2257 thoughts

I have been spending the afternoon trying to figure out this 2257 stuff and I think I have it sussed.

According to http://www.xxxlaw.net on the 2257 table:
"Producer does not include....A provider of Web-hosting services who does not manage the content of the computer site or service"

So having your servers physically in the USA is irrelevant, and as a webhost I do not have to worry about 2257 regs, even though I host porn sites (I believe everyone is in agreement that this is the correct interpretation, according to what I read today).

Therefore, its only where the primary and secondary producers of content live that matters. And anyone whose "presence" is outside the USA does not need to worry about these 2257 changes. Since I am not in the USA and my billing is not in the USA, then I (as a porn pusher and paysite owner) don't have to worry about being 2257 compliant.

Is this last paragraph correct?

thanks,
Luke

Legally, Yes.

Your US based sponsors might have a different view though ;)

Regards,

Lee

Lee, glad someone else is still online...but why do I care if I am my own sponsor?

btw, I am planning on complying I just want to know!

cheers,
Luke

The thing is, for foreign webmasters owning paysites outside the US 90% of adult webmasters would have to comply with this law therefore if you didnt, which you say you are going to, hypothetically you would have a very hard job finding affiliate webmasters.

Regards,

Lee

luke, if you have a sponsor program - and you do - and you supply any kind of promotional content including banners, your affiliates need the 2257 info for every photograph or they are breaking the law.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by basschick
luke, if you have a sponsor program - and you do - and you supply any kind of promotional content including banners, your affiliates need the 2257 info for every photograph or they are breaking the law.

---

But only if they are based in America - The affiliates that is.

Regards,

Lee

basschick, bloody good point! what is the rules in regards to the banner content? Is 2257 applicable if the banner does not display the important bits? For instance, just a face shot with some text on it? Maybe the solution is to offer US and non-US banners, where the US banners would be non-nude.


thanks,
Luke

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Chilihost
For instance, just a face shot with some text on it?

---

Unless the face shot was of a fully clothed person you are still going to require 2257 documents for that image and you are also going to require a model release for the image as you would under the way the law is currently.

This proposed new law for the 2257 stuff is basically a way for the US government to make it easier for them to track those producers using content of underage individuals and ultimately, selling that content to others.

This whole new proposed law is in effect making child protection online a lot easier and, it will be passed into effect because of that alone.

ANY changes that get made though ultimately, are going to be great for the industry overall as the serious webmasters will rise to the top of the heap whilst the 'hobbyists' will continue to flaunt the laws and hopefully, be made to stop through the legal system.

My outlook on the whole situation is pretty much the same as it was before, treat this like a business and do everything how you are supposed to and you'll not have any problems. Whilst this makes our jobs slightly harder, it also gives us MORE control in the long run.

Regards,

Lee

Hmmm, more than likely I gonna get into trouble for this, but I gotta disagree here.

2257 is not going to make protecting children online easier or even really make a dent in that slimy part of life.

Let's be realistic, people who produce the legal stuff already do quite a lot to insure that the models are of legal age. Even the more casual producer is fully aware of that, so adding to their regulation isn't really going to effect those who deal in child porn.

Let's not forget as well that many of these child porn sites are networks of such minded people and they know the instant they geta young child to pose they are breaking the law, so uh, do they really care about 2257? I mean it isn't like they do now, so how will adding to 2257 have any real effect on rooting them out and eliminating it from online?

To force the average webmaster to maintain the same records is ludicrous and counter productive. It is the producer of such filth that you want, because you nail them you eliminate a source... to force all webmasters who even have a banner from say topbucks to have 2257 info on file is simply like asking every 7-11 store to have photo copies of every person who buys cigarettes on file. It should be enough that the store saw the ID and it should be enough that the webmaster sees that the sponsor has it...

