new 2257 proposals [Archive] - Oprano Adult Industry Forums

*KK*

06-30-2004, 06:13 PM

Originally posted by Peaches+Jun 30 2004, 02:12 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Peaches @ Jun 30 2004, 02:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-*KK*@Jun 30 2004, 05:58 PM
images on the other hand will be a mess, I just cant see how the cross referencing all urls where the images are used can be done with the current technology.
Could that the point behind the proposal? :unsure: [/b][/quote]
The point behind it all is that the Bush administration is itching to prosecute, especially if they get a second term. At that point, he cant be president again so he has nothing to lose by finishing something else his father was involved in...

Peaches

06-30-2004, 06:20 PM

Originally posted by *KK*+Jun 30 2004, 06:14 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (*KK* @ Jun 30 2004, 06:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by Peaches@Jun 30 2004, 02:12 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-*KK*@Jun 30 2004, 05:58 PM
images on the other hand will be a mess, I just cant see how the cross referencing all urls where the images are used can be done with the current technology.
Could that the point behind the proposal? :unsure:
The point behind it all is that the Bush administration is itching to prosecute, especially if they get a second term. At that point, he cant be president again so he has nothing to lose by finishing something else his father was involved in... [/b][/quote]
That's what it looks like - the more difficult they make it to comply with, the easier it is to go after :steemed:

*KK*

07-01-2004, 02:03 AM

I've spent some time reading over this and talking to a few people whose opinions I am always interested in hearing.

Bottom line is that this is a very real problem for this industry. The draft was actually done on the 14th of this month and filed on the 24th. I'd be willing to bet that by Nov 15 there are multiple prosecutions in the works, regardless of who wins the election. I'd almost be willing to bet that by Nov 1, in time for the election, someone's in the hot seat... remember that Katherine Graham running for office in Michigan a couple of years ago -- it wasn't about prosecuting people that were doing something wrong, it was about media exposure for her campaign...

The parts of the document that pertain to cross indexing EVERY instance of your content is completely unworkable for images at the current time... the current DRM standards are very much video oriented and if you had to change your entire system over to .asp in order to use an image DRM you'd never get it done in time if you waited to see just how this amendment is worded when its finally part of the law.

If you bought content from someone that's out of business -- say Clutch Content for instance -- and you have no clue where or how to find them to get a valid copy of the releases, you could find yourself liable for EACH and EVERY image that you display. Since the jail time is now 5 years instead of 2 years for each conviction it's even worse. If you have affiliates using your content to promote your sites, you are now responsible for knowing every URL that your banners reside on -- even from affiliates that are no longer in your program, for instance. And you are responsible for keeping up with where every one of them is using your content, on a per image basis.

Video is a relatively easy matter to work out -- basically DRM allows you to not only include the 2257 in the video distribution -- in a text size that is equal to or greater than the largest credit in the video, as required by the addition, btw -- but to also keep easy records of what urls are attempting to access your video content at any given moment. But images have no such workaround that is cost effective and time friendly.

This certainly clarifies the secondary producer standards but it now creates a tertiary scenario with your affiliates -- they become the weakest point in the chain, especially the newbies who don't realize how important it is to keep good records. And with the way they come and go so easily, how many of them will actually help your record keeping process versus how many of them will potentially cause you harm?

On the upside, this might just create the clearing out that this industry needs. On the fools board, the immediate outcry was "move offshore! host elsewhere" and so on. But at the end of the day, processing is still going to be a huge issue for anyone thinking of moving offshore -- and just because your affiliates move offshore doesn't mean that you can move nearly as quickly or that you wouldn't still be in the crosshairs.

Personally I'm glad these things are getting to a point of definition. The people that prepare to do business in advance of the law actually becoming the law will be sitting way prettier than the ones that stick their heads in the sand and end up with 30 days to comply. I'm sure the DOJ has some targets in mind already and it won't take them 30 days to start handing out indictments...

