Originally Posted by Connor

So am I SERIOUSLY seeing a debate on GFY as to whether or not people who work in this business should support the Free Speech Coalition? You've GOT to be kididng me!!!

Originally Posted by kBizzle

149 if you deduct this person who won't be called upon for his mainstream media contact base.

:-))

Now I am just being fecetious people...relax

Originally Posted by xxxjay

Hey, I've always said our case should be taken to the mainstream. If you hook me up - I will take our case to them.

Originally Posted by xxxjay

When does it air?

Originally Posted by kBizzle

cha ching!

That's the sound of DVD's flying off the shelves and joins being rung up.

You cannot get better exposure than that-
You can like him or hate him- he is making bank.

I really like working with Chris Connelly
In case you missed the first piece they aired where most of this content came from -
here it is...

http://www.marketingfirm.com/kbmedia.wmv

Originally Posted by xxxjay

That was the most "obviously on drugs" interview I think I've ever seen.

Originally Posted by kBizzle

Connor- Is it true that YNOT is now running peoples sites for them now?

Also have you ever shot content or owned a website?

I just want to know more about your background prior to coming to YNOT -
I am not being disrespectful- I am truly curious that's all.
YOU DO HOWEVER write good articles!

Originally Posted by tony404

They fought to have virtual cp legal,which to me wasnt the best idea.Having girls pretend to be underage is a bad idea.

Originally Posted by kBizzle

I am proud to call Rick a friend and glad he is doing so well.

Originally Posted by kBizzle

KB is offering his services for FREE
and I guarantee I 'll never be called upon for it...
what a shame

Originally Posted by AsianDivaGirlsWebDude

Watch your tone there buddy...:winkwink:

I am allowed to say "badly designed web site" because I am an expert on badly designed web sites according to some people who visit my sites, lol.

My excuse is that I don't know a line of code, and I'm too busy cranking out content to learn. FSC supposedly paid someone to design their site. BTW, if people aren't configured for flash, or their browser is low on memory, they won't see the Join FSC link. At minimum there should be a text link for that in addition to the flash link.

I think a $100 Membership fee is much more reasonable than $500 for a Producer (or $300 "per site" for Webmasters).

Unfortunately, when I called the FSC offices at 4:30pm local time to check out the $100 Membership deal, I was sent to a generic voicemail box. You would think a lobbying group with a $400,000+ budget would be able to afford someone (or get a volunteer) to take calls - especially if it is about Membership, let alone important legislative matters (I can hear the media now, "No one from the FSC was available for comment when contacted during normal business hours to comment on the 2257 regulations").

I do feel that the adult industry needs an organization to lobby on behalf of it, and I would like to be a part of an industry association that is effective and responsive to it's Memberships needs (not just the big players).

Considering how long they have been around, I am surprised that FSC doesn't appear to have accomplished all that much (not to mention the internal issues with their previous Director, etc).

For me this goes beyond just the 2257 issue, since as I earlier stated in this thread, I shoot my own content and have my 2257 documentation in order (I'll have the cross-indexing completed prior to the June deadline).

If I become a Member of the FSC, then I will act to ensure that they are indeed looking out for the issues that I feel are relevent. Who knows? I might even do some volunteer work, and upgrade to an Institutional Membership as my company grows.

I guess I'll wait until they open again Tuesday and then see about the $100 Membership deal.

ADG Webmaster

Originally Posted by Connor

KB... thanks for the compliment.

I opened my first website in early 1997 and had a network of AVS sites and pay sites that I ran for a number of years before selling them. I've done everything from search engine marketing (was a wiz with Excite back in the day) and building TGP galleries and other general HTML design tasks. I have programmed and installed web scripts. I have shot my own content before, although it was a direction I decided not to pursue and more often have worked with other photographers to produce content. Trisha Uptown is one of the models I shot myself before going another direction. I have helped run an affiliate program, and managed several webmaster resource sites. I've lobbied in Sacramento on behalf of the industry. The legal aspects of this business are of particular interest to me. I have scarcely missed a major convention since IA2000 in Orlanda. Matter of fact, I remember the roots of the Player's Ball. ;) I am now Editor-in-Chief of YNOT, and have happily been with YNOT for almost two years now. I consider Bob and Jay to be great friends of mine. I'm not especially flamboyant, but my experience is varied and extensive.

Originally Posted by kBizzle

http://www.avn.com/index.php?Primary...tent_ID=228409

READ- it isn't illegal yet to be informed

Originally Posted by xxxjay

Yeah man, I had #1 - #5 for "Paris Hilton Sex Tape" for like a year and a half on Google. It's too bad him and Evan threatened to sue Google over some DMC shit because I was using a CECash banner and Google pulled my listing (I have the email from Google to prove it). I wasn't really making any money on the CECash deal anyway and I was mostly sending them traffic because they are friends of mine. I could have sent you a lot of joins for HH if you had just talked to me first instead of cutting loose with the lawyers.

:2 cents:

Oh yeah, I just watched the video from that link...ironically that guy Tom who is interviewed is the PR guy for the Free Speech Coalition now.

How the snake seems to be eating its own tail.

