new 2257 info maybe - GoFuckYourself.com

Choker · 07-26-2005, 05:57 PM

I am being told that the DOJ is going to make the new regs effective ONLY for content shot after June 23rd 2005. Can anyone esle confirm this??

llporter · 07-26-2005, 06:00 PM

that would be great news

NaughtyRob · 07-26-2005, 06:04 PM

I cannot confirm it, but yes. I have heard the same thing.

Titan · 07-26-2005, 06:05 PM

Errr.... didn't they already say that? I think it was DOJs reply to ambiguous definitions.

Chio The Pirate · 07-26-2005, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Choker

I am being told that the DOJ is going to make the new regs effective ONLY for content shot after June 23rd 2005. Can anyone esle confirm this??

YARGH! Heard the same. It would be better than me refried french glazed Orca entrails.

Choker · 07-26-2005, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Titan

Errr.... didn't they already say that? I think it was DOJs reply to ambiguous definitions.

Yeah but do you have any links ? thanks

Titan · 07-26-2005, 06:10 PM

I think it was an xbiz article. Can't find the link. I'm sure somebody can dig it up.

Choker · 07-26-2005, 07:24 PM

Come on, somebody has got to have a link

DatingGold · 07-26-2005, 07:25 PM

That would be good news! Getting rid of the secondary producer crap would be even better!

Hornydog4cooter · 07-26-2005, 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Choker

I am being told that the DOJ is going to make the new regs effective ONLY for content shot after June 23rd 2005. Can anyone esle confirm this??

Only problem i see with that is you still gotta produce docs to show it was shot before June 23 2005 or am i reading the post wrong?

tungsten · 07-26-2005, 07:52 PM

that would be alot better!

seeric · 07-26-2005, 07:53 PM

wow. that would make sense for them to guarantee convictions on stuff done after the new regs went into effect. could be them playing the safe game and guaranteeing them some convictions. i have no knowledge of this, just an opinion.

especially if they are intending to enforce the "letter of the law" instead of what is normally enforced when it goes to trial in a lot of situations, which is the "spirit of the law"

if they really wanted to fuck with people, this would be a great foundation to lay .

Choker · 07-26-2005, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hornydog4cooter

Only problem i see with that is you still gotta produce docs to show it was shot before June 23 2005 or am i reading the post wrong?

Well if it was produced before June 23 2005 then you don't have the secondary producer thing to worry about, this will be a clusterfuck I see

Expo_Vids · 07-26-2005, 08:08 PM

One of those attorneys you always read about on AVN told me that the entire secondary producer issue will be thrown out all together.

Hey, that's just what he told me. Not saying it is going to happen.

Hornydog4cooter · 07-26-2005, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Choker

Well if it was produced before June 23 2005 then you don't have the secondary producer thing to worry about, this will be a clusterfuck I see

Yeap i agree a complete clusterfuck. I wish we could get some confirmation on this..........

NKYKev · 07-26-2005, 08:09 PM

There was a recent article on avnonline.com discussing concessions by the DOJ; here is a link to the article in question.

TheDoc · 07-26-2005, 08:09 PM

http://www.avn.com/index.php?Primary...tent_ID=233948

pornguy · 07-26-2005, 08:10 PM

That would be great, until they find out, that can not fuck with as many people, and change their minds.

Hornydog4cooter · 07-26-2005, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Expo_Vids

One of those attorneys you always read about on AVN told me that the entire secondary producer issue will be thrown out all together.

Hey, that's just what he told me. Not saying it is going to happen.

And we were all told that everyone would be covered not just paided members....

fusionx · 07-26-2005, 08:10 PM

http://www.fight2257.com/fight-2257/...80%93-sort-of/

Choker · 07-26-2005, 08:26 PM

"Were plaintiffs to raise this issue in a legal filing," was the DOJ's response, "defendant would take the position that the quoted language refers to material created in the first instance after June 23, 2005, and not to pre-existing material that is assembled, manufactured, published, duplicated, copied, digitized, reissued, or disseminated after June 23, 2005."

So this means that if your content was produced before June 23rd 2005 the secondary producer requirements are not valid also?

Titan · 07-26-2005, 09:38 PM

I think the translation into normalese is that it only applies to content produced (actually shot) after June 23, 2005 and NOT pre-existing content (shot before June 23rd) that is later published on the web or some other form.

Hornydog4cooter · 07-26-2005, 09:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Titan

I think the translation into normalese is that it only applies to content produced (actually shot) after June 23, 2005 and NOT pre-existing content (shot before June 23rd) that is later published on the web or some other form.

makes you wonder why this wasnt stated before all this went down

PixeLs · 07-26-2005, 11:02 PM

I haven't heard of that one yet. Thanks in advance for the links.

