So How Will 2257 Change The Adult Landscape Over The Next 12 Months?

[Lee]

Now that secondary producers also have to start keeping records, how do you folks think the 2257 regulations are going start shaping the adult industry in terms of growth and consolidation?

I personally think we're going to start seeing a lot less free content being offered by programs, i know im currently considering pulling all the free affiliate content i offer on Condom Cash.

I also think we're going to see the companies who do provide affiliates with free content go one of two routes, they are either going to start consolidating the amount of FHGs and hosted free sites they have out there already to a bare minimum or, they are going to start using some kind of centralized 'pool' of content that is shared among many programs.

In addition, i think we're going to start seeing a huge boom in paysites that use the same members area, much like many of the larger PPS programs use now which, in itself i can see being huge for one or two companies, especially if they start to 'rent' out their members areas as 3rd party plugins.

So what do you folks think the major changes over the coming few months will be thanks to this new 2257 ruling affecting secondary producers and also, if you currently use content provided to you by your sponsors, are you trying to get documents for the content you are using or will you be dumping it?

Regards,

Lee

[gaybucks_chip]

I see a number things happening

- A lot more flexible (and sophisticated) options in free hosted galleries, still and video, from sponsors

- Some sponsors offering a web-based 2257 tool that provides redacted ID information and cross referencing for affiliates who choose to host their own content

- A LOT of programs simply dropping all but hosted advertising tools

- A significant number of affiliates simply ignoring the regulations and continuing as though nothing has changed.

- An increase in the amount of non-US affiliates, as some US affiliates dry up and go away due to the increased regulations

- And continuing industry consolidation, as we are already seeing... VODs buying other VODs, bigger programs buying smaller ones, etc.

[Lee]

A LOT of programs simply dropping all but hosted advertising tools

- A significant number of affiliates simply ignoring the regulations and continuing as though nothing has changed.

I think these two are actually the most likely thing to happen from your list Chip, hosted promo tools are going to become huge over the coming months, up to a point, that point being how 'secure' affiliates that do primarily TGP based stuff with hosted galleries feel using thumbs, which in itself leads to the option that we'll start seeing thumn preview TGPs start dying off.

As for the affiliates ignoring the regulations, thats always going happen no matter what, and its these people that we need to drive out of the industry because they arent only painting a target on their heads, but also on everyone elses because of their actions.

Regards,

Lee

[basschick]

the problem is that the affiliates who go on like nothing changed may not just hurt themselves. remember - producers are required to keep track of all the urls their content appears on, so programs may have to come up with new terms and may need to term anyone who leaves their content up - or else who puts it on a url that the program isn't notified of.

[gaybucks_chip]

If I'm not mistaken, that regulation was either stricken or changed to a "best reasonable effort" sort of thing regarding the web, because somebody (correctly) realized that a content producer would have absolutely no way of knowing who has stolen your content and therefore can't reasonably be expected to know of every use of it on the web... but I do think that sponsors will want to have a lot more control over how their content is used.

[basschick]

i heard (i think from chad on this very board) that the fbi agent that spoke 2 conventions ago said they would take a "best reasonable effort" approach, but i have not heard that the law has actually changed nor that the fbi or doj has actually confirmed what that single agent said.

If I'm not mistaken, that regulation was either stricken or changed to a "best reasonable effort" sort of thing regarding the web, because somebody (correctly) realized that a content producer would have absolutely no way of knowing who has stolen your content and therefore can't reasonably be expected to know of every use of it on the web... but I do think that sponsors will want to have a lot more control over how their content is used.

[Xstr8guy]

The big players will move offshore.

[IdolKnights]

Bass - then it is 100% safe to state NO SITE IN AMERICA is compliant

Where as there is no possible way to know who saved an image from your site, then uploaded it someplace else without letting you know.

Yes? Because anything but a Yes would go against your bottom line! point of

but i have not heard that the law has actually changed nor that the fbi or doj has actually confirmed what that single agent said.

[basschick]

so far, only one of the companies inspected has come even close to passing their inspections - so say the fbi/ex fbi guys who did the inspections.

and i expect that if you can show that pics were taken without your permission, no judge would have a problem with the situation.

Bass - then it is 100% safe to state NO SITE IN AMERICA is compliant

Where as there is no possible way to know who saved an image from your site, then uploaded it someplace else without letting you know.

