New Ruling on 2257 from March 30th

[TheLegacy]

On March 30, U.S. District Court Judge Walker D. Miller handed down a decision on the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Free Speech Coalition in its lawsuit against Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and the Recordkeeping and Labeling Law, 18 U.S.C. §2257, and the regulations drawn up by Gonzales for enforcement of the law.

The following is a memorandum prepared by First Amendment attorney and AVN Legal News columnist Clyde DeWitt regarding the outcome and effects of Judge Miller's decision:

RE: Free Speech Coalition v. Gonzales, Decision on Summary Judgment

On March 30, 2007, the court in the Denver Free Speech Coalition case issued a ruling on the Government's motion to dismiss and/or for summary judgment. Here is a summary of the most significant parts, with crucial points in bold italics: (click link below)

http://avnonline.com/index_cache.php...tent_ID=286357

[JD]

so.... in non-legalspeak wtf does that mean? are US webbies fucked?

[jact]

Thanks for the heads up, lots to digest in there.

[jact]

Originally Posted by SPeRMiNaToR

so.... in non-legalspeak wtf does that mean? are US webbies fucked?

At first glance it doesn't appear to be horrible news.

[Rochard]

Can someone give me the cliff notes? I mean, I love to read, but none of it really made sense to me.

[GatorB]

"The court, on its own, noted that the Adam Walsh Act had amended the statute, and therefore Sundance had been effectively overruled by Congress. The court allowed FSC until April 16th to show why the law, as amended, is unconstitutional; and until the end of April for the government to reply.

Therefore, any time after May 1, 2007, the court may rule that secondary producers are required to have copies of the records, have them indexed, and be subject to inspections. "

This is stupid. Ok which non-American "secondary prodcuers" here are going to comply wiht this? Anyone...anyone.....? So what is the point?

Instead of checking 1000 websites that have the SAME content on it isn't it better just to check the records vis-a-vis the orignal prodcuer who actually made the content? If I have a scene from a movie on my website and the producers that actually made the film have all the orginal documents why should I have to have them? Does a video store that rents and sells porn DVDs have to have a copy of the 2257 info? No they don't. Same damned thing.

[jact]

Originally Posted by Rochard

Can someone give me the cliff notes? I mean, I love to read, but none of it really made sense to me.

The bolded text in the article is the most relevant. Best news to come of it is they'll be accepting sanitized identification which is a very important clarification.

[jact]

Originally Posted by GatorB

"The court, on its own, noted that the Adam Walsh Act had amended the statute, and therefore Sundance had been effectively overruled by Congress. The court allowed FSC until April 16th to show why the law, as amended, is unconstitutional; and until the end of April for the government to reply.

Therefore, any time after May 1, 2007, the court may rule that secondary producers are required to have copies of the records, have them indexed, and be subject to inspections. "

This is stupid. Ok which non-American "secondary prodcuers" here are going to comply wiht this? Anyone...anyone.....? So what is the point?

Instead of checking 1000 websites that have the SAME content on it isn't it better just to check the records vis-a-vis the orignal prodcuer who actually made the content? If I have a scene from a movie on my website and the producers that actually made the film have all the orginal documents why should I have to have them? Does a video store that rents and sells porn DVDs have to have a copy of the 2257 info? No they don't. Same damned thing.

It's the same reason they audit people under the poverty line, to ensure that people are complying or at least making best efforts to do so.

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by jact

The bolded text in the article is the most relevant. Best news to come of it is they'll be accepting sanitized identification which is a very important clarification.

Yeah except US webmasters who just have some "dirty" pics or movies on their site HAVE to have this info in the first place which is retarded. Though I suspect the US Justice Dept thinks and expects everyone anywhere on the planet to comply.

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by jact

It's the same reason they audit people under the poverty line, to ensure that people are complying or at least making best efforts to do so.

The whole point is that secondary producers SHOULDN'T have to comply in the first place.

Also that's a good way to spend valuable manpower and recsources. Checking 1000 websites for 2257 instead of saying looking for terrorists.

