Well actually there are a ton of reasons why 2257 makes no sense. For one thing, there's absolutely nothing to provide a fix on *when* content was shot, and there are accusations abounding that various studios have shot models at age 17, then faked the production date and released it after they turned 18. Nothing in current requirements would prevent this from happening.

For another, there are some really good fake IDs out there.

And for yet another, there's the problem of a younger model borrowing his older brother's ID if they look somewhat similar, so in that case, you don't even have an ID of the person you shot at all.

And from 2005 until the regulations for the Adam Walsh Act passed, "Production Date" was interpreted by Justice to include the date that the content was assembled. So, for example, a DVD assembled and authored in 2009 with content shot in 1997 could legally have a production date of 2009 on it -- further rendering 2257 useless. Fortunately they fixed that with 2257A.

But I did read the article, and while I would like to be optimistic, I just can't see any appellate justices, and certainly not the Supremes, shooting down 2257 on the basis of the arguments being made, especially since the thing was litigated and argued, with some of these same arguments, from 1990 until 1995.