Gov't says PAST Foreign Performer's ID's OK ... - GoFuckYourself.com

J$tyle$ · 06-22-2005, 08:07 PM

... if records kept prior were in accordance with previous regs

Still a ton of other stuff to deal with BUT I'm sure that takes a load off a lot of webmaster's minds!

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Case No. 05-cv-1126-EDM-BNB

FREE SPEECH COALITION, INC.,
et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
THE HONORABLE ALBERTO R. GONZALEZ,
Attorney General of the United States,
Defendant.
____________________________________

DEFENDANT?S OPPOSITION TO MOTION
FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

THE HARM THAT PLAINTIFFS ALLEGE DOES NOT PROVIDE A BASIS
FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AGAINST ENFORCEMENT
OF THE REGULATIONS

1. The Regulations Present No Ex Post Facto Problem The regulations do not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause. As plaintiffs note, that Clause ?makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such act.? Pls? Mot. at 10 (quoting Calder v. Bull, 3 Dall. 386, 390 (1798)). But neither the statute nor the regulations do anything of the sort. Plaintiffs identify no situation in which the regulations might punish someone for a legal act committed prior to their effective date.

Plaintiffs instead present two examples where the application of the new regulations to future actions will, it is claimed, have implications for previously produced pornographic works. The first example relates to the types of identification cards that could previously be used to verify compliance with the regulations and statute.

Plaintiffs are asserting that the old regulations in effect permitted certain foreign-issued identification cards to be used to verify the ages of performers that may no longer be used, Pls? Mot. at 11, but they are incorrect that ?producers who fully complied with the law at the time that the material was produced? are presented with the choice of either ?self-censorship ? or to go back and procure American-issued identification for all actors in earlier-produced sexually explicit works. Id.

Defendant does not interpret the regulations in this fashion, and has no intention of applying them in this fashion. Instead, all producers who fully complied with the old regulations regarding the proper forms of identification will not be precluded from distributing those works merely because such forms of identification will be insufficient going forward. The leading example used by plaintiffs, in otherwords, is not an issue and thus does not reflect a threat of irreparable harm.
Case 1:05-cv-01126-WDM Document 10-1 Filed 06/21/2005 Page 27 of 35

MikeVega · 06-22-2005, 08:09 PM

this is good news ...

marketsmart · 06-22-2005, 08:15 PM

That still does not solve the problem going forward in regards to new content. Correct me if I am wrong, but in the future, any future content produced outside of the US will require each model to have a US Govt. issued ID. So, if you plan to produce content outside of the US, you won't be able to sell or lease 2257 compliant material to US based companies?????

Karupted Charles · 06-22-2005, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marketsmart

That still does not solve the problem going forward in regards to new content. Correct me if I am wrong, but in the future, any future content produced outside of the US will require each model to have a US Govt. issued ID. So, if you plan to produce content outside of the US, you won't be able to sell or lease 2257 compliant material to US based companies?????

Thats the way I read it also

AdultInsider Cloner · 06-22-2005, 08:18 PM

It's a step in the right direction.

J$tyle$ · 06-22-2005, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marketsmart

That still does not solve the problem going forward in regards to new content. Correct me if I am wrong, but in the future, any future content produced outside of the US will require each model to have a US Govt. issued ID. So, if you plan to produce content outside of the US, you won't be able to sell or lease 2257 compliant material to US based companies?????

No, that's NOT how I understand it:

Get familiar with everything in the third column on the right

Sec. 75.1 Definitions.

(b) Picture identification card means a document issued by the United States, a State government or a political subdivision thereof, or a United States 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, such as a passport, Permanent Resident Card (commonly known as a ``Green Card''), or other employment authorization document issued by the United States, a driver's license issued by a State or the District of Columbia, or another form of identification issued by a State or the District of Columbia; or, a foreign government-issued equivalent of any of the documents listed above when both the person who is the subject of the picture identification card and the producer maintaining the required records are located outside the United States.

This is all a pain in the ass, but seems possible to abide by.

The biggest concern up until now relating to Foreign ID's WAS that past content would be deemed non-compliant or useless if the regs went retroactive.

That is no longer the case as stated by the Gov't.

Karupted Charles · 06-22-2005, 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J$tyle$

No, that's NOT how I understand it:

Get familiar with everything in the third column on the right

when both the person who is the subject of the picture identification card and the producer maintaining the required records are located outside the United States.[/B][/COLOR]

This is all a pain in the ass, but seems possible to abide by.

