Creampies, Blowjobs and Asians..... Oh My! 236 Posts 9/04
Posted - Jun 6 2005 : 7:51AM
Drew,
Very interesting about companies offering you the 2257 information circa 1998. I couldn't even imagine their reasoning for that. The reason for not giving out model info is where is the line drawn? Does every distributor, retailer, store, website, reviewer, forum poster, etc, get access to a models information?
I can't even imagine the negative press that will occur the first time a model is assaulted/raped/murdered off the information provided by the producer of the content to the assailant. Someone who is a legitimate seller of the producers content.
And I guarantee that the lions share of responsibility will not fall on the government for the implementation of 2257 and the (possible) requiring of access to a models real name and address. It WILL fall on the producer of the content, because if anything else, he or she is a PORNOGRAPHER.
Also, if/when models find out that just about anyone can access their personal information, the amount (and quality) of girls interesting in entering the the adult business will decrease. Can you imagine any fan being able to access the real information for Jenna Jameson, Tera Patrick, Ariana, Little April, etc? And this will happen. It will spawn a whole new adult business "Click here to find out the Real name and address of Jenna Jameson! only $19.95"
In the EU, it is absolutely illegal to give out the information of your models for any reason, other than to the inquiring government. They established these laws for the protection of the talent.
The last part would be the question: Will google, yahoo, msn and the like be required to carry 2257 information for their links , or better yet the explicit pictures that display in their searches? After all, these searches of adult products do lend to the overall profitability of these entities.
Again, I'm just glad someone is taking a stance, and a sensible one at that.
Porno movies, sexy videos, xxx. Adult DVD Talk at your service. 6409 Posts 11/99
Posted - Jun 6 2005 : 11:30AM
Most producers have been sending model info with screeners for at least the last five years. Most send it on CDs now. I don't look at it so I don't know exactly what it includes. We used to get photocopies of driver licenses. I assume they got in the habit of doing it because some magazines require the info.
To play devil's advocate for a second, all you have to do is book someone if you want to assault/rape/murder someone. (cf. Natel King); personal info is readily available in this internet connected world, and people in the public eye admittedly have a tough time defending against it; but that's part of the territory when you decide to become part of the public eye.
You can't have the fame if you want to be anonymous. It just doesn't work that way... and porn doubly so.
If I want to get close to someone in porn, I pretty much know where they are without the help of 2257 information. They're at Dance Club X or doing a signing at Store Y, or they'll be singing for Distributor Z at this Con in Las Vegas/Atlantic City/Spokane.
2257 model info has been circulated for a long time to reviewers, since if they (or their publication) decide to post screencaps of the movies, they need the documentation.
I would think PL's issue is the heart of the matter.
He needs to make sure if he gets screeners he gets the 2257s. If he does, he can post all the porn and screencaps he wants, provides he keeps those records in a place where they can be inspected more or less willy-nilly.
(I'll gloss over the speech-chilling aspect of requiring a place of business be listed on these mom-and-pop sites.)
The issue surrounding this whole 2257 flap at least from where I stand (and I suspect where Drew stands as well, tho I don't speak for him, obviously) is records managment.
Becuase these requirements are so difficult to comply with, you pretty much are forced to hire a full-time records manager and renting an office for them to work out of. That's a big financial burden. You're better off just cutting bait and getting rid of the images... which is what Drew's doing with ADT and what we'll be doing with the IAFD.
Until we can get some clarification that displaying a boxcover doesn't require 2257 records to be maintained and made available, we'll be taking them down.
As much as I'd like to be able to be selective about box covers -- this one's OK, this one infringes -- we honestly don't have the resources to devote to such a project, so we cut off the foot to cure a hangnail.
They can -- it's not hard. We already know Jenna's real name because she wrote a book and did a ton of mainstream press, and they printed Jenna Massoli all over the goddamned place. Not to mention the E! THS on her had everyone's credentials on it.
The lesser known stars can only reply on the "security thru obscurity" smokescreen.
There will always be people who will abuse information. When my expired drivers license was sold out of the back door of the local DMV and then used to open credit card accounts up and down the eastern seaboard, what was my defense? How could I have protected myself?
I couldn't. Some unscrupulous guy took my information and did what he wanted with it.
