What's going on with 2257

[baycouples]

Anything important happening with it or are we still going month to month with the "temporary" injunction?

[Paul Markham]

This is an opinion and in no way meant as legal advice. Don't flame me for getting the legalese wrong.

So far it's still in court on appeal by the FSC.

IMO it looks like it will be tightened up but not as much as the AG wished.

How they implement it is the big question.

MY ADVICE IS IF YOU BUY CONTENT GET THE DOCUMENTS AND CHECK THEM.

[baycouples]

anybody else?

[GatorB]

As far as I know the Secondary Prodcuer part was struck down. Of course this is being appealed thus it may eventually get added back in, but as of now legally anyone that falls under the Secondary Producer clause doesn't have to abide by all that BS they passed last year. But they may still have to eventually.

[baycouples]

Do we still need to be part of FSC to be protected?

[MrPinks]

I would like to know also

Originally Posted by baycouples

Do we still need to be part of FSC to be protected?

[Rambozo]

I'm pretty sure there is legislation pending that would make Secondary producers keep the same records as the primary producers - and that it will become law in September. It was snuck in as an amendment to a totally unrelated bill.

[Probono]

Originally Posted by baycouples

Do we still need to be part of FSC to be protected?

FSC dues are a small price to pay to fund the only legal team fighting this for all of us.

[baycouples]

Originally Posted by Probono

FSC dues are a small price to pay to fund the only legal team fighting this for all of us.

Oh, I know. I'm gonna continue paying those no matter what....

[2HousePlague]

I've been calling it 3368. Really FUX with the SEs.

2hp

[NTSS]

So softcore is safe the safest bet?

[AlienQ - BANNED FOR LIFE]

We are all going to jail.

They gonna put is in little porno camps and pull our balls off with hot irons.

[Hornydog4cooter]

Originally Posted by Probono

FSC dues are a small price to pay to fund the only legal team fighting this for all of us.

I am not a member so i guess then aint fighting for me

[I LOVE Little Brown Asses]

Originally Posted by AlienQ

We are all going to jail.

They gonna put is in little porno camps and pull our balls off with hot irons.

www.alcatraz.xxx

[L-Pink]

Originally Posted by NTSS

So softcore is safe the safest bet?

"Simulated" requires the same paperwork.

[L-Pink]

Originally Posted by NTSS

So softcore is safe the safest bet?

Actually "simulated" granny photos without proper record-keeping will put you in violation,

[JimmyStephans]

Whats going on?.... Lots....

The original suit filed in June of last year is still in the process. FSC, on behalf of its members, motioned for an order stopping the government from enforcing 2257 at all. The hearing on that was August 2005.

The Judge released his decision (not on 2257 overall, just on that motion) in December and he granted the FSC request in part, and denied other parts of it. If you want to read the actual document from the Judge, email me.

Normally the next step would be to pick a trial date (the suit seeks to strike down ALL of 2257) and start getting ready, but thats not what is happening here.

FSC did not fully agree with the Judge's December ruling. They feel, and rightfully so, that he should have gone further and placed more of 2257 on hold until the trial. They have appealed his ruling to the Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit. That circuit has ruled in the industry's favor on 2257 in the past, which is why the 2257 suit was filed in Denver in the first place. If you want to read the actual appeal document from the FSC, email me.

That appeal automatically puts a hold on the original (June 2005) suit and no actual trial date has been set. That appeal could take months to work the system, so no major action or decisions expected until end of summer at least. That would be on the appeal, so then the normal -- and often very long -- trial prep process and trial can move forward.

At the same time, and likely as payback for filing the suit, some in Congress have proposed other bills or laws that would expand 2257 to include simple nudity, and even simulated sex scenes like in common movies. Those amendments to 2257 are not enforce today, but could be soon.

If they are moved into the actual code (law), the FSC has two options -- They can amend the current suit to add on these new issues, or they can file a new suit attacking the constitutionality of the new amendments.

As of today the best advice is to closely and properly follow 2257 as it is on the books, and to join (or retain membership in) FSC. The money is needed to fight this stuff, and its cheap insurance while the 2257 issue works its way through -- which as I said, could be many, many months.

Jimmy
[email protected]

[Web Lass]

Originally Posted by AlienQ

We are all going to jail.

They gonna put is in little porno camps and pull our balls off with hot irons.

Mark, since you're posting on GFY can you please manage to respond to one of my emails or ICQ messages? Thanks.

[jimthefiend]

Originally Posted by Web Lass

Mark, since you're posting on GFY can you please manage to respond to one of my emails or ICQ messages? Thanks.

Lemme guess, he owes you money?

[Lifer]

Thanks Jimmy

[Web Lass]

Originally Posted by jimthefiend

Lemme guess, he owes you money?

No, he owes me the rest of the design work that he's been paid for.

[babsy]

The thing that annoys me the most about the 2257 laws is that it is absolute blatant political point scoring. It doesn't actually protect anyone. It might "protect" a 17 year old girl from the unspeakable horror of having naked photographs taken of her, but the 7 year old child we all want to protect, there's no way those fuckers intended on complying with any law, new 2257 or not, in the first place. The law does *nothing*, and there's no fucking way any politician is going to side against these laws, because they instantly get branded as an advocate of child molestation, regardless of how idiotic we all know that is. Not many ways to kill a career in politics faster than going against a bill that "protects the children".

