I think since they are not in the us nothing is going to happen to them either way.

:1orglaugh

Shouldnt this be a sticky or nobody cares anymore?

most of the big ones, yes, but there are many that are in the u.s.

Thanks for posting this, Joe.

Early morning bump....:winkwink:

My sentiments exactly.

there was a time this would of been on top for days. its sad.

Keep this on top for more info :thumbsup

Link doesn't work.

here's a bump

Thanks for the info!

i also wonder who always puts the important seminars at times where it is absolutely 150% impossible for me to attend. and probably 99% of all others too :disgust :Oh crap

I would like to see the govt mandate that ALL tube site owners have to maintain 2257 records for ALL scenes on their sites.

Give them the same clerical obligations that those of us who actually produce the content have to legally adhere to, and then we can finally be rid of them for good!

I am sure there are plenty of tube sites running on US servers now, so let's even the playing field a bit okay?

cause from 11am on its time for getting wasted :)

Anyone have the PDF, aparently the federal register can not handle GFY bandwidth and the took it down

New links.

Text version: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/E8-29677.htm

PDF: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-29677.pdf

bump back up

wow.. so every image must have custodian info and date of production in the digital file of the image..

How many of these already have that in there? If I have content from so & so sponsor and it has this info and I crop and resize, is it still in there?

Bump back to the front.

thank you dude

good work
 

and it's only going to get more interesting post Eric Holder's appointment.

Looks like cam sites are going to be required to record some of each individual person in each stream. This will be huge for some sites.

Pretty sad it took a swingers publication to get 2257 pretty much killed, and our whole industry couldn't do shit. Now they are trying again, so what are all the adult industry attorneys and umm organizations meant to stop this crap doing exactly other than reporting what "is" going to happen?

Wow, this is still not a sticky?

One more reason the industry is doomed. People just don't give a shit.

Also there is nothing about this on the FSC site last time I looked earlier today. They should be all over this.

And then they'll just move their sites to non-US servers.

Should of had some sort of lawyer shit going on to stop it from ever happening. How does 2257 get struck down as unconstitutional by the sixth court, and they can just revise a few things and push it through without it going again before the court that struck it down? Reaks of bs to me.

yeah my wife was just reading to be the whole certification thing to me. Its not clear, I they would write these things in simple english.

All over it like they were the last time? The only thing I saw them all over was them asking for more money and members. They were not able to do anything in the last round of 2257, what makes you think they can do anything now?

It took a small swingers group in Ohio to defeat what all the industry funds poured into the FSC could not. That's sad.

This is MAJOR news and it's not even on their site yet? :helpme

Yup same as what I was saying above. How is a law that is struck down for whatever reason just revised and bang its a law again? :disgust

Reading it now, thanks JD! :thumbsup

I'm waiting for the FSC to do a first-class analysis on the revised 2257 regs
 

First, the FSC is not a just bunch of lawyers sitting around analyzing court cases and DOJ regs.

I'm sure that once the revised regulations have been reviewed, scrutinized, analyzed, and summarized from all the different perspectives; the FSC will publish a nuanced document that you can take to the bank from the various points of view: producer, webmaster, retailer, distributor, talent, etc.

Unfortunately, it takes more than one day to produce a quality document from 169 pages of DOJ regulations that will adequately address your questions in a meaningful way.

Be patient.....I'm sure the elves are at work.:thumbsup

:xmas-smil30Happy Holidays to all.:xmas-smil30

So no one knew that they were doing revisions and going to push this through? Maybe someone can explain how they can just make revisions and push the law back through again. How bout someone from the fsc get on here and put it all in lamens terms so we can all understand how this is getting railroaded through to the point that its going to hassle a ton of people in this industry if it ends up being law (AGAIN) that will affect us.

Wouldnt it have been an idea to post on their website, we got it and are working on it?

I am not an attorney, do not represent the FSC, and my opinions are my own.

