I can't believe no one is talking about the new 2257 decision

[Biggy]

http://avn.com/index_cache.php?Prima...tent_ID=286357

Cliff notes:

"Therefore, any time after May 1, 2007, the court may rule that secondary producers are required to have copies of the records, have them indexed, and be subject to inspections."

"Therefore, when shooting outside of the United States, any government's picture identification including the person's legal name, photo and date of birth is acceptable, even if the producer's office is in the United States; shooting within the United States or its territories requires that same type of identification, but only issued by the United States or a state government."

"Therefore, "a copy of the URL" simply means where the image is located, for example, www.abc.com/pictures/12345."

"Accordingly, the required "copy of the depiction" can be kept by keeping a copy of the commercially available DVD." This also appears to mean that if a Web site offers the files in ".mpg" format, then the copies may be kept that way."

"Thus, a producer is in compliance so long as the records are accompanied by an identifiable copy of each depiction (such as one copy of an entire DVD library for a DVD manufacturer or one copy of the entire Web site for a webmaster)."

"Thus, primary producers may obliterate from identification documents the performers' addresses, social security numbers and all but the year from their dates of birth."

[gonzo]

Originally Posted by Biggy

http://avn.com/index_cache.php?Prima...tent_ID=286357

Cliff notes:

"Therefore, any time after May 1, 2007, the court may rule that secondary producers are required to have copies of the records, have them indexed, and be subject to inspections."

"Therefore, when shooting outside of the United States, any government's picture identification including the person's legal name, photo and date of birth is acceptable, even if the producer's office is in the United States; shooting within the United States or its territories requires that same type of identification, but only issued by the United States or a state government."

"Therefore, "a copy of the URL" simply means where the image is located, for example, www.abc.com/pictures/12345."

"Accordingly, the required "copy of the depiction" can be kept by keeping a copy of the commercially available DVD." This also appears to mean that if a Web site offers the files in ".mpg" format, then the copies may be kept that way."

"Thus, a producer is in compliance so long as the records are accompanied by an identifiable copy of each depiction (such as one copy of an entire DVD library for a DVD manufacturer or one copy of the entire Web site for a webmaster)."

"Thus, primary producers may obliterate from identification documents the performers' addresses, social security numbers and all but the year from their dates of birth."

When did they sneak this one in? At first glance this looks to be a good thing.

[softball]

seems alright to me. Maybe the best case of a worst case.

[Biggy]

Originally Posted by gonzo

When did they sneak this one in? At first glance this looks to be a good thing.

You think its good but trust me, it isn't. It's incredibly burdensome for AFFILIATES. Remember, primary producers have always been held to the law and control the content.

Getting the IDs is 10% of the work. Having everything cross referenced properly all your previous work and future work is an incredible amount of work (every single explicit banner, photo, video, etc) and preparing yourself for inspections as well. I know in the office we keep a whole kiosk dedicated to this so its completely separated.

I could spit off 1000 different scenarios in this business where complying with this, is essentially impossible, and for those who say nothing is impossible, then incredibly incredibly burdensome to the point of impossibility.

[Toby]

Originally Posted by Biggy

I could spit off 1000 different scenarios in this business where complying with this, is essentially impossible, and for those who say nothing is impossible, then incredibly incredibly burdensome to the point of impossibility.

I agree. For an affiliate that promotes dozens, if not hundreds, of sites the amount of time required to maintain all those records is most certainly burdensome. Assuming that the records are even available from the sponsors.

[gonzo]

Originally Posted by Toby

I agree. For an affiliate that promotes dozens, if not hundreds, of sites the amount of time required to maintain all those records is most certainly burdensome. Assuming that the records are even available from the sponsors.

Ive added a little explination here
http://adultspeaks.com/?p=30