Justice Department Revises 6 Terms in 2257 Lawsuit - GoFuckYourself.com

Stephen · 08-10-2005, 02:59 PM

Justice Department Revises 6 Terms in 2257 Lawsuit

U.S. Justice Department trial attorney Samuel Kaplan sent a letter earlier this month to the attorneys representing the Free Speech Coalition in a lawsuit seeking to permanently enjoin 2257 record-keeping amendments. Kaplan?s letter ?corrected? six terms in the amendments that the FSC attorneys felt had caused the greatest amount of confusion.

Full Report > http://xbiz.com/news_piece.php?id=9885

baddog · 08-10-2005, 03:26 PM

There are some pretty major concessions there . . . the govt must be re-evaluating their position

Time to go in for the kill.

Elli · 08-10-2005, 04:13 PM

Hmm.. but it does say the letter may or may not be binding as the case continues.

AdPatron · 08-10-2005, 04:19 PM

So what does this mean for TGPs?

Mr Pheer · 08-10-2005, 04:22 PM

# The term ?actual sexually explicit conduct? does not include ?lascivious exhibitions of the genitals;? (i.e., mere nudity).

# Websites containing no depictions of ?actual sexually explicit conduct? but that provide hyperlinks to third party websites which do contain such material have no record-keeping obligations.

Woot woot

Mr Pheer · 08-10-2005, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoesTraffic

So what does this mean for TGPs?

It means use content produced before June 5th 2005 or do all that recordkeeping bullshit, or see my post above.

FilthyRob · 08-10-2005, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrPheer

# The term ?actual sexually explicit conduct? does not include ?lascivious exhibitions of the genitals;? (i.e., mere nudity).

# Websites containing no depictions of ?actual sexually explicit conduct? but that provide hyperlinks to third party websites which do contain such material have no record-keeping obligations.

Woot woot

Woot Woot indeed.

sicone · 08-10-2005, 04:26 PM

Still no changes on secondary producer

Azlord · 08-10-2005, 04:27 PM

They are still trying to hold onto the "secondary producer" shit :-(

BUT... Sounds like TGP's that have pics of no sexual depiction for thumbs will be ok.

Mr Pheer · 08-10-2005, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sicone

Still no changes on secondary producer

yes, a major change. Recordkeeping bullshit not required for content produced before June 5th 2005 and the 2 changes i posted above.

Hornydog4cooter · 08-10-2005, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrPheer

It means use content produced before June 5th 2005 or do all that recordkeeping bullshit, or see my post above.

but to prove the content is produced before june 5th 2005 dont you need docs to prove it?

Mr Pheer · 08-10-2005, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hornydog4cooter

but to prove the content is produced before june 5th 2005 dont you need docs to prove it?

and wouldnt the DOJ also need docs to prove it produced afterwards?

Mr Pheer · 08-10-2005, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hornydog4cooter

but to prove the content is produced before june 5th 2005 dont you need docs to prove it?

# The requirement that ?a copy of the depiction? must be maintained applies only prospectively; that is, materials recorded prior to June 23, 2005, are not covered, and no copy of the performance need be maintained.

# The requirement that the ?date of production, manufacture, publication, duplication, reproduction, or reissuance? be identified on the label is satisfied by stating the last date of filming and characterizing that as the date of production.

# Material produced before June 23, 2005, that was compliant with the old regulations may continue to be marketed without fear of prosecution under the new regulations.

dopeman · 08-10-2005, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrPheer

It means use content produced before June 5th 2005 or do all that recordkeeping bullshit, or see my post above.

but it looks like you still have to comply with the OLD regulation which still require having model IDs. just not the crazy indexing.

Mr Pheer · 08-10-2005, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dopeman

but it looks like you still have to comply with the OLD regulation which still require having model IDs. just not the crazy indexing.

but you had to comply with the old regs anyway, nothing changed there

herself432 · 08-10-2005, 05:56 PM

Do you have to worry about 2257 if you use servers in Europe ?

MikeSmoke · 08-10-2005, 06:18 PM

of course, some good news in there.
but it seems to me (and i'm obviously not a lawyer, just someone who reads carefully and suspects everyone and everything) that there's still a big question in there.
They haven't said a word that agrees with Sundance. So if they are continuing to maintain that secondary producers must also keep copies of the actual records - is what they're really saying:
secondary producers still have to have IDs for models in material produced prior to June 23, just that those IDs have to confirm to the pre-June 23 rules, not to the post-June 23 rules?

And remember:
"however, it is not yet known whether Kaplan?s letter will be binding as the case moves forward."

DateDoc · 08-10-2005, 06:37 PM

Here is a question for you regarding thumbs. It has been said that if you use a "clean" thumb that was taken from a sexually explicit pic you need docs even for that thumb but what if the sponsor took the clean thumb from the picture and made the new non sexual image and offered you that thumb (quite a few sponsors offer thumbs). That thumb that they are letting you use and that you host was taken from a sexually explicit photo but not by you. The sponsor gave you a clean thumb. Do you need docs for the clean thumb?

