New 2257 regulations

[Mike AI]

Anyone doing anything about this? This is very serious changes, the more I read over them the more confused I get.

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

[Dravyk]

... and the poets down here
don’t write nothing at all
they just stand back and let it all be

[SykkBoy]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Jul 20 2004, 01:53 PM
Anyone doing anything about this? This is very serious changes, the more I read over them the more confused I get.

http://www.regulations.gov/freddocs/04-13792.htm
Yup
even our legal counsel is going through it very carefully, trying to make out exactly what it "says"

[aeon]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Jul 20 2004, 10:53 AM
Anyone doing anything about this? This is very serious changes, the more I read over them the more confused I get.

http://www.regulations.gov/freddocs/04-13792.htm
...and here we have right wing religious nutjobs trying to maneuver around the law to pacify their deity and constituency.

Hope those tax breaks are enough to cover your legal fee's. Praise jesus and pass the soap on a rope.

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by aeon+Jul 20 2004, 08:15 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (aeon @ Jul 20 2004, 08:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Mike AI@Jul 20 2004, 10:53 AM
Anyone doing anything about this? This is very serious changes, the more I read over them the more confused I get.

http://www.regulations.gov/freddocs/04-13792.htm
...and here we have right wing religious nutjobs trying to maneuver around the law to pacify their deity and constituency.

Hope those tax breaks are enough to cover your legal fee's. Praise jesus and pass the soap on a rope. [/b][/quote]


This much is what I see as well.

[*KK*]

Yes, there are people doing things about it from what I've seen. Of course it's the big companies with a lot to lose that are busting ass to try to make some sense and semblance of the compliance issues and to implement what they think will be workable solutions in the amount of time that's available to get it done.

I don't think the average guy has thought much about it but to come up with statements like "we'll just move offshore" or other totally inane comments along those lines. If people do decide to move offshore and not comply the way it is written in the changes, they can pretty much kiss their US affiliates goodbye since they in turn must be able to cover their affiliates as another secondary provider, somewhat of a lateral position to their own. After all, what affiliate in their right mind would put themself in such a situation when there will be those that end up being compliant and will pay for their traffic, instead of someone who can't prove compliance. Especially when the affiliate can be jailed for five years instead of the old two years, if they are unable to comply.

Just some more fodder to chew on.

[Hell Puppy]

Originally posted by *KK*@Jul 20 2004, 11:54 PM
Yes, there are people doing things about it from what I've seen. Of course it's the big companies with a lot to lose that are busting ass to try to make some sense and semblance of the compliance issues and to implement what they think will be workable solutions in the amount of time that's available to get it done.

I don't think the average guy has thought much about it but to come up with statements like "we'll just move offshore" or other totally inane comments along those lines. If people do decide to move offshore and not comply the way it is written in the changes, they can pretty much kiss their US affiliates goodbye since they in turn must be able to cover their affiliates as another secondary provider, somewhat of a lateral position to their own. After all, what affiliate in their right mind would put themself in such a situation when there will be those that end up being compliant and will pay for their traffic, instead of someone who can't prove compliance. Especially when the affiliate can be jailed for five years instead of the old two years, if they are unable to comply.

Just some more fodder to chew on.
If history holds true, affiliates will continue to send traffic to whoever will pay them the most until someone goes to jail.

Though those who spend the time and effort to attempt to comply will certainly try to use it as a marketing advantage.

[*KK*]

LOL HP, if you look at the timing on this, someone could very well go to jail, at least on their initial arrest, before the election.

June 14th, draft date.
June 24th, filing date.
August 14th, hearing to address public commentary.
September 24th, date signed into legislation (or potentially the 14th depending on which date establishes the 90 to execution).
October 24th, or 14th again, date that someone, or several, receive their first compliance inspection. And fail. And get arrested. Probably in time for the 5 oclock news on the West Coast.
First Tuesday of November is far enough away to get alot of mileage from the changes if you wanted to...

[Rolo]

We are still waiting for some feedback from the big studios - we know what we would prefer - we can´t really tell them how to do their business, however based on how they choose to deal with it, then some will either loose business from us or gain from the others who do not go out their way to protect the content we are using.

[Hell Puppy]

Originally posted by *KK*@Jul 21 2004, 12:23 AM
LOL HP, if you look at the timing on this, someone could very well go to jail, at least on their initial arrest, before the election.

June 14th, draft date.
June 24th, filing date.
August 14th, hearing to address public commentary.
September 24th, date signed into legislation (or potentially the 14th depending on which date establishes the 90 to execution).
October 24th, or 14th again, date that someone, or several, receive their first compliance inspection. And fail. And get arrested. Probably in time for the 5 oclock news on the West Coast.
First Tuesday of November is far enough away to get alot of mileage from the changes if you wanted to...
I agree. As written I dont think it's clear enough to stand up in court, but they dont need a conviction for it to be effective.

Similar tactics were used in the late 80's and early 90's with the BBSs. If they wanted to shut you down and pucker all of your competitors, law enforcement would simply knock on your door with a warrant, take all of your equipment and parade you out in front of your neighbors and local news crews with your hands cuffed.

Whether it ever goes to court or not, most people are done at that point.

Think about it. 2257 docs include age compliance. How many of you are ready to be seen in your local newspapers and evening news being stuffed into the back of a police car while they tote your computers out on suspicion of child pornography due to lack of documentation?

That's a deep hole. You could burn thru huge chunks of cash just to keep your ass out of jail. I dont know many families that would be terribly understanding. And forget ever having another decent paying job with that on your record, even small companies do background checks these days.

Game over.

[*KK*]

Seizing for evidence hasn't changed a bit since the Meese Commission years. I know several people here in LA that lived through the whole mess, and they are the ones that are working most diligently and pushing all manner of resources at becoming compliant in time, perhaps even more than compliant if some of these changes loosened up. They would rather spend the money and not take chances.

[Dravyk]

Speaking of seizing evidence and the current 2257 regs. One of the things 2257 (as it exists now) was written for is so that rather than seizing property, law enforcement would just have to ask the wembaster for the records.

But, this did not stop Mike Jones from CD Babes and L&M Entertainment from having every computer and camera and lights all seized by local authorities even though he had the records (and he keeps brilliant records and always has, super cross-indexed). For one this was an election year in his small midWestern town and second it was local enforcement.

So even the current 2257 will not prevent seizing of evidence, and that is among one of the many reasons for the initial law. Not a main reason, obviously, but something that was included in it.

As to large companies taking steps ... if you read the new law in its most simplest manner, programs customized or existing (yes, Content God included) can help track content, who is the content provider, to what image, to what URL However ...

If you read it as its most strictest, then videos can be done with DRM, but images cannot. Even if a program or dB is written that somehow could, the task would be monumental if not impossible. If it could be done at all, it would be an unwieldy financial burden (thus undoing the law)

Finally, how every webmaster could have the physcial copy of every license is again an impossibility. There is no way, flatly, that anyone is going to be able to abide by this law. Whether it is a strict or a liberal reading and interpretation. AND the DOJ knows it. As has been said, this is just trumped up BS for the election.

[*KK*]

Actually Dravyk, there is a way to DRM images, using .asp -- something that is totally impractical for most sites and would take such an amount of time and money to migrate to it will remain that way.

There is a company that's set up this way, it's amazing how their system is actually nearly compliant with the new regs and it's not even within the 30 days. They chose a complex setup for their VOD product but it looks like it's going to pay off for them nicely in the end.