In truth, until the new regs are published in the Federal Register, nobody knows what they will/will not contain.

In my opinion, leading directly from FSC's efforts:

1. 11 years of secondary producer liability seem to have been eliminated with a new effective date of July 2006 (Adam Walsh Act).

2. The DOJ now seems to accept the idea of third party record keepers....a real improvement for secondary producers.

3. Cam sites are not going to have to retain each and every, entire performance.

4. Hyperlinks and mouse-overs will be allowed.

5. Performer personal info can be redacted.

While I, personally, think there is much more work to be done on these regs before they could be acceptable to the industry. I do thank the FSC for their efforts and I can see some results of their efforts in these new regs.

they were published today. FYI

also its only 42 pages so not as long of a read.

I see the effects of Rondee Kamins everything you mentioned is why the 6th circuit ruled in her favor, the FSC didn't so much as file an amicus brief, which in retrospect is probably a good thing, they have just fucked it up.

The FSC didnt do a fucking thing...as usual.

dont get me wrong redrob, I think I know who you are (austin) and there are some decent folks in the FSC - you, kernes, dave cummings...but you guys are being led blindly by a bunch of fast talking do nothings that make up your board of directors and your executive (mis)management.

People in thisindustry really need to get he heads out of the sand and read these new regulations. Ignorance is not going to make this go away. I read through most of the new regulations and it is quite disturbing. My impression is that secondary producers MUST keep the same records as primary producers. Primary producers really need to start cover our (secondary) asses and start coughing up the IDs and statements. The law looks to have become even more confusing with cross referencing. When are we going to have have a group that will take a stand for us? The FSC isn't doing shit for us.

One thing I found interesting was the possible exemption by certification, a letter to the DOJ. If primary producers were to perform this, while still maintaining records, this might be somewhat of a solution. I don't know if secondary producers can follow these steps. Seriously, is it only a handful of us that are trying to figure this out and actually give a shit about this?

I like the idea of a third party controlling the records but I still think secondary producers will have to retain records. Either way, from my impression, things just got a lot worse for secondary producers.

I've said this already in another thread. This whole thing will go less distance than a sticky turd rolling uphill. My only irritation is the people that are SUPPOSED to be doing their due diligence to protect the rights of this industry seem like they are not doing shit, and it took a swingers publication to deliver an almost knock out punch, when it should of been others that have a ton of funding that seem to be not nearly as effective. Once again the industry fails to come together to protect its best interests and it seems its each man for itself due to selfishness and greed. Im about done caring. :2 cents:

2257consulting.com may become a reality after-all.

I totally agree with you. :thumbsup

Bump back to top...

Here is a copy/paste of one of the many articles in today's FSC Weekly "X-Press" newsletter which FSC members can sign up to receive. Note the 2d and the very last paragraph?

I saw much of this same article, and Diane Duke's comment, someplace 2-3 days ago on one of the news/etc sites (maybe XBIZ, or AVN, or ********, or? --it's hell to be as old and forgetful as I am!).
----------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE RELEASES FINAL U.S.C. 18 2257 REGULATIONS

WASHINGTON - The Department of Justice, on Wednesday, made public final amendments to U.S.C. 18 2257 and 2257A record-keeping regulations affecting adult content producers. The changes will be published in the Federal Register tomorrow and become effective in 90 days. A PDF document of the revisions is available through this link:

http://www.federalregister.gov/OFRUpload/
OFRData/2008-29677_PI.pdf

"FSC fully intends to continue with our challenge to 18 USC 2257," FSC Executive Director Diane Duke said. "We are in the process of reviewing the document and will send an analysis of the regulations to our members within the next couple of days."

Attorney and FSC Board President Jeffery Douglas commented on the new revisions, and said, "The last-minute release of the long-anticipated regulations in support of the Adam Walsh amendments to 18 U.S.C. 2257 should surprise no one. They appear to be vulnerable to both constitutional and procedural challenges.

