XBIZ NEWS: Federal Judge Dismisses FSC?s 2257 Suit - GoFuckYourself.com

xbizdon · 07-27-2010, 03:52 PM

XBIZ NEWS: Federal Judge Dismisses FSC?s 2257 Suit

PHILADELPHIA ? U.S. District Court Judge Michael Baylson has granted the government?s motion to dismiss FSC?s 18 U.S.C. § § 2257 and 2257A lawsuit.

http://www.xbiz.com/news/123435

abshard · 07-27-2010, 03:55 PM

What about secondary producers? For instance tgp's tubes etc that do not produce content but get their content from sponsors?

Was that ever decided if they need 2257 documents?

pornlaw · 07-27-2010, 07:27 PM

With the new changes to 2257 (2009), primary and secondary producers are all the same now. There is no relative difference. Everyone needs to have the docs and IDs...

RyuLion · 07-27-2010, 07:29 PM

woah.......

$5 submissions · 07-27-2010, 07:30 PM

stocktrader23 · 07-27-2010, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pornlaw

With the new changes to 2257 (2009), primary and secondary producers are all the same now. There is no relative difference. Everyone needs to have the docs and IDs...

Is there one affiliate on earth that actually keeps up with this correctly?

AsianDivaGirlsWebDude · 07-27-2010, 08:18 PM

Just thinking out loud here (I haven't received enough info on this case yet to forumlate a comprehensive response).

So, outright content theft/piracy is okay, but having a link back to the actual uploader/sponsor is not (I know it's apples and oranges).

In the article, I did not see where the Judge indicated how 2257 compliance by the mainstream adult industry posed much, if any, real threat to minors. Aside from the Dirty D case (which I assume is still being tried), I know of no other cases involving a legitimate adult company that caters to adults, having shot a minor.

As a primary producer, 2257 is a fact of life for me. However, it's going to be a potential nightmare for many so-called secondary producers to comply with this ruling.

Once an appeal is filed, I presume that all will be on hold again until that case is decided.

If there is a silver lining, it may mean that many tube sites, and other copyright infringing forums, torrents, etc., might now have to supply documents provided by their copyright infringing uploaders, which is not going to happen, because they don't have the docs.

If this becomes law, I hope that the government goes after businesses that cannot provide the docs, or do not even have so much as a link back to the primary producer.

Likewise, primary producers are going to have to be careful about who they trust as secondary producers.

ADG

marketsmart · 07-27-2010, 08:48 PM

just move your business offshore.. then you can steal the content you want and not have to worry about those pesky feds are their silly 2257 requirements..

problem solved...

.

$5 submissions · 07-27-2010, 08:53 PM

Anyway, there's always THE COURT OF APPEALS.

SallyRand · 07-27-2010, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marketsmart

just move your business offshore.. then you can steal the content you want and not have to worry about those pesky feds are their silly 2257 requirements..

problem solved...

.

Smart man!

Offshore hosting gets around all of this and it is cheap.

Sally.

magicmike · 07-27-2010, 09:16 PM

It'd be nice if this industry had some lobby that could get our (industry group members) voice accross to gov't's

We could prob. come up with rules that protect minors, and don't flood the internet with hardcore full scene videos, ie. free tubes, etc...

If we had a lobby voice that provided a plan of rules and regulations that would clear up this 2257 mess, for example. It'd be a lot better than where we are now and have been for years with the only voice being ocassional lawsuits against members of the industry.

kane · 07-27-2010, 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SallyRand

Smart man!

Offshore hosting gets around all of this and it is cheap.

Sally.

Actually you would have to move your entire business offshore. Just moving hosting means nothing. I know it is a popular sentiment to believe that it will, but they consider where the actual business is located when it comes to the law. So if your sites are hosted in Amsterdam, but your office is in Texas, you are still a US business and you are still required to follow the law.

tony286 · 07-27-2010, 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

Actually you would have to move your entire business offshore. Just moving hosting means nothing. I know it is a popular sentiment to believe that it will, but they consider where the actual business is located when it comes to the law. So if your sites are hosted in Amsterdam, but your office is in Texas, you are still a US business and you are still required to follow the law.