There's nothing stopping porn producer X from doing the same thing. What's stopping you from releasing your 2257s to the world for $19.95 a throw? There's no regulation or rule that they're confidential records, right?
Plus, your name and address is considered public info. Granted with the average guy on the street his info carries no value, but to the famous, it does.
Maps of the Stars Home have been on sale forever.
Finding someone credentials is possible already, and its pretty easy to do as well. There are articles on the net that show how to get information on your fave starlets and it mentions that there are things your fave starlets can do to help insulate themselves... but since these girls tend to be off-the-bus, have-to-make-rent types of chicks on the whole (they're the ones most easily abused, since this becomes a desperation move, not a career) they don't bother.
I don't believe for a second the EU gives two shits about porn models. I think they just have a better handle on privacy issues than we do, and the porn models are just covered by that. Since just about everything in the US is a "public record" it makes privacy a pretty tough thing to really control or enforce. Since the EU is more based in a socialist system where things started out a bit more centralized, it is that much easier to control that information, since it started out as a confidential trust between the gov't and its citizens.
The US never had such a trust; we insisted the gov't keep all records public so we could force accountibility or to redress our grievances. Lot of good it did us. :- But we're seeing trends to move the US model closer to an EU version, but it causes all sorts of turmoil, headaches and hidden costs for business owners. Just ask anyone who had to go thru their business processes to comply with HIPAA. (Someone in a supermarket somewhere had to come up with a floor sticker and associated signage and marketing materials that demarcates how far you have to stand from the pharmacy counter so you're not able to hear the lady in front of you asking for her shningles medicine. And then someone needs to pay for it to be reproduced, and installed, and floor space might need to be reconfigured so the requisite space is available, etc.)
My money is on that they will plead some sort of common carrier status, and no one will dispute it.
Plus, size matters.
The government has a better chance of shutting down ADT than it does Google; so why bother with Google. If you shut down the feeder sites, Google will have nothing actionable/objectionable to index.
There was an article the other day pondering why Apple didn't sue C/Net for breaking the story about Macs running on Intel chips (which is obviously a trade secret) when they were so happy to use little guy sites for infringing on similar things.
It's gonna take someone with the balls of Hal Freeman to get these things defined and either struck down or otherwise.
I have no idea who that guy will be; I know ain't me.
A few of the screeners I receive send 2257's too, and have pretty much since I started receiving them about four years ago(?). Like Steph said, photocopies of driver's licenses, passports, etc.
"Vegetarianism for me is about saying ‘yes’ to things - even meat." - Coupling
Porno movies, sexy videos, xxx. Adult DVD Talk at your service. 6409 Posts 11/99
Posted - Jun 6 2005 : 5:07PM
So the producer should be the only one with the valuable sales tool of screenshots? If most producers were not trying to compete with retailers that would be easy to accomplish. Unfortunately, producers do compete with retailers.
Lousy closing my browser before I hit post on this tab... so I'll try to be as witty and urbane as before...
Ghost Pro wrote:
Where else should it be?
The issue is more one needs to think about ALL the attendant responsibilities and problems before agreeing to suck a dick on camera.
Sadly, that level of reason rarely happens when the rent is due.
True, and it might have murderous results...Absolutely true, but they ARE a part of federal recordkeeping laws.
They are also part of your identity as a citizen, and as such, are more or less public records.
Say Starlet X opens a mailbox to get her fan club mail at. (Nice dangling participle) You can petition the post office to get the contact info of the owner of the mailbox since she is (presumably) doing business out of the maildrop. Dollars to donuts the starlet isn't using a trade name, and there's the ballgame. (As far as I know, those regulations don't apply to personal mailboxes, only commercial).
What I'm alluding to here is a bit more chilling... It's not that he meets "Sweet Cheeks" and not Peggy Anderson, but rather he follows Peggy Anderson back to the bar at the Venetian, follows her into the elevator and cholorforms her.
If someone wants to stalk a porn person, it's not particularly hard. Not distributing a 2257 form isn't going to offer any protection.
You say that like its a bad thing. Could the industry survive without an neverending line of talent of their rights, responsibilities and otherwise?
(I bet they'd find a way. I bet the porn gets better too.)
