2257 Info
 

Here's something written by Connor of YNOT, a knowledgeable professional who also donates a lot of his time as a key person on the Board of the Free Speech Coalition (an organization I am glad/thankful to belong to; IMHO, based in part upon the 2005 negotiations and outcomes with DOJ and their demands, anyone not belonging to FSC might possibly be chancing not having legal "standing" or being covered by any court actions FSC brings and wins in the future on behalf of Secondary Producers and others?? Maybe "non-supporters" of FSC might want to get their attorney's professional advice, rather than my personal and extremely novice opinion, concerning "standing"?). Besides the below link and comments from Connor/YNOT, I recommend the link to "2257" on the LH side of www.freespeechcoalition.com , as well as the related info and links on the RH side.



Here's what Connor has to say concerning certain folks faulting FSC:

"Who do you think is going to challenge the new regs once they are released? You may find this helpful:

http://www.ynot.com/modules.php?op=m...icle&sid=37592

The past FSC challenge is moot because Congress rewrote the law... and MADE IT WORSE. Once the new regs are issued, however, a new challenge will almost certainly happen. We're glad to hear that Joyner does not expect the FBI to initiate "secondary producer" inspections prior to the release of the new regs. But, the FSC will probably make sure that Joyner NEVER starts the inspections of secondary producers. And to reward them for that effort, your idea is for people to end their memberships? I don't see how that makes sense."

Thanks, Connor --you/YNOT have once again supplied us with important and timely info and clarity.

Dave Cummings

Dave, the difference this time is that the FSC, if they choose to remain a free speech organization, will be attacking a law rather than an "administrative clarification". In theory, it is much more clear cut when you are dealing with an act of congress rather than the mindless noodlings of overzealous paper pushing pinheads who think they can write new laws.

The republicans figured out pretty quickly that they would lose in court on this one, and decides to end around and write into law what the paper pushers had proposed. Thankfully, it isn't hard to see where much of the new law will limit free speech by imposing near impossible restrictions on people involved in the production, editing, manufacturing, and distribution of adult material.

Further, I think that it will be clear to show that most (if not all) of the changes to 2257 did not meet the government's stated goal for the law, and that keeping hundreds or thousands of duplciate records all over the place doesn't stop a single piece of CP from being produced and doesn't protect a single child.

Hopefully FSC will have enough time away from crusading on piracy to take this on.

What is so hard about the 2257 ?
 

It fails to amaze me how few understand how simple the 2257 really is...

1.) On your main page, normally the index, on the very bottom a hyperlink to the 2257 webpage... such link will say 2257, please see the exact text required in the new 2257...

2.) On the 2257 webpage the following are required:

a) A statement indicating the "actors" are of legal age and consent at time of creation of the pictures and or movies...

b) The "Custodian of Records" is the person(s) who hold the legally required personal confidential records of the "actors"... The contact information as to view and to check such records is required, such being the street address and a contact phone number... Every US adult website is required under US law as to have a 2257 document attached to the primary webpage... It does not matter if you are a primary or a secondary producer... so as to simplify if further what is needed is a street address of whoever has the legal documentation of the actors...

Simple?

.

Haha... you leave out about 99% of the responsibilities, the hard part, then declare it simple? Nice try. :1orglaugh

Read our (YNOT) story that Dave linked above... yes, the FSC will indeed be all over this. Thankfully we have them.

Curious though what you're referring too by the words "crusading on piracy" ... ?? Please explain.

He's referring to this, I believe.

I'm not sure why people assume that the FSC would struggle to keep up with the demands of challenging 2257 just because of this anti-piracy coalition, though. I'm not suggesting that the 2257 lawsuit won't be very labor-intensive - it certainly is/will be - but it's not as though a single lawsuit of any kind eats up every waking moment of the attorneys involved... if such were true, every firm would have to employ hundreds of attorneys to keep up with their case load.

2257 is more important at the moment and if they are serious about fighting piracy start by throwing out the members whose ads support piracy activities.

Well, the hard part is record-keeping, which apply for those restricted by US laws and regulations. Since he's from Canada, makes it simpler.

I need more info on this new stuff...

As I mentioned in the original posting, see www.freespeechcoalition.com and the stories and links on the RH side, and the link to 2257 and all IT'S links on the LH side. The aforementioned and postings by Connor and Quentin are goldmines of info. There's no easy/full way to get reasonably informed other than by doing what you might not have seen in posting #1.

Good luck,

dave

Quentin, you are correct. 2257 is an exact, precise, and specific cause that FSC should head up. It falls exactly in their charter, it has the distinct possiblity of limiting free speech as written, and is a true full effort issue. The FSC people need to realize that at this point, outside of this and the issues of some of the state level obscenity cases, they don't have time for anything else.

Balalsubturfyooj, seeing that you are in Canada like me I can perhaps forgive you for not having a clue about these things, but your post represents about 1% of the true responsbility that US based producers are in for with the new rules. You really need to spend some time and understand what they are up against before you dismiss it like a three line piece of code issue.

Well... heh... if he thinks that would somehow absorb some significant portion of FSC resources then all I can say is... he is incorrect. :)

As long as 2257 is being addressed properly, which it is, there is always time for something else. :) That said.... I fully agree that 2257 and obscenity are by far the two most important legal issues facing the industry right now.

Conner, perhaps some of that spare time could be put into making the website run well, the membership signup easy and clear, and getting the membership renewals out on a timely basis?

Nice try, but you aren't even close.

This deserves a bump.

Yea... what do you find hard about the 2257?
 

I have read fully the recent US laws pertaining to the 2257 and the surrounding areas... The whole reason for the 2257 is to state who has the required documentation and that such is easy to find so that those who are the "actors" could be checked up on as to prevent CP... Considering many here at GFY will argue with me... and most who run tgps & mgps could not be bothered to include a simple 2257 webpage, that is required under the US FEDERAL law(s), I find it a bit hard to believe that stating that I know about 1% somewhat strange... considering they are breaking many FEDERAL law(s)...

I do find the 2257 wording to be somewhat convoluted and the interpretations by many webmasters who make statements without reading their own laws as to be what causes much of the problems...

What is so hard as to indicate, if you are not the person(s) that created "content", as to provide a address of those who you have bought the content from? If you had bought content; those who had sold such to you would be under legal requirement as to either provide you with the actual info on the "actors" or keep such records at their place of business for examination when required by law... If you are an associate of a adult program then the company who you are promoting is required as to keep and to make available the 2257 records when required...

If you are the people who film content then yea... of course you need to have the "actors" info for legal reasons... but not all do such...

Since the terms "primary producer" and "secondary producer" are seen under US law(s) is seen as being equal... that means everyone (US) who displays adult content must follow the 2257 and surrounding laws and regulations...

Now the problems that I see is that the adult graphics on many adult websites ( tgps / mgps ) plus Blogs mainly do not indicate those displayed in such graphics that is required under US law. thumbs, banners and misc. graphics must be accounted for... since most who run tgp & mgp pus adult Blogs feel they are not responsible they do not follow the US FEDERAL law(s)...

For those who could not care one way or the other... to make things as complex as possible for other adult webmasters is everything... because that means that there is less people who know how to setup adult sites and that means less competition and therefor more money for themselves...

One last point... if comprehension is an issue then hire some legal help. :1orglaugh

Educate yourselves people!,


Bump... ^^

.

Balalsubturfyooj, if you haven't studied ALL the links that I recommended above, I recommend that you do. Thanks.

dave

Yes indeed.... all that is being addressed, in fact.

Bump for something folks need to be aware of, especially those (non-FSC members) who are so quick to snipe at FSC---which, to me, seems like the snipers are holding back memberships and the innate funding for FSC to do even more good for all of us (including the snipers); even some of the snipers have been kept from 2257 hassles due to FSCs court filings in 2005 (which was so effective that DOJs hands were tied by the FSC actions, at least until some legislator slipped "Secondary Producers" into a subsequent law).

dave

FYI if your including me in the snipers, we are members. :winkwink:

No, TONY404, I'm not "including" anyone in particular, just a generality about those who seem to automatically complain/"snipe" about anything/everything concerning FSC, and certainly not you!!!

dave

Dave I do support them and have given them credit before. I really do think if they are going to take on piracy throw out the members who help make it profitable. I also think that act would get them tons of street credit and tons of new members.

bump 4 this