18 U.S.C., Section 2257 and Privacy Concerns

I have a question for the group.

We have just received a letter from the office of Jeffrey J. Douglas, Attorney for Jet Set Productions and Marina Pacific, in response for 2257 Documentation. The letter says;

Despite General Gonzalez' efforts at reviving the concept of "secondary producers" in the most revent version of regulations in support of 18 U.S.C., 2257, the concept is not supported by the statute itself. The only case addressing the issue, SUNDANCE ASSOCS. INC. v RENO, 39 F.3d 804, 807, (10th Cir. 1998), held that the "secondary producer" requirements of the regulations to be unconstitutional. We rely on that holding, and further decline to violate the privacy of the performing artists by disseminating private data when not required to do so by law".

What he is saying is that Jet Set Productions is NOT going to provide confidential information about their models in the fomr of Model Releases and ID's until such time as the Free Speech Coalition files their injunction against these regulations and the court rules on the merits of the injunction.

Their fear (Jet Set) and ours, is that if they release confidential information about the models and then the injunction is granted and ultimately it is decided that the concept of "secondary producers" is in fact unconstitutional, then Jet Set and any content producer who has released such information, will then be in violation of many of the privacy laws, especially in the State of California.

This, of course, puts all content providers in a real pickle...almost seems that we are damned if we do and damned if we don't'.

I just wanted to bring this up to the group and see what your opinions are on the matter. If you are a purchaser of content, what do you think? And if you are a content provider, what do you think?

For those who don't know, Jeffrey Douglas is a practicing First Amendment Attorney, the Chairman Emeritus of the First Amendment Layers Association and the Chair of the Board of the Free Speech Coaliton so this isn't some lightweight lawyer trying to be a First Amendment Attorney.

Bill

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hdkbill

We have just received a letter from the office of Jeffrey J. Douglas, Attorney for Jet Set Productions and Marina Pacific, in response for 2257 Documentation. The letter says;

Despite General Gonzalez' efforts at reviving the concept of "secondary producers" in the most revent version of regulations in support of 18 U.S.C., 2257, the concept is not supported by the statute itself. The only case addressing the issue, SUNDANCE ASSOCS. INC. v RENO, 39 F.3d 804, 807, (10th Cir. 1998), held that the "secondary producer" requirements of the regulations to be unconstitutional. We rely on that holding, and further decline to violate the privacy of the performing artists by disseminating private data when not required to do so by law".

What he is saying is that Jet Set Productions is NOT going to provide confidential information about their models in the fomr of Model Releases and ID's until such time as the Free Speech Coalition files their injunction against these regulations and the court rules on the merits of the injunction.

Their fear (Jet Set) and ours, is that if they release confidential information about the models and then the injunction is granted and ultimately it is decided that the concept of "secondary producers" is in fact unconstitutional, then Jet Set and any content producer who has released such information, will then be in violation of many of the privacy laws, especially in the State of California.

This, of course, puts all content providers in a real pickle...almost seems that we are damned if we do and damned if we don't'.

I just wanted to bring this up to the group and see what your opinions are on the matter. If you are a purchaser of content, what do you think? And if you are a content provider, what do you think?

For those who don't know, Jeffrey Douglas is a practicing First Amendment Attorney, the Chairman Emeritus of the First Amendment Layers Association and the Chair of the Board of the Free Speech Coaliton so this isn't some lightweight lawyer trying to be a First Amendment Attorney.

Bill

---

Well..
1)I think the new regs sucks big ones as it's a stalker DREAM, and a potential victim of both identity theft AND personal information worst nightmare.

2)I find it interesting that your attorney said: "Despite General Gonzalez' efforts at reviving the concept of "secondary producers" in the most revent version of regulations in support of 18 U.S.C., 2257, the concept is not supported by the statute itself."

It would be WONDERFUL if the courts found FOR the secondary producers on this part of the regs.

Im certainly by no means an attorney or pretend to play one but i always thought Federal Law outranked State law.

To that means, i would say their attorney really doesnt know what he is talking about.

Just my opinion though $0.02

Regards,

Lee

Yeap Bill, that's the one we got too.

It really does put us in a pickle. And everyone (for the most part) that I've talked to is banking on the FSC to get the injunction.

Okay, let's all follow that reasoning... then the injunction falls through and the 23rd is upon us. Then what? It couldn't have been said any better! "You're damned if you do, Damned if you don't".

HOLY BUJEEEZUS this is a freakin' mess.

BTW, it was good to talk to you the other day Bill :)

Doug aka PapaBear

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lee

Im certainly by no means an attorney or pretend to play one but i always thought Federal Law outranked State law.

To that means, i would say their attorney really doesnt know what he is talking about.

Just my opinion though $0.02

Regards,

Lee

---

Hi Lee, that particular case wasn't in California as I recall. It was somewhere in one of the northern central states, don't recall exactly which one, but I do recall Jeffrey Douglas naming the state.

PapaBear

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hdkbill

For those who don't know, Jeffrey Douglas is a practicing First Amendment Attorney, the Chairman Emeritus of the First Amendment Layers Association and the Chair of the Board of the Free Speech Coaliton so this isn't some lightweight lawyer trying to be a First Amendment Attorney.

