2257 Changes - What Are Porn Studios/Talent Doing?

Author	Post
*Mutt* Deactivated User 752 Posts 8/03	Posted - Jul 21 2004 : 7:26PM i do biz with alot of webmasters and it appears to me 95% of them are ignorant of the draconian changes in the 2257 law coming up shortly or are going to bury their heads in the sand. What are the LA movie studios doing? I've seen very little written about what the studios or porn talent are thinking. Are porn girls aware that their privacy is going to be put at risk by Ashcroft's new changes? That a studio that licenses its DVDs to web companies will have to give anybody who licenses a DVD copies of your model id's. Does this also apply to video store operators, both brick and mortar stores and online retailers? Also if you read the new 2257 it's very vague about talent from outside the US. It's possible if you read the thing literally that American companies will not be able to use European or Canadian talent for that matter. Nobody seems to have a clue about that part of it, it may just have been worded badly. the changes are more directed at the Internet but still changes must be made by the movie studios, especially those who run sites of their own or license/sell content. Edited by - Mutt on Jul 21 2004 [Link]
Scott Kinney xxximports.com New Jersey 369 Posts 5/02	Posted - Jul 21 2004 : 8:05PM Mutt wrote: That a studio that licenses its DVDs to web companies will have to give anybody who licenses a DVD copies of your model id's. Does this also apply to video store operators, both brick and mortar stores and online retailers? Click to expand From 75.7 part (b) "If the primary producer and the secondary producer are different entities, the primary producer may certify to the secondary producer that the visual depictions satisfy the standards...." Also if you read the new 2257 it's very vague about talent from outside the US. It's possible if you read the thing that American companies will not be able to use European or Canadia talent for that matter. Nobody seems to have a clue about that part of it, it may just have been worded badly. Click to expand What parts caused you to think that? Scott Kinney Diversified Video Associates www.xxx-imports.com [Link]
Saki At-Large 2087 Posts 11/99	Posted - Jul 21 2004 : 8:34PM Scott Kinney wrote: From 75.7 part (b) "If the primary producer and the secondary producer are different entities, the primary producer may certify to the secondary producer that the visual depictions satisfy the standards...." Click to expand In the definition section of the proposed rule change it says: "(b) A producer who is a secondary producer as defined in § 75.1(c) may satisfy the requirements of this part to create and maintain records by accepting from the primary producer, as defined in § 75.1(c), copies of the records described in paragraph (a) of this section. Such a secondary producer shall also keep records of the name and address of the primary producer from whom he received copies of the records ." [emphasis added] When combined with the record indexing and inspection requirements, and the wording that copies of the records must be kept with each and every image, this would mean that a "secondary producer" might have to keep, say, 100 copies of the records for each performer depicted in 100 digital photos or screenshots shown on the secondary producer's website. Also, 75.7(b) only refers to the exemption statement that the performance occurred before 11/1/90 or that the acts were simulated. In that case, the secondary producer can in essence use the primary producer's word that the exemption exists. This section does not refer to any other part of 2257. What parts caused you to think that? Click to expand The definition that defines identification states that the ID must be able to be verified by a state authority or the U.S. State Department. That seems to be okay for passports, but perhaps not for other identification cards that talent may use, especially if it's the producer traveling to a foreign country. I don't think that will be an insurmountable problem to overcome, but it's vague enough (the term "foreign passport" appears only once as an example) to be unclear exactly which forms of identification are not acceptable. - Saki [faqs] Edited by - saki on 7/21/2004 8:34:36 PM [Link]
*Mutt* Deactivated User 752 Posts 8/03	Posted - Jul 21 2004 : 9:45PM Scott definitely hasn't read the new changes - nobody is putting up any legal opposition so these changes become law in September. if Bush gets re-relected, hopefully not, but if he does then you can expect a long line of pornographers and webmasters going to jail. from a webmasters' point of view, the new changes are beyond what is possible for many people. Ashcroft has vowed that 2257 will be enforced. If Kerry gets in these changes will be on the book but I dont think his administration will enforce it. [Link]
*Mutt* Deactivated User 752 Posts 8/03	Posted - Jul 21 2004 : 9:58PM from AVN Prominent First Amendment attorney (and AVN/AVN Online legal columnist) Clyde DeWitt has written a commentary on the proposed regs which will appear in the August issue of AVN Online – but considering that one attorney has estimated that less than 5% of adult video companies are in full compliance with the current 2257 regs, and it’s impossible to tell how many Webmasters are in compliance – if you guess “less than 5%, you’re probably not too far off – it’s never too early to start thinking about what it will take to be compliant with the new ones, because rest assured, these WILL be enforced! Some points to watch out for include: IDs: Some forms of identification commonly used by models and performers are no longer acceptable. According to the new regulations, the only forms of identification that can be used must A) have a photograph of the individual, and B) must be “part of a system of records that can be independently accessed to verify the legitimacy of the identification card.” Driver’s licenses are fine, as are passports – U.S.-issued ones, at least; it’s unclear whether non-U.S. passports will be acceptable – but now “off the list” (what list?) are Selective Service cards, college ID cards and any other form of identification that doesn’t meet the above requirements. And on top of it all, every copy of the ID must be legible! read the whole article 2257 Changes i do see that this article by Kernes has been edited since i first read it a few days ago. He dropped the part about non-US talent potentially being off limits for American companies to shoot. [Link]

