What Has The Free Speech Coalition Been Up To Lately

[gonzo]

I make no bones about being disgusted with the Free Speech Coalition. This is due to a number of reasons, including fiscal mismanagement and questionable use of membership money in the past which seems to be every bit as true today.

Did I nearly forget to mention that FSC takes credit for everything while doing nothing? Well let’s give them some credit here, shall we?

The FSC has had 3 Executive Directors in 3 years, and at the end of 2008 recently issued its 2007 Annual Report. The report was created by FSC International, an unfortunate choice in names but apparently an unaffiliated company out of San Gabriel. While the exact cost of the 4 page report (including cover) is unclear, industry professionals estimate it to be between $12,000 and $18,000 for a whole lot of nothing.

According to the report, the FSC took in nearly $1 million ($968,245) in revenues and paid out 85% of that to a bunch of vaguely named expenses which smack of slush funding for personal pampering.

Take for example the $300,000 paid for “Lobbying and alliance.” Their Washington D.C. lobbying firm The Raben Group (which has yet to do one God Damned thing except for take Executive Director Diane Duke around to some offices to make introductions), was paid a whopping $100,000 just on retainer. The FSC’s California lobbying firm Capital Alliance was paid $40,000 for the same year and they actually killed several pieces of legislation which attacked the industry.

Keep in mind that California is the single largest location for the nation’s adult entertainment industry. At the same time, California lawmakers have been attacking the industry with attempts to tax them out of existence, censoring material, excluding adult films from state grant money, prohibiting anyone under the age of 21 from performing nude, and more. But when the most important anti-piracy legislation came up, which would have protected the industry, the FSC did nothing.

On the federal level nothing has happened since 2257, and rumor has it that while the FSC is paying D.C. triple for doing nothing, it has lost the contract for its California lobbying firm and the FSC is ineligible for reconsideration. I’m just guessing but that usually means something really bad had to go down between them.

What happened to the remaining $160,000 that didn’t go towards lobbying? That was paid to some “alliance” efforts, such as pampering the jetsetting FSC crew and putting them up at luxury hotels every time they had to visit D.C., Sacramento, or San Francisco. Add to that the $114,180 spent on “Management and general” (a.k.a. staff retreats and luncheons) and we have at least 30% of their entire budget spent on nothing but fluff.

Then there is the payout of $114,180 for fundraising that brought in just $41,300 from fundraising events. Anyone who is willing to pay $2.50 to get $1 in return is stupid.


Another $144,269 is totally unaccounted for in the report. One thing is for sure, it isn’t going towards defending any of the industry leaders who are giving up their life’s saving in court to fight on behalf of all adult entertainers. The total amount spent by the FSC on legal issues was just $74,904—or less than 8% of the overall budget.

What was the total amount the FSC spent on things which provided absolutely no benefit to any of its members? About $700,000, or 2/3 of its entire budget.

No wonder the FSC membership numbers are in the toilet as people peel off and jump ship, because it is being driven into the ground by incompetence. The FSC should be disbanded at once and its management forever banished.

http://www.mikesouth.com/free-speech-coalition/what-has-the-free-speech-coalition-been-up-to-lately-2417/

[softball]

Didn't Jeff Miller and his scheister lawyer brothers have something to do with this?

[MAK6]

