2257 idea - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

AaronM · 05-19-2005, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spankys Teens

However i don't think publishing the models name/address etc is the right way to prevent this from happening.

Jesus Christ.

You see people? THIS is why I gave up trying to help anybody for free on the boards.

No law...Not even the proposed regs say ANYTHING about doing this shit.

*sigh*

broke · 05-19-2005, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slapass

We are discussing the bill coming down soon.

No -- we're not.

Aaron's right --

Discussing the proposed regulations with people that don't even have a handle on Civics 101 is a bad idea.

AaronM · 05-19-2005, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nate-MM2

In short, why are AMPcontent customers compliant under the current laws while affiliates using free content or purchased content from other providers are (possibly) not compliant?

Honestly?

I HIGHLY doubt that ANY of my content clients are fully compliant with the exception of Jason and Alex.

I could give people everything the law requires and then some but if they don't follow the laws once they get it then they are not compliant.

Nate-MM2 · 05-19-2005, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by broke

No -- we're not.

Yes -- we are.

Quoted from the OP "I am perfectly aware that this is not current law."

This whole thread was started in respect to the proposed regulations. Not the current law.

iBanker · 05-19-2005, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AaronM

Honestly?

I HIGHLY doubt that ANY of my content clients are fully compliant with the exception of Jason and Alex.

I could give people everything the law requires and then some but if they don't follow the laws once they get it then they are not compliant.

THANK YOU AARON. All of you should listen to Aaron on this shit. He has been preaching this shit to litterally everyone for god knows how long.

Arron and us (JasonandAlex.com) believe the same things in regards to 2257. We spend (we being mainly Aaron of course) going over it all in detail. None of it is easy, but the solution is when its set up properly. Aaron made a comment in another thread in regards to not telling everyone for free anymore. I agree. How many times do you have to say the same thing until the "sky is falling" before people actually listen.

It seems someone will end up taking a hit from the government before people really start taking this seriously. And let me be the first to say that everyone that disagrees with Aaron on 2257 compliance and procedures, will be sorry later.

Just my

. Bring on the haters now...

broke · 05-19-2005, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nate-MM2

This whole thread was started in respect to the proposed regulations. Not the current law.

Enforcement regulations are not LAW...

The DOJ can't pass LAWS. Even if the current signed regulations stand, which they won't. They are enforcement regulations, not LAW.

Why would I dicuss law with someone that can't even grasp that?

iBanker · 05-19-2005, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nate-MM2

Yes -- we are.

Quoted from the OP "I am perfectly aware that this is not current law."

This whole thread was started in respect to the proposed regulations. Not the current law.

If you DONT start preparing for the proposed law, you'll hurt in the end. If you think you can go through thousands of hours of content and document it all in 30 days, you are a better man than I. Or for that matter, a better man than the team of people we had set all of ours up properly.

slapass · 05-19-2005, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iBanker

If you DONT start preparing for the proposed law, you'll hurt in the end. If you think you can go through thousands of hours of content and document it all in 30 days, you are a better man than I. Or for that matter, a better man than the team of people we had set all of ours up properly.

Just a heads up but Aaronm has stated several times that preparing for the law is stupid as it is undefined as of now.

Nate-MM2 · 05-19-2005, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by broke

Enforcement regulations are not LAW...

The DOJ can't pass LAWS. Even if the current signed regulations stand, which they won't. They are enforcement regulations, not LAW.

Why would I dicuss law with someone that can't even grasp that?

The definition of 'law'....

1.) A rule of conduct or procedure established by custom, agreement, or authority.

2.) a]The body of rules and principles governing the affairs of a community and enforced by a political authority; a legal system: international law.
b]The condition of social order and justice created by adherence to such a system: a breakdown of law and civilized behavior.
3.) A set of rules or principles dealing with a specific area of a legal system: tax law; criminal law.
4.) A piece of enacted legislation.

AaronM · 05-19-2005, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slapass

Just a heads up but Aaronm has stated several times that preparing for the law is stupid as it is undefined as of now.

Excuse me?

If I said that, I must have been very drunk.

Telling people what is current law and how to follow it does not mean that you should not be aware of potential changes.

Also, what I have said is that the proposed regs have a grandfather clause in them. iBanker may not be familiar with this clause and therefore thinks that the 30 day window would be in effect for all their content..Which, if that clause stands as written, it wouldn't be.

iBanker · 05-19-2005, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slapass

Just a heads up but Aaronm has stated several times that preparing for the law is stupid as it is undefined as of now.