The biggest concern up until now relating to Foreign ID's WAS that past content would be deemed non-compliant or useless if the regs went retroactive.

That is no longer the case as stated by the Gov't.

You are right it is nice the old content is fine but that is not the biggest issue.

Maybe you should read it again. If a company in the United States buys from Europe were we shoot allot of content. If it is exclusive we are considered primary and in violation. It limits free trade prohibiting any US company from being primary producer for any content shot outside the US.

J$tyle$ · 06-22-2005, 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SPW Guru

You are right it is nice the old content is fine but that is not the biggest issue.

Maybe you should read it again. If a company in the United States buys from Europe were we shoot allot of content. If it is exclusive we are considered primary and in violation. It limits free trade prohibiting any US company from being primary producer for any content shot outside the US.

Where does it say that?

maybe YOU should read it again and consult with a US attorney

Quote:

foreign government-issued equivalent of any of the documents listed above when both the person who is the subject of the picture identification card and the producer maintaining the required records are located outside the United States.

Wheather exclusive or NOT - it is YOU who remains the primary producer and record keeper IF SHOT in YOUR COUNTRY with MODELS using YOUR COUNTRY equivilant ID's - THEn the records are deemed compliant. Why do you think that puts you in violation.

Why does the US company need to be Primary ... what does that matter?

I'm not an attorney but it seems that you are mistaken.

If I am wrong - my apologies.

Dravyk · 06-22-2005, 09:18 PM

Got an URL for that, bro?

J$tyle$ · 06-22-2005, 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dravyk

Got an URL for that, bro?

Case No. 05-cv-1126-EDM-BNB

FREE SPEECH COALITION, INC.,
et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
THE HONORABLE ALBERTO R. GONZALEZ,
Attorney General of the United States,
Defendant.

http://www.monkeypoocash.com/dm.pdf

The Attorney General's Changes to the Section 2257 Regulations:

A Comparison of the existing regulations, the June, 2004 proposed regulations, and the promulgated, final regulations effective June 23, 2005.

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

Dravyk · 06-22-2005, 09:28 PM

Much appreciated, Jonathan!!

This should be some interesting reading.

And yeah, I am reading the above passage you marked the exact same way you're reading it! It looks very very good!

Spunky · 06-22-2005, 09:30 PM

One less thing to worry about I guess

J$tyle$ · 06-22-2005, 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dravyk

Much appreciated, Jonathan!!

This should be some interesting reading.

And yeah, I am reading the above passage you marked the exact same way you're reading it! It looks very very good!

No problem, handsome - enjoy!

J$tyle$ · 06-22-2005, 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spunky

One less thing to worry about I guess

It was one BIG bone of contention for the DVD studios. It really is one silver lining in the big black cloud!

Karupted Charles · 06-22-2005, 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J$tyle$

Where does it say that?

maybe YOU should read it again and consult with a US attorney

Wheather exclusive or NOT - it is YOU who remains the primary producer and record keeper IF SHOT in YOUR COUNTRY with MODELS using YOUR COUNTRY equivilant ID's - THEn the records are deemed compliant. Why do you think that puts you in violation.

Why does the US company need to be Primary ... what does that matter?

I'm not an attorney but it seems that you are mistaken.

If I am wrong - my apologies.

J We are in the US and we use a very well known attorney believe me I have been doing a lot of research on this as it has a major impact on us and our affiliates.

My point over exclusivity is if content is exclusive shot just for you and nobody else uses it you are primary producer not secondary. This is why Karups was already complaint when these rules were proposed because we are primarily exclusive so we have kept this stuff for years.

Maybe I am wrong but follow me on this.

Company A is in the US

Company B is in Europe

Company A can not buy any content that requires him to be primary producer IE. Exclusive content from company B unless the models of Company B have a green card or US issued ID even if they do not live in the US.

riddler · 06-22-2005, 10:08 PM

so this is xbiz's BIG news for tommorow?

J$tyle$ · 06-22-2005, 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SPW Guru

J We are in the US and we use a very well known attorney believe me I have been doing a lot of research on this as it has a major impact on us and our affiliates.

My point over exclusivity is if content is exclusive shot just for you and nobody else uses it you are primary producer not secondary. This is why Karups was already complaint when these rules were proposed because we are primarily exclusive so we have kept this stuff for years.

