6th court, and ya I don't understand how it can just be glossed over and some changes made. lol

All I know is there seems to be a gap somewhere. I don't care who is doing what. Fsc, private attorneys. There are a ton of huge programs out there with lots of lawyer up money this should be very important to. I can't do it, I don't have that kind of bankroll. But lots of people in this industry do. Lots of people pay memberships to the fsc. Im not pointing fingers, I don't really care WHO is SUPPOSED to be responsible, I care about why things are not being properly taken care of, and why this industry doesn't seem to be being properly represented in these matters. Connections swinger publication is who took a huge notch out of the trunk of 2257 on their own.

I can never keep my courts straight :) Was the 6th court the one that ruled that 2257 as a whole was unconstitutional, or was it the one that gave the TRO against secondary producers? Or are they the same one?

Hey Dave, just keep the 2257 gremlins off of our asses and it's all good :thumbsup

Section 75.9 talks about an exemption to the record-keeping requirements that can be obtained by writing to the Attorney General and certifying that the age of all performers is verified during the normal course of business. This is the exemption, I assume, that's meant to let Hollywood avoid having to comply with 2257.

What's to keep an adult studio from applying for the same exemption?

Bothersome that this is such a non-issue among many webmasters. Bump it up

I think the whole 2257 law will go into the shitter in time. All the tubes dont care and noone is arrested or prosecuted.

You're always astute---like I've told/nagged the 2257 FBI Team Leader, I understand that most child porn originates in Russia/Asia and Eastern Europe, NOT in America (and if any was originated in America, the produces certainly wouldn't keep 2257 records for FBI inspections; thus, what the DOJ 2257 Regs do is hassling law-abiding citizens and appeasing the political guys, and religious radical right:-(

Thanks for being on top of this. It is appreciated. :thumbsup

Dave,
You would shit and fall back in it if you saw that amount of true (pre-teen sex) child porn that is being sold online in Thailand. They are paying for it via SMS payments from their phones.

To give you an idea how easy it is, I bought my Thai girlfriend a laptop. I set her up online and within 20 minutes (keep in mind she is a noob online) she screams for me to come to her. To my total amazement she's found, within 20 minutes searching in the Thai language, a full site of girls who look to be about 8 having sex with grown men. I asked her how in the hell she found such a thing and she followed, and get this, 3 links off of Thai Yahoo. Withing THREE CLICKS off of Yahoo she found real child porn.

Now she screams for me about 3 or 4 times a day when she finds more of it. Apparently it's closely linked to Celebrity news there, which is is addicted to as are most Thais. She goes to the Celeb sites, follows a link off, another and WHAMMO! It's disturbing how much of it is there. White girls, black girls, latin girls, asian girls, boys... you name it.

I can only assume the same holds true for other Asian countries as many do not police child porn but they do police legal porn.

Go figure.

The FBI and DOJ truly has their heads DEEP up their own asses on this subject. And you can tell them I said that. If you put a gun to my head right now and gave me a day to find REAL child porn, I just couldn't do it. True pedos have their own networks and systems to pass this content around, most of which IS overseas.

If they want to protect kids, then they need to get .kids rolling and EVERY parent only allow their child access to this domain from their systems. Problem solved.

.kids does seem like a logical, thorough, etc way for parents to supervise what sites their kids can access. It seems like a parental responsibility. Back when .xxx was being considered, many advocated .kids, but ......:-(. Sad that it was never implemented.

If I remember 2 of the 3 judges said that 2257 could not be saved, and was unconstitutional. Interesting that the reason the third judge dissented, was because he figured that 2257 could work if they removed the seconday producer stuff, and also changed the language to apply to commercial production only(see below).

From an AVN article:
In other words, despite the fact that adult producers are more careful than their Hollywood counterparts in making sure that minors are not involved in either actual or simulated sexual conduct, the mainstream entertainment industry will still get a free ride around recordkeeping (and, perhaps more importantly for Big Name Producers, labeling) simply by filing a notice with the Justice Department.
http://www.avn.com/law/articles/33820.html

Now that could be viewed as actual discrimination built right into the law. Also if HOLLYWOOD had to file 2257, they would lose all their government film grants.:error



A few more things that have caught my eye as I was reading about all the comments, and how they reacted to them:
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/E8-29677.htm

Calculating the industry cost for the regulations
- They keep saying that 90% of the people can be exempt from record keeping by filing a notice. But then they are only estimating a few thousand producers. Not seeing any actual numbers for webmaster/secondary producers being quoted though. I can't really see them being able to get exemptions if they are not in contact with the performers for verification.

They also indicate that you should be able to get outside record keeping for about $30/month or $1/day. Remember if they screw up, YOU are the one who goes to jail & does not pass go.:321GFY

So if I do a gallery a day with 2 people in the images, a couple of banners with a couple more people, and maybe a header image with a couple more people. So a normal TGP submission would be like 100+ pages, so doing the math we get.
6 actors multiplied by 100 URLs
6 * 100 = 600
So a gallery a day equals about 600 database entries that need to be done for only a $1.
Any companies that want to volunteer at those rates.:1orglaugh

I'm still trying to decipher this statement.
- "However, it(the 2257 statute) is limited to pornography intended for sale or trade."
It almost makes one think that a gallery selling a website membership might not be included because you are selling the website membership, not the images on your page. By trying to sidestep the personal use stuff, they would have appeared to stepped into some deep doodoo.:Oh crap

And also of intertest in the accompaning comments section
- They mention that boards/sharing/networking/tube sites might be exempt, but people posting on them had better have their 2257 docs.:thumbsup

Thanks for the heads-up Joe...!!

Back to the top

I did, too, Joe --thanks!!

Back to the top.

Indded, this is important!

Yes they are trying to give Hollywood a loop hole and there's nothing that states that an adult content producer cannot apply for the certificate and the exemption. However, I have an uneasy feeling and its just that -- a feeling -- that if an known adult content producer applies for the exemption they may be placing themselves on a list for certain inspection.

The inspections are meant to be random though.

bump back up

My wife brought that up and that was my thought. Shining a big bright light on my self.

What, AGAIN? Geez, they never stop with the updates... I know they're just trying to perfect it but damn...

Thanks for the heads up

Back to the top for more comments, views, and info.

someone should sticky this right above the mastercard thread