:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

For those jumping to the end of the thread, a great side-by-summary of the current and new 2257 regs (with changes highlighted), produced by one of the finest adult law court orators, JD:

http://my.execpc.com/~xxxlaw/2257Tables5.24.05.htm


Fight the Cliff Notes!

THanks for posting and thank JD. If I read it right you have to have copy of each pic also on file . That will truly suck. Another question for my lawyer.

HAHAHA :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh Thats the best thing ive heard in a long, long while.

OK, let me ask this, ive been reading this for hours.

Now, I saw a post saying that even though this law is going into effect June 23 that since FSC is going to contest it in some way, that it wont be truely in effect still? Or how does this work?

Wow JD pulled that together already in this short period of time? He knows 2257 forwards and backwards

Rumour has it that when he snores, it sounds like "2 2 5 777777777777777" instead of zzzzzzz

:1orglaugh


While FSC is filing its injunction, DOJ can start their investigative process until the injunction gets approved i believe. Whether they will be waiting for June 24th (which is a friday, and for you corporate types, fridays are always the day that bad news comes in on) remains to be seen.

What also remains to be seen is if the injunction will only cover FSC members. I have heard this buzzing around, and will be looking to see what's the story on this part.

It wouldn't hurt to pay your $300 right now as membership dues to FSC irregardless.


Fight the Buzzing!

Whew... they changed the ID part so other governments are accepted. I can sleep now.

Well...I know people that have been sentenced to 3 years in prison for DUI's for having X number of DUI's within ten years that do no involve accidents/injuries. In fact I have a friend that is currently in jail at this moment with a $20,000 bail and is probably going to be sentenced to 3 years in prison...at the least that is what the prosecution is asking for.

EXACTLY!

Bump for the night shift.

Alot of discussion about this on the front page but no link to the actual regs.

Stop taking quotes out of context, and it'll make more sense. As I interpret it, that means that as a primary producer you are not required to keep a copy of the secondary producer's dynamic content in each iteration, but you ARE required to keep a copy of the image used by the secondary producer and any static URL associated with the publishing of that image by the secondary producer.

Exactly correct.

It is also, as far as I can tell, up to your primary producer to keep records of where YOU as a secondary, use it?

But the sponsor IS, to the best of my understanding, responsible for keeping records of locations of legitimate use...

but you 'repackaged' them. So what if your TGP says 'hot nude 12 year olds' and shows other people's content of legal models? You are legitimately a secondary producer because you are changing how it is portrayed, and not just selling packaged content in a dust jacket.

The store also doesn't get to take Playboy and call it 'Bob's Slut Rag'. You, as a TGP owner, do.

See previous comments about the definition of secondary producers, and 'repackaging' versus 'distributing'

Precisely.

(1.) the FSC plans to file for an injunction, a temporary restraining order, and separate lawsuits, as many four.(2.) the judge may or may not grant the filings, however if granted, the legal proceedings could tie up the 2257 amendments anywhere from 2 to 7 years. (3.) you would have to join the FSC to be protected by anything they file. membership is $50 for an individual; $300 for a company.

I wonder if an injunction/temporary restraint would prevent the govt from prosecuting on all 2257 changes or just specific ones.....has everyone read the latest article on AVN regarding this?

Any that want to a) sell content legally to a US-based company
b) sell content legally to a US consumer market.

Actually, they would be. If it 'enters the US market stream' it's applicable. Basically they're defining it as a product labelling law. Read the responses to comments again. Sort of like having an ingredients list on hot dogs so consumers can see it's not full of sawdust.

They will be if they want to be compliant. No distinctions are made on volume or respectability of the secondary producer, primaries are required to provide full info upon request to remain compliant.

As a primary producer outside the US, if you sell to a secondary in the US, you can have non-US govt-issue documentation for your models, or US ID, whichever.

As a secondary producer outside the US, this is really inapplicable to you unless you sell subscriptions to US consumers, in which case, you must maintain records, but you can rely upon your primary producer's info and not be forced to check it, though you do have to keep a record of where you got the info.

As a primary producer in the US you definitely have to comply. There is some discussion in other threads about whether you have to have US-issue ID for models if the shoot is outside the US, which IMHO would be a valid argument but isn't explicitly stated in the regulations as written. As written, US-based primary producers must have US ID for models, whether foreign or domestic.


As a secondary producer in the US, you must get the required records from your primary producer, whether they are based in the US or outside of it.

As a 'broker' I don't believe the onus is upon you for any maintenance of records, you are simply a 'distributor'.

and the $30 website owners will be the ones reporting them for non-compliance to the DOJ.... so?

