The shitstorm scenario of 2257

[Mr. Blue]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham2

Very true Mr Blue, what is your real name by the way?

Yes giving it out IDs to one person represents a danger, but less of a danger than giving it out to a thousand. Still the determined insane person will get through. But what about the curious, fans, porn devotees? What about the power you place in the hands of affiliates when they are accused of cheating?

Suddenly the accused has 10, 50, 100 IDs of models on the accusers site. Don't you see the problem here?

Go read the porn surfers boards where they ask for models real names, locations, etc. How long before they start posting her address? Do you really think that is a risk you want to take?

And how do you know what checks I make? You are so clever come on and spill the beans on my checking system.

Actually my minimum order is $20 not $5, so you know very little of how I run my business.

And yes I do worry about my models IDs being stolen and used wrongly, that is why it states in my license that the models IDs and real name cannot be revealed. I'm keeping the door slightly open, your argument is because it's not slammed shut and bolted it should be flung wide open.

You can have my real name in a few days as I'm putting it up on the net. Or you could just look up one of my domains and it has my P.O. box address there (which I check everyday at noon)...see, webmasters have to use their real names, real locals, real phone numbers because TGP owners and LL owners want real information So, everyone knows where a webmaster can be found...I haven't seen any of us killed yet...might happen, might not happen, who knows...I'm not going to be cowering in my house worrying about it though.

$20 or $5, that's a big difference...thanks for clearing that up for me.

I've never bought from you...your content never suited my taste, but I did ask some people and they said you have a quick turnaround...which is a good thing. My point is, you can't tell who's a lunatic and who isn't by the fact they have a credit card and a url.

50 or 100 or 1000...the one lunatic can exist in any of those numbers. You can say they don't...you can claim that you've never sold to a nut...but you can't really say that can you? You can't really say that you protect your models 100%...the only way you could do that would be to stop giving out their ids.

The info is out there. Turn a blind eye to it if you want, but it is out there. A nut can find the info if he wants...unfortunately it's the nature of the adult industry that once you pose for a pic, once you write a webpage, once you do anything in adult you no longer have anonymity.

I agree RA.

but because a car can be stolen does not mean we should leave it with the doors open, engine running and the keys in the ignition.

Of course it does to some people, but the more sensible see the benefit of fitting an alarm and locking the vehicle.

[RawAlex]

Paul, agreed... but issuing copies of the registration of the car to everyone in your neighborhood isn't going to help protect it.

Alex

Originally Posted by RawAlex

Paul, agreed... but issuing copies of the registration of the car to everyone in your neighborhood isn't going to help protect it.

Alex

I agree, but tell it to mr blue becasue he thinks it makes no difference, But then he keeps going on about a single nutcase and ignores all the others who might get access to it.

Maybe he will be putting his name and address on his galleries if it's so safe.

[Mr. Blue]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham2

I agree, but tell it to mr blue becasue he thinks it makes no difference, But then he keeps going on about a single nutcase and ignores all the others who might get access to it.

Maybe he will be putting his name and address on his galleries if it's so safe.

Actually, I am...your point is?

The car analogy was cute, but happens to be apples and oranges when it comes to this situation. So, I'm putting my address up, I'm in far more danger than 99% of the models as their id will be handed out to a few thousands of webmasters that have to prove who they are, while mine will be posted to the whole internet.

You see, I understand that if I want to be in this business...that's the risk I'm taking...Models that enter this business know that they're putting themselves up for the world to see them, they sign an agreement, they know what they're getting into.

If you say they don't know what they're getting into then you as a content provider are taking advantage of their naivety. It’s great to have morals that you can flip on and off when it suits you. I happen to be a realist…I know right now people could find my address out…a little difficult, but they could. I know right now people think getting a business address will protect them…that’s also a joke as you have to be at that address 20 hours a week to be compliant.

I don’t moralize…if I want to be in this business it’s a risk I’m taking…I don’t make excuses for my decisions. If you want to be a porn star and want your content in America, you’re going to have to lose your anonymity. Will it stop people from being webmaster? Yes. Will it stop models from performing? Yes. Will it stop the industry on the whole…NO!

