Two Senators Launch Joint Bill Proposing Massive Adult Site Regs
 

Massive registration may be comming:

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

All reasonable proposals except for:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And US also host ICANN, which control domain space.

There are massive problems with the proposed law…

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

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

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

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


2. Regarding this:

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

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

3. This along with Article13 in Europe (https://www.article13.org/) means quite a shitty situation for tubes and content thieves :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:2 cents:

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

:1orglaugh

(How ironic)

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

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

:2 cents:

I hope the tubes go down the tubes! 🤣

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(8) See comments from (3) above.

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

Would this database conflict with EU GDPR?

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

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

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

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

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

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

The 2 co-sponsors are 48 and 64.

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

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

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

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


^^^^ this is a non starter. EVERYONE I ever shot had a release scanned and out with the content folders. at some point you'll need to be professional :2 cents:

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

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

I doubt random people on the street would be happy to be included in a porn shoot against their will... :2 cents: And Party Hardcore is staged of course.

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

Real voyeur content is illegal, at several levels.

What issue is there for paysites with proper 2257 documentation?

Sites like Girls Do Porn should be worried though.

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

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

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

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