New 2257 Regulations As Published A Few Minutes Ago..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

That is misleading, taken out of context.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by collegeboyslive

To get around the address oin the site. rent a space at one of those office buildings that let you have a mailbox there BUT also let you have a "shared office" for about $50 -$100 a month you havbe your mail delivered there ebut also have access to the confernace room for meetings ect if the inspectors wish to inspect then they can set up a meeting time there. nothing says the documants actually have top be KEPT at that location, just have to be availble to be inspected there.

---

I was thinking along these lines, but a little more specifically.
That wouldn't work because it's not your place of business....
BUT
Let's say you have a closet defined as "Room 2257," and said closet is only accessible from the lobby/outside door.
In said closet is a computer (Or file cabinet) maintaining your records.
This would stop them from pawing through everything else in the room under "in plain site" which allows them to open drawers, and presumably other computers looking for violations.

They say they can "make copies with no expense to the producer." Well, who's paying for the electricity to run the computer? (A bit in the ridiculous field, but so is some of their ideas.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pistol

Several clauses refer quite specifically to foreign producers needing to comply with US laws in order to do business in the country, so it would seem that this is not the intention of the foreign ID requirements.

However it could also be deliberately left open to multiple interpretations so who the hell knows.

---

Yes, but I've read elsewhere that it would violate the privacy laws in some other countires....

As in, getting copies of the producers IDs to comply with US law.

Okay Lee, from what I can understand in all the legal mumbo jumbo, we, as a distribution site for multiple producers (studios) and their videos/dvds, will now be required under law to retain the files/records and documentation of all actors in the videos... do I understand that correctly?

And if so, the studio/producers have a lot of work ahead of them in order to comply with the law. But then must supply these records to all distributors.

It wasn't clear on this (IMO), but what about Adult Book Stores? any thoughts?

Thanks,
PapaBear

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

So this means US producers can't buy/create content from overseas.

So no more US crews shooting here. No sites with non US content, US models very reluctant that their info can be given out to any affiliate.

basschick and me are thinking along the same lines.

---

Paul,

I think you are missing it. It would allow us to buy your teen content and use it here, but what it would prevent from occuring is out of country talent coming to the states for a shoot without a green card. we could no longer shoot them here if all they have is a passport.

I believe the reasons this rule was implemented was so that the American producer would not have to be familiar with foreign documents. But requiring a foreign model to have legal documents from the US to work here is acceptable to them.

so when Jana Cova comes over to shoot for VIVID, she can no longer work without a work VISA or Green Card.

James posted...
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.

----

But this is only referring to passing exemptions from primary to secondary... not exempting secondaries!

If I am reading this document correctly, all of us VOD providers (PPVNetworks, NakedSword, MaleFlixxx, AEBN, Hotmovies, etc) will be required to maintain copies these documents. Sounds more like the paper manufacturing lobby pushed this through...

Of course we'll seek legal counsel prior to embarking on this mission, but it smells like that's what we are up against.

Anyone agree or digree?

Lee,

Thanks for alerting everyone. We've been feeling like Chicken Little lately -- no one believed us.

NakedSword has been asking for complete 2257 regs since Gonzalez signed the law last Tuesday. For a site with over 4000 movies with tens of thousands of models from hundreds of studios, it's a daunting task to say the least. Not to mention that many of the studios are unwilling (and perhaps rightfully so) to compromise the confidentiality of their performers. (It seems to make no difference to them that we are keeping the records under lock-and-key in our newly inaugurated 2257 room.)

I'm wondering how other PPV and streaming networks are fairing. In the past week we've made 2257 our top priority and the task is mammoth. I hope that the FSC can get an injunction (many primary producers disregard the new regs), but we're not taking any chances. How's everyone else doing?

Mike

lol well i dont know about a room but i have a 2257 filing cabinet :)

if you had thousands of movies and hundred of studios like us VOD providers do... you would need more than a "cabinet"....

5,000 movies x 30 pages of docs each = 150,000 pages ....

and we aren't allowed to store it electronically, so we need lots and lots of filing cabinets.... i am looking into ultra-thin paper like they print Bibles on... we are in NYC, floorspace is expensive here.... we arent in North Carolina... lol :)

D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DamianPPVNetworks

and we aren't allowed to store it electronically

---

Actually, i beleive the rules say they can be stored either electronically or in hard copy.

