2257, what are the VOD & DVD sites gonna do, since they don't hold IDs and releases? - GoFuckYourself.com

Lensman · 05-19-2005, 01:00 PM

Are the studios going to give all those out?

Manowar · 05-19-2005, 01:03 PM

Seems like the VOD sites will have to catch up with the studios to get it. Or work out a way to easily access the 2257's when nesscessary

AaronM · 05-19-2005, 01:03 PM

Perhaps they are not concerned with it because their attorneys have read the proposed regulations and understand them?

Paolo · 05-19-2005, 01:03 PM

Thats a question thats hot on my mind right now. I hope there will be an easy answer.

But most of the company's like "Legend" buy the rights to the videos, They will have to get with the providers for everything that internet webmasters would need.

AaronM · 05-19-2005, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manowar

Seems like the VOD sites will have to catch up with the studios to get it. Or work out a way to easily access the 2257's when nesscessary

*sigh*

Proposed regulations: Section 75.2 paragraph (D)

"(d) For any record created or amended after [insert date 30 days after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register], all such records shall be organized alphabetically, or numerically where appropriate, by the legal name of the performer (by last or family name, then first or given name), and shall be indexed or cross-referenced to each alias or other name used and to each title or identifying number of the book, magazine, film, videotape, computer-generated image, digital image, picture, or other matter (including but not limited to Internet computer site or services). If the producer subsequently produces an additional book, magazine, film, videotape, computer-generated image, digital image, or picture, or other matter (including but not limited to Internet computer site or services) that contains one or more visual depictions of actual sexually explicit conduct made by a performer for whom he maintains records as required by this part, the producer shall add the additional title or identifying number and the names of the performer to the existing records and such records shall thereafter be maintained in accordance with this paragraph."

It's called a GRANDFATHER CLAUSE!

Jesus Christ.......Get a clue people.

iBanker · 05-19-2005, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AaronM

*sigh*

Proposed regulations: Section 75.2 paragraph (D)

"(d) For any record created or amended after [insert date 30 days after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register], all such records shall be organized alphabetically, or numerically where appropriate, by the legal name of the performer (by last or family name, then first or given name), and shall be indexed or cross-referenced to each alias or other name used and to each title or identifying number of the book, magazine, film, videotape, computer-generated image, digital image, picture, or other matter (including but not limited to Internet computer site or services). If the producer subsequently produces an additional book, magazine, film, videotape, computer-generated image, digital image, or picture, or other matter (including but not limited to Internet computer site or services) that contains one or more visual depictions of actual sexually explicit conduct made by a performer for whom he maintains records as required by this part, the producer shall add the additional title or identifying number and the names of the performer to the existing records and such records shall thereafter be maintained in accordance with this paragraph."

It's called a GRANDFATHER CLAUSE!

Jesus Christ.......Get a clue people.

I don't get it ... lol ...j/k

goBigtime · 05-19-2005, 01:13 PM

.............

Snake Doctor · 05-19-2005, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AaronM

*sigh*

Proposed regulations: Section 75.2 paragraph (D)

"(d) For any record created or amended after [insert date 30 days after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register], all such records shall be organized alphabetically, or numerically where appropriate, by the legal name of the performer (by last or family name, then first or given name), and shall be indexed or cross-referenced to each alias or other name used and to each title or identifying number of the book, magazine, film, videotape, computer-generated image, digital image, picture, or other matter (including but not limited to Internet computer site or services). If the producer subsequently produces an additional book, magazine, film, videotape, computer-generated image, digital image, or picture, or other matter (including but not limited to Internet computer site or services) that contains one or more visual depictions of actual sexually explicit conduct made by a performer for whom he maintains records as required by this part, the producer shall add the additional title or identifying number and the names of the performer to the existing records and such records shall thereafter be maintained in accordance with this paragraph."

It's called a GRANDFATHER CLAUSE!

Jesus Christ.......Get a clue people.

I asked my attorney about your grandfather clause theory back when these new regs were first proposed. He doesn't think what you're saying is going to hold up.

However it's a moot point anyways, this thing will be tied up in court for years.

goBigtime · 05-19-2005, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lenny2

However it's a moot point anyways, this thing will be tied up in court for years.

I think they'll start prosecuting as soon as it's legal for them to do so.

They don't build a task force of attorneys to sit around and do nothing. I'm sure they already have many targets in mind. Just waiting for the OK.

AaronM · 05-19-2005, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lenny2

I asked my attorney about your grandfather clause theory back when these new regs were first proposed. He doesn't think what you're saying is going to hold up.

My grandfather clause theory?

Yeah..Because I wrote that into the proposed regs and all.

