Far-L, the FSC needs to clean up some of the very basic things before they can move on to really representing us properly.

First off, let me say this: I am not currently an FSC member. However, I have a closet filled with everything FSC has ever offered at the shows, and I routinely toss a large bill in the bin at every show. The trade shows I have been involved with have always supported and helped the FSC to be at the shows and give them the time and space to discuss their issues.

I am not a member, and the reasons are simple:

1) The membership rates need to be clarified and made SIMPLE to understand, and they must reflect the business we are in online. Free site/ gallery builder - single paysite owner / solo amateur site operator - program owner - content provider - services provider (hosting etc) - independant worker (graphic artists, site designs, etc). Set the rates, publish them, make them reasonable, and get everyone under the umbrella.

2) Make signup online work. This isn't a big deal, I am sure that the major processors would gladly provide services at reasonable, reduced, or even cost price rates.

3) FSC needs to put someone in charge of communication to the online community, and make an effort to not only provide the news "when it breaks" but to put a regular flow of information in the hands of it's members. If commercial organizations like AVN and XBIZ can get the mail out there (and every other program in the universe mails regularly) why can't FSC get to it?

4) Work more on not only informing webmasters and movie people about what is going on, but also to provide a public information site where we woudl feel comfortable sending surfers to make them better informed about what is going on and how acts of the US government could limit thier access to the porn they enjoy.

At this point, I think the FSC is running so fast that it doesn't have time to focus on finding it's focus and working to do what organizations need to do: Represent and listen to it's members.

Alex

Tremendous feedback and excellent suggestions! I will bring these things up as well.

I agree. The FSC stepped up to the plate on 2257 and aceived a success which benefits every webmaster in the business, including non-US webmasters and non-FSC members.

It wasn't a perfect and ideal process, and you'll hear complaints about it, but the bottom line is still - the FSC fought the feds on 2257 and got the result webmasters wanted, which was protection for secondary producers.

This is the big reason that I think we should ally with the FSC, and try to make it "THE webmasters trade organization".

Do you know who is behind the Adult Freedom Foundation and Paul Cambria, Far-L?

Yes, I'm a member and I think no matter what the FSC deserves support from everyone that is benefiting from their efforts. Lack of online signup is an excuse and not a reason for nonsupport.

Are they perfect? Nope, but who else is stepping up to fight the legal battle for the right to free speech and privacy?

As RawAlex points out you don't have to be a member to support them. I would like them to improve many things but they are doing what is most important and that is protecting people from the legal nut cases that feel rights are only for those identical to themselves.

I will request 2 things before I renew though.

1. They keep fighting the legal battles just like they are now. No need to change things.

2. Get back in front of the Senate and correct the false statements. Such as explaining that most responsible webmasters are labeling their sites, that AVS cannot work based on today's technology and that we are more then happy to work on a better labeling system that can be easily adopted by all sites including news sites.

To me that's what's most important.

Jim & I (the board) are members, but I forget in what capacity because the membership form/costs have change 2 or 3 times since we became members.

I think I registered as my company with the board as my primary domain? In any event, Jim & I are members :)

It's not an excuse, it's a political demand.

I plan on not renewing my membership unless I can do it online.

And I will be trying to persuade others to do likewise.

Politics is all about symbolism and messages. The symbolism of not having an online method to take memberships and donations is profound.

It says, loudly and unmistakeably, "We don't give a fuck about you onliners.".

It is a core issue. A line in the sand. If they can't get their shit together enough to install a goddamn CC processor they are not worthy of onliner support.

I am totally committed to this position.

Using an online processor for $100s of dollars where nothing is actually shipped has charge back written all over it. I would have concerns about accepting $300 from webmasters that understand chargebacks. Wouldn't you if it was your business?

The FSC could ship a document with membership card Return Receipt Requested. :)

Sirmoby, the online signup doesn't have to be "with nothing shipped". Heck, they could ship a small membership package and information to each new member (or a Tshirt who cares) if they think it is an issue. Taking the signup over the phone isn't making it much more secure when you think about it.

The other thing is that membership wouldn't have to be $300 if they had more members. With a membership fee of $50 or $100, they would attract many more webmasters under the umbrella of the group. Putting the membership fee so high (especially for people who just build galleries or free sites) just encourages people to NOT join the game.

"friends of FSC" memberships would go a long way to getting people on the team and supporting the group.

Alex

Sorry SirMoby but you're all wet on this one. An FSC membership isn't like a pay site membership where you can download all the content in a few days. The value is in being a member, not in having been a member. Chargebacks is a non-issue.

Cost is also a non-issue. The number of additional people that would join if there were an online registration available would offset any costs for the CC processing many times over.

