50......

sorry, i need to update my thinking now with HR4472 that topless models are now covered under 2257 via HR4472, but i don't think its considered "sexually explicit".. 2256 definitions were not amended.. HR 4472 added the additional spin.


Fight the headaches!

So if I buy a set of images from a primary producer and merely upload them, then I have become a primary producer? Did I 'manipulate' the image by downloading, unzipping, and uploading? What about resizing?

If I buy a car from a dealer and put the key in the ignition, am I now an automobile manufacturer? It's so retarded when it comes to an end-user of the content, ie: affiliate. All we do is purchase an END product with the resonable expectation that it's legal, and abide by the content license which we also have a reasonable assumption that it's legal.

I've got to think that Judge Miller is going to make dogmeat out of that.

"The point of being an FSC member now, is to be protected under the coverage of exemption from inspection as a secondary record keeper."

I think the FSC is being very misleading the new law doesn't seperate primary from secondary. It sounds like you are just trying to get new memberships. I will admit we are a member just to be on the safe side.

What should people do if the FBI shows up since that is only good for the DOJ. Please answer this question.

You can argue 2257 all day but...

Please correct me if I am wrong but the FSC does jack shit in protecting you against 4472 at this exact moment in time. Correct?

That's the biggest issue for me -- they now define sexually explicit content as merely showing the pubic region.

Remember years ago when magazines like Playgirl could publish cock shots but only if NOT erect, or they could be considered obscene in some areas? Guess now it's a sexually explicit magazine

No, they aren't defining sexually explicit as 'mere' exhibition but LASCIVIOUS exhibition which indicates a certain degree of lust. The problem is to define that degree. Is a naked woman standing up with her legs closed lascivious or is it a fully clothed person portraying its pubic region with a clear intent of arousing others what is lascivious?

Not all naked pictures are born equal.

"Sexually explicit conduct is defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2256, but basically is any form of sex or the "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area." This definition is used for both child pornography and for federal reporting and record-keeping requirements."

Now, if I show pubic hair, who is to determine what is lascivious or not? Yes, it's sexually explicit as it's meant to arouse, that's why my surfers are looking at it. But, it's quite different than a spread-eagled shot and should be treated differently.

Oh yeah, "genitals or pubic area". Uhm, how many people DON'T have genitals in their pubic area??

You seem to have left off that even if you are a member of the FSC and are a secondary producer only those that are within the 10th circuit are protected, assuming that they are even protected.

"Despite the Free Speech Coalition's Lobbying efforts regarding 2257, the regulations went into effect on June 23, 2005. Understanding the devastating impact these regulations were going to have on our members and the industry, the Free Speech Coalition filed a lawsuit to have these regulations declared unenforceable and unconstitutional. In doing so, we have been able to prevent enforcement of the law against our members for the time being."

No where do they say only those in the 10th Circuit area are protected .... is this true?

Yes, the injunction only exists in the 10th Circuit. Any decision the 10th Circuit makes is not necessarily binding upon the other Federal Circuits and would have to ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court. I do not know if the FSC specifies this anywhere or not, but FTP definitely did not.

You never responded to my posts FightThePatent

if thats true thats very fucked

So H.R. 4472 is law now right? No waiting period etc it IS law?

hr4472 sec 502 states:
The provisions of section 2257 shall not
apply to any depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct as
described in clause (v) of section 2256(2)(A) of title 18, United
States Code, produced in whole or in part, prior to the effective
date of this section unless that depiction also includes actual sexu-
ally explicit conduct as described in clauses (i) through (iv) of
section 2256(2)(A) of title 18, United States Code.

hr4472 sec503 states:
The provisions of this section shall not become effective until
90 days after the final regulations implementing this section are
published in the Federal Register.

Since sec502 dealing with "lascivious nudity" went into effect the moment he signed. (someone correct me if I'm wrong)

and sec503 dealing with "simulated sexual" goes into effect 90 days after posted in the federal register.

That's my interpretation so far based on this: govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-4472

Thanks for all the info everyone, as this is quite confusing to me.

If FightThisPatent (or anyone who knows) could answer these questions to the best of their ability, I'd really appreciate it.

1. Are depictions of the breast now considered explicit & do they require 2257 documentation?

2. Is it necessary to include a list of the content producers on my 2257 page? And if so, must I clarify which content came from whom?

