|
No fence, supporting FSC and fight 2257 is good, but as a member you are not exempt from inspections/investigation and that should not be the reason you become a member. That would put you in a prisoner dilemma situation.
2257 surely has hidden agendas, but if you look neutral at it, it is designed to self-regulate as secondary producer to comply with 2251. If some model you promote with suddenly turned out to be or suspected underage, they CAN come for you, and being passive by not ensuring with age verification would make you weak and with no excuses in court. One thing is violating 2257, but... do NOT violate 2251 :warning |
Quote:
Affiliates who receive content from paysites also assume that the content is legal...so it all does goes up the food chain to the content producer. It has been said many times and i will repeat it here.. know who you are doing business with, where situations like 2257, can severely impact you. Some content producers are releasing model IDs with their sets (blackened or unblackened), many are not to protect the performer. The best case outcome is that the secondary record keeper items get struck out. I believe the primary record keeper responsibilities will always be there, and SHOULD be there, to ensure that at the point of content creation, that only an ADULT was used in the production. For that part of 2257, i feel is a good law... the latter day changes are clearly put in to place more burden on all those that use the content to comply...and can certainly be used as the tool to take down porn, rather than through an obscenity charge.. no difference then taking down Al Capone for IRS violations rather than rackateering and other criminal offense that couldn't be pinned. Businesses need to do what they can to comply with the law and act in best efforts and in good faith, doing nothing is the wrong approach. Fight the finger sand in the ears! |
Quote:
Fight my hairy balls! They were not clear about this when they were asking for money before. They said that if we wanted to be covered that we all needed to be members. Now only secondary producers are exempt from inspections.... so then why did they not just say, "ALL SECONDARY PRODUCERS JOIN THE FSC, THE REST OF YOU ARE FUCKED!!!" I don't even know why I'm bitching, I don't care about all this anyway. Let the sky fall!!!! |
affiliates are fucked, so fucked :(
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
not really, it comes down to choosing solid/good partners to promote. Many of the bigger programs have gotten their 2257 acts together, and are looking to ensure that their affiliates are not put in any problematic positions. Promoting non-sexually explicit content (ie. no insertion of any kind), is one simple method. I would still recommend that ANY image that is shown by the affiliate should be tagged in some way (filename or folder) such that you know where the content came from. 2257 will weed out those paysites and content producers who aren't complying with the law.. so the sky will only be falling on those who haven't taken any of this seriously in the last couple of years. Fight the umbrella stand! |
Quote:
I'm not talking about an open central register where everyone could lookup, but a "clearing" from the top. When the model is "cleared", she/he can be put on the paysite(s), for content sale etc. This would make things alot easier, cheaper, it would end the "assuming", it would give the legit adult business a better name, and most important; it would prevent underage models. With the money and number of participants in this industry, that would cost nothing compared to the situation now. Only a little time :) Just some thoughts :) |
Quote:
I enjoy reading your posts, you seem very well educated about this, but i disagree with you about this partially. I'm no lawyer but I've found that most lawyers just aren't really that sharp so we usually do our own analysis of things related to our industry and then confirm them with our lawyers. If the content was filmed prior to Jun 23 2005 then the primary producer is the person or organization who actually did the filming. Whoever manipulates that content (even if they manipulate it after jun 23 2005) is not the primary producer but the secondary producer. The DOJ issued a clarification letter to the FSC explaining that they considered content filmed prior to Jun 23 2005 to be exempt from the new revisions as it applies to the definition of primary producer. However by my reading, it would appear that for content filmed *after* Jun 23 2005 that if you outsourced production to another company and they then sent you tapes which you converted to trailers, videos or dvd's that you would be the primary producer (and perhaps the outsourcee as well as well... so possibly two primary producers). So I think you are right but only regarding post Jun 23 2005 content. Just for everybody's reference, here are the two versions of the definition of primary producer: Quote:
Quote:
Happy reading :) |
Quote:
i will try to find more definitive clarification on where the clock starts on 2257 documentation for secondary record keepers and report back.... the answer may be academic if FSC is successful in its lawsuits, but for those are paying attention, it is good to know. Fight the bated breath! |
Quote:
a naked model with no inserations is sexually explicit. |
50......
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
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? |
Quote:
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 |
Quote:
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?? |
Quote:
|
"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? |
Quote:
|
You never responded to my posts FightThePatent
|
if thats true thats very fucked
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
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 |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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 :( |
Quote:
|
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, |
Quote:
|
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!
|
Quote:
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; Quote:
|
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:33 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123