New 2257 regs published (link here) - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

chadglni · 05-24-2005, 05:52 AM

What's worse than the gov imposing these regulations is the leech ass webmasters trying to get rich off of them. That guy supported the new regs. just so he could pander his program.

50 comments.

~~~Posted by wojbotv2.1

GatorB · 05-24-2005, 05:52 AM

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.

Ok so how is me making a TGP gallery different than a store selling a copy of Hustler? Logic would say I am only distributing the content. Hell I didn't shoot those fucking pics or movies. This law contridicts itself.

GatorB · 05-24-2005, 05:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Almighty Colin

Every industry is regulated. Take a look at the massive regulations which govern the securities markets with jail time and large fines for those that do not comply.

Roll up your sleeves and get to work.

I thought republicans were against government regualtion of businesses? They seem to want to delregulate every other business.

Tempest · 05-24-2005, 05:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by faxxaff

Why should a foreign webmaster comply with US rules? The US has no jurisdiction over him and the sponsor can not be made liable for the acting of another person.

It will be a lot less work and hassle for a sponsor to provide FHGs as opposed to content sets with all the docs.. So if you count on content from your sponsor, you'll be affected...

I won't even touch on the word "conspiracy" in section 75.1(2). I'm not a lawyer so don't know how to take that.

Nate-MM2 · 05-24-2005, 05:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chadglni

What's worse than the gov imposing these regulations is the leech ass webmasters trying to get rich off of them. That guy supported the new regs. just so he could pander his program.

Assuming you were referring to me, that's ridiculous.

I never supported the new regulations either publicly or privately. I'm not sure where you get your information.

My apologies in advance if you were referring to the content management & record keeping programs being talked about on the boards.

Nate-MM2 · 05-24-2005, 05:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

I thought republicans were against government regualtion of businesses? They seem to want to delregulate every other business.

They have to actually be in power to de-regulate other businesses. Clamping down on us keeps a large portion of their civilian supporters in good favour.

Snake Doctor · 05-24-2005, 05:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

Ok so how is me making a TGP gallery different than a store selling a copy of Hustler? Logic would say I am only distributing the content. Hell I didn't shoot those fucking pics or movies. This law contridicts itself.

Because you have editorial control over what pictures go on your webpage, the convenience store clerk has no control over what is in the magazine.

Tempest · 05-24-2005, 06:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

Ok so how is me making a TGP gallery different than a store selling a copy of Hustler?

You sort of answered it yourself.. you "make" the page that's getting published where's the store is distributing a magazine that hustler published. In a way, your host and the internet are distributing what you produced.

chadglni · 05-24-2005, 06:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

Ok so how is me making a TGP gallery different than a store selling a copy of Hustler? Logic would say I am only distributing the content. Hell I didn't shoot those fucking pics or movies. This law contridicts itself.

(c) Producer means any person, including any individual,
corporation, or other organization, who is a primary producer or a
secondary producer.
(1) A primary producer is any person who actually films,
videotapes, photographs, or creates a digitally- or computer-
manipulated image, a digital image, or picture of, or digitizes an
image of, a visual depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual
sexually explicit conduct.
(2) A secondary producer is any person who produces, assembles,
manufactures, publishes, duplicates, reproduces, or reissues a book,
magazine, periodical, film, videotape, digitally- or computer-
manipulated image, picture, or other matter intended for commercial
distribution that contains a visual depiction of an actual human being
engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct, or who inserts on a
computer site or service a digital image of, or otherwise manages the
sexually explicit content of a computer site or service that contains a
visual depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually
explicit conduct, including any person who enters into a contract,
agreement, or conspiracy to do any of the foregoing.
(3) The same person may be both a primary and a secondary producer.
(4) Producer does not include persons whose activities relating to
the visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct are limited to
the following:
(i) Photo or film processing, including digitization of previously
existing visual depictions, as part of a commercial enterprise, with no
other commercial interest in the sexually explicit material, printing,
and video duplicators;
(ii) Mere distribution;
(iii) Any activity, other than those activities identified in
paragraphs (c) (1) and (2) of this section, that does not involve the
hiring, contracting for, managing, or otherwise arranging for the
participation of the depicted performers;
(iv) A provider of web-hosting services who does not, and
reasonably cannot, manage the sexually explicit content of the computer
site or service; or
(v) A provider of an electronic communication service or remote
computing service who does not, and reasonably cannot, manage the
sexually explicit content of the computer site or service.

