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.

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