What Does 2257 Ruling Mean For Us? Answers from FSC - GoFuckYourself.com

Connor · 10-25-2007, 07:07 AM

Sorry if this got posted already... did a quick scan and didn't see the thread. Anyhow, thanks to the FSC and Reed Lee especially for putting this together:

http://www.ynot.com/modules.php?op=m...le &sid=38972

Gerco · 10-25-2007, 07:33 AM

Thats good news. It was good to finally read something with a little hope in it. And by the looks of it, since Im in Kentucky, it's even better news for me

fusionx · 10-25-2007, 07:34 AM

That's an excellent explanation with all the details - thanks for pointing this out.

Connor · 10-25-2007, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fusionx

That's an excellent explanation with all the details - thanks for pointing this out.

No problem.

GatorB · 10-25-2007, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gerco

Thats good news. It was good to finally read something with a little hope in it. And by the looks of it, since Im in Kentucky, it's even better news for me

Yep my state falls under the 6th Circuit also.

SykkBoy · 10-25-2007, 09:48 AM

Great news
not out of the woods yet, but at least this is a step in the right direction

Got Porn? · 10-25-2007, 10:09 AM

It’s a huge victory but the war is not over.

Gerco · 10-25-2007, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

Yep my state falls under the 6th Circuit also.

Simon Lies is most likey really pissed about this ruling..lol. This stuff always seems to come to a head here in Cincinnati. Just an ongoing waste of money and people for a personal religous agenda... retards

davecummings · 10-25-2007, 10:43 PM

Evening bump!!

dave

Profits of Doom · 10-25-2007, 10:51 PM

For the first time since I moved to this cesspool I am glad to live in Ohio...

DWB · 10-25-2007, 11:56 PM

So lets say 2257 gets totally shot down. Now there will be NO rules to govern the industry and someone really can produce content with minors with no fear of getting inspected or caught doing it.

It is also going to bump up piracy in our industry. Again, remove the fear of having content with no records and you have a free-for-all.

I'm not so sure defeating 2257 is a good thing.

stag44 · 10-26-2007, 01:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DirtyWhiteBoy

So lets say 2257 gets totally shot down. Now there will be NO rules to govern the industry and someone really can produce content with minors with no fear of getting inspected or caught doing it.

It is also going to bump up piracy in our industry. Again, remove the fear of having content with no records and you have a free-for-all.

I'm not so sure defeating 2257 is a good thing.

I expect you wont find that many webmasters who are against the aims of 2257, it was how they drafted this law and the implications it placed on webmasters, producers and secondary producers et al......

What ever comes in its place, lets hope they consult with the 'business' and come up with something workable...

After Shock Media · 10-26-2007, 01:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DirtyWhiteBoy

So lets say 2257 gets totally shot down. Now there will be NO rules to govern the industry and someone really can produce content with minors with no fear of getting inspected or caught doing it.

It is also going to bump up piracy in our industry. Again, remove the fear of having content with no records and you have a free-for-all.

I'm not so sure defeating 2257 is a good thing.

I have same concerns and I already plan on still following what I feel are justifiable 2257 guidelines. I will collect two forms of ID (I know only 1 was required), I will get a full release, I will gather up past names used, I will continue to keep a clause in my release about sharing edited ID's, still keep dates of production listed, and of course still cross reference some so that any given set will have an identifiable 2257 file.

Same requirement will be for anyone I have shoot for me or that I buy from. Well they do not need to cross reference, etc but the rest is a requirement.

Now honestly this will not alter the amateur porn / real honest to gawd user submitted and created stuff cause they had no fucking clue about 2257 anyways, a lot like webmasters. However I also see some scummy fucks passing some illegal shit our direction. If I recall ignorance doesnt get you far in a court room.

DWB · 10-26-2007, 04:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by After Shock Media

I have same concerns and I already plan on still following what I feel are justifiable 2257 guidelines. I will collect two forms of ID (I know only 1 was required), I will get a full release, I will gather up past names used, I will continue to keep a clause in my release about sharing edited ID's, still keep dates of production listed, and of course still cross reference some so that any given set will have an identifiable 2257 file.

