BREAKING NEWS: Constitutionality of 2257 upheld - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

Snake Doctor · 02-20-2009, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

well that was one of my problems
however that can be solved with a requirement that to be complient there must be a primary producers designated within country. IF you buy from a foreign country producers either they setup ONE designated authoritiy for thier stuff, or release the docs openly and publically.

Since EVERYONE will not do that (ie canadians who have to worry about privacy rights would have to take the designate position) it would significantly reduce the administrative load of such a change.

IT much better than FORCING it to every secondary producer, and creating the wasted duplicate checks.

FWIW, the new regs do allow for third party record-keepers. So realistically there will be few actual places records have to be checked.

The solution you're proposing is actually much more complicated than simply requiring all producers/publishers to have records of what they produce/publish....even though it may be of benefit to you (and me) to do it this way....it's not a better way for the government to achieve their legitimate objective here.

oh, and
50 new enforceable laws.

Snake Doctor · 02-20-2009, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doctor Feelgood

i dont even own a printer. can someone explain what this means for blogs, tgps and gallery submitters?

It means you should hire a competent attorney, or find a new hobby.

aniloscash · 02-20-2009, 04:56 PM

I still think the basic issue here is innocent until proven guilty. and if you have a paysite or produce content you need to have id's and releases. but the basic issue is if you require 2nd producer to have 2257 docs you end up violating the basic right to privacy that these models and actors have. That their private information like home address and real name be given to any one operating a website. That just doesnt make sense.

DatingGold · 02-20-2009, 05:04 PM

I've been on the internet 15 years and I've never even seen CP

gideongallery · 02-20-2009, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snake Doctor

FWIW, the new regs do allow for third party record-keepers. So realistically there will be few actual places records have to be checked.

The solution you're proposing is actually much more complicated than simply requiring all producers/publishers to have records of what they produce/publish....even though it may be of benefit to you (and me) to do it this way....it's not a better way for the government to achieve their legitimate objective here.

oh, and
50 new enforceable laws.

ok then you tell me how does pulling agents off sting operations that would catch pedo, and putting them on checking the id of 40 year old milfs 50 times over going to reduce kiddie porn.

StickyGreen · 02-20-2009, 05:16 PM

Soon we are all going to have a lot more to worry about than 2257.

Snake Doctor · 02-20-2009, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aniloscash

I still think the basic issue here is innocent until proven guilty. and if you have a paysite or produce content you need to have id's and releases. but the basic issue is if you require 2nd producer to have 2257 docs you end up violating the basic right to privacy that these models and actors have. That their private information like home address and real name be given to any one operating a website. That just doesnt make sense.

The new regs say redacted IDs are ok, so the only thing at issue is their legal name and date of birth. The records are only being provided to people who have a business relationship with the primary producer.....and nobody is forcing the performers to perform. They gave up their ID and signed a release when they got paid.

The courts would also say that protecting children is more important than protecting the privacy of people who are voluntarily performing in pornography.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

ok then you tell me how does pulling agents off sting operations that would catch pedo, and putting them on checking the id of 40 year old milfs 50 times over going to reduce kiddie porn.

Again just playing devil's advocate here....but judicious use of government resources isn't the topic of discussion here.
The topic is, do you have a better way of preventing child pornography and prosecuting those who engage in it?

I see alot of bitching and moaning about this and that and the other with the current law, but I have yet to see anyone offer a better alternative.

The reason this is important is if you look at laws like the Communications Decency Act and Child Online Protection Act. The court ruled that filtering software was a better and less intrusive way to protect children from viewing pornographic and other age innapropriate materials.
The court will always agree that the government has a compelling interest in protecting children....what you have to show is that there is a better and less intrusive way to do that than the one the government is currently trying to use.

DWB · 02-20-2009, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheAmericanCannibal

It's coming.....

A Third Party Record Keeping service that will eliminate all affiliates major concerns regarding compliancy...

News at 11.

I sale cheep:

2257docs.com
2257documentation.com
2257document.com
2257documents.com

I'm sure these places are going to pop up all over the Philippines and the other outsource companies.

Sysgenix · 02-20-2009, 06:17 PM

Snake Doctor,
Maybe right.

pocketkangaroo · 02-20-2009, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snake Doctor

I'll probably catch hell for this, but here goes.

I know 2257 sucks for us, and I know most of you can point out all the things that are wrong with it....but if you were the government, and wanted to stop child p*rn and make sure minors weren't being used in commercial p*rn productions....how would you do it?

