2257 Compliance questions

[sarettah]

Morgan, certain content in the US is exempt.

Content produced prior to a certain date is exempt.
Content that does not display actual sexual yada yada yada...

I am purposely being vague here I am not a lawyer.

But there is content that is exempt from needing 2257.

[MorganGrayson]

Originally Posted by sarettah

Morgan, certain content in the US is exempt.

Content produced prior to a certain date is exempt.
Content that does not display actual sexual yada yada yada...

I am purposely being vague here I am not a lawyer.

But there is content that is exempt from needing 2257.

Yes, but again...how do you prove a negative? A lot of content has been taken down that was exempt, however, the documentation that would prove it was exempt either wasn't collected or has been lost. Therefore, it would be one ugly he said/he said situation in court, and the webmaster would lose.

And yes, I realize the content that does not display actual sex is considered "exempt," but today, the proper documents are kept.

I would much rather err on the side of caution and advise novice webmasters to consider no content exempt and to *always* have proper 2257 documentation.

Am I being *overly* cautious?

[sarettah]

Originally Posted by MorganGrayson

Am I being *overly* cautious?

lolol, remember, you are talking to the guy who took down every graphic on his sites the day before the new 2257 went into effect

[helix]

Here is a link to the 2257 resources on the AVN site
AVN 2257 website
They have quite a bit of info that you might find useful.

[helix]

I found my copy of the 2257 handbook AVN had made available for download. If you are interested in a copy, you can download it from here

[TheEnforcer]

Originally Posted by MorganGrayson

Yes, but again...how do you prove a negative? A lot of content has been taken down that was exempt, however, the documentation that would prove it was exempt either wasn't collected or has been lost. Therefore, it would be one ugly he said/he said situation in court, and the webmaster would lose.

And yes, I realize the content that does not display actual sex is considered "exempt," but today, the proper documents are kept.

I would much rather err on the side of caution and advise novice webmasters to consider no content exempt and to *always* have proper 2257 documentation.

Am I being *overly* cautious?

No, you are not. 99.99% of newbies don't have the effective means of fighting a prosecution if something is in the grey area and the government wants to push the issue. Much easier to be in compliance than not.

[MorganGrayson]

Thank you, all.

I've bookmarked the links you gave me, helix.
TE...always reassuring to have you in a thread.

Most of all, I'd like to thank "unregistered." You made some extremely valid and important points of which I had not thought. I feel as if I just ducked an extremely large bullet because of your post. I was so focused on helping novice webmasters cover their own asses that I totally forgot the first rule...cover your *own* ass.

I had so hoped to be able to make what is a huge and difficult problem as simple as possible for novices...but the fact is...it can't be done. Oh, sure, I can write a snappy post that itemizes a bunch of "do's" and "don'ts" for them to follow, but you are so very correct, unregistered. I'd be giving legal advice.

I can't make this easy for them. I can give them the links and the urging to read, research and consult their own attorneys.

Thank you all.

[helix]

You're welcome
I also have been sitting on the sidelines waiting for the 2257 rules to shake out into something definitive. It will be interesting to see what the impact will be to the likes of freesites, tgps, avs's, and program promotion.

[MorganGrayson]

Originally Posted by helix

You're welcome
I also have been sitting on the sidelines waiting for the 2257 rules to shake out into something definitive. It will be interesting to see what the impact will be to the likes of freesites, tgps, avs's, and program promotion.

From the perspective of now being one of the mentors - which on the one hand is most excellent as I had a lot of fantastic mentors the first time around (Yes, Nick. ) and I feel as if I get to repay a debt; from the other perspective, the game has changed so much that it's a much weightier respnsibility.

It's difficult enough to draw novice webmasters out and get them to participate in "public." Instead of posting "come here and we'll have wonderful discussions on making a *good* freesite that will do the best marketing for your sponsors" and letting that lay there like a fruit basket of welcome...I feel as if I have to add "but first...I'm going to scare the shit out of you and make you think twice about being involved with this entire thing."

Again, many thanks to everyone who participated in this thread. It's "old news" to most of you, but it's "oh, shit, you're kidding!" to anyone new to the business. (I re-entered the business at the exact moment when many webmasters were hitting the panic button and stripping there sites due to something of which I'd never heard. My first site of this incarnation went up on July 1st, 2005. I got a crash course.)

I feel much more armed to assist the new kids.

[JR]

Hi, i was "unregistered"

i have thought about this issue quite a bit because its an interesting issue... that presents some interesting questions -

"how do you help people that you really know deep down, will do none of these things;

1) take the time to fully read and understand the law and the issues surrounding the law

2) take the time to consult an attorney and have an attorney review their sites and them come up with a plan to be complaint

3) follow through completely with everything they learned from 1 and 2."

I would spend my time trying to impress upon people the seriousness of compliance - i.e. an introduction discussing the criminal penalties and fines.

then i would review carefully the comments on the law from the DOJ site which highlights a lot of issues that are going to be natural questions anyway and outline the objections and complications those points present to webmasters - as well as the DOJ point of view on those issue.

then it might make sense to not discuss the law so much as it might to itemize the comments point by point to understand the objections, issues and problems they will cause and it will help drive home the governments pretty harsh "yeah well, fuck you, its your problem" stance on most of them.

if thats not enough to scare them into understanding that they need to take it seriously and understand every letter, period, question mark and semi-colon, and hire an attorney, then i would put those people on ignore because they can't be helped.