New 2257 regulations are out - Page 3 - GoFuckYourself.com

stickyfingerz · 12-19-2008, 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

Thanks for the info. That is very good of you and it is a nice read. I wonder though. Wasn't there a temporary restraining order of some kind issued by the 9th circuit court because they said it seemed the secondary producer addition was unconstitutional? If that is the case, I wonder why it is back now and why they would think there will be a different outcome.

I build small free sites and galleries and blogs using sponsor supplied content. You could think me linking to their 2257 info would be good enough. Having me keep copies of their records seems like a waste of time and effort on everyone's part.

6th court, and ya I don't understand how it can just be glossed over and some changes made. lol

stickyfingerz · 12-19-2008, 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davecummings

Are you saying that it's the FSC responsibility to do the "...due diligence to protect the rights of this industry.....".

I don't recall seeing that in anything FSC agreed to back when I joined--do you see anything from 5-6 years ago, or now where God or themselves agreed to what you voiced above?

I'd appreciate any assistance you can give me, as it will ease my mind (considering all the negative stuff we hear about FSC).

I'm thankful that FSC "fought/negotiated" with DOJ that summer day of 2005 in Denver (we were there for a hearing with the 10th District Circuit court to try and protect Secondary Producers against 2257 record-keeping, and to deal with other issues involved with the regulations that had just been released (I was one of the listed plaintiffs, along with FSC and Lenny Freidlander, against DOJ --my neck was "sticking out, and still is); I was in the room where Attorney Paul Cambria and others FSC-related attorneys were working (I'm told, at a much lower hourly rate than they otherwise would have). As I understood it, DOJ raised some issue about legal "standing" (or something, maybe "representation"--I can't recall) that would have restricted a Restraining Order against DOJ to only PRESENT FSC members of record at that time--that's when Paul, on behalf of FSC, got DOJ to agree to include all new members, too, for a specified period of time. Had FSC not won that concession for DOJ, only the then-present members would have benefited from the Court's actions. I'm a novice, but I was there in person, and the aforementioned is what I recall.

All I know is there seems to be a gap somewhere. I don't care who is doing what. Fsc, private attorneys. There are a ton of huge programs out there with lots of lawyer up money this should be very important to. I can't do it, I don't have that kind of bankroll. But lots of people in this industry do. Lots of people pay memberships to the fsc. Im not pointing fingers, I don't really care WHO is SUPPOSED to be responsible, I care about why things are not being properly taken care of, and why this industry doesn't seem to be being properly represented in these matters. Connections swinger publication is who took a huge notch out of the trunk of 2257 on their own.

kane · 12-19-2008, 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz

6th court, and ya I don't understand how it can just be glossed over and some changes made. lol

I can never keep my courts straight

Was the 6th court the one that ruled that 2257 as a whole was unconstitutional, or was it the one that gave the TRO against secondary producers? Or are they the same one?

topnotch, standup guy · 12-19-2008, 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davecummings

I'm thankful that FSC "fought/negotiated" with DOJ that summer day of 2005... blah... blah... blah...

Hey Dave, just keep the 2257 gremlins off of our asses and it's all good

Indecisive · 12-20-2008, 05:25 AM

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?

MrPinks · 12-20-2008, 10:02 AM

Bothersome that this is such a non-issue among many webmasters. Bump it up

The Duck · 12-20-2008, 10:16 AM

I think the whole 2257 law will go into the shitter in time. All the tubes dont care and noone is arrested or prosecuted.

davecummings · 12-20-2008, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony404

Dave you are one of my personal hero's but I feel they know we don't shoot kids this is only to make our lives as miserable as possible.

You're always astute---like I've told/nagged the 2257 FBI Team Leader, I understand that most child porn originates in Russia/Asia and Eastern Europe, NOT in America (and if any was originated in America, the produces certainly wouldn't keep 2257 records for FBI inspections; thus, what the DOJ 2257 Regs do is hassling law-abiding citizens and appeasing the political guys, and religious radical right:-(

DWB · 12-20-2008, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe Obenberger

I've prepared a table comparing and contrasting the existing 2257 regulations and the new regulation amendments which were published yesterday in the Federal Register.

The existing regulations are in the left-hand column. (The text highlighted in blue shows where they were changed from the 1995 Regulations.)

