GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum

GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum (https://gfy.com/index.php)
-   Fucking Around & Business Discussion (https://gfy.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   Lensman I smell some FSC bullshitting (https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=485046)

DatingGold 06-25-2005 01:57 AM

Lensman I smell some FSC bullshitting
 
Lensman why did you edit this post?

http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showthread.php?t=483903

Originally your post said that they agree not to inspect anyone until the next hearing, then you changed it to just say FSC members. I just find it very interesting how the post was edited.

Why doesn't the FSC post the actual documents. It was originally stated that there was a 2257 injunction overall, not just for plaintiffs and FSC members.

No disrespect. I just don't get why your statement was changed, was it mis-stated or did I read it wrong?

DWB 06-25-2005 01:58 AM

Front row....

Digipimp 06-25-2005 01:58 AM

i always thought it was obivous why sponsors were pushing FSC so hard, but that's just me

Sami 06-25-2005 01:59 AM

I believe the court documents have been released already!

Hornydog4cooter 06-25-2005 01:59 AM

Damn i was about to go to bed :Oh crap

nofx 06-25-2005 02:01 AM

some very devious actions are in the making

NaughtyRob 06-25-2005 02:02 AM

I am a member just in case and I recommend you all do it.

xxxice 06-25-2005 02:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hornydog4cooter
Damn i was about to go to bed :Oh crap

mee tooo :sleep

WebGod 06-25-2005 02:04 AM

Now if the FSC would hurry up and process my fax join, I'd be able to sleep.

Mr.Fiction 06-25-2005 02:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DatingGold

Why doesn't the FSC post the actual documents.

I thought they released them yesterday:
http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showthread.php?t=484947

AsianDivaGirlsWebDude 06-25-2005 02:08 AM

http://www.chouf.net/Fun/cockpit.jpg

ADG Webmaster

baddog 06-25-2005 02:08 AM

I thought he edited it because he was spilling the beans before the judge approved it.

A big no-no.

DatingGold 06-25-2005 02:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr.Fiction
I thought they released them yesterday:
http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showthread.php?t=484947

So was what Lensman posted from his lawyers a mistake? I could swear what I read said differently.

Machete_ 06-25-2005 02:09 AM

Government agrees: (1) not to conduct any inspections, with regard to the Plaintiffs and their members, under 18 U.S.C. section 2257 and the Attorney General?s new implementing regulations; and (2) not to pursue any claim against Plaintiffs and their members under 18 U.S.C. section 2257 and the Attorney General?s new implementing regulations.

not to pursue any claim against Plaintiffs and their members under 18 U.S.C. section 2257 = MEMBERS

DatingGold 06-25-2005 02:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog
I thought he edited it because he was spilling the beans before the judge approved it.

A big no-no.

Did you join?

Digipimp 06-25-2005 02:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ebus_dk
Government agrees: (1) not to conduct any inspections, with regard to the Plaintiffs and their members, under 18 U.S.C. section 2257 and the Attorney General?s new implementing regulations; and (2) not to pursue any claim against Plaintiffs and their members under 18 U.S.C. section 2257 and the Attorney General?s new implementing regulations.

i don't see how they could protect only FSC members. what i see is more along the lines of them trying to say they won't target you specifically because you're in the FSC, but being in the FSC won't save your ass. but i don't know what the hell i'm talking about normally.

Mr.Fiction 06-25-2005 02:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DatingGold
So was what Lensman posted from his lawyers a mistake? I could swear what I read said differently.

I have him on ignore, so I didn't see the post.

:1orglaugh

Actually, I did miss what the post originally said - I only saw the recent version.

Machete_ 06-25-2005 02:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Digipimp
i don't see how they could protect only FSC members. what i see is more along the lines of them trying to say they won't target you specifically because you're in the FSC, but being in the FSC won't save your ass. but i don't know what the hell i'm talking about normally.

"not to pursue any claim against Plaintiffs and their members under 18 U.S.C. section 2257 " - I pretty much read that as "their members"

DatingGold 06-25-2005 02:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr.Fiction
I thought they released them yesterday:
http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showthread.php?t=484947

I thought it would have been a lot longer than that.. also District 10 Court.. that doesn't include many states..

Hornydog4cooter 06-25-2005 02:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ContentProducer
I am a member just in case and I recommend you all do it.

I assume you produce all your own content so you would have all the required docs correct? I just dont get the part about "Just in case"

DatingGold 06-25-2005 02:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hornydog4cooter
I assume you produce all your own content so you would have all the required docs correct? I just dont get the part about "Just in case"

haha if you produce it you better make damn sure you got it.. lol

Digipimp 06-25-2005 02:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ebus_dk
"not to pursue any claim against Plaintiffs and their members under 18 U.S.C. section 2257 " - I pretty much read that as "their members"

yes for that. to me it sounds as though being a member just makes you party to the case that's being brought on your behalf as the coalition, however it doesn't make you exempt from the new 2257 unless it's granted a temporary exemption just by being a party to the case.

so with that being said being a part of the coalition could only make you temporarily exempt if that's granted and i haven't read up to see if it was or has been. but if the case fails you'll be in the same shit as everyone else and quite possibly get yourself exposed more, but all of that takes time. and bla bla bla bla bla like i said i don't know what i'm talking about and it's not legal advice.

baddog 06-25-2005 02:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DatingGold
Did you join?

I did, but it was really more as a sign of unity. I didn't need to. This extension does not mean anything to me personally.

Hornydog4cooter 06-25-2005 02:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DatingGold
haha if you produce it you better make damn sure you got it.. lol


Which makes me think about something else now lol. What if a sponsor gives out the proper docs to the afillates and down the road the doj finds out the sponsor shot a minor or something. Will the afillates be held responsable and asguilty as the sponsor ? real scary think about it :Oh crap

baddog 06-25-2005 02:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DatingGold
I thought it would have been a lot longer than that.. also District 10 Court.. that doesn't include many states..