Sigh. The whole situation makes me sick.

[MrPinks]

That is totally fucked up. This shit freaks me out, being a so called secondary producer. More sffiliate programs should help us out by providing docs.

Originally Posted by L-Pink

"Simulated" requires the same paperwork.

[baycouples]

So, what would sites like AFF do? They rely on their customers posting X-rated pictures!

[MaddCaz]

does shit still need 2 be up?

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by babsy

The thing that annoys me the most about the 2257 laws is that it is absolute blatant political point scoring. It doesn't actually protect anyone.

This part of your statement is 100% wrong. The bit about protecting a 7 year old I agree with.

THE 2257 LAW PROTECTS YOU

Yes it's the only thing you have to protect yourself against a 14 to 17 year old deciding a good way of making money would be to sell you porn pictures of themselves. It also hinders those who think they can exploit these kids.

2257 allows you to demand documentation to verify the model was of legal age at the time of the shoot, the model agreed to the shoot being sold and published.

I will not be joining the FSC because I do not believe the 2257 should be struck down. Because without it I can't demand to see the documents that keep me out of jail as a convicted child pornographer.

OK my reaction is not the norm. But maybe having 8 policemen in my studio at 5.00 am in the morning, with me in tow, trawling through my content and records looking for under age models changes my perspective. They did not find what they thought I had because it does no9t exist, because I have to comply to 2257. It did not stop the search happening, but it did stop me making a mistake and ending up in jail.

2257 PROTECTS US

PS
Yes 2257 is a badly written law and the amendments made it worse. But better a bad law then no law.

[amalekite]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

This part of your statement is 100% wrong. The bit about protecting a 7 year old I agree with.

THE 2257 LAW PROTECTS YOU

Yes it's the only thing you have to protect yourself against a 14 to 17 year old deciding a good way of making money would be to sell you porn pictures of themselves. It also hinders those who think they can exploit these kids.

2257 allows you to demand documentation to verify the model was of legal age at the time of the shoot, the model agreed to the shoot being sold and published.

I will not be joining the FSC because I do not believe the 2257 should be struck down. Because without it I can't demand to see the documents that keep me out of jail as a convicted child pornographer.

OK my reaction is not the norm. But maybe having 8 policemen in my studio at 5.00 am in the morning, with me in tow, trawling through my content and records looking for under age models changes my perspective. They did not find what they thought I had because it does no9t exist, because I have to comply to 2257. It did not stop the search happening, but it did stop me making a mistake and ending up in jail.

2257 PROTECTS US

PS
Yes 2257 is a badly written law and the amendments made it worse. But better a bad law then no law.

yeah I'm with you

I just don't like how it's written...unclear...confusing

There should definately be records kept of all models and proof of age...Just wish the gov'ment would be more precise about what they want...those amendments were just downright atrocious

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by Rambozo

I'm pretty sure there is legislation pending that would make Secondary producers keep the same records as the primary producers - and that it will become law in September. It was snuck in as an amendment to a totally unrelated bill.

And a lawsuit and injunction will immediately follow. COPA was passed in 1998 it still isn't law, because it's still working it way through the courts. Do the math, that 8 years and counting. Any 2257 law passed might not become actual law until 2014 if at all.

[baycouples]

So, wait, what would AFF do if something like 2257 is enforced?

[baycouples]

So, wait, what would AFF do if something like 2257 is enforced?

[Chrome]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

This part of your statement is 100% wrong. The bit about protecting a 7 year old I agree with.

THE 2257 LAW PROTECTS YOU

Yes it's the only thing you have to protect yourself against a 14 to 17 year old deciding a good way of making money would be to sell you porn pictures of themselves. It also hinders those who think they can exploit these kids.

2257 allows you to demand documentation to verify the model was of legal age at the time of the shoot, the model agreed to the shoot being sold and published.

I will not be joining the FSC because I do not believe the 2257 should be struck down. Because without it I can't demand to see the documents that keep me out of jail as a convicted child pornographer.

OK my reaction is not the norm. But maybe having 8 policemen in my studio at 5.00 am in the morning, with me in tow, trawling through my content and records looking for under age models changes my perspective. They did not find what they thought I had because it does no9t exist, because I have to comply to 2257. It did not stop the search happening, but it did stop me making a mistake and ending up in jail.

2257 PROTECTS US

PS
Yes 2257 is a badly written law and the amendments made it worse. But better a bad law then no law.

Pardon me if i'm wrong.. but you don't reside in the US right? So why were cops in your studio?

[fitzmulti]

Originally Posted by baycouples

Anything important happening with it or are we still going month to month with the "temporary" injunction?

:-)
Maybe try add a question mark to your topic nect time - so we know you are ASKING, instead if GIVING information...

[Degenerate]

Originally Posted by AlienQ

We are all going to jail.

They gonna put is in little porno camps and pull our balls off with hot irons.

lol... good stuff

[StickyGreen]

Originally Posted by GatorB

And a lawsuit and injunction will immediately follow. COPA was passed in 1998 it still isn't law, because it's still working it way through the courts. Do the math, that 8 years and counting. Any 2257 law passed might not become actual law until 2014 if at all.

I hope you're right...