Which Spons are Ready for 2257 Change?

[Useless]

Just received Spunky Cash's official statement and I don't mind telling you, it's EXACTLY what I like to see and is in line with what OC Cash has already said. The biggest difference being that Spunky is Canadian based. I'm damned pleased to see programs stand up and state the obvious; the new regs are a crock of shit.

Spunky Productions Inc. is a Canadian based adult entertainment company. As such, it falls under the purview of Canadian law and those of its province, British Columbia.

In Canada, the right to privacy is a right taken very seriously. In order to align Canada with the European Union's directive regarding the protection of data, the federal government enacted the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA for short). Quebec has been a leader in fashioning privacy protection for its citizens, including constitutional protection for Aa right to respect for his private life@ in Section 5 of the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, RSQC, c-12, Section 5. The European community has developed, throughout the 1990's, a directive that was passed by the Council of Ministers in October 1995 and came into force in October 1998, obliging all member states to block the flow of personal data to states without Aadequate protection@, subject to the derogations listed in Article 26. America maintained that self-regulation was a preferred approach to dealing with privacy issues. America is not in line with the European community on this subject.

In Canada, Federal legislation generally applies to federally regulated organizations and applies to provincial organizations where a province has not implemented its own equivalent protections. British Columbia has implemented the Personal Information Protection Act. That Act has been recognized as equivalent legislation by the Canadian government. Accordingly, Spunky Productions Inc.'s electronic data falls under the Personal Information Protection Act of British Columbia. As such, there are certain rights that adult entertainment performers have under that Act and certain obligations that SEG has pursuant to that Act as well.

Spunky Productions Inc.'s Canadian counsel, in consultation with US attorneys, is of the view that the new Regulations are unconstitutional under US law.

The Tenth Circuit's decision in Sundance Assoc., Inc. v. Reno, 139 F.3d 804 (10th Cir. 1998) held that the record keeping rule did not apply to secondary producers as it exceeded the Department's statutory authority. It was held to be unconstitutional. Spunky Productions Inc. is of the view that this is the correct interpretation of the legislation and the Sundance case was decided on that particular point. In contrast, the American Library Ass'n v. Reno, 33 F.3d 78 (D.C. Cir. 1994) decision did not deal with the specific point. However that case is being interpreted as an implied endorsement of the approach taken by the drafters of the new 2257 Regulations. The Free Speech Coalition has filed for injunctive relief in the U.S. District Court District of Colorado based on this analysis.

Spunky Productions Inc. will not, at this time, be releasing any model identification based on the foregoing analysis. Spunky Productions Inc. intends to honour its commitment to its adult entertainment models to respect and be vigilant in the protection of their right to privacy.