Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaybucks
That's true in principle, but when 4472 passed, it made pretty much everything in the Denver injunction moot. The principal argument on the secondary producer issue was that it was decided (in favor of secondary producers) in Sundance vs Reno, and 4472 was passed to essentially "undo" Sundance vs Reno.
So even if you are an FSC member, according to our attorney, you have not had protection against inspections for secondary records since 4472 passed.
Why no one has paid any attention to this until now is totally beyond me... I and quite a few others have been talking about it for months.
|
yup!
The risk was here all along and people didnt even realize it. But at least they vaugely made mention of conceeding to allowing sanatized documents. That helps plenty.
The business is always changing. We have more to fear from .xxx than we do 2257. The thing is, this business is really starting to become a business. Many people are going to have to make a descision soon whether or not they want to be associated with smut or not. I guess thats the cost of being in this business. I do feel for the affiliate who now has to carry records, but we will supply them with them. Or, host their domain and let the burden fall on our shoulders. There are ways to make this work; the sky isnt falling.
Duke