House Passes 2257-Related Bill This is a MUST READ!
 

Industry attorney Jeff Douglas told XBiz that the bill is a substantial reenactment of 2257, and in its current form would redefine the term ?producer? to include what is now categorized as ?secondary producer,? effectively undoing the 10th Circuit?s 1998 decision in Sundance Associates vs. Reno. The Sundance opinion effectively determined the deliniation between producers and secondary producers and how those two parties are required to maintain records on content talent.



the rest of the article.


Man these people just keep fucking with us. :mad:

Thats it. I quit.:mad:

every year they come up with something, its unreal

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh Sometimes makes you feel like it dont it???

insert dancing banana here

Again, they do whatever they can do to shut us down. What a shame. This time, they're fucking with mainstream Hollywood, too...so we'll see what happens...

stories like this have been happening year after year everyone threatening the end of the adult industry - lets put it in perspective - adult content will always be around in some form or another - it is the creative webmasters who survive and know how to work the system.

http://www.illinoisfamily.org/conten...me%20Court.jpg

Just more bullshit legislation for lawyers to make money on, politicians to score points on, and the supreme court to take a dump on.

Nothing new, move on . . .

Wasn't all of this started because Pence wants to shut down an adult bookstore in his neighborhood?

It's only a bill though and wouldn't even become law until September...

i agree.. copa was passed and is law too.. just unconstitutional to enforce. I see the same thing happening here.
duke

jesus fucking christ..

seems they have a raging hard on for the adult biz...

I think its we are a good political target and we arent organized. So its like fishing in a barrel.

The sad thing is, that most of them do not even know what is in the bill that have passed.

exactly. that whole piggy backing shit is a load of shit.

You know, I think it would be cheaper if the politicians just used our tax money to take out ads during the super bowl talking about them selfs. Rather than waste our tax money on BS legislation that doesn't have a chance in hell of standing up in a court of law.

don't everone freak out all at once now :1orglaugh

:1orglaugh :thumbsup

this happens for real I see all sales going in house for alot of companies.

That's it! I've had enough! I'm running for Congress where I can whore legally.

Pardon my ineptitude, but this means sites such as TGPs and Babe Blogs, etc. will now have to have 2257 records for each photo on the site?

juicy for prez!
he'll whip those asses to drop this

i've got my exit strategy ready, just waiting for the right time to bust out.

Politicians have a hard-on for votes and they will always do what they think is going to get votes for them. :2 cents:

it's stuff like this that made us go non nude with our site. nothing may come of any of it, but i got sick of reading the latest news about 2257 and worrying about what might happen.

It's the end of the world as we know it....

Here's a good Reuters article on it. Looks like we'll have some nice allies against this. Hollywood is pissed...

Reuters Article

or read it here :

WASHINGTON (Hollywood Reporter) - The U.S. House of Representatives has approved child-safety legislation that includes a provision bringing some legitimate film and TV productions under the same federal-reporting requirements as X-rated films.

Under a provision inserted in the Children's Safety and Violent Crime Reduction Act, the legislation would require "any book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape or other matter" that contains a simulated sex scene to come under the same government-filing requirements that adult films have to meet.

Currently, any filmed sexual activity requires an affidavit that lists the names and ages of the actors who engage in the act. The film is required to have a video label that claims compliance with the law and lists where the custodian of the records can be found. The record-keeping requirement is known as Section 2257, for its citation in federal law. Violators could spend five years in jail.

Under the provision authored by Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., the definition of sexual activity is expanded to include simulated sex acts like those that appear in many movies and TV shows.

While the overall bill is designed to give law enforcement officials more power to prosecute violent sexual predators and sets up a comprehensive national sex-offender registration system, it includes the language targeting motion pictures, TV shows and other material.

Last year, the House approved a similar measure, but it languished in the Senate as lawmakers could not decide how to proceed on hate-crimes language that also was attached to the legislation. The new legislation left the hate-crimes language out of the bill in the hopes that it would have an easier time in the Senate.