WOW! If this is what you consider to be “an impeccable source,” I can’t even imagine how wrong your speculative stories must be. Virtually every “fact” in this article is incorrect and can be very easily proven false. So, let’s correct the record, point by point.
• In terms of the cost of the annual report, you claim that “industry professionals estimate it to be between $12,000 and $18,000.” “Industry professionals” can “estimate” all they want, but the actual cost of the report was $1,132.50
• You claim that the Raben Group was paid $100,000. Again, you are WRONG, by about 40%--not a good margin of error.
• You also claim that the Raben Group “has yet to do one God Damned thing except for take Executive Director Diane Duke around to some offices to make introductions.” Those introductions to organizations like the MPAA, Universal Music Group, NBC Universal, the Sony Entertainment Group, Warner Brothers Entertainment, EMI Music North America, Sound Exchange, etc. enabled FSC to host a piracy summit to develop strategies for protecting intellectual property rights. Those introductions to organizations like the Gambling Association, the Gaming Association, and representatives of the alcohol industry have enabled her to collaborate with other industries fighting federal and state legislation and regulation, e.g. sharing the financial burden of fighting the Child Protection Registry.
• You write, “it has lost the contract for its California lobbying firm and the FSC is ineligible for reconsideration.” Again, wrong. In an attempt to ensure that it is receiving services commensurate with the fees it is paying, FSC terminated its relationship with its California lobbyist and instead has contracted with someone who has a proven track record of successful advocacy. While the old lobbyist was busy insulting law makers (on this very site), the new lobbyist was establishing constructive working relationships with legislators. The new lobbyist actually understands that you can’t insult someone and then expect them to do you a favor.
• You assert that $160,000 was spent on “pampering the jetsetting FSC crew and putting them up at luxury hotels every time they had to visit D.C., Sacramento, or San Francisco.” In the past year, Executive Director, Diane Duke made five trips to San Francisco. During four of those five trips, Diane slept on her son’s couch in his small Japantown apartment in order to save the organization money. The only FSC funds spent on a hotel room in San Francisco were at the Holliday Inn for the Cybernet Conference—hardly the lap of luxury. Moreover, while in San Francisco on FSC business, Diane has never even rented a car—SHE TAKES THE BUS—certainly not for her own comfort or convenience, but to save the organization money! Diane has made two trips to DC. Once, out of frugality, she stayed at a dormitory-like facility at Gallaudet University. On the second trip, she stayed at the Doubletree. For this year’s AEE, Diane decided that the room rates at the Venetian are too expensive and has reservations at the Gold Coast Hotel (Anyone ever heard of it? I doubt it.).
• FSC’s other expenses include significant investments in the success of the industry: e.g. the Georgetown Economic Services Report that was used for the 2257 comments, the services of Kelly Drye (a DC firm that specializes in Federal Rules and Regulations), lobby day, testimony in front of ICANN concerning .xxx, a new database, etc.).
• You assert, “No wonder the FSC membership numbers are in the toilet as people peel off and jump ship.” Again, you are wrong. This year’s FSC membership numbers are stable—and, given the state of the economy, one might argue that “stable” is success. Clearly you wish that people were jumping ship, but wishing it does not make it so. The numbers tell the real story.
• FSC is a membership organization—a 501 C6. It is accountable to its members only. If you were a member, I’m sure they would be happy to answer your questions.

[softball]

Who are you?

[TheEnforcer]

This thread should be interesting.. lol

[softball]

clunk.....

[gonzo]

Who are you?
I have a high suspicion I know where this IP will trace back to.

[gonzo]

I have to say I did my homework and this didnt trace back to where I expected it to but Im astounded by what I was able to find out in 5 minutes.

Since the poster did use a vaild email address I will respect their privacy as well as say they have a right to voice their side of this debate.

[softball]

an anonymous opinion is worth less than a rubber cheque.

[gonzo]

an anonymous opinion is worth less than a rubber cheque.
True dat but I did my research on this one and they got a right to post here too even if we dont all see eye to eye.

[softball]

True dat but I did my research on this one and they got a right to post here too even if we dont all see eye to eye.

I agree. Everyone has the right to post. Just commenting on the weight the post carries. That is what I like about today's Oprano. In this case, I am not sure why whoever posted requires anonymity. After all it is a defense of "free speech".

[RawAlex]

an anonymous opinion is worth less than a rubber cheque.

At least with a rubber check you have something to wipe your ass with.

[MikeSouth]

i dunno who it is because I dont really care but I susp[ect its mark kernes...it writes exactly like him and its the same old tired stuff I have heard for years.

Truth is I like kernes I also like dave cummings and they are both involved in the fsc but that does not mitigate the fact that his facts are, wrong. He has no more idea where the money goes than Gonzo does.

the person who sent me that email does know and I believe him and he would have access to all that info.

and even more telling is what MAK chose NOT to address.....

