2257 idea

[nikad]

So, if anybody using the images on a website must have the records, blah blah, then just every sponsor could add all the records of models and such in a pdf file or similar into the affiliates section and all affiliates download them and have them... I guess everybody will be covered then
nik

[Adam-EB]

Originally Posted by nikad

So, if anybody using the images on a website must have the records, blah blah, then just every sponsor could add all the records of models and such in a pdf file or similar into the affiliates section and all affiliates download them and have them... I guess everybody will be covered then
nik

OK then... hypothetical scenario:

I am Joe Stalker, and I think that the model on ModelsSite.com is pretty hot. I think she's so hot, in fact, that I'd do anything to see her in person, or more. In fact, I'm obsessed with her, and I probably wouldn't stop at just seeing her. What can I do?

Easy. I'll just sign up for her affiliate program, and download her 2257 information, a copy of her ID, and now I have access to all of her personal information and even her home address. Time to go pay her a visit...

[StickyGreen]

Originally Posted by Adam-EB

OK then... hypothetical scenario:

I am Joe Stalker, and I think that the model on ModelsSite.com is pretty hot. I think she's so hot, in fact, that I'd do anything to see her in person, or more. In fact, I'm obsessed with her, and I probably wouldn't stop at just seeing her. What can I do?

Easy. I'll just sign up for her affiliate program, and download her 2257 information, a copy of her ID, and now I have access to all of her personal information and even her home address. Time to go pay her a visit...

LOL good point...

[AaronM]

Originally Posted by nikad

So, if anybody using the images on a website must have the records, blah blah, then just every sponsor could add all the records of models and such in a pdf file or similar into the affiliates section and all affiliates download them and have them... I guess everybody will be covered then
nik

Wrong.

Go fish.

[StickyGreen]

it's funny...whenever anyone makes a 2257 comment, someone comes in and says they are completely wrong but never give a reason why...like everything's a big secret. the damn law isn't that complicated people...

[WWC-DonMike]

Originally Posted by Adam-EB

OK then... hypothetical scenario:

I am Joe Stalker, and I think that the model on ModelsSite.com is pretty hot. I think she's so hot, in fact, that I'd do anything to see her in person, or more. In fact, I'm obsessed with her, and I probably wouldn't stop at just seeing her. What can I do?

Easy. I'll just sign up for her affiliate program, and download her 2257 information, a copy of her ID, and now I have access to all of her personal information and even her home address. Time to go pay her a visit...

Very good point, Adam. This is exactly the grounds the adult webmaster community will be fighting this thing on.

[AaronM]

Originally Posted by StickyGreen

it's funny...whenever anyone makes a 2257 comment, someone comes in and says they are completely wrong but never give a reason why...like everything's a big secret. the damn law isn't that complicated people...

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.

[wjxxx]

I don`t think models will be happy with this

[Nate-MM2]

Originally Posted by AaronM

Wrong.

Go fish.

How so?

It's not a great plan, but he is correct in saying that everybody would be covered in a legal sense.

It's no different than the sponsors mailing you all the required documents, just an easier solution.

[dready]

Keeping the docs for each model is like 20% of the required record keeping.

[AaronM]

Originally Posted by Nate-MM2

How so?

It's not a great plan, but he is correct in saying that everybody would be covered in a legal sense.

It's no different than the sponsors mailing you all the required documents, just an easier solution.

Originally Posted by AaronM

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

Somebody gets it.

Originally Posted by dready

Keeping the docs for each model is like 20% of the required record keeping.

[Nate-MM2]

Originally Posted by dready

Keeping the docs for each model is like 20% of the required record keeping.

As I understand it you need copies of the documentation gathered by the primary producer, a copy of the image in question and a list of the URL's where you specifically 'published' the image.

A .pdf would cover that.

(b) A producer who is a secondary producer as defined in § 75.1(c) may satisfy the requirements of this part to create and maintain records by accepting from the primary producer, as defined in § 75.1(c), copies of the records described in paragraph (a) of this section. Such a secondary producer shall also keep records of the name and address of the primary producer from whom he received copies of the records.

[AaronM]

Originally Posted by Nate-MM2

As I understand it you need copies of the documentation gathered by the primary producer, a copy of the image in question and a list of the URL's where you specifically 'published' the image.

A .pdf would cover that.

(b) A producer who is a secondary producer as defined in § 75.1(c) may satisfy the requirements of this part to create and maintain records by accepting from the primary producer, as defined in § 75.1(c), copies of the records described in paragraph (a) of this section. Such a secondary producer shall also keep records of the name and address of the primary producer from whom he received copies of the records.

So..Since you understand all this so well....

