The New 2257 Rulings - What now?

[Mr. Blue]

Question I have is how far will they let you redact the documentation.

Thus, primary producers may obliterate from identification documents the performers' addresses, social security numbers and all but the year from their dates of birth.

Now reading that over it sounds like you can lay waste to identification in one giant smudge of blacked out info and all but the birthdate and picture need be included. If you can exclude the models name or at least the surname...this becomes one giant case of busy work for sponsors, affiliates, etc, with no real purpose (how the fuck would heavily edited documents help anyone?), but its a doable solution, a waste of time, but still.

Okay time to contact my lawyer

[plateman]

fuck this 2257 stuff changes like ohio weather....now us secondary handlers are responsible for having docs on sponsor content?

the last news was we were not and it's been layed to rest

now here we go again....its a fuckin soap opera

[Sarah_Jayne]

I really wish I could just throw my hands up and claim that because I live abroad I don't have to follow things but since I am American I know I do and it is starting to make me dizzy trying to follow what I am suppose to do.

[Bill]

Phone has still been busy every time I call - second try today - I'll be trying all evening.

A legal fight against this is the best possible thing for all of us - except, perhaps, those who want to sell 2257 softwares.

[ivo68]

All porn will move to the Netherlands, Denmark and Canada.

[Linkster]

Bill - I dont know what kind of legal fight can happen - the law has been on the books since last June with no apparent discussion or filing of any papers against it - why would a judge rule against the Adam Walsh bill?

[Chop Smith]

Originally Posted by Bill

A legal fight against this is the best possible thing for all of us - except, perhaps, those who want to sell 2257 softwares.

I could write a book on this but in order to keep this thread on topic I will simply make two acknowledgments:

1) I am the author of a webbase application for maintaining 2257 records.

2) I was a member of FSC before the sky fell last time and I continue to support their efforts in the 2257 litigations.

[Bill]

Originally Posted by Linkster

Bill - I dont know what kind of legal fight can happen - the law has been on the books since last June with no apparent discussion or filing of any papers against it - why would a judge rule against the Adam Walsh bill?

That's for lawyers, judges, and courts to decide, not me.

Laws are passed all the time that are then struck down. COPA springs to mind.

What are you going to do about this? You got your 2257 office and database all set up?

[Bill]

Originally Posted by Chop Smith

1) I am the author of a webbase application for maintaining 2257 records.

I know you are Chop.

You figure your script is compliant with the new requirements?

[Linkster]

Chop - meant to ask about that - is your software updated for the changes made last year that the FSC wasnt fighting?

[Allfetish]

Basically I am in wait and see mode.

I find the secondary producer situation to be one of the most idiotic things I have ever heard. Side stepping all of the other arguments -- how do we really know the documents (if given any) we are given are valid? We have no contract with the models whatsoever, we were not there when the content was shot. We have no ownership rights over the content in most cases other than a limited license to use it -- usually non-exclusive. We did not produce anything other than html on the page and maybe the graphics.

Common sense says it ought to be sufficient to have the physical address, phone number, TIN or SSN of the producer or content distributor on file whereupon they can be contacted for the detailed records. It is silly to require end webmasters to keep track of all this stuff in great detail.

Will businesses with waiting rooms or employee lounges who have TVs equipped also have to keep detailed records if they allow HBO where some "simulated sex" might be shown? Come on!

[Linkster]

Originally Posted by Bill

That's for lawyers, judges, and courts to decide, not me.

Laws are passed all the time that are then struck down. COPA springs to mind.

What are you going to do about this? You got your 2257 office and database all set up?

Bill - while I agree it happens all the time - I havent seen one post anywhere from anyone in the adult industry even recognizing the new law let alone hiring lawyers to bring any actions - the only people that threatened to do it were appeased before the final law was signed last June - and that was the mainstream movie industry who basically got an exemption statement put in for their simulated sex in their movies - but unfortunately no one in the adult industry has said word one about this law - although it basically undermined the whole 2257 fight that was going on at the time and what is what the judge in the FSC's case is talking about when he talks about congress redefining the law - no one has filed any sort of case against the Walsh law that Im aware of - and it is way more stringent than the old 2257 changes

As far as my records - yes they have been compliant since this was first announced - although I dont really have a lot and I refuse to use sponsor content unless they actually send me the docs as that new law doesnt have a separation for primary/secondary producers - we are all just "producers"

[Linkster]

Originally Posted by Allfetish

Will businesses with waiting rooms or employee lounges who have TVs equipped also have to keep detailed records if they allow HBO where some "simulated sex" might be shown? Come on!

Thats why they got an exemption last June so they wouldnt have to

[Chop Smith]

Bill and Linkster, a qualified yes. I am usually ahead of 2257 matters before they hit the board and attempt to anticipate changes that effect the script.

Linkster, you will recall in July in the infamous "Staff Meeting", as I was discussing the age verification issue I referred to the fact that Congress were doing a end around on the 2257 court litigation. We made a few changes in the script but nothing big. The new law, as most do, require that regulations be written. It has been several weeks since I did a search but I do not believe the AG has issued any new regs on this. I look for the old regs to be used. If so the qualified yes becomes an affirmative.

Do I think everyone needs to drop all their work to rush out, buy software and implement it to maintain 2257 records? No! The day will come when all US webmasters (primary and secondary - the same under the new deal) will have to keep a complicated set of records but the smoke has not cleared yet.