What are you smoking, I want some if it.

iBanker · 05-19-2005, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slapass

Just a heads up but Aaronm has stated several times that preparing for the law is stupid as it is undefined as of now.

Aaron, put that one your sig next......lol

slapass · 05-19-2005, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AaronM

Excuse me?

If I said that, I must have been very drunk.

Telling people what is current law and how to follow it does not mean that you should not be aware of potential changes.

Also, what I have said is that the proposed regs have a grandfather clause in them. iBanker may not be familiar with this clause and therefore thinks that the 30 day window would be in effect for all their content..Which, if that clause stands as written, it wouldn't be.

#15 but I think i will put down the key board....

broke · 05-19-2005, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nate-MM2

The definition of 'law'....

I'm proud of you... you found dictionary.com

iBanker · 05-19-2005, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by broke

I'm proud of you... you found dictionary.com

AaronM · 05-19-2005, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slapass

#15 but I think i will put down the key board....

Ah yes...Now I see it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AaronM

And trust me...I'm very familiar with the proposed regulations....But since we don't know what the signed regs actually say...Let's stick to the current law as it stand on the books today.

This clearly translates to: "preparing for the law is stupid as it is undefined as of now."

slapass · 05-19-2005, 01:23 PM

Ok lets say I have totally missed Aaronm's point. Given. Us, as secondary producers do not have access to the info needed to comply fully as proposed with out the help of the paysites.

I am pretty lucky in that I use very little content compared to many. But it is still going to be a mess. Could i dientify each model and compare it to the doc proving age?? I doubt it. Even if "big affiliate program" gave me all the info, I doubt i could sort it in a year.

Easy solution is the paysites only use foreign affiliates and guys like me who could get by on text alone.

I do not see any easy solution to the doc requirement without the help of the paysites.

I also see little that I can do now except go to PG banners and skip the content.

AaronM · 05-19-2005, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slapass

Ok lets say I have totally missed Aaronm's point. Given. Us, as secondary producers do not have access to the info needed to comply fully as proposed with out the help of the paysites.

I am pretty lucky in that I use very little content compared to many. But it is still going to be a mess. Could i dientify each model and compare it to the doc proving age?? I doubt it. Even if "big affiliate program" gave me all the info, I doubt i could sort it in a year.

Easy solution is the paysites only use foreign affiliates and guys like me who could get by on text alone.

I do not see any easy solution to the doc requirement without the help of the paysites.

I also see little that I can do now except go to PG banners and skip the content.

FHG's baby....FHG's.

iBanker · 05-19-2005, 01:26 PM

[QUOTE=slapass]
I do not see any easy solution to the doc requirement without the help of the paysites.
QUOTE]

Bingo. Programs will all have to step it up, and don't be surprised if there are some INVITE only programs, that know their affiliates personally. An trust them more than most.

Can't wait to see what people are going say about that.

PhotoGreggXXX · 05-19-2005, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AaronM

And trust me...I'm very familiar with the proposed regulations....But since we don't know what the signed regs actually say...Let's stick to the current law as it stand on the books today.

Have to agree with you Aaron. I'm getting slammed with emails and icq's from customers wanting this, that and the next thing. Until the new law is ON the books, if it ever does get on the books, the current law is where we as producers need to stick with.

Nate-MM2 · 05-19-2005, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iBanker

Bingo. Programs will all have to step it up, and don't be surprised if there are some INVITE only programs, that know their affiliates personally. An trust them more than most.

Can't wait to see what people are going say about that.

Should have been that way a long time ago... obviously I would benefit personally since being in the eye of the webmaster public wouldn't be so rewarded as it is now with selling sig-space and the like.

I've been doing this for just under 10 years now and only a handful of people know who I am... just how I like it.

No offense to any of the guys with the high post counts, if I sold something to the webmaster public (hosting, content, affiliate programs, etc) I would be spinning that post counter as fast as I possibly could.

Things like AVS programs and link-lists should have always been private, would cut down greatly on the administration labour costs in both time & money.

Dirty Dane · 05-19-2005, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AaronM

Jesus Christ.

You see people? THIS is why I gave up trying to help anybody for free on the boards.

No law...Not even the proposed regs say ANYTHING about doing this shit.