Kindly show me where "copies of the records described in paragraph (a)" says anything about "a copy of the image in question and a list of the URL's where you specifically 'published' the image."

[DateDoc]

Originally Posted by Nate-MM2

How so?

It's not a great plan, but he is correct in saying that everybody would be covered in a legal sense.

It's no different than the sponsors mailing you all the required documents, just an easier solution.

and a cheaper one and nothing will get lost in the mail. I'd suggest the sponsor verify the affiliate and require references. Will this make it harder to become an affiliate? Sure. Is that a bad thing? I don't think so. Will some one slip through the cracks? Absolutely, but no system is perfect.

[AaronM]

Originally Posted by AaronM

So..Since you understand all this so well....

Kindly show me where "copies of the records described in paragraph (a)" says anything about "a copy of the image in question and a list of the URL's where you specifically 'published' the image."

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.

[DateDoc]

Originally Posted by AaronM

So..Since you understand all this so well....

Kindly show me where "copies of the records described in paragraph (a)" says anything about "a copy of the image in question and a list of the URL's where you specifically 'published' the image."

That you would have to add to the records. A pdf of the sponsors records is a base you build upon. Even if they mailed you the 2257 info you would have to do that as well.

[Nate-MM2]

Originally Posted by dready

Keeping the docs for each model is like 20% of the required record keeping.

Copies of the documentation are the only requirement that the secondary producer needs to keep along with their URL's and a copy of the image.

For any performer portrayed in such a depiction after [insert date 30 days after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register], the records shall include:
(i) A copy of the depiction, and
(ii) Where the depiction is published on an Internet Computer site or service, a copy of any URL associated with the depiction.

[AaronM]

Originally Posted by BusterPorn

That you would have to add to the records. A pdf of the sponsors records is a base you build upon. Even if they mailed you the 2257 info you would have to do that as well.

You would? Says who?

Proof please....Links to official Government sites with these requirements?

[Nate-MM2]

Originally Posted by AaronM

So..Since you understand all this so well....

Kindly show me where "copies of the records described in paragraph (a)" says anything about "a copy of the image in question and a list of the URL's where you specifically 'published' the image."

This is taken from paragraph A...

(i) A copy of the depiction, and
(ii) Where the depiction is published on an Internet Computer site or service, a copy of any URL associated with the depiction.

[AaronM]

Originally Posted by Nate-MM2

Copies of the documentation are the only requirement that the secondary producer needs to keep along with their URL's and a copy of the image.

For any performer portrayed in such a depiction after [insert date 30 days after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register], the records shall include:
(i) A copy of the depiction, and
(ii) Where the depiction is published on an Internet Computer site or service, a copy of any URL associated with the depiction.

This is not current law. Nor is your understanding of this regulation correct.

[xxxice]

Use text guys

[NaughtyRob]

Originally Posted by vanderweb

Use text guys

What?

[nikad]

Originally Posted by Adam-EB

OK then... hypothetical scenario:

I am Joe Stalker, and I think that the model on ModelsSite.com is pretty hot. I think she's so hot, in fact, that I'd do anything to see her in person, or more. In fact, I'm obsessed with her, and I probably wouldn't stop at just seeing her. What can I do?

Easy. I'll just sign up for her affiliate program, and download her 2257 information, a copy of her ID, and now I have access to all of her personal information and even her home address. Time to go pay her a visit...

My post is just an idea to fully comply with the law, if anything happened to anybody because of the disclosure of their private information, the government would be ultimately responsible for enforcing porn weorkers to display their personal information, which btw violates their right to privacy.
nik

[AlienQ - BANNED FOR LIFE]

They gonna put Pornographers in Concentration camps.

[Nate-MM2]

Originally Posted by AaronM

This is not current law. Nor is your understanding of this regulation correct.

This whole thread is clearly about the proposed regulations, not the current law. As is the case with 99% of the other 2257 threads that have popped up over the last few days.

If you want to continue to fear monger you are wasting your time with me, I have full legal indemnity from the 2257 regulations and I'm neither scared nor mildly concerned in the slightest.

[nikad]

Originally Posted by AaronM

Wrong.

Go fish.

enlighten me please

[AaronM]

Originally Posted by Nate-MM2

This whole thread is clearly about the proposed regulations, not the current law. As is the case with 99% of the other 2257 threads that have popped up over the last few days.

If you want to continue to fear monger you are wasting your time with me, I have full legal indemnity from the 2257 regulations and I'm neither scared nor mildly concerned in the slightest.

Fear monger?

Hardly.

There is nothing to fear if people follow the laws in the first place.