For sakes, don't anyone panic and do something stupid. Last time when the "sky was falling', some good folks got hurt.

[Linkster]

Chop - the only reason Im so adamant about it is that the law actually had editorial requirement changes to the 75.1 definitions and the 2257 requirements - although I dont see anything in the federal register where they have updated those docs I am pretty sure that if the law has been published - the regs are considered amended on that date (which by my calcs would put it on 22nd of Sept last year)

[Allfetish]

Originally Posted by Linkster

Thats why they got an exemption last June so they wouldnt have to

Now that really pisses me off. The situation is nearly exactly the same for us.

[Bill]

Originally Posted by Linkster

As far as my records - yes they have been compliant since this was first announced - although I dont really have a lot and I refuse to use sponsor content unless they actually send me the docs as that new law doesnt have a separation for primary/secondary producers - we are all just "producers"

You're a better man than I am.

Of course, that isn't hard. ;-}

I have no idea exactly what the new requirements are yet. And as far as I can tell, nobody else does either, or am I misreading the statements about "technical details about compliance with the new law were to be released in January, but haven't been released yet.".

You posted text of the law, but laws are not written to be understandable by ordinary small businesspersons.

It's odd that this whole thing seems to have come out of left field - an obscure amendment to the patriot act renewal, right?

I'm wondering why so little has been said about this anywhere in the biz publications until this week - and most of what I had heard about the Adam Walsh act only mentioned it's complex scheme for registering sex offenders.

[Bill]

FSC phone constantly busy.

[Chop Smith]

Linkster, I agree but that would be speculation. You know the AG was begging to keep his job so he could protect 'the children'.

Speaking of speculation! What happens to LinkForSex when it is required of you to have docs on images on a free site submitted to you? Based on my limited information, you can thank a staffer for getting that removed from the admendent and thus leading to discussion of the age verification requirement for Link Lists, TGPs and free sites.

BTW, this is a good time to book for XBIZ '07. Last year that lawyer siminar was worth the price of the entire trip.

[Linkster]

Actually Chop - Im not so sure that the requirement isnt still there - it was removed from the 2257 changes but it wasnt removed from the amendments to the Walsh bill so Im waiting to see the implementing regs which havent reared out yet - but I assume they will right around the 15th or so

As far as the age verification - I wouldnt count that one down yet either - there are many amendments already in committee that may get attached to some budget or supplementary without anyone realizing its there - that require the age verification - I think the latest one is T Stevens bill that would require both that and a statement on every page of a website as well as code labels for filters

[Bill]

The FSC contribution phone line number has been constantly busy, I still haven't gotten thru to make a contribution earmarked for 2257 defense.

Phone: 1-818-358-9373

from this page:

http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/ContributeForm.htm

[Humpy Leftnut]

I run a few review sites, and when 2257 hit in June, I took down all 10,000 so of our images that day, and slowly went through, replacing all sample images with softcore images.

Keeping records as an affiliate living in Canada seems next to impossible for me, unless I was given a package by each affiliate with these cleansed ID's.

I think the moral of the story for us thus far has been take appropriate precautions and preparations, but not certainly no panic.

[lassiter]

Originally Posted by Linkster

... although it basically undermined the whole 2257 fight that was going on at the time and what is what the judge in the FSC's case is talking about when he talks about congress redefining the law - no one has filed any sort of case against the Walsh law that Im aware of - and it is way more stringent than the old 2257 changes

Yes, I'm left once more with the strong impression that the FSC is much more interested in protecting the XXX video industry players in the Valley than in protecting the concerns of thousands of scattered webmasters who are affiliates/secondary producers.

And if FSC isn't gonna fight to strike these new Adam Walsh Act provisions down, then the only way they can be removed is if a secondary producer is tried and convicted under 2257, and manages to raise the $$$ to appeal and challenge the law in federal court - a process that usually takes several years.

[Bill]

Originally Posted by lassiter

Yes, I'm left once more with the strong impression that the FSC is much more interested in protecting the XXX video industry players in the Valley than in protecting the concerns of thousands of scattered webmasters who are affiliates/secondary producers.

And if FSC isn't gonna fight to strike these new Adam Walsh Act provisions down, then the only way they can be removed is if a secondary producer is tried and convicted under 2257, and manages to raise the $$$ to appeal and challenge the law in federal court - a process that usually takes several years.

While I also am wondering about the competence of the FSC's legal beagles, I'm not sure I'm following how this is about favoritism to the brick and mortar crowd.

Again, I'd like to know why this adam walsh act thing seems to be coming so completely out of left field?

Who knew about this before last weeks ruling?

And why hasn't it been an issue among us before this?

Has anyone here or in any of the other webmaster communities been trying to warn us about adam walsh, but we haven't listened?

[lassiter]

Originally Posted by Bill

Again, I'd like to know why this adam walsh act thing seems to be coming so completely out of left field?

Who knew about this before last weeks ruling?

I did, but then I follow this stuff. AVN did several articles about it over the past few months.

I think there was a vague perception (hope?) that the proposed rules - that would make Hollywood have to do laborious 2257 recordkeeping over their simulated sex scenes - was so ridiculous that the thing would never pass, and if it did, the MPAA would foot the bill to get it overturned.

The only part that is news to me is that the MPAA actually managed to get an exemption carved out for the big Hollywood studios, leaving the XXX community to bear the sole brunt of the 2257 re-write.