Extremely Important 2257 Matter - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

davecummings · 08-01-2007, 08:01 AM

I guess "inserting" comments might be a little confusing, so I've "Astericked ***" the comments--see below.

Originally Posted by baycouples

Dave,

Can you tell us if you really believe that FSC has really done a good job fighting the 2257

****Yes--as a Plaintiff, I was there in the depositions, meetings, negotiations, court hearing, etc and witnessed FSC attorneys doing a GREAT job on behalf of the Secondary Producers and the Adult Industry.

and the Adam Walsh act?

***IMO, that's a fight that's just starting (keep in mind that Congress passed the 2257 revisions part of it without so much as a hearing).

And if somehow you actually do think so - can you tell us what are the things that could be any worse than they are now if FSC never fought this?

***IMO, had not the FSC won the TRO in 2005, Secondary Producers would have ALREADY been being inspected by the FBI.

Thank you!

***You're welcome:-)

Dave

CIVMatt · 08-01-2007, 08:36 AM

wtf 3rd page?! Back to the top!

MrPinks · 08-01-2007, 08:46 AM

Great point because I have a lot more comments on more than just costs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt 26z

The FSC site says to comment on the costs associated with compliance. Shouldn't we also bring up things such as concern over interpritations that the full custodian of records address must appear on every single page and not just links?

footmonkey · 08-01-2007, 08:50 AM

Thanks for the updates, Dave. Great thread!

OldJeff · 08-01-2007, 08:51 AM

From the FSC Site

or an expense of over $100,000,000 annually to the industry as a whole,

• For secondary producers the difficulty and expense of obtaining records from primaries

I am betting by what we had to throw away,(about a million images), just the content no longer usable because of inability and or refusal by primaries to give the records. That the LEGAL content that has been thrown away industry wide is in excess of 100 million

TheLegacy · 08-01-2007, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett

I was thinking the same thing. They are basically trying to hold a secondary producer libel for something he can not control.

The secondary producer never meets the model nor do they have a chance to inspect the models ID. For all we know a "scanned" ID was done in Photoshop.

That's like trying to hold walmart libel because Niki used child labor to make shoes walmart sells.

sadly this isn't about fairness - it's about making it more difficult for the adult industry to survive in a free society. They can't take away the rights we have, but they can sure make it more difficult for us to assert them.

Once again mainstream adult content is being grouped in with underground illegal content and we are all seen as producers of it. Talking to people I mention how much we hate CP and want to stop it and their responses are, "but your in the adult industry, you and your friends there I thought were creating it? Aren't you all the same?"

If they seriously want to stop pedophiles - start putting regulations on the churches.

davecummings · 08-01-2007, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheLegacy

sadly this isn't about fairness - it's about making it more difficult for the adult industry to survive in a free society. They can't take away the rights we have, but they can sure make it more difficult for us to assert them.

Once again mainstream adult content is being grouped in with underground illegal content and we are all seen as producers of it. Talking to people I mention how much we hate CP and want to stop it and their responses are, "but your in the adult industry, you and your friends there I thought were creating it? Aren't you all the same?"

If they seriously want to stop pedophiles - start putting regulations on the churches.

Everything you said is right on target--thanks! What a shame that FBI "Inspectors" and DOJ employees working on 2257 stuff can't instead go after the Child Porn (and the clergy who take/took advantage of children).

Dave

Snake Doctor · 08-01-2007, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrPinks

Great point because I have a lot more comments on more than just costs.

Most of us do, but please remember that the comments are for the regulations themselves, not the law. Commenting on the unfairness of the law is a waste of your time, because the DOJ doesn't control that.

baycouples · 08-03-2007, 12:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davecummings

Can you tell us if you really believe that FSC has really done a good job fighting the 2257

****Yes--as a Plaintiff, I was there in the depositions, meetings, negotiations, court hearing, etc and witnessed FSC attorneys doing a GREAT job on behalf of the Secondary Producers and the Adult Industry.

Dave, what are you judging the performance of the FSC attorney's? I'm judging it by the results, which leads me to ask a question that you didn't really answer: how are we better off now than before this lawsuit?

From where I see it - the FSC's attorney haven't gained a ground. I see no results.

MrPinks · 08-05-2007, 02:27 PM

I am really losing any hope that FSC will get this shot down. Why are they only asking for comment on the financial side of things? There are many other issues that they should be seeking comments for such things as privacy. I really have doubt that this will turn out in our favor but I am still going to submit my comments.

davecummings · 08-08-2007, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baycouples

Dave, what are you judging the performance of the FSC attorney's? I'm judging it by the results, which leads me to ask a question that you didn't really answer: how are we better off now than before this lawsuit?

From where I see it - the FSC's attorney haven't gained a ground. I see no results.

I'm not qualified to make a judgment about "the performance of the FSC attorney's", but I did see them get a TRO for Secondary producers (and I have seen Primary producers being inspected, but NO Secondary producers).

FSC success in getting that TRO resulted in Secondary producers NOT being subject to inspection by the DOJ/FBI; IMHO, it's inapporpriate to fault/blame the "FSC attorney's" because the FSC TRO success was thwarted by Congress SUBSEQUENTLY adding the inclusion of Secondary Producers to a subsequent law (Adam-Walsh), something that I understand was slipped in without any Congressional hearings.

