New 2257 regs published (link here) - GoFuckYourself.com

Snake Doctor · 05-24-2005, 03:33 AM

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2...5/05-10107.htm

Since European Lee had to spam his board with his post I found the direct link to the new regs for you.

Snake Doctor · 05-24-2005, 03:45 AM

Damn....it's 16 pages worth of very small print.

I'm gonna be reading for awhile

Snake Doctor · 05-24-2005, 03:48 AM

Here's a link to the PDF file....much easier to print
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2...f/05-10107.pdf

goBigtime · 05-24-2005, 03:50 AM

from what I could see...

google cache (and the like) is now exempt.

BRISK · 05-24-2005, 03:51 AM

basschick · 05-24-2005, 04:03 AM

long, but interesting. the comment i sent was listed - weird!

R J · 05-24-2005, 04:08 AM

here's the HTML link

little easier to read

R.J.

swedguy · 05-24-2005, 04:18 AM

Quote:

Five commenters commented that the proposed rule would hurt U.S. businesses and remove money from the U.S. economy by driving the pornography industry to other countries. In addition, these commenters claimed, most sexually
explicit web sites are, in any event, already located in other countries and the rule would be ineffective in regulating them.

.....

swedguy · 05-24-2005, 04:27 AM

Quote:

(f) Internet means collectively the myriad of computer and telecommunications facilities, including equipment and operating software, which constitute the interconnected world-wide network of networks that employ the Transmission Control
Protocol/Internet Protocol, or any predecessor or successor protocols to such protocol, to communicate information of all kinds by wire or radio.

Not important, but they missed laser

Nightwind · 05-24-2005, 04:29 AM

Can someone who is going to read the whole thing, summarize the what you can and can't do's? I doubt i'm the only one who doesn't have time to read it.

Babaganoosh · 05-24-2005, 04:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nightwind

Can someone who is going to read the whole thing, summarize the what you can and can't do's? I doubt i'm the only one who doesn't have time to read it.

You're in the business and you don't "have time" to read it?

bringer · 05-24-2005, 04:30 AM

lenny, we need to chat
icq# 333-765-551

The Other Steve · 05-24-2005, 04:31 AM

If you don't have time to read something as important as this then you shouldn't be here doing business.

swedguy · 05-24-2005, 04:33 AM

Alright, here's the important parts:

Quote:

§ 75.2 Maintenance of records.