Bill

---

BTW Bill, I'm really glad you added that. I saw a post the other day and I myself wanted to say something along those lines but declined to do so. Jeffrey Douglas is our attorney as well and I feared the possible reprocussions I might have gotten by saying that. You go Bill :) hehe

Doug

Doug, Good talking with you the other day as well. Yeah, does kind of put us in a pickle.

Lee, assuming the FSC's TRO is granted, then all is well, unless of course, we have sent out the documents and have violated the privacy rights of several thousand models. If the TRO isn't granted, then the new law doesn't implement until the 23rd.....not until that date does the Federal Law trump State law. Rest assured that Jeffrey Douglas damn sure knows what he is talking about.

Our belief at the moment is that we get all of the documents ready to send out, but hold off sending them until we see whether or not the TRO is granted. An answer will be forthcoming before June 23rd. If not, then we immediately send out the required documents overnight to our customers and resellers who need them. If the TRO is in fact granted, the estimate is it could take anywhere from 2 to 5 years to work it's way through the courts.

The bottom line for us is that California has some fairly stringent privacy laws on the books and fully 99% of our content has been shot in that state. If we release the info now, and ultimately the new 2257 regs are ruled unconstitutional, we then may expose ourselves to many other liabilities, lawsuits and, of course, possibly exposing our models to many unpleasant consequences.

Bill

Hmmmm,

After reading this news release maybe we don't have it so bad here.....at least I don't think we have to worry about being shot.

WEBMASTERS GUNNED DOWN
MANILA, THE PHILIPPINES -- Dutch brothers Willen and Hendrikus Von Engelburg, webmasters who broadcasted feeds to U.S. subscribers, have been shot dead by police during a raid on their offices here.
Renaldo Jaylo, head of the investigation leading to the raid, said police were forced into a gun fight when the brothers drew.45-caliber pistols and opened fire on them. Jaylo said the Dutch men kept their models as sex slaves and forced them at gun point to perform, and that the raid was an effort to rescue the women from sex slavery.
Accounts of the shootings in the Asian Sex Gazette, however, suggest that the police action may have more to do with the “all out war” against the adult Internet declared by Filipino President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. The Philippines’ national journalists’ union has accused the government of “extra-judicial killings” to eliminate its enemies.
Records reportedly showed that the women had been paid roughly $1,000 per month. Because there are no laws in the Philippines specifically forbidding the operation of adult sites, authorities often claim that site operators have forced models to perform and prosecute them for illegal sex trafficking, says the Gazette.
From Matt O’Conner, Asian Sex Gazette, 6/5/05
http://www.asiansexgazette.com/asg/s...st05news43.htm

Bill

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hdkbill

WEBMASTERS GUNNED DOWN
MANILA, THE PHILIPPINES -- Dutch brothers Willen and Hendrikus Von Engelburg, webmasters who broadcasted feeds to U.S. subscribers, have been shot dead by police during a raid on their offices here.
Renaldo Jaylo, head of the investigation leading to the raid, said police were forced into a gun fight when the brothers drew.45-caliber pistols and opened fire on them. Jaylo said the Dutch men kept their models as sex slaves and forced them at gun point to perform, and that the raid was an effort to rescue the women from sex slavery.
Accounts of the shootings in the Asian Sex Gazette, however, suggest that the police action may have more to do with the “all out war” against the adult Internet declared by Filipino President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. The Philippines’ national journalists’ union has accused the government of “extra-judicial killings” to eliminate its enemies.
Records reportedly showed that the women had been paid roughly $1,000 per month. Because there are no laws in the Philippines specifically forbidding the operation of adult sites, authorities often claim that site operators have forced models to perform and prosecute them for illegal sex trafficking, says the Gazette.
From Matt O’Conner, Asian Sex Gazette, 6/5/05
http://www.asiansexgazette.com/asg/s...st05news43.htm

Bill

---

In the Phils a job paying about $100 USD a month would be equivelant to the average U.S. workers way of life. Making $1,000 USD a month those girls would be living like QUEENS!

All countries have their strange ways of dealing with those in the adult industry, even here in Australia, where prostitution is legal.

He's not the only lawyer out there that thinks there are a few predatory ambulance chasers and a new opportunistic cottage industry springing up...

http://www.avnonline.com/index.php?P...tent_ID=229097

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Squirt

All countries have their strange ways of dealing with those in the adult industry, even here in Australia, where prostitution is legal.

---

Prostitution is legal, but you can't host a porn site in Australia, am I right on that?

Weird.

dzinerbear

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dzinerbear

Prostitution is legal, but you can't host a porn site in Australia, am I right on that?

Weird.

dzinerbear

---

You're correct... hosting porn here is illegal.

Just going out and filming porn in Australia is illegal as well.

Prostitution is legal. Nudity on public television is legal, after 9PM.

Up late with Big Brother has shown sex etc. on public TV. A couple weeks ago a BB housemate whipped out his cock and was pressing it against a girls back while she was talking to other people, she didn't realize it was his cock. There was a big outcry... not because he whipped his cock out and it was on public TV, but because people thought she was being taken advantage of - go figure LOL :rolleyes: