PDA

View Full Version : My opinion on 2257 and UK webmasters


JT
05-27-05, 05:45 PM
This is just my opinion. I'm going to give what I believe the new 2257 rules mean for us. Take my advice if you want, don't take it if you don't want. Add your opinions if you please :titanic:

The law in my opinion is unworkable for most webmasters in my opinion, I don't believe like many do that we will be breaking our own laws in complying (I'll explain why later) But the law has been made for most webmasters almost impossible to uphold. For example each and every photo and video has to be crossed referenced. So if you have a gallery that has a picture of "girl A" then you have to show everywhere on your site where "girl A" is used. That's every page, every banner, every gallery. So if you use any sort of site or gallery generating program it would be a nightmare.

If you are a webmaster who relies on hosts giving you banners and content to make free sites, AVS, galleries etc etc. YOU CANNOT point to their 2257 records. You as secondary producer have to comply just as the primary producer would. Your own cross referenced records, all model ID's etc. Office opening hours etc etc. Basically the law means that the primary producer (content supplier etc) has to keep these records and the secondary producer (joe blogs who makes a gallery) has to also keep these records in the same way

Many pay site owners are amateurs. Or people who shoot there own content. How many amateurs and adult models will be giving out there home address and ID to pretty much anyone who asks for it? Just because they want to promote your site (or say they do)

Models will not be able to perform in the states without a U.S government issued document, foreign passports don't count. Though if the content was made outside the U.S as long as the performers had government issued ID, from their own countries that content would then be allowed in the U.S.

Its an American law so why should we have to comply?

1. If your hosting in the states. Then you could in theory be breaking the law

2. If your point of sale is in the U.S then you could be breaking their law if you are a pay site and billing U.S customers

"In order to sell in the U.S. market, foreign producers must comply with U.S. laws. This rule applies equally to any sexually explicit material introduced into the stream of commerce in the United States no matter where it was produced. Foreign producers have the option of not complying with the rule, but then their access to the U.S. market is justly and lawfully prohibited."

I don't suppose many of us would like to loose our share of the U.S market and those with affiliate programs this would mean financial suicide.

OK, I have heard the argument that the Data protection act means that its illegal for us to keep or give out such records. It doesn't. The data protection act is a law that states, if you keep personal data on a computer then you have to tell the data protection department, pay them £30 for a licence then That's OK But that aside, the 2257 law states that you can keep a hard (paper) version or a soft (computer) version of these records. There is no data protection act on paper records. It is only a computer data issue.

We do not have any privacy laws in this country that would mean we couldn't keep these records on file. its done in many industries, in fact its the law with many non adult industries that these ID's are kept on file. for example Airport security.

Keeping I.D's and selling them with content doesn't. break any laws that I've ever heard of. I have spoken to many european content producers who from now on will be selling all content with 2257 compliant I'd's They are not breaking any laws in doing so. You will see over time that pretty much 100% of all content brokers and sellers will be supplying the correct I'd's I certainly wouldn't be buying any from a content producer if they wasn't.

Now the argument isn't a legal one its a judgment call. Again how many models would want there personal details given out to anyone who decided to buy a set of content? I guess not many.

There is no grandfather clause as such, so if you shot the set 3 years ago or bought the content 3 years ago, you would still have to comply with those sets. Content made before the 2257 laws don't have to comply. But that was created prior to July 3rd, 1995 will be exempt from the record-keeping requirements.

"Ways round it?" I here you ask.

OK lets face it although for not having these records in place mean up to 5 years in U.S prison, I personally cant see the US authorities trying to deport you for not keeping the same records. For two reasons.
1. How will they know? Can you see feds flying over here to check and when they got here they wouldn't have any right as far as I'm aware to check your records anyway
2. So maybe deportation? They could deport you? I hear you all say they cant check, so there's no evidence so not deportation, correct? Wrong We have recently (the only country in europe) signed an agreement, that we no longer need evidence from the US to deport someone, just them saying they want them is enough (well done Tony Blair) But that said. the law remains that we can only deport if the law is a law in both countries. Its not law here.

What do I suggest UK webmasters do? Suggest that you can do many things.

Choices as far as I see them for UK webmasters
1. abide by the new US amended law, which will be for most people almost impossible, costly, time consuming and burdensome.
2. Don't use sexually explicit material at all, no banners, images etc etc
3. Move your hosting, billing away from the U.S and don't sell to the US consumer
4. Put up the 2257 statement exactly as they ask, knowing that they have no powers to check the records anyway

Bernadette
05-28-05, 06:11 PM
Great article and interesting read. I'd love to know what will happen in the states. You think it will hold up with regards to freedom of speach or has the country gone to far in its right wing atitude.

