2257 Ruling--FINALLY

[chadknowslaw]

Great news--

"Secondary Producers"

ARE OFF THE HOOK!!!


for the time being......

Trouble is looming, though, because I have heard rumblings that some do-gooders are working in Congress to change the statute to include secondary producers. This ruling will only encourage them. The biggest FSC argument was that only Congress could re-define producers to include webmasters, not the Attorney General. So, we could win the court case but then have Congress change the statute and be fucked all over again.

HOWEVER<

The Straight Forward Legal-Trained Answer to your Question is:

YES! Secondary Producers are relieved of the record keeping burden!



Hell, I forgot to charge ya'll. I may lose my law license if I keep giving straight answers for no money.

[Mr. Blue]

Honestly, eventhough this lets secondary producers off the hook for now, I'm not really changing my way of doing business regarding content, the use, and the purchase of it, etc. I made the changes and I'm probably going to stick to most of the changes so I'm never caught without the proper records. There's always bible thumpers looking to screw over the adult industry and there's no way I'm going through the sky is falling shit again.

Originally Posted by Mr. Blue

Honestly, eventhough this lets secondary producers off the hook for now, I'm not really changing my way of doing business regarding content, the use, and the purchase of it, etc. I made the changes and I'm probably going to stick to most of the changes so I'm never caught without the proper records. There's always bible thumpers looking to screw over the adult industry and there's no way I'm going through the sky is falling shit again.

Sensible post.

The good news is that Secondary producers are not burdoned with the exacting requirements of the cross referencing and record keeping.

But to say this allows them to publish porn without ANY proof the porn is legal is beyond crazy.