The new 2257: will sponsors give a shit

[pushpills]

OK so the new 2257 is supposed to go in effect soon, the question is, will sponsors give a shit about their affiliates complience? I mean, how many affiliates who have their own full page multi site ads or tgps with tons of thumbnails are really going to have everything conform to the new 2257?

If sponsors wanted full compliance they'd have to kill off at least 90% of their affiliates...at least.


So, will most sponsors just say fuck it, let them send from wherever they want even if their site doesn't comply....we'll just boot them if we get a phone call from some authority and claim total ignorance.


What do YOU think?

[sarettah]

I really don't think program owners will (or should) give a fuck whther their affiliates comply or not. It is up to the affiliate to run their site(s) properly. If an affiliate gets busted by the feds, it is not the program owners problem. It is the affiliates problem.

[spazlabz]

somehow i suspect these new regs........oh excuse me.........clarified regs will be enforced about as much as the old, unclear regs were. I think it is a flaming hoop the DoJ threw up for us to jump through with no audience to applaud our accomplishments (comforming)


spaz :matey:

[pushpills]

yea I'd agree with both of those replies.

[Hell Puppy]

It's not getting press, so I think the motive is a perhaps a bit more sinnister.

It basically gives the feds a stick to use to shut pretty much anyone down that they like. They dont have to prove anything, just coming to your town and auditing you should be enough to shut most companies down.

They can soak up your entire bankroll and kill your reputation in your community whether you have your documentation in order or not. But at least having your docs in order will keep you out of jail....hopefully.

[RawAlex]

It is not clear to me if programs, link sites, TGPs, etc should be the enforcement tool for this sort of stuff. I would defy any one out there (including the lawyers) to give me a 100% certain "you should do this but not this".

They can't, so why should the programs suddenly become US federal agents?

It's not logical.

Alex

[pushpills]

lot's of great input, as always.

would be interesting to see, though, the first "extreem young teen" sponsor who gets federal action, if the feds say "yea....but you didn't enforce compliance with this material"


I'm not too worried, but it'll be very interesting to see which major sponsors get hit first, and what the domino effect will be to their and other major sponsors affiliate compliance policies.

[sarettah]

Originally posted by pushpills@Aug 16 2004, 10:59 PM
would be interesting to see, though, the first "extreem young teen" sponsor who gets federal action, if the feds say "yea....but you didn't enforce compliance with this material"

???

There is nothing in the way 2257 is written or has been interpreted that I know of that makes the primary producer responsible for the way a secondary producer or distributor maintains their records for compliance purposes. In fact, as it is written it does not even REQUIRE a primary producer to provide records to a secondary producer. It states

(B) A producer who is a secondary producer as defined in Sec.
75.1© may satisfy the requirements of this part to create and
maintain records by accepting from the primary producer, as defined in
Sec. 75.1©, 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.

EDITED IN after the fact:

Realized as I walked back upstairs that I think I misinterpreted somewhat what you were saying.

Yes, there might be construed some sort of liability for the way that a program is advertised, much the same way that right now KP ans Beastie are a no nos on most programs listed, perhaps we may see some programs requiring affiliates to at least have their 2257 statements displayed properly. But I do not see any way in the world that the feds can hold a program liable for an affiliate failing to properly have their records in order.

[pushpills]

sarretah, just because the sponsor isn't "supposed" to be liable for the promotion methods of their affiliates, that doesn't mean that someone wont try to prosecute them for it.



seems like alot of people read this thread, but not everyone has something to say on the topic. I'll stick it back at the top and see if we can get any more comments from any other folks....would nice to hear what a program owner has to say about it (nudge nudge mike)

[*KK*]

The only case where a sponsor could or should care if an affiliate is in compliance is if they gave the affiliate content to use and the liability leads back to them. If not, there is no legal reason that I can see to attempt to do the impossible.

If an affiliate gets nailed, it's not the sponsors problem if they didn't give them the content to use.

Of course smart affiliates could all start using softcore and save themselves the trouble of complying.

[pushpills]

Originally posted by *KK*@Aug 18 2004, 03:04 PM
The only case where a sponsor could or should care if an affiliate is in compliance is if they gave the affiliate content to use and the liability leads back to them.
We'd assume, but anyway, many affiliates and their mother use content from the sponsor, especially some of the most seen sites on the net, tgps.