chadglni · 05-24-2005, 06:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nate-MM2

Assuming you were referring to me, that's ridiculous.

I never supported the new regulations either publicly or privately. I'm not sure where you get your information.

My apologies in advance if you were referring to the content management & record keeping programs being talked about on the boards.

No, the comment quoted earlier that was sent in by a webmaster who agreed with the regulations.

GatorB · 05-24-2005, 06:03 AM

The Department declines to adopt this comment. The requirement that
records maintained pursuant to section 2257 be segregated not only
streamlines the inspection process but protects producers from
unbridled fishing expeditions. Inspectors should not be faced with
situations in which they have to sift through myriad filing cabinets to
find the records they are seeking,

Well too fucking bad. YOUR rule YOU should have deal with the messes you fucking BIATCHES!

GatorB · 05-24-2005, 06:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chadglni

(c) Producer means any person, including any individual,
corporation, or other organization, who is a primary producer or a
secondary producer.
(1) A primary producer is any person who actually films,
videotapes, photographs, or creates a digitally- or computer-
manipulated image, a digital image, or picture of, or digitizes an
image of, a visual depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual
sexually explicit conduct.
(2) A secondary producer is any person who produces, assembles,
manufactures, publishes, duplicates, reproduces, or reissues a book,
magazine, periodical, film, videotape, digitally- or computer-
manipulated image, picture, or other matter intended for commercial
distribution that contains a visual depiction of an actual human being
engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct, or who inserts on a
computer site or service a digital image of, or otherwise manages the
sexually explicit content of a computer site or service that contains a
visual depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually
explicit conduct, including any person who enters into a contract,
agreement, or conspiracy to do any of the foregoing.
(3) The same person may be both a primary and a secondary producer.
(4) Producer does not include persons whose activities relating to
the visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct are limited to
the following:
(i) Photo or film processing, including digitization of previously
existing visual depictions, as part of a commercial enterprise, with no
other commercial interest in the sexually explicit material, printing,
and video duplicators;
(ii) Mere distribution;
(iii) Any activity, other than those activities identified in
paragraphs (c) (1) and (2) of this section, that does not involve the
hiring, contracting for, managing, or otherwise arranging for the
participation of the depicted performers;
(iv) A provider of web-hosting services who does not, and
reasonably cannot, manage the sexually explicit content of the computer
site or service; or
(v) A provider of an electronic communication service or remote
computing service who does not, and reasonably cannot, manage the
sexually explicit content of the computer site or service.

Blah blah. Don't quote crap. I'm asking LOGICALLY. Not according to stupid rules. LOGICALLY how would a person with at least average intelligence explain the difference there is NONE.

Nate-MM2 · 05-24-2005, 06:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chadglni

No, the comment quoted earlier that was sent in by a webmaster who agreed with the regulations.

My apologies then, sorry.

chadglni · 05-24-2005, 06:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

Blah blah. Don't quote crap. I'm asking LOGICALLY. Not according to stupid rules. LOGICALLY how would a person with at least average intelligence explain the difference there is NONE.

I wasn't arguing with you, you defensive jackass. I was quoting the part in question so anyone that wanted to answer your question would have it in front of their face.

MickeyG · 05-24-2005, 06:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chadglni

No, the comment quoted earlier that was sent in by a webmaster who agreed with the regulations.

do you think it was it that Brandon guy? He made one of those systems, didn't he?

GatorB · 05-24-2005, 06:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tempest

You sort of answered it yourself.. you "make" the page that's getting published where's the store is distributing a magazine that hustler published. In a way, your host and the internet are distributing what you produced.

OH bullshit. How else do you get pics to show up on the internet? That's like saying if a store makes a display for it's porno mags then they are required to comply with 2257 and they are not. Once again NO FUCKING DIFFERENCE.

chadglni · 05-24-2005, 06:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chadglni

I wasn't arguing with you, you defensive jackass. I was quoting the part in question so anyone that wanted to answer your question would have it in front of their face.

And to answer your question, a convenient store doesn't publish any thing. They don't copy any explicit pictures and "publish" them in their store. You on the other hand publish them when you put it on a domain. You can sell a website all day long you just can't publish an explicit picture to do it.

Nate-MM2 · 05-24-2005, 06:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

OH bullshit. How else do you get pics to show up on the internet? That's like saying if a store makes a display for it's porno mags then they are required to comply with 2257 and they are not. Once again NO FUCKING DIFFERENCE.

But why are you arguing about it here?

We didn't make the rules...