Ive only been a few minutes though so ic ould be wrong on this LOL

Regards,

Lee

Okay, here's MY problem. As you all may or may not know, I run a few live cam sites. Here is some dialogue regarding my portion of the business:

Thirty-five commenters also commented that the requirement to keep
copies of each image is impossible to comply with due to the vast
amount of data involved in storing digital images, especially, e.g.,
producers of live streaming video. The Department declines to adopt
these comments. Maintaining one copy of each publication, production,
or depiction is critical to making the inspection process meaningful.
Commercial publishers and producers can reasonably be expected to
comply. Furthermore, modern computer and disk storage capacities make
digital archiving and back-up relatively inexpensive and space-
efficient. Finally, reviewing identification records in a vacuum would
be meaningless without being able to cross-reference the depictions,
and having the depictions on hand is necessary to determine whether in
fact age-verification files are being maintained for each performer in
a given depiction.

Now, we use Emulive to run our streams and our models are located remotely, meaning that they are literally thousands of miles from me, the server or even each other and broadcast from their homes. Currently, the Emulive Server 4 software does not allow recording of the video feeds from the server. Each Producer (cam software) console on a models computer is able to record, but if it is in record mode, the video will not connect to the server or broadcast. So other than setting up a camcorder pointed at a computer screen during live shows, how can I comply with this and record each and every show as it broadcasts?

Rocky

Okay on the face of it, it appears digital records are fine..

Quote:

---

(f) Records required to be maintained under this part may be kept
either in hard copy or in digital form, provided that they include
scanned copies of forms of identification and that there is a custodian
of the records who can authenticate each digital record.

---

Thats good news for us presently, we have a solution in place that will handle this :)

Id also expect to see a lot of 'database' scripts banging their way into the adult industry over the coming months that are being marketed as '2257 solutions' LOL

Regards,

Lee

Okay so basically 1) I have to post my hours that I work (no less then 20 hours).

2) I have to post my address where my records are kept.

How do I go on vacation? What if I'm at conference? And did I miss anything? :notsure:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigbanger

Paul,

I think you are missing it. It would allow us to buy your teen content and use it here, but what it would prevent from occuring is out of country talent coming to the states for a shoot without a green card. we could no longer shoot them here if all they have is a passport.

I believe the reasons this rule was implemented was so that the American producer would not have to be familiar with foreign documents. But requiring a foreign model to have legal documents from the US to work here is acceptable to them.

so when Jana Cova comes over to shoot for VIVID, she can no longer work without a work VISA or Green Card.

---

Where do you get that from???
It specifically states a "government issued photo ID was acceptable INCLUDING a passport."
I would interpret this as acceptable for proof of age.
The international stuff seems to be more of a "no matter where the content is shot, it must comply with our age proofs, to be sold here."
While I don't like it, I do see where they have a basis to say this in comparison to other international laws.

Ok, I read this thing for an hour and a half and it seems that the DOJ based it's decisions on both the Sundance and Library rulings. They did NOT take the hard line approach to "secondary producer" as specified in the Library case. They accepted the Sundance version of "secondary producer" which is particularly meaningful to myself.

They eased off on the identifying documents a bit and from my understanding, are only requiring one government issued id. That's reasonable.

Indexing of new (post 1995) content seems much less complex if an image will only have to be indexed to one main url. Also, dynamic galleries *seem* to be off the hook for now. That's gotta be good news if your using php, etc.

They used up on the requirements to be at your place of business for only 20 hours a week (your hours) not theirs.

We can use digital means to produce "hard copy".

On the other hand...

VOD, PPV, are now considered "primary" producers. That's alot of people to keep up with. Also webcam and streaming are now specifically included in the regulations. Most will now be considered "primary" producers.

There is no regard for privacy as far as the DOJ is concerned.

All in all, I would have to say that for small businesses, today was a great day. For large businesses, today probably really sucks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BeachBoi_Rocky

Okay, here's MY problem. As you all may or may not know, I run a few live cam sites. Here is some dialogue regarding my portion of the business:

Thirty-five commenters also commented that the requirement to keep
copies of each image is impossible to comply with due to the vast
amount of data involved in storing digital images, especially, e.g.,
producers of live streaming video. The Department declines to adopt
these comments. Maintaining one copy of each publication, production,
or depiction is critical to making the inspection process meaningful.
Commercial publishers and producers can reasonably be expected to
comply. Furthermore, modern computer and disk storage capacities make
digital archiving and back-up relatively inexpensive and space-
efficient. Finally, reviewing identification records in a vacuum would
be meaningless without being able to cross-reference the depictions,
and having the depictions on hand is necessary to determine whether in
fact age-verification files are being maintained for each performer in
a given depiction.

