Records required to be created and maintained under this part
shall be organized alphabetically, or numerically where appropriate, by
the legal name of the performer (by last or family name, then first or
given name), and shall be indexed or cross-referenced to each alias or
other name used and to each title or identifying number of the book,
magazine, film, videotape, digitally- or computer-manipulated image,
digital image, picture, URL, or other matter.

That makes perfect sense.

But taking down your pages/images doesn't GUARANTEE that you won't be inspected/prosecuted.

And make no mistake, they WILL MOST DEFINITELY go after people with this.
Remember this all started as part of the Amber Alert law, congress said that the Attorney General had to make a report to congress every year telling them how many 2257 inspections they had done the previous year.

The former AG went back to congress and said he was writing new regs because the internet had made the old regs antiquated and he couldn't do the inspections.

Today they published the final version of the new regs, now the AG has no excuse when he appears before congress, he better do some inspections.

Sterupide Question
 

Lenny - when will we know of news of the injunction outcome - any ideas?

Gator - yes - and also US producers will also stop sending content out to Non US webmasters hosting in the US.

As with many a new law/reg introduction - theres an opportunity for us all here - fucked if I can see it though :upsidedow

Thats the scariest thing I've read.
They dont care that actresses could be stalked?

The FSC said they were going to file suit within days of the regs being published.
They have 30 days to get an injunction or the rules go into effect and agents will start knocking on doors.

A rubber is not 100% against AIDS doesn't mean I don't wear one.

Well I'm sure they'll start by going to google and typing in PORN and go the the first site at the top

So
 

Whats the punishment then for a webmaster who gets caught putting stuff up after the deadline for which he or she has no docs?

Is it a fine or worse than that?

I could certainly cope with getting docs for my paltry set up if I needed to depending on the injunction. Any producer not sending me the docs - doesnt get my traffic - thats the end of them and me I suppose.

Whats the sting in the tail though thats what I want to know.

Fined? Site shut down? Jailed? Banned as Director?

LOL :1orglaugh

I think they're a little more advanced than that.

I'd be willing to bet they already have a list of people whose records they want to inspect. Just because you haven't put your name and address on your site yet doesn't mean they don't know who and where you are.

They're whores why should they care if they live or die? They deserve to burn in hell anyways. Well except if they were pregnant or in a persistant vegitative state. Then they'd could live.

Up to 5 years

First offense - no more than 5 YEARS in prison

Second offense - no more than 10 YEARS in prison

a lot of people do not realize this, but these rules are also aimed at the performers who often use fake ssn's and don't pay taxes. Why do you think they want performer names cross referenced? It has to do with porn stars who float around and make a living, and never have a real job or file taxes. I've seen it first hand and dealing with this issue and getting talent to bring in the proper paperwork can be difficult.

There is a huge chunk of revenue lost right there. Its not just the webmasters they are trying to regulate.

ahhh, good one.

funny boy :thumbsup

Yeah like The Hun. Now won't that suck for them? I want to see the look on Gonzales' face when he realizes he can't touch him for 2257 or the banners with chicks sucking off horses either.

They said they do, but they care about the kids more.

I'm not necessarily agreeing with them on anything, but I can see why they're doing it the way they're doing it.....you have to look at it from their point of view and not just your own.

If you're a US Attorney, and it's your job to enforce the law and "protect" people and you have to choose between

A) An adult woman who knowingly and willingly gave her information to a porn producer and fucked on film for money

B) An innocent child who could be exploited and used to gratify sick pedo's

Whose side do you choose?

5 years
 

Five years in jail for sticking a few galleries up and not having some docs seems a bit harsh.

How long does a drunk driver get when they kill someone whilst driving under the influence?

Oh trust me they'll be going for the max. What would be the point if all someone got was probation? Hell even 6 months of anal rape would be bad let alone 5 years.

Are you really that naive? You think the people in charge of this at the DOJ don't know that site owner is in the Netherlands?

You think they need to google "PORN" to find adult sites and check the records? :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

5 years for being "creative" on your tax return seems harsh too....but that's just the way it is.

