Which Spons are Ready for 2257 Change?

[tickler]

Originally Posted by ponygirl

Tickler - do you have any other info about this, I would be interested in looking it up, thx

Okay dear you can start here:
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/Jdb-txt/...05BCSC0446.htm
It's actual court stuff, so a long read, and a lot to try digesting. Make your own conclusions.

Originally Posted by ponygirl

ps - I have yet to see (or be lol) a topless woman walking down the street in my town, altho the precident was set not too far from here

I kive next to a beach which is mainly a younger crowd. So I see it occasionally. Have also seen it up at Washago. Also some of the dancers at my favorite strip club set outside on the patio topless working on their tans.


Paul, I can't find the actual article at the moment, but, it really doesn't really matter 1,2,3...pieces of ID. What I was getting at is under Sec. 75.2 Maintenance of records a)2) "Producers may rely in good faith on representations by performers regarding accuracy of the names" and I assume IDs.

Paul, also some reading for you:
http://www.avn.com/index.php?Primary...tent_ID=228409
Maybe they are trying to leave the back door open by requiring a US issued ID.

amber438:
Sec. 75.4 If the producer ceases to carry on the business, the records shall be maintained for five years thereafter.
Even if they have gone out of business, they are still required to maintain records for 5 years. So hopefully you can still retrieve some of the info.

RedCherry:
Just removing the pics might not be enough. This wording (including but not limited to Internet computer site or services) has me thinking that if you just have the content. it must be documented also.



One thing that does PO about this is that I 90% of the time only use softcore content and hold back the hardcore for maybe a future paysite. But, because the set(s) have hardcore in them, I still need to go through the BS.

A question for maybe Alex. Any takes on this wording from 75.8(d) "any known major entry points".


Found a side-by-each comparison of the old vs. proposed vs. actual 2257 here:
http://my.execpc.com/~xxxlaw/2257Tables5.24.05.htm

[Smutferret]

Originally Posted by tickler

Sec. 75.4 If the producer ceases to carry on the business, the records shall be maintained for five years thereafter.

Yesterday, as I removed several older sites, that bit of the law kept going through my mind. I was hoping that it might not target the "secondary producer" but it seems unlikely doesn't it?

Damned if you do, damned if you don't!

Regards,
SF

[Wild_Unicorn]

I have tried reading all of this 2257 stuff so much and am confused to shit by it all.

I live in the UK but host in the US, I have records for 90% of content I have... Am I still liable to this new law?

If so if I moved all my sites to a non US host, would I have to comply with these laws considering the sponsors I am promoting are in the states?

[mrMagoo]

Originally Posted by Wild_Unicorn

I have tried reading all of this 2257 stuff so much and am confused to shit by it all.

You are not alone. Some of the reasons this is so confusing are:
we have what the statute say, then we have what the regulations say

we have producers, sponsors, and promoters each with different points of views (and judging by some sponsors statements agendas also) say

we have what lawyers say and what the courts have said

The actual statute is very clear, explicit, and could for the most part be understood by a young person (with the exception of definition of sexually explicit, ie when does lascivious depition of the genitals become masturbation)

The regulations are much more complex and open to endless interpretation

The statute applies to two classes of people: those that produce the material and those that ship or transfer it in interstate commerce.

For those that produce the statute requires certain record keeping. For those that ship it in interstate commerce it requires an attached notice of where and who maintains the records.

The regulations conflate these two classes and unlawfully impose the record keeping burden on those who are involved in "mere distribution or any other activity which does not involve hiring, contracting for managing, or otherwise arranging for the participation of the performers depicted"

The DOJ says it can ignore the clear meaning of the staturtory language and replace it with what it feels is better. The only court I know of that looked at this specific issue disagreed.

The statute also says that the record keeper needs to:
"ascertain, by examination of an identification document containing such information, the performer’s name and date of birth, and require the performer to provide such other indicia of his or her identity as may be prescribed by regulations";and
"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".

This requirement can only be satisfied by someone who is involved in "hiring, contracting for managing, or otherwise arranging for the participation of the performers" since it requires some type of actual contact with them in order to "require the performer to provide such" and such...

Since I am not a producer I can't require the performer to do shit, and that is why the statute exempts me from the record keeping burden.

