2257 - Im about to be real unpopular!

[Linkster]

I've been sitting back reading through everything thats been posted for the last few days - and some posts on other boards - as well as looking back at some history of different fights that have taken place over the years I've been involved in the biz (both the internet and way before in the BBS biz)

I've started to form an understanding of peoples desires and wants as well as the reality of the situation that really has been facing the internet biz for some time - and the ease at which we have been able to conduct business without interference from external forces for so long.

For those that think I'm "caving in" - don't - I'm always going to be one of the strongest advocates of the perception of free speech and constitutional rights as I have been all of my life.

First off - some facts - the FSC is a "trade association" as posted in their "about us" page - not a free speech advocate of all the people - but an organization formed to (in their vision statement) "... a national association that helps limit the legal risks of being an adult business, increases the profitability of its members, promotes the acceptance of the industry in America's business community, and supports greater public tolerance for freedom of sexual speech".

Basically their history is one of trying to band together the mom and pop video shops and clubs in different locations and then as they grew - to take on the internet industry as part of their efforts.

They are not - by a long shot - an ACLU or EFF trying to protect all people on the planet - and basically in my eyes - I see them as a group of well-intentioned people that are trying to do something the adult industry has tried to do in the past - to build an "adult internet webmasters guild" that is protected yet supports the different endeavors of all of the members. In doing so - do they alienate anyone that thinks that they should also be protected yet doesnt want to be a member of their "guild"? In some cases - yes - but then that is a personal choice every business person has to make - do they want to further the idea of a "professional organization" in this industry or be just a bunch of people that casually know each other and do everything in sort of a "associated by job" way?

I was reminded by a friend (Lensman - from another place and time) that we were all up in arms over a patent on video streaming a while back - and a few of us threw in a bunch of money - and kind of sat back and hoped the problem went away - some of the industry folded in to the demands, while others (like my friend) still are spending their money to fight that battle - and yet we sit back and think that everything is donw and finished and I'd be willing to bet 85% of the WMs here havent even given it a second thought in the last year.

Which brings me to my last and more direct thoughts of this whole scenario - first off - I think their is a lot of confusion embedded inthis whole topic because of the name of the organization that is out there putting money on the line with lawyers - they are not a "peoples" representative like the ACLU or even an "internet free speech" organization like the EFF - they are trying to organize the adult industry - and just the adult industry into a voice (one voice together) that can actually have a chance at fighting things like this that will be thrown at adult WMs, performers, distributors, movie houses, toy stores etc. for years to come - not just this one little fight that probably doesnt have a chance in hell - but all of the good fights.
I am reminded of a book - American Justice - which chronicles Larry Flynts battles on many fronts over the years in his one-man attempt to fight the injustices against the 1st amendment - and after listening to the man in person I have never seen or heard someone that touched me more - and he is still at it - recently in the Iraq war going up against the defense dept for not letting him out on the battlefield to report - and over the 25 years he's been fighting this fight - its been his money - not an organization or any support groups - just because of his personal conviction.

Back to the current battle - we (in my opinion) will all benefit in the long run from some sort of collaboration of WMs and other adult producers - and it looks like the DOJ has forced our hand to decide if its now or not - and the only thing I see out there is one organization that has stepped forward - if someone else has another org in mind or another way to fight the battle (of course remembering that it costs money to do that in this world of lawyers) than please post away and Ill listen

On the question of fairness for coverage of just members of the FSC - since I now understand what they are trying to do in the "big picture" is it fair to ask lawyers to go out and fight our battle with no pay? Would you go and join a sponsor and tell them that you'll just sell their sites for free just cause ya like them?

[Bill]

Linkster, man, could you summarize again what you are trying to say?

Sounds like you are saying support FSC as it's the closest thing to an adult business association we got...

Which I basically agree with. We gotta snap their chain a bit to make sure they adapt to the internet more, but besides the aclu, which is a reactive organization, the only tool we got is the FSC.