I think what we have here is a case of a good guy led astray....much as he touted voted democrat because they wont fuck us like the republicans will then obama appoints a very anti porn AG. Sadly just like with the dems if this guy believes in a cause he is blinded by the light he believes what people greater than him tell him and he carrys the torch like a good little myrmidon

[softball]

Is that all there is from the FSC?

[o'Jebaba]

I support the FSC and proud to do so.

I appreciate their efforts as the Board consists entirely of unpaid industry volunteers.

Their hearts are in the right place.

Haters with no real alternatives do nobody any good.

EMA, EFF, ACLU and many other First Amendment groups and trade associations are fine organizations; but, their agendas are not always in sync with what is best for the Adult Entertainment Industry as they are focused on different interest groups.

Be smart with your time and funds and do what you think is best for you.

Just don't do nothing but whine..

The truth is some people beat up on the FSC because they are too cheap and lazy to donate time or money and want to justify their lack support.

Given the legal climate, 2257 Regs, FCC Regs, state laws, etc., in the USA, we will all either fly together or perish together......

Sad; but, true.

When considering the relative low amount spent on legal expenses this last year, the FSC gets a huge bang for its buck.

First, many attorneys donate their time or discount their cost of services to the FSC because they know the publicity they get from the cases will be significant.

Moreover, during the past year, the industry has been in a lull awaiting the new 2257 regs. Therefore, legal expenses have been lower than in past years when they were fighting the 2257s, XXX-tld, and the Utah/Michigan Canspam Acts.

When the new regs are published, I'm confident that the FSC will take appropriate action and we will again see an increase in legal expenses.

The goal has always been longterm: to win the war on censorship at the national level.

The funds may not be spent as you would like them to be spent; but, that does not constitute mismanagement.

As I recall, the Board determines how the funds are to be spent and reviews the budget that is proposed by the ED and financials that are prepared by an independent outside accounting firm. The Board then makes any changes in its' priorities in the proposed budget it feels are appropriate.

If you want to change how the money is spent, I suggest that you run for the Board.

The Executive Director is not a member of the Board and doesn't vote on agenda items so don't blame her for doing her job.

Over the past 6 years, I have known Bill Lyon, Kat Sunlove, Michelle Freridge and Diane Duke as EDs of the FSC. I can truthfully say that I feel there has been an improvement over time in the abilities of the ED to move the FSC forward.

I should believe you because you received an email from some anonymous "insider" who was in the know......but, is yet to be revealled. (Deep Throat, maybe).

You are entitled to your opinion.

[softball]

I support the FSC and proud to do so.

I appreciate their efforts as the Board consists entirely of unpaid industry volunteers.

Their hearts are in the right place.

Haters with no real alternatives do nobody any good.

EMA, EFF, ACLU and many other First Amendment groups and trade associations are fine organizations; but, their agendas are not always in sync with what is best for the Adult Entertainment Industry as they are focused on different interest groups.

Be smart with your time and funds and do what you think is best for you.

Just don't do nothing but whine..

The truth is some people beat up on the FSC because they are too cheap and lazy to donate time or money and want to justify their lack support.

Given the legal climate, 2257 Regs, FCC Regs, state laws, etc., in the USA, we will all either fly together or perish together......

Sad; but, true.

When considering the relative low amount spent on legal expenses this last year, the FSC gets a huge bang for its buck.

First, many attorneys donate their time or discount their cost of services to the FSC because they know the publicity they get from the cases will be significant.

Moreover, during the past year, the industry has been in a lull awaiting the new 2257 regs. Therefore, legal expenses have been lower than in past years when they were fighting the 2257s, XXX-tld, and the Utah/Michigan Canspam Acts.

When the new regs are published, I'm confident that the FSC will take appropriate action and we will again see an increase in legal expenses.

The goal has always been longterm: to win the war on censorship at the national level.

The funds may not be spent as you would like them to be spent; but, that does not constitute mismanagement.

