no you don't understand.

the revised 2257 is only promulgated ostensibly for the "protection of children".

the real purpose is to facilitate obscenity convictions.

no where else in america is a simple clerical error a felonious event. NO WHERE.

not is dealing with the IRS, stock market fraud, and sort of white collar crime, or anything else.

the reason a clerical error is a felonious event in 2257 is so busts can be made.

and once a bust is made on 2257 just watch the trades for an obscenity plea.

this is why the penalties are onerous. IMO there will be less than .01% of actual underage performers found after 10,000 inspections of 2257 records.

and there will be immediately 150 obscenity busts facilitated by people who will take the plea rather than stand in front of a jury with their videos of bound girls forced fucked and drinking piss.

watch it happen.

Softcore nude images do not fall under 2257.

Obscenity charges also mean big bucks for the DOJ, especially when they go after primary producers.

Shot one of your models on your boat? We're going to take it.

Shot her in the ensuite shower of your lakefront summer home? We own it now.

Model stripped naked while washing your Ferrari? We're parking the prancing pony in OUR driveway.

This is one of those times which highlights just how immature the online porn industry still is. Assuming most of us don't just stick our heads in the sand, there will be thousands of webmasters around the country paying lawyers for their advice in the coming months. At best we will all be paying to hear broadly the same advice and at worst, the vast majority of those lawyers won't have any more idea about the new regulations than we have!

Yes we do need solid legal advice, but before popping for an hour of an attorney's time, consider these realities:

1. In many respects this is brand new legislation, but at least seek out a lawyer who has practical experience of the original 2257 regulations.

2. The document in the Federal Register runs to over a dozen pages. If you are the first or only client and you want a considered opinion, expect to pay for several hours of your lawyer's time for him to study the new regs.

3. A "chat" with a lawyer won't hack it. We need specific advice about what information must appear on what type of documents (especially since some content producers and sponsors are likely to try to convince us to cut corners). We need to know exactly how to maintain our records and how to link between the physical records and our sites. We should understand how to conduct ourselves in the event of a "visit" and any subsequent actions against us. We need to understand the risks: not only the penalties, but the likely cost of a defense in the worst case. Etc. Etc.

In other words, to be able to feel reassured that we have been given useful and comprehensive advice, expect a bill of several thousand dollars. If the idea of us each spending that kind of money to seek advice on the exact same topic isn't ludicrous enough, consider also that very few lawyers in the country have experience in this particular area. We could/should be queuing up to see the same small group of people.

I imagine some of these experts may decide to offer 2257 packages at what may appear to be bargain prices. Given the unlikelihood of enough of us being able to agree how to approach this thing together, this is probably the best we can hope for. However we shall still be collectively spending far more than should be necessary and as customers rather than clients, we will be stuck with accepting the advice in whatever form the lawyer in question deems adequate. The way that issues in the past (for example, precautions against minors entering our sites) have been covered in such packages, is not confidence inspiring.

After reading this entire thread my head hurts.

I'm just going to make sure all the images on my server are "softcore". I might even start doing toon stuff.

true.

luckily for myself i am mostly mainstream and artsy softcore.

but, there is only one attorney i would choose. and if you've ever heard him speak, and checked his record of success, you would know why:

J. D. Obenberger and Associates

Suite 3700 Three First National Plaza
70 West Madison Street
Chicago, Illinois 60602

Phone 312.558.6420
Fax 312.558.7773
Pager 312.426.6420

Do your records have to be in English? I may of over looked that but I did not see it anywhere.

If it doesn't have to be in English, boy will I have a surprise for them...

haha, very true.

i've got releases in 4 different languages. sure hope my inspectors can read them.

it's a big world out there.

and guess what, some countries don't use the western calendar.

lots of stuff congress just does not understand about the world---a VERY myopic, technology-challenged, xenophobic view.

Yea but someone mentioned earlier that if they are part of a hardcore set it might be different.

One of my good friends speaks and writes MONG... a SE Asian hill tribe language. We were joking that he should translate all my records to MONG. The kicker is, there are only a few people left on earth who can speak it, let along read and write it. It's a very rare & odd language.

All Thai content (well over 200 girls) has ID's based off the Thai Buddhist calendar. They are 543 years ahead of the western calendar. Top that off with all records written in Mong... who ever is inspecting at my house is going to need back up and some coffee. :1orglaugh

: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'.