Here's something written by Connor of YNOT, a knowledgeable professional who also donates a lot of his time as a key person on the Board of the Free Speech Coalition (an organization I am glad/thankful to belong to; IMHO, based in part upon the 2005 negotiations and outcomes with DOJ and their demands, anyone not belonging to FSC might possibly be chancing not having legal "standing" or being covered by any court actions FSC brings and wins in the future on behalf of Secondary Producers and others?? Maybe "non-supporters" of FSC might want to get their attorney's professional advice, rather than my personal and extremely novice opinion, concerning "standing"?). Besides the below link and comments from Connor/YNOT, I recommend the link to "2257" on the LH side of
www.freespeechcoalition.com , as well as the related info and links on the RH side.
Here's what Connor has to say concerning certain folks faulting FSC:
"Who do you think is going to challenge the new regs once they are released? You may find this helpful:
http://www.ynot.com/modules.php?op=m...icle&sid=37592
The past FSC challenge is moot because Congress rewrote the law... and MADE IT WORSE. Once the new regs are issued, however, a new challenge will almost certainly happen. We're glad to hear that Joyner does not expect the FBI to initiate "secondary producer" inspections prior to the release of the new regs. But, the FSC will probably make sure that Joyner NEVER starts the inspections of secondary producers. And to reward them for that effort, your idea is for people to end their memberships? I don't see how that makes sense."
Thanks, Connor --you/YNOT have once again supplied us with important and timely info and clarity.
Dave Cummings