You can keep bumping this all you want to for your friends or interests but this doesn’t even come close to addressing the proposed interpretation. Being opportunistic is one thing, being an idiot is another.

It’s stupidity. The top dogs have in house council dealing with this and/or sheisters on retainer evaluating it. Smaller dorks like myself are shelling out 300 per hour to find out if we’re gonna need soap on a rope.

This won’t even go into effect for months or years to come and this proposed salvation is absolute BS if these interpretations stand up.

The only thing having yer documentation/shit out of the country will do is get you indicted faster for not having the shit available for inspection. If you’re facing a potential 5 years for each mistake in record keeping, would you trust a bunch of idiots in Panama?

With all due respect, you must not be very familiar with the way our government works. When a no-lose issue comes up that can win votes, in this case "protecting the children," all other shit gets pushed aside, so a good show can be made.

Workload due to 9/11 may have delayed action on "obscenity," but that was a REALLY unusual case. What's the workload now?

Dealing with daily carbombings in Iraq? Hell, that ain't even in this country, most voters who want porn to be stopped aren't even aware that there are other countries besides the U.S. Fighting porn is sexier. (pun intended) That can be put aside for a no-lose vote-gaining issue.

The debate over filibusters during federal judgeship nominations? Piffle, that's just political posturing. That can be put aside for a no-lose vote-gaining issue.

Steroids in sports? There's a non-issue that can be put aside for a no-lose vote-gaining issue.

There's NOTHING in our governmental system that is more important than either A) money or B) votes. [/b][/quote]
then scenario number 2 is at hand.

man you have to realize that no matter what there are always borders and the way your country (yes i am a us citizen thanks to the way your country thinks remember they beat spain another empire and took puerto rico as payment then gave us citizenship during the war so we could go fight cause usa was running out of trained people) works makes it easy for anyone to bypass that because you always think USA only and in USA it stays.

come on. like i said there are more countries than usa yes they may not be as developed but they are being developed. usa has reached is peak and now is looking at getting regulated (LAND OF THE FREE MY ASS).


so as you see point 1 or 2 will happen just because the way you guys think. you have to open your minds to the rest of the world. trust me bush may win against porn but only in USA.

and don´t give me the internet carrier bullshit trust me in panama there are carriers that if they are down they loose 1 million per hour and a lot of that is not USA.

You can keep bumping this all you want to for your friends or interests but this doesn’t even come close to addressing the proposed interpretation. Being opportunistic is one thing, being an idiot is another.

It’s stupidity. The top dogs have in house council dealing with this and/or sheisters on retainer evaluating it. Smaller dorks like myself are shelling out 300 per hour to find out if we’re gonna need soap on a rope.

This won’t even go into effect for months or years to come and this proposed salvation is absolute BS if these interpretations stand up.

The only thing having yer documentation/shit out of the country will do is get you indicted faster for not having the shit available for inspection. If you’re facing a potential 5 years for each mistake in record keeping, would you trust a bunch of idiots in Panama? [/b][/quote]
dude your stupidity is what government wants to fuck up USA porn industry.

instead of saying well i like your idea but we have to do more research lets do it together you just bash and hide.


united we win divided we fall.



dont be a tool man just do your thing and if you have more info let us know as we will let you know

and get laid or something cause you sound like you need sex or something


fuck

Here's what you have to realize, Inabon...

"just because the way you guys think. you have to open your minds to the rest of the world."

I personally think globally. I'm not your typical nationalist jingoistic "my country right or wrong" "fuck all them fur-en-ers" redneck. I won't argue that they're the vocal majority in this country right now, but I'm not one of that group. Don't lump me in with all of them, and I won't lump you in with whatever stereotypical sub-group of Puerto Ricans that YOU dislike. :okthumb:

However, I am a U.S. citizen. I physically live in the U.S. I transact my business in the U.S. And I don't intend on physically moving out of the U.S., with or without renouncement of citizenship.

Because of this, I have to follow U.S. law. And that follows through no matter where in the world my webhost is. I'm a U.S. citizen, therefore I have to answer to U.S. law, whether I like the law or not.