Same requirement will be for anyone I have shoot for me or that I buy from. Well they do not need to cross reference, etc but the rest is a requirement.

Now honestly this will not alter the amateur porn / real honest to gawd user submitted and created stuff cause they had no fucking clue about 2257 anyways, a lot like webmasters. However I also see some scummy fucks passing some illegal shit our direction. If I recall ignorance doesnt get you far in a court room.

Sounds like a solid plan.

One thing is for sure, expect an onslaught of foreign content, especially from places like Asia where there are 1000s of girls with no IDs at all or are underage working in the sex industry. The Philippines for example is jammed packed with girls with shit IDs and very few with real government issued. Cambodia is now a shooting option, most of them don't have IDs and Thailand is going to be free-for-all with all the fake IDs those girls have. Same with Vietnam.

And how about all those Russian teen (16 - 17 years) sites that used to be around? Those will come back. They would be stupid not to bring them back.

So that brings up another snag. Will processors process for sites with this questionable content since there is not going to have to be (if 2257 totally crashes) any proof of age? Now they sometimes ask for IDs and since we should already have them, we can give them. But if we are not required to have them, then what?

This is a slippery slope.

tony286 · 10-26-2007, 06:45 AM

JUst a fYI before the 2257 the industry checked ids,regardless of 2257 or not shooting underage girls is against the law. Also probably 70% of the sites out arent even close to 2257 compliance.

davecummings · 10-26-2007, 07:13 AM

I'm against the way the DOJ saddled us with such intrusive, burdening, and inappropriate regulations/requirements, but as a primary producer, no matter what happens to 2257 I will continue getting model releases and DOB documentation just like I have been doing since 7/3/95.

dave

tony286 · 10-26-2007, 07:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davecummings

I'm against the way the DOJ saddled us with such intrusive, burdening, and inappropriate regulations/requirements, but as a primary producer, no matter what happens to 2257 I will continue getting model releases and DOB documentation just like I have been doing since 7/3/95.

dave

Its common sense,say there are no inspections but they come knocking saying we have proof this girl was underage.If you dont have ids you are very screwed.

Connor · 10-26-2007, 07:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony404

Its common sense,say there are no inspections but they come knocking saying we have proof this girl was underage.If you dont have ids you are very screwed.

I agree with Tony and Dave. This law did not help curb child porn, and shooting or distributing child porn is just as illegal as ever. The comment about Russian Teen sites... come on, if they are Russian sites then I don't think they're concerned about 2257.

If they are selling the content, the IDs could EASILY be doctored in photoshop and American webmasters wouldn't know. This law was a burden and accomplished nothing.

pornlaw · 10-26-2007, 08:12 AM

Quote:

Also probably 70% of the sites out arent even close to 2257 compliance

And the other 20-30% wouldnt pass an inspection without some minor mistake. Its possible to comply but it aint easy. Most of my clients prior to my review would not have passed.

tony286 · 10-26-2007, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pornlaw

And the other 20-30% wouldnt pass an inspection without some minor mistake. Its possible to comply but it aint easy. Most of my clients prior to my review would not have passed.

Im not even talking about getting into the actual records, Im talking about the easy one.Like having the custodian of records info on the website.

MrPinks · 10-26-2007, 09:15 AM

If I was a primary producer, I would still keep records. With or without 2257, it is still only legal to shoot women over 18. It's strange how so many bitch about 2257 then when it starts to get dumped you second guess yourself. The shooting ages have not changed just the fucked up process of 2257.

RawAlex · 10-26-2007, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DirtyWhiteBoy

So lets say 2257 gets totally shot down. Now there will be NO rules to govern the industry and someone really can produce content with minors with no fear of getting inspected or caught doing it.