Hell Puppy

07-01-2004, 02:27 AM

I haven't researched the thing, but it seems to me that the simple solution is to start embedded your 2257 info into the hidden comments of the image itself. Photoshop will let you store a copyright notice and a link to a url.

If that's sufficient, it would be trivial to write a small program to do a directory of images at a time if the info being stored into them is the same for each one.

*KK*

07-01-2004, 03:07 AM

Originally posted by Hell Puppy@Jun 30 2004, 10:28 PM
I haven't researched the thing, but it seems to me that the simple solution is to start embedded your 2257 info into the hidden comments of the image itself. Photoshop will let you store a copyright notice and a link to a url.

If that's sufficient, it would be trivial to write a small program to do a directory of images at a time if the info being stored into them is the same for each one.
The cross indexing for every instance of your content use is the problem -- its easy to embed the 2257 into the image, but figuring out when the inspector comes where its used and presenting it to them is going to be the hard part. They are allowed to come once in every four month time period, and you must update your records EVERY time you "distribute" the content to be in compliance.

The whole thing is a bitch when you look at it closely.

Dravyk

07-01-2004, 03:45 AM

Who am I to not take a golden opportunity to whore my wares? :)

Use Content God http://www.contentgod.com as your content management system. All you need to do is define one of the data fields for content provider for the images -- matter of fact, that data field comes as a default. Then you'll always be able to track all the images you use, where they are published, and where you got them from.

Content God -- The 2257 solution! :rokk:

RawAlex

07-01-2004, 10:33 AM

Didn't ashcroft and his merry crew of screwups already get themselves slapped in the head for trying to enforce non-existant laws? You cannot, by memo, replace the existing 2257 rules and add all sorts of record keeping without it getting passes by congress, the house, and signed by the president, last time I looked.

Anyone have current stats on number of bills submitted versus number of bills passed, especially in election years?

Alex

*KK*

07-01-2004, 02:21 PM

This one is being jammed through as an executive order if I read the document correctly, and its classified as a rule, so I dont believe it goes anywhere but Bushs desk...

Executive Order 12866

This regulation has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with
Executive Order 12866, section 1(B), Principles of Regulation. The
Department of Justice has determined that this rule is a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866, section 3(f).
Accordingly, this rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management
and Budget.

Executive Order 13132

This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive
Order 13132, it is determined that this rule does not have sufficient
federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism
Assessment.

RawAlex

07-01-2004, 03:03 PM

This is exactly the same route they tried before in another instance, and got themselves slapped silly. Executive order can, from my understanding, clarify laws, but they cannot re-write the laws. That is the job of the legislative branch.

These are not clarifications of the rules, but rather new rules that would change the entire process of indentifying individual images and create a new paperwork and record keeping burden on people who did not previously have such a burden. Further, it goes against every legal opinion I have ever heard about regarding the relationship between primary and secondary content distributors. Further, it could force violation of ocntractual terms on model releases, requiring that full and complete model information as per 2257 content producer requirements. Finally, I think it any rule which backdates record keeping requirments back almost 10 years is burdensome, expensive, and does not advance the public interest one whit.

On the other side, this would make it much harder to have sponsor content, and would make free hosting a non-existant buisness model (as I could see this process requiring the actual site owner to be able to prove each image... for legal purposes, I could see the actual domain owner getting the grief).

Anyone for offshore hosting? :-)

Alex

*KK*

07-01-2004, 03:43 PM

If people look at this as a purely negative thing, that's what it will be. Personally, as I said before, it comes as much as an opportunity as anything.

RawAlex

07-01-2004, 05:05 PM

KK: I see a ton of potential - free hosts gone, shortage of sponsor content, content provders charging more or only selling to "known" webmasters in private deals, etc. It could also be another weapon against unlicensed content, as people using, say, scanned images from magazines would be faced with an eay to prove violation of 2257, which would make it more than a civil violation.

