Are Adult Webmasters Not Concerned About 2257 Anymore?

Printable View

12-17-2008, 08:04 PM
Lee

Are Adult Webmasters Not Concerned About 2257 Anymore?

I havent seen or heard any significant discussions about this despite the fact the new revisions of the 2257 regulations were published today.

Even on GFY the thread they have there is pretty pathetic.

How concerned are you about the new 2257 regulations?

You can read them at either of the following URLs:

http://www.us2257.com/revised-usc2257.shtml

http://www.us2257.com/2257.pdf

http://www.federalregister.gov/OFRUp...8-29677_PI.pdf

As i said a few weeks back, some interesting changes HAVE been made to these regulations, the DOJ has specifically clarified that a 3rd party can maintain records for individual companies so that is one way that somebody is going to be making a lot of money from these regulations.

Again though, there seem to be some very confusing details, like do we need to add a url to each and every image, each and every webpage or each and every site we own.

They do allow for linking to a specific page containing your 2257 information though.

So what do you think, are webmasters just not concerned anymore about the 2257 regulations given they have been published for almost 12 hours now and there is very little discussion happening about them right now?

Regards,

Lee
12-17-2008, 09:05 PM
Squirt

I am absolutely not concerned at all.

I have ID's, models releases and all models are over 18

I think all the paperwork bullshit is just to pile it on when they do find someone shooting or publishing underage content. Which is fine with me. Throw the bastards in jail and lose the key!

I've yet to see anyone goto jail, or court, or pay a fine, for something filed incorrectly.
12-17-2008, 09:09 PM
Lee

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squirt

I've yet to see anyone goto jail, or court, or pay a fine, for something filed incorrectly.

Well, interestingly enough, if you file a document incorrectly under these new regulations, you stand to spend 5 years in jail... MINIMUM!

Regards,

Lee
12-17-2008, 09:12 PM
Squirt

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lee

Well, interestingly enough, if you file a document incorrectly under these new regulations, you stand to spend 5 years in jail... MINIMUM!

Regards,

Lee

right it's a pile on regulation.

Nobody has, or will, goto jail solely on misfiled paperwork. They will goto jail for filming underage people, or publishing underage people, or promoting underage people, and not filing the paperwork correctly. I think that's a good thing. Throw the book at them!

Who was that mobster that wasn't thrown in jail for all the people he killed, but for tax evasion? Same concept.
12-17-2008, 09:13 PM
Lee

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squirt

Nobody has, or will, goto jail solely on misfiled paperwork. They will goto jail for filming underage people, or publishing underage people, or promoting underage people, and not filing the paperwork correctly. I think that's a good thing. Throw the book at them!

Cool stuff.

Looking forward to you being the case that tests your theory then ;)

Regards,

Lee
12-17-2008, 09:15 PM
Squirt

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lee

Cool stuff.

Looking forward to you being the case that tests your theory then ;)

Regards,

Lee

OH thanks you can't put that on me, you'll be the first. good luck :luke:
12-17-2008, 10:10 PM
gaybucks_chip

With all the work the justice dept has going on, they aren't going to go after someone solely because there's some paperwork out of sorts. This is not only my opinion, but the opinion of my favorite 1st amendment lawyer (Chad), and Agent Joyner from the FBI also said that he felt it very unlikely there'd be any enforcement actions based solely on minor paperwork violations.

So... while keeping good records is important, I think that it would be near impossible to find a jury that would convict someone who runs a legal operation, keeps good records, and otherwise has everything together but makes some recordkeeping errors.
12-17-2008, 10:35 PM
nickbaer

I've encountered three situations that have made obtaining documentation really difficult:

1) States that embed holograms in driver's licenses, making them hard to photograph or photocopy.

2) US Passports have a laminated layer of plastic over the photo, making them hard to photograph or photocopy.

3) States that allow individuals to wear caps/hats for their photo!

Which reminds me that I have asked before: (How) Can we have access to public records, such as DLs, IDs, PPs?
12-17-2008, 10:46 PM
sc32803

I really like the option of hiring a third party to maintain records, which I assume could be a lawyer?

