Have you joined the FSC? If not, why not?

[Mr. Blue]

If they priced based on being more inclusive they would do better. Example:

100 people join at $300 they make = $30,000

1000 People Join at $50 they make = $50,000

They also then have an organization of people and not just a select handful. The more people you have the better, as they can actively spread the word to other webmasters, actively push an agenda. If the FSC really started showing signs of pushing our industry ahead...I'm sure most TGP owners, Most LL owners, could help push the FSC as an almost quasi-union for the adult industry.

It's just a thought thought though, but I know I would drop $50 today if that was the membership and not blink in doing so.

[Kinky]

$50-a pretty good deal

$300-kind of a pricey upgrade

going to jail for up to 5 years for doing nothing wrong-PRICELESS

believe it or not it takes money to fight with the gov't and we are the only ones who are going to give the FSC any money... there is no public outcry to protect porn, the public doesn't even know what is going on, and when you explain it to them there reply is "that is just stupid"

[Mr. Blue]

Originally Posted by kinky

$50-a pretty good deal

$300-kind of a pricey upgrade

going to jail for up to 5 years for doing nothing wrong-PRICELESS

believe it or not it takes money to fight with the gov't and we are the only ones who are going to give the FSC any money... there is no public outcry to protect porn, the public doesn't even know what is going on, and when you explain it to them there reply is "that is just stupid"

You missed the point. You can have more money if you reduce the price and have more members. Maybe you can have different pricing for sponsors, etc, and reg. webmasters, I don't know, but honestly the FSC is missing out on not being more inclusive in their pricing. Let me explain:

1. DOJ is going to go after whom? Most likely they'll pick a few easy targets, maybe small webmasters that didn't take the time or money to get compliant. Win a few cases, get some precedents, bolstering up the DOJ’s 2257 regs with some court wins...makes it a little more difficult for everyone.

2. More members, bigger base, more general support in all areas. Let’s face it, there is power in numbers.

Also, I have no intention of going to jail...I'm going to be fully compliant by the time this occurs...which is something the FSC recommends to do…unfortunately that also takes a good deal of money and time. So, you can make it like every webmaster has $300 that they can just drop for a membership, but most don’t. Sorry to break the myth that all adult webmasters are rich and that $300 is just a drop in the bucket

I still might buy a membership, but with the other expenses I had getting 2257 compliant...well, you know how it goes.

[Kinky]

I get your point and I really don't know why the fees were upped, I'm not arguing with you and $300 for me isn't chump change.... my post wasn't directed at you at all, more along the lines of thinking out loud

if people can't afford it I understand that 100% but people completely bashing the FSC I just can't understand... if they had come out and said "we are going to protect every single webmaster with our injunction" and then they can't in the end do it they would be made to look like the biggest bunch of assholes this business has ever seen

i'm not compliant and that is a personal choice... i'm a single guy with no family/kids that will get dragged into the mess if something does happen to me... others have a lot more at stake and if i were in their shoes i might take a different approach to things

[Linkster]

Lets get one thing out in the open here right now - I keep hearing this $300 number spouted - the part that is left out is that that is Per Website that you own - in my case - I couldnt come close to affording that much as I own over 400 websites - doesnt make any sense to me - but I guess I could always shut down 399 of them and pay $300 for one of them.

More importantly - how in the world does anyone if their right mind get any feeling of security that because they gave this organization $300 they will never go to jail over a 2257 infraction - that is just plain pipe-dreams - I dont care how many lawsuits get filed on behalf of their membership - until its litigated - which on average takes a year or so when up against the DOJ - they have plenty of time to keep people in jail.

Oh yeah I forgot - the injunction - thats the ticket - you just keep depending on that and dont take any personal actions to fix/repair your own sites - that'll work!

[Mr. Blue]

Originally Posted by Linkster

Lets get one thing out in the open here right now - I keep hearing this $300 number spouted - the part that is left out is that that is Per Website that you own - in my case - I couldnt come close to affording that much as I own over 400 websites - doesnt make any sense to me - but I guess I could always shut down 399 of them and pay $300 for one of them.

