An injunction is granted ?
I guess I'll just keep on doing my main gig and try to get some momentum back. This is definitely getting old though.
An injunction is not granted ?
I will take down my main site and launch my new industry news site. See no point in trying to comply. It's virtually impossible not to mention excruciatingly tedious. Yuck.
I'd say the odds are about 50/50 for an injunction.
I think the only effect it is going to have is people will move their sites off shore. Maybe it will end up in court at some point. But what do I know.
moving your site offshore won't change how the law affects you. the law doesn't talk about where your company is registered, but only where you are working.
if the injunction is not granted, i will pull all our sexually explicit stuff offline - hundreds of avs sites, many thousands of galleries. we have our first two non-explicit avs sites up and running (first sale on site number 2 yesterday). i have plans for two more, but they are not completed. also hopefully we can get our classic porn site up, but we are encountering a complication.
basically we'll be going from sex sites to sexy sites - no dick, no pussy, no touching of genitals with anything, not even water.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tristin
I know the injunction is supposed to be filed sometime this week, but I'm wondering how long it will take for the judge to consider it, and should it be given a "yea"..how long the injunction will be good for.
1 month..2 months? What then?
In the meantime..does anyone know of (besides fsc) anyone actually mounting a legal case to have these regs totally tossed?
I'm disappointed that their hasn't been an injunction filed already but there doesn't seem to be anyone else that is willing to come forward and fight these new regulations. A small swinger group took the government to court in Sundance, maybe someone's gonna have to step up. Where are all the big sponsors on this. Seems like their absent, waiting for someone else to fight this ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huskyhunks
This is just my 2 cents on the subject, but from just reading some of the major message boards in the adult industry, there are a lot of vocal people talking about the new 2257 regs..there are several that are VERY involved in trying to stop it (those affiliated with FSC), but the ones VERY involved or even being just vocal about it on the boards are VERY VERY much in the minority.
It seems the vast majority don't seem to give a flying fu** about 2257.
That's either because they are really clueless or lazy or both..OR
do not think the regs will be/can be enforceable. (at least to any great degree).
So, while life will certainly go on after 6/23, it will be interesting to see if there really is a major crack down and the boards are filled with "WTF..THEY JUST SHUT ME DOWN!"..or life continues as it was before the new 2257 regs were issued, with very little changing in the way adult sites are run.
I dunno what it will be..it seems to be very calm with the majority of the webmasters frankly.
Doubt you'll even see those posts -- unless they allow a one phone call and a post now from jail. :honest:Quote:
So, while life will certainly go on after 6/23, it will be interesting to see if there really is a major crack down and the boards are filled with "WTF..THEY JUST SHUT ME DOWN!"
Greetings:
HAHAHA! Quote of the week award goes to Bec!Quote:
Originally Posted by Bec
You win, uhm, nothing... Sorry.
:thumbsup:
Well this actual law has been on the books since 1989. So just do the math to discover how unweildy, difficult and complicated the process it requires to implement federal laws. (any law, and this one is obviously worse)Quote:
Originally Posted by Slade
Actually probably the best thing for us would be for the DOJ to initiate a 2257 investigation and arrests. (not that I would want that to happen to anyone of course) but I think in those situations the courts have concrete grounds to review a law and how it is implemented. Otherwise everything is hypothetical.
For example, one reason the Supreme Court avoided overturning state sodomy laws in 1986 Bowers v Hardwick was because the case did not involve an actual prosecution. The 2003 court ruling that overturned all the state laws was different because it was drawn on a real case where Houston police cited two guys for breaking the law.
Steve
Quote:
Originally Posted by desslock
I share much of the same thoughts that you put down in your post.
Until and if someone is arrested and brought to trial under the new 2257 regs, it's all a guessing game.
I certainly hope I am not picked for the DOJ's 2257 lottery, if any.