"In order to justify missing a previous deadline, the Administration characterizes these regulations as 'lesser regulations,' despite the expansion to include hundreds of thousands of small businesses not covered by the prior regulations. This distortion, as well as the complete failure to comply with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, provides new grounds to fight this attack on the adult industry, in addition to the strong constitutional arguments we have raised in the past."

"The Free Speech Coalition will study the 169 page release carefully, in order to prepare for any litigation necessary to protect your First Amendment and Privacy rights which these regulations ignore," he added."
__________________________________________________ _____

Are you saying that it's the FSC responsibility to do the "...due diligence to protect the rights of this industry.....".

I don't recall seeing that in anything FSC agreed to back when I joined--do you see anything from 5-6 years ago, or now where God or themselves agreed to what you voiced above?

I'd appreciate any assistance you can give me, as it will ease my mind (considering all the negative stuff we hear about FSC).

I'm thankful that FSC "fought/negotiated" with DOJ that summer day of 2005 in Denver (we were there for a hearing with the 10th District Circuit court to try and protect Secondary Producers against 2257 record-keeping, and to deal with other issues involved with the regulations that had just been released (I was one of the listed plaintiffs, along with FSC and Lenny Freidlander, against DOJ --my neck was "sticking out, and still is); I was in the room where Attorney Paul Cambria and others FSC-related attorneys were working (I'm told, at a much lower hourly rate than they otherwise would have). As I understood it, DOJ raised some issue about legal "standing" (or something, maybe "representation"--I can't recall) that would have restricted a Restraining Order against DOJ to only PRESENT FSC members of record at that time--that's when Paul, on behalf of FSC, got DOJ to agree to include all new members, too, for a specified period of time. Had FSC not won that concession for DOJ, only the then-present members would have benefited from the Court's actions. I'm a novice, but I was there in person, and the aforementioned is what I recall.

2257 Table Comparing the New Changes with the Existing Regs
 

I've prepared a table comparing and contrasting the existing 2257 regulations and the new regulation amendments which were published yesterday in the Federal Register.

The existing regulations are in the left-hand column. (The text highlighted in blue shows where they were changed from the 1995 Regulations.)

On the right is a "redlined" markup of the new regulations. The language that is being deleted is shown in strikethrough and the new text is shown by underlining. This at least identifies where the changes are located.

You will find the table linked on the first page of xxxlaw.com. I tried to post the direct link here, but I got an error message that I'm prohibited from posting a URL b/c I don't have thirty posts or more here. Oh, well.

Ten pages of changes in the text of the Regulations were accompanied by over 150 pages of commentary, and it looks to me already that some of the most significant changes are only found in the commentary rather than in the rules themselves - including the government's concession that Section 2257 is meant to apply only to images created for commerce or trade. Much, much more to come as the analysis goes on.

I will get a Bulletin out to my subscriber list in a few days, and existing clients will get a Client Advisory as well. Everyone else, keep your eyes on xxxlaw.com for analysis.

Hi Joe, thanks for giving everyone something clear and concise to read regarding the new regulations.

I've noticed that your site layout is a bit outdated and hard to navigate. I'd like to volunteer to polish your site with a new layout and help you move everything over to a CMS so updating adding/editing/removing content will be easier (if it isn't already).

Please send me an email if you're interested. admin[at]royswriting[dot]com

does anyone have the 169 page pdf I thought I saved it and hadnt.

Thanks Joe

Thanks for the info. That is very good of you and it is a nice read. I wonder though. Wasn't there a temporary restraining order of some kind issued by the 9th circuit court because they said it seemed the secondary producer addition was unconstitutional? If that is the case, I wonder why it is back now and why they would think there will be a different outcome.

I build small free sites and galleries and blogs using sponsor supplied content. You could think me linking to their 2257 info would be good enough. Having me keep copies of their records seems like a waste of time and effort on everyone's part.