Why Are So Many Ignoring This...

You weren't in federal court, and your assumptions about what FSC did or didn't do is starting to again sound like subjective and negative/hater haranging over and over again. Please use facts, not whatever misinformation you are relying upon. Attorneys Lou Sirkin, Paul Cambria, Jeffrey Douglas, etc DID bring up your points AND the UNconstitutionality of the former DOJ regs---get the transcripts, Mike! But, the Judge took the easy out and limited his published findings mostly to the TRO based upon the Sundance Precedence enjoiningg DOJ from including Secondary Producers, and said the other issues could be addressed later at trial. That trial, IMHO, will now happen once the new regs are published; and, unless DoJ takes our comments into consideration, you will see the decisions ( the ones relating to your present criticism against FSC, when it was the judge, NOT FSC, who chose to deal with them later at trial).

My role is NOT to back-up FSC against inuendo/hate/subjectiveness/criticism/unfounded accusations/etc, but I had to this time with my above comment about your mis-assumptions. Some on this board constantly badmouth people and organizations subjectively and without foundation--in my opinion, they are hurting the Industry. If I could wave a magic wand, it would be for such folks to stop spreading BS and to instead be the leaders that they could be---either that, or just please stfu.

I will not respond to any responses to my ranting--I'm done; ya's have burnt me out.

End of my Angry Rant,

Regards,

dave

Ok Dave point taken....and if the FSC does address these points they will indeed get praise from me...I have praised them in the past on the rare occasions when they have accomplished something praiseworthy.

But I think this entire thread VIVIDLY illustrates wht the FSC has no business in any other fight but 2257 I will make them a promise right now and in print.

Should they get 2257 rossed in its entirety on the grounds I put forth I will become a member FOR LIFE

now get to it

BTW I have been a member in the past and abandoned it years ago for the same reasons people put forth here I have written about it extensively on my site

Cool--Thanks!

Regards,

Dave

It's not about his porn policy, it's about them pushing censorship on the masses. They're taking away YOUR freedom to do as you please, you right wing crazies should understand the problem with that more than anyone.

You are very right and they forget porn grew under clinton and reno.Reno felt going after adult porn was a waste of resources.

IMO, though the letters did LOTS, the behind-the-scenes FSC lobbying in Lisbon lined up "on-the-fence" votes, and reinforced other voters against .xxx. Diane Duke and Jeffrey Douglas worked day and night to "educate" ICANN on site.

$8 Sell out?----is that another "Mike South-ism" subjective assumption and hater attack. Were you there? NO!!! I WAS there at that meeting and vote (I am a member and DO get to see their financials if I choose to--it's like a HOA where only members get to see the books). Though certain folks were trying to stack the vote by having new members sign up just before the meeting began, Bill Lyon advised the membership of the financial offer made to FSC and outlined reasons why he was not in favor of it. A certain non FSC Board attorney tried to sugar-coat why we should vote to accept the offer, but we voted it down, and I noted a look of relief from the FSC board members, and wheels. For you to say that early on FSC wanted to "sell out", seems like another mis-assumption --- I was there at the meeting, not you, and saw what happened. If there was an "early on" sell-out being considered, it was never apparent or pushed on us voting members (except by "that" non-FSC Board attorney), and the matter was voted down. Mike, please use facts, not whatever it is that makes you say such "hater" things so authoritively--please?

dave

the point you keep droning on about ... "burdensome" was raised and rejected outright by the DOJ already. comment all you want.. the fact of the matter is that these issues were raised already and basically the DOJ said "yeah, well... we don't care, so blow me"

now you are saying "hey, you know that thing that had zero impact last time? why aren't you idiots doing that again"

and... of course, you sprinkle in "haters" here and there as if anyone is really hating against those trying to stop 2257 or "hating" on anything.

FACT... people commented and raised all the issues you are raising already.

FACT... the DOJ flat out rejected every single one of them.

FACT... A TRO meant zero in the big scheme of things and whether or not this would become law.

FACT... democrat or republican... EVERY politician has to pander to the religious and religious right to get votes.

