Which Spons are Ready for 2257 Change?

[guitar riff]

Also Paul Wouldnt the Privacy Statement if any that you and a model signs between you and them , how would that play into this would it trump the law or would the law trump it???

And Also PLease some state exatly what is onsidered Sexually Explicit Now I hear so many damn things anymore I asked My lawyer but he had to look it up in the statutes and havent gotten the answer yet.

[gt68lt70]

Originally Posted by guitar riff

And Also PLease some state exatly what is onsidered Sexually Explicit Now I hear so many damn things anymore I asked My lawyer but he had to look it up in the statutes and havent gotten the answer yet.

I read that any depiction of genitals would be considered explicit. Even a leg spread where you don't see much would be considered explicit.

[lassiter]

Originally Posted by gt68lt70

I read that any depiction of genitals would be considered explicit. Even a leg spread where you don't see much would be considered explicit.

That is one of the few relatively clear things about this whole mess. The definition is contained in Sec. 2256:

(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.

So yeah, spread beaver shots appear to be considered sexually-explicit.

[ardentgent]

Originally Posted by lassiter

That is one of the few relatively clear things about this whole mess. The definition is contained in Sec. 2256:

(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.

So yeah, spread beaver shots appear to be considered sexually-explicit.

I believe that 2257 states that only A-D apply. E is exempt.

[lassiter]

Originally Posted by ardentgent

I believe that 2257 states that only A-D apply. E is exempt.

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?

[airdick]

Originally Posted by lassiter

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?

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.

[ngb1959]

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

[lassiter]

Originally Posted by airdick

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.

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

(i) Whoever violates this section shall be imprisoned for not more than 2 years, and fined in accordance with the provisions of this title, or both. Whoever violates this section after having been convicted of a violation punishable under this section shall be imprisoned for any period of years not more than 5 years but not less than 2 years, and fined in accordance with the provisions of this title, or both.

And yet the 28 CFR Part 75 rule states:

The statute requires the producers of
such matter to ``ascertain, by examination of an identification
document containing such information, the performer's name and date of
birth,'' to ``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,'' and to record this
information. 18 U.S.C. 2257(b). Violations of these record-keeping
requirements are criminal offenses punishable by imprisonment for not
more than five years for a first offense and not more than ten years
for subsequent offenses. See 18 U.S.C. 2257(i).

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.

[ardentgent]

Originally Posted by lassiter

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?

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

[Greenguy]

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

Originally Posted by lassiter

That is one of the few relatively clear things about this whole mess. The definition is contained in Sec. 2256:

(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.

So yeah, spread beaver shots appear to be considered sexually-explicit.

Seems a lot of free content just went soft core.

Which sponsor would be interested in buying sets that could be distributed to affilaites with no worries of 2257?

They would be brand new, semi-exclusive, just for affiliates and a reasonable price.

[ardentgent]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham2

Seems a lot of free content just went soft core.

Which sponsor would be interested in buying sets that could be distributed to affilaites with no worries of 2257?

They would be brand new, semi-exclusive, just for affiliates and a reasonable price.

Paul, is it your opinion that pictures not fitting the definition of sexually explicit as defined in 2257 are not covered by 2257? So if I make a gallery that does not meet the definition of sexually explicit, just nudity at "worse"I do not have to do anything regarding the statute- no exemption statement, nada?

Originally Posted by ardentgent

Paul, is it your opinion that pictures not fitting the definition of sexually explicit as defined in 2257 are not covered by 2257? So if I make a gallery that does not meet the definition of sexually explicit, just nudity at "worse"I do not have to do anything regarding the statute- no exemption statement, nada?

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.

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.

Not if you don't use their banner.

A lot of free porn just went soft.