GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum - View Single Post - This "deal" is a crock of shit if you ask me.

jayeff · 06-23-2005, 06:31 PM

Some of the questions in this thread are the wrong questions, but at least they are questions. This past month has seen a dramatic illustration of the willingness of webmasters, even when something hugely important is at stake, to jump on the nearest passing bandwagon without asking who is driving or where it is going.

"FSC is a membership based industry organization". Undoubtedly. But what exactly does that mean? Most trade associations have constitutions which more-or-less transparently allow for the election of committees and officers, and for members to provide input as to association policies. Is FSC that kind of association, or is "member" a euphemism for "donor"?

Either way, people are subscribing to activities already under way. So does anyone know exactly who is instructing the legal team or what are their specific instructions to the team? FSC initially represented video producers, who have concerns such as whether 2257 statements must be attached to their movies or can be displayed separately (on DVD's): quite different priorities from the average webmaster. What priorities has the legal team been given? Which issues has the team been told can be treated as bargaining chips and which are considered make or break?

I have asked these questions several times over the past month. I'm even boring myself. But why is it so difficult to get answers, whether from FSC people or from the many webmasters who have joined in recent weeks?

I have no issue whatsoever with FSC and I'm not even suggesting they may not prove to be everything people are hoping for. I'm just dismayed that (I assume) hundreds of webmasters have paid up without asking similar questions. And of course, as soon as FSC was touted as the answer to all our problems, that effectively stopped dead any discussion of potential alternatives.

Several people have suggested that a willingness and ability to pay money towards an industry cause, is a sign of professionalism and worthiness to be part of the industry in question. I would be a lot more impressed if people cared more about what their money was buying and if they made decisions based on analysis rather than convenience.

06-23-2005, 06:31 PM
jayeff Confirmed User Join Date: May 2001 Posts: 2,944	Some of the questions in this thread are the wrong questions, but at least they are questions. This past month has seen a dramatic illustration of the willingness of webmasters, even when something hugely important is at stake, to jump on the nearest passing bandwagon without asking who is driving or where it is going. "FSC is a membership based industry organization". Undoubtedly. But what exactly does that mean? Most trade associations have constitutions which more-or-less transparently allow for the election of committees and officers, and for members to provide input as to association policies. Is FSC that kind of association, or is "member" a euphemism for "donor"? Either way, people are subscribing to activities already under way. So does anyone know exactly who is instructing the legal team or what are their specific instructions to the team? FSC initially represented video producers, who have concerns such as whether 2257 statements must be attached to their movies or can be displayed separately (on DVD's): quite different priorities from the average webmaster. What priorities has the legal team been given? Which issues has the team been told can be treated as bargaining chips and which are considered make or break? I have asked these questions several times over the past month. I'm even boring myself. But why is it so difficult to get answers, whether from FSC people or from the many webmasters who have joined in recent weeks? I have no issue whatsoever with FSC and I'm not even suggesting they may not prove to be everything people are hoping for. I'm just dismayed that (I assume) hundreds of webmasters have paid up without asking similar questions. And of course, as soon as FSC was touted as the answer to all our problems, that effectively stopped dead any discussion of potential alternatives. Several people have suggested that a willingness and ability to pay money towards an industry cause, is a sign of professionalism and worthiness to be part of the industry in question. I would be a lot more impressed if people cared more about what their money was buying and if they made decisions based on analysis rather than convenience.