So whats left of the 2257 horror? - GoFuckYourself.com

mrthumbs · 09-08-2005, 06:09 AM

It was the end of the world and look at us now.

Anyone suffering?

Fletch XXX · 09-08-2005, 06:11 AM

Quote:

anyone suffering

just people trying to sell 2257 software.

VeriSexy · 09-08-2005, 06:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fletch XXX

just people trying to sell 2257 software.

LMAO

2257-Ben · 09-08-2005, 06:18 AM

The judge still has not made his ruling as to whether the DOJ can start enforcing the new regs, particularly with regard to secondary producers. The stipulation agreement between the FSC and the DOJ has been extended 30 days or until the judge makes his ruling. There has been one individual brought up on 2257 violations charges as a result of an obscenity case, where the plain view evidence rules revealed they didn't have 2257 records. (We're going to see more of this, even if the inspections don't move forward for some reason)

According to Samuel Kaplan, attorney for the DOJ, the judge will be ruling pretty soon, he says before the end of the month (Sept 2005). He's pretty confident that the 'clarifications' that he's brought before the court will allow inspections and enforcement to commence, and quite frankly, the DOJ really has a hard-on for starting to enforce this. They're not going to go away on this one.

2257-Ben · 09-08-2005, 06:20 AM

BTW... I have also had contact from several US Senators regarding the 2257 regs and there seems to be broad support in the US Senate to ensure that if the DOJ isn't allowed to enforce the current regulations, they will enact some other legislation to ensure it gets enforced.

YankBro · 09-08-2005, 06:23 AM

In addition, Schaffer is charged with one count of operating three pornographic Internet websites without including required statements describing the location of identification and other records for the performers portrayed in the websites, as is required by federal law.

http://www.ccv.org/CCV_Perspective-20050830.htm

So, who here thinks the 2257 laws can't take a bite out of their ass? This guy is facing a bigger legal bill than any of you gangsta's could ever afford.

3piece chicken Dinner · 09-08-2005, 06:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrthumbs

It was the end of the world and look at us now.

Anyone suffering?

Yeah it seems like it was a pretty good thing people stepped up and mounted an opposistion to this. 2257 is not an issue that is in the forefront because steps were taken to fight against the unjust and unreasonable parts of the perposed regulations.

But the situation isn't over by a long shot, it's just most on this board have no attention span, and are easily distracted by the next person screaming SHINEY KEYS LOOK HERE SHINEY KEYS.

Fletch XXX · 09-08-2005, 06:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YankBro

In addition, Schaffer is charged with one count of operating three pornographic Internet websites without including required statements describing the location of identification and other records for the performers portrayed in the websites, as is required by federal law.

http://www.ccv.org/CCV_Perspective-20050830.htm

So, who here thinks the 2257 laws can't take a bite out of their ass? This guy is facing a bigger legal bill than any of you gangsta's could ever afford.

you cant compare people who run sites to spammers.

if you spam little kids, you should go to jail.

Also, if you plead guilty, for it, you cant use this as argument against people who run sites legit.

Quote:

A fourth individual ? Andrew Ellifson, 31, of Scottsdale, Arizona ? pleaded guilty on Feb. 13, 2005 to one spamming count under the CAN-SPAM Act and one count of criminal conspiracy.

Dalai lama · 09-08-2005, 06:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fletch XXX

you cant compare people who run sites to spammers.

if you spam little kids, you should go to jail.

Also, if you plead guilty, for it, you cant use this as argument against people who run sites legit. This guy was a spamming fuck, who cares?

Spammers may die

YankBro · 09-08-2005, 06:34 AM

If you run a legit site you never had a problem with 2257 in the first place. Fact is that a great amount of traffic to legit sites is created by non-2257 compliant resellers and spammers. The feds are not stupid...It won't hurt them a bit to throw federal charges at a legit site that is being promoted by uncompliant resellers. You spend a couple years and a few hundred k fighting the charges only to lose even if you win.

Fletch XXX · 09-08-2005, 06:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YankBro

If you run a legit site you never had a problem with 2257 in the first place.

Exactly. So you using a spammer busted for FRAUD has NOTHING to do with 2257.

Quote:

Specifically, three individuals ? Jennifer R. Clason, 32, formerly of Tempe, Arizona; Jeffrey A. Kilbride, 39, of Venice, California; and James R. Schaffer, 39, of Paradise Valley, Arizona ? were indicted on two counts of fraud and related activity in connection with electronic mail under the CCAN-SPAM Act of 2003 and one count of criminal conspiracy.

You clearly stated:

Quote:

So, who here thinks the 2257 laws can't take a bite out of their ass? This guy is facing a bigger legal bill than any of you gangsta's could ever afford.

Fraud and spamming has nothing to do with 2257 or running a site and keeping model recordds.

2257-Ben · 09-08-2005, 06:41 AM

Sorry to disagree with you here Fletch...

If you're busted for fraud and spamming and the DOJ investigators find as a result of their investigation that you do not have 2257 records, they can (and apparently will) charge you with 2257 record keeping violations, especially if they think they may have a weak case for the fraud or spamming. It's gonna be much harder for people to weasel out of the record keeping requirements charges and even if they don't get convictions on the fraud or spamming charges for some reason, they'll have a pretty solid case for non-compliance to 2257 regulations.

