FBI does 2257 check

[BradleyFL]

Anyone read the top story on AVNOnline?

http://avnonline.com/index.php?Prima...tent_ID=272407

[Lee]

Cool stuff, cant wait to see who gets shut down first now

I must imagine being confronted by the Feds at your door must be a really scary thing initially.

Regards,

Lee

[basschick]

"initially"?

Cool stuff, cant wait to see who gets shut down first now

I must imagine being confronted by the Feds at your door must be a really scary thing initially.

Regards,

Lee

[marcjacob]

Does any of this 2257 crap apply to me as im outside the usa? i do try to obey all usa laws that apply to the biz but im wondering if some legal advise is due.

[chadknowslaw]

Does any of this 2257 crap apply to me as im outside the usa? i do try to obey all usa laws that apply to the biz but im wondering if some legal advise is due.

The position of the DOJ is that 2257 applies to you if you do business in the United States. However, the DOJ does not have authority to go into your place of business outside the United States to inspect your records. If you are accused of a crime, such as distributing child pornography, then using proper channels and the authority of treaties the local authorities could go to your place of business and search. This does first require some articulable suspicion and evidence of a crime -- just wanting to check your records for compliance is not significant enough for you to be subject to a search. So, yes, in my opinion 2257 does apply to you but without some evidence of a crime being committed US authorities cannot come to your business outside the US or its territories just to inspect your records.

If you recall one of the executives of an online sports betting company [a company big enough that its shares are publicly traded in London] was just arrested in the United States, even though the company's only real connection to the US was accepting bets from US citizens. Being offshore does not completely insulate anyone from the reach of US law.

[marcjacob]

that clears things up, thanks. i think legal advice might be a good idea anyway. just to make sure everything i do is legal in the uk.

i still think all this 2257 stuff is a waste of time. ive allways argued that legit companies will follow it and cp producers will remain covert. i dont think this stops a single act of abuse, its just more red tape for legit producers


:3ymca: <-- president bush the wolly

[basschick]

the article has updated, btw. more info there than originally.

[Xstr8guy]

Just so I understand... this is an inspection of an adult video producer (primary producer) not an adult website? Hasn't record keeping been a normal part of their procedures for quite a few years already? If so, then why is this such a shock?

[basschick]

it's a shock because

1. they have never done a known inspection till now.

2. many producers aren't that well organized. everyone was so sure this would never happen.

3. there is no reason now to believe that secondary producers will not also be inspected. most people felt that NOTHING would happen during the TRO, and keep in mind that only people who were FSC members when the TRO first happened are covered by it.

Just so I understand... this is an inspection of an adult video producer (primary producer) not an adult website? Hasn't record keeping been a normal part of their procedures for quite a few years already? If so, then why is this such a shock?

[Xstr8guy]

it's a shock because

1. they have never done a known inspection till now.

2. many producers aren't that well organized. everyone was so sure this would never happen.

3. there is no reason now to believe that secondary producers will not also be inspected. most people felt that NOTHING would happen during the TRO, and keep in mind that only people who were FSC members when the TRO first happened are covered by it.

That's it! Starting tomorrow, all of my stuff is moving offshore!

[Ben]

I am from Europe too, but my sites are hosted on US servers.

I don't quite understand why so many people think that moving your sites to an European-based hosting would make much difference, unless you also make sure that you absolutely don't use any of the US sponsors/processors.

If you are still using US processors (e.g. Epoch or CCbill) or AVS/AVN systems (such as UGAS), then switching to offshore hosting doesn't make your business totally independent of USA.

How exactly will the physical location of one's hosting be evaluted by the US Law?

[gaybucks_chip]

How exactly will the physical location of one's hosting be evaluted by the US Law?

That's the million dollar question, and no one knows for sure. However, it's safe to say that if you move your servers offshore but keep your operations (i.e., your body, where you live, etc) in the US, you're subject to US laws regardless of where your server lives.

I think -- and I'm no lawyer -- that if you legitimately permanently reside outside the US, have your banking and operations outside the US, you will probably be at least lower on the target list... and, as Chad points out, while they can argue that you're doing business with US customers and therefore subject to 2257, there is no procedure to enforce a search of your documents. Likewise, extradition is unlikely, though with the recent shit with the gambling industry, who knows?

Also, I don't think that doing business with CCBill or Epoch (particularly if it's CCBill EU or Paycom EU) by itself would trigger an issue.

Of course... all of the above is slightly educated conjecture. Your mileage may vary.

