I think it depends on what their focus is. If its to put on a show a big guy is better for press and pr . If their focus is to cut down porn online . They bust 20 small webmasters , take kids away where people have kids living in the house they work out of. At least 1000 sites will close the next day.

2257 IS NOT GOING AWAY. If you would like to continue to work in the "adult" industry you should be preparing, not fantasizing.


:2 cents:

2257 update - something might have happened today that might make us happy - would be a more accurate title

Reminds me of a scene in the movie 2010..

You have to leave here in 2 days..

why?

Somethings going to happen..

Whats going to happen?

Something wonderful.

that is for sure . . . . the proposed revisions may go away, but 2257 is here to stay

Nice :thumbsup

The worst part is that by pushing people out or away, (overseas), the gov. loses the power to control them. They thought it was bad now, wait until there are NO restrictions-

:1orglaugh

Read the thread again, and explain your "nice" comment.

:glugglug

Very good point :thumbsup

I think he meant to say postcount++;

50 2257 updates

Very true. :thumbsup

haha, I wonder how many non-prgramers got that one! :1orglaugh

Amen.

The AG needs to look good because he failed miserably to enforce the old 2257 regulations.

What makes him look better - to be able to stand up and say "Hey guys I've arrested one evil pornographer" - or to say - "Hey guys I've just arrested 50 evil pornographers"?

Forget the dollar amounts - he needs to look good - he applies the spin - 1 pornographer or 50? There's little doubt which option he will choose.

And he isn't stupid he knows that if he takes out some of the small guys then the favourite image on galleries and free sites across the net is going to be a red X.

That gives him even more kudos in the eyes of those who see porn as evil.

And yet I see some of you're would-be competitors telling newbies that nothing is going to happen.

Yes and no.... if the only paper trail you have are hosting bills from out of the country along with cheques from sponsors that process transactions outside of the country you should be fine as your ownership of any actual websites would be difficult to prove.

If you process in the US you are basically SOL...

Most of my would-be competitors are broke morons.

Nice. Hopefully it was them listening to us but who listens to anyone in the adult industry besides us.

Are you kidding?

Do you have any idea what agencies visit this place on a regular basis?

Let's say we each put up 10k and were to bet. I think you can guess where my money would be.

One of the biggest things I've re-learned lately, is that history does tend to repeat itself. If you look at processing and what has happened with it, it's very near a mirror to the changes that occurred in audiotext just before the internet became popular. If you look at prosecutions in this industry they didn't occur in audiotext, they occurred in the video side of things.

I spend a good portion of my days with the video producers now and I'm much more inclined to feel the way I do after hearing and seeing how and who was prosecuted during the last round.

I've known small webmasters that have been in trouble for obscenity since I've been in this business. Most of them on a state or local level. Those things might make an AVN headline but no one ever asks "Where is so and so?" or "Whatever happened with Joe Webmaster's case?" EVEN when people publicly hear about the cases or they make AVN.

However, when big boys get called out by the FTC or the woman campaigning for Michigan governor, everyone pays attention and gets ready to change if necessary.

If you were among the chosen on this one Tony, let's say it was Day 1 (and I'm only using you because you posted, I know you and Mandy are compliant, but I'm hypothesizing as if you weren't) I don't see that a single major site would be looking to make a change based on your being selected.

If someone doing 2000 signups a day were among the chosen on Day 1, so to speak, you better believe the entire industry would sit up and take notice.

I'm not knocking the little guys, I'm illustrating the point that a federal prosecution is NOT an inexpensive undertaking and that the federal government doesn't as a rule pick on people that can't afford to pay the fines or defend themselves and their companies to the end, especially if there's a chance that you're dealing with a precedent setting case.

You won't hear me disagree with you there :)

For all your brilliance you are dead wrong on this one. THEY ARE AFTER DISTRIBUTION AND FACILITATION. Knocking down a few small fries will immediately knock down -at least- half of the apparatus that distributes porn online. Or why in hell do some programs have 35,000 webmasters? Because they are the ones doing the distribution? Hell no! This is not about high impact PR.