Centurion · 07-26-2005, 11:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Choker

"Were plaintiffs to raise this issue in a legal filing," was the DOJ's response, "defendant would take the position that the quoted language refers to material created in the first instance after June 23, 2005, and not to pre-existing material that is assembled, manufactured, published, duplicated, copied, digitized, reissued, or disseminated after June 23, 2005."

So this means that if your content was produced before June 23rd 2005 the secondary producer requirements are not valid also?

That is correct.

Lace · 07-27-2005, 12:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDoc

http://www.avn.com/index.php?Primary...tent_ID=233948

thanks! gotta read this over

European Lee · 07-27-2005, 01:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hornydog4cooter

makes you wonder why this wasnt stated before all this went down

Because, if it was, the FSC wouldnt have had thousands of webmasters paying them money each day up until the first court date.. DUH!

Regards,

Lee

Hornydog4cooter · 07-27-2005, 01:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by European Lee

Because, if it was, the FSC wouldnt have had thousands of webmasters paying them money each day up until the first court date.. DUH!

Regards,

Lee

I know this i was being sarcastic........

European Lee · 07-27-2005, 01:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hornydog4cooter

I know this i was being sarcastic........

Actually, it wasnt

The FSC took the industry for one big ol' ride and came out happy at the end of that ride, how much do you think they earnt through them and their lackeys spreading fear across the industry?

No law or regulation can realistically be back-dated, any attorney worth their salt will tell you that.

The FSC attorneys however, didnt.

Everyone who joined the FSC for 'protection' under the mis-information they spread across the industry was scammed, it really is as simple as that.

Lets just hope there isnt a really serious threat to the industry anytime soon, a lot of people wont be trusting the FSC if there is.

Of course, this is GFY so people can hardly manage to remember what happened yesterday so im sure when that time comes, the FSC will return here to fleece everyone again

Regards,

Lee

Mutt · 07-27-2005, 01:23 AM

that's exactly the way i interpreted that government response - seems to be what they're saying, ONLY content shot AFTER June,23,2005 is subject to the new additions to 2257 - which is a huge deal - and for the people who scrambled and worked their asses off trying to get in compliance for ALL their content it has to be maddening - all that time and money spent trying to comply with the fucking goverment and then 'oh we didn't mean that - you really went to all that trouble? silly pornographers!'

if they do inspect you, you're still going to have to have some proof that content produced before June, 23, 2005 was indeed shot prior to that date.
so the work some people to isn't worthless, they are now in good shape.

07-26-2005, 05:57 PM	#1
Choker Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Orlando Posts: 9,024	new 2257 info maybe I am being told that the DOJ is going to make the new regs effective ONLY for content shot after June 23rd 2005. Can anyone esle confirm this?? __________________ ICQ me lets make a deal 116894466 Need dating, cam, or tube traffic? I got it.http://http://www.chokertraffic.com The Original http://www.chokertraffic.com/ Premium country pop-unders from $1.50 per k. I challenge you to compare this traffic to any other brokers. http://www.chokertraffic.com/public/tabs.php?t=o

07-26-2005, 06:04 PM	#3
NaughtyRob Two fresh affiliate progs Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Inside teen pussy Posts: 29,602	I cannot confirm it, but yes. I have heard the same thing. __________________ [email protected] Skype: 17026955414 Vacares Web Hosting - Protect Your Ass with Included Daily Backups

07-26-2005, 06:05 PM	#4
Titan Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: teencash.com Posts: 994	Errr.... didn't they already say that? I think it was DOJs reply to ambiguous definitions. __________________ TEEN CASH - EXCLUSIVE TEEN NICHE REALITY SITES Check out our Newest Site: Teen Porno Pass - Free Hosted Galleries, Flash Galleries, Tube Content, & Great Support Sample Galleries: Movie Gallery 1 Flash Gallery 1 Pic Gallery 1

07-26-2005, 06:10 PM	#7
Titan Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: teencash.com Posts: 994	I think it was an xbiz article. Can't find the link. I'm sure somebody can dig it up. __________________ TEEN CASH - EXCLUSIVE TEEN NICHE REALITY SITES Check out our Newest Site: Teen Porno Pass - Free Hosted Galleries, Flash Galleries, Tube Content, & Great Support Sample Galleries: Movie Gallery 1 Flash Gallery 1 Pic Gallery 1

07-26-2005, 07:24 PM	#8
Choker Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Orlando Posts: 9,024	Come on, somebody has got to have a link __________________ ICQ me lets make a deal 116894466 Need dating, cam, or tube traffic? I got it.http://http://www.chokertraffic.com The Original http://www.chokertraffic.com/ Premium country pop-unders from $1.50 per k. I challenge you to compare this traffic to any other brokers. http://www.chokertraffic.com/public/tabs.php?t=o

07-26-2005, 06:00 PM	#2
llporter Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Boston Posts: 3,221	that would be great news

