How many sponsors provide them Patti? I don't see a lot of sponsors excited about releasing unredacted ID's to affiliates.Originally Posted by basschick
How many sponsors provide them Patti? I don't see a lot of sponsors excited about releasing unredacted ID's to affiliates.
I truly doubt there is a single secondary producer that is completely compliant... unless they only have a few sites.
C'mon! Don't tell me that you have a database that has every single url of every depiction of your hundreds of models on hundreds of sites/galleries! That would take years to accomplish. And no one has ever shown me a script/program that can accomplish this task yet.
I'm sorry but I don't think people are being honest about their compliance. Sure, I believe that many primary producers are compliant with the old regs. But I seriously doubt that most are truly compliant with the new regs.
don't look at me - i removed every nude picture we had on june 22, 2005. but honestly a bunch of sponsors have been willing to give me i.d.s. i'm not sure if it's their policy or it's because they know me.
Hehe, I know. I guess my question shouldn't have directed at you. You're the exception.
But I'm just trying to understand what I'm hearing from everyone. I just don't buy it that every secondary producer is compliant because I don't think it's even possible.
I agree completely. I do not believe that anyone can be 100% compliant with the law the way it is written! If you have a site that uses frames or is otherwise not completely static, maintaining a list of EVERY URL for EVERY IMAGE is impossible.
However, I do not believe anyone is going to jail because their 2257 records do not include every URL or the other asinine requirements. If we look to the Girls Gone Wild prosecution, we see a producer that didn't have complete records and allegedly had underage performers yet walked away with probation and a not-so hefty fine. That does not mean ALL prosecutions would follow that precedent but it certainly sets a standard by which all others will be judged.
Keeping records of every model that appears on the website satisfies the bulk of the intent of the law. If I were making the prosecution decision, I certainly would not waste time on a producer that had copies of IDs for every model, evidence that all models were 18 at the time of the shooting, but failed to comply with the "every URL ever used" technicality.
Chad Belville, Esq
Phoenix, Arizona
www.chadknowslaw.com
Keeping you out of trouble is easier than getting you out of trouble!
I cannot believe that a non-US webmaster with non-US domainnames, non-US hosting and non-US content do have to comply if he is selling to US citizens. Then we should also comply with chinese laws, arabian laws and so on.
Let's translate the "cyberworld" to the "real world": An American tourist comes to Amsterdam (there are thousands of them right now, because of the so-called international canabisweek). He goes to a "coffeeshop" to buy some joints. Nothing illegal about that in Holland as you all know. Just because the customer is a US citizen, the coffeeshop owner should comply to US regulations and should not sell the joints ? This is not realistic.
US regulations do not count for those who do not live / host in the US. The FBI is not authorised to go after the webmasters who are in this (ideal) situation.
Well, thank you Chad! That was refreshing to hear a dose of reality. Now if I could just get some ID's from World Wide Content, I could get a night's sleep. Lol.
Oh... and do I REALLY need to worry about explicit banners and galleries that use sponsor content?
That is not the same.
It is perfectly legal for a US citizen to travel to Amsterdam, smoke a joint and rent a prostitute.
It NOT legal for someone in Amsterdam to ship that same joint to a guy in Mobile, Alabama.
The important location is where the product is delivered, not where it came from, so a webmaster in Amsterdam with servers in Amsterdam does not need to comply with US law until he delivers products to a consumer in the US. Once that webmaster allows his product to be delivered to a US consumer, he is obligated to comply with US law or else decline delivery. If you want to take advantage of a particular market, you must comply with the laws that apply to sale in that market.
The laws of the US apply to anyone that sells to US consumers that are located in the US. The laws of any jurisdiction apply to goods and services delivered to that location; that is not just some US anomaly. In your Amsterdam scenario, the goods are delivered within a jurisdiction where it is legal to do so, but would land you in jail if you delivered those goods to the same consumer on US soil.
