but I cant give away all my secrets I mean Im like I dunno the ASS MASTER IF YOU WILL.. IF THERE WAS A STUDY of it I would ace every test LOL. I guess I would consider the new content Im going to be putting out totally fresh and I have really seen nothing like it.. So Im really excited and I cannot go over everything right now.. But If you have sometime later basschick I would love to talk to you about the ideas and the stuff Im doing currently :)
hmmm... i'd like to hear someone else's take on this. my marketing tends more toward a specific niche, like rimming, rather then a general niche where multiple things are involved like rimming, ass fingering, toys and more anal activities.
you could ask a few owners of larger link lists, like gaydemon, how many requests they get for terms in the niches you're working on. but no matter what you learn about traffic for those specific terms, you'd really need to know about traffic for those terms that is sent to a site that has other activities besides the terms. for example, will rimming traffic convert on a tour that includes lots of dildos and ass closeups? no way to tell without testing the traffic. some things go together really well, some that seem related don't sell when they're together on the same site.
hmmm.. well I guess I will just try and see.. I really just wanted to create this because Im very passionate about it you know what I mean.. If it fails that is fine but I have a really clear vision of my project and I think it will be really hot and new and different and if it doesnt take I can always remix it and re edit everything to make it look and seem different you know what I mean :)
if you're that passionate, go for it. that can make a difference, and so does having a clear vision of your project. i love hearing that people have passion and a vision :)
as opposed to a tgp, i'd consider a blog, a series of free sites and some galleries to get some traffic going... and you're very right about remixing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MistahTaylor
Sorry if this question seems naive, I'm new to this. Do the 2257 record keeping requirements also apply to the producers of text description tgps? For example, a site like Cloland.com. Since the actual visual content is on another server would the tgp be in anyway responsible in including 2257 info for that hosted gallery on their pages? Thanks for any feedback/suggestions in advance.
That's uncharted waters, but the general rule of thumb most of the first amendment attorneys have been following is this: If the URL at the top of the browser window is a domain that belongs to you, then you need to be compliant (i.e., have records on hand.)
If you're linking to someone else's hosted galleries, and their URL is at the top, then you (according to this line of reasoning) shouldn't have to worry about 2257. If you're embedding video on your own page, even if that video is actually hosted elsewhere, you probably should have docs on file, according to common thought on the subject.
Hope that helps.
I find this thread kind of confusing.
Let's say I sign up as an affiliate with a gay porn site, get some promo pics of nude models doing all sorts of sexual things, maybe some videos, and post them on my site (TGP or blog) in an effort to promote the sponsor.
If I'm hearing some of you correctly, in order to be compliant with 2257 I have to ask each sponsor to send me copies of all their records on the models I promote in case the FBI pays me a visit.
I'm very new at this so I don't know the answer to this question: is it common operating procedure for a sponsor to provide model info to affiliates? In all my research so far I've never heard of this.
If the answer is no then it would seem that the whole affilate/sponsor business model is a sham unless you only use text or G-rated images, or only link to the content on the sponsors site... or just decide to roll the dice with 2257 and publish the content on your own site, as it seems a gazilion webmasters are doing.
yes, legally for u.s. residents to have any sexually explicit material on their website they must not only haev the i.d. for every model but must have them cross referenced by - as i recall - url, model name and model real name. the webmaster must then have a link on their site that says these EXACT words:
18 U.S.C. 2257 Record-Keeping Requirements Compliance Statement
that links to a page with their business address and - if they're not there during ALL business hours - the 20 hours minimum per week that they are there in case the fbi wants to inspect the records. the fbi won't call - they will generally drop by unannounced.
many sponsors and most content providers will supply affiliates with the i.d.s although some do it in weird ways.
as far as i understand it this applies to stuff ON YOUR SITE. that doesn't necessarily mean stuff you host, but anything that shows on one of your web pages - which would be any webpages you control including free hosted pages. please note that i am not a lawyer and don't play one on t.v. but this is my interpretation and/or the interpretations of the attorneys i spoke with re this issue.
i personally wouldn't "roll the dice" as the penalties include prison and the legal fees can eat you up.
