Quote:
Originally Posted by rapmaster
|
Hmmm... well, that's up to the FBI/DOJ to decide, really. While that statement arguably is noncompliant with the requirements listed in the CFR, the lack of an individual's name certainly isn't a problem that is hard to rectify.
In such an instance, the FBI/DOJ
could simply tell the producer "fix that label/statement," and give them a chance to do so, rather than try to file charges for what really amounts to a very small issue. (This assumes that the records are at least kept where the statement indicates they are, and that the records are otherwise properly kept, naturally)
During the 2257 presentation made by FBI Special Agent Chuck Joyner at the XBIZ Hollywood show in February, he indicated that the FBI really isn't interested in playing "gotcha!" with producers; they are primarily concerned with what the law is supposed to be for - preventing the creation and dissemination of CP.
Joyner said that were he interested in just nailing people for any kind of 2257 violation, he could find thousands of labelling violations any time he wished, just by checking out the 2257 statements used by any number of producers/webmasters online. They know they can do that - but how would doing that affect the production of CP in any way?
BTW, Joyner's presentation still
available here on xbizhollywood.com - I highly recommend taking the time to view it.
At the end of the day, of course, it's up to the DOJ whom they enter charges against for 2257 violations, and to what extent they will pursue labelling violations and/or "clerical" errors. A federal judge may or may not be keen on the DOJ taking up his/her time with purely technical violations - violations that have nothing whatsoever to do with CP.
All that said, IMO it's much better simply to name a specific individual as the custodian of records, as the statute appears to require, than it is to risk the potential of having to roll the dice in court on that issue.