2257 SlideShow Presentation from Internext Florida

Thanks for posting this

some additional info from AVN online

http://www.avnonline.com/index.php?P...tent_ID=236344


Content producers, take heart. Some of the confusion surrounding the U.S. Department of Justice?s take on the regulations for enforcing the federal records keeping and labeling act, 18 U.S.C. §2257, has been clarified

Thanks for posting.

thanks...i should have a look. It feels like I can't be too informed on this.

some major highlights from the AVN article are these

- Domestic producers who travel outside the United States to record images of sexually explicit conduct may rely on foreign government issued passports.

- The requirement that a ?copy of the depiction? must be maintained does not apply to materials recorded prior to June 23, 2005.

- The requirement that the ?date of production, manufacture, publication, duplication, reproduction, or re-issuance? be identified on the label is satisfied by stating the last date of filming, and characterizing that as the date of production.

- Material produced before June 23, 2005, that was compliant with the old regulations may continue to be marketed without fear of prosecution under the new regulations.

- The term ?actually sexually explicit conduct? does not include ?lascivious exhibition of the genitals? (i.e., mere nudity).

- A website containing no depictions of ?actually sexually explicit conduct ? that provides hyperlinks to a third-party website that does contain such material has no record-keeping obligations.

- ?Most of the clarifications are certainly positive news for the industry,? says Free Speech Coalition Communications Director Tom Hymes, who characterizes Kaplan as ?a very nice guy.? ?There?s no question that the DOJ is willing to engage in a dialogue with the industry [about this issue].?

ya been keeping on top of this talking to various lawyers waiting until they get it posted. The main thing is that webmasters and even lawyers sometimes give wrong info - one such case I clearly pointed out to a webmasters the following:

- A website containing no depictions of ?actually sexually explicit conduct ? that provides hyperlinks to a third-party website that does contain such material has no record-keeping obligations.


Yet his lawyer and webmaster friends advised him not to get any plugin content at all from anyone. amazing how you can have the answer staring at you in the face from the source - and still they prefer to take the word of a non-adult lawyer and some newbie webmasters.

bump.. if your going to download it.. try and post something to help others later on who may not see the thread

Do secondary producers still have to comply with the burdensome indexing of records?

well they did clear up that if you are using plugin content or linking up to a site that on its template has 2257 then you dont have too.

currently they are hammering out exactly what is the responsibility of the secondary producer. check over the avn article and keep watching the free speech website for more details on that.

the amazing part of it.. is that they dont ask for the date of production. simply put if someone was to shoot anyone under 18 they merely have to wait until she turns of age to then use the content. absolutely asses that wrote it.

can we show pink now because of this:

- The term ?actually sexually explicit conduct? does not include ?lascivious exhibition of the genitals? (i.e., mere nudity).

thats a very good question.. and not a lawyer myself or have talked to one regarding this.. but the word "lascivious" needs to be defined as well.

Main Entry: las·civ·i·ous
Pronunciation: l&-'si-vE-&s
Function: adjective
Etymology: Late Latin lasciviosus, from Latin lascivia wantonness, from lascivus wanton -- more at LUST
: LEWD, LUSTFUL
- las·civ·i·ous·ly adverb
- las·civ·i·ous·ness noun

So, since "lascivious" means lewd me thinks as long as there's no fingers/toys/etc involved we can spread the pink

Looks like I need to install PowerPoint...

its a direct link to their site - sorry hun

you would hope these guys are seeing things so clearly... but remember their answer for how to keep the record keeping for live shows was to hold up a piece of glass/plastic with the 2257 below to the camera while the show goes on.. makes me wonder if they want to redefine the dictionary

thanks for posting it TL!

how is plug-in content exempt from record keeping? that's not "hyper links to a third party website". if you display plug in feeds on your site, you're still a secondary producer according to the DOJ at this time.

bump bump....

not true. plugin movies if they have the 2257 records on them do NOT make the webmaster required to keep the records on site... as long as the company your getting them with is up to date, your fine. I have a letter from the DOJ plus the internext seminar / our lawyers and the FSC say the same thing. Kindly check it out.