The AG's comments RE: New 2257 Regulations

[Snake Doctor]

I just read the prepared remarks the Attorney General made when presenting the new 2257 regulations here
http://www.avn.com/index.php?Primary...tent_ID=106576

The regulations provide direct and clear information on what identification records are required to prove age, how the records should be kept, and how the inspection process works. These regulations should be clearly understandable to all those working in the pornography industry.

Rather ironic considering I have yet to talk to anyone in this industry who can say they "clearly understand" the new regulations.

[AaronM]

Most of the proposed regulations are very clear. The ones that are not...Well....They are clear but almost impossible to follow because they conveniently overlooked addressing a few specifics. Because of this, it throws Internet stuff into a generic explanation that will pretty much fuck everybody unless people are proactive and make the proper comments and suggestions prior to the August 24th cut off date.

[Snake Doctor]

Originally posted by AaronM
Most of the proposed regulations are very clear. The ones that are not...Well....They are clear but almost impossible to follow because they conveniently overlooked addressing a few specifics. Because of this, it throws Internet stuff into a generic explanation that will pretty much fuck everybody unless people are proactive and make the proper comments and suggestions prior to the August 24th cut off date.

Do you think that us making comments has a snowballs chance in hell of getting any of them changed?

Maybe you're right and the regs are clear, what's not clear to me is "how the hell can I comply with this?"

[tony286]

The only way for this to change and be clarified is if the big players grouped together and took legal action. Sadly that wont happen.

[AaronM]

Originally posted by Lenny2
Do you think that us making comments has a snowballs chance in hell of getting any of them changed?

Maybe you're right and the regs are clear, what's not clear to me is "how the hell can I comply with this?"

Actually...I find it perfectly clear. It's just that the way the law reads is that every single image or video must have it's own 2257 declaration and that is a major flaw as I see it.

How can you comply with it? My guess is that they are banking on the chance that you can't.

You could put the declaration in the EXIF portion of a jpeg image but most compression utilities strip that out. As far as videos go...That's easy and pretty self explanatory.

[AaronM]

And I honestly don't know if making comments would help or not. I fail to see how it could hurt though.

[Snake Doctor]

Originally posted by AaronM

How can you comply with it? My guess is that they are banking on the chance that you can't.

That's my guess also, which is what scares me.

I'm also looking at this as a free site owner with tens of thousands of pages that would need to be brought into compliance, I'm giving myself an ulcer trying to figure this out.

[BVF]

Originally posted by Lenny2
I'm giving myself an ulcer trying to figure this out.

I'm not...In fact, I'm not worried at all...My strategy has worked for four years and this challenge will be no exception...so while all of you are getting headaches, I'll be doing this:

[Snake Doctor]

Originally posted by tony404
The only way for this to change and be clarified is if the big players grouped together and took legal action. Sadly that wont happen.

Well it will happen once the first big player gets arrested for a violation and their lawyers challenge the law in federal court, the problem is what to do between now and then.

Even if the regulations get struck down in court eventually, in the meantime you can get arrested, have all of your assets seized/frozen, get your name in the paper, all sorts of attractive things like that.

You may beat the rap but you can't beat the ride.

[Snake Doctor]

Originally posted by BVF
I'm not...In fact, I'm not worried at all...My strategy has worked for four years and this challenge will be no exception...so while all of you are getting headaches, I'll be doing this:

Have you stopped to think that the reason your AHEM "strategy" has worked for four years is because there have been ZERO records inspections during that time frame?

[AaronM]

Originally posted by Lenny2
That's my guess also, which is what scares me.

I'm also looking at this as a free site owner with tens of thousands of pages that would need to be brought into compliance, I'm giving myself an ulcer trying to figure this out.

No offence menat...But have you personally read the Proposed Regulations?

"(d) For any record created or amended after [insert date 30 days after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register], all such records shall be organized alphabetically, or numerically where appropriate, by the legal name of the performer (by last or family name, then first or given name), and shall be indexed or crossreferenced to each alias or other name used and to each title or identifying number of the book, magazine, film, videotape, computer-generated image, digital image, picture, or other matter (including but not limited to Internet computer site or services). If the producer subsequently produces an additional book, magazine, film, videotape, computer-generated image, digital image, or picture, or other matter (including but not limited to Internet computer site or services) that contains one or more visual depictions of actual sexually explicit conduct made by a performer for whom he maintains records as required by this part, the producer shall add the additional title or identifying number and the names of the performer to the existing records and such records shall thereafter be maintained in accordance
with this paragraph."

