Anyone here feel best qualified to be point man with the FSC?

[Bill]

Before we start another round of discussing political action, I thought it would be a good idea to see if anyone here wants the role of being an "official" liason with the Free Speech Coalition?

I can't do it, I want my anonymity, I live in redneck country, if I become publicly known in the media as an adult webmaster I'll probably start getting bullets thru the windows.

And, I have a bit of a history of drug use, so I'm pretty much useless as a political face person.

I'm happy to do the grunt work in the background, writing and fundraising and what have you, but I can't be a public face.

Since that's the case, it might be good if someone who does have political ambitions stepped up and took the role of being our representative to the FSC.

Anybody want the job?

[LowryBigwood]

I nominate Greenguy. :)

[Beaver Bob]

Greenguy would get my vote too

[Greenguy]

The motion has been seconded & carried. I gladly accept this position....WHOA! Slow down a bit :D

What am I being nominated for?

From what Bill says, I don't think I want it either :D

Besides, if you threw me up there, I'd recommend that everything have a legit warning page, thus squashing every TGP & gallery maker's business model |couch|

[Greenguy]

This just popped into my head...it might not be the best idea in the eyes of a lot of you, but XXXJay does already work with the FSC on some things & he is a Link List owner....I'd have to ask him how he felt on a couple of the ideas that we've bounced around in the last few clusterfuck threads, but it's an idea.

[Mr. Blue]

What about Tommy? After all, he started this whole mess with the political influence thing :D

I'm really okay with anyone that's high profile, that knows more than one avenue of the biz, and who's willing to take the shit that might get tossed at him. So, Tommy, GG, or any other person from New York (what? I can't help it if NYers are born to argue and perfectly suited for the task at hand).

UW would be a possible dark horse candidate because the pure entertainment value of him pulling a Howard Dean would be priceless

[MadMax]

Let's clarify here...are we talking about someone to work point with the FSC or someone to work point for the media/politicians? If we're talking media/politicians I think a female voice would be best...performer, webmaster, whatever...I think it should be a female voice.

I also think XXXJay would be an excellent candidate to work with the FSC...He's already close to their HQ, and beyond the fact that he's a dirty bastard (I know because I've read lots of his editorials and he's so proud of it :D) he's one articulate motherfucker who knows how to form a point and get it across. He'd get my vote to work with the FSC. |thumb

I, myself, have a past that's a bit too colorful. I would have to decline an invitation to meet in public with any politician that I wanted to keep their office :D I'm happy to help in any non-spotlight manner that I can, including cold calling industry peeps who might be able to help us :)

[LowryBigwood]

Besides, if you threw me up there, I'd recommend that everything have a legit warning page, thus squashing every TGP & gallery maker's business model |couch|

And what is wrong with that? :D

I agree, anyone like Jay, Tommy, GG would get my vote. |thumb

[SirMoby]

Bill, why does being a liason between us and the FSC require public exposure?

As I understand what we need is someone to simply educate the FSC so they're not in front of the Senate telling them silly stuff like we support an impossible technology such as AVS and that adult webmasters don't label their pages.

I love Jay and I think he could do a good job but he's not around here much so I'm not sure how regular communications would go.

I would recommend someone that's around here often, already is using the labeling at hand and (sorry GG) understands that warning pages are always bypassed. Tommy would be great but I think it's the longest shot :)

Bill - Why not if it's just to educate the FSC there is no public exposure.

[Greenguy]

Sir Moby - no need to apologize - I know warning pages are being bypassed - been that way since the 1st sites linked to a page of pics :)

But I've become a bit brainwashed with the "Good Faith Effort" theory that was brought up at this seminar (http://www.greenguysboard.com/board/showpost.php?p=241093&postcount=8) - and I know it's only because I've always been a free-site link-list warning-page kinda guy :)

[Bill]

That's a good question SirMoby. It's not so much that it's inevitable that a political point man would have to face exposure, it's just that it's a real risk, and one that we should be aware of.

Political action has it's own wierd mementum that tends to go like this:

Nothing happens. Nothing happens. Nothing happens. Nothing happens. Nothing happens. Nothing happens. Nothing happens. Minor shitstorm. Nothing happens. Nothing happens. Major Shitstorm. 60 Minutes Investigates.

I don't think GG or Tommy or Jay are the best choices, altho they are natural choices. We tend to naturally suggest them here because we trust and respect them, each in their own ways.

But, they are our big guns, and it would probably be better to hold them in reserve. Unless they want the job, then we should roll with them.

The ideal person would have political ambitions, would want to work with or in the sponsor companies and other adult organizations and become well known, would be articulate and good looking, a fair writer, and especially, especially, be able to listen.

The ideal person probably doesn't exist, actually.

I bring it up because I know I don't want the job, I'm not suitable for it. But somebody here might want the job. So I thought it might be worth starting to talk about at least.

[MikeB]

That's a good question SirMoby. It's not so much that it's inevitable that a political point man would have to face exposure, it's just that it's a real risk, and one that we should be aware of.

Political action has it's own wierd mementum that tends to go like this:

Nothing happens. Nothing happens. Nothing happens. Nothing happens. Nothing happens. Nothing happens. Nothing happens. Minor shitstorm. Nothing happens. Nothing happens. Major Shitstorm. 60 Minutes Investigates.

I don't think GG or Tommy or Jay are the best choices, altho they are natural choices. We tend to naturally suggest them here because we trust and respect them, each in their own ways.

But, they are our big guns, and it would probably be better to hold them in reserve. Unless they want the job, then we should roll with them.

The ideal person would have political ambitions, would want to work with or in the sponsor companies and other adult organizations and become well known, would be articulate and good looking, a fair writer, and especially, especially, be able to listen.

The ideal person probably doesn't exist, actually.

I bring it up because I know I don't want the job, I'm not suitable for it. But somebody here might want the job. So I thought it might be worth starting to talk about at least.


I think the ideal person does exist, we just have to look hard. Do you have a more detailed description of what you expect of this individual?

Regards,

Mike B

[Tommy]

I am sorry guys

I would love to do it but I am to busy with the twins
I barely get any work done

I really like Bill for the idea Sir Moby and Raw Alex also
and would be happy to help who ever you guys pick

I am really gifted in debating/arguing this sort of stuff
(at least I think so)

Bill, I am sure we could find a way to keep you under the radar

[Chop Smith]

The ideal person should not be self-serving.

[DJilla]

I also think XXXJay would be an excellent candidate to work with the FSC...He's already close to their HQ, and beyond the fact that he's a dirty bastard (I know because I've read lots of his editorials and he's so proud of it :D) he's one articulate motherfucker who knows how to form a point and get it across. He'd get my vote to work with the FSC. |thumb


Don't get me wrong, as a newbie, JayXXX is my super idol but.... did you see his last Top Bucks spotlight interview. Don't know if that |pokefun| "made a deal with satan" stuff is where we want to go exactly.

[DJilla]

Nothing happens. Nothing happens. Nothing happens. Nothing happens. Nothing happens. Nothing happens. Nothing happens. Minor shitstorm. Nothing happens. Nothing happens. Major Shitstorm. 60 Minutes Investigates.


HA hahahahahahahahahahahaha, hohohohohohho, heheheeheh

[SirMoby]

First let's define the role of the "Official Liaison To The FSC". If we can agree on that then we can focus the qualifications and start to nail down the right person.

Bill, what exactly do you think this person should do?

My vision is that this person would have 3 major responsibilities.

1. Understand the current technology issues with labeling, AVS, etc .... that are in use and can actually be used to help keep minors out without infringing on Free Speech and keeping an eye on International issues.

2. Listen well enough to understand all or at least most webmaster's concerns and know the difference between their own beliefs and the majorities beliefs.

3. Educate and communicate the above information to the FSC to ensure that they have the knowledge to stay on track, speak accurately on issues and move in the right direction.

[Bill]

The "issues" points you're emphasizing in your list, SirMoby, are a part of the task that a FSC pointman would face, but I'm thinking those requirements are the easy part.

The FSC is an older style organization. They do most of their business in face to face meetings and phone calls.

So, the ideal point man would be able to attend meetings. I guess that means they should live in california. Or at least be able to go to some of the conventions and meet with the FSC folks there, because I gather that the FSC hopes to have a presence at the conventions.

(I think maybe we should start calling this job the "FSC Contact" - point man is a military term - all politics is 'slow war' but we should soften it a bit...)

The ideal FSC Contact would be good on the phone and in email. The job would involve stuff like talking to sponsors, content producers, other board owners, other organizations, and by talking I mean mostly listening and occasionally making suggestions and asking leading questions.

Talking to sponsors would be a critical part of the role.

The ideal FSC contact would be able to run boardtracker campaigns to keep an eye on the topic of the FSC and other political issues.

The ideal FSC contact would be willing to post on other boards, become a bit of a personality on other boards, because we would need the co-operation of the other communities to get anything real happening, and to do any serious fund raising.

The FSC contact doesn't have to do all these things, actually. Really, their most important job would be to attend some meetings and do phone work with the existing FSC organization. Their second most important job would be working the other boards.

I could do some - a lot, I suppose - of the 'secretarial' type stuff, and I'm willing to do that, or at least try to do it. Or some of it.

Ultimately, the FSC Contact would have to be paid, something, somehow. But we will cross that bridge when we come to it.

So, to sum up:

1. The FSC Contact needs to be able to attend some meetings in California.

2. The FSC Contact needs to be able to become something of a board personality.

3. The FSC Contact needs to be able to do well on the phone.

[Toni KatVixen]

I like the summary that Bill created; I would add that we want the point person that can have credibility with the webmasters and have an understanding of the issues we face, so they should have been involved (at one time) in the internet side of the business. So having an already established board personality would go a long way to accomplishing that.

