Will LL, TGP and other sites give us a one month amnesty when 2257 is pass?

[Quotealex]

I figure it's going to take me at least one month to update all my pages and get all the proper IDs to comply with 2257. Tha last think I want is to get ban for changing my pages...

[Cleo]

Shemp already said that he would on this board, use the board's search to find it.

I would imagine that a lot of places using scripts set to auto will ban many.

[Wazza]

What changes do you need to make to your pages in order to comply?

[chrisrock79]

If you are secondary, provide a link at the bottom of all your sites that just says 2257 info,

Link it to a page with your info.

Here is where you can get it.

http://www.adultsitelaw.com/forms.html

[plateman]

Thanks chrisrock79 thats what I was looking for..

[plateman]

http://www.nastylovingslut.com/2257.htm Does the boards legal minds think this is ok for awhile.

thanks

[RawAlex]

I can say in my opinion, it isn't a link site or TGP's job to enforce federal law. More over, I don't think it is a US webmasters job to force people outside of the US to comply with US law.

I also do not know what legal opinion that they got that suggests that they need to do this - otherwise google, Yahoo, and every other search site is going to have to drop every adult page in the world.

I am not sure where this is going, but I cannot say I am a fan of forcing anyone to put 2257 notices on every page.

Alex

[tiny]

Not a legal mind but I'd say no. If yoor secondary aren't you suppose to have your info up there?
That seems no more then having just a primary on the 2257 page.
Like I said not a legal mind so I'm probly either wrong or outta place haha

[plateman]

RawAlex I dont really know how legal a 2257 link to your content info will do - but it looks good, like a honest webmaster is trying to follow the legal rules..


Tiny thats what I been wondering, you see so many different 2257 pages out there whats right and wrong, and if I dont have to put my personal contact info on there I would rather not..

Might not be a bad idea to get a PO box and a biz name..

And I think Its bad enough that my who is info is avialible for everyone to see.. And if the new 2257 stuff gets argued or pases its going to get real deep IMHO..

[RawAlex]

Plateman, 2257 does not allow for PO Boxes... requires a business address that the US feds can VISIT.

I don't deny the idea that we need to have our 2257 records in order - I am just wondering why link sites and TGPs would REQUIRE a 2257 link. Last time I looked, the AG wasn't paying me money to do his job for him.

Alex

[plateman]

Thanks for clearing up a few things and on my LL I think it would be a good idea to put a disclamer on.

And with banners, what will the sponsors do ?? scramble or go soft - Hell I'll pull all mine and use bigger text links..

[Wazza]

Be aware that many tgps count out going links with their script as a pre-screening device - so putting another link on your page will deny you an advertising link.

And, at any rate, if the proposed 2257 changes go through unamended (and unmodified by court judgements) the primary producer is not the custodian - you are.

[RawAlex]

Wazza, the chance that this makes it past the courts is small, not only because of past failures (10th circuit blew it out many years ago), but also because of newer privacy laws that don't permit the open distribution of model infomation - such as the privacy laws in the state of California, where much of the video world is based.

It is also not clear who all needs the records. The potential for overwhelming amounts of duplication of records is insane. If you produce a movie for sale on dvd, everyone invovled (camerman, editor, graphics guy, the company the reproduced the DVD, the store owners selling the DVD) may all be required to have model releases on each model - and maintain a database cross referenced for all appearances by that model etc.

It's not very logical. It doesn't serve the public interest, and it doesn't do anything to slow KP. No public good is gotten from this law, it is a backhanded attempt to squash the free speech rights of the adult industry by creating a paperwork jungle that borders on impossible to maintain. The objective is to make it impossible to have all the right records, and as such, make it possible for everyone one of us to be blown out of business.

I am not here to enforce US federal law. My link sites won't require anything - but I sure won't list anything that looks like KP.

Alex

[RawAlex]

Wazza, it is also my understanding that the primary producer is still the one that actually creates the content. The issues here revolve around the requirements for the "secondary producers", which is a whole new set of records to keep - potentially retroactive back to the inception of 2257.

