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

[Kinky]

Originally Posted by MrYum

WOW! Don't know what's up with that Linkster! I'd never seen that page.

When I called them...told them I was an adult webmaster...they collected the $300.

Dunno...maybe that's for paysite owners???

it is for corporations like the big sponsors... problem is that some people are incorporated but aren't able to afford that

[Linkster]

I am just guessing here - but I think the adult WM is for someone employed in a company to do webpage maintenance - wheras someone that runs a website of their own would have to do a per website membership

When you called did you happen to mention that you owned any websites?

[MrYum]

Well, actually I am a corporation...

As I recall from the phone conversation, I told them that I was an adult webmaster with lots of free sites over many domains.

Just looked at the letter they sent me...and it's addressed to me with my corporate entity named directly below my name. They obviously know I'm a corporation...

Linkster... I sure hope you're right about just how these regs will be utilized. I'd be a lot more comfortable with your view if it weren't for the secondary producer provisions.

[domweb]

Last time I said anything negative about the FSC, I got enough flames to warrant buying an asbestos jumpsuit. So let me put it on before I continue...

Reason's I don't trust the FSC:

1. The FSC has been saying for a YEAR that the moment the Justice Dept released the new records, they would file an injunction. NOW they said they had to study it and prepare. As of 6/7/05 they said they would file in ten days.

Bullshit. The regs didn't change enough to warrant all the extra time. That smells like a lazy lawyer who waited for the last minute to do the work. Or perhaps it is a blatant attempt to muscle people for the very high price of membership. Because:

2. The FSC has misled (dare I say lied) to the webmaster community about filing ONLY for members. There is no legal precedent (that I can find) for such a thing. An injunction would cover everyone according to my research. I NEVER TRUST a LAWYER WHO LIES TO CLIENTS. The only reason for a lawyer to lie is to hustle more cash out of you.

3. The FSC has pretty much zero clout in Washington and a limited record of doing anything. But they want everyone to pay $300 PER SITE to make them instant Washington players. Show me a track record before I dish out $1800 on an unproven pony.

4. The FSC has had their online credit card interface down for OVER TWO WEEKS. Again...a lazy lawyer. If they had bothered to ask, countless webmasters would have setup their interface for a comp'ed membership.

If the problems are realy with not having a good cc proccesor, why not? I got a merchant account and I am a nobody. Perhaps the merchant account companies have a good reason for not issuing them an account?

5. The FSC charges $300 per site. If the orginization had ANY concept of how the adult industry works, they would have designed a purchase program for owners of multiple sites or at least offered a bulk discount. There are plenty of adult webmasters making a little extra income with multiple sites. No way can they afford to pay for them all on short notice.

I don't trust a lawyer who doesn't understand the business I am in to defend me in court against the government.

So to sum up:

The lawyer(s) seem lazy.

The lawyers(s) seem uninformed on the business.

The lawyers(s) have close to ZERO pull with lawmakers.

The lawyers(s) lied about basic legal practices (injunction only for members).

The lawyer(s) want to represent webmasters but can't find a good one for their own site.

And while I don't have the numbers, apparently the cost of membership jumped as soon as the Justice Dept reissued the regulation changes? Hmmm.

[MrYum]

Just got off the phone with the FSC.

Geez, gotta agree...their membership fee structure is a bit confusing to say the least

Apparenly, if you have a parent company you operate under (not necessarily a corporation, but a business entity)...the annual fees are based on annual revenue...not $300/site.

In my case, turns out I paid too much at $300...even though I own 60+ domains. And yes, she offered to process a refund for the difference.

[Linkster]

The one thing I dont agree with is that the prices changed - I did some research and they have charged $300 for Webmasters/Websites since at least the beginning of 2004 - thank goodness for archive.org
The difference is that they did not have the $300 per site - they just had a category - Webmasters/websites - $300

[Kinky]

Originally Posted by MrYum

Just got off the phone with the FSC.

Geez, gotta agree...their membership fee structure is a bit confusing to say the least

Apparenly, if you have a parent company you operate under (not necessarily a corporation, but a business entity)...the annual fees are based on annual revenue...not $300/site.

In my case, turns out I paid too much at $300...even though I own 60+ domains. And yes, she offered to process a refund for the difference.

hey MrYum did you happen to ask them what the average joe webmaster is supposed to pay or whether they should sign up based on revenue?

[Mr. Blue]

Originally Posted by MrYum

Just got off the phone with the FSC.

Geez, gotta agree...their membership fee structure is a bit confusing to say the least

Doesn't it get you a little nervous that they overcharged you because they didn't get all the details right?

*Nervously asks* Does anyone know if the ACLU will put forth an injunction?

[Kinky]

Originally Posted by Mr. Blue

*Nervously asks* Does anyone know if the ACLU will put forth an injunction?

have no idea, but the ACLU does have their shit together on their website, I'm a "card carrying member" as their website puts it and their fees are as little as $35

and they are helping to fight the crazy laws that Utah is trying to implement to censor content the is "harmful to minors

http://www.acluutah.org/pr060905.htm

actually I just read on thier website that the minimum to become a member is $20

[Mr. Blue]

Originally Posted by kinky

have no idea, but the ACLU does have their shit together on their website, I'm a "card carrying member" as their website puts it and their fees are as little as $35

and they are helping to fight the crazy laws that Utah is trying to implement to censor content the is "harmful to minors

http://www.acluutah.org/pr060905.htm

actually I just read on thier website that the minimum to become a member is $20

I wonder if we could approach the ACLU as a group and ask them to use our donations / contributions strictly to fight the 2257 regs. Hell I would gladly throw $100 their way if it was ear-marked for something like that and the ACLU got some seriously good attorneys working for them.

[tickler]

Originally Posted by kinky

...and they are helping to fight the crazy laws that Utah is trying to implement to censor content the is "harmful to minors

Another discussion about the Utah law.
http://www.dailyutahchronicle.com/me...i-957472.shtml

"...tremendous job to index all objectionable sites on the Internet. ......office is supposed to pull it off on a budget of $100,000"
Dumbasses!!!