(a) Any producer of any book,
magazine, periodical, film, videotape,
digitally- or computer-manipulated
image, digital image, picture, or other
matter that contains a depiction of an
actual human being engaged in actual
sexually explicit conduct that is
produced in whole or in part with
materials that have been mailed or
shipped in interstate or foreign
commerce, or is shipped or transported
or is intended for shipment or
transportation in interstate or foreign
commerce and that contains one or
more visual depictions of an actual
human being engaged in actual sexually
explicit conduct made after July 3, 1995
shall, for each performer portrayed in
such visual depiction, create and
maintain records containing the
following:
(1) The legal name and date of birth
of each performer, obtained by the
producer?s examination of a picture
identification card. For any performer
portrayed in such a depiction made after
July 3, 1995, the records shall also
include a legible copy of the
identification document examined and,
if that document does not contain a
recent and recognizable picture of the
performer, a legible copy of a picture
identification card. For any performer
portrayed in such a depiction after June
23, 2005, the records shall include
(i) A copy of the depiction, and
(ii) Where the depiction is published
on an Internet computer site or service,
a copy of any URL associated with the
depiction or, if no URL is associated
with the depiction, another uniquely
identifying reference associated with the
location of the depiction on the Internet.
(2) Any name, other than each
performer?s legal name, ever used by the
performer, including the performer?s
maiden name, alias, nickname, stage
name, or professional name. For any
performer portrayed in such a depiction
made after July 3, 1995, such names
shall be indexed by the title or
identifying number of the book,
magazine, film, videotape, digitally- or
computer-manipulated image, digital
image, picture, URL, or other matter.
Producers may rely in good faith on
representations by performers regarding
accuracy of the names, other than legal
names, used by performers.
(3) Records required to be created and
maintained under this part shall be
organized alphabetically, or numerically
where appropriate, by the legal name of
the performer (by last or family name,
then first or given name), and shall be
indexed or cross-referenced to each alias
or other name used and to each title or
identifying number of the book,
magazine, film, videotape, digitally- or
computer-manipulated image, digital
image, picture, URL, or other matter.
(b) A producer who is a secondary
producer as defined in § 75.1(c) may
satisfy the requirements of this part to
create and maintain records by
accepting from the primary producer, as
defined in § 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.
(c) The information contained in the
records required to be created and
maintained by this part need be current
only as of the time the primary producer
actually films, videotapes, or
and at such places as specified in § 75.4.
For the purpose of this part, ??normal
business hours?? are from 9 a.m. to 5
p.m., local time, Monday through
Friday, or any other time during which
the producer is actually conducting
business relating to producing depiction
of actual sexually explicit conduct. To
the extent that the producer does not
maintain at least 20 normal business
hours per week, producers must provide
notice to the inspecting agency of the
hours during which records will be
available for inspection, which in no
case may be less than twenty (20) hours
per week.
(2) Upon commencing an inspection,
the investigator shall:
(i) Present his or her credentials to the
owner, operator, or agent in charge of
the establishment;
(ii) Explain the nature and purpose of
the inspection, including the limited
nature of the records inspection, and the
records required to be kept by the Act
and this part; and
(iii) Indicate the scope of the specific
inspection and the records that he or
she wishes to inspect.
(3) The inspections shall be
conducted so as not to unreasonably
disrupt the operations of the producer?s
establishment.
(4) At the conclusion of an inspection,
the investigator may informally advise
the producer of any apparent violations
disclosed by the inspection. The
producer may bring to the attention of
the investigator any pertinent
information regarding the records
inspected or any other relevant matter.
(d) Frequency of inspections. A
producer may be inspected once during
any four-month period, unless there is
a reasonable suspicion to believe that a
violation of this part has occurred, in
which case an additional inspection or
inspections may be conducted before
the four-month period has expired.
(e) Copies of records. An investigator
may copy, at no expense to the
producer, during the inspection, any
record that is subject to inspection.
(f) Other law enforcement authority.
These regulations do not restrict the
otherwise lawful investigative
prerogatives of an investigator while
conducting an inspection.
(g) Seizure of evidence.
Notwithstanding any provision of this
part or any other regulation, a law
enforcement officer may seize any
evidence of the commission of any
felony while conducting an inspection.

§ 75.6 Statement describing location of books and records.

(a) Any producer of any book,
magazine, periodical, film, videotape,
(d) A computer site or service or Web
address containing a digitally- or
computer-manipulated image, digital
image, or picture, shall contain the
required statement on its homepage, any
known major entry points, or principal
URL (including the principal URL of a
subdomain), or in a separate window
that opens upon the viewer?s clicking a
hypertext link that states, ??18 U.S.C.
2257 Record-Keeping Requirements
Compliance Statement.??
(e) For all other categories not
otherwise mentioned in this section, the
statement is to be prominently
displayed consistent with the manner of
display required for the aforementioned
categories.

Nightwind · 05-24-2005, 04:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Babaganoosh

You're in the business and you don't "have time" to read it?

I live in Europe and i'm not exactly in the business yet. So it doesn't directly concern me, i am curious about it but not curious enough to read the whole thing.

Edit: Thanks swedguy

RAM · 05-24-2005, 04:34 AM

see post please
http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showthread.php?t=471428

swedguy · 05-24-2005, 04:36 AM

Fuck this is going to be a HUGE pain in the ass if you crank out a shit load of sites a day.

For any performer portrayed in such a depiction after June 23, 2005, the records shall include
(ii) Where the depiction is published on an Internet computer site or service, a copy of any URL associated with the depiction

Nightwind · 05-24-2005, 04:39 AM

What i'm interested is in how will this affect Thumb TGP's and other similar sites.

swedguy · 05-24-2005, 04:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nightwind

What i'm interested is in how will this affect Thumb TGP's and other similar sites.

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2...f/05-10107.pdf

Sarah_Jayne · 05-24-2005, 04:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nightwind

Can someone who is going to read the whole thing, summarize the what you can and can't do's? I doubt i'm the only one who doesn't have time to read it.

it doesn't matter if you are in Europe and if you aren't going to read it then don't get into the buisness

swedguy · 05-24-2005, 04:49 AM

Ok this seems to be good news for everyone and especially sponsors:

Quote:

§ 75.4 Location of records.