More importantly - how in the world does anyone if their right mind get any feeling of security that because they gave this organization $300 they will never go to jail over a 2257 infraction - that is just plain pipe-dreams - I dont care how many lawsuits get filed on behalf of their membership - until its litigated - which on average takes a year or so when up against the DOJ - they have plenty of time to keep people in jail.

Oh yeah I forgot - the injunction - thats the ticket - you just keep depending on that and dont take any personal actions to fix/repair your own sites - that'll work!

Well, I didn't know it was $300 per site. I own 10 domains and plan on getting another 10 soon...no way could I afford $6000...so forget that completely.

Also, you make the point I was making...right now webmasters should get compliant. This is not easy for many webmasters financially at the moment as there's quite a few groups already sucking the marrow out of the little to mid-sized webmasters. Every smaller to mid-sized adult webmaster should get 100% complaint...lets face it, most of us couldn't financially deal with the DOJ coming after us. Legal fees, lost work time, etc, would bury the mid-sized webmaster.

[Linkster]

kinky - so far I havent seen one reference to anyone as criminals or WMs being grouped that way - except by the organizations that will profit from this

And having been through this type of stuff so many times before in this industry you would think that everyone would remember - of course this time there is a big difference - there's more people trying to make a buck off of scaring the shit out of people - because theyve figured out that the small people in this biz dont spend very much time informing themselves - and can be swayed by public opinions on industry message boards and newsletters/news websites.

Now - as far as the underlying reason for the change to the rule - and the effect it has on the statute - I think some of us have differing opinions on its coverage and interpretations of what will really happen. I happen to be one of those that thinks that very little will change except for those large content producers as far as how often they get inspected, and that the rest of this rule will be used when its needed in actual prosecution of cp cases like what happened yesterday with all the joint raids between the US and European and Russian authorities shutting down hundreds of WMs doing the CP thing.
And I applaud anything the DOJ does constructively to get rid of CP - as a matter of fact Joan I. will tell you I was one of the first "free site" WMs that joined her campaign a few years ago when ASACP was trying to build itself up - and have not only supported them financially but with reports of sites to be turned over to the justice dept for investigation and I still do send reports every time I see it.

Im gonna get off my soapbox - but I think that cooler heads and real information instead of hot-headed "advertising headlines" would be the way to handle these types of situations as they always work out for themselves with the help of a strong community

[Linkster]

BTW - if youre interested in what been happening worldwide in the last two days with CP - heres some good accounts:

http://www.mosnews.com/news/2005/06/14/fbiporn.shtml

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=8785095

[MrYum]

Nice...some good points all around

Well reasoned responses Kinky...and thanks for the ACLU link...I'd been meaning to join...now I have

Venturi...I'm sure some of your concerns are warranted. And it looks like the Kinkster gave you some well thought responses.

I'm gonna keep it much more simple...

I don't really care what the FSC did or didn't do in the past. What I DO care about is what they are doing NOW. And what are they going to do in the future.

They say that an injunction will be filed...they say that a lobbyist will be hired to look out for our interests. Whether or not these things will come to fruition and benefit us...only time will tell.

And yea, $300 is a bit steep...but we all make money in this biz. If it costs me $300/year to have someone looking out for my right to do business...so be it. If the FSC is of no benefit...IF these regs move forward...ok, I'm out $300. Seems a reasonable price to pay to at least ATTEMPT to stop this crap before enforcement.

Oh, I did call an good attorney. He had one of his associates return my call. After a brief phone conversation, he informed me that a $5k retainer would be needed IF I wanted to be able to call them for legal assistance if/when needed.

Personally, I'd rather take a proactive approach to this thing (almost too fuckin late for that now)...and stop this crap before it's enforced. Right now, looks like the FSC is the only game in town that I see stepping up to the plate.