Quote:
Originally Posted by lassiter
Yes, I'm left once more with the strong impression that the FSC is much more interested in protecting the XXX video industry players in the Valley than in protecting the concerns of thousands of scattered webmasters who are affiliates/secondary producers. 
And if FSC isn't gonna fight to strike these new Adam Walsh Act provisions down, then the only way they can be removed is if a secondary producer is tried and convicted under 2257, and manages to raise the $$$ to appeal and challenge the law in federal court - a process that usually takes several years. |
While I also am wondering about the competence of the FSC's legal beagles, I'm not sure I'm following how this is about favoritism to the brick and mortar crowd.
Again, I'd like to know why this adam walsh act thing seems to be coming so completely out of left field?
Who knew about this before last weeks ruling?
And why hasn't it been an issue among us before this?
Has anyone here or in any of the other webmaster communities been trying to warn us about adam walsh, but we haven't listened?