Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JMM
Where exactly are you from?
It is HARDLY a conflict of interest.
It would be a conflict of interest if the creator of the software was the attorney general.
This thread has gone from silly to pathetic.
Nobody is forcing anyone to buy THIS software. The makers of the software aren't telling you that to stay out of jail you have to buy THIS software. There is a need, this is an option. Buy it or don't, that is your right. It is also THEIR right to create it and charge whatever they want for it. If it is not worth what they ask, they won't sell very many. If there are better, cheaper options, they won't sell many.
The "conflict of interest" statement is really pretty ignorant.
|
2257 law has been around for a long time.
Most webmasters have NOT been motivated to seek out high power software to manage their 2257 requirements UNTIL the recent ammendments edged their way into the legal registry.
Some of the key points which are now driving the need for a recordkeeping application are the very ridiculous points that the FSC is hoping to address with its challenge to DOJ.
Specifically, the undue hardship the new recordkeeping requirements place on most adult webmasters including (but not limited to): maintaining ongoing model/talent histories with past, current, and updated stage/prof names, performances; keeping track of every URL an (originally) explicit image has ever been on (whether it is still available online or not); holding and distributing personal/ID information.
All of these requirements are wrong.
These requirements must be vigorously challenged and their legal authority REMOVED (as has been done with COPA and its issues).
Noone was out clammering for a 25th hour recordkeeping solution in 2002.
It's these new deliberately laborious details which are driving the need for an automated system.
According to the information presented here and the patent applications referred to, a patent was applied for (2002) naming a lawyer/attorney as the INVENTOR (First Named). This is not about a lawyer filing an application - the patent indicates that the lawyer is laying claim of ownership to the 'invention' and implies that the lawyer has a financial stake in the 'invention'.
You have suggested (in this thread) that the SAME lawyer is also working with FSC to knock down the new 2257 regs.
For its success, my2257 NEEDS the new regs to PROCEED into law and will benefit most if the new law is UNDEFEATED.
That's not to say that there is no place for a good recordkeeping system (or that my2257 is not a good application), but from the my2257 spin (press release, announcements), it's the impending 'ticking clock' which is creating the current sense of urgency. Otherwise, this application would have been available a long time ago and good value for dollar.
Th CONFLICT as I see it, is that (if what you say about who is representing FSC is true), the legal 'warrior(s)' we're counting on to knock down the new regs stand to gain financially (from their interests in my2257) if they fail in their FSC mandate.
How is this NOT a conflict of interest?
-Dino