Not a good analogy. A better analogy would be that of an advertising company that prepares a flyer for the sale of cars on a car lot, using the car lot's images. In no way does the advertising company own the car or the image, but they are still a producer in that they 'package' it and 'present it' uniquely.

That depends. If you're taking money from US citizens across the fence to flash your tits, you're in the US consumer market and yes, they can do something about it.

Agree MrChips! Basically it's all bollocks and more insanity.

The basis of 2257 is fine - ie.. for the protection of minors, but after that it's just bullshit. A dunk driver who kills needs to be stuffed in a jail cell for 10 years.

Creative pornographers need a tax break for enhancing the economy - it sure needs it.

I'm pleased I don't live or come under any laws of the US.

The onus is on the secondary to ask for it, the obligation of the primary is to reciprocate and provide it.

And the DOJ response was 'tough, deal with it, our agenda is more important'.

DUH?? :-) No, the laws of the US do not apply to any other country or any webmaster who does not live or host servers within US territory. Some may like to think so, but dream on.

Other countries do have laws in place to basically protect children and they can instigate an action against a webmaster within that country if he/she violates these laws. However, this does not mean listening to crap about 2257 from any US government officer - US laws do not apply in other countries.

Because the DOJ says so. If challenged in court, IMHO all that might happen is to get the requirement extended to theaters. It won't work the reverse way given the political pressure behind this and any effort spent thinking otherwise is a waste.

So you're telling me that if I'm standing in Mexico throwing sawdust-containing hot dogs across the border to US citizens who are throwing me money, the import / export and trade laws can't do anything about it?

I really really think you're wrong. But I'm not a lawyer, either, so I'll keep an open mind until someone posts something more informative on this one.

I believe that each company has a designated custodian of records, and that definition is set forth quite concretely elsewhere. Don't quote me.

As for the maintenance of records... it's my interpretation that the primary is required to record all instances of use, whether on their own behalf or by a secondary, while the secondary is required to obtain a copy of the model's documentation and track their own usage.

No. As a TGP owner, i.e. secondary producer, one would only be responsible for what actually appears on pages within your control. Sites linked to from that page that are outside your control, the records would be maintained by whomever is responsible for the individual site.

Correct. You are 'publishing' that image by virtue of it appearing on your page.

No, it means that you can accept the model info as valid when you receive it from the primary producer, but you have to keep a record of who the primary producer you received it from was.

As a secondary producer, any page you create with that content should list your custodian of records as the repository of 2257 info.

Then he's fucked, not you, because the onus is not on you to check the info provided by your primary producer, similar to how the primary producer has no obligation to check for model's aliases beyond what he / she provides.

Google, though, falls under the 'cannot reasonably control the content hosted' clause.

If you seriously think any interpretation of an act produced by US lawmakers is going to be heeded in the courts of any other nation - ya gotta be joking! :-)

The whole concept of nations and their right to produce laws is a matter for them and has no bearing whatsover on the legal processes and courts of any other countries.

To say this, I don't have to be a lawyer. Tho I do know a few lawyers in different countries and they would bust out laughing at the idea of laws of one country being "enforced" in another.

I have nada problem dealing with any US govt officer if he even addresses this issue - it's made up of two words. I never agreed (nor has any nation), to comply with laws created by US lawmakers as regards the internet - each country has their own laws on this.

Actually because you control what the page says about the link, it's still 'publishing' and subject to obscenity laws, but it doesn't fall under 2257 regulations at all if no images are used.

Ah, but if the banner is displayed on a us-based site owned by you, you have to have 2257 info for the image in it or YOU are in violation as a us producer because you 'published' it by featuring it on your site.

Their only argument for exemption would be that they have no control over the content, which is weak.

I suppose the same would apply to counters that featured explicit content - even if that image choice was out of the webmasters control.

Also just to clarify - im planning to remove all sponsor provided content from my server - if I do so before the law goes into affect then there is no retroactive prosecution allowed, correct?

One other question re: "publishing" if content is on the server but not linked or displayed in any html would the random act of the jpg being on the server still be considered in breech?

text tgps are ok ?

yes they are.

Ok what about my logo it is an adult cartoon ?
Is this ok as well ?

Re: publishing, if the image can be viewed by the general public, one would assume it's being published by you. Hence it would really depend on how your server access is configured; whether images can be directly accessed or only through pages.

cartoons are fine.... only applies to actual human beings

Thanks for your help :thumbsup