New Rules & Regs for "Review Section"..

[JT Brooklyn]

The "Best to Daddy" on the Big Task of Setting up the "Review Section" according to the New Rules. Hopefully Things will not be even more "Involved" than they already are, in Running the Site.. :+

[+ deej]

It's not just this site. The entire adult industry is reeling. Some of the smaller producers and websites have already announced they are closing their doors rather than deal with compliance.

 

If anyone is interested in reading more on the topic, the Free Speech Coalition is a good place to start:

 

http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/news_events_1.htm

[DaninWA]

Some of the smaller producers and websites have

>already announced they are closing their doors rather than

>deal with compliance.

 

 

Isn't that the point of the new regulations? Force as many sites as possible to close down and then closely scrutinize the rest to the point where it is no longer worth it to keep operating?

 

Of course, I'm just cynical about this administration's motives. It's probably a wonderful idea.

 

Dan

[LovesYng]

>It's not just this site. The entire adult industry is

>reeling. Some of the smaller producers and websites have

>already announced they are closing their doors rather than

>deal with compliance.

>

>If anyone is interested in reading more on the topic, the Free

>Speech Coalition is a good place to start:

>

>http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/news_events_1.htm

 

"THANKS" Deej for the link, was wondering what it was all about

 

When in doubt I whip it out :+

[kriselix]

Yeah, thank you Deej. I was wondering about it all last night. What a pain in the ass this will be!

[Juan Vancouver]

It certainly looks like a lot of work!

 

All the power to Daddy to be able to juggle with all that hard work... and for what I read, it seems that it is not quite clear what exactly is that they have to do.

 

A law that is: Imprecise, (therefore suceptible to be bent and used at will by the powers to be), one-sided, retroactive, based on a moral "concern"... and the thing that is more allarming in it, is that it would seem that they are passing that rule to "protect" our children, therefore nobody in his right mind would be brave enough to openly fight against it.

 

MAchiavelli strikes again. All the past tyrants of the history must be really proud of this government's choices.

 

And isn't everyone in this country terrified?

 

Whenever (in any country, in any time in history) the powers began to take away little personal freedoms just to "make sure that the people has a better life", more and bigger freedoms were taken away until there were none left.

 

Anyway... Now I am afraid that I posted this in the wrong area. :o

 

My main idea was hoping that this site wil be able to survive even with this law... or even better, that someone out there will be ballsy enough to fight against that stupid rule.

 

Power to us...

[kriselix]

It really is weird seeing the site so empty. It puts forth an eery image of what the future holds for some websites.

[+ deej]

Check out http://www.boundandgagged.com/

 

"Bound & Gagged discontinued operations on June 22, 2005."

 

The owner has published his final remarks, as well as email responses from some of his readers. It's worth reading.

[JT Brooklyn]

Dan you are so right! It looks like a Slow Squeeze...This Situation could definitely put a "Crimp" in Hiring.. or for some.. "End It" completely! I for one, am not into "Scanning & Phoning" in NYC..("Remember what happened to the Gay Guy on 6 Feet Under")! LOL The Village Voice or other Publications are becoming too much of a "Crap Shoot" Nowadays. Definitely some "Crap" Advertising in them!.It will be interesting to see how this New Atmosphere effects both Clients & Escorts..BOTH could become "Big Time Losers" in the Long Run, without certain Advertising Outlets..:+

[Guest ncm2169]

< This Situation could definitely put a "Crimp" in Hiring..

 

JT, if you notice, none of the escort listing sites have changed anything today, because they don't depict anything covered by the new law. So you can still surf them and hire at will. :9

 

It's too bad Daddy didn't have enough time to do his due diligence. How long has notice/knowledge of this requirement been out?

[Steven_Draker]

Question for deej:

What about websites registered under a foreign low ?

I've heard that to avoid a certain legislation and compliance a website can be registered in a different country (cfr. Canada) ? I can be wrong.

[+ deej]

>How long has notice/knowledge of this requirement been out?

 

30 days.

[+ deej]

That will only work if nobody involved in the site is a US resident.

 

Any US citizen is covered under this law, no matter where their site is hosted.

[uwsman2]

Having read the new regulations in order to respond to questions from a friend who recently started his own gay video production company, I was a bit puzzled by Daddy's message this morning and the disappearance of so many graphics from the site. The regulations basically require websites with sexually explicit content to have on file documentation of the ages of anybody who is depicted actually having sex. The documentation is supposed to be a photocopy of a government-issued ID. If the graphic material was made in the U.S., the ID has to be something issued by the US government or a state government, which means, for a non-citizen, a driver's license or a Green Card from the Immigration department. There are somewhat complicated rules about the type-size of statements that have to accompany every graphic detailing where the records are available for inspection, and rules about how the files are supposed to be organized and indexed. Yeah, it is alot of work for anybody who is displaying graphics of sexual activity. But this website consists of still shots of individuals, many of which don't even show anything below the waist, so it's not clear to me that most of these graphics would have to have such documentation.

But perhaps Daddy has gotten some kind of legal advice to the contrary?

I think the producers who are shutting down are likely to be those who have used foreign performers visiting the US, for whom the requisite ID is unavailable, or who have been sloppy about keeping records, because the penalties authorized for violations are kind of stiff - up to 5 years in the federal pen for a first offense, plus the possibility of stiff fines.