Documenting every single image every time used, and documenting every image created on an individual case basis is a huge undertaking. I am not sure any of us is up for the job.

Alex

*KK*

07-01-2004, 06:04 PM

It's all in how you look at it I think. I'm in the process of finishing up a project with some people in the Valley that consists of around 5000 adult dvd titles that have been databased, encoded in multiple speeds, and are pretty well web ready to sell -- WITHIN the framework of the proposed guidelines already. The only place that I have concerns are with the screen capped images from the dvds -- how to index those. I have a pretty good idea of how we're going to handle it and even with making a few changes to the system, it will still be ready to go in a couple of weeks tops.

My other big consulting client has a proprietary system in place with their own DRM on the videos, so once again, with the exception of the images, they are also already in compliance with these new proposed rules.

As with anything, any time there's change, there are casualties and opportunities.

The more crap that gets weeded out, the happier everyone doing serious business should be, imo.

RawAlex

07-01-2004, 06:54 PM

KK, the problem is for each of those videos and each of those images, you will be required to provide complete model releases to each purchaser. It is possible that you will need to provide this documentation individually for each image - it depends on how you read the rules! 500 pictures with 3 people in each would be 1500 pieces of paper! individual files for each image, with a cross reference for each use.

paper hell!

Alex

Dravyk

07-01-2004, 08:34 PM

If you look through the entire documentation, they are themselves questioning the financial burden that would be applied to companies and are seeking input from companies to explain the kind of burden it would be.

I'll bet not a single adult company will send them information.

Mind you, I think it's a Catch-22. If an adult company sends them info, then they'll go after you first probably. If no one sends them info, then they can say, hey, we asked, no one answered.

It's politics as usual = all a big game.

Feynman

07-01-2004, 09:56 PM

Originally posted by RawAlex@Jul 1 2004, 01:06 PM
KK: I see a ton of potential - free hosts gone, shortage of sponsor content, content provders charging more or only selling to "known" webmasters in private deals, etc. It could also be another weapon against unlicensed content, as people using, say, scanned images from magazines would be faced with an eay to prove violation of 2257, which would make it more than a civil violation.

Documenting every single image every time used, and documenting every image created on an individual case basis is a huge undertaking. I am not sure any of us is up for the job.

Alex
While what you say is true in the short term, will cost you dearly in the future.

It is the granting of the moral sanction to them at the puny advantage of a few short terms bucks that will cost you and everyone else in the form of very diminished freedoms in the future. We live, and especially you americans, live in a steath dictature.

An idea dawned on me. Is there a technology just about to emerge that will magically make people able to "comply" with this victmiless paper crime ? If so, it might what will make the idiot shortsighted businesspeople accept such things as a new fully-traceable IP protocol , some proprietary digital right management format, or some other similar patented shit...

"The only power any government has is to crack down on crime and criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, then one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens. What's there in that for anyone. But just pass the kinds of law that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted and you create a nation of lawbreakers - and then you can cash in on their guilt."
-from _Atlas_Shrugged_ by Ayn Rand

Hell Puppy

07-01-2004, 10:59 PM

Originally posted by *KK*+Jul 1 2004, 02:08 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (*KK* @ Jul 1 2004, 02:08 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Hell Puppy@Jun 30 2004, 10:28 PM
I haven't researched the thing, but it seems to me that the simple solution is to start embedded your 2257 info into the hidden comments of the image itself. Photoshop will let you store a copyright notice and a link to a url.

If that's sufficient, it would be trivial to write a small program to do a directory of images at a time if the info being stored into them is the same for each one.
The cross indexing for every instance of your content use is the problem -- its easy to embed the 2257 into the image, but figuring out when the inspector comes where its used and presenting it to them is going to be the hard part. They are allowed to come once in every four month time period, and you must update your records EVERY time you "distribute" the content to be in compliance.

The whole thing is a bitch when you look at it closely. [/b][/quote]
Reference logs on the server would take care of your own sites and stuff you host yourself.