I can either go through a bunch of expensive manuevers like Nick suggested that, while they may not be illegal, at least have the appearance of trying to hide something, or I can just follow the law. I happen to think that your solution is not as protective or compliant as you do. Different interpretations of the law. I happen to be good at interpreting law, though I'm not a lawyer, and I have knowledgeable legal counsel who happen to independently interpret this issue the same way I do.

There are, however, PLENTY of people in this business who don't even bother to pony up legal fees in advance, and coincidentally, traffic in very edgy niches. Those are the people who could really get hit hard by this new enforcement of the regs, and truth be told, I have no sympathy for them. They're going after things with a short-term attitude, and that's what can happen.

I wholeheartedly agree with you that the U.S. does not own the Internet, and if the U.S. decided to totally ban pornography, it would still live on thanks to the hundreds of other countries in the world, as well as the U.S.-based mavericks who will try to operate under the radar. That's an unfortunate situation, but I don't think a total ban will occur -- they just want to move the edges in a bit to make good with the moralists.

Really, truthfully, I think the 2257 regulation is pretty easy to comply with, as long as you use your head and OVERcomply with them. Make yourself a hard target and they'll go after the lower-hanging fruit. All these outside offshore offsite solutions just seem to me to be a way to cash in on the situation. I should know, I was going to do just that myself.

I developed a specialized database specifically for retaining complete 2257 records, including ID and document scans. Not something hosted for multiple users, or even one user, but a local database that a producer would install on their own system for use by themselves only. Registered domains for it, started putting a marketing plan together.

Had my attorney review it, he liked it, but his words were "I cannot guarantee that using this database would protect someone from 2257 prosecution. I can't guarantee that anyone would be safe by using any solution. Too many variables in how they run their business." That got me thinking, better to keep this for my own private usage, rather than either having to sell a solution that I'll have to specifically say is NOT guaranteed, or leave myself open to civil liability down the road. Plus, software support sucks, so screw it.

That's longterm thinking. I'd rather be in for the long dollar.

Wow, that rambled a bit. Oh, I don't know what "internet carrier bullshit" you're referring to, I don't recall saying anything about that. Don't confuse me with Aeon, I think you'd agree that we're taking two very different approaches on this subject, i.e. civilized vs. zoo. :rolleyes:

nop i am not confusing you with aeon

we are cool there. i understand your point. what i am saying is why bash when we can unite and find a solution.

and why defend the undefendable.


it is just bullshit man the law is targeting then make it hard for the law once it passes. hell USA was built by braking the law. the law of another country.


laws are to regulate but when laws turn to benefit a smaller group or are used to opress a small group then it is not law it is tyranny.


i am just making a point that the law is designed to halt porn not to make it more decsent or better for organized people. and that you are running the risk of running out of customers because there will be no USA traffic depending on how crazy it may get.

i think we agree and sorry if i mixed you up with a group you don't like i just want to broaden perspectives man hell if usa government don't want porn don't give it to them you will see how eveyone will go crazy and make sure a law is passed to overthrow that law that fucked them

thats what i like about USA man people still can make a difference although i dont know what the fuck happened with bush on past elections that was a fucked up decision LOL

peace man nice exchanging opinions with you.

Here's what you have to realize, Inabon...

"just because the way you guys think. you have to open your minds to the rest of the world."

I personally think globally. I'm not your typical nationalist jingoistic "my country right or wrong" "fuck all them fur-en-ers" redneck. I won't argue that they're the vocal majority in this country right now, but I'm not one of that group. Don't lump me in with all of them, and I won't lump you in with whatever stereotypical sub-group of Puerto Ricans that YOU dislike. :okthumb:

However, I am a U.S. citizen. I physically live in the U.S. I transact my business in the U.S. And I don't intend on physically moving out of the U.S., with or without renouncement of citizenship.

Because of this, I have to follow U.S. law. And that follows through no matter where in the world my webhost is. I'm a U.S. citizen, therefore I have to answer to U.S. law, whether I like the law or not.