As I recall, the Board determines how the funds are to be spent and reviews the budget that is proposed by the ED and financials that are prepared by an independent outside accounting firm. The Board then makes any changes in its' priorities in the proposed budget it feels are appropriate.

If you want to change how the money is spent, I suggest that you run for the Board.

The Executive Director is not a member of the Board and doesn't vote on agenda items so don't blame her for doing her job.

Over the past 6 years, I have known Bill Lyon, Kat Sunlove, Michelle Freridge and Diane Duke as EDs of the FSC. I can truthfully say that I feel there has been an improvement over time in the abilities of the ED to move the FSC forward.

I should believe you because you received an email from some anonymous "insider" who was in the know......but, is yet to be revealled. (Deep Throat, maybe).

You are entitled to your opinion.


are you the same guy as MAK? If not, who are you? I am really starting to mistrust the FSC if it is only defended by post bots.

[RawAlex]

I support the FSC and proud to do so.

The goal has always been longterm: to win the war on censorship at the national level.


Over the past 6 years, I have known Bill Lyon, Kat Sunlove, Michelle Freridge and Diane Duke as EDs of the FSC. I can truthfully say that I feel there has been an improvement over time in the abilities of the ED to move the FSC forward.


I have known of and known the people behind FSC for the longest time, maybe 10 years or more. Bill Margold use to set up shop at every adult event selling t-shirts, pens, and just about anything else to raise funds. Back at that point, they were very focused on the issues of free speech and censorship.

But with their more recent moves to try to "get in front of issues" such as piracy, the current FSC crew has shown more interest in being a general industry group rather than focusing on the issues of speech and censorship. That the entire 2257 legal process was a dud (overtaken by events), and that the best judgement against 2257 came not from a FSC action but by a private action makes me wonder if the ship has lost it's rudder.

To this day, the FSC still doesn't appear to have it's membership processing on the ball, they don't appear to be responsive to member needs, and if this report is true, they don't seem to be very good at keeping track of the money either.

it's all about results. How long do we have to wait to see some?

[Toby]

Money management aside, one of the issues I've always had with FSC is an apparent lack of connection with the Internet side of this business. The main focus is on the video/DVD producers when there are literally thousands of times more web only people earning a living in the industry.

Many highly skilled web developers work in this business yet the FSC website is an embarrassment. In 2005 I saw multiple people offer to volunteer their services to rectify that situation, yet as Alex noted above the online membership processing still doesn't function smoothly.

If FSC truly wants to be the trade organization for the adult industry then it needs to do a much better job of representing the largest segment of that industry.

[mattgray]

Because MAK6 (Diane Duke) has mentioned our lobbying firm in a derogatory manner in this forum, I would like to set the record straight on a few things as I have personal knowledge on the below.

All testimony on behalf of a client, as in the AB 2914 (Calderon) testimony before the Assembly Revenue and Taxation Committee, is always carefully scripted and approved by the client in advance. Accordingly, my testimony was approved by FSC. After the testimony Diane Duke personally congratulated me in front of many people and stated exactly "You were excellent." Other people overheard this congratulatory remark, and for anyone in FSC to now come back and say the testimony or strategy was objectionable clearly points to other motives.

I have met Diane Duke twice in San Francisco while on FSC business, and both times she was stayed at the W Hotel on 3rd Street. Each time in Sacramento she stayed at the Sheraton. I personally don't care where she stays, or how she spends FSC money, but to say she only stayed on couches and the Holiday Inn is simply inaccurate.

Mr. Calderon's relationship with me and Capital Alliance is fine, and just the other day I carded him off of the Assembly Floor and we again met. No lawmaker is required to come off of the Floor to meet with anyone, as it is entirely discretionary.
Mr. Calderon recognizes, as the rest of us do, the only attack made was specifically on the legislation as is done in the Capitol.

