What's going on with 2257 - GoFuckYourself.com

baycouples · 02-23-2006, 06:22 PM

Any news on that front?

baycouples · 02-23-2006, 07:17 PM

I found this article on AVN , but I still don't know what it means. It's written poorly, so I don't understand why the preliminary injunction, which is supposed to be in favor of FSC, is being challenged by FSC:

http://www.avnonline.com/index.php?P...tent_ID=259921

Anybody's got a summary of what's been going on with this since New Year's?

baycouples · 02-23-2006, 10:07 PM

C'mon - one of your people who talk about bullshit all day long has to know about this.

tony286 · 02-23-2006, 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baycouples

I found this article on AVN , but I still don't know what it means. It's written poorly, so I don't understand why the preliminary injunction, which is supposed to be in favor of FSC, is being challenged by FSC:

http://www.avnonline.com/index.php?P...tent_ID=259921

Anybody's got a summary of what's been going on with this since New Year's?

because it really wasnt in our favor it was a hollow victory

baycouples · 02-23-2006, 11:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony404

because it really wasnt in our favor it was a hollow victory

What was? Can you tell me more about what happened?

MrPinks · 02-24-2006, 10:48 AM

Supposedly, unless your a paying member of the FSC, you're covered.

GatorB · 02-24-2006, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony404

because it really wasnt in our favor it was a hollow victory

From what I heard the secondary producer thing was thrown out. Which applies to most of us. Unless you shoot your own content. For the regualr Joe Schmoe TGP/Free site builder the record keeping rule no longer applies. Of course I know this isn't final until all the appeals are heard.

d00t · 02-24-2006, 11:21 AM

join FSC and read their member newsletters

tony286 · 02-24-2006, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

From what I heard the secondary producer thing was thrown out. Which applies to most of us. Unless you shoot your own content. For the regular Joe Schmoe TGP/Free site builder the record keeping rule no longer applies. Of course I know this isn't final until all the appeals are heard.

That was already approved by that court prior and he was just keeping with his courts decision so that wasn't a big victory, everything else the judge said was fine. That's why they are still fighting because they won nothing in reality.

GatorB · 02-24-2006, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony404

That was already approved by that court prior and he was just keeping with his courts decision so that wasn't a big victory, everything else the judge said was fine. That's why they are still fighting because they won nothing in reality.

If it was already approved then how come sponsors are still requiring Americans to go thru hoops before we can use their conent? If there isn't any secondary producer clause for sure anymore then it should be back to the way it used to be, it isn't.

Pornwolf · 02-24-2006, 03:18 PM

Because it cuts down onthe rampant use of exclusive content as free content.

Shh, don't tell anyone I told ya.

GatorB · 02-24-2006, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pornwolf

Because it cuts down onthe rampant use of exclusive content as free content.

Shh, don't tell anyone I told ya.

Oh so they delibertly screw Americans only. And use non existant 2257 rules to do it? Um ok. Any sponsor want to confirm this?

InGayPorn · 02-24-2006, 04:45 PM

The judge's ruling was on the FSC's request for an injunction. The judge did not rule in our favor on all points, so the FSC layers have filed, and have been granted, an appeal hearing. In addition, the DOJ has filed a motion to dismiss. This means they have asked the judge to through out the case and not hear it at all. The FSC lawyers have filed a response to the DOJ's motion and are waiting on a ruling. It is expected that the judge will deny the DOJ's motion to dismiss. All of this is just preliminary legal maneuvering by both sides leading up to the actual trial that may take place in the next two to three years.

Sponsors are being advised by their attorneys to proceed as if there is no injunction. This is why affiliates are still having to jump through hoops. It is good advice, because the injunction is only temporary.

Disclaimer: This is not legal advice. Its just an old fart's opinion.

baycouples · 03-02-2006, 12:58 PM

So, if you're an FSC member - you're still safe, correct?

02-23-2006, 06:22 PM	#1
baycouples Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: San Jose, CA Posts: 1,341	What's going on with 2257 Any news on that front?

02-24-2006, 03:18 PM	#11
Pornwolf Drunk and Unruly Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Hollywood Posts: 22,712	Because it cuts down onthe rampant use of exclusive content as free content. Shh, don't tell anyone I told ya. __________________ I've trusted my sites to them for over a decade... Webair, bitches.

02-24-2006, 04:45 PM	#13
InGayPorn Confirmed User Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 177	The judge's ruling was on the FSC's request for an injunction. The judge did not rule in our favor on all points, so the FSC layers have filed, and have been granted, an appeal hearing. In addition, the DOJ has filed a motion to dismiss. This means they have asked the judge to through out the case and not hear it at all. The FSC lawyers have filed a response to the DOJ's motion and are waiting on a ruling. It is expected that the judge will deny the DOJ's motion to dismiss. All of this is just preliminary legal maneuvering by both sides leading up to the actual trial that may take place in the next two to three years. Sponsors are being advised by their attorneys to proceed as if there is no injunction. This is why affiliates are still having to jump through hoops. It is good advice, because the injunction is only temporary. Disclaimer: This is not legal advice. Its just an old fart's opinion. __________________ Submit your news worthy announcements to InGayPorn.com

02-23-2006, 07:17 PM	#2
baycouples Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: San Jose, CA Posts: 1,341	I found this article on AVN , but I still don't know what it means. It's written poorly, so I don't understand why the preliminary injunction, which is supposed to be in favor of FSC, is being challenged by FSC: http://www.avnonline.com/index.php?P...tent_ID=259921 Anybody's got a summary of what's been going on with this since New Year's?

02-23-2006, 10:07 PM	#3
baycouples Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: San Jose, CA Posts: 1,341	C'mon - one of your people who talk about bullshit all day long has to know about this.

02-24-2006, 10:48 AM	#6
MrPinks Registered User Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: FL Posts: 1,767	Supposedly, unless your a paying member of the FSC, you're covered.

02-24-2006, 11:21 AM	#8
d00t Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: In your mind Posts: 3,766	join FSC and read their member newsletters

03-02-2006, 12:58 PM	#14
baycouples Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: San Jose, CA Posts: 1,341	So, if you're an FSC member - you're still safe, correct?