2257 and what it means

[stylistica]

I know you ppl prob discussed alot about this topic already but can someone summerize the new 2257 laws so all the people who missed out can get a recap

thanks

[NickPapageorgio]

I am sure your lawyer would be happy to recap it.

Clue #1: Don't ask people on a message board for advice that could possibly land your ass in jail.

That tip was free...I charge $75 an hour from this point on...

[stylistica]

how can that land me in jail fool.. ? What's is wrong with a open dicussion about a topic that effects everyone here including GFY..

[stylistica]

the real thing is that most people prob don't know the details of this new rules and that all webmasters here are subject to the scrutiny of this new law :-/ AFAIK

[NickPapageorgio]

Originally Posted by stylistica

how can that land me in jail fool.. ? What's is wrong with a open dicussion about a topic that effects everyone here including GFY..

You're right...I'm the fool. Then again, I am not the one asking for a 'recap' on laws that could possibly get my ass in a sling.

"Hey can we get a recap for all the people who missed it..."

translation...

"Hey, I'm too fucking lazy or stupid to read the doc's that have been posted all over this message board for weeks nor do I have enough ambition to contact a lawyer who would be better suited to explain how these laws affect me...could someone else please do the work for me so I can stay in this business?"

Yep...i'm the fool. You didn't ask for an "open discussion". Hell, this board has been nothing but an open discussion for 3 weeks now. You asked for someone to "recap" all the new regs for you and I guess I can do that now.

New rule#1: If you would like to show girls with their genitals hanging out or in an explicit scene, just put the text "this page rated R" at the bottom of your page and you are safe. That's basically it.

[DVTimes]

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/h...7----000-.html


2257. Record keeping requirements


Release date: 2004-08-06

(a) Whoever produces any book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, or other matter which?
(1) contains one or more visual depictions made after November 1, 1990 of actual sexually explicit conduct; and
(2) is produced in whole or in part with materials which 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;
shall create and maintain individually identifiable records pertaining to every performer portrayed in such a visual depiction.
(b) Any person to whom subsection (a) applies shall, with respect to every performer portrayed in a visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct?
(1) ascertain, by examination of an identification document containing such information, the performer?s name and date of birth, and require the performer to provide such other indicia of his or her identity as may be prescribed by regulations;
(2) ascertain any name, other than the performer?s present and correct name, ever used by the performer including maiden name, alias, nickname, stage, or professional name; and
(3) record in the records required by subsection (a) the information required by paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection and such other identifying information as may be prescribed by regulation.
(c) Any person to whom subsection (a) applies shall maintain the records required by this section at his business premises, or at such other place as the Attorney General may by regulation prescribe and shall make such records available to the Attorney General for inspection at all reasonable times.
(d)
(1) No information or evidence obtained from records required to be created or maintained by this section shall, except as provided in this section, directly or indirectly, be used as evidence against any person with respect to any violation of law.
(2) Paragraph (1) of this subsection shall not preclude the use of such information or evidence in a prosecution or other action for a violation of this section or for a violation of any applicable provision of law with respect to the furnishing of false information.
(e)
(1) Any person to whom subsection (a) applies shall cause to be affixed to every copy of any matter described in paragraph (1) of subsection (a) of this section, in such manner and in such form as the Attorney General shall by regulations prescribe, a statement describing where the records required by this section with respect to all performers depicted in that copy of the matter may be located.
(2) If the person to whom subsection (a) of this section applies is an organization the statement required by this subsection shall include the name, title, and business address of the individual employed by such organization responsible for maintaining the records required by this section.
(f) It shall be unlawful?
(1) for any person to whom subsection (a) applies to fail to create or maintain the records as required by subsections (a) and (c) or by any regulation promulgated under this section;
(2) for any person to whom subsection (a) applies knowingly to make any false entry in or knowingly to fail to make an appropriate entry in, any record required by subsection (b) of this section or any regulation promulgated under this section;
(3) for any person to whom subsection (a) applies knowingly to fail to comply with the provisions of subsection (e) or any regulation promulgated pursuant to that subsection; and
(4) for any person knowingly to sell or otherwise transfer, or offer for sale or transfer, any book, magazine, periodical, film, video, or other matter, produce in whole or in part with materials which have been mailed or shipped in interstate or foreign commerce or which is intended for shipment in interstate or foreign commerce, which?
(A) contains one or more visual depictions made after the effective date of this subsection of actual sexually explicit conduct; and
(B) is produced in whole or in part with materials which 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;
which does not have affixed thereto, in a manner prescribed as set forth in subsection (e)(1), a statement describing where the records required by this section may be located, but such person shall have no duty to determine the accuracy of the contents of the statement or the records required to be kept.
(g) The Attorney General shall issue appropriate regulations to carry out this section.
(h) As used in this section?
(1) the term ?actual sexually explicit conduct? means actual but not simulated conduct as defined in subparagraphs (A) through (D) of paragraph (2) of section 2256 of this title;
(2) ?identification document? has the meaning given that term in section 1028 (d) of this title;
(3) the term ?produces? means to produce, manufacture, or publish any book, magazine, periodical, film, video tape 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; and
(4) the term ?performer? includes any person portrayed in a visual depiction engaging in, or assisting another person to engage in, actual sexually explicit conduct.
(i) Whoever violates this section shall be imprisoned for not more than 2 years, and fined in accordance with the provisions of this title, or both. Whoever violates this section after having been convicted of a violation punishable under this section shall be imprisoned for any period of years not more than 5 years but not less than 2 years, and fined in accordance with the provisions of this title, or both.

[Webby]

Summarise???

The quick summary is it is a foul law which does not do any more towards the original purpose of protecting children as in version 1. Some call that utter hypocracy, made worse by the fact that the DOJ are using children as an excuse to attack the adult biz, when they have never enforced the 90's version ever.

It does.. and this will probably be the subject of several court cases... place models in awkward situations when their home address are leaked over the net.

It does create an unusual volume of record keeping, considering records have to be kept of blonde MILFS with protruding fronts and aged 40 or more - just to establish they are over 18.

From a legal standpoint.. it's hard to discuss, simply because all detail needs read and even then, the govt would expect people to take legal advice from lawyers who have little clue themselves.

For US webmasters - they have just been told to hit the dirt. The next stage is the handcuffing.

For foreign webmasters, well.. they still live in a free world and will flourish in the short term - before some other govt starts playing games.

[Webby]

Originally Posted by allanuk

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/h...7----000-.html


2257. Record keeping requirements


Release date: 2004-08-06

Hi allanuk

That would look nicer if the words were all jumbled a bit more!

Sheesh... am I pleased I'm not a US citizen....

[DVTimes]

Originally Posted by stylistica

how can that land me in jail fool.. ? What's is wrong with a open dicussion about a topic that effects everyone here including GFY..

I think by this he means if you take poor advice, you may find that you are breaking the law, and as such land up in prison.

My advise is, if you are in the USA seek legal advise.

In truth, I suspect that many small site owners will not bother with this law, probably as they will not understand it or know about it.

Basically its a law that simply makes people who work hard into criminals for no reason at all.

It does not archive anything in reality for any good. It does not help protect children.

The simple option is just have your webname hosted outside the USA and change the home address to some other address so when you do a whois, it does not show your details.

By the way, I am in the UK, so if the FBI want to bother with me, then Ha Ha Ha. I am under UK and EU law.

[stylistica]

thanks allanuk, the link helped. O btw, Nick GFY (lol)

[DVTimes]

Originally Posted by Webby

Summarise???

The quick summary is it is a foul law which does not do any more towards the original purpose of protecting children as in version 1. Some call that utter hypocracy, made worse by the fact that the DOJ are using children as an excuse to attack the adult biz, when they have never enforced the 90's version ever.

It does.. and this will probably be the subject of several court cases... place models in awkward situations when their home address are leaked over the net.

It does create an unusual volume of record keeping, considering records have to be kept of blonde MILFS with protruding fronts and aged 40 or more - just to establish they are over 18.

From a legal standpoint.. it's hard to discuss, simply because all detail needs read and even then, the govt would expect people to take legal advice from lawyers who have little clue themselves.

For US webmasters - they have just been told to hit the dirt. The next stage is the handcuffing.

For foreign webmasters, well.. they still live in a free world and will flourish in the short term - before some other govt starts playing games.

Simple.

The USA government want to stop or at least reduce porn on the net.

They have over the years done all sorts of laws to do this, and often have problems due to freedom of speech act.

The FBI has spent lots of your US dollars doing this over many years.

One method was to charge a firm that the girls were prostitutes. This failed as they said that if this was the case then everybody who bought porn would be a punter. And so you need to arrest everybody who has ever bought porn.

This is the latest attempt to ban porn, by cloaking it in child protection.

To date the main method to get at webmasters was to do them for tax evasion, as they did with Al Capone, in fact some webmasters have done more time in prison than he did.

As with other attempts to stop porn, this will become expensive for the FBI, and I suspect will not be workable long term.

But short turm, I suspect it will be the small webmasters that will be targeted first, as these will probably not have the paperwork in order, and will no have the money to fight this in court. While large firms will have legal teams.

What I also suspect may happen is that small sites may temporty close until things are sorted out.

[DVTimes]

Originally Posted by stylistica

thanks allanuk, the link helped. O btw, Nick GFY (lol)

My advise would be to spend some cash on legal advise.

It could be much cheaper than paying a fine or going to prison.

From my quick read (and as I am in the UK I have not been too bothered), basically you must have full ID for each model. This must be USA ID only.

All models need to be from and living in the USA or you may have problems.

If your not from the USA then you must go by your local law.

But get real legal advise.

[StuartD]

Originally Posted by stylistica

the real thing is that most people prob don't know the details of this new rules and that all webmasters here are subject to the scrutiny of this new law :-/ AFAIK

it's not a rule it's a law and therefore, yes... you can end up in jail.

[Spankys Teens]

oooh crap, not another lazy person asking for a summary....

[MickeyG]

so is anyone going to post an actual summary?

[Tom_PM]

If you go back to 7 or 8 or 9 pages on the board, that is where the long discussions were had.
I'd suggest finding the PDF link and printing it out first of all. A lawyer would be the only real advice I think. But you need to have the NEW regs in hand if you ask me. It's easier to read without scrolling your ass off..

[s9ann0]

2257 means the end of the adult internet!!

[Dopy]

Originally Posted by MickeyG

so is anyone going to post an actual summary?

This is the best summary you can get