2257 question

bracey · January 6th, 2009, 05:00 PM

I was reading the met art 2257 link
MET ART / Diclaimer 2257 / Copyright Info
and they claim that they are exempt because the content is not sexually explicit.
How can that be?
They are still pictures of completely naked women.
Don't they have to be able to prove their models are of age?
Or is 2257 really that fucked?

AmateurFlix · January 6th, 2009, 05:05 PM

under the regulations set to go in effect very soon, that statement is incorrect.

they are probably expecting an injunction to be granted before the new regulations go into effect...

Head Boy · January 6th, 2009, 05:05 PM

Might be difficult to prove with a name like "most erotic teens"

Aren't lesbians licking pussy being sexually explicit - I think I've seen pics with that action in their promo stuff.

Toby · January 6th, 2009, 05:07 PM

You need to read the definition of sexually explicit, which is found is 18 U.S.C. § 2256.

Bottom line, full nude isn't necessarily sexually explicit. Whether their content fall within that definition as it applies to 18 U.S.C. § 2257 is a matter for lawyers.

crockett · January 6th, 2009, 05:09 PM

Yes this new 2257 stuff is going to suck. I ended up converting my TGP type sites to top lists for now and just have links directly to tours.

I think I'm going to go more into review/top list hybrid type sites that have no explicit images. It's just not worth dealing with the 2257 stuff, because there really isn't a way for a affiliate as a secondary producer to be legal.

Not unless you are buying all your own content with the 2257 info, because affiliate programs sure aren't going to hand it out.

Head Boy · January 6th, 2009, 05:20 PM

Quote:

(B) For purposes of subsection 8(B) [1] of this section, “sexually explicit conduct” means—
(i) graphic sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex, or lascivious simulated sexual intercourse where the genitals, breast, or pubic area of any person is exhibited;
(ii) graphic or lascivious simulated;
(I) bestiality;
(II) masturbation; or
(III) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
(iii) graphic or simulated lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;

They are a few pics that will fall into this definition.

AmateurFlix · January 6th, 2009, 05:21 PM

if the supposed injunction is granted, I predict this will go nowhere

the 2257 stuff is a Bush administration project, I doubt that it will be pursued by the next administration. if it's fought in court, as the FSC claims it will, I suspect that it will become a non-issue for us. the new regs appear deeply flawed from my layman's perspective, and if they don't go into effect then I doubt new ones would be forthcoming.

if the FSC doesn't get its ass in gear soon though, then we're fucked if this comes to pass.

crockett · January 6th, 2009, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AmateurFlix

if the supposed injunction is granted, I predict this will go nowhere

the 2257 stuff is a Bush administration project, I doubt that it will be pursued by the next administration. if it's fought in court, as the FSC claims it will, I suspect that it will become a non-issue for us. the new regs appear deeply flawed from my layman's perspective, and if they don't go into effect then I doubt new ones would be forthcoming.

if the FSC doesn't get its ass in gear soon though, then we're fucked if this comes to pass.

Yea I'm sure it's more of a Bush project, but if the FSC fails to do anything it will go into law reguardless. I mean how much longer do we have till it's active? It can't be long.

AmateurFlix · January 6th, 2009, 05:54 PM

I think it's a matter of weeks or days for hardcore content, and another two months + for nudity. not sure though.

Toby · January 6th, 2009, 06:04 PM

Most of it becomes effective on the 17th. The rest require 90 days rather than 30 days so not until mid March.

toker · January 6th, 2009, 06:27 PM

Met has always walked a fine line and at one time even used underage models under the cover of art. In fact CCBill also made the bulk of its money years ago from underage model sites. They have always been the biller of choice when it came to anything that would be somewhat questionable or possibly unethical. For years i refused to touch anything with MET but if their content ever got me in shit these days i would sue Visa for leading me to believe they were legal.

basschick · January 6th, 2009, 09:10 PM

actually 2257 was a clinton project originally...

