A 2257 Solution .... 2257Safe.com

[tony404]

Originally Posted by Jim_Gunn

Michael, thanks for keeping an open mind and looking at the pricing on your solution again. Over the years I have used a very small office space I leased for about $100/month specifically to keep my 2257 records. So any third party solution I use needs to be in that price range or less. Hopefully, there will be multiple third party record keeping solutions eventually at a competitive price.

Im like you $135 a month for my office.

[gonzo]

My hat is off to all of you for keeping this a professional and beneficial business thread on the board.

Thank you all for not getting into a pissing match but instead being informative from all aspects of the issue.

Remember these legal firm has a true interest in the busisness and has answered many questions on this forum when other lawyers would ask for a retainer fee.

I encourage you to look at his website if you are in need of someone reasonable and knowledgeable about this business.

[tony404]

Originally Posted by gonzo

My hat is off to all of you for keeping this a professional and beneficial business thread on the board.

Thank you all for not getting into a pissing match but instead being informative from all aspects of the issue.

Remember these legal firm has a true interest in the busisness and has answered many questions on this forum when other lawyers would ask for a retainer fee.

I encourage you to look at his website if you are in need of someone reasonable and knowledgeable about this business.

There is no need to its not the jungle. lol Michael has always seemed very cool. I think he now has some info he can think about and maybe offer options or he goes to the PF and gets more orders than he knows what to do with. Then it will be screw cheapo Tony and Jim. lol

[kmdguy]

Hi folks,

My name is Dan and I'm the lead programmer/partner in 2257Safe.com and I wanted to address the concern about storage space for content.

Let me say that although 2257Safe will need to legally mirror your site's contents (as any other legitimate 3rd-party record keeper will need to do), it doesn't need to be mirrored at the same quality and resolution as required for general consumption.

We are implementing heavy compression into the process which will take photos and video and massage them down into an acceptable low resolution size and format. You will not be needing space to mirror your site's contents on a 1-to-1 ratio, it's simply not necessary. I'm working on compression for video which will be similar to YouTube in that the footprint will be reduced and the files compressed in a medium to low quality .swf files. I own a computer animation company so I know a thing or two about video and compression. If you were to upload all your videos onto YouTube theoretically, they would comprise a fraction of the size that is required for general consumption, and really that is all that is required to my understanding.

We probably need to make that fact very clear in our pricing structure, but keep in mind, things are really going to be squashed.

[Jim_Gunn]

Originally Posted by kmdguy

Hi folks,

My name is Dan and I'm the lead programmer/partner in 2257Safe.com and I wanted to address the concern about storage space for content.

Let me say that although 2257Safe will need to legally mirror your site's contents (as any other legitimate 3rd-party record keeper will need to do),

Can you explain exactly why you say that "any other legitimate 3rd-party record keeper will need to [mirror the site's content]? Is there somewhere in the law that specifies this, or is this an inference that you guys have drawn from the reading of the law or is it a conclusion that you have made based on the practicality of keeping records as a 3rd party record keeper and that you have incorporated it into your standard operating procedure?

[kmdguy]

Originally Posted by Jim_Gunn

Can you explain exactly why you say that "any other legitimate 3rd-party record keeper will need to [mirror the site's content]? Is there somewhere in the law that specifies this, or is this an inference that you guys have drawn from the reading of the law or is it a conclusion that you have made based on the practicality of keeping records as a 3rd party record keeper and that you have incorporated it into your standard operating procedure?

Hi Jim,

I'll let Michael take this since he's the legal expert on the matter. But in my layman's understanding 2257 documentation include not only model IDs and Releases as well as a thorough cross referencing of a variety of data, but also source content. In the event of an inspection, all of your source content needs to be available alongside the records so it can be viewed if necessary and compared against what the DOJ or FBI may have. Again I'm not an attorney so I'll let Michael chime in on a better explanation.

[pornlaw]

Originally Posted by Jim_Gunn

Can you explain exactly why you say that "any other legitimate 3rd-party record keeper will need to [mirror the site's content]? Is there somewhere in the law that specifies this

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

[Jim_Gunn]

Originally Posted by pornlaw

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

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.