 info and have it avail. for inspection. :( lassiter, xxxjay chime in if you think I'm wrong... but this is what my Lawyer said....

The definition of softcore is kind of nebulous. From what I know - if it shows pink and genitals. You need 2257.

Nope. the definitions from Sec., 2256 are as follows:

(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;

HOWEVER, Sec. 2257, even under the proposed new language, exempts both simulated sexual activity, and Subsection (E) of the above definitions.

(h)

As used in this section -

(1)

the term ''actual sexually explicit conduct'' means actual but not simulated conduct as defined in subparagraphs (A) through (D) of paragraph (2) of section 2256 of this title;

So I'm told that pussy is ok as long as nothing is going into it. And "simulated" masturbation and hardcore are also exempt, though that is where it gets tricky, since you may not want to try to make the case that it was really simulated and not actual. Best to avoid any penetration of anything by anything.