OCCash 2257 Announcement

[xxxjay]

OCCash 2257 Announcement (controversial)

OK, it is time the big OCCash 2257 announcement. This is very likely to be the most controversial one yet. There are more underlying factors to this decision that I am allowed to discuss at this time, but fear not – things will play out in the coming weeks.

Rather than waste your time with my rambling, I would like to provide you with a letter from our attorney, which we have been given permission to post.

Email me jay@occash.com if you have questions, comments, or problems.


THE LAW OFFICE OF
JEFFREY J. DOUGLAS
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

TELEPHONE 1717 FOURTH STREET, THIRD FLOOR TELECOPIER
(310) 576-3411 SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90401-3319 (310) 576-3408

June 10, 2005


Re: Secondary Producer Records Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2257

To Whom It May Concern:

I represent OC Cash Media. We received your inquiry concerning copies of records for secondary producers. I am very familiar with 18 U.S.C. § 2257 in my capacities as a First Amendment and criminal defense practitioner, the Chairman Emeritus of the First Amendment Lawyers Association and the Chair of the Board of the industry’s trade association, the Free Speech Coalition. I write this letter exclusively in my capacity as OC Cash Media’s attorney

Despite General Gonzalez’ efforts at reviving the concept of “secondary producers” in the most recent version of regulations in support of 18 U.S.C. § 2257, the concept is not supported by the statute itself. The only case addressing the issue, Sundance Assocs. Inc. v. Reno, 139 F.3d 804, 807 (10th Cir.1998), held that the “secondary producer” requirements of the regulations to be unconstitutional. We rely on that holding, and further decline to violate the privacy of the performing artists by disseminating private data when not required to do so by law.

If you have any questions regarding this policy, please do not hesitate to call, or have your attorney do so.


Sincerely,

The Law Office of
Jeffrey J. Douglas

By: Jeffrey J. Douglas


cc: OC Cash Media

[Useless]

So as far as OC Cash affiliates go, this only applies to them if they are using the free content, right? (after all, it's not the affiliates responsibility to make sure the programs records are in order)

So you're basically telling affiliates that are using the free content that if the law is passed, they should break it?

Your lawyer representing them for free?

[xxxjay]

Originally Posted by Useless Warrior

So as far as OC Cash affiliates go, this only applies to them if they are using the free content, right? (after all, it's not the affiliates responsibility to make sure the programs records are in order)

So you're basically telling affiliates that are using the free content that if the law is passed, they should break it?

Your lawyer representing them for free?

Things WILL happen before June 23rd - I am not at liberty to discuss what they are, but you will see and all will breathe a collective sigh of relief over 2257 and you can stop pulling your hair out over it.

The DOJ is overstepping their bounds here, we (the webmasters) need to stop bending over, and just get back to making money.

There are very few non-lawyers that are as well versed with 2257 as me and I feel 100% comfortable with our descision.

[tb]

Originally Posted by xxxjay

OCCash 2257 Announcement (controversial)

OK, it is time the big OCCash 2257 announcement. This is very likely to be the most controversial one yet. There are more underlying factors to this decision that I am allowed to discuss at this time, but fear not – things will play out in the coming weeks.

Rather than waste your time with my rambling, I would like to provide you with a letter from our attorney, which we have been given permission to post.

Email me jay@occash.com if you have questions, comments, or problems.


THE LAW OFFICE OF
JEFFREY J. DOUGLAS
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

TELEPHONE 1717 FOURTH STREET, THIRD FLOOR TELECOPIER
(310) 576-3411 SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90401-3319 (310) 576-3408

June 10, 2005


Re: Secondary Producer Records Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2257

To Whom It May Concern:

I represent OC Cash Media. We received your inquiry concerning copies of records for secondary producers. I am very familiar with 18 U.S.C. § 2257 in my capacities as a First Amendment and criminal defense practitioner, the Chairman Emeritus of the First Amendment Lawyers Association and the Chair of the Board of the industry’s trade association, the Free Speech Coalition. I write this letter exclusively in my capacity as OC Cash Media’s attorney

Despite General Gonzalez’ efforts at reviving the concept of “secondary producers” in the most recent version of regulations in support of 18 U.S.C. § 2257, the concept is not supported by the statute itself. The only case addressing the issue, Sundance Assocs. Inc. v. Reno, 139 F.3d 804, 807 (10th Cir.1998), held that the “secondary producer” requirements of the regulations to be unconstitutional. We rely on that holding, and further decline to violate the privacy of the performing artists by disseminating private data when not required to do so by law.