StickyGreen · 08-10-2005, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BusterPorn

Here is a question for you regarding thumbs. It has been said that if you use a "clean" thumb that was taken from a sexually explicit pic you need docs even for that thumb but what if the sponsor took the clean thumb from the picture and made the new non sexual image and offered you that thumb (quite a few sponsors offer thumbs). That thumb that they are letting you use and that you host was taken from a sexually explicit photo but not by you. The sponsor gave you a clean thumb. Do you need docs for the clean thumb?

oh god. it doesnt matter what you made the thumb from, as long as the thumb on your site isnt sexually explicit then you dont need records. thats exactly what it's saying. they're saying you can even have a thumb showing tits or pussy...just not intercourse and all that sexual shit...

davecummings · 08-10-2005, 06:48 PM

The "dream team" attorneys representing FSC, Lenny Friedlander/New Beginnings, and me continues to excel in negiotating with DOJ.

This is in addition to the pending decision by Judge Miller about the Motion for Injunction which we fought for in Denver eight days ago --- keep your fingers crossed:-)!!!

BUT, questions about this latest development need to be answered by an attorney---if you don't have one, it might be a good idea to get one? Don't assume anything, get competent/appropriate legal advice!

Dave Cummings

Webby · 08-10-2005, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by herself432

Do you have to worry about 2257 if you use servers in Europe ?

EU countries (and elsewhere) don't give a toss about any US 2257 bullshit. They have their own laws.

However, if you are a US citizen and simply hosting in the EU, rest assured the DOJ will manage to find a way to capture ya under US law - if they can be bothered.

davecummings · 08-10-2005, 09:47 PM

WE need an attorney to answer our individual questions, not ourselves and our subjectiveness to hear what we WANT to hear!

Dave

tony286 · 08-10-2005, 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davecummings

WE need an attorney to answer our individual questions, not ourselves and our subjectiveness to hear what we WANT to hear!

Dave

There is wisdom with age

ay6943 · 08-10-2005, 09:54 PM

Ok, some one really smart read all that and post a summary so I can read it tomorrow, thanks in advanced...

Snake Doctor · 08-10-2005, 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony404

There is wisdom with age

And in Dave's case, lots of pussy

Matt M · 08-10-2005, 10:00 PM

Well that is a nice step in the right direction for sure.

Matt_WildCash · 08-10-2005, 10:07 PM

Ohh baby great news peoples

Content stores reopening across the globe

baddog · 08-10-2005, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeSmoke

And remember:
"however, it is not yet known whether Kaplan?s letter will be binding as the case moves forward."

All it indicates is that there appears to be some indication that there may be some give in an effort to get a compromise solution rather than risk having 2257 drop kicked altogether.

titmowse · 08-10-2005, 11:06 PM

bump this bad boy

ay6943 · 07-26-2006, 09:38 AM

Do these revisions still apply? Can someone give me a link to definitions of "sexually explicit"?

ElvisManson · 07-26-2006, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ay6943

Do these revisions still apply? Can someone give me a link to definitions of "sexually explicit"?

You need to talk to a lawyer.

in the mean time read the article at this link.

http://xbiz.com/news_piece.php?id=16158

spacedog · 07-26-2006, 10:21 AM

interesting development...

What I think, is that they should have it that you only have to keep records of where the content came from, then if ever bothered, tell em where it came from, then they can go bug sponsor who can show them the records..

AllStar · 07-26-2006, 10:41 AM

I think a lot of people were feeling a little frustrated recently with the FSC. Well Kudos to them for being able to get these concessions. Hopefully by the time it is all done and said the only new burden in the rules will be the indexing.

AllStar · 07-26-2006, 10:45 AM

The idexing can be a little excessive I do undersatnd however I think you have to remember that a lot of industries have to keep papers on file, everything from lenders, public companies, environmental companies and the such.
Look at the SEC and what private companies have to keep on file, look at stockbrokers and what they have to keep on file. Really those files are to protect you from false accusations. A law to keep them in order is warranted.

08-10-2005, 02:59 PM	#1
Stephen Consigliere Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 1,771	Justice Department Revises 6 Terms in 2257 Lawsuit Justice Department Revises 6 Terms in 2257 Lawsuit U.S. Justice Department trial attorney Samuel Kaplan sent a letter earlier this month to the attorneys representing the Free Speech Coalition in a lawsuit seeking to permanently enjoin 2257 record-keeping amendments. Kaplan?s letter ?corrected? six terms in the amendments that the FSC attorneys felt had caused the greatest amount of confusion. Full Report > http://xbiz.com/news_piece.php?id=9885

08-10-2005, 04:13 PM	#3
Elli Reach for those stars! Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Vancouver, BC Posts: 17,991	Hmm.. but it does say the letter may or may not be binding as the case continues. __________________ email: [email protected]

08-10-2005, 04:19 PM	#4
AdPatron No commissions, no fees. Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: USA Posts: 17,706	So what does this mean for TGPs? Last edited by AdPatron; 08-10-2005 at 04:21 PM..