It is also going to bump up piracy in our industry. Again, remove the fear of having content with no records and you have a free-for-all.

I'm not so sure defeating 2257 is a good thing.

Incorrect. 2257 is a documentation law. You have to look at 2251 and 2252 to understand that producing with minors is illegal.

Further, you are still required to get a model release (and ID in reality) because you have to have permission to use the material you shoot, and you have to prove the model was an adult to enter into such a contract.

So nothing really much has changed for producers, but clearly things are different for secondary producers and such.

Oh yeah, BTW: stupid laws like 2257 don't stop people from producing CP. It isn't like they are going to document it anyway.

Robbie · 10-26-2007, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony404

JUst a fYI before the 2257 the industry checked ids,regardless of 2257 or not shooting underage girls is against the law. Also probably 70% of the sites out arent even close to 2257 compliance.

Bingo. A lot of the posts seem to imply that it was a "free-for-all" before the 2257 laws. No, it wasn't. Matter of fact there are NO differences in making sure to have a model release and a copy of the id. The only difference was 2257 making us word shit differently and of course the insane record keeping requirements. 2257 is nothing but a "record keeping" law so they can arrest you for not keeping records exactly as they say. They will never arrest anybody that keeps 2257 records for child porn. Child Pornographers don't keep records. They were only gonna use 2257 to arrest law-abiding people through record keeping errors in order to shut them down because they want to shut down porn.

davecummings · 10-26-2007, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

Bingo. A lot of the posts seem to imply that it was a "free-for-all" before the 2257 laws. No, it wasn't. Matter of fact there are NO differences in making sure to have a model release and a copy of the id. The only difference was 2257 making us word shit differently and of course the insane record keeping requirements. 2257 is nothing but a "record keeping" law so they can arrest you for not keeping records exactly as they say. They will never arrest anybody that keeps 2257 records for child porn. Child Pornographers don't keep records. They were only gonna use 2257 to arrest law-abiding people through record keeping errors in order to shut them down because they want to shut down porn.

You're right on target. And, I think much of the "insane" 2257 regulations is attributed to politicians needing to appease the right-wing radical hypocrite voters who secretly enjoy porn but whose unnecessary guilt afterwards causes them to demand more government action against the very porn they themselves will again use and enjoy in between their "guilt" sessions.

Also, too many politicians let their personal religious views fog the line between church and state:-((

dave

tony286 · 10-26-2007, 12:51 PM

I want to go back to a few files in cabinet

crockett · 10-26-2007, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DirtyWhiteBoy

So lets say 2257 gets totally shot down. Now there will be NO rules to govern the industry and someone really can produce content with minors with no fear of getting inspected or caught doing it.

It is also going to bump up piracy in our industry. Again, remove the fear of having content with no records and you have a free-for-all.

I'm not so sure defeating 2257 is a good thing.

I've said it before, I don't think the industry at large is against keeping records. It just needs to be reasonable and the responsibility of the primary producers.

davecummings · 10-26-2007, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett

I've said it before, I don't think the industry at large is against keeping records. It just needs to be reasonable and the responsibility of the primary producers.

Bingo!!!!! DOJ needs to listen to you:-)). Thanks!

dave

Shoehorn! · 10-26-2007, 02:11 PM

I was hoping for something like that. Thanks for the link.

spacedog · 10-26-2007, 08:01 PM

What exactly is the free speech coalition doing besides following & documenting shit.. are they actually doing anything at all? Are they filing litigation or what?

From what I see, the 6th circuit isn't the highest court, so makes sense that someone needs to file litigation in the highest court to make this ruling nationwide. what the fuck is FSC waiting for?

