2257 Injunction has been vacated. Webmasters get ready for inspections!!
 

Started another thread cause I fucked up the title of the 1st one.


N THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Walker D. Miller
Civil Action No. 05cv01126WDMBNB
FREE SPEECH COALITION, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ALBERTO GONZALES, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the United
States,
Defendant.
__________________________________________________ __________________
ORDER PARTIALLY VACATING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND
ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSING THIS CASE
__________________________________________________ ___________________
Miller, J.
By agreement of the parties, and for the reasons stated on the record at a status
hearing held April 25, 2007, it is ordered:
1. ¶ 2 of my December 28, 2005 preliminary injunction order (Docket No. 60)
concerning producers who are not involved in hiring, contracting for, managing,
or otherwise arranging for the participation of the depicted performer is vacated.
2. Defendant need not respond to Plaintiffs? motion to alter or amend (Docket No.
112) at this time. This motion remains pending and if this case is reopened,
Defendant may respond within 20 days of the order reopening the case.
3. This case shall be administratively closed pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 41.2,
but may be reopened upon any party filing a motion to reopen demonstrating
good cause, on or before May 1, 2008. If no motion to reopen, or motion to
extend the deadline is filed by that date, this case may be dismissed without
Case 1:05-cv-01126-WDM-BNB Document 121 Filed 05/02/2007 Page 1 of 2
2 PDF FINAL
prejudice without further notice.
DATED at Denver, Colorado, on May 1, 2007.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Walker D. Miller
United States District Judge

wow, I guess nobody cares about this.

you should have posted:

"hi, new girl here, do you like my boobies? hihihihihihi"

....and the thread would have been alive for weeks.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

did someone says boobies, my tracker went off

i'm here for boobie ;)

you saw whats happening... they have a new priority... now they want to crusade against Torrent sites because "its in the best interest of their members"

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

the first thing that will happen will be that the FSC will come to the board asking for more money, and telling you all that you will NOT be covered unless you pay them.

Basically this entire discussion was "overtaken by events". Between the time that the DoJ put forth the administrative clarifications and today, the lawmakers have passed the Adam Walsh law and that changed everything. The DoJ is currently taking comments on the newer 2256 / 2557 rules and implementations, and then likely after that point a new round of lawyering will be done.

The dropping of the injuction doesn't suddenly mean inspections for secondary producers, mostly because the new rules haven't been clarified and the administrative guidelines are not yet in place.

I thought the FBI had basically ignored the injunction and inspected someone that was supposed to be on the "do not inspect" list (more like hand delivered list of places to inspect).

Run and hide... ^^

.

So far the only people that have been inspected is content producers. And actually that is who the Feds should be inspecting anyways. Consdiering the limited resources and man power I highly doubt if any webmasters get inspected. That is unless of course they also produce the content on their site. The average Joe Schmoe gallery submitter who is just an affiliate, I doubt they'll be many inspections.

GatorB, I think you are right, with an asterix in a minute.

The FBI has performed less than a half a dozen inspections this year, about a half a dozen last year, and are on pace to make their way through the major porn studios by about 2015 (assuming no more companies start to produce DVDs and Blu-Ray discs). They don't have the manpower or apparent desire to be out there each day knocking doors and checking paperwork.

It has also been pretty clear that when they show up for an inspection, they know what they are looking for, and rather than just randomly crusing through the files, they are looking for specific titles, performers, and the like.

Now the asterix: Once the current rule clarifying is all done and secondary producers can be inspected, I would expect to see at least one or two major secondary only producers get visited just to "test the waters" and to show that the FBI is using thier "new powers". I expect that to potentially be a replicator or an editing company. They may also select a large american based free site or TGP and see what happens.

Personally, I'd wait to see what the final regs look like before deciding what legal action to take.

Haven't hosted as much as a titty shot in several years...I'll sleep fine tonight.

How many webmasters have ever been inspected under this law?

If they inspect any website it's going to be Hustler or GGW or something like that. Something with a name everyone knows.

Ok first of all where do they get this giant list of porn websites to start inspecting. Then there's a 50% or more they are NOT American. They aren't going to fuck with non-American sites even if the AG thinks the law applies to them. Now how do they know it's non-American? Well I guess they can start with whois information( you have to assume a certain % of whois info is bogus, but that's a different topic ). How long does finding a website determining it needs to be inspected and finding out if they can even inspect it take? There is no way more than a small small small % of American porn sites could even be reviewed. Then out of those that they think might be in violation they can only inspect a very small % of those.

I also imagine if you get a democrat in office most of these inspections will stop and those Feds can do real work like stopping the next 9-11.

I feel if your site steers clear of the whole "teen" niche you have a better chance of winning the powerball and getting struck by lightning on the same day than getting inpsected.

Praise jebus. The freaks are at it again...

They could start by sending TMM a subpeona. :2 cents:

Bump because its important and I agree... (btw GGW *DID* get inspected and busted, with a big ol' payout.)

"On December 13, 2006, the U.S. Department of Justice announced that Mantra Films had been sentenced to pay $1.6 million in criminal fines for failing to create and maintain age and identity records for films it produced, and that the ?package agreement? between the government and Mantra Films, MRA Holdings, LLC, and Joe Francis required a public acknowledgment of criminal wrongdoing, a pledge of cooperation with the government in future investigations, full compliance with the record keeping laws, and payment of a total of $2.1 million in fines and restitution.[6][7]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girls_Gone_Wild

Nice to see GFY talk biz sometimes. :upsidedow

and again i am glad not to be an us man

here we go again:disgust

And he'll do hard time, not for trying to work around the regs, but for tax evasion. Not to mention the Federal charges for trying to bribe a prison guard.

I don't care at all. I'm a content producer. my life is already filled with crap about 2257 laws

My feeling is that they will likely start with lists they have obtained from adult sponsors in the past, looking for companies that continue to do business online. When settlements have been made in the past with a couple of companies, I am sure that they investigated payouts to webmasters and have a long list of companies based in the US that were receiving large payouts. They could just look at that list and see who is still declaring a fair bit of income, and start looking at their websites. As soon as they find one with no 2257 info or 'teen porn concepts" on it, they can add it to the list.

With all the political heavy lifting that was done to get these changes made to 2257, the FBI knows they need to exercise the powers at least once so they don't get called back in front of congress to explain why they don't do inspections.

i like poo

who cares

Thanks a lot guys for posting your thought and facts. We really appreciate that

I'm not really worried at all

I really don't have a problem with content producers having to abide by 2257. Lots of jobs in the mainstream world where someone has to be of a certain age require documentation to make sure that person is of that certain age. If I was going to start producing content I wouldn't have an issue abiding by 2257 laws. I do have an issue that the feds think that secondary producers are somehow responsible to have 2257 docs when they had NOTHING to do with a actual production of the content.

If I run a website that show porn movies I have to have 2257 info. If I run an actual porno store and I'm selling/renting the SAME movies I do NOT have to have 2257 docs. No one has explained the difference to me. The convenience store up the road doesn't have to prove that any of the models in the latest issue of "barely legal" are actually legal. Why not, if the whole idea of 2257 is to protect children from being exploited and prevent CP from being distributed?