CuriousCash.com 2257 Statement

[CuriousToyBoy]

Folks,

Posted this in Jayman's thread but also wanted to make the offer here on using parts of our 2257 compliance BS that we have had up for some time.

Anyone who wants to draw on what we have done please feel free to do so, just a simple thanks and acknowledgement is all that is required - this shit affectcs us all.

For Affiliates:
http://www.curiouscash.com/affiliate2257.html

For Surfers:
http://www.curiouscash.com/2257.html

In defining our approach, we took advice from a number of lawyers worldwide, but CuriousToyBoy wrote the final piece.

Our basic statement (a lot more on the page above) is as follows:

STATEMENT BY CURIOUSCASH

Following is our statement regarding USC code 2257. Please understand that all information in this document is the opinion of CuriousCash and is based on OUR obligations under USC code 2257. It is your responsibility to obtain your own independent legal advice with regard to your obligations under USC code 2257and to satisfy yourself of your obligations.

The new 2257 regulations are of great concern to CuriousCash - even though CuriousCash is based in Singapore and our content is almost exclusively produced by us in Australia, so our sites are not directly affected, because we operate in total compliance with the laws in force in both of those jurisdictions.

Many of our affiliates on the other hand, using our provided content to promote our sites, may feel that they have certain obligations, and again, we urge and encourage you to seek your own advice as may be pertinent to your own unique set of circumstances.

It is our opinion that despite General Gonzalez? efforts at reviving the concept of ?secondary producers? in the most recent version of regulations in support of 18 U.S.C. § 2257, the concept is not supported by the statute itself. The only case addressing the issue, Sundance Assocs. Inc. vs.. Reno, 139 F.3d 804, 807 (10th Cir.1998), held that the ?secondary producer? requirements of the regulations to be unconstitutional. We could choose to solely rely on that holding, and further decline to violate the privacy of the performing artists by disseminating private data when not required to do so by law, but have chosen instead to seek the high ground and move towards appropriate compliance levels.

Our concern centers solely on an very important part of our business - you, our valued affiliate. Therefore we are doing our utmost to comply as completely as is possible, while maintaining compliance with the laws of the countries in which our business is centered. It must be remembered that one of the cornerstones of the application of international law is that the laws of one country cannot force one to breach the laws of another country in which they

You would be aware that, even though we have openly questioned the motives of an alleged industry wide protective body in closing membership for the purposes of this fight with 2257 legislators, we fully support the principle of the Free Speech Coalition's (FSC) court application, which has resulted in a temporary restraining order on the new 2257 regulations (more at http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/2257info.htm). It is our understanding that If anyone NOT a member of the FSC is pulled up whilst the restraint is in place, they can legally rest as a defense on the outcome of that FSC case before their own becomes relevant.

Like you, we are awaiting the final outcome of this legal ruling, although whatever that ruling may be, we plan on being fully compliant within the scope of our corporate obligations and the most appropriate application of our obligations to our affiliates.

It should also be remember that the stated purpose of the new 2257 regulations is the prevention of Child Pornography. The key industry body involved in the tracking, reporting and prevention of Child Pornography and Abuse, the Association of Sites Advocating Child Protection (ASACP) have themselves stated unequivocally that the new statutes "will do nothing to stop child pornography (more at http://asacp.org/press/pr062405.html). One of the fundamental precepts of statute law, no matter WHAT country from which they may evolve, is expressed as the "Golden Rule" - what exactly were the legislators seeking to prevent in framing such legislation. On that basis alone the application of the new 2257 regulations could be deemed legally flawed.

It is our opinion that it remains SOLELY our responsibility to obtain, record and maintain ALL of the necessary identification, age verification and model release documentation for ALL of the content we have in our members areas and that we provide affiliates for marketing purposes, and to have those records accessible upon proper and legally justified request to the appropriate authorities.

Hope it's helpful to some.

;-)