OK. I suppose that the grandfather clause presented in Section 75.2 of the current law is my theory as well?

"(a) Any producer of any book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, or other matter that contains one or more visual depictions of actual sexually explicit conduct made after November 1, 1990 shall, for each performer portrayed in such visual depiction, create and maintain records containing the following:"

Juicy D. Links · 05-19-2005, 01:20 PM

Good Thread.... I actually read it

pssst Lens why is "Gary The Surfer" banned?

More Booze · 05-19-2005, 01:21 PM

funny, I was thinking about this today.

Snake Doctor · 05-19-2005, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by goBigtime

I think they'll start prosecuting as soon as it's legal for them to do so.

Which will be YEARS.

The FSC is going to file suit and get an injunction. The regs will be enjoined (unenforcable) until the case in court is over.

Regardless of which side wins the first court battle, there will be an appeal and the enjoinment will continue until the case is heard at the next level.

All of this takes years. I don't have a crystal ball but the odds of us successfully getting an injunction are probably 95%.

GatorB · 05-19-2005, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AaronM

My grandfather clause theory?

Yeah..Because I wrote that into the proposed regs and all.

OK. I suppose that the grandfather clause presented in Section 75.2 of the current law is my theory as well?

"(a) Any producer of any book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, or other matter that contains one or more visual depictions of actual sexually explicit conduct made after November 1, 1990 shall, for each performer portrayed in such visual depiction, create and maintain records containing the following:"

OK so only have porn from the 70's and 80's on my site or anime.

goBigtime · 05-19-2005, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AaronM

My grandfather clause theory?

"(a) Any producer of any book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, or other matter that contains one or more visual depictions of actual sexually explicit conduct made after November 1, 1990 shall, for each performer portrayed in such visual depiction, create and maintain records containing the following:"

Yeah I remember that one.

So here is a thought... considering how hostile things may get, if required to, how would you prove, on demand, that XYZ photo was made prior to the date the exemption ends?

Err... well I know how YOU would prove it Aaron, you would just whip out the model agreement. But others may not be able to do that because they may be a few steps down from the original source (and person holding the model agreement).

I guess I'm asking... will they also require that you can prove, on the spot, that the content is exempt if that is what you intend to claim.

GatorB · 05-19-2005, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lenny2

Which will be YEARS.

The FSC is going to file suit and get an injunction. The regs will be enjoined (unenforcable) until the case in court is over.

Regardless of which side wins the first court battle, there will be an appeal and the enjoinment will continue until the case is heard at the next level.

All of this takes years. I don't have a crystal ball but the odds of us successfully getting an injunction are probably 95%.

And by then Bush will be out of office and hopelly the next AG won't give a shit about porn and actually use resources and manpower stopping the next 9-11.

seeric · 05-19-2005, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lensman

Are the studios going to give all those out?

I've been through this. When the first big "scare" came through, we freaked and started to call the studios, this was when i was with the VOD company.

That video side of the biz mixing with the internet side of the biz is a fragile line anyhow. The studios are not going to be very anxious to give out those records.

To make it simple, and not get everybody into debates, I would say at the very least it is going to be difficult for the mid level revenue generators to get those records.

I can see AEBN and Gamelink getting them for the type of volume they do, but I am sure that the studios are going to weigh the man hours to the amount of revenue they make from each site.

AaronM · 05-19-2005, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

OK so only have porn from the 70's and 80's on my site or anime.

Yeah...That's what I said.

I'm outta here for today.

AlienQ - BANNED FOR LIFE · 05-19-2005, 01:26 PM

Bush will just round them up and throw em in Concentration camps.

iBanker · 05-19-2005, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

OK so only have porn from the 70's and 80's on my site or anime.

HAHAHAHA

Yup.

Juicy D. Links · 05-19-2005, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

And by then Bush will be out of office and hopelly the next AG won't give a shit about porn and actually use resources and manpower stopping the next 9-11.

we can only wish....

goBigtime · 05-19-2005, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

OK so only have porn from the 70's and 80's on my site or anime.

That was an example of current law, gator.

Your 70's and 80's porno is and has been exempt from 2257 since the start of 1990's.

What AaronM is pointing out is that when the new ammendments to 2257 go live, there will also be a new created-prior-to exemption date covering those new ammendments.

GatorB · 05-19-2005, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A1R3K

I've been through this. When the first big "scare" came through, we freaked and started to call the studios, this was when i was with the VOD company.

That video side of the biz mixing with the internet side of the biz is a fragile line anyhow. The studios are not going to be very anxious to give out those records.

To make it simple, and not get everybody into debates, I would say at the very least it is going to be difficult for the mid level revenue generators to get those records.

I can see AEBN and Gamelink getting them for the type of volume they do, but I am sure that the studios are going to weigh the man hours to the amount of revenue they make from each site.

And if a company like AEBN gives me content to use on my site then they are required to hand me over the records. I mean I HAVE to comply with 2257 and if it's their content and they are giving it to me to use well then I'm entitled to the records. I don't think the feds are going yo buy "They wouldn't give me the 2257 info, sirs"

GatorB · 05-19-2005, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by goBigtime

That was an example of current law, gator.

Your 70's and 80's porno is and has been exempt from 2257 since the start of 1990's.

What AaronM is pointing out is that when the new ammendments to 2257 go live, there will also be a new created-prior-to exemption date covering those new ammendments.

Yes I know that. My point is if I have 70's or 80's porn on my site or anime no worries anyways. Man I just just funning around. Jeez.

slapass · 05-19-2005, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

And if a company like AEBN gives me content to use on my site then they are required to hand me over the records. I mean I HAVE to comply with 2257 and if it's their content and they are giving it to me to use well then I'm entitled to the records. I don't think the feds are going yo buy "They wouldn't give me the 2257 info, sirs"

Or they will only hand over old content... It is probably going to change how we do business.

Mr Pheer · 05-19-2005, 01:43 PM

How do they define "sexually explicit conduct"

I know it may sound like a stupid question... but some people say nudity is porn, I say its just nudity.

JerseyPuma · 05-19-2005, 01:45 PM

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but doesnt that grandfather clause only apply to the proposed filing and cross-referencing system associated with these new rules? i.e. you dont need to go back and make sure everything is cross referenced from the beginning, just from now on. BUT, you still need all the info on site from 1990, just not filed and referenced as laid out in that paragraph.

seeric · 05-19-2005, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

And if a company like AEBN gives me content to use on my site then they are required to hand me over the records. I mean I HAVE to comply with 2257 and if it's their content and they are giving it to me to use well then I'm entitled to the records. I don't think the feds are going yo buy "They wouldn't give me the 2257 info, sirs"

yeah, but aebn doesn't relicense anything to the best of my knowledge. the studios would never really allow that. are you talking about affiliates of aebn that use their "samples" of the studios movies to make money? i.e. fhgs from aebn?

the vod companies would be required to have the hard copy records on file from the studios.

lets see what pans out though. still to early to really know.

GatorB · 05-19-2005, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JerseyPuma

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but doesnt that grandfather clause only apply to the proposed filing and cross-referencing system associated with these new rules? i.e. you dont need to go back and make sure everything is cross referenced from the beginning, just from now on. BUT, you still need all the info on site from 1990, just not filed and referenced as laid out in that paragraph.

Kind of makes you think they made they law deliberately vague doesn't it.

After Shock Media · 05-19-2005, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrPheer

How do they define "sexually explicit conduct"

I know it may sound like a stupid question... but some people say nudity is porn, I say its just nudity.

Read the current law, it is clearly defined as to what sexually explicit conduct is.

BVF · 05-19-2005, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by goBigtime

Yeah I remember that one.

So here is a thought... considering how hostile things may get, if required to, how would you prove, on demand, that XYZ photo was made prior to the date the exemption ends?

Err... well I know how YOU would prove it Aaron, you would just whip out the model agreement. But others may not be able to do that because they may be a few steps down from the original source (and person holding the model agreement).

It's called computer forensics....Say you print a bomb threat out on your computer and mail it....There is a tag put in the document so that it can be traced to you and it also gives a time of creation.

If a piece of paper can be traced, don't you think that any other computer file could be traced back to you?

Mr Pheer · 05-19-2005, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lord of the fungi

Read the current law, it is clearly defined as to what sexually explicit conduct is.

you sound like my fuckin 4th grade teacher when i'd ask what a word means.. go look it up in the dictionary.

Why dont you just say you dont know.. she would never admit that she didnt know either.

After Shock Media · 05-19-2005, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrPheer

you sound like my fuckin 4th grade teacher when i'd ask what a word means.. go look it up in the dictionary.

Why dont you just say you dont know.. she would never admit that she didnt know either.

I do know what it is and any pornographer should as well. But for those who refuse to look it up themselves or understand 2257 is not the only part of title 18 we must deal with. Here is the text from title 18 2256:
(2) ?sexually explicit conduct? means actual or simulated?
(A) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;
(B) bestiality;
(C) masturbation;
(D) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
(E) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;

Now can anyone find the funny part of it?

directfiesta · 05-19-2005, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlienQ

Bush will just round them up and throw em in Concentration camps.

Building now in Cuba:

PORNATAMO

alan-l · 05-19-2005, 03:19 PM

My grandfather was a sailor. Kinda cool

directfiesta · 05-19-2005, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lord of the fungi

I do know what it is and any pornographer should as well. But for those who refuse to look it up themselves or understand 2257 is not the only part of title 18 we must deal with. Here is the text from title 18 2256:
(2) ?sexually explicit conduct? means actual or simulated?
(A) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;
(B) bestiality;
(C) masturbation;
(D) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
(E) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;

Now can anyone find the funny part of it?

woooff woooff

Kingfish · 05-19-2005, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lord of the fungi

I do know what it is and any pornographer should as well. But for those who refuse to look it up themselves or understand 2257 is not the only part of title 18 we must deal with. Here is the text from title 18 2256:
(2) ?sexually explicit conduct? means actual or simulated?
(A) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;
(B) bestiality;
(C) masturbation;
(D) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
(E) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;

Now can anyone find the funny part of it?

Keep in mind 2257 says part E isn?t included for purposes of 2257

Quote:

(1) the term ?actual sexually explicit conduct? means actual but not simulated conduct as defined in subparagraphs (A) through (D) of paragraph (2) of section 2256 of this title;

Mr Pheer · 05-19-2005, 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lord of the fungi

I do know what it is and any pornographer should as well. But for those who refuse to look it up themselves or understand 2257 is not the only part of title 18 we must deal with. Here is the text from title 18 2256:
(2) ?sexually explicit conduct? means actual or simulated?
(A) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;
(B) bestiality;
(C) masturbation;
(D) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
(E) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;

Now can anyone find the funny part of it?

Dude, you are way to easily manipulated

But thanks for posting that for me

05-19-2005, 01:00 PM	#1
Lensman GFY Chaperone Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Adult.com Posts: 9,846	2257, what are the VOD & DVD sites gonna do, since they don't hold IDs and releases? Are the studios going to give all those out?

05-19-2005, 01:03 PM	#4
Paolo Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Henderson, Nevada Posts: 491	Thats a question thats hot on my mind right now. I hope there will be an easy answer. But most of the company's like "Legend" buy the rights to the videos, They will have to get with the providers for everything that internet webmasters would need. __________________ [ Last edited by Paolo; 05-19-2005 at 01:04 PM..

05-19-2005, 01:13 PM	#7
goBigtime Confirmed User Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 7,761	............. Last edited by goBigtime; 05-19-2005 at 01:15 PM..

05-19-2005, 01:26 PM	#19
AlienQ - BANNED FOR LIFE best designer on GFY Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: IALIEN.COM - High Definition Video and Photographic Productions -ICQ 78943384 Posts: 30,307	Bush will just round them up and throw em in Concentration camps. __________________ NAKED HOSTING FTW!11 I'm On The INSANE PLAN $9.95/mo! \| The Alien Blog Adult News Worth Reading Updated Daily \| Content For Sale! 641 PICS 216 MINUTES OF VIDEO $350.00 \|ICQ: 78943384 \|

05-19-2005, 01:43 PM	#26
Mr Pheer Retired Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 21,241	How do they define "sexually explicit conduct" I know it may sound like a stupid question... but some people say nudity is porn, I say its just nudity. __________________ 2 lifeguards for Jessica

05-19-2005, 01:03 PM	#2
Manowar jellyfish Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 71,528	Seems like the VOD sites will have to catch up with the studios to get it. Or work out a way to easily access the 2257's when nesscessary

05-19-2005, 01:03 PM	#3
AaronM Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: ┌∩┐ ◣_◢ ┌∩┐ Posts: 46,909	Perhaps they are not concerned with it because their attorneys have read the proposed regulations and understand them?

05-19-2005, 01:20 PM	#11
Juicy D. Links So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: N.Y. -Long Island -- Posts: 122,992	Good Thread.... I actually read it pssst Lens why is "Gary The Surfer" banned?

05-19-2005, 01:21 PM	#12
More Booze Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 5,116	funny, I was thinking about this today.

05-19-2005, 01:45 PM	#27
JerseyPuma Confirmed User Join Date: May 2002 Location: FL Posts: 1,149	Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but doesnt that grandfather clause only apply to the proposed filing and cross-referencing system associated with these new rules? i.e. you dont need to go back and make sure everything is cross referenced from the beginning, just from now on. BUT, you still need all the info on site from 1990, just not filed and referenced as laid out in that paragraph. __________________ LOVERCASH.COM good dating sites.

05-19-2005, 03:19 PM	#35
alan-l Confirmed User Join Date: May 2003 Location: look behind you Posts: 2,477	My grandfather was a sailor. Kinda cool