However, this would mean to really insure 2257 compliance, a sponsor would almost certainly have to pick up the tab for his own advertisements (banners, FPAs, HPAs, galleries, etc) and retain them on his own system for tracking purposes.

I dont see how this can fly....it would appear to create an even greater problem for Video and DVD producers. You can put your 2257 info on the tape or DVD, but how the hell do you track everywhere it's distributed? Seems this law would require each individual sale to be tracked.

RawAlex

07-02-2004, 01:09 AM

HP: Worse, each individual webmaster that uses the banners / ads / whatever would be required ot have a copy of the model release for each person appearing in those ads.

It's mental.

Alex

Feynman

07-02-2004, 01:12 AM

[QUOTE=*KK*,Jul 1 2004, 02:08 AM] [QUOTE=Hell Puppy,Jun 30 2004, 10:28 PM] You can put your 2257 info on the tape or DVD, but how the hell do you track everywhere it's distributed? Seems this law would require each individual sale to be tracked.]

Think P2P File sharing software.
Think Usenet

welcome nightmare...

Either this is a law put forward by utterly clueless do-gooders, or it is put forward by utterly evil people who know perfectly what they are doing.

Dravyk

07-02-2004, 02:57 AM

This "bookkeeping regulation" is completely untenable if read and enforced in its most strictest form. It's almost like saying "you uploaded a picutre on UseNet, you're now responsible for the names and address of the people who saw it, and if you can't provide it, then take the picture back from the Net."

If a law is impossible for people to comply with, it will be struck down on that alone. Even if it is possible for it to be complied with, it would take such money and hurculean efforts for any company to comply with -- and again, they themselves see this in their very own research memorandi -- it can be overturned there as well.

I predict the same thing as we have always seen: The industry as a whole will be safe. The first few companies or webmasters they go after though will find it crushing unless there's an industry fund or they receive third party help from something like the ACLU.

*KK*

07-02-2004, 12:54 PM

Um, guys, you don't send them anything. Their inspectors have the right to come to your place of business between 8 am and 6 pm Monday through Friday or any other time that you conduct your business. They can come one time in each 4 month period. They may photocopy any records they like based on the fact that they might be in question. You do NOT have to have a paper copy -- electronic hard copies are acceptable. If one company can be in compliance, especially a small one, then that pretty much will satisfy the small business act provisions well enough for someone to be dragged into court to set a precedent.

This isnt about DVDs that are sold and shipped, this is about digitally transmitted content.

As for digital rights management, there's nothing proprietary or patented about it that would exclude its use by the majority. There is DRM, which is a Microsoft product, and which MS freely licenses the development tools at the moment for -- mind you someone has to pay for dev using those tools; there is DIVX, which is a competitor, and both Real and Quicktime have the potential to allow someone to comply, for video at least.

Images, that's a kicker, but there's always something going on to keep things interesting.

Your comment about this industry always being safe as usual is interesting Drav -- since I've moved to LA, I spend a lot of time in the Valley with the so-called 'video' crowd. And they haven't forgotten the indictments, and in some cases, jail time, that occurred during the Meese Commission.

RawAlex

07-02-2004, 01:16 PM

KK, they are more shy because they have seen the big end of the government stick up close and in person, not just reading about it in books.

I am not clear that electronic records only would be acceptible. Where is that in the 2257 rules?

Alex

*KK*

07-02-2004, 01:27 PM

Section 3, Analysis of Proposed Rule is where you find it Alex --

"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."

FightThePatent

07-02-2004, 01:41 PM

By encoding a file into DRM format, it doesn't automatically add the 2257 information.

You have to type that information into a field that can then be embeded.

DRM does provide for a nice easy way of identifying the 2257 info, it still requires work to do it. (DRM is a great solution for protection against piracy).

For those that don't use DRM, you could include a 2257 statement at the beginning of the video.

Think DVD and VHS... those don't use DRM, but are affected by 2257 statue as well, and they display the record keeper information at the very beginning of each clip.

FightThePatent

07-02-2004, 01:42 PM

My new venture has recently come into good timing with Ashhahahahaha's proposed new changes to 2257.

2257lookup.com was originally created to allow webmasters to be proactive in being 2257 compliant. With the new proposed changes (that could go into effect in 120 days), 2257lookup looks to now be a reactive service to comply with 2257.

I have started a 2257 FAQ at:
http://www.2257lookup.com/2257ForWebmasters.html

Since there are alot of great questions being asked on various boards, I have pulled them all together on one page that i will continually update.

I am sorting through the 2257 issues with various attorneys and will post and answer any questions that people have to help generate awareness to the issues.

-brandon

FightThePatent

07-02-2004, 01:54 PM

Originally posted by *KK*@Jul 2 2004, 08:55 AM
This isnt about DVDs that are sold and shipped, this is about digitally transmitted content.

2257 statue is about all forms of production that includes sexually explicit material, digital or not.

For digitally transferred video from a website, the new 2257 regs talk about webmasters needing to have model releases and info for those in the video clip that is served from the webmaster's website.

DRM does not solve this problem. DRM can only help to identify which models are in the video and which content producer made it (by someone typing it in), so that the webmaster can look up his LOCAL COPY of the info to show prosecutors.

This is a huge burden to video content producers to gather their records and make them available to webmasters. It's a huge burden for webmasters to now hold onto these records.

Many of the image content producers already send out model releases and copies of the driver's license with the private info blackened out.

Hopefully for video, what should suffice, is what the current standard of displaying the primary record keeper info on the video, and not have to burden the webmaster with having that info...

So it's an interesting twist for the video people to look into for 2257 compliance on their end and on the webmaster's end.

-brandon

FightThePatent

07-02-2004, 01:58 PM

I just got feedback from a webmaster who got a response from his attorney that having blackened out ID's won't cut it....

If the webmaster is required to be in possession of the full driver's license, then that's a serious privacy issue and a safety issue for the models.

I'll post up what responses I can get from legal folks about this.

-brandon

*KK*

07-02-2004, 02:21 PM

Originally posted by FightThePatent@Jul 2 2004, 09:42 AM
By encoding a file into DRM format, it doesn't automatically add the 2257 information.

You have to type that information into a field that can then be embeded.

DRM does provide for a nice easy way of identifying the 2257 info, it still requires work to do it. (DRM is a great solution for protection against piracy).
I don't think anyone here said that 2257 automatically encodes into a DRM'd video, please re-read if you got that impression.

And quite frankly, embedding the 2257 into the actual DRM wrap is not a really good idea. While you cannot go back and re-print a box cover and mail it to every person that bought a video, the nature of the internet means that up to date records can be required.

And no, DRM is not limited to a local lookup, I don't think you are really aware of how DRM works if you feel it has this limitation. I realize that you have some sort of product you are selling, so of course you want to make as strong a case for it as you can; however, since the beginning days of DRM Networks, I've been aware (after all it is a CCBill company and the project did start during my time there) of what DRM's potential is, and what it can and cannot do.

Now I don't own a DRM company, and the simple fact that I've also mentioned that DIVX, Real and Quicktime also have some inherent ability to satisfy the requirements if properly modified, means that I'm presenting my opinion on the situation, not trying to sell something :)

FightThePatent

07-02-2004, 02:28 PM

Originally posted by *KK*@Jul 2 2004, 10:22 AM
[QUOTE=FightThePatent,Jul 2 2004, 09:42 AM]
Now I don't own a DRM company, and the simple fact that I've also mentioned that DIVX, Real and Quicktime also have some inherent ability to satisfy the requirements if properly modified, means that I'm presenting my opinion on the situation, not trying to sell something :)

In case you didn't read about my product, I don't offer a video solution, strictly with images.

So my comments were to clarify your inaccurate posts about DRM use for 2257 compliance.