GatorB · 05-24-2005, 06:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chadglni

I wasn't arguing with you, you defensive jackass. I was quoting the part in question so anyone that wanted to answer your question would have it in front of their face.

Point is a wanted logical responses from PEOPLE. Not quotes from the new rules. Kind of if I asked you what love was. Don't go get a fucking book tell me what YOUR logical reason opinion is.

chadglni · 05-24-2005, 06:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

OH bullshit. How else do you get pics to show up on the internet? That's like saying if a store makes a display for it's porno mags then they are required to comply with 2257 and they are not. Once again NO FUCKING DIFFERENCE.

I've never seen an explicit image in a video store. I don't know of any magazines that have explicit pictures on the cover. You could write HI in big ass letters with porno mags across your store and you still aren't displaying explicit images. You are so pissed about these regulations you are talking shit that makes no sense.

GatorB · 05-24-2005, 06:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nate-MM2

But why are you arguing about it here?

We didn't make the rules...

I'm not argiung I'm pointing out contidiction and hypocrisy in the rules. I'm looking for consensus. Either you A) agree with me or B) you agree with the rules. I don't care which but if you don't agree with me at least come up with your own reasons.

Snake Doctor · 05-24-2005, 06:11 AM

GatorB I already answered your question.

The difference is you have editorial control over what goes on your web page.

GatorB · 05-24-2005, 06:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chadglni

I've never seen an explicit image in a video store. I don't know of any magazines that have explicit pictures on the cover. You could write HI in big ass letters with porno mags across your store and you still aren't displaying explicit images.

You go to the wrong stores. I've seen PLENTY of explicit images in ponro shops and plenty of mags with hardcore sex on the covers.

Quote:

You are so pissed about these regulations you are talking shit that makes no sense.

I'm making perfect sense and 99.99% of what do involves ZERO content. So am I effected? What little content I do have out there will be gone before June 23rd.

chadglni · 05-24-2005, 06:14 AM

I didn't mean to type video store. However they still aren't publishing anything.

swedguy · 05-24-2005, 06:15 AM

One commenter also commented that
the proposed rule may force foreign
primary producers to violate foreign
laws regarding protection of
information. If primary producers in
foreign countries decide to comply with
their home privacy laws and not
provide materials to U.S. entities, the
regulation will chill the availability of
materials and speech to U.S. citizens.
The Department declines to adopt this
comment. The rule is no different from
other forms of labeling requirements
imposed on foreign producers of, e.g.,
alcohol, tobacco, or food items that are
imported into the United States. In
order to sell in the U.S. market, foreign
producers must comply with U.S. laws.
This rule applies equally to any sexually
explicit material introduced into the
stream of commerce in the United States
no matter where it was produced.
Foreign producers have the option of
not complying with the rule, but then
their access to the U.S. market is justly
and lawfully prohibited.

Internet 101.
If I have material on an European server, I'm in Europe. People from the US can access my material, am I then selling to the US market?
If yes, then I have to comply with laws in every single country in the world.
If no, good for me.

GatorB · 05-24-2005, 06:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lenny2

GatorB I already answered your question.

The difference is you have editorial control over what goes on your web page.

Once again so? That's just BS talk for these rules. I'm talking YOUR personal LOGICAL opinion. Should a regular Joe be under MORE regualtions than someone who owns say 20 porno shops each with 10's of 1000's of movies, mags etc? I might as well just go own a porno shop because acccording to these rules I'm not required to have records to make sure that the movies I'm selling don't have underage girls in them. Hmmmmmmmm.

chadglni · 05-24-2005, 06:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by swedguy

One commenter also commented that
the proposed rule may force foreign
primary producers to violate foreign
laws regarding protection of
information. If primary producers in
foreign countries decide to comply with
their home privacy laws and not
provide materials to U.S. entities, the
regulation will chill the availability of
materials and speech to U.S. citizens.
The Department declines to adopt this
comment. The rule is no different from
other forms of labeling requirements
imposed on foreign producers of, e.g.,
alcohol, tobacco, or food items that are
imported into the United States. In
order to sell in the U.S. market, foreign
producers must comply with U.S. laws.
This rule applies equally to any sexually
explicit material introduced into the
stream of commerce in the United States
no matter where it was produced.
Foreign producers have the option of
not complying with the rule, but then
their access to the U.S. market is justly
and lawfully prohibited.

Internet 101.
If I have material on an European server, I'm in Europe. People from the US can access my material, am I then selling to the US market?
If yes, then I have to comply with laws in every single country in the world.