[sarettah]

Originally posted by *KK*@Aug 18 2004, 04:04 PM
Of course smart affiliates could all start using softcore and save themselves the trouble of complying.
Or straight text links and only sponsor hosted galleries :)

[dantheman]

Originally posted by sarettah+Aug 18 2004, 04:15 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (sarettah @ Aug 18 2004, 04:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-*KK*@Aug 18 2004, 04:04 PM
Of course smart affiliates could all start using softcore and save themselves the trouble of complying.
Or straight text links and only sponsor hosted galleries :) [/b][/quote]
:okthumb:

[Dravyk]

Originally posted by *KK*@Aug 18 2004, 06:04 PM
Of course smart affiliates could all start using softcore and save themselves the trouble of complying.
But then conversions would skyrocket! And several problems taken care of at once!





... Yep, will never happen on a mass scale. Too win-win for the herds to comprehend.

[pushpills]

Well tgps can't do only text linking, because it will destroy trade ratios. That many more people will imediately close the window instead of being drawn to a face or ass or whatever and clicking on it.


We've all got our "what could be, what should be" but what about the realists? What's the skinny?

[Hell Puppy]

Originally posted by pushpills@Aug 18 2004, 08:25 PM
Well tgps can't do only text linking, because it will destroy trade ratios. That many more people will imediately close the window instead of being drawn to a face or ass or whatever and clicking on it.


We've all got our "what could be, what should be" but what about the realists? What's the skinny?
Too early to call.

Have to watch how the justice department postures after it's all official, that'll be the first indiciation of intentions and expectations.

The worst case is they nail about 10 or so companies of varying sizes ranging from the guy working out of his dorm room to one of the large sponsors right out of the gate.

Right now without the regulations nailed down and a couple of precedents to truly understand what they're looking for, you're just guessing. Depending on how you read it, even content behind DRM may not be safe if for no other reason than they seem to be wanting hard copy, not a database.

The whole thing is worded so vaguely it's tough to develop a solution.

I think smart money is getting organized right now and making sure they have their paperwork organized and some idea of where all of the content is.

[cj]

Originally posted by pushpills@Aug 18 2004, 08:25 PM
Well tgps can't do only text linking, because it will destroy trade ratios. That many more people will imediately close the window instead of being drawn to a face or ass or whatever and clicking on it.


We've all got our "what could be, what should be" but what about the realists? What's the skinny?
If everyone is forced to comply, or they make enough examples to have us all scared, how long do you think it will be before 90% of tgp owners just stop paying their hosting bills and just disappear?

that's going to ruin those 'trade ratios' a lot quicker than if you regulate yourself - or at least get prepared :awinky:

[RawAlex]

You folks forget that "fair use" part dealing with thumbnails - yahoo already won that battle. There is no copyright violation, and likely no issues regarding thumbs - especially if they specify "no hardcore action" in the thumbs.

I think hardcore banner ads are way more likely to be an issue.

Alex

[Hell Puppy]

Originally posted by cj+Aug 19 2004, 07:53 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (cj @ Aug 19 2004, 07:53 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-pushpills@Aug 18 2004, 08:25 PM
Well tgps can't do only text linking, because it will destroy trade ratios. That many more people will imediately close the window instead of being drawn to a face or ass or whatever and clicking on it.


We've all got our "what could be, what should be" but what about the realists? What's the skinny?
If everyone is forced to comply, or they make enough examples to have us all scared, how long do you think it will be before 90% of tgp owners just stop paying their hosting bills and just disappear?

that's going to ruin those 'trade ratios' a lot quicker than if you regulate yourself - or at least get prepared :awinky: [/b][/quote]
Problem is a lot of the large ones are not based in the U.S.

[Jace]

Originally posted by Dravyk@Aug 18 2004, 03:34 PM
But then conversions would skyrocket!
we have been doing some softcore galleries lately, and the conversions are actually better....and I have also been promoting some nonnude and bikini shit lately, the conversions are always better

[eroswebmaster]

All you have to do is look at history during the Reagan administration and Edwin Meese's attack on porn.

It was difficult to get a lot of companies shut down for "obscenity" so they go after them finanically. Alot of city and counties went after adult bookstores using zoning issues, keeping them tied up in court for months and people just gave up because they couldn't afford to continue to fight.

Now they are trying to create a system that is not only time consuming but may not be cost effective, all they have done is increased their chances of getting you on something...it's a gamble for them and the odds will be in their favor.

They find a company that they want to target...can't get a conviction on obscenity so now they just come in and go over every file until they find that one mistake and bam...you're in the jackpot.