FSC says new 2257 regulations to be released tomorrow by feds

tickler · 2007-07-12, 12:08 PM

Just casually glancing through the http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2...7/E7-13500.htm document:

It looks like their are some industry specific exclusions.
- Internet information location tool(can you say Google/Yahoo)

Not sure if this pulls the seconday producers back out again, or not.
2257(h)(2)(A) - Excludes from the definition of "produces".
(iii) - Any activity, other than those activities identified in subparagraph (A), that does not involve the hiring, contracting for, managing, or otherwise arranging for the participation of the
depicted performers.

Toby · 2007-07-12, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tickler

Just casually glancing through the http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2...7/E7-13500.htm document:

It looks like their are some industry specific exclusions.
- Internet information location tool(can you say Google/Yahoo)

Not sure if this pulls the seconday producers back out again, or not.
2257(h)(2)(A) - Excludes from the definition of "produces".
(iii) - Any activity, other than those activities identified in subparagraph (A), that does not involve the hiring, contracting for, managing, or otherwise arranging for the participation of the
depicted performers.

Here's the subparagraph (A) the regulations are referencing.

(2) the term ‘produces’—
(A) means—
(i) actually filming, videotaping, photographing, creating a picture, digital image, or digitally- or computer- manipulated image of an actual human being;

(ii) digitizing an image, of a visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct; or, assembling, manufacturing, publishing, duplicating, reproducing, or reissuing a book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, digital image, or picture, or other matter intended for commercial distribution, that contains a visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct; or

(iii) inserting on a computer site or service a digital image of, or otherwise managing the sexually explicit content, of a computer site or service that contains a visual depiction of, sexually explicit conduct;

I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure (ii) & (iii) covers what were proviously known as secondary producers.

Greenguy · 2007-07-12, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toby

...I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure (ii) & (iii) covers what were proviously known as secondary producers.

I actually missed the seminar

(saw some old friends) but from what I heard yesterday, that was going to be the gist of it.

Bill · 2007-07-12, 10:17 PM

The most recent email - the FSC says it's getting ready for the secondary producer fight:

==================

Dear FSC Member:

This is an update on the newly-released rules and regulations related to 2257. We will provide you with more information as it becomes available.

First, it is important to recognize that the regulations that the DOJ has set forth today are simply proposed regulations, issued for comment and possible change.

FSC will extensively comment on the regulations, and we intend to launch an industry-wide campaign to solicit your comments as well. We need your participation in this process. In the coming days we will provide details on how to comment.

Some of the points set forth were expected, and they represent the modest gains that we have achieved through litigation thus far. Some of the other points are troubling and represent the intransigence which we have come to expect from Attorney General Gonzales and his associates.

On the critical subject of secondary producers, the Justice Department is continuing to suggest that it has been right all along and that Congress ALWAYS intended secondary producer to be included in 2257. Therefore, they are considering the original legislation and regulations issued in 1995 to be valid for secondary as well as primary producers. We understand that for many of you it is simply impossible to comply with the Justice departments demands, and that is one of the reasons why we will continue the fight.

Unless the final regulations change radically from those proposed today, FSC will continue our litigation at the appropriate place and time, including seeking another injunction for secondary producers as well as others.

At the end day, we will make sure that federal judges understand the absurdity of these regulations, and we will not let up on our commitment to you and to your rights.

====================

2007-07-12, 12:08 PM	#1
tickler If there is nobody out there, that's a lot of real estate going to waste! Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 2,177	Just casually glancing through the http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2...7/E7-13500.htm document: It looks like their are some industry specific exclusions. - Internet information location tool(can you say Google/Yahoo) Not sure if this pulls the seconday producers back out again, or not. 2257(h)(2)(A) - Excludes from the definition of "produces". (iii) - Any activity, other than those activities identified in subparagraph (A), that does not involve the hiring, contracting for, managing, or otherwise arranging for the participation of the depicted performers. __________________ Latina Twins, Solo, NN, Hardcore Latin Teen Cash

2007-07-12, 10:17 PM	#4
Bill Selling porn allows me to stay in a constant state of Bliss - ain't that a trip! Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 3,914	FSC Member Advisory from Diane Duke re: 2257 The most recent email - the FSC says it's getting ready for the secondary producer fight: ================== Dear FSC Member: This is an update on the newly-released rules and regulations related to 2257. We will provide you with more information as it becomes available. First, it is important to recognize that the regulations that the DOJ has set forth today are simply proposed regulations, issued for comment and possible change. FSC will extensively comment on the regulations, and we intend to launch an industry-wide campaign to solicit your comments as well. We need your participation in this process. In the coming days we will provide details on how to comment. Some of the points set forth were expected, and they represent the modest gains that we have achieved through litigation thus far. Some of the other points are troubling and represent the intransigence which we have come to expect from Attorney General Gonzales and his associates. On the critical subject of secondary producers, the Justice Department is continuing to suggest that it has been right all along and that Congress ALWAYS intended secondary producer to be included in 2257. Therefore, they are considering the original legislation and regulations issued in 1995 to be valid for secondary as well as primary producers. We understand that for many of you it is simply impossible to comply with the Justice departments demands, and that is one of the reasons why we will continue the fight. Unless the final regulations change radically from those proposed today, FSC will continue our litigation at the appropriate place and time, including seeking another injunction for secondary producers as well as others. At the end day, we will make sure that federal judges understand the absurdity of these regulations, and we will not let up on our commitment to you and to your rights. ====================