|
|
|
||||
|
Welcome to the GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum forums. You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today! If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. |
![]() |
|
|||||||
| Discuss what's fucking going on, and which programs are best and worst. One-time "program" announcements from "established" webmasters are allowed. |
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
|
#1 |
|
I'm Lenny2 Bitch
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: On top of my soapbox
Posts: 13,449
|
Started another thread cause I fucked up the title of the 1st one.
N THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Walker D. Miller Civil Action No. 05cv01126WDMBNB FREE SPEECH COALITION, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ALBERTO GONZALES, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the United States, Defendant. __________________________________________________ __________________ ORDER PARTIALLY VACATING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSING THIS CASE __________________________________________________ ___________________ Miller, J. By agreement of the parties, and for the reasons stated on the record at a status hearing held April 25, 2007, it is ordered: 1. ¶ 2 of my December 28, 2005 preliminary injunction order (Docket No. 60) concerning producers who are not involved in hiring, contracting for, managing, or otherwise arranging for the participation of the depicted performer is vacated. 2. Defendant need not respond to Plaintiffs? motion to alter or amend (Docket No. 112) at this time. This motion remains pending and if this case is reopened, Defendant may respond within 20 days of the order reopening the case. 3. This case shall be administratively closed pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 41.2, but may be reopened upon any party filing a motion to reopen demonstrating good cause, on or before May 1, 2008. If no motion to reopen, or motion to extend the deadline is filed by that date, this case may be dismissed without Case 1:05-cv-01126-WDM-BNB Document 121 Filed 05/02/2007 Page 1 of 2 2 PDF FINAL prejudice without further notice. DATED at Denver, Colorado, on May 1, 2007. BY THE COURT: s/ Walker D. Miller United States District Judge |
|
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
I'm Lenny2 Bitch
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: On top of my soapbox
Posts: 13,449
|
wow, I guess nobody cares about this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
BANNED - SUPPORTING TUBES
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: I live in a pile of boogers
Posts: 11,913
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
I guarantee it
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 18,314
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
BP4L OT DL
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: BP4L Swap Meet
Posts: 13,481
|
did someone says boobies, my tracker went off
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Making $$$$ w/ ClickCash
Industry Role:
Join Date: May 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 18,037
|
i'm here for boobie ;)
__________________
ICQ: 86364801 Email: will [at] innovativeassets [dot] com |
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
So Fucking Gay
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 19,714
|
So I wonder if we'll be seeing a new lawsuit filed on new grounds in response to the Adam Walsh Act or what's going to happen now (if anything).
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8 | |
|
BANNED - SUPPORTING TUBES
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: I live in a pile of boogers
Posts: 11,913
|
Quote:
![]() ![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Too lazy to set a custom title
Industry Role:
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Homeless
Posts: 62,911
|
the first thing that will happen will be that the FSC will come to the board asking for more money, and telling you all that you will NOT be covered unless you pay them.
__________________
PornGuy skype me pornguy_epic AmateurDough The Hottes Shemales online! TChicks.com | Angeles Cid | Mariana Cordoba | MAILERS WELCOME! |
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
So Fucking Banned
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: In a house.
Posts: 9,465
|
Basically this entire discussion was "overtaken by events". Between the time that the DoJ put forth the administrative clarifications and today, the lawmakers have passed the Adam Walsh law and that changed everything. The DoJ is currently taking comments on the newer 2256 / 2557 rules and implementations, and then likely after that point a new round of lawyering will be done.
The dropping of the injuction doesn't suddenly mean inspections for secondary producers, mostly because the new rules haven't been clarified and the administrative guidelines are not yet in place. |
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Too lazy to set a custom title
Industry Role:
Join Date: May 2004
Location: West Coast, Canada.
Posts: 10,217
|
I thought the FBI had basically ignored the injunction and inspected someone that was supposed to be on the "do not inspect" list (more like hand delivered list of places to inspect).
|
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Confirmed User
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,143
|
Run and hide... ^^
.
__________________
sig too big |
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
The Demon & 12clicks
Industry Role:
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: SallyRand is a FAGGOT
Posts: 18,208
|
So far the only people that have been inspected is content producers. And actually that is who the Feds should be inspecting anyways. Consdiering the limited resources and man power I highly doubt if any webmasters get inspected. That is unless of course they also produce the content on their site. The average Joe Schmoe gallery submitter who is just an affiliate, I doubt they'll be many inspections.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
So Fucking Banned
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: In a house.
Posts: 9,465
|
GatorB, I think you are right, with an asterix in a minute.
The FBI has performed less than a half a dozen inspections this year, about a half a dozen last year, and are on pace to make their way through the major porn studios by about 2015 (assuming no more companies start to produce DVDs and Blu-Ray discs). They don't have the manpower or apparent desire to be out there each day knocking doors and checking paperwork. It has also been pretty clear that when they show up for an inspection, they know what they are looking for, and rather than just randomly crusing through the files, they are looking for specific titles, performers, and the like. Now the asterix: Once the current rule clarifying is all done and secondary producers can be inspected, I would expect to see at least one or two major secondary only producers get visited just to "test the waters" and to show that the FBI is using thier "new powers". I expect that to potentially be a replicator or an editing company. They may also select a large american based free site or TGP and see what happens. |
|
|
|
|
|
#16 | |
|
Confirmed User
Industry Role:
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: In a refrigerator box by the tracks.