08-10-2005, 04:22 PM	#5
Mr Pheer Retired Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 21,231	# The term ?actual sexually explicit conduct? does not include ?lascivious exhibitions of the genitals;? (i.e., mere nudity). # Websites containing no depictions of ?actual sexually explicit conduct? but that provide hyperlinks to third party websites which do contain such material have no record-keeping obligations. Woot woot __________________ 2 lifeguards for Jessica

08-10-2005, 04:26 PM	#8
sicone Retired Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Sac Posts: 18,453	Still no changes on secondary producer __________________

08-10-2005, 03:26 PM	#2
baddog So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: the beach, SoCal Posts: 107,089	There are some pretty major concessions there . . . the govt must be re-evaluating their position Time to go in for the kill.

08-10-2005, 04:27 PM	#9
Azlord Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: City... City of Satan Posts: 2,651	They are still trying to hold onto the "secondary producer" shit :-( BUT... Sounds like TGP's that have pics of no sexual depiction for thumbs will be ok.

08-10-2005, 05:56 PM	#16
herself432 Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 125	Do you have to worry about 2257 if you use servers in Europe ? __________________ MensNiche Soulcash EpicCash

08-10-2005, 06:18 PM	#17
MikeSmoke Confirmed User Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: SoCal Posts: 3,233	of course, some good news in there. but it seems to me (and i'm obviously not a lawyer, just someone who reads carefully and suspects everyone and everything) that there's still a big question in there. They haven't said a word that agrees with Sundance. So if they are continuing to maintain that secondary producers must also keep copies of the actual records - is what they're really saying: secondary producers still have to have IDs for models in material produced prior to June 23, just that those IDs have to confirm to the pre-June 23 rules, not to the post-June 23 rules? And remember: "however, it is not yet known whether Kaplan?s letter will be binding as the case moves forward." __________________ icq: 541-739-92

08-10-2005, 06:37 PM	#18
DateDoc Outside looking in. Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: To Hell You Ride Posts: 14,243	Here is a question for you regarding thumbs. It has been said that if you use a "clean" thumb that was taken from a sexually explicit pic you need docs even for that thumb but what if the sponsor took the clean thumb from the picture and made the new non sexual image and offered you that thumb (quite a few sponsors offer thumbs). That thumb that they are letting you use and that you host was taken from a sexually explicit photo but not by you. The sponsor gave you a clean thumb. Do you need docs for the clean thumb? __________________

08-10-2005, 06:48 PM	#20
davecummings Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: San Diego Posts: 2,922	FSC Is Trying BIG TIME to Look Out for EVERYONE! The "dream team" attorneys representing FSC, Lenny Friedlander/New Beginnings, and me continues to excel in negiotating with DOJ. This is in addition to the pending decision by Judge Miller about the Motion for Injunction which we fought for in Denver eight days ago --- keep your fingers crossed:-)!!! BUT, questions about this latest development need to be answered by an attorney---if you don't have one, it might be a good idea to get one? Don't assume anything, get competent/appropriate legal advice! Dave Cummings

08-10-2005, 09:47 PM	#22
davecummings Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: San Diego Posts: 2,922	Again....... WE need an attorney to answer our individual questions, not ourselves and our subjectiveness to hear what we WANT to hear! Dave

08-10-2005, 09:54 PM	#24
ay6943 Registered User Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 91	Ok, some one really smart read all that and post a summary so I can read it tomorrow, thanks in advanced...

08-10-2005, 10:00 PM	#26
Matt M Confirmed User Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: The Beach Posts: 738	Well that is a nice step in the right direction for sure. __________________ No Thanks, I have my own...... ICQ: 156837862

08-10-2005, 10:07 PM	#27
Matt_WildCash Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 1,699	Ohh baby great news peoples Content stores reopening across the globe

08-10-2005, 11:06 PM	#29
titmowse Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: TEXAS Posts: 5,320	bump this bad boy __________________ I still love everybody

07-26-2006, 09:38 AM	#30
ay6943 Registered User Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 91	Do these revisions still apply? Can someone give me a link to definitions of "sexually explicit"?

07-26-2006, 10:21 AM	#32
spacedog Yes that IS me. Bitch. Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 14,149	interesting development... What I think, is that they should have it that you only have to keep records of where the content came from, then if ever bothered, tell em where it came from, then they can go bug sponsor who can show them the records..

07-26-2006, 10:41 AM	#33
AllStar Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 461	I think a lot of people were feeling a little frustrated recently with the FSC. Well Kudos to them for being able to get these concessions. Hopefully by the time it is all done and said the only new burden in the rules will be the indexing.

07-26-2006, 10:45 AM	#34
AllStar Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 461	The idexing can be a little excessive I do undersatnd however I think you have to remember that a lot of industries have to keep papers on file, everything from lenders, public companies, environmental companies and the such. Look at the SEC and what private companies have to keep on file, look at stockbrokers and what they have to keep on file. Really those files are to protect you from false accusations. A law to keep them in order is warranted.