3. The only sites I run are text TGPs, however I do use sexually explicit promo material (banners) as the term is defined. Is it be necessary for me to document which sponsors I use on my 2257 page? At the moment, there isn't any documentation for the sponsors, but I really want to ensure my compliance with 2257 & 4472.

If anyone could answer these questions, I'd greatly appreciate it.

Lastly, I just want to say that I appreciate all the posts that FightThisPatent (Brandon, I believe) makes. They're very informative & I really appreciate the info.


Thanks & good luck to everyone in these trying & confusing times.
c-lo

You are totally WRONG.

First of all, as for the primary producers bitching and moaning that the deal doesn't exempt them from inspections, you guys have been subject to inspections since 1995.....it's just that the gov't never did any.

With the new regs that came out last year the DOJ was planning to do inspections on secondary producers, but based on the Sundance case everyone in this industry thought secondary producers were exempt from record keeping requirements. Hence our battle in court over this plus alot of other parts of the law that are egregious and overly burdensome.

THERE IS NO INJUNCTION!
If there were an injunction your argument would hold some water, but there isn't one.
There is an agreement that the FSC made with the DOJ where the gov't agreed not to inspect any records of secondary producers who were members of the FSC, until the issue is settled at trial. The judge signed off on that agreement. (Also I'm 95% certain that any inspections of primary producers that occur in the interim are based on the old regulations and not the new more cumbersome ones)

If "everyone" is covered under this agreement there would have been no need for a special master to be appointed to keep the names of all members of the FSC.
If the DOJ wants to inspect records they have to contact the special master first to make sure the name of the person they want to inspect isn't on that list.

I agree. From comments apparently made by those who have been inspected, it appears that these inspections are part of a specific project with particular targets. Nor has there been any reference to the kind of records required by 2257 as it was revised last year. I don't think we can draw any conclusions from these recent inspections as to who may be targeted in future nor how such inspections will be conducted.

I wish FTP would promote FSC less like a used car salesman with a lemon to unload on some sucker. FSC has a valuable role to play which can be sold straight and IMO he is trying far too hard to attract more members, in the process implying more protection and a far more certain outcome than is the case. Over the past few days I have seen posts which only make sense if the writers have ignored the new law for the past year and I cannot help wonder if that is simple stupidity or too much faith in what FSC may achieve.

And yes, I agree with someone else who said how annoying his tag lines get after a while :(

Scroll down to read his thoughts on the new bill. http://www.xxxlaw.net/

Does the FSC send out renewal reminders? I will never be able to remember when my membership expires.

Question for the Pros
 

If I'm not mistaken does not the law say that 3rd parties such as associate program members ( not the owners ) are exempt from the 2257 because it is for the creators/content providers as to make such records available to the public?

It has not been more then a few months since I review the US laws on such records... Has thing changed to include 3rd party webmasters?

If your going to make a remark... please indicate your source material by giving their URLs, because other wise it just becomes a he said she said post...

Thanks everyone for your time,

I agree with that 100%.

FSC and its lobbyists did a fine job as far as I can tell. Unless you're really powerful, and the adult industry is not, you can't just shoot down a major piece of legislation. Even Hollywood couldn't derail 4472. There's likely going to be a new set of 2257 regulations and it'll be important to watch those and respond during the public comment period. FSC also does a lot of things beyond just the 2257 lobbying efforts.

I wouldn't hold my breath that FSC's constitutional challenge to the primary or secondary producer recordkeeping requirements is going to succeed, but they are trying. Most likely you'll have to live with the fact that secondary producers will have to be 2257 compliant starting sometime between now and, say, January. At that time, if an affiliate program or other primary producer refuses to provide model IDs or blacks them out, it's refusing to allow its secondaries to be 2257 compliant. I can understand the privacy concerns but the law is the law. If you're a secondary, would you really want to handle content that makes you a lawbreaker if you use it?

It's really not that hard to comply with 2257, not for new sites new programs, new content. It's the existing mess that's the problem. If the only thing that FSC accomplishes is pushing up the content production date for secondary producer 2257 compliance from 1995 to 2006, that is a lot.

any new arguments?

Fight the thread bumpers!

AFAIK the FSC agreement with the DOJ is only a temporary exemption for its members from inspection. It doesn't exempt them from compliance with the original 2257 rules, the changes which came into effect last summer, nor those which were signed in more recently.

