So will the new 2257 regulations require this.... - GoFuckYourself.com

arock10 · 08-01-2006, 11:59 AM

A random thought....
I've heard that movies (not porn movies) that contain nudity or simulated sex will be required to have 2257 docs...

Will that make movie theaters the secondary producers and thus require all movie theaters to have 2257 docs on all the actors?

Tom_PM · 08-01-2006, 12:03 PM

I believe there is something written into 4472 which states to the effect that they'd only need that if the person wasn't someone who the employer already had tax papers on. And if it was "simulated".

So if for example an actor was being paid to be in the movie and they already had his federal tax forms for the job, they would not need 2257 style docs.

But thats just my loose interpretation, I could be way wrong.

arock10 · 08-01-2006, 12:08 PM

But the movie theaters do not pay the actors directly.

bobby666 · 08-01-2006, 12:10 PM

confusing situation,' am glad to be from europe

media · 08-01-2006, 12:13 PM

I think hollywood has an opt out exemption in the law... in Section 2257A(h) from their lobbyists doing their jobs... Wish our lobbyists had as much swing in their dicks..

Tom_PM · 08-01-2006, 12:14 PM

Hm see thats true. The theaters (analogous to websites?) dont *produce* the finished product (content). They merely display it to the general audience. So in a way, if you're making the point that they should not be subject in any way whatsoever to record keeping, then common sense says you're right.

But the movie studio that DOES produce the film is the assumed responsible party as far as a movie.

arock10 · 08-01-2006, 12:18 PM

Nah I'm saying if I've gotta have a million docs to be legit, they've got to have them too.

arock10 · 08-01-2006, 12:18 PM

The more people that get inconvienced by this nonsense the less likely it'll be able to work

arock10 · 08-01-2006, 12:34 PM

Ok someone that knows more then me said Hollywood worked out a deal so this doesn't matter. Bastards

Grapesoda · 08-01-2006, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arock10

But the movie theaters do not pay the actors directly.

TGP's don't pay the actors either i might piont out at this time

MrPinks · 08-01-2006, 12:41 PM

So Blockbuster would be a secondary producer

notabook · 08-01-2006, 01:06 PM

Pfffft, big hollywood has nothing to fear. They just have to snap their fingers and their lobbyist start sucking so much political dick that any trouble they would get into would be resolved in a week.

fl_prn_str · 08-01-2006, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by media

I think hollywood has an opt out exemption in the law... in Section 2257A(h) from their lobbyists doing their jobs... Wish our lobbyists had as much swing in their dicks..

You would actually think with all the cash the adult biz makes they could grease a few palms....but everybody?s too self absorbed...and way too greedy to give away cash to help further the cause. It?s funny that people can give away a few bucks to affiliates but no huge lump sums to have the government leave the industry alone.

pr0 · 08-01-2006, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fl_prn_str

You would actually think with all the cash the adult biz makes they could grease a few palms....but everybody?s too self absorbed...and way too greedy to give away cash to help further the cause. It?s funny that people can give away a few bucks to affiliates but no huge lump sums to have the government leave the industry alone.

no you just payoff dirty lawyers & cops down the road, instead of dirty politicians later

fusionx · 08-01-2006, 01:40 PM

This thing will be so twisted up in the courts it won't see the light of day for a while. That is, for secondary producers. Primary producers have a few new things to worry about.

08-01-2006, 11:59 AM	#1
arock10 Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 6,218	So will the new 2257 regulations require this.... A random thought.... I've heard that movies (not porn movies) that contain nudity or simulated sex will be required to have 2257 docs... Will that make movie theaters the secondary producers and thus require all movie theaters to have 2257 docs on all the actors? __________________ Sup

08-01-2006, 12:03 PM	#2
Tom_PM Porn Meister Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 16,443	I believe there is something written into 4472 which states to the effect that they'd only need that if the person wasn't someone who the employer already had tax papers on. And if it was "simulated". So if for example an actor was being paid to be in the movie and they already had his federal tax forms for the job, they would not need 2257 style docs. But thats just my loose interpretation, I could be way wrong. __________________ 43-922-863 Shut up and play your guitar.

08-01-2006, 12:08 PM	#3
arock10 Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 6,218	But the movie theaters do not pay the actors directly. __________________ Sup

08-01-2006, 12:10 PM	#4
bobby666 boots are my religion Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Heart of europe Posts: 21,765	confusing situation,' am glad to be from europe __________________

08-01-2006, 12:13 PM	#5
media Confirmed Moneymaker Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Eugene, OR It's Like Jail, Only with Trees! Posts: 9,852	I think hollywood has an opt out exemption in the law... in Section 2257A(h) from their lobbyists doing their jobs... Wish our lobbyists had as much swing in their dicks.. __________________ I'm here for the violence!

08-01-2006, 12:14 PM	#6
Tom_PM Porn Meister Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 16,443	Hm see thats true. The theaters (analogous to websites?) dont produce the finished product (content). They merely display it to the general audience. So in a way, if you're making the point that they should not be subject in any way whatsoever to record keeping, then common sense says you're right. But the movie studio that DOES produce the film is the assumed responsible party as far as a movie. __________________ 43-922-863 Shut up and play your guitar.

08-01-2006, 12:18 PM	#7
arock10 Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 6,218	Nah I'm saying if I've gotta have a million docs to be legit, they've got to have them too. __________________ Sup

08-01-2006, 12:34 PM	#9
arock10 Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 6,218	Ok someone that knows more then me said Hollywood worked out a deal so this doesn't matter. Bastards __________________ Sup

08-01-2006, 12:41 PM	#11
MrPinks Registered User Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: FL Posts: 1,767	So Blockbuster would be a secondary producer

08-01-2006, 01:06 PM	#12
notabook Confirmed User Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Not a Library! Posts: 9,748	Pfffft, big hollywood has nothing to fear. They just have to snap their fingers and their lobbyist start sucking so much political dick that any trouble they would get into would be resolved in a week. __________________

08-01-2006, 01:40 PM	#15
fusionx Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Olongapo City, Philippines Posts: 4,618	This thing will be so twisted up in the courts it won't see the light of day for a while. That is, for secondary producers. Primary producers have a few new things to worry about.