Robbie · 10-27-2007, 08:12 AM

I'm afraid I agree with Mike South 100% on my opinion of the FSC. It hasn't shown me that it's ever done anything except try to make money. Just my opinion, but it looks like ambulance chasing to me. As I posted in another thread...the legal people involved with the FSC have made many "The sky is falling" statements over the last 5 years. Remember when Mr. Walters proclaimed that Shemale sites were illegal?
Yeah, he did that. I saw the results of that when a friend of mine had their Deluxe Pass shemale site shut down because Clement took that bit of legal advice as gospel and shut down all the shemale sites on his network.
It's just strictly my opinion...but it seems to me that lawyers only make money when there's something bad happening, so it would be in their best interest for something bad to always be happening. Thus the "sky is falling" proclamations every year that never amount to much.

It was interesting reading that article from the FSC where they kinda insinuated that they were somehow involved in this ruling. I'm in agreement with Mike South that they didn't have anything to do with it...and since they gave no one a heads up at all that the case was even being tried...I feel that they may not have even been AWARE of it. My reasoning there is that they have always been quick to try and grab the headlines and claim credit for things...yet they didn't even say a word about this REAL ruling until after it happened.
Not very FSC-like. Though as I said earlier in my post...they sure did seem to insinuate in their latest proclamation that they were heavily involved the whole time! LOL!

MrPinks · 10-27-2007, 08:14 AM

Good question. They aren't going to do shit except "wait and see"

Quote:

Originally Posted by spacedog

What exactly is the free speech coalition doing besides following & documenting shit.. are they actually doing anything at all? Are they filing litigation or what?

From what I see, the 6th circuit isn't the highest court, so makes sense that someone needs to file litigation in the highest court to make this ruling nationwide. what the fuck is FSC waiting for?

RP Fade · 10-27-2007, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Got Porn?

It?s a huge victory but the war is not over.

correct...

RawAlex · 10-27-2007, 08:42 AM

This is the second time this year that the FSC's postition and legal strategy has been overtaken by events.

DaddyHalbucks · 10-27-2007, 09:23 AM

I wouldn't make any major changes just yet. The law is still on the books.

CheneyRumsfeld · 10-27-2007, 09:59 AM

looks like the FSC is going to have to find another revenue stream.

After Shock Media · 10-27-2007, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CheneyRumsfeld

looks like the FSC is going to have to find another revenue stream.

They should die and be disbanded, or the web people should form their own group that is faster, transparent, and more business 2.0 *fuck I hated that term.

modF · 10-27-2007, 10:37 AM

I have no problem with some sort of 2257, but it must be manageable. In my ideal world, primary producers would be pretty much the same, with out all of the unnecessary cross referencing of urls. Program owners can request the id's to cover their asses if they are not the primary producers.

Secondary producers, do not get the id's and should be able to just link to the primary producer. It's something that we can all manage fairly easy.

After Shock Media · 10-27-2007, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by modF

I have no problem with some sort of 2257, but it must be manageable. In my ideal world, primary producers would be pretty much the same, with out all of the unnecessary cross referencing of urls. Program owners can request the id's to cover their asses if they are not the primary producers.

Secondary producers, do not get the id's and should be able to just link to the primary producer. It's something that we can all manage fairly easy.

IE we self regulate and be responsible as an industry.
We also form our own damn group.

davecummings · 10-29-2007, 03:45 PM

Since this is so important, here's a bump in case anyone missed it!

dave

yahoo-xxx-girls.com · 10-29-2007, 03:48 PM

The 2257 seems to change every month or two... how hard is it to get it right the first time... ?

Later,

davecummings · 10-29-2007, 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Balalsubturfyooj

The 2257 seems to change every month or two... how hard is it to get it right the first time... ?

Later,

It seems to be a moving target, and even some attorneys find some portions of the 2257 regulations unclear.

dave

darnit · 10-30-2007, 12:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davecummings

It seems to be a moving target, and even some attorneys find some portions of the 2257 regulations unclear.

dave

I agree, I've sought legal council and usually the lawyers shrug when you ask about the specific real world implementation issues, always blaming the vagueness of the law as written.

Clarity - even if bad - would help.

darnit · 10-30-2007, 12:32 AM

Double post = doh!

davecummings · 10-30-2007, 07:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darnit

I agree, I've sought legal council and usually the lawyers shrug when you ask about the specific real world implementation issues, always blaming the vagueness of the law as written.

