Quote:
Originally Posted by stickyfingerz
Should of had some sort of lawyer shit going on to stop it from ever happening. How does 2257 get struck down as unconstitutional by the sixth court, and they can just revise a few things and push it through without it going again before the court that struck it down? Reaks of bs to me.
|
If I remember 2 of the 3 judges said that 2257 could not be saved, and was unconstitutional. Interesting that the reason the third judge dissented, was because he figured that 2257 could work if they removed the seconday producer stuff, and also changed the language to apply to
commercial production only
(see below).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Indecisive
Section 75.9 talks about an exemption to the record-keeping requirements that can be obtained by writing to the Attorney General and certifying that the age of all performers is verified during the normal course of business. This is the exemption, I assume, that's meant to let Hollywood avoid having to comply with 2257.
What's to keep an adult studio from applying for the same exemption?
|
From an AVN article:
In other words, despite the fact that adult producers are more careful than their Hollywood counterparts in making sure that minors are not involved in either actual or simulated sexual conduct, the mainstream entertainment industry will still get a free ride around recordkeeping (and, perhaps more importantly for Big Name Producers, labeling) simply by filing a notice with the Justice Department.
http://www.avn.com/law/articles/33820.html
Now that could be viewed as actual discrimination built right into the law. Also if
HOLLYWOOD had to file 2257, they would lose all their government film grants.
A few more things that have caught my eye as I was reading about all the comments, and how they reacted to them:
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/E8-29677.htm
Calculating the industry cost for the regulations
- They keep saying that 90% of the people can be exempt from record keeping by filing a notice. But then they are only estimating a few thousand producers. Not seeing any actual numbers for webmaster/secondary producers being quoted though. I can't really see them being able to get exemptions if they are not in contact with the performers for verification.
They also indicate that you should be able to get outside record keeping for about $30/month or $1/day. Remember if they screw up, YOU are the one who goes to jail & does not pass go.
So if I do a gallery a day with 2 people in the images, a couple of banners with a couple more people, and maybe a header image with a couple more people. So a normal TGP submission would be like 100+ pages, so doing the math we get.
6 actors multiplied by 100 URLs
6 * 100 = 600
So a gallery a day equals about 600 database entries that need to be done for only a $1.
Any companies that want to volunteer at those rates.
I'm still trying to decipher this statement.
- "However, it
(the 2257 statute) is limited to
pornography intended for sale or trade."
It almost makes one think that a gallery selling a website membership might not be included because you are selling the website membership, not the images on your page. By trying to sidestep the personal use stuff, they would have appeared to stepped into some deep doodoo.
And also of intertest in the accompaning comments section
- They mention that boards/sharing/networking/tube sites might be exempt, but people posting on them had better have their 2257 docs.
