who sells content with 2257 data today

[Ounique]

The one thing you want to worry about from a company that does not give you the 2257 info is what happens if the regulations change and you are required to have that info. They can promise you now that they will deliver, but what if the company is not longer in business, or if they decide at that point to not give out the docs then you will need to remove all of that content.

[hdkbill]

Don,

Excellent point which is why we have the records and id's available and are happy to provide them...and, of course, which is why Ounique does the same.

I was merely pointing out that the currents reg's only require that the actual producer is required to maintain them. Of course, that may change so we just have to wait and see, but you are correct, a prudent purchaser of adult content is always well advised to get copies of the release and id's. That's nothing but a good business practice and if a content provider refuses to provide them then the buyer should ALWAYS go elsewhere.

Bill:wtf:

[_ap_]

Hey Bill,

The words before producer are equally as important - Primary Producer is the guy that shot the stuff, Secondary Producer is the guy thats distributing it (us). Have a re-read based on that tid-bit of info and it changes so many things.

On the point of blanking out details, it's my understanding that "legible copy" means that it has to be clear, not a photocopied fax converted into a low-res JPEG that is barely readable. The name, date of birth, and photo establish the identity and age, the number of the document and other features establish or disprove its authenticity.

ap.

[hdkbill]

AP,

My understanding of the CURRENT regulation is that it only requires that the performer's "name, date of birth and such other indicia of his or her identity is required". No mention of identifying numbers, address or phones numbers are mentioned.

The PROPOSED regulation does state that "sufficient specific information" be provided so that the issuing authority can access the information. That MAY require that the numbers and/or address of the performer be provided, but that is something for the attorneys to sort through.

Regarding who has to maintain the records.....CURRENT regulations state: Title 18 USCS 2257 (a) "WHOEVER PRODUCES ANY BOOK, MAGAZINE, PERIODICAL, FILM, VIDEOTAPE, OR OTHER MATTER WHICH.......", must maintain the records. Producer means "any person, including any individual, corporation, or other organization who produces, manufactures, or publishes any book, magazine, periodical, film, video tape or other similar matter and includes the duplication, reproduction or reissuing of any such matter, but DOES NOT include mere distribution or any other activity which does not involve hiring, contracting or managing, of otherwise arranging for the paticipatinon of the performes depicted". No mention in the current regulation is made of a secondary producer.

In the PROPOSED regulation, yes, a secondary producer is added and he/she is required to maintain the same records as the primary producer.

Another interesting point that I haven't seem mentioned on the board is the fact the Free Speech Coalition (FSC) announced last week that they have prepared a challenge to the proposed regulations in case the Department of Justice places them into effect in essentially the form as the initial proposal was written. Hopefully, the implementation of the proposed regulation will be stayed while it works its way through the court system.

Bill

[_ap_]

Hey bill,

Take a look at the definition of primary & secondary producer in 28CFR75.1.

ap.

[tombarr]

Haven't heard anything since the comment period closed on this. I know there were comments, but was there any word on the implementation or any adjustments based upon the comments or is this just going to have to be litigated?

[_ap_]

Good question, not sure.

I know Obenberger was working frantically to prepare comments by the deadline, I'll ask him how it went next week.

His advice is that based on the current law we have to keep docs on file today, I doubt that will ever change.

Even if it does, keeping the docs on file is still good business practice to ensure all models are of legal age.

ap.

[collegeboyslive]

we have it. I would rather the websites have the data than be scrabling if someone comes knocking on the door with a search warrent