Go FSC!

Originally Posted by kBizzle

I am reading the calendar for the IMPA now to find out when the next meeting is...

http://www.impai.org/calendar.html

I don't know much about web design or code- But I DO KNOW this site is fucked up

Originally Posted by Connor

Ohhhh, is THAT the angle? Are you trying to drum up support for another organization or something? I was wondering why you were saying some of the things you were saying. Well... still willing to chat with you Tuesday if you want.

Originally Posted by kBizzle

Very impressive thanks for the background info-
I know we have met in passing but never spoke in depth.
this gives me a better understanding of your knowledge in this business and linneage.

:-))

Originally Posted by Connor

I don't think our paths have crossed since Cybernet last year... Player's Ball. Eeek-a-mouse.

Originally Posted by kBizzle

ahhhh yes- I forgot we did speak a little that night
Mouse was great, and true old friend from the 619.

Originally Posted by kBizzle

No I wasn't I was just looking at all the websites listed in on Mr Fiction's sig...

I found the IMPA site to be even more of an abortion that FSC's-

In fact the FSC site looks like Google compared to it.
:-))

Originally Posted by tony404

They fought to have virtual cp legal,which to me wasnt the best idea.

Originally Posted by Mr.Fiction

Why don't you support free speech for consenting adults?

If a child is not being exploited or even used in the production of content, then where is the "child porn"?

You think things should be made illegal because they offend you personally?

That's no different than the view of the religious right.

Child porn is illegal because children are harmed in its production. If you want to make anything that you don't like "child porn" then get ready for every other right wing group in the United States to have the same right.

The ACLU strongly commended the FSC victory in that case as a victory for free speech.

How about making "virtual murder" illegal too? No movies, books, or games where someone murders another person?

Think before you support oppresive laws!

Originally Posted by Connor

Yeah man, but he still owes Bob some money! ;)

Been looking at a computer screen too much this week... I'm outa here. Call me Tuesday if you want to chat. Would be good to have you on the FSC side.

Originally Posted by xxxjay

Yeah, 4 real - I usually agree with Tony404 on must things but on this one he's way off base and he even seems to be feeding on the propaganda. We are not talking about any kind of CP here we are talking about consenting 20-something girls with pigtails.

The FSC was right to fight that, even though it was unpopular.

:2 cents:

Originally Posted by Mr.Fiction

Why don't you support free speech for consenting adults?

If a child is not being exploited or even used in the production of content, then where is the "child porn"?

You think things should be made illegal because they offend you personally?

That's no different than the view of the religious right.

Child porn is illegal because children are harmed in its production. If you want to make anything that you don't like "child porn" then get ready for every other right wing group in the United States to have the same right.

The ACLU strongly commended the FSC victory in that case as a victory for free speech.

How about making "virtual murder" illegal too? No movies, books, or games where someone murders another person?

Think before you support oppresive laws!

Originally Posted by AsianDivaGirlsWebDude

So let me get this straight - now you people are arguing that FSC has big hairy balls for making it legal for say, Dirty Danza, to be gagging a Powerpuff Girl or sumpthin'?

Even when I dress up a model in pigtails and red plaid skirt, I'm always careful to be sure she talks about college and her professor. I don't want anyone to think we are even suggesting that the model might possibly be under 18.

ADG Webmaster

Originally Posted by xxxjay

If the girl is 25 - what the fuck does it really matter? Are you saying people that photograph at 25 year old girl with pigtails belongs in prison?

Gimmie a break.

Originally Posted by AsianDivaGirlsWebDude

If a model is 25, and that can be proven, then no they probably do not belong in prison, although depending on the depiction they may be in need of some counseling.

However, I am not comfortable with people shooting a 25 year old and implying that she is 15 either (some of you have daughters and possibly understand what I am speaking of).

Likewise, I don't endorse or support web sites that suggest that it's okay to abuse or rape women of any age, be it a virtual or a live person.

We will not always see eye to eye on all issues. At this time, the important thing for us in the adult industry to do, is to find common ground. For those of you on the extreme fringes, don't expect everyone to embrace all of your views.

There is plenty that we can agree on, and in most instances, the judicial interpretation should cover a wide spectrum of views. We can take on 2257 without insisting that it's okay to create virtual child porn or virtual snuff films, etc.

Those that want to promote that extreme should do so on their own.

ADG Webmaster

Originally Posted by kBizzle

Once again I am for a lobbying group in our industry
I support that they are trying to fight the good fight for pornographers-

I just feel that it's a Herculean task, and I feel they are underqualified

Is Paul Cambria fighting as part of the Free Speech Coalition?

If he is -then they have someone who is really qualified-
I simply don't know

Originally Posted by kBizzle

No I wasn't I was just looking at all the websites listed in on Mr Fiction's sig...

I found the IMPA site to be even more of an abortion that FSC's-

In fact the FSC site looks like Google compared to it.
:-))

Originally Posted by AsianDivaGirlsWebDude

However, I am not comfortable with people shooting a 25 year old and implying that she is 15 either (some of you have daughters and possibly understand what I am speaking of).

