|
2005-05-28, 11:28 AM | #326 | |
Lord help me, I'm just not that bright
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 109
|
Quote:
And Even though I got my lil office, I still have to be there 20 hours a week.. so either way we are subjecting ourselves to the whacko out there. |
|
2005-05-28, 11:30 AM | #327 |
Lord help me, I'm just not that bright
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 109
|
And yes I know if someone gets your name they will get your address...catch 22 I guess
|
2005-05-28, 11:33 AM | #328 | |
You tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is 'never try'
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 166
|
Quote:
I'm writing a script for "new" content. That is, as you upload content there will be a an admin panel where you can assign the various info and download in csv format. Thats an easy import to Excel. Am I missing something. Access seems like overkill? - |
|
2005-05-28, 11:51 AM | #329 | |
You tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is 'never try'
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 166
|
Quote:
The regs say you have to give "notice" of which 20 hours you'll be there. Has anyone figure out "how" to give "notice"? My knee jerk reaction is that it would need to be included with the statement on the website? but, I'm not sure. - |
|
2005-05-28, 11:59 AM | #330 |
Subversive filth of the hedonistic decadent West
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Southeast Florida
Posts: 27,936
|
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 |
2005-05-28, 12:07 PM | #331 | |
Shut up brain, or I'll stab you with a Q-tip!
|
Quote:
|
|
2005-05-28, 12:10 PM | #332 |
Took the hint.
|
thank you come again.
|
2005-05-28, 12:23 PM | #333 |
Registered User
|
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.. |
2005-05-28, 12:24 PM | #334 |
Lord help me, I'm just not that bright
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 109
|
I was thinking maybe we are supposed to put those hours on our custodian? I dunno..
Cleo Now that was funny! |
2005-05-28, 12:31 PM | #335 | |
Took the hint.
|
You left out the important one:
Quote:
Alex |
|
2005-05-28, 12:54 PM | #336 |
Registered User
|
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 |
2005-05-28, 01:10 PM | #337 | |
Took the hint.
|
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)?
Quote:
Even then, you need a notice (possibly even notarized) that the content was produced before july 3rd, 1995. Alex |
|
2005-05-28, 01:11 PM | #338 | |
Oh! I haven't changed since high school and suddenly I am uncool
|
Quote:
I didn't understand why people didn't have the ID information but now I see that it is because it falls under the secondary producer thing. The paperwork is insurmountable just for my little ol site, I cannot imagine what mega sites with tons of bought content are dealing with. |shocking|
__________________
The Woman with a Surprise |
|
2005-05-28, 01:17 PM | #339 |
Took the hint.
|
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 |
2005-05-28, 01:21 PM | #340 | |||
You tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is 'never try'
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 166
|
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. Quote:
So lets replace the word "matter" with "digital image". This next part defines what should be kept in the records: Quote:
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 Quote:
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 _ |
|||
2005-05-28, 01:36 PM | #341 | |
Took the hint.
|
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: Quote:
Alex |
|
2005-05-28, 01:56 PM | #342 | |
Oh! I haven't changed since high school and suddenly I am uncool
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
The Woman with a Surprise |
|
2005-05-28, 02:03 PM | #343 |
You tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is 'never try'
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 166
|
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. |
2005-05-28, 02:10 PM | #344 |
Took the hint.
|
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 |
2005-05-28, 02:29 PM | #345 | |
You tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is 'never try'
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 166
|
Quote:
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. _ |
|
2005-05-28, 03:52 PM | #346 |
NYC Boy That Moved To The Island
|
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
__________________
Accepting New partners |
2005-05-28, 04:26 PM | #347 | |
Took the hint.
|
Quote:
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 |
|
2005-05-28, 04:50 PM | #348 |
a.k.a. Sparky
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Palm Beach, FL, USA
Posts: 2,396
|
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.
__________________
SnapReplay.com a different way to share photos - iPhone & Android |
2005-05-28, 05:10 PM | #349 | |
Shut up brain, or I'll stab you with a Q-tip!
|
Quote:
|
|
2005-05-28, 11:27 PM | #350 |
I'm going to the backseat of my car with the woman I love, and I won't be back for TEN MINUTES
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 85
|
hey
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 |
|
|