Greetings:
Details are sketchy, as reported by CNN:
New 2257 Regs:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/17/chi...egs/index.html
Printable View
Greetings:
Details are sketchy, as reported by CNN:
New 2257 Regs:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/17/chi...egs/index.html
Oh joy, here we go again... :cry:
http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2005/May/05_ag_272.htm
this isn't again - this is the official changed version.
does anyone have the url of the actual new regs?
calling Chad....we need your expert help on this one!!!
cheers,
Luke
I hope they are reasonable. People overseas are lucky to not have to deal with this continuous threat we have to face in the states.
Don't even have to be overseas he says from Montreal. Good luck to all my american cousins.
we all knew this was coming, I hope savvey webmasters here are already keeping good records.
keeping records won't do it if the proposed regs go into effect.
they made the secondary producers into custodians of records - who had to be available to the police at any and (most important) ALL "business hours" in your "primary place of business". that means that you can't leave at all to pick up the kids, do a photoshoot at the beach, or go to the hospital.
Quote:
Originally Posted by collegeboyslive
Strictly speaking, because this is a new law, there is going to be a period of 'grace' so far as these new regs go.
For example, content producer before 1990 are not required to be 2257 compliant in the past tense of the law so, it would seem that, given these new regs are, well, new, that any content produced prior to the date they were signed in to law doesnt need to be compliant for these new regs as long as you can prove their production date which, if you purchased it from a reputable provider and have a good accounting system / 2257 system in place, should be no problem whatsoever.
All it means is that your OLD content is going to become stale very fast over the coming months ;)
Regards,
Lee
lee, there is a part of the proposed 2257 that requires secondary producers (read webmasters) to act as custodians of records during ALL business hours. how many people here can stay in their "primary place of business" during ALL business hours every day for the next 5 years? 'cause you're not allowed to just stop being the custodian even if the site is taken down.
seems to me that would be a problem or two.
i'm sure we'll be seeing a lot of "retro" porn sites popping up - i know worldwidecontent has a lot of str8 retro. perhaps don mike can tell us if they have lots of gay retro (read pre-1990).
Patti,Quote:
Originally Posted by basschick
As of yet that is still to be confirmed or denied so far as 'business hours' go. Although, a real simple work around for that, is to make sure your 'business hours' (if the govt doesnt tell us what they are) are from 6am-9am and you keep the records at home LOL
However, again, that is only for newly produced content so those of us who have a content library stemming back over the past 8-10 years realistically, have enough content to use on our sites.
Im pretty sure you are correct about seeing a lot of retro sites starting to pop up, i know of 2 that are in the works currently, not including our own :)
Regards,
Lee
lee, i not only read the proposed regs carefully, but i also talked to three adult attorneys. the business hours are not YOUR business hours - they are general business hours. you would have to be available from 8 am to 6 pm, approximately. they also didn't leave any days off, so as read, it would be mon - sun 8am to 6pm, and they could even extend that to 7 am if they wanted.
and there is only a 30 day grace period from tuesday. too bad we still can't see the regs - it would be nice to see what made it in there.
Hi Patti, you know the idea of a retro site is not a bad idea. We are re-working our site right now and comiling all the data from our titles as we speak. So you will be able to search out titles by date. Until then, if any of you guys contact me I'll be happy to get you some great retro titles. I know I've seen some, both gay and straight. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by basschick
This may be a totally stupid question, but considering how much ibuprophine I'm on right now, I'm suprised I can connect two words together.
I wonder how this new law will effect those who do not "shoot" content. As a video editor, I don't "produce" content, but I'm invoved in the production process. So should I request age verification documentation from the producers that I deal with so that I can have it on file? Or should I just request that the producers sign a document stating that their models are of age? Or should I even worry about it at all?
Dazed and confused!!!!!
Thats my point though Patti,Quote:
Originally Posted by basschick
At this moment in time, even attorneys are 'guessing' as to what these new regs contain, they hevent been made available to anyone so nobody is really any the wiser than when this 2257 mess started almost a year ago.