I can either go through a bunch of expensive manuevers like Nick suggested that, while they may not be illegal, at least have the appearance of trying to hide something, or I can just follow the law. I happen to think that your solution is not as protective or compliant as you do. Different interpretations of the law. I happen to be good at interpreting law, though I'm not a lawyer, and I have knowledgeable legal counsel who happen to independently interpret this issue the same way I do.

There are, however, PLENTY of people in this business who don't even bother to pony up legal fees in advance, and coincidentally, traffic in very edgy niches. Those are the people who could really get hit hard by this new enforcement of the regs, and truth be told, I have no sympathy for them. They're going after things with a short-term attitude, and that's what can happen.

I wholeheartedly agree with you that the U.S. does not own the Internet, and if the U.S. decided to totally ban pornography, it would still live on thanks to the hundreds of other countries in the world, as well as the U.S.-based mavericks who will try to operate under the radar. That's an unfortunate situation, but I don't think a total ban will occur -- they just want to move the edges in a bit to make good with the moralists.

Really, truthfully, I think the 2257 regulation is pretty easy to comply with, as long as you use your head and OVERcomply with them. Make yourself a hard target and they'll go after the lower-hanging fruit. All these outside offshore offsite solutions just seem to me to be a way to cash in on the situation. I should know, I was going to do just that myself.

I developed a specialized database specifically for retaining complete 2257 records, including ID and document scans. Not something hosted for multiple users, or even one user, but a local database that a producer would install on their own system for use by themselves only. Registered domains for it, started putting a marketing plan together.

Had my attorney review it, he liked it, but his words were "I cannot guarantee that using this database would protect someone from 2257 prosecution. I can't guarantee that anyone would be safe by using any solution. Too many variables in how they run their business." That got me thinking, better to keep this for my own private usage, rather than either having to sell a solution that I'll have to specifically say is NOT guaranteed, or leave myself open to civil liability down the road. Plus, software support sucks, so screw it.

That's longterm thinking. I'd rather be in for the long dollar.

Wow, that rambled a bit. Oh, I don't know what "internet carrier bullshit" you're referring to, I don't recall saying anything about that. Don't confuse me with Aeon, I think you'd agree that we're taking two very different approaches on this subject, i.e. civilized vs. zoo. :rolleyes: [/b][/quote]
you make some very good point , ThrobX

and once the regs are out, our underlying point is this.

For those that wish to take the offshore approach for whatever their council may tell them ( as we all know many attornys see the law different ways , that is why there are always two sides in the argument both represented, and The judge is the ultimate attorny to interpret the law in each individual case) as you said other things besides just being ofshore are vital to each persons individual protections as well.

our point is we have some of the pieces that people will need for protection, and we have the industry and long term viability to make money in it as a main concern.

We are not here for the hit it quick and run mentality that many speak of in now days concerning adult.

We operate as a professional company, and are concerned with growth and longevity just as if we were a fortune 500 aspiring company in any other field.

If what we have to offer is a help to you, we are here to discuss options with you at any time.

If what we have to offer does not serve your individual needs, and you have a bettter personal solution, then we congratulate you for being someone that is trying to pay attention and do something other than bitch ( like many are doing)
if YOU see something that we can help with we would love the opportunity to do business with someone that is resonsible about there business actions like yourself.

quick note the internet carrier bullshit i reffered to is that almost all internet backbones are usa based and fiber optics are controlled by them.

but they wont let it go for laws they will adjust trust me they loose more.

The more I think about it the more I see the new 2257 as a GOOD THING!!

If I understand it correctly (which I may not and will have to get further legal council) the operator of an adult website (for lack of a better term) has to have on file a copy of ID and a copy of a signed consent form (model release) both physically and on line

Who is buying (or producing) content without this already?

What this will force is more professional approach by those who aren't currently. All to the good.
May have to remove content that they don't have the proper docs to

Yes a few hobbyist may be forced out or made to make sites with no content, again that all to the good

I may be missing a big piece to the puzzle here as some feel this is the introduction to legal persecution of adult websites in the USA

If you've done everything (and more) by the letter of the law ......
ThrobX has a good point, low hanging fruit

Thanks Vick. Those of us who try to stay at the top of the tree (i.e., comply with the law and stay inside common sense content boundaries) shouldn't have much to worry about.

