Protect yourself with us (TGP's and 2257)

[JoesHO]

we at www.remotethumbs.com are fully equpppied to handle the situation for you.

option #1 continue to use, ( or sign up for ) our ground breaking product, that uses all Free Hotsed gallerys from the sponsors directly. and allows fo no submissions, therefore you are always in control of having the sponsors you choose and trust to promote, and utilize their 2257 protections for yourself as well ( as they host the gallerys for you and will need them to be compliant)


Option #2 We are fully capable of hosting your own built gallerys for you via our own data cneter ( not third party) www.siliconcanal.com we are located in Panama, and will keep the 2257 info for you, so you do not need to come out and give your info as the producer of record. ( we host them not you)

Option # 3 We will entertain ( big traffic pushers only) writing a customized solution for you allowing for submissions to take place, and FHG's to be used also allowing you to sell advertising spots and we will host the gallerys for your site to insure you are protected.

if you are interested in any further discussion with one of us on this matter we are available and you can reach me with your thoughts at 174842541

Thank you and have a great, productive day. ( be safe)

[Nickatilynx]

Have you got legal opinion on that?

[JoesHO]

Yes we have, and it ABSOLUTLY 100% matters in what jursdiction the servers are based out of that serve the gallerys.

Our hosting peoples thumbs in Panama, immiediatly takes the issue out of US jurisdiction

and makes us the responsible party

[Lee]

Originally posted by JoesHO1@May 20 2005, 10:21 AM
Yes we have, and it ABSOLUTLY 100% matters in what jursdiction the servers are based out of that serve the gallerys.

Our hosting peoples thumbs in Panama, immiediatly takes the issue out of US jurisdiction

and makes us the responsible party
So your primary place of business is in Panama?

As in, where YOU work 24/7?

[Lee]

These ammended regulations havent even been published yet, how can ANY lawyer tell you what is and isnt legal until they have seen them? :huh:

[Nickatilynx]

Originally posted by JoesHO1@May 20 2005, 10:21 AM
Yes we have, and it ABSOLUTLY 100% matters in what jursdiction the servers are based out of that serve the gallerys.

Our hosting peoples thumbs in Panama, immiediatly takes the issue out of US jurisdiction

and makes us the responsible party
Excellent :)

I didn't doubt it ;-))

[Nickatilynx]

Originally posted by Lee@May 20 2005, 10:24 AM
These ammended regulations havent even been published yet, how can ANY lawyer tell you what is and isnt legal until they have seen them? :huh:
I would guess they can tell you if Panama is outside US jurisdiction. :)

[Lee]

Originally posted by Nickatilynx+May 20 2005, 10:29 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Nickatilynx @ May 20 2005, 10:29 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Lee@May 20 2005, 10:24 AM
These ammended regulations havent even been published yet, how can ANY lawyer tell you what is and isnt legal until they have seen them? :huh:
I would guess they can tell you if Panama is outside US jurisdiction. :)[/b][/quote]
What if there is something in these new regs saying that any US citizen 'producing' or publishing depictions that fall within the 2257 bounds have to comply with these new regs irrespective of their geographical location?

My point being, these regs havent been published so anyone that is telling you, joe or i how to operate our businesses are talking pure bullshit.

Its just guess work right now, nothing more, nothing less.

http://home.comcast.net/~skysfalling/chickenlittle.gif

[Nickatilynx]

Originally posted by Lee+May 20 2005, 10:33 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lee @ May 20 2005, 10:33 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by Nickatilynx@May 20 2005, 10:29 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-Lee@May 20 2005, 10:24 AM
These ammended regulations havent even been published yet, how can ANY lawyer tell you what is and isnt legal until they have seen them? :huh:
I would guess they can tell you if Panama is outside US jurisdiction. :)
What if there is something in these new regs saying that any US citizen 'producing' or publishing depictions that fall within the 2257 bounds have to comply with these new regs irrespective of their geographical location?

My point being, these regs havent been published so anyone that is telling you, joe or i how to operate our businesses are talking pure bullshit.

Its just guess work right now, nothing more, nothing less.

http://home.comcast.net/~skysfalling/chickenlittle.gif [/b][/quote]
Correct but you can run certain scenarios past a lawyer.

But frankly from my point of view.....

I'm Canadian , living in Canada. :)

I hope the US religious right makes it totally illegal for a citizen of the US to be involved in porn in anyway whatsoever :)

I'm amazed Lee Noga has been so slow off the mark....lol

[Lee]

Originally posted by Nickatilynx+May 20 2005, 10:41 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Nickatilynx @ May 20 2005, 10:41 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by Lee@May 20 2005, 10:33 AM
Originally posted by Nickatilynx@May 20 2005, 10:29 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-Lee@May 20 2005, 10:24 AM
These ammended regulations havent even been published yet, how can ANY lawyer tell you what is and isnt legal until they have seen them? :huh:
I would guess they can tell you if Panama is outside US jurisdiction. :)
What if there is something in these new regs saying that any US citizen 'producing' or publishing depictions that fall within the 2257 bounds have to comply with these new regs irrespective of their geographical location?

My point being, these regs havent been published so anyone that is telling you, joe or i how to operate our businesses are talking pure bullshit.

Its just guess work right now, nothing more, nothing less.

http://home.comcast.net/~skysfalling/chickenlittle.gif
Correct but you can run certain scenarios past a lawyer.

But frankly from my point of view.....

I'm Canadian , living in Canada. :)

I hope the US religious right makes it totally illegal for a citizen of the US to be involved in porn in anyway whatsoever :)

I'm amazed Lee Noga has been so slow off the mark....lol [/b][/quote]
She could sell everyones zip codes to the US govnt and make some serious bling :yowsa:

[JoesHO]

Originally posted by Lee+May 20 2005, 10:22 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lee @ May 20 2005, 10:22 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-JoesHO1@May 20 2005, 10:21 AM
Yes we have, and it ABSOLUTLY 100% matters in what jursdiction the servers are based out of that serve the gallerys.

Our hosting peoples thumbs in Panama, immiediatly takes the issue out of US jurisdiction

and makes us the responsible party
So your primary place of business is in Panama?

As in, where YOU work 24/7? [/b][/quote]
Yes that is where our company is based, physically, and where the workload is done 24/7 ( except fot the things that are rquired to be done in the USA, or Canada)

[Nickatilynx]

Originally posted by JoesHO1+May 20 2005, 10:48 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (JoesHO1 @ May 20 2005, 10:48 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by Lee@May 20 2005, 10:22 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-JoesHO1@May 20 2005, 10:21 AM
Yes we have, and it ABSOLUTLY 100% matters in what jursdiction the servers are based out of that serve the gallerys.

Our hosting peoples thumbs in Panama, immiediatly takes the issue out of US jurisdiction

and makes us the responsible party
So your primary place of business is in Panama?

As in, where YOU work 24/7?
Yes that is where our company is based, physically, and where the workload is done 24/7 ( except fot the things that are rquired to be done in the USA, or Canada) [/b][/quote]
I believe the phrase my lawyer said to me here was "mind and management"

[PornoDoggy]

So ... you are no longer uploading thumbs to the individual server?

[Inabon]

at the moment we are. no worries there.

[aeon]

Originally posted by JoesHO1@May 20 2005, 08:51 AM
we at www.remotethumbs.com are fully equpppied to handle the situation for you.

option #1 continue to use, ( or sign up for ) our ground breaking product, that uses all Free Hotsed gallerys from the sponsors directly. and allows fo no submissions, therefore you are always in control of having the sponsors you choose and trust to promote, and utilize their 2257 protections for yourself as well ( as they host the gallerys for you and will need them to be compliant)


Option #2 We are fully capable of hosting your own built gallerys for you via our own data cneter ( not third party) www.siliconcanal.com we are located in Panama, and will keep the 2257 info for you, so you do not need to come out and give your info as the producer of record. ( we host them not you)

Option # 3 We will entertain ( big traffic pushers only) writing a customized solution for you allowing for submissions to take place, and FHG's to be used also allowing you to sell advertising spots and we will host the gallerys for your site to insure you are protected.

if you are interested in any further discussion with one of us on this matter we are available and you can reach me with your thoughts at 174842541

Thank you and have a great, productive day. ( be safe)
This does shit...I can appreciate you spinning your product but here's the 2257. You can't protect anyone.

It's fuckin' absurd.

Here's the 2257 shit - Left is old - right is new (http://my.execpc.com/~xxxlaw/2257Table.htm)

Where the fuck do you get your legal advice, the drive through?

[gonzo]

Originally posted by aeon+May 20 2005, 03:23 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (aeon @ May 20 2005, 03:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-JoesHO1@May 20 2005, 08:51 AM
we at www.remotethumbs.com are fully equpppied to handle the situation for you.

option #1 continue to use, ( or sign up for ) our ground breaking product, that uses all Free Hotsed gallerys from the sponsors directly. and allows fo no submissions, therefore you are always in control of having the sponsors you choose and trust to promote, and utilize their 2257 protections for yourself as well ( as they host the gallerys for you and will need them to be compliant)


Option #2 We are fully capable of hosting your own built gallerys for you via our own data cneter ( not third party) www.siliconcanal.com we are located in Panama, and will keep the 2257 info for you, so you do not need to come out and give your info as the producer of record. ( we host them not you)

Option # 3 We will entertain ( big traffic pushers only) writing a customized solution for you allowing for submissions to take place, and FHG's to be used also allowing you to sell advertising spots and we will host the gallerys for your site to insure you are protected.

if you are interested in any further discussion with one of us on this matter we are available and you can reach me with your thoughts at 174842541

Thank you and have a great, productive day. ( be safe)
This does shit...I can appreciate you spinning your product but here's the 2257. You can't protect anyone.