Capital Alliance continues to be influential in the Capitol and elsewhere. My efforts on AB 2914 has not harmed that. The successful strategy to defeat AB 2914 was lined up more than a year prior when AB 1551 was introduced, and AB 2914’s defeat proceeded exactly as planned and predicted. That we were able to initially block the legislation by the Chair (Calderon) in his own committee is no small feat, and was largely due to the competent efforts of Association of Club Executives (ACE) of California, thus providing the icing on the cake. This large mobilization gave free press and wide visibility to our movement, as it showed their ability to organize and bring mass quantities of people to the Capitol on short notice – something only large labor union have been able to do until that day.

The last FSC Celebrate Free Speech Lobbying Days kickoff was held in the Governor’s private Press Room, which Capital Alliance arranged. In the entire history of these lobbying days prior, this had never happened and was a favor to Capital Alliance. I don’t expect FSC to enjoy such access and success again.

FSC is now indeed ineligible for representation through Capital Alliance for reasons which are unimportant to this forum. Interestingly enough a review of the recently distributed FSC Ethics & Best Practices shows some glaring omissions including honoring agreements and follow-through on commitments. Capital Alliance notified FSC of its intent to terminate them as a client in the 2nd quarter of 2008, but then reconsidered and allowed the representation to continue on a probationary status after receiving an apology from Diane Duke and a commitment to change.

Those changes did not occur, but within the probationary period FSC themselves terminated due to the content of Capital Alliance’s bimonthly articles (which were free to the client as a courtesy), in which I defended the material misrepresentations of an actress who was being publicly defamed within the industry for alleged illegal act(s), and for which I had personally reviewed the documents and had personal knowledge as to her innocence. The point of the article was for the industry to not draw unnecessary negative attention to itself while lawmakers like Calderon were looking for any reason to attack (and tax) over negative secondary effects.

In addition to creating negative exposure for itself, the adult entertainment industry misses great opportunities, such as one which was agreed to but missed by FSC to have every adult business in California mark every dollar that came through their business with a pre-designated “FSC” or “1st” or something so that over a 3-month campaign during the busiest part of the year (October, November, December), it could be publicized in the following January. People watching the January news event could pull out their wallet to find one or more marked bills which once passed through the adult entertainment industry. How better to show the public the importance of adult entertainment to California’s economy? The ball was dropped by FSC on this one entirely.

When Shelley Lubben testified on behalf of AB 2914 and claimed everyone in the industry is hooking, using drugs, spreading disease, and more, FSC blocked efforts into researching her past and discrediting her claims.

When legislation to protect trademark infringements and copyright violations was presented, the legislative records will show that FSC remained absolutely silent. Aren’t legitimate adult businesses greatly harmed by those “free” sites that steal content?

Beyond that, FSC has on numerous occasions asserted that: 1) the adult entertainment industry is not controversial to society; 2) doing research on a lawmaker who continues to attack the industry to understand weaknesses is “unethical and immoral”; and 3) the industry can stave off attacks by simply educating people.

As a political strategist who has nearly 2 decades of experience the Capital, I respectfully disagree with the political ‘logic’ of FSC; and without fail, every single Capitol person (lawmakers, staff, and lobbyists), who have learned of FSC’s political vision has laughed heartily and shook their head in disbelief. This is not the 1980’s.

Logic and reason only go so far in the Capitol. Where logic and reason fail, politicians are certainly responsive to pain, and learning about one’s opponents is valuable. Information is powerful and can stop an opponent in their tracks. Research into opponents is essential, as common sense dictates.

There are plenty of groups made up of supporters which greatly outnumber all of the adult entertainment professionals, who do not care about being educated about the legitimacy of adult entertainment businesses. Education is not enough, and adult entertainment professionals would be well served to recognize this.

Capital Alliance was successful in stopping legislation from even being introduced to outlaw the paid nude performance of anyone under 21 years of age. It also successfully defeated legislation to require mandatory blinder racks on adult printed materials, the classification of adult businesses in the same category as sex offender housing, and orchestrated the defeat of all of the tax efforts against adult entertainment. All of those lawmakers and a significant portion of their constituents find adult entertainment to be extremely controversial. Again, some common sense here.

