2257 regs published in full

[Cleo]

Just hang a sign on your front door.

Notice to wackos, starkers, religious fanatics, and all evil doers
Best to to catch me is from 9 AM to 1 PM Monday - Friday
Thank You

[RamCharger]

Originally Posted by Cleo

Just hang a sign on your front door.

Notice to wackos, starkers, religious fanatics, and all evil doers
Best to to catch me is from 9 AM to 1 PM Monday - Friday
Thank You

Keep a pot of fresh cofee onhand in case they stop by.

[RawAlex]

thank you come again.

[HornyHeather]

I was thinking maybe we are supposed to put those hours on our custodian? I dunno..

Cleo Now that was funny!

[juggernaut]

Raw alex I just got finished reading this whole document and I have not found any section that states what you have told everyone here about suites. Heres what I have found and just to let you know. The house I'm sitting in right now is owned by a lawyer and have been talking with him over this the past day. He has read this whole document and I have asked him to post here. He refuses as his advice is to band together and pay for an experience expert in this area. He does not want go give false hope to anyone here. Besides he also stated he makes to much money a day to deal with an issue like this. Anyway what I have read pertaining to the P.O. Box issue is correct. But where is the issue about the suites? I could not find it anywhere. If you search the whole document it's not found. Heres what I have found and have posted it backwards the way it's ment to be read. Most laws are written that way.
Sec. 75.6 Statement describing location of books and records.



2) The date of production, manufacture, publication, duplication,
reproduction, or reissuance of the matter; and, (3) A street address at
which the records required by this part may be made available. The
street address may be an address specified by the primary producer or,
if the secondary producer satisfies the requirements of Sec. 75.2(b),
the address of the secondary producer. A post office box address does
not satisfy this requirement.

Sec. 75.2 Maintenance of records.


(b) A producer who is a secondary producer as defined in Sec.
75.1(c) may satisfy the requirements of this part to create and
maintain records by accepting from the primary producer, as defined in
Sec. 75.1(c), copies of the records described in paragraph (a) of this
section. Such a secondary producer shall also keep records of the name
and address of the primary producer from whom he received copies of the
records.


Sec. 75.1 Definitions.


75.1(c) may satisfy the requirements of this part to create and
maintain records by accepting from the primary producer, as defined in
Sec. 75.1(c), copies of the records described in paragraph (a) of this
section. Such a secondary producer shall also keep records of the name
and address of the primary producer from whom he received copies of the
records.

Jugg..

[RawAlex]

You left out the important one:

Sec. 75.4 Location of records.

Any producer required by this part to maintain records shall make
such records available at the producer's place of business.

Unless you are doing business (for 20 hours per week) inside the mailboxes etc, they are not valid.

Alex

[Barron]

The best advice given is "go ask a lawyer". I did an yeah know what, I'm finding out that even the lawyers cant agree.

This post opens and new can of worms, but I'm still not convinced that I'm wrong. I"m hoping someone, or several someones can "prove" me wrong. I really really want to be wrong, but I still cant get this out of my head.

It seems to me that the regs require that the date of production, and the keeper of records be watermarked on each image.

Before you say "No way!" Let show you how I came up with this. And please, show me in the regs where I am wrong.

First lets start with what is suppose to be in the cross-reference database(records) that we all must keep.

Sec. 75.2 Maintenance of records.

(a) Any producer of any book, magazine, periodical, film,
videotape, digitally- or computer-manipulated image, digital image,
picture, or other matter that contains a depiction of an actual human
being engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct that is produced in
whole or in part with materials that have been mailed or shipped in
interstate or foreign commerce, or is shipped or transported or is
intended for shipment or transportation in interstate or foreign
commerce and that contains one or more visual depictions of an actual
human being engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct made after July
3, 1995 shall, for each performer portrayed in such visual depiction, create and maintain records containing the
following

The "matter " is the digital image.

So lets replace the word "matter" with "digital image".

This next part defines what should be kept in the records:

(1) The legal name and date of birth of each performer,
(2) Any name, other than each performer's legal name, ever used by
the performer,
(3) Records required to be created and maintained under this part
shall be organized alphabetically, or numerically where appropriate, by
the legal name of the performer (by last or family name, then first or
given name), and shall be indexed or cross-referenced to each alias or
other name used and to each title or identifying number of the book,
magazine, film, videotape, digitally- or computer-manipulated image,
digital image, picture, URL, or other matter.
(c) The information contained in the records required to be created
and maintained by this part need be current only as of the time the
primary producer actually films, videotapes, or photographs, or creates
a digitally or computer-manipulated image, digital image, or picture,
of the visual depiction of an actual human

No where does it say "date of production". The only reference to time or date says "need be current only as of the time the primary producer actually".