Nina Hartley and Sharon Mitchell have been warning girls for years NOT to get into porn on a whim. Maybe this will finally make them consider their decision before plunging. But I'd bet not.
They may hot have transcended porn on a national level, but they're getting there.
Mainstream media posting as alternate media (i.e. Stern, Opie & Anthony) is slowly warming up to porn folk. So while I may not see the 47th "Daisy" who appeared in some generic RLD BJ movie on Stern, I do somehow manage to see pix of jessica drake from the press line at the Grammy Awards...
Take the anecdotal story of Jennifer Stewart, Vivid girl of the early 90s. Apparently she was enjoying her porn fame until someone dropped a stack of her movies on her folks' doorstep...
It wasn't so bad, an inconvenience... it didn't destroy my life or credit rating or antying... not like some of the stories you read...What releasing the info to distributors accomplishes nothing beyond allowing them to comply with the law.
Do I think the new regs suck? Wholeheartedly. 2257s should live with the producers and responsibility trickles up. If you took the picture, it's on you to keep the records. If I license the content from you, or resell your content in whatever media, I should point people to you as the custodian of records. Instead, the new law wants us ALL of us involved in the trade to be custodians of record. And for a site like mine, where we catalog over 38,000 performers, how am I supposed to manage, let alone gather, info on those people?
Simple -- I don't. It's why we never had any sort of nudity on the site... but the boxcovers violate that rule, and since the new regs seem to want to make us responsible for the boxcover content, even tho I have never met the boxcover model or the photographer, I am sure we will suffer some sort of loss due to the removal of those images.
Which is exactly what the gov't wants. If they can't take you down due to the 1st Amendment, they'll kill you with paperwork. It's the new legal system -- sue them out of business; it doesn't matter if you're right or wrong, you're still broke at the end of the day.
Which brings me full circle to the notion that the MODEL will have to take RESPONSIBILITY for her actions. If she's doing porn on the side as a secret from her family, it is ONLY A MATTER OF TIME before the family finds out. End of story. Working in the closet does not fly.Which is one more reason people should take steps to protect themselves when they go into this line of work.
Setting up corporations is a big pain in the ass, but if you're planning on making a career out of it, you should take the week and do it right. Protect yourself.
Unless the producers find it impossible to comply with the draconian rules or until one of them gets busted for not having the right records for the right guy at the right time...Thanks. I've had this argument many times. I've gotten good at it. ;-)
I don't think you can hide when you do porn, and I think a lot of people have all sorts of illusions about betting those odds.
Seriously, just drop me an e-mail with what's not listed, and we'll get it loaded up.
Jeff
Edited by - adult movie faq on 6/6/2005 6:18:42 PM
Creampies, Blowjobs and Asians..... Oh My! 236 Posts 9/04
Posted - Jun 6 2005 : 6:19PM
Steph, Sorry if I made it sound bad. We, like most studios, try to go above and beyond the call to make sure our retailers have the necessary tools to promote our products. We love our retailers and reviewers!!!!! The idea would be the image would reside on the server of the producer and show up in a popup box (or something). And i'm sure this can be done where as the shopping public does not know it is redirected, and they are unable to purchase at that point anyways.
I'm not advocating sending all of the traffic to the producer and telling the retailers or anyone else to take a hike. It just seemed like a good alternative when faced with the complete elimation of the image for the online retailer.
I doubt the letters will be this innocent. The people that support this anti-porn crusade are the very same people that break into abortion clinics, steal the records and later write letters penned by the "murdered" children. "Mommy, why did you kill me?", etc.
Sure some of the letters will be polite, but I bet the forms of harrassment will get quite creative. After all, it's being done in the name of god and he's not going to take notice if you're not really trying hard to make some poor young girl's life miserable. It's all about the headlines.
I predict the government will have at least 100 plea bargains in the works by the beginning of August. They need concrete results or convictions prior to the fall political campaigning.
Porno movies, sexy videos, xxx. Adult DVD Talk at your service. 6409 Posts 11/99
Posted - Jun 7 2005 : 11:11AM
Ghost - I hear ya. Unfortunately with the current rendition of this law the retailers are the ones most screwed. And it's vague enough that there is no way around it without taking a risk (ie the pop up showing the cover.) The only option is to take this to the courts so the "activist, liberal judges" can remind lawmakers that we have a Constitution.