It's fuckin' absurd.

Here's the 2257 shit - Left is old - right is new (http://my.execpc.com/~xxxlaw/2257Table.htm)

Where the fuck do you get your legal advice, the drive through? [/b][/quote]
ExecPc now theres a name I havent seen since dialup days.

[JoesHO]

Originally posted by aeon+May 20 2005, 12:23 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (aeon @ May 20 2005, 12:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-JoesHO1@May 20 2005, 08:51 AM
we at www.remotethumbs.com are fully equpppied to handle the situation for you.

option #1 continue to use, ( or sign up for ) our ground breaking product, that uses all Free Hotsed gallerys from the sponsors directly. and allows fo no submissions, therefore you are always in control of having the sponsors you choose and trust to promote, and utilize their 2257 protections for yourself as well ( as they host the gallerys for you and will need them to be compliant)


Option #2 We are fully capable of hosting your own built gallerys for you via our own data cneter ( not third party) www.siliconcanal.com we are located in Panama, and will keep the 2257 info for you, so you do not need to come out and give your info as the producer of record. ( we host them not you)

Option # 3 We will entertain ( big traffic pushers only) writing a customized solution for you allowing for submissions to take place, and FHG's to be used also allowing you to sell advertising spots and we will host the gallerys for your site to insure you are protected.

if you are interested in any further discussion with one of us on this matter we are available and you can reach me with your thoughts at 174842541

Thank you and have a great, productive day. ( be safe)
This does shit...I can appreciate you spinning your product but here's the 2257. You can't protect anyone.

It's fuckin' absurd.

Here's the 2257 shit - Left is old - right is new (http://my.execpc.com/~xxxlaw/2257Table.htm)

Where the fuck do you get your legal advice, the drive through? [/b][/quote]
Well AEON, I think you should read a little closer....

[Trev]

Originally posted by aeon+May 20 2005, 09:23 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (aeon @ May 20 2005, 09:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-JoesHO1@May 20 2005, 08:51 AM
we at www.remotethumbs.com are fully equpppied to handle the situation for you.

option #1 continue to use, ( or sign up for ) our ground breaking product, that uses all Free Hotsed gallerys from the sponsors directly. and allows fo no submissions, therefore you are always in control of having the sponsors you choose and trust to promote, and utilize their 2257 protections for yourself as well ( as they host the gallerys for you and will need them to be compliant)


Option #2 We are fully capable of hosting your own built gallerys for you via our own data cneter ( not third party) www.siliconcanal.com we are located in Panama, and will keep the 2257 info for you, so you do not need to come out and give your info as the producer of record. ( we host them not you)

Option # 3 We will entertain ( big traffic pushers only) writing a customized solution for you allowing for submissions to take place, and FHG's to be used also allowing you to sell advertising spots and we will host the gallerys for your site to insure you are protected.

if you are interested in any further discussion with one of us on this matter we are available and you can reach me with your thoughts at 174842541

Thank you and have a great, productive day. ( be safe)
This does shit...I can appreciate you spinning your product but here's the 2257. You can't protect anyone.

It's fuckin' absurd.

Here's the 2257 shit - Left is old - right is new (http://my.execpc.com/~xxxlaw/2257Table.htm)

Where the fuck do you get your legal advice, the drive through? [/b][/quote]
It protects me, but then I'm not sitting in the boat with a hole in it :)

[Inabon]

Originally posted by aeon+May 20 2005, 03:23 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (aeon @ May 20 2005, 03:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-JoesHO1@May 20 2005, 08:51 AM
we at www.remotethumbs.com are fully equpppied to handle the situation for you.

option #1 continue to use, ( or sign up for ) our ground breaking product, that uses all Free Hotsed gallerys from the sponsors directly. and allows fo no submissions, therefore you are always in control of having the sponsors you choose and trust to promote, and utilize their 2257 protections for yourself as well ( as they host the gallerys for you and will need them to be compliant)


Option #2 We are fully capable of hosting your own built gallerys for you via our own data cneter ( not third party) www.siliconcanal.com we are located in Panama, and will keep the 2257 info for you, so you do not need to come out and give your info as the producer of record. ( we host them not you)

Option # 3 We will entertain ( big traffic pushers only) writing a customized solution for you allowing for submissions to take place, and FHG's to be used also allowing you to sell advertising spots and we will host the gallerys for your site to insure you are protected.

if you are interested in any further discussion with one of us on this matter we are available and you can reach me with your thoughts at 174842541

Thank you and have a great, productive day. ( be safe)
This does shit...I can appreciate you spinning your product but here's the 2257. You can't protect anyone.

It's fuckin' absurd.

Here's the 2257 shit - Left is old - right is new (http://my.execpc.com/~xxxlaw/2257Table.htm)

Where the fuck do you get your legal advice, the drive through? [/b][/quote]
well aeon if you would live a real world and not let your hatred for joe overide your common sence you would see how having your servers based offshore will become very important in the times to come, say what you want with your venom, but for anyone that this issue effects and is serious, we encourage you to consult your attorney and let him explain to you how offshore server and hosted images will help protect YOUR identity as the producer ( nothing will get anybody around the record requirement or age verification, and frankly we would not want that anyway as a good claening of the industry is needed) But again for all of you interested in protecting YOUR privacy as the record holder or producer we can help you with that as well as many other aspects of this law. We do however agree waiting until they are announced is prudent, but then seek legal help and remember we are here with this offer and will do what we can to help minimize the impact of these new regs to you personally.

[ThrobX]

Here's 75.6c of the proposed regulations (I'd be incredibly surprised if they didn't go with this as-is). Please let me know how you'll handle the fact that the custodian of records must be an employee of the producer.

-----------------------------

If the producer is an organization, the statement shall also contain the name, title, and business address of the individual employed by such organization who is responsible for maintaining the records required by this part.

-----------------------------

If the custodian didn't have to be an employee, everyone would just have their attorney be their custodian of records, giving them something of an attorney-client privilege on the whole thing.

[Nickatilynx]

Originally posted by ThrobX@May 20 2005, 02:05 PM
Here's 75.6c of the proposed regulations (I'd be incredibly surprised if they didn't go with this as-is). Please let me know how you'll handle the fact that the custodian of records must be an employee of the producer.

-----------------------------

If the producer is an organization, the statement shall also contain the name, title, and business address of the individual employed by such organization who is responsible for maintaining the records required by this part.

-----------------------------

If the custodian didn't have to be an employee, everyone would just have their attorney be their custodian of records, giving them something of an attorney-client privilege on the whole thing.
Why couldn't you have your lawyer employed by your corporation to be custodian?

[JoesHO]

Originally posted by ThrobX@May 20 2005, 02:05 PM
Here's 75.6c of the proposed regulations (I'd be incredibly surprised if they didn't go with this as-is). Please let me know how you'll handle the fact that the custodian of records must be an employee of the producer.

-----------------------------

If the producer is an organization, the statement shall also contain the name, title, and business address of the individual employed by such organization who is responsible for maintaining the records required by this part.

-----------------------------

If the custodian didn't have to be an employee, everyone would just have their attorney be their custodian of records, giving them something of an attorney-client privilege on the whole thing.
Well us as the company that is producing the image would be using one of our principles as the record keeper.

Coming from our servers make us the producer , and we will list our contact info and maintian the copy of records as required .

If it becomes a situation where we need to be the owners of the content , then it would be our intention to enter an agreement with the provider/user of the content.This would give us a written use license to produce the particular image on the particular site(s) that they deem it to be used for. We may need to buy this right for something like a dollar for example, and the license be limited to allow us to produce it only on a certain site as the terms of the lease/sale to us. we at that time would become the secondary producer and provide our contact details to comply

[ThrobX]

Originally posted by JoesHO1+May 20 2005, 02:36 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (JoesHO1 @ May 20 2005, 02:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-ThrobX@May 20 2005, 02:05 PM
Here's 75.6c of the proposed regulations (I'd be incredibly surprised if they didn't go with this as-is). Please let me know how you'll handle the fact that the custodian of records must be an employee of the producer.

-----------------------------

If the producer is an organization, the statement shall also contain the name, title, and business address of the individual employed by such organization who is responsible for maintaining the records required by this part.

-----------------------------

If the custodian didn't have to be an employee, everyone would just have their attorney be their custodian of records, giving them something of an attorney-client privilege on the whole thing.
Well us as the company that is producing the image would be using one of our principles as the record keeper.

Coming from our servers make us the producer , and we will list our contact info and maintian the copy of records as required .

If it becomes a situation where we need to be the owners of the content , then it would be our intention to enter an agreement with the provider/user of the content.This would give us a written use license to produce the particular image on the particular site(s) that they deem it to be used for. We may need to buy this right for something like a dollar for example, and the license be limited to allow us to produce it only on a certain site as the terms of the lease/sale to us. we at that time would become the secondary producer and provide our contact details to comply [/b][/quote]
OK, I may be talking out of my ass, because I've not used RemoteThumbs before, but this is based on my understanding of your system.