If no, good for me.

Wow, that's fucked up.

GatorB · 05-24-2005, 06:21 AM

For those NOT from the US that think this doesn't effect them.

In order to sell in the U.S. market, foreign
producers must comply with U.S. laws.
This rule applies equally to any sexually
explicit material introduced into the
stream of commerce in the United States
no matter where it was produced.

Snake Doctor · 05-24-2005, 06:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

Once again so? That's just BS talk for these rules. I'm talking YOUR personal LOGICAL opinion. Should a regular Joe be under MORE regualtions than someone who owns say 20 porno shops each with 10's of 1000's of movies, mags etc? I might as well just go own a porno shop because acccording to these rules I'm not required to have records to make sure that the movies I'm selling don't have underage girls in them. Hmmmmmmmm.

Hey I'm not a fan of these rules at all, no more than anyone else here.

However, I still see a very logical difference between someone who inserts images onto a web page and publishes the page, and someone who works in a convenience store that sells Hustler magazine.

Personally I don't think requiring everyone who publishes porn to have copies of the ID's is a bad thing. When you think about it, the only way you can know for sure that the model is/was over 18 is to see the ID. Otherwise you're just taking the word of the photographer.

My problem with the rules is the burdensome way in which they're being implemented....copies of depictions cross referenced with urls and people having to put their home addresses on web pages and shit like that.

Tempest · 05-24-2005, 06:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

OH bullshit. How else do you get pics to show up on the internet? That's like saying if a store makes a display for it's porno mags then they are required to comply with 2257 and they are not. Once again NO FUCKING DIFFERENCE.

I don't know the proper terminology, but I believe that a web page is considered published material, that's why copyright laws apply. And as such comparing it to a display for porno mags does not apply.

Nate-MM2 · 05-24-2005, 06:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

For those NOT from the US that think this doesn't effect them.

In order to sell in the U.S. market, foreign
producers must comply with U.S. laws.
This rule applies equally to any sexually
explicit material introduced into the
stream of commerce in the United States
no matter where it was produced.

This shouldn't matter in a practical sense because non-US citizens aren't governed by US laws.

They would have a hard time (impossible) stopping somebody selling to US citizens on the internet. Online gaming has faced the same problem and came away with successful solutions.

Tempest · 05-24-2005, 06:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

For those NOT from the US that think this doesn't effect them.

In order to sell in the U.S. market, foreign
producers must comply with U.S. laws.
This rule applies equally to any sexually
explicit material introduced into the
stream of commerce in the United States
no matter where it was produced.

If you're just an affiliate, you're not selling anything. You're promoting/advertising someone elses site..

GatorB · 05-24-2005, 06:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lenny2

Personally I don't think requiring everyone who publishes porn to have copies of the ID's is a bad thing. When you think about it, the only way you can know for sure that the model is/was over 18 is to see the ID. Otherwise you're just taking the word of the photographer.

And if the photogrhaper is LYING about the girls age what makes you think his records are going to be anymore accurate? Would he just have her come up with fake ID?

Quote:

My problem with the rules is the burdensome way in which they're being implemented....copies of depictions cross referenced with urls and people having to put their home addresses on web pages and shit like that.

Which is why if there isn't an injunction I will make damn sure I don't have ANY webpages with ANY content on them.

I for one am currious how many websites/webpages out there will actually be in compliance on June 23rd.

Snake Doctor · 05-24-2005, 06:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

For those NOT from the US that think this doesn't effect them.

In order to sell in the U.S. market, foreign
producers must comply with U.S. laws.
This rule applies equally to any sexually
explicit material introduced into the
stream of commerce in the United States
no matter where it was produced.

You forgot an important part of that.

Foreign producers have the option of
not complying with the rule, but then
their access to the U.S. market is justly
and lawfully prohibited.

It also doesn't affect foreign webmasters the way you think. The DOJ specifically said "we do not currently excercise jurisdiction over foreign websites"

The part that you're quoting refers to foreign producers who wish to sell their images/videos to U.S. companies. If they can't provide the documentation then the U.S. companies can't do business with them.

Nate-MM2 · 05-24-2005, 06:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tempest

If you're just an affiliate, you're not selling anything. You're promoting/advertising someone elses site..

It can't be applied to paysite owners either, or content producers for that matter.

GatorB · 05-24-2005, 06:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tempest

If you're just an affiliate, you're not selling anything. You're promoting/advertising someone elses site..

