Most of you have most likely heard by this point that there are new 2257 record keeping rules coming from the Justice Department. I'm starting up a new thread regarding what steps we'll be taking on this site to stay within compliance.
If the persons depicted in the image appear old enough to not be mistakenly considered minors by a "reasonable person then "sexually explicit conduct" meansIf one or more of the persons in the image look like they could potentially be a minor then the following applies:I'm still processing this to figure out what's the best route to go. It's looking like even pubes and breasts are going to be forbidden in the new policy.
"The law requires producers of sexually explicit material to maintain records proving that performers in those depictions are not minors, but the detailed and extensive records that the law requires create a daunting record-keeping task, particularly when applied to the Internet. And the penalties are harsh. Even with no minors involved in the production - indeed, even if all performers are over 40 -- a first-offense paperwork error can still mean five years in federal prison."
“Under the current unfriendly administration,” Freridge commented, “The law would become a tool for selective enforcement by the Justice Department and a technical trap for legal adult businesses that have no connection whatsoever to child pornography.”
Seems like the Attorney General, have not enough important work to do, to waste some more of our taxes against ourselves. he can go against the bad guys if he wants, and leave us alone. In the "The rolling Stone' of May 5 2005. there is an article "dirty secrets" where you can see how some use the law to prosecute innocent people and help their pedophile friends. the guy, they mention is known as the lord of Bakersfield: Ed Jagels, launch the largest crusade against child molesters in the Nation's history and send two dozen innocent people to prison. Must look this article is very frightening.
Yeah, right, no way a small producer can even stay in business with these rules.
About what valid ID is:
Looks like a problem for non US models working for US companies, like some people already warned about when the draft was made public.
About the records themselves:
That makes Walter's database look like a rolodex, for fucksake!
Oh well, at least now we don't need anymore threads about "ID this girl please" now. Just look it up! But good luck finding a picture of a boxcover in the future...
I get the same feeling, and I don't even live or work in the US. If there's one fucking abuse of that bloody stupid 'think of the children' meme it's this one.
Just to keep things easy for Steph and Drew. I will be removing ALL my vid-caps and images (save the obvious "ok to go" pics of stars at the AVN show) from all my ADT webspace by tomorrow.
I will also cease all future video cpaturing in reviews. If the 2257 rules are ever challenged and reversed, I'll be able to restore everything, but until then, it's just easier this way. :)
It's a real shame they feel the need to legislate through rule changes, and do it in a way that impugnes on adult's rights as much as it attempts to protect minors. There are so many better ways to do this. ::shaking head in disgust::
Gee - isn't it interesting that they placed this legislature right after legislature dealing with what the INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE can and can't collect on?lol
I'm still not convinced that 2257 has anything to do with "protecting children" as much as it has to do with trying to make sure the IRS collects as much taxable income as possible from everyone in the adult industry.
Is it possible we'll soon be hearing a string of retirements from leading adult performers ? I can't imagine many of them will be happy to have their real names and addresses listed for every potential stalker to read . Sad days in America .
Patience is a virtue, but who wants to be virtuous? 4283 Posts 4/00
Posted - May 25 2005 : 7:20PM
I'm asking this in all seriousness - I'm somehow missing where it says that breasts in a 'pretty posed' type picture are a problem. It says lascivious exhibition of genitals or pubic area. The only part I can find that refers to breasts is this one: "or lascivious simulated sexual intercourse where the genitals, breast, or pubic area of any person is exhibited"
That part says breasts exposed in a picture of simulated sexual intercourse in a picture where the person is potentially a minor. So is there a problem in a posed single girl (non-masturbation) topless picture?
The definition of what constitutes a sex act come from section 2256. The new 2257 rules state that they cover images of actual sex, which removed the 'simulated' portion of the definitions in 2256.
I haven't been able to nail down the exact version of 2256 that's on the books today. I found a version of 2256 posted on a lawyer's website in July 2004 that reads:
Yes a pretty, non-lascivious breasts-only image is most likely OK under the law. Unfortunately being safe is totally dependent on one's understanding of the word "lascivious".With these definitions in mind, how could I possibly argue (or my lawyer for that matter) that a picture of a woman's exposed breasts on the box cover of a porn movie is not lustful? Take the picture out of the context of being an advertisement for a porno and you have a completely different situation.
I don't know. I'm still trying to make sense of all of this.
We'll be reviewing all of the images again and removing many of them from the price search but not all of them.
I suspect that there will be a huge amount of whining going on in the shopping forum next month about retailers removing boxcovers on their sites for many movies.
Well that's understandable from a consumer's perspective, particularly if they have no knowledge of the upcoming legal changes, which most people won't have.
Perhaps it would be worth putting up a sticky'ed post in the Shopping section now to let people know that many retailers will no doubt be removing a lot of their images ahead of time.
Didn't I read somewhere in one of the threads on this topic that links from ADT to images stored on other sites will still be allowed? In this case, wouldn't the simplest thing be for the studios (who have to keep records anyway) to put the box covers on their own sites, then online retailers could just link to those?
anyways, on the subject of retailers, does anyone have a clear idea of what is meant by "mere distribution" in this section about who is excluded from the record keeping regs?
The law is directed at producers of images. Bear in mind that, even though this is directed towards porn, retailers of 'regular' merchandise wouldn't take kindly to a regulation that implies they, too, are responsible for how their merchandise got made. In other words, does the government want to piss off WalMart? I don't think so.
Besides, the courts would probably say the DOJ was overreaching in requiring retailers to vet their products.
Poor Turkey running for her life with Christmas Hat 3713 Posts 9/01
Posted - May 26 2005 : 8:42PM
What a waste of time! Everybody has more important things to do than to follow regulations that do not do what they claim to do but rather are directed at another goal.
I hope studios are going to provide more useful description of scenes if they show less on the box covers. Otherwise, how will the buyers know what they are buying?
I'm surprised people forgot that the Supreme Court said applying the definition to simulated (but not actual) was unconstitutionally overbroad. It was pretty big news when the case was decided.
Do you mean hotlinking images? That would be a good idea but the bandwidth costs for the servers hosting those images would be way too high for it to be pracitcal.
Chloe Temple Interview
Posted - May 24 2005 : 5:42PM
