It's absolutetly fucking stupid. I hope the children are safer now.

[Link]

Would eBay be a publisher as well?

The mind is not a vessel to be filled, but a fire to be kindled.-Plutarch

[Link]

I have to know what I can and can't do regarding this. There has to be a loophole somewhere..

I also heard that some group was trying to get a restraining order on the changes until it can be ran through the courts - any truth to this?

[Link]

The compelling interest in preventing child porn is obvious. However, rather than forcing the secondary producer to have a copy of the records, the law could have just allowed the secondary producer to rely on the originals... (is that how it's done now?)

The new regulations sound like a great way to protect someone's porn copyright. Not only can a person sue for copyright infringement, you can send the feds after them for failure to maintain the proper 2257 records.

[Link]

I'm wondering if the 'in whole or in part' section only applies to the interstate commerce portion or if it also carries through to the 'one or more visual depictions' part. Basically, if recrods are required for a box cover image that does not contain actual sex but was produced in part with/from a movie that contains images of actual sex. With this interpretation we'll need to have records to display box covers for any movies containing actual sex, essentially every movie on the site.

[Link]

Then, after the big "OR", comes the implicit definition of "primary producer": someone who creates material that "is shipped or transported or is intended for shipment or transportation in interstate or foreign commerce and that contains one or more visual depictions of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct."

So, boxcovers that don't show actual sexual activity should be OK. The standard has to be whether the material shows sexual activity. For instance, a studio's logo is produced "along with" depictions of actual sex contained in a film, but it would be absurd to use 2257 to prosecute someone for reproducing a studio's logo on their website.

[Link]

The name they perform under in the particular video, and names used in other videos?

Was I just imagining that part?

Scott K.

[Link]

Understanding Personal ID Documents Requirement Under Section 2257 and Regulations
By: J.D. Obenberger
Posted: 5:10 pm PDT 5-27-2005

[Editor's note: J.D. Obenberger, founding partner of J.D. Obenberger and Associates, is a Chicago-based attorney who practices in the areas of First Amendment and entertainment law, among others. He wrote the following explanation of the personal identification document requirements contained in Title 18 U.S.C. §2257 and associated regulations in order to clarify some misconceptions following the Justice Department's May 23 publication of revisions to the regulations. "This material is very hard even for very bright people to follow without the help afforded by formatting," he noted in a cover letter, adding that adult webmaster chat boards seem to be awash with incorrect and misleading information because some of the language in the statutes and associated regulations is technical and confusing. "That's why I wrote this," he said.]

AVN 2257 Article

NOTE: moved here from locked thread

[Link]

And you know what's next? A totalitarian police state. It's the logical consequence of that 2257 nonsense. Or why should government itself be excluded from keeping records of all the people it fucked in the ass?

Now let's fight them with their own weapons... with fucking anagrams of that stupid "two two five seven" thing.

- Government releases new "two two five seven" rules

- We react politely first: "wife sent veto vow"

- Government keeps to its "soft teen view vow" against adult industry while mormons still have "oft even two wives"

- We react founding a "won't view soft eve"

- A government guy "woven west of Viet" asks what the hell we want to see in our movies then.

- We say: "Ow, we fist vet oven"

- Government says we can watch anything not going further than a "soft vie event, wow"

- We tried it friendly, we tried it gently, but government kept fucking us. "So we five wove TNT"

(Yeah, I'm guilty of having used this tool, I admit.

The versatile virgin Vince visits the village - Mary go hide yourself!

[Link]

Talk about catch-22!

Jacco

[Link]

Scott K.

[Link]

Basically it is illegal to sell/publish/give away the personal data (usually defined as any data that can identify a person) of somebody else without their prior permission. There are some exceptions, all different per country, and compared to those regulations the new 2257 reads like an elementary schoolbook.

Jacco

[Link]

Jacco

[Link]

Scott K.

[Link]

Apparently there is a thing in there (still going through it) that talks about being "available to US customers". Not to mention the whole "you are a US citizen any way" thing.

Even People and sites totally based outside the US are not exempt apparently.

Now legally I think the courts will tell the DOJ to step off on this one as they have NO jurisdiction to say that and as one guy from Denmark said "I would like to see the DOJ get their courts to issue them a writ to see his paperwork." (my words).

[Link]

Producers (either primary or secondary) that work part time or do not have posted business hours are required to contact the DOJ and let them know when they can come by.

From section 75.5:

[Link]

Will you be sending out model information to the webmaster who participate in Bridgette's site's referral/affiliate program?

Scott K.

[Link]

But since you mentioned referral links. I have heard from a few sources that their lawyers have indicated that when a website content editor links to an image or a page with images on someone else's server using a plain text link they could be required to maintain records according to the terms of the rule.