Yes? Because anything but a Yes would go against your bottom line! point of

[chubbs]

PANAMA HERE I COME!!!

Fire up the bbq Luke, I am expecting a welcome home feast!! :p

[chadknowslaw]

There have been a handful of inspections. The FBI Supervisor-- not merely an agent -- said that most did not completely pass.
No charges have been filed.

The sky is not falling.

There is real life and then there is the fantasy land of rigid application of the law. Only on a law school exam, where the student is taught to critically think about the theory, can a motorist traveling 65.02 MPH in a 65.00 MPH zone be stopped, ticketed, and convicted. It is the same fantasy land where a producer whose material is on 100 different websites and he has listed 98 of them will that producer go to jail.

Joe Francis [Girls Gone Wild] had videos of underage girls and NO records. He was fined and given community service. How can anyone possibly presume that a producer who is trying to comply with the law but fails to cross a T or dot and I will go to prison for 5 years when a blatant offender is fined?


There must be intent to break a law. There must also be something serious for a United States Attorney to charge someone with a crime in Federal Court. The US Attorneys office does not have unlimited resources, and federal judges do not have the courtroom time to spend on a webmaster who had some but not all of the URLs for his content listed. If you seriously break the law, you can be punished. If you are 98% there at compliance, the federal system will not waste its time on you. There are drug traffickers, kidnappers, murderers, and other serious threats to society that must come first.

Comply with the law but dont freak out that there is no way to be 100% compliant.

[Mansized]

There must be intent to break a law. There must also be something serious for a United States Attorney to charge someone with a crime in Federal Court. The US Attorneys office does not have unlimited resources, and federal judges do not have the courtroom time to spend on a webmaster who had some but not all of the URLs for his content listed. If you seriously break the law, you can be punished. If you are 98% there at compliance, the federal system will not waste its time on you. There are drug traffickers, kidnappers, murderers, and other serious threats to society that must come first.

Comply with the law but dont freak out that there is no way to be 100% compliant.

I am so glad you posted that paragraph!

[Chilihost]

PANAMA HERE I COME!!!

Fire up the bbq Luke, I am expecting a welcome home feast!! :p

come on down! :luke:

[tonysparks]

I'm not sure I would accept Chad's analysis as excellent legal advice. In fact, I think most attorneys would advise you that it's better to be safe than sorry.

I don't think that intent is part of the definition of the 2257 regs. In fact, it is just the opposite, like statutory rape--strict liability. Commit the crime, do the time.

The reference to Joe Francis getting off with a slap on the wrist should be taken in context. Joe has MILLION$ of dollars and the best legal minds on his side. He got off because he had (and could afford) excellent representation.

Also, don't depend on the fact that the caseload of the federal judiciary and the DOJ's investigative arms will diminish the enforcement of these laws. It is clear that the feds are ready to take some action, they are doing so, and we're only one indictment away from somebody actually being prosecuted under these laws.

BOTTOM LINE--as impossible as some of rules are, make sure that you are as close to compliant as you can be. Take nothing for granted. Then hope that you don't get inspected or that you will be forgiven for minor infractions.

Finally, the one thing I find that will change for me, is all the hot immigrants and tourists who I've shot over the last couple years will never be published (at least, until the regs change)!

[gaybucks_chip]

Finally, the one thing I find that will change for me, is all the hot immigrants and tourists who I've shot over the last couple years will never be published (at least, until the regs change)!

Assuming you reside in the US, any non-US citizens you shot inside the US prior to 6/23/05 can still be published. That is not at all in question, the DOJ made clear that the new policy about work visas for non-US citizens applies only to content CREATED after 6/23/05, although initially many thought it applied to content PUBLISHED after 6/23/05.

As for Chad's advice... I feel pretty confident taking Chad's advice because (a) he's actually been correct several times when he went against what several of the other major first amendment guys said, and I don't think he's ever been wrong (that I know of, to the extent anything's been validated) on any of the positions he's taken; (b) he's a former prosecutor who worked both locally and cooperated with the Feds and probably has a much better idea of how they allocate resources than almost anybody else doing First Amendment work, and (c) he's actually pretty conservative on some 2257 issues.

Of course, nothing that *anyone* says is definitive until there's case law to prove or disprove theories. But each of us would be wise to learn as much as we can about the issues, get advice from as many trusted sources as we feel comfortable (and economically justified) in getting, and then make the choices that are comfortable within each of our own individual levels of risk tolerance.