[juggernaut]

Well I went a joined today. After I read their laywer state that he could only recommend strongly that people join the FSC I figured something was up. I don't agree with what the government is doing. I do agree with Linkster in that there has to be someone willing to stand up and fight the fight united. If it means me sending them $300 bucks so I can at least give this business all I got and try to make something work while they fight in court, then its cheap to the cost. I joined for selfish reasons but that is all I can join for. If I wanted to be involved with them for any other reason I would just work for them for free. I stream video. I can not record the stream and from what I read can still be searched. Unless that has changed in the last 3 hours I was no home. The only thing is in order for them to search me they have to go threw the FSC first. I look at it kind of like having laywer or bodyguard who will try to keep people away from me so I can work. Just my thoughts. Good read Link...

[koolkat]

I understand where you are coming from Linkster, and I somewhat understand the FSC's position, but when you (the FSC) make claims about the entire adult industry, then you should certainly include the entire adult industry in you barganing agreements.

I was seriously considering joining up until today because I understand lawyers don't work for free. My wife and I had already talked about it, and were ready to add our site, but after seeing how they handled the situation, and are handling it after the situation (hurry up and join before it is too late), that was the straw which broke the camel's back! I also think their fees are a little excessive considering that there are a lot of webmaster which run multiple sites. I for one would have about $2400 in membership fees just to be covered by their deal. To be honest... on most of the sites I don't make shit off of, so technically, I am promoting most of their content for free

[ardentgent]

Linkster, I commend you for your post and the courage to make it in the face of a lot of anger directed at the FSC.

Like you said , they are a trade organization and their first loyaltyl has to be to their members. With a hearing on a TRO set for August 8th thay did what they could for their members it seems to me. I am not a lawyers, but it seems to me that from a legal standpoint they could not advocate for others as the suit was styled the FSC v. Gonzalez.

[EmporerEJ]

Originally Posted by koolkat

I understand where you are coming from Linkster, and I somewhat understand the FSC's position, but when you (the FSC) make claims about the entire adult industry, then you should certainly include the entire adult industry in you barganing agreements.

I was seriously considering joining up until today because I understand lawyers don't work for free. My wife and I had already talked about it, and were ready to add our site, but after seeing how they handled the situation, and are handling it after the situation (hurry up and join before it is too late), that was the straw which broke the camel's back! I also think their fees are a little excessive considering that there are a lot of webmaster which run multiple sites. I for one would have about $2400 in membership fees just to be covered by their deal. To be honest... on most of the sites I don't make shit off of, so technically, I am promoting most of their content for free

Yes, the fee structure is a bit draconian.

[MrYum]

Linkster...I had promised myself to stay out of these 2257 threads for a multitude of reasons. But, your post demanded a response...more and more repect for you every day man

I really think you hit all the salient points...especially in that the FSC is a trade organization...not necessarily a free speech organization. AND they are the ones stepping up and fighting. That fight takes money...this time...and the NEXT time. This is our opportunity to make that trade organization stronger for future battles as well...and we all know there will be future battles.

On the subject of fees, yes their fee structure is a freakin mess...which I've told them on the phone. However, IF you call them and explain what your business is...in most cases, you DO NOT have to pay $300 per site. I paid the $300 and was later told that it was too much...even though I own 60+ domains. The FSC offered to refund $200 of my membership fees...I told them to keep the money to support the cause.

Look, I know a lot of folks are very upset about this new wrinkle. But the FSC is an established organization that has retained some of the hot shot attorneys in our field. And they are stepping up to the plate to fight the fight. The more members they have...the more clout they have...the more credibilty they have and the stronger they are.

Honestly, I do wish the deal had covered everyone. While I rather doubt the DOJ will go after anyone while this is brewing...I still hope the FSC's phones are ringing off the fuckin hook. I for one want that organization to be as strong and solvent as possible.