At any rate, I finished creating my 2257 records database (using MS Office Access) today, and successfully put one gallery on it. I can't get the import from Excel function to work, so this will be time-consuming copying and pasting data field by field at a time...but I have only a manageable number of galleries, especially if I don't get all the performer records I need.
i'm sure webmasters are ready for it but don't agree hundred percent..
i'm sure most webmasters are not ready - i know lots of people who are so sure that the fsc injunction will protect them that they haven't even begun to collect i.d.s. plus there are a lot of people who don't even understand what the law is about - they think censoring the images is enough to make them compliant.
one of our industry's largest content providers is no where near done organizing i.d., while several more have taken their sites offline.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fetishlady
Hi guys...
just been away and absent for over a month and ... what the heck is going on? I'm not sure I quite understand what major change has happened with 18 U.S.C. 2257 Record-Keeping Requirements Compliance Statement. ???
Why shuting down your sites??
I'm just stunned
dalimili - the u.s. law 2257, which is about record-keeping for sexually explicit material, has grown. it now reads that all secondary producers (webmasters) must have i.d. with unblocked addresses for all models, and those records must be indexed by every url the set is on, and also by model name.
as well, each i.d. must be with the set of pics.
all webmasters are to continue to act as custodians of records for 7 years after the last changes, and also must be available to law enforcement for inspections at least 20 hours per week. you must have your address - the address you do business at - listed on your websites.
failure to do any of these things correctly can be grounds for 5 years in jail.
ok, bu I'm from Europe... and if I purchase stuff from MaxPixel or Ounique.... why do I have to keep their records? I mean... what the heck... are they gonna come knocking at my door?
Does anyone know if this applies to all of us that are not US citizens and we don't have firm registered in US?
how would it? it's a u.s. law.
well... my point exactly.... i don't understand what did they try to do with these new implementations... I mean.. obviously some of US webmasters will go frightened, but most of the overseas will stay....
if they wanted to remove porn, I doubt they'll succeed...
they wanted to weed out u.s. porno - a lot of smaller webmasters are unable to comply. also they probably to make u.s. webmasters more vulnerable.
on the other hand, it could just be a badly thought-out law - i wouldn't totally rule that out. but either way, it's dangerous for models, and extremely burdensome for smaller businesses.
I know that Lee said that the US market is extremely important to the industry as a whole. If the DOJ gets their way, anyone, foreign or domestic, who sells to a US citizen will have to comply with the 2257 regulations. Can they really enforce it ? That remains to be seen. Who knows where and when this "crusade" is going to end (or end up)
What basschick said, I can't see how they could enforce it on European webbies.Quote:
Originally Posted by dalimili
The thing I'm trying to figure out is, how should we make it clear that we operate our site(s) from Europe if we don't put any address or any other info on our sites? I think something like this might do the job:
"This site is maintained and operated from [City Name], [Country name], Europe.
The records required pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 2257 and 28 C.F.R. 75 are kept by the Custodian of Records [Email address]."
Of course, they might check out the whois info, but it's no guarantee that the domain owner is the person who makes sites on it. In addition to that, all my domains are protected by the whois privacy option, so they would probably think I'm from US.
The only reference to foreign producers in the text itself is thisQuote:
Does anyone know if this applies to all of us that are not US citizens and we don't have firm registered in US?
Quote:
One commenter also commented that the proposed rule may force
foreign primary producers to violate foreign laws regarding protection
of information. If primary producers in foreign countries decide to
comply with their home privacy laws and not provide materials to U.S.
entities, the regulation will chill the availability of materials and
speech to U.S. citizens. The Department declines to adopt this comment.
The rule is no different from other forms of labeling requirements
imposed on foreign producers of, e.g., alcohol, tobacco, or food items
that are imported into the United States. In order to sell in the U.S.
market, foreign producers must comply with U.S. laws. This rule applies
equally to any sexually explicit material introduced into the stream of
commerce in the United States no matter where it was produced. Foreign
producers have the option of not complying with the rule, but then
their access to the U.S. market is justly and lawfully prohibited.
They can make primary producers obey the US law because the primary producers would sell actual goods to US citizens (pics, videos etc., which is similar to e.g. mainstream movies).
Nevertheless, note how they first speak only about primary producers, then about "Foreign producers", without distinction.
Despite this play on words, I don't think it can apply to foreign secondary producers, i.e. plain webmasters. If I make a porn site and put it on the Internet, anyone in the world can see it, it doesn't mean I'm sprecifically targeting the US market, and I can't see how a US law can apply in that case.