2257- Would You Be Comfortable With This Statement?

[Frankly Rich]

I went to an adult website featuring Asian guys in porn. Sometimes Asian guys look younger than they are, and I want nothing to do with any underage sites. So I looked up the 2257 Compliance Statement, where the site owner states that all of the guys featured were 18 or over at the time the film was made.

But this site said this:

2257 Record Keeping Compliance Information

 

The operator of this website is an online distributor of erotic films. None of the visual depictions found on this website were produced by the website operator. The primary producers for each of the visual depictions found on this website have represented to the website operator that all models, actors, actresses and other persons that appear in any visual depiction of actual or simulated sexual conduct distributed through this website were eighteen (18) years of age or older at the time of the creation of such depictions.

 

Basically he is saying that I provide these videos, but I don't know if all of the guys were over 18. Someone told me that they were. Would that make you comfortable viewing the videos on his site?

 

Is this a common 2257 statement? I don't know.

[shadowcatzxxx]

These days, no. I would not feel comfortable.

Potential risk not worth the reward.

[Diverdan]

Shadowcatzxxx is absolutely correct. Anyone who views, produces, circulates, etc. videos of underage individuals is guilty and can be held accountable.

[MiamiLooker]

Are you comfortable that every pic on an escort advertising site you view is guaranteed to be that of legal age model?

[Frankly Rich]

I posted the question because I am not an expert- at all!- on online porn. But are there not many sites that present videos collected from other sites? Would they all then have the card where the performer proved that he was 18 or over? Take Helix Studio. It's my understanding that they produce their own material, and thus would have the 2257 information. But if some other site showed their material, they would only be taking Helix's word for it that the models were of age. Is this not more common now? Let's face it- the internet is awash in porn. This question is relevant.

[+ deej]

Every website that is not an original producer (which is most of them) operates under the same assumption. There's absolutely no way redtube.com or xtube.com have driver's licenses on file for every performer in every video.

 

The problem is that some think this legal fig leaf excuses all sins. It doesn't. Among other things, the Bush administration's (controversial) changes to 2257 radically redefine "original producer" to include pretty much anyone "publishing" explicit material such as "publishing" on a website. The current administration is not pushing the issue but also has not rolled it back. It's still sitting there to serve a later administration. Any time a government lawyer wants to generate some "good" press, a porn/prostitution witch hunt will serve nicely.

 

But that's all about the website owner and really doesn't have anything to do with child porn. Child porn is illegal. Full stop. There is no protection, under 2257 or otherwise. That's why legit producers have a massive freak out when they discover a kid was using a fake ID.

 

Your best defense is yourself. That old adage "if it looks too good to be true it probably is" should be your guide.

[+ Gar1eth]

Every website that is not an original producer (which is most of them) operates under the same assumption. There's absolutely no way redtube.com or xtube.com have driver's licenses on file for every performer in every video.

 

The problem is that some think this legal fig leaf excuses all sins. It doesn't. Among other things, the Bush administration's (controversial) changes to 2257 radically redefine "original producer" to include pretty much anyone "publishing" explicit material such as "publishing" on a website. The current administration is not pushing the issue but also has not rolled it back. It's still sitting there to serve a later administration. Any time a government lawyer wants to generate some "good" press, a porn/prostitution witch hunt will serve nicely.

 

But that's all about the website owner and really doesn't have anything to do with child porn. Child porn is illegal. Full stop. There is no protection, under 2257 or otherwise. That's why legit producers have a massive freak out when they discover a kid was using a fake ID.

 

Your best defense is yourself. That old adage "if it looks too good to be true it probably is" should be your guide.

 

But they are posting the notice under the rules of 2257 to protect themselves if they accidentally show child porn. What else would they be using 2257 for if not to assure you there were no underage actors?

 

Gman

[Guy Fawkes]

"represented to the website operator" doesn't cut it for 2257 purposes in my opinion. However, I'm very conservative when it comes to multi thousand dollar a day fines.

 

I went to an adult website featuring Asian guys in porn. Sometimes Asian guys look younger than they are, and I want nothing to do with any underage sites. So I looked up the 2257 Compliance Statement, where the site owner states that all of the guys featured were 18 or over at the time the film was made.

But this site said this:

2257 Record Keeping Compliance Information

 

The operator of this website is an online distributor of erotic films. None of the visual depictions found on this website were produced by the website operator. The primary producers for each of the visual depictions found on this website have represented to the website operator that all models, actors, actresses and other persons that appear in any visual depiction of actual or simulated sexual conduct distributed through this website were eighteen (18) years of age or older at the time of the creation of such depictions.

 

Basically he is saying that I provide these videos, but I don't know if all of the guys were over 18. Someone told me that they were. Would that make you comfortable viewing the videos on his site?

 

Is this a common 2257 statement? I don't know.

[+ deej]

But they are posting the notice under the rules of 2257 to protect themselves if they accidentally show child porn. What else would they be using 2257 for if not to assure you there were no underage actors?

 

Gman

 

Section 2257 of the United States Code has nothing to do with the consumer or a website owner. It posits record-keeping requirements for producers of pornographic materials. (And it currently plays fast and loose with the definition of "original producer".)

 

If you want to read some "assurance" into it, well, bully for you. But you're looking for a guarantee that isn't there.

 

It's sort of like those disclaimers Sean Cody and Corbin Fisher use saying "all models are tested using the latest testing methods". Nice enough. But what do they do with the results? Does a poz model not work? Do they only work with other poz models?

 

They don't say. They leave it to your imagination.

 

Again, you are your best defense. If you're seeing something you don't think you should, close your browser and clear your cache and never visit that website again. (And pray the NSA doesn't have your browsing history.)

 

You're your only defense.

[Frankly Rich]

I'm pretty much seeing this the way that daddy and deej are. A lot of people may be working under false assumptions when visiting a porno site. However, most of us visit sites where the guys are clearly of age, so my inquiry is in limited circumstances.