Likely a dumb one, but a 4472 question all the same - GoFuckYourself.com

selena · 07-29-2006, 07:47 AM

I just skimmed the 64 page pdf on this, and I'm not seeing what it is that has people in such an uproar.

Could someone point out the exact section to me?

knightdown · 07-29-2006, 07:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by selena

I just skimmed the 64 page pdf on this, and I'm not seeing what it is that has people in such an uproar.

Could someone point out the exact section to me?

Yeah I thought the same thing last night. I took it as you had to have the Same records as the producer of the content, instead of so and so at some location. Is this what you got from this?

Kimo · 07-29-2006, 10:33 AM

this thing is an outrage!!!!!!!!! the sky is falling!!!!!!!

selena · 07-29-2006, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kimo

this thing is an outrage!!!!!!!!! the sky is falling!!!!!!!

I don't think anything of the sort, but I do like to stay educated on what my responsibilites are.

joshll · 07-29-2006, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by selena

I don't think anything of the sort, but I do like to stay educated on what my responsibilites are.

im not sure either

fubar00 · 07-29-2006, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by selena

I just skimmed the 64 page pdf on this, and I'm not seeing what it is that has people in such an uproar.

Could someone point out the exact section to me?

Selena,
Knightdown is correct. The major issue is that now you must have copies of the same 2257 docs that previously only primary producers needed. There is no more secondary producer protection or omission from the record keeping regulations.

Since many, no make that most affiliate program operators along with content sales companies will never release model releases and id's for the content that is either being sold or freely given for use in tgp's and mgp's, basically said content is illegal to use for anyone but the primary producer.

Even if a person gets a hold of the necessary 2257 docs from a content producer or affiliate operator there is still the issue of a trackable database, the fact that each and every image has to be traceable down to every web page url it is visible on and cross referenced by 5 search parameters and that the records have to be at a place of business open for inspection by authorities 20 or more hours per week, plus the NEW inclusion of "Simulated Sex acts" now being covered under the new Federal Law.

None of this of course makes any difference if "one" doesn't care about complying or has it in their heads that so long as they have proof of age nothing else matters.

Hollywood376 · 07-29-2006, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by selena

I just skimmed the 64 page pdf on this, and I'm not seeing what it is that has people in such an uproar.

Could someone point out the exact section to me?

I believe the problem most are worried about is section V (or 5).

selena · 07-29-2006, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fubar00

Selena,
Knightdown is correct. The major issue is that now you must have copies of the same 2257 docs that previously only primary producers needed. There is no more secondary producer protection or omission from the record keeping regulations.

Since many, no make that most affiliate program operators along with content sales companies will never release model releases and id's for the content that is either being sold or freely given for use in tgp's and mgp's, basically said content is illegal to use for anyone but the primary producer.

Even if a person gets a hold of the necessary 2257 docs from a content producer or affiliate operator there is still the issue of a trackable database, the fact that each and every image has to be traceable down to every web page url it is visible on and cross referenced by 5 search parameters and that the records have to be at a place of business open for inspection by authorities 20 or more hours per week, plus the NEW inclusion of "Simulated Sex acts" now being covered under the new Federal Law.

None of this of course makes any difference if "one" doesn't care about complying or has it in their heads that so long as they have proof of age nothing else matters.

I must be mistaken then, because I thought that was what the 2257 regs that went into effect last July had to do with....the record keeping requirements and the ID issue. Though the "Simulated Sex acts" is a new one to me.

Thank you.

I obviously need to read more.

Lifer · 07-29-2006, 12:02 PM

I wonder if the DOJ was anticipating a loss in the FSC suit and even if the FSC wins, the new 4472 law still requires secondary producers to maintain records and the FSC will have to spend money yet again for the same issue.

Just a thought

07-29-2006, 07:47 AM	#1
selena Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: On The Edge Posts: 7,994	Likely a dumb one, but a 4472 question all the same I just skimmed the 64 page pdf on this, and I'm not seeing what it is that has people in such an uproar. Could someone point out the exact section to me? __________________ ~ Doer of Things at MetArtMoney Where Flawless Beauty Meets Art ~The MetArt Network ~ selena.delgado9

07-29-2006, 10:33 AM	#3
Kimo ... Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Maryland ICQ:87038677 Posts: 11,542	this thing is an outrage!!!!!!!!! the sky is falling!!!!!!! __________________ ...

07-29-2006, 12:02 PM	#9
Lifer Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Working Posts: 871	I wonder if the DOJ was anticipating a loss in the FSC suit and even if the FSC wins, the new 4472 law still requires secondary producers to maintain records and the FSC will have to spend money yet again for the same issue. Just a thought __________________ CCBill Sponsor Programs Get Paid On Time - Everytime!