But, how do we determine if it is current as of the time of production?

Now we step back a little further in the regs

Sec. 75.6 Statement describing location of books and records.

(a) Any producer of any book, magazine, periodical, film,
videotape, digitally- or computer-manipulated image, digital image, or
picture, or other matter (including but not limited to Internet
computer site or services) that contains one or more visual depictions
of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct
made after July 3, 1995, and produced, manufactured, published,
duplicated, reproduced, or reissued on or after July 3, 1995, shall
cause to be affixed to every copy of the matter a statement describing
the location of the records required by this part. A producer may cause
such statement to be affixed, for example, by instructing the
manufacturer of the book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape,
digitally- or computer-manipulated image, digital image, picture, or
other matter to affix the statement.

(b) Every statement shall contain:

(2) The date of production,

Replacing the word "matter" with "digital image" we get this:

cause to be affixed to every copy of the matter a statement describing
the location of the records

turned into this:

cause to be affixed to every copy of the "digital image" a statement describing
the location of the records

The operative word is "affixed".

But, lets go back a little:

(a) Any producer of any book, magazine, periodical, film,
videotape, digitally- or computer-manipulated image, digital image, or
picture, or other matter (including but not limited to Internet

Repharse to this:

Any producer of any digital image or Internet

So: If you have a digital image or you have a website you must affix the statement.

We all have both, the image and the website. With my train of thought, the statement needs to be affix to "both", which means watermarking all the images.

*****************

Someone please please prove me wrong.

Thanks


_

[juggernaut]

Here's the part that had me wondering if a 2nd producer even needs the records.

75.7 Exemption statement.

(b) If the primary producer and the secondary producer are
different entities, the primary producer may certify to the secondary
producer that the visual depictions in the matter satisfy the standards
under paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3) of this section. The secondary
producer may then cause to be affixed to every copy of the matter a
statement attesting that the matter is not covered by the record-
keeping requirements of 18 U.S.C. 2257(a)-(c) and of this part

[RawAlex]

juggernaut, very seriously, you need to read CLOSELY. You cannot take the rules out of context or ignore what they refer to. What is listed in 75.7(a)(1) through (a)(3)?

(1) The matter contains only visual depictions of actual sexually
explicit conduct made before July 3, 1995, or is produced,
manufactured, published, duplicated, reproduced, or reissued before
July 3, 1995;
(2) The matter contains only visual depictions of simulated
sexually explicit conduct; or,
(3) The matter contains only some combination of the visual
depictions described in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section.

In other words, the rules only apply to sexual material (see usc 18 section 2256 for definition) or material produced before July 3rd, 1995.

Even then, you need a notice (possibly even notarized) that the content was produced before july 3rd, 1995.

Alex

[RawAlex]

Lindamight: Unless the address where you hold your records is your place of business (at least 20 hours per week) or is business address of an employee (and I suspect they would have to be actually on payroll) then you are likely still in violation.

No third parties, no outside sources, no unusable or uninhabited offices, no broom closets, no empty store fronts or rental space. They use the term "principal place of business"... get it wrong, it's could be 5 years in the pen.

Secondary producer thing is the pain and it is also the stupidest part of all of this. It will not for a second stop CP, it does nothing to further the state's interest, rather it just forces adult home based businesses to have to declare themselves so they can be subject to harrassment, enforcement, and local bylaws.

The intent of these rule changes is clear, the government's stated intentions have never been so obviously trumped up, and I am sure the courts will be interested to rule on the matter.

Alex

[LindaMight]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

Lindamight: Unless the address where you hold your records is your place of business (at least 20 hours per week) or is business address of an employee (and I suspect they would have to be actually on payroll) then you are likely still in violation.

No third parties, no outside sources, no unusable or uninhabited offices, no broom closets, no empty store fronts or rental space. They use the term "principal place of business"... get it wrong, it's could be 5 years in the pen.

Secondary producer thing is the pain and it is also the stupidest part of all of this. It will not for a second stop CP, it does nothing to further the state's interest, rather it just forces adult home based businesses to have to declare themselves so they can be subject to harrassment, enforcement, and local bylaws.

The intent of these rule changes is clear, the government's stated intentions have never been so obviously trumped up, and I am sure the courts will be interested to rule on the matter.

Alex

Alex: You seem to have a real handle on this stuff and I applaud you. I do have an appointment with my corporate attorney and am just trying to understand as much as I can so I can determine if HE understands as much as an attorney can.....since everyone seems to be getting different opinions from different lawyers. How safe do we feel with lawyers not even saying the same things?