Suppose I use your service for my fictional TGP rawmonkeysex.com. The thumbs are uploaded to my server and appear on rawmonkeysex.com. In this case, I'M the producer, because I'm the one producing the site.

Suppose you have a system whereby the thumbs are inserted into rawmonkeysex.com, the shell pages of which are hosted on my server. I'm STILL the producer.

Are you planning on hosting the domain rawmonkeysex.com on your servers with your name and location listed as the domain owner, hosting the thumbs on your servers, and having your name and location listed with the affiliate companies? Then you'd be the producer. But if you then cut a check to me for my cut, it would be very easy to play follow the money and STILL consider me a producer.

If you just hosted and ran all the TGPs using your service, and collected the commissions yourself, and kept the money, well, yeah, then you'd be in the clear. <_<

[ThrobX]

Originally posted by Nickatilynx@May 20 2005, 02:23 PM
Why couldn't you have your lawyer employed by your corporation to be custodian?
I don't pay employees $250/hour, thank you. :lol:

[JoesHO]

Originally posted by ThrobX+May 20 2005, 02:51 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ThrobX @ May 20 2005, 02:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by JoesHO1@May 20 2005, 02:36 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-ThrobX@May 20 2005, 02:05 PM
Here's 75.6c of the proposed regulations (I'd be incredibly surprised if they didn't go with this as-is). Please let me know how you'll handle the fact that the custodian of records must be an employee of the producer.

-----------------------------

If the producer is an organization, the statement shall also contain the name, title, and business address of the individual employed by such organization who is responsible for maintaining the records required by this part.

-----------------------------

If the custodian didn't have to be an employee, everyone would just have their attorney be their custodian of records, giving them something of an attorney-client privilege on the whole thing.
Well us as the company that is producing the image would be using one of our principles as the record keeper.

Coming from our servers make us the producer , and we will list our contact info and maintian the copy of records as required .

If it becomes a situation where we need to be the owners of the content , then it would be our intention to enter an agreement with the provider/user of the content.This would give us a written use license to produce the particular image on the particular site(s) that they deem it to be used for. We may need to buy this right for something like a dollar for example, and the license be limited to allow us to produce it only on a certain site as the terms of the lease/sale to us. we at that time would become the secondary producer and provide our contact details to comply
OK, I may be talking out of my ass, because I've not used RemoteThumbs before, but this is based on my understanding of your system.

Suppose I use your service for my fictional TGP rawmonkeysex.com. The thumbs are uploaded to my server and appear on rawmonkeysex.com. In this case, I'M the producer, because I'm the one producing the site.

Suppose you have a system whereby the thumbs are inserted into rawmonkeysex.com, the shell pages of which are hosted on my server. I'm STILL the producer.

Are you planning on hosting the domain rawmonkeysex.com on your servers with your name and location listed as the domain owner, hosting the thumbs on your servers, and having your name and location listed with the affiliate companies? Then you'd be the producer. But if you then cut a check to me for my cut, it would be very easy to play follow the money and STILL consider me a producer.

If you just hosted and ran all the TGPs using your service, and collected the commissions yourself, and kept the money, well, yeah, then you'd be in the clear. <_< [/b][/quote]
Man you may be on to something, you think we can get away with it ? :)

Seriously, consult legal council if you are interested in this, as it is understood by us, we are the producer that serves the gallerys of content from our servers ( we would not upload them to your servers they would come from ours)

of course you could always host in Panama with us, and then hire us as an employee to run your hosting and content managment as well we would be glad to do that for you.

http://www.siliconcanal.com is our data center

[ThrobX]

Seriously, consult legal council if you are interested in this, as it is understood by us, we are the producer that serves the gallerys of content from our servers ( we would not upload them to your servers they would come from ours)

The producer's the producer. If it's my site and I'm making the money from it, then I'm the producer. It matters not where the stuff is being served from. If I'm a US citizen and I'm making money from it, then I'm the producer.

There's a big misconception that simply moving your hosting offshore shields you from US law. Tell that to the people who tried to run gambling sites hosted offshore.

of course you could always host in Panama with us, and then hire us as an employee to run your hosting and content managment as well we would be glad to do that for you.

Well, being that the regs specifically mention "INDIVIDUAL" (not "corporation," or "legal entity," or "shadow producer") when talking about the custodian of records, I don't believe I would be able to employ a hosting and content management company to be my custodian of records. That would be more akin to subcontracting, which is not "employing."

A simpler solution would be for someone in the adult business to have a real live office, with a real live custodian of records (yourself or a real live employee), and then they're following the law. Seems like a shorter distance between 2 points, and they're then on firm legal ground, to boot!

Sorry to be jerking around with you here, but offsite 2257 recordkeeping solutions don't really work, because they aren't compliant with the regs. Or at least they aren't compliant with the current regs. We'll see what the new regs are really like when they're published on Tuesday.

[Nickatilynx]

Sell all your websites to a Panamanian Corp
Put all your servers at silicon canal
And have yr corp employ one of the staff at siliconcanal $250 a yr to be custodian :)



:)

[ThrobX]

Originally posted by Nickatilynx@May 20 2005, 03:27 PM
Sell all your websites to a Panamanian Corp
Put all your servers at silicon canal
And have yr corp employ one of the staff at siliconcanal $250 a yr to be custodian :)

Viola...

:)
As long as you keep all the money in Panama and never try to bring any of it into the country, then you probably have a great idea! :lol:

[Nickatilynx]

Originally posted by ThrobX+May 20 2005, 03:29 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ThrobX @ May 20 2005, 03:29 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Nickatilynx@May 20 2005, 03:27 PM
Sell all your websites to a Panamanian Corp
Put all your servers at silicon canal
And have yr corp employ one of the staff at siliconcanal $250 a yr to be custodian :)

Viola...

:)
As long as you keep all the money in Panama and never try to bring any of it into the country, then you probably have a great idea! :lol: [/b][/quote]


Nevada corp then consults on marketing and internet matters to the Panamanian Corp.

Is paid a consultancy fee.

nevada corp pay a salary to individual upon which he pays tax

:)


NEXT!!!!


:)

[ThrobX]

Originally posted by Nickatilynx+May 20 2005, 03:31 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Nickatilynx @ May 20 2005, 03:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by ThrobX@May 20 2005, 03:29 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Nickatilynx@May 20 2005, 03:27 PM
Sell all your websites to a Panamanian Corp
Put all your servers at silicon canal
And have yr corp employ one of the staff at siliconcanal $250 a yr to be custodian :)

Viola...

:)
As long as you keep all the money in Panama and never try to bring any of it into the country, then you probably have a great idea! :lol:


Nevada corp then consults on marketing and internet matters to the Panamanian Corp.

Is paid a consultancy fee.

nevada corp pay a salary to individual upon which he pays tax

:)


NEXT!!!!


:) [/b][/quote]
OK, but sure seems cheaper to go the simple route and follow the law.

Step 1) Get office.
Step 2) Be custodian.
Step 3) Follow law.

Sometimes simple is good. :okthumb:

Anyway, what the fuck do YOU care? Goddamn Canadians, always sticking their nose into our business. :awinky:

[Nickatilynx]

Originally posted by ThrobX+May 20 2005, 03:43 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ThrobX @ May 20 2005, 03:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by Nickatilynx@May 20 2005, 03:31 PM
Originally posted by ThrobX@May 20 2005, 03:29 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Nickatilynx@May 20 2005, 03:27 PM
Sell all your websites to a Panamanian Corp
Put all your servers at silicon canal
And have yr corp employ one of the staff at siliconcanal $250 a yr to be custodian :)

Viola...

:)
As long as you keep all the money in Panama and never try to bring any of it into the country, then you probably have a great idea! :lol:


Nevada corp then consults on marketing and internet matters to the Panamanian Corp.

Is paid a consultancy fee.

nevada corp pay a salary to individual upon which he pays tax

:)


NEXT!!!!


:)
OK, but sure seems cheaper to go the simple route and follow the law.

Step 1) Get office.
Step 2) Be custodian.
Step 3) Follow law.

Sometimes simple is good. :okthumb:

Anyway, what the fuck do YOU care? Goddamn Canadians, always sticking their nose into our business. :awinky: [/b][/quote]
I don't give a fuck!!! LOL

But I was a bit bored so I thought I'd fuck with you yanks...

:)

[Inabon]

my 2 cents and it may sound kind of harsh. sorry about it but this is kind of dumb.

plain and simple if it goes through as is or not 2 things may happen

1. lots of people move out of USA (hosting) so government thinks twice before going after lawbreakers. big fish are going to be targets some small may fall but it will be a pain in the ass for government when they are soooo busy with other shit.

2. usa traffic will become shit because no one will want it just to no risk it. then all usa based processing will go to shit because no one will want to process in the usa, therefore the rest of the world which is much much bigger than usa will be a target and cc processor will have easier ways to process because they don´t have to worry about usa cause usa sucks thanks to its religous and bush administration and tata we have 1990´s again. lots of big and small will die most of the world outside usa will live.


and bonus we get even richer cause a lot of people will move their shit to us LOL.

pornwill not die. usa porn biz may die but there is soo much other land and countries in planet earth who gives a fuck about usa. hell lately usa traffic is sucking ass europe is starting to pick up and don´t tell anyone but central and south america have faster interenet connections and more availability than vancouver or other states in the usa. all you have to do is be able to process cc from that country which will become easier as i said before and talk spanish

coño que bueno que hablo español :) babble fish that one.

the only thing i see happening is lots of suicides and divorces in USA cause men wont be able to get jerk off at porn anymore. thats a scary thought.

freee minibon

[aeon]

Originally posted by Inabon+May 20 2005, 01:16 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Inabon @ May 20 2005, 01:16 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by aeon@May 20 2005, 03:23 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-JoesHO1@May 20 2005, 08:51 AM
we at www.remotethumbs.com are fully equpppied to handle the situation for you.

option #1 continue to use, ( or sign up for ) our ground breaking product, that uses all Free Hotsed gallerys from the sponsors directly. and allows fo no submissions, therefore you are always in control of having the sponsors you choose and trust to promote, and utilize their 2257 protections for yourself as well ( as they host the gallerys for you and will need them to be compliant)


Option #2 We are fully capable of hosting your own built gallerys for you via our own data cneter ( not third party) www.siliconcanal.com we are located in Panama, and will keep the 2257 info for you, so you do not need to come out and give your info as the producer of record. ( we host them not you)

Option # 3 We will entertain ( big traffic pushers only) writing a customized solution for you allowing for submissions to take place, and FHG's to be used also allowing you to sell advertising spots and we will host the gallerys for your site to insure you are protected.

if you are interested in any further discussion with one of us on this matter we are available and you can reach me with your thoughts at 174842541

Thank you and have a great, productive day. ( be safe)
This does shit...I can appreciate you spinning your product but here's the 2257. You can't protect anyone.

It's fuckin' absurd.

Here's the 2257 shit - Left is old - right is new (http://my.execpc.com/~xxxlaw/2257Table.htm)

Where the fuck do you get your legal advice, the drive through?
well aeon if you would live a real world and not let your hatred for joe overide your common sence you would see how having your servers based offshore will become very important in the times to come, say what you want with your venom, but for anyone that this issue effects and is serious, we encourage you to consult your attorney and let him explain to you how offshore server and hosted images will help protect YOUR identity as the producer ( nothing will get anybody around the record requirement or age verification, and frankly we would not want that anyway as a good claening of the industry is needed) But again for all of you interested in protecting YOUR privacy as the record holder or producer we can help you with that as well as many other aspects of this law. We do however agree waiting until they are announced is prudent, but then seek legal help and remember we are here with this offer and will do what we can to help minimize the impact of these new regs to you personally.[/b][/quote]
I don't hate you or yer overgrown dork boy. That demands concern and hatred isn't something to be wasted. Don't confuse indifference & entertainment with hatred.

That aside, "hosting" things outside the US will have no bearing on this as has been mentioned. If you are a US citizen, residing in the US, you will be required to comply with the new interpretation of the statute regardless of where your shit is hosted. Have you even read the statute? You have to have the documentation available at your place of business. Not in fuckin' panama or Timbuktu.

At least this throbx has read the fuckin' thing. Hosting and keeping records offshore is absolutely irrelevant if you are a US citizen.

[Lee]

Originally posted by aeon@May 20 2005, 08:29 PM
[Have you even read the statute? You have to have the documentation available at your place of business. Not in fuckin' panama or Timbuktu.

At least this throbx has read the fuckin' thing. Hosting and keeping records offshore is absolutely irrelevant if you are a US citizen.
Actually, not to be the bearer of bad nws or anything but..

The new regs havent even been published yet so, that being said, nobody but the DOJ has read them.

Many people have read last years proposed regs but the chances they may have changed are great since they were first suggested.

The turth of the matter is, until the new regs are published, nobody is any the wiser than they were last month, including all the lawyers in the adult industry making un-educated guesses.

[aeon]

Originally posted by Lee+May 20 2005, 08:46 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lee @ May 20 2005, 08:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-aeon@May 20 2005, 08:29 PM
[Have you even read the statute? You have to have the documentation available at your place of business. Not in fuckin' panama or Timbuktu.

At least this throbx has read the fuckin' thing. Hosting and keeping records offshore is absolutely irrelevant if you are a US citizen.
Actually, not to be the bearer of bad nws or anything but..

The new regs havent even been published yet so, that being said, nobody but the DOJ has read them.

Many people have read last years proposed regs but the chances they may have changed are great since they were first suggested.

The turth of the matter is, until the new regs are published, nobody is any the wiser than they were last month, including all the lawyers in the adult industry making un-educated guesses.[/b][/quote]
They haven't been published in the federal register but it's pretty much a given that the proposed interpretations that the bush's token beaner signed are them.

[ThrobX]

Originally posted by Inabon@May 20 2005, 08:24 PM
1. lots of people move out of USA (hosting) so government thinks twice before going after lawbreakers. big fish are going to be targets some small may fall but it will be a pain in the ass for government when they are soooo busy with other shit.
With all due respect, you must not be very familiar with the way our government works. When a no-lose issue comes up that can win votes, in this case "protecting the children," all other shit gets pushed aside, so a good show can be made.

Workload due to 9/11 may have delayed action on "obscenity," but that was a REALLY unusual case. What's the workload now?

Dealing with daily carbombings in Iraq? Hell, that ain't even in this country, most voters who want porn to be stopped aren't even aware that there are other countries besides the U.S. Fighting porn is sexier. (pun intended) That can be put aside for a no-lose vote-gaining issue.

The debate over filibusters during federal judgeship nominations? Piffle, that's just political posturing. That can be put aside for a no-lose vote-gaining issue.

Steroids in sports? There's a non-issue that can be put aside for a no-lose vote-gaining issue.

There's NOTHING in our governmental system that is more important than either A: money or B: votes.

[Nickatilynx]

Why an ambitious DA hasn't attacked pornographers hard already I'll never know.

I'd pick 10 or 20 mouthy grfyers in my jurisdiction without the resources for a decent lawyer but with a high profile locally.

And come down on them like a ton of bricks..

[ThrobX]

Originally posted by Lee+May 20 2005, 08:46 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lee @ May 20 2005, 08:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-aeon@May 20 2005, 08:29 PM
[Have you even read the statute? You have to have the documentation available at your place of business. Not in fuckin' panama or Timbuktu.

At least this throbx has read the fuckin' thing. Hosting and keeping records offshore is absolutely irrelevant if you are a US citizen.
Actually, not to be the bearer of bad nws or anything but..

The new regs havent even been published yet so, that being said, nobody but the DOJ has read them.

Many people have read last years proposed regs but the chances they may have changed are great since they were first suggested.

The turth of the matter is, until the new regs are published, nobody is any the wiser than they were last month, including all the lawyers in the adult industry making un-educated guesses. [/b][/quote]
Oh, total agreement. That's why I said that we need to read the actual regs after they're published on Tuesday.

That said, I have a hard time believing that our current government would even bother to read any comments that were submitted based on the proposed regs.

As for people making uneducated guesses, sure, there are plenty of people who are predicting everything and the kitchen sink. There are also some people who have taken the time to read the current regs, plus the proposed changes, and analyze their business strategies so that undue risk is minimized.

So many people in this business have no concept of what the government could and will do when pursuing obscenity. They have no knowledge or memory of what the adult video business went through in the 1980's with the Meese Commission under a Republican administration. If you don't know what I'm talking about, you may want to read up on your history. Look up the RICO act as well.

[ThrobX]

Originally posted by Nickatilynx@May 20 2005, 09:28 PM
Why an ambitious DA hasn't attacked pornographers hard already I'll never know.

I'd pick 10 or 20 mouthy grfyers in my jurisdiction without the resources for a decent lawyer but with a high profile locally.

And come down on them like a ton of bricks..
Plenty of low-hanging fruit in this business.

(And I'm not referring to gay porn actors.)

[Nickatilynx]

No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the average webmaster :)

[aeon]

Originally posted by Nickatilynx@May 20 2005, 09:33 PM
No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the average webmaster :)
You can keep bumping this all you want to for your friends or interests but this doesn’t even come close to addressing the proposed interpretation. Being opportunistic is one thing, being an idiot is another.

It’s stupidity. The top dogs have in house council dealing with this and/or sheisters on retainer evaluating it. Smaller dorks like myself are shelling out 300 per hour to find out if we’re gonna need soap on a rope.

This won’t even go into effect for months or years to come and this proposed salvation is absolute BS if these interpretations stand up.

The only thing having yer documentation/shit out of the country will do is get you indicted faster for not having the shit available for inspection. If you’re facing a potential 5 years for each mistake in record keeping, would you trust a bunch of idiots in Panama?

[Inabon]

Originally posted by ThrobX+May 21 2005, 12:24 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ThrobX @ May 21 2005, 12:24 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Inabon@May 20 2005, 08:24 PM
1. lots of people move out of USA (hosting) so government thinks twice before going after lawbreakers. big fish are going to be targets some small may fall but it will be a pain in the ass for government when they are soooo busy with other shit.
With all due respect, you must not be very familiar with the way our government works. When a no-lose issue comes up that can win votes, in this case "protecting the children," all other shit gets pushed aside, so a good show can be made.