The Pence amendment has garnered opposition from several groups ranging from the Motion Picture Assn. of America, the Recording Industry Assn. of America, the Screen Actors Guild and the Directors Guild of America to the American Conservative Union, Americans for Tax Reform and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which say that the new requirement is a bad idea for legitimate business and could actually undo the current adult-film industry reporting requirements as it is likely to face a court challenge if it becomes law.

While the provision was included in the House version of the Children's Safety Act approved September 14, it was not included in the version of the bill approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee on October 17.

Whether the Senate decides to include the provision, it will have to be disposed of one way or another when lawmakers from both sides of the Capitol meet to iron out their differences, if the Senate approved the overall bill.

Changes in the Pence language that allow the motion picture industry to "self-certify" their compliance have made the provision more palatable, say industry officials.

Still, the motion picture industry hopes to be able to convince lawmakers to make further changes.

"We'd like to be completely excluded," said one studio executive. "We want them to focus on child predators. We don't want them to lose their focus on that."

Reuters/Hollywood Reporter

I shoot my own stuff and have id's/releases on all my girls.

G/L to all... you'll need it

Hrmm....I don't see any big problems here...just make sure to get the paperwork in order...and only deal with people that comply to 2257.

How difficult can that be..?? :thumbsup

How the SECONDARY PRODUCER issue. It's BS. For those that don't shoot our own stuff it's completely unecessary and burdensome.

Please be sure to add in a 2257 disclaimer to all threads in which you declare "i'd hit it" or make any sexual reference about what you would like to insert where on specific models.

Thanks to your co-operation, our children will be much safer now.

Please piss in this jar, jerk off in this jar, give a hair sample, blood sample and skin cell sample so we can make sure you're not a pedophile.

all praise the almighty 2257. glory be to jesus.

Without us you wont sell much of it. :2 cents:
So good luck to US ALL.

I think you're right

HaHa then i guess my site http://hotornotsex.us and http://ratemypussy.us are illeagal. Whatever they make enough money so fuck them

It will never become law in that form. It doesn't matter how many Bible thumpers want it, or how many times this same coming of the calvary presents this annually, it has no chance in hell of passing, or standing up in a court of law.

In the form listed above, and it expanding out of adult into mainstream, they are going to have a lot of companies with some very deep pockets fighting it. So they can just as well forget it.

What is annoying, yet humorous in a sarcastic way is that they are somehow trying to "protect the children" while cracking down on media companies, adult or otherwise. I fail to see a direct connection as they are trying to sell two different issues under the same umbrella.

:disgust

Actually, it looks like it might become law in that form. According to the article, it is going straight to Bush to sign it.

Now it appears that everyone that thought they would be covered by FSC as a secondary producer is shit out of luck. I didn't become a member but this sucks for all of us that are so called secondary producers.

Sure is sarcastic and flippant concept to handling legislation.

The "new" Patriot Act covers everything from drug dealers to "credit card tax evaders" as a justification to anyone who thinks the terrorism aspect is junk. Bet they got 12 doses of pork stuffed in there as well for art galleries in California.

You guys can thank Bush voters.

:(

I dont know where the idea came form that it wouldnt become law until Sept - since the house approved it yesterday and the senate will look at it within a week or so (which means the prez will sign it later this month) then there is a 90 day period before it becomes law of the land. Given the recesses comeing up for the Senate, and their approval ratings dropping through the floor Id wager this will be law by June and then the MPAA and all the hollywood producers will have a field day with it in court.
Overall I think its probably one of the best things thats ever happened for us as if the Hollywood people fight against it (which they have to or they will never release another R or PG rated film again) then the outcome will not only be good for them, it will take care of all of our stupid little secondary producer requirements for good and we wont need to even fight the FSC battle.

For some reason, I have a feeling Hollywood will be left out of this, somehow. I have a strange feeling they will say this doesn't pertain to mainstream films and only internet. Who knows, but that's the way I see it going.

THEY can say whatever they want. It's what the LAW says that is important. I can tell you that if Hollywood can get away without having to do the 2257thing for similuated sex, but "pornographers" have to, well that right there will makes this law unconstitutional.