Ps. I vote for point man, it is the army brat in me. :D

[Far-L]

My partner Spike is an excellent liasion. We are FSC members, have a long history of being proactive in political and financial issues that impact our industry. ( I was part of a lobby group that defeated a porn tax in California among other issues, like Acacia for example)

We have an excellent relationship with Tom Hymes and would be happy to help coordinate communication.

[SirMoby]

My partner Spike is an excellent liasion. We are FSC members, have a long history of being proactive in political and financial issues that impact our industry. ( I was part of a lobby group that defeated a porn tax in California among other issues, like Acacia for example)

We have an excellent relationship with Tom Hymes and would be happy to help coordinate communication.
Let's meet Spike and hear his views. I'd love to chat with him and I don't think we have a lot of time to start educating the FSC.

[Far-L]

Let's meet Spike and hear his views. I'd love to chat with him and I don't think we have a lot of time to start educating the FSC.

With all due respect the FSC will always need to be educated on the issues so that they can be more proactive on our behalf. That is the purpose of the trade organization.

I will be happy to have Spike jump in here to share his views.

[Greenguy]

I smell another Radio Show conference call using Home Grown's phone lines :D

[Far-L]

I smell another Radio Show conference call using Home Grown's phone lines :D

Well all you ever have to do is ask my friend and we are there!

[RawAlex]

Spike has certainly shown in the past to be good at this sort of thing, and homegrown certainly does bridge the gap between the walmarts and the indies.

Alex

[RawAlex]

Sadly, it looks like other people are on the move on this issue, and we are barely even talking:

http://www.avnonline.com/index.php?Primary_Navigation=Web_Exclusive_News&Action=View_Article&Content_ID=259202

Can someone get to cambria before he goes and volunteers us to have complicated and mostly overblown labels all over our sites?

Alex

[Ms Naughty]

Eeeek!
*Runs around in circles screaming*
Spike! Spiiiiiiike!
Perhaps we can whip up a statement to send them?

[Ms Naughty]

OK, I stopped running in circles and threw together this draft statement-type-thing.

Feel free to say it's shite, if necessary. I just thought it might be a start. Now I have to get back to work.
-----------------

We, as adult webmasters are eager to prevent minors from accessing our material.

We believe that a rating system, rather than an AVS, is the best way to do this.

The results of a poll reveal that a majority of webmasters favor a simple meta tag as the best way to prevent children from accessing sites that are obviously adult. This is a simple self-rating system that can be easily adopted by adult webmasters and can, we believe, be used in addition to the existing ICRA PICS rating system.

The ICRA system can be used to rate “borderline” sites that may need more specific labeling, as an alternative to, or in addition to, the simple meta tag.

We are prepared to lobby other webmasters to take up labeling and will encourage the use of labels through rules on linklists and TGPs.

-------------

I also had the idea about affiliate programs asking affiliates to label their sites, but that's just another vague thought...

Edit: Maybe this post belongs in the label poll thread. And maybe ICRA doesn't want statements sent to their "invitation only" meetings. My apologies if this post is kind of off topic.

[MeatPounder]

So the rep has to be a west coast webmaster?
They cuts out 90% of the link list view you are looking for

[MeatPounder]

The FSC is an older style organization. They do most of their business in face to face meetings and phone calls.If so, then they are not the ones to represent webmasters. We need an organization that is in the 21st century.


So, the ideal point man would be able to attend meetings. I guess that means they should live in California.
No, we should choose the best person to represent our concerns, not one that is most convenient for the FSC


The FSC contact doesn't have to do all these things, actually. Really, their most important job would be to attend some meetings and do phone work with the existing FSC organization.
No, the most important job would be as a liason between webmasters and the FCS


1. The FSC Contact needs to be able to attend some meetings in California.
Why?


2. The FSC Contact needs to be able to become something of a board personality.

3. The FSC Contact needs to be able to do well on the phone.[/QUOTE]

[Bill]

I guess we had best start to examine the Adult Freedom Foundation:

Which at my first quick view seems to be mostly Paul Cambria himself.

http://www.adultfreedomfoundation.org/

Their statement has a bit of potential, despite being all caps.

---------------------------------------------
NEW GROUP FIGHTS FOR FREEDOMS

LOS ANGELES, CALIF. PROTECTING FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS AND COUNTERING ATTACKS ON THE ADULT ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY IS THE MISSION OF THE NEWLY CREATED “ADULT FREEDOM FOUNDATION.”

“ALL TOO OFTEN THE ADULT ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY HAS BEEN THE TARGET OF MISINFORMATION AND UNFOUNDED CRITICISM,” SAID ATTY. PAUL CAMBRIA, GENERAL COUNSEL.

“THE ADULT FREEDOM FOUNDATION WILL SPEAK WITH A NEW VOICE. WE PLAN TO SUPPLY ACCURATE AND POSITIVE INFORMATION TO THE PUBLIC FOR A CHANGE,” HE SAID.

FIRST AND FOREMOST, THE GROUP WANTS TO WORK WITH THE MAIN STREAM MEDIA IN GETTING OUR MESSAGE OUT.

THE GROUP WILL PROVIDE MEDIA AND GOVERNMENT ACCESS TO LEGAL, SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRY EXECUTIVES TO COUNTER BALANCE BOGUS CLAIMS BY AMBITIOUS POLITICANS, RIGHT WING GROUPS AND OTHERS.

THERE ARE TWO SIDES TO EVERY STORY AND NOW IT’S TIME FOR OUR SIDE TO BE TOLD TOO.

AFF IS GOING TO BE A WATCH DOG ORGANIZATION FOR THE ADULT ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY.

OUR STAFF WILL SOUND OFF LOUD AND CLEAR WHEN WE SPOT MISINFORMATION OR ATTACKS ON LAWFUL ADULT ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY ACTIVITIES.

FREQUENTLY RIGHT WING GROUPS ATTEMPT TO CO MINGLE ILLEGAL CHILD PORNORGRAPHY WITH LAWFUL ADULT ENTERTAINMENT IN AN ATTEMPT TO OUTLAW BOTH.

THE AFF FORMED BY SEVERAL MAJOR NATIONAL COMPANIES, INCLUDING THOSE FROM THE ADULT ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY, IS DEDICATED TO FIGHTING CHILD PORNOGRAPHY.

WHILE ADMANTLY AGAINST CHILD PORNOGRAPHY, AFF BELIEVES ADULTS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO ENJOY EROTIC ENTERTAINMENT.

AND, THAT THE AVERAGE ADULT ACCEPTS THAT RIGHT FOR OTHER ADULTS TO CHOOSE LAWFUL EROTIC ENTERTAINMENT.
---------------------

[Ms Naughty]

LOL
“THE ADULT FREEDOM FOUNDATION WILL SPEAK WITH A NEW VOICE," he shouted.

Damn, it's hard to read things in capital letters.

Even so, it's a decent enough mission statement.

[Bill]

Meatpounder, we can't know yet if the FSC is the right organization to ally with, we're still in the stage of gathering information.

However, our choices of which organizations to ally with are not large. We've already made an impact on the FSC because of the rush of webmaster memberships related to 2257. Thats a kind of investment on our part. Before we throw away that investment I would say we should try to give the FSC some new tasks and see how well they can carry out our political wishes.

I'm open to suggestions as to other organizations that could be of use.

An older face&phone organization might be exactly what we need. Congress is all about connections, who you know, and Congress is an even older school face&phone system.

So having some old school face&phone types as 'hired guns' might be exactly what we need.

It's possible that everything we need could be done without going to meetings.

[Bill]

Far-L, when can Spike come here and talk to us a bit about this?

It would be good to have him start a thread about the FSC, so he can tell us what his impressions of the FSC are, and we can ask him questions.

Where does Spike usually hang out on the net, what board does he post at most?

[Far-L]

Spike has certainly shown in the past to be good at this sort of thing, and homegrown certainly does bridge the gap between the walmarts and the indies.

Alex

Thanks!

I like to think that we bridge the gap between the old brick and mortar and the online worlds too...|thumb

[Far-L]

So the rep has to be a west coast webmaster?
They cuts out 90% of the link list view you are looking for

No but it is a good idea... Obviously if you want to lobby at the federal level you need to have lobbyists in Washington. Similarly, if you want the best FSC representation then you want to have not just a voice but a face too at the FSC meetings - which are generally in California.

The only people that really should concern themselves with what the FSC can do for them are FSC members.

The FSC, first and foremost, is a trade organization that works on behalf of its membership. They are not the ACLU and it is a lucky coincidence that much of their work goes on to benefit all the others that are not members.

When you all are asking this representation let me ask in return - are you all members? I seriously don't think it is fair to demand something of an organization that you are not making a commitment to in return.

[Surfn]

No but it is a good idea... Obviously if you want to lobby at the federal level you need to have lobbyists in Washington. Similarly, if you want the best FSC representation then you want to have not just a voice but a face too at the FSC meetings - which are generally in California.

The only people that really should concern themselves with what the FSC can do for them are FSC members.

The FSC, first and foremost, is a trade organization that works on behalf of its membership. They are not the ACLU and it is a lucky coincidence that much of their work goes on to benefit all the others that are not members.

When you all are asking this representation let me ask in return - are you all members? I seriously don't think it is fair to demand something of an organization that you are not making a commitment to in return.
It's thinking like this that reaffirms my position that independent webmasters hold the keys to their own destiny. Collective representation is more monotheistic than most people realize. I will never support the FSC.

