2257 - Only FSC Members covered by injunction - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

woj · 05-24-2005, 04:23 PM

50....,,..

iBanker · 05-24-2005, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lenny2

Brandon I've always liked you, but this is over the line.

If someone in a position of authority at the FSC did actually tell you this then they crossed the line as well. It's dangerously close to raising funds under false pretenses.
It'l like someone from the NAACP telling all the black families in the ghetto that affirmative action won't apply to them unless they join the NAACP and pay thier dues on time.

You're an intelligent guy, and I know you posted this for a good reason, but I also know that IF someone from the FSC told you this on the phone that you screamed "BULLSHIT!!" when they did.

Bingo, Lenny. I'd back off if he just admitted the HUGE FAULT in his statement, or just left it alone.

bringer · 05-24-2005, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VirtuMike

Some of you might not like him. I do. Some of you did not read the new 16 pages. I did. Some of you aren't worried. I am. Some of you are not supporters of the FSC. I am.

He, from what I know, does not work for the FSC and does not receive revenue from them. I could be wrong, hell I am wrong about many things. But the bottom line is this group is very important right now and has a tremendous task ahead of them. They need support. They are not doing this for money. The staff there could probably make a hell of a lot more money selling their time in other places. They are fighting the good fight and need funding to continue. I think he should be commended for momentum. What does he have to gain or lose here?

FYI reread the 16 pages - you'll see them talk about him and they don't like him much. How many of you took the time to write in? Or to put money into the fight? Or your time? Or do you think it's better to sit in your mom's basement and flap your talkholes so you look cool and get the sig revenue? How much longer do you plan on getting sig revenue if your sig sponsor walks?

You know what you need to do. Do it.

Hang together or hang separately.

tell me to join because it will help the industry and i will. tell me to join or else and ill say fuck off. ill wait for the press release before i make that decision

FightThisPatent · 05-24-2005, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lenny2

If someone in a position of authority at the FSC did actually tell you this then they crossed the line as well. It's dangerously close to raising funds under false pretenses.

Let me be clear(er) on this..... I have my own doubts about the statement of an injunction covering only FSC members .. i even consulted my attorney who said that an injunction is an injunction, but also, the law is about the details, none of which we have, and if FSC believes it can protect its members, that is their charter and duty.

Let me make it also clear, that FSC marketing campaign is not about "join us and you can be apart of our injunction."

*I* brought this up as ANOTHER reason to join FSC.

If you don't agree with .XXX, FSC is against it. Joining FSC means helping to fight against the "ghettoization" of the online adult space.

If you disagree with "community standards" and obscenity charges, then joining FSC means helping in that fight.

There are many reasons to join FSC. Obviously, the misconstruement of my first post has caused quite the stir, but nonetheless, there are many good reasons to support FSC.

I admire your viewpoints on many issues where you have held a level head and made very rational posts, and your bashing was a surprise since I have nothing to gain in my posting, and the point i presented was based on fact.

Fight the Zinging!

iBanker · 05-24-2005, 04:32 PM

I'll take that as an apology then I guess.

FightThisPatent · 05-24-2005, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iBanker

I'd back off if he just admitted the HUGE FAULT in his statement, or just left it alone.

ummm.. I am at fault for typing up the direct answer to a direct question that many have wondered about?

Do you cry bullshit to newspaper and cable news for the stories they run? Maybe you do.. Do you always shoot the messenger? Do you attack the mail man when he brings you bad news?

Thanks again for the bump.

Fight the what-are-we-fighting-about-again!

Connor · 05-24-2005, 04:36 PM

Hey everyone... been watching everyone take swipes at Brandon here and have a few comments which may or may not be helpful.

1) It doesn't do a lot of good for us to be at each other's throats right now. I know flaming is a time-honored tradition in this industry, but it seems to me a little unity isn't a bad idea right about now.

2) Brandon is not a representative of the FSC, other than possibly a member. So he isn't trying to drum up profits, and would not benefit in any way if people did sign up for the FSC.

3) I too was surprised by what Brandon posted when I read it on YNOT, and since then I called Michelle and asked her -- and yes, what Brandon is reporting here is also what she told me. However, she stressed that it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY that the government would prosecute AT ALL if an injunction in in place since they have no way of knowing who is and isn't a FSC member. For this reason she said the FSC hasn't been botherting to mention this issue much, but added that some people have expressed concerns about the possibility, which she says exists. It is possible that Michelle got this wrong, and I'm sure we'll hear more about this soon. It's also possible that she got it right, and that there IS a technicality that could lead to select prosecutions even if the injunction is granted. I would assume that this is something that everyone would want to bring up with their attorneys. I don't know either way, but wanted to at least post that Brandon was only repeating what he was told, and you people are all over him about it. The old "don't shoot the messenger" wisdom comes to mind.

All that aside, is there anyone who wasn't planning on joining the FSC anyway in light of today's news? I would think that very few webmasters would be in the position of NOT being a member come 30 days from now, so most of this will me moot.

Choker · 05-24-2005, 05:27 PM

This is EXACTLY what Michelle told me last week. In fact I posted about it in a thread here and got the same response Brandon is getting.

xxxjay · 05-24-2005, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VirtuMike

Some of you might not like him. I do. Some of you did not read the new 16 pages. I did. Some of you aren't worried. I am. Some of you are not supporters of the FSC. I am.

He, from what I know, does not work for the FSC and does not receive revenue from them. I could be wrong, hell I am wrong about many things. But the bottom line is this group is very important right now and has a tremendous task ahead of them. They need support. They are not doing this for money. The staff there could probably make a hell of a lot more money selling their time in other places. They are fighting the good fight and need funding to continue. I think he should be commended for momentum. What does he have to gain or lose here?

FYI reread the 16 pages - you'll see them talk about him and they don't like him much. How many of you took the time to write in? Or to put money into the fight? Or your time? Or do you think it's better to sit in your mom's basement and flap your talkholes so you look cool and get the sig revenue? How much longer do you plan on getting sig revenue if your sig sponsor walks?

You know what you need to do. Do it.

