[RBC]

Alex,
With all due respect, the mere fact that you are not an attorney, nor own a US based business, nor do you even live in the US does not make you the right person to be spouting off on 2257 regs. I am hard pressed to point out that you are doing a disservice to others here on this board. You think you are being helpful and in some regards you may very well be, but mostly on the 2257 issue you are the perfect spokesperson represented on all the adult forums that spreads misinformation and fear.

Originally Posted by RawAlex

Don't you understand the point of the new 2257 rules?

They are designed to have the porn business drive itself out of business. It is done by using a few different provisions to make it hard to take legal content, hard for individuals to be in business, make much of the existing content illegal, and making it difficult to get new performers.

You are not entirely correct. The intent of the DoJ is yes to drive out the illegitimate businesses but it will also help legitimize the businesses that have their house in order. If you have a part time adult biz and make extra income to supplement your main source of revenue then you may second guess the adult game since it will mean you may have to have a business address, plus possible legal retainer thus adding additional expenses on top of the record keeping. A big part of the issue to change the 2257 rules is to try and curtail minors from engaging in obscene sexual conduct. That is one reason why frontal or partial nudity is exempt to the new 2257. I think its half assed backwards. That if a minor tries to pass themself off as an adult with fake IDs then they too should bear both financial and legal responsibility for their actions.

Most of the existing content that was produced prior to June 23rd, 2005 is legit provided a gov't issue photo ID is included and a disclaimer on websites new 2257 page, similar to the disclaimer that any content produced prior to July 3rd, 1995 is exempt. The exception is the way the information is documented. Content produced on or after 06/23/05 will have a stricter quideline to follow with reference to record keeping. The new 2257 distinguishes the guidelines for content pre June 23rd vs. post June 23rd.

Originally Posted by RawAlex

Hard to take legal content: If the primary producer is in the US, they require US IDs for everyone. No visitors or others without a green card can work. It also means that a US primary producer can no longer take talent and shoot overseas, as they would still require US ids for all performers.

Sorry you are completely wrong here. Primary producers who reside in the US are not required to have US ONLY IDs, be it a drivers license, identification card, passport, military ID and/or green card. The new 2257 regs indicate a government issue ID, this includes a foreign passport or god forbid, a foreign drivers license with a photo. The new 2257 regs stipulate that a government issue ID with a photo, full legal name and DOB are required. No reference to it having to be US only.
By the way, it is not up to the photographer/producer to have a model prove that she is entitled to work legally in the US. That is not part of the 2257 regs. A model release is not the same as a Work For Hire contract. Even though some would have you believe. A US based business can go overseas and shoot to their hearts content and sell that content in the US provided they have the proper legal documentation and in this case it would be a foreign passport or foreign drivers license, military ID etc... It would be like saying I cannot photograph the Eiffel Tower and sell any of photos in the US of the Eiffel Tower which is bullshit.

Originally Posted by RawAlex

Hard for individuals to be in business: Forcing individual free site / paysite webmasters to reveal their home addresses or forcing them to spend additional money for an office creates a hardship that will drive them from the business. Additionally, this requirement will have the effect of driving individual amateur sites almost completely off the net.

Yes it will be harder to be in business. Meaning an outsource of funds to acquire an office instead of your home computer. Which I agree is unfair and will disable some but it will also wean out some of the illegitimate businesses. If you are a small amateur site and you are the primary model then you know you are compliant and you will survive. The new 2257 inconvenience will have little impact on the small amateur owner if they maintain ownership to the content.

Originally Posted by RawAlex

Make much of the current content illegal: Be changing the ID requirements and adding in model ID disclosure that would put foreign producers in violation of privacy laws in their countries, the new rules have the effect of killing off huge amounts of existing content. My personal estimate is than 90% of the "low buck content" (such as pixmasters, rock bottom, and others) will be effectively useless, with a lack of model releases and / or legal IDs. It doesn't help that many of these producers seem to see the new 2257 regs as a profit center, charging more than the original costs of the content for model IDs.

No where in the new 2257 does it state that an address and or phone number of the model must be included with the provided documentation. It clearly states that the Photo ID must be government issue and be legible to be able to trace to the model so as to be able to contact her. The IDs do not have to be "Sanitized" or unaltered. For example: a foreign passport does not have a models address or phone number and it is 100% compliant since it has the legal name, DOB and a passport number that a government officer can trace. A US drivers license with a blocked out partial address is acceptable under the new regs. For example: the entire driver's license is intact with the exception of the street number and street name. The DL# is intact for traceablity. There is no need to provide any SSN cards with IDs since they are obsolete. Only gov't issue photo IDs. To rebutt your claim that foreign producers in violation of privacy laws should not be an issue provided the models phone number and home address is not on any of the submitted docs. This is a fine line and no one knows for certain until prosecution is under way.

Originally Posted by RawAlex

Harder to get new performers: Unless the content is specifically licensed to a single site with major resale restrictions, many models will be uninterested in being part of the adult industry. If content is sold to 100 webmasters, that model's info is out there to 100 people. If it is used by a sponsor as "free sponsor content" then it might be out there to thousands of people. Models will be way more hesitant to get involved, which will make content harder to come by. That will drive up the costs, making it harder to make a profit.

At the end of the day, the intentions of the new 2257 laws are to put a chill on the adult industry, to literally drive the mom & pop type operations off the web, and to cut way down on the amount of "porn moms" out there running individual amateur sites. The rest of us will be faced with increased content costs and increased business documentation costs.

No one single less CP will make it onto the net as a result, but the rights and the freedoms to run an honest adult business will be removed as a result.

That's what it is all about.

Alex

Yes you are correct here as it will make a model think twice, especially if she is aware of the new laws. Also producers will add a clause in the model release to protect themselves from any possible legal issues arising out of the privacy issue and shared information. We will see what the financial cost are soon enough. My personal opinion is it will elliminate alot of illegitamite websites and create a lot more work for the legitamite ones. But in the end (not counting the bible thumpers) it will give more credibility to the industry we so dearly love!