Thanks Vick. Those of us who try to stay at the top of the tree (i.e., comply with the law and stay inside common sense content boundaries) shouldn't have much to worry about. [/b][/quote]
Indeed and like Vick and yourself i see this as a thinning of the herd... One that has been needed for a few years now.

I think Vick summed it up perfectly with this comment..

Lets be honest, anyone who is buying content without the relevant licenses, ids, etc etc, doesnt DESERVE to be in this industry.

You can civilize yer ass all the way to the can if you want to and politely ask for a reach around. I don't give a fuck. The more of you tards out of this the better.

Vick,
It's not the keeping of ID's & releases that's the bitch part of it. It's cataloguing all that shit with each (and I mean EACH) url that the images/videos are used on. Throw in the creatives and you can see how complicated that can potentially get if you have any quantity of sites with content/creatives.

It's gonna be a record keeping clusterfuck if it stands.

For some of us that isnt a problem at all.

Our custom CMS will spit out a list of urls that each thumbnail and fullsized image is used on whether it be on a free site, tgp gallery, avs site or even a paysite members area along with a page containing a cross referenced sheet of the model id, license and even a location of the hard copy we have filed away in the office.

Sure it took a lot of work getting the content loaded in to and categorized for our cms in addition to cross referencing each content set with a license / model id etc but, for us, its business as usual.

So far as the use of content in creatives, if you are 'creative' with your banners and buttons, etc, etc, even this isnt a big deal especially, if you have a solution which will tell you WHERE each image is being used already.

All it means is that you have to use .gifs for banners and buttons, i dont want to say anymore than that right now as its going to be a huge part of our marketing effort when we launch our affiliate program later this year needless to say though, no matter where any of our affiliates buy their content from, their creatives will be customized to the images they use on any of their sites :yowsa:

For some of us that isnt a problem at all.

Our custom CMS will spit out a list of urls that each thumbnail and fullsized image is used on whether it be on a free site, tgp gallery, avs site or even a paysite members area along with a page containing a cross referenced sheet of the model id, license and even a location of the hard copy we have filed away in the office.

Sure it took a lot of work getting the content loaded in to and categorized for our cms in addition to cross referencing each content set with a license / model id etc but, for us, its business as usual.

So far as the use of content in creatives, if you are 'creative' with your banners and buttons, etc, etc, even this isnt a big deal especially, if you have a solution which will tell you WHERE each image is being used already.

All it means is that you have to use .gifs for banners and buttons, i dont want to say anymore than that right now as its going to be a huge part of our marketing effort when we launch our affiliate program later this year needless to say though, no matter where any of our affiliates buy their content from, their creatives will be customized to the images they use on any of their sites :yowsa:[/b][/quote]
wanna sell it? This is gonna be a bitch, especially for those of us that do our own creatives to push sponsors. Even the fuckin' banners are gonna need relevant 2257 info. Fuckin' neocons.

Vick - This is the fun part:
(1) The legal name and date of birth of each performer, obtained by the producer’s examination of an identification document, as defined by 18 U.S.C. 1028(d)(3). For any performer portrayed in such a depiction made after May 26, 1992, the records shall also include a legible copy of the identification document examined and, if that document does not contain a recent and recognizable picture of the performer, a legible copy of a picture identification card. For any performer portrayed in such a depiction after [insert date 30 days after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register], the records shall include:
(i) A copy of the depiction, and
(ii) Where the depiction is published on an Internet Computer site or service, a copy of any URL associated with the depiction.
(2) Any name, other than each performer’s legal name, ever used by the performer, including the performer’s
maiden name, alias, nickname, stage name, or professional name. For any performer portrayed in such a depiction made after May 26, 1992, such names shall be indexed by the title or identifying number of the book, magazine, film, videotape, computer-generated image, digital image, picture, URL, or other matter.
(3) Records required to be created and maintained under this part shall be organized alphabetically, or numerically where appropriate, by the legal name of the performer (by last or family name, then first or given name), and shall be indexed or cross-referenced to each alias or other name used and to each title or identifying number of the book, magazine, film, videotape, computer-generated image, digital image, picture, URL, or other matter.
Take a look at the bold parts Vick. You run a program so talk to a Lawyer but you can see how fun this can get.

