thank god they passed :)

who's the miami based company ?

bump .......

Conversely, it will only take ONE company not having all their ducks in a row to fuck us.

seems harsh, but at least they were nice about it :thumbsup

if they knocking on the doors of companies who shot a specific model who they know was underage when she was shot then this is even a bigger waste of taxpayers money - nobody in LA shoots an underage girl on purpose - occassionally like in the Traci Lords case a girl gets through with great fake ID's that nobody even suspects are fake - nobody who shot Traci Lords was charged because they couldn't and still can't put the onus on a producer to prove the ID's a performer presents are bonafide.

they should be going after YouTube and myspace - those are the two largest child pornographers on the planet now - go knock on YouTubes door and ask them if they have ANY ID's let alone valid ones on the underage teens on their sites.

Looking at Diabolic or any other major DVD companies is a waste of time. If they want convictions they need to look no further than many smaller web companies. I know a lot of you are on the up and up, but lets be honest... how many amateur sites out there do you think follow the rules?

Though it does sound like they may be looking for info on that one underage black model. Lets hope that is the case and it ends there.

For once I agree with you.

Guys, keep the records not too far !!

Are you sure pornotube is from the US?

Thank You

Hahaha. Why do I have a feeling they will laugh at you when you say your a FSC member and tell them to go away.

actually anyone who pulls feeds from the newsgroups are all up in that category too. i won't mention any names, but i think people know who i am talking about.

The good thing is

if they find that this model is underage everyone that has her online will know where she is online so they can remove her immediatly.

Thats an advantage of having your records in order you know where she is with one quick search of your database.

any new news???? :D

BINGO.

The state of California issued her a valid license with a fake birthdate.

I am actually very happy if the hit 10 DVD companies (major producers) and find that all the records are in order. Then the FBI will go back in front of congress and be forced to say "there is no evidence that anyone in the mainstream adult buisness is using underage models or lying about model ages. It must be those fucking pedos filiming their 8 year old daughters fucking a dog that are doing it, but we are not sure!"

They are at Red Light today

well they were cool on the whole thing....glad that the FBI were being nice to them tho

100.........,.

Did Girls Gone Wild get a visit from the feds yet? Their videos are full of amateur content that I Can't believe they have a 2257 for every girl. Props if they really do though. I'd be worried if I were them.

An expert witness for the Government conceded pretty much that precise fact on cross examination in a FSC v. Gonzales hearing.

Anyone with a brain, even within the beltway, realizes that there is no connection between the legitimate adult entertainment business and the underground CP business. The problem is, they don't care.... touting one's "family values" orientation is too big a winner, politically, and I doubt you'll find many politicians, actual or aspirational, who would argue that porn is "good" for families, or represents a "traditional value".

Sadly, I suspect that no amount of evidence supporting our legitimacy as an industy will alter the political calculus that makes our industry an attractive target for aggressive regulation and punitive legislation.

Speaking of which, the House of Representatives just hours ago passed the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, which is expected to be signed into law by Bush at a ceremony this Thursday.

I highly recommend that everyone in the industry familiarize themselves with the sections of this new Act that pertain to the adult industry, including the changes to 2257, the new section 2257 (covering "simulated sexually-explicit" materials) and the alterations to the forfeiture provisions for obscenity and CP-related offenses.

- Q.

Correcting a typo in my post above...

where I wrote
"the new section 2257 (covering "simulated sexually-explicit" materials)...."

that should be
"the new section 2257A (covering "simulated sexually-explicit" materials)...."

Quentin - Hit me up on ICQ - when you have a chance.

Story updated again:

http://www.avn.com/index.php?Primary...tent_ID=272407

Includes Statement to 2257 inspectors if you are a secondary producer - who is being inspected.

Haha, that would be a riot...

Until its you....

Why is that? What if you have a home office is that Haha also?

Wasn't being a member of FSC supposed to cover everyone from inspection until the matter was solved? Now it seems that they are saying that only applied to secondary producers.

Not any more. In the new bill they slipped in shit that now includes secondary producers and that they must keep records.

Read this thread too

Yeah... fuck this. I'm done.

I was referring to the injunction against inspections of FSC members. It appears that was only for secondary producers? I don't think that is how it was sold, but if someone else remembers speak up.

Another interesting twist:

Senate Legislation: 20 Years for Disguising Porn Sites as Child-Friendly
http://www.avn.com/index.php?Primary...tent_ID=272476

I think there is some confusion between the agreement that the FSC had with the DOJ pending the judge's ruling on the FSC's motion for preliminary injunction and the terms and scope of the injunction that was issued by the judge in December.

After the judge made his ruling in the injunction, the FSC issued a press release that summarized the key effects of the ruling. This is an excerpt from that release, dated 1/3/06:

The FSC legal staff has made a few preliminary determinations regarding the ruling:

-------------
The Dec. 28, 2005 ruling by Judge Miller has resulted in a de facto ?status quo? situation for all Free Speech Coalition members and other plaintiffs in the case.

* The ruling does not define FSC membership according to join date. All up-to-date FSC members are covered under this ruling, whether they joined a year ago, today, tomorrow, or anytime up until a final ruling in FSC v. Gonzales.

* The U.S. Department of Justice is enjoined from enforcing 18 USC 2257 against ?Producers? under 28 CFR Part 75, unless they engage in activity that involves the ?hiring, contracting for, managing, or otherwise arranging for the participating of the depicted performer.?

In other words, FSC members and other plaintiffs who are ?Secondary Producers? are protected under the ruling from 2257 inspection or enforcement until a final ruling in this case.

-------------

The full release is still available on the FSC website here

So far as I know, this has always been the official position taken by the FSC with regards to the meaning of the judge's ruling as it applies to FSC members, and whether/under what cirumstances they are exempt from inspection pending the outcome of the case.

- Q.

Why it's not even relevant, they were a primary producer as far as I understand it and therefore subject to the old 2257 regulations apply either way. The injunctive relief only helps the people that would have fallen under the definition of a secondary producer.

ok. but since this is a new bill, i am assuming that the fsc ruling only applies to that amendment and not to this new bill????

The preliminary injunction only applies to the initial attempt to redefine a secondary producer, and only to secondary producers as primary producers were required to keep the records on hand anyway prior to the proposed changes.

Although I haven't read through the new bill yet myself I wouldn't be suprised to see this attempt get tacked on to the initial FSC lawsuit if it really is simply the same attempt at redefinition over again. If you're really concerned ask your lawyer.

Either way I'm suprised that any major affiliate programs would still be rolling the dice on 2257 at this point in time with all the stuff that's been going down of late.

I guess it was bound to happen sooner or later..

holyshit!

That?s right.....they could care less about kids.....if they did they would fund the actual legislation that they passed years ago to really help children.....example the "no child left behind act".