There are lots of constitutionally objectionable things about these regs -- especially the idea that they apply retroactively to any image produced since 1995, which sounds like a violation of the ex post facto law prohibition -- and they also may be defective as a matter of administrative law, because they impose heavy burdens that go beyond the scope of the statute that they are supposed to be enforcing.

The Free Speech Coalition was planning to go to court today to get a temporary restraining order against enforcement while a lawsuit challenges the validity of the regs.

Perhaps out of an excess of caution Daddy should forbid cock-shots on the site, but head shots, torsoes, and body shots that don't show cock probably don't come under the regs.

[+ deej]

>But perhaps Daddy has gotten some kind of legal advice to the contrary?

 

At this point, better safe than sorry is what I'm hearing from most lawyers.

 

Until someone (Daddy) has time to scan through 20,000+ escort images (many of which are nothing BUT a cock shot LOL), it's prudent and in the best interest of the owners of this site to err on the side of caution.

 

It may be all for naught. If you'll read the link to FSC that I posted earlier in this thread, their suit has already been filed.

 

>I think the producers who are shutting down are likely to be those

>who have used foreign performers visiting the US, for whom the

>requisite ID is unavailable, or who have been sloppy about keeping records,

 

The bigger problem is the back-catalog for anyone who's been in business for many years. And, as you mentioned, the retroactive effectiveness. There aren't enough Kelly Girls in LA to meet the new cataloging requirements in the 30 days allowed.

 

The other onerous part is the redefinition of "primary producer" and "secondary producer". If your website licenses content from the site that actually produces it, now YOU have to have the same records on file that the original producer has to have. In the past, that onus was on the original producer. (The violation of privacy involved here is a big thrust of FSC's suit.)

[Guest zipperzone]

I think the new law is disgusting and is indicative of the mind-set of the thugs currently in power in your country. The religious wrong must be doing cart wheels with joy.

 

I see that this could lead to several things.

 

(1) The return of street prostitution if there is no longer a mechanism for advertising services.

 

(2) A possible lowering of prices if # 1 occurs as I can't see a street hooker asking for $300 hr.

 

(3) An incredible increase in business and therefore revenues for businesses offering "adult" content websites that are owned and operated off shore. They too must be doing cart wheels (but for different reasons) Let's face it, anyone wanting to buy porn online could care less if it is coming from the USA, Canada or Germany. Maybe it's time to start me own porn business - now there's a thought...

 

Sounds like the Bushies have won big time. In one way, I'm surprised it took them so long to impliment this little wrinkle!

[Guest zipperzone]

To add a 4th prediction to my previous post - sites such as BadPuppy etc could see an increase in business as other sites fall by the wayside as I believe they control the production of all they sell and presumably will have the required records on file. Some win - some don't win.

[JT Brooklyn]

So UWS..Does this mean that Daddy has to keep on file "Proof of Age" of "EVERY" Guy who has a Review on M4M? Proof of Age would also show "Legal Name"..We know that "wouldn't work" for anyone!! Sorry if I missed this in your Post! :+

[JT Brooklyn]

Zipper..I am "Luving" your Option #2..Maybe this will bring a little "Reality" into Play! When the "Emails and Phone calls" Narrow Down..LOL :+

[Bilbo]

RE: Personal web sites

 

I am unclear on how this will affect an escort's own website, where he only publishes pictures of himself. And if I am, then, by the tip of the iceburg rule, there are at least nine other escorts out there who are, as well. Advice?

[+ deej]

RE: Personal web sites

 

EVERYONE is unclear, Bilbo. :-(

 

In theory, if your site only has pictures of you and you're not depicting sex acts[1] you should be fine, and presumably YOU have proof of age for YOU. But you're unlikely to have a custodian of records available during normal business hours M-F for unannounced inspection of the records on file for every picture on your site.

 

For now, nobody has a reliable court-tested answer.

 

 

 

[1] The regs are self-contradictory. While some sections clearly specify sex acts (or simulated sex acts) between two or more people, other sections easily could be interpreted to cover masturbation or even a simple hardon shot.

[Chuck50]

RE: Personal web sites

 

I wasnt aware that our pictures showed sex acts at least not many. Are we doing this for a few or out of fear? HUGS

[Guest ncm2169]

RE: Personal web sites

 

< I wasnt aware that our pictures showed sex acts at least not many. Are we doing this for a few or out of fear?

 

Scotch or gin, Chuck? }(

[+ deej]

RE: Personal web sites

 

>Are we doing this for a few or out of fear? HUGS

 

We're doing this to inspect the lot. There's bound to be one (Murphy will see to that), and that's all it takes.

[+ deej]

>To add a 4th prediction to my previous post - sites such as

>BadPuppy etc could see an increase in business as other sites

>fall by the wayside as I believe they control the production

>of all they sell and presumably will have the required records

>on file. Some win - some don't win.

 

Actually, it could go the other direction for BadPuppy, Bedfellow, et. al.

 

They actually do purchase content, and also serve as portal to many third-party sites. Under the old regs, it was the original producer's responsibility to do all this recordkeeping. Not any more. They're now required by law to maintain the same records the original producer is required to maintain.

 

F'rexample, pornstar Bret Wolfe's site is a Badpuppy site. To get access to the members area, you have to be a Badpuppy member. He has a LOT of still pictures in there from the various videos he's made and I'll bet he doesn't have copies of all the ID's for all the performers. He probably relied on the original producer (the studio) to maintain those. He can't rely on that now, nor can Bedfellow acting as portal.