On the right is a "redlined" markup of the new regulations. The language that is being deleted is shown in strikethrough and the new text is shown by underlining. This at least identifies where the changes are located.

You will find the table linked on the first page of xxxlaw.com. I tried to post the direct link here, but I got an error message that I'm prohibited from posting a URL b/c I don't have thirty posts or more here. Oh, well.

Ten pages of changes in the text of the Regulations were accompanied by over 150 pages of commentary, and it looks to me already that some of the most significant changes are only found in the commentary rather than in the rules themselves - including the government's concession that Section 2257 is meant to apply only to images created for commerce or trade. Much, much more to come as the analysis goes on.

I will get a Bulletin out to my subscriber list in a few days, and existing clients will get a Client Advisory as well. Everyone else, keep your eyes on xxxlaw.com for analysis.

Thanks for being on top of this. It is appreciated.

DWB · 12-20-2008, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davecummings

You're always astute---like I've told/nagged the 2257 FBI Team Leader, I understand that most child porn originates in Russia/Asia and Eastern Europe, NOT in America (and if any was originated in America, the produces certainly wouldn't keep 2257 records for FBI inspections; thus, what the DOJ 2257 Regs do is hassling law-abiding citizens and appeasing the political guys, and religious radical right:-(

Dave,
You would shit and fall back in it if you saw that amount of true (pre-teen sex) child porn that is being sold online in Thailand. They are paying for it via SMS payments from their phones.

To give you an idea how easy it is, I bought my Thai girlfriend a laptop. I set her up online and within 20 minutes (keep in mind she is a noob online) she screams for me to come to her. To my total amazement she's found, within 20 minutes searching in the Thai language, a full site of girls who look to be about 8 having sex with grown men. I asked her how in the hell she found such a thing and she followed, and get this, 3 links off of Thai Yahoo. Withing THREE CLICKS off of Yahoo she found real child porn.

Now she screams for me about 3 or 4 times a day when she finds more of it. Apparently it's closely linked to Celebrity news there, which is is addicted to as are most Thais. She goes to the Celeb sites, follows a link off, another and WHAMMO! It's disturbing how much of it is there. White girls, black girls, latin girls, asian girls, boys... you name it.

I can only assume the same holds true for other Asian countries as many do not police child porn but they do police legal porn.

Go figure.

The FBI and DOJ truly has their heads DEEP up their own asses on this subject. And you can tell them I said that. If you put a gun to my head right now and gave me a day to find REAL child porn, I just couldn't do it. True pedos have their own networks and systems to pass this content around, most of which IS overseas.

If they want to protect kids, then they need to get .kids rolling and EVERY parent only allow their child access to this domain from their systems. Problem solved.

davecummings · 12-20-2008, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DirtyWhiteBoy

Dave,
You would shit and fall back in it if you saw that amount of true (pre-teen sex) child porn that is being sold online in Thailand. They are paying for it via SMS payments from their phones.

To give you an idea how easy it is, I bought my Thai girlfriend a laptop. I set her up online and within 20 minutes (keep in mind she is a noob online) she screams for me to come to her. To my total amazement she's found, within 20 minutes searching in the Thai language, a full site of girls who look to be about 8 having sex with grown men. I asked her how in the hell she found such a thing and she followed, and get this, 3 links off of Thai Yahoo. Withing THREE CLICKS off of Yahoo she found real child porn.

Now she screams for me about 3 or 4 times a day when she finds more of it. Apparently it's closely linked to Celebrity news there, which is is addicted to as are most Thais. She goes to the Celeb sites, follows a link off, another and WHAMMO! It's disturbing how much of it is there. White girls, black girls, latin girls, asian girls, boys... you name it.

I can only assume the same holds true for other Asian countries as many do not police child porn but they do police legal porn.

Go figure.

The FBI and DOJ truly has their heads DEEP up their own asses on this subject. And you can tell them I said that. If you put a gun to my head right now and gave me a day to find REAL child porn, I just couldn't do it. True pedos have their own networks and systems to pass this content around, most of which IS overseas.

If they want to protect kids, then they need to get .kids rolling and EVERY parent only allow their child access to this domain from their systems. Problem solved.

.kids does seem like a logical, thorough, etc way for parents to supervise what sites their kids can access. It seems like a parental responsibility. Back when .xxx was being considered, many advocated .kids, but ......:-(. Sad that it was never implemented.