If you have any questions regarding this policy, please do not hesitate to call, or have your attorney do so.


Sincerely,

The Law Office of
Jeffrey J. Douglas

By: Jeffrey J. Douglas


cc: OC Cash Media

Here is the Attorney Generals response:

Dear Jeff,
Fuck you.
We make the laws around here.
If you don't like our new policy, see you in court!
Have a nice day.
Best regards
Alberto G.

Originally Posted by tb

Here is the Attorney Generals response:

Dear Jeff,
Fuck you.
We make the laws around here.
If you don't like our new policy, see you in court!
Have a nice day.
Best regards
Alberto G.

This is a 2.5 billion dollar industry and the shame of 2257 is that is will be left to individuals to fight 2257 as it was left to individuals to fight Acacia.

We have the money hwever lack the guts and organisation to come together and fight as one.

Then we would be the ones telling Alberto we will see you in court.

[Bill]

I for one think it's an interesting and defensible position.

Sundance vs Reno SHOULD apply.

I don't use free content in general, but I do believe S.vsR. still applies to secondary producers like myself.

[MrYum]

Jay...hat's off to ya man

It's about time someone with the resources to fight this thing stepped up! We all know these regs are nothing more than a feeble attempt at re-writing case law and making life a living hell for US adult webmasters.

The regs do absolutely nothing to inhibit or curb cp on the internet. The scum that deal in that crap won't be posting 2257 info because there isn't any to post. They will continue to operate covertly as they always have.

Meantime, honest webmasters are pulling down years worth of work. Removing banners from thousands of pages...basically jumping through hoops in an attempt to stay out of jail.

IF we bend over and attempt to comply with these draconian regs...what's next??? When do GW, Alberto and the DOJ decide that plain ol intercourse is obscene? Blowjobs? Cumshots? ANY kind of hardcore???

Are we US webmasters going to be reduced to promoting bikini sites...or simply put our of business period? Yes, I'm sure GW, Alberto and the DOJ would love to see us all shut down...

But, now that someone with deep pockets has stepped up...wouldn't you rather aide in the fight instead of bending over and taking it up the ass???

I don't have deep pockets...wish the fuck I did...I'd be right there with Jay. As it is, I'm hoping there are other deep pockets in this with him.

But, I am a paid member of the FSC...they are our voice in this...and I support them. Folks, if you can...THIS is the time to support the FSC. Personally, I want that organization to be very fuckin healthy financially. We never know when that voice is going to be needed.

[xxxjay]

Originally Posted by MrYum

Jay...hat's off to ya man

It's about time someone with the resources to fight this thing stepped up! We all know these regs are nothing more than a feeble attempt at re-writing case law and making life a living hell for US adult webmasters.

The regs do absolutely nothing to inhibit or curb cp on the internet. The scum that deal in that crap won't be posting 2257 info because there isn't any to post. They will continue to operate covertly as they always have.

Meantime, honest webmasters are pulling down years worth of work. Removing banners from thousands of pages...basically jumping through hoops in an attempt to stay out of jail.

IF we bend over and attempt to comply with these draconian regs...what's next??? When do GW, Alberto and the DOJ decide that plain ol intercourse is obscene? Blowjobs? Cumshots? ANY kind of hardcore???

Are we US webmasters going to be reduced to promoting bikini sites...or simply put our of business period? Yes, I'm sure GW, Alberto and the DOJ would love to see us all shut down...

But, now that someone with deep pockets has stepped up...wouldn't you rather aide in the fight instead of bending over and taking it up the ass???

I don't have deep pockets...wish the fuck I did...I'd be right there with Jay. As it is, I'm hoping there are other deep pockets in this with him.

But, I am a paid member of the FSC...they are our voice in this...and I support them. Folks, if you can...THIS is the time to support the FSC. Personally, I want that organization to be very fuckin healthy financially. We never know when that voice is going to be needed.

Yeah, it too bad an important post like this gets moved to the spam. There is more politics on GG&J than in Washington - lol.