And don't they have a place in their stats that say SALES? But your not selling anyhting. Who here promotes websites for FREE here without any expectation of getting paid? Anyone?

Snake Doctor · 05-24-2005, 06:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

And if the photogrhaper is LYING about the girls age what makes you think his records are going to be anymore accurate? Would he just have her come up with fake ID?.

You're really reaching now man.

It doesn't matter what he does, what matters is that you asked for and received a copy of a government issued ID. If for whatever reason the ID is a fake, you still did your due diligence and any lawyer worth his salt could defend you easily.

GatorB · 05-24-2005, 06:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lenny2

It also doesn't affect foreign webmasters the way you think. The DOJ specifically said "we do not currently excercise jurisdiction over foreign websites"

So basically they are admiting they are dumbfucks because there is no way this law can do what they want it to do if over half the websites on the planet can not be made to comply and all it does is put Americans at a disadvatage. Good going Bush.

Snake Doctor · 05-24-2005, 06:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tempest

If you're just an affiliate, you're not selling anything. You're promoting/advertising someone elses site..

They're referring to foreign producers selling content to secondary producers in the U.S.....they're not referring to foreign websites selling subscriptions.

GatorB · 05-24-2005, 06:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lenny2

You're really reaching now man.

It doesn't matter what he does, what matters is that you asked for and received a copy of a government issued ID. If for whatever reason the ID is a fake, you still did your due diligence and any lawyer worth his salt could defend you easily.

Ok so now I can go and ask any producer for a model's ID and I can get it? Hmmmm better hope I'm not a stalker. And if they are not obligated to provide with such ID then how do I get this ID?

Tempest · 05-24-2005, 06:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

And don't they have a place in their stats that say SALES? But your not selling anyhting. Who here promotes websites for FREE here without any expectation of getting paid? Anyone?

I didn't get the sale.. the sponsor did.. and I get paid a commision... You're just ranting now..

Snake Doctor · 05-24-2005, 06:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

So basically they are admiting they are dumbfucks because there is no way this law can do what they want it to do if over half the websites on the planet can not be made to comply and all it does is put Americans at a disadvatage. Good going Bush.

The purpose of the law (which is a good law....it's the regulations written to specify enforcement of the law that are fucked up) is to ensure that children aren't used as participants in pornography.

U.S. laws are intended to protect U.S. children, protecting children that live in other countries is the job of the other governments.

GatorB · 05-24-2005, 06:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tempest

I didn't get the sale.. the sponsor did.. and I get paid a commision... You're just ranting now..

Yeah ok. So a car SALESman doesn't actually get SALES because he doesn't own the cars the dealership does?

Nate-MM2 · 05-24-2005, 06:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

Ok so now I can go and ask any producer for a model's ID and I can get it? Hmmmm better hope I'm not a stalker. And if they are not obligated to provide with such ID then how do I get this ID?

You actually have to buy a license for the set first... you can't just go asking at random.

I doubt many producers will be providing un-edited information to Joe Webmaster that just paid $27 for 3 sets of photo content.

GatorB · 05-24-2005, 06:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lenny2

The purpose of the law (which is a good law....it's the regulations written to specify enforcement of the law that are fucked up) is to ensure that children aren't used as participants in pornography.

U.S. laws are intended to protect U.S. children, protecting children that live in other countries is the job of the other governments.

These laws ALREADY exist and have existed. The original 2257 laws have been in existence for well over a dozen years. What is wrong with those. What flaw is in those laws that they new ones? How would they know of such flaws since there has NEVER ever been ONE inspection of 2257 records since thier inception.

chadglni · 05-24-2005, 06:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nate-MM2

You actually have to buy a license for the set first... you can't just go asking at random.

I doubt many producers will be providing un-edited information to Joe Webmaster that just paid $27 for 3 sets of photo content.

What exactly would they edit? They have to give you the girls real name for you to be compliant, anyone with some sense can find her from there.

GatorB · 05-24-2005, 06:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nate-MM2

You actually have to buy a license for the set first... you can't just go asking at random.

I doubt many producers will be providing un-edited information to Joe Webmaster that just paid $27 for 3 sets of photo content.

Yes but doesn't the DOJ want the info not blacked out shit? Oh I see they come I give them the "edited" info and they haul ME off for having "edited" info and not the real thing.

Snake Doctor · 05-24-2005, 06:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

Ok so now I can go and ask any producer for a model's ID and I can get it? Hmmmm better hope I'm not a stalker. And if they are not obligated to provide with such ID then how do I get this ID?