Yeah you would have to move offshore with your server for that to work.

pornlaw · 07-27-2010, 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

Actually you would have to move your entire business offshore. Just moving hosting means nothing. I know it is a popular sentiment to believe that it will, but they consider where the actual business is located when it comes to the law. So if your sites are hosted in Amsterdam, but your office is in Texas, you are still a US business and you are still required to follow the law.

And never visit the US again.... or probably even be on a plane that touches down on US soil on the way to somewhere else. I know that the FBI/DOJ has tracked people through passenger lists and have come on board refueling planes to nab someone.

JustDaveXxx · 07-27-2010, 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pornlaw

With the new changes to 2257 (2009), primary and secondary producers are all the same now. There is no relative difference. Everyone needs to have the docs and IDs...

Except for tube sites right? They seem to be exempt to anything that is legal.

The best solution would to slap tube site across your own pay site and tell the government that it is all user submited.

And all the TGP and MGP guys that use the affiliate content as promos tools for their sponsors, when they get questioned, just say "its all user submitted."

"user submitted" seems to be the phrase that pays. Its the magic get out of jail free card. The, you cant sue me card when its said.

Works for the tubesites

That seems to be the logical solution

Just sayen..

Dirty Dane · 07-27-2010, 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pornlaw

And never visit the US again.... or probably even be on a plane that touches down on US soil on the way to somewhere else. I know that the FBI/DOJ has tracked people through passenger lists and have come on board refueling planes to nab someone.

... and change nationality. You are still subject to american laws even if you live and work abroad?

stocktrader23 · 07-27-2010, 11:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JustDaveXxx

Works for the tubesites

As it should. The law is written in that way so that a business is not held responsible for their users breaking the law. It makes perfect sense in that regard and if you really think about it there's not much more they could do about it without limiting your freedom to own a site that people can upload shit to.

Loch · 07-27-2010, 11:46 PM

I don’t really see the problem here or am i completely on crazy pills.?
Most content providers or at least the ones i know off including myself have considered ALL of our clients secondary producers for 7 years or so.
Not only that but in many cases had tools developed for them to index 2257 properly.

The way i see it the people with business knowhow and insight have been preparing for this and in fact considered this a Law already.

topnotch, standup guy · 07-28-2010, 03:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stocktrader23

As it should. The law is written in that way so that a business is not held responsible for their users breaking the law. It makes perfect sense in that regard and if you really think about it there's not much more they could do about it without limiting your freedom to own a site that people can upload shit to.

Their users

You mean "users" like Marco and Eastwood?

Paul Markham · 07-28-2010, 03:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AsianDivaGirlsWebDude

If there is a silver lining, it may mean that many tube sites, and other copyright infringing forums, torrents, etc., might now have to supply documents provided by their copyright infringing uploaders, which is not going to happen, because they don't have the docs.

If this becomes law, I hope that the government goes after businesses that cannot provide the docs, or do not even have so much as a link back to the primary producer.

Likewise, primary producers are going to have to be careful about who they trust as secondary producers.

ADG

And assuming the Government will go after them. When the law was amended they could of found easy targets to hit. They chose targets who were most likely to have the documents.

If they did go after Tube sites they might ask the Tube site to prove it was user uploaded. That would scare a few. Even user uploaded I think they will still get slammed for having child porn on their sites.

Paul Markham · 07-28-2010, 03:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by magicmike

It'd be nice if this industry had some lobby that could get our (industry group members) voice accross to gov't's

We could prob. come up with rules that protect minors, and don't flood the internet with hardcore full scene videos, ie. free tubes, etc...

If we had a lobby voice that provided a plan of rules and regulations that would clear up this 2257 mess, for example. It'd be a lot better than where we are now and have been for years with the only voice being ocassional lawsuits against members of the industry.

