2257 thoughts

[Matt 26z]

Another idea is that not every part of the new regs will be enforced.

As long as you can prove to them that a model is 18+ or point them directly to the specific individual who can, everything may be fine.

I just don't see how they can send you to jail for not keeping records exactly how THEY want. As long as the end result is the same, then who cares?

[basschick]

Matt 26z - nope. sorry, but even if you have the i.d.s, you can do 5 years of jailtime. don't hope for the best, 'cause it ain't gonna happen. even if you have only 90 year old models on your sites, they can bust you if you don't have custodial info.

years ago, there was a strip bar in hawthorne. one day, the police did an i.d. inspection of everyone in the club - you are not allowed to let someone in if they don't have their i.d. anyway, this 54 year old man had no i.d. with him - he had left it in the car - and they busted everyone in the club and closed it down.

sexuality and rationality don't seem to go together with our i.d. laws. shit, a few years ago, mike jones (l&m content) was raided. even though he had i.d. for ALL the models, the police brought in a pediatrician to try and claim the models were underage. they weren't, but he's lost everything and he's still in court over 3 years later.

[basschick]

you know what's really worrying me?

the number of webmasters and even content producers that have asked in the last two weeks whether 2257 allows for vacation or sick time regarding that 8am - 6pm monday through friday. 'cause it doesn't - some of the stuff in 2257 isn't new, and has been tested in court. yet people in our industry don't know about them.

i've talked to sponsors in the u.s. with exclusive content who have the i.d. somewhere, but half the time there is no one at that address. and THAT behavior is all that was protecting us secondary webmasters from jail!!!

i don't think these new regs will be effective in stopping cp, but it sure did show how many people who are supposed to be protecting us and themselves legally never bothered to even read the laws.

[Xstr8guy]

Isn't this going to give foreign webmasters/affiliate programs a huge advantage over US webmasters? This is just another fine example of this administration sending jobs overseas.

[basschick]

it certainly could! on the other hand, lots of u.s. webmasters DO have offices and facilities to store i.d.

as far as this money going elsewhere, considering that at this current moment in time, our administration is involved in the "war against porn", i doubt anyone much will care. our administration is involved in a war against our own people who are involved in a legal activity - and a lot of people are for this.

i guess the only freedoms most people are for is their own. their neighbors don't rate the same freedoms :-(

[Chilihost]

Xstr8guy et al (my lawyer talk is coming out), there is a clause in the new regs that could actually stop foreign content from ever being 2257 complaint:

Picture identification card means a document issued by the United States, a State government or a political subdivision thereof, or a United States territory that bears the photograph and the name of the individual identified, and provides sufficient specific information that it can be accessed from the issuing authority, e.g., a passport issued by the United States or a foreign country, driver’s license issued by a State or the District of Columbia, or identification card issued by a State or the District of Columbia.

So unless its a passport that can be verified by the US, you are SOL!

Now, that being said, what I can see happening is that any serious US-based webmaster will move his "primary business location" offshore, which will make them out of reach of US authorities. Note that this does NOT mean moving your webhosting offshore, since webhosting is specifically excluded within the regulations.

cheers,
Luke

[gaystoryman]

Just to play devils advocate for a bit here.

Say a US citizen moves his web business to an offshore area. One, he is still a US citizen and unless he hides his ownership totally in an untraceable fashion the feds would know who owns it... and so still be held accountable... wouldn't he/she?

Second if the host is in the USA the feds could simply order the business closed for 2257 violation because they can't find the records even if the company is listed as offshore...

Then there is the whole tax issue, i mean if you put your biz outside usa territory there are a whole new bunch of IRS rules to meet, and like mentioned I think elsewhere, it was the IRS that nailed Capone not the law.. and also if memory is right (which I ain't making book on) but isn't 2257 actually under the RICOH statute? so like do you really want to mess with the IRS too?

like i said, just playing devils advocate here.

Ian

[Chilihost]

Ian, here is my thoughts on your questions:

1) moving offshore means that when the feds go scanning your sites and see the address registered to your domain plus see the address for your 2257 record locations, they will see an offshore location where they have no authority to verify or prosecute you. You have to shift your content assets and their income revenue to your offshore company.

2) The proposed regs state:
"Producer does not include....A provider of Web-hosting services who does not manage the content of the computer site or service"
The location of your web host is irrelevant, it only matters where you as a "secondary content producer" conduct the majority of your business activities.