Clarity - even if bad - would help.

WE can only hope that this goes totally away for non-Primary Producers, or at the very least to what I mentioned in my recent input letter to DOJ (see paragraph K) at http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showth...ht=2257+Letter .

dave

10-25-2007, 07:07 AM	#1
Connor Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 1,294	What Does 2257 Ruling Mean For Us? Answers from FSC Sorry if this got posted already... did a quick scan and didn't see the thread. Anyhow, thanks to the FSC and Reed Lee especially for putting this together: http://www.ynot.com/modules.php?op=m...le &sid=38972 __________________ YNOT v5 IS NOW LIVE! \| SEEN YNOT MAIL YET?

10-25-2007, 07:33 AM	#2
Gerco Confirmed User Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 2,052	Thats good news. It was good to finally read something with a little hope in it. And by the looks of it, since Im in Kentucky, it's even better news for me __________________ Http://www.extremehole.com ** CLOSED ** 400 HOURS of exclusive custom extreme content, already on external HD in Raw DV ready to encode. over 150,000 exclusive images and more.

10-25-2007, 09:48 AM	#6
SykkBoy Jesus loves bacon Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Sin City, Motherfucker Posts: 19,969	Great news not out of the woods yet, but at least this is a step in the right direction __________________ Support my new movie “The Second Coming”

10-25-2007, 10:09 AM	#7
Got Porn? Confirmed User Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Charlotte Posts: 1,264	It’s a huge victory but the war is not over. __________________ Demo Porn2Go's Plug-In Feeds 1st Month Free! No BW Fees! ICQ 303355427 [email protected] RIP TD

10-25-2007, 10:43 PM	#9
davecummings Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: San Diego Posts: 2,922	Evening bump!! dave __________________ Dave Cummings www.davecummings.com www.davecummings.tv San Diego Email--- [email protected]

10-25-2007, 07:34 AM	#3
fusionx Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Olongapo City, Philippines Posts: 4,618	That's an excellent explanation with all the details - thanks for pointing this out.

10-25-2007, 10:51 PM	#10
Profits of Doom Monster Rain Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Mongo Posts: 4,978	For the first time since I moved to this cesspool I am glad to live in Ohio... __________________ “My Free Cams Affiliate Program by CrakRevenue”

10-25-2007, 11:56 PM	#11
DWB Registered User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Encrypted. Access denied. Posts: 31,779	So lets say 2257 gets totally shot down. Now there will be NO rules to govern the industry and someone really can produce content with minors with no fear of getting inspected or caught doing it. It is also going to bump up piracy in our industry. Again, remove the fear of having content with no records and you have a free-for-all. I'm not so sure defeating 2257 is a good thing.

10-26-2007, 06:45 AM	#15
tony286 lurker Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: atlanta Posts: 57,021	JUst a fYI before the 2257 the industry checked ids,regardless of 2257 or not shooting underage girls is against the law. Also probably 70% of the sites out arent even close to 2257 compliance. Last edited by tony299; 10-26-2007 at 06:47 AM..

10-26-2007, 07:13 AM	#16
davecummings Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: San Diego Posts: 2,922	I'm against the way the DOJ saddled us with such intrusive, burdening, and inappropriate regulations/requirements, but as a primary producer, no matter what happens to 2257 I will continue getting model releases and DOB documentation just like I have been doing since 7/3/95. dave __________________ Dave Cummings www.davecummings.com www.davecummings.tv San Diego Email--- [email protected]

10-26-2007, 09:15 AM	#21
MrPinks Registered User Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: FL Posts: 1,767	If I was a primary producer, I would still keep records. With or without 2257, it is still only legal to shoot women over 18. It's strange how so many bitch about 2257 then when it starts to get dumped you second guess yourself. The shooting ages have not changed just the fucked up process of 2257.

