I just saw a reference in a blog posting to the inspection of JT video for content shot in 1997 and reissued by AMVC in 2003. An Xbiz article seems to indicate there is a 7 year statute of limitations on inspections.

I don't seem to remember any statute of limitations, except that one has to keep records for 7 years *after the company ceases doing business*. In this case, JT video licensed their content to AMVC in 2003, who reissued it. So obviously, JT video must have been doing business in 2003, well within the 7 year window in which recordkeeping is required.

A couple people seem to be making a big deal out of this, saying that Justice is trying to "reinterpret" 2257 to include reissuance dates, but I don't see any issue with it at all... it seems to me that if the product is being actively sold (or was in 2003), that it's well within the 7 year inspection period, and since the content was produced after 1995, it is clearly covered by 2257.

The sticky question is whether content shot prior to 1995 but reissued afterwards (converted to VOD or DVD) becomes subject to 2257, and my understanding is that the original production date is what determines compliance. In other words, product *reissued* after 1995 must have a 2257 notice, but my understanding is that the notice simply says the content is exempt. The letter from Justice to FSC seems to make clear that "date of production" is the date the content was *filmed* or otherwise created, and that the producer has the *option* of specifying the *last* production date if there are multiple scenes with multiple production dates.

Thoughts?

Is there something I'm missing?