KO_Artist Member NYC 76 Posts 4/04	Posted - Jul 21 2004 : 10:31PM Some points to watch out for include: IDs: Some forms of identification commonly used by models and performers are no longer acceptable. According to the new regulations, the only forms of identification that can be used must A) have a photograph of the individual, and B) must be “part of a system of records that can be independently accessed to verify the legitimacy of the identification card.” Driver’s licenses are fine, as are passports – U.S.-issued ones, at least; it’s unclear whether non-U.S. passports will be acceptable – but now “off the list” (what list?) are Selective Service cards, college ID cards and any other form of identification that doesn’t meet the above requirements. And on top of it all, every copy of the ID must be legible! Click to expand I read Kernes' full article on AVN and to be honest I don't see what the fuss is about. I'm not one for gov't regulation in the adult industry, but most of 2257 seems to make sense. Yes, it is a tad bit cumbersome and will be a bitch and inconvenience to keep current, but I don't see why this is evil. Webmasters must be beside themselves because it would seem impossible to actually register every adult "image" on the net, but to ask for a valid form of ID doesn't seem unreasonable. If you can't buy a pack of cigarettes with a college ID or selective service card, you shouldn't be able to do porn either. I do not like the fact that the gov't can inspect these records with no advance warning at all. That is just plain wrong, but if it helps keep things above board and LEGAL, I don't see why studios would argue. It can even help them keep a paper trail and protect them from litigation. Anyway my point is some parts of 2257 seem to protect more than hurt. I work for the largest online adult affiliate program in the industry so I'm definitely not looking forward to what this law means for us!!! [Link]
Bill All-Star Member 5334 Posts 6/00	Posted - Jul 21 2004 : 11:33PM KO_Artist wrote: I read Kernes' full article on AVN and to be honest I don't see what the fuss is about. Click to expand How about the fact that a site like ADT can no longer have any hardcore screenshots of movies within reviews unless they are in posession of copies of the legal documents of the performers? It is no longer acceptable that the primary producer of the content maintains the records. This modification to the law has nothing to do with protecting anyone. The current version of the law already does that. The only purpose of the new version is to make it more difficult for adult websites (like ADT and all of the e-tailers with which ADT is associated) to operate. [Link]
KO_Artist Member NYC 76 Posts 4/04	Posted - Jul 22 2004 : 1:05AM Bill wrote: KO_Artist wrote: I read Kernes' full article on AVN and to be honest I don't see what the fuss is about. Click to expand How about the fact that a site like ADT can no longer have any hardcore screenshots of movies within reviews unless they are in posession of copies of the legal documents of the performers? It is no longer acceptable that the primary producer of the content maintains the records. This modification to the law has nothing to do with protecting anyone. The current version of the law already does that. The only purpose of the new version is to make it more difficult for adult websites (like ADT and all of the e-tailers with which ADT is associated) to operate. Click to expand Good points Bill. I agree with everything you say. I was focused more on a minute point within the framework of the new legislation that I think is a good thing. Upon reading the entire legislation it is a very stifling operation. Like I said before I work for the largest adult affiliate network and internet fulfillment company and I haven't heard this discussed in the office. Maybe my ear isn't close the ground (I started there a week ago), but most parts of 2257 are outrageous. Our affiliates won't be happy. What are they going to do for content? Thanks for your points again Bill. [Link]
Harri Patel Senior Member #SDNY he's all yours. -- Michael Steele 5110 Posts 3/03	Posted - Jul 22 2004 : 1:49AM Mutt wrote: i do biz with alot of webmasters and it appears to me 95% of them are ignorant of the draconian changes in the 2257 law coming up shortly Click to expand KO_Artist wrote: I was focused more on a minute point within the framework of the new legislation that I think is a good thing. Upon reading the entire legislation it is a very stifling operation. Like I said before I work for the largest adult affiliate network and internet fulfillment company and I haven't heard this discussed in the office. Maybe my ear isn't close the ground (I started there a week ago), but most parts of 2257 are outrageous. Click to expand I think it's important that people understand that we are not talking about laws, or legislation. At issue are proposed revisions to the Code of Federal Regulations. These are rules propounded by non-elected government bureaucrats, ostensibly to carry out the will of the legislature. In this case, the Bush/Ashcroft Justice Dept. have proposed changes to the Regulations that relate to "the 2257 law." The proposed changes go far beyond simply enforcing the provisions of the law; they would drastically expand the scope of the 2257 law, without any legislative authorization. The obvious intent is to make the records-keeping burden so onerous that most people and companies that currently make sexually explicit images available on the internet will be forced to stopped doing so. [Link]
*Mutt* Deactivated User 752 Posts 8/03	Posted - Jul 22 2004 : 2:00AM what he said! Ashcroft and the religious right know they are completely out of tune with the majority of America, that hardcore porn is within the community standards of most communities. They can't get convictions of big name pornographers like Max Hardcore and Seymore Butts so their end around that is to use 2257 record keeping law to throw a damper on the porn biz. A 2257 case is black and white, did you comply or not comply - don't comply we will throw you in jail. Building and operating jails is now a big business in the United States. [Link]
Janitor Retired Porno movies, sexy videos, xxx. Adult DVD Talk at your service. 6409 Posts 11/99	Posted - Jul 22 2004 : 11:10AM KO, I'm surprised your company isn't more concerned. Seems to me affiliate sites will be the most affected by these changes. Basically there can't be hardcore content on any affiliate site, including boxcovers, because most affiliate sites do not have the resources or even the access to maintain these extensive records. Not only that but I don't see how content providers will be able to keep track of every URL where the content appears (I may be wrong, but I think that's part of the changes.) I would guess the change in the definition of secondary producer is specifically geared to wipe out the thumbnail sites. [Link]
dumblonde Senior Member 2352 Posts 7/00	Posted - Jul 22 2004 : 11:28AM It sounds to me like a lot of people are going to be caught with their pants down. [Link]
BigBobxxx Senior Member 2681 Posts 5/04	Posted - Jul 22 2004 : 1:41PM Mutt wrote: (snip) Are porn girls aware that their privacy is going to be put at risk by Ashcroft's new changes? That a studio that licenses its DVDs to web companies will have to give anybody who licenses a DVD copies of your model id's. Does this also apply to video store operators, both brick and mortar stores and online retailers? Click to expand This concerns the Hell out of me! There are Constitutional arguments to be addressed here as well. Not surprisingly, conservatives typically argue that the Constitution does not provide a "right of privacy." The Supreme Court will ultimately decide if and when the government goes too far... and they have not been consistent about "right of privacy" issues over the years. It's a shame that there will be adult industry casualties in the process. One shudders to think of what Ashcroft and the wacko right will do if the unthinkable happens and this administration is returned to power. What if armed with personal information, names and addresses, some right-wing religeous nut(s) decides to start harrassing and even killing porn industry people (like they did with abortion clinics and doctors) because "god" told them to do it? What if Ashcroft goes after customer lists (that's us!) of people who have purchased adult product? They already misuse the "Patriot Act" to view what books you read, what videos you rent, etc. We live in scary times. [Link]
Scott Kinney xxximports.com New Jersey 369 Posts 5/02	Posted - Jul 22 2004 : 1:59PM BigBobxxx wrote: This concerns the Hell out of me! There are Constitutional arguments to be addressed here as well. Not surprisingly, conservatives typically argue that the Constitution does not provide a "right of privacy." The Supreme Court will ultimately decide if and when the government goes too far... and they have not been consistent about "right of privacy" issues over the years. Click to expand I'm not so sure that you even have to reach to the Constitution. There have been a number of laws enacted over that past couple of years that protect personally identifiable information; HIPAA and Gramm-Leach-Bliley are just two that come to mind. On the one hand, companies are being required to stop indiscriminately passing around personal information, and in this case, there will be a wholesale (forgive me) distribution of personal information. I'll just go back to my corner and shut up before Mutt accuses me of not reading something again. Scott Kinney Diversified Video Associates www.xxx-imports.com [Link]
Tinaka Member 953 Posts 8/03	Posted - Jul 22 2004 : 7:54PM The idea of producers keeping records was so that the authorities could make inspections whenever they liked in order to prodect minors from being exploited etc. Now, am I right in thinking that although the producers have mostly kept they're side of the deal for years, the authorities have done nothing. So if there have been kids slipping through and getting exploited, then the government has failed them. It seems like such bullshit to impose nmore regulation swhen they haven't been using the old ones. They're aim is clearly not to protect anyone at all, but to regulate porn to death. [Link]