Because I am offering a product solution to 2257, it means that I am involved with alot of research and discussion.

My actions are to help educate webmasters on the issues. There are manual methods for complying with 2257, that does require the use of my product. or Dravyk's for that matter.

Not sure what I did to make you so offensive to my efforts to help educate, unless of course you think i am trolling and shilling.

-brandon

RawAlex

07-02-2004, 02:32 PM

KK, I am techy type person, and I don't see DRM being able to do what you are suggesting. DRM controls the usage of a file, it doesn't lend itself to model identification beyond the obvious clip ID matching to a paper or electronic file.

If blacked out model releases won't cut it, then we are looking at each and every purchaser or webmasters / distributor of your product having to have full 257 documentation - a model release plus two ID items for each and every video and each individual image. That is a ton of record keeping and a TON of invasion of privacy...

Anyone know the laws on distributing third party drivers license information and exact digital copies to people?

Alex

FightThePatent

07-02-2004, 02:40 PM

Originally posted by RawAlex@Jul 2 2004, 10:33 AM

Anyone know the laws on distributing third party drivers license information and exact digital copies to people?

Working on that part right now with some attorneys.

It's clearly wrong to have to give a webmaster the full driver's license ID and model release that contains private info.

I am sure California laws will have issues with that.

Blackened out ID could be seen as alteration of documents that's probably why one attorney has weighed in with their opinion that blackened out docs might not cut it.

Waiting on some calls and info to come back.

-brandon

*KK*

07-02-2004, 03:25 PM

Originally posted by RawAlex@Jul 2 2004, 10:33 AM
KK, I am techy type person, and I don't see DRM being able to do what you are suggesting. DRM controls the usage of a file, it doesn't lend itself to model identification beyond the obvious clip ID matching to a paper or electronic file.

All you had to do was ask sweets :)

The easiest, and most effective way to do it and be able to keep it updated is to initiate an html call from a window popped through the DRM laws the first time a user -- defined by any number of unique identifiers -- views the content. The user then has the ability to click the 2257 link and see the information if they so desire. Rather than embedding the information in the encoding or the DRM, you host the 2257 information on a separate (segregated per the rules actually) server. When the license acquisition request is made, the DRM also knows exactly where that call originates, be it an IP in the case of P2P, or a url in the case of someone displaying the content on their site. These files are logged and should (keep in mind I'm not a lawyer but we've had 3 look at it so far) satisfy the cross indexing requirements. Thus, if an inspector came to your business, you could immediately produce the records they want, and by having the 2257 come in the process of an html call from a separate server, you can update the 2257 records any time you need to and they will be globally changed, you wouldnt have to go back and re-wrap, or God forbid, re-encode, the video in order to be current.

One could figure that if the government were looking at say, 5 sites, of equal size in revenue (or what they assumed to be equal), the ones that are the most comprehensive in their record keeping would be the last ones they would want to take on, especially if some of the targets were obviously using what they consider to be sloppy methods of record keeping :)

FightThePatent

07-02-2004, 03:45 PM

2257 requirements for secondary record keepers (webmasters) says they must have the model ID and model release info at their location.

The 2257 html page that pops open when the USER views a video is fine and is a great way to display the primary record keeper;s location, rather than embedding it into the video or the attributes of the video (sometimes people move and change locations).

What the process you have described does not cover, is the fact that the video content producer would need to give the webmaster the model info, which would NEVER be displayed on any HTML page.

These records are to be held in the event that a prosecutor has requested the information.

DRM may help to LABEL the primary record keeper;s address, which is the same displaying it on the actual video, but it does not solve the compliancy issue for the webmaster of having the actual records.

We have a common middle ground now in our discussion...

DRM does provide a good way to display to the surfer the custodian of records (primary record keeper), which satisfies the content producer's responsibilties.

Having records of the model releases on site as a webmaster, would go towards satisfying their secondard record keeper responsibilities.