Tickler · 12-21-2008, 01:34 AM

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.

Dirty Dutch · 12-21-2008, 02:59 AM

Thanks for the heads-up Joe...!!

NickSunshine · 12-21-2008, 03:40 AM

BFT3K · 12-21-2008, 09:13 AM

Back to the top

davecummings · 12-21-2008, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by notime

Thanks Joe, I subscribed to your newsletter too

I did, too, Joe --thanks!!

DWB · 12-22-2008, 12:40 AM

Back to the top.

davecummings · 12-22-2008, 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DirtyWhiteBoy

Back to the top.

Indded, this is important!

pornlaw · 12-22-2008, 09:07 AM

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?

Yes they are trying to give Hollywood a loop hole and there's nothing that states that an adult content producer cannot apply for the certificate and the exemption. However, I have an uneasy feeling and its just that -- a feeling -- that if an known adult content producer applies for the exemption they may be placing themselves on a list for certain inspection.

The inspections are meant to be random though.

BFT3K · 12-22-2008, 12:05 PM

bump back up

tony286 · 12-22-2008, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pornlaw

Yes they are trying to give Hollywood a loop hole and there's nothing that states that an adult content producer cannot apply for the certificate and the exemption. However, I have an uneasy feeling and its just that -- a feeling -- that if an known adult content producer applies for the exemption they may be placing themselves on a list for certain inspection.

The inspections are meant to be random though.

My wife brought that up and that was my thought. Shining a big bright light on my self.

Dagwolf · 12-22-2008, 12:21 PM

What, AGAIN? Geez, they never stop with the updates... I know they're just trying to perfect it but damn...

Kudles · 12-22-2008, 02:47 PM

Thanks for the heads up

NickSunshine · 12-22-2008, 08:36 PM

BFT3K · 12-24-2008, 09:16 AM

Back to the top for more comments, views, and info.

NickSunshine · 12-24-2008, 09:51 AM

someone should sticky this right above the mastercard thread

12-20-2008, 05:25 AM	#105
Indecisive Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Vancouver, BC Posts: 53	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? __________________ ICQ: 334404605

12-20-2008, 10:16 AM	#107
The Duck Adult Content Provider Industry Role: Join Date: May 2005 Location: Europe Posts: 18,243	I think the whole 2257 law will go into the shitter in time. All the tubes dont care and noone is arrested or prosecuted. __________________ Skype Horusmaia ICQ 41555245 Email [email protected]

12-21-2008, 02:59 AM	#113
Dirty Dutch Registered User Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Netherlands Posts: 71	Thanks for the heads-up Joe...!! __________________ Eric Worldsex.com \| AL4A.com Feel free to contact me about advertising in the archives of worldsex.com and al4a.com ! ICQ: 486-800-877 Mail: [email protected] See Who I Am At AdultWhosWho.com!

12-21-2008, 03:40 AM	#114
NickSunshine Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 1,196	__________________

12-22-2008, 12:21 PM	#122
Dagwolf President of Canada Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Leaving Hell, Entering Limbo Posts: 23,141	What, AGAIN? Geez, they never stop with the updates... I know they're just trying to perfect it but damn... __________________ Sleep well, and dream of large women.

12-20-2008, 10:02 AM	#106
MrPinks Registered User Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: FL Posts: 1,767	Bothersome that this is such a non-issue among many webmasters. Bump it up

12-21-2008, 09:13 AM	#115
BFT3K Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Narnia Posts: 10,764	Back to the top

12-22-2008, 12:40 AM	#117
DWB Registered User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Encrypted. Access denied. Posts: 31,779	Back to the top.

12-22-2008, 12:05 PM	#120
BFT3K Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Narnia Posts: 10,764	bump back up

12-22-2008, 02:47 PM	#123
Kudles Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Here There and Everywhere Posts: 5,477	Thanks for the heads up __________________ Free to Play MMOs and MMORPGs

12-22-2008, 08:36 PM	#124
NickSunshine Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 1,196	__________________

12-24-2008, 09:16 AM	#125
BFT3K Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Narnia Posts: 10,764	Back to the top for more comments, views, and info.

12-24-2008, 09:51 AM	#126
NickSunshine Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 1,196	someone should sticky this right above the mastercard thread __________________