Wow! Read the latest government responses on the new 2257 regs!!

[Slade]

WASHINGTON - In a letter response to Free Speech Coalition (FSC) attorneys H. Louis Sirkin and Jennifer Kinsley, Justice Department (DOJ) trial attorney Samuel C. Kaplan answered five of FSC's 14 Interrogatories (a formal document requesting information about an opposing party's legal case) and seven of its 12 Requests for Admission – but even these few responses demonstrated that the government is already prepared to do some major back-pedaling in its attempts to defend the new 2257 regulations. :thumbsup:

-----------------------
So..looks somewhat encouraging here..read about it more in depth at:

http://www.avn.com/index.php?Primary...tent_ID=233948

[Slade]

and, does the government's response about the material produced before 6/23/05 really mean this?:

"it means that if you're using content that was produced in the first instance prior to June 23, 2005....that content is only subject to the old regulations and not the new ones."

[LiveTwinksCam]

WASHINGTON - In a letter response to Free Speech Coalition (FSC) attorneys H. Louis Sirkin and Jennifer Kinsley, Justice Department (DOJ) trial attorney Samuel C. Kaplan answered five of FSC's 14 Interrogatories (a formal document requesting information about an opposing party's legal case) and seven of its 12 Requests for Admission – but even these few responses demonstrated that the government is already prepared to do some major back-pedaling in its attempts to defend the new 2257 regulations. :thumbsup:

-----------------------
So..looks somewhat encouraging here..read about it more in depth at:

http://www.avn.com/index.php?Primary...tent_ID=233948

Thank goodness, the new regulations would be a real pain in the ass for us Live Feed sites. However we will be ready if it does pass through. I am crossing my fingers it doesn't. :goofy:

[Squirt]

The article basically says that some of the main points that were used to scare us into action were overdramatized by some in our industry and what we are really facing is a lot different then what the reality is.

Why is this article slanted to make it seem like we have moved forward with something.. when in reality it is saying that what we were told by those in our industry was incorrect? Should we be happy it isn't as bad as we thought or be upset that it's not as bad as we were told? I hate being marketed and lied to.

[Slade]

The article basically says that some of the main points that were used to scare us into action were overdramatized by some in our industry and what we are really facing is a lot different then what the reality is.

Why is this article slanted to make it seem like we have moved forward with something.. when in reality it is saying that what we were told by those in our industry was incorrect? Should we be happy it isn't as bad as we thought or be upset that it's not as bad as we were told? I hate being marketed and lied to.

A couple of major issues are yet to be decided (like secondary producers..big one there!)..and I've always thought that these new regs were more scare tactics as far as practicality goes as opposed to rigorous enforcement of them. They have succeeded greatly in scaring the crap out of people.

I just don't quite get the take on their response about the material produced BEFORE 6/23/05 as opposed to AFTER!

Anyone on that?

[Squirt]

They have succeeded greatly in scaring the crap out of people.

Remember it wasn't the DOJ that was doing stories on the new 2257 regs and telling us the sky was falling.

It wasn't the DOJ that was telling us all these possibilites of every image on the net having to have 2257 documentation.

It wasn't the DOJ that told us we all needed to have G rated banners because affiliates promoting us would have to have 2257 docs for any X rated banners.

The scare tactics came from within our own industry and you must ask yourself "why?"

I support the FSC in fighting for us.. but I don't support the MAJOR hype some in our industry took part in to sway us to joining the FSC. When we are mislead we are much MUCH less likely to pull together in the future for fear of being lied to again.

I'm all for better safe then sorry.. and being overly prepaired... but it seems this was blown way out of proportion by some in our industry and we fell for it. What do you think?

[Lee]

Remember it wasn't the DOJ that was doing stories on the new 2257 regs and telling us the sky was falling.

It wasn't the DOJ that was telling us all these possibilites of every image on the net having to have 2257 documentation.

It wasn't the DOJ that told us we all needed to have G rated banners because affiliates promoting us would have to have 2257 docs for any X rated banners.

You forgot to add...

It wasnt the DOJ profiting from webmasters sending them money left, right and center.

In to your stattements above.

Glad to see some of us were right about certain 'groups' all along

Regards,

Lee

[Squirt]

You forgot to add...

It wasnt the DOJ profiting from webmasters sending them money left, right and center.

In to your stattements above.

Well after discussion with others over the last few months I've come to support the FSC as a group of attorneys that are taking this on with the support of the industry. I think it's important for us all to stick together.

I didn't include anything about the FSC profiting from the situation because most of the posts etc. because that's a real gray area for me. What I saw were other people saying to join the FSC. I didn't see a lot of the FSC out there saying "give us money" and I think a lot of the major hype was from others. Now that's not to say you don't know more about the situation then myself in which case .. fill me in! :extat: If you know something I don't, or have seen posts etc. that I haven't, then bring me up to speed. It's easy for things to slip by when so much is going on.

[Bec]

and, does the government's response about the material produced before 6/23/05 really mean this?:

"it means that if you're using content that was produced in the first instance prior to June 23, 2005....that content is only subject to the old regulations and not the new ones."

So are they saying sites that were up prior to June 23, 2005 and compliant as far as the old 2257 regs go - aren't subject to complying with the new regulations?

[Squirt]

So are they saying sites that were up prior to June 23, 2005 and compliant as far as the old 2257 regs go - aren't subject to complying with the new regulations?

Right. The DOJ said "defendant would take the position that the quoted language refers to material created in the first instance after June 23, 2005, and not to pre-existing material that is assembled, manufactured, published, duplicated, copied, digitized, reissued, or disseminated after June 23, 2005."

If I made something (assembled, digitized, etc.) prior to 6/23 and released it after 6/23 I follow the old regs, not the new ones.

Like on Sleepingmen.com All that stuff was created before 6/23 I can make a website tomorrow for that old material and still follow the old regs, not the new ones. The new regs only affect material I shoot after 6/23. :extat:

[Lee]

What I saw were other people saying to join the FSC. I didn't see a lot of the FSC out there saying "give us money" and I think a lot of the major hype was from others. Now that's not to say you don't know more about the situation then myself in which case .. fill me in! :extat: If you know something I don't, or have seen posts etc. that I haven't, then bring me up to speed. It's easy for things to slip by when so much is going on.

Its my understanding that if the FSC had told webmasters that they 'had to join' the FSC before whatever the cutoff date was, they would have been in some, how can i put it, 'hot water' legally.

Instead, again this is only my understanding of the situation, they had some of their lackeys posting messages on the various forums instead, in fact, if you look back on boards around the time that the FSC / DOJ agreement was made, you'll note that not a SINGLE FSC attorney had posted anywhere until the deadline had passed.

All you have to do is read between the lines and take a look at dates for this 2257 stuff in addition to checking out who the major supporters / followers / sheep of the FSC were over the Acacia issues and you should be able to come up with the answer to 2+2

Regards,

Lee

[Slade]

So are they saying sites that were up prior to June 23, 2005 and compliant as far as the old 2257 regs go - aren't subject to complying with the new regulations?

From the discussions and posts I have read, that SEEMS to be the interpretation. Although each time I read the DOJ's response, I really can't be sold that it truely is a "done deal".