[Far-L]

It's thinking like this that reaffirms my position that independent webmasters hold the keys to their own destiny. Collective representation is more monotheistic than most people realize. I will never support the FSC.


No problem. If you think indie webmasters can do what a professional organization can that is made up of many with similar interests then have at it. To the best of my recollection, no indie company stepped up to dealing with the feds alone in the 2257 proceedings.

A trade organization like FSC is not "monotheistic". It is democratic and all paying members have voting privileges.

[Bill]

When you all are asking this representation let me ask in return - are you all members? I seriously don't think it is fair to demand something of an organization that you are not making a commitment to in return.

I have been assuming that everyone seriously involved in this discussion so far are members.

One of the big questions, or perhaps positions is a better word, has been "Should we renew our memberships when they come up this summer, and can we use the power of those renewals (or choosing not to renew) to get the FSC to communicate with us more and take some of the actions we want to see.".

If there isn't more communication between the FSC and onliners I think a large number of webmasters who joined over 2257 will let their memberships lapse.

And if the FSC doesn't add an online CC processor for memberships and donations, I think a lot of webmasters will also let their memberships lapse.

[Far-L]

I have been assuming that everyone seriously involved in this discussion so far are members.

One of the big questions, or perhaps positions is a better word, has been "Should we renew our memberships when they come up this summer, and can we use the power of those renewals (or choosing not to renew) to get the FSC to communicate with us more and take some of the actions we want to see.".

If there isn't more communication between the FSC and onliners I think a large number of webmasters who joined over 2257 will let their memberships lapse.

And if the FSC doesn't add an online CC processor for memberships and donations, I think a lot of webmasters will also let their memberships lapse.

Great points, thanks.

I think the success so far of the 2257 rebuttal is reason to stay with the organization - and like I have said in other threads, the are many other successes the FSC has achieved on behalf of its members that make it worthwhile.

The online join is a great idea and I will bring that to Tom Hymes personally, find out the status, and come back to this thread with an update.

[RawAlex]

Far-L, the FSC needs to clean up some of the very basic things before they can move on to really representing us properly.

First off, let me say this: I am not currently an FSC member. However, I have a closet filled with everything FSC has ever offered at the shows, and I routinely toss a large bill in the bin at every show. The trade shows I have been involved with have always supported and helped the FSC to be at the shows and give them the time and space to discuss their issues.

I am not a member, and the reasons are simple:

1) The membership rates need to be clarified and made SIMPLE to understand, and they must reflect the business we are in online. Free site/ gallery builder - single paysite owner / solo amateur site operator - program owner - content provider - services provider (hosting etc) - independant worker (graphic artists, site designs, etc). Set the rates, publish them, make them reasonable, and get everyone under the umbrella.

2) Make signup online work. This isn't a big deal, I am sure that the major processors would gladly provide services at reasonable, reduced, or even cost price rates.

3) FSC needs to put someone in charge of communication to the online community, and make an effort to not only provide the news "when it breaks" but to put a regular flow of information in the hands of it's members. If commercial organizations like AVN and XBIZ can get the mail out there (and every other program in the universe mails regularly) why can't FSC get to it?

4) Work more on not only informing webmasters and movie people about what is going on, but also to provide a public information site where we woudl feel comfortable sending surfers to make them better informed about what is going on and how acts of the US government could limit thier access to the porn they enjoy.

At this point, I think the FSC is running so fast that it doesn't have time to focus on finding it's focus and working to do what organizations need to do: Represent and listen to it's members.

Alex

[Far-L]

Far-L, the FSC needs to clean up some of the very basic things before they can move on to really representing us properly.

First off, let me say this: I am not currently an FSC member. However, I have a closet filled with everything FSC has ever offered at the shows, and I routinely toss a large bill in the bin at every show. The trade shows I have been involved with have always supported and helped the FSC to be at the shows and give them the time and space to discuss their issues.

I am not a member, and the reasons are simple:

1) The membership rates need to be clarified and made SIMPLE to understand, and they must reflect the business we are in online. Free site/ gallery builder - single paysite owner / solo amateur site operator - program owner - content provider - services provider (hosting etc) - independant worker (graphic artists, site designs, etc). Set the rates, publish them, make them reasonable, and get everyone under the umbrella.

2) Make signup online work. This isn't a big deal, I am sure that the major processors would gladly provide services at reasonable, reduced, or even cost price rates.

3) FSC needs to put someone in charge of communication to the online community, and make an effort to not only provide the news "when it breaks" but to put a regular flow of information in the hands of it's members. If commercial organizations like AVN and XBIZ can get the mail out there (and every other program in the universe mails regularly) why can't FSC get to it?

4) Work more on not only informing webmasters and movie people about what is going on, but also to provide a public information site where we woudl feel comfortable sending surfers to make them better informed about what is going on and how acts of the US government could limit thier access to the porn they enjoy.

At this point, I think the FSC is running so fast that it doesn't have time to focus on finding it's focus and working to do what organizations need to do: Represent and listen to it's members.

Alex

Tremendous feedback and excellent suggestions! I will bring these things up as well.

[Bill]

I think the success so far of the 2257 rebuttal is reason to stay with the organization...

I agree. The FSC stepped up to the plate on 2257 and aceived a success which benefits every webmaster in the business, including non-US webmasters and non-FSC members.

It wasn't a perfect and ideal process, and you'll hear complaints about it, but the bottom line is still - the FSC fought the feds on 2257 and got the result webmasters wanted, which was protection for secondary producers.

This is the big reason that I think we should ally with the FSC, and try to make it "THE webmasters trade organization".

Do you know who is behind the Adult Freedom Foundation and Paul Cambria, Far-L?

[SirMoby]

Yes, I'm a member and I think no matter what the FSC deserves support from everyone that is benefiting from their efforts. Lack of online signup is an excuse and not a reason for nonsupport.

Are they perfect? Nope, but who else is stepping up to fight the legal battle for the right to free speech and privacy?

As RawAlex points out you don't have to be a member to support them. I would like them to improve many things but they are doing what is most important and that is protecting people from the legal nut cases that feel rights are only for those identical to themselves.

I will request 2 things before I renew though.

1. They keep fighting the legal battles just like they are now. No need to change things.

2. Get back in front of the Senate and correct the false statements. Such as explaining that most responsible webmasters are labeling their sites, that AVS cannot work based on today's technology and that we are more then happy to work on a better labeling system that can be easily adopted by all sites including news sites.

To me that's what's most important.

[Greenguy]

Jim & I (the board) are members, but I forget in what capacity because the membership form/costs have change 2 or 3 times since we became members.

I think I registered as my company with the board as my primary domain? In any event, Jim & I are members :)

[Bill]

Lack of online signup is an excuse and not a reason for nonsupport.

It's not an excuse, it's a political demand.

I plan on not renewing my membership unless I can do it online.

And I will be trying to persuade others to do likewise.

Politics is all about symbolism and messages. The symbolism of not having an online method to take memberships and donations is profound.

It says, loudly and unmistakeably, "We don't give a fuck about you onliners.".

It is a core issue. A line in the sand. If they can't get their shit together enough to install a goddamn CC processor they are not worthy of onliner support.

I am totally committed to this position.

[SirMoby]

It's not an excuse, it's a political demand.

I plan on not renewing my membership unless I can do it online.

Using an online processor for $100s of dollars where nothing is actually shipped has charge back written all over it. I would have concerns about accepting $300 from webmasters that understand chargebacks. Wouldn't you if it was your business?

[cd34]

The FSC could ship a document with membership card Return Receipt Requested. :)

[RawAlex]

Sirmoby, the online signup doesn't have to be "with nothing shipped". Heck, they could ship a small membership package and information to each new member (or a Tshirt who cares) if they think it is an issue. Taking the signup over the phone isn't making it much more secure when you think about it.

The other thing is that membership wouldn't have to be $300 if they had more members. With a membership fee of $50 or $100, they would attract many more webmasters under the umbrella of the group. Putting the membership fee so high (especially for people who just build galleries or free sites) just encourages people to NOT join the game.

"friends of FSC" memberships would go a long way to getting people on the team and supporting the group.

Alex

[Toby]

Using an online processor for $100s of dollars where nothing is actually shipped has charge back written all over it. I would have concerns about accepting $300 from webmasters that understand chargebacks. Wouldn't you if it was your business?Sorry SirMoby but you're all wet on this one. An FSC membership isn't like a pay site membership where you can download all the content in a few days. The value is in being a member, not in having been a member. Chargebacks is a non-issue.

Cost is also a non-issue. The number of additional people that would join if there were an online registration available would offset any costs for the CC processing many times over.

It's simply a matter of making it a priority and getting it done.

[Bill]

SirMoby, if that's the best counterargument you can muster, then I am led to believe that you see the political wisdom and message of my argument.

I personally doubt that any webmaster who would join or renew in the first place would chargeback.

But, that is a technical issue, to be resolved in the backend. I can think of several solutions, including publishing the information on chargebacks.

I make political donations all the time - organizations like moveon don't seem to be having a big chargeback issue.

However, perhaps you are suggesting that the FSC fears it will be punished for incompetence or nonaction thru chargebacks?

[SirMoby]

Sorry SirMoby but you're all wet on this one. An FSC membership isn't like a pay site membership where you can download all the content in a few days. The value is in being a member, not in having been a member. Chargebacks is a non-issue.

Cost is also a non-issue. The number of additional people that would join if there were an online registration available would offset any costs for the CC processing many times over.

It's simply a matter of making it a priority and getting it done.
How many webmasters would have charged back after the list of companies went to the DOJ? How many might try to chargeback now that the ruling came into play?

I'm sure at least a few would have charged back. I can't imagine someone really wanting to donate money and allowing a 3 minute process to stand in the way.

There's a reason why most sites that sell advertising don't use credit card processing and we seem to have no problems buying advertising using other methods.

[RawAlex]

Sirmoby, it isn't about "donating money", it is about building a group that counts a large part (if not a majority) of the online adult community as it's members. A group cannot even pretend to speak for "us" if so few of us are members (except because many felt they were held for ransom in the 2257 process).

If there are 50,000 webmasters out there, the group would be a stunning success if 30,000 of them were members. It would certainly lend credibility to them when they address courts, politicians, and the public. An "us" group with no "us" is just a few people with nice suits and an agenda.

Alex

[SirMoby]

SirMoby, if that's the best counterargument you can muster, then I am led to believe that you see the political wisdom and message of my argument.
You're making an assumption here and I'm sure you know where that's going to go. |pokefun|

It's not an arguement. It's a fact that many webmasters in our business buy things and charge them back months later for many reasons.

However, perhaps you are suggesting that the FSC fears it will be punished for incompetence or nonaction thru chargebacks?
Come on Bill. Why are you trying to lead my thoughts? I thought we were reasonable adults here.

[Bill]

Ah, well, politics is, among other things, the art of leading thoughts thru symbolism and message.

Forgive me for a bit of thought leading.

We don't have to agree on this. But, I will continue to make a CC processing capacity a core issue.

For me it is the _first_ issue. A website that meets the needs of we onliners is the absolute minimum. If the FSC can't meet us at least to that point, I will start looking for another organization that can.

Maybe the Adult Freedom Foundation is looking for members.

[Far-L]

GG: want to do a radio show interview with spike and tom hymes?

[Greenguy]

Far-L - email coming :)

[Chop Smith]

I signed up online and ccbill was the processor. I have not looked. Did they change something in the last several months.

[Bill]

Yes, they changed it Chop.

My first $50 donation was made thru that same ccbill system.

Now they have this:

http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/contribution.php

[MrMaryLou]

Bill have you looked at the options on the membership link there is an on line option http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/application.php

[RawAlex]

Freedom isn't free - and the FSC is proving it.

If I was an indivdual, I would pay $50. As a company, I would pay between $100 and "the shy is the limit".


Your company’s Annual Dues are calculated based on the Company’s gross Annual Sales Volume according to the chart below (Please check the most appropriate box):
Annual Sales Volume :

$10,000,000 & over

$8,000 per yr.
$5,000,000 -- $9,999,999 $4,000 per yr.
$1,000,000 -- $4,999,999 $2,000 per yr.
$500,000 -- $999,999 $1,000 per yr.
$200,000 -- $499,999 $500 per yr.
$100,000 -- $199,999 $300 per yr.
$0 -- $99,999 $100 per yr.

[Bill]

Ooops, my mistake then. The penalty for tunnel vision.

What link did you follow to get to that page? I looked for something like that, and thought I followed every link off the index.

Oh. It looks like it's an activex link - and I usually surf with active x turned off.

That's it. It is an activeX link. And I never saw it before, because I surf at high security.

Now see, that's what I'm talking about. What kind of designer makes a critical link like that an activex link?

[Far-L]

Just talked to Tom extensively... here are some key points to get across:

1. the old FSC is in serious transition and moving fast and hard to get everything online, message board, polling, memberships, etc. but it is taking time.

2. Just because Cambria is going one direction doesn't necessarily mean that FSC is going the same way.

3. Position Papers are being prepared and the voice of the webmasters will be included.

4. FSC is trying to get included in the hearings and making it clear that webmasters must be included is part of that effort.

5. The FSC Lobbyists do have a lot more support than what is projected in the media and we have to help our politicians understand the issues so they can help make sensible policies.

6. The idea of a filterable metatag is merely an idea and is open to discussion, debate, and counsel. The idea of a proactive approach is a good one regardless and that is what is being suggested for now until better ideas are presented.

7. Political process and lawsuits don't happen in Internet time and people have to be patient about certain aspects of the process. On the other hand - every single suggestion and plan of action presented by its members is helpful now and must be immediately considered. However, decisions in a democratic organization take time - even when there is online polling people will still need to be given time to make decisions.

[Bill]

Thank you Far-L. I'd been hearing many of these things, both from Tom earlier and from others who've been researching the FSC. That all sounds good, like a good start at least.

The comment about Cambria is interesting, and good news, because I think most onliners have been wondering why Cambria hasn't been doing a better job of describing U.S. webmasters and the U.S. online adult business.

Hopefully you can tell us more during the radio show.

[Bill]

Well, since activeX reveals me to be a dullard, the minimal demand I had been thinking of is now a moot point.

And, presumably, the FSC is taking steps to develop their site, as Far-L says in item 1 in his list, so action on the website is also a moot point.

So, that means we need to move to the next most important and symbolically powerful issues.

So, anybody have any thoughts on what the next most important issue should be?

I'm thinking it should be something we can realistically expect can be well started in this upcoming year.

[Greenguy]

Great info Far-L - thanks!

[DJilla]

Just talked to Tom extensively... here are some key points to get across:

1. the old FSC is in serious transition and moving fast and hard to get everything online, message board, polling, memberships, etc. but it is taking time.

2. Just because Cambria is going one direction doesn't necessarily mean that FSC is going the same way.

3. Position Papers are being prepared and the voice of the webmasters will be included.

4. FSC is trying to get included in the hearings and making it clear that webmasters must be included is part of that effort.

5. The FSC Lobbyists do have a lot more support than what is projected in the media and we have to help our politicians understand the issues so they can help make sensible policies.

6. The idea of a filterable metatag is merely an idea and is open to discussion, debate, and counsel. The idea of a proactive approach is a good one regardless and that is what is being suggested for now until better ideas are presented.

7. Political process and lawsuits don't happen in Internet time and people have to be patient about certain aspects of the process. On the other hand - every single suggestion and plan of action presented by its members is helpful now and must be immediately considered. However, decisions in a democratic organization take time - even when there is online polling people will still need to be given time to make decisions.

Yep!

[Bill]

For the moment, I'm happy enough to have Spike do a little recon on the FSC. Most of us know who he is, altho he doesn't spend much of any time here, and I don't know where he does hang out online.

Since we are still in the research phase of things, having anybody who is trying to gather information about the FSC should be good enough.

We'll see how things go.

------------------

Let's see, what to ask the FSC to do to represent us?

How about an anti-spam and anti-scumware campaign? As far as most people are concerned, spam and scumware is synonymous with porn.

How about getting the FSC to push the idea that bulkers and the toolbar crowd are criminals that are hated by real adult webmasters, and to tell people that spam is the problem, not legitimate adult entertainment?

Hah. That oughta make the bulkers and the sponsors happy, eh?

[SirMoby]

Let's see the position papers. I think they're going to require a lot of work and agreement and until they're right and everyone is on the same page I'd like to stay focused on the most basic of issues.

I want our stance very clear on the FSC website. I've heard many lawyers speak including another one 2 nights ago and they don't seem to have a message that the American people can understand. Until that's in place there's no reason to move on to other things.

[Bill]

Well, I wouldn't think this would be the best time to take off the pressure, but I wouldn't mind taking a couple month break from thinking about this stuff.

---

I tried to log into whatever that private area is on the FSC website, but the ID/pass I was using didn't work. I used the forgotten password link to get the password, but get an invalid message.

Anybody else getting inside that area? What's in there?

[RawAlex]

Bill, I think you are not far off the idea here.

As "responsible" webmasters, we need to have some basic standards and policies for dealing with the different problems and temptations of our buisness:

- Against toolbars, and programs and sites should decline or redirect to dead pages any traffic from these sources.

- Against non-CanSpam mailings. Against, declining and redirecting to dead pages any traffic from these sources

- Against scumware, malware, forced installs, etc. Same "don't accept traffic" idea.

- for educating parents and caregivers how to best handle their children's desire to be on the net

... and so on and so on. The basic idea is that if we as a group show that we are trying to self regulate and not profitting from bad business practices, then we all look better.

Alex

[Far-L]

Let's see the position papers. I think they're going to require a lot of work and agreement and until they're right and everyone is on the same page I'd like to stay focused on the most basic of issues.

I want our stance very clear on the FSC website. I've heard many lawyers speak including another one 2 nights ago and they don't seem to have a message that the American people can understand. Until that's in place there's no reason to move on to other things.

Don't hold your breath...

Even if you get almost everyone on the same page, the issues involved here will naturally entail certain differences of opinion. The important goal to move forward is to achieve a consensus that at least MOST folks can agree on.

You are absolutely right about the attorneys... but that is par for the course... everything they say is a matter of opinion based on their interpretations... We have to decide what works for us and part of that is realizing clearly what risks we are willing to take as well as what risks need to cleary be avoided. For the risks we are willing to take we need to be prepared to go the distance to prove our point, set a precedent, and hopefully enact positive change.

[Bill]

Okay, we took a month's break from talking about the FSC, and from putting pressure on them, waiting nicely to see if they would do anything, get back to us, or even talk much about the online sector in their newsletters.

It looks like the answers are no, no, and as far as I can tell, no.

So let's see if we can fire off the old boardtracker, and start discussing our political options vis a vis the Free Speech Coalition again.

We got the House of Representatives trying to push a bill to make 2257 apply to us secondary producers, and we got democrat senators trying to introduce a mandatory .xxx bill in the senate.

If we don't get proactive we are going to be handed the shitty end of the stick.

So, I'll probably be starting a new thread soon.

