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

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

Time to go in for the kill.

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

# 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

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

Woot Woot indeed.

Still no changes on secondary producer :(

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.

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

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?

# 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.

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

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

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."

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...

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

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.

Again.......
 

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 :)

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

And in Dave's case, lots of pussy :thumbsup

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

Ohh baby great news peoples

Content stores reopening across the globe :)

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. :2 cents:

bump this bad boy

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

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..

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.

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.