2257 News

RawAlex · 2005-12-28, 11:18 PM

If you want to go a little more inside, the full judgement is here:

http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/d...rdec28_000.pdf

Note that this is a ruling for injunction, not a final ruling on the subject. There are areas that the court felt are likely to work out for injunction:

Secondary producers
Recording live chat rooms
Keeping track of URLs using content beyond those owned by the primary producer.

HOWEVER, it should be made clear that the courts found no clear issues regarding loss of freedom of speech, specifically for people who would leave the buisness rather than disclose their actual indentity (like amateur performers, example). They seemed to fail to make the case that the new 2257 rules, for primary producers, would be burdensome.

If this stands and this is the case, the burder to PRIMARY producers would remain, but the burdens to secondary producers would be eliminated or substantially reduced.

The content of this ruling makes it clear that Orrin Hatch's move to amend 2257 rules will likely be to shore up the issues that the court did not like, and to once again try to fuck secondary producers over. From what I can read, if the actual law was changed and passed, that the courts would not find anything unduly burdonsome about that.

So this is great news... but it might all be legislated into the ditch again soon enough.

Alex

2005-12-28, 11:18 PM	#13
RawAlex Took the hint. Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 5,597	If you want to go a little more inside, the full judgement is here: http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/d...rdec28_000.pdf Note that this is a ruling for injunction, not a final ruling on the subject. There are areas that the court felt are likely to work out for injunction: Secondary producers Recording live chat rooms Keeping track of URLs using content beyond those owned by the primary producer. HOWEVER, it should be made clear that the courts found no clear issues regarding loss of freedom of speech, specifically for people who would leave the buisness rather than disclose their actual indentity (like amateur performers, example). They seemed to fail to make the case that the new 2257 rules, for primary producers, would be burdensome. If this stands and this is the case, the burder to PRIMARY producers would remain, but the burdens to secondary producers would be eliminated or substantially reduced. The content of this ruling makes it clear that Orrin Hatch's move to amend 2257 rules will likely be to shore up the issues that the court did not like, and to once again try to fuck secondary producers over. From what I can read, if the actual law was changed and passed, that the courts would not find anything unduly burdonsome about that. So this is great news... but it might all be legislated into the ditch again soon enough. Alex