Well PK has posted the new terms of service foisted on Panty Hog by the loony right wing lawmakers.? I think they blow as probably most of you do, and understand that PK is forced to take these steps.

What do you all think about these laws?

I don't think it's so bad. eBare have set up a new amataur site, in which you get a mini website within a collection, that they sell access to. They're Brits and the certification was required for their site too. Everyone had to do it because the site was open to the states, that's what we were told.

I think everyone's very aware of where their information ends up and info like passports etc is a bit too "intimate" for my liking. If I'm forced to do it to get on in this business then so be it. But saying that, my pics are always solo and pretty tame. The raunchy is generally locked away 

I wholeheartedly agree that porn needs to be capped. I do think that web scams, dialers and spam are more important but the gods have spoken I guess! I think all the girls will agree that there's no need for abuse from protestors of panty girls because (for the most of it) we keep the service behined the relevant walls, and aside from eBay sellers you have to actively searchout to find us. We aren't rubbed in your face. I think that's how it should be done  smt

The problem is NOT that adult business are now required to have age documentation for models, actresses, etc - that's been on the books for years.  It's that the recordkeeping requirements have become MUCH more stringent.

Now, for instance, it's not enough for a video production company to keep age verification records on all their actors/actresses.  Now they also have to have such records cross-referenced to EVERY stage name said performer has EVER used.  Each and every picture in a magazine technically must now have it's own set of these records.  And - this is the kicker - it's not enough for just the producer/publisher to keep the records - every brick-and-mortar sex shop is supposed to have these records as well, for all the merchandise they carry.

Now just imagine a store with a stock of hundreds of videos and magazines trying to keep such records!

This law is emphatically NOT about keeping kids out of porn, it's about trying to shut down adult businesses by loading them with impossible to fulfill bureaucratic requirements. 

(btw, they used the same tactic way back when marijuana was made illegal - they passed a law saying you had to have a special tax stamp to sell it, then made the tax stamp impossible to get.)

From what I've been reading the new law is unlikely to stand up to the inevitable court challenge, but that's not going to prevent the holier-than-thous from tearing down as many businesses as they can in the meantime.

I could be wrong, but I don't *think* this law is at all likely to decrease the amount of porn accesible to kids on the net - after all, it doesn't even apply to businesses based outside of the US or (as far as I know) to people with "personal" (i.e. free) smut sites.  It might, but really, isn't that what PARENTS are for?  To keep an eye on what their kids are doing?  Put it this way - if you left your kid in a room with a pile of playboy mags, would you then get riled at Hugh Hefner for making the porn available to your kids?

And as for it protecting we panty-sellers from copyright infringment or photo theft, I can't imagine how it will help with that either - it's not like you can report the theft of your pics to anyone now.  If you did chances are you'd find YOURSELF under investigation instead! 


Cherie

Holy shit! tell us your real views ladies  smt

Truth be told I'm still reading up on the totality of the laws in question.

I think Cindy has a good point as far as Webmasters having to take the heat for using pictures on their sites.  That alonme should make it tougher for people to abuse pictures that don't belong to them, a fact not lost on a number of sites with galleries!

As far as reducing access to porn for children, a parent can only do so much, and NetNanny and the rest can easily be by-passed.  If one side effect is to make access to 'free porn' or ripped off pictures on cheap sites then it's a benefit.

As for shops et al having to have the same documentation I'll have to check that one out.  But I'd trust a jury or Supreme Court to throw that one out as unworkable.  Sure the fanatics may try to apply the law to every unholy site and shop they can .. but the law isn't an ass, well not all the time  And a few cases thrown out will prove it unworkable!