[tb]

With respect for all opinions;

Originally Posted by emmanuelle

What about the recordkeeping that is retroactive to 1995?

Originally Posted by 2257

Thirty-six commenters commented that even if the effective date
were changed to July 3, 1995, the regulation would be overly burdensome
on secondary producers because producers would be required to obtain
records for thousands--even hundreds of thousands--of sexually explicit
depictions dating back a number of years. These commenters claimed that
secondary producers would likely be unable to locate many of those
records from primary producers who may have moved, shut down, or
otherwise disappeared. According to the commenters, those secondary
producers who could not locate such records would be forced to remove
the sexually explicit depictions, which would be a limit on
constitutionally protected material.
The Department declines to adopt these comments. Producers were on
notice that records had to be kept at least by primary producers for
depictions manufactured after July 3, 1995. In addition, commenters
were similarly on notice that the D.C. Circuit, in American Library
Ass'n v. Reno, had upheld the requirement that secondary producers
maintain records. The Department is not responsible if secondary
producers chose to rely on the Tenth Circuit's holding in Sundance and
not to maintain records while ignoring the D.C. Circuit's holding in
American Library Ass'n v. Reno. A prudent secondary producer would have
continued to secure copies of the records from primary producers after
July 3, 1995. If those records, which are statutorily required, are not
currently available, then the commenters are correct that they will be
required to comply with the requirements of all applicable laws,
including section 2257(f).

They claim that you have been fairly warned to keep records after July 3, 1995.
The leg they chose to stand on may be debatable, but they are covering their bums very well on the retroactivity crap.
Evidently they are quite aware of meeting the requirements of being non ex post facto.
Of course the statment they make " The Department declines to adopt these comments blah blah blah...." can be debated in a court of law.
Lets just hope that the first person to step up to the plate to debate these laws has deep pockets and a lawyer with a good sense of humor.
Is Hugh or Larry still around?

Personally I see this as a chance to re-position porn in the internet market place. Make it rare, increase the price.....painful in the short term, very profitable in the long term. Just don't fuck the affiliates along the way. Every cloud has a silver lining.