Okay...that's my little piece...time to get out of these threads again...

[Linkster]

KoolKat - i think there is a big misunderstanding (mostly brought on my the webpage forms from the FSC) generated that I am just starting o understand now - I had even posted on another board that with the sites I have out there, my fee to join would be close to $540,000 - however I was told by many people who called and asked abou the per-site deal on the form and they were all told the same thing - it could be as little as $100 for your whole stable of sites - or as much as $300 Total - not per site - that per-site price is a evidently the old forms makers misunderstanding of the biz showing though

As far as my first post - just so that there isnt a misunderstanding - I have (after I made that post) faxed in my application and just kinda sitting back reflecting on a lot of things for the rest of the night - think I'll take a break from using my brain and watch some old Law and Order re-runs LOL

[juggernaut]

When I signed up today on the phone. The lady really did not know what to charge me. She wanted to charge me $50 I told her "I am at your site now, I go to sign up not as a corp or inc. But as and Individual after I chose that it takes me to choose my job. I put in webmaster. It cost $300 bucks. I want that membership." She took my info. I only have 1 pay site so thats all i told her. I dont know if you have to pay that for each and every site. She told me I would receive my membership in the mail with in the next 9 days to 2 weeks.

[RawAlex]

I posted.

I removed it.

My parents taught me when you have nothing good to say, say nothing.

I will say nothing.

Alex

[Chop Smith]

I commend the FSC for getting the best deal for their membership. Sure nothing wrong with that. However, there is a hell of lots wrong with DOJ cutting a deal with a special interest group and leaving the remainder of an entire industry out of the deal. They are no better than big Bubba, the cop, stopping a black man going down the interstate because Bubba is sure that the black man does not belong to the KKK.

BTW, before some asshole jumps to the conclusion that I want to ride free on FSC's membership, check around the community. I am always willing to join my fellow webmasters in their join endevors and pay my share of the cost. My opinion is based on a matter of principles that caused me to be very unpopular in the 60s.

And Linkster your post sure would not make you unpopular with me.

[Kinky]

great post Linkster... could not have said it better myself

[domweb]

Originally Posted by Chop Smith

And Linkster your post sure would not make you unpopular with me.

Ditto. You have make cogent and intelligent arguments for your position and considered the consequences in a reasoned manner. Far better than the "shut up and pay" shouting that has been going on from most of the people who have been the FSC cheerleaders lately.

So I take a minor stand on principle and don't join. That means a majority of my adult enterprises are now pulled.

But I feel better about losing money on principle than buckling under to 'protection' from the FSC. If their fee's realy AREN'T $300 oer site...then that should have been presented earlier.

The whole thing is making me write checks to the ACLU and EFF though. Guess some good comes of it.

[Lemmy]

By "brokering a deal" with the DoJ the FSC has just sent a very clear message to the authorities that our industry will never stand together; everyone is to busy watching their own backs.

If it's wrong of the DoJ to cut deals with special interest groups, then it's just as wrong for the special interest group to accept it.

By choosing an IMO immoral solution to an immoral problem the FSC proves to me that they don't have the best interest of the industry (which they claim to be a trade organization for) in mind, but are just regular hired guns.

[Mr. Blue]

Firstly, an intelligent discussion on a topic would never lessen my opinion of anyone. You've presented very good well thought out arguments Linkster and no one in their right mind would think less of you for it

I think the area that I do have a problem with is that the ACLU saw an organization like the FSC fighting this fight and decided to sit on the sidelines. I still would have rather the ACLU handling this...personal opinion on this matter, but I would rather have someone that went for the jugular on the first attack rather than basically get a delayed action. 2257 would never stand a court challenge and I can see one or two things happening in this time of delay:

1. Webmasters deciding they don't have to be compliant at all...even with the old regs.

or

2. A few more months of hysteria, board panics, and a million hearsay comments on this topic...basically leading to some people getting bitchslapped for being nuts.

