Ugh, another 2257 Question

[GunnCat]

I have a content provider who won't give me any of the required 2257 information requested. This is his argument:

Firstly the new laws are effective 30 days from the 24th. Secondly from what I have read, and im still waiting on more information, content produced outside the United States requires a valid international passport and not a driver’s license. When I receive further clarification on this point I will as I indicated review our planned action.

Is it true that a drivers liscense from say Australia will not be accepted under the new regulations?

[baddog]

Originally posted by GunnCat


Is it true that a drivers liscense from say Australia will not be accepted under the new regulations?

Yes:

Sec. 75.1 Definitions.

(a) Terms used in this part shall have the meanings set forth in 18 U.S.C. 2257, and as provided in this section. The terms used and defined in this part are intended to provide common-language guidance and usage and are not meant to exclude technologies or uses of these terms as otherwise employed in practice or defined in other regulations
or federal statutes (e.g., 47 U.S.C. 230, 231).
(b) Picture identification card means a document issued by the
United States, a State government or a political subdivision thereof, or a United States territory that bears the photograph and the name of the individual identified, and provides sufficient specific information that it can be accessed from the issuing authority, e.g., a passport issued by the United States or a foreign country, driver's license issued by a State or the District of Columbia, or identification card issued by a State or the District of Columbia.

[baddog]

http://www.regulations.gov/freddocs/04-13792.htm

[GunnCat]

Sorry that doesn't really answer the question, unless I am completely confused. It says that US IDs are acceptable, but doesn't address what is acceptable for models and producers outside the US.

[Useless]

Originally posted by baddog
e.g., a passport issued by the United States or a foreign country, driver's license issued by a State or the District of Columbia, or identification card issued by a State or the District of Columbia.

passport...foreign country

Who knows what the hell the end result will be? Go to another content provider where you feel comfy. If he won't give you ANY 2257 info, run for the hills.

[rollergirl]

A list of content providers who will comply with the proposed changes would be very helpful.

And lucretive for those on that list....

[GunnCat]

Originally posted by Useless Warrior
passport...foreign country

Who knows what the hell the end result will be? Go to another content provider where you feel comfy. If he won't give you ANY 2257 info, run for the hills.

I thought I read that the first time through. Ended up reading it 3 or 4 times and could have sworn it wasn't there. Maybe I should hit the sack now |goodnight

Thanks!

[baddog]

Originally posted by Useless Warrior
passport...foreign country

thank you

[security_man]

Originally posted by rollergirl
A list of content providers who will comply with the proposed changes would be very helpful.

And lucretive for those on that list....

not to be too spammy, but we just got everything updated last week at Pix-Mart

[Jim]

Originally posted by rollergirl
A list of content providers who will comply with the proposed changes would be very helpful.

And lucretive for those on that list....

Although I believe that it will be a complete waste of time, I am on it

[plateman]

Jim as in you dont think it will pass or the content people wont follow through..

[Jim]

plateman
It will probably pass and then go the way of every other regulation the US Government has tried to put on us. How many times does the supreme court have to tell them to leave the internet alone before the Government does?

[plateman]

thanks jim I am just worried about the uncertainties about all of this like past free sites with sponsor content, banners on my LL, being home for any inspections, linking to non compling sites..

[Jim]

Since this is not the first time the US Government tried screwing with us and will not be the last, I can tell you...The worry goes away after you have been a few of these

[Cleo]

Yeah I'll start worrying if people around me or I start getting visits by people with lots of personal issues and no sense of humor but lots of power to fuck up your day.

Other then that it's like yeah whatever…

[mrMagoo]

Here is some interesting reading regarding the 2257.

Here is the actual statute
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2257.html

In 1998 the DOJ changed its regulations, in particular its definition of producer (primary and secondary). The 10th circuit court of appeals ruled against the DOJ. Here is the ruling and is actually very readable.

http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/03/96-1501.htm

I am no lawyer, but the court seems to have indicated that the DOJ can not impose regulations under the statute to those specifically excluded by the statute.

The text from the statute under question is:

"the term ''produces'' means to produce, manufacture, or publish any book, magazine, periodical, film, video tape or other similar matter and includes the duplication, reproduction, or reissuing of any such matter, but does not include mere distribution or any other activity which does not involve hiring, contracting for[,] managing, or otherwise arranging for the participation of the performers depicted..."

An excerpt from the 10th circuit court follows:

"The Attorney General's regulatory definition of producer follows the statute in establishing a class of individuals and organizations possibly subject to the record keeping requirements, but it fails to exclude persons from the class that the statute requires. The regulation conditions its exclusion of those "not involve[d in] the hiring, contracting for, managing, or otherwise arranging for the participation of the depicted performers" to persons who are not a primary or secondary producer. 28 C.F.R. § 75.1(c)(4)(iii). The statute makes no such condition. This is not a minor matter, because, as will be explained in detail below, the practical effect of the regulatory scheme is that the exclusion cannot be applied to anyone. "[A]n agency's interpretation of a statute is not entitled to deference when it goes beyond the meaning that the statute can bear." MCI Telecomm. Corp. v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., 512 U.S. 218, 234 (1994). An agency's rulemaking power is not "the power to make law," it is only the "'power to adopt regulations to carry into effect the will of Congress as expressed by the statute.'" Mabry v. State Bd. of Community Colleges & Occupational Educ., 813 F.2d 311, 315 (10th Cir.) (quoting Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder, 425 U.S. 185, 213-14 (1976) (further quotation marks and citations omitted), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 849 (1987).

Attempting to justify its regulation, the government urges upon this court a tortured reading of the statute. The government contends the second part of § 2257(h)(3), beginning with "does not include mere distribution," was actually intended to broaden the scope of the statute. The government's approach leads us down a path toward Alice's Wonderland, where up is down and down is up and words mean anything. The words "but does not include ... any other activity which does not involve hiring, contracting for[,] managing, or otherwise arranging for the participation of the performers depicted," the argument goes, were not intended to "not include" anyone listed above, but were actually intended by implication only to include more activities in the definition. This is too much of a stretch. In reviewing statutes, courts do not assume the language is imprecise, as the government would have us do. See United States v. LaBonte, ___ U.S. ___, 117 S. Ct. 1673, 1677 (1997). Rather, we assume that in drafting legislation, Congress says what it means. Id. This is not a case of verbal ambiguity presenting accepted alternative meanings; it is one of an agency twisting words to reach a result it prefers. Although § 2257(h)(3) was poorly drafted and should never be used as a model of the English language, its intent is clear to this court. "

In terms of what forms of ID are acceptable, the statute defines these at:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1028.html

The relevant excerpt is:

"the term ''identification document'' means a document made or issued by or under the authority of the United States Government, a State, political subdivision of a State, a foreign government, political subdivision of a foreign government, an international governmental or an international quasi-governmental organization which, when completed with information concerning a particular individual, is of a type intended or commonly accepted for the purpose of identification of individuals"

It would appear the DOJs proposed acceptable IDs are in conflict with the actual language of the statute.

Another website with intersting comments upon the proposed regulations and suggested text for those who wish to comment is at:

http://www.avnonline.com/index.php?P...tent_ID=186841

[xxxjay]

Originally posted by Jim
Since this is not the first time the US Government tried screwing with us and will not be the last, I can tell you...The worry goes away after you have been a few of these

True - I've seen quite a few of these. This is the first one that I think has any teeth to it.