Right now the Legislature is in Special Session as California grapples with a $40 billion budget shortfall over the next 24 months. The official Secretary of State records still show Capital Alliance as the last representatives for FSC (months ago), and as of today FSC still has no representation. Not to suggest after all this that FSC needs a lot of help, but FSC still shows me as a contributing writer to their newsletter, and I clearly am not.

I do hope FSC can pull their act together, for the sake of the adult entertainment industry, and have strongly encouraged them to seek new representation for more than 2 months now in anticipation of the Special Session. While I greatly appreciate the purpose and efforts of the adult entertainment industry, cleaving ties with FSC was like removing a millstone from around my neck. When we first accepted FSC as a client we lost a client who specifically stated they want nothing to do with the adult entertainment industry in any way. After no longer representing FSC we have picked up new clients. Despite the best efforts to educate, controversy clearly remains.

The industry needs to stick together, but would be well served to have the best leadership in place. I wish everyone well and a prosperous new year.

[RawAlex]

Rare to say around here, but I am suspecting that popcorn and a comfortable chair is now in order. That is one damning post.

[gonzo]

I see what happens when I spend the weekend catching up on TV.

Looks like its time to go insearch of information on Capital Alliance.

[MikeSouth]

Id say this fellow knows what he is talking about. It all rings true with prior goings on at the free speech cabal. Too bad really sounds like this guy knows more than the entire FSC put together. Further proof that once they begoin to do something right, presumeably by accident, they quickly rectify the situation. LOL

Good post Matt...may I post that to mikesouth.com?

[mattgray]

Thank you. Please share it as you deem appropriate.

[gonzo]

FSC Introduces its New California Lobbyist


--on the web

[Free Speech Coalition.com]- CANOGA PARK, Calif. -- The Free Speech Coalition (FSC) announced today that they have contracted with a new firm for their California lobby efforts, The Law Office of Ignacio Hernandez. This is a full-service advocacy firm that specializes in progressive issues. The firm’s client list includes: Consumer Federation of California, California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, Farmworker Institute for Leadership and Development (FIELD) and the Latino Issues Forum.

"Ignacio is a highly effective lobbyist," said FSC Executive Director Diane Duke.

"As an attorney and a lobbyist he not only knows his way around the state capital, he knows his way around the law."

Ignacio Hernandez, the firm’s founder has extensive experience at the State Capital as well as with legal issues and civil rights. He has served as the Chief of Staff for State Senator Gloria Romero; he has also served as Committee Consultant for the Assembly Committee on Public Safety. He is immediate past President and Board Member for Law Raza Lawyers of Sacramento and is California Judicial Council for the Criminal Law Advisory Committee.

Hernandez comes to this position highly recommended by FSC coalition partner the ACLU.

"With budget shortfalls and a struggling economy, it is going to be a tough year in the California State Legislature for business in general and particularly adult business. Ignacio’s superior lobby skills combined with his high level of professionalism and ethical standards make him the clear choice for FSC. We couldn’t be happier to have him as part of our team."

[EmporerEJ]

Uh Huh...
I see California noise...but the industry is a Big place.
And the rude brush off I received when I spoke with them at Internext last year, (After my speaking engagement) sealed my opinion of them. And I WAS a dues paying member.
I'm with Gonzo.

[Fausty]

The name is an absolute oxymoron at this point in time: Free Speech Coalition

Most of what I see coming out of their organization is a form of hyperventilating, overblown, "filesharing doom" nonsense that reminds of nothing more than "Don't Copy That Floppy" - pointless, and outdated before it's even written.

We approached them to discuss perhaps including some alternative perspectives on their demonization of "torrents" as the root of all evil. Perhaps, I suggested, talking with folks who actually work with these technologies and communities, in real life, might actually get a more accurate perspective on things than just panic mode hyperbole. Nope, not interested. That's their choice to make, of course, but it seems awfully small-minded.

Look: advocating suing people who share files, and general panic about sharing of information via the internet, is NOT "free speech" defense. Not even close. It may be justifiable, and it may or may not be the right thing to do in terms of the adult industry. But it is NOT FREE SPEECH PROTECTION.

