Greenguy's Board


Go Back   Greenguy's Board > General Business Knowledge
Register FAQ Calendar Today's Posts

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 2007-04-07, 03:50 PM   #1
Bill
Selling porn allows me to stay in a constant state of Bliss - ain't that a trip!
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 3,914
Quote:
Originally Posted by lassiter View Post
Yes, I'm left once more with the strong impression that the FSC is much more interested in protecting the XXX video industry players in the Valley than in protecting the concerns of thousands of scattered webmasters who are affiliates/secondary producers.

And if FSC isn't gonna fight to strike these new Adam Walsh Act provisions down, then the only way they can be removed is if a secondary producer is tried and convicted under 2257, and manages to raise the $$$ to appeal and challenge the law in federal court - a process that usually takes several years.
While I also am wondering about the competence of the FSC's legal beagles, I'm not sure I'm following how this is about favoritism to the brick and mortar crowd.

Again, I'd like to know why this adam walsh act thing seems to be coming so completely out of left field?

Who knew about this before last weeks ruling?

And why hasn't it been an issue among us before this?

Has anyone here or in any of the other webmaster communities been trying to warn us about adam walsh, but we haven't listened?
Bill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-04-07, 04:18 PM   #2
lassiter
I'm normally not a praying man, but if you're up there, please save me Superman!
 
lassiter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 473
Send a message via ICQ to lassiter Send a message via Yahoo to lassiter
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill View Post
Again, I'd like to know why this adam walsh act thing seems to be coming so completely out of left field?

Who knew about this before last weeks ruling?
I did, but then I follow this stuff. AVN did several articles about it over the past few months.

I think there was a vague perception (hope?) that the proposed rules - that would make Hollywood have to do laborious 2257 recordkeeping over their simulated sex scenes - was so ridiculous that the thing would never pass, and if it did, the MPAA would foot the bill to get it overturned.

The only part that is news to me is that the MPAA actually managed to get an exemption carved out for the big Hollywood studios, leaving the XXX community to bear the sole brunt of the 2257 re-write.
lassiter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-04-07, 04:41 PM   #3
Toby
Lonewolf Internet Sales
 
Toby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Houston
Posts: 4,826
Send a message via ICQ to Toby
Quote:
Originally Posted by lassiter View Post
I did, but then I follow this stuff.
Ditto.

The first post about it on this board was in March of '06
http://www.greenguysboard.com/board/...ad.php?t=29681
Toby is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:17 AM.


Mark Read
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© Greenguy Marketing Inc