2257

[NakedSword Holly]

Are you worried? What are you doing about it?

[BDBionic]

I'm worried, yeah.
Anyone wanna buy all my sites? :D

[NakedSword Holly]

She does.....

[MWSommer]

I am concerned about the companies that are not doing anything about it.

I am concerned that some of the content companies are not communicating to their clients that everything is okay.

I am not concerned about the long term viability of this industry. The government can attempt to restrict and criminalize things but history is not on the side of totalitarian or dictatorial regimes.

There is always a way. Prohibition of alcohol financed organized crime and prohibition of drugs has obviously had no positive effect on this country. Attempting to criminalize the manufacture and distribution of porn through record keeping requirements is circumventing the constitutionally sound principles that erotica is protected speech. In the end this will not be sustainable. In the meantime people need to protect themselves and their assets so they can stay in business long enough to see this come undone in the end.

heart

[NakedSword Holly]

I think this sums up 2257

[IntenseMark]

I have only heard from one of the places we have bought content from so that is not a good sign. I don't think there was much time to even get things done for most companies. I couldn't imagine how much work the pay per view companies with thousands of different providers have to do. But we will do everything we can to comply.

Mark

[Hammer]

The writing appeared quite awhile ago when we all found out about Ashcroft's proposed changes. Surely the content companies didn't think this was all going to go away and they should have been prepared by now.

Producers and providers have had to obtain and keep the proper records for several years so the fact that some of them don't have the proper docs to provide webmasters with now bothers me.

[Lavender Lounge Blog]

I'm going through all my sites, cleaning them up, deleting banners, replacing pictures with text links and deleting whole galleries (bye bye Bedfellow free content galleries!).

I'm going to be using this image when I need a quick bandaid to replace a hardcore image from a sponsor. Feel free to use it on your sites, too.

[desslock]

Also, it is the American Way.... wait for a prosecution, and then you take your case to court. We will have our day in court.

I also would also suggest a media campaign. I haven't seen anything whatsoever about 2257 on any news program or talking head show. I am not sure why, if the federal government really acting to hyper regulate a legal business into nothingness, all based on a pretense, then that would be news.

That is what Hugo Chavez is doing in Venezuela. Not in the United Staes of America.

Steve

[MWSommer]

Also, it is the American Way.... wait for a prosecution, and then you take your case to court. We will have our day in court.

I also would also suggest a media campaign. I haven't seen anything whatsoever about 2257 on any news program or talking head show. I am not sure why, if the federal government really acting to hyper regulate a legal business into nothingness, all based on a pretense, then that would be news.

That is what Hugo Chavez is doing in Venezuela. Not in the United Staes of America.

Steve

Hi,

I have been meeting with Free Speech Coalition and ASACP over the last couple of weeks discussing the implications of the new regulations. In the end Free Speech is going to take the position that the entire regulation known as 2257 is unconstitutional and will be filing an injunction against prosecution for it's members while the 2 suits about consitutionality are being decided. This process could take 2+ years. So in the meantime you should be as compliant as is reasonably possible but also join Free Speech Coalition so that you are a party to the complaint against the JOD and you are then protected by the Injuction. Otherwise you are exposed. Also my partners and I will be stepping up our support of ASACP as it is a proactive attempt at industry self regulation since the ostensible purpose of 2257 is protection of minors. Why not show that you as a business person actually do care about protecting minors? Computer

[desslock]

Those are good thoughts.

And I'll bet it takes longer then two years. It is interesting because the US government cannot regulate the actual content of the pictures or movies, as it it protected as free speech. And the S.C. ruled last year that the parents are under the obligation - not the producers - to protect minors.

So their option here is to introduce a fistfull of regulations. I suppose that could be argued as an unconstitutional taking.

A comparison would be to consider if the government would have the ground to require magazines to comply with a set of rules if they wish to accept certain advertising, or talk about a certain topic.

Steve

[Aly]

I encourage you all to be PREPARED for all outcomes of this. I'm seeing too many people sitting back waiting to see what happens.... they're likely to be scrambling in some way or another as I really don't think the FSC will succeed in having the entire set of regulations struck down.

[RainGurl]

i have to agree aly dear...i'm seeing a lot of people just "hoping" it will all just go away.

i talked to someone today who sells adult traffic but isn't exactly in the business. i mentioned something about being busy with 2257 stuff and he had no clue what i was talking about, and they host explicit banners on their sites.

[thehost]

has anyone heard or surmised how the ruling will affect match-making sites with profiles and pictures?

[Harlan]

I wish G-d speed for the FSC motion to be filed this week but caution all that filing for an injunction does not mean an injunction will be granted. Time to bickle done and get our ducks in a row.