Any producer required by this part to
maintain records shall make such
records available at the producer?s place
of business. Each record shall be
maintained for seven years from the
date of creation or last amendment or
addition. If the producer ceases to carry
on the business, the records shall be
maintained for five years thereafter. If
the producer produces the book,
magazine, periodical, film, videotape,
digitally- or computer-manipulated
image, digital image, or picture, or other
matter (including but not limited to
Internet computer site or services) as
part of his control of or through his
employment with an organization,
records shall be made available at the
organization?s place of business. If the
organization is dissolved, the individual
who was responsible for maintaining
the records on behalf of the
organization, as described in § 75.6(b),
shall continue to maintain the records
for a period of five years after
dissolution.

European Lee · 05-24-2005, 04:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by swedguy

Fuck this is going to be a HUGE pain in the ass if you crank out a shit load of sites a day.

Unless you build them 'dynamically'

Regards,

Lee

chadglni · 05-24-2005, 04:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by swedguy

Ok this seems to be good news for everyone and especially sponsors:

Um, doesn't look like good news to me. It says ANY PRODUCER required to maintain records which includes secondary producers. Unless I read something wrong which could be the case this time of day.

pr0 · 05-24-2005, 04:53 AM

bullshit, every word of it, meant the curb the proliferation of all pornography on the internet period...it has no other purpose

Tempest · 05-24-2005, 04:54 AM

Let the injunctions begin!!!!!

swedguy · 05-24-2005, 04:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by European Lee

Unless you build them 'dynamically'

Regards,

Lee

Doesn't matter. It's still a unique URL.

swedguy · 05-24-2005, 05:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chadglni

Um, doesn't look like good news to me. It says ANY PRODUCER required to maintain records which includes secondary producers. Unless I read something wrong which could be the case this time of day.

Oh crap, you're right. I missed the ANY part. Fuck!

chadglni · 05-24-2005, 05:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by swedguy

Doesn't matter. It's still a unique URL.

This brings up the question, what about sites that build millions of pages dynamically. Impossible for them to record every url they show up on.

pr0 · 05-24-2005, 05:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by swedguy

Oh crap, you're right. I missed the ANY part. Fuck!

Do you think these law students who daddy got into public office would leave loopholes for pornographers?

Dude they sat up for 6 months in their aspen compound, sipping scotch, skiing & thinking of ways to fuck you over.

swedguy · 05-24-2005, 05:05 AM

Now this is real fun! We're all going to become desk jockeys

Fuck it, I'm not going to quote the whole thing. Read § 75.2(a)(2) and § 75.3

I think I'm going to buy a shit load of content before June 23

Nate-MM2 · 05-24-2005, 05:06 AM

Check http://www.fuck2257.com in the coming weeks as we have many exciting programs coming down the pipe geared towards affiliates (especially those cranking out lots of free sites and galleries.)

(and yes I know it's not resolving at the moment)

Nate-MM2 · 05-24-2005, 05:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by swedguy

I think I'm going to buy a shit load of content before June 23

That won't make a difference. The date in question is the publishing date.

goBigtime · 05-24-2005, 05:07 AM

"[The] FSC intends to test the validity of the new rules by filing multiple lawsuits, asking for a temporary restraining order and an injunction. By taking swift proactive steps, FSC hopes to protect its members from prosecution, while challenging the law as unconstitutional."

http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/application.php

pr0 · 05-24-2005, 05:08 AM

I just changed my sig.....anyone interested, feel free to hit me up tomorrow

swedguy · 05-24-2005, 05:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chadglni

This brings up the question, what about sites that build millions of pages dynamically. Impossible for them to record every url they show up on.

It's completely impossible.

But they phrased it a little vague:

"URL associated with the depiction"

Is it the URL to the root of the domain?
Is it the URL to the entrance page?
Is it the URL to the picture?

Tempest · 05-24-2005, 05:16 AM

Section 75.7...
I have some content... say 30 pics.. 20 of them aren't covered by the requirements because there's nothing sexually explicit about them.. 10 are.. So is the producer supplying me with all the info required for the record keeping just in case I use the 10 images, as well as a statement that pics 1-20 aren't covered by the requirements?

I have plenty of sets already that are like that where I don't even use the explicit content. But I don't have any statements from any producer that says images x-y aren't covered by the record keeping requirements.

Edit: yeah.. grandfather clause and all that..

faxxaff · 05-24-2005, 05:16 AM

So secondary US producers like tgp webmasters need to keep complete records as well. Interesting!! Poor Americans!

(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.

swedguy · 05-24-2005, 05:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nate-MM2

That won't make a difference. The date in question is the publishing date.

