OK, so you are against 2257. I don't think Primary Producers should stop keep records and 2257 should not relate to secondary producers but secondary producers should be able to point their usable content to the appropriate producer, that's all.

then maybe you understand why I do post up on issues like this to bring awareness.

you wrote previously in a reply to me:
"You shouldn't worry so much about how other people conduct business. "

I know a lot of people in this biz, and I am concerned for those who are trying to run their biz as a biz, and to be aware of issues. Those that don't get it, or don't care, don't bother to read what i post.

Fight the would you hit this threads!

we are in complete agreement.

but you have missed the point of my thread... assuming everything you believe about how 2257 law should be... it still does not address what a "secondary producer", or webmaster can do to inventory their content to be sure they are not in possession or in distribution of underage content when it has been found that the underage model slipped past the primary producer.


Fight the prefect world! (mispelling intentional :winkwink:)

That's something as an industry we really need to figure out. It could be done but the industry really needs to make an effort to do it.

now we are on the same page :winkwink:

gunni suggested something in his post previously that i have been advocating for 3+ years, which is putting in some kind of kind of code in the filename or folder that ties the image/video back to the content producer.

you can use a spreadsheet or database to track the following:

original filename
new filename
content producer
file location


You can use a CMS system to manage your content which would track all the data necessarily to locate and remove the underage content.

it is work to manage inventory.. that's why most don't do it. they will just throw the images into their resizer script, rename it, and throw it into a gallery.

Fight the data entry!

Those are good ideas but it wouldn't work for screenshots on review sites.

true.. and that's a whole different issue..

on one of the 2257 inspections, the DOJ was asking for the docs on the performers that were in the video that was running on the TV in the background of the video scene!

so you can easily see how enforcement of 2257 can extend to screenshots as well. I see that on your side you have no images, so your life is less complicated as far as the 2257 stuff goes :)

Fight the romper room!

I just about have a new design that will go online in June that will hopefully have screenshots.

It already has happened...in the video industry remember Traci Lords? Do you think Pink Visuals or whoever knew what video stores had her product...they didnt. but It got around and every quickly complied. We dont need government regulation for that...we didnt have it then

I dont resell my content, yes I maintain IDs and records but I am not going to roll over on this one giving the government the ability to use my oewn lack of ewvidence to convict me of a crime that didnt even happen. Perios Its wrong and try as you might you cant spin it right.

you completely have missed my point.. so i will use your example to explain.

When traci lords was found to be underage, the content producer didn't have to know which videos were in what stores. What happened is the word got out that certain titles needed to be pulled.

The store owner, who now has the contraband content, has to pull the video. He can check his inventory logs to see if he purchased those titles. He can go to his wall and visually inspect for the titles, etc.

The point is that the store owners had to have their own method for locating the contraband and take it down.

2257 didn't "protect" anyone from the Traci Lords situation.

2257 did not "protect" the store owner, who had to locate the content and remove it, otherwise he would be in possession and distribution position.

Forget that 2257 exists. There is no 2257.

How is a website owner going to do the equivalent that the store owner did for the Traci Lords situation when images/videoes are found to be underaged?


Fight the question!

Thae same way they did it in the Traci Lords example, you say word got out...it gets out here too. nI expect Paul Markham or whomever would notify his customers.

The point is using 2257 for this is like setting your house on fire to get rid of a mouse.

These jack booted thugs we have in office have usurped way too many of my civil liberties in the name of the war on drugs/terror/whatthefuckever.
And now its "the children omg think of the children" Fuck that

Hate to tell you this but it happens...I know of someone in my niche who is doing hard time in an Illinois prison for CP because he wanted to film himself fucking a 16-17 y.o. and then stalk her on top of that.....I can pull up his mugshot right now...as his prison time goes on, his face looks more and more tired...Almost like a meth user timeline pic.

you still have missed the point...

it's not magic that a webmaster/site owner is able to locate the images/videos of the underage performer on his website(s).

its a whole lot easier for a store owner or a vhs/dvd distributor to locate and remove the contraband inventory.


Fight the 2257 tizzy!

Here's a good set of two reasons:

• Jail
• Prison

Be sure to take notes.

It just irritates me to no end to see how many people are willing to completely lay down the rights that Americans have fought and died to protect all in the name of "security"

you dont deserve to be secure and you dont deserve to have the rights either...the real shame is that you are willing to take people like me down with you

And wouldn't it be nice if tube sites had to comply, if anyone posting had to comply? This would not only level the playing field it would erase most of it.

If my g/f and I make a site we need to comply with 2257 including posting our address and manning our "office" a certain number of hours per week ... But none of the laws apply if we post it as user submitted to a tube site????? :Oh crap

you seem to have mistaken GFY for your own blog.... this is a message board thread, conversations occur here... you have been going off on various 2257 tangents that aren't related to the point of the thread.

i asked a direct question: How is a website owner going to do the equivalent that the store owner did for the Traci Lords situation when images/videos are found to be underaged?


your answer was:

"Thae same way they did it in the Traci Lords example, you say word got out...it gets out here too. nI expect Paul Markham or whomever would notify his customers."

that's not an answer, that's the same as saying the webmasters will magically take care of it .... because the reality is most webmasters wouldn't know where to begin to look. If Paul markham said xxx model from photosets yyy need to be taken down due to underage, then how does the webmaster who has those images and videos on his website(s) deal with things next?

The point of this thread was to be aware of the very real potential situation that an underage model could be uncovered and webmasters need to pull down images and videos.

If a webmaster did do the inventory documentation, they would actually be accomplishing part of 2257 compliance from the original 2257 statue and its intent.


Fight the rants!

Vivid has brought up the 2257 issue against pornotube (AEBN) in their lawsuit against them.

Other content producers who have targeted copyright infringers have also brought this up.

The whole user-generated-web-2.0 thing is certainly an interesting gray area that attorneys and prosecutors are trying to understand. Google inherited a huge library of videos with copyright infringement and going into the acquisition they felt they could handle it... of course, they are being sued by Viacom over these issues.

Fight the copyleft!

You can if that's all you can do.

I think that most everybody was trying to comply with 2257 until the new version was enacted. The new version (i.e. that bullshit amendment attached to The Adam Walsh law) is so far over the top that everyone just takes it for granted that it'll get overturned.

Meanwhile, there's no longer any real payoff in complying with the original 2257 because, whether you do so or not, you’ll still be in violation of the new 2257 which is quite simply impossible to comply with.

that's why the point of my thread topic is not really about 2257 compliance... its about inventory controls over the content on your site, such that if an underage performer were found, that the website owner could have those images/videos removed.

as i have stated repeatedly, forget about 2257, forget that it exists, pretend it was struck down... would you still not do any inventory / record keeping to keep track of what images/videos are on your website?


Fight the sand in the ears!

2257 was created solely to eat into your profits.

Makes me want to move to a true capitalist country with open minded people like Denmark.

if that were true then the various incarnations of "porn tax" bills would have been passed


Fight the government conspiracies!

possession and distribution of CP is a crime in denmark as well.

Fight the jurisdiction!