Baby Boss Member 7 Posts 3/04	Posted - Jul 26 2004 : 5:58AM Does anybody know if the new elements of this regulation are retro-active. In other words, if you have I.D. documentation from older movie titles or web images that don't meet the new I.D. standard are you subject to prosecution? If no what is (was) the effective date? and if yes, is pulling all old titles in question a reasonable response if you are in doubt? [Link]
iluvgonzo Member 70 Posts 12/02	Posted - Jul 31 2004 : 1:27AM I hate to sound stupid, but if companies on the internet are not allowed to show images that are sexually explicit without having possession of records, then what does that mean for adult video stores? Can they have boxcovers with sexually explicit material if they do not have the records? Is this a stupid question? Someone please let me know because I'm a bit confused. P.S. - Vote Kerry/Edwards [Link]
Bill All-Star Member 5334 Posts 6/00	Posted - Jul 31 2004 : 1:39AM iluvgonzo wrote: I hate to sound stupid, but if companies on the internet are not allowed to show images that are sexually explicit without having possession of records, then what does that mean for adult video stores? Can they have boxcovers with sexually explicit material if they do not have the records? Click to expand The issue has to do with the "producer" of the specific item. The video company produces the physical box. The Internet company produces the image that is being shown on the Internet (they're referrring to the Internet people as "secondary producers". But, now for my question. What if the adult studios actually created the boxcover scans and screenshot files and gave them to the Internet sites? Would those Internet sites then be considered "secondary producers"? [Link]
cubesnake Senior Member 3858 Posts 10/02	Posted - Aug 1 2004 : 6:09AM Hi, Mutt wrote: what he said! Ashcroft and the religious right know they are completely out of tune with the majority of America, that hardcore porn is within the community standards of most communities. They can't get convictions of big name pornographers like Max Hardcore and Seymore Butts so their end around that is to use 2257 record keeping law to throw a damper on the porn biz. A 2257 case is black and white, did you comply or not comply - don't comply we will throw you in jail. Building and operating jails is now a big business in the United States. Click to expand e x a c t l y !! It´s too obvious is it not ? I sometimes wonder what goverments (all around the globe)have in store for us next . The worst thing would be a "continental proxi with unlimited access by the authorities ". I feel more and more like living in a cage (MATRIX ) or like a (no offense) mentally ill weirdo who needs 24/7 attention. Almost anything one wants to do or wants to buy needs more data than neccessary. Everyday data is being stored and gathered. Everybody talks about becoming "a glass being" ... compared to glass this sounds like an insult. Even the most see thru glass is more black than we are already. I´ve had it soooo much ... i goto go puke now Cube Edited by - cubesnake on 8/1/2004 6:18:06 AM [Link]
cubesnake Senior Member 3858 Posts 10/02	Posted - Aug 1 2004 : 6:23AM Hi, BigBobxxx wrote: ... What if armed with personal information, names and addresses, some right-wing religeous nut(s) decides to start harrassing and even killing porn industry people (like they did with abortion clinics and doctors) because "god" told them to do it? What if Ashcroft goes after customer lists (that's us!) of people who have purchased adult product? They already misuse the "Patriot Act" to view what books you read, what videos you rent, etc. We live in scary times. Click to expand good point ! and very scary. I respect everyone for their personal view of things but i will never understand why some fucked up morons in "certain countries" think they need to kill anyone who does not have their opinnion Cube Edited by - cubesnake on 8/1/2004 6:30:43 AM [Link]
Drew Black broken crankshaft 8009 Posts 9/99	Posted - Aug 15 2004 : 4:20PM interesting read on AVN regarding propsed 2257 requirements. Pretty serious stuff. [Link]
Asmodeus Lord of Lust az-mo-day-us 6338 Posts 10/01	Posted - Aug 15 2004 : 4:30PM Is it any wonder why John Ashcroft (and by extension Bush) has to go? And yet there are still a few idiots who think they aren't a threat to our Constitutional right to produce and view hardcore pornography. [Link]
Drew Black broken crankshaft 8009 Posts 9/99	Posted - Aug 26 2004 : 9:17AM New article on the 2257 stuff from Wired: 2257 article [Link]
neophyte Member UK 101 Posts 2/04	Posted - Aug 26 2004 : 9:31AM Probably going to sound a right idiot here knowing little of this issue or US law and politics but ... If this legislation is aimed at \ will hit websites, can they not all link to a central, electronic ID register & if an inspector wants a written record - print it out from a secure web page? Did I read that models must have ID to perform [guaranteeing to other performers who have sex with them that they have regular STD checks etc.] Couldn't / isn't that a basis for a central register? Or if that were feasible would that only help with new or recent titles, older ones being difficult to hook into a new electronic system? Is such a system already in operation? Probably going to have to apologise for butting in and displaying my ignorance! [Link]
AMADude Member Las Vegas 30 Posts 8/04	Posted - Aug 26 2004 : 4:19PM Hey Mutt, You know we are on it and ready. :-) [Link]