10-26-2007, 12:51 PM	#25
tony286 lurker Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: atlanta Posts: 57,021	I want to go back to a few files in cabinet

10-26-2007, 02:11 PM	#28
Shoehorn! Die With Your Boots On Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Hawaii Posts: 22,872	I was hoping for something like that. Thanks for the link. __________________

10-26-2007, 08:01 PM	#29
spacedog Yes that IS me. Bitch. Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 14,149	What exactly is the free speech coalition doing besides following & documenting shit.. are they actually doing anything at all? Are they filing litigation or what? From what I see, the 6th circuit isn't the highest court, so makes sense that someone needs to file litigation in the highest court to make this ruling nationwide. what the fuck is FSC waiting for? Last edited by spacedog; 10-26-2007 at 08:02 PM..

10-27-2007, 08:12 AM	#30
Robbie Leaner, Meaner, Faster Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Vegas Posts: 20,959	I'm afraid I agree with Mike South 100% on my opinion of the FSC. It hasn't shown me that it's ever done anything except try to make money. Just my opinion, but it looks like ambulance chasing to me. As I posted in another thread...the legal people involved with the FSC have made many "The sky is falling" statements over the last 5 years. Remember when Mr. Walters proclaimed that Shemale sites were illegal? Yeah, he did that. I saw the results of that when a friend of mine had their Deluxe Pass shemale site shut down because Clement took that bit of legal advice as gospel and shut down all the shemale sites on his network. It's just strictly my opinion...but it seems to me that lawyers only make money when there's something bad happening, so it would be in their best interest for something bad to always be happening. Thus the "sky is falling" proclamations every year that never amount to much. It was interesting reading that article from the FSC where they kinda insinuated that they were somehow involved in this ruling. I'm in agreement with Mike South that they didn't have anything to do with it...and since they gave no one a heads up at all that the case was even being tried...I feel that they may not have even been AWARE of it. My reasoning there is that they have always been quick to try and grab the headlines and claim credit for things...yet they didn't even say a word about this REAL ruling until after it happened. Not very FSC-like. Though as I said earlier in my post...they sure did seem to insinuate in their latest proclamation that they were heavily involved the whole time! LOL! __________________ -Robbie ClaudiaMarie.Com Last edited by Robbie; 10-27-2007 at 08:14 AM..

10-27-2007, 08:42 AM	#33
RawAlex So Fucking Banned Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: In a house. Posts: 9,465	This is the second time this year that the FSC's postition and legal strategy has been overtaken by events.

10-27-2007, 09:23 AM	#34
DaddyHalbucks A freakin' legend! Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Las Vegas, Nevada USA Posts: 18,975	I wouldn't make any major changes just yet. The law is still on the books. __________________ Boner Money

10-27-2007, 09:59 AM	#35
CheneyRumsfeld Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 1,341	looks like the FSC is going to have to find another revenue stream.

10-27-2007, 10:37 AM	#37
modF Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 1,888	I have no problem with some sort of 2257, but it must be manageable. In my ideal world, primary producers would be pretty much the same, with out all of the unnecessary cross referencing of urls. Program owners can request the id's to cover their asses if they are not the primary producers. Secondary producers, do not get the id's and should be able to just link to the primary producer. It's something that we can all manage fairly easy. __________________ I do things skype:themodF

10-29-2007, 03:45 PM	#39
davecummings Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: San Diego Posts: 2,922	Important Info for ALL of Us!!! Since this is so important, here's a bump in case anyone missed it! dave __________________ Dave Cummings www.davecummings.com www.davecummings.tv San Diego Email--- [email protected]

10-29-2007, 03:48 PM	#40
yahoo-xxx-girls.com Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Canada Posts: 3,143	The 2257 seems to change every month or two... how hard is it to get it right the first time... ? Later, __________________ sig too big

10-30-2007, 12:32 AM	#43
darnit Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Teh Interweb Posts: 2,439	Double post = doh! Last edited by darnit; 10-30-2007 at 12:33 AM.. Reason: doh!