Pineapplepink 2257 Stance

[studio]

Hello everyone, Here is my stance on the New 2257 Records Laws at Pineapplcash. Being a primary content producer myself since 1999. I know what it takes to comply with 2257 regulations, and I can tell you that it consumes a lot of man power to keep everything up to date. I want to give our affiliates as much time as possible to make required changes. The 2257 law is a fact, and it is serious. But, to me the safety of my models is more important to me than giving away free sexually explicit content. It is my contention that the majority of our affiliates don't want to be required to keep records on my content, nor have they the time or resources to do so properly.
It is for these reasons, I am joining in with Steve, of Lightspeedcash... I was leaning towards this solution all along! However, I didn't want to be caught with my pants down and come out on the short end of the stick. As I stated above, my models privacy and safety comes first! So therefore, I WILL NOT RELEASE THEIR IDS TO WEBMASTERS. I agree with Steve of Lightspeed, There is a better solution for pineapplepink, our models, and our affiliates:

So, Effective June 23, 2005, Pineapplecash will no longer authorize affiliate use of OUR SEXUALLY EXPLICIT content to promote our sites. We recommend affiliates use text links and/or SOFTCORE thumbnail links to our HOSTED CONTENT wherever possible. Please take advantage of our hosted galleries! I have nearly 100 and none of them are really over exposed yet, and I'll be adding new one all the time. Hotlinking content or the use of IFRAMES will not be allowed. Simply link to us and let us worry about the documentation, as I have been keeping it since I began shooting adult content. This policy APPLIES TO EVERYONE, not just our US webmasters. I won't put our US webmasters at a disadvantage. This means if your a non US Webmaster and want to use our free content you must use non sexually explicit content. Failure to comply with this new requirement will result in the termination of your pineapplecash affiliate status, and the forfeiture of any outstanding earnings end of story.

I too, also make a request to the TGP and MGP owners to allow existing galleries to be modified to comply with the new 2257 requirements. We are all in this together. No one wants to lose their traffic or their revenue, but without bending the rules about modifying existing galleries, you will put yourselves and your submitters at
risk. Pineapplepink & pineapplecash is 100% committed to this industry and to our webmasters. We will be available to answer any and all affiliate questions and concerns. I know this solution will not please everyone, and I apologize now if you are inconvenienced by my decisions.

Always,

Denny
Pineapplepink.com

[AaronM]

You couldn't even write your own speech?

[sweetcuties]

... inserts brand new sig here

[my2257]

We agree and support your decision

[FleshJoe2005]

Danny

Good stance, I think FHG is the only way to go that avoids exposing models.

HOWEVER, I'm not at all sure that using thumbs removes the requirement on affiliates to keep 2257 records themselves.

By the way, cropping is not allowed, i.e. making a safe thumb out of an unsafe image (where unsafe means "requires 2257 record keeping"). Such cropping means that the affiliate would expose themselves to the record keeping requirements.

I can just see the nice DOJ investigators and myself sitting at my kitchen table with the kids running around us, looking at my laptop screen and arguing about every thumb on my site whether it does or does not require 2257 record keeping. NO THANKS!

So while this is a step in the right direction (and kudos to you and LS), it does not entirely solve the problem for mom-n-pop affiliates.

IANAL but can anyone answer this: if we claim to have no 2257-covered content, do we still need to list an address on the 2257 compliance page?

[Shooting_Manic]

Good move Denny and you are 100% correct in your stance. However bud, make sure next time you take a bit more time in editing other parties statements.

[studio]

Hi guys... I'm from that school of why reinvent the wheel... And I agreed with Steve so much and am taking this stance with him, that I didn't think he would mind...

[MaDalton]

i think i read that before.... - it just wasn't about pineapples, more something very fast....

[studio]

As far as the cropping goes... Just don't crop out of a sexually explicit photo. Also, most every gallery I build has at least one nice close up head shot...

[Shooting_Manic]

Originally Posted by studio

Hi guys... I'm from that school of why reinvent the wheel... And I agreed with Steve so much and am taking this stance with him, that I didn't think he would mind...

Its cool, but since he paid his laywer a bunch of money to come up with there stance, in all fairness, its not in good taste to copy it nearly word for word.

All in all, its teh perfect stance and one you should take, board posting or not. Lets hope every sponsor takes the same stance and protects their models.

[FleshJoe2005]

Originally Posted by studio

As far as the cropping goes... Just don't crop out of a sexually explicit photo. Also, most every gallery I build has at least one nice close up head shot...

OK, we know this is gonna be tested in court (but I dont want it to be me who is the guinnea pig ), but in your opinion a thumb that does not require 2257 which is linked to 2257-requiring content, that's OK in your opinion and won't require the site on which the thumb appears to require 2257 records?

[Classy Cassie]

Originally Posted by studio

Hi guys... I'm from that school of why reinvent the wheel... And I agreed with Steve so much and am taking this stance with him, that I didn't think he would mind...

Shame on you for stealing others' ideas! No wonder you don't make money and just submit galleries!

[studio]

FleshJoe2005,

If that was the case... using FHG would not be the answer... It is my understanding that it's what you produce on your site. If it's not sexually explicit them record are not required.

[studio]

Classy Cassie, with 8 posts... you talk with a paper asshole... end of story!

[Lycanthrope]

Just give me Rayne's address and known hangouts now.

Thanks.

[studio]

Lycanthrope, You silly boy... I'll call you the next time I shoot her... You can be the official lighting guy and bitch tag watcher...

[Shooting_Manic]

Originally Posted by FleshJoe2005

OK, we know this is gonna be tested in court (but I dont want it to be me who is the guinnea pig ), but in your opinion a thumb that does not require 2257 which is linked to 2257-requiring content, that's OK in your opinion and won't require the site on which the thumb appears to require 2257 records?

