Important 2257 question - GoFuckYourself.com

rapmaster · 05-10-2007, 02:18 PM

The custodian of records must be listed as a persons name, right? Because I see a lot of 2257 pages where an LLC is listed instead of a personal name.

Someone please clarify

Shocking · 05-10-2007, 02:51 PM

if the custodian of the records is a person that person name must be there. in other hands if the custodian of the records is a corporation, company or what ever legal entity they can show the corporation name but still must show that corporation legal representative person name as far as i know.

Quentin · 05-10-2007, 02:58 PM

From the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Title 28, Chapter I, Part 75.6(c) (with emphasis added):

"If the producer is an organization, the statement shall also contain the name, title, and business address of the individual employed by such organization who is responsible for maintaining the records required by this part."

This, it seems to me, makes it pretty clear that the custodian's name must be an individual's name, and not smply a DBA of the corporation in question.

Now.... keep in mind that we are about to see (at end of June, from what I hear) new regulations published for public comment, in light of the statutory changes made by Congress under the Adam Walsh Act, which was signed into law on July 27, 2006.

After the public comment period, the DOJ will read and respond to the public comment, and finally publish the final revised regs to the CFR.

IMO, the item quoted above from the CFR is unlikely to be changed when the DOJ issues its new proposed regs.... I suppose it's conceivable, though.

- Q.

rapmaster · 05-10-2007, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quentin

From the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Title 28, Chapter I, Part 75.6(c) (with emphasis added):

"If the producer is an organization, the statement shall also contain the name, title, and business address of the individual employed by such organization who is responsible for maintaining the records required by this part."

This, it seems to me, makes it pretty clear that the custodian's name must be an individual's name, and not smply a DBA of the corporation in question.

Now.... keep in mind that we are about to see (at end of June, from what I hear) new regulations published for public comment, in light of the statutory changes made by Congress under the Adam Walsh Act, which was signed into law on July 27, 2006.

After the public comment period, the DOJ will read and respond to the public comment, and finally publish the final revised regs to the CFR.

IMO, the item quoted above from the CFR is unlikely to be changed when the DOJ issues its new proposed regs.... I suppose it's conceivable, though.

- Q.

Yeah this is basically what I thought. So according to this, a site like this http://www.anettedawn.com/18-2257-usc.html would be in violation, no?

Quentin · 05-10-2007, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rapmaster

Yeah this is basically what I thought. So according to this, a site like this http://www.anettedawn.com/18-2257-usc.html would be in violation, no?

Hmmm... well, that's up to the FBI/DOJ to decide, really. While that statement arguably is noncompliant with the requirements listed in the CFR, the lack of an individual's name certainly isn't a problem that is hard to rectify.

In such an instance, the FBI/DOJ could simply tell the producer "fix that label/statement," and give them a chance to do so, rather than try to file charges for what really amounts to a very small issue. (This assumes that the records are at least kept where the statement indicates they are, and that the records are otherwise properly kept, naturally)

During the 2257 presentation made by FBI Special Agent Chuck Joyner at the XBIZ Hollywood show in February, he indicated that the FBI really isn't interested in playing "gotcha!" with producers; they are primarily concerned with what the law is supposed to be for - preventing the creation and dissemination of CP.

Joyner said that were he interested in just nailing people for any kind of 2257 violation, he could find thousands of labelling violations any time he wished, just by checking out the 2257 statements used by any number of producers/webmasters online. They know they can do that - but how would doing that affect the production of CP in any way?

BTW, Joyner's presentation still available here on xbizhollywood.com - I highly recommend taking the time to view it.

At the end of the day, of course, it's up to the DOJ whom they enter charges against for 2257 violations, and to what extent they will pursue labelling violations and/or "clerical" errors. A federal judge may or may not be keen on the DOJ taking up his/her time with purely technical violations - violations that have nothing whatsoever to do with CP.

All that said, IMO it's much better simply to name a specific individual as the custodian of records, as the statute appears to require, than it is to risk the potential of having to roll the dice in court on that issue.

rapmaster · 05-10-2007, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quentin

Hmmm... well, that's up to the FBI/DOJ to decide, really. While that statement arguably is noncompliant with the requirements listed in the CFR, the lack of an individual's name certainly isn't a problem that is hard to rectify.

In such an instance, the FBI/DOJ could simply tell the producer "fix that label/statement," and give them a chance to do so, rather than try to file charges for what really amounts to a very small issue. (This assumes that the records are at least kept where the statement indicates they are, and that the records are otherwise properly kept, naturally)

During the 2257 presentation made by FBI Special Agent Chuck Joyner at the XBIZ Hollywood show in February, he indicated that the FBI really isn't interested in playing "gotcha!" with producers; they are primarily concerned with what the law is supposed to be for - preventing the creation and dissemination of CP.

Joyner said that were he interested in just nailing people for any kind of 2257 violation, he could find thousands of labelling violations any time he wished, just by checking out the 2257 statements used by any number of producers/webmasters online. They know they can do that - but how would doing that affect the production of CP in any way?

BTW, Joyner's presentation still available here on xbizhollywood.com - I highly recommend taking the time to view it.

At the end of the day, of course, it's up to the DOJ whom they enter charges against for 2257 violations, and to what extent they will pursue labelling violations and/or "clerical" errors. A federal judge may or may not be keen on the DOJ taking up his/her time with purely technical violations - violations that have nothing whatsoever to do with CP.

All that said, IMO it's much better simply to name a specific individual as the custodian of records, as the statute appears to require, than it is to risk the potential of having to roll the dice in court on that issue.

This was a VERY helpful reply. Thank you.

rapmaster · 05-10-2007, 07:35 PM

Just saw the entire video of the 2257 seminar at XBIZ... awesome, happy I watched it.

05-10-2007, 02:18 PM	#1
rapmaster Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 1,576	Important 2257 question The custodian of records must be listed as a persons name, right? Because I see a lot of 2257 pages where an LLC is listed instead of a personal name. Someone please clarify __________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIG_Sauer_P226

05-10-2007, 02:51 PM	#2
Shocking Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Panama Posts: 523	if the custodian of the records is a person that person name must be there. in other hands if the custodian of the records is a corporation, company or what ever legal entity they can show the corporation name but still must show that corporation legal representative person name as far as i know. __________________ Web Design, Programming and much more! Complete Mobile Solutions 199-428-702

05-10-2007, 02:58 PM	#3
Quentin Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 1,280	From the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Title 28, Chapter I, Part 75.6(c) (with emphasis added): "If the producer is an organization, the statement shall also contain the name, title, and business address of the individual employed by such organization who is responsible for maintaining the records required by this part." This, it seems to me, makes it pretty clear that the custodian's name must be an individual's name, and not smply a DBA of the corporation in question. Now.... keep in mind that we are about to see (at end of June, from what I hear) new regulations published for public comment, in light of the statutory changes made by Congress under the Adam Walsh Act, which was signed into law on July 27, 2006. After the public comment period, the DOJ will read and respond to the public comment, and finally publish the final revised regs to the CFR. IMO, the item quoted above from the CFR is unlikely to be changed when the DOJ issues its new proposed regs.... I suppose it's conceivable, though. - Q. __________________ Q. Boyer

05-10-2007, 07:35 PM	#7
rapmaster Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 1,576	Just saw the entire video of the 2257 seminar at XBIZ... awesome, happy I watched it. __________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIG_Sauer_P226