Likewise, I don't endorse or support web sites that suggest that it's okay to abuse or rape women of any age, be it a virtual or a live person.

We will not always see eye to eye on all issues. At this time, the important thing for us in the adult industry to do, is to find common ground. For those of you on the extreme fringes, don't expect everyone to embrace all of your views.

There is plenty that we can agree on, and in most instances, the judicial interpretation should cover a wide spectrum of views. We can take on 2257 without insisting that it's okay to create virtual child porn or virtual snuff films, etc.

Those that want to promote that extreme should do so on their own.

ADG Webmaster

Originally Posted by Far-L

Nice... why don't you donate some money and or time to make it better... Since I see you doing neither and just being content to rail against the only groups that are spending money and time to fight these fights I won't hold my breath.

Talk is cheap and looks like you just discounted it further without anything to add other than "I don't know what I am talking about, this doesn't affect me, but I will continue to talk anyway".

KB... Why don't as part of your "Now I am really going to tell it like it is" campaign you stop being critical of those organizations which are stepping up to fight on behalf of the industry and go after the real riff raff... like all the friends and business associates of yours you know are scamming consumers and webmasters?

If you all think the FSC or IMPA "should be doing something" then join it and make your point as a member. In other words... put up or shut up...

Originally Posted by Connor

Let me ask you this KB... it it WERE a member of the board making my post would you feel better about the FSC?

Originally Posted by FightThisPatent

:1orglaugh


Fight the side joke!

Originally Posted by kBizzle

Far-L

No one has answered my question as to what happened with ACACIA...I m truly curious

AND- The website for IMPA is not fucked up?

Originally Posted by Far-L

Sure the site is fucked up... but we don't exactly have a stream of donations rolling in to pay someone to deal with it, nor is anyone stepping up to volunteer the time and effort to re-do it. It will be fixed eventually I can say for sure.

The Acacia fight is going fine. We just sold some prior art to the mainstream big boys so anyone that thinks we made a bad business decision should guess again. However, that has nothing to do with the 2257 issue.

Maybe if your ass were on the line to go to jail for non-compliance you might understand the seriousness of this and take a more supportive role to a resolution than the harmfully critical stance you are taking now.

Originally Posted by kBizzle

I just don't see webmasters giving their money to an organization that specializes in bookstore obscenity cases.

And how do the webmasters know that their money is going towards the fight for 2257 and not Rob Black's appeal, book store owners, fighting for the interests of the BIG BOYS, or .XXX?

I'd like to know what operating expenses they incur- what kind of hotel rooms they stay in when they are out lobbying, and what their expenditures are before I give them my money.

It's a fair question- If they are a non profit organziation- then in my humble opinion people have a right to ask.

Originally Posted by Mr.Fiction

Why would you care about any of that for a few thousand dollars to a company that has already helped keep you out of jail?

They won in the Supreme Court to protect your clients right to shoot video of girls in pigtails or any girl that looks young.

That alone is enough reason to donate money, no matter what kind of hotel room they stay in.

They are the ones filing a case on 2257.

No matter what kind of car anyone who works at FSC drives, the fact that they are filing the case is reason enough to give them money.

Why don't some of you forget about 2257 and just pay back FSC for all of the money they spent to defend your business in the recent Supreme Court victory.

They won in the Supreme Court. You benefited from that victory. Time to say thanks or admit that no matter how much they do for you and your business, you're still going to cry about it.

Stop thinking of them as some non-profit group and start thinking of them as a business expense like your lawyer.

Do you require your lawyer to stay in $30 hotel room and drive a $2000 car? :1orglaugh

Originally Posted by AsianDivaGirlsWebDude

Even when I dress up a model in pigtails and red plaid skirt, I'm always careful to be sure she talks about college and her professor. I don't want anyone to think we are even suggesting that the model might possibly be under 18.

ADG Webmaster

Originally Posted by kBizzle

I do wish however in the future if he is listening, that he stay in a Motel 6
I'll leave the light on for him..
:-))

Originally Posted by kBizzle

What's harmfully critical about not agreeing with the FSC 's scare tactics?

I already offered up my contacts and told Jay that I'd be willing to help any way I can with my resources-

You know all too well Far-L that the FSC is not going to do any press about this...

and why?

Because it brings too much heat for the BIG BOYS.
I am down to help in any way I can

I have donated to the 9/11 Fund
I have donated to the Tsunami Victims
I have donated to Make A Wish Foundation
I donate my money to places that I feel it will be well spent.

I don't donate funds to these charities for self gratification or for my own good press- I do it as a humanitarian.

If I really and truly could be told where this money goes and how it's spent- I would have made a donation by now.

I just don't see webmasters giving their money to an organization that specializes in bookstore obscenity cases.

And how do the webmasters know that their money is going towards the fight for 2257 and not Rob Black's appeal, book store owners, fighting for the interests of the BIG BOYS, or .XXX?

I'd like to know what operating expenses they incur- what kind of hotel rooms they stay in when they are out lobbying, and what their expenditures are before I give them my money.

It's a fair question- If they are a non profit organziation- then in my humble opinion people have a right to ask.