[docholly]

ah linkster, that's what makes all of us unique.. that we can agree to disagree...

i do think that the aclu, with their clout, and their wins with COPA, they could tie this all in and have a major 1st amendment case. especially since it's trying to regulate the 'world' wide web.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

i def. think my constitutional rights have been impared. |blowkiss| |linkster

[Jim]

This is why I say we need someone to work for all of us. We need a real lobbyist.

[Jim]

As it is now, we have to wait for someone to get in trouble for the ACLU to step in. We need someone to make sure nothing happens. But I have no idea where to start in finding one to represent us.

[Linkster]

Originally Posted by Bill

Sounds like you are saying support FSC as it's the closest thing to an adult business association we got...

Which I basically agree with. We gotta snap their chain a bit to make sure they adapt to the internet more

Bill - and everyone actually - that is the primary point I was trying to make - they are the only ones that have come along and said - lets try this the way other biz organizations have done it successfully in the past - while not a perfect solution as you say - and being an org that hopefully (at least from what Ive read of past history of this group) the membership decides what and how things are done for the future. If we are looking for a group that will respond to our needs after we "form" this group, then we need to make sure we don't just sit back and let them go their way without our guidance. Keep in mind this is a group with very little web experience in the past, so our input would be very valuable in forming what we really want.

As far as the ACLU and EFF - I think there are very large and good reasons that they chose not to get into this fight - although I am a strong supporter of both and have known the original people involved with the EFF on a business level for years (way before the internet) I think that they are watching to make sure that this does follow all constitutional avenues - and when it gets side-tracked, as some think it already has, they will take on those fights.

To those that think that the FSC "folded", and not being a lawyer here so this is just more of an opinion, I truly believe that they realize that the FSC has a huge upper hand, evidenced by the fact that the DOJ even dropped to an agreement, and would really like to fight the larger fight of getting the whole law thrown out as unconstitutional, rather than just getting a temporary fix that the DOJ can take back to congress and say - OK lets go for the jugular and make it even stricter. Keep in mind that the congress right now is putting spins on everything to "protect the country from evil-doers" and they would follow the DOJ's lead like sheep - they've already proved that in many other cases. No congressman out there is gonna fight against "something that would protect children even if it steps on a few civil rights" as they would be writing their own ticket for no re-election - they know who votes - and I can guarantee you that most of the people that vote these days are people that have strong opinions - the middle-of-the-road people - the soccer moms and dads - are part of the apethetic 60% of the US that doesn't vote at all.

Enough thoughts - I'd better get some coffee

[guitar riff]

I do thank the FSC for standing up to fight. thats not my gripe. My gripe is for the constitutional right to equal and fair treatment under the law and this agreement sidetracks that and the Goddamn DOJ should have been fucking smart enough to realize that. and The FSC too for that matter. maybe thats why they made this aggreement knowing if anyone did get prosecuted in court it would get washed out because of discrimination, who knows . All I know is I've been looking all fucking morning for the transcripts from the court session so I can take them to a personal friend who is a business lawyer to see what he makes of em but ill be damned if i can find anything even went thru the pacer deal on 10th circuit courts site no luck there either.

[LindaMight]

Well, I just Fed-X'd my membership dues...to them so I can be in on the lawsuit. I don't know if it helps or not, but if they are lobbying, it seems to me that they are the only ones lobbying for the adult industry so I figured, "why not join" and be included in the class action suit or whatever. I had thought it strange that an injunction would apply only to members and I still cannot understand it.....but....they have my dues by their 12 Noon PDT deadline Saturday. $300 from my company, we have everything we need to be in compliance, leased an office...AND NOW I AM DONE, DONE DONE!!!!! All this stuff makes me want to puke.

Linda

[PR_Tom]

There is a huge misconception that this is a "deal with the FSC", and while the reports may say that, the REAL meat of it is that it's a deal with the PLAINTIFFS of the case. As an FSC member you are a co-plaintiff. Thats just the way it is. See? No mystery at all.