Anyway, back to the place of business. I sucked in, and actually have a lease for office space, and as of June 1st, it is the major place of business for my company. Goodbye to home office and hello to a real office and it won't be a front either. I always wanted to get this out of my home anyway. Somewhat of a hardship yes, but so are the mega taxes I pay.

I am filling my brain with 2257 stuff in preparation of my appointment with the attorney.

[RawAlex]

Barron, the first one is easy: The model release has terms and conditions on it, the model swears the information is true and current as of that time. Two pieces of ID, etc. What does is releive you of the need to go back to the model each time you use an image and ask for new ID and updated information. Basically, you don't have to follow the performed forward in time, only backwards.

You have to be careful in replacing words. By replacing matter with "digital image" you have changed significantly what the rules read. Matter is matter, and image is an image. Printed matter can be a book, magazine, paper, or other. Don't add or remove words to get the desired result or concern.

The DOJ said:

One commenter commented that the requirement that the statement
appear on the home page of a Web site is vague because many web sites
operate with subdomains, making the actual homepage or principal URL
difficult to identify. The Department declines to adopt this comment.
Subdomains, as the name implies, are URLs that share the top-level
domain name's basic URL and have additional identifying address
information to provide additional content on a separate Web page. Each
subdomain thus has its own homepage

[[Page 29612]]

and each homepage must feature the statement. For example, http://www.usdoj.gov
is the full domain name of the Web site of the Department

of Justice. http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal is the Web page of the

Criminal Division, which is hosted by the Department's Web site. Under
this rule, http://www.usdoj.gov would be required to have a statement and that statement would cover anything contained on http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal.
However, http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov is a

subdomain of the full domain http://www.usdoj.gov and would be required

to have its own statement on that page, which would then cover any
material on a Web page linked to it, such as http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/
, the Web page of the Office for Victims of Crime.

The rules are bad enough without trying to re-write them to make them worse.

Alex

[Barron]

Thats where I am scratching my head, lol

Affixing the statement to the website is easy to understand.

I'm not trying to make it harder, I'm trying to make it less harder. Every response I have gotten privately has been "No way" they wouldnt requrie that. But I'm still scratching my head, lol.

I really want to think that cooler heads prevailed in all this. The AG and DOJ has to carry out Bush's policy. But, the guys that actually write this stuff are employees. Wouldnt be great if the guys that wrote this said, "Bush's policy sucks". And then, wrote the regs so they would be all screwed up and get thrown out it court, lol.

[RawAlex]

Barron, you really need to spend some time reading up on Sundance vs Reno - you will see how most of what is going on in the new 2257 rules has already been shot down at the federal court level. The DOJ basically has said "sundance isn't on point and the Amaerican Libraries case is" which is a major stretch IMHO.

Lindmight: You are doing something that probably 90% of home based internet people CANNOT do (either cannot afford or just cannot do), opening a real office. Remember that you really do need to actually be at that office...

As for lawyers not agreeing, well... all I will say is this: I wouldn't hire a criminal lawyer to form a company, I wouldn't hire a corpororate hack if I got charged with murder, and I would use a divorce lawyer to look at 2257 rules. While your lawyer may be a great corporate attorney, you need to understand that very few lawyers have a clue when it comes to the history of 2257, obscentity, and legal enforcement actions in the adult industry. If they give you an opinion that is unlike anything else you are seeing, you might consider that they are not truly on the ball.

Most truly capable and on the ball 2257 attorneys can be counted on a couple of hands with fingers to spare.

Alex

[Barron]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

Barron, you really need to spend some time reading up on Sundance vs Reno - you will see how most of what is going on in the new 2257 rules has already been shot down at the federal court level. The DOJ basically has said "sundance isn't on point and the Amaerican Libraries case is" which is a major stretch IMHO.


Alex

I know should. But, when it comes to inspections, the DOJ is not paying attention to Sundance vs. Reno. And the FSC posted an article that essentially says, "Get compliant".

Right or wrong, I have to get compliant with the same regs the DOJ is going by. Unconstitional or not.

It would be just my luck, I will be the one arrested so the DOJ could have a test case.

Damn, the time I allow for boards is up already for today. Talk to ya'll tomorrow.


_

[RawAlex]

Originally Posted by Barron

I know should. But, when it comes to inspections, the DOJ is not paying attention to Sundance vs. Reno. And the FSC posted an article that essentially says, "Get compliant".

Right or wrong, I have to get compliant with the same regs the DOJ is going by. Unconstitional or not.

It would be just my luck, I will be the one arrested so the DOJ could have a test case.

Damn, the time I allow for boards is up already for today. Talk to ya'll tomorrow.