[MeatPounder]

Well seeing how the "lead attorney" for the FSC just happens to be the attorney for one of the most controversial sites around as far as CP, I think that the free speech coalition is most definitely the option to pursue

[MeatPounder]

But what do I know?

[Bill]

I'm finding your comment a bit ambiguous. Would you elaborate?

[RawAlex]

Actually, you raise a very good point. Lawyers have all sorts of clients, but this one does make me wonder ever so slightly.

Alex

[Jim]

Well seeing how the "lead attorney" for the FSC just happens to be the attorney for one of the most controversial sites around as far as CP, I think that the free speech coalition is most definitely the option to pursue
I don't really have a problem with that. Lawyers will defend anyone weather they agree with their clients opinions or not. You see it all the time in a criminal court. Much like the ACLU...All they care about is our Civil Liberties. They have defended everyone from churches to Nazis and Skinheads. As I have said before, if you want Free Speech, you have to take the good with the bad.

Jesus, Mary and Joseph...we (Americans) are losing our civil liberties everyday. I watched Boston Legal as I do each week and a point was brought up about "Free Speech Zones". So, I had to look it up. It's a zone around the president where Free Speech does not exist. It's the reason that people who wear Anti-Bush teeshirts get arrested just for attending a speech by the president. Anyway, I seem to just be rambling.

[RawAlex]

Jim, I think the question may be as political as it is legal.

Perhaps you could picture Mr Douglas sitting before a congressional panel, answering questions regarding "protecting children with 2257" or whatever, and after a couple of hours, the Senior member from where ever gets his turn to ask questions, and asks:

"Mr Douglas, in your time as a lawyer for first amendment issues, you have represented and done work for a website called Met Art, which featured nudity and sexual situations, mostly featuring models that appear to be quite young. Your opinion of the legality of that website have been in the past posted on that website directly. You indicate that all models are of age. Yet, Met-art themselves have posted a very different view of things, this taken from their website in 2002:

""None of the images on this site are illegal. This has been determined by our attorney, whose is an expert in the law pertaining to the First Amendment and images of nudity. MET contains images of nudity only. There are no images of hard-core sexual conduct, i.e., masturbation, intercourse of any type, oral-genital contact, or sadomasochism. There is no obscenity or child pornography to be found on MET. In order for an image to be obscene, it must violate contemporary community standards, appeal to a prurient interest in sex, and be devoid of any artistic, scientific, political or other social value. Nudity alone is not enough for an image to be illegal, as the Supreme Court has stated on many occasions. "Spread" shots of adult women (at least 18 years of age) are legal, as they do not violate contemporary community standards anywhere in the United States. In order for an image to be "child pornography," it must depict a person under the age of 18 (a minor) engaged in "sexually explicit conduct" (i.e., the types of hard-core conduct described above), or a "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area." Nudity alone is also not enough to make an image "child pornography." U.S. v. 264 Magazines (Jeunes et naturels) (Third Circuit) There are many examples of legal images of nude minors in the United States, for example, in books by Jock Sturges, David Hamilton, Sally Mann and Graham Ovenden, among others. An image of a minor depicts a "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area" when (1) the minor's genitals or pubic area are the focus of the image, (2) the setting of the depiction is sexually suggestive or a place where sexual activity generally takes place (like a bedroom); (3) the pose or attire of the minor is unnatural or inappropriate given the age of the minor; (4) part of the clothing of the minor is intentionally arranged so as to expose the crotch area; (5) the minor expresses a "come-on" look denoting a willingness to engage in sexual activity; or (6) the image is intended or designed to elicit a sexual response in the viewer. United States v. Dost. In United States v. Villard, the Third Circuit stated that "more than one factor must be present in order to establish lasciviousness." Villard and other cases suggest that whether an image is intended or designed to elicit a sexual response in the viewer should be determined from the intent of the photographer, never the viewer. In those few i mages on MET which may depict models who have not yet reached the age of 18 (there are no images of children posted here), we are extremely careful not to run afoul of these guidelines. You will find that all images on MET of models who are not yet 18 are tasteful and artistic, well within the bounds of legal propriety. In conclusion, you, the viewer, can rest assured that we have carefully reviewed the photographs we are posting -- not just to keep ourselves safe under the law, but to keep you safe as well.
MET Staff"

Now, Mr Douglas, considering the type of company you keep and your apparent willingness to find legal loopholes to help keep companies like these in business, why should be take anything you say here seriously?


Think about it. Too often it isn't about right or wrong, but about the company you keep.

Alex

[Bill]

The Cyber Safety Act For Kids has made it to BoingBoing...

http://www.boingboing.net/2006/03/17/new_bill_cyber_safet.html

"Senators Mark Pryor (D-AR), and Max Baucus, (D-MT) have proposed a bill that would require all commercial websites with material "harmful to minors" (in other words, sexually explicit content) to move to a .xxx domain within 6 months of this bill becoming law -- or face civil penalties. Under the terms of the proposed law, the US Commerce Department secretary would be required to develop a domain name for adult sites (presumably .xxx) with ICANN."

and

"Adult industry representatives say the bill if enacted would have a chilling effect on free speech. "This is constitutionally protected speech -- we're not talking about illegal content," said Tom Hymes, a spokesman for the Free Speech Coalition, the trade association representing the adult entertainment industry.

The proposal is an ineffective approach to the problem since many of the adult Web sites are based outside the country and the civil penalties would not apply to them, he said. Hymes said the companies would find ways to circumvent the new designation, including moving their operations offshore. Instead, he proposed setting up a .kids domain name for children-friendly content."

---

Two western democrats trying to out republican the rebublicans.

This is why the democratic party as a whole can say bye-bye to my donations.

Altho I will give money to one specific democratic challanger who has a decent chance of beating the asshole republican senator of my state.

[RawAlex]

Bill, as I mentioned at the zoo, congress had 160 new items on it's list on the 15th alone. The chance that this bill even makes it to a reading is fairly thin. It is written and at best introduced in order to show that they are "doin sumptin" about an issue that chruch going bible thumpers find close to their heart.

I would suspect that they are very much aware that the bill has absolutely no chance of getting passed (and reconciles with the house), and if so, they are also aware that it would likely get tied up in first amendment arguments for the next decade or so, much in the same way that Clinton era COPA laws are still circling around the bottom of the toilet bowl, but occassionally looking like they might resurface just long enough to remind us how stupid and misguided they really were.

Remember, Ashcroft actually had the balls (and brains) to push COPA back to the surpreme court to try to get another kick at the can, not to actually get it put into law, but to give the republicans another feather in their caps on the child protecting field.

It is, once again, a ploy, an attempt to both confuse the electorate and abuse the media with announcements of "potential" laws. Sadly, the media never makes it clear that these are only "stabs in the dark" with little or no potential of becoming law, but are instead reported as a sort of valium for the populace, a sedative for the collective soul.

Alex

[Bill]

Oh, I completely agree Alex, I don't really expect this particular bill to pass.

But, it's part of an ongoing assault which I think you would agree has very dangerous implications.

This is "Culture War" in action, and it's not likely to go away any time soon.

We have to be thinking long term. You've said you were considering retiring soon, which might make this less of a problem for you, but I'd like to be running my business for some time yet.

Not to mention, that this is just a part of the ongoing demolition of the U.S. constitution. That might seem like a done deal up in Canada, but down here I'd like to think we have some chance left to keep the constitution alive.

It sucks being an idealist.

[RawAlex]

Bill, I have retired from some of the parts of the business I was doing before. Newer rules have made some things less than productive. My Domain list has shrunk by 75% in 3 years. I am not retired, but I am certainly headed a different direction.

Underlying all the news releases, court challenges, laws, and "enforcement actions" going on is that there is apparently a shift in the shrillness of the extreme left on these issues, and they are winning the battle in many cases.

It isn't just porn on the net - it is everything from Janet's nipple to Roe v. Wade. They are pushing on many sides, and with the assistance of a numbnuts president and a now fairly conservative supreme court, I think they are feeling their oats and are going to push like mad in the next two years. They know all too well that they are looking at a likely shift in the house and senate next time around, and the President only has two years left... so they are bailing as fast as they can. It's working.

The FCC has leveled very large fines against CBS and others recently ( http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11847422/ ) and is moving to try to get more family oriented programming to be included in a la carte cable/sat programming choices. They have also talked about attempting to find ways to regulate cable and sat channels to be closer to the over the air rules.

It is a major, major shift, it has been coming for years, and it is actually good overall for the porn business (push us undergroun a bit, and we can charge more for the same thing, guilt tax, I guess). However, it will be painful for some people, as it will change business models and leave the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.

Alex

[Bill]

Alex, you said 'extreme left', is that what you meant?

I saw that bill as an attempt by the rural states to bully the urban states.

The us senate and electoral college overrepresents the rural states, giving them far more power to control lawmaking than their populations would ordinarily warrant.

This is a tactical advantage that the neocon movement has ruthlessly exploited, literally taking over the republican party, and fucking the traditional conservative republicans (like my father) up the ass by spending more money than ever before.

It's an attempt to bankrupt the federal government. They have explicitly stated that this is their intent - it's just that the average american can't read anymnore, so they don't know this stuff, they think this is all being done to protect them from the big bad terrorists.

---

But, to get back to the original topic, this latest bill is just a shot across the bows. Worse is coming.

[RawAlex]

Bill, the extremes are both end are getting more and more shrill, and they are clambering all over each other to take shots at the usual moral whipping boys (drugs, porn, booze, smokes, and sex in general). This attack happens to come from the democrats, but I am sure there are members of the republican party just wishing they had fired the shot first.

it won't pass, it isn't even going to get a real reading in the congress... but it is let another pointless sabre rattle in an off year election cycle.

