Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mutt
please show me ANYWHERE in the 2257 law where it says explicitly or even implicitly you cannot black out any information other than the information that is explicitly required by the government.
|
The problem with fulfilling that request, is that whatever paragraphs are presented, are subject to interpretation, much like you have your own interpretations based on your readings.
To say, "what does your attorney think about your question" is a quick cop-out answer, but even with that, attorneys also seem to have differences of opinions based upon their own interpretations.. and while you certainly would respect your attorneys opinion, in the end, you are still responsible for your actions, and whether he is right or wrong and you get tapped, you have to be able to prove your compliance with the law
The touchy situation for both primary and secondary producers, is what do you do between now and June 24th? Will FSC's injunction be granted? What if it isn't? Will there be inquiries on the first day?
Content producers will have alot to review on their own, because many don't have proper model ID and documentation, that automatically cause webmasters who use their content to be in jeopardy.
For the content that does have proper identification, then to your point, what is given to the secondary record keeper? The spirit of the new regulations is the distrust of content producers being around at point of inspection. That before, the 2257 regulations were written such that the webmaster just needed to point DOJ to the correct content producer, which they will then get a knock on the door.
The DOJ comments to comments about content producers is not held in high regards. So therefore they have shifted the burden to the people who use the images, so that they are able to get the answers immediately.
Here's what they wrote in addressing the issue of no 3rd party custodian of records, and how it was a bad idea, etc.
"Historically, producers have used front corporations in order to evade both law enforcement and tax authorities."
(at the end of Page 29614)
So there is already a distrust towards content producers, so in their minds, they are rightfully justified that secondary record keepers should also hold copies, which means the unaltered versions.
They don't care that models home address, real name, state of issuance, and possibly even SSN might be revealed. To them, it's a business relationship, part of the contract between content producers and their customers to hold the information in trust (no different than an NDA being signed and you hand over confidential information).
The problem that they may fail to see, or just don't care, is that anyone can purchase a set, even just one of their favorite model, and be able to get access to private information.
While I understand the premise for why they are asking for what they are doing, I certainly don't agree with the methods. They are many other ways to secure/encrypt such data, but the DOJ is not open to such methods.
Fight the Headaches!