Regards,
Lee
i'll wait till something "official" is released!
jim
First off let me say that I am not a lawyer and have not seen what was actually passed into law, but I did read the original amendments and researched it back when this all stated out, plus I did get a legal opinion for my own circumstances, so this is my informed opinion:
Lee, you are wrong in saying "this is a new law" - it is only an amendment to existing law for administrative purposes, they don't have to give any grace period but it is generally accepted that there will be a 30-day period of adjustment.
Similarly, it applies to all content covered under existing 2257 regs, so you can't get away with saying "I bought this last month so I don't need to be compliant".
Ken, take a look at the definition of secondary content producer, it is irrelevant if you actually shoot the content now, if you display any content on any website that is considered "sexually explicit" by their definitions then congratulations, you have been promoted to the title "secondary content producer" and you are now responsible for keeping extremely detailed records and have them available during accepted business hours at your primary business location.
Now, as a general comment, I would like to remind everyone that this is a USA regulation. If your primary business location is outside of the USA and you show general good faith intent on compliance, there is no way the USA government can go to your business and do an audit (& then fine you or shut you down), nor is there any way for them to ask officials of other countries to do this audit for them since no other country in the world has similar laws under which they can act.
Once again, I am hoping ChadKnowsLaw will be online soon to give us an official legal opinion on this stuff.
cheers,
Luke
True it is a US only law.. and if you don't sell content in the U.S., host your sites in the U.S., have your main place of business in the U.S., have a U.S. based processor, or have U.S. affiliates promoting your content... then things aren't the same for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chilihost
I really hope they use these laws to really go after C*P* NOT just the average producer. It seems our current administration wants to stop people who love eachother from getting married and adopting children so who knows... they could go after the Gay people making porn too.. regardless of how old the models are... just to fuck with our community even more. Time will tell.
Ok, so since I don't display any content at all then its not something that I need to be concerned with at this point. Its mainly geared towards producers and websites themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chilihost
nope, not correct. Webhosting was explicitly excluded in the proposed regs (haven't seen the passed regs yet) so its irrelevant where you host, the main relevance is your primary business location.Quote:
Originally Posted by Squirt
also, for billing, if you do not already have a US based presence you should not be processing within any US based processors thanks to visa's cross-boundry rules.
Ken, kcwebwerks does not display any sexually explicit content so you should be fine. Of course, the best thing is to go out and get your own legal opinions on this stuff!!!
cheers,
Luke
So you're telling me if the U.S. government finds a site hosted on U.S. servers, that has suspected C*P* and no 2257 info, they will just let the site stay active and not disable it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Chilihost
Well? How many of us are going to be setting up off-shore companies? ;)
I have. And NOT because of illegal purposes, but just in case things become too stringent back home or the administration goes on a witch hunt against all American pornographers. Better safe then sorry when it comes to my income, and the income of my affiliates.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xstr8guy
Offshore companies aren't expensive at all, neither is getting an offshore bank account.
Remember.. an offshore company isn't a way to stop paying taxes! As a U.S. citizen abroad you still have to pay all applicable taxes.
Also.. if you're just an individual doing affiliate work etc... you can just get a foreign account online, have them mail your ATM card to you, and you're able to withdraw your foreign income from any atm in the world. :thumbsup:
Everyone knows illegal porn is different - there are laws in almost every country against such types of illegal porn and cross-border prosecution is a reality (thank goodness for that!!!).Quote:
Originally Posted by Squirt
However, 2257 regs are US-specific.
The webhosting clause that I was referring to is from http://xxxlaw.net/
However, this is taken from the original comparison of the regulation changes. As I mentioned, I have not seen the new version that was actually passed.Quote:
(4) Producer does not include...