And to the panama dweebs:
§ 75.4 Location of records.

Any producer required by this part to maintain records shall make such records available at the producer’s place of business. Each record shall be maintained for seven years from the date of creation or last amendment or addition. If the producer ceases to carry on the business, the records shall be maintained for five years thereafter. If the producer produces the book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, computer-generated image, digital image, picture, or other matter (including but not limited to Internet computer site or services) as part of his control of or through his employment with an organization, records shall be made available at the organization’s place of business. If the organization is dissolved, the individual who was responsible for maintaining the records on behalf of the organization, as described in § 75.6(B), shall continue to maintain the records for a period of five years after dissolution.

Your offshore record keeping/hosting “solution” is bullshit. Period.

I am sort of confused on where the line is drawn as I have only scanned through bits and pieces of the docs but...

What about images where no nudity at all is shown? Banners, creatives, site designs, etc that either have the naughty bits blocked by something or are censored with stars and shit. Do you still have to provide the same level of documentation?

And pardon me in advance for my ignorance.

What I got told is if it's sexually explicit (vague term that hasn't really been defined and as such "implicit" should be counted in there too) that image/video has to comply.

This is an end round try to nail porn peddlers cause obscenity prosecutions aren't working. Did I mention I hate neo cons...

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/us...56----000-.html

§ 2256. Definitions for chapter

Release date: 2004-08-06

For the purposes of this chapter, the term—

(1) “minor” means any person under the age of eighteen years;

(2) “sexually explicit conduct” means actual or simulated—
A sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;
B bestiality;
C masturbation;
D sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
E lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;

(3) “producing” means producing, directing, manufacturing, issuing, publishing, or advertising;



§ 2257. Record keeping requirements


Release date: 2004-08-06

(a) Whoever produces any book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, or other matter which—

(1) contains one or more visual depictions made after November 1, 1990 of actual sexually explicit conduct
; and
(2) is produced in whole or in part with materials which have been mailed or shipped in interstate or foreign commerce, or is shipped or transported or is intended for shipment or transportation in interstate or foreign commerce;
shall create and maintain individually identifiable records pertaining to every performer portrayed in such a visual depiction.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/us...56----000-.html

§ 2256. Definitions for chapter

Release date: 2004-08-06

For the purposes of this chapter, the term—

(1) “minor” means any person under the age of eighteen years;

(2) “sexually explicit conduct” means actual or simulated—
A sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;
B bestiality;
C masturbation;
D sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
E lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;

(3) “producing” means producing, directing, manufacturing, issuing, publishing, or advertising;
(4) “organization” means a person other than an individual;
(5) “visual depiction” includes undeveloped film and videotape, and data stored on computer disk or by electronic means which is capable of conversion into a visual image;
(6) “computer” has the meaning given that term in section 1030 of this title;
(7) “custody or control” includes temporary supervision over or responsibility for a minor whether legally or illegally obtained;
(8) “child pornography” means any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where—
(A) the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
(B) such visual depiction is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
© such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or
(D) such visual depiction is advertised, promoted, presented, described, or distributed in such a manner that conveys the impression that the material is or contains a visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and
(9) “identifiable minor”—
(A) means a person—
(i)
(I) who was a minor at the time the visual depiction was created, adapted, or modified; or
(II) whose image as a minor was used in creating, adapting, or modifying the visual depiction; and
(ii) who is recognizable as an actual person by the person’s face, likeness, or other distinguishing characteristic, such as a unique birthmark or other recognizable feature; and
(B) shall not be construed to require proof of the actual identity of the identifiable minor.[/b][/quote]
It's not been defined in court as it pertains to this statute sarettah ;) I don't think they'll be using the CP standards on this one...could be wrong and if I am - I'm asking for a refund.