Six to be exact, 6 whose populations combined equals LA maybe (going by memory I think it is Wy, UT, CO, NM, KS and OK). Not too many webmasters there I don't think.

Digipimp 06-25-2005 02:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hornydog4cooter
Which makes me think about something else now lol. What if a sponsor gives out the proper docs to the afillates and down the road the doj finds out the sponsor shot a minor or something. Will the afillates be held responsable and asguilty as the sponsor ? real scary think about it :Oh crap

i would say the answer is yes. and another thing with all the encryption ideas sound great and shit, but what happens. hey the feds are here, oh hold on let me call so and so and get the id's for you. i don't have firsthand knowledge these girls are legal, but i'm sure they do. oh i'm on hold they'll get back to me in a few days, they're a big company their support is slow. so the feds say, oh no problem, can we schedule a better time to seize your hard drives and consider charging you.

Hornydog4cooter 06-25-2005 02:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog
Six to be exact, 6 whose populations combined equals LA maybe (going by memory I think it is Wy, UT, CO, NM, KS and OK). Not too many webmasters there I don't think.


wait wait wait.... lol So you are saying the injunction only covers people und the District 10 Court area?

gecko 06-25-2005 02:33 AM

Guess I shouldn't be heading to bed

Hornydog4cooter 06-25-2005 02:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gecko
Guess I shouldn't be heading to bed


Nope this should prove to be interesting. I will be on the phone tommorw. I wish the FSC would get someone over here to anwser question

Hornydog4cooter 06-25-2005 02:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Digipimp
i would say the answer is yes. and another thing with all the encryption ideas sound great and shit, but what happens. hey the feds are here, oh hold on let me call so and so and get the id's for you. i don't have firsthand knowledge these girls are legal, but i'm sure they do. oh i'm on hold they'll get back to me in a few days, they're a big company their support is slow. so the feds say, oh no problem, can we schedule a better time to seize your hard drives and consider charging you.


Thats alot of trust to be puting in a sponsor..........

Bladewire 06-25-2005 02:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DatingGold
Originally your post said that they agree not to inspect anyone until the next hearing, then you changed it to just say FSC members. I just find it very interesting how the post was edited.

Why doesn't the FSC post the actual documents. It was originally stated that there was a 2257 injunction overall, not just for plaintiffs and FSC members.

I thought the same thing so I went to the 10th circuit court website... ennrolled in the PACE online document system.. got the docs & uploaded them to one of my servers:

Document 1: HEARING ON TERMS OF STIPULATION

Document 2: STIPULATION REGARDING MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

ALSO

Here is Exhibit A that the DOJ is using against the FSC. You know.. the FSC attorney making statements on the site that the FSC doesn't endorse relying on Sundance for protection.. something of that nature.

baddog 06-25-2005 02:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hornydog4cooter
wait wait wait.... lol So you are saying the injunction only covers people und the District 10 Court area?


If there was an injunction, only courts are required to honor it, although usually all will.

Thing is, I don't think they went for the injunction yet, they just stipulated to the conditions you have already read.

DatingGold 06-25-2005 02:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hornydog4cooter
wait wait wait.... lol So you are saying the injunction only covers people und the District 10 Court area?

I'd be surprised if the FSC answered that question. Should you bother to join if your business is in a different district? Can District 10 grant an FSC member in NY or Florida an injuction?

Hornydog4cooter 06-25-2005 02:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog
If there was an injunction, only courts are required to honor it, although usually all will.

Thing is, I don't think they went for the injunction yet, they just stipulated to the conditions you have already read.


ah ok.....

Digipimp 06-25-2005 02:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hornydog4cooter
Thats alot of trust to be puting in a sponsor..........

well that's why in theory with the new regs we wouldn't be trusting the sponsor, we would be directly as liable for it as they are. yet the sponsors won't provide you direct access to the stuff for the most part, until they're seizing your hard drives. so you are putting your trust all in the hands of the sponsor since generally for hardcore content you won't have the actual id to look at and check. you might have access if there is a case against you, or you might have an encrypted copy you've never seen personally or what not.

so sure the govt is fucking us on this one, we all know that. i for one would be very happy to see all of the sponsors providing good quality softcore content anyway and always have wanted that.

Hornydog4cooter 06-25-2005 02:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DatingGold
I'd be surprised if the FSC answered that question. Should you bother to join if your business is in a different district? Can District 10 grant an FSC member in NY or Florida an injuction?


This shit will make your head spin.......

baddog 06-25-2005 02:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squirtit
I thought the same thing so I went to the 10th circuit court website... ennrolled in the PACE online document system.. got the docs & uploaded them to one of my servers:

Document 1: HEARING ON TERMS OF STIPULATION

Document 2: STIPULATION REGARDING MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

ALSO

Here is Exhibit A that the DOJ is using against the FSC. You know.. the FSC attorney making statements on the site that the FSC doesn't endorse relying on Sundance for protection.. something of that nature.


Oh yeah, huge victory. Power to the people.

</sarcasm>

DatingGold 06-25-2005 02:47 AM

Well the docs, which I overlooked before are saying "members" only.

so that's insightful.. just wondering about districts now.

baddog 06-25-2005 02:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DatingGold
Well the docs, which I overlooked before are saying "members" only.

so that's insightful.. just wondering about districts now.


Well, after reading the stipulation, it says the DOJ won't hold inspections on members, it doesn't say it won't conduct inspections on members in the 10th District, so I am sure it applies to all.

Hornydog4cooter 06-25-2005 02:51 AM

Total time in court 24 minutes.... Glad to see it was a long draged out fight....


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:46 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123