2257 is a hiccup, it’ll be overturned, but if you want to play in the adult industry in America at the moment you have to play by the rules. If you don’t, you have to be prepared for a court challenge. If you win, you’re the next Larry Flint, if you lose you’re some guys bitch in jail. Life is all about decisions...we each make them and have to live by them.

[Boogie]

Let me give you folks an analogy that I think we can all agree on.

Think of the number of movies that come out for wide release in a year. Lets imagine its a thousand. So we have in those movies tens of thousands of stars that appear.

This law makes it tantamount to forcing each theatre that shows a film have the ID's and adress and personal information of each of these stars that star in a movie.

But instead of it being every movie theatre its every two bit pornographer in the industry.

Instead of it being a thousand movies its hundreds of thousands of depictions of sex.

Instead of being movie stars is it people who in the eyes of some, terrible loathful sinners.

Instead of being in a nice safe inside a movie theatre its on the desktop PC of every webmaster who has used sexually explicit content and that PC is connected to the internet.

I hate to draw a roadmap for you here but good lord.

[Kinky]

Originally Posted by RBC

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.

LMAO over and over again on that statement, and if you really believe that 2257 will in any way help legitimaize this business, you either need to get off the drugs or start doing them

Originally Posted by Paul Markham2

This is porn not a garage sale, we are incapable of cleaning up our act and need to be regulated. Pity is this law will not get through the courts to do it.

pity that this law will never get thru? we do not need to be regulated, we need laws that will get rid of the cheaters, scumbags, CP pushers and scammers and this law does nothing of the sort, it gets rid of the legitimate webmasters that are doing nothing wrong except that they can't comply with the record keeping requirements, cheaters, CP pushers and scumbags DO NOT keep record of the nasty shit that they do for obvious reasons


read this thread thoroughly as to what the DOJ expects out of people to comply, half of which is not even lined out in the regulations, and then tell me if you still stand by your statements, and if you do then I would hope that nobody in this industry would ever do business with you again


you are both content producers and such should have your records in order, but really read that thread as to what they expect, it is impossible for anybody to comply

Yes I agree the regulations are overburdonsome and unconstitional and will probably get struck down. Plus the more I read about the changes from actual lawyers the more I'm left wondering why the DOJ is doing this.

The chances of this law actually surviving are getting less and less. Not just the amendments the actual law. are those in the DOJ that stupid?

The statement that we don't need to be regulating is funny, when you consider we are pornographers. We put porn on the Internet and you think that does not call for some regulations? Yet complain about all the cheaters and scammers. Seems to me the lack of regulations leads to cheaters and scammers.

Sundance made it more possible for webmasters to go to prison for child porn. Simply because they could say "I don't need the IDs" In fact some used to argue it was safest not to see the IDs as seeing them made you responsible for them.

So content producers were selling content without the the PROOF the model was over 18. Is is sensible to take the word of a broker that the photographer in Germany, Russia or Czech has the IDs and they are fine?

We do need regulations, but ones that work and are enforcable. 2257 is not that today, next month or last year.

[Kinky]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham2

We do need regulations, but ones that work and are enforcable. 2257 is not that today, next month or last year.

so do you rescind your prior statemnet that "it is a pity that this law won't pass"? if so I have no problems and I agree with you that there needs to be something done to help clean up this business, but straight out regulation from gov't entities without working directly with the legitimate side of the business will never do anything except hurt good people just trying to earn a living

[GenXer]

Paul Markham, I think that the PRODUCERS , the ones responsible for shooting the content, procuring models etc should be required to keep the documentation. I do NOT agree that webmasters, sponsor programs should be held accountable if a producer of content is not doing their jobs correctly. That is what the photographers are SUPPOSED to do, when photographing the content , is verify that the models are of age, as you are the one procuring the models. That is how it has always worked as you deal with these models FACe to FACE, and we do NOT! Also, it does give more privacy to the models if only the photographer and producers they dealt with and trust are the ones who have their personal information and ID's, and not every webmaster on the internet! I completely agree with the 10 Court of Appeals on the Sundance vs. Reno case that the responsibility should lie with the primary producer to keep records. I also do believe that webmasters should post who their sponsors are on the 2257 statement and the content providers that their sponsors use, as well as content providers listed if the webmaster does not use sponsor content but purchases it themselves directly from a content provider.

[Vink]

What about men stalking men. Remember the Steven Spielberg stalker.
http://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,2258,00.html
The DOJ acts like it was adult industry people that flew the planes into the twin towers.
Where is this generation's Larry Flint? Fighting it out in court. Paying his fine in pennies. Larry was the man!

Originally Posted by GenXer

Paul Markham, I think that the PRODUCERS , the ones responsible for shooting the content, procuring models etc should be required to keep the documentation. I do NOT agree that webmasters, sponsor programs should be held accountable if a producer of content is not doing their jobs correctly. That is what the photographers are SUPPOSED to do, when photographing the content , is verify that the models are of age, as you are the one procuring the models. That is how it has always worked as you deal with these models FACe to FACE, and we do NOT! Also, it does give more privacy to the models if only the photographer and producers they dealt with and trust are the ones who have their personal information and ID's, and not every webmaster on the internet! I completely agree with the 10 Court of Appeals on the Sundance vs. Reno case that the responsibility should lie with the primary producer to keep records. I also do believe that webmasters should post who their sponsors are on the 2257 statement and the content providers that their sponsors use, as well as content providers listed if the webmaster does not use sponsor content but purchases it themselves directly from a content provider.

And you think as a pornographer you can take the word of a person you have never met, never will meet and could be in another country?

Tell that to the judge.

[tickler]

Originally Posted by Vink

The DOJ acts like it was adult industry people that flew the planes into the twin towers.

Actually another WM on a sponsor board suggested that twisted person like W. might label us "bad" people and try to use the patriot act against us.

[ponygirl]

ok, I have to butt in with a point that is bothering me...there is concern for privacy of both models and webmasters, and that is a HUGE problem.
BUT...I also am hearing this "so what, it'll weed out the little guys, the cottage industry, the part timers" etc...so basically the only ones that can be in business are the "big guys" who have the money for offices, lawyers, record keeping and whatnot?? Look at what is happening around the world. Someday 1 corporation will own everything and then where will we be? no competition means no choice. I think we should be supporting the little guys, not trying to drive them out of business. Just because I work from my basement doesn't mean I'm not serious about it or that I'm just a fly by night type of operation.
It is very sad to me that so many single sites or webmasters are feeling that they will no longer be able to work in this industry because some narrow minded hypocrites think they know what is best for everyone else, and they are afraid of the repercussions of going public in a LEGAL industry that some people don't like.

IT'S JUST SEX FOLKS!
If they want to kill cp, do it but let us run our businesses just like everyone else has the right to.

Ponygirl

[GenXer]

Hey Ponygirl I agree!

I've been on doing this a few years and no fear-mongering content providers or any other people who thrive on fear are going to scare me out of the biz. It is actually people like that who motivate me to do my job even BETTER, just to piss them off that their tactics don't work!


I AM HERE TO STAY DAMN YOU! MUAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA

[furrygirl]

Originally Posted by rollergirl

As webmasters..
You can enlist private whois so nosy people are not able to access your domain info. People who want to reach you through your domain are instructed to email you through the registrar. So much safer than posting your HOME ADDRESS your websites.

Since there are a lot of gallery posters here, I thought I'd mention that the Hun doesn't take galleries from domains that are listed privately like Domains By Proxy. There might be other places that interpret a desire for privacy as being shady, too.

[Mr. Blue]

Originally Posted by GenXer

Hey Ponygirl I agree!

I've been on doing this a few years and no fear-mongering content providers or any other people who thrive on fear are going to scare me out of the biz. It is actually people like that who motivate me to do my job even BETTER, just to piss them off that their tactics don't work!


I AM HERE TO STAY DAMN YOU! MUAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA

lol, good for both of you. When 2257 first came out I was concerned about putting my address up on the net. I was reading the boards, reading the fear mongering, and reading this overwhelming over-reaction from some in the industry. I stopped reading the boards for a few days and thought carefully about what my options were...pretty much I came to the conclusion that no one was going to scare me out of the business, whether it was the DOJ or Others in the industry trying to use fear tactics to push their own agenda. If you look carefully enough it’s pretty easy to see who has a 2257 agenda in this industry.