Porno movies, sexy videos, xxx. Adult DVD Talk at your service. 6409 Posts 11/99
Posted - Jun 7 2005 : 2:04PM
As I am reviewing covers to determine which ones I have to remove I'm thinking an easy solution would be for the studios who have hardcore covers to create softcore covers. Make em out of screenshots or whatever. It's hard for people to sell your product if they can't display a cover. It doesn't have to be a print worthy image - just a web quality one for web retailers to display.
My thanks to the studios who have always provided a softcore cover option.
a lot of retailers already just censor the hardcore parts on the covers. so does censored count as softcore? and even so, does softcore eliminate the retailer's need for 2257's or is it still considered actual humans engaging in actual sexually explicit behavior because they actually were at the time of photography? if not, then yeah, that would be a great solution.
no. censored hardcore images require documentation.Most box cover shots aren't of people having sex. They don't require documentation. I suspect that there's at least a few minutes of footage in every movie where actual humans aren't having actual sex. Take the screenshot from these parts.
Constance's question is one of those that I have not gotten a very good answer on.
"Simulated" sex does not require a 2257 but is anything in an adult movie really simulated? Basically the answer I am getting for the "better safe then sorry" crowd is that as long as it is of a solo girl not masturbating (that definition sill not clear) then you are fine but even if the group on the cover is not engaged in sex in that shot it is still part of a "set" in which they are so 2257's MAY be required.
The only out at the moment apparently is for companies that do their boxcover shoots totally seperate from their movie shoots so you can call that another production entirely that did not have any "actual" sex. (ie different days and possibly different locations)
Nothing says I love you so much as a tongue in the ass. 2884 Posts 1/03
Posted - Jun 9 2005 : 10:13AM
Almost every production has the "pretty girl" shoot for the boxcover, and even the action stills are staged for the back of the box. Some companies produce two versions of their cover and it's reversible in the case. More of this needs to be done.
IAFD, supporters of beastiality. Just say no. 7564 Posts 11/02
Posted - Jun 9 2005 : 11:36AM
My old law professor once told me that Belgium has the most laws of all European countries and by extension possibly the world. How a small country can be big, I guess.
Still, we don't have any section 2257.
ShiWarrior aid: "i can not make long posts, becuase i run out of words in the first paragraph."
Porno movies, sexy videos, xxx. Adult DVD Talk at your service. 6409 Posts 11/99
Posted - Jun 9 2005 : 1:27PM
Constance - Almost all your covers are fine. I don't think I removed any, except there might have been one or two that showed something that could be construed as bondage (I'm not sure - looked at so many covers.)
I haven't read this thread until now... and now I'm royaly pissed off. I'd like to hit those responsible in the face really hard.
But it was only a matter of time before the internet was to be controlled by the government... the only reason it took so long was that some though internet was a fad.
Companies shouldn't take this crap, they should pack their bags and leave for Europe tomorrow....
I have been reading up on this a lot lately, we are also producers selling content to US companies, so I have not only read the whole 2257 thing, but also relevant European laws: the EU Directive on Data Protection, the UK Data Protection Law and the Dutch Wet Bescherming Persoonsgegevens, which are all more or less applicable to our situation.
The solution I have most often heard about the EU privacy laws is to let the model sign a release to give permission to give the required documents to another company.
But there are a few problems with that: The model can at any time revoke that permission, and the documentation should be destroyed then (hard to enforce when both companies involved are in different countries, but still, it is something lawsuits have been fought about).
Due to the lack of privacy laws in the US there is a special regulation, you can only pass personal data (simply defined over here as anything that can identify a living person) to American companies if they are a 'Safe Harbour' company, and so far no porn companies are on that list. But even if they would be listed, there is a clause about Onward Transfer that states that you can only forward personal data to companies that adhere to the same rules. And if the data is considered sensitive ("...information specifying the sex life of the individual..." that could well be the case here) the person "must be given affirmative or explicit (opt in) choice if the information is to be disclosed to a third party" every time.
My personal opinion is that basically no company can at the same time obey 2257 and the 'Safe Harbor' rules, as they seem to be contradictionary.