That's what you call a "Grandfather Clause."

With a minor adjustment.

[tony286]

Originally posted by Lenny2
Well it will happen once the first big player gets arrested for a violation and their lawyers challenge the law in federal court, the problem is what to do between now and then.

Even if the regulations get struck down in court eventually, in the meantime you can get arrested, have all of your assets seized/frozen, get your name in the paper, all sorts of attractive things like that.

You may beat the rap but you can't beat the ride.

The problem is them waiting til one of them is clipped. If the first few cases are no bodies with no money, those wins for the DOJ will make it harder to eventually win a court battle .

[gornyhuy]

Originally posted by AaronM
No offence menat...But have you personally read the Proposed Regulations?

"(d) For any record created or amended after [insert date 30 days after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register], all such records shall be organized alphabetically, or numerically where appropriate, by the legal name of the performer (by last or family name, then first or given name), and shall be indexed or crossreferenced to each alias or other name used and to each title or identifying number of the book, magazine, film, videotape, computer-generated image, digital image, picture, or other matter (including but not limited to Internet computer site or services). If the producer subsequently produces an additional book, magazine, film, videotape, computer-generated image, digital image, or picture, or other matter (including but not limited to Internet computer site or services) that contains one or more visual depictions of actual sexually explicit conduct made by a performer for whom he maintains records as required by this part, the producer shall add the additional title or identifying number and the names of the performer to the existing records and such records shall thereafter be maintained in accordance
with this paragraph."

That's what you call a "Grandfather Clause."

With a minor adjustment.

Thank GOD. I hope you are right about that one.

[AaronM]

Originally posted by gornyhuy
Thank GOD. I hope you are right about that one.

There's no question about it. I am right...Its the minor adjustment that you need to be worried about and keep your eye out for.

[Paul Markham]

Good replies Aaron.

What I'm unclear on is this part.

"(d) For any record created or amended after [insert date 30 days after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register], all such records shall be organized alphabetically, or numerically where appropriate, by the legal name of the performer (by last or family name, then first or given name),[color=yellow] and shall be indexed or crossreferenced to each alias or other name used and to each title or identifying number of the book, magazine, film, videotape, computer-generated image, digital image, picture, or other matter (including but not limited to Internet computer site or services). [color]If the producer subsequently produces an additional book, magazine, film, videotape, computer-generated image, digital image, or picture, or other matter (including but not limited to Internet computer site or services) that contains one or more visual depictions of actual sexually explicit conduct made by a performer for whom he maintains records as required by this part, the producer shall add the additional title or identifying number and the names of the performer to the existing records and such records shall thereafter be maintained in accordance
with this paragraph."

Does this mean everything the publisher i question published or every time the model was published. It reads as if it's everytime the model is published. Which is impossible to keep.

[AaronM]

Originally posted by charly
Good replies Aaron.

What I'm unclear on is this part.


Does this mean everything the publisher i question published or every time the model was published. It reads as if it's everytime the model is published. Which is impossible to keep.

No Paul..It means that if you shoot a girl this month and her records are compliant with the current 2257 laws but not the proposed new regulations that if you shoot her again once the new laws are in effect, you would be required to update her records instead of going off of the old ones. A typical grandfather clause might allow you to simply use the old info.

So....If you never shoot the model again after the new regs are in place then all is good...BUT...Should you shoot her at that point, you need to update your shit.

[AaronM]

Originally posted by AaronM
So....If you never shoot the model again after the new regs are in place then all is good...BUT...Should you shoot her at that point, you need to update your shit.

Where this comes into play is mostly for our clients. They should not really have any problems with their old content but if you shoot an old model for them again then they will need to have ID's and so forth for her at that time where they are currently not required to do so.

[latinasojourn]

Originally posted by AaronM


You could put the declaration in the EXIF portion of a jpeg image but most compression utilities strip that out.

actually, that might be a good idea.

there is a program called breezebrowser that can make galleries and do this.

and add your copyright at the same time.

[goBigtime]

Originally posted by BVF
I'm not...In fact, I'm not worried at all...My strategy has worked for four years and this challenge will be no exception...so while all of you are getting headaches, I'll be doing this:

Later that day...






Times have changed man...

4 Years ago this was a different country.