Big guys will just be fine. In fact, if it comes to pass this is going to be a field day for paysite owners.

2257 mainly applies to TGP, right?

What is being done to stop it?

:helpme

Yes, and nothing..

Now go back to burying your head in the sand..:helpme

ive been thinking this the whole time......EVERYONE goes to the internet from your neighbor to your dad.....this wont go away, it just means everyone in different countries will have conrtrol and alot more $.....I still think in the end everyone is over reacting and we will find a way to survive and find a way around...cheers!

My ears were burning.

Kim I understand your point. However seeing that it is an election year wouldn't it make more sense for them to go after big numbers. For example if they shut down 2000 small sites and then tell the public look we went ahead with this law and shut down 2000 porn sites. The war on porn is on and we are winning it. I think that is what they are looking for. By going after 1 big boy they would definitely get us all to stand up and take notice. But is that what they want? I don?t think they want a fight. I don?t think they want us to stand up and take notice. I think they want sure bets. They need to tell the voters that they?ve been busy working on this. They want sites that won?t fight back. I think they would rather take out 2000 meaningless sites that account for 0.0001% of our industry rather than one nasty fight with one site that represents 1% of the industry.

If they delay a little, and Kerry gets voted in, and they listen to our comments just a little... maybe there is a light at the end of the tunnel and we can chalk this round up to fear mongering and harrasment.

Dude, I never said I was brilliant. But when two of the best attorneys in this business have the same conclusions and two more in-house ones agree, I'm going with what they say. If you really think that small tgps are the issue here, more power to you. Do what you feel is best for you, I'm not your attorney and I don't play one on tv.

If you want to get your 10k out and bet, I'm ready ;-}}}}

yup. kimmys right. frying big fish is their game. they love ricoh. thats ultimately what they'll push for. anyways, i shouldn't even be talkin about this. ;)

besides it costs about 2000 times more to shut down 2000 sites. manpower and judicial system costs. ouch.

Wouldn't the rich be a better target in a year from now? First get the quick results to parade in front of voters to get re-elected. Then go after the big boys once you are re-elected.

Barring that there is no official word on what happened, I would say that this smells like an injunction. Unlike a lot of people speculating on this board, I HAVE plopped down $275 / hr, driven to Santa Monica through hellish LA traffic, have sat down with Jeffery Douglas and talked to him about this at length. There are numerous flaws in new 2257 that can be enjoined.

The public comment period has ended. There could be an injunction, the rules could be published in the federal register tomorrow as is, or 60-90 days might just be enough time to get the ?powers that be? out of office and they can stop persecuting us for making a perfectly decent legal living.

God bless America.

If the Democrats take office, they will most likely not choose to prosecute, just like they didn't during the Clinton administration. Which is fine. It's almost like de-criminalization.

Logically speaking, is it easier to find an elephant and catch him to put on display or is it easier to catch 100 mice and put them on display? Especially if you only have a limited and equal amount of time to do the catching?

two ivy league law degrees says it will never fly. a little inside scoop says that, and i feel pretty happy as a person(not speaking for the biz), that everything is gona work out for us. theres just something about this thing called the "constitution" and "small business law" and way more than that. if you don't know what this post really means, i won't even get into it. those who know this wil know it. lets see. this could easily be your next supreme court case right behind COPA.


JMHO and worth about as many k as this post occupies on this board. that should be at least 2.

Kimmy has the best way with words. No, seriously. This is not a joke. This is not a drill!

Is this a trick question?

KimmyKim ? From what I?ve been told is that the DOJ would likely go after ?low hanging fruit? that is involved in some of the more taboo stuff that does not have the money to fight a case to try and scare people further up the line, seeing as the people higher up will have the money to put on a defense and a 2257 case is defendable.

Opinions vary though.

Interesting that you'd turn up, you could give a lesson or two on the topic ;)

How ya been?