JT video and 2257 inspection... statute of limitations?

[gaybucks_chip]

I just saw a reference in a blog posting to the inspection of JT video for content shot in 1997 and reissued by AMVC in 2003. An Xbiz article seems to indicate there is a 7 year statute of limitations on inspections.

I don't seem to remember any statute of limitations, except that one has to keep records for 7 years *after the company ceases doing business*. In this case, JT video licensed their content to AMVC in 2003, who reissued it. So obviously, JT video must have been doing business in 2003, well within the 7 year window in which recordkeeping is required.

A couple people seem to be making a big deal out of this, saying that Justice is trying to "reinterpret" 2257 to include reissuance dates, but I don't see any issue with it at all... it seems to me that if the product is being actively sold (or was in 2003), that it's well within the 7 year inspection period, and since the content was produced after 1995, it is clearly covered by 2257.

The sticky question is whether content shot prior to 1995 but reissued afterwards (converted to VOD or DVD) becomes subject to 2257, and my understanding is that the original production date is what determines compliance. In other words, product *reissued* after 1995 must have a 2257 notice, but my understanding is that the notice simply says the content is exempt. The letter from Justice to FSC seems to make clear that "date of production" is the date the content was *filmed* or otherwise created, and that the producer has the *option* of specifying the *last* production date if there are multiple scenes with multiple production dates.

Thoughts?

Is there something I'm missing?

[Lee]

I think the issue is with date of 'creation' and date of 'publication' confusion, imho its well within the DOJs realm to request that content published after the date of creation be inspected to ensure that it WAS created prior to publication.

Not sure if that is what happened in this instance but it would seem to be the case to me after a real quick read of the article.

Otherwise, we could ALL be publishing content today, that was created yesterday and say 'no it was created 10 yrs ago'.

There needs to be a mechanism in place for the DOJ to be able to say 'yep it was created 10 yrs ago, thanks'.

Checks and balances

Regards,

Lee

[basschick]

chip, i've noticed that several people i talked with said they destroyed the i.d. after 7 years. that is not how i interpreted the laws regarding custodianship nor have any attorneys ever recommended that when giving advice that i've had knowledge of.

i'd be interested to hear from chad regarding whether there is any reason to destroy the i.d.s but as of now, i'm pretty skeptical.