2257; Online vs. Retail = No Difference

Hi Everyone :)

Here is where I get confused:

The new regs are supposedly for child protection (keeping minors out of adult movies) and that is stated in the purpose of filing the new regs by Gonzales organization.

Okay, with that said...

An online retail outlet such as our sites versus a brick & mortar retail outlet.

Pick a studio, any studio (Falcon, Catalina, All Worlds, Hot Desert Knights).

We show only the front and back cover on our sites. Some if not most covers have explicit images. The same thing a customer would see when walking into a brick & mortar adult store. They pick it up and they can see the front and back and the same explicit images. No difference, right?

So why are retail outlets exempt from the new regs in 2257 and an online retail outlet not? Remember, there's no difference in the front and back covers, it's the same movie.

If the government is concerned about minors being in porn and that's what these new regs are for as described by the Gonzales org, then why exempt brick and mortar's?

What's good for the goose, is good for the gander!!!

As a secondary producer (retail outlet be it online or brick/mortar) we depend on the studio/producer to make sure they aren't filming minors in their movies. They are required to check ID's, yada, yada...

Once the movie has been released, all of us deem it to be legal.

If the movie is found to be illegal for whatever reason.... just like a drug that has been tampered with, or a vehicle manufactured with a defective part, then simply do a "Recall". All retailers simply pull it off the shelf and send it back to the manufacturer.

It just makes sense that the government would need a lot less manpower to research all the necessary documentation if they had only the primary producer's records to check/verify and not have to worry about secondary producers.

I don't see the government going out to a Ford Dealership to make sure that the vehicle has a Ford emblem on it and is indeed a Ford vehicle and made by Ford.

Am I making sense?

PapaBear

There is a logic behind making a difference between republishing a front and back cover at an internet store and displaying a front and back cover at a brick and mortar adult store. By necessity, the internet store has to manipulate the original image to display it. The brick and mortar store is just displaying the original image. The stated purpose of these regulations is to help stop child pornography, so the regs try to cover the ways that images of actual children have been used to create online child porn.

I understand that we are scanning and/or copying the front/back image. However it is still the very same front/back cover.

It doesn't make sense. Be it on a monitor or in one's hands, they are the same.

The regs are to keep minors out of porn. That's it, plain and simple. We all sell the same video, made by the same producer. We should all have to keep records, or none of the secondary producers keep records.

Just my 2cents

PapaBear

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fister

There is a logic behind making a difference between republishing a front and back cover at an internet store and displaying a front and back cover at a brick and mortar adult store. By necessity, the internet store has to manipulate the original image to display it. The brick and mortar store is just displaying the original image. The stated purpose of these regulations is to help stop child pornography, so the regs try to cover the ways that images of actual children have been used to create online child porn.

---

Digitally manipulate images. Moving on with that subject, primary producers are sending us photo copies of the actors driver license. These are scanned images, wouldn't that count as the same thing then? It's manipulated :huh:

PapaBear

I'm beginning to wonder if there's an attorney out there that would like to discuss a possible discrimination case on this.

I cannot accept the fact that I am showing the very same front/back cover (no less, no more) than what a customer could pick up off a shelf in the local adult bookstore, and we, as a secondary producer have to keep these records and not a brick/mortar.

Especially in respect to how the new regs are written and their purpose.

They simply want to make sure that all the actors are of legal age, or at least that is their claim. Whether it's online or in a brick/mortar, it's still the same damn movie!

Fair is fair.

PapaBear

GLBTcity - if you don't do anything more than a store, and IF the law applies to you, sounds like you might well have a law suit.

the law may not actually apply to you... maybe have a lawyer look it over?

The difference is this, and it's very simple:

The Children wouldn't be in an adult store to start with.
Bricks and mortar stores are neither primary, or secondary producers under the definition, and;

A bricks and mortar store is regulated by local law, not federal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EmporerEJ

The difference is this, and it's very simple:

The Children wouldn't be in an adult store to start with.
Bricks and mortar stores are neither primary, or secondary producers under the definition, and;

A bricks and mortar store is regulated by local law, not federal.

---

Hi EJ... that I understand.

Adult bookstores don't allow minors in the first place. Granted!

But that's not how the government has worded it's case as to why these new regs need to be implemented. It's not about protecting children from viewing porn on the web. It's about keeping producers from using minors in adult movies.

It's very clearly stated in their arguments for implimenting these new regs.

That's what my beef is about!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by basschick

GLBTcity - if you don't do anything more than a store, and IF the law applies to you, sounds like you might well have a law suit.

the law may not actually apply to you... maybe have a lawyer look it over?

---

Hi basschick :)

I wish it were that way, but some covers and especially back covers contain explicit images... that's my point! And the new regs address explicit images on websites. But my view on this is that it's the same damn thing that an adult could pick up in the store and IF indeed there's a minor in the actual movie, why is it that ONLY I have to keep records and not the brick/mortar. They're selling the same movie that has a minor in it that I am! There is no freeking difference as I see it.