-brandon

*KK*

07-02-2004, 06:22 PM

With authentication I could use the same information in multiple ways. If a surfer clicks a link, he sees the custodian information. If a site owner or other authorized person clicked a link, I could either immediately allow them to see other information or email them a copy of the info automatically. This isn't rocket science, as long as the information is accessible instantly, say, in the case of an inspection, then it's there.

The government won't be going after itsy bitsy mom and pop shops if they should decide to make a point. They don't gain much from publicity, nor can they settle the matter for enough to create a profit center from picking on anything besides the bigger guys or the totally blatant offenders that can be crucified in public.

FightThePatent

07-02-2004, 06:43 PM

JD Obenberger wrote on another board:

"To clear up serious misunderstanding:

1. It is important to understand that this proposal DOES NOT go to Congress. Congress gave authority to DOJ to promulgate regulations to impliment Section 2257 at Section (g) of the Act.

2. When the Attorney General promulgates it, 60 days from publication, it is a "real" law. Your opportunity to challenge it on any grounds is NOW. Full email address of the person to whom to address comments is in the proposal, found on xxxlaw.net.

3. You cannot assume that anyone will file suit to protect your interests nor that a court will grant an injunction to stay its enforcement.

4. It is downright wrong to believe that the regulations will have no effect when the present incumbants leave office. The existing regs were promulaged by J. Reno in the Clinton Administration and remain on the books until or unless repealed or amended."

JD rocks!

-brandon

RawAlex

07-02-2004, 09:07 PM

KK, that would not be "records in the location"... that would be remote access to information, not the same thing. I don't think that would pass muster (what happens if the police come in when your internet connection is down? Suddenly, no records!).

It's a nice idea, but I think a lawyer would have to write an opinion for the customers to agree to it... and then the lawyer would be sort of on the hook.

Alex

*KK*

07-02-2004, 11:38 PM

I'm somewhere in the 99% range of believing that it will pass muster, so to speak. It's a very simplistic process, really, you can designate any physical location to be the Custodians address, why not in a data center? This would especially apply for those dealing with their own custom content, and not purchased from elsewhere...

I'm also glad Brandon mentioned Obenbergers comments about the fact that this is not going to go to Congress, it's an Executive Order.

RawAlex

07-03-2004, 12:22 PM

See post below it's easier.

Alex

RawAlex

07-03-2004, 12:27 PM

Sorry, to clarify, the part that allows you to say "2257 records located at:, which in part reads "in a manner prescribed as set forth in subsection (e)(1), a statement describing where the records required by this section may be located, but such person shall have no duty to determine the accuracy of the contents of the statement or the records required to be kept." is effectively being eliminated. Everyone is required to keep the same records as the primary producer.

The original item quoted above is" Any person to whom subsection (a) applies shall maintain the records required by this section at his business premises, or at such other place as the Attorney General may by regulation prescribe and shall make such records available to the Attorney General for inspection at all reasonable times." - has the AG designated Custodian of Records as an acceptable location going forward?

Alex

gonzo

07-03-2004, 12:53 PM

Im thinking someone got a new consulting job for maybe PlayaDRM?

Dravyk

07-03-2004, 04:31 PM

"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."

There is just so many problems with this wording, and other words, where definitions are required. Everything depends on a) how law enforcement reads it B) how the webmasters and their lawyers read it c) how a court would read it.

- computer site or service producer

Is that an inclusive "or"?
Is it the one or the other? As in, pick one.

If it is pick one, who gets to pick? Can they come by and say show me and you say "the service provider has it" and that's good? Or do they decide there that YOU have to have it and take you away?

What IS a "service provider"? Is that a content provider? Are they talking about plugins you use on your site where the content is originating at the plugin company?

These are just some questions from that one part. There are many other wordings in that that demand questions or definitions. It's so overly broad it invites judicial review.

Again, though ... can what they ask for be done? If not, it can be overturned. If it can be done, at what time and expense and burden can it be done that THAT would overturn it by their OWN definition?