It's a question of "do you wanna be the guinea pig?". Is a topless girl "sexualy explicit". Is a girl touching herself through her bikini "sexually explicit". Is a girl bending over in a pair of lace panties "sexually explicit" and on and on...

That is section 2256 of chapter 110 which is the statute, the record keeping is section 2257 of chapter 110, so those are the definitions that currently pertain to section 2257.

Now, as usual, I want the feds as far away from me as possible, so, when in doubt over comply :))

edited in: it is all part of the CHAPTER 110—SEXUAL EXPLOITATION AND OTHER ABUSE OF CHILDREN statute. After all, isn't that what all of it is about, Protecting the children ? :groucho:

That is section 2256 of chapter 110 which is the statute, the record keeping is section 2257 of chapter 110, so those are the definitions that currently pertain to section 2257.

Now, as usual, I want the feds as far away from me as possible, so, when in doubt over comply :))[/b][/quote]
Dont' worry...we'll let you be the test monkey on this one. You can find out whether the CP defintions of sexually explicit apply to all adult content. Now post some URL's...

I'll even send you smokes in the joint as a sign of good will and appreciation. :inlove:

Geez, you just want to piss don't you ?

The record keeping requirements that we commonly call 2257 are the recordkeeping requirements of the Sexual exploitation of children etc act.

The definition that I posted is the definition that pertains to which records they are talking about.

It is one fucking law with several sections.

As far as the definition of what needs the records required by 2257 of chapter 110 of title 18, they have been pretty fucking clear.

Also, did you miss my "when in doubt, over comply" which was basically agreement with you. If you do non nude of younger looking girls in suggestive positions etc, you are probably not required to keep the records, but it definitely would not hurt you to have the records in case a prosecutor attempts to streeeeetch the law a bit.

If you missed my groucho face at the end of my comment saying it's about the kids then you misssed the fact I was being sarcastic, because I agree comfuckingpletely that this is part of the feds attempt to take pornography out via a back door.

geez...

Not really scooter. You’re having a knee jerk, “aeon is disagreeing with me so he must be pissing" reaction. You've got the general idea but I’m trying to give you a piece of advice that isn’t sinking in so I’ll be completely clear.

When you’re potentially facing 5 years each for what are tantamount to clerical errors and interpretation, you’d best have some sound legal advice if this stands up. You can't even comply, let alone "over comply" without it. Message board advice is worth what you pay for it. You need to sit down with a lawyer familiar with this and have them go over your shit to see what you need to do “in case”, to make sure you aren’t left holding your cock and looking stupid.

A judge and jury aren’t gonna give two flying shits about the perspectives given on a message board. If this stands it’s potential prison for not having your records in order. It isn’t the end of the world yet, but being pre emptive is just common sense and it’s not something to play it fast and loose with.

Try and be halfway decent with someone, encourage them to do the right thing and they get their panties in a knot. Amazing.

pay a lawyer huh.

i tell you what. find me a lawyer that knows about this shit ask him straight through and let me know what they say. if they are good i will go to the same lawyer and pay him for advising me.


i have done it 3 times already all usa based lawyers and for a couple of people that can afford to call them my lawyers

remember we run Remotethumbs on many sites that may be affected. you want to know what they all said??

ermn mmm. geee i can not tell you right now untill it is out or it has not passed so we are not looking in to it. meanwhile the site owners that use RT want us to be prepared so

gridlock.

the truth is the whole thing is so vague as the fact that no one has gone to jail for the original 2257.

no crack down. it is all fear. yes be prepared but i have to agree with sarretah it is all about the children???? yeah right. they could not even get rid of CP and animal stuff. you are playing their game... ohh shit lets get ready or lets leave.


anyways we shall see i am doing my part finding ways to adjust to it. i just look for solutions to my customers. worse case scenario we can always block usa traffic because it will be impossible.

then we are back to what i said before.

ttyl

Thanks for breaking it down more for me aeon

Due to sheer dumb luck (how I set things up in sites) more than anything it won't be challenging for me to be in total compliance with regards to URL's and such

If this comes to be the greatest challenge I see is the creatives
In which case depending on counsel I may have to host all creatives for Cloud 9 Cash
Just another expense of doing business.
I feel better personally with me as the end responsibility for compliance then depending on all affiliates to be in compliance and then having to do the follow through


Another thing crosses my mind
What about the privacy issues for the models involved?
What happens when the stalking starts?