*sigh*

See what?
Some people, in fact many, don't understand the laws/regulations, there are many misunderstandings. So what is odd about people asking?
You might know the laws, fine. You might not help for free, good 4 you. But if you also know the meaning of the word community, then you should understand that keep telling people how stupid they are, does not get anyone anywhere. Just my opinion

xxxlaw · 05-19-2005, 01:41 PM

While we all wait for the publication of the new regulations, a couple of things that may clear up substantial confusion in this and a few other 2257-related threads I've been following lately:

1. From the decision of the DC Circuit in 1994 that effected the termination of an injunction that had prevented the regulations from being enforced, a la the present injuction against enforcement of COPA, come the following words in the pre-internet era that explain the DC Circuit's view of the regulations regarding some of the issues raised here by content providers and webmasters:

American Library Association v. Reno, 33 F.3d 78, 90, 63 USLW 218, ---, 308 U.S.App.D.C. 233, 245 (1994).

[start of quotation]

Contrary to what appellees suggest, the secondary producers' records serve important ends. They confirm the secondary producers' compliance with the Act and provide what is likely to be a more reliable depository of the information identifying and establishing the ages of the persons depicted. The photographer who sells a picture to a magazine may disappear three months later, and his records with him. The magazine, on the other hand, is apt to remain in business. Furthermore, because a given issue of a magazine or book may contain pictures of performers taken by several photographers, it serves the interests of law enforcement efficiency to be able to verify their ages at a single location. Finally, the requirements imposed on secondary producers serve the Government's interests by denying their commercial markets to child pornographers.

33 F.3d at 94, 63 USLW at ---, 308 U.S.App.D.C at 249

Third, we address the district court's contention that "the Act is overly burdensome because it will invade the privacy of adult models and discourage them from engaging in protected expression" because "[e]xposure of their true names, aliases, and addresses could subject them to stigmatization, harassment and ridicule from others." [Citations omitted] The Act and its implementing regulations, however, do not require that this information be disclosed to anyone other than "the Attorney General or his delegee,"[Citation omitted] the persons for whom they willingly pose while engaged in sexual acts, and those who publish the resulting pictures or videotapes. The first of these has a legitimate right to the information, and we believe we may safely assume that the performers are not concerned over the prospect of being stigmatized, harassed, or ridiculed by the producers they help enrich. [

End of quotations]

The Court of Appeals denied en banc rehearing over the dissent of two judges of that court in American Library Association v. Reno, 47 F.3d 1215 (C.A.D.C, 1995). The United States Supreme Court denied certiorari at American Library Association. v. Reno, 515 U.S. 1158, 115 S.Ct. 2610, 132 L.Ed.2d 854 (1995). That is not, of course to say that this is the final word on the topic, but this will point the posters to the countervailing arguments that must be faced in any future litigation.

2. I don't know of any "privacy right" that can't be waived by an adult model. The essence of an adult model release is the model's decision to waive privacy regarding publication of images of the most private parts of her body, and depictions of her engaging in the most private and intimate conduct, inlcluding things about her or him which are normally seen, heard, or experienced only by the model's lovers. The release of the identity information just like the release of her right of privacy in these depictions just like privileged medical information, (e.g. HIV test results) can surely be waived in the European Community. It is not any Eurpean law or European value attached to privacy that would prevent the release of the information to secondary producers. Rather, the photographers may have failed to secure appropriate release, and seemingly from the posts, photographers on both sides of the Atlantic may have misadvised the models as to the required disclosure of the identity information to their customers because they may have misunderstood the secondary producer requirements or decided to bet on the propostion that they are not valid.

3. It's dangerous to rely on press accounts to judge a situation, but the only published accounts I have read of the murder of a porn model have involved allegations against the photographer, not an obsessed surfer jumping out from behind the bushes. It seems to me that the privacy issue seems to fit - like a custom-made suit - the desire of photographers to assure exclusivity regarding the model. The incident regarding the death of a McGill University student who was a model, here in the US, really did occur. The idea that a stalker would become an affiliate to track down the object of his affections may be viewed by some as far-fetched and conjectural when, In fact, a great many of the models can be found more directly through modelling boards and talent agencies, and it may be far easier for such a stalker to connect in that way.

None of this should be misunderstood by anyone as expressing postive feelings about the regulations. However, It is imporant for everyone involved in this debate to know that there is another rational side to the issues, and that any challenge to the regulations will be far from a slam-dunk.

J D Obenberger

Nate-MM2 · 05-19-2005, 01:42 PM

Sponsors don't need to give out free content to be able to survive.

Nate-MM2 · 05-19-2005, 01:49 PM

Is there any indication that processors could be forced to give up information in regards to payouts?