And until then we have 2257. Pointless expecting this industry to come together to do much. Look at the names on the list of people fighting this. Do you see anyone at the top of the business?

spazlabz · 07-28-2010, 04:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stocktrader23

As it should. The law is written in that way so that a business is not held responsible for their users breaking the law. It makes perfect sense in that regard and if you really think about it there's not much more they could do about it without limiting your freedom to own a site that people can upload shit to.

You make a very valid point here. I would add one stipulation though and that would be that since users are submitting the content, they should be considered primary producers and subject to the same laws as anyone else. So when they submit content to tube sites etc they should be expected to have a 2257 statement that is compliant with US law.........let's see how many users would upload videos then

Since tubes sites profit from these user submitted videos they should be required by law to verify that each user has a valid 2257 notification...yes this might be inconvenient, but I find it inconvenient as hell to find a full length video of ours that some user has uploaded to a tube site without a license

magicmike · 07-28-2010, 05:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

And until then we have 2257. Pointless expecting this industry to come together to do much. Look at the names on the list of people fighting this. Do you see anyone at the top of the business?

Nah, its better to just bitch about it and hope Manwin saves the internets for everyone with their new clean practises.

stocktrader23 · 07-28-2010, 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spazlabz

You make a very valid point here. I would add one stipulation though and that would be that since users are submitting the content, they should be considered primary producers and subject to the same laws as anyone else. So when they submit content to tube sites etc they should be expected to have a 2257 statement that is compliant with US law.........let's see how many users would upload videos then

Since tubes sites profit from these user submitted videos they should be required by law to verify that each user has a valid 2257 notification...yes this might be inconvenient, but I find it inconvenient as hell to find a full length video of ours that some user has uploaded to a tube site without a license

They shouldn't be required to verify just like YouTube doesn't have to verify that you own the video you are uploading. In the end, you are responsible for what you upload under the law for sure. Not that many will ever be charged, they want the big boys.

I know it sucks get get robbed, I just don't know any good way to stop this shit from happening without breaking the internet.

Why · 07-28-2010, 12:17 PM

all this will do is make more adult companies operate off shore, where there is no 2257. they should allow them to stay, give them reasonable rules and maybe collect some healthy tax revenue.

2257 only effects american's. but hey, at least the US is trying to regulate it, unlike some countries that just leave it to self regulate.

GregE · 07-29-2010, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stocktrader23

As it should. The law is written in that way so that a business is not held responsible for their users breaking the law. It makes perfect sense in that regard and if you really think about it there's not much more they could do about it without limiting your freedom to own a site that people can upload shit to.

Maybe that so called "freedom" needs to be limited.

Seriously.

There's no point in having 2257 regulations if the tubes can, and do, thumb their noses at them with impunity.

No point at all.

None, zip, zilch, nada.

Even the government has to be smart enough to figure that one out eventually.

07-27-2010, 03:52 PM	#1
xbizdon Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 221	XBIZ NEWS: Federal Judge Dismisses FSC?s 2257 Suit XBIZ NEWS: Federal Judge Dismisses FSC?s 2257 Suit PHILADELPHIA ? U.S. District Court Judge Michael Baylson has granted the government?s motion to dismiss FSC?s 18 U.S.C. § § 2257 and 2257A lawsuit. http://www.xbiz.com/news/123435 __________________ Don Parret Editor/Publications Director XBIZ™ \| The Industry Source Adnet Media [email protected] Tel: 310.820.0228 x 701

07-27-2010, 07:27 PM	#3
pornlaw Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 1,851	With the new changes to 2257 (2009), primary and secondary producers are all the same now. There is no relative difference. Everyone needs to have the docs and IDs... __________________ Michael www.AdultBizLaw.com

07-27-2010, 07:29 PM	#4
RyuLion ClubDomCash.com Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: San Diego Posts: 32,174	woah....... __________________ Adult Biz Consultant A tech head since 1995