Sheesh. Sorry, just had to say that out loud. Free speech IS under attack online, and you'd think the "porn industry" was concerned with that. Censorship is rampant and growing, many network-level tricks are being used by governments and religious extremists to squeeze various forms of adult content out of reach of most internet users. These are REAL issues, and the fact that the (US-based) adult industry seems utterly ignorant of them, or unconcerned - or both - is inexplicable. Panicking about filesharing is hardly the same level of concern as real censorship and pressure on freedom of expression online.

Win the battle, lose the war.

Anyway, the FSC is free to do what it chooses - but hiding under a name like "Free Speech Coalition," given their real agenda in terms of real actions and where money is spent, is absolutely dishonest and insulting. It would be like the Moral Majority renaming themselves "Diversity Celebration Coalition" - bullshit.

Fausty

[tony404]

The name is an absolute oxymoron at this point in time: Free Speech Coalition

Most of what I see coming out of their organization is a form of hyperventilating, overblown, "filesharing doom" nonsense that reminds of nothing more than "Don't Copy That Floppy" - pointless, and outdated before it's even written.

We approached them to discuss perhaps including some alternative perspectives on their demonization of "torrents" as the root of all evil. Perhaps, I suggested, talking with folks who actually work with these technologies and communities, in real life, might actually get a more accurate perspective on things than just panic mode hyperbole. Nope, not interested. That's their choice to make, of course, but it seems awfully small-minded.

Look: advocating suing people who share files, and general panic about sharing of information via the internet, is NOT "free speech" defense. Not even close. It may be justifiable, and it may or may not be the right thing to do in terms of the adult industry. But it is NOT FREE SPEECH PROTECTION.

Sheesh. Sorry, just had to say that out loud. Free speech IS under attack online, and you'd think the "porn industry" was concerned with that. Censorship is rampant and growing, many network-level tricks are being used by governments and religious extremists to squeeze various forms of adult content out of reach of most internet users. These are REAL issues, and the fact that the (US-based) adult industry seems utterly ignorant of them, or unconcerned - or both - is inexplicable. Panicking about filesharing is hardly the same level of concern as real censorship and pressure on freedom of expression online.

Win the battle, lose the war.

Anyway, the FSC is free to do what it chooses - but hiding under a name like "Free Speech Coalition," given their real agenda in terms of real actions and where money is spent, is absolutely dishonest and insulting. It would be like the Moral Majority renaming themselves "Diversity Celebration Coalition" - bullshit.

Fausty

Have you ever had your sweat and blood given away by someone who had no right?

[Fausty]

Have you ever had your sweat and blood given away by someone who had no right?

Actually, something similar. I've had content that I busted my ass to create and distribute, for free, to the community - complete with watermarks and notice of ownership of copyright - end up packaged up in paid commercial websites. Not once, but many times. I learned the hard way that putting copyright info in a small notice on the bottom of photos or video doesn't work - the paysite scammers will just cut that part off and sell it anyway.

I think that's somewhat similar to having something one owns and sells be stolen and mis-used by someone else. I didn't lose money in the process, by my express intentions as a content creator were actively subverted and I was left holding the bag. It kind of sucks, so I think I can empathize.

So, yes, I have been in this situation myself. I am not some "information is free" cyber-hippie advocating for any and all manner of content ripping. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in stating that, but it's really true.

Point being: this issue has NOTHING to do with "free speech." Nothing. Nobody's ability to speak freely is being infringed if their intellectual property is mis-used by someone else. Apple, meet orange - two different issues.

. . .

In terms of the "battle against filesharing," my own position (for what it's worth) is twofold. First, the entire framing of the discussion is malformed: just like having a "war on terror" borders on self-parody (as The Daily Show remarked, declaring war on adjectives is epistimologically problematic), so is battling a basic element of electronic networks: sharing files. Chasing after widely-deployed technologies - rather than the more specific problems that their use has created during the development of the overall ecosystem in which they reside - misses the forest for the trees.

