Porn lobby fights back on new web regulations
SAN DIEGO -- An adult industry trade association plans to head to court this week to fight new federal enforcement efforts that could catch thousands of online porn sites with their pants down.
Under penalty of federal prison terms, new interpretations of existing regulations would require sites that feature photographs or videos of sexual activity to keep records confirming that performers are of legal age.
Re: Porn lobby fights back on new web regulations
That article states...
Age records in the porn industry are nothing new: Since federal law 18 U.S.C. 2257 went into effect 15 years ago, everyone who produces porn has been required to prove that performers are over 18. (According to adult industry attorney J.D. Obenberger, the regulations were inspired by congressional outrage at a hard-core video performance by 15-year-old Traci Lords.)
Now, the law is getting stricter. The new enforcement regulations would require webmasters that don't produce material to keep age records for every image that shows or implies sexual activity on their sites. (Sites that simply feature straightforward nudity are exempt.)
"If the original content producer can't be found or went out of business or is unwilling to release information, that causes this content to become criminal overnight," said adult industry attorney Lawrence Walters. "These webmasters are facing felony charges if they continue distributing images they've been distributing for the last five to 10 years."
Re: Porn lobby fights back on new web regulations
Yup, Section 2257 was one of the major reasons that I took down my pay website and especially quit doing live webcam. Not only did I not want to list my own personal statistics, but I didn't want to be responsible for listing personal statistics of 'girlfriends' either. If you read the 'fine print' of this law as it applies to webcam i.e. 'live' content, if a webcam girl does not post her real name, real address and real age on her webcam page for every surfer in the world to see, she could possibly be charged with a felony - and a sex crime felony to boot, requiring official registration as a sex offender in many states if found guilty !
Also note that 'any authorized agency' must be given access to these personal statistic files. I can just imagine the field day that the IRS is going to have by calling up a few major adult pay sites and requesting copies of the personal statistics lists for all of the models appearing on those websites. 5 minutes later the IRS computers will cross check last year's tax returns from those models, and ...
Re: Porn lobby fights back on new web regulations
This nightmare finally went through. It's one onerous mutherfucker of a compliance regulation. I read through the amended version and it's substantially unchanged.
http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/p...607%202%20.pdf
The Free Speech Coalition will be filing a lawsuit in an effort to get an injunction against the reg, presumably filed on the same day that the law goes into effect. If granted, the injuction will only cover members of the FSC. Anyone running an adult site should go join the FSC pronto to make sure they get the benefit of the hard work of these good folks. Some of the provisions are so ridiculous my guess is the injunction will be granted. For example, Federal agents can inspect site records at any time during business hours of any adult site, without any advance notice, AND any evidence they "happen" to come across indicating some unrelated felony MAY have happened can be seized on the spot. Due Process be damned. >:(
Re: Porn lobby fights back on new web regulations
Quote:
For example, Federal agents can inspect site records at any time during business hours of any adult site, without any advance notice, AND any evidence they "happen" to come across indicating some unrelated felony MAY have happened can be seized on the spot. Due Process be damned.
Yup, imagine the possibilities if an IRS agent requests the model records from say penthouseexecutiveclub.com or any other strip club website which posts pics of dancers working in the club(s) on suspicion of a related felony (tax evasion). Instant audit material.
Re: Porn lobby fights back on new web regulations
I've neer worked in either the porn or web industry so this may be a dumb question. Why not move the porn sites, "off-shore". The internet knows no boundaries, use a server? in another country. Isn't this how the online casinos get around the gaming laws?
Re: Porn lobby fights back on new web regulations
Quote:
Originally Posted by Destiny
Why not move the porn sites, "off-shore".
That's an excellent question. Seems reasonable, but Ashcroft was one sneaky fuck when he and his boys drafted this regulation. This law is his porn Patriot act.
I believe one problem is the the location of the business defines the jurisdiction first, and the actual porn materials are secondary. If you were to move the entire operation offshore, I imagine that would work.
Also, this wouldn't help live broadcasts such as "cam girls". They would have to move offshore also.
I'm going to forward this question to the FSC. Those guys are awesome. They've kicked the DOJ's butt on several occassions. I hope they do it again here.
Re: Porn lobby fights back on new web regulations
Actually, the violation of law occurs at the point of delivery ... i.e. the paying US customer. There is already legal precedent for this in the form of adult video producers and adult site webmasters located in 'liberal' states where their content is considered to be legal being extradited and prosecuted in 'conservative' states where more conservative state laws deem their content to be illegal.
The general legal opinion regarding Section 2257 is that a porn website hosted in a foreign country is faced with two choices under Section 2257 if fully enforced. #1 - comply with the Section 2257 reporting requirements, or #2 face the distinct possibility that the IP of that web server will be officially blacklisted on every internet name server in the USA (i.e. cutting off access to that website for every potential customer residing within the USA). Thus a foreign porn website can indeed operate without complying with Section 2257, but will potentially have to give up sales into the US market in order to do so.
It would appear that the Justice Dep't has been preparing to start applying the same sorts of border controls to internet connections as it has applied for decades to telephone connections etc. Evidence that 'geographic' internet controls are beginning to be put in place are also evident via US online credit card processors ... for example if a person residing in a zip code with strict porn laws attempts to sign up at an adult website or purchase an adult product online, the credit card processor will probably reject the transaction and barf out the message "unable to ship to this address".
Also, while the Free Speech Coalition has indeed filed a lawsuit over Section 2257. so far no stay has been issued and the new law is due to go into effect this coming Wednesday June 23rd.
Re: Porn lobby fights back on new web regulations
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melonie
Actually, the violation of law occurs at the point of delivery ... i.e. the paying US customer. There is already legal precedent for this in the form of adult video producers and adult site webmasters located in 'liberal' states where their content is considered to be legal being extradited and prosecuted in 'conservative' states where more conservative state laws deem their content to be illegal.
I agree, but the question was about 2257. The problem is under the current regulations not a single inspection has ever occurred, so the specifics of compliance (under current law) remain un-adjudicated. How the interstate commerce type actions that underlie the bible vs. hippy interstate actions affect international 2257 prosecution is unclear to me, but your application seems reasonable to me.
Quote:
The general legal opinion regarding Section 2257 is that a porn website hosted in a foreign country is faced with two choices under Section 2257 if fully enforced. #1 - comply with the Section 2257 reporting requirements, or #2 face the distinct possibility that the IP of that web server will be officially blacklisted on every internet name server in the USA (i.e. cutting off access to that website for every potential customer residing within the USA). Thus a foreign porn website can indeed operate without complying with Section 2257, but will potentially have to give up sales into the US market in order to do so.
Do you have a citation for this? How exactly do the feds intend to conduct an offshore inspection? I've vaguely recall hearing about DNS blacklisting. Any references on this? This is exactly what China does to limit domestic access to the web. I'm also curious about third party liability such as a credit card companies that processes payments for offshore 2257 non-compliant sites. The "safe-harbor" provisions DMCA (digital millenium copyright act) are an ambiguous mess and still being litigated on this issue.
The record keeping requirements of 2257 are insane. The feds could easily use this to virtually shut down internet porn, with the exception of Playboy and Penthouse size sites, with the resources to comply. Since you used to be in this biz, what's the line between nudity and 2257 compliance? My understanding it leans much closer to garden variety nudity than the quoted article implies.
What a mess. Not a good time to be in the porn biz. I haven't checked the ACLU, I bet they have a position paper on this.
Quote:
It would appear that the Justice Dep't has been preparing to start applying the same sorts of border controls to internet connections as it has applied for decades to telephone connections etc. Evidence that 'geographic' internet controls are beginning to be put in place are also evident via US online credit card processors ... for example if a person residing in a zip code with strict porn laws attempts to sign up at an adult website or purchase an adult product online, the credit card processor will probably reject the transaction and barf out the message "unable to ship to this address".
Holy Shit! Are you serious? Let's get Ashcroft back, even he wasn't this bad. I suppose the constitution doesn't guarentee free speech for offshore speakers.
Re: the credit cards, I can see how this would happen -- the cc processors simply don't want to have to deal with certain regions, so they block access to anything even remotely offensive.
Re: Porn lobby fights back on new web regulations
Quote:
How exactly do the feds intend to conduct an offshore inspection? I've vaguely recall hearing about DNS blacklisting. Any references on this?
They don't have to do an offshore inspection. All they have to do is spot foreign websites online which do not have Section 2257 compliances notices posted, upload their IP's to the backbone US internet name servers, and poof those websites can no longer be accessed by US residents.
Quote:
Holy Shit! Are you serious? Let's get Ashcroft back, even he wasn't this bad. I suppose the constitution doesn't guarentee free speech for offshore speakers.
Yes, they have the exact same rights of free speech ... and the exact same duty to document proof of age of their models in order to exercise that same right of free speech within the USA. However, from a practical standpoint we're talking about hundreds of thousands of offshore websites, so I would doubt that much will happen overnight in the way of restricting access within the USA. But here's the cite you requested ... " the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia rejected the plaintiff's contention that the law was unreasonably burdensome because it would apply to overseas content. Reading the Statute as though it would apply to foreign content, the court said: "Foreign producers who wish to peddle their products in the United States should be expected to abide by our laws no less than domestic producers.". American Library Association v. Reno, 33 F.3d 78, 94 (C.A.D.C., 1994)."
Ironically, there is actually quite a bit of commentary at AVN and other adult webmaster hangout sites that Section 2257 will actually serve as a de-facto barrier to foreign porn competition, by restricting the ability of foreign producers to sell product to US customers and also by restricting the ability of US or foreign porn producers to make use of models who are not US citizens (via a very short list of acceptable forms of ID being Section 2257 compliant). Thus for large and well-organized US based porn sites and video producers, Section 2257 may turn out to be a major protectionist 'trade barrier' to the competition.
However, the compliance requirements for Section 2257 are so onerous that small independent websites (like my own) can't possibly put in the hours and hours of due diligence necessary to make sure they are Section 2257 compliant and still have the website economics stay in the black. And screwing up the Section 2257 compliance documentation can lead to a felony 'sex crime' charge against the webmaster (i.e. ME) ... no thanks, it's not worth the risk for a few hundred bucks a month in net website revenue. This of course will serve as a further boon to large and well organized US based porn sites, by driving much of the small independent competition out of business along with foreign competition. I guess that it's time to do some stock market research to see if any porn websites have shares available !!!
The best 'free' legal interpretation of Section 2257 I have been able to find is at . However, keep in mind that this was prepared before the Justice Dep't published a finalized version of the law. Scroll down to 'Streaming Live Feeds and Foreign Content' when you get to the link.
~
Re: Porn lobby fights back on new web regulations
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melonie
By the way, in the final revision of the reg, the DOJ refused to exempt online bulletin boards (presumably such as this) from being liable for posters to the site. They must chck every image posted for the the affixed caption listing the location of age verification records for anyone in a posted image. Crazy. [From the DOJ position on 2257]:
One commenter commented that the exception under
§ 75.1(c)(4)(iv–v) for Web hosting, electronic communication, and remote computing services should be extended to 18 U.S.C. 2257(f)(4). Providers of Web hosting, bulletin boards, or electronic mail services could be found liable for not ascertaining that the appropriate label was affixed to a depiction transferred by one of their users. The Department declines to adopt this comment, which would require an amendment to the statute and is beyond the authority of the Department to change by regulation. Moreover, the Department notes that 18 U.S.C. 2257(f)(4) makes it a crime for a person ‘knowingly to sell or otherwise transfer’’ any sexually explicit material that does not have a statement affixed describing the location of the records.
(On the up side, the next time AinNY posts one of his "full monty" pix, I'll have the info I need stalk that boy properly. }:D )
I checked AVN and as you mentioned they have lots of info on this topic, including a site devoted to it:
http://www.avn.com/2257
Did you notice that avn.com is now free of ALL nudity. They ain't taking any chances. Ashcroft's dream of a fully clothed Internet is already underway.
What strikes me as so strange is that not ONE inspection happened in ten years, and now they suddenly have the great need to institute this crazy law. Smells like power grab with an agenda that has ZERO to do with "protecting children". What a crock.
All in the name of protecting the next potential Tracy Lords.
Re: Porn lobby fights back on new web regulations
I'm firmly convinced that Section 2257 is actually being promoted by the gov't for two purposes. #1 (the minor one) is a milksop to conservative voters who backed the 2004 Republican victory. #2 (the major one) is a powerful new tool for the IRS and state tax agencies to find out exactly who is working in the adult industry and for the first time to hit them up for income taxes based on the 'legal proof' that Section 2257 records will easily provide. Thus I would not be the least bit surprised if models who have done website modeling in the past but whose pics are still posted at US websites, active webcam girls, dancers whose pictures appear on US strip club websites etc. start getting personal attention from the IRS in the near future.
The key difference here is that, unlike an investigation of strip club records or website pay records or photographer's modeling fee records, under Section 2257 the gov't does not need any form of 'probable cause' to investigate. Under Section 2257, the IRS can simply make one phone call to say penthouseexecutiveclub.com's or dejavu.com's webmaster requiring that the webmaster fax the IRS a copy of their Section 2257 list - which will contain the real name, real address, real age, and real SS# of every girl that appears on the website. Talk about an auditor's dream !
Quote:
By the way, in the final revision of the reg, the DOJ refused to exempt online bulletin boards (presumably such as this) from being liable for posters to the site. They must chck every image posted for the the affixed caption listing the location of age verification records for anyone in a posted image. Crazy. [From the DOJ position on 2257]:
True ... and this brings up yet another muddy waters issue i.e. exactly where does the dotted line get drawn in regard to content which falls into the non-Section 2257 'glamour' category vs. conteht which falls into the porn category requiring Section 2257 compliance. I have seen at least a couple of pics on this website which probably have crossed the dotted line. This is a major nasty issue, since a hostile BBS poster could essentially manage to get our wonderful webmaster Pryce indibted on a felony 'sex crime' charge simply by posting non Section 2257 compliant XXX pics attached to their post.
~
Re: Porn lobby fights back on new web regulations
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melonie
Actually, the violation of law occurs at the point of delivery ... i.e. the paying US customer...
If its not too complicated and not too far off topic, how do the offshore gambling sites get around this?
Re: Porn lobby fights back on new web regulations
Quote:
Originally Posted by Destiny
If its not too complicated and not too far off topic, how do the offshore gambling sites get around this?
World Trade Organization court decree'd US laws on gambling in violation of the free trade treaties.
Plus MC and Visa are in no rush to put their gambling customers on the Justice Department's watch list.