News Two Senators Launch Joint Bill Proposing Massive Adult Site Regs

[patadeperro]

Massive registration may be comming:

https://avn.com/business/articles/le...gs-893838.html

[NALEM]

All reasonable proposals except for:

"Requiring removal of flagged videos within two hours of such a request."

Temporary removal from the public view can be automated and immediate pending the completion of the investigation.

If one is to investigate the claim submitted it may take longer.

[PorcoRosso]

Interesting, it could lead to positive change.
But in practical terms, how would they enforce that? Specially how would they make non-US company comply?
I don't think there's a lot of tubes that are US-based... obviously, if it's penalizing US companies and pushes tubes to operate from out-of-reach countries... it won't achieve the desired outcome...

[NALEM]

Look at the positive and negative economic effect that V/MC has on the flow of revenue.

The world is interconnected in too many ways. Money flows through the global banking network which the US is part of.

The US has signed Trade Treaties with most countries which require thos countries to comply with a long list of US demands which include cooperating with US authorities court orders, request for extradition, etc.

[Klen]

Lol acronym of act on my language is synonym term for boobs

[Klen]

Originally Posted by NALEM

Look at the positive and negative economic effect that V/MC has on the flow of revenue.

The world is interconnected in too many ways. Money flows through the global banking network which the US is part of.

The US has signed Trade Treaties with most countries which require thos countries to comply with a long list of US demands which include cooperating with US authorities court orders, request for extradition, etc.

And US also host ICANN, which control domain space.

[S3X_Jay]

There are massive problems with the proposed law…

• Require any user uploading a video to the platform also upload a signed consent form from every individual appearing in the video. What happens when those documents get hacked? Suddenly the legal names of performers are known.
• Creating a database of individuals who have indicated they do not consent, which must be checked before new content can be uploaded to platforms. How can you have such a database and protect the identity of models? What names are in it – performer names or legal names? Are the two connected in any way? What if there are two people by the same name? Which means more information is needed, which further reveals details that will violate the privacy of models.
• Requiring platforms hosting pornography to offer a 24-hour hotline staffed by the platform, for individuals who contact the hotline to request removal of a video that has been distributed without their consent. Requiring removal of flagged videos within two hours of such a request. How can a small site (e.g. a community site) manage to have a 24-hour hotline?
• Requiring platforms to use software to block a video from being re-uploaded after its removal, which must be in place within six months of enactment of the legislations. Exactly how expensive is that software? How well does it work? If you re-encode the video, will the software stop the upload? The only systems I know of that work well involve an invisible watermark.
• Requiring platforms hosting pornography to, within two weeks of enactment – Require any user uploading a video to the platform to verify their identiry[SIC] Two weeks for a significant software change?

All in all a horrible, and horribly impractical, set of rules.

[SpicyM]

Well, even though I welcome these regulations , there are two problems here:

1. they are not meant to protect creators against piracy, these regulations are solely aimed at protecting the individuals appearing in the videos ... however, since there is no way that a thief would verify his identity or that he could have a written consent of those persons in the stolen videos, the side-effect of these requirements will be elimination of piracy on these sites - which is great


2. Regarding this:

"Require any user uploading a video to the platform also upload a signed consent form from every individual appearing in the video"

This would be extremely complicated for producers with hundreds of videos featuring tens or hundreds of different models - especially in case they want to apply that to the scenes already uploaded. If each agreement / model release (where models grand the right to publish their video) is several pages long and it must be uploaded with every single video, that is going to take s shitload of time.. not to mention that many producers located outside USA don't have their model releases in English.

3. This along with Article13 in Europe (https://www.article13.org/) means quite a shitty situation for tubes and content thieves

[SpicyM]

Originally Posted by S3X_Jay

There are massive problems with the proposed law…

• Require any user uploading a video to the platform also upload a signed consent form from every individual appearing in the video. What happens when those documents get hacked? Suddenly the legal names of performers are known.

The site operator will be responsible for data protection, which in EU is covered in GDPR. When a content shooter sells his content, he provides model releases with personal data to the buyer (a third party) as well.