Workload due to 9/11 may have delayed action on "obscenity," but that was a REALLY unusual case. What's the workload now?

Dealing with daily carbombings in Iraq? Hell, that ain't even in this country, most voters who want porn to be stopped aren't even aware that there are other countries besides the U.S. Fighting porn is sexier. (pun intended) That can be put aside for a no-lose vote-gaining issue.

The debate over filibusters during federal judgeship nominations? Piffle, that's just political posturing. That can be put aside for a no-lose vote-gaining issue.

Steroids in sports? There's a non-issue that can be put aside for a no-lose vote-gaining issue.

There's NOTHING in our governmental system that is more important than either A) money or B) votes. [/b][/quote]
then scenario number 2 is at hand.

man you have to realize that no matter what there are always borders and the way your country (yes i am a us citizen thanks to the way your country thinks remember they beat spain another empire and took puerto rico as payment then gave us citizenship during the war so we could go fight cause usa was running out of trained people) works makes it easy for anyone to bypass that because you always think USA only and in USA it stays.

come on. like i said there are more countries than usa yes they may not be as developed but they are being developed. usa has reached is peak and now is looking at getting regulated (LAND OF THE FREE MY ASS).


so as you see point 1 or 2 will happen just because the way you guys think. you have to open your minds to the rest of the world. trust me bush may win against porn but only in USA.

and don´t give me the internet carrier bullshit trust me in panama there are carriers that if they are down they loose 1 million per hour and a lot of that is not USA.

[Inabon]

Originally posted by aeon+May 21 2005, 12:38 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (aeon @ May 21 2005, 12:38 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Nickatilynx@May 20 2005, 09:33 PM
No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the average webmaster :)
You can keep bumping this all you want to for your friends or interests but this doesn’t even come close to addressing the proposed interpretation. Being opportunistic is one thing, being an idiot is another.

It’s stupidity. The top dogs have in house council dealing with this and/or sheisters on retainer evaluating it. Smaller dorks like myself are shelling out 300 per hour to find out if we’re gonna need soap on a rope.

This won’t even go into effect for months or years to come and this proposed salvation is absolute BS if these interpretations stand up.

The only thing having yer documentation/shit out of the country will do is get you indicted faster for not having the shit available for inspection. If you’re facing a potential 5 years for each mistake in record keeping, would you trust a bunch of idiots in Panama? [/b][/quote]
dude your stupidity is what government wants to fuck up USA porn industry.

instead of saying well i like your idea but we have to do more research lets do it together you just bash and hide.


united we win divided we fall.



dont be a tool man just do your thing and if you have more info let us know as we will let you know

and get laid or something cause you sound like you need sex or something


fuck

[ThrobX]

Originally posted by Inabon@May 21 2005, 05:45 AM
man you have to realize that no matter what there are always borders and the way your country (yes i am a us citizen thanks to the way your country thinks remember they beat spain another empire and took puerto rico as payment then gave us citizenship during the war so we could go fight cause usa was running out of trained people) works makes it easy for anyone to bypass that because you always think USA only and in USA it stays.

come on. like i said there are more countries than usa yes they may not be as developed but they are being developed. usa has reached is peak and now is looking at getting regulated (LAND OF THE FREE MY ASS).

so as you see point 1 or 2 will happen just because the way you guys think. you have to open your minds to the rest of the world. trust me bush may win against porn but only in USA.

and don´t give me the internet carrier bullshit trust me in panama there are carriers that if they are down they loose 1 million per hour and a lot of that is not USA.
Here's what you have to realize, Inabon...

"just because the way you guys think. you have to open your minds to the rest of the world."

I personally think globally. I'm not your typical nationalist jingoistic "my country right or wrong" "fuck all them fur-en-ers" redneck. I won't argue that they're the vocal majority in this country right now, but I'm not one of that group. Don't lump me in with all of them, and I won't lump you in with whatever stereotypical sub-group of Puerto Ricans that YOU dislike. :okthumb:

However, I am a U.S. citizen. I physically live in the U.S. I transact my business in the U.S. And I don't intend on physically moving out of the U.S., with or without renouncement of citizenship.

Because of this, I have to follow U.S. law. And that follows through no matter where in the world my webhost is. I'm a U.S. citizen, therefore I have to answer to U.S. law, whether I like the law or not.

I can either go through a bunch of expensive manuevers like Nick suggested that, while they may not be illegal, at least have the appearance of trying to hide something, or I can just follow the law. I happen to think that your solution is not as protective or compliant as you do. Different interpretations of the law. I happen to be good at interpreting law, though I'm not a lawyer, and I have knowledgeable legal counsel who happen to independently interpret this issue the same way I do.

There are, however, PLENTY of people in this business who don't even bother to pony up legal fees in advance, and coincidentally, traffic in very edgy niches. Those are the people who could really get hit hard by this new enforcement of the regs, and truth be told, I have no sympathy for them. They're going after things with a short-term attitude, and that's what can happen.

I wholeheartedly agree with you that the U.S. does not own the Internet, and if the U.S. decided to totally ban pornography, it would still live on thanks to the hundreds of other countries in the world, as well as the U.S.-based mavericks who will try to operate under the radar. That's an unfortunate situation, but I don't think a total ban will occur -- they just want to move the edges in a bit to make good with the moralists.

Really, truthfully, I think the 2257 regulation is pretty easy to comply with, as long as you use your head and OVERcomply with them. Make yourself a hard target and they'll go after the lower-hanging fruit. All these outside offshore offsite solutions just seem to me to be a way to cash in on the situation. I should know, I was going to do just that myself.

I developed a specialized database specifically for retaining complete 2257 records, including ID and document scans. Not something hosted for multiple users, or even one user, but a local database that a producer would install on their own system for use by themselves only. Registered domains for it, started putting a marketing plan together.

Had my attorney review it, he liked it, but his words were "I cannot guarantee that using this database would protect someone from 2257 prosecution. I can't guarantee that anyone would be safe by using any solution. Too many variables in how they run their business." That got me thinking, better to keep this for my own private usage, rather than either having to sell a solution that I'll have to specifically say is NOT guaranteed, or leave myself open to civil liability down the road. Plus, software support sucks, so screw it.

That's longterm thinking. I'd rather be in for the long dollar.

Wow, that rambled a bit. Oh, I don't know what "internet carrier bullshit" you're referring to, I don't recall saying anything about that. Don't confuse me with Aeon, I think you'd agree that we're taking two very different approaches on this subject, i.e. civilized vs. zoo. :rolleyes:

[Inabon]

nop i am not confusing you with aeon

we are cool there. i understand your point. what i am saying is why bash when we can unite and find a solution.

and why defend the undefendable.


it is just bullshit man the law is targeting then make it hard for the law once it passes. hell USA was built by braking the law. the law of another country.


laws are to regulate but when laws turn to benefit a smaller group or are used to opress a small group then it is not law it is tyranny.


i am just making a point that the law is designed to halt porn not to make it more decsent or better for organized people. and that you are running the risk of running out of customers because there will be no USA traffic depending on how crazy it may get.

i think we agree and sorry if i mixed you up with a group you don't like i just want to broaden perspectives man hell if usa government don't want porn don't give it to them you will see how eveyone will go crazy and make sure a law is passed to overthrow that law that fucked them

thats what i like about USA man people still can make a difference although i dont know what the fuck happened with bush on past elections that was a fucked up decision LOL

peace man nice exchanging opinions with you.

[JoesHO]

Originally posted by ThrobX+May 21 2005, 07:01 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ThrobX @ May 21 2005, 07:01 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Inabon@May 21 2005, 05:45 AM
man you have to realize that no matter what there are always borders and the way your country (yes i am a us citizen thanks to the way your country thinks remember they beat spain another empire and took puerto rico as payment then gave us citizenship during the war so we could go fight cause usa was running out of trained people) works makes it easy for anyone to bypass that because you always think USA only and in USA it stays.

come on. like i said there are more countries than usa yes they may not be as developed but they are being developed. usa has reached is peak and now is looking at getting regulated (LAND OF THE FREE MY ASS).

so as you see point 1 or 2 will happen just because the way you guys think. you have to open your minds to the rest of the world. trust me bush may win against porn but only in USA.

and don´t give me the internet carrier bullshit trust me in panama there are carriers that if they are down they loose 1 million per hour and a lot of that is not USA.
Here's what you have to realize, Inabon...

"just because the way you guys think. you have to open your minds to the rest of the world."

I personally think globally. I'm not your typical nationalist jingoistic "my country right or wrong" "fuck all them fur-en-ers" redneck. I won't argue that they're the vocal majority in this country right now, but I'm not one of that group. Don't lump me in with all of them, and I won't lump you in with whatever stereotypical sub-group of Puerto Ricans that YOU dislike. :okthumb:

However, I am a U.S. citizen. I physically live in the U.S. I transact my business in the U.S. And I don't intend on physically moving out of the U.S., with or without renouncement of citizenship.

Because of this, I have to follow U.S. law. And that follows through no matter where in the world my webhost is. I'm a U.S. citizen, therefore I have to answer to U.S. law, whether I like the law or not.

