legislation update on 2257?

[Jim]

http://www.regulations.gov/freddocs/04-13792.htm


"Accordingly, proposed 28 CFR 75.2(a)(1)
would require computer site or service producers to maintain a ``hard''
physical or electronic copy of the actual depiction with the
identification and age files, along with and linked to all accession
information, such as each URL used for that depiction. This ensures
that all of the data about all of the people in the depictions can be
accessed to ensure that none of the people in the depictions are
minors."


Am reading this right?
Do they want all info for EVERY person in EVERY photo to be linked to each photo?

[SykkBoy]

I'm assuming that's for the actual producers (creaters) of the content
whereas the rest of us would continue to list them (the creaters) as the Custodian of Records

[Dravyk]

Few people know this but it's true. The DOJ added in a key phrase into 2257 years ago that was never passed by Congress. If they ever act upon it (and do you also know that it has NEVER been acted upon to date?) that it could be overturned as the DOJ went way past their mandate and actually tried by their addition to unconstitutionally create law (without representation?)

Yes, it's fun facts with porn law time. :) Don't believe me? Just ask a lawyer who's up on this and they will confirm both of these "little known" facts. :)

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by Dravyk@Jun 29 2004, 08:35 PM
Few people know this but it's true. The DOJ added in a key phrase into 2257 years ago that was never passed by Congress. If they ever act upon it (and do you also know that it has NEVER been acted upon to date?) that it could be overturned as the DOJ went way past their mandate and actually tried by their addition to unconstitutionally create law (without representation?)

Yes, it's fun facts with porn law time. :) Don't believe me? Just ask a lawyer who's up on this and they will confirm both of these "little known" facts. :)
What a nightmare this could be!!

[Jim]

SYKK....you may be assuming the wrong thing...

would require computer site or service producers to maintain a ``hard''
physical or electronic copy of the actual depiction with the
identification and age files, along with and linked to all accession
information, such as each URL used for that depiction. This ensures
that all of the data about all of the people in the depictions can be
accessed to ensure that none of the people in the depictions are
minors.



that means if they find a questionable picture on your site....you better know where EVERY copy of that picture is...and be able to prove EVERYONES age in that picture with a hard copy of their verification.....

to me this seems like the secret backdoor they are going to use to cripple this industry...

[Dravyk]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Jun 29 2004, 10:50 PM
What a nightmare this could be!!
Indeed! It has always been a sleeping monster. I think the DOJ themselves know that and that's one reason they have themselves never acted upon it. Yet.

that means if they find a questionable picture on your site....you better know where EVERY copy of that picture is...and be able to prove EVERYONES age in that picture with a hard copy of their verification.....

to me this seems like the secret backdoor they are going to use to cripple this industry...
Hardly, Jim. The law has always made a point of producers and creators (content providers) and publishers and distributors (webmasters). Ok, let me rephrase that, the "secondary producers" wording was part of the (illegal. IMHO) DOJ changes to 2257 get webmasters. That term has always been ambiguous and a matter of lengthy legal debate. As the DOJ never used it, it never got the point for court ordered judgement, so the debate has always been theoretical with legal minds figuring out the best course of action to advize their clients, webmasters and companies.

All have agreed that as long as the content provider has the records, webmasters are safe. Webmasters themselves are not required to have the records themselves; this is why you see the 2257 law on many paysites to point law enforcement to any questionable content. While webmasters are not (to my knowledge) required to put that on a website, if contacted a webmaster must be able to say where they got the image(s) in question, and point them to the custodian of record, namely the content provider they purchased it from.

What if a content provider does not have proper records? Then they as producers, not the webmaster publishers, are at fault. The content provider would face penaltie; the worse they can do with webmasters is force them to take down the content if the provider has no records for that model. Bad as that might be for a lot of folks it still beats jail time, monetary fines or both.

This new wording you mentioned seems to continue the same thought as before established by saying (my emphasis added) "computer site OR service producers". In saying that, the DOJ themselves are aware that they can't get webmasters alone or put the onous of proof solely on the webmaster or site owner.

Next you're going to say "but it says OR", who is to say they don't choose the webmaster over the producer? For the answer to that one, read up on the Safe Harbor laws for further reference and precedent. :)