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

My favorite Ben Franklin quote:

Without Freedom of Thought, there can be no such thing as Wisdom; and no such thing as Public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech.

How far we have come from his ideals.....

Why do you make yourself sound so horrible because its not you, your a really nice guy.

In this case "hanging together" would be joining the FSC and making a contribution to the 2257 defense fund.
Have you done this? If not then STFU.

Getting free advice from other people who have retained counsel is not "hanging together" it's leeching.
If you go to jail for a 2257 violation that neither increases nor decreases my chances of going to jail. This isn't the American Revolution Ben, it's compliance with government regulations. If you open up a restaurant across the street from me am I supposed to give you free advice on how to comply with the local health codes?

Maybe my "tone" isn't coming through when I write.....but what would make me a real asshole is if I tried to tell someone how to comply, they took my advice as gospel, and then I was wrong and they ended up in prison for 5 years.

The only way to be 100% certain that you're in compliance is to retain a competent attorney and have them review your websites and record keeping setup. If I'm an asshole for saying so then I guess I'm an asshole.

When you think about it 80% or more of GFY'ers aren't really in the adult business. A very small percentage have competent counsel under retainer and actually know what they're talking about in regards to 2257.
Why on earth would you come here to ask for advice and risk 5 years of your life and a criminal record that will follow you forever?

Unless you don't care if you go to prison for 5 years I strongly urge anyone who hasn't done so to retain competent counsel and do what they tell you to.
If you haven't made enough money in this business yet to afford that counsel, then you should find another part time job that doesn't come with the risk of spending 5 years in jail for a paperwork error.

Honestly if you're not making enough here to pay a lawyer to review your records and educate you, then it's definitely not worth the risk for you to be in this business. That's not me being an asshole, that's just me stating the brutal truth.
:2 cents:

amen brutha!

The reason for all my 2257 posts is that when someone finally does go to an attorney, they can ask the right questions, and not start off with "so what's this 2257 thing i have been hearing about?" LOL

Lenny's posts were right on..probably as a frustrated response to reading the many many posts over the years for those who still don't have a clue about 2257, nor have taken the time to even do their own reading.


Fight the 911 on 2257!

The MPAA has.

Yes.


Every conviction that goes down is bad for the industry as a whole and thereby creates a more dangerous environment for all of us.

Think about it, the last thing we need is to feed the public perception that pron = pedophiles. A rash of 2257 convictions would do just that and thereby increase the likelihood of you yourself sharing a cell with Bubba.



That would be your call of course, but doing so might well prove to your advantage in the long run.

look out for HR5672

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquer...80&dbname=109&

search for: CHAPTER 110--SEXUAL EXPLOITATION AND OTHER ABUSE OF CHILDREN

--------------------------------------------------

Sec. 2252C. Misleading words or images on the Internet

(a) IN GENERAL-

(1) MATTER THAT IS OBSCENE- It is unlawful for any person knowing to embed words, symbols, or digital images into the source code of a website with the intent to deceive another person into viewing material that is obscene.

(2) MATTER THAT IS HARMFUL TO CHILDREN- It is unlawful for any person knowing to embed words, symbols, or digital images into the source code of a website with the intent to deceive a minor into viewing material that is harmful to minors.

(3) IDENTIFIED MATTER NOT DECEPTIVE- For purposes of this section, a word, symbol, or image that clearly indicates the sexual content of a website as sexual, pornographic, or similar terms shall not be considered to be misleading or deceptive.

(b) DEFINITIONS- In this section:

(1) MATERIAL HARMFUL TO MINORS- The term `material that is harmful to minors' means a communication consisting of nudity, sex, or excretion that, taken as a whole and with reference to its content--

(A) predominantly appeals to a prurient interest of a minor;

(B) is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community as a whole with respect to what is suitable material for minors; and

(C) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.

(2) SEX- The term `sex' means acts of masturbation, sexual intercourse, or physical contact with a person's genitals, or the condition of human male or female genitals when in a state of sexual stimulation or arousal.

(3) SOURCE CODE- The term `source code' means the combination of text and other characters comprising the content, both viewable and nonviewable, of a web page, including any website publishing language, programming language, protocol, or functional content.

(c) PENALTIES-

(1) OBSCENE MATERIAL- Violation of subsection (a)(1) is punishable by a fine under this title, or imprisonment for not more than 2 years, or both.

(2) MATERIAL HARMFUL TO MINORS- Violation of subsection (a)(2) is punishable by a fine under this title, or imprisonment for not more than 4 years, or both.

* * * * * * *

Sec. 2255. Civil remedy for personal injuries

[Struck out->][ (a) Any minor who is ][<-Struck out] (a) IN GENERAL- ANY PERSON WHO, WHILE A MINOR, WAS a victim of a violation of section 2241(c), 2242, 2243, 2251, 2251A, 2252, 2252A, 2260, 2421, 2422, or 2423 of this title and who suffers personal injury as a result of [Struck out->][ such violation ][<-Struck out] such violation, regardless of whether the injury occurred while such person was a minor, may sue in any appropriate United States District Court and shall recover the actual damages [Struck out->][ such minor ][<-Struck out] such person sustains and the cost of the suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee. [Struck out->][ Any minor ][<-Struck out] Any person as described in the preceding sentence shall be deemed to have sustained damages of no less than [Struck out->][ $50,000 ][<-Struck out] $150,000 in value.

[Struck out->][ (b) Any action ][<-Struck out] (b) STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS- ANY ACTION commenced under this section shall be barred unless the complaint is filed within six years after the right of action first accrues or in the case of a person under a legal disability, not later than three years after the disability.

-----------------------------------------------


It seems that this bill has some issues.. sliding in this kind of language in a budget/appropriation bill and having some really broad language.

the waves keep pounding in......

Companies who put up warning pages, use labelling, don't use deceptive marketing practices (including affiliates), don't put up any explicit imagery in open areas... will weather the storm.


Fight the storm watch!

Fight the bump!