[crockett]

This for the most part doesn't seem to be a good ruling for secondary producers. Hard to understand legal mambo jumbo but they still seem to be requiring that webmasters "save" a copy of their websites.

So sites that are updated everyday or hundreds of times a day are going to be impossible to keep track of all the data.

Much less guys that have mutable sites.

[stickyfingerz]

Originally Posted by jact

The bolded text in the article is the most relevant. Best news to come of it is they'll be accepting sanitized identification which is a very important clarification.

Ahh thats good for the girls to help them remain stalker free.

[jact]

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz

Ahh thats good for the girls to help them remain stalker free.

That'll remain to be seen, but it should cut down on it.

[aless]

I'll read that article later tonight, I need a quiet room to be able to translate and understand correctly what is written there.

[DWB]

This all looks like good news. Seems pretty fair from what I have read.

[stickyfingerz]

Originally Posted by jact

That'll remain to be seen, but it should cut down on it.

But on the other hand if they give out the girls real names to all secondary producers thats maybe worse..

[Furious_Male]

Originally Posted by DirtyWhiteBoy

This all looks like good news. Seems pretty fair from what I have read.

Unless your a US based TGP owner, Free site owner, Flying explicit banners on a link list or directory, or any site with images depicting sexual acts.

The court, on its own, noted that the Adam Walsh Act had amended the statute, and therefore Sundance had been effectively overruled by Congress. The court allowed FSC until April 16th to show why the law, as amended, is unconstitutional; and until the end of April for the government to reply.

Therefore, any time after May 1, 2007, the court may rule that secondary producers are required to have copies of the records, have them indexed, and be subject to inspections.

With the exception of being able to protect some aspects of the models privacy I fail to see the good news.

[TheLegacy]

Originally Posted by DirtyWhiteBoy

This all looks like good news. Seems pretty fair from what I have read.

well for models ID yes you dont have to have an original so the copy is good enough, plus you can blank out most.

What is not so good is that Sundance is now struck down which has been a cornerstone for us.. not too mention our using the First Amendment

I wanted to see what the FSC will reply with on April 16th regarding this... so some points good, others bad.

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by DirtyWhiteBoy

This all looks like good news. Seems pretty fair from what I have read.

Are you retarded?

[Martin3]

What it's basically saying for secondary producers is that the FSC as until Aril 16th to prove why the law is unconstitutional.

If they're unable to do so, then after May 1st secondary producers will likely have to maintain records, if the court rules as such.

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by Martin3

What it's basically saying for secondary producers is that the FSC as until Aril 16th to prove why the law is unconstitutional.

If they're unable to do so, then after May 1st secondary producers will likely have to maintain records, if the court rules as such.

Wouldn't suprise me if the USJD expect people that have anime sites to maintain 2257 records.


How anyone in this business can support Bush is beyond me.

[Sosa]

Would gallery submitters be considered secondary submitters if they are only using sponsor content? And also the domain is hosted on the sponsors servers etc?

[pornguy]

Originally Posted by GatorB

The whole point is that secondary producers SHOULDN'T have to comply in the first place.

Also that's a good way to spend valuable manpower and recsources. Checking 1000 websites for 2257 instead of saying looking for terrorists.

Dont you know that it is porn that drives and funds the terrorists.

[Furious_Female]

Originally Posted by Furious_Male
Unless your a US based TGP owner, Free site owner, Flying explicit banners on a link list or directory, or any site with images depicting sexual acts.

That includes about 95% of US webmasters.

[IllTestYourGirls]

land of the free






























to go fuck ourselves

[crockett]

Hence the reason to just set up off shore company and hide everything in a tax haven. Fuck the govt and paying my fair share of taxes if I don't have the freedom to do what I want to do because of BS laws.

[kane]

Originally Posted by Sosa

Would gallery submitters be considered secondary submitters if they are only using sponsor content? And also the domain is hosted on the sponsors servers etc?

technically yes. If you are in the US it doesn't matter where the server that holds your domain is. You will have to keep a record of all your urls and the performers on them then have their ID's on hand.

I guess the good news is that they will accept sanitized IDs so more sponsor programs might be willing to give them out.

