New rules on 2257

[NotThatKevin]

"At the same time, a requirement is proposed to
be added that the identification card used to verify identification by
the producer must be independently accessible by government entities in
order to ensure its legitimacy. Thus, driver's licenses--which are
routinely accessed through the States' departments that manage such
licensing and motor vehicle registration--are a prime form of
identification. "

According to this piece of proposed legislation USA webmasters will only be able to deal with content providers that can provide them with a USA drivers license or other approved ID document than can be accessed by government entities.

[Chop Smith]

Originally posted by NotThatKevin
[b]"According to this piece of proposed legislation USA webmasters will only be able to deal with content providers that can provide them with a USA drivers license or other approved ID document than can be accessed by government entities.

Kevin it is good to see your post.

This does not sound too good. I have 410 different models with 150,000+ images. Last week I made an effort to see how close to compliance I would be if this thing is adopted. At that point it looked like about 20% of my content would need to come down. In lieu of the US driver license, I guess all of that good Chez content will also have to go.

Oh well, I love girls from the South (US) anyway.

[NotThatKevin]

The law is not retroactive according to that link GG posted. When and if it's approved it will only apply on new sets shot from that date onwards. By the way even tho you have some of our content that are girls from other countries they all have a USA drivers license and live in the USA

Adopting a rule that only US documents will be acceptable will make the market an open field day for foriegners. Unfortunately the US does not produce enough good or cheap content.

I think it also says overseas documents such as passports are acceptable.

[NotThatKevin]

Originally posted by Paul Markham2
I think it also says overseas documents such as passports are acceptable.

Only if that document can be accessed and verified to be valid by the USA authorities.

At the same time, a requirement is proposed to be added that the identification card used to verify identification by the producer must be independently accessible by government entities in
order to ensure its legitimacy.

The Authorities want be be able to verify the reliability of the documents. For example the USA authorities will not have the rights to access the Czech republics database of it's citizens to verify the validity and age of a model.

[Chop Smith]

Think I better get back in my lurking mode, but

As many of you who know me off the board know that as a CPA, I made my living practicing before the most vicious regulatory agency in the US. Get ready! When Congress gives an agency the right to write their own regulations, it is tough. The 'sky ain't falling' but it is about to rain like hell. Sooner or later 2257 regs will be tested in court.

One other small rant - when the regs are finally adopted, you comply. Otherwise, you get out. It is that simple.

[Mishi]

Originally posted by NotThatKevin
The law is not retroactive according to that link GG posted. When and if it's approved it will only apply on new sets shot from that date onwards. By the way even tho you have some of our content that are girls from other countries they all have a USA drivers license and live in the USA

Yes...and to play the devil's advocate, how are you going to prove a set in question was shot after the regulation came into effect? Tell the nice man from the DA's office, and expect him to believe you?

People, make no mistake - Ashcroft is PISSED OFF that COPA was set back once again. We are less than four months away from the US election, and the religious right are seeing their lives flash before their eyes. I have never seen a group of politicians more desperate to make an impact. WE are the target. This is not going to go away.

[NotThatKevin]

Originally posted by Mishi
Yes...and to play the devil's advocate, how are you going to prove a set in question was shot after the regulation came into effect? Tell the nice man from the DA's office, and expect him to believe you?

People, make no mistake - Ashcroft is PISSED OFF that COPA was set back once again. We are less than four months away from the US election, and the religious right are seeing their lives flash before their eyes. I have never seen a group of politicians more desperate to make an impact. WE are the target. This is not going to go away.

I do see what you are saying Mishi. The nice man from the DA's office can just be a prick and give you a rough time but at the end of the day the guy from the DA's office has to accept the date on any legal document that was signed by the model and witnesses as is the case with any other legal document in the USA.

You are 100% correct that this band of politicians wants to make an impact and we the adult community are the target.

[xxxlaw]

Notice to all:

I've posted a two-column table on the proposed regulations - comparing all of the terms side by side, indicating by strikethrough what language is to be deleted and indicating the new language in color. It's a fairly elaborate chart but it makes it simple to see what's new and to compare it with the old regulations.

http://www.xxxlaw.net
Click on "What's New".

Feel free to post this link wherever the webmasters graze. As a matter of fact, I'd appreciate it.

Thanks for all of the kind words you folks posted, expecially misha; You all made me feel quite welcome in this rare visit to the boards.

Regards,

J. D. Obenberger

[NotThatKevin]

Thank you xxxlaw this is great

[venturi]

JD, THANK YOU for putting that up - makes it tons easier to understand the scope of the changes for us non-legalize fluent folks.

Ashcroft is calling this a "clarification"??? WTF, it's a total rewrite! Section 75.5 changed from a brief sentence to a 60 part diatribe!!!

I'm not saying these changes (many of them) are for the better, but pushing such sweeping modifications through as a "clarification" just doesn't wash with me.

[Greenguy]

Joe - that's awesome - thank you so much for putting it together & posting the link over here - very much appreciated!

Can you give us a non legalese version of what it means please.

Do webmasters have to have 2257.

Can we remove the models address?

What documents are required fro non US photographers?

Will it apply to content shot before the September deadline or will it apply to pages published after that date?

Feel free to ask any other ones I missed.

[stev0]

Originally posted by Paul Markham2
The only ones who can argue with this are those who want to run an Amateur business. Let's face it we are pornographers, we put up pictures of people having sex, we need to be responsible.

