New 2257 Regs are out

[tickler]

Of course they are giving a free pass to Hollywood.
- Having to file 2257 would make them inelligble for goverment film grants

In other words, despite the fact that adult producers are more careful than their Hollywood counterparts in making sure that minors are not involved in either actual or simulated sexual conduct, the mainstream entertainment industry will still get a free ride around recordkeeping (and, perhaps more importantly for Big Name Producers, labeling) simply by filing a notice with the Justice Department.
http://www.avn.com/law/articles/33820.html

The actual regs here:
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/E8-29677.htm

[Kisa]

I think this is a very interesting clause..... (have no idea if it's new????)

Therefore, the
Department does not accept that such sites cannot operate under the
proposed rule, or that such sites must maintain information concerning
their users, much less that the Department must be able to inspect such
data. However, one who posts sexually explicit activity on ``adult''
networking sites may well be a primary or secondary producer. Users of
social networking sites may therefore be subject to the proposed rule,
depending on their conduct. That such users may certify without penalty
or effective monitoring that they are over 18 is irrelevant to compliance with the
proposed rule, since they may not in fact be above 18. Moreover,
depictions such users put on the sites may feature not only themselves
but other people who have not even made the unverifiable certification
required by a social networking site.

This is my theory. Give it a few more years and everything is going to be locked down again. Something sick and wrong will be posted on a tubesite thus leading to their demise. I truly believe this.... Right now, everyone is losing money but it will go full-circle. I just don't want to see the adult industry 'flagships' being swept into the axis of evil when they've actually been the ones protecting minors- JMO

[Dollpix]

Originally Posted by Kisa

I think this is a very interesting clause..... (have no idea if it's new????)
This is my theory. Give it a few more years and everything is going to be locked down again. Something sick and wrong will be posted on a tubesite thus leading to their demise. I truly believe this.... Right now, everyone is losing money but it will go full-circle. I just don't want to see the adult industry 'flagships' being swept into the axis of evil when they've actually been the ones protecting minors- JMO

Sounds like 1996 right here! When Max Cash had all of it's problems.
We were all scared to death! I don't scare easily now.

[Toby]

The exemption for Hollywood may actually be a blessing in disguise. It may play a big part in getting this latest version of 2257 tossed by the courts.

[Kisa]

Originally Posted by Dollpix

Sounds like 1996 right here! When Max Cash had all of it's problems.
We were all scared to death! I don't scare easily now.

It's just that in 1996, tubesites and social networks did not exist. Now they're causing the downfall of the adult industry but they're also presenting a huge problem when it comes to protecting minors. My point is that, it's possible that their blatant disregard for regulation may in fact help the adult industry in the long run(by contributing to the end of free content/ porn tube sites and social sharing) but short term , they could do some major damage by dragging others down with them...

[tickler]

Originally Posted by Toby

The exemption for Hollywood may actually be a blessing in disguise. It may play a big part in getting this latest version of 2257 tossed by the courts.

Agreed, or maybe let every producer exempt themselves.

I'm still trying to decipher this statement.
"However, it(2257 statute) is limited to pornography intended for sale or trade."

It almost makes one think that a gallery selling a website might not be included because you are selling the website membership, not the images on your page

[Dollpix]

Originally Posted by Kisa

It's just that in 1996, tubesites and social networks did not exist.

I beg your pardon. In 1996 I belonged to several social networks.
Three out of Chicago, two out of Cleveland, and one on the South
Shore of Massachusetts. Matter of fact, I met my husband on the one
in Mass.

[walrus]

There have been sites stealing porn and giving it away longer than the internet has been around. It's nothing new. "Back in the day" want free porn, join a newsgroup. Now its surf a tube site.

2257, if done right, would help...IMHO

[NY Jester]

Originally Posted by tickler

Agreed, or maybe let every producer exempt themselves.

I'm still trying to decipher this statement.
"However, it(2257 statute) is limited to pornography intended for sale or trade."

It almost makes one think that a gallery selling a website might not be included because you are selling the website membership, not the images on your page

I was reading into it a bit as well and one could argue that it is for the content providers as well as member site owners. Rather play it safe myself for now.