_

Barron, understanding the legal atmosphere can help you understand how this may play out. There is all sorts of legal smoke and mirrors going on, how long it will last, well, who knows?

Get compliant. Read the DOJ comments (not just the rules as written) closely as they provide you almost all the guidance you will need to create the records. It can give you much but not all of the guidance you need to be compliant in all aspects of your business.

If you are in the US, make sure you have a lawyer on speed dial that understands what you do.

Alex

[Tommy]

ya know I have been think about the software thing

I would like to know what you guys think about this

I have a deadicated laptop on the desktop there will be a folder called 2257
in that folder will be subfolders for preformers and urls

I use super jpg to browse the folders and word to create whatever text documents i need

and then just use the advanced search in windows for cross refferencing
keeping the search within the 2257 folder

[RamCharger]

Originally Posted by Tommy

ya know I have been think about the software thing

I would like to know what you guys think about this

I have a deadicated laptop on the desktop there will be a folder called 2257
in that folder will be subfolders for preformers and urls

I use super jpg to browse the folders and word to create whatever text documents i need

and then just use the advanced search in windows for cross refferencing
keeping the search within the 2257 folder

I'm actually working on building what I was talking about anyway. I decided that there's probably enough interest in it to warrant my building it and, at worst, I'll have a nice Java project that sharpens my skills. I've been working on it since last night, but it'll probably be another day or two before I get a beta out. It's not complete, but the attached JPG should, hopefully, show where I'm heading.

[wishmaster]

hey i know why dont we all just get content that was made befor 1995

any way i trying to understand all this but the one thing i dont get is this it's not a law but a rule if i'm understand right

later wish

[cd34]

The one thing that many clients are finding difficult are the requirements for the secondary producer to have documentation for sets produced after 1995. With Garill going out of business, hope for getting compliant documentation there has pretty much gone out the window. Other producers are gone, some are stating 'research' fees to provide compliant licensing. I've read and reread the rulings, but, I see this as a dilemma for a few people. A lot of content becomes useless on June 23 unless I am missing something somewhere.

Tommy, If you keep a document in each directory with the URL where each depiction is used, that would probably be close. Each time I read the requirements and comments, I find something else.

[RawAlex]

wishmaster, too much hair... too many disco suits.

Alex

[ardentgent]

The below url is a link to a power point presentation on the FSC webpage. In it it states that lascivious depiction of the pubic area is excluded from the definition of actual sexually explicit conduct and that nuduty itself does not implicate compliance.

It is unclear to me if this is applicable to the regualations that are going intol effect June 2005 or is speaking to the proposed rules originally made in 2004. Does anyone know?

Thanks.

http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/p...ad-Only%20.pdf

[Toby]

Originally Posted by ardentgent

The below url is a link to a power point presentation on the FSC webpage ...snip... It is unclear to me if this is applicable to the regualations that are going intol effect June 2005 or is speaking to the proposed rules originally made in 2004...

The copyright date on the bottom of each page is 2004, it's speaking about the existing regs, not the new ones.

[airdick]

Originally Posted by ardentgent

The below url is a link to a power point presentation on the FSC webpage. In it it states that lascivious depiction of the pubic area is excluded from the definition of actual sexually explicit conduct and that nuduty itself does not implicate compliance.

It is unclear to me if this is applicable to the regualations that are going intol effect June 2005 or is speaking to the proposed rules originally made in 2004. Does anyone know?

Thanks.

http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/p...ad-Only%20.pdf

I have not seen anything that changes the definitions of "actual sexually explicit conduct". It is defined in Title 18 2257 (h)(1) as a subset of Title 18 2256 paragraph (2) that excludes simulated sexual conduct and "(E) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person"

from Title 18 2257:
(h) As used in this section—
(1) the term “actual sexually explicit conduct” means actual but not simulated conduct as defined in subparagraphs (A) through (D) of paragraph (2) of section 2256 of this title;


from Title 18 2256:
(2) “sexually explicit conduct” means actual or simulated—
(A) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;
(B) bestiality;
(C) masturbation;
(D) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
(E) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;


You should check with your attorney, but as far as I can tell R-Rated movies, Playboy Magazine, National Geographic, and the Sears Catalog will still be exempt from the Recordkeeping Requirements of 2257.

[noooze]

damn this is crazy

I have allways said, and will allways say. USA is a fucked up country regarding laws.
bet there a christian wing of the party involved in this... trying to make life as impossible to adult webmasters as they can
I read that anything contacting the us, is req. to follow the law. I say bullshit. Let the us goverment come to denmark and try and look me up. I'll be the first one to kick em out of my house and piss on their fancy briefcases
I will allways comply to first danish law, seconf EU law. and no one else

this is why i'll never in my life move to the US