We have gotten requests for 2257 documentation from some companies we do business with, and I have adviced my boss to not give out anything without consulting our lawyers, since the smallest fine over here for breaching our privacy laws is 1500 Euro (upto 4500 Euro) per incident, that can add up quickly!
Rather a damned if you do, damned if you don't thing
I think that we're going to see a bunch of the newer/struggling production companies go under as a result of the new rules. I'm hearing that some companies simply don't have the records together and therefore can't get them in their customer's hands. This in turn will cause their customers to blow out the inventory they might have and possibly never place new orders. For those businesses that are dependent on cashflow for survival this will kill them.
Poor Turkey running for her life with Christmas Hat 3713 Posts 9/01
Posted - Jun 11 2005 : 5:46PM
This law clearly does not do what it is intended, protect the children, but rather seems to be aimed at a different outcome, namely closing down the adult business. If the adult biz goes, the US will go into a recession as the US is suffering a major trade deficit and the adult biz does its part in promoting US exports (my musing).
I have never believed for a second that even the original law was intended to protect children, it was and is just a backdoor way to harass the adult industry. Traci Lords had a legitimate US passport after all...
You are right in that a lot of feature companies do totally seperate shoots for their boxes so they are okay since no "actual sex" will be done that day.
However, the rules are VERY unclear about shots taken during an adult shoot and what is required. Take Evil Angel for example who just shoots stills during their movies and uses them on the box. Even if the shots themselves are not hardcore they still may fall under the blanket of 2257 due to where and when they were produced and therefore the photographer is also a producer.
Even the lawyers are undecided over this matter but the last one's opinion I got agreed with me in that the way the new law is written the camera men/photographers are considered producers and must keep all applicable documentation.
Regardless of the fact that they are employees of the real producer.
Nothing says I love you so much as a tongue in the ass. 2884 Posts 1/03
Posted - Jun 12 2005 : 5:02PM
I think the only thing we know for sure is that we don't know anything until there are court decisions that lay out where, or if, the government has overstepped itself. The rules are probably purposely ambiguous. This way the government can rule by terror. When the arrests come, maybe some brave soul will stand and fight and send the Justice Dept. lawyers back to their caves. Until then, it's just a guessing game.
God hates us all, you know it's true, God hates this place. - Slayer 1726 Posts 10/03
Posted - Jun 12 2005 : 9:50PM
Hmmm that would pose a major pain in my ass as well as here on ADT... I mean the screens in some reviews now are perfect, meaning they comply with the 2257, but if this is really the case.... BAH! I don't want to even think about it...
We are removing all images, box covers screen shots, etc. even if the image is "clean" it's going to be removed anyway until we know more about the enforecement of this silly rule change.
That was one of the motivating factors for me removing everything from my site and then just turning it into a gallery site of my stuff only.
The rules are just not clear enough to say in some areas. For solo stuff it is pretty straight forward. Unless you try to define what is considered masturbation.
I read somewhere that the 2257 law is being challenged in the US law courts. Not just the changes the whole thing, and that it is likely to be overturned as unlawful. I am still unsure as to what it means for my site. I do have alot of models on it, some are glamour only some are adult models. American models and UK models. Its a free site not a paysite. I am baffled. The Data Protection Act stops me from passing on or even keeping most of the models info. The DPA only allows people to hold details relevant to the purpose in question. For my site that would mean all i could legally hold was a models birthday. I wouldn't be able to justify having a models address on file for instance. The DPA is vehemently enforced and webmasters in the UK have to be very very careful when dealing with this 2257 law.! Anyone who keeps personal records of anyone for their business has to take a DPA course and sign to say they understand their responsibilities. I have done this anyway as I work in the insurance industry but I wonder how many UK Webmasters have taken this course (its only a 20 minute video!)
I would be surprised if 2257 is totally overturned. These latest regulations the DOJ has promulgated to enforce the law might be voided by a court as overburdensome, though.
If you are located in the UK and your servers are located in the UK then I don't think you have anything to worry about, because you are operating under the laws of the UK, not those of the USA.
The problem arises when you are distributing physical media into the US. That media would require the 2257 documentation or be subject to seizure.
We have always had a rated "R" policy on banners. Steph has already contacted the advertisers that need to do new banners. If they don't make new banners in time we will just stop running their ads.