dumblonde Senior Member 2352 Posts 7/00	Posted - Sep 2 2004 : 5:53PM So, did this change take place yet? If so, I suppose I should start deleting my screenshots :( [Link]
tamara Member 23 Posts 2/04	Posted - Sep 5 2004 : 3:22AM hi, some nice attorney put up a page to show the old rules and the new rules side by side, so you can see the exact changes. http://my .execpc.com/~xxxlaw/2257Table.htm [Link]
Walter Burns Legendary Quoter IAFD, supporters of beastiality. Just say no. 7564 Posts 11/02	Posted - Sep 5 2004 : 1:30PM tamara wrote: some nice attorney ... Click to expand Hey DD, is the oxymoron thread still alive? Renee said: "I think we ladies are getting as picky about the way the porn guys look, as some of the male fans are about the way actresses look." [Link]
DenverDon Benevolent Firmly Embedded in Depravity 5914 Posts 7/02	Posted - Sep 5 2004 : 3:01PM Walter Burns wrote: Hey DD, is the oxymoron thread still alive? Click to expand No, but if anybody wants to post to it they could revive it. Edited by - DenverDon on 9/5/2004 3:39:02 PM [Link]
sir wankalot Member UK 904 Posts 5/03	Posted - Sep 5 2004 : 7:29PM Is this law likely to be repealed if Kerry gets in? [Link]
Hardware All-Star Member Your other left 14594 Posts 3/02	Posted - Sep 5 2004 : 8:21PM sir wankalot wrote: Is this law likely to be repealed if Kerry gets in? Click to expand Probably not. First, the stated purpose is to help crack down on child pornography. Second, if Kerry gets elected that doesn't mean the Congress will see things his way, especially if it remains in the hands of the Republicans. However, the rules in question are not law, they are the Justice Department's proposals on how to enforce the law. As such, a change in administration could result in a review and revision of the proposed method(s) of enforcement. [Link]
Harri Patel Senior Member #SDNY he's all yours. -- Michael Steele 5110 Posts 3/03	Posted - May 17 2005 : 10:39PM Well, Gonzales, has apparently signed off on some kind of new regulations. Link. It will be interesting to see if they made any changes to the Ashcroft Justice Department's ridiculously overreaching proposed revisions. More discussion in this old thread, for those interested. [Link]
Saki At-Large 2087 Posts 11/99	Posted - May 18 2005 : 12:20AM http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/17/childporn.regs/index.html - Saki [Link]
LadyB Black and Blue, USA 161 Posts 2/05	Posted - May 18 2005 : 1:13AM I still think that it's more about having a way to track webmasters, and others, that are not reporting their full income from adult content to the IRS. They keep saying less and less about the actual IDs, and more and more about the legal name and address of the person holding those documents being at issue. What do the pron producers have to say? Well, Jennifer James is definitely not happy that she is being expected to turn over the privacy of her talent to any webmaster or reviewer that does a story on her movies. I don't blame her one bit. I'm still trying to find out if addresses can be redacted within the new rules, on copies sent to the media.... [Link]
Drew Black broken crankshaft 8009 Posts 9/99	Posted - May 24 2005 : 10:13AM The final rule has been published in the federal register I'm reading it now. [Link]

Drew Black broken crankshaft 8009 Posts 9/99	Posted - May 24 2005 : 10:17AM I also placed a copy on our server here [Link]
Janitor Retired Porno movies, sexy videos, xxx. Adult DVD Talk at your service. 6409 Posts 11/99	Posted - May 24 2005 : 12:08PM The Free Speach Coalition is accepting donations to help fight the new 2257 regs. If you'd like to give their website is http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/. [Link]
Jacco All-Star Member "liable to deprave and corrupt" 2673 Posts 5/04	Posted - May 24 2005 : 3:52PM Damn, I haven't finished reading it, but it looks like almost every comment made gets a "The Department declines to adopt this comment.", fuck! That investment in a few extra servers and starting to offer some webhosting over here is starting to look like a very good deal... Jacco [Link]
Hardware All-Star Member Your other left 14594 Posts 3/02	Posted - May 24 2005 : 5:51PM LadyB wrote: What do the pron producers have to say? Well, Jennifer James is definitely not happy that she is being expected to turn over the privacy of her talent to any webmaster or reviewer that does a story on her movies. I don't blame her one bit. Click to expand Huh? Unless the story includes sexually explicit pictures taken from her movies, then 2257 has no application. The story itself is protected speech. I really don't expect any American reviewers to include explicit scenes in their reviews after this, so that's a red herring. Furthermore, I believe that her only requirement is to make the information available to federal agents. She is free to deny the information to a private party, which prevents that party from legally using any of her images that require such information. [Link]
Drew Black broken crankshaft 8009 Posts 9/99	Posted - May 24 2005 : 6:18PM Hardware wrote: Furthermore, I believe that her only requirement is to make the information available to federal agents. She is free to deny the information to a private party, which prevents that party from legally using any of her images that require such information. Click to expand I think this is a grey area. The new rules spcifically prohibit primary producers from claming they won't/don't want to turn over the records. It used to be common practice for production companies to send out 2257 packets with review screeners. It's so fucked up. Many online retailers buy acquire their inventory through middle-men distributors. Distributors don't qualify as producers under the new rules and are exempt from record keeping requirements. However, internet sites that post a boxcover are required to get copies of the documentation from the primary producers, many of whom they have no direct contact with. [Link]
Hardware All-Star Member Your other left 14594 Posts 3/02	Posted - May 24 2005 : 6:33PM Drew Black wrote: I think this is a grey area. The new rules spcifically prohibit primary producers from claming they won't/don't want to turn over the records. Click to expand I'm not sure the court will agree that the primary producer has no control over who can use his/her content. That might upset the folks over at the MPIAA. As for the retailers gaining access to the records, I don't think it will take long for the distributors to see that it's in their own best interests to nudge the producers into making suitable arrangements. [Link]
Drew Black broken crankshaft 8009 Posts 9/99	Posted - May 24 2005 : 6:52PM Hardware wrote: As for the retailers gaining access to the records, I don't think it will take long for the distributors to see that it's in their own best interests to nudge the producers into making suitable arrangements. Click to expand Most the distributors also have their own retail presence on the web which directly competes with their distribution customers. It will be interesting to see what happens. [Link]
Jacco All-Star Member "liable to deprave and corrupt" 2673 Posts 5/04	Posted - May 24 2005 : 6:53PM It's not just the retailers, some of them might have the resources to comply, but how about all those small websites? Either you will get the full records when you buy a picture set (with all the privacy implications of that, anyone can buy a photoset from a content provider for $50 or less, which means that everybody can get copies of ID's and such for perfomers, nice for stalkers ) or you don't get records, which means you can't use the pictures. And good luck in trying to find the primary producer for a lot of webcontent. I feel really sorry for my American colleagues, especially since you can bet on it that the American ayatollah's will try to use this as an easy way to prosecute all those filthy pornographers! Very depressing, all this... Jacco [Link]
Sebastian Sands New Member Tucson 2 Posts 3/05	Posted - May 24 2005 : 8:42PM What about companies as Adult friend finder with their millions of members that posted pics on their servers. I highly doubt that they have records for those images. And that is just one of the companies that is going to be hurt big time by this. Altough i am sure they did make a TON already.. lol [Link]
LadyB Black and Blue, USA 161 Posts 2/05	Posted - May 25 2005 : 2:18AM LadyB wrote: I still think that it's more about having a way to track webmasters, and others, that are not reporting their full income from adult content to the IRS. They keep saying less and less about the actual IDs, and more and more about the legal name and address of the person holding those documents being at issue. What do the pron producers have to say? Well, Jennifer James is definitely not happy that she is being expected to turn over the privacy of her talent to any webmaster or reviewer that does a story on her movies. I don't blame her one bit. I'm still trying to find out if addresses can be redacted within the new rules, on copies sent to the media.... Click to expand For Adam Amateur or High Society to do a story on Jennifer's movie or a release from Dane, or the Britney Rears thing or any other movie by a client AMP was handling, both magazines declared they needed the entire cast lists ID's and releases photo copied and sent to them. One of the magazines (I don't even remember which one) even required the Directors and Producers IDs or they refused to run the story. Even for reviews, some freelancers were asking for the 2257 material. If they show a box cover, then they are open to the proof of age laws. They still don't want to rely on the "Compliance Letter" because it doesn't really fit the legislation. It IS all a gray area as Drew stated. What makes it worse is that any movie will fail if the word isn't out there. But if you can't get a story or review ran on a movie because the magazine/website won't run it without complete 2257 documentation, then you're dead in the water unless you turn it all over and hope that no one gets hurt. This is going to be a major issue for a lot of directors and producers. At least the ones that have scruples about their talent's, and their own, privacy. [Link]
KMGINC Member Texas 17 Posts 2/05	Posted - May 25 2005 : 3:48AM After reading the AVN and looking up some additional comments about 2257 there were two main things that occurred to me. First this will probably put a huge crunch on Amateur websites particularly those who are swinger centric or feature a particular girl. I doubt that they have kept anything like the records required under 2257 for the performers. The url requirements is going to tank most website content. From the looks of it they will have to have compliance records to match those original producers. In other words kiss your affiliate asses goodbye. Either that or start a fund for a team of lawyers because I would expect the Feds to knock on your door first because I have yet to meet a company that uses licensed content that is in full compliance out side of original producers i.e. RLD, Hustler etc. and you are the easy target for prosecution. I full expect that since this is an administrative maneuver that this will last as long as the Justice Department does not tangle with anyone with deep pockets. Half of this is not going to survive a couple of lawsuits but this kind of litigation is way outside the resources of all but the elite companies in porn. [Link]
John Knowles NJ Films 178 Posts 9/04	Posted - May 25 2005 : 11:00AM Welcome to communist america where freedom is squashed in the name of democracy and the religious right controls the what you see, think and can say! NJ Films Inc [Link]
squirtfan1 Member Flower 435 Posts 8/04	Posted - May 25 2005 : 12:49PM John Knowles wrote: Welcome to communist america where freedom is squashed in the name of democracy and the religious right controls the what you see, think and can say! NJ Films Inc Click to expand [sarcasm] Wrong! This is a religious country now. Pretty soon American women will have to wear burkas. HOT!!! [/sarcasm] [Link]