Hang together or hang separately.

I support the FSC 110% (I'm a member)- that's why I don't like the idiot that started this thread..."Hang together or hang separately" - that is a good saying and it's what we need to do. The FSC is our best shot right now.

Fear mongering and spreading bad information for your own profit is spineless IMO.

FightThisPatent · 05-24-2005, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xxxjay

Fear mongering and spreading bad information for your own profit is spineless IMO.

So, typing up what Michelle said to me is bad information? Do you read what you write?

please tell me how i am profiting from all of this?

please be specific, since you have made the accusation.

Fight the Questions!

FightThisPatent · 05-24-2005, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Choker

This is EXACTLY what Michelle told me last week. In fact I posted about it in a thread here and got the same response Brandon is getting.

shooting the messenger seems to be a popular sport around here.

It's almost like people were blissfully happy with their heads in the sands, and when you poke them on the shoulder to warn them about the flow of yellow pee about to run into their ear from little johnny in the corner, they get all bent ouf of shape.

I am aware of your efforts to help bring in more support for FSC (i read through the beginning part of your thread). You made alot of good points (much like you did with IMPAI at the time), and you stuck your neck out there to help with some solutions.

Fight the Nahsayers!

Brujah · 05-24-2005, 05:47 PM

So basically FSC is virtually blackmailing us to send them money, using fear tactics. Got it.

FightThisPatent · 05-24-2005, 05:49 PM

The official DOJ release of comments on submitted comments is very interesting... and a very long read. For those that haven't seen the link posted to it, here's a copy:
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2...5/05-10107.htm

I am about 1/3 the way through... alot to take in, but they state their reasons for what they chose to include and not include. Even if you have an attorney that is overlooking these issues for you, it's still a good read to peer inside the minds of DOJ.

Fight the never ending story!

Choker · 05-24-2005, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brujah

So basically FSC is virtually blackmailing us to send them money, using fear tactics. Got it.

Dude nobody is blackmailing anyone. Brandon asked a exact question and got a exact answer. Because it is not the answer you wanted to hear does not make it blackmail. According to the FSC TECHNICALLY speaking if a injunction on thier behalf is granted, only members of the FSC are protected. FSC does not make the fucking laws. Jeesh

FightThisPatent · 05-24-2005, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brujah

So basically FSC is virtually blackmailing us to send them money, using fear tactics. Got it.

Not quite the conclusion I had in mind, but here's an absurd conclusion based on the tone of various posts:

*I* am blackmailing everyone to seek an attorney about 2257 issues and their business because I get a 5.32% referral fee from all the attorneys when a new client comes in and says "i read about 2257 on GFY ..... "

Fight the Absurdity!

Brujah · 05-24-2005, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Choker

Dude nobody is blackmailing anyone. Brandon asked a exact question and got a exact answer. Because it is not the answer you wanted to hear does not make it blackmail. According to the FSC TECHNICALLY speaking if a injunction on thier behalf is granted, only members of the FSC are protected. FSC does not make the fucking laws. Jeesh

They're not saying "Pay $300 to be a member, and we'll try to protect you. Or you can go to jail." ?

Why would FSC members only be protected US law and it apply differently to everyone else ? Isn't that the advice FSC is giving ?

theking · 05-24-2005, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Choker

Dude nobody is blackmailing anyone. Brandon asked a exact question and got a exact answer. Because it is not the answer you wanted to hear does not make it blackmail. According to the FSC TECHNICALLY speaking if a injunction on thier behalf is granted, only members of the FSC are protected. FSC does not make the fucking laws. Jeesh

Usually...if not always...when a class action law suit is filed and an injunction is sought...it is sought on behalf of the clients that are actually listed as part of the class action...but when an injuction is granted on behalf of the clients involved in the class action...usually...if not always...there will be no further effort to enforce...upon anyone...whatever the injuction was granted for...until the matter is ajudicated and this sometimes takes multiple years.

Thus if the FSC files for an injuction upon behalf of its clients...and said injuction is granted...this injucntion...will probably...if not mandantorily...stop the DOJ from attempting to prosecute anyone until the matter is ajudicated.

BTW...I am not an attorney...the above is just my laymans understanding of how it works.

Choker · 05-24-2005, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brujah

They're not saying "Pay $300 to be a member, and we'll try to protect you. Or you can go to jail." ?

Why would FSC members only be protected US law and it apply differently to everyone else ? Isn't that the advice FSC is giving ?

Where did they say that numnuts? Ask your fucking congressman why the law is as it is. FSC is not giving anyone advice as far as I have heard. You are just a fucking asshole, or a real dumbass. Pick one.

theking · 05-24-2005, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Choker

Where did they say that numnuts? Ask your fucking congressman why the law is as it is. FSC is not giving anyone advice as far as I have heard. You are just a fucking asshole, or a real dumbass. Pick one.

I certainly am not aware of any advice the FSC has provided for the new 2257 regs.

FightThisPatent · 05-24-2005, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brujah

They're not saying "Pay $300 to be a member, and we'll try to protect you. Or you can go to jail." ?

The people who are going to jail are the ones that failed to comply with 2257, should there be a successful prosecution. It is very unfortunate if someone doesn't have an CP material on their site, but yet go to jail for a felony because they have failed (or were lazy) in keeping proper documentation.

Being an FSC member is NOT the get out of jail free card.

Should it be true that the injunction can be granted over a class as defined by being an FSC member, then it only means prosection of the individually targetted companies are held off until the outcome of some bigger case.

It also may be true as Michelle has said in other articles, that having an injunction might cause the courts to hold off on all other cases, until the outcome of the FSC lawsuits that are attacking various parts of the 2257 language.

If there was no FSC, then who would be filing multiple federal court opposition?

Who? Anyone? Beuller? ACLU? EFF? the answer would be that the big companies would hire their big time attorneys and pay out their big time bucks to defend their companies against any possible charges, but first, having their records in order.

All those that couldn't afford big time lawyers, would get stuck with dealing with very broad terms and definitions and general apathy towards the federal requirements for recordkeeping.

