I have yet to see any provision that would hold the sponsor liable for their affiliates not being compliant.

All i can say is this is really fucked up, i hope the FSC can come up with something.

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.

If they don't then I will.

fuck2257.com launches in the next 48 hours

Everyone has a plan. Lets hear about your business model here eh?

We are still in discussions with local legal counsel.

We will post the information as soon as we have it.

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 found this bit interesting:


anyway..interesting to see they addressed something I wrote and said one person said it..find that hard to believe.

the sky is falling, everybody run!

Some of the questions and comments in here are ridiculous.......did you think the justice department was going to write a brief on thumb tgp's versus text tgp's? :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

Most of this stuff hasn't changed since the proposed regs came out 11 months ago.....if you're not familiar with them, then crawl back under your rock.

A couple of things I did find interesting in their response to the comments

One is that they keep saying that the D.C. court in American Library Ass'n V. Reno "implicitly accepted" the distinction between primary producers and secondary producers, and that the requirement that secondary producers maintain records was not a constitutionally impermissable burden.

So they're basically dismissing Sundance V. Reno and saying that in their view the D.C. court's ruling in the other case is the "correct view of the law"

Now I googled the hell out of American Library Ass'n V. Reno and all I found was the case about internet filtering software in libraries......I have no idea what this has to do with record keeping.

Anyways...moving on

From the response to comments "Any primary producer who fails to release the records to a secondary producer is simply in violation of the regulations and may not use the excuse that the records contain alleged trade secrets to avoid compliance"

That will get interesting.

And here's my favorite....in response to comments that primary producers should be allowed to "sanitize" identification documents by removing home addresses etc before passing the documents on to secondary producers, the Department declines to adopt this comment because it would be "overly burdensome" on primary producers. :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

"Primary producers would be required to first sanitize the identification documents and then draft, sign, and pay for a notarized affidavit. It is simpler and less burdensome to have primary producers transfer a copy of the records to secondary producers"

I'm laughing my ass of at this one......primary producers would LOVE to be able to sanitize the documents and get notarized affidavits to send to their customers.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

(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.

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

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!

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.

My apologies then, sorry.

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.

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

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.

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.

But why are you arguing about it here?

We didn't make the rules...

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.

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.

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.

GatorB I already answered your question.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Wow, that's fucked up.

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.

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.

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.