The truth is that most people are just like you. They have no idea WTF they are talking about.

Have you read the signed regulations? No. So how in the hell can you claim that this thread is about something of which NONE of us have personal knowledge of?

You can't.

[AaronM]

Originally Posted by nikad

enlighten me please

I will post this for the 3rd time in this thread. Perhaps if you would pay more attention to things, you would not need to ask me what it is that you are missing.

Originally Posted by AaronM

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

[Nate-MM2]

Originally Posted by AaronM

Have you read the signed regulations? No. So how in the hell can you claim that this thread is about something of which NONE of us have personal knowledge of?

You can't.

For the last time...

WE ARE NOT DISCUSSING 'SIGNED REGULATIONS'

The conversation in this thread is about the proposed regulations which (yes!) I have read.

[Nate-MM2]

If anybody pays you for your '2257 experience and assistance' you'd be best off earmarking some of that income to put towards some kind of reading comprehension program.

[dasexi1]

Originally Posted by AaronM

...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.

pure and simple logic

[Nate-MM2]

Originally Posted by AaronM

Fear monger?

Hardly.

What was the purpose of your post then?

You haven't enlightened any of the participants as to the elusive 'truth' you continually refer to.

[AaronM]

Originally Posted by Nate-MM2

If anybody pays you for your '2257 experience and assistance' you'd be best off earmarking some of that income to put towards some kind of reading comprehension program.

Your right.

I would remind you that I have been asked to speak on multiple panels about 2257 over the years but then people would accuse me of bragging. Instead, I will ask you. How many people have invited you to speak on panels about 2257? How many times have you been quoted and or published about 2257? What have you personally done to help our industry with this issue? Have you developed a 2257 solution?

I have.

I know these laws inside and out. You don't.

Period.

[nikad]

Originally Posted by AaronM

I will post this for the 3rd time in this thread. Perhaps if you would pay more attention to things, you would not need to ask me what it is that you are missing.

I didn't ask for your assistance, being a lawyer myself, it was just an idea and I am perfectly aware that this is not current law. If you reply to my post just to play the I-know-about-it-but-not-tellin-ya high school game and or increase your post count then it is up to you man! My intention is just give my 2cents to something that seems to be worrying a lot of people, and btw, i do not even live in the US, so I couldn't care less actually, I just think we should act as a community, seems like you are not keen on helping your fellow US webmasters.......Nothing personal
nik

[AaronM]

Originally Posted by Nate-MM2

What was the purpose of your post then?

You haven't enlightened any of the participants as to the elusive 'truth' you continually refer to.

Why should I?

It's more fun out get you idiots all riled up and have you post inaccurate statements about a topic that many of you are completely clueless about.

After all, I am here to entertain myself...Not help people who can't even read.

[slapass]

Originally Posted by AaronM

Have you read the signed regulations? No. So how in the hell can you claim that this thread is about something of which NONE of us have personal knowledge of?

You can't.

umm.. are you referring to absolute knowledge? Dude put down the crap pipe. We are discussing the bill coming down soon. and yes we can read the "proposed" law. And some of us want a lcue before it happens. Thanks.

[dready]

Here is the 2004 Proposal:
http://my.execpc.com/~xxxlaw/2257Table.htm

[AaronM]

Originally Posted by nikad

I didn't ask for your assistance, being a lawyer myself, it was just an idea and I am perfectly aware that this is not current law. If you reply to my post just to play the I-know-about-it-but-not-tellin-ya high school game and or increase your post count then it is up to you man! My intention is just give my 2cents to something that seems to be worrying a lot of people, and btw, i do not even live in the US, so I couldn't care less actually, I just think we should act as a community, seems like you are not keen on helping your fellow US webmasters.......Nothing personal
nik

If my fellow US webmaster want my help, they can pay for it. Many already do.

As for you being an attorney....Why is a non-US attorney posting a possible solution to a problem that not only does not affect their clients but also would not properly cover a US webmaster?

Also...If you are an attorney, I would think that you would at least understand what the current law and proposed regulations say. It's not rocket science but you seem to have missed some very important parts of these regs as well as the current laws.

If you want to help..GO ahead and help. But please do so by providing viable and legal solutions instead of adding more confusion to the mix.

[AaronM]

Originally Posted by slapass

umm.. are you referring to absolute knowledge? Dude put down the crap pipe. We are discussing the bill coming down soon. and yes we can read the "proposed" law. And some of us want a lcue before it happens. Thanks.

Fine. Let's play along with this for a moment then.

The very first post...The one that started this thread...Would not make anybody compliant with the CURRENT laws, let alone the proposed regulations.

