New 227 Regulations - scary - Page 3 - GoFuckYourself.com

FightThisPatent · 07-02-2004, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by TheDoc
You assume that it means to display, if distributing ment display then it would say that.

What we interpret words to mean is very different in the legal realm.

I ran into the word "reproduce" in my agreement with content producers. Some content producers and myself saw that word, and took it to mean that i would be making copies of the images.

My attorney said that if I receive images from a content producer (on CD/DVD/HD) and copy to another location (ie. to my HD), then I am REPRODUCing the images.

Whereas the common thinking of reproduction is like photocopying a document so you have 2 sets.

Same is true with words like distribute, etc... they have meaning in context to copyright law, but our common context is different.

-brandon

TheDoc · 07-02-2004, 01:06 PM

(2) A secondary producer is any person who produces, assembles, manufactures, publishes, duplicates, reproduces, or reissues a book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, a computer-generated image, digital image, or picture, or other matter intended for commercial distribution that contains a visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct, or who inserts on a computer site or service a digital image of, or otherwise manages the content of a computer site or service that contains a visual depiction of, actual sexually explicit conduct, including any person who enters into a contract, agreement, or conspiracy to do any of the foregoing.

This is really the only dangerious paragraph for paysite owners / free site owners. It is only because it's not 100% clear. Every lawyer is going to read it a little differently.

After reading the whole regulation, and other references of secondary producer it would still stand that a paysite owner is a merchant but should still have 2257 information. A free site owner that purchases content should as well but but if they get content from a paysite they should link to that persons 2257 information.

As I said you can't read this one paragraph at a time.

The key word in the above paragraph is "commercial distribution". That is business to business purchase of a product/content.

Matt 26z · 07-02-2004, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Imageauction
I agree that a TGP operator should be classified as a distributor since they don't make any editorial decisions about the content (assuming they really DON'T make any editorial decisions about the content).

You've got TGP's who automatically display all submitted galleries. They are truly not making any editorial decisions.

Then you've got TGP's who do make editorial decisions (gallery reviewing) based on what their surfers will like to see. So yes, most TGP's are in fact making editorial decisions.

If this is in fact the case, then the days of submitting galleries are over in just 4 months.

Matt 26z · 07-02-2004, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by TheDoc

This is really the only dangerious paragraph for paysite owners / free site owners. It is only because it's not 100% clear. Every lawyer is going to read it a little differently.

Hopefully they'll update the document so it's more clear before submitting it to congress. Clearly, whoever wrote all this for the government does not know how the online adult industry works.

I agree with Brandon, we should be giving them our input (input they can actually use).

This is actually where we need a governing group of individuals who represent the online adult industry and could just take these concerns to the DOJ for us. But until then......

Public comment info -

-Online form----------------
http://www.regulations.gov

Advanced search, then fill in CFR: 28 PART: 75

Direct link to that result:

http://comments.regulations.gov/EXTE...TOKEN=36626900

-email---------------------
[email protected]
Subject: "Docket No. CRM 103"

-Snail Mail----------------
Andrew Oosterbaan
Chief, Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section
Criminal Division
United States Department of Justice
Washington, DC 20530
Attn: Docket No. CRM 103

-Fax-----------------------
202-514-1793
Include "Docket No. CRM 103" on the cover sheet

phogirl69 · 07-02-2004, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Matt 26z
Hopefully they'll update the document so it's more clear before submitting it to congress. Clearly, whoever wrote all this for the government does not know how the online adult industry works.

I just wanted to copy and paste something that I read on Greenguy's Board by xxxlaw who is JD Obenberger an :

"To clear up serious misunderstanding:

1. It is important to understand that this proposal DOES NOT go to Congress. Congress gave authority to DOJ to promulgate regulations to impliment Section 2257 at Section (g) of the Act.

2. When the Attorney General promulgates it, 60 days from publication, it is a "real" law. Your opportunity to challenge it on any grounds is NOW. Full email address of the person to whom to address comments is in the proposal, found on xxxlaw.net.

