Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JMM
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.
|
I wasn't saying that 'he' would 'pull back punches' or that 'he' isn't a tremendously valued resource with a great record - this is not about a specific person.
I was pointing out what I thought was obvious as a bona-fide 'conflict of interest'.
At this point, my issues are less with the software discussed here - I'm more concerned now about how this relates to the upcoming FSC efforts (and I'll close on this post for that reason).
Unlike many of us who apply their skills to a particular view, the skill of lawyering involves objectively arguing any point of view (on behalf of someone with a view) - but situations where two opposite points of view are POTENTIALLY of interest/benefit to the same lawyer are considered 'conflicts of interest' and, without assumption, assigning accusation or blame, the conventional (professional) approach is to avoid these situations.
Lawyers, judges, and professionals regularly step down and away from involvement if they have conflicting interests - there is NO assumption that they WOULD compromise their efforts, but it's part of the process which keeps that world legitimate. And, it's part of their professional guidleines.
It's not a personal indictment when they have to disqualify themselves - especially when they are involved in an industry with so relatively few 'top guns'.
I went through the ordeal of an audit many years ago and the lawyer I hired to help me through the situation had also worked as a prosecutor FOR the those performing the audit (in the past). But, there was clear separation and distance between those roles.
I don't mean to imply any badwill to a particular individual with my comments - I'm just pointing out that, to my thinking, the 'separation and distance' between interests in this case might not be large enough.
I'll close on that.
-Dino