Tommy, I think when it comes down to it, if the DOJ tried to go after someone for a 2257 violation where the only part of the law broken was not being available on a particular day for a specific reason, even though it was during the stated hours on the website, they probably wouldn't have much luck with a judge and jury. Further I don't think they would risk everything to go after someone because they were not available due to non-routine circumstances, like voting, doctors appointments, etc. Probably not even a vacation.

When the IRS is investigate an individual or organization, they still make an appointment and try and do it at the tax payers convenience because later on, if they show that they tried to be accomidating and you never accomidated them, then it makes you look more like you have something to hide, So I think with a 2257 inspection, if they tried to inspect multiple times and each time you conveniently were not available, then it might appear you were dodging them and they would probably have a good case against you.

I think Linkster makes a good point though about it being very business like and I even think that will apply unless they have already have a case against you for something really damning. I think even if something seems questionable, inspections will ultimately be handled very business like.

I also think the sky is falling in mentality is a bit hysterical. I don't think that the DOJ has tens of thousands of inspectors trained and ready to go all over the country, just waiting for the word to go start knocking on doors.....which is what some people would have you believe.

P.S. I like the front Porch idea. Personally I'd put them on my back deck. Since it is in the sun all day long, they better hope it's a cloudy day or they better make sure they have plenty of sunscreen.

Exactly - which is why every subsequent decision ruling against the right of free citizens to bear arms was based on the precedent from the tortured logic of an explicitly racist Supreme Court decision, not on the intent of the founders. Jefferson had quite a few things to say on the topic, including that of an armed revolution being necessary every 20 years or so to keep government power from becoming too entrenched or oppressive.

As for the states, the "National Guard" as the "militia" is another erroneous and tortured reading. The state National Guards were mainly formed in the early 20th century, not in the 1700s, as a way to get around the "posse comitatus" act that forbade the army from being used against the citizens. The Guards were formed to threaten and kill striking citizens who were protesting against working conditions in the factories and mines - again, not a militia of the "people" but merely another arm of state
oppression. And of course, since President Reagan and Congress federalized all state National Guards in the 1980s, they are essentially illegal and unconstitutional forces, since they are now de facto federal military forces used against US citizens in direct violation of Posse Comitatus.

But I won't bore everyone with more of this - there's plenty of info to be found by Googling the topics. :)

I'm not supporting the fight against the law to stop record keeping. I do believe that better record keeping could lead to protecting children and I'm for that. This reg is whack and won't help at all. The first that I mentioned to my wife is that if this goes through then I can't take my daughter to school or even the hospital without first notifying the DOJ and vacations will no longer be possible.

Unfortunately the department has stated clearly that it's #1 goal is to fight obscenity. Since the budget for child exploitation and obscenity is linked every dollar spent fighting obscenity is a dollar taken from protecting children.

The next few months will show if our way of life continues or dies.

Some excellent posts here in this thread some funny, some succinct with the state of affairs.

The one thing that has a bug up my ass about 2257 is the major lack of efficient design in interpreting the letter of the law with regard to record keeping. After all, the one thing all the attorney's agree is the ambiguous design of 2257. Going after CP seems to me to be the mantra statement but in truth, don't think so.
More or less it's a witch hunt for whomever the DoJ really wants to go after. The law reads like bad improvised jazz and the DOJ wants to keep it nice and confusing so when the day comes its all about interpretation.

It will surely be interesting to see how this plays out. |popcorn|

|haha

Hey all, I just pulled everything down and made copies....some of the content providers do not have a 2257 statement.....some do, but no content....people are saying alot of things regarding this and that... no clear cut this is what you need for a secondary producer this is what you don't.....some are providing content with his or her home address....how can I use that content? Just a bunch of confusion about what is really going on and how it affects us.... personally all my content was purchased but I am pulling everything until some definate answers come out....so I guess I could vote if my site is not active....Right???

Well they did say that they wouldn't be prosecuting post facto on model IDs in their filing against the FSC claim.

But, they were told in the comments that a lot of the stuff shows no proper dating. Yet, they still went ahead and wrote it anyways.

ie: I bought content last year that was valid. What happens next month if I use it, and the model IDs are not up to the new standards. Not really interested in tossing content, 'cause they changed the rules in mid-stream. And their 7 year record keeping rules probably prevent me from tossing it.

Ledfish
I am 100% sure if they tried to prosacute you for not being there
no jury would convict you

your missing my point

are they allowed to pass laws that take away your right to vote and serve on jury
are they allowed to pass laws that make it a federal crime for picking your kids up from school

this whole thing could be done very easly
the doj gives out a user and pass or you regester one with them

you put a 2257 link on the bottom of your webpage that links to a page in a password protected directory
and on that page are the model ids for that shoot

this way they could be checked 24/7 by someone
no need to put investigators on planes, no need for any sort of traveling

1 person from the DOJ could check hundreds of sites a day

I think (very dangerous) but I'm not sure that the obscenity cases have been held up by the extreme associate case.

I heard the DOJ was going to appeal but haven't heard anything new.

Here is a link to an article:
http://www.peak.org/mailing-list/arc.../msg05988.html

I'd thought up a dozen different things wrong with 2257 that should get the sucker overturned ...

But I have to admit, you've come up a beauty, Tommy! And one I'd not seen elsewhere.