Alex

[lassiter]

But remember, not all content is subject to 2257 recordkeeping requirements. Only "actually sexually-explicit conduct" is covered. Section 2257 itself states:

As used in this section -

(1)

the term ''actual sexually explicit conduct'' means actual but not simulated conduct as defined in subparagraphs (A) through (D) of paragraph (2) of section 2256 of this title;

and the relevant part of Sec. 2256 reads as follows:

(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 material under (E) above is specifically exempt from 2257 requirements, as is "simulated" sexual activity. The basic rules to avoid 2257 compliance requirements is: no bondage or BDSM, no penetration (of anything by anything - including dildos), and no cumshots. If anything seems borderline, don't use it (or else have all your 2257 data for it). But really, a fair amount of material is simply not subject to the rule.

I'm going to be taking down a bunch of mainly hard BDSM freesites and changing out a lot of explicit banners over the next couple of weeks, but most of my softcore and amateur sites are staying up with a legal disclaimer (drafted by my attorneys) stating that the content is exempt from 2257 regs.

And I agree that since mere text-linking to another person's domain does not subject the linker to 2257 regulations, that it's ridiculous for LLs to become government enforcers of another person's compliance. I would like to see one LL owner offer the legal justification under the language of 2257 for doing this.

[Dravyk]

Originally posted by RawAlex
I can say in my opinion, it isn't a link site or TGP's job to enforce federal law. More over, I don't think it is a US webmasters job to force people outside of the US to comply with US law.

...

I am not sure where this is going, but I cannot say I am a fan of forcing anyone to put 2257 notices on every page.

Ok, I found the links to the Shemp post and he's bascially saying that his script is set so it won't bounce people if they add or make changes. Which is very cool.

My question is: are there actually any LL or TGP owners that ARE forcing submitters to have that link up? Because I agree with Alex 100%.

[Greenguy]

Originally posted by Dravyk
Because I agree with Alex 100%.

Same here.

[Sarah_Jayne]

Originally posted by lassiter
But remember, not all content is subject to 2257 recordkeeping requirements. Only "actually sexually-explicit conduct" is covered. Section 2257 itself states:

As used in this section -

(1)

the term ''actual sexually explicit conduct'' means actual but not simulated conduct as defined in subparagraphs (A) through (D) of paragraph (2) of section 2256 of this title;

and the relevant part of Sec. 2256 reads as follows:

(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 material under (E) above is specifically exempt from 2257 requirements, as is "simulated" sexual activity. The basic rules to avoid 2257 compliance requirements is: no bondage or BDSM, no penetration (of anything by anything - including dildos), and no cumshots. If anything seems borderline, don't use it (or else have all your 2257 data for it). But really, a fair amount of material is simply not subject to the rule.

I'm going to be taking down a bunch of mainly hard BDSM freesites and changing out a lot of explicit banners over the next couple of weeks, but most of my softcore and amateur sites are staying up with a legal disclaimer (drafted by my attorneys) stating that the content is exempt from 2257 regs.

And I agree that since mere text-linking to another person's domain does not subject the linker to 2257 regulations, that it's ridiculous for LLs to become government enforcers of another person's compliance. I would like to see one LL owner offer the legal justification under the language of 2257 for doing this.

I don't want to be the one that thought something wasn't masterbation but the court disagreed. If I am going to start these records I am going to do it for everything and as I have 1000's of pages out there from the past 5 years before this rule I guess most of us will have things we are going to fall under A through D. Heck, I mostly do foot fetish these days but I am still going to to log those pics.


I guess, I don't think it is a link lists job BUT I want to know if I am going to get banned for covering my own ass and adding the info to old sites.

[Rictor]

Originally posted by plateman
RawAlex I dont really know how legal a 2257 link to your content info will do - but it looks good, like a honest webmaster is trying to follow the legal rules..


Tiny thats what I been wondering, you see so many different 2257 pages out there whats right and wrong, and if I dont have to put my personal contact info on there I would rather not..

Might not be a bad idea to get a PO box and a biz name..