So for those that are going to take this absurd moral argument, that if it is indeed true that FSC members are covered by a granted injunction and not support FSC, then you might as well chop your nose off now.

Fight the No More Smelling of bullshit!

Connor · 05-24-2005, 06:17 PM

"They're not saying "Pay $300 to be a member, and we'll try to protect you. Or you can go to jail." ?"

No, they're not. Some people were concerned and ASKED them if there was a POSSIBILITY that non-members could still be prosecuted after an injunction, and they answered the question to the best of their understanding but still downplayed the possibilty that anyone would get prosecuted if an injunction were issued. I hardly think the FSC needs to drum up reasons for webmasters to join right about now. Look, it's the height of foolishness to rely solely on message boards for information about things as important as 2257. There's a very simple solution to all of this. Call your attorney and ask -- if an injunction is granted on behalf of FSC efforts, will I need to be a FSC member to benefit from that? If you are comfortable with your counsel then that should finish the issue in your mind. Every person here gets to decide for himself or herself how best to proceed. The more information you have, the more likely you'll make an informed decision.

FightThisPatent · 05-24-2005, 06:25 PM

For those that have made it this far, it's because you are either amused at the drama, or want to learn about 2257. So here's a quick summary so that you can then ask good questions to an attorney.

For content producers (primary record keepers), you need to document the models that you use in every shoot. if you use the same model every 2 weeks, you get a new model release each time, because part of the model release is the documentation of the time/date of the production, what color their hair/eyes are then, etc. You need to be able to cross reference by date of prodution, model name, model aliases, nicknames, production title etc. You can use multiple filing cabinents with multiple paper copies, or use a database. You need proper government issued material to document the age. If you don't have a model release, or know how to create a cross-indexed filing system (or database), consult an attorney familiar with 2257.

For paysite webmasters (secondary record keepers), know where you received your images from. Document the content producers on your 2257 page. Create a listing of each URL to an image on your site to where it came from. Create folders or naming structures for your galleries as an alternative to atleast be able to answer where a specific image comes from. Use a spreadsheet to maintain your records.

For affiliate webmasters, not sure about how this all affects you if you receive sexually explicit content from a paysite. By all indiciations so far, you need to be able to document where the images came from.

For secondary record keepers in general about keeping IDs of the models, that remains to be seen where that goes, which is one of the targets by FSC in their lawsuits.

Until that gets resolved, compliance with CURRENT 2257 is something that anyone can do to be proactive. It will cost money and time to do so, and to remember 2257 is a recordkeeping statue, it is an actual law that says you have some responsibilities if you are going to produce or show sexually explicit materials. The new additions certainly go alot further, but better to atleast have the current 2257 requirements in place.

And when you do seek an attorney, be sure to tell them "i read about 2257 on GFY...." so that i can collect my 5.32% referral commission

Fight the Answers!

TheLegacy · 05-24-2005, 06:27 PM

if the free speech wants to only cover those who have supported them in a legal battle they are entitled too.. just because the word free is in their title - why should they fight for those that wont even help in the cause? too many are getting a free ride on the backs of others who were willing to fight.

You dont see that in the real world. Dont get pissed off if the press release comes out and your left in the dust crying because lawyers only look after their clients "first" and arent out there to save the industry as a whole.

Brujah · 05-24-2005, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Choker

Where did they say that numnuts? Ask your fucking congressman why the law is as it is. FSC is not giving anyone advice as far as I have heard. You are just a fucking asshole, or a real dumbass. Pick one.

You're an idiot. Read your comments, and wonder why anyone would listen to anything you say. It sounds like you are an 8th grade dropout with no sense that has to resort to insulting someone in order to hold a conversation.

Hang together, or hang seperately comes to mind.

You being the knowledgeable one however, please list an example where a US law injunction protected members of an organization while simultaneously being enforced against a non-member.

Brujah · 05-24-2005, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Connor

"They're not saying "Pay $300 to be a member, and we'll try to protect you. Or you can go to jail." ?"

No, they're not. Some people were concerned and ASKED them if there was a POSSIBILITY that non-members could still be prosecuted after an injunction, and they answered the question to the best of their understanding but still downplayed the possibilty that anyone would get prosecuted if an injunction were issued. I hardly think the FSC needs to drum up reasons for webmasters to join right about now. Look, it's the height of foolishness to rely solely on message boards for information about things as important as 2257. There's a very simple solution to all of this. Call your attorney and ask -- if an injunction is granted on behalf of FSC efforts, will I need to be a FSC member to benefit from that? If you are comfortable with your counsel then that should finish the issue in your mind. Every person here gets to decide for himself or herself how best to proceed. The more information you have, the more likely you'll make an informed decision.

I agree with everything you've said. I'm not uncomfortable contributing to FSC, for a great cause. It's the inferring that you might not be prosecuted if you're an FSC member, or at least not right away, if you pay $300 per year.

Choker · 05-24-2005, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brujah

You're an idiot. Read your comments, and wonder why anyone would listen to anything you say. It sounds like you are an 8th grade dropout with no sense that has to resort to insulting someone in order to hold a conversation.

Hang together, or hang seperately comes to mind.

You being the knowledgeable one however, please list an example where a US law injunction protected members of an organization while simultaneously being enforced against a non-member.

I apoligize for calling you names. You remind me of a bitch that like you loves to twist and manipulate others words, puts words in peoples mouths. I detest people who try to do this. I notice you do this a lot. Here in this thread is a prime example of your bullshit....

quote from you ....So basically FSC is virtually blackmailing us to send them money, using fear tactics. Got it.

This sir is what whining bitches do. Where the fuck do you see FSC using scare tactics or blackmailing anyone?

tony286 · 05-24-2005, 06:45 PM

A getting a injuction for a law suit that stops the action aka first data dropping ibill is very different then a injunction against a law and gov regulation .The example I use is COPA it was filed by the aclu (I think thats it) it doesnt mean just their members benefit. Think about it they are going to come to your door and you are going to show them your membership card and then they will go away. I dont think so, Also in my opinion they come to see your records ,they already have you in the gunsights for obscenity.