keep i mind that not all webmasters are in the u.s., either , so they may have pics on pages without worrying the same way about 2257.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sc32803
You aren't the only one confused by 2257. I have read and re-read the regulations and they are among the most poorly written and confusing regs ever published.Quote:
Originally Posted by sc32803
That isn't completely correct, but close. For the moment -- until 30 days after the final regulations enforcing the Adam Walsh Act (USC 4472, the latest incarnation of 2257) are published -- many people (i.e., affiliates) who are not content producers are relying on the older 2257 regulations, which did not require that a "secondary producer", as the old regs called it, have actual records, only contact information for those who do have the records.Quote:
If the answer is no then it would seem that the whole affilate/sponsor business model is a sham unless you only use text or G-rated images, or only link to the content on the sponsors site... or just decide to roll the dice with 2257 and publish the content on your own site, as it seems a gazilion webmasters are doing.
When the regulations for 4472 become law, then anyone who has explicit content on his website (i.e., content that appears on a webpage with a URL at the top of the page that he owns) will be required to keep records. Keep in mind also that 4472 now classifies certain types of content, such as
nudity with erections but no touching, simulated sex, and certain other things that were previously exempt as explicit, so you have to be even more careful about what you are posting.
I suspect that most affiliates are just pretending the whole issue is going to go away and/or hoping that the FSC will get the regs struck down before they go into effect, but ignorance, particularly if you're just starting in the biz, would not be a well advised approach.
Also, for clarification, although the wording of the law doesn't say so, the inspectors for the FBI handling the 2257 inspections have said they don't intend to be as strict as Patti has indicated; they've indicated that if you have a vacation or an "out to lunch" sign on your place of business, they will simply come back when you're open.
As for records, some sponsors provide them and others do not. Those sponsors who do not provide records generally offer hosted ad tools, which are intended as an alternative to requiring affiliates to have mess with 2257 records.
while the fbi guys did indeed say that, it's ultimately not up to them - it's up to the DOJ.
btw, hosted ad tools may or may not be considered part of your site. i've talked to lawyers who go either way on this and it hasn't gone to court, so there's no way to know how it will go when it does nor do most judges or juries know anything except that a pic or video is on your page.Quote:
Originally Posted by gaybucks_chip
Quote:
Originally Posted by gaybucks_chip
I've never heard anyone argue that a hosted gallery where the sponsor's URL appears at the top of the page would require an affiliate linking to it externally to have 2257 docs. Embedded videos, yes, but not hosted galleries.
Also, DoJ are not the ones carrying out the actual inspections; the FBI is, so if the agent who is the head of the FBI investigation team says that's the way they will be doing the inspections, it is probably safe to assume that information is correct, and if it were not, one would have a near bulletproof defense (in legal terms, it's called "detrimental reliance on apparent authority".)
Nonetheless, Patti is absolutely right about the point that none of the law has been tested, so what actually comes to pass is anyone's guess. The decisions we (Gaybucks) make abut 2257, and the information I share on the boards is based on what our attorney has told us in combination with other information AJ and I have read or heard from other First Amendment attorneys. No two agree on all points, and I strongly advise anyone considering this business to spend the money and get a consultation with a competent professional to cover your bases; it simply isn't worth the risk to go without.
This is an enlightening thread to say the least.
Just wondering if any of this was discussed at the Forum last week. I couldn't go but wasn't there a legal seminar? If so, did anyone go who can share some new information?
I wasn't at Phoenix Forum, but I doubt there's any new info.
Everything is in limbo at the moment; the 6th circuit court of appeals ruled the entire 2257 unconstitutional, but that will probably be overturned. It is suspected, though no one's said outright, that inspections are suspended until 2257 is reinstated or there's some resolution of that.
Meantime, proposed regulations for 4472 were published for comment months back, but again, nothing has happened and it's possible that they are holding up on that until the underlying issue with 2257 is resolved, since 4472 is sort of a "piggyback" on 2257.
I am sure it was mentioned there, but outside the seminar no one was talking 2257, unlike previous conventions.Quote:
Originally Posted by sc32803
You think the reason why was because the general mood of webmasters at the Forum is that 2257 is dead at the moment?Quote:
I am sure it was mentioned there, but outside the seminar no one was talking 2257, unlike previous conventions.