FightThisPatent

the situation you described happens with all associations, much like the ones you were a member of. Same is true with condos. If you own a condo, you have no control over what the board decides to spend money on in using up the escrow account, but that's why people who are concerned run for office.

FSC board is elected by the members, so being active in FSC as a director would allow for some level control.... otherwise, yes, you do have to sit back and allow them to operate as they see fit with the funds., no different than contributions to ACLU or EFF.

Members get some latitude on FSC directions through voting on issues, but your concerns about how they spend the money once you give it to them is out of your hands.

Given the various posts that I have seen of yours, you'd probably make a good FSC director, but i also understand that activism takes time, but it's the motivated (good or bad) people that make changes (good or bad).

On your point about what is FSC challenging on 2257, they were pretty clear in their oppostion letter:

http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/F...7_Comments.htm

What's really interesting is reading the DOJ response to comments like what was presented above and their answers.. most things they rejected.

The clock is ticking down for them to file their injunctions and lawsuits, so I would expect to be reading news about it shortly, probably the actual fiiling where the attorneys have specified their challenges.

There is still alot of substance to 2257 from the previous regulations to the new ones that will survive any legal challenge.

"Do nothing" seems to be the popular action by most, and is one that is the most concerning, because of apathy and inaction, webmasters can go to jail for a felony offense, just because they were lazy in not keeping their records straight. You can go to jail if you don't keep you IRS filings straight, so it's not too far of a stretch to see that compliance with 2257 should be taken as seriously as other required business activities.

Your point about the need for clear and forthcoming information is a valid one, and one that seems to be addressed with the hiring of Tom Hymes as the Communciations Director, former editor of AVNonline. Tom will certainly be providing timely and insightful information over the FSC issues.

FSC certainly has some more evolving to do as it seeks to bring in more internet-based members. Michelle seems to be taking FSC in a positive direction since her arrival, so hopefully your viewpoints will be answered through actions, since it does seem that FSC is the most logical choice to represent a large group of adult online webmasters over these confusing and technical legal issues.


Fight the Hereto and wherefore!

__________________

http://www.t3report.com (where's the traffic?) v5.0 is out! |
http://www.FightThePatent.com | ICQ 52741957

TheLegacy

my thought is that there may be a large purge of content and webmasters will be looking at either getting their own lawyer for several thousands of dollars then buy more content - or simply trust that the reliable sources out there now have gone through all the grunt work legally to make sure that any content they sell is acceptable to 2257.

__________________

FightThisPatent

If someone in the kitchen of a movie theater yelled out fire, and i repeated "fire" in the theater, and there was a fire, then it wasn't a false alarm.

If the person in the kitchen was misinformed, then yes, there was a false fire alarm.

Posting up Michelle's comment, was not a fire alarm because what's the worst that got harmed? A few signed up in thinking that they were going to get this magic umbrella protection? That would be out of ignorance then, since even if this injunction could apply to FSC members as a class, it still does not relieve the obligations and liabilities with 2257 compliance. What's the upside? Maybe a few more people joined and maybe a greater more paid more attention to this issue.

Given your background as well as input from my attorney, i do understand the issue that an injunction is an injunction and not selective, but I was passing on what was said. I found it interesting and newsworthy about Michelle's statements to post up.

I had to take the comment on face value because FSC attorneys surely consulted with Michelle on these issues, since they are preparing to file their injunctions. Is it possible that she misunderstood them? Possibly, and if through internal re-examination based on my original post is found to not be true, then some kind of clarification should be forthcoming.

It's no different that Bush's statements about WMD. It wasn't only til later on when the facts did not pan out that the WMD statement was false, but on face value, a majority of Americans accepted his statements based on what his advisors told him.

Is the issue here that FSC is telling people (like to me) that an injunction would only cover FSC members? That it casts a big shadow over everything they are doing, because in their minds, there is some legal technicality that they perceive leads up to the broad conclusion that FSC members would be protected by the injunction? Is this "bad taste" about this news really affecting only those that aren't members anyways?


Fight the Halon Gas!

__________________

http://www.t3report.com (where's the traffic?) v5.0 is out! |
http://www.FightThePatent.com | ICQ 52741957

FightThisPatent

FSC PR released today:
http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/

last paragraph:

"Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, only the parties to litigation are covered by an injunction. Therefore only the Free Speech Coalition and its members will be covered by an injunction and only to the extent the injunction restricts the government enforcement."



Fight the Flames!

__________________

http://www.t3report.com (where's the traffic?) v5.0 is out! |
http://www.FightThePatent.com | ICQ 52741957

Fukeneh

thats. it..... im going to law school.

FightThisPatent

For those that might have mised it, two write-ups of the recent FSC meeting concerning 2257:

http://www.avnonline.com/index.php?P...tent_ID=228369

http://xbiz.com/news_piece.php?id=8911


Fight the Reading every word!

__________________

http://www.t3report.com (where's the traffic?) v5.0 is out! |
http://www.FightThePatent.com | ICQ 52741957

hentchiu

$300 to support that an organization the work in our favor makes perfect sense to me. There are people cheap enough to think $300 worth more than their business.

Lets see how long FSC would last. Fighting the Government needs a lof of financial support. Some people are just igornant. We should appreciate FSC for at leasting fighting for us.

Being a member or not, FSC will do their best to fight the law. More Money means they can fight this bs crap longer.

Choose!!!
$300 to help them - this buy you a chance of keeping your business.
Or
Just Wait until the DOJ knocks on your door because FSC has no further money to keep on fighting.

anyway, record keeping is here to stay.
If they can relax the burden on secondary producers, then it would already be a lot better.

Fight the idiots!!!