All you thumb TGPers are just not thinking, are you???? - GoFuckYourself.com

Choker · 06-22-2005, 09:41 AM

SOO many thumb tgpers have iced me about this 2257 going into effect tomorrow. Most have said they are only using non-expicit thumbs from now on. I for one do not see how that is really going to help you. Imagine a DOJ agent over your shoulder while you both are looking at your thumb TGP. He points out a thumb of a face pic of a cute little blonde. You say "that thumb is not sexually expicit". DOJ says "Prove it did not come from a bigger picture that was sexually explicit". Think about this real hard. You are going to have to do all the thumb cropping yourself and have every thumb matched up to the big pic it came from.

I am not a attorney this is just my personal opinion.

AdPatron · 06-22-2005, 09:42 AM

Everyone should talk to a lawyer.

Gawdy · 06-22-2005, 09:43 AM

Thats sounds just as hard as keeping proper docs.

Jace · 06-22-2005, 09:43 AM

it will be hard for sure for the fact that the smaller image didn't come from a larger explicit image

most don't realize this little part of the law

the thumb can NOT have come from a larger explicit image

Choker · 06-22-2005, 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoesTraffic

Everyone should talk to a lawyer.

Agreed. Better yet hire a attorney and put some funds into his trust account just in case

tranza · 06-22-2005, 09:44 AM

Come on Choker. You're just too paranoid.

Choker · 06-22-2005, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tranza

Come on Choker. You're just too paranoid.

LOL, am I?. These regs basically put us in the situation where we are guilty until we can prove otherwise. You think the inspection is going to go any differently? You think a inspecter is going to say "Well I can't prove you did not make that from a hardcore pic so let's just forget that" ?

Oracle Porn · 06-22-2005, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Choker

SOO many thumb tgpers have iced me about this 2257 going into effect tomorrow. Most have said they are only using non-expicit thumbs from now on. I for one do not see how that is really going to help you. Imagine a DOJ agent over your shoulder while you both are looking at your thumb TGP. He points out a thumb of a face pic of a cute little blonde. You say "that thumb is not sexually expicit". DOJ says "Prove it did not come from a bigger picture that was sexually explicit". Think about this real hard. You are going to have to do all the thumb cropping yourself and have every thumb matched up to the big pic it came from.

I am not a attorney this is just my personal opinion.

actually it's him who needs to prove that the image DID came from a sexually explicit image.

psili · 06-22-2005, 09:48 AM

If you have the "source" image from the affiliate that you cropped, how can you prove the "source" image you have from an affiliate is not just another crop of a larger source image?

hummmm.....

Oracle Porn · 06-22-2005, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Choker

LOL, am I?. These regs basically put us in the situation where we are guilty until we can prove otherwise. You think the inspection is going to go any differently? You think a inspecter is going to say "Well I can't prove you did not make that from a hardcore pic so let's just forget that" ?

it's innocent until proven guilty
not the other way around.

Oracle Porn · 06-22-2005, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psili

If you have the "source" image from the affiliate that you cropped, how can you prove the "source" image you have from an affiliate is not just another crop of a larger source image?

hummmm.....

they love smart asses like you in prison

austinth · 06-22-2005, 09:50 AM

the smart one's will change from thumbs to descriptions.

tranza · 06-22-2005, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Choker

LOL, am I?. These regs basically put us in the situation where we are guilty until we can prove otherwise. You think the inspection is going to go any differently? You think a inspecter is going to say "Well I can't prove you did not make that from a hardcore pic so let's just forget that" ?

There won't be any inspections. That's what I believe.

Have you taken down ALL banners you have? Even if it shows a girls face only?

tranza · 06-22-2005, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oracle Porn

it's innocent until proven guilty
not the other way around.

Not true.

Oracle Porn · 06-22-2005, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tranza

Not true.

I guess you don't know MJ.

Snake Doctor · 06-22-2005, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Choker

DOJ says "Prove it did not come from a bigger picture that was sexually explicit". .

THAT right there is the biggest constitutional problem with this law.
It requires us to prove ourselves innocent rather than requiring the DOJ to prove us guilty.

BTW Choker, if you have 10 minutes today I'd like to chat with you.
ICQ 78465690 or email me a phone number lenny at projectrevenue.com

crockett · 06-22-2005, 09:53 AM

I fully understand what choker is pointing out, only thing I'm not 100% about is what about other pics in the same gallery that are sexually explicit?

I don't see how they can hold you accountable for other pics in the gallery if you are not hosting them. In my mind it's along the same lines as "text" links being fully compliant.

So what are the general thoughts on using non explicit thumbs to link to a explicit gallery? The lawyer I talked to seems to think this is ok, but it never hurts to hear other opinions, especially being this is a untested law.

crockett · 06-22-2005, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lenny2

THAT right there is the biggest constitutional problem with this law.
It requires us to prove ourselves innocent rather than requiring the DOJ to prove us guilty.

BTW Choker, if you have 10 minutes today I'd like to chat with you.
ICQ 78465690 or email me a phone number lenny at projectrevenue.com

I was thinking the same thing myself.

Choker · 06-22-2005, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tranza

There won't be any inspections. That's what I believe.

Have you taken down ALL banners you have? Even if it shows a girls face only?

Yes I have actually. I still have thumb tgps but al lthe thumbs are my own going to my own galleries which are all complient.

pornguy · 06-22-2005, 09:57 AM

Changing mine to text today. This shit sucks ass.

tranza · 06-22-2005, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Choker

Yes I have actually. I still have thumb tgps but al lthe thumbs are my own going to my own galleries which are all complient.

Damn, that's hot. Congrats for that.

But I couldn't care less really. I don't have to be 2257 complaint.

Choker · 06-22-2005, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oracle Porn

it's innocent until proven guilty
not the other way around.

Well that's the way it is SUPPOSED to be, have you read the new regs? Seems to me we have to prove the model is over 18, not the DOJ has to prove she is under 18.

Choker · 06-22-2005, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psili

If you have the "source" image from the affiliate that you cropped, how can you prove the "source" image you have from an affiliate is not just another crop of a larger source image?

hummmm.....

Good point man. These regs create so many loopholes NOT in our favor.

Yo Adrian · 06-22-2005, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett

I fully understand what choker is pointing out, only thing I'm not 100% about is what about other pics in the same gallery that are sexually explicit?

According to my attorney any thumb on a thumb TGP/MGP would indeed have to be cropped from an original image that is not sexually explicit. However, other images on the gallery that it links to CAN be explicit, as there are no laws prohibiting sexually explicit content.

As for matching thumbs to original images.. you wouldn't have to crop the thumbs yourself, trading scripts keep logs of which thumbs link to which galleries, it won't be difficult to find the image on the gallery that the thumb was created from.

cherrylula · 06-22-2005, 10:06 AM

I can't wait til this shit blows over. Its fucking wrong and there is no way everyone is going to have all their pages clean by midnight? Gimme a fucking break. I know some of us are more at risk than others, but are they going to arrest thousands of webmasters over the weekend? yeah right.

I guess we will see what happens, but I think they already have their targets planned out before this violation of our rights is struck down. I'm glad I'm not a "big player" right now, that's for sure.

The Sultan Of Smut · 06-22-2005, 10:08 AM

I think you're a little paraniod dude, the TGP owner has to be hosting/producing/redistributing/bla bla bla the explicit content.

Having a softcore thumb cropped from a hardcore image is the same as linking a text description to a hardcore image.

dopeman · 06-22-2005, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cherrylula

I guess we will see what happens, but I think they already have their targets planned out before this violation of our rights is struck down. I'm glad I'm not a "big player" right now, that's for sure.

while i agree with you that they have their targets already, i don't agree that the targets are 'big players'. the goal is to get inspections and arrests on record. small guys who can't afford the big name lawyers in this industry will plea instead of fight the case in court. they know that the big guys have lawyered up already, plus inspections on large companies would take time. they want volume and headlines.

crockett · 06-22-2005, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yo Adrian

According to my attorney any thumb on a thumb TGP/MGP would indeed have to be cropped from an original image that is not sexually explicit. However, other images on the gallery that it links to CAN be explicit, as there are no laws prohibiting sexually explicit content.

Yep that's pretty much what mine told me too.

So take note sponsors give us some non sexually explicit images in the hardcore galleries, so we have something to work with.

Choker · 06-22-2005, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Sultan Of Smut

I think you're a little paraniod dude, the TGP owner has to be hosting/producing/redistributing/bla bla bla the explicit content.

I'm not paranoid about this aspect of compliance. I am jsut throwing out some food for thought. However .....

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Sultan Of Smut

IHaving a softcore thumb cropped from a hardcore image is the same as linking a text description to a hardcore image.

You are wrong sir. The new regs specifically address this issue.

Gawdy · 06-22-2005, 10:14 AM

Dont thumbs usually come from the gallery the thumb links too? If thats the case than the gallery the thumb is linking to will show the none explicit picture wont it?

AlienQ - BANNED FOR LIFE · 06-22-2005, 10:16 AM

The Bush Administration is setting up a special place for us all.

GITMO2.

cherrylula · 06-22-2005, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dopeman

while i agree with you that they have their targets already, i don't agree that the targets are 'big players'. the goal is to get inspections and arrests on record. small guys who can't afford the big name lawyers in this industry will plea instead of fight the case in court. they know that the big guys have lawyered up already, plus inspections on large companies would take time. they want volume and headlines.

the government has one thing on their mind, $$$

There is no reason to go after a small guy/affiliate webmaster, I will be very surprised if they do. Of course they want headlines. And if they just want to make an example of someone, again it won't be some small time webmaster over some affiliate content. They'll go to the source of it most likely.

dopeman · 06-22-2005, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cherrylula

the government has one thing on their mind, $$$

There is no reason to go after a small guy/affiliate webmaster, I will be very surprised if they do. Of course they want headlines. And if they just want to make an example of someone, again it won't be some small time webmaster over some affiliate content. They'll go to the source of it most likely.

well i hope we're BOTH wrong and nobody is ever inspected. actually, to be honest i don't think there's anything wrong with asking secondary producers to hold records. what i have a MAJOR problem with is unannounced unwarranted searches. fuck, the IRS doesn't do unannounced audits, do they? they schedule an audit and that's that. you get your shit together and do it. there's no fucking reason they should DICTATE your hours of operation and be able to come into your home or business without a warrant.

if they want to schedule an inspection, fine. secondary producers would then have a set time to get the documents (if they don't have them already) and prepare for an audit. i mean, what the fuck has happened to this country?

crockett · 06-22-2005, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dopeman

well i hope we're BOTH wrong and nobody is ever inspected. actually, to be honest i don't think there's anything wrong with asking secondary producers to hold records. what i have a MAJOR problem with is unannounced unwarranted searches. fuck, the IRS doesn't do unannounced audits, do they? they schedule an audit and that's that. you get your shit together and do it. there's no fucking reason they should DICTATE your hours of operation and be able to come into your home or business without a warrant.

if they want to schedule an inspection, fine. secondary producers would then have a set time to get the documents (if they don't have them already) and prepare for an audit. i mean, what the fuck has happened to this country?

Bush

5678

NTSS · 06-22-2005, 10:30 AM

I'm going all text by tonight

The Sultan Of Smut · 06-22-2005, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Choker

You are wrong sir. The new regs specifically address this issue.

I guess I better read it again... for the sixth time.

xxxice · 06-22-2005, 10:45 AM

If you are not text at this point you are fucked

xxxice · 06-22-2005, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pornguy

Changing mine to text today. This shit sucks ass.

hit me up

Linkster · 06-22-2005, 10:56 AM

Where is anyone getting the idea that these guys are just going to show up at the door? Not the way they do things - and the reason for the posting of hours of biz is so that they can schedule inspections. The only type of person they just "show-up" on would be someone they already had in their scopes a long time ago - and wouldnt be little thumb tgp owners

dopeman · 06-22-2005, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Linkster

Where is anyone getting the idea that these guys are just going to show up at the door? Not the way they do things - and the reason for the posting of hours of biz is so that they can schedule inspections. The only type of person they just "show-up" on would be someone they already had in their scopes a long time ago - and wouldnt be little thumb tgp owners

"Advance notice of record
inspections shall not be given."

shall = will

"Advance notice of record
inspections will not be given."

Guitar Riff · 06-22-2005, 11:13 AM

Thats all fine and dandy but if you want to get down and tecnical about the whole thing how does DOJ know a girls face pic on a banner didnt come from a hardcore shot . Have fun trying to keep track of that shit every fucking page each banner is used on and shit that blows Te assholes who thought this new revisions up have never made any type of sites whatsoever becasue if they did they would realize how much backtracking it wll take for each and every page now. And if you havent been t the lawyer yet ts a little late now but if you have the revisions read and reread and reread again most dont realize they are to keep copies of all pages that 2257 is required on for 7 years Thats a fuckin lot of pages to keep and Now tell me how will you do it if using Smartthumbs,comus,or tmmanager or the likes of them that update from every 5 mins to every hr or whatever if ou go by the letter of the rule you'll have to keep a copy of everytime the page gets recreated IMAGINE That LOL thats just In fucking sane but thats what they want

xxxice · 06-22-2005, 11:16 AM

this is going to change everything if not right on the 23 soon enough ...

Kimmykim · 06-22-2005, 11:30 AM

Given that police, fbi, prosecutors and judges are paid the same amount of money regardless of the case they are working on, it does not make sense for the federal government to cast a wide net over a bunch of small fish. There are no chances with mom n pop operations for big fines to fund ongoing operations or to make big splashy headlines. The US government also doesn't generally put itself into a position of filling up the prison system with a bunch of white collar criminals violating laws like this. Especially not during the initial stages of trying to enforce such a broad ranging new set of regulations that may or may not be constitutional.

Previously, when the Federal government went after the adult entertainment industry, they went after the largest companies they could find. Specifically so they could make deals involving things like large fines and restrictions on the type of businesses these people could or would run in the future. If the Feds were to go after all the little guys, great, what are they going to get? A bunch of people that weren't making all that much money to start with agreeing to leave the business and never come back on a plea bargain?

Why bother, when there are bound to be some nice sized targets that will have good attorneys who tell them to plead it out to a fine situation, admit no real wrongdoing, and can continue to run their business after its all said and done.

Bigger targets also mean more chances for the inspections to find violations, some of which may not be correctable with time to find the ids and releases, since they may no longer exist or the companies that shot the content originally are so long gone that no one knows where the data went.

The new law is not very well thought out, it's going to be very hard for the government to defend certain parts of it in a court of law, so it should be very interesting to see where they initially focus their enforcement efforts -- that should tell everyone exactly what they see as the strong points in their cases, and attorneys should be more able to advise from that point than they are today.

Of course there also exists the possibility that the government won't initiate inspections or attempt to issue indictments for quite some time. As we've all seen based on the fact that it's been a year since the original changes were proposed and the percentage of companies in adult that have gotten anywhere near true compliance is minimal. This shows the government that if they start this now, then back off of it for 6, 12, 18 months, we'll just get slack again and decide that nothing is going to happen over it. Especially if the FSC is granted a TRO.

If the FSC gets their TRO, I'd (if I were the government) sit back and wait for things to get quiet again, start building my cases based on the weak points in the TRO, and then just drop the bomb around the holidays or so...

nicchick · 06-22-2005, 12:07 PM

If you read the FSCs motion, one of the many reasons they are seeking an injuction/TRO is that the DOJ only gave webmasters 30 days to comply with the new regs - not enough time. I think the feds will wait until the outcome of the hearing before they move on anyone. They would look pretty silly if they started checking records prior to the ruling and a TRO was granted based on the "insufficient time" argument.
That being said, my lawyer told me not to take any chances and to make sure
that I am compliant before midnight. Obviously I will be listening to him.

dopeman · 06-22-2005, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kimmykim

If the Feds were to go after all the little guys, great, what are they going to get? A bunch of people that weren't making all that much money to start with agreeing to leave the business and never come back on a plea bargain?

.

remember who started this attack - ashcroft. the goal of these regulations are to send a message to the 'religious right' that the Bush administration is getting tough on online porn. this has nothing to do with protecting kids. this is politics.

now what's a better way to appease these religio-facist creeps? send all your fed agents into a huge paysite that probably has the best laywers in the industry ready to fight this case in court? or get ~50 or so small time part-timers who will plea. the result - convictions and headlines "Crackdown on Online Porn - raids conducted across thre country blah blah"

you telling me that these Free Speech Coalition lawyers are going to spend a minute defending a TGP operator or gallery submitter who makes a couple hundred bucks a month in court? those guys are sitting ducks.

but i digress - i hope we're both wrong. porn is not illegal. these new regulations are absolute bullshit and won't hold up to a real legal challenge. but until that real legal challenge, there could be casualties.

MrVids · 06-22-2005, 12:22 PM

scare tactic, you just wanna scoop up all the thumb tgp's

Choker · 06-22-2005, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrVids

scare tactic, you just wanna scoop up all the thumb tgp's

I have never bought a tgp or mpg my friend. Why should I when I can build them cheaper?

Kimmykim · 06-22-2005, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dopeman

this is politics.

now what's a better way to appease these religio-facist creeps? send all your fed agents into a huge paysite that probably has the best laywers in the industry ready to fight this case in court? or get ~50 or so small time part-timers who will plea. the result - convictions and headlines "Crackdown on Online Porn - raids conducted across thre country blah blah"

Read your own post again. Republicans do things for money, it's that simple. Especially the Bush administration if even 10% of Michael Moore's rants are on target.

The Federal government is a business. Right now it's a Republican big business.

I'll stick with the fact that history pretty much always repeats itself.

V_RocKs · 06-22-2005, 01:05 PM

I don't think the DOJ has this kinda time to fuck around with thousands of TGP's.

V_RocKs · 06-22-2005, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kimmykim

Read your own post again. Republicans do things for money, it's that simple. Especially the Bush administration if even 10% of Michael Moore's rants are on target.

The Federal government is a business. Right now it's a Republican big business.

I'll stick with the fact that history pretty much always repeats itself.

Currently our Rep. gov't is in the business of defense spending. The new destroyers we are coming out with are almost double the size of a regular destroyer and cost 2 times more than the 2nd to last (wholely completed) carrier did. Their original cost was projected at 1/10th.

Instead of 760 fighter planes, we will get 240 for 4 times the original price. Why? Because we are making some defense companies seriously fat right now.

Eventually we will get a democrat and the market will shift to personal technology again. Then get a Rep. who will start a war and pull the rug out from under technology and put the money back into defense...

06-22-2005, 09:41 AM	#1
Choker Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Orlando Posts: 9,024	All you thumb TGPers are just not thinking, are you???? SOO many thumb tgpers have iced me about this 2257 going into effect tomorrow. Most have said they are only using non-expicit thumbs from now on. I for one do not see how that is really going to help you. Imagine a DOJ agent over your shoulder while you both are looking at your thumb TGP. He points out a thumb of a face pic of a cute little blonde. You say "that thumb is not sexually expicit". DOJ says "Prove it did not come from a bigger picture that was sexually explicit". Think about this real hard. You are going to have to do all the thumb cropping yourself and have every thumb matched up to the big pic it came from. I am not a attorney this is just my personal opinion. __________________ 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

06-22-2005, 09:43 AM	#3
Gawdy Confirmed User Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 397	Thats sounds just as hard as keeping proper docs. __________________ hello

06-22-2005, 09:44 AM	#6
tranza ICQ: 197-556-237 Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: BRASIL !!! Posts: 57,559	Come on Choker. You're just too paranoid. __________________ I'm just a newbie.

06-22-2005, 09:48 AM	#9
psili Confirmed User Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Loveland, CO Posts: 5,526	If you have the "source" image from the affiliate that you cropped, how can you prove the "source" image you have from an affiliate is not just another crop of a larger source image? hummmm..... __________________ Your post count means nothing.

