2257 Laws

[Slade]

Just curious if anyone has so far encountered any problems with the new 2257 regulations or know of anyone that has?

I've been wondering from day one just where they are going to get the manpower & money to enforce them.

[Lee]

There are no new 2257 laws.

Regards,

Lee

[Slade]

Originally posted by Lee
There are no new 2257 laws.

Regards,

Lee

Thank you for being so helpful. I was not looking forward to a smart ass back handed slap at an honest question.
-----------------------

From Ounique.com:http://www.ounique.com/site/HostedGalleries.htm

As the new 2257 legislation is scheduled to go into effect, we have been asked by many clients whether or not webmasters' use of hosted galleries would be legal.
While we are not attorneys and do not give legal advice, it is our own understanding that while nothing in the new legislation specifically prevents the use of Hosted Galleries, the record keeping requirements may make them a thing of the past.

The proposed legislation appears to have three requirements that may make the use of hosted galleries logistically infeasible.

It seems the spirit of the legislation requires ALL webmasters to keep model releases and IDs on ALL models used in the images displayed on their sites. It does not make any exception for those using hosted galleries.
Each webmaster must be able to match the documents to each image in the hosted galleries.
The proposal for the new legislation also states, "Web pages appear to have an average life of only 100 days, and Web addresses disappear and change to such an extent that a permanent record of the depiction and its temporary locations (URL) are required." Thus every time the location of the content on a hosted gallery changes, the webmaster will need to update their 2257 records to accurately record

[Lee]

Again..

THERE ARE NO NEW 2257 LAWS

Just in case you didnt comprehend my first reply.

Regards,

Lee

[Slade]

Originally posted by Lee
Again..

THERE ARE NO NEW 2257 LAWS

Just in case you didnt comprehend my first reply.

Regards,

Lee

Do me a favor and NEVER ever again reply to any of my posts.
Thank you.

[Lee]

Can somebody please give this guy a clue before i ban him.

I actually dont think i can give him the answer any clearer than i already have done though but please feel free to try.

Regards,

Lee

[nicedreams]

The changes were only proposed. They are not law yet.

Jim

[JustMe]

Greetings:

Originally posted by Slade
Do me a favor and NEVER ever again reply to any of my posts.

Geez, so hostile. Minus 5 princess points for you!

[Dzinerbear]

I'm assuming you're talking about the new 2257 laws where a webmaster has to maintain the age of consent information on every single picture appearing on their site, even if it's in a banner, or in content they don't even own. Is this the new law you're talking about?

This was proposed. It was not a law. The U.S. government basically said this is what we want to do, then there was a period of discussion where interested parties could educate the government about their issues and concerns before a law was put to a vote, or however you guys do it down there.

And then you guys had an election and all those fundamentalists voted for Bush because he was proposing this strong new anti-porn law. George Bush won. Ashcroft resigned. And now we're all waiting patiently for the government's next step.

And Slade, before you rip someone a new asshole and read some smart ass intent inbetween the LINEs of his answered post, you might wanna make sure the new asshole you're carving just doesn't belong to the board owner.

Dzinerbear

[Slade]

Originally posted by nicedreams
The changes were only proposed. They are not law yet.

Jim

Thank you Jim. I knew they were proposed changes and should have worded my original question to: how difficult is it for some of you to become mandatory for these new changes?

Bottom line: How really difficult would it have been for Lee, in either his first or 2nd reply to phrase his message just as Jim just did?

[Lee]

Originally posted by Slade
Bottom line: How really difficult would it have been for Lee, in either his first or 2nd reply to phrase his message just as Jim just did?

Agreed and you have my apologies, in all honesty i let my frustration with a situation on another board make its way across to our community. I should have given you a better answer to your question than the one i did.

Regards,

Lee

[Dzinerbear]

Dude,

You have to understand that we went through reams of discussion about this when it was proposed several months ago. The drama went on for days about what it meant, what it might mean, what it might possibility mean, what somebody's neighbour's lawyer said it sorta meant. And then just when the discussion would die to a simmer, someone new would pop up and say, "I heard the FBI can wake you up in the middle of the night and demand 2257 documents, is this true?" So that's probably why your post received the treatment it did.

If you want to read the background, you can go ahead and search for it on the board.

Cheers
Dzinerbear

[undermyspell]

Slade.. Let me start off by saying that I am not sure if i'm going to like you or not considering you have the same name as my ex husband.. but i'll give you a shot anyway.. :angel:

j/k.. had to get over the initial shock of seeing someone named Slade.. LOL

ok.. here is my take on the situation.. because they are still proposed changes and not actually law I will voice my opinion on what is going to happen should they ever be passed.

Content providers who have their shit together will not have a problem, it's the fly by night people that are going to get hammered. Sponsors that use the solid content providers will not have a problem and those that shoot their own content will be good to go as long as their records are meticulous. It's best to follow the paper trail to those that are running solid operations and those that are a bit shady.

[chadknowslaw]

I have seen Webmasters demand compliance with the 2257 proposals thinking they had already become law--which is far from the truth. The way the proposals were written, compliance would be very difficult and time consuming. Some of the proposals were just revamped portions of law that had been struck down at the Circuit Court level [but never made it to the US Supreme Court] and are generally assumed to be unenforceable. If the proposals do get published, which is the next step for them to have the effect of law, there are groups ready, willing and able to mount a substantial court challenge which would most likely stay any enforcement actions. With AG Ashcroft on the way out, my personal expectation is that the proposed changes will go with him and the incoming AG will have the current 2257 revisted. There has never been any enforcement of 2257--EVER--and there are no changes that have been made. This really was a hot topic in July and August. Right now, just sit tight, and to get good answers, contact an attorney familiar with adult entertainment law. That is a short list~

[djdez]

I'll take the same stance that we do not offer legal advice.... however based on the information and advice we were given by our council - hosted galleries will not even be a factor for our affiliates.

Since the domains in which our hosted galleries sit on are owned by us.... the affiliate should not have to keep any 2257 documents. Basically, an affiliate linking to a hosted gallery on their site is no different then a TGP linking to a submitted gallery.

I don't really get the logic of ounique.... if what they're saying becomes a reality.... then every AEN (AVS), tgp, link list, search engine would need to have the 2257 records for everything they link to.... which of course means that Webmasters will have much more to worry about then if they can link to hosted gallery. for many, their entire traffic streams would come to an end.