Originally Posted by pornlaw (Post 824776)

Yes, this is the text from 28 CFR 75.2 Maintenance of Records..

I have highlighted, italicized and underlined the portion referring to keeping a copy of the content...

(1) The legal name and date of birth of each performer, obtained by the producer's examination of a picture identification card prior to production of the depiction. For any performer portrayed in a depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct (except lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person) made after July 3, 1995, or of an actual human being engaged in simulated sexually explicit conduct or in actual sexually explicit conduct limited to lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person made after March 18, 2009, the records shall also include a legible hard copy or legible digitally scanned or other electronic copy of a hard copy of the identification document examined and, if that document does not contain a recent and recognizable picture of the performer, a legible hard copy of a picture identification card. For any performer portrayed in a depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct (except lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person) made after June 23, 2005, or of an actual human being engaged in simulated sexually explicit conduct or in actual sexually explicit conduct limited to lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person made after March 18, 2009, the records shall include a copy of the depiction, and, where the depiction is published on an Internet computer site or service, a copy of any URL associated with the depiction. If no URL is associated with the depiction, the records shall include another uniquely identifying reference associated with the location of the depiction on the Internet. For any performer in a depiction performed live on the Internet, the records shall include a copy of the depiction with running-time sufficient to identify the performer in the depiction and to associate the performer with the records needed to confirm his or her age.

Michael

www.AdultBizLaw.com
www.2257Safe.com

Originally Posted by Jim_Gunn (Post 824779)

Thanks for the clarification. I am considering all my options for 3rd party record keeping, hopefully I will be able to come to a decision after the Phoenix Forum, where I suspect that there will be more 3rd party record keeping solutions.

Originally Posted by pornlaw (Post 824778)

I wanted to share some good news...

Here are our compression test results from Dan...

Here are some very initial results taking a couple .mpg videos and turning them into Flash Video files.


ORIGINAL FILE #1
Pixel Size: 352x288
File Size: 49.2 MB
Run time: 6:00 (6 minutes)


COMPRESSION SCHEME#1 RESULTS ON FILE #1
Description: No pixel size reduction
Pixel Size: 352x288
File Size: 8.5 MB
Compression Quality: MEDIUM
File size reduced by: 82.73%
Approximate amount of minutes 5GB will store at this rate: 60 HOURS

It looks like we can achieve a compression ratio of about 80%...

Which means if you have a 100 gig site it should fit into a 20 gig 2257Safe.com account.

Hope that answers some more questions as to pricing...

Michael

www.AdultBizLaw.com
www.2257Safe.com

Originally Posted by MikeSouth (Post 824951)

I do have a suggestion though.

Instead of storing all that data why not just do a symbolic link back to the original scenes on the customers site. That way you still have the required media and all you store is a database of ids, performer names etc

and for that you could charge a much more reasonable price

Originally Posted by kmdguy (Post 824955)

Hi Mike, thanks for your comment.

What do you think might happen in this scenario: A legal entity comes to our office for a inspection of your records. We open up your records for them, but since your hosting company is flaky (we don't know), they are offline because of problems. Now all of a sudden, none of your content is available to compared with what they have. Now your records are incomplete and you fail any inspection because the content needs to be present as part of the comprehensive 2257 documentation. Now, who would be liable for the failure of an inspection?

We have $2 million of E&O insurance to help each and every one of our clients if something goes awry that WE control. Letting each user put a key aspect of their record keeping in the form hotlinks to a plethora of unknown services beyond our control becomes an obvious weak link in the chain.

Unfortunately, the fact remains that complete 2257 documentation requires all text based information AND depictions of the performance be kept together, and really this just makes sense. This is why we are able to offer $2 million in insurance, PCI-DSS security both of which are prohibitively expensive for those that think they can offer the same service to others out of their closets at home.

If you want you can contact me offline and tell me about how much you have. There is no doubt that we will offer a custom plan for those that have very large amounts of data.

Originally Posted by kmdguy (Post 824960)

Our servers are unreal their quality, and security

Originally Posted by kmdguy (Post 824960)

Our servers are unreal their quality, integrity and security (PCI-DSS compliant), but the point is, if OUR servers fail, you are insured for it, if your servers fail, neither of us is insured for it and since we are charged with the responsibility of your 2257 records, we'd rather have our clients in a position where they are insured and covered.