50 what you should know about 2257 and FSC...
-
-
You claim to be a lawyer and you don't even know that USA Courts have time and time again upheld the legitimacy of negotiated settlements done between the Prosecutor and a select group of defendants? Equal protection arguments have previously been made, and the Courts have time and time again held that the State is always able to cut deals and give special treatment to a small percentage of a group of defendants when this small percentage offers the State something it wants.Originally posted by nikad
Here the FSC offered to drop the TRO which afforded the DOJ a benefit. It is completely legal that the Feds can come after non FSC members and you are doing a huge disservice to the industry by telling folks otherwise. I'm not speaking in terms of you sabotaging FSC memberships as much as you are misinforming people and they could go to prison relying on your VERY wrong statements.
What law school did you go to?
Comment
-
ok, I made it very clear before that I am not giving any kind of advice to anybody. I went to a non US University. Basically what I was trying to say is that, after aug 8th if FSC wins there won't be prosecution after anybody, that what they are fighting for will help us all. I read a lot of hater comments against FSC. Obviously during this "grace time" to both FSC and plaintiffs you have to be either a FSC member or a plaintiff, it would be a lot more effective a class action where everybody could adhere, just so everybody would be covered.Originally posted by scoremanComment
-
Originally posted by nikad
If you are a lawyer you better go back to law school.
1. The law 18 USC 2257 has been around since 1990 so they can reach back that far based on previous regulations.
2. The new regulations went into effect June 23 2005 for everyone.
3. The deal with the FSC, other plaintiffs and the DOJ just says that they will not inspect parties to the suit until they have had their day in court. Unless the FSC WINS IN COURT ( gets a permanent injunction) ALL BETS ARE OFF RETROACTIVE TO JUNE 23.
4. So use the time to join the FSC and get your records in order.Comment
-
Yes if the FSC wins in court in August with an injunction the effective result would be that the DOJ will discontinue prosecuting 2257 until the FSC case is decided. Technically this injunction would only apply to class members but the real world application is that the Feds would not proceed as they would just get their asses handed to them at a new Injunction hearing.
Your posts are very confusing Nikad. To me it seemed pretty clear you were inferring that non FSC members would also be eligible to reap the benefits of the negotiated settlement announced yesterday without having to join the FSC, which is completely false. If your not with the FSC the Feds are well within their rights to prosecute for 2257 violations way before August 8th.Comment
-
wrong, because the 18 usc 2257 didn't include secondary producers then, so that cannot be retroactive.Originally posted by Probono
nikComment
-
Oh boy...Originally posted by nikad
<waits as Probono pulls out his hammer>Comment
-
I didn't infer anything, just said that if FSC wins we all win, if FSC looses we all loose, in both cases it is for members and non members. I do not see anything confusing here. We are talking about the results and not the grace period.Originally posted by scoremanComment
-
yes it did.Originally posted by nikadComment
-
The law has not changed just the regulations. Interpretation is going to be a matter for the courts.Originally posted by nikad
18 usc 2257 sec 75.1 definitions (old)
75.1 (c)(2) A secondary producer is any person who produces, assembles, manufactures, publishes, duplicates, reproduces, or reissues a book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, or other matter intended for commercial distribution that contains a visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct.
Do not rely on Sundance it is only law in the 10th circuit. All these new regs did was expand the definitions to encompass the Internet.Comment
-
but are those definitions retroactive? in other words, are people who pulled all their content down before the 23rd still on the hook for electronic images they posted since 95? are they saying that 'we - the DOJ - have considered webmasters secondary producers since 95.'Originally posted by Probono
that's a question that's been asked here a few times without any good answer.Comment
-
since when did my 1st Amendmant right & freedom of speech cost:
1) Cost me $300 a yr
and
2) Keep me out of jail a couple months longer than non-FSC members?
We are still living in America, right? Land of the Free, Home of the Brave?
Need a Text Writer?
Blogs|Reviews|Descriptions|Paysites|TGP's|Stories
ICQ: 397892500
Comment
-
Dopeman the answer is this:
As far as DOJ is concerned Sundance was a bad decision and it only applies in the 10th Circuit. They have made that clear as crystal in the published comments with the new regulations. Simply said, as far as they are concerned they have a look back period to 1995.
The new regulations add additional, new record keeping requirements those started June 23 but as far as DOJ is concerned they can look back as far as the statute of limitations allows at primary and secondary producers for id and other required information.
Unless there is a PERMANENT INJUNCTION issued on the new regulations that is broad enough to block enforcement they will do what they wish and lot's of people may need to defend themselves for things they thought were legal.
The days of the wild unregulated adult internet are over in the US. If you have any nexus with the US, business, residence, citizenship, banking etc you will need to play by the rules or risk being burned.
My advice to those effected is join the FSC and either get your records in order or shut down and find another income. This is serious stuff and the intend of the government is to use these laws to target this business.Comment
-
I contributed to FSC because as an affiliate running review site and other promo pages all with 2257 links to the sponsor, I feel that all the records are there at the sponsor and that there is no need for every marketer to have to keep model records especially if they do not even purchase, license or produce any content that is not already 2257 compliant at the level of the sponsor.Originally posted by ProbonoComment
-
besterman
If you do not have any content on your site that you have on your servers you are probably correct. If you have the content on your site you probably need the id and information database for each image. I am reading this from the intent of the regulations and the notes that state that a site just selling DVD's must have the information for each DVD cover they display on their site. It is not a big jump from this logic to a review site.
Take my advice as what is is free advice and ask your attorney.Comment
-
Feel free to file your own lawsuit to protect your 1st Amendment rights anytime. No one is stopping you.Originally posted by BabagirlsComment
-
I knew this guy was full of shit yesterday when I asked for his bar number and he wouldn't tell me.
A non-US university? Newsflash genius, we're dealing with US law here, your cracker jack box diploma doesn't mean shit.
My attorney isn't involved with the FSC action yet his counsel to me was that it is imperative that we join the FSC and make sure they have all of our d/b/a at once.
I think I'll listen to him....and the rest of you reading this would be well advised to do the same.sig too bigComment
-
agreed. but do the definitions of secondary producers also go back to 95? they left an open ended 'or other matter intended for commercial distribution that contains a visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct.' back in the original regulations. in theory, they have the ability to pinch anyone who has ever posted a pic online with an affiliate code attached to it going back to 95. this could probably be effectively fought in court, but how many affiliates have the money to hire one of the savvy free speech laywers for a trial? probably not many.Originally posted by ProbonoComment
Comment