[tickler]

Reading my way through the 200 pages I keep noticing interesting things.

They keep saying that 90% of the people can be exempt from record keeping by filing a notice. But then they are only estimating a few thousand producers. Not seeing any actual numbers for secondary producers quoted.

Cambria has thrown up a few comments about the new regs.
http://www.avn.com/law/articles/33843.html

[bluebrit]

I need a bit of clarification.

According to what I have read to date, the new 2257 laws come into effect Jan 17th 2009 while depictions of lascivious exhibition and/or simulated sex (the creation date for covered depictions) will be March 18th 2009 and the final deadline for certifications will be June 16, 2009.

What I am trying to figure out is exactly what category we fall into as creators of websites that actually contain adult images. From what I can understand from this govt pdf 2257 document (see center bottom column, page 38 onwards) as owners of domains where explicit images are displayed, we would probably be classed as secondary producers, which means that we will have to keep records regarding the people that appear in those images. that means that we will need to maintain records supplied to us by sponsors for any images we currently have displayed in any form on our domains. On top of that as a secondary producer, you are also liable to ensure that this information is correct, up to date and stored safely.

I do not know everything that is going on and I don't profess to. For one thing, this is a US law and I am not in the US. However my domains are based in the US so I may be liable to maintain these records. Can somebody in the know, step in here and give me some clarification on whether or not I am correct in what I have said above regarding our being classed as secondary producers etc as the clock is ticking and we need to be current with what is required legally.

This could be a good topic for OTB and if any of you are heading to Vegas next week, can you look out for any seminars regarding the new laws

[LD]

Bluebrit, I would like to know the answer here as well. As a freesite submitter and list owner that uses sponsor provided content, I can't get my brain around the difference in secondary producer and distributor.

But if I am reading correctly, a secondary producer can be in compliance with a link to producer's site. Is that correct? That should be good news to us freesite builders/submitters...unless of course I am intepreting wrong.

[tickler]

One item that I still haven't quite got my head around yet is how to handle sponsor hosted images.

You know the ones on blogs, and hosted movie/pic galleries.

Are people relying on the upload safe haven, or was there some memo I never got saying it was OK.

[Useless]

Originally Posted by LusciousDelight

I can't get my brain around the difference in secondary producer and distributor.

Think of a producer as a publisher and a distributor as a guy working in a warehouse. We happen to be in the business of web publishing.

Originally Posted by LusciousDelight

But if I am reading correctly, a secondary producer can be in compliance with a link to producer's site. Is that correct? That should be good news to us freesite builders/submitters...unless of course I am intepreting wrong.

Yes, no, and maybe. We may now be able to use a third-party for our record-keeping needs:

A primary or secondary producer may contract with a non-employee custodian to retain copies of the records that are required under this part. Such custodian must comply with all obligations related to records that are required by this Part, and such a contract does not relieve the producer of his liability under this part.

Of course, we have to interpret whether or not another producer, such as the sponsor, can be considered OUR third-party record-keeper. And, as stated in the quote, even if we can use the sponsor as a record-keeper, if they fuck up, we remain legally liable. Also, if the sponsor is relying on a third-party for their 2257 record-keeping needs, our third-party just (possibly) became an unknown fourth-party -- and we're forcing the feds to jump through hoops to find the appropriate records. Assuming that the sponsor keeps their pages up-to-date, one might be able to link to sponsor's 2257 info and feel safe and compliant.

Frankly, I'm not concerned. But I'm also not sane, nor am I an attorney -- though I do look devastatingly handsome in a suit.

[bDok]

Originally Posted by Useless Warrior

-- though I do look devastatingly handsome in a suit.

oh, your safe . It's the ones that don't that should worry.

[LD]

Originally Posted by Useless Warrior

, even if we can use the sponsor as a record-keeper, if they fuck up, we remain legally liable. Also, if the sponsor is relying on a third-party for their 2257 record-keeping needs, our third-party just (possibly) became an unknown fourth-party -- and we're forcing the feds to jump through hoops to find the appropriate records.

Damn...

[aniloscash]

I wonder if it has something to do with the sundance court case they filled about 2257