Retails should have to do the same as we do since it's about keeping producers legit and not using minors.

A frustrated PapaBear!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GLBTcity

Hi EJ... that I understand.

Adult bookstores don't allow minors in the first place. Granted!

But that's not how the government has worded it's case as to why these new regs need to be implemented. It's not about protecting children from viewing porn on the web. It's about keeping producers from using minors in adult movies.

It's very clearly stated in their arguments for implimenting these new regs.

That's what my beef is about!

---

ohh, wait....
Are you suggesting the government has an ulterior motive?
Say it isn't so!
I'm Shocked, Shocked!

:honest:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EmporerEJ

ohh, wait....
Are you suggesting the government has an ulterior motive?
Say it isn't so!
I'm Shocked, Shocked!

:honest:

---

hehe... we all no that's their plan EJ :)

But in my thinking, or at least how I'm looking at this, it sure seems as if that would open the door for a lawsuit or some sort of argument against all this BS!

I just can't beleive that a Judge would disagree with the fact that it's the same movie sitting on their shelf, and the same front/back covers on my website. No difference. Retail needs to keep records also.

IF that were to happen, I don't think the DOJ would stand a chance at keeping the new regs if we got Retail Brick/Mortars involved in this poop!

PapaBear

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GLBTcity

hehe... we all no that's their plan EJ :)

But in my thinking, or at least how I'm looking at this, it sure seems as if that would open the door for a lawsuit or some sort of argument against all this BS!

I just can't beleive that a Judge would disagree with the fact that it's the same movie sitting on their shelf, and the same front/back covers on my website. No difference. Retail needs to keep records also.

IF that were to happen, I don't think the DOJ would stand a chance at keeping the new regs if we got Retail Brick/Mortars involved in this poop!

PapaBear

---

Well, I can't follow your logic.
Confining ourselves to the 2257 legislation, please tell me what producer type a store is, one, or two?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EmporerEJ

Well, I can't follow your logic.
Confining ourselves to the 2257 legislation, please tell me what producer type a store is, one, or two?

---

I'm an online adult retail store.

Castle Boutique is an adult retail store but with a physical building.

We both sell adult videos. The same videos.

I simply scan the front and back cover and put on a web page.

They simply set it on a shelf.

Both front and back covers are available to a customer to see and read from my site and/or Castle Boutique.

Why should I be the ONLY one to have to keep records?

My site is free to browse, no admission charge or membership required.

Castle Boutique is free to walk into, no cover charge or admission charge.

Since the DOJ has clearly stated and is documented in black & white that these new regs are to ensure that no minors are used in the production of an adult movie, why isn't Castle Boutique required to keep these same records?

I just think if a Judge were to look at it, the Judge might agree and get the Adult Bookstores involved by declaring that the new regs would have to apply to them as well. Then we, the adult industry, would have a heck of a LOT more power behind us in getting the new regs shot down!

PB

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GLBTcity

I'm an online adult retail store.

Castle Boutique is an adult retail store but with a physical building.

We both sell adult videos. The same videos.

I simply scan the front and back cover and put on a web page.

They simply set it on a shelf.

Both front and back covers are available to a customer to see and read from my site and/or Castle Boutique.

Why should I be the ONLY one to have to keep records?

My site is free to browse, no admission charge or membership required.

Castle Boutique is free to walk into, no cover charge or admission charge.

Since the DOJ has clearly stated and is documented in black & white that these new regs are to ensure that no minors are used in the production of an adult movie, why isn't Castle Boutique required to keep these same records?

I just think if a Judge were to look at it, the Judge might agree and get the Adult Bookstores involved by declaring that the new regs would have to apply to them as well. Then we, the adult industry, would have a heck of a LOT more power behind us in getting the new regs shot down!

PB

---

hmmm...I'm not so sure you DO have to keep the records.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EmporerEJ

hmmm...I'm not so sure you DO have to keep the records.....

---

Well, according to the new regs, if the cover and/or back contain explicit images, I'm supposed to keep records.

So why in the heck shouldn't a brick/mortar?

That's my point EJ.

Granted the DOJ is trying to be slick on about trying to remove "smut" (porn) as they would call it from the web...

BUT, because they have stated their case as to the reasoning for these new regs, they have left the door open for a good argument in court regarding WHY brick/mortar adult shops are exempt. I feel strongly about this as you can tell.

Fair is Fair...

PapaBear

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GLBTcity

Well, according to the new regs, if the cover and/or back contain explicit images, I'm supposed to keep records.

So why in the heck shouldn't a brick/mortar?

That's my point EJ.

Granted the DOJ is trying to be slick on about trying to remove "smut" (porn) as they would call it from the web...

BUT, because they have stated their case as to the reasoning for these new regs, they have left the door open for a good argument in court regarding WHY brick/mortar adult shops are exempt. I feel strongly about this as you can tell.