Actually, the law as passed by Congress is 18 USC 2257. This law is not being challenged. The Department of Justice interprets a law and publishes rules for how they intend to enforce a law. These rules are part of 28 CFR 75. It is these rules that are being challenged.
It's important to note that the rules are established only by the DOJ. There's no democratic process involved. Congress is not involved, only people appointed by the President. This rule change has one goal: to wipe out porn on the internet. If they happen to lock up a bunch of pornographers in the process well that's just icing on the cake.
Some primary producers may actually be welcoming these rule changes. They should have the effect of clearing up lots of the free U.S.-based porn. It will also make it easier for them to track who is legitimately using their content. Now instead of filing a lawsuit for copyright infringement a primary producer can just turn a thief over to the Feds for 2257 prosecution. A smaller market and less theft will be good for the companies that have the resources to comply with the new rules.
Ok , how about a UK citizen who's site is hosted in the US? And does the law only apply to paysites and/or adult images? As my site has both glamour models and porn stars. Somehow I can't see me being allowed to hold the details of Jenna Jameson and Tera Patrick for example!
I'm no lawyer so please take anything I say with a HUGE grain of salt. I encourage people to read the statute themselves and form their own opinions.
As a UK citizen you should be immune from prosecution even if your site is hosted on a server physically located in the U.S. OR hosted by a U.S.-based company that might have servers located in data centers around the world. I'm making the assumption that your website is not a business with offices in the U.S.
The new rules make no distinction between paysites, or adult images. This is a free site and we must comply with the new rules.
I appreciate you taking the time to help me with this. It is all very confusing for someone who is basically just running what started as a hobby!!! Still is really
I am pretty much in the same boat as you (except I am in the US). What I can tell you is that the rules apply to all websites no matter where they or their owners are based.
Now realistically they probably won't go to Great Britain and try to get you but they can block your site.
Also people in Europe need to be very careful with the new rule as it apparently violates about 17 different privacy laws currently in the EU. So I would be very careful when you comply with 2257. If your site is just glamour pictures and the like then you may not need to meet 2257. As it is currently written it applies to "actual sex" only but they also include masturbation in that and as you well know a conservative can have a VERY different opinion to what is masturbation then a porn fan.
Best I can recommend is that you read it for yourself to see where you may or may not need to pay attention.
Though I'm as Patriotic as they come, this is one of those times when I'd salute any European who stands up and tells our government to go fuck itself. We don't run the rest of the world. We just think we do.
Hello all, first time post here, so I'll try not to make an ass of myself. If I do just let me know. I just wanted to share my extremely modest experience with these new 2257 compliance regulations in the form of a small little ‘essay’ (i.e. rant). I've been actively researching the issue, as well as tapping into my small reservoir of knowledge on US citizen's rights, and I am at such a loss for what could possibly come next in the country.
I happen to work for an online adult distributor selling films from a broad spectrum of studios. Don't bother asking me which site I work for, 'cause I won't tell you, sorry. The short story is that we've been busting our hump gathering thousands of personal performer info & IDs from hundreds of studios. We’re jumping through flaming hoops just to get what we 'need' to participate in this market. Twisting the arms of an infinitely misinformed industry to get them to produce their own paperwork. Sorting through their convoluted paperwork which, most of the time, isn’t as thorough as it needs to be. From the perspective of distribution, you’d think that this isn’t really an issue. You’d think that it’s mostly a human resource issue, an issue of hiring a work force to handle the payload. Depending on the size of the distribution company, all this often equates directly into lost revenue spent of wages.
Unfortunately, I think the wound digs a little deeper than that. Now I can’t talk about the infinite complexities of an online enterprise because, quite frankly, I don’t own one. But something can be said about basic civil rights. It’s no surprise, as many here have pointed out, that there could possibly be a negative and very scary result to allowing this many people view this type of personal info. Between most companies and their employees the responsibility of such sensitive material is often boiled down only to a confidentiality agreement of some sort. But this type of contractual agreement is (honestly) only as strong as the paper it is written on. The amount of eyes viewing this information multiplied across the country by every ‘secondary producer’s’ faculty never had much consequence before these regulations stared. But now that 2257 is hitting home at our company it has frightened me to the Nth degree because of the extent at which it reaches. This information could inevitably become common knowledge in a short amount of time. Pornography, for the sake of argument, is a very emotion driven form of entertainment. Emotions drive all types of people to physically manifest all types of behavior, including very aggressive behavior. Performers shouldn’t be put into such a delicate situation as to be preyed upon by violence any more than you or I. But with such a blatant disregard for privacy, what is a citizen to do? That’s not to say that I’m advocating censoring the flow of ideas in any form, censorship is completely against my nature as a person. But I’m just curious, at what point should personal identifying information be kept as private as possible to produce a reasonable amount of safety?