I can either go through a bunch of expensive manuevers like Nick suggested that, while they may not be illegal, at least have the appearance of trying to hide something, or I can just follow the law. I happen to think that your solution is not as protective or compliant as you do. Different interpretations of the law. I happen to be good at interpreting law, though I'm not a lawyer, and I have knowledgeable legal counsel who happen to independently interpret this issue the same way I do.

There are, however, PLENTY of people in this business who don't even bother to pony up legal fees in advance, and coincidentally, traffic in very edgy niches. Those are the people who could really get hit hard by this new enforcement of the regs, and truth be told, I have no sympathy for them. They're going after things with a short-term attitude, and that's what can happen.

I wholeheartedly agree with you that the U.S. does not own the Internet, and if the U.S. decided to totally ban pornography, it would still live on thanks to the hundreds of other countries in the world, as well as the U.S.-based mavericks who will try to operate under the radar. That's an unfortunate situation, but I don't think a total ban will occur -- they just want to move the edges in a bit to make good with the moralists.

Really, truthfully, I think the 2257 regulation is pretty easy to comply with, as long as you use your head and OVERcomply with them. Make yourself a hard target and they'll go after the lower-hanging fruit. All these outside offshore offsite solutions just seem to me to be a way to cash in on the situation. I should know, I was going to do just that myself.

I developed a specialized database specifically for retaining complete 2257 records, including ID and document scans. Not something hosted for multiple users, or even one user, but a local database that a producer would install on their own system for use by themselves only. Registered domains for it, started putting a marketing plan together.

Had my attorney review it, he liked it, but his words were "I cannot guarantee that using this database would protect someone from 2257 prosecution. I can't guarantee that anyone would be safe by using any solution. Too many variables in how they run their business." That got me thinking, better to keep this for my own private usage, rather than either having to sell a solution that I'll have to specifically say is NOT guaranteed, or leave myself open to civil liability down the road. Plus, software support sucks, so screw it.

That's longterm thinking. I'd rather be in for the long dollar.

Wow, that rambled a bit. Oh, I don't know what "internet carrier bullshit" you're referring to, I don't recall saying anything about that. Don't confuse me with Aeon, I think you'd agree that we're taking two very different approaches on this subject, i.e. civilized vs. zoo. :rolleyes: [/b][/quote]
you make some very good point , ThrobX

and once the regs are out, our underlying point is this.

For those that wish to take the offshore approach for whatever their council may tell them ( as we all know many attornys see the law different ways , that is why there are always two sides in the argument both represented, and The judge is the ultimate attorny to interpret the law in each individual case) as you said other things besides just being ofshore are vital to each persons individual protections as well.

our point is we have some of the pieces that people will need for protection, and we have the industry and long term viability to make money in it as a main concern.

We are not here for the hit it quick and run mentality that many speak of in now days concerning adult.

We operate as a professional company, and are concerned with growth and longevity just as if we were a fortune 500 aspiring company in any other field.

If what we have to offer is a help to you, we are here to discuss options with you at any time.

If what we have to offer does not serve your individual needs, and you have a bettter personal solution, then we congratulate you for being someone that is trying to pay attention and do something other than bitch ( like many are doing)
if YOU see something that we can help with we would love the opportunity to do business with someone that is resonsible about there business actions like yourself.

[Inabon]

quick note the internet carrier bullshit i reffered to is that almost all internet backbones are usa based and fiber optics are controlled by them.

but they wont let it go for laws they will adjust trust me they loose more.

[Vick]

The more I think about it the more I see the new 2257 as a GOOD THING!!

If I understand it correctly (which I may not and will have to get further legal council) the operator of an adult website (for lack of a better term) has to have on file a copy of ID and a copy of a signed consent form (model release) both physically and on line

Who is buying (or producing) content without this already?

What this will force is more professional approach by those who aren't currently. All to the good.
May have to remove content that they don't have the proper docs to

Yes a few hobbyist may be forced out or made to make sites with no content, again that all to the good

I may be missing a big piece to the puzzle here as some feel this is the introduction to legal persecution of adult websites in the USA

If you've done everything (and more) by the letter of the law ......
ThrobX has a good point, low hanging fruit

[ThrobX]

Originally posted by Vick@May 21 2005, 09:12 AM
If you've done everything (and more) by the letter of the law ......
ThrobX has a good point, low hanging fruit
Thanks Vick. Those of us who try to stay at the top of the tree (i.e., comply with the law and stay inside common sense content boundaries) shouldn't have much to worry about.

[Lee]

Originally posted by ThrobX+May 21 2005, 10:43 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ThrobX @ May 21 2005, 10:43 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Vick@May 21 2005, 09:12 AM
If you've done everything (and more) by the letter of the law ......
ThrobX has a good point, low hanging fruit
Thanks Vick. Those of us who try to stay at the top of the tree (i.e., comply with the law and stay inside common sense content boundaries) shouldn't have much to worry about. [/b][/quote]
Indeed and like Vick and yourself i see this as a thinning of the herd... One that has been needed for a few years now.

I think Vick summed it up perfectly with this comment..


Who is buying (or producing) content without this already?


Lets be honest, anyone who is buying content without the relevant licenses, ids, etc etc, doesnt DESERVE to be in this industry.

[aeon]

Originally posted by ThrobX@May 21 2005, 07:01 AM
Don't confuse me with Aeon, I think you'd agree that we're taking two very different approaches on this subject, i.e. civilized vs. zoo. :rolleyes:
You can civilize yer ass all the way to the can if you want to and politely ask for a reach around. I don't give a fuck. The more of you tards out of this the better.

Vick,
It's not the keeping of ID's & releases that's the bitch part of it. It's cataloguing all that shit with each (and I mean EACH) url that the images/videos are used on. Throw in the creatives and you can see how complicated that can potentially get if you have any quantity of sites with content/creatives.

It's gonna be a record keeping clusterfuck if it stands.

[Lee]

Originally posted by aeon@May 21 2005, 12:32 PM
It's cataloguing all that shit with each (and I mean EACH) url that the images/videos are used on.
For some of us that isnt a problem at all.

Our custom CMS will spit out a list of urls that each thumbnail and fullsized image is used on whether it be on a free site, tgp gallery, avs site or even a paysite members area along with a page containing a cross referenced sheet of the model id, license and even a location of the hard copy we have filed away in the office.

Sure it took a lot of work getting the content loaded in to and categorized for our cms in addition to cross referencing each content set with a license / model id etc but, for us, its business as usual.

So far as the use of content in creatives, if you are 'creative' with your banners and buttons, etc, etc, even this isnt a big deal especially, if you have a solution which will tell you WHERE each image is being used already.

All it means is that you have to use .gifs for banners and buttons, i dont want to say anymore than that right now as its going to be a huge part of our marketing effort when we launch our affiliate program later this year needless to say though, no matter where any of our affiliates buy their content from, their creatives will be customized to the images they use on any of their sites :yowsa:

[aeon]

Originally posted by Lee+May 21 2005, 12:55 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lee @ May 21 2005, 12:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-aeon@May 21 2005, 12:32 PM
It's cataloguing all that shit with each (and I mean EACH) url that the images/videos are used on.
For some of us that isnt a problem at all.

Our custom CMS will spit out a list of urls that each thumbnail and fullsized image is used on whether it be on a free site, tgp gallery, avs site or even a paysite members area along with a page containing a cross referenced sheet of the model id, license and even a location of the hard copy we have filed away in the office.

Sure it took a lot of work getting the content loaded in to and categorized for our cms in addition to cross referencing each content set with a license / model id etc but, for us, its business as usual.

So far as the use of content in creatives, if you are 'creative' with your banners and buttons, etc, etc, even this isnt a big deal especially, if you have a solution which will tell you WHERE each image is being used already.

All it means is that you have to use .gifs for banners and buttons, i dont want to say anymore than that right now as its going to be a huge part of our marketing effort when we launch our affiliate program later this year needless to say though, no matter where any of our affiliates buy their content from, their creatives will be customized to the images they use on any of their sites :yowsa:[/b][/quote]
wanna sell it? This is gonna be a bitch, especially for those of us that do our own creatives to push sponsors. Even the fuckin' banners are gonna need relevant 2257 info. Fuckin' neocons.

Vick - This is the fun part:
(1) The legal name and date of birth of each performer, obtained by the producer’s examination of an identification document, as defined by 18 U.S.C. 1028(d)(3). For any performer portrayed in such a depiction made after May 26, 1992, the records shall also include a legible copy of the identification document examined and, if that document does not contain a recent and recognizable picture of the performer, a legible copy of a picture identification card. 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.
(2) Any name, other than each performer’s legal name, ever used by the performer, including the performer’s
maiden name, alias, nickname, stage name, or professional name. For any performer portrayed in such a depiction made after May 26, 1992, such names shall be indexed by the title or identifying number of the book, magazine, film, videotape, computer-generated image, digital image, picture, URL, or other matter.
(3) Records required to be created and maintained under this part shall be organized alphabetically, or numerically where appropriate, by the legal name of the performer (by last or family name, then first or given name), and shall be indexed or cross-referenced to each alias or other name used and to each title or identifying number of the book, magazine, film, videotape, computer-generated image, digital image, picture, URL, or other matter.
Take a look at the bold parts Vick. You run a program so talk to a Lawyer but you can see how fun this can get.