One of the things keeping me from starting up a paysite has been the fact that I work alone and don't have an office that I'm at all the time since I travel around a lot.
12-17-2008, 10:58 PM
Squirt

Quote:

Originally Posted by sc32803

I really like the option of hiring a third party to maintain records, which I assume could be a lawyer?

One of the things keeping me from starting up a paysite has been the fact that I work alone and don't have an office that I'm at all the time since I travel around a lot.

right hire a nobody in the depths of the Philippines to keep your records for less then $10 a month. lovely loophole, not that I'll be doing it but I'm sure many dubious people will :evil:
12-18-2008, 02:03 AM
chadknowslaw

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squirt

Who was that mobster that wasn't thrown in jail for all the people he killed, but for tax evasion? Same concept.

Al Capone. At my undergrad university in the accounting department was a poster that said "It took an accountant to send Al Capone to prison"

He went to Alcatraz after being convicted of tax evasion. He had syphilis and was deathly afraid of needles so he refused the treatment and died in prison of it.
12-18-2008, 06:18 PM
gaybucks_chip

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squirt

right hire a nobody in the depths of the Philippines to keep your records for less then $10 a month. lovely loophole, not that I'll be doing it but I'm sure many dubious people will :evil:

I haven't read the details of that part of the regs yet. Do they really not specify that the custodian needs to be located in the US for a US-based business?
12-18-2008, 06:20 PM
Lee

Quote:

Originally Posted by gaybucks_chip

I haven't read the details of that part of the regs yet. Do they really not specify that the custodian needs to be located in the US for a US-based business?

I dont recall reading that, but i only skimmed through the regs.

Regards,

Lee
12-18-2008, 06:30 PM
Bec

I still don't get how they're willing to accept a xerox of an ID as proof of age. They'd sure be hauling off a gas station clerk to jail who sold cigs or beer to a minor using a xerox'd driver's license.
12-18-2008, 06:43 PM
chadknowslaw

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bec

I still don't get how they're willing to accept a xerox of an ID as proof of age. They'd sure be hauling off a gas station clerk to jail who sold cigs or beer to a minor using a xerox'd driver's license.

Hold on a moment Bec, I think you are reading it wrong.

The original producer or photographer must actually physically inspect the ID. That producer makes a photocopy of the ID then sells the content to Webmaster. Webmaster can accept the photocopy.

The original producer who actually takes the photos cannot accept a photocopy of an ID.
12-18-2008, 09:45 PM
Bec

Quote:

Originally Posted by chadknowslaw

Hold on a moment Bec, I think you are reading it wrong.

The original producer or photographer must actually physically inspect the ID. That producer makes a photocopy of the ID then sells the content to Webmaster. Webmaster can accept the photocopy.

The original producer who actually takes the photos cannot accept a photocopy of an ID.

Nope, I didn't read it wrong luv .... why should I be held accountable for an ID THAT I PERSONALLY NEVER SAW? What guarantee do I have that the "original" producer hasn't changed the "original" document in some way? Zip, Zero, None.

How does my having a "copy" of said document make the guy any more or less legal than he was when the material was produced and said documentation viewed by the one actually taking the photos/video? The one(s) responsible for age documentation should rest squarely on the shoulders of the person, or the company that hired a person, to photograph the model. Period.
12-19-2008, 05:13 AM
gaybucks_chip

If I'm not mistaken, this issue has come up before and I believe there were letters between Justice and the FSC that indicated that a secondary producer who is relying on a copy of an ID provided by a primary producer will not be held liable for problems with that ID.

However, a primary producer (i.e., someone who actually shot the content) does have the requirement to inspect the ID personally.

In other words, the secondary producer has to have a copy of the ID, but isn't responsible if there turns out to be a problem with it, since s/he is only looking at a copy. The primary has a greater responsibility in that s/he has to personally inspect the ID documents.
12-19-2008, 09:27 AM
maxx68

Even though I don't produce any content, 2257, still concerns me. I have always put links and 2257 info on my sites directing visitors to the content producer or owner of the content (sponsor).

When I start my own pay site I am damn well and sure that I am going to have a professional (lawyer) handle my 2257 paper-work.