I noticed too that the extradition laws have been changed. Funny that the rest of Europe wouldnt sign the deal, and we put it through the back door, so it didnt even go to parliment

System X
05-29-05, 08:51 AM
Great article and interesting read. I'd love to know what will happen in the states. You think it will hold up with regards to freedom of speach or has the country gone to far in its right wing atitude.

I noticed too that the extradition laws have been changed. Funny that the rest of Europe wouldnt sign the deal, and we put it through the back door, so it didnt even go to parliment

Great article. I'll be pointing my statement to a lump of steaming turd :mcdonalds

JT
05-29-05, 01:18 PM
Great article. I'll be pointing my statement to a lump of steaming turd :mcdonalds


:takethat:

JP
05-30-05, 02:55 PM
I'd really love to not give a fuck about this & leave to our stateside friends to worry about...

Interesting times ahead in the next few weeks ... at the very least there should be plenty of sites to pick up on the cheap from retiring U.S. wm's http://www.beerandbollocks.com/forum/images/smilies/drink.gif

JT
06-01-05, 12:23 AM
I'd really love to not give a fuck about this & leave to our stateside friends to worry about...

Interesting times ahead in the next few weeks ... at the very least there should be plenty of sites to pick up on the cheap from retiring U.S. wm's :drink:

Yes maybe, Im certainly not worrying just yet, though Im worried for the industry in general

stouch
06-01-05, 11:02 PM
Hi, I just regged and wanted to post to say Im very much going to be following your option 4. However please be aware that the Data Protection act does cover paper based records. The original DPA (1984) which only covered paper based records was replaced with the 1998 version which also includes electronically stored data. I had experience of pissing about with the DPA in a previous work life.

Keeping records for 2257? No worries. Seeing them fly over to check them and then go through the legal system of the UK to get access? I cant see it happening.

JT
06-01-05, 11:13 PM
Hi, I just regged and wanted to post to say Im very much going to be following your option 4. However please be aware that the Data Protection act does cover paper based records. The original DPA (1984) which only covered paper based records was replaced with the 1998 version which also includes electronically stored data. I had experience of pissing about with the DPA in a previous work life.

Keeping records for 2257? No worries. Seeing them fly over to check them and then go through the legal system of the UK to get access? I cant see it happening.

Hi stouch, I didnt realise it covered paper, thanks for the informative post. But if it does, It still only means registering with data protection people. Which still wouldnt conflict at all with the new 2257 regs. Its just the same as we are all doing now.

The data protection part that UK webmasters keep quoting in my opinion isnt any different than what we was required as primary producers to do before. So I cant see any data protection laws that keeps us from complying. Like I say most of us have kept those records previously anyway and lots of UK companies have to keep employees records on file anyway.

But we agree, when the feds turn up to englandanshire to check the records, most webmasters will be shopping at Tescos

stouch
06-01-05, 11:34 PM
Ive borrowed this from a post that I made on another board and how 2257 relates to me, but I think it illustrates the futility of these laws to those who arent under the direct jurisdiction of the US.

"Any stalker can hit me up on icq saying they are checking 2257 regs and want id. Personally, I am gonna tell them to fuck off whether they are genuine or not and say turn up at my registered address. Then if a US law enforcement official turns up without UK court orders guess what? Im gonna tell him to have a nice day but fuck off.

Thats the quandary I have in relation to the laws in my country."

JP
06-01-05, 11:45 PM
But we agree, when the feds turn up to englandanshire to check the records, most webmasters will be shopping at Tescos
What if they're shopping at tesco.com?

JT
06-01-05, 11:47 PM
Ive borrowed this from a post that I made on another board and how 2257 relates to me, but I think it illustrates the futility of these laws to those who arent under the direct jurisdiction of the US.

"Any stalker can hit me up on icq saying they are checking 2257 regs and want id. Personally, I am gonna tell them to fuck off whether they are genuine or not and say turn up at my registered address. Then if a US law enforcement official turns up without UK court orders guess what? Im gonna tell him to have a nice day but fuck off.

Thats the quandary I have in relation to the laws in my country."

I agree with that totally. I can see many UK webmasters putting up 2257 details knowing that the US authorities wont turn up and if they did cant do shit. I guess that will meen they dont have problems with their hosting and billing.