I posted this earlier....dude you really need to take a chill pill BTW.

In the comments section the DOJ said that if a primary producer refuses to provide a secondary producer with documentation, they're in violation of the regulations.

Now me personally, I'm not going to wait for the DOJ to show up at my door and then say "I asked for the ID but didn't get it"
I'm going to remove any content that I don't have ID's for (assuming the regs go into effect as scheduled)
However, if you paid money for content and now the producer refuses to give you the docs in violation of the law you may have grounds to sue and recover the monies you paid for the content plus attorney fees.

(Remember, I'm not a lawyer, I just play one on TV.....don't take ANYTHING I say as legal advice.)

Tempest · 05-24-2005, 06:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lenny2

They're referring to foreign producers selling content to secondary producers in the U.S.....they're not referring to foreign websites selling subscriptions.

Not sure I agree with that since they use the term "producer" to refer to both secondary and primary producers in some places.. and they seem to be making it clear that if you sell to the US, they expect you to meet the "labeling" requirements like any other product being sold in the US... Of course, they then go on to say they don't exercise jurisdiction so who the hell knows..

Nate-MM2 · 05-24-2005, 06:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chadglni

What exactly would they edit? They have to give you the girls real name for you to be compliant, anyone with some sense can find her from there.

They won't give you the real name.

If you force the issue they'll just tell you to fuck off. Keeping a steady stream of fresh models keeps the big buyers coming back. They aren't going to risk pissing off a model to satisfy a webmaster making a $30 content purchase.

The trusted buyers & paysite owners will be the ones getting the documents for compliance.

05-24-2005, 05:52 AM	#51
chadglni Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: PEI, Canada Posts: 6,924	What's worse than the gov imposing these regulations is the leech ass webmasters trying to get rich off of them. That guy supported the new regs. just so he could pander his program. 50 comments. ~~~Posted by wojbotv2.1 __________________ Sign up here - Dating Site affiliate program

05-24-2005, 06:11 AM	#72
Snake Doctor I'm Lenny2 Bitch Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: On top of my soapbox Posts: 13,449	GatorB I already answered your question. The difference is you have editorial control over what goes on your web page. __________________ sig too big

05-24-2005, 06:14 AM	#74
chadglni Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: PEI, Canada Posts: 6,924	I didn't mean to type video store. However they still aren't publishing anything. __________________ Sign up here - Dating Site affiliate program

05-24-2005, 05:52 AM	#52
GatorB The Demon & 12clicks Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: SallyRand is a FAGGOT Posts: 18,208	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. Ok so how is me making a TGP gallery different than a store selling a copy of Hustler? Logic would say I am only distributing the content. Hell I didn't shoot those fucking pics or movies. This law contridicts itself.

05-24-2005, 06:03 AM	#61
GatorB The Demon & 12clicks Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: SallyRand is a FAGGOT Posts: 18,208	The Department declines to adopt this comment. The requirement that records maintained pursuant to section 2257 be segregated not only streamlines the inspection process but protects producers from unbridled fishing expeditions. Inspectors should not be faced with situations in which they have to sift through myriad filing cabinets to find the records they are seeking, Well too fucking bad. YOUR rule YOU should have deal with the messes you fucking BIATCHES!

05-24-2005, 06:15 AM	#75
swedguy Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 7,981	One commenter also commented that the proposed rule may force foreign primary producers to violate foreign laws regarding protection of information. If primary producers in foreign countries decide to comply with their home privacy laws and not provide materials to U.S. entities, the regulation will chill the availability of materials and speech to U.S. citizens. The Department declines to adopt this comment. The rule is no different from other forms of labeling requirements imposed on foreign producers of, e.g., alcohol, tobacco, or food items that are imported into the United States. In order to sell in the U.S. market, foreign producers must comply with U.S. laws. This rule applies equally to any sexually explicit material introduced into the stream of commerce in the United States no matter where it was produced. Foreign producers have the option of not complying with the rule, but then their access to the U.S. market is justly and lawfully prohibited. Internet 101. If I have material on an European server, I'm in Europe. People from the US can access my material, am I then selling to the US market? If yes, then I have to comply with laws in every single country in the world. If no, good for me.

05-24-2005, 06:21 AM	#78
GatorB The Demon & 12clicks Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: SallyRand is a FAGGOT Posts: 18,208	For those NOT from the US that think this doesn't effect them. In order to sell in the U.S. market, foreign producers must comply with U.S. laws. This rule applies equally to any sexually explicit material introduced into the stream of commerce in the United States no matter where it was produced.