Fair is Fair...

PapaBear

---

I hear ya!
I'm on YOUR side, remember?
:D

Personally, I think the entire 2257 thing is crap.
Hopefully, we wil prevail, but I'm not holding my breath..

i think you should talk to a lawyer - i believe you have a serious thing happening here, and that of all of us, you really are a distributor as they are defining it.

You don't need records for the front and back of a video cover if you run an online store as you're a distributor and not any type of producer.

GLBTcity -

Well you have clearly demonstrated yet one more reason why the definition of "secondary producer" is nonsense. That is what the courts are for.

Obviously the lawyers who drafted this up had very little understanding of the modern technology. Might I also suggest that federal agencies, like the Federal Communications Commission or the Securities & Exchanges Commission routinely issue regulations that the effected industries see and litigate because they are either illegal or absurd.

For example, the Sarbanes Oxley act passed a few years ago has dramatically added the recordkeeping burdons on any company that trades on the New York Stock Exchange.... all for the good sounding purpose of protecting the stockholders. Here the federal law was passed to protect minors.

Maybe this 2257 experience will give webmasters a taste of the kind of arbitrary regulatory process that other corporate owners have had to deal with for years.

Steve

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by desslock

GLBTcity -

Well you have clearly demonstrated yet one more reason why the definition of "secondary producer" is nonsense. That is what the courts are for.

Obviously the lawyers who drafted this up had very little understanding of the modern technology. Might I also suggest that federal agencies, like the Federal Communications Commission or the Securities & Exchanges Commission routinely issue regulations that the effected industries see and litigate because they are either illegal or absurd.

For example, the Sarbanes Oxley act passed a few years ago has dramatically added the recordkeeping burdons on any company that trades on the New York Stock Exchange.... all for the good sounding purpose of protecting the stockholders. Here the federal law was passed to protect minors.

Maybe this 2257 experience will give webmasters a taste of the kind of arbitrary regulatory process that other corporate owners have had to deal with for years.

Steve

---

While I certainly agree with you in principle...I'm not sure you can equate the two items.
There's no constitutional guarantee for trading stock, but there is for "free expression."

i am pretty sure you're right, but who wants to have to prove that in court?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rick

You don't need records for the front and back of a video cover if you run an online store as you're a distributor and not any type of producer.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EmporerEJ

While I certainly agree with you in principle...I'm not sure you can equate the two items.
There's no constitutional guarantee for trading stock, but there is for "free expression."

---

Well in my limited knowledge, I know that constitutional rights when applied to businesses are not as sacred as to those when applied to individuals. Businesses are up for a lot less 4th amendment search & seizure protection. For example - Phillip Morris must affix labels to their advertising for cigarettes, despite whatever it is they want to talk about regarding smoking. Drug companies must write lots of disclaimers on their ads for drugs. That certainly infringes on their right to expression. That is why 2257 is very clever - it doesn't stop the expression, it regulates the business .

Actually when I first really read through the 2257 regulations, it reminded me of one of my friends who is a mutual fund broker, and how his office must remain open all business hours for any Sec & Exchanges Commission records inspection. And he talked to me about all the paperwork he has to keep for such a possible federal inspection.

Steve

It's still not the same thing....
In the case of 2257, the act assumes you are doing something illegal until you PROVE otherwise by means of age identification.

It does constitute prior restraint:

an attempt to prevent publication or broadcast of any statement, which is an unconstitutional restraint on free speech and free press (even in the guise of an anti-nuisance ordinance). Stemming from the First Amendment to the Constitution, the ban on prior restraint allows publication of libel, slander, obvious untruths, anti-government diatribes, racial and religious epithets, and almost any material, except if public security or public safety is endangered (false claim of poison in the reservoir or exhortation to commit a crime like a lynching) and some forms of pornography. The theory, articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Near v. Minnesota (1931) is that free speech and free press protections have priority, and lawsuits for libel and slander and prosecutions for criminal advocacy will curb the effect of defamation and untruths. Most other nations permit prior restraint by court order or police action when the material appears to be defamatory (hurtful lies), salacious (nasty), or "improper, mischievous, or illegal" (in the words of Sir William Blackstone).

hmmmmmm. very interesting! Ok - here is a million dollar question for ya.... how often has the current Rehnquist court cited Near v. Minnesota for such instances?

I mean - I can cite Plessy vs Ferguson (seperate but equal is ok) as something the Supreme Court once wrote too, that doesn't make it something currently observed in the law.

Steve

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by desslock

hmmmmmm. very interesting! Ok - here is a million dollar question for ya.... how often has the current Rehnquist court cited Near v. Minnesota for such instances?

I mean - I can cite Plessy vs Ferguson (seperate but equal is ok) as something the Supreme Court once wrote too, that doesn't make it something currently observed in the law.

Steve

---

Well, it was recently cited in the FSC case. (prior restraint)