Now, we use Emulive to run our streams and our models are located remotely, meaning that they are literally thousands of miles from me, the server or even each other and broadcast from their homes. Currently, the Emulive Server 4 software does not allow recording of the video feeds from the server. Each Producer (cam software) console on a models computer is able to record, but if it is in record mode, the video will not connect to the server or broadcast. So other than setting up a camcorder pointed at a computer screen during live shows, how can I comply with this and record each and every show as it broadcasts?

Rocky

---

Yes, I saw that as well. I was wondering how you would deal with that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Huskyhunks

All in all, I would have to say that for small businesses, today was a great day. For large businesses, today probably really sucks.

---

I don't think ANY day that further restricts free speech in ANY manner is a "great day" for anyone. Don't fall into the trap of saying, "gee I'm glad they didn't fuck me worse."

That's exactly what they hope you will do.
The whole thing is "too far."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EmporerEJ

Yes, I saw that as well. I was wondering how you would deal with that?

---

Not to mention that my sites (except one) are voyeur sites. Does that mean I have to record 24 hours a day???

Rocky

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NakedMichael

Lee,

Thanks for alerting everyone. We've been feeling like Chicken Little lately -- no one believed us.

NakedSword has been asking for complete 2257 regs since Gonzalez signed the law last Tuesday. For a site with over 4000 movies with tens of thousands of models from hundreds of studios, it's a daunting task to say the least. Not to mention that many of the studios are unwilling (and perhaps rightfully so) to compromise the confidentiality of their performers. (It seems to make no difference to them that we are keeping the records under lock-and-key in our newly inaugurated 2257 room.)

I'm wondering how other PPV and streaming networks are fairing. In the past week we've made 2257 our top priority and the task is mammoth. I hope that the FSC can get an injunction (many primary producers disregard the new regs), but we're not taking any chances. How's everyone else doing?

Mike

---

I can imagine this being a logisticall nightmare for PPV providers, all of you really do have y sympathy in respect of these new regs.

Regards,

Lee

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EmporerEJ

I don't think ANY day that further restricts free speech in ANY manner is a "great day" for anyone. Don't fall into the trap of saying, "gee I'm glad they didn't fuck me worse."

That's exactly what they hope you will do.
The whole thing is "too far."

---

Well, considering that I'll still have a business is a great day to me...

That doesn't mean that I agree with everything the DOJ had to say. They did make some valid arguments but I found the disregard for our personal safety a bit chilling :eek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Huskyhunks

Ok, I read this thing for an hour and a half and it seems that the DOJ based it's decisions on both the Sundance and Library rulings. They did NOT take the hard line approach to "secondary producer" as specified in the Library case. They accepted the Sundance version of "secondary producer" which is particularly meaningful to myself.

---

Ok, I'm dead wrong here. They did go with the wording of the Library ruling and I do have new paperwork to deal with. I have to redesign everything, as planned. I sympathize with everyone affected, this is definitely not a good day afterall.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Huskyhunks

Ok, I'm dead wrong here. They did go with the wording of the Library ruling and I do have new paperwork to deal with. I have to redesign everything, as planned. I sympathize with everyone affected, this is definitely not a good day afterall.

---

Well, look at it this way....
You were happy for a while!
:goofy:

For some unknown reason, I am still happy. I think it's probably because the speculation will, for the most part, come to an end. Either you comply or you don't. The rules are set.

I always knew this day would come. I'm more excited about my life away from adult than reacting to every ruling like I've done for the past few years. My life doesn't revolve around adult, it used to, and I was miserable. I see this as an opportunity to do something else with my life. Things change, people change, governments get conservative, then go to the other side of the pendulum.

I've been waiting for this day and it's finally here. I had a great run but I do not intend on pursuing adult anymore. It's very counter-productive to my happiness and stability and the truth is, i've been slowly letting go for a couple of years. I wish everyone the best and good luck with the injunction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Huskyhunks

I always knew this day would come. I'm more excited about my life away from adult than reacting to every ruling like I've done for the past few years. My life doesn't revolve around adult, it used to, and I was miserable. I see this as an opportunity to do something else with my life. Things change, people change, governments get conservative, then go to the other side of the pendulum.

I've been waiting for this day and it's finally here. I had a great run but I do not intend on pursuing adult anymore. It's very counter-productive to my happiness and stability and the truth is, i've been slowly letting go for a couple of years. I wish everyone the best and good luck with the injunction.