(iv) A provider of Web-hosting services who does not manage the content of the computer site or service;
If you post a 2257 compliance statement on your site and your primary place of business is not located within the USA, there is no possible way for them to verify this information, ipso facto, there is no basis for them to charge you or shut down your site.
cheers,
Luke
won't help even slightly if they go with the "primary place of business" clause they had in the proposed regulations. their only interest is where you sit when you work, not where you company claims to be based.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xstr8guy
Right what I'm saying is if they SUSPECT C*P*, and any site with cleanshaven guys or twinks is suspect, then they try to contact the owner of the site.. if the owner doesn't respond, and provide info, the site is shut down via the registrar and/or hosting company, by the investigators.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chilihost
Acacia did the same thing... you send notice, if they don't respond, you take it to the judge, get the default judgement, send it to the registrar, and the site is shut down.
Sites hosted in the states have to follow U.S. laws... if 2257 docs cannot be verified, wherever in the world they are.. those sites are in volation of the current 2257 regs.. and most likely the updated ones.
Just like here in Australia... it's illegal to host porn on Australian servers right? Just because I might have an American business presence, doesn't mean I'm immune to Australian laws regarding my adult hosting.
I'm glad they're going after this.. I think it's great.. again as long as it's only C*P* and not the average legal adult online business.
The DOJ has a new Newsletter tittled the "D0J 0bscenity Prosecution News"
You can see it here.. take out the * http://www.us*doj.go*v/crimi*nal/
I was shocked at this part of the site... take out the * http://www.us*doj.g*ov/crim*inal/ce*...sreleases.html
There are a large number of cases there I've never heard of .. prosecutions, and recent enditments, for stuff that is tame compared to the Extreme Associates case, or equal to it. Why haven't we heard of these cases through our normal adult news channels? One case is a chain of porn stores that had 8 DVD's, out of all the material they sell, which contained material a grand jury found offensive, adults having consentual sex, in a matter offensive to the grand jury.
This is why we need to be in full compliance with the new 2257 regs. though full compliance may not help much for those on the fringe... it seems they are filing cases and seeing what a grand jury feels is offensive.. then going forward almost like they are trying to widen the range of what is considered obscene through test cases.
At this point no one really knows what the new 2257 Regs are going to say.
Most likely they have been changed somewhat from the proposed regs that were posted.
The only fact that we know is that the Attorney General has signed the new regs. The won't go into effect until 30 days after they have been printed in the Federal Register. No one knows when they will be printed in the Federal Register but some speculation says that they should be included in todays release of the Register.
The "light at the end of the tunnel" is that the Free Speech Coalition has retained counsel to fight the regs. As soon as they are released the FSC will be filing an injunction against them in an attempt to prevent them from going into effect until such time as the FSC law suit can be heard.
It's honestly a waste of time to speculate at this point what the new regs may or may not contain. If you really want to spend time constructively the best thing every webmaster on this board can do is to join the Free Speech Coalition and support them monetarily.
More information about membership and about 2257 can be found at http://www.freespeechcoalition.com It really is imperative that all of us join the FSC as they are the only organization truly fighting to stop the new 2257 regs from going into effect. An associate membership in FSC is only $25.00. They are going to need all of the monetary help they can get in order to prevent the new regs from going into effect.
For the latest accurate information on these new regs go to:
http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/
Bill
does anyone have any thoughts or ideas as to when we will have a clearer picture of what is going on?
additionally - i'm hearing a lot of confusion here. who are you looking to as an authoritative source?
thanks bill!
there is some fast and furious posting happening here.
i believe they are supposed to publish in the federal register within three days... till they release the info, it's true we don't know what was signed, or what is to be the new 2257. all i have said is based on the current 2257 regs and the new proposed regs.
Pistol,
My pleasure. The best source is to subscribe to the Free Speech Newsletter as they are keeping up to date on the latest happenings.