It seems to me the main fight though won't be with 2257, but with the Adam Walsh Act since it basically rewrites the law and fully eliminates the term secondary producer so to fight that they are going to have to challenge the law a whole.

[IllTestYourGirls]

Originally Posted by GatorB

Instead of checking 1000 websites that have the SAME content on it isn't it better just to check the records vis-a-vis the orignal prodcuer who actually made the content? If I have a scene from a movie on my website and the producers that actually made the film have all the orginal documents why should I have to have them? Does a video store that rents and sells porn DVDs have to have a copy of the 2257 info? No they don't. Same damned thing.

And I believe that is why it is unconstitutional. The law singles out a group of people. But I am not a lawyer

[jact]

Originally Posted by crockett

Hence the reason to just set up off shore company and hide everything in a tax haven. Fuck the govt and paying my fair share of taxes if I don't have the freedom to do what I want to do because of BS laws.

You going to move with the company? No? You may have a surprise in for you....

[Splum]

Bump for importance, looks like we will see if all the money we have thrown at the FSC will help.

[MrPinks]

OK, so if it comes down to secondary producers have to keep records, which is where it stands now as far as I can tell from the vague law, then sponsors really need to provide us with docs especially since it looks like it is not going to be required to keep originals. Doesn't look like it is going to go in favor of secondary producers and the FSC is basically leaving us in the dark too.

[davecummings]

I'm keeping an eye on the FSC www.freespeechcoalition.com for any announcements/press-releases that might be forthcoming concerning this. I recommend that YOU also visit that site, pay your dues, keep informed, etc.

FSC had done a stellar job on very sparse fundings to look out for ALL of us. Of late, FSC argued at the highest court in the land successfully on the COPA case, protected us secondary producers against 2257 when they obtained the 2005 emergency TRO from the 10th Circuit in Denver, and saved our butts in their work against .xxx.

Now, because FSC has been so successful, right-right religious hypocrits have bullied Congress into passing the Adam Walsh Act in which they added on the secondary producer aspect to counter the 10th Circuit's TRO that FSC successfully argued for.

In 2005, many joined FSC to gain the blanket protection against the secondary producer aspect of 2257. Now, as I understand it, DOJ is writing up the 2257A regulations to implement the Adam Walsh Act; Once published, I imagine FSC will be looking out for our best interests AGAIN.

To make certain that FSC has the financial means to best represent us, we ALL need to join FSC (go to www.freespeechcoalition.com ), or to RENEW our now-expired memberships from back when FSC bailed us out in 2005.

It's important and morally/ethically right for us all to pay the proper membership fee based upon the FSC chart for company revenues, NOT just for us to pay the cheapest rate that's available as "individuals" instead of as entities/companies/categories/etc).

FSC has repeatedly shown that it gets results, so WE have to join/renew at the appropriate membership fee. FSC attorneys are personally dedicated to the First Amendment and work with the FSC on our behalf for a fraction of what they charge others. In my opinion, we ALL need to take care of our FSC membership arrangements (including the recategorizings into the proper rates for membership) ASAP!

Lastly, I recommend that you make www.freespeechcoalition.com a periodic "must read".

Now, let's "pony-up".

Dave

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by MrPinks

OK, so if it comes down to secondary producers have to keep records, which is where it stands now as far as I can tell from the vague law, then sponsors really need to provide us with docs especially since it looks like it is not going to be required to keep originals. Doesn't look like it is going to go in favor of secondary producers and the FSC is basically leaving us in the dark too.

This shit is why I stopped dealing with content a while ago. Not worth the hassle. Especially when our own government puts US businesses at a disadvatage with foreign competition. I thought this was the exact OPPOSITE of what republicans do for businesses.

[RawAlex]

My read on it (and I may be wrong, I read quickly):

Key points:

A copy of depiction is something you keep once. You don't have to attach a copy of the original image / movie / clip to every model release, nor do you have to keep track of outtakes or cut segments as individual pieces. You keep the original work (as you received it) and index it to the model releases.

You only need to list the URL that the image / movie / whatever appears on and you are good to go.