What way do you have that's better than what the gov't has?

I'm not saying I like their way, I don't, I'm just saying if I were them and were trying to protect children, I don't know of a better way to do it.

The problem is that minor aren't rampant in the commercial porn industry in the United States. Sure there have been rare cases of a minor using a fake ID or a producer overlooking things, but it's just not necessary. Plenty of legal girls who look the part.

The U.S. still doesn't understand that the problem is global and a CP producer in Russia doesn't give two shits about our laws.

They can do better by working closer with other governments, especially ones where CP is prevalent. They can create legislation with ISPs that give them more power to shut down access to illegal sites that are coming into the United States. To be able to shut down processors and freeze assets of those who are involved (not unlike we do with terrorists). Yes that can sound a bit like China, but it's a much better way to stop CP than pestering legitimate businesses over photocopies of their IDs.

GatorB · 02-20-2009, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snake Doctor

I'll probably catch hell for this, but here goes.

I know 2257 sucks for us, and I know most of you can point out all the things that are wrong with it....but if you were the government, and wanted to stop child p*rn and make sure minors weren't being used in commercial p*rn productions....how would you do it?

Not this way. How does his stop child porn? If you are retarded enough to think it does then you are retarded. Guess what child pornographer sare NOT going to get IDs. Also IDs can be FAKED. Child porn is already illegal so no other laws are need to bust someone for producing it.

Ok so let me ge this straight the fact that CP is already illegal and has hefty penalties doesn't stop someone from making CP but some bullshit record keeping law will? Like all the CP producers are thinking "Damn! With this 2257 law we have no choice but to stop now!" Seriously this is what you and the idiots in DC think will happen?

GatorB · 02-20-2009, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snake Doctor

I see alot of bitching and moaning about this and that and the other with the current law, but I have yet to see anyone offer a better alternative.

Sure enforce laws that have been on the books for DECADES. Here's one in my state if a 25 year old fucks a 16 year old that's illegal so anyone making a porn involving a 25 year old and 16 year old has already violated the law. Ergo they can be prosecuted. Pretty simple eh?

gideongallery · 02-20-2009, 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snake Doctor

Again just playing devil's advocate here....but judicious use of government resources isn't the topic of discussion here.
The topic is, do you have a better way of preventing child pornography and prosecuting those who engage in it?

I see alot of bitching and moaning about this and that and the other with the current law, but I have yet to see anyone offer a better alternative.

The reason this is important is if you look at laws like the Communications Decency Act and Child Online Protection Act. The court ruled that filtering software was a better and less intrusive way to protect children from viewing pornographic and other age innapropriate materials.
The court will always agree that the government has a compelling interest in protecting children....what you have to show is that there is a better and less intrusive way to do that than the one the government is currently trying to use.

see this is the gun control debate all over again, enforce the laws that are on the books already, fully fund the impementation of those laws BEFORE writing new laws with increased resource requrements.

the problem is the government is not thinking straight, they didn't have the resources to resolve the issue under the original law and they changed the law to shift the burden to the secondary producers. The problem is that the law doesn't do that it increases the burden on the enforcement.

Better solutions.

Optional registration on a person bases so that MILF would only need to get id checked once for every movie they act in (see aim)
primary producers within the country being designate for all licienced copies of movies so that each liciencee would not have to be checked
foreign producers would be required to at least setup a designated agent of record within country
take all the money that has been wasted fighting the adult industry in court and all the money used to do all those extra redundantly wasteful checking
use it to hire more agents to do sting operations to catch pedos

brassmonkey · 02-20-2009, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barefootsies

Bravo. Buh bye U.S. based tubes.

Submitting my 'annoymous tips' to the F.B.I. now.

fuck the fbi

GatorB · 02-20-2009, 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DatingGold

I've been on the internet 15 years and I've never even seen CP

No shit. All these fearmongers make out like CP is everywhere. I've seen fucking double anal, even triple anal, scat, felching, bukkake, octopus in japanese chicks asshole, 2 girls and a cup, 1 guy and jar, Mr hands, chick getting fucked by a great dane, *******, lemon party, goatse and never never never ever even by accident seen any CP. And I've been on the net since 1999. Now where is all this CP?

