Today's deal - anybody else thinks they could have done better? - GoFuckYourself.com

baycouples · 06-23-2005, 07:11 PM

The judge in this case is a Clinton appointed judge and the case is in the same district where the previous case killed part of the 2257. The TRO is not that hard to get in this case with this judge. So, is it just me or did the lawyers on "our side" did a really sitty job?

I mean you do realize that if the TRO is never granted or granted and then lifted - all of us ( even the FSC members ) are still responsible for the content we put up from today and on?

I say this was a big defeat for the FSC. Am I wrong?

baycouples · 06-23-2005, 09:25 PM

None of you, smartasses, have an opinion on this?

JD · 06-23-2005, 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baycouples

None of you, smartasses, have an opinion on this?

penis on your face

rickdu · 06-23-2005, 09:31 PM

why is it a defete for them? we all now have to join and pay them money.. looks like a win for them to me.

3piece chicken Dinner · 06-23-2005, 09:35 PM

Given the myriad of legal knowledge and experience on this board. You should probably be punished in some way for asking this question here.(j/k)

They are the experts, we are not. I trust they are doing their best.

Sure people can spout off that they feel more could have been done, and honestly I hope the nay sayers and bigmouths get the chance to go in front of a judge and prove their legal prowless.

C_U_Next_Tuesday · 06-23-2005, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rick702

why is it a defete for them? we all now have to join and pay them money.. looks like a win for them to me.

no one is making you join and no one makes you spend money.

I just want to know is this $100 or whatever people are forking out for the membership just to buy you a few more months of time to get your shit together?

We all still have to be 2257 compliant..no matter if your a member of the FSC or not.

baycouples · 06-23-2005, 09:41 PM

First of all, you don't need to be 2257 compliant if you're FSC member because DOJ can't investigate or prosecute you until Sept 7th at the earliest.

Secondly, I just want to say I have no problems paying the FSC fees as I think they are going for the good cause.

rickdu · 06-23-2005, 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by C_U_Next_Tuesday

I just want to know is this $100 or whatever people are forking out for the membership just to buy you a few more months of time to get your shit together?

We all still have to be 2257 compliant..no matter if your a member of the FSC or not.

I have real issues and can not comply with the law and stay in biz. I have a dvd store, and according to the law, the box covers need ids and releaces and such. I have 7000+ titles from 40 or so manufactures, and they aren't giving out that info. So to be legal, I must join them, so they can protect us for the law untill the law get's fixed.

C_U_Next_Tuesday · 06-23-2005, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rick702

I have real issues and can not comply with the law and stay in biz. I have a dvd store, and according to the law, the box covers need ids and releaces and such. I have 7000+ titles from 40 or so manufactures, and they aren't giving out that info. So to be legal, I must join them, so they can protect us for the law untill the law get's fixed.

then I guess you do have to join or you are facing possible Jail time..

but what happens Sept 7th if they do pass the new regulations.. you still have to be compliant..

I am so fucking glad I am not a hardcore site and it was easy for me to comply..but I do feel for some of you this fucked up law makes it damn near impossible to go about biz as usual.

3piece chicken Dinner · 06-23-2005, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by C_U_Next_Tuesday

no one is making you join and no one makes you spend money.

I just want to know is this $100 or whatever people are forking out for the membership just to buy you a few more months of time to get your shit together?

We all still have to be 2257 compliant..no matter if your a member of the FSC or not.

Damn right

And the funny part is in the next few days the bitching will begin about not being able to join, or join in time. The FSC has been around longer than most of the people bitching about them. People have had YEARS to join. yet they wait until 48 hours before the deadline that will serve the purpose of these whiners.

be part of a solution and not a problem and I am sure things will go smoother for you.

blackmonsters · 06-23-2005, 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rick702

I have real issues and can not comply with the law and stay in biz. I have a dvd store, and according to the law, the box covers need ids and releaces and such. I have 7000+ titles from 40 or so manufactures, and they aren't giving out that info. So to be legal, I must join them, so they can protect us for the law untill the law get's fixed.

Actually you are exempt according to the "Sundance ruling".
You are a mere distributor of DVD...that's exempted.
However you are right that shit is going anyway it can and by the time you prove you are exempt it could be too late to save your biz.

baycouples · 06-23-2005, 10:15 PM

When I talked to my lawyer yesterday - I think he mentioned something about retailers being exempt from this just like the web hosting companies are.

JD · 06-24-2005, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baycouples

When I talked to my lawyer yesterday - I think he mentioned something about retailers being exempt from this just like the web hosting companies are.

bump for things that make you go hmmmm

06-23-2005, 07:11 PM	#1
baycouples Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: San Jose, CA Posts: 1,341	Today's deal - anybody else thinks they could have done better? The judge in this case is a Clinton appointed judge and the case is in the same district where the previous case killed part of the 2257. The TRO is not that hard to get in this case with this judge. So, is it just me or did the lawyers on "our side" did a really sitty job? I mean you do realize that if the TRO is never granted or granted and then lifted - all of us ( even the FSC members ) are still responsible for the content we put up from today and on? I say this was a big defeat for the FSC. Am I wrong?

06-23-2005, 09:35 PM	#5
3piece chicken Dinner Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: On your plate Posts: 1,065	Given the myriad of legal knowledge and experience on this board. You should probably be punished in some way for asking this question here.(j/k) They are the experts, we are not. I trust they are doing their best. Sure people can spout off that they feel more could have been done, and honestly I hope the nay sayers and bigmouths get the chance to go in front of a judge and prove their legal prowless. Last edited by 3piece chicken Dinner; 06-23-2005 at 09:36 PM..

06-23-2005, 09:25 PM	#2
baycouples Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: San Jose, CA Posts: 1,341	None of you, smartasses, have an opinion on this?

06-23-2005, 09:31 PM	#4
rickdu Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 239	why is it a defete for them? we all now have to join and pay them money.. looks like a win for them to me.

06-23-2005, 09:41 PM	#7
baycouples Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: San Jose, CA Posts: 1,341	First of all, you don't need to be 2257 compliant if you're FSC member because DOJ can't investigate or prosecute you until Sept 7th at the earliest. Secondly, I just want to say I have no problems paying the FSC fees as I think they are going for the good cause.

06-23-2005, 10:15 PM	#12
baycouples Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: San Jose, CA Posts: 1,341	When I talked to my lawyer yesterday - I think he mentioned something about retailers being exempt from this just like the web hosting companies are.