Quote:
Originally posted by RawAlex@Aug 5 2004, 02:16 PM
I guess the other question is this: Do we have some sort of guidance regarding content produced and published before the activation date of these (in my mind unconstituional) changes to the laws? Does this date back to day one of 2257? Has the justice department issued any guidelines in this matter?
Is this a project based on a hunch? Is it not likely that there will be a line drawn that says "for content produced before date X, you need only the primary, and after date X, the content must have records at the place of business of the secondary"?
I haven't seen the answers to these sorts of questions.
Alex
|
It is one of those questions that is still outstanding. I am going with the idea that if you create a record, go for overkill. get as complete of a record as you can. Since the record keeping requirements are actual law at present, then I am approaching it as if you have content out there, you should have records for it.
but, if you read the changes you see:
" (d) For any record created or amended after [insert date 30 days
after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register], all such
records shall be organized alphabetically, or numerically where
appropriate, by the legal name of the performer (by last or family
name, then first or given name), and shall be indexed or cross-
referenced to each alias or other name used and to each title or
identifying number of the book, magazine, film, videotape, computer-
generated image, digital image, picture, or other matter (including but
not limited to Internet computer site or services). If the producer
subsequently produces an additional book, magazine, film, videotape,
computer-generated image, digital image, or picture, or other matter
(including but not limited to Internet computer site or services) that
contains one or more visual depictions of actual sexually explicit
conduct made by a performer for whom he maintains records as required
by this part, the producer shall add the additional title or
identifying number and the names of the performer to the existing
records and such records shall thereafter be maintained in accordance
with this paragraph."
Which could be interpreted to mean that you don't have to have all that data if you created the record prior to the changes going into effect.
This is the type of stuff that keeps lawyers employed.
Since I am not a lawyer, but rather a database administrator, I always run on the premise that you can never have too much data. So, if you got inspected and you could produce a record that tracks the performer all the way back to when she started in vaudeville back in 1908, then what the hell, go ahead and produce it. It can't hurt.