Brujah · 05-24-2005, 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Choker

I apoligize for calling you names. You remind me of a bitch that like you loves to twist and manipulate others words, puts words in peoples mouths. I detest people who try to do this. I notice you do this a lot. Here in this thread is a prime example of your bullshit....

quote from you ....So basically FSC is virtually blackmailing us to send them money, using fear tactics. Got it.

This sir is what whining bitches do. Where the fuck do you see FSC using scare tactics or blackmailing anyone?

First post quote by Michelle Freridge (Executive Director):

Quote:

"the injunction will ONLY cover FSC members. "

Why approach it that way at all ? "Join us now, or you're fucked." Rather than just inform about how important it is ?

Further, Choker.. if you read this thread you'll find several others with the same opinion. Pounding your chest and shouting like an idiot isn't going to get anyone to change their mind.

FightThisPatent · 05-24-2005, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brujah

Why approach it that way at all ? "Join us now, or you're fucked." Rather than just inform about how important it is ?

There was no "approach"... it was a direct answer to my direct question. There was no marketing spin prepared, it was her answering what i was hearing from various places.

As far as how important this is???? You must have missed ALL the articles and Press releases, and stories, and postings on 2257. There were articles that said they started a 2257 defense fund. There was press releases about how industry attorneys were mounting up defense lawsuits.

Fight the blinders!

ry0t · 05-24-2005, 06:57 PM

Hey guys the FSC online form is not a secure page, or am I missing something?
http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/application3.php

Dirty F · 05-24-2005, 06:57 PM

Donny · 05-24-2005, 06:59 PM

Brujah · 05-24-2005, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FightThisPatent

There was no "approach"... it was a direct answer to my direct question. There was no marketing spin prepared, it was her answering what i was hearing from various places.

You're probably right, and there is no spin intended by FSC. It came across by you. Except it was the first quote you gave us in this thread, and the thread itself is titled: 2257 - Only FSC Members covered by injunction

Don't pretend that isn't spin based on causing fear and urgency. The only requirement if you want to be covered is to pay $300 per year, and you have to do it quick or the consequences may be dire! Oooooh.

Connor · 05-24-2005, 07:17 PM

"Don't pretend that isn't spin based on causing fear and urgency. The only requirement if you want to be covered is to pay $300 per year, and you have to do it quick or the consequences may be dire! Oooooh."

I was curious about this $300 business, and it turns out a person can join the FSC as an "individual" rather than as a business... and that's like $50, not $300, to join as an individual. Those who join as a business will find that the rates will vary, depending on the size of the business. Just thought I'd clarify that point.

baddog · 05-24-2005, 07:36 PM

I am not an attorney, and by law, can not provide legal advice. My responses are based on personal experience and knowledge. No attorney/client relationship is implied. One should consult with a licensed attorney familiar with Internet law. That being said:

My two cents: Talk to an attorney. My personal opinion is that Michelle may have misinterpreted whatever her attorneys told her. The injunction may be filed on behalf of the members of FSC, but if it is granted, it will apply to all.

A little reminder: If you donate $100 or more to the Free Speech Coalition, ContentShopper will give you a free button for 3 months (a $300 value).

We are not asking you to buy anything. Simply make a donation, and let me know, and the advertising is yours for 3 months.

latinasojourn · 05-24-2005, 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FightThisPatent

Let me be clear(er) on this..... I have my own doubts about the statement of an injunction covering only FSC members .. i even consulted my attorney who said that an injunction is an injunction, but also, the law is about the details, none of which we have, and if FSC believes it can protect its members, that is their charter and duty.

Let me make it also clear, that FSC marketing campaign is not about "join us and you can be apart of our injunction."

*I* brought this up as ANOTHER reason to join FSC.

If you don't agree with .XXX, FSC is against it. Joining FSC means helping to fight against the "ghettoization" of the online adult space.

If you disagree with "community standards" and obscenity charges, then joining FSC means helping in that fight.

There are many reasons to join FSC. Obviously, the misconstruement of my first post has caused quite the stir, but nonetheless, there are many good reasons to support FSC.

I admire your viewpoints on many issues where you have held a level head and made very rational posts, and your bashing was a surprise since I have nothing to gain in my posting, and the point i presented was based on fact.

Fight the Zinging!

certainly the FSC can draft their suit anyway they want, with natural advocacy for their member base.

but the key issues on which any injunction will be issued will be germane to everyone involved with 2257.

and this is federal court...not judge judy.

my bet is a situation like COPA happens.

FightThisPatent · 05-24-2005, 08:47 PM

I finally just completed the DOJ official release:
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2...5/05-10107.htm

It's a loooong read, but they answered/rebutted alot of comments that people sent in.

Lots of things for the industry lawyers to be picking through. I found this comment to shed light on the mindset of the authors of the document pertaining to the adult biz:

To put this into context, they were addressing the issue of no 3rd party custodian of records, and how it was a bad idea, etc.

"Historically, producers have used front corporations in order to evade both law enforcement and tax authorities."

(at the end of Page 29614)

But in their own defense, they did listen to the commentors, and they allowed for 2257 info to be placed on a separate page, rather than having all the text fill up on your home page with specific size fonts, colors, etc that was in the draft.

There is no cliff notes to their explanation document and trying to interpret words like "distributor" will only have you rationalizing to a false sense of comprehension.

And in other areas, they were quite clear about how all of this is done to protect children from being exploited (which is a very noble cause).. which is why we know they won't be asking for 2257 info on MILF material

While the finer details of the new parts should be left up to an attorney, there is alot of practical things you can do, whether a primary or secondary producer as i posted up above.

Additional 2257 background info at JD's website: http://www.xxxlaw.net/

Fight the too many words!

FightThisPatent · 05-24-2005, 08:56 PM

Not quite cliff notes, but a good summary with input from various industry attornies on the new 2257 regs in today's AVNonline:

http://www.avnonline.com/index.php?P...tent_ID=227697

Fight the Linking!

