Quote:
|
"The [Tenth Circuit Appeals] court found that §2257's language was clear and unambiguous," Judge Miller wrote of the Tenth Circuit's decision in Sundance Associates v. Reno. "It excluded from the regulation 'those who basically have had no contact with the performers (mere distributors and others not involved in the 'hiring, contacting for[,] managing, or otherwise arranging for the participation of the performers depicted').
|
The judge backing up what Sundance brought. And ..
Quote:
|
"None of Defendanthahaha8217;s arguments change the reality that Sundance is binding upon me," Judge Miller's opinion continues.
|
What you posted doesn't necessarily mean secondary producers are at risk, but that the Defense can't treat FSC members as 'producers' that contradicts Sundance. There's plenty in the opinion supporting Sundance and that applies to everyone, not just FSC while specific parts are directed toward FSC members.
I think what gets everyone all twisted up is when FSC introduces a lot of spin and marketing with their statements. Like if you aren't with them, you're against them or that the Defense is going to start prosecuting secondary producers even though there's a very clear opinion by the Judge that Sundance is going to be supported.
You end up with FSC statements like:
Quote:
For FSC board chair Jeffrey Douglas, that's one of the primary benefits of Free Speech membership.
"It is noteworthy that the ruling applies to old members, current members, new members hahaha8211; and there's no deadline, so if someone is not covered and they were to join tomorrow, they would be covered," Douglas said.
|
In any event, I think FSC is working for some important change in the industry's favor and should be supported. Membership is cheap too.