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

[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!

[RawAlex]

As for the FSC getting scammed on their website or whatever, let me just say that you would think that a webmaster organization would do a better job of being it's own webmaster. Admitting to being unable to control a single subcontractors really maked me wonder about all the rest.

I agree that at $50 I would like to be a member (I donate that much at shows typically). Something like this shoudl be INCLUSIVE. It should have as many members as possible. The $300 membership makes me think of the $300 signup fee for the miami show. It's amazing to think that some of the same people are involved in both.

Go figure!

Alex

[Linkster]

I guess I should have included a reference to the $300 per website:
http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/c...ypes=Corporate

look at the bottom of the app where it lists Dance Clubs, Retail/Rental Stores, Websites

[Kinky]

Originally Posted by Linkster

I guess I should have included a reference to the $300 per website:
http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/c...ypes=Corporate

look at the bottom of the app where it lists Dance Clubs, Retail/Rental Stores, Websites

that is an interesting point Linkster, I guess they think that everybody that is incorporated is rich


and let me clarify I do not agree with the price bump and am not sure why it was done, and i don't feel secure in anyway by giving them money, i just feel strongly that we are all being grouped in as criminals and i don't like it (not that anybody does)

and Alex they aren't just an adult webmaster orginization, in fact i never heard of one webmaster mention them before the 2257 regs came out, maybe that is one of the problems and the reason why they didn't have a webmaster option before on the signup page and the reason for the price increase, although the increase still doesn't make any sense why should webmasters pay more than talent? the increase bothers me too dammit

[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.

[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.

[MrYum]

Originally Posted by Linkster

I guess I should have included a reference to the $300 per website:
http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/c...ypes=Corporate

look at the bottom of the app where it lists Dance Clubs, Retail/Rental Stores, Websites

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???

[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

[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

[stuveltje]

i was thinking to join but hey i am dutch far away from us, the way i talk US, i also understand the US language spoken by those law people...meaning i dont understand shit of it..........i am realing thinking of taking some lessons so i understand the diffecult words better (even others like the way i talk and dont care how others think about that) (stu still thinking why the hell she has bin in college till age 21 and still dont understand the diffecult talking, see college is bad , and no use)no for real i dont think it has any use for me to join that, convince me please.......(did i say that right?)

[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.

[MrYum]

Mr Blue...nope not at all. Mistakes happen all the time. But, I will say this...at least from an organizational standpoint...the FSC doesn't really seem to have their collective shit together. Sad, but true...

I'm hoping their lawyers are better than their office organization

Kinky, kinda goes to what I said above. When I was talking to her, she was able to ascertain how I could have joined in a more cost effective manner. However, she really couldn't concisely explain what it would cost for someone else to join.

Yes, I told her the convoluted nature of their sliding scale was definitely putting off new members...as was the high price.

Frankly, if anyone is really interested...I'd suggest calling them on the phone. Maybe if they get enough calls, they'll figure out a simpler membership pricing structure is in order.

What a pain...yes, one would hope that after all this time...they'd have their shit together better. Disappointing...yup, but...if their attorneys do what they say...I'll be more than satisfied

[babymaker]

Dumb ???? have they ever heard of PayPal or Moneybookers??? they are not an adult web site or selling adult products, so why not throw the buttons up on the site in 5 seconds and take CC's I just don't get the FSC sorry send the hate mail if you want I see too much BS going on, and it is now 9:33pm on June the 15th Court is closed means tommorow is the 16th of June and a Thursday! which leaves Friday the 17th of June if not filed then Monday will be the 20th of JUNE!!!!! 3 fucking days before the regs go into effect! when are they going to file this injunction?? I saw a post last week that it would be filed in a week then i see a post yesterday that it would be filed in a week?? when are they going to file in August??

ACLU i contacted them as soon as the regs passed in the federal register (my local office) and they were very interested and took the basic info and had their attorneys go over it etc they told me at this time after looking into if because the FSC was already involed they did not want to step on their toes for now but would keep an eye on it and keep me informed, they were fast as hell only a day. I have worked with them before on a federal 1st amendment lawsuit and we won we were college students on a newspaper and were never even asked about money we had a huge top law firm plus ACLU attorneys so i would feel much more comfortable with them. (ohh, when i called they never even asked if i was a member didn't matter only the case and if rights of american citizens were being violated)

Maybe if everyone starts calling them and asks their local office for help and explains the situation we can get some help, i called my local PA office so no need to call them, but any other state please call and ask

[Kinky]

thanks MrYum and yeah it does kinda suck that they haven't been able to streamline the online side of the business into their whole program, hopefully all the hoopla will end up with them working more closely with the online webmasters in the future