BoyAlley · 05-24-2005, 09:05 PM

Greetings:

Quote:

Originally Posted by FightThisPatent

For paysite webmasters (secondary record keepers), know where you received your images from. Document the content producers on your 2257 page. Create a listing of each URL to an image on your site to where it came from. Create folders or naming structures for your galleries as an alternative to atleast be able to answer where a specific image comes from. Use a spreadsheet to maintain your records.

Our attorney disagrees with this statement. We're being told the following:

If you have a depiction of sexually explicit material on your website, you MUST also be a custodian of record for that imagery, and have all of the necessary IDs on file. Simply referring to the primary producer is not enough. As an operator of a website that has that depiction, even if you're not the one that created, you are considered a "secondary producer", and as such, must maintain the records (copies of IDs, etc.) as well.

FightThisPatent · 05-24-2005, 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoyAlley

Our attorney disagrees with this statement.

You or your attorney probably missed my point that i was referring to CURRENT 2257 (before what was recently signed ). The new 2257 requirements about having the IDs is stated in there, but that's one of the things FSC will be attacking. There are all kinds of new things in the new 2257 changes over the existing ones.

My point was until those new issues have some clarifications, to atleast being to comply with the CURRENT 2257, in addition to seeing an attorney about the new stuff (which is way too much to even begin to summarize in a message board post).

Your attorney is telling you what the new 2257 say, so good that you did consult your attorney..... but what are your next steps then?

Will you contact all of your content producers and demand model ID/2257 info? Will you drop all content that you aren't able to get these documents?

Interesting problem on Content Producers side as well to first decide to hand out the docs, and second to be able to administer the process of doing it.

The AVNonline article that I posted above was a good read, and even in that article, there are differences of opinions by industry attornies over 2257.

Fight the Take Down!

BoyAlley · 05-24-2005, 09:33 PM

Greetings:

Quote:

Originally Posted by FightThisPatent

Will you contact all of your content producers and demand model ID/2257 info? Will you drop all content that you aren't able to get these documents?

Interesting problem on Content Producers side as well to first decide to hand out the docs, and second to be able to administer the process of doing it.

The answers to your 2 questions are: Yes, and uhm, Yes. Simply put, if you have explicit content on a site that you don't have docs for, you're going to jail, assuming an injuction isn't only in place, but also that the underlying issues that led to said injunction are ruled for in your favor.

At least, again, this is what we're being advised.

So, unfortunately, anything we aren't able to get docs for by June 23 is going down.

A big problem, is that many content providers have provided IDs at the point of sale, but they have "blacked out" areas, such as address or driver's license number. These won't be considered valid IDs. I'm willing to bet that most content brokers don't even HAVE the original scans on file....

FightThisPatent · 05-24-2005, 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoyAlley

G
So, unfortunately, anything we aren't able to get docs for by June 23 is going down.

ouch... and i know that is a painful decision that you have made, but one that i certainly do understand in the "better to be safe than go to jail for 10+ years" saying.

by the 2257 requirements on the books for over a decade, content producers should have a photo copy of the license of the models... i know that companies like Matrix Content went through the process to have all of their paperwork digitized to prepare for this very issue.

At the time, they were doing like many were doing, offering the blackened-out versions... but as you have pointed out, this won't cut it now.

So if a content producer couldn't produce the unblackend out version, then they would have already violated 2257, which means it snowballs on you.

The real issue, is whether they will offer the model ID for those webmasters that ask for it.

I can see it being a marketing/competitive angle by some that some would offer the model ID because they are willing, or just want to get more business, while many others would be fearful of giving out like Aria Giovanni's drivers license (that would include her home address).

The purpose of the injunction is to hold off on prosecution over exact issues such as this of the secondary recordkeeper having to have the ID.

After a few years of court time, and the result is that secondary record keepers have to have this, well then that will certainly shape how things are done.

I have talked to some that are demanding ID's from content producer, or they will go elsewhere to get the content, having to take down their content, like you are doing, in order to really stay clear.

Having young looking content, certainly puts you more in the cross-hairs then say MILF-type material, so it would seem to me that young looking models would hold the greater liability for a webmaster when it comes to having 2257 info.

The broader implications of this is content that paysites have given out (ie. "free content") that is sexually explicit (some use the word hardcore). Under the new regs, these affiliates would probably be seen as secondary producers and require docs...

It's all very confusing and constraining and there are no simple answers other than to comply as best as you can. Some will go offshore(outside the US) (really offshore, meaning no US-based related assets or resources conncted to the company), others will demand "2257 compliant" image sets, others will do the take down of "non compliant" images.

It's not the end of the adult entertainment market.. many companies have positioned themselves with proper record keeping. It may be a weeding out process over the next few years, but those that treat this as a business (and now have additional reason to ensure they don't commit a felony) will continue to prosper.

Sounds like you are taking those same steps.

Fight the Short Term!

GotGauge · 05-25-2005, 01:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FightThisPatent

please see article on front of site http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/ third paragraph up from the bottom.

"FSC intends to test the validity of the new rules by filing multiple lawsuits, asking for a temporary restraining order and an injunction. By taking swift proactive steps, FSC hopes to protect its members from prosecution, while challenging the law as unconstitutional."

Fight the Counting!

This is just a GUESS, but here is my view, of what this means.
"FSC intends to test the validity of the new rules by filing multiple lawsuits, asking for a temporary restraining order and an injunction"

Temp Restraining order = FSC members
Injunction = Everyone

GotGauge · 05-25-2005, 02:15 AM

http://money.cnn.com/2005/05/24/news...ex.htm?cnn=yes

Just had to do it!

will76 · 05-25-2005, 02:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lenny2

Brandon I've always liked you, but this is over the line.

If someone in a position of authority at the FSC did actually tell you this then they crossed the line as well. It's dangerously close to raising funds under false pretenses.
It'l like someone from the NAACP telling all the black families in the ghetto that affirmative action won't apply to them unless they join the NAACP and pay thier dues on time.

You're an intelligent guy, and I know you posted this for a good reason, but I also know that IF someone from the FSC told you this on the phone that you screamed "BULLSHIT!!" when they did.