YankBro · 09-08-2005, 06:57 AM

The fact is that the feds are willing to throw in 2257 charges that in the past would have just been spam & fraud violations. Consider also they offer a deal to the spammer to testify against the 'legit' site that he has been promoting with non-compliant content. Even if he's totally lying his ass off that you knew you still have to spend at least a hundred k in attorney fees to fight charges off effectively at a federal level. 2257 is still a real threat.

There are a 1000 reasons the cops can decide to look into an adult webmasters business affairs. It just takes one nosey investigator with a hard-on to turn your life and business to shit. Your jealous girlfriend could turn you in saying you had child porn (even if you didn't), the UPS guy whose daughter goes to school with your kids may notice the volume of adult materials being shipped in and out of your home business, some one may break into your business while you're gone and the cops enter before you do, etc....just little, completely unavoidable things like this can start off years of a very well-publicised hell. Now go and fight a federal 2257 charge (even if it's bullshit) while you're at it. Fun, Fun.

09-08-2005, 06:09 AM	#1
mrthumbs salad tossing sig guy Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: mrthumbs*gmail.com Posts: 11,702	So whats left of the 2257 horror? It was the end of the world and look at us now. Anyone suffering?

09-08-2005, 06:18 AM	#4
2257-Ben Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Dinuba, CA Posts: 633	The judge still has not made his ruling as to whether the DOJ can start enforcing the new regs, particularly with regard to secondary producers. The stipulation agreement between the FSC and the DOJ has been extended 30 days or until the judge makes his ruling. There has been one individual brought up on 2257 violations charges as a result of an obscenity case, where the plain view evidence rules revealed they didn't have 2257 records. (We're going to see more of this, even if the inspections don't move forward for some reason) According to Samuel Kaplan, attorney for the DOJ, the judge will be ruling pretty soon, he says before the end of the month (Sept 2005). He's pretty confident that the 'clarifications' that he's brought before the court will allow inspections and enforcement to commence, and quite frankly, the DOJ really has a hard-on for starting to enforce this. They're not going to go away on this one. __________________ 2257-Ben www.2257ware.com The BEST, most compliant 2257 record-keeping software available. Period.

09-08-2005, 06:20 AM	#5
2257-Ben Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Dinuba, CA Posts: 633	BTW... I have also had contact from several US Senators regarding the 2257 regs and there seems to be broad support in the US Senate to ensure that if the DOJ isn't allowed to enforce the current regulations, they will enact some other legislation to ensure it gets enforced. __________________ 2257-Ben www.2257ware.com The BEST, most compliant 2257 record-keeping software available. Period.

09-08-2005, 06:41 AM	#12
2257-Ben Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Dinuba, CA Posts: 633	Sorry to disagree with you here Fletch... If you're busted for fraud and spamming and the DOJ investigators find as a result of their investigation that you do not have 2257 records, they can (and apparently will) charge you with 2257 record keeping violations, especially if they think they may have a weak case for the fraud or spamming. It's gonna be much harder for people to weasel out of the record keeping requirements charges and even if they don't get convictions on the fraud or spamming charges for some reason, they'll have a pretty solid case for non-compliance to 2257 regulations. __________________ 2257-Ben www.2257ware.com The BEST, most compliant 2257 record-keeping software available. Period.

09-08-2005, 06:23 AM	#6
YankBro Registered User Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 81	In addition, Schaffer is charged with one count of operating three pornographic Internet websites without including required statements describing the location of identification and other records for the performers portrayed in the websites, as is required by federal law. http://www.ccv.org/CCV_Perspective-20050830.htm So, who here thinks the 2257 laws can't take a bite out of their ass? This guy is facing a bigger legal bill than any of you gangsta's could ever afford.

09-08-2005, 06:34 AM	#10
YankBro Registered User Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 81	If you run a legit site you never had a problem with 2257 in the first place. Fact is that a great amount of traffic to legit sites is created by non-2257 compliant resellers and spammers. The feds are not stupid...It won't hurt them a bit to throw federal charges at a legit site that is being promoted by uncompliant resellers. You spend a couple years and a few hundred k fighting the charges only to lose even if you win.

09-08-2005, 06:57 AM	#13
YankBro Registered User Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 81	The fact is that the feds are willing to throw in 2257 charges that in the past would have just been spam & fraud violations. Consider also they offer a deal to the spammer to testify against the 'legit' site that he has been promoting with non-compliant content. Even if he's totally lying his ass off that you knew you still have to spend at least a hundred k in attorney fees to fight charges off effectively at a federal level. 2257 is still a real threat. There are a 1000 reasons the cops can decide to look into an adult webmasters business affairs. It just takes one nosey investigator with a hard-on to turn your life and business to shit. Your jealous girlfriend could turn you in saying you had child porn (even if you didn't), the UPS guy whose daughter goes to school with your kids may notice the volume of adult materials being shipped in and out of your home business, some one may break into your business while you're gone and the cops enter before you do, etc....just little, completely unavoidable things like this can start off years of a very well-publicised hell. Now go and fight a federal 2257 charge (even if it's bullshit) while you're at it. Fun, Fun.