In this instance I would be glad to be wrong, but I understood that the risk anyone who is not already compliant runs, is that if FSC is not successful, they may be inspected in future for copies of the pages and the records they should have been keeping since the changes were introduced.

he spams the shit out of the FSC and never comes back to answer questions.. lame

Imagine your job is that of the Attorney Generals.

You have been told to stop porn of persons under the age of 18 appearing on US Internet websites. How would you do this?

Do you think the answer is;

Remember as the AG it's not your job to help affiliates, it's your job to stop porn of 17 year olds being used by US companies and people.

Yeah, that is pretty weak.

FAQ on 2257 and HR4472

http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/FSCView.asp?coid=627


http://www.xxxlaw.net/ (scroll down a little to get to the info)


please read to catch. (i have to read it as well as some additional emails concerning this issue).

Fight the stay tuned!

sorry, i do have a very busy life and there is alot to digest on this 2257/4472 topic. I haven't abandoned it, just severely distracted in being in 6 cities in the last 3 weeks.

The simplist answer is support FSC.

Catching up on everything now..


Fight the jet lag!

all this is fine and dandy if you dont produce your own content....if you do the fsc cant help you

If you produce your own content, they you are required to keep proper identification records as defined by the 11+ year law.

While FSC is challenging all of 2257, i believe that the provisions for primary record keepers will stick.

It makes sense... that primary record keepers be responsible for ensuring that minors are not used, and to document which production material the performer was in.. such that in case it was a minor (ie. they had fake documentation), then it would be possible to track down the instances of that performer in content, and have the word be broadcasted out to take down that content.

Websites that license the content have on the whole, failed in their responsibilties of 2257.. that so many can't identify which content came from which place.

the 2257.html page is not good enough for compliance and does nothing to be able to do something when finding out that a particular content set or video was found to be underaged.

Compliance with 2257 means taking the law seriously and understanding what to do.. which i have had countless threads and posts to explain it. and for the most part, is quite easy.. its a recordkeeping issue, which the word "recordkeeping" is in the title of 2257.

What is a problem is the new 2257 language introduced by ashcroft to require secondary record keepers (websites that use the content) to have the 2257 documentation.

This is quite burdensome and a great violation of privacy towards the models.. that when you license content, it should be the responsibility of the content producer to have good records, but also the responsibility of the website that shows the images to be able to attribute each and every image to which content producer.

Going forward, the simple answer is to tag the filename or the folder with some ID that ties back to where the content came from.

So the FSC can't really help content producers, they have a legal responsibility that in the original 2257 language seems reasonable.. the new additions to both primary and secondary record keepers goes over the top and does further to protect child from being used in content, to actually be used to shutdown adult websites due to ignorance in the law and the burdensome requirements to do so.

This is one of the main challenges FSC is doing on the secondary record keeper front which is VERY significant and very much needed.

Content producers for the most part on the video site, have been complying with 2257 for a long time.. it's the internet side of content producers who have enjoyed the wild west of growth and have largely ignored the responsibility to document properly and failure to even consult with an attorney with 2257 understanding.

Has this clarified the issue on 2257 and primary record keepers and FSC?

Fight the 411 on 2257!

"When in doubt, fuck." quoted from Al Pacino: Scent of a Woman!!!


No, really, if you are in doubt of any of this and you want to cover your ass, CONSULT a Lawyer. If you can't afford to consult with a lawyer, then it would probably be a good idea and replace hardcore images.

Believing you are exempt from the law without assurance from an attorney is risky. On the same note, believing that a coalition will protect you from the law is even more risky.

2257 is now U.S. Public Law No: 109-248.

Judge Miller stated only an act of Congress can change it and they just did that. I don't belive a member of the FSC is exempt anymore and soon will not be for sure. If you go to any Gov site it will say
Status: Enacted
This bill has become law

Congress has acted, Now Judge Miller must react and redifine the TRO

When in doubt, stop fucking and call an Attorney!!

Yes and that would be because that part of the law doesn't defy human comprehension.



Not ignored (for the most part) but failed to understand the torturously phrased, ass backwards gibberish which masquerades as new law.

This is where the FSC needs to step up to the plate for the producers, especially the smallish independents out there.



