Another 2257 issue

[andi_germany]

As many threads said before as a US content producer you have to comply with the 2257 law.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2257.html

has the complete text of the law. The Parallel authorities link on the site brings you to the 28 CFR part 75 that is also important.

Now according to the psots I have been reading before a webmaster that merly buys his content would be fine just to post the 2257 notice and point it to the producers keeper of records.

After reading the 28 CFR part 75 it seems to be the requirement is a little more complex. It says the following:

- quote from 28 CFR part 75.2

(b) A producer who is a secondary producer as defined in
Sec. 75.1(c) may satisfy the requirements of this part to create and maintain records by accepting from the primary producer, as defined in Sec. 75.1(c), copies of the records described in paragraph (a) of this section. Such a secondary producer shall also keep records of the name and address of the primary producer from whom he received copies of the records.

- end quote

A webmaster falls under secondary producer so a content provider has to provide a copy of the documentation he is required to keep. If you don't have a copy of those records you are also not complying with the law.
That is only part of the 28 CFR part 75 and not the original law which holds a lot of legal uncertainties.

It's an interesting read and it seems that someone will take the heat before the matters are completly clear.

[jact]

It was deemed that a webmaster does not in fact meet the requirements of a secondary producer and thus not required to maintain copies of the records in the case of Sundance Associates Inc v. Reno. You can find the transcript of the trial here.

This is an old discussion, and you'll probably make a best friend out of charly over it.

[andi_germany]

Recently, in the case of Sundance Associates, Inc. v. Reno, 139 F.3d 804 (10th Cir. 1998), the court held that the "secondary producer" category on 28 CFR 75 was unlawful expansion on the definition of "producer" under 2257 and was therefore invalid, however the Sundance decision is presently only binding within the 10th Federal Circuit (this includes the states of Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah & Wyoming). Based on that decision, at least in the 10th Circuit, only "primary producers" are required to create and maintain records.
Since the Sundance decision does not bind other federal circuits in other regions of the country, federal courts in all the other states which lie outside the 10th Circuit might well analyze the law differently and come to a contrary decision. The consequence is that anyone located outside the 10th Circuit states runs a risk of violating the law by not following the letter of the record keeping requirements as set forth in 28 CFR 75.


Taken from: http://www.theadultwebmaster.com/leg...r/2257_3.phtml

[AaronM]

Originally posted by andi_germany
As many threads said before as a US content producer you have to comply with the 2257 law.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2257.html

has the complete text of the law. The Parallel authorities link on the site brings you to the 28 CFR part 75 that is also important.

Now according to the psots I have been reading before a webmaster that merly buys his content would be fine just to post the 2257 notice and point it to the producers keeper of records.

After reading the 28 CFR part 75 it seems to be the requirement is a little more complex. It says the following:

- quote from 28 CFR part 75.2

(b) A producer who is a secondary producer as defined in
Sec. 75.1(c) may satisfy the requirements of this part to create and maintain records by accepting from the primary producer, as defined in Sec. 75.1(c), copies of the records described in paragraph (a) of this section. Such a secondary producer shall also keep records of the name and address of the primary producer from whom he received copies of the records.

- end quote

A webmaster falls under secondary producer so a content provider has to provide a copy of the documentation he is required to keep. If you don't have a copy of those records you are also not complying with the law.
That is only part of the 28 CFR part 75 and not the original law which holds a lot of legal uncertainties.

It's an interesting read and it seems that someone will take the heat before the matters are completly clear.

The key word in all of that is "may. It is not required that they act as a secondary producer but they MAY if they have all of the required records.

Next issues please. This one has become tiresum.