[ponygirl]

Originally Posted by Mr. Blue

If you look carefully enough it’s pretty easy to see who has a 2257 agenda in this industry.

yes, it's been VERY interesting to read what's been going on, not just here but at other boards too -not that there ARE any other boards, mind you hehe

Opinions are being formed & reputations are being made & broken right now. A lot of people are sitting back quietly to see what happens - myself included - and will be there to pick up the slack once the dust clears.
Interesting times - I don't think things will be the same again but that's not necessarily a bad thing...
I'm definitely learning A LOT, and not just about the industry, either.

Ponygirl

Originally Posted by ponygirl

ok, I have to butt in with a point that is bothering me...there is concern for privacy of both models and webmasters, and that is a HUGE problem.
BUT...I also am hearing this "so what, it'll weed out the little guys, the cottage industry, the part timers" etc...so basically the only ones that can be in business are the "big guys" who have the money for offices, lawyers, record keeping and whatnot?? Look at what is happening around the world. Someday 1 corporation will own everything and then where will we be? no competition means no choice. I think we should be supporting the little guys, not trying to drive them out of business. Just because I work from my basement doesn't mean I'm not serious about it or that I'm just a fly by night type of operation.
It is very sad to me that so many single sites or webmasters are feeling that they will no longer be able to work in this industry because some narrow minded hypocrites think they know what is best for everyone else, and they are afraid of the repercussions of going public in a LEGAL industry that some people don't like.

IT'S JUST SEX FOLKS!
If they want to kill cp, do it but let us run our businesses just like everyone else has the right to.

Ponygirl

Yes there are many one man bands who run a tight ship and some big companies who do not. I worked in London on my own for years and had everything legal and above board. Was even raided by police with a search warrant and they commented that my paperwork was correct and I even paid taxes. They found nothing and the paper work saved me a big lawyers bill or even prison time. Some models boyfriend had reported me for shooting underage models. The accusation false, the search warrant real.

GenXer if I motivate some to be more careful then I'm getting through to you.

Some people publish porn from a sponsor, they bought from a broker, representing a producer who holds the legal proof the model is over 18 and signed a model release stating the content could be sold. Often buyer, broker and producer are in different countries. They then give that content to affiliates.

Some can sit back and not point out the folly of this, some cannot.

So far there have been 4 underage models caught doing porn in the US. Everytime a DA looked at the case and thought of his chances of putting someone in prison. He must of considered the measures the publishers took to ascertain the models age.

Do you think he would of been more likely to get a conviction on "I do not need to have the documents because of 2256/Sundance nad did not know she was 17" or "I checked her documents which were fradulently obtained but would convince anyone"

Now add to the first one, "I got the content from a broker who got it from a guy in Russia"

you are right opinions and reputations are being formed. Think of all the companies giving you content they had no PROOF was LEGAL.

[Mr. Blue]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham2

Do you think he would of been more likely to get a conviction on "I do not need to have the documents because of 2256/Sundance nad did not know she was 17" or "I checked her documents which were fradulently obtained but would convince anyone"

So you're saying the Sundance vs. Reno verdict was a bad thing? That because secondary producers didn't have to maintain model records it would be harder to convict a CP? Correct me if I'm wrong, been working a lot tonight and I may be misreading this

Originally Posted by Mr. Blue

So you're saying the Sundance vs. Reno verdict was a bad thing? That because secondary producers didn't have to maintain model records it would be harder to convict a CP? Correct me if I'm wrong, been working a lot tonight and I may be misreading this

No what I'm saying is Sundance led to a lot of pornographers publishing porn without seeing the documents. Sundance in that light was bad.

Maintaining and checking records are different things. Because you do not need to maintain records does not absolve you from a CP conviction.

My stand is based on knowledge of the industry going back nearly 3 decades. There are many less than honest people thoughout this business, even in the US. By seeing and checking the records you are making an attempt to verify the existance and validity of the records.

Now whether those records should be handed out to someone who signs up to an affiliate program is a worrying situation which needs a better solution than what Gonzales came up with.

Sundance was a good decision about maintaining records. Some used it as an excuse to not check or allow others to check the legality of porn.

[SirMoby]

Originally Posted by RBC

What pisses me off is guys like you Alex

That's one way to influence all the possible new customers on the board and in only 13 posts. Wow!