 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-05-30, 04:59 AM
|
#1 |
|
If there is nobody out there, that's a lot of real estate going to waste!
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,177
|
I'll be on the first flight down when it happens!
For Paul, I figure you are doing the right thing based on several points! 1) Since I have worked in systems for a long time, most people do not realize there are rules laid out for information that is gathered. Like when you fill out a personnel form, that information can only be used for the purpose gathered like checks, and benefits, etc. The company can not turn around and sell it to some vacuum cleaner company. So I hope all your models info have a statement permitting you to disclose the information to other parties. 2) Been doing some reading up on this latest bit of BS. Particulaly with regards to Canada which has some of the toughest privacy laws in the world. Providing personal data without authority can result in fines from $10,000-$100,000 depending on how the charges are laid(read misdemeanor or felony for the US crowd). There was already a somewhat similar case in Canada which probably lays some ground work for any 2257 challenge. It basically laid out that personal information on Canadians can not be disclosed to the US DOJ, even if requested under the US PATRIOT Act, which would have likely get a more favorable reception! Oh well! Finally, some of you may not know that it is legal for women to go topless in Canada. Just wish a bunch had shown up to say hello to Bush when he was here! |shocking| One final point. Several people have mentioned Traci Lords. As a lawyer said on another board, she did have the 2 required pieces of ID. This newest regulation says nothing about the producer having to be able to distinguish fake IDs. What's a passport from Zambia look like? |
|
|
|
2005-05-30, 05:16 AM
|
#2 | |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
2005-05-30, 09:36 AM
|
#3 | |
|
on vacation
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,095
 |
Quote:
Ponygirl ps - I have yet to see (or be lol) a topless woman walking down the street in my town, altho the precident was set not too far from here  |
|
|
|
|
|
2005-05-31, 02:52 AM
|
#4 | ||
|
If there is nobody out there, that's a lot of real estate going to waste!
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,177
|
Quote:
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/Jdb-txt/...05BCSC0446.htm It's actual court stuff, so a long read, and a lot to try digesting. Make your own conclusions. Quote:
Paul, I can't find the actual article at the moment, but, it really doesn't really matter 1,2,3...pieces of ID. What I was getting at is under Sec. 75.2 Maintenance of records a)2) "Producers may rely in good faith on representations by performers regarding accuracy of the names" and I assume IDs. Paul, also some reading for you: http://www.avn.com/index.php?Primary...tent_ID=228409 Maybe they are trying to leave the back door open by requiring a US issued ID. amber438: Sec. 75.4 If the producer ceases to carry on the business, the records shall be maintained for five years thereafter. Even if they have gone out of business, they are still required to maintain records for 5 years. So hopefully you can still retrieve some of the info. RedCherry: Just removing the pics might not be enough. This wording (including but not limited to Internet computer site or services) has me thinking that if you just have the content. it must be documented also. One thing that does PO about this is that I 90% of the time only use softcore content and hold back the hardcore for maybe a future paysite. But, because the set(s) have hardcore in them, I still need to go through the BS. A question for maybe Alex. Any takes on this wording from 75.8(d) "any known major entry points". Found a side-by-each comparison of the old vs. proposed vs. actual 2257 here: http://my.execpc.com/~xxxlaw/2257Tables5.24.05.htm |
||
|
|
|
|
2005-05-31, 02:42 PM
|
#5 | |
|
No matter how good you are at something, there's always about a million people better than you
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: MA, USA
Posts: 231
|
Quote:
Damned if you do, damned if you don't!  Regards, SF |
|
|
|
|
|
2005-06-09, 08:06 PM
|
#6 |
|
I want to set the record straight - I thought the cop was a prostitute
|
I have tried reading all of this 2257 stuff so much and am confused to shit by it all.
I live in the UK but host in the US, I have records for 90% of content I have... Am I still liable to this new law? If so if I moved all my sites to a non US host, would I have to comply with these laws considering the sponsors I am promoting are in the states? |
|
|
|
|
2005-06-10, 03:29 PM
|
#7 | |
|
Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand!
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Chicago
Posts: 96
 |
Quote:
we have what the statute say, then we have what the regulations say we have producers, sponsors, and promoters each with different points of views (and judging by some sponsors statements agendas also) say we have what lawyers say and what the courts have said The actual statute is very clear, explicit, and could for the most part be understood by a young person (with the exception of definition of sexually explicit, ie when does lascivious depition of the genitals become masturbation) The regulations are much more complex and open to endless interpretation The statute applies to two classes of people: those that produce the material and those that ship or transfer it in interstate commerce. For those that produce the statute requires certain record keeping. For those that ship it in interstate commerce it requires an attached notice of where and who maintains the records. The regulations conflate these two classes and unlawfully impose the record keeping burden on those who are involved in "mere distribution or any other activity which does not involve hiring, contracting for managing, or otherwise arranging for the participation of the performers depicted" The DOJ says it can ignore the clear meaning of the staturtory language and replace it with what it feels is better. The only court I know of that looked at this specific issue disagreed. The statute also says that the record keeper needs to: "ascertain, by examination of an identification document containing such information, the performer’s name and date of birth, and require the performer to provide such other indicia of his or her identity as may be prescribed by regulations";and "ascertain any name, other than the performer’s present and correct name, ever used by the performer including maiden name, alias, nickname, stage, or professional name". This requirement can only be satisfied by someone who is involved in "hiring, contracting for managing, or otherwise arranging for the participation of the performers" since it requires some type of actual contact with them in order to "require the performer to provide such" and such... Since I am not a producer I can't require the performer to do shit, and that is why the statute exempts me from the record keeping burden. Of course the DOJ disagrees. The DOJ not only wants to impose a record keeping burden on those explicitly exempt by congress, it desires to impose the costly and time consuming creation of a web site indexing database scheme and the dangerous multiplication of personal model information. The intent of the statute is clear: the protection of children from abuse. The intent of the DOJ regulations is clear: to wage war on constitutionally protected expression, and to harass those engaged in protected expression that it finds offensive, but that the supreme court has ruled we as adults have a right to create, view, and publish. Then of course we have us and non-us webmasters. I'm a us webmaster that is hosted in the us. I don't know the answers to non-us webmasters questions but here is my thoughts. I'm not hosted in Europe, but I bet I have sold stuff to Europeans and frankly I don't give a fucking shit what the European laws are. As an American in America, I'm only subject to laws enacted by elected political institutions in America, or so the constitution tells me so.  |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