Snake Doctor · 02-20-2009, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo

The problem is that minor aren't rampant in the commercial porn industry in the United States. Sure there have been rare cases of a minor using a fake ID or a producer overlooking things, but it's just not necessary. Plenty of legal girls who look the part.

The U.S. still doesn't understand that the problem is global and a CP producer in Russia doesn't give two shits about our laws.

They can do better by working closer with other governments, especially ones where CP is prevalent. They can create legislation with ISPs that give them more power to shut down access to illegal sites that are coming into the United States. To be able to shut down processors and freeze assets of those who are involved (not unlike we do with terrorists). Yes that can sound a bit like China, but it's a much better way to stop CP than pestering legitimate businesses over photocopies of their IDs.

You can't prove the problem isn't rampant in commercial porn without having records to prove it.

The problem is global, but that doesn't mean the U.S. should ignore the activities that occur within it's own borders just because Russia may not care about what goes on in theirs.
Remember, the purpose of these laws isn't to stop CP from being distributed to the sickos who want to view it....the purpose is to prevent children from being exploited.
Processing, hosting, and all that other shit doesn't matter. In most cases CP is produced without a profit motive. The point is to stop the production, and to have the tools to prosecute those who do produce it....stopping the distribution is a secondary concern really.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

Not this way. How does his stop child porn? If you are retarded enough to think it does then you are retarded. Guess what child pornographer sare NOT going to get IDs. Also IDs can be FAKED. Child porn is already illegal so no other laws are need to bust someone for producing it.

Ok so let me ge this straight the fact that CP is already illegal and has hefty penalties doesn't stop someone from making CP but some bullshit record keeping law will? Like all the CP producers are thinking "Damn! With this 2257 law we have no choice but to stop now!" Seriously this is what you and the idiots in DC think will happen?

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

Sure enforce laws that have been on the books for DECADES. Here's one in my state if a 25 year old fucks a 16 year old that's illegal so anyone making a porn involving a 25 year old and 16 year old has already violated the law. Ergo they can be prosecuted. Pretty simple eh?

Calm down there hoss. Try to detach yourself from the situation and look at it rationally.

Other than the obvious pre-pubescent stuff, how can the government prove that minors were used in a production if there are no records kept?

You're correct that someone making CP will not keep records, and under this system they will go to jail, for not keeping records. With no system like this at all, those people go free because you can't "prove" that the performers in question were underage at the time of filming.

Snake Doctor · 02-20-2009, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

see this is the gun control debate all over again, enforce the laws that are on the books already, fully fund the impementation of those laws BEFORE writing new laws with increased resource requrements.

the problem is the government is not thinking straight, they didn't have the resources to resolve the issue under the original law and they changed the law to shift the burden to the secondary producers. The problem is that the law doesn't do that it increases the burden on the enforcement.

Better solutions.

Optional registration on a person bases so that MILF would only need to get id checked once for every movie they act in (see aim)
primary producers within the country being designate for all licienced copies of movies so that each liciencee would not have to be checked
foreign producers would be required to at least setup a designated agent of record within country
take all the money that has been wasted fighting the adult industry in court and all the money used to do all those extra redundantly wasteful checking
use it to hire more agents to do sting operations to catch pedos

If you read the court decision, you would understand why only needing ID's for models who "looked young" won't work.

This is what you're not understanding. You talk about enforcing laws already on the books, and that CP was already illegal.
You can't prove CP took place unless you have records. The CP laws are basically unenforceable without 2257 (except in the obvious cases where really young people are used)...but for anyone who is past puberty, you can't know for sure....so records are necessary.

The govt is thinking straight as far as I can tell....you're the one not thinking straight. You're thinking in terms of what would be best for you, not in terms of what will allow the government to prevent CP and in the event it does occur, prosecute those responsible.

You still haven't shown me a better way for the govt to do that.

gideongallery · 02-20-2009, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snake Doctor

If you read the court decision, you would understand why only needing ID's for models who "looked young" won't work.

again i am not saying "looks young" would be the criteria for the OPTIONAL model "super id"
say something like a year which you must have been born before.
each year you bring the year forward one
so in year 2000 anyone who was born before say 1975 could get a super id
in 2001 anyone born before 1976 and so on.
It would eliminate all the redundant checking that the government officials would have to do by all the models who fall in that catagory.
IT would create an economic insentive to producing older niche porn (milf) because there would be less legal paper work, and therefore more profit.

