Printable View
Sorry if this is a re-post...
Okay, I may be a little dense at times, I admit it.
I am a bit confused right now. Do I as an affiliate need to keep actual copies of 2257 info from each of my sponsors? I've been reading elsewhere that now affiliates are going to be required to keep such records do to being considered a secondary producer.
I also read this goes into effect this month.
Any info would be appreciated.
Thanks Jay
And I also read that the way around this is by using nothing but "R" rated content.
How many sponsors actually offer "R" rated content? Sheeesh!
It is my understanding that yes, affiliates (ie; secondary producers) are required to keep 2257 records for all explicit content that they are retransmitting.
Loosely speaking, explicit means sex, cum, cocks, balls, buttholes, tits, and pussies. The reality is a bit more complex than that. The law uses terms like "lascivious displays of the pubic region".
And when I say sex, that doesn't mean just shots that show penetration. The law has always said real sex requires IDs, but the new 2257 interpretation going into effect also states that it covers simulated sex as well. Meaning all those softcore images of a guy parked behind another guy's butts are illegal, even if you couldn't tell if the two were really fucking or not. If it's meant to suggest sex now, it's interpreted as actually being sex regardless or not whether that's what is going on.
At GayGeek we long ago made the choice of being strict on our choice of images that we display. Most other review sites have ignored 2257 laws and show explicit pictures. Some of those review sites are outside the USA, but I will be curious to see if the American ones make any changes in their approach.
--Aaron
PS, Most sponsors are totally understandable about the desire to run non-explicit images as well. If you ask them they're usually happy to let you pop inside their website to grab PG-rated images.
affiliates have been legally responsible to house all i.d. for all sexually explicit content since june 23 2005.
and it is iffy whether showing a PG pic from an X set is complient, although no one will know how that will go until a court case or two happen. but R rated content can be considered sexually explicit, because the term "lascivious" being used with genitals. it's not a very descriptive term since lascivious tends to be in the eye of the beholder.
We actually went so far as to have tiered ratings for downloadable content we provide in our sales tools. PG-13, R, and X pic sets are available for most of our sites for those webmasters too lazy to sift through mountains of porn to find the non-explicit, lol
Speaking as an affiliate who only displays PG content, it's extremely helpful for me when websites make PG content available as part of .zip files or PG hosted galleries.
I'm not lazy and I'm perfectly willing to sort through mountains of porn to find a handful of PG shots, but it takes me approximately an hour to find 40 good PG pictures when I have to find them in mostly X-rated content. But if I'm able to sort through PG-only content, I can find the images I want in a quarter of that time.
When you consider that I have 800 websites listed on GayGeek, you can see how the difference in time rapidly adds up. Accordingly, websites that make it easy to find PG content get priority when it comes to grabbing pictures.
--Aaron
Ps, This doesn't mean a website has to have a specific .zip file or hosted gallery for PG content. Sean Cody, for example, makes its PG pictures available to all users on their website. So once I have the webmaster's permission I can zoom around their site grabbing the pictures I need within minutes. It's the sites that only offer X-rated promo content or don't offer promo content at all that take up all my time.
PPS, DrChango -- I've been updating TopBucks info GayGeek for two days now and am about to grab gallery pictures. I am highly pleased to hear that you have PG-specific galleries!
We aim to please :shades:
Well, actually, the injunction that was issued on 6/23/05 as a result of FSC's actions prevented that part of the requirements from going into effect. So that's no more required than people were required to follow the rules of COPA which had an injunction preventing enforcement of it until the issue went through litigation 5 years later (or whenever it was) when it was ultimately struck down.Quote:
Originally Posted by basschick
It is the new additions to the law and the regulations that go into effect 3/20/09 that require documentation on most depictions of simulated sex and sexually explicit conduct, as well as certain types of simple nudity.
the injunction only applied to an individual group of people, and while the popular thought was that this would keep the fbi from doing inspections, a few did in fact happen during that time - and to fsc members.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gaybucks_chip
I don't really consider myself protected by either injunctions or agreements with the FSC. Bottom line, if the FBI show up at my door demanding to see my records, I can either comply or they'll likely drag me off in handcuffs and take my computer and records anyway. (I won't be watching as they show up at my server company and take away the server that houses my websites).
Sure, I may win in court and get my computers and records back, but I will permanently have an arrest on my criminal record. And the government will not compensate me for my lost business, legal fees, and costs associated with getting a replacement computer to use while mine is in custody. Nor will there be any compensation for the extreme stress such an experience causes.
For Flynt Publications, they've got an entire legal team set up to combat this sort of thing on a moment's notice. And Flynt (or whomever) can sit in jail knowing there are powers that be fighting to get them out that will take the case to the Supreme Court if need be (he's done it before!). Meanwhile it's business as usual for the majority of their company.
For the little guy this is an extremely disruptive experience. At best I would have a permanent arrest record and extreme financial costs. At worst I could actually do jail time while the FSC sends out press releases about how badly I'm being treated.
No siree, I'm not gonna bet my future on an agreement between the DoJ and FSC nor the goodwill of the government to leave me alone.
--Aaron
Edit: fixed a grammatical error
Nobody fucking knows.
