Quote:
Originally Posted by newB
(Post 17351969)
No changes to speak of, though there were some revisions not too long ago to clean up verbage but it is still vague enough to be all-encompassing depending on interpretation. I believe the FSC lawsuit is still pending with a motion to dismiss that it is suspected to survive.
|
Hmm... I don't know; depending on when you last checked the regs, there have been some fairly significant revisions, actually.
Here are a few of the noteworthy, relatively recent changes:
* The regs are now clear that having a third party (like an attorney or 2257 record-keeping service) serve as your custodian of record is OK, provided that they adhere to the various requirements for custodians of record (concerning hours of availability, proper disclosure of their location, etc. etc.)
* There is no such thing as a "secondary producer" designation under the current, operative regs. If you meet the definition of "producer" under the statute, you are required to hold records for content that you publish, distribute, display, etc.,
period. There is no longer a question of whether you can simply list the primary producer(s) you obtain content from on your 2257 compliance statement -- simply providing a list of primary producers does not constitute compliance with the law.
* The regs for 2257A have been published. These only apply to you if you distribute depictions of
simulated sexually explicit conduct (as opposed to
actual sexually explicit conduct). And no... "simulated" does NOT mean cartoons or computer generated performers; the "simulated" part refers to the sex acts, not the nature of the individuals depicted. (This is terribly obvious, I realize... but believe it or not there was some confusion on this point when 2257A was first unveiled.)
The FSC is indeed challenging the statute, and the
Connection Distributing case has been remanded to the district court for trial, after the en banc 6th Circuit court overturned the appellate panel's previous decision that held 2257 to be unconstitutional.
Hope that helps. Obviously you'll want to get the full scoop from an attorney, but that's sort of a 'broad strokes' version of the law's current status. Most important to note is that 2257 is currently enforceable, should the FBI/DOJ decide to begin inspections again.
