The shitstorm scenario of 2257

[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!

[tickler]

Originally Posted by 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.

Guess I fall in that IANAL category also and Alex helps in trying to get caught up on this BS.

I personnally get stuck with trying to interpret and apply too many US Regs. within my own field. So, being a Canuck, over the last 20 years I have instigated about 30 regulatory changes in the US because the a**holes that write them don't even make the effort of a first year law student to check for conflicting laws and regulations.

BTW, we have won every one.

...also help legitimize the businesses that have their house in order.

RBC it seems that when talking the DOJ has this take that as a producer you must also maintain a DB of where every secondary producer uses your images.
http://www.greenguysboard.com/board/...ad.php?t=20992
Is your house still in order?

If you have a part time adult biz...

I make well into six digits working about 8 months a year at my day job. It will take me awhile before I have a large enough, stable income in the adult biz to drop the day job. And I don't pump gas or flip burgers.

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.

And that would be why they are trying for a "Traci Lords law".

Most of the existing content that was produced prior to June 23rd, 2005 is legit provided a gov't issue photo ID is included

"Gov ID" is a new restriction this time around and it appears that they wish to back date the requirement.

[RBC]

Originally Posted by tickler

RBC it seems that when talking the DOJ has this take that as a producer you must also maintain a DB of where every secondary producer uses your images.
http://www.greenguysboard.com/board/...ad.php?t=20992
Is your house still in order?

For every order placed since we took over the website we have a database on the website for every set sold.

Any orders prior to us purchasing the web presence and content is not our responsibility.

I will however go over the thread posted by emanuelle with my attorney and see if there is additional concern.

[RawAlex]

Originally Posted by 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.

My location makes no difference, makes me no less informed, and makes me no less concerned. If you have to start a discussion by belittling the other person, you already are way off on the wrong foot, no?

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. 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.

Again, you failing to see the people this affects. Single amateur girls, small webmasters, and others who run profitable home based businesses (or choose to exercise their right to free speech in posting images of themselves) suddenly are required to reveal themselves inside their communities. Someone working alone on a business shouldn't be required to spend additional money, to be forced to incorporate / form an LLC, or take other steps to maintain their privacy. The "public shaming" and "additional risks" to solo amateur site operators is a direct attempt to get them to leave the business.

Originally Posted by RBC

A big part of the issue to change the 2257 rules is to try and curtail minors from engaging in obscene sexual conduct.

I still have not seen how all this duplicate, triplicate, and beyond copies of the same paperwork is going to make this any different. CP producers didn't have paperwork to start with, what's the difference? This is called the disguise, the compelling situation that the government has to address with these new laws. It's bullshit, you know it... not a single less CP image will be produced because you and I have to keep more records.

Originally Posted by RBC

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 rules are clear. As someone mentioned above, the rules are VERY clear. You can accept foreign documents if you are a SECONDARY producer. As a US primary producer, you need US documents. You can only accept these documents if the IDs are held by the primary producer outside of the Us: a foreign government-issued equivalent of any of the documents listed above when both the person who is the subject of the picture identification card and the producer maintaining the required records are located outside the United States

Most improtantly, this means that no foreign nationals travelling to the US can appear in US produced porn. No more "import" girls.

Originally Posted by RBC

If you are a small amateur site and you are the primary model then you know you are compliant and you will survive.

Sorry, but the issue these people have has nothing to do with records, and everything to do with being forced to reveal their personal information online. Getting an office is not enough, because unless you sit in it for at least 20 hours a week, it won't qualify as the primary place of business. Many of these people will leave the business rather than risk having some sicko showup at their door looking for them.

Originally Posted by RBC

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.

You give me someone's real name, their state of residence, etc... and more than likely they can be tracked down. It is still not clear (in the rules) that the government will tolerate sanitized or otherwise "blacked out" information on the documents provided. That has yet to be tested. A name and a state will often be enough to track a model down, especially if you have to leave items like drivers license or passport number in the clear.

Originally Posted by RBC

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.

I live in Canada, and I can assure you without a doubt that releasing ANY information on models without permission (even name, passport number, DL, or other identity info) would be a violation of privacy laws. That would require specific permission from the model (new model releases will certainly include this).

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

At the end of it all, I honestly recommend you spend a little more time with a lawyer that is completely and totally fluent on 2257. I honestly feel that the legal advice you have received to date is less than accurate, and in the case of the model ID issue, you have been completely mis-informed. I know that this will likely make all that Eastern European sourced content somewhat less than legal, but that's life. It will help to legitimize the business we all love!

Alex

[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