I for one an a bit concerned about all of this. The direction this country (world) is going makes taking the risk, well, really not worth it.
Add to the fact that the economy has tanked, the amount of competition and the fact that I absolutely suck at selling anything....
I wonder if the 2257 requirements pertain to art as well. I have been really thinking about building a site to showcase my digital art, hmmmmm.
As Chad and others have pointed out numerous times, the injunction effectively did apply to everyone even though the FSC said it only applied to their members. I don't remember the specifics, but it has something to do with the equal protection clause of the constitution or something.Quote:
Originally Posted by basschick
Additionally, Agent Joyner from the FBI reported that no secondary producer inspections were being done or have been done. I don't remember anyone thinking that the FBI wasn't going to do inspections at all, only that the injunction would (and did) prevent secondary producer inspections.
That is a really important question. At present, depictions of simulated sex or display of the genitals that does not involve sexual activity are excluded from 2257, but that will change on 3/19/09. However, a number of people believe that some of the current revisions to 2257 (and those sections in particular) will not survive a First Amendment challenge.Quote:
Originally Posted by maxx68
many people believed that there would be no inspections while the injuction was being sorted out - of the people i talked to, more people than not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gaybucks_chip
And there was one heralded inspections report in 2006, that didn't actually happen.
LOL yeah JJ was a little devious in getting press over that.Quote:
Originally Posted by nickbaer
Regards,
Lee
a "little devious" is, in my opinion, a gross minimization. That was probably the single shadiest, most irresponsible act that anyone in the industry has done in quite a long time. At a time when everyone is concerned about what was happening with the inspections and what to expect, what was supposedly inspected (FBI has no authority to ask for model releases under 2257), concerns about inspections exceeding 2257 (the agents supposedly went into the kitchen and living room, even though there were no records there)Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee
A lot of people were really concerned about what that inspection meant, since it was so different from the others... and I suspect there are a LOT of people who still believe that it happened.
It's incredibly shameful that someone would use an issue that is such a hot button to the industry as a whole as a cheap theatrical stunt to try and gain visibility for his studio.
Wow. I completely believe you, but I'm stunned at the ignorance. Anybody who believed that inspections of primary producers weren't going to take place was simply looking through rose-colored glasses. Ashcroft was chastised for not having done any inspections, that's why they rushed through the process of updating the regulations in the first place, so one needed only put two and two together to figure it out. Of course there weren't any secondary producer inspections since it wouldn't make sense to spend the resources doing those until the underlying legal issues were resolved, but there was plenty left untouched by the injunction to allow inspections of primary producers to go forward.Quote:
Originally Posted by basschick
Okay, I gotta ask. What's the story here?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee
--Aaron
Actually....Quote:
Originally Posted by gaybucks_chip
The people who beleived it were the ones who also beleived that by 'donating' to the FSC was going to protect them... While all the time the FSC was spending hundreds of thousands of dollars of that money on extravagant lobster, caviar and champagne luncheons at a cost of tens of thousands of dollars to get a few thousand dollars in 'donations' back.
Where are the FSC now? I dont see anybody from that organization posting on ANY of the message boards in the industry they were so adamnt they wanted to protect, instead, now that they have made their money off the 2257 issuse, they have moved on to the next big thing.. Piracy and are actively posting about piracy, while this 2257 issue still looms over us and could potentially put thousands of legitimate adult company owners out of business.
We have 6 days to go until these new 2257 regulations actually become law and still nothing from the FSC.
Perhaps if they hadnt wasted hundreds of thousands of dollars on all those lavish dinners and 'fund-raisers' (which didnt make anywhere near how much they cost to throw btw) they could be spending that money that hundreds upon hundreds of individual webmasters and companies donated to fight the 2257 issue.
Regards,
Lee
(Bump) But it wasn't the only nor the last theatrical stunt from there...
Quote:
Originally Posted by gaybucks_chip
So i have been searching and searching, from the crappy web site of free speech coalition to other lawyer sites, to government sites. I cannot seem to find the Actual regulations as amended this year. not just the changes but the complete run down.
Does anyone have a link to it. I want to read it in its entirety as amended for myself. Seems like we all should have easy access to it.
Anyone Know?
Thank you
marc
Here's the text of 2257 as of the 2007 updates:
http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/w...egs7122007.pdf
Here's the text of 4472/2257A:
http://www.freespeechonline.org/webdocs/109248t5.pdf
Here's a version that takes 2257 and incorporates the changes from 4472 so you can see what was changed:
http://my.execpc.com/~xxxlaw/22572006_Redlined.htm
Here's 28 CFR 75 (the actual regulations that enforce the law) which includes the regulations most recently updated December 20, 2008:
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text...dno=28;cc=ecfr
It's a lot to read, but you really have to go through all of it to understand the regulations. The original 2257 is exceptionally poorly written and not easy to understand, while the latest regulations from December actually clarified a lot of ambiguities that were previously present.
BTW Marc, nice to see you posting here! Our editor was actually just a month or so ago reediting the scene we shot with you some years ago (in the berkeley hills... with the goats next door...) for use in a new project we're working on :)