Of course the DOJ disagrees. The DOJ not only wants to impose a record keeping burden on those explicitly exempt by congress, it desires to impose the costly and time consuming creation of a web site indexing database scheme and the dangerous multiplication of personal model information.

The intent of the statute is clear: the protection of children from abuse.

The intent of the DOJ regulations is clear: to wage war on constitutionally protected expression, and to harass those engaged in protected expression that it finds offensive, but that the supreme court has ruled we as adults have a right to create, view, and publish.

Then of course we have us and non-us webmasters. I'm a us webmaster that is hosted in the us.

I don't know the answers to non-us webmasters questions but here is my thoughts. I'm not hosted in Europe, but I bet I have sold stuff to Europeans and frankly I don't give a fucking shit what the European laws are. As an American in America, I'm only subject to laws enacted by elected political institutions in America, or so the constitution tells me so.

[Tommy]

so paul are you giving out the docs to webmasters that have bought content ??

[Lemmy]

Originally Posted by Tommy

so paul are you giving out the docs to webmasters that have bought content ??

Yup, he gives a nice pic of the model holding up two legible forms of ID plus signed model release in every set.

[gt68lt70]

Originally Posted by Tommy

so paul are you giving out the docs to webmasters that have bought content ??

I have bought content from Paul in the past and I got all the docs.

I wish sponsors would at least give the docs for their banners...

[amber438]

Originally Posted by gt68lt70

I wish sponsors would at least give the docs for their banners...

That has been the problem I have been experiencing. I've been switching banners to either soft or all text and a lot of sponsors do not have em..
Also, I bought a lot of content from a few companies and a few have not even responded to a request, and they are quite big. It would piss me off royally to can that content.
Some, of course, have gone out of biz and there's nothing that can be done about it. One content supplier that had superb bi content is gone. I bought a lot from them too.. Another good gay provider is gone too..and that content is in one of my avs sites.. Hard to replace gay biker content..

[guitar riff]

Anyone else like me have a Fucking Migraine YET????

Well When Sponsors do start posting all the stuff we will need what we need to do on the board is See if GG& Jim will make a sticky Post to those spons and Hey they Might even get a few referrals from WM's for the links to them :-)

[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?

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?

[GunnCat]

Some of you almost sound happy these new laws are going into effect. Some of us who have been trying to make a living at this work very hard only to see our progress get flushed down the drain by government proposals.
Social Darwinism shouldn't be aided by government entities simply demagoguing to a constiuant base. There is no "bright" side to this. Less competition is only good if you stand to make a profit from it. It's likely many of the unique sites put forth by the small webmaster/content provider will end up going out of business.

[RawAlex]

Originally Posted by GunnCat

Some of you almost sound happy these new laws are going into effect. Some of us who have been trying to make a living at this work very hard only to see our progress get flushed down the drain by government proposals.
Social Darwinism shouldn't be aided by government entities simply demagoguing to a constiuant base. There is no "bright" side to this. Less competition is only good if you stand to make a profit from it. It's likely many of the unique sites put forth by the small webmaster/content provider will end up going out of business.

Gunncat, let me say this: The adult online industry has been a business without rules, regulations, or oversight. The entry barrier (what it costs to get into the game) has varied between little and free (free host, free content, etc). No sales taxes, no government rules, not much of anything. As a result of this "low entry point" everyone and their ignorant cousin Hal have porn sites.

The business has been completely overwhelmed with bored soccer moms, college students looking for beer money, and an every increasing slice of people that "just like to be near pornstars". Every day, I compete with people who are not trying to make a living but are trying to make enough money for a night out on the town or so they can get a couple of extra cases of beer for the frat party.

I don't complain about these people, instead I offer them help to get traffic, listings on my link sites and such, and spend time here on this board to help people grow their business.

The US government has finally weighed in a put some rules into effect that will require US webmasters to do a certain amount of "non-income earning" work in order to maintain their business. US citizens will be required to maintain a bunch of extra records that they never had to before.

More importantly, these people will have to admit to who they are, and they will have to expose their real names and addresses to the public, and they won't be able to hide in the bushes anymore.

Each individual will have to make a choice as to how they will handle the situation as it is presented. It is a personal choice. Nobody is running you out of business, they are removing the rock many have been hiding under. If you can't handle the light, then it is time to move on.

Like I said, I don't wish bad on anyone, but I won't miss the competition either.