But I do think, just to be on the safe side, if you are involved in any form of adult content to get yourself a lawyer and do your best to stay within the limits of the laws. From my understanding of these new additions, the regulations specifically assault (as well as insult) the adult industry and US citizens in general on all fronts. Whether it’s an infringement of free speech/expression, infiltration of privacy (in the case of performers' IDs), unreasonable business burden by the government, etc ...and the list goes on.
From my own admittedly limited personal experience, intellectual discussion is generally not encouraged in the workplace in the name of a ‘comfortable non-partisan work environment’. Topics are generally seen as dissenting in any way if you mention opposing any form of authority. Maybe that’s just my previous employers leaving a bad taste in my mouth. Again, that an entirely different topic in itself. Although it is good to see some discussion amongst the internet communities in forums such as this, even though the issue hasn’t hit any major new agencies in the face yet.
A little side note that could some day parallel this issue is the issue of plain good ol’ fashioned free speech. As a fine art photographer & artist myself I happen to be a strong supporter of maintaining our civil liberties, so it was no surprise that I'd have some beef with the 2257 additions. What I also find scary about the new additions is the implication it may have on forms of artistic expression. Although the 2257 regs don’t yet explicitly include ‘artistic’ nudity, through a series of logical progressions is it not unimaginable that any form of art misinterpreted as obscene could fall within these same set of guidelines. I’m sure that the moderators and the lawyers of this or any other site would have a hard time deciding what has artistic merit versus something that is strictly pornographic in nature when it came to imagery. Sit back and ponder what social impact that could have.
I’d personally suggest making it known to your local politicians that your personal freedoms are important to you. Hell, voice your opinion to this issue to whoever feels willing to listen. Do your ‘freedom’ homework & research this topic, please! An informed individual often forms the most thorough and intelligent of opinions. Hopefully in the future precedents will start forming in the courts over the Constitutional legitimacy of these new 2257 regulations & side in the favor of real freedom.
For whatever agenda or reasoning is behind these laws (politics aside), the regulations could have a horrible outcome on our rights as Americans. And you can debate for hours upon hours about what it means to be an American. But, personally, to oppose this new control is one of the highest forms of patriotism that I could think of. And don't even get me started on the Patriot Act...
Please let me know what you think, we need some support. Rex (stick_figya@yahoo.com)
Constitutional challenges to 2257 have failed on a few occasions at the Appellate Court level.Here's one that I find interesting. The legal challenge needs to be made that the revised 28 CFR 75 rules overstep the authority granted by Congress in 2257. 2257 hasn't changed so I doubt it will be found unconstitutional.
In the document I link to above there are numerous references to "the Internet". Such as:
I read the whole brief and it paints a pretty bleak picture. I'm not sure that the FSC is going to win this battle. They may get a temporary injunction but I doubt they will get much of the new rules struck down.
On a different note, all of these new services and software packages that claim to make 2257 compliance simple and easy are playing right into the Government's agenda. When the FSC tries to make the case that the compliance burden placed on small businesses is too great the Government's response will be to point to all of the inexpensive commercially available software programs. (Of course they won't certify that the programs indeed provide compliance, they'll just point to them as proof that inexpensive compliance solutions exist.)
We are actually not that brave, we just don't want to fuck with our own governments, which (for all EU countries) forbid us to hand over those records (or even keep some of them) to secondary producers. The privacy laws are enforced here and all it takes is one complaint from a performer and you're in deep trouble.
And for those European content producers who think that just adding permission to hand over the records to the model releases, sorry, read the law again, even if a performer gives a written permission, he or she can revoke that permission at any time, just by saying so.
So we are just pussies, being more afraid of our own government than the USA one.
And I didn't have any plans to visit the USA anyway, at least not while this bunch is in office.