We have all read the proposed regs so we know that they are tougher than the current law. WTF makes anybody think that the newly signed regs will make things easier? If it doesn't comply with the current then you can bet your ass it won't comply with the new.

It's simple logic.

[nikad]

Originally Posted by AaronM

If my fellow US webmaster want my help, they can pay for it. Many already do.

As for you being an attorney....Why is a non-US attorney posting a possible solution to a problem that not only does not affect their clients but also would not properly cover a US webmaster?

Also...If you are an attorney, I would think that you would at least understand what the current law and proposed regulations say. It's not rocket science but you seem to have missed some very important parts of these regs as well as the current laws.

If you want to help..GO ahead and help. But please do so by providing viable and legal solutions instead of adding more confusion to the mix.

Since I work with Us based companies I must know what legal issues affect this business, so even if I am not living there, I have a citizenship - have dual citizenship. I did read the whole 2257 proposal and I just didn't want to go in the little details of it and start talking "legal" shit, just tried to keep it simple, just so anybody could pick a small idea and perfect it to match the law, of course it doesn't cover all aspects but it can be perfectible just so it does if it gets approved.
Personally I think it will be burocratic as hell, but nothing too scary to make ppl think they will vbe unable to run their sites.
nik

[Nate-MM2]

I'm asking the following question to Aaron of AMPcontent, not Aaron the 2257 consultant...

What documentation does AMPcontent plan to provide to its customers if the proposed regulations should come to pass without any further modification?

[Nate-MM2]

Originally Posted by AaronM

The very first post...The one that started this thread...Would not make anybody compliant with the CURRENT laws, let alone the proposed regulations.

Yes it would make them compliant in regards to the current laws.

There are no current record keeping requirements for secondary producers (affiliates using banners & free content) beyond having a reference to the Custodian of Records.

How would you be in violation of those laws with the proposed PDF scenario? The PDF would be completely irrelevant in respect to current 2257 regulations already on the books.

[xxxice]

Originally Posted by ContentProducer

What?

I saying I use text on my tgps instead of thumbs that probably what a lot of people will do soon

[Nate-MM2]

You could also very easily argue that there is no enforcable law requiring affiliates to post ANY 2257 references, not even the address of the Custodian of Records.

[Spankys Teens]

I am prolly not the smartest webmaster around when i comes to legal issues.
The 2257 has raised some of my eyebrows especially when people start talking about it again or when the US proposes to change something to make it even harder for publishers and free site owners to preform in the way we would like too.
I can somehow understand the law when it comes to trying to find legal ways preventing underage kids filmed and promoted on the net.
However i don't think publishing the models name/address etc is the right way to prevent this from happening.
Instead of publishing these files the gouvernment could set up some kind of agency that is responsible of receiving the models addresses, ages etc.

[AaronM]

Originally Posted by Nate-MM2

I'm asking the following question to Aaron of AMPcontent, not Aaron the 2257 consultant...

What documentation does AMPcontent plan to provide to its customers if the proposed regulations should come to pass without any further modification?

I have developed a 2257 solution for industry use. I am currently using that solution myself during the test phase. The solution is fully compliant with the proposed regulations and is currently under review by both an Intellectual Property attorney and a First Amendment Attorney who specializes in Adult Internet Law.

I am not going to give you a specific answer because that would show too much of what I have in the works. What I will tell you is that I have a system that not only provides everything that may be required but also...and more importantly IMHO...Educates the user to the laws.

[AaronM]

Originally Posted by Nate-MM2

Yes it would make them compliant in regards to the current laws.

There are no current record keeping requirements for secondary producers (affiliates using banners & free content) beyond having a reference to the Custodian of Records.

Oddly enough...Members of the FALA that I have spoken to disagree with this.

[Nate-MM2]

Originally Posted by AaronM

I am not going to give you a specific answer because that would show too much of what I have in the works. What I will tell you is that I have a system that not only provides everything that may be required but also...and more importantly IMHO...Educates the user to the laws.

I can't argue with that, but what have you provided in the past to customers that goes above and beyond what is included in the 'hypothetical PDF' the OP was talking about that you claim isn't compliant under the current laws.

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?

[AaronM]

Originally Posted by Nate-MM2

You could also very easily argue that there is no enforcable law requiring affiliates to post ANY 2257 references, not even the address of the Custodian of Records.

You're right. You could argue that. And you "may" even win.

In fact, the role of the "secondary producer" as it currently stands has already been argued.

Sundance vs. Reno.

[Nate-MM2]

Originally Posted by AaronM

Oddly enough...Members of the FALA that I have spoken to disagree with this.

Where is there a law on the books currently that states a secondary producer has record keeping requirements?