Yes, I understand what you are saying. Your example of the nutrition labels isn't really right IMO. If you move off shore and sell your product offshore, then sure you are not bound by US laws. However if you move offshore and still sell your product to people in the US, you would be in violation IMO.

The problem comes in when you sell your product to US customers. At that point you are doing business inside the US, even if your company is offshore. Considering most web sales come from inside the US, I'd say it would be pretty hard to ignore US labeling laws.

I also haven't seen any lawyer yet that supports the idea of moving offshore makes you exempt.

Once again: what's about those Dutch zoo and scat sites? Are they legal according to the US laws? No! Do they sell to the US people? Of course yes! So is FBI gonna go after them? Is there anyone who can answer this simple question?

And one more question in addition to above. What's about GFY? Should the board owners keep the 2257 info on images that appear in all the threads like this: http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showthread.php?t=757404

And another one... What's about Google (e.g.: http://images.google.com/images?hl=e...h+Images&gbv=2)? Do they also need 2257 docs on every picture that appear on their SERP's?

Nope, they are an exempt since they aren't defined as secondary producers...just have a few billions ready and you'll be an exempt as well :winkwink:

Yea and you sure as hell don't see the Hun visting the US now do you?

[sarcasm mode on]

Ah ok. So the "search" form makes the site an exempt? Good solution IMHO. Just put a search box "I'm feeling lucky" on your tgp's/blogs etc. Right?

[sarcasm mode off]

P.S. Still no explanation regarding Dutch zoo and scat sites? And what's about all those GFY's "would you hit it" threads? No 2257 required?

Hey I didn't make the law.. ignore it if you want to I don't care. I'm asking competent webmasters whom intend to follow the law, what they plan on doing.

I'm not here to debate if it's a good or bad law or who is covered by it. I know I am covered by it so I plan on abiding by it no matter if I like it or not. You can do anything you want as far as I'm considered.

Apparently you haven't read the original revisions to the 2257 if you didn't know google was exempt.

As far as the scat and zoo sites.. As I said you won't see any of those webmasters entering the US.

Do you wanna say that Hun is a criminal according to the US laws? Do the US authorities have issued an order on Hun's arrest if he cross the US border?

As you can see, too many questions - no one has a straight answer so far. :2 cents:

Actually I really haven't noticed anything about SE's there (perhaps because I was reading it bias). Could you please quote that part here? I guess it's possible to make some changes on affiliate sites to formally make them fit into the same exemptions as Google.

How long have any of you guys been in this biz? The Hun has been to many conventions here in the U.S. And when he's not there his reps are.

Everybody just calm down a second. Lawyers are going to tell you all kinds of things, please listen to experience on that. They have predicted the sky is falling for the last 10 years. It's called drumming up business. If and when the govt. decides to shut down all of us that own free sites...it will happen. Case closed. There won't be any of these discussions that will change a thing. Of course a lot of people thought that 5 years ago and sold their TGP's like IDIOTS! And now those same TGP's are still making millions and nothing changed. Yeah, it's gonna happen eventually. It has to. The fun police can't allow it to continue. But in the meantime, instead of everybody consulting lawyers and whatnot...I would look to trusted webmaster resources for updated info. People who are really in this industry know where to look. And even then, take it with a grain of salt.

It was just 3 or 4 years ago that Lawrence Walters told Deluxe Pass that shemale sites were illegal and Clement removed all his shemale sites from that expert legal advice.

Let that be a lesson. The sky ain't falling. And when it does...you will know.

If secondary distributors have to maintain records.. ...then every convenience store, in the US, better start pulling their x-rated magazines off the shelves or maintain records for Jenna Jameson. Realistically unenforceable law.

Xrated mags are such a negligable thing in todays market (with the internet ruling) that most stores would simply yank them. Not many carry them anyway anymore. Mostly truck stops carry them for truckers...but most truckers have wi-fi laptops and don't need the mags either.

A convenience store isn't republishing anything. The DOJ considers each web page a new publication.

I can't say I don't care, and be sure - I'm not trying to troll your thread which is gonna be informative. I'd really like to understand the new proposed regs. as better as possible (how they apply to the foreign resources and online boards like GFY, as well as which exactly formal characteristics turn a site into an exemption like Google)

That's a great point.

Ahh... I didn't see it from that view. :thumbsup

But we all know that the DOJs interpretation is bullshit. Using that logic if I "re-publish" porn from the 70's I would need 2257 docs even though 2257 didn't exist back then. But you can't so the logic is flawed.

The DOJ requirement for secondary producerw is like going to a club/bar whatever and getting carded at the door, then once inside getting carded again by the chick that seats you, then getting carded by your waitress, then having to go up to the bartender and show him your ID too. Personally I think one you're in the door you've proven you're over 21. The people that actually made the porn movie and actually have the original 2257 docs should be the only ones required to keep such information.

What about Google Images?

There is a part in the new proposal stating something to the effect of 'if a site doesn't select the content that is displayed, it is not required to maintain docs.' Of course, I'm sure the actual text is more vague than that. There was a discussion on here about that right after the new regs were proposed. Sorry I don't have the actual text on hand...maybe someone else can help ya with that.

Lists can be made of anything HL and they are entitled to make lists till they drown in them. That always was supposed to be a "threat" - not particularly re this biz, but on broader international issues.

US law is just that. It is irrelevant outside US territories and no judge in any other country will listen to verbal about USC 2257. Each country has their own laws (and a few negotiated under treaties) and the criteria is complying with the laws in the country you reside. You have no obligation to pay any attention to the laws of any other country.

Assuming you have no hosting or business established in the US and do not live in those territories - you are under no obligation to bother with the laws.

No webmaster on this planet complies with all related laws in various countries - it is firstly, not an obligation and secondly, totally stupid. If any country has reason to object to your websites - that is their problem and they are free to block all traffic and stuff themselves into a cocoon.

They are also free to arrest anyone they want based on allegations of contravening domestic laws while that person is within their jurisdiction, and, depending on how warped the justice system is, fine or imprison these individuals. Exteme regimes behave in this way and, as you said, China is an example - and the US is little different.

Only a guide, and based on the general criteria of all webmasters outside the US (who have no relationship/biz within the US) - there is no constitutional or any other legal agreement anywhere which sets any conditions for compliance with US law. Each country has their own laws and these are the relevant terms for reference. If the US wishes to block international websites - that is their responsibility and not yours :thumbsup

Well just so you know that is in fact the case. One of the inspections that was carried out targeted a film that should have been 2257 exempt by age, but was re-released a few years ago.