[Toby]

No politics, just board policy. Only those programs that are paying advertisers may post announcements in the General Business forum.

[Chop Smith]

IMO, it is way past time for folks to quit whining about a post being move....

In due respect, Jay's annoucement via newsletter and via posting here said nothing and would not add anything to a general business discussion about 2257.

The attorney's first paragraph says "I have got a big penis." The second paragraph says "You dumb fuckers, don't you know about Sundance Assocs. Inc. v. Reno".

[MrYum]

Originally Posted by Chop Smith

IMO, it is way past time for folks to quit whining about a post being move....

In due respect, Jay's annoucement via newsletter and via posting here said nothing and would not add anything to a general business discussion about 2257.

The attorney's first paragraph says "I have got a big penis." The second paragraph says "You dumb fuckers, don't you know about Sundance Assocs. Inc. v. Reno".

Perhaps true on why it was moved Chop...not really important at this point though

Respectfully have to disagree that Jay's post has no relevance to a general business discussion of 2257. After all, if the lawyers stop this thing...there's no need to continue pulling sites...buying software to track docs etc.. AND everyone can breathe a collective sigh of relief.

Well...would you rather the attorney in question be a meek and mild guy with 'little dick' syndrome? Or, a cocky lawyer with a BIG swingin DICK?

Certainly not pickin at ya there Chop...you're one of the good guys...I know that Just wish more folks would step up and support the FSC in this fight...I honestly think they're out best shot at stopping enforcement of these regs.

[tb]

So what is the FSC Doing?

I know what OC's lawyer is doing.
I know what I am doing.
I know what a lot of other people are doing.
But I haven't got a clue what the FSC is doing. Pardon my newbeness, but can someone tell me what letters they have sent, what legal proceedings they are involved in, are they actively seeking an injuction? I am not knocking these people what-so-ever, but what are they doing and how and where do I find out?

[Kinky]

Originally Posted by tb

So what is the FSC Doing?

I know what OC's lawyer is doing.
I know what I am doing.
I know what a lot of other people are doing.
But I haven't got a clue what the FSC is doing. Pardon my newbeness, but can someone tell me what letters they have sent, what legal proceedings they are involved in, are they actively seeking an injuction? I am not knocking these people what-so-ever, but what are they doing and how and where do I find out?

http://www.greenguysboard.com/board/...coalition+news

[Useless]

For fuck's sake people. Every other sponsor who has posted their 2257 policy either smartly posted in the advertising forum or was moved here. If you are a program owner posting only about your program, whether the topic be 2257 or how hot your shit is, it's advertising. Sponsors don't post out of the good of their hearts.

[Chop Smith]

Originally Posted by Useless Warrior

For fuck's sake people. Every other sponsor who has posted their 2257 policy either smartly posted in the advertising forum or was moved here. If you are a program owner posting only about your program, whether the topic be 2257 or how hot your shit is, it's advertising. Sponsors don't post out of the good of their hearts.

Now that is what I really wanted to say.

AND

Jay has contributed to this board but damn his whinning about his posts (as multiple) being moved. What the fuck makes him special?

[MrYum]

Thanks Kinky

Here's another place to do some reading TB...

http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/F...7_Comments.htm

True UW...again, I've got no issues with spam being moved at all. Just thought that perhaps Jay's post 'may' help rally the troops to support the FSC.

Chop...it tells me is that someone is willing to fight these regs. Beyond the FSC, I haven't heard of a single other sponsor or anyone else planning to fight.

Yes, of course it's an attorney letter with all the hoopla that goes along with it. But, it also confirms that the battle is not yet lost.

As mentioned previously, my only goal was to rally support for the FSC.

Certainly no desire to start drama with ya there Chop...perhaps we just disagree

[Chop Smith]

Mr. Yum, I truly hate that you and I got trapped in a useless discussion. Certainly us disagreeing does not mean we cannot remain buddies.

My original post to this thread simply stated my opinion

IMO, it is way past time for folks to quit whining about a post being moved....

[MrYum]

Fair enough Chop

When we meet at a show...first round is on me

[Chop Smith]

Did I read Jay's newsletter wrong, Mr Yum?

What did paragraph one of the attorney's letter tell you? It told me that he says he is qualified to render an opinion on 2257 matters. Well, I would assume that is why Jay is paying him to write a useless letter.