AmateurFlix · January 6th, 2009, 09:31 PM

you are correct basschick, my mistake.

it's the web application and the increased attention which I intended to refer to. the original 2257 regs only covered certain delivery formats, not the internet, as I recall (might be wrong).

Toby · January 6th, 2009, 10:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AmateurFlix

... the original 2257 regs only covered certain delivery formats, not the internet, as I recall (might be wrong).

That is correct. It was the Traci Lords scandal that spawned this whole 2257 mess back in the early to mid 1980's when the World Wide Web didn't yet exist.

NobleSavage · January 7th, 2009, 02:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AmateurFlix

if the supposed injunction is granted, I predict this will go nowhere

the 2257 stuff is a Bush administration project, I doubt that it will be pursued by the next administration.

Obama's AG pick, Eric Holder, isn't exactly good news.

Obama’s AG Pick Has a Censorship Goon Past The Legal Satyricon

GotBabe · January 7th, 2009, 02:52 AM

Better set my cropper to 5x8 px, so they wont have a case

Just wondering, how many of you have already been pursued by any 2257 threats, and what was the outcome so far ?

AmateurFlix · January 7th, 2009, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NobleSavage

Obama's AG pick, Eric Holder, isn't exactly good news.

Obama’s AG Pick Has a Censorship Goon Past The Legal Satyricon

and people wondered why I preferred the candidate who dated a stripper over the candidate who is stuck in church

Toby · January 7th, 2009, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GotBabe

Just wondering, how many of you have already been pursued by any 2257 threats, and what was the outcome so far ?

There have only been just over a dozen 2257 inspections so far. All of them were strictly primary producers, with one exception who was also a secondary producer.

To date there have not been any inspections of strictly secondary producers, and given the number of primary producers they have on their list vs the number of inspectors I don't expect that will change.

marcorandazza · January 10th, 2009, 09:21 AM

Quote:

I was reading the met art 2257 link
MET ART / Diclaimer 2257 / Copyright Info
and they claim that they are exempt because the content is not sexually explicit.
How can that be?
They are still pictures of completely naked women.

That disclaimer was likely accurate at the time it was written, however with the recent changes to the regulations implementing Section 2257, it may need some revision.

January 6th, 2009, 05:00 PM	#1 (permalink)
bracey the sky is falling Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: 97401 06385 Posts: 472	2257 question I was reading the met art 2257 link MET ART / Diclaimer 2257 / Copyright Info and they claim that they are exempt because the content is not sexually explicit. How can that be? They are still pictures of completely naked women. Don't they have to be able to prove their models are of age? Or is 2257 really that fucked? __________________ DESKTOP STRIPPERS\|LENDING CLUB\|UBUNTU\|EASILY BOOST BLOG AND TUBE TRAFFIC

January 6th, 2009, 05:05 PM	#2 (permalink)
AmateurFlix Who does #2 work for? Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 13,986	under the regulations set to go in effect very soon, that statement is incorrect. they are probably expecting an injunction to be granted before the new regulations go into effect... __________________ Traffic Trades - TGP & Toplist, Thumb & Text \| Porn Reviews \| Deutscher Porno Report

January 6th, 2009, 05:05 PM	#3 (permalink)
Head Boy Guest Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: England Posts: 7,393	Might be difficult to prove with a name like "most erotic teens" Aren't lesbians licking pussy being sexually explicit - I think I've seen pics with that action in their promo stuff. __________________ I apologise to ADX members for my constant reminders that Lord Aga and Netpond are scammers Money Bookers - now with ATM withdrawals via MasterCard

January 6th, 2009, 05:07 PM	#4 (permalink)
Toby Lonewolf Internet Sales Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Texas Posts: 1,223	You need to read the definition of sexually explicit, which is found is 18 U.S.C. § 2256. Bottom line, full nude isn't necessarily sexually explicit. Whether their content fall within that definition as it applies to 18 U.S.C. § 2257 is a matter for lawyers. __________________ *My TGPs: Bevy Of Boobs \| Bevy Of Babes \| Babes In Boots \| Well Heeled Women \| Dressing For Sex \| Stocking Vixens* Last edited by Toby; January 6th, 2009 at 05:10 PM.

