Printable View
Not to be a jerk or anything... but how can http://www.usajock.com/ be 2257 compliant when you don't even have the required "18 U.S.C. 2257 Record Keeping Requirements Compliance Statement" link on the bottom of your website? Even CCbill requires this on any sites for which they process. And you're using CCbill.
if you read my above statements you won't have to be a jerk :p
your site is not 2257 compliant unless you have the words
18 U.S.C. 2257 Record-Keeping Requirements Compliance Statement
exactly on your site. and on the page that those words must lead to would be your business address and a list of 20 hours per week that you are there if you are not there ALL business hours.
otherwise your site is in violation of 2257 whether you possess your models' i.d.s or not - it's really that simple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by USAJock
Quote:
Originally Posted by chadknowslaw
Chad, thanks for your detailed reply. What if an american enters a .nl / .de / .eu domain? I thought in that case, it's the surfer who "visits" Europe. Not the webmaster selling in the US.
Still, if foreign webmasters should obey to the US laws, than we also should follow the laws which were made in the Middle East or Far East.
Hope you can bring in some light on these matters as well.
Of course every WM should fight CP and abuse, however I am not sure if 2257 is the right way.
Regardless of the domain the surfer enters, the surfer is still receiving the product in the US, and it is that law that applies because that is where the product is actually being delivered--to the surfer who is physically within US borders. So, the surfer does not actually "visit" any other country while sitting in his bedroom at the trailer park in Tennessee, and the product is delivered into the United States. Imagine if a host in Amsterdam could somehow electronically "deliver" a joint to a surfer in Detroit! The product at the shipping point is legal, but at the destination where it is actually consumed it is illegal. There are jurisdictions where sexually explicit images of 17 year olds are legal, but when those images are delivered to a US postal inspector arrest warrants get issued.Quote:
Originally Posted by pocoloco78
As far as following Middle East laws, you must comply with those laws if you are selling in those countries. You won't get surfers who are buying your product in Saudi Arabia because of the national filters however!! Saudi Arabia prohibits pornography and has set up a virtual Port Authority that stops incoming shipments. There are no such "inspection points" for content coming into the US -- luckily.
Enforcement of 2257 against non-US residents is unlikely, however. A non-US webmaster will be under significantly more pressure from private parties, such as his billing company, host, and affiliated websites, to comply with the law as many companies will refuse to deal with anyone, even non-US, that refuses to at least make an attempt to comply with that law.
Personally, I believe 2257 is very ill-conceived by people who do not understand how production and distribution of legal adult pornography works. 2257 does nothing to prevent children from sexual exploitation, and it drains resources that could otherwise be used in actually curbing underage porn. It provides no assistance to producers to verify ID's. I would love to completely re-write the law. Actually, I just need to be appointed President for the next 2 years. Or Dictator. It would be easier to get things accomplished as a Dictator than President.
I would make DonMike my Secretary of Sex Education. :whip:
Does enforcement become more likely for a person residing out side of the United States, yet entering this country to produce content? Or a person residing outside, but still visits here?Quote:
Originally Posted by chadknowslaw
Quote:
Originally Posted by deanb
Low hanging fruit gets picked first.
We are all looking at the U.S. Laws right now, obviously so but I wonder how many other countries have laws about porn that our sites break ? will one eventually have to build different sites and serve then biased on location ? like one version to china , one to Amsterdam, another to the USA. ? I can see china, and infact with the google mess , it already is, basically saying, If the USA can impose rules on the world then why cant we.Quote:
The important location is where the product is delivered, not where it came from, so a webmaster in Amsterdam with servers in Amsterdam does not need to comply with US law until he delivers products to a consumer in the US. Once that webmaster allows his product to be delivered to a US consumer, he is obligated to comply with US law or else decline delivery.
eventually there has to be some shakeout, the net suddenly has brought down all the boarders and laws that differ between country to country. Can you imagine say China suddenly demanding extradition of YOU because your gay adult website broke their laws. Not a nice thought.
Xstr8guy,Quote:
Originally Posted by Xstr8guy
Can't speak of the other sponsors or content providers, but Gay Adult Photos.com does now provide unredacted ID's to affiliates if requested, and to any purchases of content from GAP.
Bill
If your product does not comply with the laws of a particular jurisdiction, you simply do not ship your product there.
It does not really matter if Somalia makes selling online porn difficult; you simply block that country and forget about it. Even if Somalia issues a warrant for you it doesn't really matter because you will probably never ever go there. If the US makes selling porn difficult, you pull up your sleeves and figure out how to comply because the US market is more important. The US market is so important to adult webmasters because of the sheer population size, disposable income, and comfort level of making online purchases. You don't want to give up on the US market but you definitely do not want a red flag attached to your name when you decide to visit Las Vegas or your plane happens to get diverted to Houston. I would forget all worries about extradition. Only actual CP, money laundering, fraud, and capital crimes are important enough to justify extradition. However, if you make money and work in the international world, you will travel to the US at some point, and you just do not want the US to be on your "I can't visit there because I don't know if the nice men with badges who greet me at the gate will let me leave" list. Business people that are involved in international trade will have a US destination on their travel itinerary at some point, and nobody wants a layover or business meeting to result in an interrogation or arrest.
