i'm a secondary producer and we have every piece of paper and duplicates of ids and docs. even if it gets completely thrown out, i will still keep them. i don't trust the fuckers as far as i can throw em.

Any word on when this will be ready?

I spoke to Michelle, the FSC Executive Director, around 4:30 CST and she said the attorneys were working on it at that time. I imagine they are trying to be very accurate, cover most peoples questions, and give a prognostication of the future.

She said that as soon as they complete the summary, it would be posted to the FSC website.

Sorry I don't have a definite time. Just rest assured that the attorneys are being thorough, insightful, and scrying their crystal balls...... :)

ditto..at this point I have put in so much work to have proper record keeping that it would be stupid not to keep it up so I never have to panic like this again.

my point was with Traci lords is that was before 2257 and she had to show ID which she had to show she was of age. THe adult industry never wanted children in their productions but its accepted when they lump us in with child pornographers. Look at ASACP they took adult site out of their name, it gives the impression you cant be in adult and be against CP.

The ruling appears to spill a little wind from the fed's sails - a shot across the bow of Bush's little Gonzalez's puppet.

Hopefully this good news is a precursor to Bush's impeachment in 2006 on illegal wiretapping activities.

I read the Judge's order today and it tempered any celebration I initially felt. The Judge in this case was not very impressed with many key issues such as privacy, first amendment and the law being unduly burdensome. Were it not for precedent that the Judge was compelled to follow in Sundance, I think this case might have had a very different result already. Kudos to the FSC on their strategic planning of venue and for winning this battle, however close it might have been.

There is alot of work to do here for the FSC lawyers is the message I got from the Order.

As far as debating whether the DOJ will prosecute non FSC members, while the law is pretty clear that the injunction is only applicable to FSC members and named plaintiffs in the case, I do agree that there is a potential for the prosecutors to get a very negative response from another jurisdiction since this case is ongoing and some results have already been reached. The potential to have their asses handed to them in a very public manner certainly will chill the desire for the DOJ to prosecute.

On the other hand, if I was a prosecutor who detested Company A's business, their business was in a jurisdiction with friendly law on the books, and I wanted to break a "bad guy" down financially, well yeah it would be worth considering. Remember that to get to a similar result that the FSC has reached will require significant legal funding, and maybe the Feds might just choose a small guy who they know doesnt have the backing to withstand a full court DOJ press. Maybe if I was a prosecutor, I could use the 2257 as a vehicle to just toss the place and look for evidence of other crimes. It doesnt mean I have to actually prosecute 2257 but the law allows me to knock on his door and be let in...

Bottom line IMO is if you are not an FSC member, now is not the time to be asleep at the wheel when it comes to records and you be wise to reaffirm that all aspects of the your business can withstand some level of scrutiny by government agents.

*thumbs up FSC*

Excellent post. Small fish, including myself, often take comfort in the fact that they're small fish & look to the big sites with highly questionable content to be prosecuted first. I'm sure a company like Extreme can afford a lot more billable legal hours than I could to keep up the good fight.

Bump for these wise words.

The hole idea of secondary producers in 2257 (except for the hidden agenda of making it hard to promote porn) is not only to protect children from beeing exploited, but also to force the secondary producer to verify the age to avoid participating distribution of not-verified material.

Even if secondary producers get excempt from keeping records, they can still go to jail for much longer, under other paragraphs....and without any law enforcement, its all based on trust, which is quite risky in this business. Besides that, its about communication, because not all small fish have the guts or motivation to confront a 'big player', by asking for verification.

'Something better'... I think the optimal solution would be that all part of the industry, producers - processors and so on, sit down together and decide that it need stricter selfregulation.
Some things that would make it less risky and trustfull would be that the promoters would have to identify themself with some ID before approved as affiliate and sign a privacy agreement. At the same time, all paysites should have passwords on their programs and age verifications inside the webmasters area. If there are third-party processors involved, their part should be to approve/verify the program.
I know, its administration, but I think its worth it.

Smart man i'm always going to be prepared for anything as well

After reading the opinion itself, I am amazed that people are considering this a victory. In short,

1. All primary producers, and secondary ones not members of the FSC, are fully subject to inspections now.
2. The opinion makes it quite clear that if Congress amends the 18 USC 2257 to include secondary producer provisions - as 2 bills before Congress right now call for - such amendments would be upheld.
3. Except for archiving live feeds and Internet content not under a producer's control, all the First Amendment arguments failed - and once the government puts in testimony showing how this could be done on a cheaper basis, they might win on this point as well.
4. Similarly, all the rights to privacy arguments were shot down by the court.

The tone of the opinion, as well as the comments of the judge, make it quite clear to me that the chances of getting a favorable ruling at trial on almost any issue are slim and none. Seriously - only 90 web sites - as the government claims - would shut down over this regulation??? I am sure more than that have already done so; why, exactly, wasn't a list made and submitted as evidence on this point???

Along the same lines, dismissing all the arguments regarding working out of the home because the record only reflected one person talking about stalking of adult performers - I am sure that, as many women that have been stalked in the adult entertainment industry, much more evidence could have been submitted on this point.

Yes, I am aware that its only a preliminary injunction, and that the trial results might well be different once more evidence has been submitted and the arguments regarding the issues have been made. But for now, small and solo primary producers are the ones who will face the brunt of this decision, since many of them will be forced to disclose their home addresses and real names under these rules, at considerable risk to themselves and their families. It would seem to me that having a few people that had experienced stalking firsthand as plaintiffs, testifying about their experiences, might have been a better trial tactic here.

I largely agree with this. The opinion certainly doesnt read like any kind of slam dunk victory, so people should be cautious with how they view this result. Remember though that the FSC was moving with haste to head off any prosecution attempts by the DOJ, and it was this short window of time that could explain why some of the important issues like privacy and first amendment were not litigated by the FSC effectively.

The FSC has much more time now to painstakingly document privacy concerns for example. Anyone who has spent anytime in the adult biz knows the loonies that we have sometimes as customers. Even in the mainstream, crazy people stalk David Letterman and such. In our biz its much more prevalent and imo more deranged since their fantasies can be more clearly conceptualized as they have the target of their affections naked and covered in sperm on their big screen tvs at home. Given the time, the FSC should be able to do alot better job on the value of privacy and many of the other critical issues in this case.

One thing I do feel strongly about is that the FSC so far has been money well spent. Even better the cost is spread over a large base of clients. Champagne representation on the beer budget so to speak. I for one am very glad to have this team of high quality attorneys working on this and not assessing 100% of their bill my way.