Regarding a data breach - that can also happen to any online store or a governement agency or a porn paysite... as they all store personal data. Model names may also appear in comments, all it takes is an idiot who knows the person and publish the real name or any other information.

[Major (Tom)]

Originally Posted by SpicyM

Well, even though I welcome these regulations , there are two problems here:

1. they are not meant to protect creators against piracy, these regulations are solely aimed at protecting the individuals appearing in the videos ... however, since there is no way that a thief would verify his identity or that he could have a written consent of those persons in the stolen videos, the side-effect of these requirements will be elimination of piracy on these sites - which is great


2. Regarding this:

"Require any user uploading a video to the platform also upload a signed consent form from every individual appearing in the video"

This would be extremely complicated for producers with hundreds of videos featuring tens or hundreds of different models - especially in case they want to apply that to the scenes already uploaded. If each agreement / model release (where models grand the right to publish their video) is several pages long and it must be uploaded with every single video, that is going to take s shitload of time.. not to mention that many producers located outside USA don't have their model releases in English.

3. This along with Article13 in Europe (https://www.article13.org/) means quite a shitty situation for tubes and content thieves

Am I reading this wrong? Or does this seem to not affect traditional paysites and only user generated content and tube sites?

[SpicyM]

Originally Posted by DukeSkywalker

Am I reading this wrong? Or does this seem to not affect traditional paysites and only user generated content and tube sites?

I believe, by "user" they mean any account on these platforms. There are paysite operators using illegal content so it would be quite bad if those people were not responsible too.

There is an asshole on this forum who operates a voyeur paysite with content featuring people on nude beaches all shot without their consent (and therefore without age verification too) ... and he is active on tubes.

[Major (Tom)]

Originally Posted by SpicyM

I believe, by "user" they mean any account on these platforms. There are paysite operators using illegal content so it would be quite bad if those people were not responsible too.

There is an asshole on this forum who operates a voyeur paysite with content featuring people on nude beaches all shot without their consent (and therefore without age verification too) ... and he is active on tubes.

I don’t think it will pass as it stands, but that being said, whores will abuse the fuck out of this.

[Dickjagger1]

Originally Posted by S3X_Jay

There are massive problems with the proposed law…

• Require any user uploading a video to the platform also upload a signed consent form from every individual appearing in the video. What happens when those documents get hacked? Suddenly the legal names of performers are known.
• Creating a database of individuals who have indicated they do not consent, which must be checked before new content can be uploaded to platforms. How can you have such a database and protect the identity of models? What names are in it – performer names or legal names? Are the two connected in any way? What if there are two people by the same name? Which means more information is needed, which further reveals details that will violate the privacy of models.
• Requiring platforms hosting pornography to offer a 24-hour hotline staffed by the platform, for individuals who contact the hotline to request removal of a video that has been distributed without their consent. Requiring removal of flagged videos within two hours of such a request. How can a small site (e.g. a community site) manage to have a 24-hour hotline?
• Requiring platforms to use software to block a video from being re-uploaded after its removal, which must be in place within six months of enactment of the legislations. Exactly how expensive is that software? How well does it work? If you re-encode the video, will the software stop the upload? The only systems I know of that work well involve an invisible watermark.
• Requiring platforms hosting pornography to, within two weeks of enactment – Require any user uploading a video to the platform to verify their identiry[SIC] Two weeks for a significant software change?

All in all a horrible, and horribly impractical, set of rules.

Most legislation like this is horrible because it's written by septugenarians who think "an internet" got sent to them by their staff. Politicians are techno-retards, which is why this will probably pass. It sounds good to other tech illiterates.

[Klen]

Originally Posted by Dickjagger1

Most legislation like this is horrible because it's written by septugenarians who think "an internet" got sent to them by their staff. Politicians are techno-retards, which is why this will probably pass. It sounds good to other tech illiterates.

Yes, cookie law in EU supposed to protect user while in reality it only annoying user and does nothing to protect. That is the problem with politicians.

[SpicyM]

Originally Posted by Klen

Yes, cookie law in EU supposed to protect user while in reality it only annoying user and does nothing to protect. That is the problem with politicians.