Since many domain registrars offer proxy registration services is it conceivable that you could transfer 'ownership' of your sites to somebody outside the jurisdiction of the US laws and sidestep the new regulations altogether?

slapass · 05-19-2005, 01:52 PM

[QUOTE=iBanker]

Quote:

Originally Posted by slapass

I do not see any easy solution to the doc requirement without the help of the paysites.
QUOTE]

Bingo. Programs will all have to step it up, and don't be surprised if there are some INVITE only programs, that know their affiliates personally. An trust them more than most.

Can't wait to see what people are going say about that.

I hate to say it but it might actually help paysites if there was less free stuff

slapass · 05-19-2005, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nate-MM2

Is there any indication that processors could be forced to give up information in regards to payouts?

Since many domain registrars offer proxy registration services is it conceivable that you could transfer 'ownership' of your sites to somebody outside the jurisdiction of the US laws and sidestep the new regulations altogether?

I do not think website ownership was required here. Uploading images would make you liable.

Nate-MM2 · 05-19-2005, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slapass

I do not think website ownership was required here. Uploading images would make you liable.

Still the same idea, you could transfer all responsibility to somebody with indemnity from the new regulations. Be that site ownership, publishing as a first or secondary producer, etc.. etc...

Can they stop you from collecting an income from a non-compliant site?

Dirty Dane · 05-19-2005, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slapass

I do not think website ownership was required here. Uploading images would make you liable.

Yep. Domains has nothing to do with this. Its the publisher who is responsible, not the media. Anyone can use freehosts all over the world, but that does not make you less responsible for what you upload.

Nydahl · 05-19-2005, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AaronM

It's no big secret. The truth of the matter is that I have spent more than my fair share of time trying to help people understand this issue...Yet, ignorant people still come around and post shit like this thread.

I'm done helping people for free. Those who want my 2257 experiences and assistance pay me for it these days.

I have seen many posts from you saying that you want to be paid for consulting and saying that you have helped a lot of people.But I can't remmember when I read some mentioned post from you helping others with 2257.

edited : sorry man I forgot that list of content providers you made etc etc

LadyMischief · 05-19-2005, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xxxlaw

2. I don't know of any "privacy right" that can't be waived by an adult model. The essence of an adult model release is the model's decision to waive privacy regarding publication of images of the most private parts of her body, and depictions of her engaging in the most private and intimate conduct, inlcluding things about her or him which are normally seen, heard, or experienced only by the model's lovers. The release of the identity information just like the release of her right of privacy in these depictions just like privileged medical information, (e.g. HIV test results) can surely be waived in the European Community. It is not any Eurpean law or European value attached to privacy that would prevent the release of the information to secondary producers. Rather, the photographers may have failed to secure appropriate release, and seemingly from the posts, photographers on both sides of the Atlantic may have misadvised the models as to the required disclosure of the identity information to their customers because they may have misunderstood the secondary producer requirements or decided to bet on the propostion that they are not valid.

As far as I'm aware, several countries in europe have Privacy laws with regards to personal information similar to the new privacy laws that are now in place in Canada. The PIPA laws (Personal Information Protection Act) make it illegal for anyone to even collect Identification without an adequate privacy release, and a further release is required in order to legally distribute those documents without the model (or law enforcement) having the ability to charge the person distributing these documents. There have already been convictions here in Canada, and when these laws were first passed I had several discussions with people in various places in Europe that said that such laws had already been in place there for sometime. Good idea to check with the content producer (if they are foreign) if they have such releases.

05-19-2005, 01:26 PM	#69
iBanker Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: San Diego, moving to Portland. Posts: 2,758	[QUOTE=slapass] I do not see any easy solution to the doc requirement without the help of the paysites. QUOTE] Bingo. Programs will all have to step it up, and don't be surprised if there are some INVITE only programs, that know their affiliates personally. An trust them more than most. Can't wait to see what people are going say about that. __________________ www.JasonandAlex.com Christopher's ICQ: 268-843-170

05-19-2005, 01:23 PM	#67
slapass Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Earth Posts: 14,622	Ok lets say I have totally missed Aaronm's point. Given. Us, as secondary producers do not have access to the info needed to comply fully as proposed with out the help of the paysites. I am pretty lucky in that I use very little content compared to many. But it is still going to be a mess. Could i dientify each model and compare it to the doc proving age?? I doubt it. Even if "big affiliate program" gave me all the info, I doubt i could sort it in a year. Easy solution is the paysites only use foreign affiliates and guys like me who could get by on text alone. I do not see any easy solution to the doc requirement without the help of the paysites. I also see little that I can do now except go to PG banners and skip the content.