Second, continuing to pursue strategies that have proven to be absolute, total, irredeemable failures isn't a smart plan. Whether failed efforts against IP mis-use "make sense" or "should work" or whatever, if they have FAILED then perhaps it's time to try something else. The worst-case scenario is that the new effort fails as well - no worse than before. If heavy-handed fear campaigns worked, the mainstream music conglomerates would still be rolling in cash. They aren't - it didn't work. Time for a different plan - any different plan. :hmm:

Closing the doors to the barn after the cows have already left may feel good. It may even feel "right." Locking them tightly, and posting signs ("note to cows, do NOT try to leave this barn") doesn't lessen the ineffectiveness of the ex post facto door-closing. However, going out to search for the cows is a much more useful strategy, at that point - and perhaps sitting down to think about ways to avoid such problems in the future by changing fundamental barn management procedures. Being mad about the open doors won't bring the cows home safely, no matter how mad one gets nor how much it is true that it "wasn't my fault" the doors might have been left open in the first place.

One more time: the fact that the FSC has taken a stance on the issue of filesharing and IP protection is hardly inappropriate (athough I, personally, think that their stance is not terribly effective). However, the simple fact remains: it is not a "free speech" issue, not even close.

Regards,

Fausty

[Toby]

I agree with Fausty on this point, and even said as much (http://www.oprano.com/msgboard/showpost.php?p=808513&postcount=3) back in March. Anti-piracy has nothing to do with free speech, but FSC now fancies themselves as the adult industry's trade organization and piracy is a hot button topic that they can rally around in order to solicit more contributions.

Trying to chase down and get all stolen content removed and violators shut down may be a noble cause, but it's a case of the tail wagging the dog. Most of that time, money and energy would be better spent developing products and/or delivery methods that are far more difficult to share illegally.

[/soapox]

[RawAlex]

The best equipment for controlling the explosion of torrent porn is the fax machine.

Pre-made DMCA notices. Fill in the blanks, fax them to google, to the host, and to the site (if they are listed) or drop it in the mail to their "address" on the domain.

Google will act, URLs will get dropped, and the content is more protected because the surfers can't find it on search.

Having torrent sites in the top 10 searches for most pay sites and their content pretty much makes it impossible to sell the sites. Site / program owners need to realize that this is one of the major ways that potential paying customers are converted to file sharers, and need to take action to block it. Getting those links out of the SERPs is a big step - and if enough people are complaining to google, don't be shocked if they start blocking entire domains.

Content owners need to protect themselves. FSC is just trying to ride a bandwagon and find another way to scare people into becoming members. We learned the last time, and we won't get fooled this time either.

[EmporerEJ]

I have known of and known the people behind FSC for the longest time, maybe 10 years or more. Bill Margold use to set up shop at every adult event selling t-shirts, pens, and just about anything else to raise funds. Back at that point, they were very focused on the issues of free speech and censorship.

But with their more recent moves to try to "get in front of issues" such as piracy, the current FSC crew has shown more interest in being a general industry group rather than focusing on the issues of speech and censorship. That the entire 2257 legal process was a dud (overtaken by events), and that the best judgement against 2257 came not from a FSC action but by a private action makes me wonder if the ship has lost it's rudder.

To this day, the FSC still doesn't appear to have it's membership processing on the ball, they don't appear to be responsive to member needs, and if this report is true, they don't seem to be very good at keeping track of the money either.

it's all about results. How long do we have to wait to see some?


Yea, that about summarizes my feelings.

[EmporerEJ]

I'm also glad others see the fundamental flaw I see with the FSC: Piracy is not a free speech issue.
It's awful yes, and someone should do something......but the FREE SPEECH COALITION should be about free speech, not piracy.
Piracy is an issue for lawyers and content owners.

[tony404]

I do agree they should have nothing to do with piracy. I didnt reup my membership because I felt they were doing nothing.

[Toby]

Since the final date just passed for the full implementation of the DOJ's most recent regs regarding 2257 I thought it would be timely to bump this thread.

What has the FSC been up to lately regarding 2257?
Nothing noteworthy enough to mention in their newsletters.

:finger011 FSC