Quote:
Originally Posted by stickyfingerz
I've said this already in another thread. This whole thing will go less distance than a sticky turd rolling uphill. My only irritation is the people that are SUPPOSED to be doing their due diligence to protect the rights of this industry seem like they are not doing shit, and it took a swingers publication to deliver an almost knock out punch, when it should of been others that have a ton of funding that seem to be not nearly as effective. Once again the industry fails to come together to protect its best interests and it seems its each man for itself due to selfishness and greed. Im about done caring.  |
Are you saying that it's the FSC responsibility to do the "...due diligence to protect the rights of this industry.....".
I don't recall seeing that in anything FSC agreed to back when I joined--do you see anything from 5-6 years ago, or now where God or themselves agreed to what you voiced above?
I'd appreciate any assistance you can give me, as it will ease my mind (considering all the negative stuff we hear about FSC).
I'm thankful that FSC "fought/negotiated" with DOJ that summer day of 2005 in Denver (we were there for a hearing with the 10th District Circuit court to try and protect Secondary Producers against 2257 record-keeping, and to deal with other issues involved with the regulations that had just been released (I was one of the listed plaintiffs, along with FSC and Lenny Freidlander, against DOJ --my neck was "sticking out, and still is); I was in the room where Attorney Paul Cambria and others FSC-related attorneys were working (I'm told, at a much lower hourly rate than they otherwise would have). As I understood it, DOJ raised some issue about legal "standing" (or something, maybe "representation"--I can't recall) that would have restricted a Restraining Order against DOJ to only PRESENT FSC members of record at that time--that's when Paul, on behalf of FSC, got DOJ to agree to include all new members, too, for a specified period of time. Had FSC not won that concession for DOJ, only the then-present members would have benefited from the Court's actions. I'm a novice, but I was there in person, and the aforementioned is what I recall.