3. You cannot assume that anyone will file suit to protect your interests nor that a court will grant an injunction to stay its enforcement.

4. It is downright wrong to believe that the regulations will have no effect when the present incumbants leave office. The existing regs were promulaged by J. Reno in the Clinton Administration and remain on the books until or unless repealed or amended."

End quote.

I am not good with legal talk, I think this means that it WON'T go to congress and will go in effect in 60 days?

samuel · 07-02-2004, 03:32 PM

thanks for the info, to be honest I should read more about this..

samuel

FightThisPatent · 07-02-2004, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by phogirl69
I am not good with legal talk, I think this means that it WON'T go to congress and will go in effect in 60 days?

JD rocks....

August 24th is the last day of the public inquiry, then after that, 30 more days, and then it goes into law.

Great clarification by JD (thanks for posting it here phogirl)... it confirmed what I had heard.

-brandon

Disco_Stu · 07-02-2004, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by TheDoc
"The record-keeping requirements apply to ``[w]hoever produces'' the
material in question. 18 U.S.C. 2257(a). The statute defines
``produces'' as ``to produce, manufacture, or publish any book,
magazine, periodical, film, video tape, computer generated image,
digital image, or picture, or other similar matter and includes the
duplication, reproduction, or reissuing of any such matter, but does
not include mere distribution or any other activity which does not
involve hiring, contracting for[,] managing, or otherwise arranging for
the participation of the performers depicted.'' 18 U.S.C. 2257(h)(3)."

This is pretty clear, if I purchase content, leased content, etc. I do not have to provide the 2257 information about each person within that content.

I'm not producing or publishing the content. I'm only distributing the content, which does not involve directly working for that company.

Distributor = the man that owns the quickie mart who is selling the magazines in entireity.

Publisher= the person who makes the magazine, or puts the images on the internet in a published fashin ie: you make an adult site, that "sites" front page is like a magazines front page, you are distributing the "site"
But when they open the website ie: join, then you ARE without a doubt 100% no if ands buts about it, the publisher, as you have now published said images onto the internet.

It has always been worded that way, and that is why every single big porn company would NEVER buy content from anyone without having un doctored images ie: drivers license and so on.

Disco_Stu · 07-02-2004, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by TheDoc
(2) A secondary producer is any person who produces, assembles, manufactures, publishes, duplicates, reproduces, or reissues a book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, a computer-generated image, digital image, or picture, or other matter intended for commercial distribution that contains a visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct, or who inserts on a computer site or service a digital image of, or otherwise manages the content of a computer site or service that contains a visual depiction of, actual sexually explicit conduct, including any person who enters into a contract, agreement, or conspiracy to do any of the foregoing.

This is really the only dangerious paragraph for paysite owners / free site owners. It is only because it's not 100% clear. Every lawyer is going to read it a little differently.

After reading the whole regulation, and other references of secondary producer it would still stand that a paysite owner is a merchant but should still have 2257 information. A free site owner that purchases content should as well but but if they get content from a paysite they should link to that persons 2257 information.

As I said you can't read this one paragraph at a time.

The key word in the above paragraph is "commercial distribution". That is business to business purchase of a product/content.

That means if you sell plugins you are considered a secondary producer and better have your information .

tony286 · 07-02-2004, 05:10 PM

Spoke to my lawyer today he was saying those who focus on teen niche will be under a bigger spot light. It's hard to win a 2257 case with a pic of a older looking women but with some teen pic where the girl looks she could be younger will be a prime target. He said remember the goal is not just to arrest people its to win convictions. So they will focus where they think they have the best shot.

AaronM · 07-02-2004, 05:12 PM

Yawn.

Randy · 07-02-2004, 06:32 PM

Is anyone here a members of the ACLU? Wouldnt it somehow be againzt the law to give out peoples real names...and an address or anything that could give their information to just anyone?

Matt 26z · 07-02-2004, 07:18 PM

Again, the government has no idea how things work in this industry in terms of content.