The model releases sent to third parties (including secondary producers as needed) need only show photo, name, and YEAR of birth (going to get interesting on those barely legal "just turned 18" girls). Everything else can be blacked out (good news for models, who won't have their personal info spewed all over the place).

My questions involve things like pre-made advertising banners and other materials. Will secondary producers be required to get model releases for everyone in each image, and then cross reference every page that the banner appears on? What happens if you have a banner rotation system? Would it not make it nearly impossible to say exactly which banner was on which page at which second?

It is also not clear how this will apply to content produced before whatever the cutoff date is for this implementation.

More to follow, I guess.

[Quentin]

Here's the text of the FSC press release responding to Judge Miller's ruling:

+++++++++++++++

Judge Miller Issues Interim Decision on 2257

Canoga Park, CA - Canoga Park, CA - On Friday March 30th, Colorado Federal District
Court Judge Walker Miller issued an interim ruling dismissing some causes of action and allowing others to proceed in light of the Adam Walsh Act amendments to 18 U.S.C. § 2257 signed into law on July 27, 2006. FSC attorneys, in cooperation with government litigators, had held off amending their lawsuit until the regulations for those amendments were issued. These regulations were scheduled to be issued in January, but have not yet been made public. ?It makes no sense to rule on a law prior to the issuance regulations defining how the law is to be carried out,? said Diane Duke, FSC Executive Director.

Judge Miller?s issuance is consistent with his December 2005 ruling enjoining parts of 2257. But, because of amendments made to 2257 by the Adam Walsh act, FSC has until April 16th to present to the court grounds for why the amended 2257 is unconstitutional and the government has until April 30th for response.

FSC attorneys have identified and are working on a number of strategies to address Judge Miller?s most recent decision. ?While we are disappointed by Judge Miller?s ruling,? said Reed Lee, FSC Board member and President of the First Amendment Lawyers Association, ?this case is far from over. There are a number of constitutional issues, previously appropriately avoided by Judge Miller that must now be addressed.?

?FSC will provide regular updates on the status of 2257 as the case unfolds through our weekly XPRESS newsletter, e-mail alerts and posting on our websites,? said Ms Duke. ?As soon as we have additional information, we will communicate it to our membership.?

+++++++++++++++

This statement was issued sometime this afternoon, I believe within the last half hour or so.

- Q.

[TheLegacy]

Originally Posted by Quentin

Here's the text of the FSC press release responding to Judge Miller's ruling:

+++++++++++++++

Judge Miller Issues Interim Decision on 2257

Canoga Park, CA - Canoga Park, CA - On Friday March 30th, Colorado Federal District
Court Judge Walker Miller issued an interim ruling dismissing some causes of action and allowing others to proceed in light of the Adam Walsh Act amendments to 18 U.S.C. § 2257 signed into law on July 27, 2006. FSC attorneys, in cooperation with government litigators, had held off amending their lawsuit until the regulations for those amendments were issued. These regulations were scheduled to be issued in January, but have not yet been made public. ?It makes no sense to rule on a law prior to the issuance regulations defining how the law is to be carried out,? said Diane Duke, FSC Executive Director.

Judge Miller?s issuance is consistent with his December 2005 ruling enjoining parts of 2257. But, because of amendments made to 2257 by the Adam Walsh act, FSC has until April 16th to present to the court grounds for why the amended 2257 is unconstitutional and the government has until April 30th for response.

FSC attorneys have identified and are working on a number of strategies to address Judge Miller?s most recent decision. ?While we are disappointed by Judge Miller?s ruling,? said Reed Lee, FSC Board member and President of the First Amendment Lawyers Association, ?this case is far from over. There are a number of constitutional issues, previously appropriately avoided by Judge Miller that must now be addressed.?

?FSC will provide regular updates on the status of 2257 as the case unfolds through our weekly XPRESS newsletter, e-mail alerts and posting on our websites,? said Ms Duke. ?As soon as we have additional information, we will communicate it to our membership.?

+++++++++++++++

This statement was issued sometime this afternoon, I believe within the last half hour or so.

- Q.

wow, thanks for that