FACT... at the end of the day, the FSC will do absolutely nothing to stop what should be a slam dunk argument (that it all has nothing to do with protecting children)

OK that 8 dollar deal was a FACT and I know it
I got it from someone very high up with the FSC...I wont disclose a source but this one was at the very top., and I was told that a number of the FSC staff was pressuring support, Jeffery Douglas being amoung them. This member saw the .XXX TLD for what it was but the the fight to keep the FSC from taking the money and running was going to be tough.

I was encouraged to make the deal public to put pressure on the FSC. And being in agreement I did. At no time has anyone ever disputed this until now. It wasn't made up fact it was accounted for same as I accounted for the same offer being made to ASACP when the FSC did the right thing and voted it down.

You can call me names or whatever you like but dont you think for one minute when I say the FSC was bribed that I didn't THOROUGHLY investigate that because if I was wrong I can be sued, and if the FSC thinks that I am wrong then maybe thats what they should do, but when I subpeona testimony from my source who will come forward in that one the FSC is going to look even worse than it does now.

You and Kernes can bitch and moan all you want but I dont see any results and until I do Im not going be another sheep being lead into a den of wolves.

Good intentions are one thing...results are another.

Can you explain why a "secondary producer" should be exempt from holding the documents and responsible for the porn they publish legality?

So far no one has come up with a satisfactory, to me, explanation. The fact that they did not shoot the content does not make them morally responsible and now the law will make them legally responsible.

The argument of "I can't make as much money", which is in effect the main argument, can be used by drug dealers, bank robbers or even shops selling unsafe goods.

The other argument of "You can trust the producer" is too stupid to even give a response to.

Cross referencing, if on a visit by the authorities you should be able to point them directly to an image you publish, not tell the FBI "It's on the DB somewhere."

If more countries and more companies working with Tube and Torrent sites adopted the belief we should be responsible for the porn we publish it would remove a lot of the stolen porn on the Net. Sue the Tube site owner for the IP address of the uploader and if he's in the US send the Feds in.

I'm not an attorney, so I can't comment --my letter explained your first question, though--see para K in it.

dave

So let's look at what you say and look at it from the other side of the fence.

Secondary producers do not meet the models. So this should make them more wary to do their utmost to ensure the legality of the content. In your opening statement you shot yourself in the foot.

Too small to check the content is legal. Did you even think about that? If you can't run the business properly close it down.

The foreign competition excuse. China has different labor, trade and commerce laws to the US. Are you saying the US should adopt the foreign standards? Do you look at country of production or the price on the label of goods you buy? So fine for you to buy cheap goods produced overseas putting US workers out of a job.

The rest of the world does not do it so neither should we. The US government is not responsible for the rest of the world.

The US will make less money. So everyone should ignore the content might be illegal so they can make more money. Same approach as the sites taking uploaded (stolen) content.

An email from the producer is good enough. At this stage I'm stopping. You were joking about this weren't you.

Sorry Dave but your letter will get you no where, you wasted your time. In fact you might have done more damage than good.

Being a pornographer has responsibilities both ethical and legal. Some want to relieve themselves of those responsibilities so they can spend all their time and effort throwing up content. Sorry but I live in the real world. A world like this.

A world where minors on Myspace are selling nude pictures of themselves. A world in with people like Tracy selling content they have no right to sell. A world where many of the content producers in the US have been put out of business by producers in countries like Russia, Ukraine and even Czech. A world where anyone who did not shoot the content can upload it.

A world where the need is for more control not less.

Dave you and I go way back, don't take this personal...it ain't we have very different beliefs in re the altruistic motives of the FSC. In this thread you asked why
I answered that question for you as it pertains to me and probably a lot of others, I can respect your right to your opinions without name calling and whatnot
That is the domain of the Mark Kernes of the world, who when logic is on my side, attempts to prove his point by calling me a hillbilly, a hick and somehow that is suppossed to make me, not him, the one who appears uneducated.
I have more respect for you and your intellect than to allow this discourse to sink to that level.

You are my friend, so is tony404, he is like family to me and sometimes we vehemently disagree and it makes for good lively debate without either of us getting our feelings hurt.

I do not agree that the FSC has accomplished anything tangible in many many years and alot of people, it seems, would agree with me. That being the case or not perception IS reality and I think what you and the FSC should see from this is that you have a serious problem here.

You can choose to fix it by attacking me, but you are a good enough tactician to know that is a losing strategy, you said it yourself take out your biggest threat first.

