2257 regs

[Matt - A-W-D]

paul jones wrote:

> If they can't use non US girls, and can't simply shoot
> overseas, how do they stand re content they buy in to
> distribute?
>
> If they can do that then there could be big opportunities for
> good Uk producers who can shoot in the US style to get series
> contracts for US distribution, which would be good for the UK
> industry.
>
> Or am I just dreaming....
>

Anyone based in the US still needs the full documentation, and to keep a proper record of it as there new regs state to sell or distribute any DVD/magazine/website.
Its my understanding that if any producer (or secondary producer) gives out the reqiuired documents without each performers permission, then they break UK law.

[nachovx]

It's a clever piece of manoeuvring from the right-wing; they've managed to put the industry into a straight jacket by using existing legislation ... and 95% of people in the US would support it in the name of Protecting Children and Curbing Illegal Immigration. The big companies will get around not shooting abroad by setting up a sister company in Amsterdam or Prague, but it's not them they're after yet - that's the next phase. America isn't the place it once was, 911 gave the wrong sort of people the chance to pass all sorts of repressive laws with no opposition.

[videokim]

With these 2257 regs coming into place we are pulling our films from the US
& putting a disclaimer on our site for U.S. citizens, like most things the Yanks want to be control freaks so fuck em.
The money we earn from the States is minimal anyway so why do we need them?
This must be better for european hosting companies in the long run & i know from our host Extreme that prices have droped to lure webmasters away from U.S. servers.
Don't let them bully us like they have in Iraq & other countries that they have in their control.

Kim & John

[sandie]

yeah. the first thing all the girls here have said is...."oh well the yanks will all come over here to shoot".

dosent seem that simple. alot of people will be out of alot of work and i dont think its hit home yet.

[MisterC]

Fraser wrote:

> As far as I can see this does not look good for UK performers
> who go to the USA to work or for UK producers shooting UK
> talent and selling it to the USA. It's not at all clear at the
> moment if it will be legal for US webmasters to hold records
> for content which they have bought in content from abroad and
> where the performers have a non US passport or similar for id.

This is almost certainly a breach of WTO agreements regarding 'barriers to entry' if you pardon the double entendre.

However once again, somebody would need the cash to set a precedent as I don't see the UK government taking it up somehow as they do with so called 'legit' products.

[Elliot James]

From Adult Video News in Los Angeles, California: The Free Speech Coalition will file a lawsuit challenging the recordkeeping and labeling regulations under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2257 that are due to take effect on June 23.

Veteran First Amendment attorneys H. Louis Sirkin and Paul Cambria, with additional input from more than a dozen of their colleagues, are actively drafting a lawsuit on behalf of the Coalition and other named plaintiffs, which is scheduled to be filed by the end of next week.

"It will be as comprehensive as possible," said Cambria, "designed to address all the major problems we foresee with these regulations."

FSC Executive Director Michelle Freridge sees the action as the latest example of the core benefits that the Coalition provides for its members.

"We feel certain that our constitutional challenge to these onerous regulations will prevail," Freridge predicted. "It was through Free Speech's efforts that the right to employ adults to make adult entertainment was affirmed by the Supreme Court in the CPPA case, and we expect that same court to lift the incredibly expensive and burdensome recordkeeping requirements imposed by these new regulations."

"This is not rational, it's pure hostility; arbitrary rules designed to trap the unwary, just like everybody said," reflected FSC Board chairman Jeffrey Douglas at the Coalition's general membership meeting earlier this month. "[Even with 2257] Traci Lords would have been able to make every movie she made because she had California ID and she had a U.S. passport that were 100 percent valid; fraudulently obtained, but valid. Nothing in this law would prevent that."

[one eyed jack]

Sniff! Sniff! Smell that? It smells like money. Great, make it illegal. The industry willgo underground and make more money and keep the law busy with busts. I smell anarchy. This industry collectively makes more money than Holly Wood and American football put together. Do you really think Americans are going to sit on their arses and do nothing? I sense much drama is about to happen.

I wonder if Bush and Blair conspired over a cup of tea about all of this. What with our data protection act and the US information disclosure this was designed to put the adult industry into check-mate (or is it stalemate?)

Remember Prohibition? That was outlawed, porn was outlawed and no 2257 law is going to stop porn from being made and reaching the masses.

I think we can blame the outcome of Rob Blacks case for precipitating all this...Well, maybe not entirely. I sense it was something that was going to come and here it is.

[Elliot James]

"I think we can blame the outcome of Rob Blacks case for precipitating all this...Well, maybe not entirely. I sense it was something that was going to come and here it is."

I have to disagree with this opinion, Jack. I don't believe the Black case accelerated this situation.

[Rude Boy]

"Don't let them bully us like they have in Iraq & other countries that they have in their control."

Oh come on, we're talking about porno' not a war. Nobody has died, chill out.