January 6th, 2009, 05:21 PM	#7 (permalink)
AmateurFlix Who does #2 work for? Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 13,986	if the supposed injunction is granted, I predict this will go nowhere the 2257 stuff is a Bush administration project, I doubt that it will be pursued by the next administration. if it's fought in court, as the FSC claims it will, I suspect that it will become a non-issue for us. the new regs appear deeply flawed from my layman's perspective, and if they don't go into effect then I doubt new ones would be forthcoming. if the FSC doesn't get its ass in gear soon though, then we're fucked if this comes to pass. __________________ Traffic Trades - TGP & Toplist, Thumb & Text \| Porn Reviews \| Deutscher Porno Report

January 6th, 2009, 05:09 PM	#5 (permalink)
crockett ?????????? Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 2,971	Yes this new 2257 stuff is going to suck. I ended up converting my TGP type sites to top lists for now and just have links directly to tours. I think I'm going to go more into review/top list hybrid type sites that have no explicit images. It's just not worth dealing with the 2257 stuff, because there really isn't a way for a affiliate as a secondary producer to be legal. Not unless you are buying all your own content with the 2257 info, because affiliate programs sure aren't going to hand it out.

January 6th, 2009, 05:54 PM	#9 (permalink)
AmateurFlix Who does #2 work for? Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 13,986	I think it's a matter of weeks or days for hardcore content, and another two months + for nudity. not sure though. __________________ Traffic Trades - TGP & Toplist, Thumb & Text \| Porn Reviews \| Deutscher Porno Report

January 6th, 2009, 06:04 PM	#10 (permalink)
Toby Lonewolf Internet Sales Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Texas Posts: 1,223	Most of it becomes effective on the 17th. The rest require 90 days rather than 30 days so not until mid March. __________________ *My TGPs: Bevy Of Boobs \| Bevy Of Babes \| Babes In Boots \| Well Heeled Women \| Dressing For Sex \| Stocking Vixens*

January 6th, 2009, 06:27 PM	#11 (permalink)
toker Pugnaciously Pugnacious Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 2,889	Met has always walked a fine line and at one time even used underage models under the cover of art. In fact CCBill also made the bulk of its money years ago from underage model sites. They have always been the biller of choice when it came to anything that would be somewhat questionable or possibly unethical. For years i refused to touch anything with MET but if their content ever got me in shit these days i would sue Visa for leading me to believe they were legal. __________________ Get on the iPad bandwagon with Nude iPad Babes from Flip's Cash

January 6th, 2009, 09:10 PM	#12 (permalink)
basschick Working on my post count Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 2,050	actually 2257 was a clinton project originally... __________________ Porn Webmaster 101 \| Muscle Bucks \| Lucky Porn Reviews \| Hard Male Muscle \| Gay Porn Bookmark

January 6th, 2009, 09:31 PM	#13 (permalink)
AmateurFlix Who does #2 work for? Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 13,986	you are correct basschick, my mistake. it's the web application and the increased attention which I intended to refer to. the original 2257 regs only covered certain delivery formats, not the internet, as I recall (might be wrong). __________________ Traffic Trades - TGP & Toplist, Thumb & Text \| Porn Reviews \| Deutscher Porno Report

January 7th, 2009, 02:52 AM	#16 (permalink)
GotBabe Professional Crank Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Cave Posts: 198	Better set my cropper to 5x8 px, so they wont have a case Just wondering, how many of you have already been pursued by any 2257 threats, and what was the outcome so far ? __________________ AskDamage(Ro)X Lets trade: Traffic trade list Want the see whats next in the world of traffic scripts ? Have a look at the TradeControl http://www.controlscripts.com, PM for free beta accounts !