---

Jesus saves......
:turban:

i'm glad that the waiting is over.

i will probably stay peripheral in adult - things like college guys showing their feet or in their underwear (no touching). but as far as adult goes, i'm out. i have not the slightest desire to act as custodian for the next 10 years of my life.

also i keep in mind that 2257 is half of a two-pronged attack. obscenity prosecutions will probably be out there.

i'm starting an exciting new part of business - i'll be shooting fully non-nude and non-sexually explicit content for a couple sites. it'll be fun to get out from behind the computer :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Huskyhunks

For some unknown reason, I am still happy. I think it's probably because the speculation will, for the most part, come to an end. Either you comply or you don't. The rules are set.

I always knew this day would come. I'm more excited about my life away from adult than reacting to every ruling like I've done for the past few years. My life doesn't revolve around adult, it used to, and I was miserable. I see this as an opportunity to do something else with my life. Things change, people change, governments get conservative, then go to the other side of the pendulum.

I've been waiting for this day and it's finally here. I had a great run but I do not intend on pursuing adult anymore. It's very counter-productive to my happiness and stability and the truth is, i've been slowly letting go for a couple of years. I wish everyone the best and good luck with the injunction.

---

Lee,

Thanks for catching that digital part. Again, have to read this beast a few times... and make notes. The "digital" alternative, if true, will at least allow us to free up floor space.

However, the task is still a daunting one.

Looking forward to it. Did anyone catch the timeframe by which we need to be compliant? I think we here at PPVNetworks are going to have to hiring several people just for this task alone.

Good luck Basschick. It's a hard decision to make. The thought of all that paperwork, yuck, that is not fun. I'm with you on that one. I will probably be involved in adult somehow, maybe making content, one thing I know I won't do and that's making websites. I think you are right, this is only the beginning of worse things to come. Legal fights come at a great cost. It's simply not worth it.

If anyone knows how to make great content and what to look for it's you :thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by basschick

i'm glad that the waiting is over.

i will probably stay peripheral in adult - things like college guys showing their feet or in their underwear (no touching). but as far as adult goes, i'm out. i have not the slightest desire to act as custodian for the next 10 years of my life.

also i keep in mind that 2257 is half of a two-pronged attack. obscenity prosecutions will probably be out there.

i'm starting an exciting new part of business - i'll be shooting fully non-nude and non-sexually explicit content for a couple sites. it'll be fun to get out from behind the computer :)

---

- - - that's an exciting fresh idea... speaking of NON-nude
are we required to keep any documentation if NO private parts are shown
and NO sexual activity is depicted - yet the content is on what would otherwise be considered an adult site ??

what will webmasters do - for galleries or free sites they had listed on some of the major TGP's and LL's - if they don't want to bother with the
documentation rulings and want to pull all that content off those urls -
would there be a way to substitute non-nude images or text only on an image - and keep the sitse listed with the TGP's or LL's ?? - - - will there be
something like a group consensus that to become compliant all past submits can change-up the content and remain listed as is ?? - - - or will the TGP and LL owners have a nightmare on their hands of pulling down listings
per webmasters requestes - or as a gazillion pages become dead in the water...

the ruling affect ONLY visuals and not text - correct ??

is there a consise list of objectionable words, keywords or things to steer clear of ??

~Bell

p.s. basschick - will the companies you are shooting NON-nude for
be mainstream sites - or ultra careful adult sites ?? will they
have sponsor programs ??
- - - if you'd prefer to eMail me - that is cool - here: evelyn937 (at) lycos.com

bell - you do not need to comply with 2257 if your content is completely not sexually explicit. also you are exempt with vintage content, which i'll be ordering from don mike later today.

i'm not shooting for any company - i'm shooting for our little company only. don't know if you could call what i have in mind adult sites, but they will work for adult traffic. i do plan an affiliate program, but only for people i know. that way, i can not have to worry about a lot of things.

btw, check your email for a few details :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by basschick

bell - you do not need to comply with 2257 if your content is completely not sexually explicit. also you are exempt with vintage content, which i'll be ordering from don mike later today.

---

This is something i was wondering about. I have no sex at all on any of my 200 sites. Just naked men. Closest i have to sex is guys jerking off. However I dont have any cum shots..you think thats ok then???? It would be a big relive if this stuff doesnt apply to me. I just assumed they would say any nudity at all would be sexual content.

shelmal, as lawyers explained to me, jacking off is sexually explicit. spreading ass to show anus is sexually explicit. any u.s. webmaster will be required to post 2257 info and maintain records with that kind of content.