We also post the Free Speech newsletter on our site in our HDK FREE SPEECH are, usually when it comes out each Friday. The link to see it there is: http://www.hotdesertknights.com/03/news.php It will be updated later today, but here is the latest from the FSC:
TRADE GROUP TO CHALLENGE NEW SECTION 2257 RULES
May 18, 2005
Free Speech Coalition, the adult entertainment trade association, announced plans today to file a legal challenge to the Justice Department’s new rules for enforcement of the Federal Labeling and Recordkeeping Law known as 18 U.S.C. Section 2257.
“Just as we feared,” FSC Executive Director Michelle Freridge said, “Attorney General Gonzales has signed a final rule implementing the new provisions of the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act. We are prepared to challenge these unconstitutional and burdensome regulations in court.”
The law requires producers of sexually explicit material to maintain records proving that performers in those depictions are not minors, but the detailed and extensive records that the law requires create a daunting record-keeping task, particularly when applied to the Internet. And the penalties are harsh. Even with no minors involved in the production - indeed, even if all performers are over 40 -- a first-offense paperwork error can still mean five years in federal prison.
Although FSC is on record in strong opposition to the use of minors in sexual material, Freridge said these new regulations go too far. According to Freridge, the proposed guidelines, which were initially released to the public in August of 2004, go beyond reasonable administrative requirements and create an excessively burdensome paperwork system that may violate the privacy rights and personal safety of performers. On a practical level, many producers would find it difficult to comply with the highly technical requirements.
“In addition, we really need to examine the impact of the new regulations on webmasters, since internet content is apparently going to be the focus of the new DOJ task force,” suggested Larry Walters, a well known First Amendment attorney who represents a number of adult webmasters and internet companies and is a member of FSC’s Internet Committee.
“Under the current unfriendly administration,” Freridge commented, “The law would become a tool for selective enforcement by the Justice Department and a technical trap for legal adult businesses that have no connection whatsoever to child pornography.”
FSC intends to test the validity of the new rules by filing multiple lawsuits, asking for a temporary restraining order and an injunction. By taking swift proactive steps, FSC hopes to protect its members from prosecution, while challenging the law as unconstitutional.
To view the proposed guidelines released to the public in 2004, as well as FSC’s response to those guidelines, visit www.freespeechcoalition.com The version signed by Attorney General Gonzales today will be published in the Federal Register soon, and available on the FSC website shortly thereafter.
Free Speech Coalition is the trade organization of the adult entertainment industry. Its mission is to safeguard the industry from oppressive governmental regulation and to promote good business practices within the industry.
Bill
i can see your all still "speculating!" , well i'm off to see some "real people!" with some "real problems!"..."may the force be with you!" :goof:
jim
Greetings:
What strange little world do you live in?Quote:
Originally Posted by longboardjim
Personally, I think that comes across as a pretty insulting response to the trade group that's out there looking after your ass, whether you realize it's on the hot seat or not........
Yet at the same time, he is also 100% correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by JustMe
Its speculation, nothing more, nothing less.
The regulations havent even been published, yet, people are already saying what they are going to do in order to fight them?
How can you fight something if nobody knows what it is exactly thats being fought LOL
Regards,
Lee
I would much prefer to have an organization like the Free Speech Coalition getting prepared to protect our interests than to have no organization doing anything.
Better to be prepared than to get behind the 8 ball on this issue. Based on the Proposed Changes to 2257, as released in the Notice of Proposed Rule Making, (NPRM) it can be devastating to the industry. It's unlikely that the final result which will be released will be much changed from the NPRM.
All the FSC is trying to do is to be prepared and to protect our collective asses.
Bill
i believe there will be an injunction, and i know the fsc will do everything possible to get their injunction, but doesn't that depend on the judge? their injunction could be turned down, or it could go to a hearing that draws on while the new regs are enforced.
not as likely, but not impossible.
the fsc are flying as blind as we are, and they're doing what they can. why should the rest of us be any different? if 2257 was to remain as it was, and they would simply start working to enforce it, why would they bother with new regs at all?
? , i'm not quite clear on where you decided my opinion on the "trade group" but i have to insist you stop attaching my name to your opinions!.Quote:
Originally Posted by JustMe
jim