2257 regs passed
 

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2005/May/05_ag_272.htm

can someone who is more educated about 2257 break this down for idiots like me?

:)

this article as written is incomplete. You cant understand it because it doesnt say what the changes are.

The big deal is the changes. If Gonzales adopted the proposed changes from last year, that means the publisher(webmaster) must keep detailed records. That is if he signed the part that redefines the meaning of the secondry producer to included the publisher.

I know what the proposed changes where, but without seeing what Gonzales actually signed, its hard to tell whats going on.

Has anybody seen or have a link to what he actually signed?

-

Yeah - the definition of "producer" as they see it needs to be seen before we all go into panic mode :)

well surely one of us has to have a lawyer whose been keeping up on this :)

lets hope he's got some info for us. I'll be glued to this thread until then!

Hello all,

The Free Speech coalition has a run through in .pdf format that explains it pretty well.

This was written before it passed...

http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/p...esentation.pdf

Regards,
SF

If their links are in order, that pdf file was written last year - we really need to know what Gonzales signed into law & not what everyone's read in the past.

What greenguy said :)

that PDF file is the 'worst case scenario' there is no telling what specifics on the regs were applied today without seeing the law... which is not yet available on the DOJ site.

So its gonna take a little time before we know for sure whats what.

Perhaps I'll have to get back to work on my database application....

It's true that is an oldish .pdf but it's hard to find current info and that was the best walk through I've seen on 2257 and I thought it might be helpful...

I found this at avn.com, thought it doesn't help with understanding anything it is interesting...

March 17, 2005
FSC Plans to File Lawsuit Challenging New 2257 Regulations
Free Speech Coalition Executive Director Michelle Freridge announced at tonight's FSC meeting that as soon as the new, more severe federal 2257 regulations are released, the FSC plans to file a lawsuit on behalf of the industry, seeking an injunction prohibiting any prosecutions under them. Freridge said the FSC will take a pro-active approach, and will not wait for any such prosecutions to be initiated before it files its suit. The new Federal Labeling & Recordkeeping Law regulations could be released by the Department of Justice as soon as next month, she said, stressing that the FSC is seeking financial support from the industry to fund the litigation. Further details of this story will posted on AVN.com on Friday.

Regards,
SF

Xbiz article on it:
http://xbiz.com/news_piece.php?id=8780

....none of which lists what exactly he signed. Don't get your panties into a knot just yet :)

My panties stay entirely knotless 24/7

just figured we should keep our ears to the ground ;)

http://xbiz.com/news_piece.php?id=8780

To late, everyone is in a panic already. I hope everyone remembers we still need to see what he actually sign.


-

Yep its panic time again. When the purposed regulations came out last year my attorney and I looked at them. One has to remember that those purposed regulations apply to the use of hardcore content only. Whatever the final published regulations say this will turn out to be a long drawn out court fight before we know for sure. Even assuming a worst case scenario we will still have have link lists and TGPs but they will probably be just softcore.

Since I did my first site in 1999 I've always put a link to a 2257 notice at the bottom of my index page even though I only use softcore pics. Perhaps we all should do that.

So I guess we're waiting for tomorrow's edition of the Federal Register? Or how long do these laws take to get put into it? Getting a legal primer here. :)

Hi guys,

If I link to a gallery using a text link does that make me a "secondary producer" ?

I've been following this 2257 thing and I never see that point made, which is unusual considering how many sites contain nothing more than a set of external links.

Take care,
Emperor

Until we see the actual text of what was signed into "administrative law" (not an actual law, I should point out) then we have something to work from.

It should be noted that if the wording stays the same as it did originally, it is likely that there will be a lawsuit stopping enforcement until it can be heard by a full federal court, as the same wording was shot down in sundance vs reno in the late 90s.

This isn't an administrative clarification, it's an attempt to end run congress, the house, and the president by writing new law. The courts don't stand for it.

Alex

I understand if § 2257 forces content producers to keep records about models. Surely good thing. What I do not understand is why I sould have on my site 2257 page. How can that page will be helpful to someone? I see, lets say, some free site with a model that looks very young. I click a 2257 link on that free site and it will show me a list of, lets say, 50 content producers. Now what? What is that 2257 page good for, could someone clarify this to me, please? Thanks.

GG is right. No need to worry until we know what was signed. We all want to make sure that the models are of legal age and I'm fine with that. The last proposal wasn't about protecting minors from such things though. It was more about deciding what people could see and what they could not see by providing unrealistic regulations.

