The FSC Is Going To Lose This One $0.02

Just my gut instinct on it after reading the DOJ's response to the TRO in which the DOJ brings up some VERY good points.

1) 2257 has been around for over ten years.

2) The company with 600+ sites and 10k+ images has no way to manage 2257 records, im sorry but even i call bullshit on that one. Spend $500 and get one of these programs everyone has been touting for the past few months.

3) The FSC said they were goig to file their TRO within days, it took them weeks and, when they did file, it was incomplete.

4) The FSC hasnt been able to prove the burdon of the work involved with 2257 records keeping, lets be honest here, we've all seen the amount of products that have been launched to handle this and, imho, its no longer a burdon to sort the records out, it could be done within a day or two.

5) Its the FSC.

Just my take on things and i do hope i am wrong however, my gut instinct i usually spot on with this kind of stuff.

Get your houses in order people, you have 2 hours left to start.

Regards,

Lee

The more I see this manipulation regarding the FSC the less faith I have in the present state of things. I think it's people close to the FSC doing the manipulating, not the FSC itself... hopefully.

It looks like fear is still the number 1 way to control people and take their money.. sex is a close second :high:

It's to early to tell who will win the 2257 battle.. the hearing hasn't even happened yet :beard:

I read the reply and agree with many of the DOJs points.

1) There is way too many porn being published on the Internet with little to no checks the model is over 18.

2) The argument that you are to big to properly run your company is BS and has been knocked down before.

3) Inspectors do not have anyway of checking to see if a model is 15 or 18 with the present state of affairs. That is unacceptable to a goverment liberal or conservative.

We have built a beast we cannot and do not want to control, the goverment has said that's not acceptable.

Look at every "Teen" model image being pulled down because the publisher could not get hold of the records as another potential Traci Lords and you realise the situation needed changing.

I'm not saying they are all illegal, I'm saying one of them could be and the person publishing it could go to prison for 5 years.

Who here would rather do that than obtain, check and file the documents?

paul, don't you think there could be an easier way to do it than this? i mean, they say that if they have to call and make an appointment, we'll be changing the i.d.

for one thing, i expect anyone with phony i.d. changed it already. for another thing, if we're talking u.s. models, they can easily check with the drivers license numbers. besides, we are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, and most of the cp guys i read about aren't even webmasters.

we could each have a special folder to store model i.d., password protected, inside each server that the host could give them access to. it would have been fast, easy, and a lot less trouble than sending law enforcement to everyone's place of business. they could do the whole thing on the web.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by basschick

paul, don't you think there could be an easier way to do it than this? i mean, they say that if they have to call and make an appointment, we'll be changing the i.d.

for one thing, i expect anyone with phony i.d. changed it already. for another thing, if we're talking u.s. models, they can easily check with the drivers license numbers. besides, we are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, and most of the cp guys i read about aren't even webmasters.

we could each have a special folder to store model i.d., password protected, inside each server that the host could give them access to. it would have been fast, easy, and a lot less trouble than sending law enforcement to everyone's place of business. they could do the whole thing on the web.

---

Damn it's your Birthday and already you're sounding more brilliant the ever before!

EXCELLENT excellent points!

The man hours, and resources, they'll be using under their current proposals are draconian compared to what is possible. They complain that technology has made things so much easier for pornographers... but it's also made it easier for the DOJ to enforce the law! Why they aren't working on a digital solution to 2257 instead of ransacking peoples houses at any hour, is amazing to me. Unless they WANT to be able to upset people, and peoples lives, and the power to say I can mess with you anytime I like. That's not justice though... that's harassment.

It's unfortunate that they feel they have to work against us instead of with us. 99% of us don't want the CP people and Millionaire spammers around either. Business would be a lot better for us if they were out of the picture... but this isn't the right way to go about it.. obviously.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by basschick

paul, don't you think there could be an easier way to do it than this? i mean, they say that if they have to call and make an appointment, we'll be changing the i.d.

for one thing, i expect anyone with phony i.d. changed it already. for another thing, if we're talking u.s. models, they can easily check with the drivers license numbers. besides, we are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, and most of the cp guys i read about aren't even webmasters.

we could each have a special folder to store model i.d., password protected, inside each server that the host could give them access to. it would have been fast, easy, and a lot less trouble than sending law enforcement to everyone's place of business. they could do the whole thing on the web.

---

Yes there are easier solutions to this, but this is not an administration that wants to make it easy.

I think the situation of people posting porn and thinking Sundance gives them the right to do it without controls and checks is ludicrous. As the DOJ say the lawyers themselves appealing advised otherwise.

However in this business where it would seem some think signing up another affiliate to take free content is more important than checking the models, in the content, are over 18 something needed to be done.

We have built a beast we can't and seemingly don't want to control.

As for over burdonsome, few find throwing up 100s of links, free content, ets over burdonsome. Just checking the legality of the porn is too much trouble. Point out the sponsors who spend more on adverts for affiliates than they do on the legality of the porn they give them. Long list.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Squirt

The man hours, and resources, they'll be using under their current proposals are draconian compared to what is possible. They complain that technology has made things so much easier for pornographers... but it's also made it easier for the DOJ to enforce the law! Why they aren't working on a digital solution to 2257 instead of ransacking peoples houses at any hour, is amazing to me. Unless they WANT to be able to upset people, and peoples lives, and the power to say I can mess with you anytime I like. That's not justice though... that's harassment.