And to the panama dweebs:
§ 75.4 Location of records.

Any producer required by this part to maintain records shall make such records available at the producer’s place of business. Each record shall be maintained for seven years from the date of creation or last amendment or addition. If the producer ceases to carry on the business, the records shall be maintained for five years thereafter. If the producer produces the book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, computer-generated image, digital image, picture, or other matter (including but not limited to Internet computer site or services) as part of his control of or through his employment with an organization, records shall be made available at the organization’s place of business. If the organization is dissolved, the individual who was responsible for maintaining the records on behalf of the organization, as described in § 75.6(B), shall continue to maintain the records for a period of five years after dissolution.

Your offshore record keeping/hosting “solution” is bullshit. Period.

[NickPapageorgio]

I am sort of confused on where the line is drawn as I have only scanned through bits and pieces of the docs but...

What about images where no nudity at all is shown? Banners, creatives, site designs, etc that either have the naughty bits blocked by something or are censored with stars and shit. Do you still have to provide the same level of documentation?

And pardon me in advance for my ignorance.

[aeon]

Originally posted by NickPapageorgio@May 21 2005, 01:14 PM
I am sort of confused on where the line is drawn as I have only scanned through bits and pieces of the docs but...

What about images where no nudity at all is shown? Banners, creatives, site designs, etc that either have the naughty bits blocked by something or are censored with stars and shit. Do you still have to provide the same level of documentation?

And pardon me in advance for my ignorance.
What I got told is if it's sexually explicit (vague term that hasn't really been defined and as such "implicit" should be counted in there too) that image/video has to comply.

This is an end round try to nail porn peddlers cause obscenity prosecutions aren't working. Did I mention I hate neo cons...

[sarettah]

Originally posted by aeon@May 21 2005, 04:23 PM
What I got told is if it's sexually explicit (vague term that hasn't really been defined and as such "implicit" should be counted in there too) that image/video has to comply.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/us...56----000-.html (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002256----000-.html)

§ 2256. Definitions for chapter

Release date: 2004-08-06

For the purposes of this chapter, the term—

(1) “minor” means any person under the age of eighteen years;

(2) “sexually explicit conduct” means actual or simulated—
A sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;
B bestiality;
C masturbation;
D sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
E lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;

(3) “producing” means producing, directing, manufacturing, issuing, publishing, or advertising;



§ 2257. Record keeping requirements


Release date: 2004-08-06

(a) Whoever produces any book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, or other matter which—

(1) contains one or more visual depictions made after November 1, 1990 of actual sexually explicit conduct
; and
(2) is produced in whole or in part with materials which have been mailed or shipped in interstate or foreign commerce, or is shipped or transported or is intended for shipment or transportation in interstate or foreign commerce;
shall create and maintain individually identifiable records pertaining to every performer portrayed in such a visual depiction.

[aeon]

Originally posted by sarettah+May 21 2005, 01:42 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (sarettah @ May 21 2005, 01:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-aeon@May 21 2005, 04:23 PM
What I got told is if it's sexually explicit (vague term that hasn't really been defined and as such "implicit" should be counted in there too) that image/video has to comply.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/us...56----000-.html (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002256----000-.html)

§ 2256. Definitions for chapter

Release date: 2004-08-06

For the purposes of this chapter, the term—

(1) “minor” means any person under the age of eighteen years;

(2) “sexually explicit conduct” means actual or simulated—
A sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;
B bestiality;
C masturbation;
D sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
E lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;

(3) “producing” means producing, directing, manufacturing, issuing, publishing, or advertising;
(4) “organization” means a person other than an individual;
(5) “visual depiction” includes undeveloped film and videotape, and data stored on computer disk or by electronic means which is capable of conversion into a visual image;
(6) “computer” has the meaning given that term in section 1030 of this title;
(7) “custody or control” includes temporary supervision over or responsibility for a minor whether legally or illegally obtained;
(8) “child pornography” means any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where—
(A) the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
(B) such visual depiction is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
© such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or
(D) such visual depiction is advertised, promoted, presented, described, or distributed in such a manner that conveys the impression that the material is or contains a visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and
(9) “identifiable minor”—
(A) means a person—
(i)
(I) who was a minor at the time the visual depiction was created, adapted, or modified; or
(II) whose image as a minor was used in creating, adapting, or modifying the visual depiction; and
(ii) who is recognizable as an actual person by the person’s face, likeness, or other distinguishing characteristic, such as a unique birthmark or other recognizable feature; and
(B) shall not be construed to require proof of the actual identity of the identifiable minor.[/b][/quote]
It's not been defined in court as it pertains to this statute sarettah ;) I don't think they'll be using the CP standards on this one...could be wrong and if I am - I'm asking for a refund.

It's a question of "do you wanna be the guinea pig?". Is a topless girl "sexualy explicit". Is a girl touching herself through her bikini "sexually explicit". Is a girl bending over in a pair of lace panties "sexually explicit" and on and on...

[sarettah]

Originally posted by aeon@May 21 2005, 04:48 PM
It's not been defined in court as it pertains to this statute sarettah ;) I don't think they'll be using the CP standards on this one...could be wrong and if I am - I'm asking for a refund.

That is section 2256 of chapter 110 which is the statute, the record keeping is section 2257 of chapter 110, so those are the definitions that currently pertain to section 2257.

Now, as usual, I want the feds as far away from me as possible, so, when in doubt over comply :))

edited in: it is all part of the CHAPTER 110—SEXUAL EXPLOITATION AND OTHER ABUSE OF CHILDREN statute. After all, isn't that what all of it is about, Protecting the children ? :groucho:

[aeon]

Originally posted by sarettah+May 21 2005, 01:59 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (sarettah @ May 21 2005, 01:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-aeon@May 21 2005, 04:48 PM
It's not been defined in court as it pertains to this statute sarettah ;) I don't think they'll be using the CP standards on this one...could be wrong and if I am - I'm asking for a refund.

That is section 2256 of chapter 110 which is the statute, the record keeping is section 2257 of chapter 110, so those are the definitions that currently pertain to section 2257.

Now, as usual, I want the feds as far away from me as possible, so, when in doubt over comply :))[/b][/quote]
Dont' worry...we'll let you be the test monkey on this one. You can find out whether the CP defintions of sexually explicit apply to all adult content. Now post some URL's...

I'll even send you smokes in the joint as a sign of good will and appreciation. :inlove:

[sarettah]

Originally posted by aeon@May 21 2005, 05:04 PM
Dont' worry...we'll let you be the test monkey on this one. You can find out whether the CP defintions of sexually explicit apply to all adult content. Now post some URL's...

I'll even send you smokes in the joint as a sign of good will and appreciation. :inlove:
Geez, you just want to piss don't you ?

The record keeping requirements that we commonly call 2257 are the recordkeeping requirements of the Sexual exploitation of children etc act.

The definition that I posted is the definition that pertains to which records they are talking about.

It is one fucking law with several sections.

As far as the definition of what needs the records required by 2257 of chapter 110 of title 18, they have been pretty fucking clear.

Also, did you miss my "when in doubt, over comply" which was basically agreement with you. If you do non nude of younger looking girls in suggestive positions etc, you are probably not required to keep the records, but it definitely would not hurt you to have the records in case a prosecutor attempts to streeeeetch the law a bit.

If you missed my groucho face at the end of my comment saying it's about the kids then you misssed the fact I was being sarcastic, because I agree comfuckingpletely that this is part of the feds attempt to take pornography out via a back door.

geez...

[aeon]

Originally posted by sarettah@May 21 2005, 03:22 PM
Geez, you just want to piss don't you ?
Not really scooter. You’re having a knee jerk, “aeon is disagreeing with me so he must be pissing" reaction. You've got the general idea but I’m trying to give you a piece of advice that isn’t sinking in so I’ll be completely clear.

When you’re potentially facing 5 years each for what are tantamount to clerical errors and interpretation, you’d best have some sound legal advice if this stands up. You can't even comply, let alone "over comply" without it. Message board advice is worth what you pay for it. You need to sit down with a lawyer familiar with this and have them go over your shit to see what you need to do “in case”, to make sure you aren’t left holding your cock and looking stupid.

A judge and jury aren’t gonna give two flying shits about the perspectives given on a message board. If this stands it’s potential prison for not having your records in order. It isn’t the end of the world yet, but being pre emptive is just common sense and it’s not something to play it fast and loose with.

Try and be halfway decent with someone, encourage them to do the right thing and they get their panties in a knot. Amazing.

[Inabon]

pay a lawyer huh.

i tell you what. find me a lawyer that knows about this shit ask him straight through and let me know what they say. if they are good i will go to the same lawyer and pay him for advising me.


i have done it 3 times already all usa based lawyers and for a couple of people that can afford to call them my lawyers

remember we run Remotethumbs on many sites that may be affected. you want to know what they all said??

ermn mmm. geee i can not tell you right now untill it is out or it has not passed so we are not looking in to it. meanwhile the site owners that use RT want us to be prepared so

gridlock.

the truth is the whole thing is so vague as the fact that no one has gone to jail for the original 2257.

no crack down. it is all fear. yes be prepared but i have to agree with sarretah it is all about the children???? yeah right. they could not even get rid of CP and animal stuff. you are playing their game... ohh shit lets get ready or lets leave.


anyways we shall see i am doing my part finding ways to adjust to it. i just look for solutions to my customers. worse case scenario we can always block usa traffic because it will be impossible.

then we are back to what i said before.

ttyl

[Vick]

Thanks for breaking it down more for me aeon

Due to sheer dumb luck (how I set things up in sites) more than anything it won't be challenging for me to be in total compliance with regards to URL's and such

If this comes to be the greatest challenge I see is the creatives
In which case depending on counsel I may have to host all creatives for Cloud 9 Cash
Just another expense of doing business.
I feel better personally with me as the end responsibility for compliance then depending on all affiliates to be in compliance and then having to do the follow through


Another thing crosses my mind
What about the privacy issues for the models involved?
What happens when the stalking starts?