If what you say is true and the FSC has accomplished all these wonderful things then he biggest threat to the FSC is the lack of communication by the FSC to rank and file.

If, on the other hand I am correct, then the biggest threat to the FSC is the FSC itself, either way attacking those who simply speak what they believe to be the truth will never get you anywhere.

Think about it...you too Kernes.

How many comments did the DOJ get? a dozen..

I don't suppose the burdensome costs totalled over 100 million, did they

Without having already seen this posting, Mike, I spent the last hour writing an email directly to your personal in-box. You're right, our friendship and respect for each other is strong (and I will always respect and honor That).

Regards,

Dave

Hey Paul -

While I appreciate the message of "everyone should check records when they buy content, primary or secondary," I don't see how that equates to "secondary producers should fall under the responsibilities of 2257." 2257 is more than just checking a model's ID, frankly. It's a legal trap. It's a paperwork burden. It's harassment. While I could see the argument that a secondary producer should check ID/records, I don't see how referring the government to the primary producer if a question about age is raised is a problem. Consider that as a secondary producer you are not meeting the model. You have no opportunity to hold the ID in your hands and see if it's an obvious fake. And do you REALLY know that the photocopies of IDs that you were supplied are legit? Or was Photoshop used? For all of these reasons, if there is a question about the age of a model, it makes a LOT more sense for the government to go to the primary producer.

That said, I have always appreciated that your content store offers fantastic records with all purchases... that's a HUGE selling point to me, and I've referred a lot of people to it because of that point. You were doing that from the start, well before 2257 was a big issue in this industry. That's just good responsible business. So keep up the great work over there.

Mike... I meet you in person and I say to myself... "This is a good guy, you can tell from talking to him... his heart is in the right place." Then, I see you post on the boards and I want to pull out my hair! Haha... you just say the most absurd things sometimes. Keep this up and I'll have as much hair left as Dave Cummings! ;)

I suppose it's really pointless to get into a back and forth with you on GFY because you're very unlikely to admit that you are wrong. But, you are indeed wrong. Again.

While it's possible that some people at the FSC wanted to deal with ICM Registry back in "the day" (we're talking like 2002) ... I wouldn't know, as I wasn't there then ... the FSC absolutely and completely saved us from .XXX at the end of the day. You're so wrong about how you characterize this that you make Tony Snow look like a beacon of truth. First, even if a few board members DID want to work with ICM back in 2002, they were just that... a FEW board members representing their own opinions, NOT the organization as a whole. The important thing is that the FSC did make the RIGHT decision even back then, and sent ICM packing. The FSC, unlike a number of well known and still respected businesses, did NOT write any letter of support for .XXX or ICM, even in 2002. That can't be said for a bunch of businesses with whom many of the people reading this are probably still doing business and giving money to. So, you're harassing the wrong entity. If you want to do some investigating and expose the REAL culprits then by all means do so, I'd LOVE to see that thread... but please get it right, Mike, because it's not noble when you get it wrong. And you might want to try to seek more than just the word of some anonymous "contact," because people have agendas and often try to damage the reputations of their competitors, especially when you're "anonymous" and don't have to answer to what they are saying. I recommend you look for a smoking gun, like any signed letters of support... THAT would give you something to post about. Maybe there's a process by which you can force ICANN to release documents to you?

The people who did the most to oppose .XXX, other than myself, were Tom Hymes (who you previously slandered/libeled by getting facts wrong), Jeffrey Doungals (who you tarnish in this thread), Reed Lee, Brandon Shalton and Diane Duke in the short time she had once she got here. All of these people are/were FSC people, except for Shalton. Only the FSC sent representative to TWO of the ICANN meetings. Only the FSC addressed ICANN in person. Only FSC people spent any time talking to the former big supporters of .XXX and getting them to change their position. Both Reed and Jeffrey spent their personal time helping myself and Tom prepare for the debates against ICM.

So I wonder... why spend so much time and energy attacking the ONLY industry entity that did anything significant in the .XXX fight when there are in fact plenty of entities that you could target who would certainly deserve the scrutiny?

I know you're a good guy Mike, I'd just like to see all your energy put to some CONSTRUCTIVE use rather than hurting people who did not earn the grief and who should actually be getting our praise. Get the REAL bad guys for once.