This is only my opinion here, but I would think that you would need to cut your thumb from a photo that does not require 2257, meaning a softcore image to create a softcore thumb. Maybe someone can clearify that more, but its my understanding that ANY manipulation of a hardcore or sexually explict photo requires 2257 declarations. Cropping from a softcore photo would seem to keep you exempt from 2257 docs. However, then there is the whole "softcore thumb" linking to a "hardcore gallery" issue. The way have read it is that your softcore thumb would also have to link to a totally softcore gallery also. I cold be wrong on that though. However, I could see that being a huge plus on getting traffic to the actual site if that indeed is the case.

Some may have other opinions though.

[Lycanthrope]

Originally Posted by studio

Lycanthrope, You silly boy... I'll call you the next time I shoot her... You can be the official lighting guy and bitch tag watcher...

..or taste tester... it's all good, I'm flexible.

[FleshJoe2005]

Originally Posted by Shooting_Manic

This is only my opinion here, but I would think that you would need to cut your thumb from a photo that does not require 2257, meaning a softcore image to create a softcore thumb. Maybe someone can clearify that more, but its my understanding that ANY manipulation of a hardcore or sexually explict photo requires 2257 declarations. Cropping from a softcore photo would seem to keep you exempt from 2257 docs. However, then there is the whole "softcore thumb" linking to a "hardcore gallery" issue. The way have read it is that your softcore thumb would also have to link to a totally softcore gallery also. I cold be wrong on that though. However, I could see that being a huge plus on getting traffic to the actual site if that indeed is the case.

Some may have other opinions though.

In my opinion

1. A cropped softcore thumb from a hardcore image is a no-no
2. A softcore thumb linking to a hardcore gallery is OK

Rationale: we're talking about the content here -- the thumb itself resides on your site and its softcore, that means that you (the owner of the site) are not required to have 2257 docs. Where it links to is the responsibility of whoever owns THAT site.

But thats just my opinion.

[Classy Cassie]

Originally Posted by studio

Classy Cassie, with 8 posts... you talk with a paper asshole... end of story!

You just fucked Steve Jones up the asshole, a respected member of the adult community and someone I look up to. He should bitch slap you into next week if you had the guts to haul your stinky winkie to the next convention!

Shame on you!

[xxxice]

It begins

[studio]

vanderweb,

No, he won't get that from me...

[Pete-KT]

Secured sig spot

[exportyourbiz-com]

I'll ask you the same thing I asked Steve.

By my interpretation of the regulations you are still required by law to provide documents for the explicit images you already handed out to affiliates if they were produced within the timeframe in question.

Terminating accounts and ceasing to provide hardcore free content as of today may lower your exposure but I don't see how it absolves you from your legal obligations to provide the documentation if you are a primary producer.

Care to shed some light on this?

[wjxxx]

Originally Posted by Pete-KT

Secured sig spot

[studio]

exportyourbiz-com,

When we as program owners gave out content for affiliates to use. We didn't give a life long right to them, to use the content. So it is our right to stop them from using any, all, some or just the sexually explicit content. So if you have sexually explicit content on your sites, I would suggest you remove or replace it with non sexualy explicit content, and then even delete the sexualy explicit content from your system.

[taibo]

[Johny Traffic]

Originally Posted by studio

exportyourbiz-com,

When we as program owners gave out content for affiliates to use. We didn't give a life long right to them, to use the content.

Just out of interest how long did you give them?

[exportyourbiz-com]

Originally Posted by studio

exportyourbiz-com,

When we as program owners gave out content for affiliates to use. We didn't give a life long right to them, to use the content. So it is our right to stop them from using any, all, some or just the sexually explicit content. So if you have sexually explicit content on your sites, I would suggest you remove or replace it with non sexualy explicit content, and then even delete the sexualy explicit content from your system.

Looking at the actual regulations I still don't understand how this makes you exempt from having to provide the documentation... ?

It seems pretty clear cut that you are the primary producer and the webmaster is the secondary producer. So if the image is explicit and was produced within the given date range you are still legally obligated to provide the docs.

Removing images from the servers & pages has no effect on the application of the law as I can see it.

[studio]

If your product is no longer on the internet... then you wouldn't as long as you have it down by june 23rd.

[exportyourbiz-com]

Originally Posted by studio

If your product is no longer on the internet... then you wouldn't as long as you have it down by june 23rd.

It is beyond unreasonable to expect that ALL your affiliates will have removed the images by then.

[exportyourbiz-com]

Any producer of any book, magazine, periodical, film,
videotape, digitally- or computer-manipulated image, digital image, or picture, or other matter (including but not limited to Internet computer site or services) that contains one or more visual depictions of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct made after July 3, 1995, and produced, manufactured, published, duplicated, reproduced, or reissued on or after July 3, 1995, shall cause to be affixed to every copy of the matter a statement describing the location of the records required by this part.

[Dirty Dane]

Originally Posted by exportyourbiz-com

It is beyond unreasonable to expect that ALL your affiliates will have removed the images by then.

Well, it wont happen if programs keep posting on GFY without sending out emails to their affiliates first.....

- "We have terminated your account for not following our policy on use of our content".
- "eeeh...what? You never sent me any info on that?"
-"We posted it on GFY."

[martyVP]

If you are a U.S. webmaster and are having problems with compliance and/or you don't feel like dealing with it anymore.....I have outside investors who are looking to purchase your tgp's, mgp's paysites, and affiliate programs.


if you want to sell, hit me up marty at videopass.com
__________________