3) Taxes depends on how you set up your bookkeeping. Offshore companies are a legitimate tax expense, I am not in any way suggesting that you use an offshore to avoid taxes! But remember, how your offshore company earns income is completely different from how you earn your income from that company. Speak to an accountant about this! Find an accountant with experience in this area. The good news is that this is an established process, unlike trying to get lawyers to figure out the proposed 2257 regs, a lot of which will depend on the rulings that get passed after the regs are in place and after they have gone through the court process.

cheers,
Luke

[basschick]

i'd talk to more than one attorney before attempting this offshore dodge. your primary place of business is not a place you go twice a month for tax reasons.

primary is defined by dictionary.com as
First or highest in rank, quality, or importance; principal.

that's about the way i understand the word primary, too. so while you work 40 hours a week in your house but claiming your primary place is in barbados, you could be explaining to the judge how you live here 30 days a month but another country is your primary place of business.

[gaystoryman]

I agree with basschick on that Luke. ALso I think that the feds are a wee bit more sophisticated than that. Yes they'll come to the site, see its in some offshore location but that doesn't mean they won't do a rudimentary search of the company...

As to the ISP, what I was trying to say was that while the company may be shown as being offshore, how many hosts would deny a request by the feds to suspend that account when push came to shove?

Just bit off topic here, I think that this board shows it class in how this thread and the one or two other threads about 2257 are progressing. I have been at other boards where someone who posts something not liked is so blatantly attacked and condemned that the thread degenerates into nothing but name calling. The folks here clearly are class acts in every respect and it is a pleasure to engage in these debates here where the issue is discussed not the personality.

[Chilihost]

Ian, I totally agree, I have been researching a whackload of boards for 2257 info and there are so many stupid posts its nice to have a discussion with people who are serious about this stuff.

Basschick, I think you are getting me wrong - this is not an offshore dodge. I am an Australian citizen and am just trying to figure this out from my point of view. My US-based activities include webhosting, dealing with US-based affiliate programs and my own (non-US) affiliate program that has US affiliates. This is why I was researching these topics in specific and came up with the idea of non-sexual banners. I am not telling people to try to set up an offshore to dodge this.

Ian, about your points, I think that since there are so many porn websites out there that the preliminary checks will be to verify domain name address info. Having an offshore address will get you past this first check. I think this is very important because these rules will not get fully defined until someone goes through the courts and precedence is set. I don't want to be in that first batch of people getting taken to court!

Second off, I believe you are incorrect in thinking that offshore companies will disclose info to the US government. Countries are offshore havens for the specific reason that their local laws put privacy above all else, they are known for not cooperating on information requests. These offshore companies are set up in a manner that does not have the true owner's information as public record, and private records are guaranteed private.

Now, all this being said, I am approaching this from a view that I will comply with the new 2257 regs, however, being in Australia, I am confident that US regulators will not visit to inspect my documents since they have no authority to do so plus they have no authority to take recourse.


cheers,
Luke

[Chilihost]

Ian, I just noticed that your location is set to Western Canada, so you and I are kinda in the same boat!

cheers,
Luke

[Lee]

Originally posted by Chilihost
Countries are offshore havens for the specific reason that their local laws put privacy above all else, they are known for not cooperating on information requests

Luke not sure you are 100% on this one babe.

From what i recall a couple of years ago some kind of 'treaty' (for want of a better word) was put into effect whereby many locales offshore agreed to disclose any information that certain governments may need from them.

In fact i beleive one of the major countries for offshore banking facilities, Switzerland, was one of the first to agree to this.

I could be wrong but i distinctly remember having a lengthy argument with someone on another board about this 2 or so years ago where it turned out i was right in my views

Of course this could have changed since then.

Regards,

Lee

[AusCoding Allan]

Wow, so much happens when you are away for a couple of days.

I believe at this stage that as an Australian Webmaster the US laws will not apply - however I will still comply and have the required documents on file.

I do find interesting the point that the feds can just "drop-in" to check your records - I think this would be rather difficult in the case of Luke, myself and other non-US webmasters as they have to fly to wherever they want to go and then gain access to premises where they have no jurisdiction - hmmm interesting.

From what i recall a couple of years ago some kind of 'treaty' (for want of a better word) was put into effect whereby many locales offshore agreed to disclose any information that certain governments may need from them.

From what I remember there was talk recently of Australia negotiating treaties with Switzerland and some other countries to improve disclosure of information in order to prevent tax fraud - not sure where they are at now though.

I will be interested to see the outcomes of the latest lot of law changing and how this will affect other non-US webmasters.

Cheers,

Allan

[basschick]

ozmalegalleries - i don't think u.s. law enforcement will have to fly anywhere. they could simply contact your law enforcement and ask them to go to your location and check the i.d.s. if they have a really young model and express concern that she is underage, i think many governments may feel a quick i.d. check is in line.