FREE SPEECH COALITION releases new statement about 2257

[Bill]

This is the critical paragraph IMO:

“Judge Miller has not amended or vacated the preliminary injunction entered in December, 2005. As to secondary producers and all other matters addressed, it remains in full force and effect unless and until he does so or until he enters a final order in the case. That is not likely to happen soon. In the meantime, if the government moves to vacate a portion of that injunction, FSC is prepared to move that it be expanded.” Lee said. “We should have a better idea about the timing and direction of the 2257 litigation after the April 25 status hearing.”

The whole statement:

Free Speech Takes Next Step in the 2257 Case

April 13, 2007 - On Friday, April 13, 2007, the Free Speech Coalition filed a motion with Colorado Federal District Court Judge Walker Miller seeking clarification and modification of his recent order. “This filing is in response to Judge Miller’s interim decision issued March 30, 2007,” explained Reed Lee, FSC Board member and President of the First Amendment Lawyers Association.

Additionally, in response to a joint request by FSC and the Government, Judge Miller has agreed to hold a status conference to consider scheduling further proceedings in the case. Further litigation will take account of the changes which Congress made to the statutory record keeping scheme last July. The status conference is scheduled to take place Wednesday, April 25, 2007.

“Judge Miller has not amended or vacated the preliminary injunction entered in December, 2005. As to secondary producers and all other matters addressed, it remains in full force and effect unless and until he does so or until he enters a final order in the case. That is not likely to happen soon. In the meantime, if the government moves to vacate a portion of that injunction, FSC is prepared to move that it be expanded.” Lee said. “We should have a better idea about the timing and direction of the 2257 litigation after the April 25 status hearing.”

“FSC will continue to provide regular updates on the status of 2257 as the case unfolds through our weekly XPRESS newsletter, e-mail alerts, and posting on our websites,” said Diane Duke, FSC Executive Director. “We are committed to providing accurate, up-to-date information to our members and the industry.”

http://freespeechcoalition.com/

[stuveltje]

i am realy getting a bit tired of that 2257 rule thing

[Bill]

I hear that.

Imagine how those of us who face a 5 year prison sentence and a half million dollar fine if we make a mistake in our paperwork feel.

What naughtyamerica just annouced here is exhausting too. New hoops that affiliates have to jump thru.

But, that annoucement by the FSC seems a teeny bit encouraging - saying that the judge hadn't vacated the 2005 agreement, so that it was still in force.

I keep looking around for a laymans description of what the record keeping requirements of 2257 for american webmasters actually will be - with no luck.

I don't know if this will affect your business much, Stu. What do you think?

[stuveltje]

i dont care about the 2257 rule, i never did, lett them hit my door, its usa rule, even i am on usa host, it wont get that far i will be hit by the usa law, i have nothing to do with that, oke its not fair compair with the usa webmasters, but for real.....i dont care about the 2257, as long i have the papers for the licensee of the content, this 2257 rule is more for the usa webmasters, but my thinking is, oke usa laws, fine, it are not the world rules, USA have to learn that they dont rule the word and never will rule the world, i dont get it, in adult biss the most money is made, so the goverment has some benefit of that, why the fuck bug that biss, i bett ya all who are making those new rules a sneaky watching porn when their wifes are in bed and using their right hand to get off (or left hand). i also think those rules are more to scae people, but then thats just my thinking , i am not an usa person but they wont scare me

[Jim]

Originally Posted by Bill

I hear that.



But, that annoucement by the FSC seems a teeny bit encouraging - saying that the judge hadn't vacated the 2005 agreement, so that it was still in force.

By just looking at that paragraph, it does seem a little encouraging. But, don't you feel let down by the FSC? It seems like it is going to take a much larger group to finally get the job done.

[Cleo]

I'm moving in with stuveltje...

[emmanuelle]

Originally Posted by Jim

But, don't you feel let down by the FSC? It seems like it is going to take a much larger group to finally get the job done.

They do seem rather toothless, don't they?

[stuveltje]

Originally Posted by Cleo

I'm moving in with stuveltje...

i just told hubby we get a new room mate.....his answer" is it a hot girl"?

[GonZo]

Originally Posted by Jim

By just looking at that paragraph, it does seem a little encouraging. But, don't you feel let down by the FSC? It seems like it is going to take a much larger group to finally get the job done.

FSC lied to us all.

[Bill]

Yeah, well, if there's somebody else that can take us to the dance, name 'em.

The truth is, webmasters got squat for organization and barely more than squat for money.

I'm dissapointed and pissed off too, and if I saw an alternative I'd be talkin' it up.

If you all see something I don't, tell us about it.

[Bill]

I was having firewall problems during the radio show.

Did anybody come up with any alternatives to the FSC?

[Jim]

Originally Posted by Bill

I was having firewall problems during the radio show.

Did anybody come up with any alternatives to the FSC?

Not really Bill. We are stuck with those that brung us.

[Mr. Blue]

Originally Posted by Bill

The truth is, webmasters got squat for organization and barely more than squat for money.

Herding Cats...I think someone on this forum used that description when it came to organizing webmasters, but that pretty much nailed it. FSC was the only one to step up...so, supporting them kind of makes sense. Which reminds me I have to get my yearly membership in again.

At times I wonder if the ACLU would have gotten involved if it didn't see FSC step up to the plate.