For me, 2257 is like posting a speed limit and expecting the crook who just robbed the liquor store to follow that speed limit while the cops are chasing him. It just ain't gonna happen and it sure as heck isn't going to stop high speed pursuits or robberies. 2257 will not make it any easier to track the clearing houses that sell that shit, or the producers because if it would, it would already have been done.

Also to eliminate the hobbyist or part time webmaster. Yep this will do that, it will stifle entrepenurial enterprise which is also what created things like the internet.

It will force independents out, those who want to provide quality versus quantity and make it damn hard to make the big boys accountable or approachable.

In reading the thread 'how did you get your start' I don't see anyone claiming they launched their enterprises with a big bankroll, but instead did it the way most did, with a computer, camera perhaps, and an idea. Just think about that, because if they were not here now, but wanted to start under these new rules, could they? would they? and if the answer is no, then look back and see what would be missed online... so are these rules good for the industry?

Not in my opinion because they force the small independent out, force a corporate view onto the industry rather than a uniqueness that has made the adult porn industry.

The rules that are out there now, are sufficient to ensure that ordinary producers keep to the legal limits. If you want to go after the cp folks, do it right, make it easier to report such instances, force the large ISP's to monitor and report the violators, get a universal consensus to crack down on it and not try to bully the world into following Uncle Sams own viewpoints.

IF MS can include IE in its software, then make them include safe surf programs as well, make AOL monitor the chat rooms 24/7 so the real filth is washed out of the internet, but don't force the honest small business person out under the phony guise of protecting children.

Sorry, but it is a subject that really touches a few hot spots.

Hope I didn't offend anyone, besides it is only my opinion.

gaystoryman - i agree. if they wanted to be sure of our content, they could have us register it or they could have every adult site have a special folder for government access only (provided by our hosts) with all this i.d.

this seems like either an election move or - once again - another law made for the internet by people who know nothing about business on the internet.

and why can't they call or email us 24 hours notice or something to see i.d.s? after all, we either have them or we don't. there is no reason for this "drop in" policy that i can see.

so, basically every webmaster has to have a copy of id & model release on file, in their office, as well as the actual producer... right?

so now every webmaster has to list their home address on their galleries, free sites, avs sites, tgps, link sites, & so on.... ??? or is everyone going to rent an office with the millions they are making?

that is fucking stupid. there is no other word for it.

this has nothing to do with children. it has to do with the government wanting to squeeze online porn so they get re elected again.

what about feeds? how the fuck can i maintain paper files for every model on every live cam site on the internet.

Lee, to follow up on your point, the proposed legislation says:

Quote:

---

Any producer of any book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, computer-generated image, digital image, picture, or other matter that contains one or more visual depictions of actual sexually explicit conduct made after November 1, 1990, shall, for each performer portrayed in such visual depiction, create and maintain records containing the following...

---

As per xxxlaw.com:

Quote:

---

It imposes no obligations on producers of material that does not include actually sexually explicit conduct. Thus, there is no obligation under this provision regarding graphical representations of mere erotic nudity or of simulated sex

---

.

I read this as a face shot or a non nude would not be considered sexually explicit content.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Dawgy
so, basically every webmaster has to have a copy of id & model release on file, in their office, as well as the actual producer... right?

---

That is correct! The big difference between the old and new 2257 regs is the addition of "secondary content producer" which extends the regulations to cover anyone who runs websites with sexually explicit content, not just the content producers anymore.

As for live feeds, there is a special exemption for this, but the wording of the exemption is not clear so really no one knows until this gets taken to court and it is cleared up.

Oh, and believe me, I agree with you & I can rant on and on about this too...

cheers,
Luke

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Chilihost
I read this as a face shot or a non nude would not be considered sexually explicit content.

---

However it is still somewhat ambiguous as to what does and doesnt get classified as 'pornographic'.

So far as model release stuff, that is part of a completely seperate law which remains unafected. if you take pictures of a person, they need to sign a model release $0.02

Regards,

Lee