There is a big fuss about proposed new 2257 regs. The filing in the Federal Register is here.

This is clearly a headache for MrPoo. But there is concern that the "Internet Definitions" section could include bulletin board sites such as XXXPT.

My first take is that Sundance vs. Reno rules that interpretation out. However, I'm not the one risking parking my butt in jail for a couple of years.

I guess JM is going to have to feed their lawyers some more biscuits to look at this, as it certainly means changes, perhaps minor, in JM record keeping. But it could be a whole 'nother matter if experts feel it needs to be applied to XXXPT.

I read it a little yesterday, what did you feel where the major points? I read something about wanting to have the URLs cross references with the ID info for everyplace an image appears. That's not going to happen, it just seems impossible. I read something about distinctions it makes between a primary and secondary producer, which is interesting too, like they'd want a duplicator to keep records? It all seems stupid and has nothing to do with stopping child pornography, it just has to do with making the life of pornographers more difficult.

Has anyone intelligent analyzed the proposed changes and broken them down anywhere yet?

Hopefully this will be Ashcroft's farewell gift to us when we kick him out of office in November. Well, hopefully it will fail or be changed. It is open for public comment. Follow the instructions in the proposal and send them your comments.

Malice

we can hope it just dissapeares...

i finally read the whole thing. Im not that worried about it personally. It doesnt seem that bad really. Maybe a bit of a pain in the ass, but we already have everything in a simple exel database anyways...so its not so bad. the thing Im worried about would be other webmasters and affiliates doing TGPs and would they be considered a producer or not. the producer thing is very vague and broad...

one of the bosses has a copy at home and there is 3 copys here...If they come to see us we are overly prepared.

Great. A backup at home. Is that where you want an FBI team to visit? Have your lawyer keep it in his files.

I haven’t spent the time to go back and read this, but impressions at the time:

I saw something at a glance that they were prohibiting some types of commingling of records: 2257 records could not contain other data. They don’t want to have to get a search warrant because you have 2257 records with other protected data. 2257 had to be kept segregated.

Something about physical records?

They seemed to want a record for every URL, not just every image. For instance, I think Meatcash has a different URL for each area but one common behind-the-scenes area. And, some images in the BTS are in the download section too. This might mean that you have to document every URL that might get to an image, possibly quite a few.

The big deal at a glance is that it seems to thoroughly ignore Sundance vs. Reno. That’s important to XXXPT and is why ADT is so wound up. Technically Sundance isn’t binding in California and there is a chance, however unlikely, that the 9th circuit might disagree with Sundance. An XXXPT without pictures wouldn’t be much fun. More investigation is needed here to see if the underlying 2257 statute changed or if Asscroft is just blowing off the 10th circuit on Sundance.

Well, something useful from Bisexual Britni's mailing list. Here is a link to Larry Walter's comments on the new 2257 regs. Asscroft won't care of course, but this forms a roadmap for legal challenges.

http://www.adultindustryupdate.com/archives/Docket%20Number%20CRM%20103.pdf