07-27-2010, 07:30 PM	#5
$5 submissions I help you SUCCEED Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: The Pearl of the Orient Seas Posts: 32,195	__________________ Need a NON-ADULT income stream? We build your YOUTUBE CHANNEL for only $20 per video! For Hire: $3/hour or $400 per month Marketing Specialist Virtual Assistants

07-27-2010, 08:18 PM	#7
AsianDivaGirlsWebDude Purveyor, Fine Asian Porn Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: San Francisco Bay Area Posts: 38,323	Just thinking out loud here (I haven't received enough info on this case yet to forumlate a comprehensive response). So, outright content theft/piracy is okay, but having a link back to the actual uploader/sponsor is not (I know it's apples and oranges). In the article, I did not see where the Judge indicated how 2257 compliance by the mainstream adult industry posed much, if any, real threat to minors. Aside from the Dirty D case (which I assume is still being tried), I know of no other cases involving a legitimate adult company that caters to adults, having shot a minor. As a primary producer, 2257 is a fact of life for me. However, it's going to be a potential nightmare for many so-called secondary producers to comply with this ruling. Once an appeal is filed, I presume that all will be on hold again until that case is decided. If there is a silver lining, it may mean that many tube sites, and other copyright infringing forums, torrents, etc., might now have to supply documents provided by their copyright infringing uploaders, which is not going to happen, because they don't have the docs. If this becomes law, I hope that the government goes after businesses that cannot provide the docs, or do not even have so much as a link back to the primary producer. Likewise, primary producers are going to have to be careful about who they trust as secondary producers. ADG __________________ Asian Diva Girls - Exclusive Photos and Videos Asian Diva Girls Affiliate Program (50% ccBill Revshare)

07-27-2010, 03:55 PM	#2
abshard Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: AZ Posts: 6,253	What about secondary producers? For instance tgp's tubes etc that do not produce content but get their content from sponsors? Was that ever decided if they need 2257 documents?

07-27-2010, 08:48 PM	#8
marketsmart HOMICIDAL TROLL KILLER Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Sunnybrook Institution for the Criminally Insane Posts: 20,419	just move your business offshore.. then you can steal the content you want and not have to worry about those pesky feds are their silly 2257 requirements.. problem solved... .

07-27-2010, 08:53 PM	#9
$5 submissions I help you SUCCEED Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: The Pearl of the Orient Seas Posts: 32,195	Anyway, there's always THE COURT OF APPEALS. __________________ Need a NON-ADULT income stream? We build your YOUTUBE CHANNEL for only $20 per video! For Hire: $3/hour or $400 per month Marketing Specialist Virtual Assistants

07-27-2010, 09:16 PM	#11
magicmike Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: JustPorno Posts: 2,384	It'd be nice if this industry had some lobby that could get our (industry group members) voice accross to gov't's We could prob. come up with rules that protect minors, and don't flood the internet with hardcore full scene videos, ie. free tubes, etc... If we had a lobby voice that provided a plan of rules and regulations that would clear up this 2257 mess, for example. It'd be a lot better than where we are now and have been for years with the only voice being ocassional lawsuits against members of the industry. __________________ Just Porno with both classic and mobile porn versions. Gay Porn Our mega gay site tranny porn

07-27-2010, 11:46 PM	#18
Loch Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Canada Posts: 7,674	I don’t really see the problem here or am i completely on crazy pills.? Most content providers or at least the ones i know off including myself have considered ALL of our clients secondary producers for 7 years or so. Not only that but in many cases had tools developed for them to index 2257 properly. The way i see it the people with business knowhow and insight have been preparing for this and in fact considered this a Law already. __________________ Contact us for Beta store access (4000 HD/SD productions) - Editing - Encoding/Post production ICQ - 277 862 930 E-mail casper /@/ cool-content.com

07-28-2010, 12:17 PM	#25
Why MFBA Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: PNW Posts: 7,230	all this will do is make more adult companies operate off shore, where there is no 2257. they should allow them to stay, give them reasonable rules and maybe collect some healthy tax revenue. 2257 only effects american's. but hey, at least the US is trying to regulate it, unlike some countries that just leave it to self regulate.