Yeah, that is probably the stupidest thing EU has come up with to this date

[NALEM]

Originally Posted by Dickjagger1

Most legislation like this is horrible because it's written by septugenarians who think "an internet" got sent to them by their staff. Politicians are techno-retards, which is why this will probably pass. It sounds good to other tech illiterates.

This is why it's vital for those affected by such proposed legislation to actively participate in negotiations.

[ZENRA]

The bill feels like it was written on a cocktail napkin quickly. It's incredibly short and comes off as a list of hopeful requests that probably will not pass legal muster. It doesn't even specify adult platforms so it could affect pretty much any US-hosted (and/or US incorporated?) site with an upload form.

There's a few things on the list that I think make sense. The hotline, for example. Billing companies already have this and I could imagine some company(s) coming in offering custom hotline services for these sites. Each site gets its own individualized number people can call if they needed.

[MaDalton]

Originally Posted by SpicyM

2. Regarding this:

"Require any user uploading a video to the platform also upload a signed consent form from every individual appearing in the video"

This would be extremely complicated for producers with hundreds of videos featuring tens or hundreds of different models - especially in case they want to apply that to the scenes already uploaded. If each agreement / model release (where models grand the right to publish their video) is several pages long and it must be uploaded with every single video, that is going to take s shitload of time.. not to mention that many producers located outside USA don't have their model releases in English.

Any producer who professionally shot content over the last 15-20 years should be aware of 2257 - and if you followed that law, the above paragraph is no problem.

[The Porn Nerd]

Originally Posted by Dickjagger1

Most legislation like this is horrible because it's written by septugenarians who think "an internet" got sent to them by their staff. Politicians are techno-retards, which is why this will probably pass. It sounds good to other tech illiterates.

I thought the Internet was a series of tubes, no?



(How ironic)

[SpicyM]

Originally Posted by MaDalton

Any producer who professionally shot content over the last 15-20 years should be aware of 2257 - and if you followed that law, the above paragraph is no problem.

There are producers with thousands of videos in their channels already uploaded, hard to imagine how many models are featured in those videos. They will be forced to scan and upload a model release for every single person captured in those videos.

Also, there are producers who only shoot for their own projects. They need a model's permission to provide her personal data to third parties and some models simply won't agree with that.

[Major (Tom)]

Originally Posted by The Porn Nerd

I thought the Internet was a series of tubes, no?



(How ironic)

I hope the tubes go down the tubes! 🤣

[InfoGuy]

I posted this in another thread, but the discusssion is more relevant and should be continued here.

Stop Internet Sexual Explotation Act

(1) Require platforms hosting pornography to, within two weeks of enactment:
(a) Require any user uploading a video to the platform verify their
identity
(b) Require any user uploading a video to the platform also upload a
signed consent form from every individual appearing in the video.
(2) Creates a private right of action against an uploader who uploads a
pornographic image without the consent of an individual featured in the
image.
(3) Require platforms hosting pornography include a notice or banner on the
website instructing how an individual can request removal of a video if an
individual has not consented to it being uploaded on the platform.
(4) Prohibit video downloads from these platforms, to be in place within three
months of enactment of this legislation.
(5) Require platforms hosting pornography offer a 24-hour hotline staffed by
the platform. Individuals who contact the hotline can request removal of a
video that has been distributed without their consent.
(a) Require removal of flagged videos as quickly as possible, but not to
exceed 2 hours.
(6) Require platforms to use software to block a video from being reuploaded after its removal. The platforms must have this software in place
within six months of enactment of this legislation.
(7) Directs the Federal Trade Commission to enforce violations of these
requirements.
(8) Creates a database of individuals that have indicated they do not
consent. The database must be checked against before new content can be
uploaded to the platforms.
(a) Instructs the Department of Justice to promulgate rules on where this
database should be housed, and determine how to connect these
victims with services, to include counseling and casework.
(b) Failure to comply with this requirement will result in a civil penalty to
the platform, with proceeds going towards victims services.

I numbered the bullet points to make them easier to reference. This proposed bill is a clusterfuck.

(1) "Platforms hosting pornography" would likely include Twitter and Reddit, so if this bill was passed, they're likely to ban porn vs. dealing with the onerous compliance requirements.

Would "platforms hosting pornography" include porn related forums like GFY where actual images and videos are not hosted, but hotlinked?