Posts: 4,791
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
ICQ- five seven 0 2 5 5 0
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 10,747
|
Haven't hosted as much as a titty shot in several years...I'll sleep fine tonight.
__________________
Investor with 5m - 15m USD to invest. Do you have a site or network of sites earning 50k - 200k a month income? Email your contact and preliminary data to: domain.cashventures (at) gmail.com....Please...no tire kickers...serious offers and inquiries only. |
|
|
|
|
|
#18 |
|
A freakin' legend!
Industry Role:
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada USA
Posts: 18,975
|
How many webmasters have ever been inspected under this law?
__________________
Boner Money |
|
|
|
|
|
#19 | |
|
The Demon & 12clicks
Industry Role:
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: SallyRand is a FAGGOT
Posts: 18,208
|
Quote:
If they inspect any website it's going to be Hustler or GGW or something like that. Something with a name everyone knows. Ok first of all where do they get this giant list of porn websites to start inspecting. Then there's a 50% or more they are NOT American. They aren't going to fuck with non-American sites even if the AG thinks the law applies to them. Now how do they know it's non-American? Well I guess they can start with whois information( you have to assume a certain % of whois info is bogus, but that's a different topic ). How long does finding a website determining it needs to be inspected and finding out if they can even inspect it take? There is no way more than a small small small % of American porn sites could even be reviewed. Then out of those that they think might be in violation they can only inspect a very small % of those. I also imagine if you get a democrat in office most of these inspections will stop and those Feds can do real work like stopping the next 9-11. I feel if your site steers clear of the whole "teen" niche you have a better chance of winning the powerball and getting struck by lightning on the same day than getting inpsected. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#20 |
|
Show Yer Tits!
Industry Role:
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Somewhere Out there...
Posts: 25,792
|
Praise jebus. The freaks are at it again...
__________________
![]() Scammer Alert: acer19 acer [email protected] [email protected] Money stolen using PayPal
|
|
|
|
|
|
#21 |
|
So Fucking Banned
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: icq: 121189
Posts: 18,889
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#22 | |
|
Confirmed User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Teh Interweb
Posts: 2,439
|
Quote:
"On December 13, 2006, the U.S. Department of Justice announced that Mantra Films had been sentenced to pay $1.6 million in criminal fines for failing to create and maintain age and identity records for films it produced, and that the ?package agreement? between the government and Mantra Films, MRA Holdings, LLC, and Joe Francis required a public acknowledgment of criminal wrongdoing, a pledge of cooperation with the government in future investigations, full compliance with the record keeping laws, and payment of a total of $2.1 million in fines and restitution.[6][7]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girls_Gone_Wild Nice to see GFY talk biz sometimes. ![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#23 |
|
boots are my religion
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Heart of europe
Posts: 21,765
|
and again i am glad not to be an us man
|
|
|
|
|
|
#24 |
|
FUBAR the ORIGINATOR
Industry Role:
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FUBARLAND
Posts: 67,374
|
here we go again
__________________
![]() FUBAR Webmasters - The FUBAR Times - FUBAR Webmasters Mobile - FUBARTV.XXX For promo opps contact jfk at fubarwebmasters dot com |
|
|
|
|
|
#25 | |
|
Confirmed User
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: In my own lil World
Posts: 1,227
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#26 |
|
So Fucking Banned
Industry Role:
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Montana
Posts: 46,238
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#27 | |
|
So Fucking Banned
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: In a house.
Posts: 9,465
|
Quote:
With all the political heavy lifting that was done to get these changes made to 2257, the FBI knows they need to exercise the powers at least once so they don't get called back in front of congress to explain why they don't do inspections. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#28 |
|
Too lazy to wipe my ass
Industry Role:
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: A Public Bathroom
Posts: 38,716
|
i like poo
|
|
|
|
|
|
#29 |
|
Confirmed User
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 607
|
who cares
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
#30 |
|
Confirmed User
Industry Role:
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: NY and Moscow
Posts: 5,535
|
Thanks a lot guys for posting your thought and facts. We really appreciate that
__________________
Need Custom or Licensed Content? Visit PhotoVideoContent.com Email: [email protected] / Telegram: @romatibet / Skype: Peace888 |
|
|
|
|
|
#31 |
|
Confirmed User
Industry Role:
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: AZ
Posts: 7,697
|
I'm not really worried at all
|
|
|
|
|
|
#32 | |
|
The Demon & 12clicks
Industry Role:
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: SallyRand is a FAGGOT
Posts: 18,208
|
Quote:
If I run a website that show porn movies I have to have 2257 info. If I run an actual porno store and I'm selling/renting the SAME movies I do NOT have to have 2257 docs. No one has explained the difference to me. The convenience store up the road doesn't have to prove that any of the models in the latest issue of "barely legal" are actually legal. Why not, if the whole idea of 2257 is to protect children from being exploited and prevent CP from being distributed? |
|
|
|
|