---

Because they want to use the records visit to give them the opportunity to perhaps "see" other crimes happening, thus allowing them to sieze other than just computer records containing 2257 docs. If it were all digital, they could not arrest the records keeper if they found an error...he would be out of the country already.... If it were all digital, they could not possibly "accidently" see other crimes happening, If it were digital it would not give the government the ability to snoop around in your place of business, see you eye to eye....etc. Many law enforcement officers make judgements on whether you are hiding something else just by your body language, eye contact, the way you answer questions...etc..and then use this as probable cause for further search....

Because if it were digiatl the DOJ could not enter and search your place of business or computers without a warrant....but this law is essentially a search warrant that can be expanded based upon the experience of the officer inspecting and his perception of what probable cause is.

And the fact remains that CP producers are NOT going to be keeping records anyway, and CP producers are for the most part outside US boundries, and there is NOTHING in the new version of this law that says an ID is a true copy of an ID and is not altered before copied and presented to the producer of the content.

3) The FSC said they were goig to file their TRO within days, it took them weeks and, when they did file, it was incomplete.

Um .. correct me if I'm wrong, and I know you will :)

I believe you can't file any injunction until the date the law/regulations go into effect. Hence the date of filing the TRO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Madame0120

3) The FSC said they were goig to file their TRO within days, it took them weeks and, when they did file, it was incomplete.

Um .. correct me if I'm wrong, and I know you will :)

I believe you can't file any injunction until the date the law/regulations go into effect. Hence the date of filing the TRO.

---

When speaking with our attorney and others, there were so many contradictions and land mines, that even the attorney's had to filter through the new regs to even understand which points to bring up in their case for the injunction.

PapaBear

Thank you Madame 0120,

Finally, someone who actually understands the law and how it applies to this case. The order can only be granted when the law actually takes effect and brings *harm* to the plaintiff. The lawsuit could have been filed a month ago but the judge could not grant a restraining order until the FSC and it's members could suffer damage.

After seeing how many webmasters are doubting the intent of the FSC, I hope the ruling *only* applies to FSC members. We spent the money, we should be the *only* ones to get the benefits.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Huskyhunks

We spent the money, we should be the *only* ones to get the benefits.

---

Again i agree with you.

I would rather the FSC hand the government a list of their members than the government just targeting people at will.

Better to give them a list of targets tha not.

Regards,

Lee

wow, i'm surprised to read you say that.

so if you doubt someone's intentions, they should prove your doubts were well-founded?

you feel that webmasters who weren't sure what the fsc does should suffer a law that is unjust and become test cases and have their lives ruined? all because they aren't stringent supporters of an organization who most don't know much about?

people you know and like could lose their means to make a living, or even go to jail when up till today, they weren't breaking any laws. and you think that's ok? :(

doesn't that seem a little harsh to you? i know lee, for one, has been very outspoken, but would you wish him in a jail cell?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Huskyhunks

After seeing how many webmasters are doubting the intent of the FSC, I hope the ruling *only* applies to FSC members. We spent the money, we should be the *only* ones to get the benefits.

---

My whole point is that I don't want people to go to jail. For starters, it just makes good business sense to join a trade assocation that fights for your rights. It's not that expensive. Hell, I only spent $50. They were even willing to put me on a payment plan for the $300 level. I said wait until I know I still have a business before I can do that. So I joined and it made me feel better that at least I was being proactive and trying to help business stay alive.

I doubt that Lee is going to be breaking the law. He's already said he's being compliant and I believe him.

If people break the law, then that's their business. I'm not taking responsibility for webmasters who are non compliant. That's their decision and doesn't involve me at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Huskyhunks

,

After seeing how many webmasters are doubting the intent of the FSC, I hope the ruling *only* applies to FSC members. We spent the money, we should be the *only* ones to get the benefits.

---

Actually, no.
Advocacy groups regularly go to court for the benefit of their members but all persons of the class benefit--not just the paid-up members of the group. Sometimes even individuals go to court, paying their own way, and benefit everybody.
The US Consititution contains a few phrases that refer to "equal protection" which means that the law should apply equally regardless of how much money you have, what color your skin is, or what religion you practice or don't practice. It also means that a law cannot be enforced against one group [non FSC members] while not enforced against another group [FSC members]. I know it has been a long time since my Constitutional Law classes in law school, but I am pretty sure those standards have not changed.

If the DOJ can make up shit, and "up is down, and down is up" then I can offer my opinion. No one can say this is legal or that is legal with certainty unless you are a judge and the case is before you and that decision is always subject to scrutiny by other judges.

I don't ever recall the FSC saying they were going to file their injunction within days. The new 2257 was issued on or about June 1st and the FSC filed the injunction on 17th of the month. It took time for the attorneys (2 law firms) to digest the new regulation, prepare their response to it and then file. Actually, they did it pretty damn quick. I would much prefer that they take their time and cover all the bases.

I disagree with Lee that the FSC is going to lose it. But, that's his opinion and he's enitled to it, and we will know within the next few hours or tomorrow who is correct.

I'm not sure why so many people seem to be so upset with the FSC. You should be thanking you lucky stars that some organization is out there trying to protect your 1st Amendment rights and your righteous asses. Huskyhunks is correct, we all need a trade association and we all need to belong to it.

Most responsible webmasters who are affected by the new regs are doing everything they can to comply with them, according to their understanding of them, regardless of what the FSC does or doesn't do. But it's nice to know that we aren't hanging out there in the breeze all by ourselves and that at least the FSC is going to bat for it's members and ultimately for all adult webmasters and producers.

Bill