Quote:

This is what you're not understanding. You talk about enforcing laws already on the books, and that CP was already illegal.
You can't prove CP took place unless you have records. The CP laws are basically unenforceable without 2257 (except in the obvious cases where really young people are used)...but for anyone who is past puberty, you can't know for sure....so records are necessary.

The govt is thinking straight as far as I can tell....you're the one not thinking straight. You're thinking in terms of what would be best for you, not in terms of what will allow the government to prevent CP and in the event it does occur, prosecute those responsible.

You still haven't shown me a better way for the govt to do that.

ok so tell me how giving "super id" system for people who were 25 years and older in 2000 prevent one CP case from going forward.

every person checking one of those old models ids is a person who could be working on catching a pedo so i can clearly see who not doing it let more kiddie porn to exist.

PAR · 02-20-2009, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snake Doctor

What way do you have that's better than what the gov't has?

Now I'm not going to give you hell.. and 2257 does not bug me in anyway..
Records should have been kept from the start (on the program end not the webmaster end)..
And Im not in the USA...

But seeing as you asked..

Just like some other people here I have seen this shit online.
I have also done my best to get it removed..
So as the Gov what would I do..

1-
Move faster on reports.. hell a dmca to pirates bay works just as fast as they do..

2-
How about fix the email that is used to report it to the FBI so that the email address works...
Same goes for just about every gov't run reporting email/page that I have ever used..

3-
Train their staff better...
If these ass holes can find each other online to trade the shit why is it so hard to find them?

4-
Give the public a better means to report what they find online..
Simple enter url here and quick notes from the submitter..

5-
Nicely ask google to place the full first page of results with keywords that could be guessed as someone looking to report it ..
asacp is #1 for what I just searched for where is the fbi link etc..

6-
why do I have to give my info and jump from site to site..
Shit using a direct link on the asacp's website on where to go to report something I was then told to go to a dif website.. and I still got lost.. some endup at dead ends when you finally get to where it looks like you have to go to report things.
when making a report..
If Im wrong.. oops my bad...but it can quickly be seen if Im right or wrong in most cases..
If Im right...
Giving them personal info of the submitter leads to people thinking ..
"Will they be coming to bust my ass.."
After all if you see it online that means you have hit a website with it.. IE you just downloaded the images.

7-
Why is it so hard for the govt to but a big clear button say report website here..
Click.. got to form... fill out submit.. done..

8- you know what fuck it.. Im done..
If people care so much I should never be able to click a link on a website linking to one of the few pages that I feel can really do something about what I have seen and get a 404

http://www.ecpat.net/eng/index.asp = 404
linked from:
http://www.asacp.org/page.php?conten...f5d05ad2fcfd7d
(as were all the other run around's and dead ends I was just bitching about)

btw why the sessid? its not like I logged in to a members section...

so ya first step.. 1 easy to find simple form to report this shit... that submits to all gov world wide so that if the site is hosted in Russia someone there gets a copy.. your ave. surfer cant track a DNS IP, trace route or read html.. And the ones that can are to busy downloading porn..

$5 submissions · 02-20-2009, 06:57 PM

Based on that opinion, secondary producers (including webmasters) must comply with 2257. There is no provisions re "user submitted" content though. However, the language is broad enough to be interpreted that it SUPERSEDES the DMCA.

@ illegal tubesites

PAR · 02-20-2009, 06:59 PM

If I pissed anyone off I'm sorry..
one of the few things that gets me this pissy and going is this crap..

GatorB · 02-20-2009, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snake Doctor

Calm down there hoss. Try to detach yourself from the situation and look at it rationally.

Other than the obvious pre-pubescent stuff, how can the government prove that minors were used in a production if there are no records kept?

On AMC the other night they had a 12-13 year old Brooke Shields play a prostitute in a movie and in one seen she was in the bath tub and she stood up and you could see her tits( what there was of them ) this was her, no body double. That's considered fucking art. Ok whatever.

Quote:

You're correct that someone making CP will not keep records, and under this system they will go to jail, for not keeping records. With no system like this at all, those people go free because you can't "prove" that the performers in question were underage at the time of filming.

Then they aren't stopping CP they are stopping bad record keeping. People making CP rather go to jail for failed record keeping than CP. That's like saying putting a murderer in jail for jaywalking for 30 days( because you couldn't prove he committed murder but can prove jaywalking ) aint too shabby because at least he went to jail for something.

GatorB · 02-20-2009, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by $5 submissions

Based on that opinion, secondary producers (including webmasters) must comply with 2257.

