ADVISORY TO FREE SPEECH COALITION MEMBERS

[Linkster]

spazlabz - the point I was making is that the inspection requirement has been in effect for over 10 years - this isnt something based on the changes they made last year - the inspections have just not made the news till now - if they even did any since the first law came out. The reason there was such a big reaction last year was they were trying to change that inspection rule to include secondary producers - the primary producers like the 10 they are inspecting have always been under those requirements and Id say based on their films and dvds - they have always met those requirements. This isnt the first inspection ever done under 2257 - its just been publicized this time - and in my mind to start a little more scare "fun"

[Useless]

Originally Posted by Linkster

The reason there was such a big reaction last year was they were trying to change that inspection rule to include secondary producers - the primary producers like the 10 they are inspecting have always been under those requirements and Id say based on their films and dvds - they have always met those requirements. This isnt the first inspection ever done under 2257 - its just been publicized this time - and in my mind to start a little more scare "fun"

And really, if the DOJ would simply use their resources to regularly inspect the primary producers to ensure that the content which they are producing and selling is up to snuff, it wouldn't be necessary to place the burden of 2257 record keeping on secondary users (I currently refuse to call us "producers" ).

EDIT -
Maybe they could create a system of compliance for European producers so they could legally sell us content produced overseas, while not forcing us to perform the record keeping. They can't inspect records abroad, so I guess they are forced to inspect secondary users of foreign content.

[lassiter]

Originally Posted by Useless Warrior

if the DOJ would simply use their resources to regularly inspect the primary producers to ensure that the content which they are producing and selling is up to snuff

And how, exactly, does a snap 2257 inspection accomplish that, as opposed to DoJ simply requesting a faxed copy of model release forms and IDs if there is a question about a specific performer? Does it keep the producers from hastily destroying all the records they presumably must have on file of their underage talent? |confused|

[Useless]

Originally Posted by lassiter

And how, exactly, does a snap 2257 inspection accomplish that, as opposed to DoJ simply requesting a faxed copy of model release forms and IDs if there is a question about a specific performer? Does it keep the producers from hastily destroying all the records they presumably must have on file of their underage talent? |confused|

And why, exactly, are you completely again 2257 inspections of primary producers? Is the IRS going to stop all spot audits when all of the proper documents could be faxed?

Why would anyone destroy documentation on an underage model? If they know that she or he is underage, they aren't going to document them. So, any documentation could only server to prove that the model committed fraud. And yes, as foolish as I think your assertion is, I do believe it would keep a producer from "hastily destroying" any documentation. I doubt that the FBI shows up and says, "Hey, we need to inspect your documents. We're going to go get some coffee first, so don't do anything foolish while we're gone. See ya in 20 minutes!"

[spazlabz]

Originally Posted by Linkster

spazlabz - the point I was making is that the inspection requirement has been in effect for over 10 years - this isnt something based on the changes they made last year - the inspections have just not made the news till now - if they even did any since the first law came out. The reason there was such a big reaction last year was they were trying to change that inspection rule to include secondary producers - the primary producers like the 10 they are inspecting have always been under those requirements and Id say based on their films and dvds - they have always met those requirements. This isnt the first inspection ever done under 2257 - its just been publicized this time - and in my mind to start a little more scare "fun"

LOL I have absolutely no coherent reply to this--
well, ok, except to say that you and i are addressing two entirely different but related topics and that I quoted you in error and obviously misunderstood your point

spaz

[Useless]

Originally Posted by Linkster

This isnt the first inspection ever done under 2257 - its just been publicized this time - and in my mind to start a little more scare "fun"

I am much more afraid this go around than I was during the last bout of 2257. I'm not even sure why. Maybe it's a combination of all the shit that is going on - which isn't really much, but it's more than usual. I KNOW that I don't have a solid reason to be afraid - and somehow that distresses me even more. I don't promote extreme sites. I've never produced content. I've purchased very little, and that's all Paul Markham's stuff, so I'm not worried about it at all. I've used a lot less sponsor content than active free site and gallery builders do. And though I cannot get the 2257 docs on that stuff, I have the sincerest of doubts that any judge or jury would put me in a butt-pounding prison for simply not having the documention on someone else's verifiably legal content. Yes, that alone is what they wish to criminalize - I just don't see it as realistically ending in a jail sentence.

I'm not afraid of anyone busting in my door. Hell, it might just fall off the hinges on it's own. I'm not too sure which would be worse; having the local media embarass my wife and children, or having to lead well-paid federal agents through this shit hole I live in.