It's a legal proceeding. They're simply agreeing not to inspect using rules that the plaintiffs have an open legal challenge to.

[Useless]

Originally Posted by PR_Tom

There is a huge misconception that this is a "deal with the FSC", and while the reports may say that, the REAL meat of it is that it's a deal with the PLAINTIFFS of the case. As an FSC member you are a co-plaintiff. Thats just the way it is. See? No mystery at all.

It's amazing how little you've said there.

What made you think that webmasters are stumbling around their homes in confusion, not able to understand the obvious? There's no mystery, there's anger. All these FSC cheerleaders go around telling everyone to join because the FSC is fighting for the industy. No, no they are not. They are fighting for those who pay their tithe, not the industry.

Linkster, you've made a great case and you did it without being a cheerleader. (I hear you do, however, look good in a short skirt ) I think we all appreciate the way you explained your position and your thoughts on the FSC. They aren't what we want them to be, but they are all we currently have. I'm still not joining, but it was an excellent point.

[PR_Tom]

But thats not true, lol. Their members simply happen to be co-plaintiffs in a lawsuit! *Thats* the important bit that people are glossing over for some reason.
If you wanted to, you can use your own lawyers and join the lawsuit and have the same exact agreement. Maybe I'm the one being dense, and I'm sorry if this is already obvious to everyone. But from the tone of some posts, it seems that people feel that the FSC is only working for their members, when in FACT it's a legal proceeding and as such, the plaintiffs in the case are the ones affected by the no-inspection order.

What is the alternative? Oh judge, by the way even though theres no injunction and theres absolutely no legal basis for what I'm about to ask, but could you also tell them not to inspect anyones records anywhere on the planet? Thanks judge, you rock.

[RawAlex]

Tom, you miss the point: had the FSC gone forward and requested an injunction, not only would FSC member be protected, but it would be VERY unlikely that any enforcement actions would be taken because there is pending legal action. While the TRO would not have stopped the DOJ from enforcing the law, it creates a very large legal burden to overcome if they want to move to actual prosecution of a case.

It is very likely that the very terms that they would charge someone under are the ones that would get thrown out in court.

Instead, the FSC made an 11th hour deal with the feds so that there is no TRO, no nothing in any true legal sense until August, just an agreement not to bother FSC members. What it means (conversely) is that the DOJ has a free hand to go out and inspect anyone else they want. The Special Master will determine if this is a FSC member or not, then away the DOJ goes.

The difference is overwhelming.

The reasoning? I suspect that the DOJ made it clear to FSC that certain members of the "adult webmaster community" were not anywhere near compliant. They probably pointed out that there are tens of thousand of sites owned and operated by people who are either not active in the community, or who are specifically non-participants for whatever reason. The DOJ wants a free hand to go out in the next 45 days and literally "fuck these people up". They want action they can take to congress and say "SEE! We are doing our jobs!". A TRO would have made that impossible.

The "return" favor in this? Very likely during the next 45 days a new interpretation of the 2257 rules will be made and published, which is abolish the secondary producer requirements and clarify the ID issues. It will once again permit CORPORATIONS and LLC to appoint a third part custodian of records. It will, however, require that the publisher of a website is listed on it, indicating the sources of the materials (the older list of content providers 2257). There will likely be some new legaleese in content license agreements that will stipulate that the provider is 2257 compliant.

Read the FSC / DOJ agreement carefully, and you will see that the next 45 days isn't for writing legal briefs, but for negotiation to come to a settlement.

Linkster, you are no more or less popular around here as a result of your choices. I know if I lived and worked in the US, I might be sitting on the other side of the fence. I can't say that I agree with what is going on at FSC, and I would have a hard time giving them any more money now or in the future, but that is my personal take.

Do we need an industry trade group? Yup.

Is FSC that group? I think not.

Alex