And I think Its bad enough that my who is info is avialible for everyone to see.. And if the new 2257 stuff gets argued or pases its going to get real deep IMHO..

Legally, you cannot use a post office box. You must use the address of your office or your home if you work out of your home. The address for 2257 is supposed to be the address where the documents actually reside and can be inspected at a moment's notice.

[lassiter]

Originally posted by Rictor
Legally, you cannot use a post office box. You must use the address of your office or your home if you work out of your home. The address for 2257 is supposed to be the address where the documents actually reside and can be inspected at a moment's notice.

This is correct. Further, someone must be present at that location at all times between 8am and 6pm seven days a week, or you can and will be busted if the DoJ guys knock on your door and no one is home. That's why I'm just trying to reorganize to deal only with "non-explicit" content and to avoid 2257 issues completely.

[RawAlex]

Lassiter, actually, "business hours" are pretty much a weekday non-holiday. There is no way they can ask for a business to be open at all times.

As for the A-D excepting E, please note that the term "masturbation" is VERY open to interpretation... squeezing of a breast, hand near the genitals, girl holding a dildo in the air, etc could all be considered as part of a masturbation act. I would not stand my business on this very thin difference.

My link sites will not have any 2257 requiredments at all. That is YOUR business as a site owner and operator to decide for yourself. I think Shemp's heart may be in the right place, but I am not entirely sure why he is going down this route (and I hope he stops by to enlighten me on this one!)

Alex

[Jim]

I wonder what Search Engines are going to do. Oh no...are they going to take away their image search feature? Are they only going to put up links to sites with the proper documentation? Probably not...they are probably going to do the same thing that I am going to do...NOTHING.

[lassiter]

Originally posted by RawAlex
Lassiter, actually, "business hours" are pretty much a weekday non-holiday. There is no way they can ask for a business to be open at all times.

But they are. The old language reads:

Any person to whom subsection (a) applies shall maintain the records required by this section at his business premises, or at such other place as the Attorney General may by regulation prescribe and shall make such records available to the Attorney General for inspection at all reasonable times.

The new language now says:

(b) Advance notice of inspections. Advance notice of record
inspections shall not be given.
(c) Conduct of inspections.
(1) Inspections shall take place during normal business hours and
at such places as specified in Sec. 75.4. For the purpose of this
part, ``normal business hours'' are from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m., local time,
and any other time during which the producer is actually conducting
business relating to producing depiction of actual sexually explicit
conduct.For the purpose of this
part, ``normal business hours'' are from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m., local time,
and any other time during which the producer is actually conducting
business relating to producing depiction of actual sexually explicit
conduct.

I was advised that failure to specifically state "Monday-Friday" meant they probably fully intend to do weekend inspections.

As for the rest, believe me, I fully support your caution. All any of us can do is pay for some good legal advice and try to follow it as best we can. Some of us are gonna gamble that softcore is exempt since it appears to be. Some are gonna gamble that leaving for a webmaster conference (or a pizza) will not happen at the exact time that the DoJ comes calling. Some are gonna gamble that the records they get from the primary producer are in fact legit and not bogus.

I suspect the majority are gonna gamble that it's all irrelevant and keep on doing exactly what they were doing before - and that is certainly the worst thing anyone can do, IMO.

[Sarah_Jayne]

I still don't think the question was if link lists were going to require people to have 2257 info but rather if they will allow webmasters a grace period to add the info. While LL's might not feel they need to comply a lot of people whose sites you are linking to are going to need to comply. Now, I will take a ban over jail but I would rather neither...especially over sites that might be years old.

[the New Shemp]

Originally posted by RawAlex
I think Shemp's heart may be in the right place, but I am not entirely sure why he is going down this route (and I hope he stops by to enlighten me on this one!)

Alex

there is no requirement..where did i ever say it was required by me?

it is an offer to let webmasters with galleries in my archives, to add or edit 2257 info.

some webmasters want to do it and have asked me, but they are afraid to, because they would be blacklisted for changing a submitted gallery.

so im letting them go ahead and make whatever changes they want. these are unusual circumstances and im happy to help my valued gallery submitters...