Not just saying we have the address of someone who is the Custodian. How do we know the documents are there, how do we know we can get them and how do we know the models are 18+?

I know of photographers who have people selling their content on the net, content we rejected because of the documents.

Did you know one content provider gives a dead person as the Custodian of Records?

I'm sure alot of models that posed in the past would feel very uncomfortable with anyone that buys $5 worth of content having their full name and contact info though....

[plateman]

Well One good thing about all of this is to buy content from a good legal source That knows the law.. And to keep good files and records..

[Dravyk]

Thought I'd chime in here with some thoughts and comments.

First, having looked at various threads on various boards about this same topic, I do have to hand it to everyone here at GG&J, that this has been the best discusssion I've seen thus far on the subject.

I also wanna give a big hand to Joe, as I believe this is (so far) the only posting I've seen anywhere from a legal professional.


I guess the most unanswered question though is: What should we do? And I think the reason there are no clear cut answers, is because there won't be any until someone gets prosecuted and the law gets challenged and a court makes a decision. (Is this sad thinking the true answer here? Anyone?)

I think in terms of prevention there are very limited things we can do right now, because to follow the (proposed) law to the full extent that a liberal reading of it would suggest is, basically, an impossibility. To get every record from every content provider (highly improbable), and then to some how attach each image to an URL and to a record is most definitely impossible.

And evern were it actually fully and totally possible, then the effort, time and money would so outrageously great that everyone closing shop would be a more desirable option. (Which, IMHO, is what Aschhead wants in the first place.) So again, what DO we do? How can people follow a rule that requires an impossible task? Now that's what I'd like to hear a legal opinion on.

And evern were it actually fully and totally possible, then the effort, time and money would so outrageously great that everyone closing shop would be a more desirable option. (Which, IMHO, is what Aschhead wants in the first place.) So again, what DO we do? How can people follow a rule that requires an impossible task? Now that's what I'd like to hear a legal opinion on.

You write to Mr Ashcroft, via the site, telling him this.

[Dravyk]

Originally posted by Paul Markham2
You write to Mr Ashcroft, via the site, telling him this.

Sounds like a bit of a Catch 22 though, doesn't it? Hi Mister Enemy, here is all of my business information, where I live, how much I make, my IRS ID number and this is how much it would cost to make the changes you propose?

I'm thinking you're safer being out of the country, maybe you should write him, Paul.

I've already written and if your attitude is to lie low and hope it goes away you are dreaming.

[Dravyk]

Originally posted by Paul Markham2
I've already written and if your attitude is to lie low and hope it goes away you are dreaming.

I guess you don't know me that well then, Paul.

But I'm also not going to put my foot into a bear trap and think it's the answer to all my prayers either.

[NotThatKevin]

Originally posted by Paul Markham2
I've already written and if your attitude is to lie low and hope it goes away you are dreaming.

If you believe Ashcroft is going to take any note of what you or any of us write then your are living in lala land mate

This is Ascroft were talking about not Clinton

He has to take notice it's the law.

And when the first girl get's stalked and murdered we can point a finger and say "Told you so" and he knows that.

Write and make a difference, you don't have to give your details.

[lassiter]

Originally posted by NotThatKevin
If you believe Ashcroft is going to take any note of what you or any of us write then your are living in lala land mate

This is Ascroft were talking about not Clinton

I suspect you're right.

"Hey, look, those disgusting perverted satanic pornographers are all upset about the new regulations. We must be doing something right."

Face it, the US Justice Dept. is not in this to worry about our business problems. They're deliberately trying to cause us business problems, it looks like.

Still, I do support letting our opinions be known. Well-reasoned and politely, though - no sense inviting oneself to become a target by threatening the Attorney General with bodily harm, etc.

[xxxjay]

Can anybody say weather moving your servers offshore and setting up a foriegn company being a solution to this problem?

What it would take to comply with this is damn near impossible. I think I'd be better offshore.

Any thoughts? I'd love to hear what JD has to say about this.

[lassiter]

Originally posted by xxxjay

What it would take to comply with this is damn near impossible. I think I'd be better offshore.

The issue that may just shut me down is that the DoJ apparently is going to now enforce the requirement that both primary and secondary producers must have an actual employee present at the "principal place of business" at all times between 8am and 6pm local time 7 days a week. Even if you're full-time (I'm not), you can't leave for lunch or a doctor's appointment, or any other reason, 'cause if the DoJ shows up for a snap inspection and no one is home, BAM - you're shut down and face up to 5 years in jail.

My own attorney says this language dates from pre-Internet days and was originally meant to apply to XXX video producers and distributors. But my attorney also pointed out that the new regs reemphasize this language, and pointeldy provide NO exception for net-based businesses. He thinks this means they intend to enforce this provision against net businesses, else there would have been an update or modification to the requirement. This is also a regulation, not a law, so if charges were brought under Sec. 2257, it would not be a criminal trial with a jury, but simply a civil hearing in which the only question would be "were you out of compliance or not?" Constitutional issues or the general unfairness of the rule would probably not be allowed to be considered by the judge.

So if you're not big enough to hire a full-time employee or two yet, that will actually work from the same office the 2257 records are kept, you are running a very big risk by even leaving for an hour or two, even on weekends.