06-22-2005, 09:50 AM	#12
austinth Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Fantasy Island Posts: 1,770	the smart one's will change from thumbs to descriptions. __________________ Get A $25 Circuit City GIFT Card - *FREE*!

06-22-2005, 09:42 AM	#2
AdPatron No commissions, no fees. Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: USA Posts: 17,706	Everyone should talk to a lawyer.

06-22-2005, 09:43 AM	#4
Jace FBOP Class Of 2013 Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: bumfuck, ky Posts: 35,562	it will be hard for sure for the fact that the smaller image didn't come from a larger explicit image most don't realize this little part of the law the thumb can NOT have come from a larger explicit image

06-22-2005, 09:53 AM	#17
crockett in a van by the river Industry Role: Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 76,806	I fully understand what choker is pointing out, only thing I'm not 100% about is what about other pics in the same gallery that are sexually explicit? I don't see how they can hold you accountable for other pics in the gallery if you are not hosting them. In my mind it's along the same lines as "text" links being fully compliant. So what are the general thoughts on using non explicit thumbs to link to a explicit gallery? The lawyer I talked to seems to think this is ok, but it never hurts to hear other opinions, especially being this is a untested law. __________________ In November, you can vote for America's next president or its first dictator.

06-22-2005, 09:57 AM	#20
pornguy Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Homeless Posts: 62,911	Changing mine to text today. This shit sucks ass. __________________ PornGuy skype me pornguy_epic AmateurDough The Hottes Shemales online! TChicks.com \| Angeles Cid \| Mariana Cordoba \| MAILERS WELCOME!

06-22-2005, 10:06 AM	#25
cherrylula lol Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 15,969	I can't wait til this shit blows over. Its fucking wrong and there is no way everyone is going to have all their pages clean by midnight? Gimme a fucking break. I know some of us are more at risk than others, but are they going to arrest thousands of webmasters over the weekend? yeah right. I guess we will see what happens, but I think they already have their targets planned out before this violation of our rights is struck down. I'm glad I'm not a "big player" right now, that's for sure.

06-22-2005, 10:08 AM	#26
The Sultan Of Smut Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Vancouver Posts: 4,325	I think you're a little paraniod dude, the TGP owner has to be hosting/producing/redistributing/bla bla bla the explicit content. Having a softcore thumb cropped from a hardcore image is the same as linking a text description to a hardcore image.

06-22-2005, 10:14 AM	#30
Gawdy Confirmed User Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 397	Dont thumbs usually come from the gallery the thumb links too? If thats the case than the gallery the thumb is linking to will show the none explicit picture wont it? __________________ hello

06-22-2005, 10:16 AM	#31
AlienQ - BANNED FOR LIFE best designer on GFY Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: IALIEN.COM - High Definition Video and Photographic Productions -ICQ 78943384 Posts: 30,307	The Bush Administration is setting up a special place for us all. GITMO2. __________________ NAKED HOSTING FTW!11 I'm On The INSANE PLAN $9.95/mo! \| The Alien Blog Adult News Worth Reading Updated Daily \| Content For Sale! 641 PICS 216 MINUTES OF VIDEO $350.00 \|ICQ: 78943384 \|

06-22-2005, 10:30 AM	#35
NTSS Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Da Hood Posts: 5,688	I'm going all text by tonight __________________ ICQ: 150-803-430 Email: marketing7(at)cox(dot)net

06-22-2005, 10:45 AM	#37
xxxice Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 5,042	If you are not text at this point you are fucked

06-22-2005, 10:56 AM	#39
Linkster Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: DeltaHell Posts: 3,216	Where is anyone getting the idea that these guys are just going to show up at the door? Not the way they do things - and the reason for the posting of hours of biz is so that they can schedule inspections. The only type of person they just "show-up" on would be someone they already had in their scopes a long time ago - and wouldnt be little thumb tgp owners __________________ Porn Links Crak for your bank account - Get Addicted FREE LIVE CAM SHOWS

06-22-2005, 11:13 AM	#41
Guitar Riff Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: USA Posts: 320	Thats all fine and dandy but if you want to get down and tecnical about the whole thing how does DOJ know a girls face pic on a banner didnt come from a hardcore shot . Have fun trying to keep track of that shit every fucking page each banner is used on and shit that blows Te assholes who thought this new revisions up have never made any type of sites whatsoever becasue if they did they would realize how much backtracking it wll take for each and every page now. And if you havent been t the lawyer yet ts a little late now but if you have the revisions read and reread and reread again most dont realize they are to keep copies of all pages that 2257 is required on for 7 years Thats a fuckin lot of pages to keep and Now tell me how will you do it if using Smartthumbs,comus,or tmmanager or the likes of them that update from every 5 mins to every hr or whatever if ou go by the letter of the rule you'll have to keep a copy of everytime the page gets recreated IMAGINE That LOL thats just In fucking sane but thats what they want __________________ Buy and Sell Your Traffic to US!!

06-22-2005, 11:16 AM	#42
xxxice Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 5,042	this is going to change everything if not right on the 23 soon enough ...

06-22-2005, 11:30 AM	#43
Kimmykim bitchslapping zebras!!!!! Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: In a shack by the beach Posts: 16,015	Given that police, fbi, prosecutors and judges are paid the same amount of money regardless of the case they are working on, it does not make sense for the federal government to cast a wide net over a bunch of small fish. There are no chances with mom n pop operations for big fines to fund ongoing operations or to make big splashy headlines. The US government also doesn't generally put itself into a position of filling up the prison system with a bunch of white collar criminals violating laws like this. Especially not during the initial stages of trying to enforce such a broad ranging new set of regulations that may or may not be constitutional. Previously, when the Federal government went after the adult entertainment industry, they went after the largest companies they could find. Specifically so they could make deals involving things like large fines and restrictions on the type of businesses these people could or would run in the future. If the Feds were to go after all the little guys, great, what are they going to get? A bunch of people that weren't making all that much money to start with agreeing to leave the business and never come back on a plea bargain? Why bother, when there are bound to be some nice sized targets that will have good attorneys who tell them to plead it out to a fine situation, admit no real wrongdoing, and can continue to run their business after its all said and done. Bigger targets also mean more chances for the inspections to find violations, some of which may not be correctable with time to find the ids and releases, since they may no longer exist or the companies that shot the content originally are so long gone that no one knows where the data went. The new law is not very well thought out, it's going to be very hard for the government to defend certain parts of it in a court of law, so it should be very interesting to see where they initially focus their enforcement efforts -- that should tell everyone exactly what they see as the strong points in their cases, and attorneys should be more able to advise from that point than they are today. Of course there also exists the possibility that the government won't initiate inspections or attempt to issue indictments for quite some time. As we've all seen based on the fact that it's been a year since the original changes were proposed and the percentage of companies in adult that have gotten anywhere near true compliance is minimal. This shows the government that if they start this now, then back off of it for 6, 12, 18 months, we'll just get slack again and decide that nothing is going to happen over it. Especially if the FSC is granted a TRO. If the FSC gets their TRO, I'd (if I were the government) sit back and wait for things to get quiet again, start building my cases based on the weak points in the TRO, and then just drop the bomb around the holidays or so...

06-22-2005, 12:07 PM	#44
nicchick Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 316	If you read the FSCs motion, one of the many reasons they are seeking an injuction/TRO is that the DOJ only gave webmasters 30 days to comply with the new regs - not enough time. I think the feds will wait until the outcome of the hearing before they move on anyone. They would look pretty silly if they started checking records prior to the ruling and a TRO was granted based on the "insufficient time" argument. That being said, my lawyer told me not to take any chances and to make sure that I am compliant before midnight. Obviously I will be listening to him.

06-22-2005, 12:22 PM	#46
MrVids i am a meat popsicle Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 1,070	scare tactic, you just wanna scoop up all the thumb tgp's

06-22-2005, 01:05 PM	#49
V_RocKs Damn Right I Kiss Ass! Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Cowtown, USA Posts: 32,409	I don't think the DOJ has this kinda time to fuck around with thousands of TGP's.