[Link]

I will be removing avatars that don't meet the new guidelines.

[Link]

Why do I keep seeing people use definitions from 2256 in relation to what requires records using 2257. In reading 2257 it only references 2256 in it's definition of what a minor is and that is all but people keep saying exposed "genitals", "pubic area" and "lacivious behavior" require records but I can't find those mentioned in 2257 anywhere.

Edited by - lee_carver on 6/3/2005 1:31:48 AM

[Link]

Edited by - Drew Black on 6/3/2005 1:17:00 AM

[Link]

That I understand from a primary/secondary producer standpoint.

But I am finding several places where people are using those phrases as to define what is covered by 2257 but 2257 never says that.

BTW as far as your links go. Are you saying the lawyer is telling you that if you put up a hardcore box cover image that links to the company site then you are a secondary producer but if you just type in the name of the title and have it link to the company site then you are okay?

why do I get the feeling that some companies are going to use this to fight copy right / piracy issues.

Edited by - lee_carver on 6/3/2005 1:33:37 AM

[Link]

One retailer's lawyer instructed them to make sure that all of their affiliates linking to their site were maintaining 2257 records for each movie they were linking to regardless if the link was an image or a text link. It is the opinion of this lawyer that "including any person who enters into a contract, agreement, or conspiracy to do any of the foregoing. " applies to these types of affiliate links. Since we are unwilling to maintain records we will be removing this retailer from the site.

A different attorney, who is a well-respected long-time veteran of this industry, holds the opinion that text links are outside the scope of the new 2257 rules but does acknowledge that the DOJ may not feel the same way. To place the record-keeping burden on text links in no way protects children.

[Link]

Here's an easy way to interpret confusing regulations and whether they apply to a particular situation. Do a strikethrough to whatever doesn't apply because of the situation and then reread it rather than focusing on something that confuses you (the bolding method) that may not even apply. I call it the strikethru method.

[Link]

Okay so the definition for what is "sexually explicit conduct" comes from 2256(2)which is where people are coming up with this.

Now 2257 SPECIFICALLY restricts the rules to "actual sexually explicit conduct" in section 75.7(a)(2).

So now if I am reading this right because of 2256(2)(E) where it says "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person" this can mean pretty much anything as long as it involves a single person and because of the one case I read (can't remember the name) they can even be clothed.

But as dumb as this sounds wouldn't the 2257 exemption mean that if I shot a b-g or g-g scene all softcore then it would be exempt form 2257 regardless of the fact that it meets the definition under 2256 of sexually explicit conduct.

Next thing is for "actual" sex how does that work for something like set coverage. If I only shoot soft core shots of what is a hardcore scene is 2257 required. And how do you prove to the investigator that the sex was "simulated"?

[Link]

Going through my shots I realized the presence of things like a blow-up of the boxcover shot for Elastic Assholes #2 behind Katin during the 2005 AEE Convention could in fact make the image have to meet the 2257 requirements even though the shot on display was not hardcore. By it's very nature a porn boxcover could be defined as "exciting lust" even though the shot itself was in a public convention hall were "sexually explicit conduct" was not allowed.

Another even better example was the PR shoot I just did for Shy Love and Kelly Erikson at a strip club in LA for one of their dance gigs. Now in the US (at least at this club) actual sexual contact between the women is not allowed but that doesn't prevent them from fakeing it. Now if you read the "exemptions" clause of 2257 you would think it is all good since there was no "actual" sexually explicit conduct then you are fine but the definitions in 2256 are saying no it is not and you will need documentation.

Something else that just occured to me. Wouldn't the 2257 rule make all those nude famous people shots using long lenses illegal as the photographers wouldn't have the 2257 documentation and you could argue that thier "focus" was such that they were lacivious?

I am feeling that headache coming on again.

Edited by - lee_carver on 6/4/2005 10:47:38 AM

[Link]

Is the copy of 2257 listed here a complete copy of 2257 or does it only address those parts of it that were changed in the revision?

Once I found out why 2256 pertained to 2257 I went back and printed out all of Title 18 Chapter 110 which contains these statutes and found something interesting. I got it from Legal Information Institute website and their copy of 2257 was obviously an older version but it did say something that caught my attention.

28 CFR Part 75 from the Federal Registry copy says that "This rule amends the record-keeping and inspection requirements of 28 CFR part 75." Which I read as meaning (in layman's terms) These are the changes to 2257 but if we don't address it here then what the original 2257 said is still in effect. Such as the last section of 2257(i) on the LII website which addresses the penalities for violating this act which I don't see listed in the Federal Registry copy on the "amended" changes.

