2257 regulations reguarding TGP gallerys or content you dont own.

[gaybucks_chip]

wrong.

i've talked to several lawyers about this, including chad. my understanding is probably fuzzy, but the bottom line is that because the videos are digitized, they count as a new production, and a new production requires 2257.

Patti, I respectfully disagree. Your information was correct at the time of the 6/23/05 regs, but my interpretation is that they finally clarified and fixed this with the revised regulations published 7/12/07 (28 CFR 75.1 (m)), which states :

"Date of original production" or "original production date" means the date the primary producer actually filmed, videotaped, or photographed, or created a digitally or computer-manipulated image, digital image, or picture, of the visual depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct.

It's still not perfectly worded, but I believe the intent is for that to mean that "date of production" is finally defined as when the content was actually shot, not when somebody messed with the image.

To define it in any other way -- as was allowed in previous versions of the regs -- guts the entire value of 2257, as otherwise, one could simply shoot somebody who is 16, wait until they are 18 to manipulate or digitize the image, legitimately put a "production date" using the date the digitization was done, and be legally in compliance with 2257, while still filming underage content. So for that reason alone, I'm confident that the intent of the newly revised definition is to fix "date of production" as the date the content was shot. I seem to remember there being concurrence among several of the First Amendment attorneys on this point, but I can't say that for sure.

Prior to the AWA, "Date of Production" was defined as a whole bunch of different (and conflicting) things, and the 6/23/05 regs did, as Patti says, directly state that one of the acceptable definitions was the date content was reprocessed or digitized.

So if the newest regulations, and my interpretation of them is correct, and "date of production" is, in fact, the date the content was actually shot, not the date it was digitized, then any exempt content can be uploaded, digitized, reedited, and used without the need to comply with current 2257 regulations. The fact that a number of companies have, in the past year, come out with a bunch of newly digitized content that was shot prior to 7/1995 would tend to imply that they, also, support this definition.

As always, it's a matter of what your own level of risk allows. We don't currently own any pre-2257 content, so it isn't really an issue for us, but we have considered doing some projects involving older content, which is why I've tried to keep on top of it.

If anyone has any more up-to-date info, or opposing views, I'd love to hear them, as I don't think *any* of this is a settled issue.

[basschick]

i'm looking for the date of the webmaster lunch when chad talked to tony and cam about this very issue. i think the lunch was at a restaurant called "home", and bbm was up and running, which puts it well after january 2007, but other than that, i don't know the date of the conversation.

[badboysfilms]

No, it happened because Traci Lords lied to producers and said she was over 18 when she actually wasn't.

Believe what you want!! Thats a bunch of hogwash it because of what I said "Traci Lords!!", again this is why we are where we are in deep shit!!
Traci was an escape goat for these people so my 39 year old model has to prove he is not under 18 and I have to keep double records come on it is total harassment on the industry and you let it happen. I am to blame too but I am chicken shit, unless I have backing, there is even a porn star tring to stop porn on the net haaa!? Born again shit!

[gaybucks_chip]

i'm looking for the date of the webmaster lunch when chad talked to tony and cam about this very issue. i think the lunch was at a restaurant called "home", and bbm was up and running, which puts it well after january 2007, but other than that, i don't know the date of the conversation.

I also remember talking with Tony and Cam (on the boards or in PM) and asking about that, because I know they were looking to do something like that. And, like you, I remember Tony saying they'd been advised against it because of the triggering of a new publication date.

I *think* but am not certain that my convo happened before the AWA regs were published in July. The only reason I remember this whole thing is because I was thinking "Wow, 4472 (AWA) shits all over the constitution in a broader sense than before, but at least they finally fixed what a publication date is." Perhaps it was just my reading and not somebody's interpretation. I'd definitely defer to Chad or anyone else who's looked into this more fully.

[chadknowslaw]

2257 would not have prevented Traci Lords performances. She had 2 government issued ID's that had her picture but the date of birth was wrong.

This can still be easily done today ~ if a 17 year old takes a Social Security card of someone who is 18 and similar build into the driver license office he can get a government issued Driver's license with his picture and the older person's information. The ID is real and the producer can be completely compliant with 2257 yet the content would still be child porn.

[badboysfilms]

2257 would not have prevented Traci Lords performances. She had 2 government issued ID's that had her picture but the date of birth was wrong.

This can still be easily done today ~ if a 17 year old takes a Social Security card of someone who is 18 and similar build into the driver license office he can get a government issued Driver's license with his picture and the older person's information. The ID is real and the producer can be completely compliant with 2257 yet the content would still be child porn.

Yes and according to the law you are still responsible as you are supposed to check the id's
Yes and all this stops CP

[jeffmaleflixxx]

I would add just because your in Canada does not mean 2257 is not an issue or a requirement. It certainly is. Maleflixxx / Sureflix is in Canada and we house 2257 information for the content we stream. Why do we do that? Well for one our banking relationships, CC Bill and DHD (our payment processors) are American companies. It would be catastrophic if those payment providers where to cut us off because for questionable business practices. While US laws does not apply here technically we don't want trouble with US authorities. Our two governments are very close and often share information. Being in Canada is not a buffer for skirting US law (should you be conducting business there). It is always best to obey the laws in which your business is being conducted in - actually that's pretty much standard practice for an international business. Internet businesses are international businesses. While we are on the subject watch out for the UK too - they have some seriously stringent standards too.

Xtube is based in Canada. That's how they're doing it at the moment.

Pornotube (based in the US) is trying to argue that they are not in any way involved in the publication of the content, they are simply an ISP. I think that argument is complete BS and would get shot down instantly if the justice dept. called them on it... but Pornotube is owned by AEBN, who has more money than God, so they probably figure that they will squash the government with legal motions if anyone ever comes after them. Not a strategy I would try.

For the moment, a lot of people are relying on the very thin ice of the Sundance vs Reno decision, which stated that secondary producers were not required to keep records. However, that decision was effectively rendered moot by 4472/2257A, which became law last summer. Most legal opinions I've heard indicate that 4472 can't be enforced until the new regulations go into effect, which hasn't happened yet. That's why you still see all of the TGPs and so forth... people are hoping and praying that Sundance will still hold, at least until the new regulations go into effect.

Personally, I wouldn't go anywhere near a TGP or anything involving hosted content for which you don't have records until all of these issues are cleared up.

[badboysfilms]

Just shoot the fuckers!! Hang them by the balls or pussy if that maybe the case and watch, no more child porn. There thats how you stop it!! All this other crap is just tax payer waist of millions of $$$. Ok so you can't shoot them right away they need a fair trial then shoot them. If that doesn't stop them will burn them, well wait what if they just were looking at some child porn, hmmm burn them too.