This is Gibberish when I'm awake and even more Gibberish after 2 days of no sleep

You are right. I think that's what it says in § 75.2(a)(2). section (d)

Nate-MM2 · 05-24-2005, 05:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tempest

Section 75.7...
I have some content... say 30 pics.. 20 of them aren't covered by the requirements because there's nothing sexually explicit about them.. 10 are.. So is the producer supplying me with all the info required for the record keeping just in case I use the 10 images, as well as a statement that pics 1-20 aren't covered by the requirements?

I have plenty of sets already that are like that where I don't even use the explicit content. But I don't have any statements from any producer that says images x-y aren't covered by the record keeping requirements.

The record keeping information is per-model/per-set from the primary producer to the secondary producer. So you would get one set of records that would cover the entire set of 30 images regardless of whether some are explicit and some aren't.

It is up to you as a secondary producer to keep the URL records for the individual explicit photos and cross-reference that with the records you received from your content provider.

Tempest · 05-24-2005, 05:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by faxxaff

So secondary US producers like tgp webmasters need to keep complete records as well. Interesting!! Poor Americans!

(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.

If you count on content from your sponsor, then as a foreign WM you'll be affected as well..

Nate-MM2 · 05-24-2005, 05:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tempest

If you count on content from your sponsor, then as a foreign WM you'll be affected as well..

I have yet to see any provision that would hold the sponsor liable for their affiliates not being compliant.

Nightwind · 05-24-2005, 05:22 AM

All i can say is this is really fucked up, i hope the FSC can come up with something.

faxxaff · 05-24-2005, 05:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tempest

If you count on content from your sponsor, then as a foreign WM you'll be affected as well..

Why should a foreign webmaster comply with US rules? The US has no jurisdiction over him and the sponsor can not be made liable for the acting of another person.

Nate-MM2 · 05-24-2005, 05:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nightwind

All i can say is this is really fucked up, i hope the FSC can come up with something.

If they don't then I will.

fuck2257.com launches in the next 48 hours

chadglni · 05-24-2005, 05:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nate-MM2

If they don't then I will.

fuck2257.com launches in the next 48 hours

Everyone has a plan. Lets hear about your business model here eh?

Nate-MM2 · 05-24-2005, 05:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chadglni

Everyone has a plan. Lets hear about your business model here eh?

We are still in discussions with local legal counsel.

We will post the information as soon as we have it.

ADL Colin · 05-24-2005, 05:41 AM

Every industry is regulated. Take a look at the massive regulations which govern the securities markets with jail time and large fines for those that do not comply.

Roll up your sleeves and get to work.

Sarah_Jayne · 05-24-2005, 05:46 AM

I found this bit interesting:

Quote:

One commenter who supported the proposed rule stated that he
created a system to help webmasters comply with the rules and protect
the identity of individuals depicted in the images while allowing
verification by law enforcement.

The commenter stated that no webmasters took advantage of his system because, he said, they believe that there is an extremely remote possibility of being prosecuted for non-compliance and that the Sundance ruling protects them. The comment tends to demonstrate that the claim by industry groups that the rule is unconstitutionally burdensome is exaggerated. Nonetheless, the Department does not endorse this commenter's particular system as it has no means to determine whether the system actually works.

anyway..interesting to see they addressed something I wrote and said one person said it..find that hard to believe.

XxXotic · 05-24-2005, 05:50 AM

the sky is falling, everybody run!

Snake Doctor · 05-24-2005, 05:51 AM

Some of the questions and comments in here are ridiculous.......did you think the justice department was going to write a brief on thumb tgp's versus text tgp's?

Most of this stuff hasn't changed since the proposed regs came out 11 months ago.....if you're not familiar with them, then crawl back under your rock.

A couple of things I did find interesting in their response to the comments

One is that they keep saying that the D.C. court in American Library Ass'n V. Reno "implicitly accepted" the distinction between primary producers and secondary producers, and that the requirement that secondary producers maintain records was not a constitutionally impermissable burden.

So they're basically dismissing Sundance V. Reno and saying that in their view the D.C. court's ruling in the other case is the "correct view of the law"

Now I googled the hell out of American Library Ass'n V. Reno and all I found was the case about internet filtering software in libraries......I have no idea what this has to do with record keeping.

Anyways...moving on

From the response to comments "Any primary producer who fails to release the records to a secondary producer is simply in violation of the regulations and may not use the excuse that the records contain alleged trade secrets to avoid compliance"

That will get interesting.