Alex

[MonsterPartners]

The motion has been seconded & carried. I gladly accept this position....WHOA! Slow down a bit :D

What am I being nominated for?

From what Bill says, I don't think I want it either :D

Besides, if you threw me up there, I'd recommend that everything have a legit warning page, thus squashing every TGP & gallery maker's business model |couch|
Just out of curiosity. Do you believe that a warning page would ever stop a minor from cicking YES I'm OVER 18? I mean, they are stealing thier parents credit cards, what makes people think a warning page will stop them?

Don't get me wrong, I WANT minors to stay the hell out of viewing adult content. I just believe the FCC and many others are forgetting one thing...PARENTS...they should have a role in monitoring thier children.

The government can create a xxx or whatever. They can make us in the adult industry jump through hoops. They can take every single precaution available and it is STILL going to happen because parents are NOT doing their jobs.

I have kids and I have a 10 year old that loves spending time on the net. She has her own login to the computer. She has bookmarks of where she is allowed to go on the net.

She has a little book that she can write down the names of sites she has heard about from friends or TV. We check the sites out, if it is something we approve of, it is added to her list of approved sites and she is allowed to go there.

She is never allowed on the computer unless someone is in the room with her and actually glancing at her screen frequently to make sure everything is ok. She is not allowed a MySpace account, she is not allowed to have her own email address, nor is she allowed to have instant messaging or go to chat rooms. My older children went through the same rules and regulations when they were young. We taught them safe surfing, we took part in their online activities and we discussed the dangers of the internet. I see no difference between this and teaching your child how to drive safely or how to protect themselves when out with friends etc. It is part of the being a parent.

[DJilla]

Everybody should get behind .KID TLD which IMHO is the only way to address and encompass the ENTIRE range of kid safe content and surfing zones.

Maybe we should just start talking about who's going to RUN in the next elections at FSC. They'll be here next thing you know. Continue to wait around here and see if anybody from FSC follows up on the things we've asked for and communication we've requested in these various threads. If not, we'll hammer them in the elections. Get a roster together now and we can use the boards to develop electable momentum.

Don't forget.... you have to be a MEMBER to vote!

[RawAlex]

DJilla: At the end of the day, the FSC is a global umbrella organization that by it's very nature cannot and will not represent the needs of the online world unless those needs match those of the video industry. We are still the bastard children, and we don't have the power with them to make it work out.

If I understand correctly, the elections within FSC are only for a limited number of positions, and the rest are by appointment or by "representitives from various parts of the industry". Even if the online people outnumber the video members 3 to 1, there would be no way to vote a more online friendly board.

We truly need an "online porn" organization that could work with FSC on things, but that would come to the forefront on issues directly related to the online world.

.kids is an idea I have pushed in the past, I think it is a great idea, but it also may put an unrealistic burden on content neutral sites (such as dictionary.com or whatever) to have a duplicate site because kids often access their site for information. I think that in the end both .XXX and .KIDS are misleading, because they fail to address the simple point:

The internet (like all of the world) is an adult place, and children are only safe when protected by their parents or guardians. It is a fact of the real world, and a fact of the net as well. Parents must take their responsilbities for how their children behave.

Alex

[Chop Smith]

... We truly need an "online porn" organization that could work with FSC on things, but that would come to the forefront on issues directly related to the online world. ...

Does such an organization exist? If so let's support it. If not, then let's form one and make it work.

I think it is past time to shut up with a bunch of opinions and take some actions. How many threads have been started on this and how many retained their focus on the subject? Most often it ends up with bashing my government and my President. Yes since I am an American, Bush is my President for a few more years.

Speaking of opinions, Tommy came to the board with an ideal and some of the folks here with more opinions than assholes hijacked his thread and Tommy retrieved. I see that as a great lost to this cause - a respected member of the online community with a good ideal and because some folks had extra time on their hand he probably said 'bull shit let the sky fall."

[Surfn]

Does such an organization exist? If so let's support it. If not, then let's form one and make it work.

I think it is past time to shut up with a bunch of opinions and take some actions. How many threads have been started on this and how many retained their focus on the subject? Most often it ends up with bashing my government and my President. Yes since I am an American, Bush is my President for a few more years.

Speaking of opinions, Tommy came to the board with an ideal and some of the folks here with more opinions than assholes hijacked his thread and Tommy retrieved. I see that as a great lost to this cause - a respected member of the online community with a good ideal and because some folks had extra time on their hand he probably said 'bull shit let the sky fall."
Good point |thumb

[Greenguy]

Just out of curiosity. Do you believe that a warning page would ever stop a minor from cicking YES I'm OVER 18? I mean, they are stealing thier parents credit cards, what makes people think a warning page will stop them?...It's called a "good faith effort" & is strongly backed by the ASACP. Short of driving from house to house & patrolling what kids surf on my own, it's the best thing I can do for my business model.

[RawAlex]

Chop, my feeling is that there is no such "just online" organization out there at this point. We have spent near 10 years as a group of rugged individualists that have little or no respect for the rules, and as a result, trying to get people together was like herding cats in a zero gravity catnip field. It was rare to find two people who could agree on anything.

Now the online industry has matured some, the more cowboy mentality people have either moved on, gone broke, or are currently facing the courts - and now many of us can agree on many subjects.

FSC is a good organization that in a sense represents all of the porn industry's interests. However, because the online people are not very organized, the video world's view of the various issues is usually what comes out on top.

I don't have an answer, but I sure do have some questions :)

Alex

[karomesis]

It's called a "good faith effort" & is strongly backed by the ASACP. Short of driving from house to house & patrolling what kids surf on my own, it's the best thing I can do for my business model.


Greenguy, If everyone in the industry performed similar acts, what is to stop them from requiring more and more and more after that? Then they might say your warning page needs to be in multiple languages like spanish as well, if concessions are made they will never stop making more demands of the industry as a whole until we are left making 5 baziliion concessions because they keep demanding more and more, Thus wasting all our time to please the conservatives and less and less time making the sales and business connections so vital to the industries continued success.

I don't mean to lecture you on the topic, because I am extremely new to the biz and I know you have been in it for 10+ years. So I guess I should ask you, in your experience in the biz, how many concessions have you seen from the adult industry to no avail? Is it true they will never be happy with what we do to help them protect their children?

I can speak as a person who a few years ago was a fundamental baptist, the most vicious form of conservatives you could possibly imagine, women are frowned upon for wearing pants|shocking| In the end, it is groups similar to these that must be appeased, and I know they will never be happy with the adult biz, they will always look for an excuse to make more demands until we are desitute. Now it is the ever so propular "protect the children" ploy, and they will milk it for all it's worth, as will the sonsofbitches politicians who |bow| to their demands for political power.

[Chop Smith]

Damn good reply, Alex.

I was not around for the "wild west" days. I hope I am wrong but that "rugged individualists" attitude is going to be the downfall of the adult webmasters. Oh, we will blame it on the government but the real reason will be because we did not organize. And how many times have I heard that 'I don't want so and so to know what I do." This keeps many folks from wanting to be a part of an organization especially in a leadership role.

Bottom line is I don't think you will see a functioning Webmasters' Association. However, should it happen I will carry my financial share of the load. Get it organized and I will call Trent Lott and Thad Crochran and remind them of some of the good ole days went we whored around.

Listening to the news, I am not sure if much has changed since the days that my dad was a lobbist. Back then I learned that a suitcase of cash, a few whores and a camera to refresh memories when necessary would bring power plants to Mississippi.

As you, I think I know the plan of action to take and will be happy to outline it. Will my plan be the one acted on? No and yours will not be either. First we have to agree we are heading for the same goal and be prepared to accept an overall plan. Right now everyone is scattering bird shots. The goal is not defined and the leaders we need are still on the side line.

LOL, I am not even sure that this rant is in the right thread.

[Chop Smith]

|buddy| what is so hard to understand about warning pages? It is not what you are dictated to do. It is not even about right or wrong. Well maybe it is the right thing to do but the by-product is when your ass is on the carpet, you can say "I did everything in my power to let your child know that I did not want him in my site. Now go take some parenting classes"

I can speak as a person who a few years ago was a fundamental baptist, the most vicious form of conservatives you could possibly imagine, women are frowned upon for wearing pants|shocking| In the end, it is groups similar to these that must be appeased, and I know they will never be happy with the adult biz, they will always look for an excuse to make more demands until we are desitute. Now it is the ever so propular "protect the children" ploy, and they will milk it for all it's worth, as will the sonsofbitches politicians who |bow| to their demands for political power.

Send Useless Warrior and me to lobby for you. We do tend to speak our minds. Once we call 535 politicians cocksuckers, you will all be out of business. Your religion and your political party has little to do with this. For example, my brother is an ordain baptist minister and was once the head of the Republican Party in my county. Guess what, that sucker likes sex as much as his little brother and yes he knows what I do.

"A fundamental baptist, the most vicious form of conservatives you could possibly imagine" and "sonsofbitches politicians?" This is like trash talking before a ball game and then getting your ass handed to you after the game. Do they know who says what just because you are hiding out under an alias. Hell yeah, if they don't they can hire someone like Linkster to track you down.

Tell you what. You call Greenguy a low life link list owner and them ask him to list your stuff. I contact him and ask to be listed and ask in return what I can do for him. I think I would have an edge just because I never trash talked him.

Yes, it is time for me to STFU and get productive. The baby needs shoes and you are not going to hire me as your lobbist. Therefore, I need to go find something to submit to GG.