07-26-2005, 07:25 PM	#9
DatingGold $6 PER EMAIL JOiN Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: California Posts: 13,185	That would be good news! Getting rid of the secondary producer crap would be even better! __________________ 9 Years of SOLID payouts and conversions! ADULT DATING - $100 PPS LIVE CAMS - $214 PPS WWW.DATINGGOLD.COM ICQ: 27442303

07-26-2005, 07:52 PM	#11
tungsten Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 10,579	that would be alot better! __________________ VOYEUR /HOMEMADE, HENTAI / CARTOON, Reality, Amateur, Shemale, Hardcore, Cuckold, Celebrity, Retro/Vintage, ect...ALL OUR SITES >> Unbelievable Ratio \| High % of Rebills \| Bi-Monthly Payments (also to E-Passporte) Ton's of EXCLUSIVE Free content & FHG's \|=> GREAT REVENUE $$$ GUARANTEED!

07-26-2005, 07:53 PM	#12
seeric .......... Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: .......... Posts: 41,917	wow. that would make sense for them to guarantee convictions on stuff done after the new regs went into effect. could be them playing the safe game and guaranteeing them some convictions. i have no knowledge of this, just an opinion. especially if they are intending to enforce the "letter of the law" instead of what is normally enforced when it goes to trial in a lot of situations, which is the "spirit of the law" if they really wanted to fuck with people, this would be a great foundation to lay . Last edited by seeric; 07-26-2005 at 07:55 PM..

07-26-2005, 08:08 PM	#14
Expo_Vids Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 1,162	One of those attorneys you always read about on AVN told me that the entire secondary producer issue will be thrown out all together. Hey, that's just what he told me. Not saying it is going to happen. __________________ Squirting pussies convert like mad!!! @ Suirting 101

07-26-2005, 08:09 PM	#16
NKYKev Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 283	There was a recent article on avnonline.com discussing concessions by the DOJ; here is a link to the article in question.

07-26-2005, 08:09 PM	#17
TheDoc Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Currently Incognito Posts: 13,827	http://www.avn.com/index.php?Primary...tent_ID=233948 __________________ ~TheDoc - ICQ7765825 It's all disambiguation

07-26-2005, 08:10 PM	#18
pornguy Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Homeless Posts: 62,911	That would be great, until they find out, that can not fuck with as many people, and change their minds. __________________ PornGuy skype me pornguy_epic AmateurDough The Hottes Shemales online! TChicks.com \| Angeles Cid \| Mariana Cordoba \| MAILERS WELCOME!

07-26-2005, 08:10 PM	#20
fusionx Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Olongapo City, Philippines Posts: 4,618	http://www.fight2257.com/fight-2257/...80%93-sort-of/

07-26-2005, 08:26 PM	#21
Choker Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Orlando Posts: 9,024	"Were plaintiffs to raise this issue in a legal filing," was the DOJ's response, "defendant would take the position that the quoted language refers to material created in the first instance after June 23, 2005, and not to pre-existing material that is assembled, manufactured, published, duplicated, copied, digitized, reissued, or disseminated after June 23, 2005." So this means that if your content was produced before June 23rd 2005 the secondary producer requirements are not valid also? __________________ ICQ me lets make a deal 116894466 Need dating, cam, or tube traffic? I got it.http://http://www.chokertraffic.com The Original http://www.chokertraffic.com/ Premium country pop-unders from $1.50 per k. I challenge you to compare this traffic to any other brokers. http://www.chokertraffic.com/public/tabs.php?t=o

07-26-2005, 09:38 PM	#22
Titan Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: teencash.com Posts: 994	I think the translation into normalese is that it only applies to content produced (actually shot) after June 23, 2005 and NOT pre-existing content (shot before June 23rd) that is later published on the web or some other form. __________________ TEEN CASH - EXCLUSIVE TEEN NICHE REALITY SITES Check out our Newest Site: Teen Porno Pass - Free Hosted Galleries, Flash Galleries, Tube Content, & Great Support Sample Galleries: Movie Gallery 1 Flash Gallery 1 Pic Gallery 1

07-26-2005, 11:02 PM	#24
PixeLs Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 11,922	I haven't heard of that one yet. Thanks in advance for the links. __________________ Make money on any traffic. Bi-weekly payments with no hold.

07-27-2005, 01:23 AM	#30
Mutt Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 34,431	that's exactly the way i interpreted that government response - seems to be what they're saying, ONLY content shot AFTER June,23,2005 is subject to the new additions to 2257 - which is a huge deal - and for the people who scrambled and worked their asses off trying to get in compliance for ALL their content it has to be maddening - all that time and money spent trying to comply with the fucking goverment and then 'oh we didn't mean that - you really went to all that trouble? silly pornographers!' if they do inspect you, you're still going to have to have some proof that content produced before June, 23, 2005 was indeed shot prior to that date. so the work some people to isn't worthless, they are now in good shape. __________________ I moved my sites to Vacares Hosting. I've saved money, my hair is thicker, lost some weight too! Thanks Sly!