Vital News To Avoid Jail Time

[Buck Angel]

Yes, I know I'm screaming. I just had a meeting with Greggory Piccionelli, THE 2257 attorney. His advice was absolutely clear:

Anybody who has any adult sites that are not in 100% FULL compliance with 2257 including cross referenced records of EVERY MODEL, EVERY URL, EVERY date of production, etc. should pull them down before the 23rd of June.

Get this, even if there is ONLY ONE model on the entire site, such as me, and only me, I would STILL need to comply with the record keeping for every URL, every date of production, etc. etc. etc.!!!!!

This is a wake up call. This is very serious. He said they are on a witch hunt, they are going to get people, and people are going to serve jail time.

He said ANY omission whatsoever in the recordkeeping exposes you to a first offense, resulting in a sentence of up to 5 years. The second offense (which they can come back the next day to bring charges on) is up to 10 years, with a MINIMUM of two years served plus a fine.

Even if you are "mostly" in compliance, this doesn't help at all....

JOIN THE FREE SPEECH COALITION (Yes, I know I'm shouting again). They are going to be filing an injunction against the statute, and only Coalition Members will be protected by it!

Wake up and DO WHAT YOU NEED TO DO! After the injunction (if it is successful) the sites may be able to go back up. :cry:

I hope this helps. I am taking my sites down on Sunday, hopefully to put them back up after the injunction is filed.

Even my wife's site www.ringsofdesire.com which just shows clinical body piercing videos (including genital piercings) is risky and he advised her to get all of the graphic peircing shots/videos behind a credit card wall. Now she requires people to send a statement that they are over 18 with address and phone number. He said that is worthless! If you think a signature script at your entry will protect you, you're wrong.

Be smart and be careful!!!!!
Buck

[Slade]

The same attorney?
------------
"LAS VEGAS - Talent Management Services has announced the pending release of its patent pending my2257 software, which is billed as a complete SQL database for managing and compiling 2257 records.
The system was developed in conjunction with attorney Gregory A. Piccionelli, Esq. of Brull Piccionelli Sarno & Braun.

[basschick]

buck - the same exact laws apply to your videos. you're already the custodian of records for the videos that you have sold, and must have all the i.d. cross referenced and available - so why are the sites different from the videos to you?

btw, seems to me the website is safer because you can put your business hours on it.

[Squirt]

btw, seems to me the website is safer because you can put your business hours on it.

Speaking of which.. for those who don't work 20 hours a week this regulation is, by it's demands of business hours, forcing you to work 20 hours a week.... uh they can't do that :groovy:

[MiamiB]

Clearly this "new and improved" 2257 is designed to drive the "little guy" OUT OF BUSINESS. It is NOT designed to actually "protect children" at all...

Lee

[Buck Angel]

buck - the same exact laws apply to your videos. you're already the custodian of records for the videos that you have sold, and must have all the i.d. cross referenced and available - so why are the sites different from the videos to you?

btw, seems to me the website is safer because you can put your business hours on it.

The difference is the record keeping requirements. Both websites and videos obviously have to have IDs, but for WEB SITES the 2257 law requires EACH URL be recorded with a bunch of stuff: the "name of the work," each model's ID, date of production, and more--for EVERY SINGLE page of every adult website.

I only have 4 scenes in my videos. That is a lot easier to document and cross reference than all the pages and pages, gallery upon gallery, etc. in my websites.

To reiterate, he said that if ONE single URL on your site doesn't have ALL of the exact information required, they can ARREST you. NOT worth it! He was very clear with me about this.

Until the injunction is filed and the relief it offers clarified, I am pulling my sites. I am not willing to risk going to jail over this (or ruining my finances with a law suit even if I don't end up serving time.)

I am continuing to focus on making new videos--I am NOT dropping out entirely, but I am going to be cautious during this dangerous time of flux with the law.

Buck

[Fister]

The difference is the record keeping requirements. Both websites and videos obviously have to have IDs, but for WEB SITES the 2257 law requires EACH URL be recorded with a bunch of stuff: the "name of the work," each model's ID, date of production, and more--for EVERY SINGLE page of every adult website...

Not every single page, but "a copy of any URL associated with the depiction" 28CFR75.2(a)(1)(ii). I take this to mean the URL's of the depiction, i.e., .jpg's, .gif's, .mpg's, etc.....it's still a helluva lot of record keeping.

[tombarr]

(from the DOJ comments section)
"The Department understands that it would not be possible to track or maintain records of dynamically generated URLs.

The rule is updates the requirement from the previous version of 2257 "expressly to include Internet depictions by requiring that this indexing also include any static URLs associated with depictions of tha tperformer and to maintain a copy of the depiction with the static URL associated with the depiction.

so the way i read this.. if you have a dynamic website, you can put the location of the images as the root domain or the root of the sub domain that the images are dynamicallly generated on and you are covered

...