Author

Post

*Mutt*
Deactivated User

752 Posts
8/03

Posted - Jul 21 2004 : 7:26PM

i do biz with alot of webmasters and it appears to me 95% of them are ignorant of the draconian changes in the 2257 law coming up shortly or are going to bury their heads in the sand. What are the LA movie studios doing? I've seen very little written about what the studios or porn talent are thinking.

Are porn girls aware that their privacy is going to be put at risk by Ashcroft's new changes? That a studio that licenses its DVDs to web companies will have to give anybody who licenses a DVD copies of your model id's. Does this also apply to video store operators, both brick and mortar stores and online retailers?

Also if you read the new 2257 it's very vague about talent from outside the US. It's possible if you read the thing literally that American companies will not be able to use European or Canadian talent for that matter. Nobody seems to have a clue about that part of it, it may just have been worded badly.

the changes are more directed at the Internet but still changes must be made by the movie studios, especially those who run sites of their own or license/sell content.

Edited by - *Mutt* on Jul 21 2004

[Link]

Scott Kinney
xxximports.com

New Jersey
369 Posts
5/02

Posted - Jul 21 2004 : 8:05PM

From 75.7 part (b)
"If the primary producer and the secondary producer are different entities, the primary producer may certify to the secondary producer that the visual depictions satisfy the standards...."

What parts caused you to think that?

Scott Kinney
Diversified Video Associates
www.xxx-imports.com

[Link]

Saki
At-Large

2087 Posts
11/99

Posted - Jul 21 2004 : 8:34PM

In the definition section of the proposed rule change it says: "(b) A producer who is a secondary producer as defined in § 75.1(c) may satisfy the requirements of this part to create and maintain records by accepting from the primary producer, as defined in § 75.1(c), copies of the
records described in paragraph (a) of this section. Such a secondary producer shall also keep records of the name and address of the primary producer from whom he received copies of the records ." [emphasis added]

When combined with the record indexing and inspection requirements, and the wording that copies of the records must be kept with each and every image, this would mean that a "secondary producer" might have to keep, say, 100 copies of the records for each performer depicted in 100 digital photos or screenshots shown on the secondary producer's website.

Also, 75.7(b) only refers to the exemption statement that the performance occurred before 11/1/90 or that the acts were simulated. In that case, the secondary producer can in essence use the primary producer's word that the exemption exists. This section does not refer to any other part of 2257.

The definition that defines identification states that the ID must be able to be verified by a state authority or the U.S. State Department. That seems to be okay for passports, but perhaps not for other identification cards that talent may use, especially if it's the producer traveling to a foreign country.

I don't think that will be an insurmountable problem to overcome, but it's vague enough (the term "foreign passport" appears only once as an example) to be unclear exactly which forms of identification are not acceptable.

- Saki [faqs]

Edited by - saki on 7/21/2004 8:34:36 PM

[Link]

*Mutt*
Deactivated User

752 Posts
8/03

Posted - Jul 21 2004 : 9:45PM

Scott definitely hasn't read the new changes - nobody is putting up any legal opposition so these changes become law in September.

if Bush gets re-relected, hopefully not, but if he does then you can expect a long line of pornographers and webmasters going to jail. from a webmasters' point of view, the new changes are beyond what is possible for many people. Ashcroft has vowed that 2257 will be enforced. If Kerry gets in these changes will be on the book but I dont think his administration will enforce it.

[Link]

*Mutt*
Deactivated User

752 Posts
8/03

Posted - Jul 21 2004 : 9:58PM

from AVN

Prominent First Amendment attorney (and AVN/AVN Online legal columnist) Clyde DeWitt has written a commentary on the proposed regs which will appear in the August issue of AVN Online – but considering that one attorney has estimated that less than 5% of adult video companies are in full compliance with the current 2257 regs, and it’s impossible to tell how many Webmasters are in compliance – if you guess “less than 5%, you’re probably not too far off – it’s never too early to start thinking about what it will take to be compliant with the new ones, because rest assured, these WILL be enforced!