The reason I bring this up is because the original 2257 actually holds a definition of "actual sexually explicit conduct" in it on the last page that says:

"actual but not simulated conduct as defined in subparagraphs (A) through (D) of paragraph (2) of section 2256 of this title."

Which leaves out the last section of the definition (E) which states "lacivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;".

Which I guess makes sense since the 2257 limit themselves to "actual sexually explicit conduct" while section (E) would be more of a "simulated" thing. But I don't know.

The reason I bring this up is it would clear all the show shots and most PR stuff since they don't involve "actual sex".

And for the record I researched 2256 as best I could and could find nothing that suggested 2256(2)(E) was not part of the original draft. I did find where they changed "lewd" to "lacivious" but nothing that suggested section (E) would not have been there when they originally wrote 2257 and that definition.

[Link]

2257 is a statute codified in the U.S. Code. Statutes are what we normally know as the actual legislation that Congress pass. Many times Congress will write a statute over which they don't have that much expertise in so they authorise a federal agency to issue regulations to fill in the gaps in order to enforce the law. (For example 2257(g)). The regulations are coded in the CFR.

Should a regulation (which is an agency's interpretation of the law) contradict a statute, then the statute holds. When interpreting a regulation, you have to check back to the statute to make sure that it is valid. The reason why some regulations sound so awkward is that the agency usually copy and paste entire phrases from the statutes as they are substituting them for specific terms to avoid straying from the statute. You also have to check against the Constitution and federal case law.

Edited by - morbidthoughts on 6/5/2005 1:33:59 AM

[Link]

So what you saying is that the one I got from the LII was the actual US Code as passed by Congress and what is in the Federal Registry as 28 CFR Part 75 is The DOJ's definition of how to carry out that law.

And to see if the definition of "actual sexually explicit conduct" contained on the LII site still applies I have to go through case law and such.

But so then am I right in assumeing that since 28 CFR Part 75 didn't mention a new definition then what is listed in the Coded 2257 then unless it was changed previously by case law or another CFR then it is still valid?

[Link]

When I do research, I mostly rely on an annotated U.S. Code (which isn't available online) where it references the regulations and case law interpreting the statutes.

I'm almost positive that the current 2257 statute reflected the Supreme Court case that decriminalised simulated child porn. Of course it's silly to keep records of a person that doesn't exist. It's also pointless to make someone keep records in order to prevent something that is not illegal even if the participants are underage.

Edited by - morbidthoughts on 6/5/2005 2:50:50 AM

[Link]

They ARE NOT releasing their models i.d.s to anyone. They have 1000's of affilates, and set up new term and conditions for ALL their affilates. They have directed all affilates to remove all of the hardcore images and nude pics from all tgp's and replacing them with text links. These text links will go directly back to the images on their servers.

They have also contributed money to the FSC to help fund the challenge to 2257. Nice to see a stand up company in the middle of all the confusion.

This will more than likely be the model for most all legitimate online adult companies. There are a few companies running scared, but these could be companies without their paperwork in order anyways. The big guys are going to stay and fight, and are buying up the traffic left behind.

I'm not sure what all this means for online adult stores. We'll just have to wait and see.

No producer in their right mind will ever release their models information to anyone outside of the inquiring Federal government. Safety of the models is the primary concern of all professional producers. The laundry list of problems that could/would stem from releasing this information is frightening.

My 2 cents.

ghostpro.com

[Link]

Hell, we don't even sell anything on ADT and some companies still send us 2257 documentation with our screener packages.

[Link]

On a side note, would images like this still fall into the 2257? I could have swore I read something a time ago about these would NOT fall into the 2257. Maybe I'm wrong, hopefully I am and these are OK - then I can still do screens with some blurring

[Link]

75.1(c)(4) Producer does not include persons whose activities relating to the visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct are limited to the following:

75.1(c)(4)(iii) Any activity, other than those activities identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section, that does not involve the hiring, contracting for, managing or otherwise arranging for the participation of the depicted performers.

(c)(1) and (2) are the definitions of producer, primary producer and secondary producer

Now the way I am reading this is that (iii) is total fluff that doesn't exempt anyone and the photographer or camera man on the shoot regardless of the fact that he is a paid employee like everyone else must keep records because he falls under the mantle of "producer".

PL - I am getting my court cases confused here but there was one that dealt with this issue in which they said it didn't matter that the image was blocked out. I think that one dealt specifically with child porn but as far as 2257 is concerned there is no distinction you still must have the records. I am still wondering if you are covering a set and shoot all soft core shots of what is a hardcore scene do you still need to have records since it was "actual" sex you just didn't show it.

I swear I am going to go buy stock in bayer.

[Link]