attourney statement on secondry content and 2257

[collegeboyslive]

just in the interests of sharing and NOT playing an attorney but I asked our attourny Larry Walters about content that we have on our members area that we simply LINK to, as in we pass the surfer though to it.....

this was my question.."In my members area I have a LINK to purchased video content, the content and images reside on the companies servers that I purchase the feeds from. I have links to the video feeds from my server but no actual images reside on my machine,"

this is what he replied.......

"This is how it works: You are required to keep records for all depictions of actual (and now ‘simulated’) sexually explicit conduct appearing on your website. The way we view this requirement is that records are required if the image appears below your url. The government is not going to care about the technicalities of how the image is served up, or whether it is hot linked, etc. If your website url appears at the top of the page, you are required to have records for anything below that url, if it meets the definition of actual or simulated sexually explicit conduct. If the user is passing through a link to a website owned by someone else, you are not required to maintain records just because you provide the link on your site."


hope this helps people..

[IdolKnights]

It opens up a lot of questions about blogs and forums

[EonFilms_Rocky]

And a link would cover leased live cam feeds, like ours.

Ao you do not need to have my webcam models 2257 info on your page, although I would have my Custodian of Records info posted for those links to my product.

[citiboyz]

It should be noted that 2257 does not yet apply to "simulated sexual contact". The law specifically states that the DOJ must issue regulations first, which they have not done. However, nudity IS subject to 2257 now, so maybe Larry Walters meant to say "nudity" when he said "simulated sexual contact"?

[basschick]

4472, however, DOES refer to simulated sex and we must comply with it as well as 2257.

[XXXWriterDude]

There's a press release coming out from the FSC about the inspections any moment now. Big news. Well, sorta big news. The FSC is seeking a halt to ALL inspections following what they believe to be illegal searches.

[citiboyz]

4472, however, DOES refer to simulated sex and we must comply with it as well as 2257.

Well perhaps we can get some clarification on this, because it's my understanding that the new 2257 (which require docs for nudity) is effective now, but that 4472/2257A (which requires docs for simulated sex, doesn't take effect until the regs are updated. Following is a quote from the FSC website:

"H.R. 4472 specifically states that the new 2257A will not go into effect until 90 days after the Department of Justice promulgates final administrative regulations (which could take the better part of a year or more)."

So I think we need some expert clarification.

[desslock]

Unconstitutional ....

ye name is 2257 assertions regarding secondary producers

If this went to court guided by competent council, it would get ripped to shreds. The recent developments of the government's finding that only 1% of the entire Internet contains porn, coupled with the ruling of Ashcroft v. ACLU where the court states that people have a right to freedom of speech that cannot be constrained by federal mandated regulatory schemes portends, hopefully, a short lifespan to this rule.

Steve

[gaybucks_chip]

Not to mention that the loser Republicans are, for a change, LOSER republicans and Bush's nazis might have a little harder time with their agenda.

I've long believed that 4472 had a lot of stuff that was blatantly unconstitutional, and one of the things I didn't understand was why FSC had done nothing about it. If Steve is corrrect and it doesn't go into effect until the regs are published (which is different from what I heard) that might also explain why the FSC hasn't yet acted.

[citiboyz]

Not to mention that the loser Republicans are, for a change, LOSER republicans and Bush's nazis might have a little harder time with their agenda.

I've long believed that 4472 had a lot of stuff that was blatantly unconstitutional, and one of the things I didn't understand was why FSC had done nothing about it. If Steve is corrrect and it doesn't go into effect until the regs are published (which is different from what I heard) that might also explain why the FSC hasn't yet acted.

Well, as I understand it, the addition of nudity or more specifically "lascivious exhibition of the genitals" took effect with the signing of the law, but the part about "simulated sexual activity" requires new regulations to be written before it becomes effective, since it needs to be defined and so on. Clear as mud, right?

[Matt 26z]

Well, as I understand it, the addition of nudity or more specifically "lascivious exhibition of the genitals" took effect with the signing of the law, but the part about "simulated sexual activity" requires new regulations to be written before it becomes effective, since it needs to be defined and so on. Clear as mud, right?

Everyone would love clear definitions on all of this, but I doubt that we'll get it.

Some say plain old nudity is now under it, but I don't think so. What about the 16yo nude model featured in a photo hanging in an art gallery? Considering stuff like that is legal, it makes no sense to require ID's to make sure they are 18.

Then there is the "lascivious exhibition of the genitals" label. Is it possible that the non-sexual nude photos in a porn set could fall under this? If you take a candid photo of someone skinny dipping for instance, that is 100% innocent. It's "here is a photo of someone skinny dipping, doesn't that look fun?" However the nude still non-sexual photos at the start of a porn set are basically saying, "here is a photo of my sexy naked body, you got a boner yet?" I can see how that could be labeled lascivious exhibition. So does it come down to intent, or what we actually see in the photo? I would think what the photo depicts, but you never know.

Not to mention that the loser Republicans are, for a change, LOSER republicans and Bush's nazis might have a little harder time with their agenda.

The Republicans are going to have a difficult time pandering to their base over the next two years. They can't do it in congress, so the president will have to do it through areas he has control over... such as the DoJ.

[gaybucks_chip]

If you take a candid photo of someone skinny dipping for instance, that is 100% innocent. It's "here is a photo of someone skinny dipping, doesn't that look fun?" However the nude still non-sexual photos at the start of a porn set are basically saying, "here is a photo of my sexy naked body, you got a boner yet?" I can see how that could be labeled lascivious exhibition. So does it come down to intent, or what we actually see in the photo? I would think what the photo depicts, but you never know.

Well, and a couple years ago at one of the panels at Internext, there was disagreement within the ranks from the attorneys on the panel as to exactly what constituted a "photo set" because, as you know, the 6/23/05 regs require that any image that COMES from a sexually explicit set must be 2257 complaint even if the individual image itself isn't explicit. Furthermore, a nonexplicit image that is *cropped* from an explicit set must be complant.

The attorneys couldn't agree on what constituted a "set." Is it all the photos shot one day? All the photos in one setting? All the photos with a particular group of models? Different attorneys argued for each of those definitions, so conceivably (depending on the definition), a set of a model with all his clothes on eating a sandwich could be considered part of an "explicit set" if later in the day you shoot a solo or action scene with him.

Yes. Clear as mud, as Steve said.

BTW, Steve, thanks for the clarification. I hadn't heard that interpretation and it's good to know that at least somebody is supporting that position