Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lenny2
I never said I hated him, I said he was a dick.
First of all Jay needs some english lessons. You don't "file an injunction" you file a lawsuit. Then a judge may "issue an injunction"
The way Jay's thread title was worded led alot of people to believe that the judge had already ruled on the issue and that we were in the clear.
Then he says to "quit worrying about 2257 and get back to work" as if this is a done deal, and it's far from a done deal.
Hell even the people filing the lawsuit are advising webmasters to comply with the law until everything is settled in court.
From the FSC's website
FSC Recommends Compliance with Existing and New 2257 Rules & Regs....
.....However, being a member of the Free Speech Coalition does not mean that compliance is unnecessary. Every producer of actually sexually explicit conduct is covered by the existing regulations and the new regulations (which take effect June 23, 2005).
So telling people that they don't have to comply is way over the line IMO....if you want to have a cavalier attitude with your own business fine...but don't come on here with this bullshit about how "I have inside information and I know things and you don't have to comply with the law"
I certainly hope that the judge does rule in favor of the FSC on all counts, but I think it's stupid to tell people they can ignore the regs just because a suit has been filed.
|
Whatever dude.
I NEVER SAID THIS:
"I have inside information and I know things and you don't have to comply with the law" - I'll give you 1k if you can find where I posted that lie - you fucking asshole.
I was privy to information a few weeks ago that has already started to play out. FYI - I never said not to comply with 2257. All I said was we would not be handing out IDs at that point. And, oh yeah, you can appolize any time you want. You are only digging the hole deeper.
Here's the post...
Re: Secondary Producer Records Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2257
To Whom It May Concern:
I represent OC Cash Media. We received your inquiry concerning copies of records for secondary producers. I am very familiar with 18 U.S.C. § 2257 in my capacities as a First Amendment and criminal defense practitioner, the Chairman Emeritus of the First Amendment Lawyers Association and the Chair of the Board of the industry?s trade association, the Free Speech Coalition. I write this letter exclusively in my capacity as OC Cash Media?s attorney
Despite General Gonzalez? efforts at reviving the concept of ?secondary producers? in the most recent version of regulations in support of 18 U.S.C. § 2257, the concept is not supported by the statute itself. The only case addressing the issue, Sundance Assocs. Inc. v. Reno, 139 F.3d 804, 807 (10th Cir.1998), held that the ?secondary producer? requirements of the regulations to be unconstitutional. We rely on that holding, and further decline to violate the privacy of the performing artists by disseminating private data when not required to do so by law.
If you have any questions regarding this policy, please do not hesitate to call, or have your attorney do so.
Sincerely,
The Law Office of
Jeffrey J. Douglas
By: Jeffrey J. Douglas