Alex

[Ann Omness]

I wonder if taking down sites for which the primary producers won't supply 2257 documentation on the models will provide any protection. The regs require that we keep the documentation for five years even if the sites are down. Even if we take down the content we can't document, we're still liable for that documentation we couldn't get from the producers. It's all archived somewhere (Google?). Seems like they wrote the regs to be able to find you in noncompliance even if you take your sites down.

[RawAlex]

ann, that is one of the reasons that these new rules (not a new law, I should point out, as only the house, congress, and the president together can pass new laws) could get shut down by the courts.

Issues... issues...

Alex

[Steve]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

ann, that is one of the reasons that these new rules (not a new law, I should point out, as only the house, congress, and the president together can pass new laws) could get shut down by the courts.

Issues... issues...

Alex

Though they differ in their perspectives the one thing my attorneys in both the US and the UK agree on is that these new rules will be tied up in court for quite some time. Though I am not going to assume that as I have been going through my content records. Though no matter what happens in the courts the US government will have gotten much of what it wants as panicky webmasters take down their sites.

Steve

[GunnCat]

Alex, well put and I understand where you are coming from.
However it doesn't change the fact that the US government shouldn't be passing laws that squash business. As a libertarian it's just one more reason to be purely disguested with The United States of America: This was once the country that threw tea into Boston Harbour for a 1/2 cent tax. I don't know if you as a Canadian(and I don't mean that as a bad thing) can really understand that, or anyone who isn't an american. This government has gone too far.

[RawAlex]

Gunncat, to be fair, I think that this is a better route to go than some of the other options the US government has to control porn, such as insane taxes, bizarre distribution restrictions, or some other massive meddle.

I think the one that is getting most people is the requirement to reveal their names, addresses, and such. Most people are comforable working in porn, they are comfortable with the content, but they are not comfortable with people around them knowing what they do. They don't want to expose their children, spouse, or others to the pain that could occur if anything bad happens. Many of them also know that in more conservative places, they might literally be run out of town.

That is the nature of this business, and it doesn't get easier.

We have all gotten off easy in the past, now it's time to pay the piper. We all lived in a fantasy land where we can be dirty pornographers at night, and on the PTA and coaching out kids' soccer team on the weekend. Once your neighbors know, I somehow think that all goes away.

Do you understand how fiendish the government plan is? Do you see how it is hard to stop?

They have gone too far, but not in the ways your thinking.

Alex

[GunnCat]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

Gunncat, to be fair, I think that this is a better route to go than some of the other options the US government has to control porn, such as insane taxes, bizarre distribution restrictions, or some other massive meddle.

I think the one that is getting most people is the requirement to reveal their names, addresses, and such. Most people are comforable working in porn, they are comfortable with the content, but they are not comfortable with people around them knowing what they do. They don't want to expose their children, spouse, or others to the pain that could occur if anything bad happens. Many of them also know that in more conservative places, they might literally be run out of town.

That is the nature of this business, and it doesn't get easier.

We have all gotten off easy in the past, now it's time to pay the piper. We all lived in a fantasy land where we can be dirty pornographers at night, and on the PTA and coaching out kids' soccer team on the weekend. Once your neighbors know, I somehow think that all goes away.

Do you understand how fiendish the government plan is? Do you see how it is hard to stop?

They have gone too far, but not in the ways your thinking.

Alex

For sure man. I'm still in a state of shock really. My biggest concern is not my paysites, although some of those great content deals I got in the last 2 years don't seem so great now ; but the sponsor content I use. I don't have any problems buying content for promotion, I have houndreds of thousands of images I can use already, but I select my sponsors based on the unique content and quality of it.
We live in interesting times really, it will be interesting to see how things pan out in the next couple of years.

I agree with Alex, there are people in this business who have no right to be here and will be gone.

The real problem I have with this law is the revealing of models IDs, not webmasters. Webmasters have an option they can shut up shop. models have less of an option becasue I hear some sponsors want to distribute models IDs for content they already have. The model according to them has no say in the matter.

So long as models do not refuse to work for us, this law will not cost the industry one dime in revenue earned. No surfer will stop paying money for porn, in fact if it redduces the free porn available then it could mean more money earned. The content pirates could have a big problem with this law.

For some this law is the realisation that this is a business and not a game. If you do not want the neighbors to know you publish porn close down or get a legal front. But give the models, the life blood of this industry, the same respect.

At last we can see content is KING.