So will the new 2257 regulations require this....

**Tom_PM** · 08-01-2006, 11:03 AM

I believe there is something written into 4472 which states to the effect that they'd only need that if the person wasn't someone who the employer already had tax papers on. And if it was "simulated".

So if for example an actor was being paid to be in the movie and they already had his federal tax forms for the job, they would not need 2257 style docs.

But thats just my loose interpretation, I could be way wrong.

**arock10** · 08-01-2006, 11:08 AM

But the movie theaters do not pay the actors directly.

**bobby666** · 08-01-2006, 11:10 AM

confusing situation,' am glad to be from europe

**media** · 08-01-2006, 11:13 AM

I think hollywood has an opt out exemption in the law... in Section 2257A(h) from their lobbyists doing their jobs... Wish our lobbyists had as much swing in their dicks..

**Tom_PM** · 08-01-2006, 11:14 AM

Hm see thats true. The theaters (analogous to websites?) dont *produce* the finished product (content). They merely display it to the general audience. So in a way, if you're making the point that they should not be subject in any way whatsoever to record keeping, then common sense says you're right.

But the movie studio that DOES produce the film is the assumed responsible party as far as a movie.

**arock10** · 08-01-2006, 11:18 AM

Nah I'm saying if I've gotta have a million docs to be legit, they've got to have them too.

**arock10** · 08-01-2006, 11:18 AM

The more people that get inconvienced by this nonsense the less likely it'll be able to work

**arock10** · 08-01-2006, 11:34 AM

Ok someone that knows more then me said Hollywood worked out a deal so this doesn't matter. Bastards

**Grapesoda** · 08-01-2006, 11:41 AM

Originally posted by arock10

But the movie theaters do not pay the actors directly.

TGP's don't pay the actors either i might piont out at this time

**MrPinks** · 08-01-2006, 11:41 AM

So Blockbuster would be a secondary producer

**notabook** · 08-01-2006, 12:06 PM

Pfffft, big hollywood has nothing to fear. They just have to snap their fingers and their lobbyist start sucking so much political dick that any trouble they would get into would be resolved in a week.

**fl_prn_str** · 08-01-2006, 12:12 PM

Originally posted by media

I think hollywood has an opt out exemption in the law... in Section 2257A(h) from their lobbyists doing their jobs... Wish our lobbyists had as much swing in their dicks..

You would actually think with all the cash the adult biz makes they could grease a few palms....but everybody?s too self absorbed...and way too greedy to give away cash to help further the cause. It?s funny that people can give away a few bucks to affiliates but no huge lump sums to have the government leave the industry alone.

**pr0** · 08-01-2006, 12:23 PM

Originally posted by fl_prn_str

You would actually think with all the cash the adult biz makes they could grease a few palms....but everybody?s too self absorbed...and way too greedy to give away cash to help further the cause. It?s funny that people can give away a few bucks to affiliates but no huge lump sums to have the government leave the industry alone.

no you just payoff dirty lawyers & cops down the road, instead of dirty politicians later

**fusionx** · 08-01-2006, 12:40 PM

This thing will be so twisted up in the courts it won't see the light of day for a while. That is, for secondary producers. Primary producers have a few new things to worry about.

So will the new 2257 regulations require this....

So will the new 2257 regulations require this....

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment