And there was one heralded inspections report in 2006, that didn't actually happen.
Printable View
And there was one heralded inspections report in 2006, that didn't actually happen.
LOL yeah JJ was a little devious in getting press over that.Quote:
Originally Posted by nickbaer
Regards,
Lee
a "little devious" is, in my opinion, a gross minimization. That was probably the single shadiest, most irresponsible act that anyone in the industry has done in quite a long time. At a time when everyone is concerned about what was happening with the inspections and what to expect, what was supposedly inspected (FBI has no authority to ask for model releases under 2257), concerns about inspections exceeding 2257 (the agents supposedly went into the kitchen and living room, even though there were no records there)Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee
A lot of people were really concerned about what that inspection meant, since it was so different from the others... and I suspect there are a LOT of people who still believe that it happened.
It's incredibly shameful that someone would use an issue that is such a hot button to the industry as a whole as a cheap theatrical stunt to try and gain visibility for his studio.
Wow. I completely believe you, but I'm stunned at the ignorance. Anybody who believed that inspections of primary producers weren't going to take place was simply looking through rose-colored glasses. Ashcroft was chastised for not having done any inspections, that's why they rushed through the process of updating the regulations in the first place, so one needed only put two and two together to figure it out. Of course there weren't any secondary producer inspections since it wouldn't make sense to spend the resources doing those until the underlying legal issues were resolved, but there was plenty left untouched by the injunction to allow inspections of primary producers to go forward.Quote:
Originally Posted by basschick
Okay, I gotta ask. What's the story here?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee
--Aaron
Actually....Quote:
Originally Posted by gaybucks_chip
The people who beleived it were the ones who also beleived that by 'donating' to the FSC was going to protect them... While all the time the FSC was spending hundreds of thousands of dollars of that money on extravagant lobster, caviar and champagne luncheons at a cost of tens of thousands of dollars to get a few thousand dollars in 'donations' back.
Where are the FSC now? I dont see anybody from that organization posting on ANY of the message boards in the industry they were so adamnt they wanted to protect, instead, now that they have made their money off the 2257 issuse, they have moved on to the next big thing.. Piracy and are actively posting about piracy, while this 2257 issue still looms over us and could potentially put thousands of legitimate adult company owners out of business.
We have 6 days to go until these new 2257 regulations actually become law and still nothing from the FSC.
Perhaps if they hadnt wasted hundreds of thousands of dollars on all those lavish dinners and 'fund-raisers' (which didnt make anywhere near how much they cost to throw btw) they could be spending that money that hundreds upon hundreds of individual webmasters and companies donated to fight the 2257 issue.
Regards,
Lee
(Bump) But it wasn't the only nor the last theatrical stunt from there...
Quote:
Originally Posted by gaybucks_chip
So i have been searching and searching, from the crappy web site of free speech coalition to other lawyer sites, to government sites. I cannot seem to find the Actual regulations as amended this year. not just the changes but the complete run down.
Does anyone have a link to it. I want to read it in its entirety as amended for myself. Seems like we all should have easy access to it.
Anyone Know?
Thank you
marc
Here's the text of 2257 as of the 2007 updates:
http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/w...egs7122007.pdf
Here's the text of 4472/2257A:
http://www.freespeechonline.org/webdocs/109248t5.pdf
Here's a version that takes 2257 and incorporates the changes from 4472 so you can see what was changed:
http://my.execpc.com/~xxxlaw/22572006_Redlined.htm
Here's 28 CFR 75 (the actual regulations that enforce the law) which includes the regulations most recently updated December 20, 2008:
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text...dno=28;cc=ecfr
It's a lot to read, but you really have to go through all of it to understand the regulations. The original 2257 is exceptionally poorly written and not easy to understand, while the latest regulations from December actually clarified a lot of ambiguities that were previously present.
BTW Marc, nice to see you posting here! Our editor was actually just a month or so ago reediting the scene we shot with you some years ago (in the berkeley hills... with the goats next door...) for use in a new project we're working on :)