How is this protecting children? Poele who make CP are not going to follow 2257 laws. Hell they are already laws making CP illegal and they don't follow those. I doubt that ONE person making CP will stop because these new regs passed. And we all know that if they inspect someone that has records obviously they are in compliance so WTF is the point?

lenny, thankfully the us constituion does not allow the AG to make such a destinction. Each person has the same rights, and it is very hard to infringe on the rights of one person to make another happy. This is one of the most common legal arguements used in these sorts of cases, and often quite successful.

You cannot limit free speech or place someone else at risk to satisfy an interest of the state if this is a better way to do it that does not harm people's rights.

COPA... COPAII.... read the judgements closely.

Alex

Hun
 

Yeah - but surely if the hun ever made ONE CENT commission from a US buyer purchasing from a US surfer via a US affiliate link then hes in the market.

Lets say he had run - I dont know - a playboy banner or something.

Then if he made sales to US customers he surely must have the docs for that banner?

Thats what my lawyers are for. :thumbsup

Ok so they if know then how are they going to protect the children then? How are they going to stop the evil hun from exploiting children?

And knowing this administation no I don't think they know. If they knew ANYTHING about the internet they wouldn't have come up with ideas like these new regs and COPA.

Maybe they want pornstar identities to be exposed so that noone want to shoot porn anymore and in the long run there will be no new pornstars in the US. Just a thought. It's rightwing religious fanatics that run the country.

Any words on US based hosting ? If thats relevant for non-US webmasters..

I agree with you, however, I was simply pointing out their point of view.

According to their logic, secondary producers obtaining the model's information is no different than if that model were to apply for a job at Wendy's, who would make copies of her ID's, and several people within that organization would see and have access to her personal information.

I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying that's their argument, and a judge may very well agree with it.

If your toe is in the US, then you are subject to the rules. Hosting, sponsors, payment processors, anything.

Basically, we pretty much ALL need to be compliant. Non-US based webmasters are much less likely to get a visit, that's all.

Alex

Well I believe hosting companies are exempt( I could be wrong and I'm sure Lenny will correct me if I am ), but that doesn't mean they will allow ANYONE to host adult without the proper docs.

Yes. I moved ( in fact mirrored ) my main 60 gigs site to Montreal. Price and service as good as what I have in NJ.

Also biller... Be ready to drop your US biller and move to Euro ( Verotel will be busy...).

Now, 12shits can come and say:

" stupid little boy ... You liberals are clueless ... Go back to your basement and wait for mommy ..."

What about US based 3rd party cc processors.. Anyone see them refusing to process sites own by non-us webmasters that do not follow 2257..?

I use CCBillEU and when you setup a new site you still have to have the proper 2257 link and page at the site. I don't know how it'll be after 23rd June. But today it's the same for US and EU paysites. It's probably a good business tactic on their side.

No 3rd party cc processors accept non-us based businesses ....

I use my US business at the actual time to process thru Paycom and ( sic...) Ibill .

Already, when your site is reviwed by Visa, they check the 2257 ... I know, they emailed me about that last fall ...
Expect alkl sites to be reviewed. :2 cents:

Just noticed
 

Ive just noticed - all the graphic banners with porn on have gone from peoples posts - at the bottom of their posts.

Is that because of this?

I can only see a couple now.

There is no exemption for bbses and chat boards... they need 2257 documents for posted images. "would you hit this" threads may be a thing of the past VERY soon.

Alex

Amended 2257 Regulations Published in Federal Register

Amended 2257 regulations were published today in the Federal Register, marking the first day of a 30-day period before they become law.

Full Report > http://xbiz.com/news_piece.php?id=8861

no but im referring to the new 2257 rules.. Meaning having yourself a copy of everything...

Yeah I know it's a bit pre-mature but we needed to wait until the new regulations were official before counsel would even visit the topic. (of course since we were footing the bill we could have went with the proposed regulations but we were advised against that)

We aren't able to say anything yet except that webmasters shouldn't panic and close up shop, we are working hard to accomodate everyone that we can while being strong enough to hold up in any court under scrutiny.

Hopefully will have something to post within 48hours, but then it's back to square one again as we all wait to hear news regarding the court proceedings from the FSC.

WTF ????

Who the hell voted those clowns in ????

The same clowns who are now complaining.