And here's my favorite....in response to comments that primary producers should be allowed to "sanitize" identification documents by removing home addresses etc before passing the documents on to secondary producers, the Department declines to adopt this comment because it would be "overly burdensome" on primary producers.

"Primary producers would be required to first sanitize the identification documents and then draft, sign, and pay for a notarized affidavit. It is simpler and less burdensome to have primary producers transfer a copy of the records to secondary producers"

I'm laughing my ass of at this one......primary producers would LOVE to be able to sanitize the documents and get notarized affidavits to send to their customers.

05-24-2005, 03:33 AM	#1
Snake Doctor I'm Lenny2 Bitch Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: On top of my soapbox Posts: 13,449	New 2257 regs published (link here) http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2...5/05-10107.htm Since European Lee had to spam his board with his post I found the direct link to the new regs for you. __________________ sig too big

05-24-2005, 03:45 AM	#2
Snake Doctor I'm Lenny2 Bitch Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: On top of my soapbox Posts: 13,449	Damn....it's 16 pages worth of very small print. I'm gonna be reading for awhile __________________ sig too big

05-24-2005, 03:48 AM	#3
Snake Doctor I'm Lenny2 Bitch Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: On top of my soapbox Posts: 13,449	Here's a link to the PDF file....much easier to print http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2...f/05-10107.pdf __________________ sig too big

05-24-2005, 03:51 AM	#5
BRISK Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 12,240	__________________ I post on GFY so that when people ask me what I do, I can tell them that I work with the mentally retarded.

05-24-2005, 04:03 AM	#6
basschick Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: el lay, ca usa Posts: 2,540	long, but interesting. the comment i sent was listed - weird! __________________ Got Gay and For Women Traffic?

05-24-2005, 03:50 AM	#4
goBigtime Confirmed User Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 7,761	from what I could see... google cache (and the like) is now exempt.

05-24-2005, 04:08 AM	#7
R J Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Central florida Posts: 202	here's the HTML link little easier to read R.J. __________________ ----------- ICQ#147-366-451

05-24-2005, 04:29 AM	#10
Nightwind Confirmed User Join Date: May 2005 Location: ICQ: 303-282-636 Posts: 4,786	Can someone who is going to read the whole thing, summarize the what you can and can't do's? I doubt i'm the only one who doesn't have time to read it. __________________

05-24-2005, 04:30 AM	#12
bringer i have man boobies Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: van down by the river Posts: 13,082	lenny, we need to chat icq# 333-765-551 __________________ 333-765-551

05-24-2005, 04:31 AM	#13
The Other Steve Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Sunny Queensland - perfect one day and better the next. Posts: 2,106	If you don't have time to read something as important as this then you shouldn't be here doing business. __________________ Left intentionally blank ... just like my brain

05-24-2005, 04:34 AM	#16
RAM They're all hookers, but mom! Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Right now Shelby Twp MI Posts: 7,047	see post please http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showthread.php?t=471428 __________________ RAM Fucking Machines are like CASH MACHINES See RAM on these quality sites!! Rightofftheboat.com EuroBrideTryouts.com

05-24-2005, 04:36 AM	#17
swedguy Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 7,981	Fuck this is going to be a HUGE pain in the ass if you crank out a shit load of sites a day. For any performer portrayed in such a depiction after June 23, 2005, the records shall include (ii) Where the depiction is published on an Internet computer site or service, a copy of any URL associated with the depiction

05-24-2005, 04:39 AM	#18
Nightwind Confirmed User Join Date: May 2005 Location: ICQ: 303-282-636 Posts: 4,786	What i'm interested is in how will this affect Thumb TGP's and other similar sites. __________________

05-24-2005, 04:53 AM	#24
pr0 rockin tha trailerpark Industry Role: Join Date: May 2001 Location: ~Coastal~ Posts: 23,088	bullshit, every word of it, meant the curb the proliferation of all pornography on the internet period...it has no other purpose

05-24-2005, 04:54 AM	#25
Tempest Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: May 2004 Location: West Coast, Canada. Posts: 10,217	Let the injunctions begin!!!!!