Chad Belville, Esq
Phoenix, Arizona
www.chadknowslaw.com
Keeping you out of trouble is easier than getting you out of trouble!
If and only if they could get an extridition. If your models are not kids, i find it hardly unlikely that they would go for extriditon, and in case, they would need juridistiction to inspect in your country, which they dont actually have. And also why bother? Why spend the money involved to inpsect on foriegn soil, extradite and then prosecute?
That said, you should have model ids anyway. Anyone can accuse you of cp, even YOUR OWN LOCAL POLICE FORCE!
didn't expect that much response..i guess i should have included some other facts....
1) I am Canadian
2) Reside in Canada
3) site is hosted in NYC
4) i am complient on all videos etc
So was just inquiring - does it make a diff at this point if i move my site outside usa.
and no - no intentions of going non-2257 complient - i would just rather leave my options open so i can grow business then have it hampered by the us govt.
Will wait until you get another Dem president before i consider moving it back!
:luke:
Not to be a jerk or anything... but how can http://www.usajock.com/ be 2257 compliant when you don't even have the required "18 U.S.C. 2257 Record Keeping Requirements Compliance Statement" link on the bottom of your website? Even CCbill requires this on any sites for which they process. And you're using CCbill.
if you read my above statements you won't have to be a jerk :p
your site is not 2257 compliant unless you have the words
18 U.S.C. 2257 Record-Keeping Requirements Compliance Statement
exactly on your site. and on the page that those words must lead to would be your business address and a list of 20 hours per week that you are there if you are not there ALL business hours.
otherwise your site is in violation of 2257 whether you possess your models' i.d.s or not - it's really that simple.
Chad, thanks for your detailed reply. What if an american enters a .nl / .de / .eu domain? I thought in that case, it's the surfer who "visits" Europe. Not the webmaster selling in the US.
Still, if foreign webmasters should obey to the US laws, than we also should follow the laws which were made in the Middle East or Far East.
Hope you can bring in some light on these matters as well.
Of course every WM should fight CP and abuse, however I am not sure if 2257 is the right way.
Regardless of the domain the surfer enters, the surfer is still receiving the product in the US, and it is that law that applies because that is where the product is actually being delivered--to the surfer who is physically within US borders. So, the surfer does not actually "visit" any other country while sitting in his bedroom at the trailer park in Tennessee, and the product is delivered into the United States. Imagine if a host in Amsterdam could somehow electronically "deliver" a joint to a surfer in Detroit! The product at the shipping point is legal, but at the destination where it is actually consumed it is illegal. There are jurisdictions where sexually explicit images of 17 year olds are legal, but when those images are delivered to a US postal inspector arrest warrants get issued.
As far as following Middle East laws, you must comply with those laws if you are selling in those countries. You won't get surfers who are buying your product in Saudi Arabia because of the national filters however!! Saudi Arabia prohibits pornography and has set up a virtual Port Authority that stops incoming shipments. There are no such "inspection points" for content coming into the US -- luckily.
Enforcement of 2257 against non-US residents is unlikely, however. A non-US webmaster will be under significantly more pressure from private parties, such as his billing company, host, and affiliated websites, to comply with the law as many companies will refuse to deal with anyone, even non-US, that refuses to at least make an attempt to comply with that law.
Personally, I believe 2257 is very ill-conceived by people who do not understand how production and distribution of legal adult pornography works. 2257 does nothing to prevent children from sexual exploitation, and it drains resources that could otherwise be used in actually curbing underage porn. It provides no assistance to producers to verify ID's. I would love to completely re-write the law. Actually, I just need to be appointed President for the next 2 years. Or Dictator. It would be easier to get things accomplished as a Dictator than President.
I would make DonMike my Secretary of Sex Education. :whip:
Chad Belville, Esq
Phoenix, Arizona
www.chadknowslaw.com
Keeping you out of trouble is easier than getting you out of trouble!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks