FSC Scores Major Victory in 2257 Case

[Bman]

The Free Speech Coalition has earned a signficant victory in the 2257 case.
The District Court has upheld the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals Ruling in Sundance Associates vs. Reno, striking down the concept of "secondary producer" in the 2257 regulations. Though reports are sketchy, it appears as though the court has also struck down the requirement to keep a copy of the depiction as it applies to Internet chat sites, which may or may not include live web streaming.

More details as soon as they become available.


http://www.avn.com/index.php?Primary...tent_ID=252970

[crockett]

That's pretty damn good news from the looks of it.. I would think that would put TGP guys in the clear because that was the biggest thing for us was the second producer part.

Still need more info on this but sounds pretty good IMO.

[Bman]

looks like they will probably strike everything down ...

[pornguy]

Now just to get the bullshit about having a US id, and we are making some progress.

[Tat2Jr]

Originally Posted by Bman

looks like they will probably strike everything down ...

What makes you say that? Just wondering if you had some insider info.

[AlienQ - BANNED FOR LIFE]

Thanks FSC for the hardwork and AVN, this artical made me happy.

: : : A V N : : :

Originally Posted by crockett

That's pretty damn good news from the looks of it.. I would think that would put TGP guys in the clear because that was the biggest thing for us was the second producer part.

Still need more info on this but sounds pretty good IMO.

I'm liking what I see as well.

[Bman]

Originally Posted by Tat2Jr

What makes you say that? Just wondering if you had some insider info.

No inside info. Just wishfull thinking and an educated guess

[JFK]

Originally Posted by AlienQ

Thanks FSC for the hardwork and AVN, this artical made me happy.

: : : A V N : : :

Indeed

[MrVids]

All Praise Be To Fsc!

[Jamie]

SweetNESS!!!

[AlienQ - BANNED FOR LIFE]

Originally Posted by JFK

Indeed

I know I am a critic FSC, but keep in mind I have never doubted thier ability to fight for us and do whats right at the end of the day.

I have mad respect for FSC even if in disagreement on some things or I mis understood somthings put in the public. I have misunderstand alot and they have always taken the time to pull me aside (Via FTP) behind the scenes and inform me.

[BrettJ]

This is great!

Thanks for the post

[SiMpLe]

This news = VERY FUCKING GOOD!!!

Huge props to the FSC!

[RawAlex]

It is wonderful news, proof that the courts were likely insulted by DoJ's insistance that the reno v sundance deal was NOT on point.

We will see how this all shakes out, but I think this has just made the content business a little more viable again.

Alex

[TheSenator]

You see.... GOD IS ON OUR SIDE

[aiken]

I'd recommend reading the entire decision before getting too excited; there's some positive stuff there, but also some indication that the judge hasn't been entirely swayed by FSC's arguments.

In particular, he doesn't buy the argument that 2257 is fundamentally about regulating the adult industry out of business, and does indicate that he believes that 2257 has significant value in combatting child porn. Further, he accepts the argument that keeping track of every URL in the entire world that a depiction appeas on is impossible, but he flat out says that primary producers should be able to track every URL on which a depiction appears "on sites that they themselves control," something which people who run dynamic websites should be concerned about

He also doesn't address the idea of government-mandated office hours.

This is just the injunction hearing, and I'm sure FSC will give a more thorough analysis than this and will learn from the areas in which he disagreed with or flat our didn't believe them. But fundamentally, this doesn't read like a judge who is sees 2257 as intentionally burdensome regulation of the adult industry.

Cheers
-b

[MikeSmoke]

NOT A LAWYER NOT A LAWYER NOT A LAWYER NOT A LAWYER

I've just read the entire decision - and it seems to me that while this is certainly good news as far as the secondary producer issue is concerned - and also for TGPs, etc............

It also seems to me that:
1. The entire convoluted set of requirements for 2257 record-keeping, including keeping a full depiction of every single photo and video clip, CAN be enforced immediately.
2. The requirement that mom-and-pops put their home address on their sites (or else have to work out of a business office) CAN be enforced immediately.
3. The requirement that every URL on which a depiction is shown must be catalogued separately CAN be enforced immediately.

Additionally, I saw only allusions to the DOJ's statements, but no concrete clarification on issues such as foreign IDs and what can be construed as material requiring 2257 documentation.

So, while there's SOME good news in there, it appears to me that as of tomorrow, a lot of people are at a lot of risk from the bulk of the new 2257.

I hope some attorneys will have the information and insight to tell me I'm wrong

NOT A LAWYER NOT A LAWYER NOT A LAWYER NOT A LAWYER

[gornyhuy]

Originally Posted by MikeSmoke

NOT A LAWYER NOT A LAWYER NOT A LAWYER NOT A LAWYER

1. The entire convoluted set of requirements for 2257 record-keeping, including keeping a full depiction of every single photo and video clip, CAN be enforced immediately.
2. The requirement that mom-and-pops put their home address on their sites (or else have to work out of a business office) CAN be enforced immediately.
3. The requirement that every URL on which a depiction is shown must be catalogued separately CAN be enforced immediately.


NOT A LAWYER NOT A LAWYER NOT A LAWYER NOT A LAWYER

1)Only for primary producers
2)Only for primary producers
3)only for URLs under direct control of the primary producer...

(Just my read of the judges comments)

[tony286]

Originally Posted by gornyhuy

1)Only for primary producers
2)Only for primary producers
3)only for URLs under direct control of the primary producer...

(Just my read of the judges comments)

well that sucks for me lol

[MikeSmoke]

Originally Posted by gornyhuy

1)Only for primary producers
2)Only for primary producers
3)only for URLs under direct control of the primary producer...

(Just my read of the judges comments)

Yes, but I'm speaking from the point of view of someone who produces their own content - as many people do.

[Big Red Machine]

Originally Posted by TheSenator

You see.... GOD IS ON OUR SIDE

Or atleast Common Sense

[RawAlex]

As a primary producer, there is little good news here. Conner apparently wasn't a very convincing witness, and FSC didn't seem to bring enough artillary to the table. They failed to show how the increase in burden (compared to existing 2257 rules) would not at all serve the government's interest (child protection), so now it is likely that those rules will be enforced directly.

My suggestion (not a lawyer, I don't even play one on TV) would be to seperate out the ownership of the content from the web business. Contract out the operations of the website(s) and the like to a second company. That secondary company can provide web services and such on a contractual basis to the primary producer. By this ruling, Primary producers should never operate websites or perform any secondary producer activities that would be exempt.

As a secondary producer, I find this ruling to be good and supportive of those parts of my business. It clears up who is in the boat and who is out of the boat.

However, I did notice a hook in there: Contracting for performance. If I pay for exclusive content, or pay for specific content (such as "I need 20 minutes of video of Model Angel playing with a dildo") would I slip back into primary producer on that content because I contracted for it to occur?

The overall best news in this ruling is that it takes away the privacy issues. If secondard producers are not required to keep detailed records, it would appear that model information (beyond potentially a ID card that shows picture and date of birth) would not have to be distributed. Basically, back to where we all were 2 years ago.

Not a great day for primary producers, but a pretty good day for secondary producers and models alike.

Alex

[aiken]

They failed to show how the increase in burden (compared to existing 2257 rules) would not at all serve the government's interest (child protection), so now it is likely that those rules will be enforced directly.

Keep in mind that this is a ruling on the preliminary injunction, not the final word of the judge on the case. While I agree that it's not as positive as some are portraying it, all the judge is really saying is that in some areas the FSC failed to present a compelling case for an injunction.

I would love for someone to correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the "passover" agreement between FSC and DOJ is for the duration of the trial, not just for the preliminary injunction hearing. So, and again this is just my belief, please correct if wrong, members of FSC should still be safe until the actual ruling.

That said, the judge certainly doesn't seem at all concerned about requiring small business owners to post their home address on the internet, among other things.

Contracting for performance. If I pay for exclusive content, or pay for specific content (such as "I need 20 minutes of video of Model Angel playing with a dildo") would I slip back into primary producer on that content because I contracted for it to occur?

I, too, am not even in the same phone book as lawyers. However, my read is that if you specify the model, you could be back into primary-producerland. From both this judge's ruling and his citations of Sundance, it seems like the clearest way to be a secondary producer is to have nothing at all to do with the hiring of models. Just contracting for exclusive content without any kind of input into the selection of models would seem to be clearly a secondary producer situation, however.

Again, grains of salt, not a lawyer, etc.

Cheers
-b

[tony286]

where is the fsc on here ? instead of us all guessing as a member I should hear faster from the fsc then the avn

[MikeSmoke]

Originally Posted by aiken

I would love for someone to correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the "passover" agreement between FSC and DOJ is for the duration of the trial, not just for the preliminary injunction hearing. So, and again this is just my belief, please correct if wrong, members of FSC should still be safe until the actual ruling.

This is actually what I'm anxiously waiting to hear - my understanding was that it was a "goodwill" month-by-month extension agreed to by both sides, so that the DOJ would have to agree to extend once again, which I would think would be a lot less likely if they have the green light to go after primary producers.

I certainly hope I'm wrong and that there will be news on this soon.

[Spunky]

A step in the right direction..a positive for sure

[Redrob]

The FSC legal team is reviewing and analyzing the decision and, will have a summary ready ASAP.

[MikeSmoke]

Originally Posted by Redrob

The FSC legal team is reviewing and analyzing the decision and, will have a summary ready ASAP.

Rob, can they just have an initial statement on whether the "passover" extensions are definitely over at the end of the month?

[FightThisPatent]

So far, it seems like a big win for webmasters over the incredibly ridiculous burdens they were looking to apply (ie. seconday recordkeepers).. BUT, remember, existing 10+ year 2257 still applies to all webmasters...and this is just the 10th circuit.

What has not changed is the responsibility to be able to point DOJ to the content producer of any image you carry on your website.

So if you are playing the "knock knock, it's DOJ " game at home, look at any image on your site, and see if you can identify which content producer that is listed on your 2257.html page that image belongs to.

If you can't do that, then doesn't matter that the secondary recordkeeper requirements have been knocked down, you still have a 2257 problem.


Fight the rain on the parade!

[Redrob]

Originally Posted by MikeSmoke

Rob, can they just have an initial statement on whether the "passover" extensions are definitely over at the end of the month?

Your request has been forwarded to the drafters of the statement.

[MikeSmoke]

thanks

[aiken]

Hey, I don't want to rain on anyone's parade. I'm not above telling people that they might want to bring an umbrella to the parade, though.

I do think casting a partly-granted injunction as a "major victory" is maybe a bit of an exaggeration. It's definitely great news for secondary producers, but it's really not very good news at all for primary producers.

The fact that the judge somehow seems to buy the government's position that 2257 is actually about child porn and that the burdens on legal business is incidental and relatively minimal is really pretty disturbing. That gets at the heart of the constitutional issues here, and from my read, so far the FSC has not convinced the judge that those are even in play.

I still have high hopes, and I have the utmost respect for the FSC and for the people arguing the case. I'm just saying that this is, at best, mixed news.

Cheers
-b

[gornyhuy]

Originally Posted by FightThisPatent

So far, it seems like a big win for webmasters over the incredibly ridiculous burdens they were looking to apply (ie. seconday recordkeepers).. BUT, remember, existing 10+ year 2257 still applies to all webmasters...and this is just the 10th circuit.

What has not changed is the responsibility to be able to point DOJ to the content producer of any image you carry on your website.

So if you are playing the "knock knock, it's DOJ " game at home, look at any image on your site, and see if you can identify which content producer that is listed on your 2257.html page that image belongs to.

If you can't do that, then doesn't matter that the secondary recordkeeper requirements have been knocked down, you still have a 2257 problem.


Fight the rain on the parade!

True, but this is a much MUCH MUCH easier thing to fulfill.
And this is much less likely to actually happen to secondary folks if most of the teeth have been taken out for them.

[tony286]

Originally Posted by aiken

Hey, I don't want to rain on anyone's parade. I'm not above telling people that they might want to bring an umbrella to the parade, though.

I do think casting a partly-granted injunction as a "major victory" is maybe a bit of an exaggeration. It's definitely great news for secondary producers, but it's really not very good news at all for primary producers.

The fact that the judge somehow seems to buy the government's position that 2257 is actually about child porn and that the burdens on legal business is incidental and relatively minimal is really pretty disturbing. That gets at the heart of the constitutional issues here, and from my read, so far the FSC has not convinced the judge that those are even in play.

I still have high hopes, and I have the utmost respect for the FSC and for the people arguing the case. I'm just saying that this is, at best, mixed news.

Cheers
-b

I agree with you 100% as a member I support them but not winning the 2257 really does nothing to stop child porn .That we as producers of adult material who have nothing to do with child pornography. Bothers me.

[FightThisPatent]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

We will see how this all shakes out, but I think this has just made the content business a little more viable again.

For all those shooting content, and you have not chatted with an attorney about model releases and proper 2257 documentation (including some cross-referncing), please do so. people who shoot content are primary recordkeepers and have some serious responsibilities to be aware of, ones that could land you in jail for 5 years if you fail to follow the law.

another play-at-home-game.

You are shooting your own content. You are filming a model in a "sexually explicit video" that you shot last week. Which of the following answers applies to you?

a) what's a model release?

b) what's 2257?

c) what does "sexually explicit" mean"

d) since i filmed her last week and got a model release, i don't need to do anything for this shoot.

e) the model that i am shooting is a MILF, everyone knows she's over 18, so no need for any 2257 paperwork.

f) have the model(s) fill out a new model release and documentation on the shoot (date, time, location, title, model aliases, description, etc), even though i just shot the model last week.



the correct answer is (f).. for how f*cked you will be if you don't do this step each and every time you shoot.


Fight the pop quiz!

[RawAlex]

My understanding is that the "passover" agreement was scheduled to expire sometime in the very near future (before year end) and I have not seen anything that would say that this has changed.

In fact, with a judgement in hand regarding the injunction, it is possible that the DoJ will quickly move to amend the rules, republish them, and put everyone back on the 90 day day hot plate. If they remove and clarify the issues of secondary producers, live chat rooms and such, they might be able to get the rest of the rules to stick without the potential for injunction. There is no reason for the DoJ to move forward in the courts with the current published rules if they are sure that at least some of it would get shut down.

They may also decide to withdraw them all together, if they feel that the Senate and House will pass rules that would be as restrictive or more than what got shot down today.

I look forward to what the FSC lawyers have to say about this.

Alex