(1a) "Require any user uploading a video" appears to exempt existing content and any images, from ID verification.

Most people will not be willing to give up their privacy, especially pirates. This could prevent lots of pirated videos from being uploaded, both to tubes and filelockers.

(1b) "Require any user uploading a video" appears to exempt existing content and any images, from consent forms.

Given the allegations made by the NYT against PH about UA victims, it's surprising the requirement only requires consent and not consent with proof of 18+.

Note the word "appearing" is not the same as "performing". Consent forms would need to be provided for everyone appearing in Public Disgrace, Party Hardcore or similar videos regardless of whether they are clothed or performing sex acts.

(2) Good, let the victims sue for damages. Why aren't videos without consent also included?

(3) How would a platform verify the individual? Most victims want to remain anonymous. The plaintiffs in GDP were all Jane Does. Would a victim be expected to out themselves and provide personally identifiable info to potentially hundreds or thousands of porn sites that have unauthorized content? A UA victim certainly can't be expected to provide ID.

Why can't victims request removal of images without consent?

(4) I doubt this can work. Screen capture software that users can use to circumvent download prohibitions is already widely available.

(5) This is very expensive to implement and only the biggest players will be able to do this. "Staffed by the platform" seems to imply outsourcing isn't permitted.

How are phone attendants supposed to verify a stranger calling on the phone and compare the caller to someone allegedly appearing in a video?

(5a) Is 2 hours enough time for platforms to even verify complaints before a takedown?

What if the flagged videos are legitimate videos with performers who have given consent and are 18+?

(6) Is this even possible? If analyzing the data from videos, wouldn't videos of different length or resolution have different "fingerprints"? Would adding an overlay like a watermark change the "fingerprint"?

Would multiple platforms with common ownership such as MindGeek have to implement software that blocks a removed video from a platform to being uploaded to a related platform?

(7) How would the FTC enforce US law for sites hosted outside the US or by persons/entities who are not US citizens/residents/based/incorporated?

(8) See comments from (3) above.

Who has access to this sensitive info? Compare this to the WHOIS database.

Would this database conflict with EU GDPR?

How would those few actually willing to provide personally identifiable info be protected from hackers?

Would it block access to companies looking to mine data and sell it like those who sell background checks?

Would someone be able to type in the name of their coworker or neighbor to get info from the database?

Would the database draw the attention of stalkers and sexual predators?

[InfoGuy]

Originally Posted by Klen

And US also host ICANN, which control domain space.

Their headquarters are located in Los Angeles, but ICANN is no longer under the oversight of the U.S. Department of Commerce NTIA.

Originally Posted by DukeSkywalker

Am I reading this wrong? Or does this seem to not affect traditional paysites and only user generated content and tube sites?

Yes, it appears to exclude paysites and includes tubes, filelockers, Twitter, Reddit, Tumblr and other UGC sites.

Originally Posted by Dickjagger1

Most legislation like this is horrible because it's written by septugenarians who think "an internet" got sent to them by their staff. Politicians are techno-retards, which is why this will probably pass. It sounds good to other tech illiterates.

The 2 co-sponsors are 48 and 64.

Originally Posted by ZENRA

There's a few things on the list that I think make sense. The hotline, for example. Billing companies already have this and I could imagine some company(s) coming in offering custom hotline services for these sites. Each site gets its own individualized number people can call if they needed.

Hotline: Hello, how may I help you?
Victim: My ex uploaded our private sex tape to your porn site.
Hotline: That appears to be a problem.
Victim: Yes, some of my friends and coworkers have seen it and it's humiliating. I'm really worried that my family could see it.
Hotline: What do you look like?
Victim: Well, let's see. I'm caucasian, 32 and 5' 4". I have long brown hair, brown eyes, b-cup boobs. Does that help?
Hotline: Not really. That could describe hundred of thousands of women on our site and there are 100,000+ hours of video footage hosted on our site. Could you describe yourself some more?
Victim: This is going nowhere. How are you going to help me?

Originally Posted by MaDalton

Any producer who professionally shot content over the last 15-20 years should be aware of 2257 - and if you followed that law, the above paragraph is no problem.

