Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dcortez
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
|
Nobody was out clammering for a 25th hour solution in 2002 because it wasn't needed. Producers of content have always been subject to 2257 regulations, always. The new additions to those regulations add a whole new class of people that must be compliant. A class of people that for the most part do not have the first clue as to how to be compliant and have no idea even where to begin.
By definition, lawyers have a vested interest in the laws that are on the books. No laws, no lawyers. And who better to create a compliance solution than a lawyer who UNDERSTANDS the nuances of the regulations better than anyone?
This will be my last post on the subject. Again, it is what it is, and it's priced where it's priced. If you want it, buy it. If you don't, don't. Nobody is putting a gun to your head. I saw a Rolls parked at a dealership the other day with a sticker of $342,000. While I personally think that is a bit overpriced for a car, I also believe that the company has a right to price their product wherever they want. No different with this product.
I will close with this... I have known Greg Picionelli for many years. More than any other industry lawyer, Greg has always given his time to talk to anyone who wanted to talk to him and I don't recall seeing him invoice those people. To suggest that Greg would pull back in his work with the FSC to gain financially on the back end shows me one thing...you have no clue what you are talking about when it comes to the people involved in this fight.