Good to see the Old School brains are still working. |thumb

Tommy - this was the old law:
Any producer required by this part to maintain records shall make such records available to the Attorney General or his delegee for inspection at all reasonable times.
You've been breaking it since you bought your 1st CD of content :D

If they really wanted to stamp out CP then they should just block thr russian federations that would kill 90% of it Plain and simple but no that will never happen they dont want to piss off the russian govt.

actually - every submission and email Ive ever received has been in the US - the latest wave seems to be on the Yahoo hosting servers - the last one I reported was located in Oregon

My biggest problem is that I can not give out my address. No way. I sit here all fukcing day. I will surely be stalked by fans and freaks. I am the producer and the model. BIG PROBLEM. I CAN NOT PUT MY ADDRESS ON THE INTERNET. I also can not give my id to affiliates who promote me. So they just took away my right completely to express myself naked and operate my own website. I have no fucking right what so ever to be naked if I want to. And I have no right to publish my own images. Only someone else with an address has that right. So the gov is saying I must sell all y pics to a producer who has an address to circulate them. I WANT MY FREEDOM AND I WANT PRIVACY AND I WANT PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW.

I will be stalked, my identity stolen and I am sure as hell 8 fucking teen or OLDER. |cry|

Candy, even if you had privacy as the model, there is no right to privacy for businesses. You are free to get naked, and the government is free to ask you to state (on the websites) where your business is located. That you also happen to be the model is the sort of confusion you need to deal with personally.

You have the right to be naked.
You have the right to publish images
You have the right to privacy that you don't have to waive as a model

You don't have the right to run an undeclared business, and the government is well within it's rights to ask you to declare your business.

I understand your pain and frustration, but the problem you really have is one of structure. You apparently don't have a company or LLC or business registration of some sort. Otherwise you could use that name as your producer for records. Unless you rented an office, you would still have to use the same address, but that is another issue all together.

Single models are getting screwed by this new law mostly because you use to be free to do whatever with no implied or actual responsbilities. Now that you are responsible for something, now you have to declare yourself in the open, well, it sucks.

Good luck, The answers to your problem are, well, expensive.

Alex

Candy - you can hide as much of it as you want - if someone really wanted to track you down they could pretty easily - just as a quick test I checked a few things you guys have out there and there are leads that would probably let me find you within one day :) Its all dependant on how hard someone really wants to find something - just keep in mind that your history of domain ownership and internet archives all give away enough to that idiot that wants to stalk.

Alex, you and I are normally on the same page, but I have to disagree with you on this one point. As long as Candy is paying her taxes, her business is NOT undeclared.

I run a business from my home already and have for more years than I care to admit... never once has anyone suggested or "legislated" that I publish my private information for public dissemination.

Due to the fact that the pornography itself is NOT illegal (a point that even the government has conceded), I fail to see the legality between picking and choosing which businesses have to publish and which are exempt. We are all home-based businesses and should fall under the same basic umbrella.

My sticking point with the whole publish-your-address issue is simply this: If my P O Box is good enough for the IRS, it should damned well be good enough for the DOJ.

Just my 2 cents :)

Wenchy, your PO box likely isn't good enough for a business license or occupation permit. We are all in business. That some of us choose to work from home doesn't mean that the rules of doing business should be re-written for us.

I am not for publishing model infomation online.

I am not against publishing of company information.

If the model information and the company information happen to be the same, well, then it is likely something that the model needs to work out for herself or himself.

I feel sad about the concept that some people may be driven out of the business because they are not able to publish their business address because of choices made in the past.

Remember too: Models that run their own sites are particularly in the deep end anyway, because they are the primary producers. I might be willing to accept the concept of a secondary producer being able to use a PO box or similar, but primary producers have major obligations under the law (even the original law as passed by congress) that cannot be sidestepped.

Her existing 2257 statement is invalid on it's face:

http://www.adultcustomgoods.com/2257.htm

Sending the feds to a PO box isn't going to work. Regardless of old laws new laws she was not compliant. The records obviously were not inside that PO box.

The rest is the rest. If there is enough money in the business, rent an office and work from there 20 hours per week. If privacy is that valuable, then take the steps.

Alex

Candy
I am sorry, I dont really see that much of a argument for the models and thir privacy

yes they would like to be private but as nude models they sort of sold that right..... for money

they knew this when they did the modeling, copies were made of thir driver license and ss card for 2257 records

is it really a big deal that now their are a lot more people keeping those records

companys pass and sell info all the time

anyone can look up the records for ANY corperation in the us (online also)
its always been that way, as soon as you incorprate that info is a matter of public record

Alex - taking a quick look she does have a corporation and it looks to be real - was originally in New Jersey and now in Las Vegas - but unfortunately, you will also find in many jurisdictions that you can have a PO box for a corporation - you dont have to have a specific real address in a lot of states in the US - I have two corporations that are fully licensed and operate that way with no problem as long as the state gets their $25 every year :)

LInkster, that is true, but you cannot send the DOJ to check 2257 records in a po box. You never have been able to do that, not since 2257 came into being.

I would feel worse if she was only as secondard provider getting squeezed by new rules, but it is clear she had been and continues to be a primary provider, and the rules are the rules in that area.

Alex