If this thing flies - there will be no us webmasters.

When I said where you host is irrelevant, I guess my point was that no matter where you host, if you are US-based and deal with sexually explicit content you have to comply with 2257.

But like you said earlier, "it sounds like we won't know the full meaning or validity of this until someone gets popped" so no one really knows what lies ahead, I am just trying to keep options available!


cheers,
Luke

Right there is a very good point. If your run an affiliate program, isn't it better you take care of the people that have always taken care of you? Rather that leave them hung out to dry?

If I ran an affiliate program (which I will be doing in the next week or so *wink* - *nudge*) -- I would be bending over backwards to make sure my affiliates won't be going down for promoting my shit.

I can't believe how so many programs are sleeping on this shit! Remember, you are only as big as your affiliate base.

We need to be more proactive or this will be the end of us.

I am pretty happy that we decided to go with hosted galleries and hosted free sites instead of handing out content. That will make compliance as easy as adding a 2257 statement with my address on it.

But what about banners? I am thinking of getting some new banners created that are not sexually explicit for US based webmasters. That way they don't have to worry about the record keeping.

cheers,
Luke

Yes, every sponsor should be doing this.

OK, it may be hard to promote, say, "triple penetration pussy-piercers" with softcore banners, but that's just an opportunity for the designers to exercise some creativity. :)

I've read, and reread this thread, and others..And I get the jist of it all, but what I am unclear of still....Is for instance, if I buld a tgp gallery with 16 pictures, does the 2257 info have to point to each individual picture, or just that page?

Good question. I'm guessing the gallery URL itself. Since, after all, your jpeg images are .htaccess protected to avoid direct hotlinking and therefore aren't accesible to anyone except thru the gallery page. right? :)

Disgaree. That's why courts exist and precisely what they do.

Disagree you might but I think I picked that little tit-bit up from something a lawyer said.

Let's hope I'm wrong.

That may br the case if you were to actually spend the money to file suit yourself as a plaintiff against the enforcement of the regulation. But as a defendant in a civil regulatory action, all that can usually be considered is "the preponderance of the evidence." In other words, does the evidence show that you were in compliance, or does it not? At least that's the background I've been given.

I have a question here.

Now we are not bartenders, we are not up to date on the looks of a fake ID. (If we shoot our own content) What issues would someone have if the person shooting content of a person that showed ID statting they were legal age but were infact under age. After all its not like opening a business bank account where you have to show your add from the newspaper of your "DBA Doing Business As," and whatever docs you need to get that account open. Traci Lords as we all know was an underage porn star, who's to really say someone didnt get her a fake ID.


On the other end what would happen to someone who bought content and had the proper licenses to show at any given that content was legal so they thought until someone discovers the person was using a fake ID and was under age.

honestly, get up to date on that kind of thing, if its questionable, dont shoot her. Period. Why take the risk, one naked model who is questionable, is not worth the risk of some jail time.

I am not having that problem, I buy licensed content and have docs. just threw that in, meaning we dont see the ID's of the people we buy from whatever content producing company. It could happen, after all you cant cut the person in half and count the rings.

very true, that was not a personal attack on what you said, more general, I should have stated that.

It's a definite risk, but My though on that would be do everything you can, better safe than sorry

No worries I didnt take it as an attack.

my rule is if it could happen it would happen to me. I have been cursed with a streak of bad luck lately. |sad|

not with this issue but other things.

Sorry to hear that, hope your luck changes ;)

No big deal. If life was easy it would be fucking boaring. :)

I think I am more confused now that I read this thread. Riddle me this:

1. Are the sites that are already on my servers subject to this new regulation , or are we unsure of that?

2. Does this law apply to simply nude girls or is it just for masturbation, hardcore type content?

3. Is this law proposed? or is it set in stone for 8/24 and I better have my shit together?

4. What type of documenation? Just a valid drivers license? Do we need a 2nd piece of ID as well? Didn't someone say this had to be a us or us verifiable document? Does tha mean content producers will need to produce a passport at minimum for us US webmasters?

Thanks in advance.

Andy

1 = yes, but there is some debate on the topic

2 = if a boob is showing, would get the docs

3 = written, but there is a "comment period" till 8/24. It is very doubtful anything will change.

4 = Legal ID, yes, no, yes, yes but none seem to be concerned.

On the ID question, it has to be issued by a US state or the district of columbia. For overseas ID it has to be a passport which is verifiable by US officials.

cheers,
Luke

Regarding whether one's content that is FTP'd prior to 8/24:

How would a potential investigator decide if your images were FTP'd before 8/24?

Does "published" mean when the images were taken or as far as secondary producers are concerned...when we upload the images to our server for the 1st time?

It would sure suck to have a server crash and have to upload all your older content all over again if published = time it becomes visible on the site.

My guess is every time your page is logged into it "published". Whenever your page is edited - I would also assume that means "published".

Don't expect a lot of flexibity from Assclown and his cronies here. The best thing we can do is vote Bush out of office and get an AG that is less concerned with pushing his right wing religious agenda down your throat. The rules will still be in place, but force driving this inquisition will no longer be there.

Not quite. New rules will now require 2 photo IDs for ALL models, both of which must be from a "government-accessible database." University and employment IDs are specifically not allowed by the new rules. My attorneys advise the only safe interpretation is that for each model for whom you are the custodian of records, you must have on file copies of BOTH a state-issued drivers license AND a US passport. Content with foreign models without US passports cannot be used, since the DoJ would not have access to foreign government databases to verify the documents actually exist.

That could be a big problem if others are advised the same thing.

One thing that may work to our advantage is that this law is so burley that courts will recognise the ridiculousness of it, just like they did with the COPA ruling.

One of Ashfuck's downfalls if he often oversteps his bounds and I think people can see that.