Gaming sites are bigger, make significantly more money than the entire adult industry, and are probably "less evil" in the minds of the religious right that pressures legislators to make laws. Yet a law passed last July and a few arrests of non-US residents resulted in almost the entire online gaming industry pulling out of the US market. Gaming sites are bigger than adult, they are more legitimate than adult, and they make shitloads more money than the entire adult industry combined. Yet they still pulled up their tent stakes. Pornographers have only one advantage over casino operators--the 1st Amendment.
The 1st Amendment is what holds the US Congress back from banning the sale of porn. Unfortunately, it does not prevent Congress from fucking with the sale of porn, as they have done with 2257.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hdkbill
Redacted IDs are acceptable.
Which means in practice, every single adult site should also be charging V.A.T to their European members in addition to the monthly membership cost and paying that V.A.T to the EU each and every April 5th.Quote:
Originally Posted by chadknowslaw
I wonder exactly how many sites are doing that though?
Regards,
Lee
Taxation rules that apply to international trade of intangible internet transactions would apply.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee
I have not done any research on that particular subject--which is very specific to taxation--and involves reviewing the various tax treaties among countries.
Are VAT applied to intangibles delivered over the Internet? Or does VAT apply to just tangible goods, such as office supplies and computers?
I also wonder if the following didn't play into the Girls Gone Wild principals not going to jail:Quote:
Originally Posted by chadknowslaw
1. Its fairly softcore content which has much less stigma than 'pornography'
2. Its become much more a part of pop culture, more than porn or even Jenna Jameson
3. It would attract more attention and public outrage, if someone like Joe Francis was actually sent to Jail, possibly turning public opinion against the Feds
Also, I wonder if the government feels like 'the cat is out of the bag' in terms of online pornography but not neccessarily online gambling. Also, gambling in states like Nevada is still legal, so they figure it isnt complete prohibition.Quote:
Originally Posted by chadknowslaw
As you say, there is a lot more money in gambling, and the main players are very large.... a few of them are/were had market caps of billions of $$$ on the London Stock Exchange. porn is spread out among a lot of small and medium sized businesses, which is much more difficult to prioritize.
FYI Chad... I'd like to talk to you about being advised on a future, possible project. Should I email you? :)
probably none of them. the DOJ wanted a quick conviction and made a deal so they would have one. girls gone wild had enough money to put up a long fight, so everybody involved "won" - except we, the people, who got another politically motivated result rather than an honest trial to show what's really going on.
and didn't the girls gone wild guys fuck and film girls who were under 18? not way under, but still... i heard and read that on the news in several sources, but that didn't even come up on the news stories after the deal was made.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GaySearch4Sex
Whatever you do, don't move to China!!!! :)
China would not be the worst. Countries under Sharia law would probably put gay pornographers to death.Quote:
Originally Posted by XXXWriterDude
I must say, this is an interesting thread.
I am not sure about the VAT. It is also being charged on online sales, but I am not sure what the rules are if the selling party or buying party is from outside the EU.
Of course there is the income tax, but that is just the tax from one side (the (re)seller).
I did a little research -- not enough for a definitive opinion-- but came up with some more questions rather than solid answers.
There seems to be an exception for shipped goods valued at less than 22 Euro; so if you ship a box of cassette tapes to the UK that would fall outside the VAT requirements.
I cannot determine if there is any exception for digital transmissions, but I think that website memberships would be treated like subscriptions and subject to VAT requirements.
VAT right now is self-reporting and very little way to enforce it. Non-EU companies that deliver to EU residents appear to be obligated to collect VAT but there is still discussion of how to apply that to digital transmissions.
The EU probably does not have the authority to enforce VAT collection against non-EU suppliers, but could theoretically restrict their access to the EU market or restrict their ability to travel to EU Member Nations. Some US states have tried to address the problem of residents purchasing goods out of state and avoiding sales tax by placing the burden upon the resident to self-report purchases and remit "sales" tax. This might be a solution if the EC decides to address the issue --by placing the ultimate burden on the EU retail purchaser.
I don't know the answer to the issue of whether non-EU websites should collect VAT on sales in the EU. Taxation of intangible goods delivered over the Internet is a really murky area right now. I know there will be some that want to draw parallels to complying with 2257, but there are legal differences.
If a Netherlands based webmaster delivers non-compliant material to a US citizen that is breaking a criminal law. If, in a mirror image transaction, a US webmaster delivers images to a PC in Amsterdam he may be failing to collect VAT, a civil law. In the first example, it is the delivery itself that violates a law. In the second example, it is the failure to remit money to tax authorities that is breaking a law, not the delivery of the images itself. A fine line, but in the anal retentive legal world they are really very different.