[Chilihost]

I don't quite understand why so many people think that moving your sites to an European-based hosting would make much difference, unless you also make sure that you absolutely don't use any of the US sponsors/processors.

If the DOJ walked into a large USA data center and demanded that one server be turned off for non-compliance, even though the person running the site is offshore, do you think the datacenter would say "no" and risk its other 20,000 servers? On the other hand, the DOJ cannot walk into an offshore data center as they have no authority.

We do not know if the DOJ will deem the actual server to be the primary business location since that is where business is technically being done....so why risk it?

cheers,
Luke

[Ben]

If the DOJ walked into a large USA data center and demanded that one server be turned off for non-compliance, even though the person running the site is offshore, do you think the datacenter would say "no" and risk its other 20,000 servers?

Luke, I understand what you mean, and I agree it's much less likely that DOJ will order shutting down of an offshore datacenter, although it's far from impossible! (see below)

I could live with my sites being down for several days or weeks while I find some European or Canadian hosting, upload sites, wait for DNS to propagate etc. It would somewhat hurt my income but that's no biggie.

However, if I am requested to give them cross-references of all the pics on every damned site I own, I will have to say: "sorry, I haven't done all that cross-referencing stuff. I can show you all the models' releases though". If, as a result of this, my name is put on the DOJ's list of persons who didn't comply with everything that 2257 explicitly demands, then it's much worse than my sites being offline for a week or two. In that case I could even be arrested in 10-20 years time, long after this law has become obsolete, if I come as a tourist to USA.

On the other hand, the DOJ cannot walk into an offshore data center as they have no authority.

You are wrong here. Last year, when a pirated copy of the movie Revenge of the Sith appeared on the Bittorent network, one Dutch bittorent site (complete with Dutch IP and servers located in the Netherlands) was closed by US DOJ. I can dig up the screencaps if you're interested.

But, yes, I can agree that for a small or medium-sized porn site it's probably safer to host offshore.


Here are 4 potential cases (I think they are typical):

Person A:

Lives and works in USA as an adult webmaster. He has all the models' releases AND has had them cross-referenced for all his sites as per DOJ's instructions. He uses American AVS/AEN processors (e.g. UGAS) and lots of American sponsors who utilize both American and European credit card processors. His sites are hosted on US servers.


Person B:

Everything the same as person A, except that his sites are hosted offshore.


Person C:

Lives and works in an European country or Canada or Australia (or whatever but not USA). He uses mostly American processors and AVS systems. Has all of the models' releases but did not cross-reference all the pics for every site as per DOJ's instructions. In all probability he may have never heard of the new US law. His sites are hosted on US servers.

Person D:

Same as person C, but switched hosting to some European country.



Now let's see what can be concluded logically on the basis of what we know:


Is person B in a better position than person A? Apart from being somewhat more secure that his sites won't be taken down so easily, if DOJ comes knocking on his door, person B must abide by all the rules just as person A. If he lacks only one model's release or didn't properly cross-reference one picture, he would be breaking the law. The fact that his sites are hosted offshore won't help him one bit. And if DOJ proclaims that Person B's sites are breaking the law in some way, I don't think that his sites staying online will be much of a concern to him then.


Is person D in a better position than person C if the DOJ sends him an email requiring information about his sites? I think not. Strictly speaking, both person C and person D would be breaking the US law. Since person D hasn't cross-referenced all the pics, he would be breaking the US law despite the fact that he does have all the models' releases. In addition, the DOJ may tell person D that, even though his sites are hosted outside the US territory, he is still using billing processors physically located in USA (e.g. UGAS or any of the myriad of sponsors in the US we all use) and thus is technically doing business with the citizens from USA. And he's most definitely targeting gay US citizens which is definitely not a mitigating circumstance


I am NOT a lawyer. This is all conjecture and speculation. However, I do think these scenarios could be envisioned as possible if DOJ starts targeting even small webmasters all around the world.

[DEVELISH]

You are wrong here. Last year, when a pirated copy of the movie Revenge of the Sith appeared on the Bittorent network, one Dutch bittorent site (complete with Dutch IP and servers located in the Netherlands) was closed by US DOJ. I can dig up the screencaps if you're interested.

This is because some freak in office being conroled by a more freaky leage of people signs wicked laws enabling the US-Spy-Corps to break constitutional laws not only in the USofA but also constitutional laws and regular laws in other countries all in the name of "War on Terrorism".

I am very looking forward for being criminalized upon entering the "Country of the Free" and having my picture and fingerprints taken by Immigration.



DEVELISH