All you guys are bitching at Bradon. So what if he is did misslead some or fluff it up. He does not profit from it and we all benefit from the donations be having a more agressive campaign against them.

Not like people are posting " signup for my program on how to get ranked in the top 10 on google" and then saying it is a google requirement to buy this service for $1,000. No one is scamming anyone here. Money would go to good use for ALL of us. Even if 2257 does not affect you directly, i gurantee it affects you indirectly.

All of you are so fucking uptight or confrontational you jump people's shit at the drop of a hat.

The FSC crossed the line if this is the case??? The only organization that tries to protect our asses and some of you have the nerve to say that. No wonder we are easy prey we don't even appreciate the 1 group we have fighting for us. $300 is nothing, and i wish they did require it, more of you would get off of your ass donate and then we could have 1000 lawyers working 5x more then what we will have now.

Mike Dutch · 05-25-2005, 03:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by will76

All you guys are bitching at Bradon. So what if he is did misslead some or fluff it up. He does not profit from it and we all benefit from the donations be having a more agressive campaign against them.

Not like people are posting " signup for my program on how to get ranked in the top 10 on google" and then saying it is a google requirement to buy this service for $1,000. No one is scamming anyone here. Money would go to good use for ALL of us. Even if 2257 does not affect you directly, i gurantee it affects you indirectly.

All of you are so fucking uptight or confrontational you jump people's shit at the drop of a hat.

The FSC crossed the line if this is the case??? The only organization that tries to protect our asses and some of you have the nerve to say that. No wonder we are easy prey we don't even appreciate the 1 group we have fighting for us. $300 is nothing, and i wish they did require it, more of you would get off of your ass donate and then we could have 1000 lawyers working 5x more then what we will have now.

Well said, there is no benefit for Bradon, and if yes which I doubt, the collected money will go back into projects that we will benefit from in the end.

FightThisPatent · 05-25-2005, 06:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by will76

All you guys are bitching at Bradon. So what if he is did misslead some or fluff it up. He does not profit from it and we all benefit from the donations be having a more agressive campaign against them.

What was misleading of fluffed? The straight facts? If the facts are wrong, then obviously the premise of my post is wrong.... but the fact was interesting enough to post. Now if you believe that FSC's position on this injunction is wrong, then you have a beef with them and not me, but that is no grounds not to join them, only more reasons to join. Surely you can separate the message from the messenger.

moving on.....

What's been quite humorous in all of this is those that are "upset" if being a member of FSC covers you on the injunction... what about the positive flip side? For just $300, you are a member to a trade association that is actively fighting complex legal issues on your behalf, and *if* it is true that the injunction will cover FSC members...um.. isn't $300 an affordable expense as part of operating an adult-oriented website?

You can write it off as an expense. If $300 is a financial issue (and I am sensitive to that), then those are the people who are trying to learn as much as they can.. and obviously not the ones that are shooting from the lip.

Fight the GunSlingers!

FightThisPatent · 05-25-2005, 06:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Dutch

the collected money will go back into projects that we will benefit from in the end.

Membership dues goes towards funding the FSC operations, which can include things like:

1) fighting against mandatory .XXX registration for adult domains
2) "community standards" and obscenity
3) and of course 2257

FSC has setup a specific fund for 2257. I know that some people don't agree sometimes with FSC position on things, much like the ACLU who defends KKK's right to free speech...and i believe you can contribute directly to the 2257 fund.

Many people have said they were giving donations to support the 2257 fund... I have been saying to people, apply the first $300 towards getting a membership so you can be informed of other issues as well as getting a vote/say in issues to be tackled, and then whatever is above that, to then contribute to the 2257 fund.

While many of the top adult industry attorneys are offering their services to the cause, there is still financial issues involved with the whole process. Imagine the situation where they filed all their lawsuits and part way through the process, they run out of money.... what happens then? Who will pick up the fight?

Without FSC, there doesn't seem to be anyone who will do this.

While i have certainly read an eye-full from nahsayers, i hope those that have connected with understanding to the 2257 issues that i have presented will "speak up" by their support for FSC in becoming a member and offering whatever donations you can afford to go towards an effort that directly affects your livelihood. The karma will surely be returned in kind.

Fight the Dogma!

jayeff · 05-25-2005, 07:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FightThisPatent

I know that some people don't agree sometimes with FSC position on things...

My ambivalence towards FSC is more basic. They are describing themselves as "the trade association of the adult entertainment industry" and they are offering "memberships". Yet taking the information available on the site at face value, I would be paying a fee for their "Board of Directors and professional staff" to spend as they see fit.

I am not implying they are misusing the funds, nor that their work - especially in relation to 2257 - may not be beneficial. But except in the broadest terms, I cannot see any details of their agenda, who is deciding that agenda, nor how - if at all - I can impact upon that agenda. That vagueness is not at all compatible with my concept of a broad-based trade association.

Going further, although they are also collecting donations to help fight 2257, there is no clear indication on their site as to what exactly they are fighting for. Do they want the whole of the new regulations withdrawn or are they fighting to have specific parts of those regulations changed? If the latter, which parts and how? It is possible to infer some of the answers by reading their news items and by comments from yourself and others, but there is no way to be confident as to whether such inferences are correct.

Over the years I have belonged to professional associations as varied as the Institute of Chartered Accountants and the Private Hire Drivers Association, and I have served on the national executive of one of the UK's main political parties. Perhaps I have become cynical after being exposed to the adult industry for too long, but to me the FSC site strongly suggests a narrowly based, autocratic organization, that to help its fundraising, attempts to convey a very different impression.

That may not be the case, but then surely it would make sense for the site to be more forthcoming.

scoreman · 05-25-2005, 07:53 AM

If a US Court orders the injunction from enforcement of a specific statute, it does not apply to a specific class, and the DOJ will not waste any money attempting to arrest others until the matter is resolved in Court. Tony404 is on the right track though for if the Feds are really gung ho about investigating and prosecuting you, there are a number of other weapons in their arsenal. Think IRS, FCC, FTC, and FBI as well as DOJ.