Let's wait until the actual documents can be read.

...and then we can all start to inquire about moving our families & hosting to Canada :D

Fuck these Republican Cocksuckers
They can all French kiss my hairy brown asshole.

Would this effect people from out of the usa? I mean we cant enforce a guy in the UK or Germany or anyother place to stick to USA internet laws can we?

I ahve nothing to add at this time I just wanna be suscribed to this thread

While there are international treaties in place that could allow the US to extradite and prosecute a foreign national for selling illegal materials to people in the US (can you say, Noriega? :)), this is messy and expensive and would be counterproductive except in cases of actual CP. It's doubtful European countries would play ball on recordkeeping violations unless there were something substantial to back up the CP allegations.

madmax, they don't need to europeans to play ball.

If your hosting is in the us.
If your connectivity comes from a us based company
if your paychecks come from the us
if your processing is in the us
if you are processing with a us based company
if your sponsors are in the us.

If they can't get to you directly, they can enjoin and get nasty with each of the above and make your life a living hell.

Exactly how much money will you make when the checks stop showing up and your servers have no connectivity?

Your not exempt. None of us are.

Alex

whenever a storm is brewing its time to buckel up prepare if it blows over then at least your ready for the next one..

Ditto.

I'm primarily a video editor. And on my samples page, I show some of my work... do I need to list the 2257 info for all my clients? And if so, who's to say that it's accurate, and how will showing 20 addresses be of any benefit to anyone?

I do have some thumb preview TGP's as well... do I need have a 2257 page with info for every gallery I show a thumb for?

That gets my back up. Not you Alex - but the thought of what these arseholes might be able to do.

I'd like to think that there's some protection afforded by sovereignty.

All true, I was commenting solely on the criminal prosecution aspect :)

Also if you use a .com domain you are goverened by the laws in the state of Georgia.

That's the single most terrifying thing I've read all year. No, strike that - in my entire life. |shocking|

Off to hide the goats...

this is gonna be interesting to see how it plays out... my personal opinion is that as soon as it is listed in the national registry there are gonna be guys in suits and black glasses knocking on some doors of some pretty big people in our industry before any recourse or lawsuits can get through... they want to make an example of somebody to scare the rest of us... hopefully that is just my paranoid opinion but with the republican party looking to push so many judges into office and do away with the filibusters and such who knows what is gonna happen

The current breed of republicans really like to scream about being democratic and how to be democratic and then turn around and tell people what they can and can not do and be general pain in the rear.

Taken from http://www.xxxlaw.net/

Yeah - this isn't a war on US based porn...this is a war to rid the internet or porn...while I would feel a little more comfortable being outside of the USA....I wouldn't take that much comfort in it. If the evil materials are making it to computers in the US -- that is all they really care about...I mean it's not like we just run into other countries and impose our will on them because we think they would be better off sharing in our values...ahh...err...scrath that last comment.

IMO this IS a cause for alarm...the best thing that can happen is a good injuction that will keep it tied up in court, but with Bush appointing all of his flunkies to the bench...I doubt we will find a sypathetic ear!

Well, while I still have free speech enough to say it.

Albert gonzales is a anti-obscenity coward who hides behind existing laws instead of attempting to pass his own.

He warps their meaning and intent to hassel 'clean' webmasters, using laws that were meant as tools to fight child pornopgrahers. He does this because he is too blind to see a difference between us and them.

He is, like Tom Bolton, one of the worst peices of trash in the bush administration and will be remembered for his attempts to shred the constitution.

if you think about it you could have seen this coming from a mile away... he was appointed and named "obscenity" as one of his 7 deadly sins that he must fight.... he then re-opens cases in the courts for appeal that have been shot down in the past... the Anti-Obscenity War Machine is on the war path and it is just gonna get worse..... click my sig |thumb

Hey Kinky. I for sure knew this was coming. I also voted accordingly in the 2004 election. :) I even campaigned for the guy who wasnt so apeshit about 'obscenity'

but that's all said and done and the free speech coalition is definately our best hope here! :) so click his sig already!

hehehe!

And those turkeys already said that they wouldn't let us legalize pot in Canada, eh! That went over real well!

Charging foreign WMs when there is no relevant law in their own country could be a real hazzle for the Bush folks.

Remember the fun and games with the foreign companies doing business in Cuba.