Nope, not really.

have you gone to the FSC website?

http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/

left hand side... says 2257 under Topics

lots of info.

Fight the librarian!

ps. FSC can't exactly tell you how to handle your primary record keeper requirements.. you need to seek an attorney who has experience with 2257 that can review your specific situation and advise you on the proper methods for documentation. yes, its going to cost money to do so.. and FSC is not the magic answer to provide you with those specific answers.

What is the big deal about sharing info here?
 

Seems kind of strange that so many people here keep referring to "get a lawyer" when someone asks a question. Haven't some of us been through this? And can't those that have help the others that are having difficulty understanding the wording of the law?

What exactly are the record keeping requirements and how should they be implemented? This seems like a simple enough question that should have a very simple solution but no one seems able to answer it. Anyone willing to try?

That's all very good but you try selling 10 year old content. You might find yourself complying with the law and losing sales.

This is something that comes up time and time again.

No one gives a flying fuck if your Toyota, Ford or Pontiac was put together by a 15 year old Mexican. But porn is a different matter.

OK they will protest about the 15 year old car worker, but no one will go to prison.

Yeah, that bullshit is getting pretty old to say the least.



The problem with this question is that it's too well thought out and sensible for a forum such as this.

I wish you luck in your quest nonetheless.

i have posted countless of posts over the last 2 years on this subject.

First thing.. read 2257 for yourself.

Scroll up to see my post of the 2257 section that FSC has on their website.

Check out JD Odenbergers xxxlaw.net website for alot of info as well.

Then, ask a specific question, rather than a general one that demonstrates that you have atleast done a little bit of homework.

I have been helping webmasters with 2257 and other issues for over 3 years, but I can only meet you half way with understanding.



Fight the speed reading!

You need to keep up. Only those that had joined the FSC before the DOJ and the FSC made their little agreement last year are exempt. New members since then are not.

This 2257 for secondary producers is all bullshit. And the DOJ doesn't even really define what "produced" really means. Sure they say shit "produced" before June 2005 is "exempt", but if I put that material on my site today, is that considered "producing" it again, thus not being exempt? LOGIC says no, but we are dealing with the government, a conservative Bible thumping one at that.

Fuck all this bullshit. Until the Supreme Court says that secondary producers are exempt from 2257 I'm not dealing with content. Too much hassle.

Because those of us who are in compliance have spent thousands of dollars on counsel going over the nuts and bolts and every little detail of our operations with our attorneys to ensure full compliance....and then we're supposed to come onto a public message board and give all of that information to our competition for free?

The bar for entry into this business is way too low and there are way too many hobbyists out there that make it harder on those of us who do this for a living. If you can't afford an attorney then maybe you should find a new hobby like stamp collecting.

Also, even if I were magnanimous enough to share with you everything I know, it still wouldn't be enough because everyone's situation is different. Hardly any lay people know every facet of the law, we only know about the parts that apply specifically to our business models. If you need to know things that apply specifically to your business model then you need to get that information from an expert.

Plus, why would you risk 5 years in jail by taking free advice from a non-attorney on a message board. What if what I tell you is wrong? I'm not going to be the one defending you in court.

So that's why we say "Get a lawyer",

mmmkay?

Hollywood is clueless about this situation for the most part. One of my best friends is an assistant director and both last year and last week she talked to the Directors Guild about this mess and they hadn't even heard about it per se.

And that of course would be the second most annoying cliché that's all too commonly regurgitated in threads such as this.

Hey, Ben Franklin said it best: "We must all hang together or most assuredly we will all hang separately."

A what to do if you get inspected for 2257 presentation by Larry Walters:

http://www.firstamendment.com/media/...esentation.pdf



Fight the link challenged!

Very well stated. I don't care what anyone says, I always go through my attorney. It's Ok to have somewhat of an understanding, but it all comes down to keeping yo ass out of jail. I don't trust anyone to do this execpt our attorney.
There is allot of information in the archives about this and can be easily found by suing the search function, try to impliment the information into your business and then GO SEE YOUR ATTORNEY :)

This is one part that has always made me nervous. So your name is on the list, the DOJ ask if you are on the list, good you are....now you just got your name on the hit list when the injunction is lifted, they know right where to go.

And...who is this special master? one that works for the trusted government?
things that make you go hummmmmm.

you have a good point