:1orglaugh

Your left leg probably weighs more than I do. But its all good, I don't like flying anyway.

good to know this!

You also know that the guy in question is no longer with them. Right?

Which known industry lawyers haven't worked with FSC?

Piccionelli, Jeffrey Douglas, Lawrence Walters, Paul Cambria, Louis Sirkin, Reed Lee and Robert Sarno have all agreed to donate a substantial amount of their professional time to fight the amendments.

http://www.xbiz.com/news_piece.php?id=8789

If Reed is involved, JD is likely nearby, even though his name isn't mentioned.

Who else do you want?

I may be wrong but Lawrence Walters and Paul Cambria are the two attorneys filing the injunctions on the part of the FSC -- Both East Coast and West Coast.

I'm sure JD will get involved as well, he is chummy with that whole crew.

Whoops...

"Freridge said that the purpose of filing two separate lawsuits, which will be filed through Paul Cambria and Louis Sirkin's respective law firms, is because there are so many issues with the amended regulations that addressing them all as part of one single lawsuit would be impossible. " - XBiz

I'm not sure whether to take offense at that comment or not KB. I think what you're saying is you'd like to see someone YOU PERSONALLY do business with on the FSC Board. If your only concern is someone with strong knoweldge of the internet side of things -- well, I'd put my knowledge of the adult internet business up against yours any day. And yes, I'm well aware of your accomplishments, but my background is broader than most. There's more to the adult internet industry that just the people you currently do business with. That said, I'm definitely interested in helping you and your associates find representation with the FSC. You seem to feel you are not represented. I'd like to help you feel differently.

You have presented the internet community with a lot of misinformation in this thread... and I'm still trying to determine how much of that is intentional, because I know you're a smart guy. Clever too. So how about this... how about we talk next week, and you tell me what your concerns are and what I can do to help you. In the meantime I would recommend and request that you reconsider your strong anti-FSC position on the boards. That's of course your decision and you are of course absolutely entitled to your opinions. But since your opinions seem to be born of a good amount of incorrect information, I expect that the correct information will make a difference here.

I admit that when I first heard this my reaction was, "What the hell?" I called Michelle to confirm that this was the FSC position. She explained why, but stressed that the organization seriously doubted that ANYONE AT ALL would get prosecuted if an injunction were issued. She said just that it was POSSIBLE because of the way the law works and who gets covered by a challenge of this nature. Of course the possibility that she was wrong certainly entered my mind. Since talking with her I have confirmed this with several other attorneys not associated with the FSC. All have said that they seriously doubt anyone would ever get prosecuted if an injunction were granted, but admitted that it was POSSIBLE and that the information was technically accurate. Which is the same thing Michelle told me. Anyone who has any questions about this should ask their own attorney.

You are right that the law is the law. And I think you're attorney will confirm for you that it is TECHNICHALLY possible for the governmemnt to charge those people not covered by an injunction, and that those covered TECHNICALLY are those who are party to the suit. That said, I personally feel based on my discussions with the FSC and other attorneys that it would be almost unheard of if the government were to prosecute ANYBODY AT ALL once an injunction were issued.

TECHNICALLY that isn't possible. PRACTICALLY that's what will happen. You can't say that you're filing a lawsuit on behalf of "everybody" of the courts will call you on the standing issue.

I suspect this is a leading question, however you can join through their website. Since you seem to be referring to the money issue, the cheapest membership is the $50 "individual" level. You can of course choose not to join. That is certainly your decision.

No slam was directed towards you-
I left out the most impirtant part of that post when I said maven , I meant a webmaster with a legal background- that also runs websites-

I know a few people that are lawyers as well as webmasters- That's what I meant-
We'll still talk on Tuesday

Jeffrey Douglass and Reed Lee (from JD's firm) are on the Board. Additionally, the attorneys hired to be in charge of the 2257 fight are not on the Board and are the two most respected attorneys the industry has ever known. I'm pretty sure it's common knowledge who I am talking about, but in case it hasn't been announced yet I'll withhold stating who. But again, I'm pretty damn sure that information has been released. Most of you can figure out who I mean.

Ah good , this info IS out there. Yes, Sirkin and Cambria are in charge of the 2257 challenges. Douglas, Lee and others will be assisting by donating their time.

Good Afternoon,

I'd like to address the issue of the FSC representing the interest of "old school" producers vs. webmasters:

1. The FSC is the trade organization that represents the adult entertainment industry. The FSC doesn't care whether the media is film, VHS, DVD, VOD, satellite, magazines, books, etc. The FSC realizes that it is not the media, it is the CONTENT that matters. Hence, the commonality of our goals exists.

2. The FSC was organized during the heyday of VHS and its original membership base comes from those companies. However, with the advent of the internet, VOD and other new media. The FSC is making the effort to include the interests of these new groups within the FSC mission. As I said before, the government is more interested in eliminating the CONTENT than the method of delivery.

3. The FSC has an "Internet Committee" whose mission is to develop the FSC website and reachout to the Internet community as a whole. Tom Hymes, previously with AVN Online, is the new Communications Director of FSC. Also, Connor of YNOT, is also a Board Member. I am also a Board Member, and, in the past, have participated in adult internet websites. I am familiar with the problems webmasters face on a daily basis: content theft, censorship, domain protection, 2257, public image of industry, shaving, hosting issues, trademarks, taxes, business practices, etc.

As I said before, the FSC is a 'big tent' for all in the adult entertainment industry to gather within and address those issues that affect us as an industry. Your membership and support is, both, voluntary and appreciated.

And remember, the question is not about when you joined the adult industry.
The question is do you want to keep your right to produce, sell, and view erotica.

Well said. These regulations will be felt by the entire industry, but most heavily by the internet.