Maybe I am wrong but follow me on this.

Company A is in the US

Company B is in Europe

Company A can not buy any content that requires him to be primary producer IE. Exclusive content from company B unless the models of Company B have a green card or US issued ID even if they do not live in the US.

I understand more clearly what you are saying. The answer is simple or complicated depending on your relationship and trust of the people you have shooting for you in foreign countries. DON'T be the primary producer.

THEY must remain the primary producer even though the content is shot exclusively for you. If you are comfortable with your arrangement with them and TRUST that they can and will maintain the records for you - then that is how it could/should be done.

J$tyle$ · 06-22-2005, 11:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by riddler

so this is xbiz's BIG news for tommorow?

No, I don't think so, and I think it's the FSC that has the BIG news

pornguy · 06-23-2005, 12:08 AM

How long before they twist this, and make it required to have a US ID, so that they can make some cash??

J$tyle$ · 06-23-2005, 12:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SPW Guru

J We are in the US and we use a very well known attorney believe me I have been doing a lot of research on this as it has a major impact on us and our affiliates.

My point over exclusivity is if content is exclusive shot just for you and nobody else uses it you are primary producer not secondary. This is why Karups was already complaint when these rules were proposed because we are primarily exclusive so we have kept this stuff for years.

Maybe I am wrong but follow me on this.

Company A is in the US

Company B is in Europe

Company A can not buy any content that requires him to be primary producer IE. Exclusive content from company B unless the models of Company B have a green card or US issued ID even if they do not live in the US.

Just to clarify a bit further because I like Lou:

Exclusive content "produced" exclusively for US buyers still make the US exclusive buyer a secondary producer...

The distinction in "producer" in the law is not about who "pays" for production - but in the actually filming or shooting...,

read: actually films ...

(3rd column on the right) http://my.execpc.com/~xxxlaw/2257Tables5.24.05.htm

Sec. 75.1 Definitions.

1) A primary producer is any person who actually films, videotapes, photographs, or creates a digitally- or computer- manipulated image, a digital image, or picture of, or digitizes an image of, a visual depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct.

makefuckingmoney · 06-23-2005, 01:33 AM

i thinks its a good start!

i dont shoot any content, to consider me a producer in anwyay is ridiculous

MikeSmoke · 06-23-2005, 02:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J$tyle$

... if records kept prior were in accordance with previous regs

Still a ton of other stuff to deal with BUT I'm sure that takes a load off a lot of webmaster's minds!

Yes, I saw that right away with great relief

HOWEVER....many US adult lawyers, including mine, say that the possible DOJ interpretation going forward is that if you publish anything on a US website, you are still "A PRODUCER" and you could be prohibited from using content shot overseas by overseas companies using overseas talent.
It doesn't say anything in the new 2257 that only primary producers must be located outside the US to use foreign talent --- it just refers to producers *required to maintain records* --- and the DOJ views secondary producers as producers required to maintain records as well....that's why we've all been scrambling, because we're required to maintain those records.
That's admittedly the most severe reading of the new 2257, but does anyone really think that the DOJ will take a reasonable approach to anything? I hope this reading is wrong, but until it's shown that post-June 23 content can be shot overseas and used on US websites, I'm only using US-shot content from this point on....

J$tyle$ · 06-23-2005, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeSmoke

Yes, I saw that right away with great relief

HOWEVER....many US adult lawyers, including mine, say that the possible DOJ interpretation going forward is that if you publish anything on a US website, you are still "A PRODUCER" and you could be prohibited from using content shot overseas by overseas companies using overseas talent.
It doesn't say anything in the new 2257 that only primary producers must be located outside the US to use foreign talent --- it just refers to producers *required to maintain records* --- and the DOJ views secondary producers as producers required to maintain records as well....that's why we've all been scrambling, because we're required to maintain those records.
That's admittedly the most severe reading of the new 2257, but does anyone really think that the DOJ will take a reasonable approach to anything? I hope this reading is wrong, but until it's shown that post-June 23 content can be shot overseas and used on US websites, I'm only using US-shot content from this point on....

That's a safe way to go Mike.

We'll see shortly I'm sure!