The bill says "every individual appearing" and not "every individual performing". This bill would include any civilians appearing in the background of videos shot in public places such as in many of the reality porn shoots, spectators at Public Disgrace or Party Hardcore who are clothed and not having sex and any non-performing production people who appear in videos.

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by SpicyM

There are producers with thousands of videos in their channels already uploaded, hard to imagine how many models are featured in those videos. They will be forced to scan and upload a model release for every single person captured in those videos.

Also, there are producers who only shoot for their own projects. They need a model's permission to provide her personal data to third parties and some models simply won't agree with that.

that stuff is written into the release, which BTW you should have on EVERY shoot.

"They will be forced to scan and upload a model release for every single person captured in those videos."


^^^^ this is a non starter. EVERYONE I ever shot had a release scanned and out with the content folders. at some point you'll need to be professional

[SpicyM]

Originally Posted by Grapesoda

that stuff is written into the release

Not always the case. I have seen some very simple one-page model releases with no mention of that.

[SpicyM]

Originally Posted by InfoGuy

The bill says "every individual appearing" and not "every individual performing". This bill would include any civilians appearing in the background of videos shot in public places such as in many of the reality porn shoots, spectators at Public Disgrace or Party Hardcore who are clothed and not having sex and any non-performing production people who appear in videos.

You can't even capture random persons without their consent and publish that. That is prohibited in many European countries with some exceptions for press, tv, art works etc. - it falls under personality and privacy protection. A photograph where a person can be recognized = personal data.

I doubt random people on the street would be happy to be included in a porn shoot against their will... And Party Hardcore is staged of course.

All these site operators (especially those with voyeur sites) risk hefty fines regardless of this bill. Local TV news often blur faces of persons captured in their reports if they ask them ... and that is not even close to porn shared on porn tubes visited by millions of people every day.

Real voyeur content is illegal, at several levels.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by NALEM

All reasonable proposals except for:

"Requiring removal of flagged videos within two hours of such a request."

Temporary removal from the public view can be automated and immediate pending the completion of the investigation.

If one is to investigate the claim submitted it may take longer.

What issue is there for paysites with proper 2257 documentation?

equiring platforms hosting pornography to, within two weeks of enactment:
- Require any user uploading a video to the platform to verify their identiry
- Require any user uploading a video to the platform also upload a signed consent form from every individual appearing in the video
• Creating a private right of action against an uploader who uploads a pornographic image without the consent of an individual featured in the image
• Requiring platforms hosting pornography to include a notice or banner on the website instructing how an individual can request removal of a video if an individual has not consented to it being uploaded on the platform
• Prohibiting video downloads from these platforms, to be in place within three months of enactment of the legislation
• Requiring platforms hosting pornography to offer a 24-hour hotline staffed by the platform, for individuals who contact the hotline to request removal of a video that has been distributed without their consent
- Requiring removal of flagged videos within two hours of such a request
• Requiring platforms to use software to block a video from being re-uploaded after its removal, which must be in place within six months of enactment of the legislation
• Directing the Federal Trade Commission to enforce violations of these requirements
• Creating a database of individuals who have indicated they do not consent, which must be checked before new content can be uploaded to platforms
- Instructing the Department of Justice to promulgate rules on where this database should be housed, and determine how to connect victims with services, to include counseling and casework
- Establishing that failure to comply with this requirement will result in a civil penalty to the platform, with proceeds going towards victim services

Sites like Girls Do Porn should be worried though.

What many don't get is where the strength of the adult industry lies. For those who don't know let me refresh you.

Customers
Providers
Content producers and models
Payment processors
Programmers, designers, etc.
Affiliates.

This legislation means sites that don't produce their own content with willing models or buy in from reputable providers should be worried.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by SpicyM

There are producers with thousands of videos in their channels already uploaded, hard to imagine how many models are featured in those videos. They will be forced to scan and upload a model release for every single person captured in those videos.

Also, there are producers who only shoot for their own projects. They need a model's permission to provide her personal data to third parties and some models simply won't agree with that.

Those sites will have to close down because they have content on their sites they didn't verify. Then the surfers they lose will go to better-regulated sites. So no problem for the better-regulated sites.