Which Spons are Ready for 2257 Change?

[RawAlex]

Lassiter, you need to read this:

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2...f/05-10107.pdf

You are looking at the previous / existing / want congress and the house passed laws... the DOJ has magically taken a marker pen to them and re-written them without bother to do the boring, slow, and required thing about getting new or revised laws passed by the house, senate, and signed by the president.

Read'em and weep.

Alex

[wolfie]

Ok.. this come to my mind more as joke but what if I rent some "closet" from middle of nowhere and use that address. Then blue suits can go and see DVD inside it.

Anyway, I'm going to use robots.txt file. At least it blocks major SEs.

[Mr. Blue]

Originally Posted by wolfie

Ok.. this come to my mind more as joke but what if I rent some "closet" from middle of nowhere and use that address. Then blue suits can go and see DVD inside it.

Anyway, I'm going to use robots.txt file. At least it blocks major SEs.

I'm doing the same...I still don't want the major se's indexing the page. Not like I can make the page a secret, but at least I don't have to advertise it.

[RawAlex]

Wolfie, no problem, but you have to work 20 hours per week in that closet, and it has to be your principle place of business. If they figure out you work at home 80 hours a week, well... it's not your principle place of business, now is it?

Alex

[wolfie]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

Wolfie, no problem, but you have to work 20 hours per week in that closet, and it has to be your principle place of business. If they figure out you work at home 80 hours a week, well... it's not your principle place of business, now is it?

Alex

Imagine that!
That was a joke obviously.

[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

We are ready with free hosted galleries and will have some soft and hardcore in there. We will also include some free softcore content for affiliates very soon.

Also we will be selling softcore sets for sponsors only. The sets will be on limited sales, probably around 5 times and will include a license to distribute them to as many affiliates as the buyer wishes.

Cost $2 an image.

[Greenguy]

TNA Cash released a statement.

[SmithsMedia]

http://www.fetish-video-cash.com all ready and compliant - says something for us brits :-)

[Linkster]

ARS posted their first installment yesterday on their board:
http://stats.adultrevenueservice.com...pic.php?t=2878

[Gawdy]

I think there is going to be alot of people out there not compliant and even more who dont even know the law exists. Theres a whole bunch of webmasters who have never even visited a forum

[plateman]

Looks like its gonna get tuff and I chatted with one of my main sponsors and they said they been trying for months to get the docs from the studios and no good getting it.. a lot of those DVD rip sites are gonna be hurting along with the webmasters promoting them with there content - DAM

[Useless]

I'm going to post this from an email I just received from Nubiles. Mostly because they said:

This is not our final statement on 2257 and webmasters do NOT HAVE PERMISSION TO POST THIS EMAIL ON ANY BBS BOARD OR WEBSITE!!!!!!!!!

Idiots.

If you have not consulted a lawyer then you really don't NEED these documents because these rules of record keeping are so strict and complex that if you don't keep the records indexed as the law states the potential time you are doing is huge.

What? So, if I don't have a lawyer I may as well not comply? Is that what I'm reading?

And they are yet another sponsor offering to host your HTML pages and images as a way around having proper documentation. Of course, in order for that to work legally, they'd also have to own your domains. They didn't mention that part, but I'm pretty sure that's true.

[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.

[rollergirl]

Originally Posted by Gawdy

I think there is going to be alot of people out there not compliant and even more who dont even know the law exists. Theres a whole bunch of webmasters who have never even visited a forum

Correct, and many of those with stolen pics or whatever won't be putting their home addy on the web anyway. If they pay for the privacy protection of their WHOIS no one will know much about their sites anyway.
Wouldn't they be a Pain in the neck to locate for inspections.

Then again.. there will be the forthcoming webmasters who are doing things by the book and will have a flashing ARROW sign AND a Yahoo map pointing to their front door.

[tickler]

(E) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person.

Everytime I read this I shake my head.

Why do they have both "genitals" and "pubic area" in the statement?

[chilihost]

Just to add to this thread, hunkmoney is 100% ready for 2257.

cheers,
Luke

[Greenguy]

A couple more from our news page:

Top Bucks

Party Doll Cash

ARS

As always, pay attention to the news

[Greenguy]

More statements (some will appear in tomorrow's news)

Brain Cash

Compu Dollars

Dollars 4 Babes

Fetish Affiliates

Twisted Cash

Flynt Digital

Naughty America

MPL Studio Cash

[BrianXXX]

I read all this, and in the end I still don't know what the fucking gov't says, as a freesite builder, I exactly have to do! Anyone have example, description? I am so dizzy from it all I am feeling like I'm trippin'.

Basically, what, for free sites, would be MINIMUM compliance?

Point me to it if I missed it, but in normal english, not gov'ment-law'yer-ize.

Originally Posted by BrianXXX

I read all this, and in the end I still don't know what the fucking gov't says, as a freesite builder, I exactly have to do! Anyone have example, description? I am so dizzy from it all I am feeling like I'm trippin'.

Basically, what, for free sites, would be MINIMUM compliance?

Point me to it if I missed it, but in normal english, not gov'ment-law'yer-ize.

Assuming you're in America go see a lawyer or risk 5 years in prison, .

That's the best advice you will get.

[Toby]

Originally Posted by BrianXXX

...Basically, what, for free sites, would be MINIMUM compliance?

Limiting the scope to free site galleries and assuming you reside in the US. For every photo set you use to build a free site you must Maintain a file with:

1. Copies of the model's photo ID's. Two forms of ID are now required, and must be issued by a U.S. City, State or Federal gov't agency. These copies must include the model's full name and enough other info that law enforcement can access the original records from the issuing agency.

2. Some document, usually a standard model release, that establishes when the original photos were taken.

3. All known stage names and aliases used by the model.

4. A record of all URL's on your sites that any image, thumbnail, banner, etc. appears on (anything made from images from that set of photos).

If there are multiple models in a set, you need separate files for each.

If the same model appears in a different photo set used for another free site, you need a totally separate file of records.

That's about as minimal as I can make it, and I've probably left out a few things. I'm sure that others will fill in any gaps that I missed.

In my opinion they've deliberately made the record keeping so complex that there is no way that you can be 100% compliant and still have enough time left to do your regular webmaster work.

As Paul suggested, advice from a lawyer knowledgable in this area would be a very good idea.

[plateman]

I emailed cybernet and tony said they will not release the docs so its hot link to there images or try and find the unique content they have or take about 12 to 15 sites down and I was making a little every month from them - sucks every bit helped..