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.

"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.

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.

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.

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 :1orglaugh

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!

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!

Greetings:

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.

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!

Greetings:

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....

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!

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

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

Just had to do it!

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.

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!

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!

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.

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.

the situation you described happens with all associations, much like the ones you were a member of. Same is true with condos. If you own a condo, you have no control over what the board decides to spend money on in using up the escrow account, but that's why people who are concerned run for office.

FSC board is elected by the members, so being active in FSC as a director would allow for some level control.... otherwise, yes, you do have to sit back and allow them to operate as they see fit with the funds., no different than contributions to ACLU or EFF.

Members get some latitude on FSC directions through voting on issues, but your concerns about how they spend the money once you give it to them is out of your hands.

Given the various posts that I have seen of yours, you'd probably make a good FSC director, but i also understand that activism takes time, but it's the motivated (good or bad) people that make changes (good or bad).

On your point about what is FSC challenging on 2257, they were pretty clear in their oppostion letter:

http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/F...7_Comments.htm

What's really interesting is reading the DOJ response to comments like what was presented above and their answers.. most things they rejected.

The clock is ticking down for them to file their injunctions and lawsuits, so I would expect to be reading news about it shortly, probably the actual fiiling where the attorneys have specified their challenges.

There is still alot of substance to 2257 from the previous regulations to the new ones that will survive any legal challenge.

"Do nothing" seems to be the popular action by most, and is one that is the most concerning, because of apathy and inaction, webmasters can go to jail for a felony offense, just because they were lazy in not keeping their records straight. You can go to jail if you don't keep you IRS filings straight, so it's not too far of a stretch to see that compliance with 2257 should be taken as seriously as other required business activities.

Your point about the need for clear and forthcoming information is a valid one, and one that seems to be addressed with the hiring of Tom Hymes as the Communciations Director, former editor of AVNonline. Tom will certainly be providing timely and insightful information over the FSC issues.

FSC certainly has some more evolving to do as it seeks to bring in more internet-based members. Michelle seems to be taking FSC in a positive direction since her arrival, so hopefully your viewpoints will be answered through actions, since it does seem that FSC is the most logical choice to represent a large group of adult online webmasters over these confusing and technical legal issues.


Fight the Hereto and wherefore!

my thought is that there may be a large purge of content and webmasters will be looking at either getting their own lawyer for several thousands of dollars then buy more content - or simply trust that the reliable sources out there now have gone through all the grunt work legally to make sure that any content they sell is acceptable to 2257.

If someone in the kitchen of a movie theater yelled out fire, and i repeated "fire" in the theater, and there was a fire, then it wasn't a false alarm.

If the person in the kitchen was misinformed, then yes, there was a false fire alarm.

Posting up Michelle's comment, was not a fire alarm because what's the worst that got harmed? A few signed up in thinking that they were going to get this magic umbrella protection? That would be out of ignorance then, since even if this injunction could apply to FSC members as a class, it still does not relieve the obligations and liabilities with 2257 compliance. What's the upside? Maybe a few more people joined and maybe a greater more paid more attention to this issue.

Given your background as well as input from my attorney, i do understand the issue that an injunction is an injunction and not selective, but I was passing on what was said. I found it interesting and newsworthy about Michelle's statements to post up.

I had to take the comment on face value because FSC attorneys surely consulted with Michelle on these issues, since they are preparing to file their injunctions. Is it possible that she misunderstood them? Possibly, and if through internal re-examination based on my original post is found to not be true, then some kind of clarification should be forthcoming.

It's no different that Bush's statements about WMD. It wasn't only til later on when the facts did not pan out that the WMD statement was false, but on face value, a majority of Americans accepted his statements based on what his advisors told him.

Is the issue here that FSC is telling people (like to me) that an injunction would only cover FSC members? That it casts a big shadow over everything they are doing, because in their minds, there is some legal technicality that they perceive leads up to the broad conclusion that FSC members would be protected by the injunction? Is this "bad taste" about this news really affecting only those that aren't members anyways?


Fight the Halon Gas!

FSC PR released today:
http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/

last paragraph:

"Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, only the parties to litigation are covered by an injunction. Therefore only the Free Speech Coalition and its members will be covered by an injunction and only to the extent the injunction restricts the government enforcement."



Fight the Flames!

thats. it..... im going to law school.

For those that might have mised it, two write-ups of the recent FSC meeting concerning 2257:

http://www.avnonline.com/index.php?P...tent_ID=228369

http://xbiz.com/news_piece.php?id=8911


Fight the Reading every word!

$300 to support that an organization the work in our favor makes perfect sense to me. There are people cheap enough to think $300 worth more than their business.

Lets see how long FSC would last. Fighting the Government needs a lof of financial support. Some people are just igornant. We should appreciate FSC for at leasting fighting for us.

Being a member or not, FSC will do their best to fight the law. More Money means they can fight this bs crap longer.

Choose!!!
$300 to help them - this buy you a chance of keeping your business.
Or
Just Wait until the DOJ knocks on your door because FSC has no further money to keep on fighting.

anyway, record keeping is here to stay.
If they can relax the burden on secondary producers, then it would already be a lot better.

Fight the idiots!!!