Is this a case of laws being sponsored by those who may be tech challenged?

and yes until something is passed and then interpreted all we are all doing is blowing smoke

[Newton]

Does the government open themselves up as liable in a legal case for anything that happens to these models, if in fact they are stalked, and something dreadful happens to them or their family?

[el pres]

These changes dont affect me as I have no sites with content but I do have a question.

This isn't just internet is it? So what about all the videostores, porno cinemas etc.
Would they have to dump all their old stock, maybe forcing the smaller ones out of business on a cost issue alone?

Wouldn't the DOJ go after these places first as it shows it doing something in the community rather than arresting an 18 y/o tgper.

[JR]

interesting thread. one important issue popped came to mind when i was reading it.

that is that in the potential problem that might exist when a large group of adult companies are found to be using the same flawed and possibly non-compliant method of record keeping might in fact be making themselves very easy targets rather than harder targets. i think that the notion of "safety in numbers" only applies to wildebeasts. otherwise, you might be doing nothing more than creating one large and easy to hit target.

[ThrobX]

Originally posted by JR@May 22 2005, 11:16 AM
interesting thread. one important issue popped came to mind when i was reading it.

that is that in the potential problem that might exist when a large group of adult companies are found to be using the same flawed and possibly non-compliant method of record keeping might in fact be making themselves very easy targets rather than harder targets. i think that the notion of "safety in numbers" only applies to wildebeasts. otherwise, you might be doing nothing more than creating one large and easy to hit target.
Another reason I decided to keep the solution I designed private, and for my own use only. VERY smart thinking there.

"Safety In Solo" slows things down.

[JoesHO]

Again to reiterate, for those interested in our help, we are here to do what we can.

Tuesday and the specific regs will be here very soon.

We have some creative thinking, and and offshore data center.

so for those intersted please feel free to contact us so we can work with you on a strategy for your protection.

For those already with your own personal solutions, congratulations for being ahead of the curve.

[ThrobX]

OK, the regs are now posted. Reading through the commentary, I find this:

Two commenters commented that the implicit requirement that records be kept at a place of business is unreasonable and argued that the regulation should permit third-party custody of records. The Department declines to adopt this comment. Permitting a third party to possess the records would unnecessarily complicate the compliance and inspection processes by removing the records from the physical location where they were initially collected, sorted, indexed, and compiled. For example, producers could provide false names and addresses to the third party as a means to avoid scrutiny by law enforcement. Historically, producers have used front corporations in order to evade both law enforcement and tax authorities. Permitting third-party custodianship would exacerbate this problem. Custodians could, for example, disclaim any responsibility for the condition or completeness of the records or be unable to provide additional information regarding the status of the records. Permitting such third-party custodians in the final rule would thus require additional regulations to ensure that the third-party custodian could guarantee the accuracy of the records, would act as a legally liable agent of the producer, and would raise other administrative issues as well.

Furthermore, permitting a third party to maintain the records would, if anything, exacerbate the concerns of numerous commenters regarding the privacy of information on performers and businesses by placing that information in the hands of another party.

Comments?

[Wizzo]

Originally posted by el pres@May 22 2005, 01:29 PM
This isn't just internet is it? So what about all the videostores, porno cinemas etc.
Would they have to dump all their old stock, maybe forcing the smaller ones out of business on a cost issue alone?

Two commenters commented that the definition of producer in the proposed rule was too broad and would encompass a convenience store that sold sexually explicit magazines or a movie theater that screened
R-rated movies. The Department declines to adopt this comment. As the rule makes clear, mere distributors of sexually explicit material are excluded from the definition of producers and under no plausible construction of the definition would a movie theater be covered merely by screening films produced by others.

[ThrobX]

Originally posted by Wizzo+May 24 2005, 07:35 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Wizzo @ May 24 2005, 07:35 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-el pres@May 22 2005, 01:29 PM
This isn't just internet is it? So what about all the videostores, porno cinemas etc.
Would they have to dump all their old stock, maybe forcing the smaller ones out of business on a cost issue alone?

Two commenters commented that the definition of producer in the proposed rule was too broad and would encompass a convenience store that sold sexually explicit magazines or a movie theater that screened
R-rated movies. The Department declines to adopt this comment. As the rule makes clear, mere distributors of sexually explicit material are excluded from the definition of producers and under no plausible construction of the definition would a movie theater be covered merely by screening films produced by others. [/b][/quote]
I can't wait for people to come along and try to say that their website is merely a "theater" that is "screening films." :lol:

(Edit: I'm a psychic, that angle is being explored at the zoo. :lol: )

[ThrobX]

No comments from RemoteThumbs on this? I thought there'd be a response by now.

I'm NOT trying to "I told you so" here because I'm not an attorney and I COULD be wrong, but I'm interested in hearing how your solution takes care of the issues now that the regs have been posted.

[Anthony]

Originally posted by aeon+May 20 2005, 12:23 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (aeon @ May 20 2005, 12:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-JoesHO1@May 20 2005, 08:51 AM
we at www.remotethumbs.com are fully equpppied to handle the situation for you.

option #1 continue to use, ( or sign up for ) our ground breaking product, that uses all Free Hotsed gallerys from the sponsors directly. and allows fo no submissions, therefore you are always in control of having the sponsors you choose and trust to promote, and utilize their 2257 protections for yourself as well ( as they host the gallerys for you and will need them to be compliant)


Option #2 We are fully capable of hosting your own built gallerys for you via our own data cneter ( not third party) www.siliconcanal.com we are located in Panama, and will keep the 2257 info for you, so you do not need to come out and give your info as the producer of record. ( we host them not you)

Option # 3 We will entertain ( big traffic pushers only) writing a customized solution for you allowing for submissions to take place, and FHG's to be used also allowing you to sell advertising spots and we will host the gallerys for your site to insure you are protected.

if you are interested in any further discussion with one of us on this matter we are available and you can reach me with your thoughts at 174842541

Thank you and have a great, productive day. ( be safe)
This does shit...I can appreciate you spinning your product but here's the 2257. You can't protect anyone.

It's fuckin' absurd.

Here's the 2257 shit - Left is old - right is new (http://my.execpc.com/~xxxlaw/2257Table.htm)

Where the fuck do you get your legal advice, the drive through? [/b][/quote]
Good link.

[Inabon]

Originally posted by ThrobX@May 24 2005, 02:01 PM
No comments from RemoteThumbs on this? I thought there'd be a response by now.

I'm NOT trying to "I told you so" here because I'm not an attorney and I COULD be wrong, but I'm interested in hearing how your solution takes care of the issues now that the regs have been posted.
:) looking in to it. man finding ways this is what it is all about trying to find a way out. otherwise we stay here you stay there and lets see who drops first. but we are looking in to it.

[ThrobX]

Originally posted by Inabon+May 24 2005, 11:34 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Inabon @ May 24 2005, 11:34 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-ThrobX@May 24 2005, 02:01 PM
No comments from RemoteThumbs on this? I thought there'd be a response by now.

I'm NOT trying to "I told you so" here because I'm not an attorney and I COULD be wrong, but I'm interested in hearing how your solution takes care of the issues now that the regs have been posted.
:) looking in to it. man finding ways this is what it is all about trying to find a way out. otherwise we stay here you stay there and lets see who drops first. but we are looking in to it. [/b][/quote]
Diplomatic answer, I should call you SPINabon. :awinky:

Believe me, I'd love to see multiple solutions to the "problems" presented by 2257. Note that I don't think compliance is that big a deal, but a lot of people won't want to go to the time and expense. Best of luck with your solution, if you can find a way to make it work.

[Inabon]

Ok here is an update going through the document

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01...05/05-10107.htm (http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20051800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2005/05-10107.htm)

i have to say that i dont even see how big companies can comply without taking down content or complete sites all togehter.


i have not reached the part of how not being in USA works but i am getting there. however it doesn't look good from my end. not a lawyer but it is plain english and just by logical terms it is not good news for usa

[Inabon]

One commenter who supported the proposed rule stated that he
created a system to help webmasters comply with the rules and protect
the identity of individuals depicted in the images while allowing
verification by law enforcement. The commenter stated that no
webmasters took advantage of his system because, he said, they believe
that there is an extremely remote possibility of being prosecuted for
non-compliance and that the Sundance ruling protects them. The comment
tends to demonstrate that the claim by industry groups that the rule is
unconstitutionally burdensome is

[[Page 29615]]

exaggerated. Nonetheless, the Department does not endorse this
commenter's particular system as it has no means to determine whether
the system actually works.


i wonder what system was this :)