Ahh Ok i have some of that..although I could always go back and take all that out...ill have to see what happens. Talked to chad and he was a big help easing my mind aboit. Nice to have a lawyer as a regular on the boards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by basschick

bell - you do not need to comply with 2257 if your content is completely not sexually explicit. also you are exempt with vintage content, which i'll be ordering from don mike later today.

i'm not shooting for any company - i'm shooting for our little company only. don't know if you could call what i have in mind adult sites, but they will work for adult traffic. i do plan an affiliate program, but only for people i know. that way, i can not have to worry about a lot of things.

btw, check your email for a few details :)

---

: ) eMail back at you...


and a question for everyone:

is now the time to remove all mention of things like:
adult babies, diapers, wetting, watersports, golden showers, pissplay,
cbt, stretchings, sounds, caning, fisting, strapons, etc ??

does the new ruling - pertain to using sponsors banners and buttons as well ??

thanks for posting lee

jim

i'm not a lawyer, but the way it was explained to me, yes - for any sexually explicit image on your site, you need to maintain i.d. and all that 2257 stuff.

seems to me that cbt and anything involving penetration are sexually explicit. also most lawyers have told me that if you don't like taking chances with obscenity, not to have any of those niches you list.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bell

: ) eMail back at you...


and a question for everyone:

is now the time to remove all mention of things like:
adult babies, diapers, wetting, watersports, golden showers, pissplay,
cbt, stretchings, sounds, caning, fisting, strapons, etc ??

does the new ruling - pertain to using sponsors banners and buttons as well ??

---

Could someone explain if this new regulation applies to non-US webmasters, e.g European webmasters ?

This part is interesting, and I don't think it was in the first draft a year ago:

Quote:

---

In order to sell in the U.S. market, foreign producers must comply with U.S. laws. This rule applies equally to any sexually explicit material introduced into the stream of commerce in the United States no matter where it was produced. Foreign producers have the option of not complying with the rule, but then their access to the U.S. market is justly and lawfully prohibited."

---

Does this pertain only to content producers outside USA, or to webmasters as well?

If foreign webmasters are included, how the hell can they be inspected by the U.S. investigators? By phone? By email?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ben

Could someone explain if this new regulation applies to non-US webmasters, e.g European webmasters ?

This part is interesting, and I don't think it was in the first draft a year ago:



Does this pertain only to content producers outside USA, or to webmasters as well?

If foreign webmasters are included, how the hell can they be inspected by the U.S. investigators? By phone? By email?

---

They need a court order, a local policeman and a flight ticket. To enforce a filing law that breaks EU law. What are the odds?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

They need a court order, a local policeman and a flight ticket. To enforce a filing law that breaks EU law. What are the odds?

---

So, you think it is unlikely that European webmasters can be investigated on this issue?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ben

So, you think it is unlikely that European webmasters can be investigated on this issue?

---

Unlikey is the best the US could hope for. They will have no evidence to present to a judge to get a search warrant, if they turn up without tell them to FUCK OFF.

If they try to restrict your trade without cause the courts will crucify them. They need evidence you are doing something a little more wrong than not cross filing documents.

Just make sure you have all the IDs and model releases on file. Yo needed them last week to prove you're legal and yo need them next week as well.

But think of the American sites and webmasters who are quaking in their boots and wondering if it's worth the trouble. Now think of where their surfers will be going?

Here's what I think a foreign webmaster essentially needs to do to comply. If I were shooting my own content, I would take copies of my model's ID. I would make sure it was picture ID and contained their name and birthdate. I would have the model sign a release form. I would maintain all of those records in my place of business. These are all things that you may need to do already to satisfy your own government that you're not photographing minors.

If the U.S. law required that I put my business address on my website and I wasn't comfortable doing so, I would get a mail box with a street address, and note it as: 123 Main Street, Suite 807. Yes, I know the legislation says a post office box is not acceptable, but who is going to fly to your country and check?

Essentially, do whatever you need to do to appear compliant so billing companies and sponsors don't freak out, but just know that no one is ever going to come knocking on your door. And by "appear" I don't mean you shoot minors. I mean that you do what is reasonable for you to do to avoid being hassled by billing companies and sponsors.

In their own country, the Department of Justice would require an army of thousands to start tracking down producers of porn and requesting proof of age. And even if they had that army, I doubt they'd be wasting resources flying around the world, aside from the fact that they don't have the jurisdiction to do so.

Now, put those chunks of cloud back up in the sky, everything will be fine.

dzinerbear