New 2257 Regulations As Published A Few Minutes Ago..

[basschick]

wow, this document listed my comment - and commented on it. how weird!

[Lee]

The way i see some of these new regulations is that this isnt going to have as much of an impact on 'affiliates' as we were first led to beleive.

At least not from a 'send traffic to a sponsor' point of view.

I think the one thing that is good is that for most of the records all that is needed so far as 'url' goes is the home page of the site, therefore, reasonably, you could just host all of your content on one domain and link directly to that instead of putting a miriad of sets across multiple domain names and having to list each individual url seperately.

The catalogue and cross reference is a bit weird sounding to me also, you need a models maiden name, performance name and any other name used by the model, so in essence, if a model is called 'Geoff' when you purchase the set, he has to be named 'Geoff' on your site.

So far as the 'normal business hours' thing goes, thats going to be interesting, i wonder if the feds will be checking documentation at 3am in the morning LOL

Another interesting point though, the past laws were exempt for content produced before 1990, these laws seem to exempt content produced prior to '95, i think we're going to see a lot more 'movie' sites hitting the net now, especially ones using the movies inside paysite feeds that have been around since the dawning of porn.

Some big changes have definately been made here, will be interesting to see how the FSC injunction goes now that these regulations have been published.

Regards,

Lee

[rick]

"Two commenters commented that the definition of producer in the
proposed rule was too broad and would encompass a convenience store
that sold sexually explicit magazines or a movie theater that screened
R-rated movies. The Department declines to adopt this comment. As the
rule makes clear, mere distributors of sexually explicit material are
excluded from the definition of producers and under no plausible
construction of the definition would a movie theater be covered merely
by screening films produced by others."

Someone could have a field day interpreting this .........

[James_Hotmovies]

Thanks Lee.

I think this paragraph makes quite a few people sigh with relief:

(b) If the primary producer and the secondary producer are
different entities, the primary producer may certify to the secondary
producer that the visual depictions in the matter satisfy the standards
under paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3) of this section. The secondary
producer may then cause to be affixed to every copy of the matter a
statement attesting that the matter is not covered by the record-
keeping requirements of 18 U.S.C. 2257(a)-(c) and of this part.

[Lee]

"Two commenters commented that the definition of producer in the
proposed rule was too broad and would encompass a convenience store
that sold sexually explicit magazines or a movie theater that screened
R-rated movies. The Department declines to adopt this comment. As the
rule makes clear, mere distributors of sexually explicit material are
excluded from the definition of producers and under no plausible
construction of the definition would a movie theater be covered merely
by screening films produced by others."

Someone could have a field day interpreting this .........

Indeed they could.

Afterall, we distribute porn over the interweb.

By their definition, we are actually distributors and our sponsors are the ultimate producers of the porn.

This is going to be a hot topic for many months to come i feel.

Regards,

Lee

[basschick]

i could easily be wrong, but i believe that only applies to content that is exempt - which would mostly be pre-1995 content.

Thanks Lee.

I think this paragraph makes quite a few people sigh with relief:

(b) If the primary producer and the secondary producer are
different entities, the primary producer may certify to the secondary
producer that the visual depictions in the matter satisfy the standards
under paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3) of this section. The secondary
producer may then cause to be affixed to every copy of the matter a
statement attesting that the matter is not covered by the record-
keeping requirements of 18 U.S.C. 2257(a)-(c) and of this part.

[Bec]

So far as the 'normal business hours' thing goes, thats going to be interesting, i wonder if the feds will be checking documentation at 3am in the morning LOL ... Lee


Yea really, was thinking that very same thing! So does anyone have a clue if this applies to stuff that's already on the web? Like all these thousands of galleries etc that aren't carrying 2257 links ... sites that weren't considered a point of entry when created?

[basschick]

bec, they changed normal business hours. now it can be YOUR normal business hours, which must be posted - and no less than 20 hours per week.

[Bec]

bec, they changed normal business hours. now it can be YOUR normal business hours, which must be posted - and no less than 20 hours per week.

Yea, I got that part - 3 am IS my normal biz hours LOL

[collegeboyslive]

Ugh, I just woke up so my brain isnt fully awake yet.

but what does this mean for sites that purchase live video feeds from a provider?

for example if i purcvhse a live and raw video feed, will I need copies of ID for every perosn who appears on there? or is a link to the live and raw custodion of records keeper suficent?

[Paul Markham]

I think it means if you are submitting an FHG you have nothing to worry about. But if you are getting content and using them in your own design then you need to have the documents.

But is was funny that they thought having two IDs was not needed. This whole law came about because Traci Lords made it into porn movies, under her own steam and no pressure applied, with one forged ID.

No concerns about people working from home or models and getting stalked or worse. They clearly do not have a clue about the way content is distributed.

[collegeboyslive]

LOL i dont think they have the models safety in mind with this law. In fact , as usuall they feel that if you are in this business then screw you.

[basschick]

it would be nice to think they have no clue, but honestly they probably do. it's another way to disuade a bunch of people from working in porn without making a law saying "no porn" which would be overturned.

No concerns about people working from home or models and getting stalked or worse. They clearly do not have a clue about the way content is distributed.

[Imasluvr]

I just ftp'd into my site and deleted it. I also closed my account with my hosting company and closed my account with 3rd party billing! :wacko:

I just will not risk myself for this. These new laws are meant to close us down, and that is what they have done to me. I am just too scared of the new system, which makes it a criminal offence to link to sites or have streaming media from other sites.

I was a small biz and can not afford to hire lawyers to 'fix' my site, so that's the end of a 5 year biz...

[basschick]

actually the new regs - and the old ones - did not make you responsible for content that isn't on your own sites.

it's too bad you deleted everything so quickly - the law doesn't go into effect for a month.