dvd stores and the new 2257
 

After reading a bit about the new 2257, it would appear that my DVD store is FUCKED in regards to becoming compliant, because we can not obtain the required documentation from the manufactures on all 7000+ titles to bring the box covers into compliance.

Am I reading too much into this, or is that the fact?

:helpme

It is unlikely they can force you to have documents on all of the titles. They are just trying to drive people out of business. Unfortunately, someone may have to go to court before the government is proven wrong.

There are no compliant documents on movies made before 1995. Will they arrest the guys showing or selling Deep Throat now?

this shit sucks
 

I've been looking at other major adult stores, and it doesn't appear they are preparing to become new 2257 compliant, unless they're all planning to roll-out 2257 compliant stores on/by Thursday, like we're thinking we'll have to do.

A box cover just doesn't seem worth the risk of 10 years in prison for each. Yet on the other hand, I can only imagine what will happen to sales without them. :(

Anyone else have a dvd store? If so, what are you going to do?

3 stores ...
Nothing ...

Canadian, in Canada, hosting in Canada, processing hard goods in Canada.

I am thinking of removing my exit link to malcom store... tough it is not hosted by me.

erm, I thought DVD stores were regarded as distributors and are exempt from having model IDs?

If that is the case, that would be great! but in all the info I've read, I haven't seen anything like that.

Has anyone else?

Isn't there is a question about whether online stores are supposed to have all of the docs for their titles if they show DVD cover art?

Luckily we made our store (www.bedroomsports.com) compliant to these new rules years ago. There's no hardcore on our site.

I have my domain pointing to my virtual store. I don't think I am responsible under 2257 because none of it is hosted on my server.

Think again!

according to this: http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/p...esentation.pdf

Cropping, bluring or alteration does not affect compliance requirements.

so welcome to the same boat i'm in :(

all of this shit sucks

Well that's not cool!

How could they prove there is hardcore going on under there anyway. Seems a bit silly imo.

Ok I've got it. The manufaturers gave me those images blurred, so I'm not liable for 2257s. It's only if you change the images yourself I believe?

nope.. because they are images depicting hardcore and according to the letter of the law, that requires you to have the ids to publish them.

Oh, I guess I should have my brother talk to his lawyer then, lol

Worst case scenerio we have to switch about 20-30 images with a generic compliant image.

Thanks for the heads up though, we've been just sitting back and watching it all unfold thinking that we were immune!

http://www.bedroomsports.com/Images.aspx?PIID=14164

blurring out the image isn't 2257 compliant... it still insinuates sexual acts

I thought so too, untill I read it. This is causing all kinds of problems for me now. :Oh crap

son of a bitch :helpme

:winkwink:

When you stop to think about it, you realize that these regulations are even more stupid than you first tought....
I sympatize with all you guys ...

Note: I have on a server a company in Hollywood that sells rights of major xxx studios to foreign distributors. They tought that they were exempt, to only realise they arent... The owner is Canadian but with a green card and residing in the US for the past 10 years ... They will have to comply.

pretty lousy music

Yeah... not a big rap fan myself but the message is in the music. At least that's what all the artists say. But...if it's easier.. Fuck the Police.

The comments on the regualtions specifically single out the online DVD distributors and say in summary, if you scan and image you are a secondary producer.

Can you post some info that you've read, (not from the boards) :helpme

I think this is the case

Porn made before 1995 is EXEMPT. So no Deep Throat does NOT need to be 2257 compliant.

But what if the cover art was created after 1995 using content created before 1995?