Some points to watch out for include:

IDs: Some forms of identification commonly used by models and performers are no longer acceptable. According to the new regulations, the only forms of identification that can be used must A) have a photograph of the individual, and B) must be “part of a system of records that can be independently accessed to verify the legitimacy of the identification card.” Driver’s licenses are fine, as are passports – U.S.-issued ones, at least; it’s unclear whether non-U.S. passports will be acceptable – but now “off the list” (what list?) are Selective Service cards, college ID cards and any other form of identification that doesn’t meet the above requirements. And on top of it all, every copy of the ID must be legible!

read the whole article 2257 Changes

i do see that this article by Kernes has been edited since i first read it a few days ago. He dropped the part about non-US talent potentially being off limits for American companies to shoot.

[Link]

KO_Artist
Member

NYC
76 Posts
4/04

Posted - Jul 21 2004 : 10:31PM

I read Kernes' full article on AVN and to be honest I don't see what the fuss is about. I'm not one for gov't regulation in the adult industry, but most of 2257 seems to make sense. Yes, it is a tad bit cumbersome and will be a bitch and inconvenience to keep current, but I don't see why this is evil. Webmasters must be beside themselves because it would seem impossible to actually register every adult "image" on the net, but to ask for a valid form of ID doesn't seem unreasonable. If you can't buy a pack of cigarettes with a college ID or selective service card, you shouldn't be able to do porn either.

I do not like the fact that the gov't can inspect these records with no advance warning at all. That is just plain wrong, but if it helps keep things above board and LEGAL, I don't see why studios would argue. It can even help them keep a paper trail and protect them from litigation.

Anyway my point is some parts of 2257 seem to protect more than hurt. I work for the largest online adult affiliate program in the industry so I'm definitely not looking forward to what this law means for us!!!

[Link]

Bill

All-Star Member

5334 Posts
6/00

Posted - Jul 21 2004 : 11:33PM

How about the fact that a site like ADT can no longer have any hardcore screenshots of movies within reviews unless they are in posession of copies of the legal documents of the performers? It is no longer acceptable that the primary producer of the content maintains the records.

This modification to the law has nothing to do with protecting anyone. The current version of the law already does that.
The only purpose of the new version is to make it more difficult for adult websites (like ADT and all of the e-tailers with which ADT is associated) to operate.

[Link]

KO_Artist
Member

NYC
76 Posts
4/04

Posted - Jul 22 2004 : 1:05AM

Good points Bill. I agree with everything you say. I was focused more on a minute point within the framework of the new legislation that I think is a good thing. Upon reading the entire legislation it is a very stifling operation. Like I said before I work for the largest adult affiliate network and internet fulfillment company and I haven't heard this discussed in the office. Maybe my ear isn't close the ground (I started there a week ago), but most parts of 2257 are outrageous. Our affiliates won't be happy. What are they going to do for content? Thanks for your points again Bill.

[Link]

Harri Patel
Senior Member

#SDNY he's all yours. -- Michael Steele
5110 Posts
3/03

Posted - Jul 22 2004 : 1:49AM

I think it's important that people understand that we are not talking about laws, or legislation. At issue are proposed revisions to the Code of Federal Regulations. These are rules propounded by non-elected government bureaucrats, ostensibly to carry out the will of the legislature. In this case, the Bush/Ashcroft Justice Dept. have proposed changes to the Regulations that relate to "the 2257 law." The proposed changes go far beyond simply enforcing the provisions of the law; they would drastically expand the scope of the 2257 law, without any legislative authorization. The obvious intent is to make the records-keeping burden so onerous that most people and companies that currently make sexually explicit images available on the internet will be forced to stopped doing so.

[Link]

*Mutt*
Deactivated User

752 Posts
8/03

Posted - Jul 22 2004 : 2:00AM

what he said!

Ashcroft and the religious right know they are completely out of tune with the majority of America, that hardcore porn is within the community standards of most communities. They can't get convictions of big name pornographers like Max Hardcore and Seymore Butts so their end around that is to use 2257 record keeping law to throw a damper on the porn biz. A 2257 case is black and white, did you comply or not comply - don't comply we will throw you in jail. Building and operating jails is now a big business in the United States.

[Link]

Janitor
Retired

Porno movies, sexy videos, xxx. Adult DVD Talk at your service.
6409 Posts
11/99

Posted - Jul 22 2004 : 11:10AM

KO, I'm surprised your company isn't more concerned. Seems to me affiliate sites will be the most affected by these changes. Basically there can't be hardcore content on any affiliate site, including boxcovers, because most affiliate sites do not have the resources or even the access to maintain these extensive records. Not only that but I don't see how content providers will be able to keep track of every URL where the content appears (I may be wrong, but I think that's part of the changes.)

I would guess the change in the definition of secondary producer is specifically geared to wipe out the thumbnail sites.

[Link]

dumblonde
Senior Member

2352 Posts
7/00

Posted - Jul 22 2004 : 11:28AM

It sounds to me like a lot of people are going to be caught with their pants down.

[Link]

BigBobxxx
Senior Member

2681 Posts
5/04

Posted - Jul 22 2004 : 1:41PM

This concerns the Hell out of me!
There are Constitutional arguments to be addressed here as well. Not surprisingly, conservatives typically argue that the Constitution does not provide a "right of privacy." The Supreme Court will ultimately decide if and when the government goes too far... and they have not been consistent about "right of privacy" issues over the years.

It's a shame that there will be adult industry casualties in the process. One shudders to think of what Ashcroft and the wacko right will do if the unthinkable happens and this administration is returned to power.

What if armed with personal information, names and addresses, some right-wing religeous nut(s) decides to start harrassing and even killing porn industry people (like they did with abortion clinics and doctors) because "god" told them to do it?

What if Ashcroft goes after customer lists (that's us!) of people who have purchased adult product?
They already misuse the "Patriot Act" to view what books you read, what videos you rent, etc.

We live in scary times.

[Link]

Scott Kinney
xxximports.com

New Jersey
369 Posts
5/02

Posted - Jul 22 2004 : 1:59PM

I'm not so sure that you even have to reach to the Constitution. There have been a number of laws enacted over that past couple of years that *protect* personally identifiable information; HIPAA and Gramm-Leach-Bliley are just two that come to mind.

On the one hand, companies are being required to stop indiscriminately passing around personal information, and
in this case, there will be a wholesale (forgive me) distribution of personal information.

I'll just go back to my corner and shut up before Mutt accuses me of not reading something again.