[Greenguy]

...I don't mean to lecture you on the topic, because I am extremely new to the biz and I know you have been in it for 10+ years. So I guess I should ask you, in your experience in the biz, how many concessions have you seen from the adult industry to no avail? Is it true they will never be happy with what we do to help them protect their children? ....Concessions? I honestly can't think of anything that has been put into place where legit online webmasters had to change their sites, including the new 2257, which is not yet a law.

The "good faith effort" has been a part of my business plan for as long as I can remember. I'm just a Link List & Free Site guy & both of those have warning pages. This way of making sites is not new to me & it's not like we're being told that we have to have warning pages, it's being suggested by a lot of people in the industry that it's a good idea to have them.

[RawAlex]

Chop, you have to say it right: "Excuse me sir, you are a cocksucker sir, thank you sir". The rest is fluff :)

Alex

[karomesis]

It is not even about right or wrong. Well maybe it is the right thing to do but the by-product is when your ass is on the carpet, you can say "I did everything in my power to let your child know that I did not want him in my site. Now go take some parenting classes"

Yes, but there are a million things which do far more damage to children than the evil and sinister world of online porn. It's similar to the drug war on cannabis, not one fatality has EVER been attributed to it, yet they put people in prison for long terms for it, some of whom won't get out of prison until cars hover like the jetsons.

Wht I was saying is that it will never be enough. Even if the industry mandates warning pages and such, what will be next? and so on.


Send Useless Warrior and me to lobby for you. We do tend to speak our minds. Once we call 535 politicians cocksuckers, you will all be out of business.

If you were actually sent to lobby what would be your first plan of action? Seriously.

Concessions? I honestly can't think of anything that has been put into place where legit online webmasters had to change their sites, including the new 2257, which is not yet a law.


I stand corrected, I guess I was wrong.

Greenguy, are you confident that if we did mandate the warning pages that it would stop them from asking for more? If so, then I think it's a great idea, and Hopefully you're right.

[Chop Smith]

If you were actually sent to lobby what would be your first plan of action? Seriously.

Straight up answer. I don't need money bad enough to stoop that low. I spend most of my life and three of my five years of college being prepped to be one of those 'sonsofbitches politicians' to become heir to a good ole boy position.

If the question is what would I do to fight the battle?

Determine which animal you need -donkey or elephant. Since the Republicans are in power, I would locate the lobbying firm that is headed by the most conservative Souther Baptist in Washington. It would probably be the old Haley Barber firm and since I know he still owns it, I would get Trent Lott to speak to him first. From there you just have to do what you are told. They will tell you how much it cost to trap a bill in committee or how to keep a suit off the court docket.

Could I afford to do the above. No and I have not seen the FSC's financials but I doubt they can afford it either.

BTW, has anyone ever researched the admin expenses of FSC?

[Bill]

BTW, has anyone ever researched the admin expenses of FSC?

Studying the FSC is one of the things I put on the top of my list of things to do, in this conversation I had going on about that a month ago.

It's why I said we needed a point man in the first place, to go to meetings and report back to us what the inner workings and discussions about finances were. Direct information rather than the massaged information usually given to members and outsiders.

I've been studying the question a bit, it looks like most organizations like this have about a 30% overhead. It can probably be done for less, but not all that much less.

[Chop Smith]

Not that Greenguy needs to justify his positions on warning pages, but here is some petty good reading for those that do not get xbiz. http://xbiz.com/news_piece.php?id=13995

[Greenguy]

...Greenguy, are you confident that if we did mandate the warning pages that it would stop them from asking for more? If so, then I think it's a great idea, and Hopefully you're right.I don't think you get what I'm saying. I've used warning pages for as long as I can remember. They make sense to me. I think I started using them in 97, but the oldest pages I can find in the waybackmachine is January 98:
http://web.archive.org/web/19980128010744/http://link-o-rama.com/
(ugh - what was I thinking - LOL)

Maybe try to think of it this way - if a local adult store had ads in the windows depicting hardcore sex & the door was open & there were no signs posted that it was an adults only store, would that fly?

[DJilla]

DJilla: At the end of the day, the FSC is a global umbrella organization that by it's very nature cannot and will not represent the needs of the online world unless those needs match those of the video industry. We are still the bastard children, and we don't have the power with them to make it work out.

If I understand correctly, the elections within FSC are only for a limited number of positions, and the rest are by appointment or by "representitives from various parts of the industry". Even if the online people outnumber the video members 3 to 1, there would be no way to vote a more online friendly board.

We truly need an "online porn" organization that could work with FSC on things, but that would come to the forefront on issues directly related to the online world.

.kids is an idea I have pushed in the past, I think it is a great idea, but it also may put an unrealistic burden on content neutral sites (such as dictionary.com or whatever) to have a duplicate site because kids often access their site for information. I think that in the end both .XXX and .KIDS are misleading, because they fail to address the simple point:

Alex

As usual I generally agree with your post. But from my perspective, I usually take the slow and plodding path towards success. Influence, control, acheievement is usualy made in increments and baby steps.
I've always found that it is easier to take over and turn around an existing entity, business, social group, etc. rather than reinvent a brand new one. FSC has done alot of the advance work and I think we could become a major factor within it over time. First step is to truly have someone on the inside. Even if he/she/they were initially ignored (which I really wonder about, maybe not) there is a path that can build with pressure. Again, I point out IMHO video stores/sales are dead, they just don't know it. Electronic delivery is inevitable and that's our domain (pun intended). We also could potentially muster a PR/news delivery system that would dwarf their current mainstream efforts. Starting a new org would be cool and why not? But again IMHO it would be way behind the curve and probably take much longer to come up to speed than we have to address the present issues. Best yet, do both|thumb.

Re: .kid, Having given this a lot of thought my strategy is first, this is something that we and the FSC can already agree on and a unifier. Second, regardless of the realities of parental responsibility, we HAVE to give parents something to work with. Third, it takes the pressure off us and puts it on filters, search, etc! Fourth, I think a .kid domain would turn out to be something truly wonderful. Finally, I don't give a whit about content neutral sites who might have to create duplicate sites. Too bad, |verysad comes with the teritory of the changing electronic frontier.

That still leaves the problem of warning pages. Naw, I can't imagine they stop anyone in their tracks with guilt or fear. But I use em and with the combo of .kid it puts the onus on "supervision" and not us.

Bottom line, I'll support everything those who are far more experienced than I say is a good idea.

[Chop Smith]

Did not want to start another thead but thought this was related to this one.

I was working on my2257records today and a light went on. Let's say that congress does pass some of the things they are considering, will it put the US adult webmasters out of business and open it wide for other webmasters in other countries.

For example, if congress requires age verification before hardcore images can be viewed the likely solution will be to have a one time charge paid with a credit card. Even, if the charge is $5 will surfers pay it to view US sites if they view UK sites free without age verification?

[RawAlex]

Chop, that is one of the difficulties in all of this. The US senators do not realize that when it comes to the internet, they are but the tail attempting to wag the dog. They can apply certain means to force the issue, but at the end of the day, free porn will move offshore, membership porn will remain in the US, and nothing will have changed except who is cashing the checks.

They are still thinking in terms of magazines sold in stores. They don't realize that it is as easy (and really transparent) for an end user to get free porn from where ever it comes from. It doesn't become a longer wlak to the store or perhaps having to drive over state lines, but rather a click of the mouse that gets the same result, albeit from a different source.

One of the reasons they are split on the .XXX thing for sure is I think many lawmakers are worried about creating any legitimacy for porn at all. It is the same reason none of them are running out to tax porn. Anything like that would mean they would have to accept porn as real and legal. That isn't in the cards.

I think the next couple of years are going to be filled mostly with unenforcable laws, court challenges, constitutional challenges, and election year grand standing.

Remember too, that the numbers typically don't lie. Even conservatives know that a large majority of americans have viewed one or more porn movies, and a good percentage surf, view, or rent adult material. While many people are too shy to admit it, taking their candy away from them would piss them off come voting time. Conservatives know this, and as a result, rather than attacking porn head on, they are trying the end run "zoning law" style attempts to put the hurt on the industry. It is funny as hell to watch them go at it.

Alex

[SirMoby]

For example, if congress requires age verification before hardcore images can be viewed the likely solution will be to have a one time charge paid with a credit card. Even, if the charge is $5 will surfers pay it to view US sites if they view UK sites free without age verification?
Also remember that some First Amendment lawyers are trying to patent their own age verification system that does not require any credit card processing. It's based on the honor system which obviously is silly but if they can get it passed then they'll make a killing since they'll have the patent.

[Chop Smith]

Damn lawyers! Wonder what would happen if a broken down old cpa and a few webmasters did one for free?

[Bill]

That's a concept Chop, I suggested something like that when that lawyer first published on his 'patent pending' system.

At the time I think I was thinking about using a form button with a radio check spot (or whatever it is that those form do-hickeys are called) as the way to get into a free site, so the person has to check a button saying they read the rules and agreed to them before they could enter.

the problem with that is that linklists wouldn't currently accept that type of entry.

However, planning it out so that we were ready to use it the day after the verification crackdown happened might be smart.

[Chop Smith]

Bill, I missed the patent pending deal. Can you point me to it?

[Bill]

I'll have to hunt it down Chop, and I'm not even sure where to start - but my memory of it was that this one fairly well known adult lawyer type said he had invented a javascript tool that worked as a legally viable age verification, and that he had submitted it for a patent, thus I called it "patent pending".

The tool required that a visitor enter his birthdate into a field before entry was allowed. The logic was that the birthdate was part of the current legal method of establishing identity (name and date of birth), and therefore was an acceptable way to anonymously collect a unique agreement to be bound by the rules for entry.