05-24-2005, 05:05 AM	#30
swedguy Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 7,981	Now this is real fun! We're all going to become desk jockeys Fuck it, I'm not going to quote the whole thing. Read § 75.2(a)(2) and § 75.3 I think I'm going to buy a shit load of content before June 23

05-24-2005, 05:06 AM	#31
Nate-MM2 So Fucking Banned Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Vancouver, CANADA Posts: 263	Check http://www.fuck2257.com in the coming weeks as we have many exciting programs coming down the pipe geared towards affiliates (especially those cranking out lots of free sites and galleries.) (and yes I know it's not resolving at the moment)

05-24-2005, 05:07 AM	#33
goBigtime Confirmed User Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 7,761	"[The] FSC intends to test the validity of the new rules by filing multiple lawsuits, asking for a temporary restraining order and an injunction. By taking swift proactive steps, FSC hopes to protect its members from prosecution, while challenging the law as unconstitutional." http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/application.php Last edited by goBigtime; 05-24-2005 at 05:10 AM..

05-24-2005, 05:08 AM	#34
pr0 rockin tha trailerpark Industry Role: Join Date: May 2001 Location: ~Coastal~ Posts: 23,088	I just changed my sig.....anyone interested, feel free to hit me up tomorrow __________________ __________ Loadedca$h - get sum! - Revengebucks - mmm rebills! - webair (gotz sErVrz)

05-24-2005, 05:16 AM	#36
Tempest Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: May 2004 Location: West Coast, Canada. Posts: 10,217	Section 75.7... I have some content... say 30 pics.. 20 of them aren't covered by the requirements because there's nothing sexually explicit about them.. 10 are.. So is the producer supplying me with all the info required for the record keeping just in case I use the 10 images, as well as a statement that pics 1-20 aren't covered by the requirements? I have plenty of sets already that are like that where I don't even use the explicit content. But I don't have any statements from any producer that says images x-y aren't covered by the record keeping requirements. Edit: yeah.. grandfather clause and all that.. Last edited by Tempest; 05-24-2005 at 05:17 AM..

05-24-2005, 05:16 AM	#37
faxxaff Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Marina Hemingway Posts: 2,134	So secondary US producers like tgp webmasters need to keep complete records as well. Interesting!! Poor Americans! (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.

05-24-2005, 05:22 AM	#42
Nightwind Confirmed User Join Date: May 2005 Location: ICQ: 303-282-636 Posts: 4,786	All i can say is this is really fucked up, i hope the FSC can come up with something. __________________

05-24-2005, 05:41 AM	#47
ADL Colin Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Tube Titans, USA Posts: 11,929	Every industry is regulated. Take a look at the massive regulations which govern the securities markets with jail time and large fines for those that do not comply. Roll up your sleeves and get to work. __________________ Adult Date Link - $50 PPS starting NOW! -- good and JUICY! skype = "adultdatelink"

05-24-2005, 05:50 AM	#49
XxXotic Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Da Swamps Posts: 8,500	the sky is falling, everybody run! __________________ Sponsors.. Tired of people not using your shitty RSS Feeds? Let Us Help You! Oxeo - Serious Hosting For Serious Webmasters. iCQ:135.887013

05-24-2005, 05:51 AM	#50
Snake Doctor I'm Lenny2 Bitch Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: On top of my soapbox Posts: 13,449	Some of the questions and comments in here are ridiculous.......did you think the justice department was going to write a brief on thumb tgp's versus text tgp's? Most of this stuff hasn't changed since the proposed regs came out 11 months ago.....if you're not familiar with them, then crawl back under your rock. A couple of things I did find interesting in their response to the comments One is that they keep saying that the D.C. court in American Library Ass'n V. Reno "implicitly accepted" the distinction between primary producers and secondary producers, and that the requirement that secondary producers maintain records was not a constitutionally impermissable burden. So they're basically dismissing Sundance V. Reno and saying that in their view the D.C. court's ruling in the other case is the "correct view of the law" Now I googled the hell out of American Library Ass'n V. Reno and all I found was the case about internet filtering software in libraries......I have no idea what this has to do with record keeping. Anyways...moving on From the response to comments "Any primary producer who fails to release the records to a secondary producer is simply in violation of the regulations and may not use the excuse that the records contain alleged trade secrets to avoid compliance" That will get interesting. And here's my favorite....in response to comments that primary producers should be allowed to "sanitize" identification documents by removing home addresses etc before passing the documents on to secondary producers, the Department declines to adopt this comment because it would be "overly burdensome" on primary producers. "Primary producers would be required to first sanitize the identification documents and then draft, sign, and pay for a notarized affidavit. It is simpler and less burdensome to have primary producers transfer a copy of the records to secondary producers" I'm laughing my ass of at this one......primary producers would LOVE to be able to sanitize the documents and get notarized affidavits to send to their customers. __________________ sig too big