Scott Kinney
Diversified Video Associates
www.xxx-imports.com

[Link]

Tinaka
Member

953 Posts
8/03

Posted - Jul 22 2004 : 7:54PM

The idea of producers keeping records was so that the authorities could make inspections whenever they liked in order to prodect minors from being exploited etc.
Now, am I right in thinking that although the producers have mostly kept they're side of the deal for years, the authorities have done nothing. So if there have been kids slipping through and getting exploited, then the government has failed them. It seems like such bullshit to impose nmore regulation swhen they haven't been using the old ones. They're aim is clearly not to protect anyone at all, but to regulate porn to death.

[Link]

Baby Boss
Member

7 Posts
3/04

Posted - Jul 26 2004 : 5:58AM

Does anybody know if the new elements of this regulation are retro-active. In other words, if you have I.D. documentation from older movie titles or web images that don't meet the new I.D. standard are you subject to prosecution? If no what is (was) the effective date? and if yes, is pulling all old titles in question a reasonable response if you are in doubt?

[Link]

iluvgonzo
Member

70 Posts
12/02

Posted - Jul 31 2004 : 1:27AM

I hate to sound stupid, but if companies on the internet are not allowed to show images that are sexually explicit without having possession of records, then what does that mean for adult video stores? Can they have boxcovers with sexually explicit material if they do not have the records?
Is this a stupid question? Someone please let me know because I'm a bit confused.
P.S. - Vote Kerry/Edwards

[Link]

Bill

All-Star Member

5334 Posts
6/00

Posted - Jul 31 2004 : 1:39AM

The issue has to do with the "producer" of the specific item. The video company produces the physical box. The Internet company produces the image that is being shown on the Internet (they're referrring to the Internet people as "secondary producers".

But, now for my question. What if the adult studios actually created the boxcover scans and screenshot files and gave them to the Internet sites? Would those Internet sites then be considered "secondary producers"?

[Link]

cubesnake
Senior Member

3858 Posts
10/02

Posted - Aug 1 2004 : 6:09AM

Hi,

e x a c t l y !! It´s too obvious is it not ?

I sometimes wonder what goverments (all around the globe)have in store for us next . The worst thing would be a "continental proxi with unlimited access by the authorities ". I feel more and more like living in a cage (MATRIX ) or like a (no offense) mentally ill weirdo who needs 24/7 attention. Almost anything one wants to do or wants to buy needs more data than neccessary. Everyday data is being stored and gathered. Everybody talks about becoming "a glass being" ... compared to glass this sounds like an insult. Even the most see thru glass is more black than we are already. I´ve had it soooo much ... i goto go puke now

Cube

Edited by - cubesnake on 8/1/2004 6:18:06 AM

[Link]

cubesnake
Senior Member

3858 Posts
10/02

Posted - Aug 1 2004 : 6:23AM

Hi,

Drew Black
broken crankshaft

8009 Posts
9/99

Posted - Aug 15 2004 : 4:20PM

interesting read on AVN regarding propsed 2257 requirements.

Pretty serious stuff.

[Link]

Asmodeus
Lord of Lust

az-mo-day-us
6338 Posts
10/01

Posted - Aug 15 2004 : 4:30PM

Is it any wonder why John Ashcroft (and by extension Bush) has to go? And yet there are still a few idiots who think they aren't a threat to our Constitutional right to produce and view hardcore pornography.

[Link]

Drew Black
broken crankshaft

8009 Posts
9/99

Posted - Aug 26 2004 : 9:17AM

New article on the 2257 stuff from Wired:
2257 article

[Link]

neophyte
Member

UK
101 Posts
2/04

Posted - Aug 26 2004 : 9:31AM

Probably going to sound a right idiot here knowing little of this issue or US law and politics but ...

If this legislation is aimed at \ will hit websites, can they not all link to a central, electronic ID register & if an inspector wants a written record - print it out from a secure web page?

Did I read that models must have ID to perform [guaranteeing to other performers who have sex with them that they have regular STD checks etc.] Couldn't / isn't that a basis for a central register?

Or if that were feasible would that only help with new or recent titles, older ones being difficult to hook into a new electronic system? Is such a system already in operation?

Probably going to have to apologise for butting in and displaying my ignorance!

[Link]

AMADude
Member

Las Vegas
30 Posts
8/04

Posted - Aug 26 2004 : 4:19PM

Hey Mutt,
You know we are on it and ready.
:-)

[Link]

dumblonde
Senior Member

2352 Posts
7/00

Posted - Sep 2 2004 : 5:53PM

So, did this change take place yet? If so, I suppose I should start deleting my screenshots :(

[Link]

tamara
Member

23 Posts
2/04

Posted - Sep 5 2004 : 3:22AM

hi,
some nice attorney put up a page to show the old rules and the new rules side by side, so you can see the exact changes.
http://my .execpc.com/~xxxlaw/2257Table.htm

[Link]

Walter Burns
Legendary Quoter

IAFD, supporters of beastiality. Just say no.
7564 Posts
11/02

Posted - Sep 5 2004 : 1:30PM

Hey DD, is the oxymoron thread still alive?

Renee said:
"I think we ladies are getting as picky about the way the porn guys look, as some of the male fans are about the way actresses look."

[Link]

DenverDon
Benevolent

Firmly Embedded in Depravity
5914 Posts
7/02

Posted - Sep 5 2004 : 3:01PM

No, but if anybody wants to post to it they could revive it.

Edited by - DenverDon on 9/5/2004 3:39:02 PM

[Link]

sir wankalot
Member

UK
904 Posts
5/03

Posted - Sep 5 2004 : 7:29PM

Is this law likely to be repealed if Kerry gets in?

[Link]

Hardware

All-Star Member

Your other left
14594 Posts
3/02

Posted - Sep 5 2004 : 8:21PM

Probably not. First, the stated purpose is to help crack down on child pornography. Second, if Kerry gets elected that doesn't mean the Congress will see things his way, especially if it remains in the hands of the Republicans. However, the rules in question are not law, they are the Justice Department's proposals on how to enforce the law. As such, a change in administration could result in a review and revision of the proposed method(s) of enforcement.

[Link]

Harri Patel
Senior Member

#SDNY he's all yours. -- Michael Steele
5110 Posts
3/03

Posted - May 17 2005 : 10:39PM

Well, Gonzales, has apparently signed off on some kind of new regulations. Link. It will be interesting to see if they made any changes to the Ashcroft Justice Department's ridiculously overreaching proposed revisions.

More discussion in this old thread, for those interested.

