If your considering copy and pasting your latest drive by spam here because you cant find any other place.
DONT!
Oprano has a ZERO tolerance policy for spam. Yours WILL be deleted. If you are looking for more exposure for your product please contact advertising@oprano.com for more information.
Legacy Archived Main BoardBusiness chat and general industry chat. All participation is welcome. Dont post your fucking spam here.
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.
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.
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
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?
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...
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.
(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.
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 ?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
__________________
Pssst Click the Button Above
I once wanted to be a Gynecologist
But I couldn't find an opening
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?
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.
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.
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.
OK, the regs are now posted. Reading through the commentary, I find this:
Quote:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
05-21-2005
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.
)
Linear Mode
