You SUNDANCE screaming bastard...
 

You keep saying it's right there in the regs, POST the part you are talking about.

That is all.

It´s sooo late!!, why fight?...

because we're talking felony charges

The commentary refers to section 2257(f) in the event that the secondary producers are unable to produce the complete records for all content that they ever published. Section 2257(f) is the part of the law that basically says, 'failure to maintain the required records is a crime!'

Three things.

1) The commentary is just the DOJ's opinion, nothing more. It's how they view the situation, a court can (and probably will) view the situation differently.

2) The Sundance decision came down AFTER the Library Ass'n decision came down. One would think that basing your decisions on the latest case law is "prudent"

3) EVEN IF the courts today disagree with the 10th circuit's decision in the Sundance case, that the secondary producer requirements in the regulations overreach the law.....there is still a very strong argument to be made that secondary producers acted in "good faith" by following the Sundance ruling.

It would be a giant stretch of the law for the DOJ to obtain a conviction on you for content you published prior to the publication of the new regs, if that content was removed before the new regs went into effect.

I'm not an attorney, this is not legal advice, this is just my opinion. It is however, a sound and well thought out opinion.

thanks for the response Lenny. trust me, i want to be wrong. not that i have ever posted a hardcore pic in the past, of course. but if the courts don't agree, i'd say affiliates are sitting ducks without model IDs.

of course for any previous publishings before june 23rd, they just need an ID without the draconian indexing system. but how many affiliates have that? i'd say 99% don't. and sponsors are not handing those out.

if the courts can retroactively go after small time affiliates who posted a hardcore thumbnail last year or even last month or even today, i'd say we have a major problem here.

i'm not going to say whether or not i've personally spoken with an attorney, but there are conflicting opinions on this throughout. but the bigger problem i think is smaller affiliates without the connections and money to get the big name lawyers are left holding the bag in this situation. the pool of lawyers that can handle these types of cases is very limited, and the ones that exist are tied up now with the lawsuit and are on retainer from the big guys.

in my opinion - of course it's just one opinion - this does not bode well for affiliates. again, thanks for the reply.