It's simply a matter of making it a priority and getting it done.

SirMoby, if that's the best counterargument you can muster, then I am led to believe that you see the political wisdom and message of my argument.

I personally doubt that any webmaster who would join or renew in the first place would chargeback.

But, that is a technical issue, to be resolved in the backend. I can think of several solutions, including publishing the information on chargebacks.

I make political donations all the time - organizations like moveon don't seem to be having a big chargeback issue.

However, perhaps you are suggesting that the FSC fears it will be punished for incompetence or nonaction thru chargebacks?

How many webmasters would have charged back after the list of companies went to the DOJ? How many might try to chargeback now that the ruling came into play?

I'm sure at least a few would have charged back. I can't imagine someone really wanting to donate money and allowing a 3 minute process to stand in the way.

There's a reason why most sites that sell advertising don't use credit card processing and we seem to have no problems buying advertising using other methods.

Sirmoby, it isn't about "donating money", it is about building a group that counts a large part (if not a majority) of the online adult community as it's members. A group cannot even pretend to speak for "us" if so few of us are members (except because many felt they were held for ransom in the 2257 process).

If there are 50,000 webmasters out there, the group would be a stunning success if 30,000 of them were members. It would certainly lend credibility to them when they address courts, politicians, and the public. An "us" group with no "us" is just a few people with nice suits and an agenda.

Alex

You're making an assumption here and I'm sure you know where that's going to go. |pokefun|

It's not an arguement. It's a fact that many webmasters in our business buy things and charge them back months later for many reasons.

Come on Bill. Why are you trying to lead my thoughts? I thought we were reasonable adults here.

Ah, well, politics is, among other things, the art of leading thoughts thru symbolism and message.

Forgive me for a bit of thought leading.

We don't have to agree on this. But, I will continue to make a CC processing capacity a core issue.

For me it is the _first_ issue. A website that meets the needs of we onliners is the absolute minimum. If the FSC can't meet us at least to that point, I will start looking for another organization that can.

Maybe the Adult Freedom Foundation is looking for members.

GG: want to do a radio show interview with spike and tom hymes?

Far-L - email coming :)

I signed up online and ccbill was the processor. I have not looked. Did they change something in the last several months.

Yes, they changed it Chop.

My first $50 donation was made thru that same ccbill system.

Now they have this:

http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/contribution.php

Bill have you looked at the options on the membership link there is an on line option http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/application.php

Freedom isn't free - and the FSC is proving it.

If I was an indivdual, I would pay $50. As a company, I would pay between $100 and "the shy is the limit".


Your company’s Annual Dues are calculated based on the Company’s gross Annual Sales Volume according to the chart below (Please check the most appropriate box):
Annual Sales Volume :

$10,000,000 & over

$8,000 per yr.
$5,000,000 -- $9,999,999 $4,000 per yr.
$1,000,000 -- $4,999,999 $2,000 per yr.
$500,000 -- $999,999 $1,000 per yr.
$200,000 -- $499,999 $500 per yr.
$100,000 -- $199,999 $300 per yr.
$0 -- $99,999 $100 per yr.

Ooops, my mistake then. The penalty for tunnel vision.

What link did you follow to get to that page? I looked for something like that, and thought I followed every link off the index.

Oh. It looks like it's an activex link - and I usually surf with active x turned off.

That's it. It is an activeX link. And I never saw it before, because I surf at high security.

Now see, that's what I'm talking about. What kind of designer makes a critical link like that an activex link?

Just talked to Tom extensively... here are some key points to get across:

1. the old FSC is in serious transition and moving fast and hard to get everything online, message board, polling, memberships, etc. but it is taking time.

2. Just because Cambria is going one direction doesn't necessarily mean that FSC is going the same way.

3. Position Papers are being prepared and the voice of the webmasters will be included.

4. FSC is trying to get included in the hearings and making it clear that webmasters must be included is part of that effort.

5. The FSC Lobbyists do have a lot more support than what is projected in the media and we have to help our politicians understand the issues so they can help make sensible policies.

6. The idea of a filterable metatag is merely an idea and is open to discussion, debate, and counsel. The idea of a proactive approach is a good one regardless and that is what is being suggested for now until better ideas are presented.

7. Political process and lawsuits don't happen in Internet time and people have to be patient about certain aspects of the process. On the other hand - every single suggestion and plan of action presented by its members is helpful now and must be immediately considered. However, decisions in a democratic organization take time - even when there is online polling people will still need to be given time to make decisions.

Thank you Far-L. I'd been hearing many of these things, both from Tom earlier and from others who've been researching the FSC. That all sounds good, like a good start at least.

The comment about Cambria is interesting, and good news, because I think most onliners have been wondering why Cambria hasn't been doing a better job of describing U.S. webmasters and the U.S. online adult business.

Hopefully you can tell us more during the radio show.

Well, since activeX reveals me to be a dullard, the minimal demand I had been thinking of is now a moot point.

And, presumably, the FSC is taking steps to develop their site, as Far-L says in item 1 in his list, so action on the website is also a moot point.

So, that means we need to move to the next most important and symbolically powerful issues.

So, anybody have any thoughts on what the next most important issue should be?

I'm thinking it should be something we can realistically expect can be well started in this upcoming year.

Great info Far-L - thanks!

Yep!

For the moment, I'm happy enough to have Spike do a little recon on the FSC. Most of us know who he is, altho he doesn't spend much of any time here, and I don't know where he does hang out online.

Since we are still in the research phase of things, having anybody who is trying to gather information about the FSC should be good enough.

We'll see how things go.

------------------

Let's see, what to ask the FSC to do to represent us?

How about an anti-spam and anti-scumware campaign? As far as most people are concerned, spam and scumware is synonymous with porn.

How about getting the FSC to push the idea that bulkers and the toolbar crowd are criminals that are hated by real adult webmasters, and to tell people that spam is the problem, not legitimate adult entertainment?

Hah. That oughta make the bulkers and the sponsors happy, eh?

Let's see the position papers. I think they're going to require a lot of work and agreement and until they're right and everyone is on the same page I'd like to stay focused on the most basic of issues.

I want our stance very clear on the FSC website. I've heard many lawyers speak including another one 2 nights ago and they don't seem to have a message that the American people can understand. Until that's in place there's no reason to move on to other things.

Well, I wouldn't think this would be the best time to take off the pressure, but I wouldn't mind taking a couple month break from thinking about this stuff.

---

I tried to log into whatever that private area is on the FSC website, but the ID/pass I was using didn't work. I used the forgotten password link to get the password, but get an invalid message.

Anybody else getting inside that area? What's in there?

Bill, I think you are not far off the idea here.

As "responsible" webmasters, we need to have some basic standards and policies for dealing with the different problems and temptations of our buisness:

- Against toolbars, and programs and sites should decline or redirect to dead pages any traffic from these sources.

- Against non-CanSpam mailings. Against, declining and redirecting to dead pages any traffic from these sources

- Against scumware, malware, forced installs, etc. Same "don't accept traffic" idea.

- for educating parents and caregivers how to best handle their children's desire to be on the net

... and so on and so on. The basic idea is that if we as a group show that we are trying to self regulate and not profitting from bad business practices, then we all look better.

Alex

Don't hold your breath...

Even if you get almost everyone on the same page, the issues involved here will naturally entail certain differences of opinion. The important goal to move forward is to achieve a consensus that at least MOST folks can agree on.

You are absolutely right about the attorneys... but that is par for the course... everything they say is a matter of opinion based on their interpretations... We have to decide what works for us and part of that is realizing clearly what risks we are willing to take as well as what risks need to cleary be avoided. For the risks we are willing to take we need to be prepared to go the distance to prove our point, set a precedent, and hopefully enact positive change.

Okay, we took a month's break from talking about the FSC, and from putting pressure on them, waiting nicely to see if they would do anything, get back to us, or even talk much about the online sector in their newsletters.

It looks like the answers are no, no, and as far as I can tell, no.

So let's see if we can fire off the old boardtracker, and start discussing our political options vis a vis the Free Speech Coalition again.

We got the House of Representatives trying to push a bill to make 2257 apply to us secondary producers, and we got democrat senators trying to introduce a mandatory .xxx bill in the senate.

If we don't get proactive we are going to be handed the shitty end of the stick.

So, I'll probably be starting a new thread soon.

Well seeing how the "lead attorney" for the FSC just happens to be the attorney for one of the most controversial sites around as far as CP, I think that the free speech coalition is most definitely the option to pursue

But what do I know?

I'm finding your comment a bit ambiguous. Would you elaborate?

Actually, you raise a very good point. Lawyers have all sorts of clients, but this one does make me wonder ever so slightly.

Alex

I don't really have a problem with that. Lawyers will defend anyone weather they agree with their clients opinions or not. You see it all the time in a criminal court. Much like the ACLU...All they care about is our Civil Liberties. They have defended everyone from churches to Nazis and Skinheads. As I have said before, if you want Free Speech, you have to take the good with the bad.