That the rub. Does the owner of a porn shop that has a magazine with girls of questionable age have to have IDs for those girls? No if the feds want to know how old they are the get the info from the people that made the magazine. How is a website different?

Cutty · 02-20-2009, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barefootsies

Bravo. Buh bye U.S. based tubes.

Submitting my 'annoymous tips' to the F.B.I. now.

fucking snitch.

send someone to the feds because you are a rat.

good job idiot

MakingItPay · 02-20-2009, 07:41 PM

2257? Who needs it?

Click here for 2257 Free Hardcore PORN!

Seriously, is the new administration really gonna focus on 2257?

Dirty Dane · 02-20-2009, 08:00 PM

2257 is not made to protect children from abuse, but administrative requirement to protect commercial models in greyzone production. Why the hell should real child abusers worry about IDs?

tony286 · 02-20-2009, 08:10 PM

The propose of 2257 is bust to pornographers balls. if it was just about ages, it would be a simple file in a cabinet.

doridori · 02-20-2009, 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveHardeman

What a conicidence. I was up till 2 AM last night getting all of my paperwork in order.

Someone tell me this ruling will make tube sites, stolen content, cross-sales, shaving and doridori go away. It will, right?

you give me too much credit, but thank you. :

xxxjay · 02-20-2009, 11:46 PM

A 2257 thread? How 90's!

Snake Doctor · 02-21-2009, 08:50 AM

It's obviously impossible to have a rational discussion about this here, because the people willing to discuss it are too emotionally involved.

I don't like this law, but I do understand the need for it. I don't think it's a case of the government harrassing pornographers, it's a law that is necessary in order to prosecute real CP.

(I'll say this again....how can you prove a model was underage if there was no ID copied at the time of production? The answer is you can't. Therefore someone could shoot CP and never get caught because there would never be proof that the model was underage. With the 2257 law, that person would at least go to jail for not keeping records, and having that person locked up would protect children)

Nobody is willing to answer this question or provide a better alternative.
Gideon tried, but the method he came up with is actually much more complicated and harder to implement and enforce. He just likes it because it wouldn't require him to keep records, it would put all of the responsibility on someone else.

Everyone else seems to be doing just what we always do here....bitch about what we don't like about this law, without offering a better way to do it.

gideongallery · 02-21-2009, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snake Doctor

It's obviously impossible to have a rational discussion about this here, because the people willing to discuss it are too emotionally involved.

I don't like this law, but I do understand the need for it. I don't think it's a case of the government harrassing pornographers, it's a law that is necessary in order to prosecute real CP.

(I'll say this again....how can you prove a model was underage if there was no ID copied at the time of production? The answer is you can't. Therefore someone could shoot CP and never get caught because there would never be proof that the model was underage. With the 2257 law, that person would at least go to jail for not keeping records, and having that person locked up would protect children)

which justifies making it a requirement for the primary producer ONLY. you are trying to argue that the law in its entireity is valid, including the secondary producer requirements

Quote:

Nobody is willing to answer this question or provide a better alternative.
Gideon tried, but the method he came up with is actually much more complicated and harder to implement and enforce. He just likes it because it wouldn't require him to keep records, it would put all of the responsibility on someone else.

please explain exactly how it is harder to enforce, take this specific example
ron jeremy has acted in 1000 movies, he is well over the age of majority. Each of those movies have been licienced to 100s of web sites (1000 if you include gallery submitters)
which means under the current law that 1000*100 records to be checked for 1 person.

under the super id example those 100,000 records to check would become 1 record check.

This is from the point of view of the goverment operative not the webmaster.

How exactly is the first solution easier to enforce then the second one.

Quote:

Everyone else seems to be doing just what we always do here....bitch about what we don't like about this law, without offering a better way to do it.

while i agree with this statement, you still haven't explained how "super id" solution would be more difficult to enforce than 100,000 fold duplication of id solution. which means you are basically doing the same thing from the opposite side.

topnotch, standup guy · 02-21-2009, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snake Doctor

I'm not saying I like their way, I don't, I'm just saying if I were them and were trying to protect children, I don't know of a better way to do it.

Sure you do... and so does the government.

The old 2257 law (as poor as it was) would in fact be the way to go if they really cared about kids.

The new law is utterly and completely incomprehensible and it is, therefore, impossible to comply with.

It's that simple.

This isn't about kids, it's about harassment.