Is this a case of laws being sponsored by those who may be tech challenged?

and yes until something is passed and then interpreted all we are all doing is blowing smoke

Does the government open themselves up as liable in a legal case for anything that happens to these models, if in fact they are stalked, and something dreadful happens to them or their family?

These changes dont affect me as I have no sites with content but I do have a question.

This isn't just internet is it? So what about all the videostores, porno cinemas etc.
Would they have to dump all their old stock, maybe forcing the smaller ones out of business on a cost issue alone?

Wouldn't the DOJ go after these places first as it shows it doing something in the community rather than arresting an 18 y/o tgper.

interesting thread. one important issue popped came to mind when i was reading it.

that is that in the potential problem that might exist when a large group of adult companies are found to be using the same flawed and possibly non-compliant method of record keeping might in fact be making themselves very easy targets rather than harder targets. i think that the notion of "safety in numbers" only applies to wildebeasts. otherwise, you might be doing nothing more than creating one large and easy to hit target.

Another reason I decided to keep the solution I designed private, and for my own use only. VERY smart thinking there.

"Safety In Solo" slows things down.

Again to reiterate, for those interested in our help, we are here to do what we can.

Tuesday and the specific regs will be here very soon.

We have some creative thinking, and and offshore data center.

so for those intersted please feel free to contact us so we can work with you on a strategy for your protection.

For those already with your own personal solutions, congratulations for being ahead of the curve.

OK, the regs are now posted. Reading through the commentary, I find this:

Comments?

Two commenters commented that the definition of producer in the proposed rule was too broad and would encompass a convenience store that sold sexually explicit magazines or a movie theater that screened
R-rated movies. The Department declines to adopt this comment. As the rule makes clear, mere distributors of sexually explicit material are excluded from the definition of producers and under no plausible construction of the definition would a movie theater be covered merely by screening films produced by others.

Two commenters commented that the definition of producer in the proposed rule was too broad and would encompass a convenience store that sold sexually explicit magazines or a movie theater that screened
R-rated movies. The Department declines to adopt this comment. As the rule makes clear, mere distributors of sexually explicit material are excluded from the definition of producers and under no plausible construction of the definition would a movie theater be covered merely by screening films produced by others. [/b][/quote]
I can't wait for people to come along and try to say that their website is merely a "theater" that is "screening films." :lol:

(Edit: I'm a psychic, that angle is being explored at the zoo. :lol: )

No comments from RemoteThumbs on this? I thought there'd be a response by now.

I'm NOT trying to "I told you so" here because I'm not an attorney and I COULD be wrong, but I'm interested in hearing how your solution takes care of the issues now that the regs have been posted.

This does shit...I can appreciate you spinning your product but here's the 2257. You can't protect anyone.

It's fuckin' absurd.

Here's the 2257 shit - Left is old - right is new

Where the fuck do you get your legal advice, the drive through? [/b][/quote]
Good link.

:) looking in to it. man finding ways this is what it is all about trying to find a way out. otherwise we stay here you stay there and lets see who drops first. but we are looking in to it.

:) looking in to it. man finding ways this is what it is all about trying to find a way out. otherwise we stay here you stay there and lets see who drops first. but we are looking in to it. [/b][/quote]
Diplomatic answer, I should call you SPINabon. :awinky:

Believe me, I'd love to see multiple solutions to the "problems" presented by 2257. Note that I don't think compliance is that big a deal, but a lot of people won't want to go to the time and expense. Best of luck with your solution, if you can find a way to make it work.

Ok here is an update going through the document

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01...05/05-10107.htm

i have to say that i dont even see how big companies can comply without taking down content or complete sites all togehter.


i have not reached the part of how not being in USA works but i am getting there. however it doesn't look good from my end. not a lawyer but it is plain english and just by logical terms it is not good news for usa

i wonder what system was this :)