Jesus, Mary and Joseph...we (Americans) are losing our civil liberties everyday. I watched Boston Legal as I do each week and a point was brought up about "Free Speech Zones". So, I had to look it up. It's a zone around the president where Free Speech does not exist. It's the reason that people who wear Anti-Bush teeshirts get arrested just for attending a speech by the president. Anyway, I seem to just be rambling.

Jim, I think the question may be as political as it is legal.

Perhaps you could picture Mr Douglas sitting before a congressional panel, answering questions regarding "protecting children with 2257" or whatever, and after a couple of hours, the Senior member from where ever gets his turn to ask questions, and asks:

"Mr Douglas, in your time as a lawyer for first amendment issues, you have represented and done work for a website called Met Art, which featured nudity and sexual situations, mostly featuring models that appear to be quite young. Your opinion of the legality of that website have been in the past posted on that website directly. You indicate that all models are of age. Yet, Met-art themselves have posted a very different view of things, this taken from their website in 2002:

""None of the images on this site are illegal. This has been determined by our attorney, whose is an expert in the law pertaining to the First Amendment and images of nudity. MET contains images of nudity only. There are no images of hard-core sexual conduct, i.e., masturbation, intercourse of any type, oral-genital contact, or sadomasochism. There is no obscenity or child pornography to be found on MET. In order for an image to be obscene, it must violate contemporary community standards, appeal to a prurient interest in sex, and be devoid of any artistic, scientific, political or other social value. Nudity alone is not enough for an image to be illegal, as the Supreme Court has stated on many occasions. "Spread" shots of adult women (at least 18 years of age) are legal, as they do not violate contemporary community standards anywhere in the United States. In order for an image to be "child pornography," it must depict a person under the age of 18 (a minor) engaged in "sexually explicit conduct" (i.e., the types of hard-core conduct described above), or a "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area." Nudity alone is also not enough to make an image "child pornography." U.S. v. 264 Magazines (Jeunes et naturels) (Third Circuit) There are many examples of legal images of nude minors in the United States, for example, in books by Jock Sturges, David Hamilton, Sally Mann and Graham Ovenden, among others. An image of a minor depicts a "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area" when (1) the minor's genitals or pubic area are the focus of the image, (2) the setting of the depiction is sexually suggestive or a place where sexual activity generally takes place (like a bedroom); (3) the pose or attire of the minor is unnatural or inappropriate given the age of the minor; (4) part of the clothing of the minor is intentionally arranged so as to expose the crotch area; (5) the minor expresses a "come-on" look denoting a willingness to engage in sexual activity; or (6) the image is intended or designed to elicit a sexual response in the viewer. United States v. Dost. In United States v. Villard, the Third Circuit stated that "more than one factor must be present in order to establish lasciviousness." Villard and other cases suggest that whether an image is intended or designed to elicit a sexual response in the viewer should be determined from the intent of the photographer, never the viewer. In those few i mages on MET which may depict models who have not yet reached the age of 18 (there are no images of children posted here), we are extremely careful not to run afoul of these guidelines. You will find that all images on MET of models who are not yet 18 are tasteful and artistic, well within the bounds of legal propriety. In conclusion, you, the viewer, can rest assured that we have carefully reviewed the photographs we are posting -- not just to keep ourselves safe under the law, but to keep you safe as well.
MET Staff"

Now, Mr Douglas, considering the type of company you keep and your apparent willingness to find legal loopholes to help keep companies like these in business, why should be take anything you say here seriously?


Think about it. Too often it isn't about right or wrong, but about the company you keep.

Alex

The Cyber Safety Act For Kids has made it to BoingBoing...

http://www.boingboing.net/2006/03/17...ber_safet.html

"Senators Mark Pryor (D-AR), and Max Baucus, (D-MT) have proposed a bill that would require all commercial websites with material "harmful to minors" (in other words, sexually explicit content) to move to a .xxx domain within 6 months of this bill becoming law -- or face civil penalties. Under the terms of the proposed law, the US Commerce Department secretary would be required to develop a domain name for adult sites (presumably .xxx) with ICANN."

and

"Adult industry representatives say the bill if enacted would have a chilling effect on free speech. "This is constitutionally protected speech -- we're not talking about illegal content," said Tom Hymes, a spokesman for the Free Speech Coalition, the trade association representing the adult entertainment industry.

The proposal is an ineffective approach to the problem since many of the adult Web sites are based outside the country and the civil penalties would not apply to them, he said. Hymes said the companies would find ways to circumvent the new designation, including moving their operations offshore. Instead, he proposed setting up a .kids domain name for children-friendly content."

---

Two western democrats trying to out republican the rebublicans.

This is why the democratic party as a whole can say bye-bye to my donations.

Altho I will give money to one specific democratic challanger who has a decent chance of beating the asshole republican senator of my state.