Under these new rules a psycho stalker could decide he wants to know who a certain model really is. Then 10 seconds later he's the member of that sites affiliate program, has access to free content for promotion and also model ID's.

Very, very bad stuff. This puts so many women in great danger.

terrisummers1 · 07-03-2004, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Imageauction
[B]Brandon wrote:

the regulations say you must have an identification document and if that identification document (such as a birth certificate) doesn't have a picture ID then you must have a "picture identification card"

as proposed
75.1 "Picture identification card means a document issued by the United States government or a political subdivision thereof, or a United State territory that bears the photograph and the name of the individual identified, and provides sufficient specific information that it can be accessed from the issuing authority, edge a passport issued by the United States or a foreign country, driver's license issued by a State or the District of Columbia, or identification card issued by a State or District of Columbia."

I'm not a lawyer but upon my reading of that the picture identification card must meet 3 criteria
1) have a recent and recognizable picture
2) contain the name of the individual identified and
3) provide sufficient specific information that it can be accessed from the issuing authority

blacking out the address would not affect any of the required features of the document.

you need picture ID from the US government? so what do you do with all the foreign people releases then? they have picture ID and everything, but not from the US.

goBigtime · 07-03-2004, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by gkremen

a.. A secondary producer is any person who.... inserts on a computer site or service a digital image of

You guys do realize this means no more ******* right?

goBigtime · 07-03-2004, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by terrisummers1
you need picture ID from the US government? so what do you do with all the foreign people releases then? they have picture ID and everything, but not from the US.

Maybe it was a freudian slip and the US plans for everyone (in the world) to have US identification in the near future.

07-02-2004, 01:06 PM	#102
TheDoc Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Currently Incognito Posts: 13,827	(2) A secondary producer is any person who produces, assembles, manufactures, publishes, duplicates, reproduces, or reissues a book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, a computer-generated image, digital image, or picture, or other matter intended for commercial distribution that contains a visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct, or who inserts on a computer site or service a digital image of, or otherwise manages the content of a computer site or service that contains a visual depiction of, actual sexually explicit conduct, including any person who enters into a contract, agreement, or conspiracy to do any of the foregoing. This is really the only dangerious paragraph for paysite owners / free site owners. It is only because it's not 100% clear. Every lawyer is going to read it a little differently. After reading the whole regulation, and other references of secondary producer it would still stand that a paysite owner is a merchant but should still have 2257 information. A free site owner that purchases content should as well but but if they get content from a paysite they should link to that persons 2257 information. As I said you can't read this one paragraph at a time. The key word in the above paragraph is "commercial distribution". That is business to business purchase of a product/content. __________________ ~TheDoc - ICQ7765825 It's all disambiguation

07-02-2004, 06:32 PM	#112
Randy Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: LA Posts: 335	Is anyone here a members of the ACLU? Wouldnt it somehow be againzt the law to give out peoples real names...and an address or anything that could give their information to just anyone? __________________ Thanks Randy [email protected]

07-02-2004, 03:32 PM	#106
samuel Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: email address Posts: 1,986	thanks for the info, to be honest I should read more about this.. samuel

07-02-2004, 05:10 PM	#110
tony286 lurker Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: atlanta Posts: 57,021	Spoke to my lawyer today he was saying those who focus on teen niche will be under a bigger spot light. It's hard to win a 2257 case with a pic of a older looking women but with some teen pic where the girl looks she could be younger will be a prime target. He said remember the goal is not just to arrest people its to win convictions. So they will focus where they think they have the best shot.

07-02-2004, 05:12 PM	#111
AaronM Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: ┌∩┐ ◣_◢ ┌∩┐ Posts: 46,909	Yawn.

07-02-2004, 07:18 PM	#113
Matt 26z So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: ¤ª"˜¨๑۩۞۩๑¨˜"ª¤ Posts: 18,481	Again, the government has no idea how things work in this industry in terms of content. Under these new rules a psycho stalker could decide he wants to know who a certain model really is. Then 10 seconds later he's the member of that sites affiliate program, has access to free content for promotion and also model ID's. Very, very bad stuff. This puts so many women in great danger.