J$tyle$ · 06-23-2005, 07:41 PM

bump bump bump

06-22-2005, 08:07 PM	#1
J$tyle$ Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Sunny San Diego Posts: 11,500	Gov't says PAST Foreign Performer's ID's OK ... ... if records kept prior were in accordance with previous regs Still a ton of other stuff to deal with BUT I'm sure that takes a load off a lot of webmaster's minds! IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Case No. 05-cv-1126-EDM-BNB FREE SPEECH COALITION, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE HONORABLE ALBERTO R. GONZALEZ, Attorney General of the United States, Defendant. ____________________________________ DEFENDANT?S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER THE HARM THAT PLAINTIFFS ALLEGE DOES NOT PROVIDE A BASIS FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AGAINST ENFORCEMENT OF THE REGULATIONS 1. The Regulations Present No Ex Post Facto Problem The regulations do not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause. As plaintiffs note, that Clause ?makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such act.? Pls? Mot. at 10 (quoting Calder v. Bull, 3 Dall. 386, 390 (1798)). But neither the statute nor the regulations do anything of the sort. Plaintiffs identify no situation in which the regulations might punish someone for a legal act committed prior to their effective date. Plaintiffs instead present two examples where the application of the new regulations to future actions will, it is claimed, have implications for previously produced pornographic works. The first example relates to the types of identification cards that could previously be used to verify compliance with the regulations and statute. Plaintiffs are asserting that the old regulations in effect permitted certain foreign-issued identification cards to be used to verify the ages of performers that may no longer be used, Pls? Mot. at 11, but they are incorrect that ?producers who fully complied with the law at the time that the material was produced? are presented with the choice of either ?self-censorship ? or to go back and procure American-issued identification for all actors in earlier-produced sexually explicit works. Id. Defendant does not interpret the regulations in this fashion, and has no intention of applying them in this fashion. Instead, all producers who fully complied with the old regulations regarding the proper forms of identification will not be precluded from distributing those works merely because such forms of identification will be insufficient going forward. The leading example used by plaintiffs, in otherwords, is not an issue and thus does not reflect a threat of irreparable harm. Case 1:05-cv-01126-WDM Document 10-1 Filed 06/21/2005 Page 27 of 35

06-22-2005, 08:09 PM	#2
MikeVega Porntrepreneur Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: New York Posts: 12,788	this is good news ... __________________ Mike Vega-ICQ:253868499-AIM:mikeydicevega

06-22-2005, 08:18 PM	#5
AdultInsider Cloner Confirmed User Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Costa Rica Posts: 1,472	It's a step in the right direction. __________________ Fighting the hypertrophy of social cognition. Never make small plans for they lack the magic to stir mens souls. FreeNetPass v2 - IS HERE! 9 Years and still going STRONG!

06-22-2005, 09:18 PM	#9
Dravyk Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Yo, Philly! Posts: 1,202	Got an URL for that, bro? __________________ All Of 'Em

06-22-2005, 09:28 PM	#11
Dravyk Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Yo, Philly! Posts: 1,202	Much appreciated, Jonathan!! This should be some interesting reading. And yeah, I am reading the above passage you marked the exact same way you're reading it! It looks very very good! __________________ All Of 'Em

06-22-2005, 08:15 PM	#3
marketsmart HOMICIDAL TROLL KILLER Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Sunnybrook Institution for the Criminally Insane Posts: 20,419	That still does not solve the problem going forward in regards to new content. Correct me if I am wrong, but in the future, any future content produced outside of the US will require each model to have a US Govt. issued ID. So, if you plan to produce content outside of the US, you won't be able to sell or lease 2257 compliant material to US based companies?????

06-22-2005, 09:30 PM	#12
Spunky I need a beer Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: ♠ Toiletville ♠ Posts: 133,949	One less thing to worry about I guess __________________ *YOUR INFORMATION HERE*

06-22-2005, 10:08 PM	#16
riddler Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: up in gang bang heaven Posts: 3,726	so this is xbiz's BIG news for tommorow?

06-23-2005, 12:08 AM	#19
pornguy Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Homeless Posts: 62,911	How long before they twist this, and make it required to have a US ID, so that they can make some cash?? __________________ PornGuy skype me pornguy_epic AmateurDough The Hottes Shemales online! TChicks.com \| Angeles Cid \| Mariana Cordoba \| MAILERS WELCOME!

06-23-2005, 01:33 AM	#21
makefuckingmoney Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 3,277	i thinks its a good start! i dont shoot any content, to consider me a producer in anwyay is ridiculous

06-23-2005, 07:41 PM	#24
J$tyle$ Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Sunny San Diego Posts: 11,500	bump bump bump