[Link]

Saki
At-Large

2087 Posts
11/99

Posted - May 18 2005 : 12:20AM

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/17/childporn.regs/index.html

- Saki

[Link]

LadyB
Black and Blue, USA

161 Posts
2/05

Posted - May 18 2005 : 1:13AM

I still think that it's more about having a way to track webmasters, and others, that are not reporting their full income from adult content to the IRS.

They keep saying less and less about the actual IDs, and more and more about the legal name and address of the person holding those documents being at issue.

What do the pron producers have to say? Well, Jennifer James is definitely not happy that she is being expected to turn over the privacy of her talent to any webmaster or reviewer that does a story on her movies. I don't blame her one bit.

I'm still trying to find out if addresses can be redacted within the new rules, on copies sent to the media....

[Link]

Drew Black
broken crankshaft

8009 Posts
9/99

Posted - May 24 2005 : 10:13AM

The final rule has been published in the federal register

I'm reading it now.

[Link]

Drew Black
broken crankshaft

8009 Posts
9/99

Posted - May 24 2005 : 10:17AM

I also placed a copy on our server here

[Link]

Janitor
Retired

Porno movies, sexy videos, xxx. Adult DVD Talk at your service.
6409 Posts
11/99

Posted - May 24 2005 : 12:08PM

The Free Speach Coalition is accepting donations to help fight the new 2257 regs. If you'd like to give their website is http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/.

[Link]

Jacco

All-Star Member

"liable to deprave and corrupt"
2673 Posts
5/04

Posted - May 24 2005 : 3:52PM

Damn, I haven't finished reading it, but it looks like almost every comment made gets a "The Department declines to adopt this comment.", fuck!

That investment in a few extra servers and starting to offer some webhosting over here is starting to look like a very good deal...

Jacco

[Link]

Hardware

All-Star Member

Your other left
14594 Posts
3/02

Posted - May 24 2005 : 5:51PM

Huh? Unless the story includes sexually explicit pictures taken from her movies, then 2257 has no application. The story itself is protected speech. I really don't expect any American reviewers to include explicit scenes in their reviews after this, so that's a red herring.

Furthermore, I believe that her only requirement is to make the information available to federal agents. She is free to deny the information to a private party, which prevents that party from legally using any of her images that require such information.

[Link]

Drew Black
broken crankshaft

8009 Posts
9/99

Posted - May 24 2005 : 6:18PM

I think this is a grey area. The new rules spcifically prohibit primary producers from claming they won't/don't want to turn over the records.

It used to be common practice for production companies to send out 2257 packets with review screeners.

It's so fucked up. Many online retailers buy acquire their inventory through middle-men distributors. Distributors don't qualify as producers under the new rules and are exempt from record keeping requirements. However, internet sites that post a boxcover are required to get copies of the documentation from the primary producers, many of whom they have no direct contact with.

[Link]

Hardware

All-Star Member

Your other left
14594 Posts
3/02

Posted - May 24 2005 : 6:33PM

Drew Black
broken crankshaft

8009 Posts
9/99

Posted - May 24 2005 : 6:52PM

Most the distributors also have their own retail presence on the web which directly competes with their distribution customers. It will be interesting to see what happens.

[Link]

Jacco

All-Star Member

"liable to deprave and corrupt"
2673 Posts
5/04

Posted - May 24 2005 : 6:53PM

It's not just the retailers, some of them might have the resources to comply, but how about all those small websites? Either you will get the full records when you buy a picture set (with all the privacy implications of that, anyone can buy a photoset from a content provider for $50 or less, which means that everybody can get copies of ID's and such for perfomers, nice for stalkers ) or you don't get records, which means you can't use the pictures. And good luck in trying to find the primary producer for a lot of webcontent.

I feel really sorry for my American colleagues, especially since you can bet on it that the American ayatollah's will try to use this as an easy way to prosecute all those filthy pornographers!
Very depressing, all this...

Jacco

[Link]

Sebastian Sands
New Member

Tucson
2 Posts
3/05

Posted - May 24 2005 : 8:42PM

What about companies as Adult friend finder with their millions of members that posted pics on their servers. I highly doubt that they have records for those images. And that is just one of the companies that is going to be hurt big time by this. Altough i am sure they did make a TON already.. lol

[Link]

LadyB
Black and Blue, USA

161 Posts
2/05

Posted - May 25 2005 : 2:18AM

For Adam Amateur or High Society to do a story on Jennifer's movie or a release from Dane, or the Britney Rears thing or any other movie by a client AMP was handling, both magazines declared they needed the entire cast lists ID's and releases photo copied and sent to them.

One of the magazines (I don't even remember which one) even required the Directors and Producers IDs or they refused to run the story.

Even for reviews, some freelancers were asking for the 2257 material. If they show a box cover, then they are open to the proof of age laws. They still don't want to rely on the "Compliance Letter" because it doesn't really fit the legislation. It IS all a gray area as Drew stated.

What makes it worse is that any movie will fail if the word isn't out there. But if you can't get a story or review ran on a movie because the magazine/website won't run it without complete 2257 documentation, then you're dead in the water unless you turn it all over and hope that no one gets hurt.

This is going to be a major issue for a lot of directors and producers. At least the ones that have scruples about their talent's, and their own, privacy.

[Link]

KMGINC
Member

Texas
17 Posts
2/05

Posted - May 25 2005 : 3:48AM

After reading the AVN and looking up some additional comments about 2257 there were two main things that occurred to me. First this will probably put a huge crunch on Amateur websites particularly those who are swinger centric or feature a particular girl. I doubt that they have kept anything like the records required under 2257 for the performers. The url requirements is going to tank most website content. From the looks of it they will have to have compliance records to match those original producers.

In other words kiss your affiliate asses goodbye. Either that or start a fund for a team of lawyers because I would expect the Feds to knock on your door first because I have yet to meet a company that uses licensed content that is in full compliance out side of original producers i.e. RLD, Hustler etc. and you are the easy target for prosecution.
I full expect that since this is an administrative maneuver that this will last as long as the Justice Department does not tangle with anyone with deep pockets. Half of this is not going to survive a couple of lawsuits but this kind of litigation is way outside the resources of all but the elite companies in porn.

[Link]

John Knowles
NJ Films

178 Posts
9/04

Posted - May 25 2005 : 11:00AM

Welcome to communist america where freedom is squashed in the name of democracy and the religious right controls the what you see, think and can say!

NJ Films Inc

[Link]

squirtfan1
Member

Flower
435 Posts
8/04

Posted - May 25 2005 : 12:49PM

[sarcasm]
Wrong! This is a religious country now. Pretty soon American women will have to wear burkas. HOT!!!
[/sarcasm]

[Link]