Paragraph two said nothing that the average webmaster did not already know - The new regulations could be struck down based on the findings in Sundance Assocs. Inc. v. Reno.

Hell, Jay did not even say what position OC Cash was taking. I think he was trying to say, "At this time, we choose to do nothing different because we thing the regulations will not hold up in court based on Sundance Assocs. Inc. v. Reno." If that is the case, a simple post to one of the many 2257 thread would have been sufficient and his post would not have ended up in the spam forum.

I try not to make controversial posts, but Jay's post here and his original newsletter added nothing worthwhile to the 2257 discussion. Perhaps he will have something interesting to say as things play out in the coming weeks.

So Jay has hired a high dollar attorney and the attorney is stroking Jay to earn his fee. Many of us are in that boat but it is not newsworthy or helpful to fellow webmasters.

[Chop Smith]

The fucking letter said nothing and OC Cash did not make an annoucement. They published a useless letter. If the letter I said, I am spending my entire back account to fight the feds maybe everyone would have a reason to kiss Jay's ass.

I am going to easy on out of here because I am about to piss some folks off...

[MrYum]

Originally Posted by Chop Smith

I am going to easy on out of here because I am about to piss some folks off...

Probably an excellent choice

I have no desire to kiss Jay's ass either...he's not nearly cute enough and he's got the wrong plumbing for my taste

But, the fact remains that at least he's willing to fight this. I couldn't care less if it's Jay, or another program owner...or YOU for that matter...as long as someone is willing to FIGHT!

OH, wait a minute...no YOU wouldn't want to fight it would ya there Chop??? Seeing as you've released a 2257 compliance proggy...not really in your best interest if this gets shot down is it??? Especially since you stand to make $99.95 PER DOMAIN license...isn't that interesting???

Awww...fuck this...Chop, I've got no desire to piss with you...not my style. But at least now I know why you're acting like someone pissed in your Cheerios...when in fact...ALL I'm saying is...People Step Up and FIGHT These Regs...Join the FSC!

Good luck with your new proggy. Gives me even more reason to hope these regs DO get shot down

[Chop Smith]

I don't like Cheerios or Spam.

Do you know if I am a member or FSC or not?

Where in Jay's annoucement does it mention FSC?

You are very wrong about my stance on 2257. But for those that are going to keep 2257 records, I do know where there is a good record-keeping system for sale but I am not going to whore the board with it.

Finally, I have nothing against Jay. His announce just did not say a damn thing.

[MrYum]

Originally Posted by Chop Smith

I don't like Cheerios or Spam.

Do you know if I am a member or FSC or not?

Where in Jay's annoucement does it mention FSC?

You are very wrong about my stance on 2257. But for those that are going to keep 2257 records, I do know where there is a good record-keeping system for sale but I am not going to whore the board with it.

Finally, I have nothing against Jay. His announce just did not say a damn thing.

Hell Chop...I don't like cheerios either...even less so when they've been pissed on

Nope, I don't know if you're a member of the FSC...but I sincerely HOPE you are!

No, Jay's post doesn't reference the FSC...I DID...in the hopes that seeing someone else willing to fight would convince others to join the FSC. Nothing more...nothing less...

Good to know on the 2257 proggy. Hell, no matter how all this shakes out...I'll very likely pick something up to keep better track of content anyway.

Can we just agree to disagree about the content of Jay's post? I was attempting to use it as a rallying tool for the FSC...obviously without success.

Again Chop...I really have nothing against you. And I really hate pissing on boards...goes completely against who I like to see in the mirror every morning

Sooo, whaddaya say Chop?

[docholly]

|cool| just breathe |cool|

[Useless]

Originally Posted by MrYum

No, Jay's post doesn't reference the FSC...I DID...in the hopes that seeing someone else willing to fight would convince others to join the FSC. Nothing more...nothing less...

Do they have free t-shirts? I can't take any organization seriously unless they give you a t-shirt upon sign-up. And I don't want a calendar. I have a very nice calendar from Klixxx on my wall that is chock full of Totem Cash models. My wife has to change the page every month because I don't pay attention to the date.

I do have a nice 'I Spy Cameltoe' hat from Traffic Cash Gold, but I don't wear hats. I'm too sexy for them.