Rather than debating the success of FSC, I personally will focus on the present opportunity to provide input to FSC/DOJ that is intended to help the Adult Industry.

Dave

Sands · 08-08-2007, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrPinks

I am really losing any hope that FSC will get this shot down. Why are they only asking for comment on the financial side of things? There are many other issues that they should be seeking comments for such things as privacy. I really have doubt that this will turn out in our favor but I am still going to submit my comments.

I have very serious doubts that the FSC has asked for these specific comments haphazardly. I feel that one line of reasoning is that this current administration is well versed in justifying their own actions that skirt privacy concerns (FISA, Gitmo, and etc.). Therefore, attacking the regulations on the premise that it creates an enormous and undue financial burden could be a novel and (hopefully) effective method of nipping this in the bud. The First Amendment and privacy concerns are, in my humble opinion, a set of abstract and liquid ideas that change from person to person... but money is money, figures are figures, and you can put objective and concrete figures onto a sheet of paper and say, "look, this won't work and here's why."

This doesn't mean that the privacy issue goes away... hell, it might even be a good idea to keep that in their back pocket and then if the proposed regulations do actually go through, then they can pull it out for when there's (and oh god I hope there is) a Democratic administration.

Just my

. Be sure to check out the Xbiz 2257 seminar... very interesting stuff: http://www.xbizforum.com/seminars2.php

DaddyHalbucks · 08-18-2007, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikesouth

The whole problem with 2257 altogether is that you are being forced to prove yourself innocent of a crime that never happened.

It would seem to me the whole thing is unsonstitutional on that basis alone.

I know 2257 has yet to be challeneged in a real criminal case and Im not sure exactly where the FSC stands ot trying to get the whole thing tossed.

Excellent, excellent point.

CurrentlySober · 08-18-2007, 10:28 AM

love the mlf list lol

swampthing · 08-18-2007, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davecummings

I'm not qualified to make a judgment about "the performance of the FSC attorney's", but I did see them get a TRO for Secondary producers (and I have seen Primary producers being inspected, but NO Secondary producers).

FSC success in getting that TRO resulted in Secondary producers NOT being subject to inspection by the DOJ/FBI; IMHO, it's inapporpriate to fault/blame the "FSC attorney's" because the FSC TRO success was thwarted by Congress SUBSEQUENTLY adding the inclusion of Secondary Producers to a subsequent law (Adam-Walsh), something that I understand was slipped in without any Congressional hearings.

Rather than debating the success of FSC, I personally will focus on the present opportunity to provide input to FSC/DOJ that is intended to help the Adult Industry.

Dave

So where does that leave us now?
Why are they not going after the (adam walsh) ruling?

08-01-2007, 08:01 AM	#51
davecummings Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: San Diego Posts: 2,922	I guess "inserting" comments might be a little confusing, so I've "Astericked *" the comments--see below. Originally Posted by baycouples Dave, Can you tell us if you really believe that FSC has really done a good job fighting the 2257 Yes--as a Plaintiff, I was there in the depositions, meetings, negotiations, court hearing, etc and witnessed FSC attorneys doing a GREAT job on behalf of the Secondary Producers and the Adult Industry. and the Adam Walsh act? IMO, that's a fight that's just starting (keep in mind that Congress passed the 2257 revisions part of it without so much as a hearing). And if somehow you actually do think so - can you tell us what are the things that could be any worse than they are now if FSC never fought this? IMO, had not the FSC won the TRO in 2005, Secondary Producers would have ALREADY been being inspected by the FBI. Thank you! *You're welcome:-) Dave __________________ Dave Cummings www.davecummings.com www.davecummings.tv San Diego Email--- [email protected]

08-01-2007, 08:36 AM	#52
CIVMatt Amateur Pimpin Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Orlando, FL Posts: 13,075	wtf 3rd page?! Back to the top! __________________ Make easy money with Webcams

08-01-2007, 08:51 AM	#55
OldJeff Big Fucking hahahaha Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 2,191	From the FSC Site or an expense of over $100,000,000 annually to the industry as a whole, • For secondary producers the difficulty and expense of obtaining records from primaries I am betting by what we had to throw away,(about a million images), just the content no longer usable because of inability and or refusal by primaries to give the records. That the LEGAL content that has been thrown away industry wide is in excess of 100 million __________________ "As pornographers we must act responsibly! ;))"- Nickatilynx I might be Old and Tired, but at least I don't support a whiney cunt

08-05-2007, 02:27 PM	#60
MrPinks Registered User Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: FL Posts: 1,767	I am really losing any hope that FSC will get this shot down. Why are they only asking for comment on the financial side of things? There are many other issues that they should be seeking comments for such things as privacy. I really have doubt that this will turn out in our favor but I am still going to submit my comments. Last edited by MrPinks; 08-05-2007 at 02:27 PM.. Reason: typo

08-18-2007, 10:28 AM	#64
CurrentlySober Too lazy to wipe my ass Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: A Public Bathroom Posts: 38,702	love the mlf list lol __________________ My AI Handywork... My Dream Gal... XXX 👁️ 👍️ 💩

08-01-2007, 08:50 AM	#54
footmonkey Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 639	Thanks for the updates, Dave. Great thread!