If they cared about kids they'd give us a law that normal human beings could read and comply with.

Snake Doctor · 02-21-2009, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

which justifies making it a requirement for the primary producer ONLY. you are trying to argue that the law in its entireity is valid, including the secondary producer requirements

please explain exactly how it is harder to enforce, take this specific example
ron jeremy has acted in 1000 movies, he is well over the age of majority. Each of those movies have been licienced to 100s of web sites (1000 if you include gallery submitters)
which means under the current law that 1000*100 records to be checked for 1 person.

under the super id example those 100,000 records to check would become 1 record check.

This is from the point of view of the goverment operative not the webmaster.

How exactly is the first solution easier to enforce then the second one.

while i agree with this statement, you still haven't explained how "super id" solution would be more difficult to enforce than 100,000 fold duplication of id solution. which means you are basically doing the same thing from the opposite side.

You are assuming that the feds would check the ID of the same performer over and over again. That's not reality.
If there is a model of questionable age, they'll check his/her ID once and then move on.

You have this fantasy where hundreds of FBI agents are dispatched to check the same performer's ID 1000 times. That's not how it's going to happen.

The "super id" solution is kind of what's going to happen now since the feds are going to allow 3rd party record keepers. So the primary can pay a 3rd party to keep records, and the secondary can list that same 3rd party as custodian of records for that particular scene.

The thing with that though, is that as a secondary producer, I would still insist on inspecting the records myself.....because what if the girl was actually underage?
If you buy content from an overseas producer and then just "take their word" that the girl was of legal age, and then come to find out she's not, then you are guilty of publishing CP, whether you intended to or not, and can go to jail for doing so.

Even though there is a 3rd party keeping the records and keeping them organized, it's kind of like having a CPA do your taxes. They do all the heavy lifting but at the end of the day, if a mistake was made, you're responsible for it, not the CPA.
In the same vein, a secondary is responsible for the content they choose to publish, even though the actual records inspection will happen elsewhere.

gideongallery · 02-21-2009, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snake Doctor

You are assuming that the feds would check the ID of the same performer over and over again. That's not reality.
If there is a model of questionable age, they'll check his/her ID once and then move on.

You have this fantasy where hundreds of FBI agents are dispatched to check the same performer's ID 1000 times. That's not how it's going to happen.

ok explain how they will magically know.

you previously said the looks young test would not work, yet now you are using it as a justification to say what i say would happen would not happen. You can't have it both ways. IF the "looks young" test would not be adequate then they would have to check the id page by page.

My binder has kimberly franklins id, on 7 different pages.
someone else may have bought 20 scenes with kimberly franklin (my 7 plus 13 more) how would they magically know not to check those pages. How do those pages magically disappear from the second persons binder so that agent doesn't even have to look at them.

They don't
that is where the duplication of effort happens

under the superid system, i would have one super id for kimberly franklin, and a list of the set she is in.

the second person would have the same for his 20 sets. It would not matter who the shooter of the content was, which company i bought it from, or what country it was shot in.

Quote:

The "super id" solution is kind of what's going to happen now since the feds are going to allow 3rd party record keepers. So the primary can pay a 3rd party to keep records, and the secondary can list that same 3rd party as custodian of records for that particular scene.

a model specific super id system, is far superior to current system, specifically because the government would be responsible for issuing the super id.

Quote:

The thing with that though, is that as a secondary producer, I would still insist on inspecting the records myself.....because what if the girl was actually underage?
If you buy content from an overseas producer and then just "take their word" that the girl was of legal age, and then come to find out she's not, then you are guilty of publishing CP, whether you intended to or not, and can go to jail for doing so.

and the same would be true if they gave you a photo copy of a fake id.

Quote:

Even though there is a 3rd party keeping the records and keeping them organized, it's kind of like having a CPA do your taxes. They do all the heavy lifting but at the end of the day, if a mistake was made, you're responsible for it, not the CPA.
In the same vein, a secondary is responsible for the content they choose to publish, even though the actual records inspection will happen elsewhere.

except that when tracy lords was shot with under age porn the shooter got off because the id she used successfully passed government screening (she used it to fly out of the country). The current solution makes you liable for fake id, the super id which the government issues would not.
The simple fact is the government can run down a lot of id information that i can not. They have a much better chance of catching fake id then i would ever have. Granted if manditory it could be abused, that why you would make in optional. But even if you were to choose not to take advantage of the "super id" then it would be no worse than it currently is.