If he was sucessful at getting a patent, that should mean no-one can use an age verification scheme that uses a bithdate identifier without paying him a fee.

So, I was playing with ideas that didn't rely on that patent's concept.

I'll look thru my bookmarks and see if I have it somewhere.

[Bill]

Okay, I haven't found the original article in which he claimed to have filed a patent application (according to my memory of the article), but this is the tool thingy.

It was Larry Walters, and here's the link to his demo website, which looks exactly the same as the first time i saw it:

http://www.birthdateverifier.com/details.html

[RawAlex]

Javascript? There is a nice 1997 idea.

I wonder if Budweiser and other beer companies know about this product.

Alex

[RawAlex]

http://budweiser.com/

Interesting.

Alex

[walrus]

I'll be damned the dude really does have a patent (# 6,959,861) for having someone enter their birthdate, calculating against todays date, entering a name (digitally signing) and storing that information along with the IP address.

Budweiser must be getting around the patent issue since you don't digitally sign for their age verification.

And this is somehow better than a warning page?

[Toby]

...And this is somehow better than a warning page?I guess the legal basis would be that anyone entering that isn't over 18/21 would have falsified their DOB to gain access. Basically a higher level of CYA than a simple warning page. This also requires that scripting is in place to make sure anyone entering the site via another page is redirected to the entry page.

Higher CYA yes, but at quite a price. It's search engine suicide, since spiders will only be able to see the entry page.

[RawAlex]

Walrus, probably the reverse - bud has had that on their site for as long as I can remember (more than 5 years I am sure). Me thinks that not everything that has a patent pending is in fact, well, original.

Alex

[Chop Smith]

Credit card or driver license seems to be the ticket for age verification with driver license being the best. Found this site (http://urbanlegends.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.license.shorturl.com/)while researching driver license verification.

[Simon]

http://budweiser.com/

I guess they don't test for the Mac platform.

I see this at the top of their index page in Safari and in Firefox:
=0)document.write(unescape('%3C')+'\!-'+'-') //-->
<!------------------------------------------------------>

The real problem is shown in the screenshot below, which shows Budeweiser's entry page with no way to enter for Mac users surfing with Safari, the standard browser on the Mac platform. Not just nowhere to enter or choose a birthdate, but absolutely not one clickable thing on the entire page.

I see this all the time with sites that aren't careful about making sure their Javascript works in all browsers on all platforms, and that don't 'sniff' for browsers they don't support so they can supply an alternate way to enter.

If it's important, I may keep switching browsers until I find one I can use to enter (like Firefox in this case). But sometime it's just "off to the next site" rather that trying to use a site that many have more problems for me just waiting inside.

Mac users are a small segment of total Internet users, that's true. But it's just sloppy coding to completely lock your front door so someone can't get in at all.


Simon

P.S. Yeah, I'm letting them know.

[Surfn]

I guess they don't test for the Mac platform.

I see this at the top of their index page in Safari and in Firefox:
=0)document.write(unescape('%3C')+'\!-'+'-') //-->
<!------------------------------------------------------>

The real problem is shown in the screenshot below, which shows Budeweiser's entry page with no way to enter for Mac users surfing with Safari, the standard browser on the Mac platform. Not just nowhere to enter or choose a birthdate, but absolutely not one clickable thing on the entire page.

I see this all the time with sites that aren't careful about making sure their Javascript works in all browsers on all platforms, and that don't 'sniff' for browsers they don't support so they can supply an alternate way to enter.

If it's important, I may keep switching browsers until I find one I can use to enter (like Firefox in this case). But sometime it's just "off to the next site" rather that trying to use a site that many have more problems for me just waiting inside.

Mac users are a small segment of total Internet users, that's true. But it's just sloppy coding to completely lock your front door so someone can't get in at all.


Simon

P.S. Yeah, I'm letting them know.
Who cares about you insignificant Apple surfers anyway? :D

[Simon]

Who cares about you insignificant Apple surfers anyway? :D
Anyone who doesn't want their Apple/Mac surfers, please feel free to make a big old link saying "Free XXX Porn for Mac Users" and send them to any of my sites. :D

There aren't that many of us, true, but I don't think I know one without a credit card, or a healthy pre-disposition to spend more money than they probably should on things they think are cool.

The trick is just to make them think your porn is cool. :)

But you know that already. |thumb

[SirMoby]

Anyone who doesn't want their Apple/Mac surfers, please feel free to make a big old link saying "Free XXX Porn for Mac Users" and send them to any of my sites. :D

There aren't that many of us, true, but I don't think I know one without a credit card, or a healthy pre-disposition to spend more money than they probably should on things they think are cool.

The trick is just to make them think your porn is cool. :)

But you know that already. |thumb
Do you think that Mac users are the type of people that drink Budweiser? Mac users probably don't even drink beer and instead drink colorful liquids filled with umbrellas through little straws. Certainly they don't drink anything that's hauled around by horses :)

Your comments do make me wonder why Apple doesn't fix that problem :)

[Simon]

Sure, they drink Bud... 'cause they think the Budweiser commercials, including the Clydesdales, are cool. |thumb

(Plus, if you don't drink Bud, the terrorists have already won.)

Not sure which problem you wanted Apple to fix though. Was it the amazingly strong brand loyalty or the willingness to pay a higher price that you thought needed attention..? :D

[docholly]

Credit card or driver license seems to be the ticket for age verification with driver license being the best. Found this site (http://urbanlegends.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.license.shorturl.com/)while researching driver license verification.

WTF??? Now anyone can find if you have a valid license or not? and I hate that picture they have of me.. my hair wasn't even freaking brushed that day.. and the minimum wage photographer wouldn't let me fix it. |angry|

******back on the subject at hand so to speak********

i had a dream last night that somehow we held an election and GG was elected to represent us in the Porn Congress. It was really kind of a weird dream.

[SirMoby]

Not sure which problem you wanted Apple to fix though. Was it the amazingly strong brand loyalty or the willingness to pay a higher price that you thought needed attention..? :D
You mentioned a problem with Safari "the standard browser on the Mac platform". Shouldn't Apple fix it so that it displays these web pages?

[Chop Smith]

i had a dream last night that somehow we held an election and GG was elected to represent us in the Porn Congress. It was really kind of a weird dream.

Was it wet?

[Simon]

Shouldn't Apple fix it so that it displays these web pages?
I haven't taken a close look at the rare JS codes that don't work on Safari, but every other display glitch I've seen happens because Safari is unforgiving of bad code. There is no "quirks" mode. They're really trying to stay as standards-compliant as possible with Safari's upgrades. For internal development we test on a wide suite of browsers, but I like how Safari will not 'forgive' anything and will show me bad code right away.

(I think we're hijacking this thread...wasn't my intent.) :)

[RawAlex]

Actually, this is pretty funny: The reasons that the bud site don't work is the reason why a java or user end script style system is not a functional idea for protecting both minors and free speech - it often doesn't work exactly right.

Re-writing huge numbers of websites and pages to check a script for login status at every turn is going to require much more server horsepower (imaging every gallery hit from the hun having to run a php session cookie... yowsa!) and very likely small errors will creep in that will either disable pages or block client access without reason.

Assume for a minute that the population of the US is exactly evenly spread over the age groups (it isn't because of the baby boomers, but we wil play nice). Let us also assume that the only people under 18 with unrestricted and unmonitored web access are over 12 years of age.

Let's say everyone over 72 doesn't surf the web at all.

60 year time frame. 12-13-14-15-16-17 are all unacceptable ages to view porn. 6 out of 60 years, or 10% of the potential surfers are not legally allowed to view porn. Walters (and many other) idea is to make a system that enforces special rules on 90% of the people, and on top of it won't stop the other 10% from lying and seeing porn anyway.

Let's take this a little further. Average gallery type por surfer maybe visits 50 pages on his way around on any day. Average underage surfer is sneaking over to see porn when nobody is looking, maybe looks at 25 pages. So now you are also looking at only 50% page views by 10% of the population... so now you are going to make a big system to control 95% of your total page views to protect 5% of the page views....

... and that is without considering the effects that this sort of system would have on search engine rankings, traffic flow patterns, and such. Most current browsers (way more than 95%, I am sure) have parental controls built in already. Make page labelling manditory, make the fines for not labelling adult material to be very high, and the issue resolves itself ongoing. Then nobody has to make major ongoing and endless efforts to cotrol 5% of page views while pissing off the 95% that are from valid and acceptable clients.

As a side note, I am confident that the number there is far below 5%... I would suspect that number to be closer to 1-2%, as I suspect most minors are obtaining porn from downloads, file trading, picture hosts, friends, and other "non-industry" sources.

Defining the problem and refining the message based on who really is affected by change is important.

Alex

[Chop Smith]

Alex, not that it makes in difference but I pretty much agree with everything you said. Do you have the mailing list to members of congress so you can convince them to agree? They will probably listen to you since you are from another country.

From my stand point, I will still continue to look for a way to the catch the sky when congress starts it falling.

[RawAlex]

Chop, I understand - I just think that congress and the media have come together to make it sound like our industry spends it's entire life marketing to minors. They make it sound like most everyone looking at porn is underage (and they also try to imply that most of the models are underage as well... but that fails the stink test so they rarely go there).

The reality of the porn industry is that minor's access to porn is likely on the same level as their consumption of beer, smoking of cheap weed, and significantly less than the number that engage in sex before 18.

The industry hasn't spent any time at all trying to dig itself out of the hole that was dug for it in this regard. As a result, when someone ends up in front of congress, there is no information out there that says any different.

Alex