Donate money to the FSC to help ensure that the 2257 regs are challenged.

Brandon your ok in my book, but you sounded a false alarm here.

05-24-2005, 04:23 PM	#51
woj <&(©¿©)&> Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 47,882	50....,,.. __________________ Custom Software Development, email: woj#at#wojfun#.#com to discuss details or skype: wojl2000 or gchat: wojfun or telegram: wojl2000 Affiliate program tools: Hosted Galleries Manager Banner Manager Video Manager Wordpress Affiliate Plugin Pic/Movie of the Day Fansign Generator Zip Manager

05-24-2005, 04:32 PM	#55
iBanker Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: San Diego, moving to Portland. Posts: 2,758	I'll take that as an apology then I guess. __________________ www.JasonandAlex.com Christopher's ICQ: 268-843-170

05-24-2005, 04:36 PM	#57
Connor Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 1,294	Hey everyone... been watching everyone take swipes at Brandon here and have a few comments which may or may not be helpful. 1) It doesn't do a lot of good for us to be at each other's throats right now. I know flaming is a time-honored tradition in this industry, but it seems to me a little unity isn't a bad idea right about now. 2) Brandon is not a representative of the FSC, other than possibly a member. So he isn't trying to drum up profits, and would not benefit in any way if people did sign up for the FSC. 3) I too was surprised by what Brandon posted when I read it on YNOT, and since then I called Michelle and asked her -- and yes, what Brandon is reporting here is also what she told me. However, she stressed that it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY that the government would prosecute AT ALL if an injunction in in place since they have no way of knowing who is and isn't a FSC member. For this reason she said the FSC hasn't been botherting to mention this issue much, but added that some people have expressed concerns about the possibility, which she says exists. It is possible that Michelle got this wrong, and I'm sure we'll hear more about this soon. It's also possible that she got it right, and that there IS a technicality that could lead to select prosecutions even if the injunction is granted. I would assume that this is something that everyone would want to bring up with their attorneys. I don't know either way, but wanted to at least post that Brandon was only repeating what he was told, and you people are all over him about it. The old "don't shoot the messenger" wisdom comes to mind. All that aside, is there anyone who wasn't planning on joining the FSC anyway in light of today's news? I would think that very few webmasters would be in the position of NOT being a member come 30 days from now, so most of this will me moot. __________________ YNOT v5 IS NOW LIVE! \| SEEN YNOT MAIL YET?

05-24-2005, 05:27 PM	#58
Choker Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Orlando Posts: 9,024	This is EXACTLY what Michelle told me last week. In fact I posted about it in a thread here and got the same response Brandon is getting. __________________ ICQ me lets make a deal 116894466 Need dating, cam, or tube traffic? I got it.http://http://www.chokertraffic.com The Original http://www.chokertraffic.com/ Premium country pop-unders from $1.50 per k. I challenge you to compare this traffic to any other brokers. http://www.chokertraffic.com/public/tabs.php?t=o

05-24-2005, 05:47 PM	#62
Brujah Beer Money Baron Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: brujah / gmail Posts: 22,157	So basically FSC is virtually blackmailing us to send them money, using fear tactics. Got it. __________________ Free Premium Domain Lists and Tools at Clickmojo.com For Sale: Obscenity.com

05-24-2005, 05:49 PM	#63
FightThisPatent Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 4,090	The official DOJ release of comments on submitted comments is very interesting... and a very long read. For those that haven't seen the link posted to it, here's a copy: http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2...5/05-10107.htm I am about 1/3 the way through... alot to take in, but they state their reasons for what they chose to include and not include. Even if you have an attorney that is overlooking these issues for you, it's still a good read to peer inside the minds of DOJ. Fight the never ending story! __________________ http://www.t3report.com (where's the traffic?) v5.0 is out! \| http://www.FightThePatent.com \| ICQ 52741957

05-24-2005, 06:17 PM	#71
Connor Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 1,294	"They're not saying "Pay $300 to be a member, and we'll try to protect you. Or you can go to jail." ?" No, they're not. Some people were concerned and ASKED them if there was a POSSIBILITY that non-members could still be prosecuted after an injunction, and they answered the question to the best of their understanding but still downplayed the possibilty that anyone would get prosecuted if an injunction were issued. I hardly think the FSC needs to drum up reasons for webmasters to join right about now. Look, it's the height of foolishness to rely solely on message boards for information about things as important as 2257. There's a very simple solution to all of this. Call your attorney and ask -- if an injunction is granted on behalf of FSC efforts, will I need to be a FSC member to benefit from that? If you are comfortable with your counsel then that should finish the issue in your mind. Every person here gets to decide for himself or herself how best to proceed. The more information you have, the more likely you'll make an informed decision. __________________ YNOT v5 IS NOW LIVE! \| SEEN YNOT MAIL YET?

05-24-2005, 06:25 PM	#72
FightThisPatent Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 4,090	For those that have made it this far, it's because you are either amused at the drama, or want to learn about 2257. So here's a quick summary so that you can then ask good questions to an attorney. For content producers (primary record keepers), you need to document the models that you use in every shoot. if you use the same model every 2 weeks, you get a new model release each time, because part of the model release is the documentation of the time/date of the production, what color their hair/eyes are then, etc. You need to be able to cross reference by date of prodution, model name, model aliases, nicknames, production title etc. You can use multiple filing cabinents with multiple paper copies, or use a database. You need proper government issued material to document the age. If you don't have a model release, or know how to create a cross-indexed filing system (or database), consult an attorney familiar with 2257. For paysite webmasters (secondary record keepers), know where you received your images from. Document the content producers on your 2257 page. Create a listing of each URL to an image on your site to where it came from. Create folders or naming structures for your galleries as an alternative to atleast be able to answer where a specific image comes from. Use a spreadsheet to maintain your records. For affiliate webmasters, not sure about how this all affects you if you receive sexually explicit content from a paysite. By all indiciations so far, you need to be able to document where the images came from. For secondary record keepers in general about keeping IDs of the models, that remains to be seen where that goes, which is one of the targets by FSC in their lawsuits. Until that gets resolved, compliance with CURRENT 2257 is something that anyone can do to be proactive. It will cost money and time to do so, and to remember 2257 is a recordkeeping statue, it is an actual law that says you have some responsibilities if you are going to produce or show sexually explicit materials. The new additions certainly go alot further, but better to atleast have the current 2257 requirements in place. And when you do seek an attorney, be sure to tell them "i read about 2257 on GFY...." so that i can collect my 5.32% referral commission Fight the Answers! __________________ http://www.t3report.com (where's the traffic?) v5.0 is out! \| http://www.FightThePatent.com \| ICQ 52741957