Secondary producers/primary producers would have an insentive to hire models who have a super id, becuase it would prevent them from being unfairly harrassed, or liable for mistakes that could happen.

02-20-2009, 04:56 PM	#53
aniloscash Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 1,161	I still think the basic issue here is innocent until proven guilty. and if you have a paysite or produce content you need to have id's and releases. but the basic issue is if you require 2nd producer to have 2257 docs you end up violating the basic right to privacy that these models and actors have. That their private information like home address and real name be given to any one operating a website. That just doesnt make sense. __________________ Got Milf Traffic Contact Me ICQ 473236446 j (at)anilos (dot)com http://www.aniloscash.com

02-20-2009, 05:04 PM	#54
DatingGold $6 PER EMAIL JOiN Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: California Posts: 13,185	I've been on the internet 15 years and I've never even seen CP __________________ 9 Years of SOLID payouts and conversions! ADULT DATING - $100 PPS LIVE CAMS - $214 PPS WWW.DATINGGOLD.COM ICQ: 27442303

02-20-2009, 05:16 PM	#56
StickyGreen . Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 13,076	Soon we are all going to have a lot more to worry about than 2257. __________________ Refer Cam Girls and Take Home 10% of Everything They Make For Life

02-20-2009, 06:17 PM	#59
Sysgenix Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 287	Snake Doctor, Maybe right. __________________ Ads available on ebony niche site.

02-20-2009, 06:57 PM	#70
$5 submissions I help you SUCCEED Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: The Pearl of the Orient Seas Posts: 32,195	Based on that opinion, secondary producers (including webmasters) must comply with 2257. There is no provisions re "user submitted" content though. However, the language is broad enough to be interpreted that it SUPERSEDES the DMCA. @ illegal tubesites __________________ Need a NON-ADULT income stream? We build your YOUTUBE CHANNEL for only $20 per video! For Hire: $3/hour or $400 per month Marketing Specialist Virtual Assistants

02-20-2009, 06:59 PM	#71
PAR Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 1,835	If I pissed anyone off I'm sorry.. one of the few things that gets me this pissy and going is this crap..

02-20-2009, 07:41 PM	#75
MakingItPay Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 1,920	2257? Who needs it? Click here for 2257 Free Hardcore PORN! Seriously, is the new administration really gonna focus on 2257? __________________ Giant Boob High Def Trifectas http://www.TrifectaBucks.com 3D Super Sites that Sell http://www.ThrillBucks.com Giant Boobs Anyone? http://www.MakingitPay.com ICQ me at 213177906

02-20-2009, 08:00 PM	#76
Dirty Dane Sick Fuck Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: www Posts: 9,491	2257 is not made to protect children from abuse, but administrative requirement to protect commercial models in greyzone production. Why the hell should real child abusers worry about IDs?

02-20-2009, 08:10 PM	#77
tony286 lurker Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: atlanta Posts: 57,021	The propose of 2257 is bust to pornographers balls. if it was just about ages, it would be a simple file in a cabinet.

02-20-2009, 11:46 PM	#79
xxxjay Tube groupie. Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: LoScandalous, CA Posts: 13,482	A 2257 thread? How 90's! __________________ http://donttellmehowtoruinmylife.com/ - http://www.jmdigitalmarketing.com/my...s-and-reviews/ - http://www.wouldyouhitit.org - http://shinyobjectreviews.com/

02-21-2009, 08:50 AM	#80
Snake Doctor I'm Lenny2 Bitch Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: On top of my soapbox Posts: 13,449	It's obviously impossible to have a rational discussion about this here, because the people willing to discuss it are too emotionally involved. I don't like this law, but I do understand the need for it. I don't think it's a case of the government harrassing pornographers, it's a law that is necessary in order to prosecute real CP. (I'll say this again....how can you prove a model was underage if there was no ID copied at the time of production? The answer is you can't. Therefore someone could shoot CP and never get caught because there would never be proof that the model was underage. With the 2257 law, that person would at least go to jail for not keeping records, and having that person locked up would protect children) Nobody is willing to answer this question or provide a better alternative. Gideon tried, but the method he came up with is actually much more complicated and harder to implement and enforce. He just likes it because it wouldn't require him to keep records, it would put all of the responsibility on someone else. Everyone else seems to be doing just what we always do here....bitch about what we don't like about this law, without offering a better way to do it. __________________ sig too big