Quote:
|
Originally Posted by RBC
Alex,
With all due respect, the mere fact that you are not an attorney, nor own a US based business, nor do you even live in the US does not make you the right person to be spouting off on 2257 regs. I am hard pressed to point out that you are doing a disservice to others here on this board. You think you are being helpful and in some regards you may very well be, but mostly on the 2257 issue you are the perfect spokesperson represented on all the adult forums that spreads misinformation and fear.
|
My location makes no difference, makes me no less informed, and makes me no less concerned. If you have to start a discussion by belittling the other person, you already are way off on the wrong foot, no?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by RBC
You are not entirely correct. The intent of the DoJ is yes to drive out the illegitimate businesses but it will also help legitimize the businesses that have their house in order. If you have a part time adult biz and make extra income to supplement your main source of revenue then you may second guess the adult game since it will mean you may have to have a business address, plus possible legal retainer thus adding additional expenses on top of the record keeping.
|
Again, you failing to see the people this affects. Single amateur girls, small webmasters, and others who run profitable home based businesses (or choose to exercise their right to free speech in posting images of themselves) suddenly are required to reveal themselves inside their communities. Someone working alone on a business shouldn't be required to spend additional money, to be forced to incorporate / form an LLC, or take other steps to maintain their privacy. The "public shaming" and "additional risks" to solo amateur site operators is a direct attempt to get them to leave the business.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by RBC
A big part of the issue to change the 2257 rules is to try and curtail minors from engaging in obscene sexual conduct.
|
I still have not seen how all this duplicate, triplicate, and beyond copies of the same paperwork is going to make this any different. CP producers didn't have paperwork to start with, what's the difference? This is called the disguise, the compelling situation that the government has to address with these new laws. It's bullshit, you know it... not a single less CP image will be produced because you and I have to keep more records.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by RBC
Sorry you are completely wrong here. Primary producers who reside in the US are not required to have US ONLY IDs, be it a drivers license, identification card, passport, military ID and/or green card. The new 2257 regs indicate a government issue ID, this includes a foreign passport or god forbid, a foreign drivers license with a photo.
|
The rules are clear. As someone mentioned above, the rules are VERY clear. You can accept foreign documents if you are a SECONDARY producer. As a US primary producer, you need US documents. You can only accept these documents if the IDs are held by the primary producer outside of the Us: a foreign government-issued equivalent of any of the documents listed above when both the person who is the subject of the picture identification card and the producer maintaining the required records are located outside the United States
Most improtantly, this means that no foreign nationals travelling to the US can appear in US produced porn. No more "import" girls.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by RBC
If you are a small amateur site and you are the primary model then you know you are compliant and you will survive.
|
Sorry, but the issue these people have has nothing to do with records, and everything to do with being forced to reveal their personal information online. Getting an office is not enough, because unless you sit in it for at least 20 hours a week, it won't qualify as the primary place of business. Many of these people will leave the business rather than risk having some sicko showup at their door looking for them.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by RBC
No where in the new 2257 does it state that an address and or phone number of the model must be included with the provided documentation.
|
You give me someone's real name, their state of residence, etc... and more than likely they can be tracked down. It is still not clear (in the rules) that the government will tolerate sanitized or otherwise "blacked out" information on the documents provided. That has yet to be tested. A name and a state will often be enough to track a model down, especially if you have to leave items like drivers license or passport number in the clear.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by RBC
To rebutt your claim that foreign producers in violation of privacy laws should not be an issue provided the models phone number and home address is not on any of the submitted docs. This is a fine line and no one knows for certain until prosecution is under way.
|
I live in Canada, and I can assure you without a doubt that releasing ANY information on models without permission (even name, passport number, DL, or other identity info) would be a violation of privacy laws. That would require specific permission from the model (new model releases will certainly include this).
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
At the end of it all, I honestly recommend you spend a little more time with a lawyer that is completely and totally fluent on 2257. I honestly feel that the legal advice you have received to date is less than accurate, and in the case of the model ID issue, you have been completely mis-informed. I know that this will likely make all that Eastern European sourced content somewhat less than legal, but that's life. It will help to legitimize the business we all love!
Alex