05-19-2005, 01:41 PM	#73
xxxlaw Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Chicago Posts: 660	While we all wait for the publication of the new regulations, a couple of things that may clear up substantial confusion in this and a few other 2257-related threads I've been following lately: 1. From the decision of the DC Circuit in 1994 that effected the termination of an injunction that had prevented the regulations from being enforced, a la the present injuction against enforcement of COPA, come the following words in the pre-internet era that explain the DC Circuit's view of the regulations regarding some of the issues raised here by content providers and webmasters: American Library Association v. Reno, 33 F.3d 78, 90, 63 USLW 218, ---, 308 U.S.App.D.C. 233, 245 (1994). [start of quotation] Contrary to what appellees suggest, the secondary producers' records serve important ends. They confirm the secondary producers' compliance with the Act and provide what is likely to be a more reliable depository of the information identifying and establishing the ages of the persons depicted. The photographer who sells a picture to a magazine may disappear three months later, and his records with him. The magazine, on the other hand, is apt to remain in business. Furthermore, because a given issue of a magazine or book may contain pictures of performers taken by several photographers, it serves the interests of law enforcement efficiency to be able to verify their ages at a single location. Finally, the requirements imposed on secondary producers serve the Government's interests by denying their commercial markets to child pornographers. 33 F.3d at 94, 63 USLW at ---, 308 U.S.App.D.C at 249 Third, we address the district court's contention that "the Act is overly burdensome because it will invade the privacy of adult models and discourage them from engaging in protected expression" because "[e]xposure of their true names, aliases, and addresses could subject them to stigmatization, harassment and ridicule from others." [Citations omitted] The Act and its implementing regulations, however, do not require that this information be disclosed to anyone other than "the Attorney General or his delegee,"[Citation omitted] the persons for whom they willingly pose while engaged in sexual acts, and those who publish the resulting pictures or videotapes. The first of these has a legitimate right to the information, and we believe we may safely assume that the performers are not concerned over the prospect of being stigmatized, harassed, or ridiculed by the producers they help enrich. [ End of quotations] The Court of Appeals denied en banc rehearing over the dissent of two judges of that court in American Library Association v. Reno, 47 F.3d 1215 (C.A.D.C, 1995). The United States Supreme Court denied certiorari at American Library Association. v. Reno, 515 U.S. 1158, 115 S.Ct. 2610, 132 L.Ed.2d 854 (1995). That is not, of course to say that this is the final word on the topic, but this will point the posters to the countervailing arguments that must be faced in any future litigation. 2. I don't know of any "privacy right" that can't be waived by an adult model. The essence of an adult model release is the model's decision to waive privacy regarding publication of images of the most private parts of her body, and depictions of her engaging in the most private and intimate conduct, inlcluding things about her or him which are normally seen, heard, or experienced only by the model's lovers. The release of the identity information just like the release of her right of privacy in these depictions just like privileged medical information, (e.g. HIV test results) can surely be waived in the European Community. It is not any Eurpean law or European value attached to privacy that would prevent the release of the information to secondary producers. Rather, the photographers may have failed to secure appropriate release, and seemingly from the posts, photographers on both sides of the Atlantic may have misadvised the models as to the required disclosure of the identity information to their customers because they may have misunderstood the secondary producer requirements or decided to bet on the propostion that they are not valid. 3. It's dangerous to rely on press accounts to judge a situation, but the only published accounts I have read of the murder of a porn model have involved allegations against the photographer, not an obsessed surfer jumping out from behind the bushes. It seems to me that the privacy issue seems to fit - like a custom-made suit - the desire of photographers to assure exclusivity regarding the model. The incident regarding the death of a McGill University student who was a model, here in the US, really did occur. The idea that a stalker would become an affiliate to track down the object of his affections may be viewed by some as far-fetched and conjectural when, In fact, a great many of the models can be found more directly through modelling boards and talent agencies, and it may be far easier for such a stalker to connect in that way. None of this should be misunderstood by anyone as expressing postive feelings about the regulations. However, It is imporant for everyone involved in this debate to know that there is another rational side to the issues, and that any challenge to the regulations will be far from a slam-dunk. J D Obenberger

05-19-2005, 01:42 PM	#74
Nate-MM2 So Fucking Banned Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Vancouver, CANADA Posts: 263	Sponsors don't need to give out free content to be able to survive.

05-19-2005, 01:49 PM	#75
Nate-MM2 So Fucking Banned Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Vancouver, CANADA Posts: 263	Is there any indication that processors could be forced to give up information in regards to payouts? Since many domain registrars offer proxy registration services is it conceivable that you could transfer 'ownership' of your sites to somebody outside the jurisdiction of the US laws and sidestep the new regulations altogether?