05-24-2005, 06:27 PM	#73
TheLegacy SEO Connoisseur Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Brantford, Ontario Posts: 17,070	if the free speech wants to only cover those who have supported them in a legal battle they are entitled too.. just because the word free is in their title - why should they fight for those that wont even help in the cause? too many are getting a free ride on the backs of others who were willing to fight. You dont see that in the real world. Dont get pissed off if the press release comes out and your left in the dust crying because lawyers only look after their clients "first" and arent out there to save the industry as a whole. __________________ SEO Connoisseur Microsoft Teams: Robert Warren SEO Telegram: @TheLegacy54 RobertWarrenSEO.com

05-24-2005, 06:45 PM	#77
tony286 lurker Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: atlanta Posts: 57,021	A getting a injuction for a law suit that stops the action aka first data dropping ibill is very different then a injunction against a law and gov regulation .The example I use is COPA it was filed by the aclu (I think thats it) it doesnt mean just their members benefit. Think about it they are going to come to your door and you are going to show them your membership card and then they will go away. I dont think so, Also in my opinion they come to see your records ,they already have you in the gunsights for obscenity. Last edited by tony299; 05-24-2005 at 06:47 PM..

05-24-2005, 06:57 PM	#80
ry0t So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Boston Posts: 4,160	Hey guys the FSC online form is not a secure page, or am I missing something? http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/application3.php

05-24-2005, 06:57 PM	#81
Dirty F Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 59,204

05-24-2005, 06:59 PM	#82
Donny As you wish... Industry Role: Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 13,754

05-24-2005, 07:17 PM	#84
Connor Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 1,294	"Don't pretend that isn't spin based on causing fear and urgency. The only requirement if you want to be covered is to pay $300 per year, and you have to do it quick or the consequences may be dire! Oooooh." I was curious about this $300 business, and it turns out a person can join the FSC as an "individual" rather than as a business... and that's like $50, not $300, to join as an individual. Those who join as a business will find that the rates will vary, depending on the size of the business. Just thought I'd clarify that point. __________________ YNOT v5 IS NOW LIVE! \| SEEN YNOT MAIL YET?

05-24-2005, 07:36 PM	#85
baddog So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: the beach, SoCal Posts: 107,089	I am not an attorney, and by law, can not provide legal advice. My responses are based on personal experience and knowledge. No attorney/client relationship is implied. One should consult with a licensed attorney familiar with Internet law. That being said: My two cents: Talk to an attorney. My personal opinion is that Michelle may have misinterpreted whatever her attorneys told her. The injunction may be filed on behalf of the members of FSC, but if it is granted, it will apply to all. A little reminder: If you donate $100 or more to the Free Speech Coalition, ContentShopper will give you a free button for 3 months (a $300 value). We are not asking you to buy anything. Simply make a donation, and let me know, and the advertising is yours for 3 months.

05-24-2005, 08:47 PM	#87
FightThisPatent Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 4,090	I finally just completed the DOJ official release: http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2...5/05-10107.htm It's a loooong read, but they answered/rebutted alot of comments that people sent in. Lots of things for the industry lawyers to be picking through. I found this comment to shed light on the mindset of the authors of the document pertaining to the adult biz: To put this into context, they were addressing the issue of no 3rd party custodian of records, and how it was a bad idea, etc. "Historically, producers have used front corporations in order to evade both law enforcement and tax authorities." (at the end of Page 29614) But in their own defense, they did listen to the commentors, and they allowed for 2257 info to be placed on a separate page, rather than having all the text fill up on your home page with specific size fonts, colors, etc that was in the draft. There is no cliff notes to their explanation document and trying to interpret words like "distributor" will only have you rationalizing to a false sense of comprehension. And in other areas, they were quite clear about how all of this is done to protect children from being exploited (which is a very noble cause).. which is why we know they won't be asking for 2257 info on MILF material While the finer details of the new parts should be left up to an attorney, there is alot of practical things you can do, whether a primary or secondary producer as i posted up above. Additional 2257 background info at JD's website: http://www.xxxlaw.net/ Fight the too many words! __________________ http://www.t3report.com (where's the traffic?) v5.0 is out! \| http://www.FightThePatent.com \| ICQ 52741957

05-24-2005, 08:56 PM	#88
FightThisPatent Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 4,090	Not quite cliff notes, but a good summary with input from various industry attornies on the new 2257 regs in today's AVNonline: http://www.avnonline.com/index.php?P...tent_ID=227697 Fight the Linking! __________________ http://www.t3report.com (where's the traffic?) v5.0 is out! \| http://www.FightThePatent.com \| ICQ 52741957

05-25-2005, 02:15 AM	#94
GotGauge Confirmed User Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: USA Posts: 3,072	http://money.cnn.com/2005/05/24/news...ex.htm?cnn=yes Just had to do it! __________________ ICQ 22264474 [email protected]

05-25-2005, 07:53 AM	#100
scoreman Confirmed User Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Miami, Florida Posts: 1,491	If a US Court orders the injunction from enforcement of a specific statute, it does not apply to a specific class, and the DOJ will not waste any money attempting to arrest others until the matter is resolved in Court. Tony404 is on the right track though for if the Feds are really gung ho about investigating and prosecuting you, there are a number of other weapons in their arsenal. Think IRS, FCC, FTC, and FBI as well as DOJ. Donate money to the FSC to help ensure that the 2257 regs are challenged. Brandon your ok in my book, but you sounded a false alarm here. __________________