Quote:
Originally posted by Paul Markham2
www.impai.org and www.fightthepatent.com
All I'm doing is erring on the cautious side. When you see an iceberg on the horizen only a fool assumes IT will change course.
|
Brilliant. I'm going to steal this one (hope you don't mind, Paul).
I'm twisted up about this...it's going to create a monster record-keeping issue. On the positive side, that could give us all a leg up when it comes to defending ourselves and our industry, and it could conceivably weed out some of the non-professionals.
On the other hand, well, like I said, it's going to create a monster record-keeping issue. I have no problem with having copies of model ids and releases on hand, but linking every freaking url? It takes me too long to build a free site as it is.
And I have a vague feeling that this law would NOT be used against rogue webmasters. I don't recall exactly what the latest report was - something along the lines that there have been no investigations into 2257 since the law was put into effect (sorry, very sloppy, but it's late and I'm tired) - in other words, they don't seem to care about enforcing the law; they just want to keep us jumping through hoops. As long as that's the case, legit webmasters will continue to find themselves doing more and more work to remain legitimate, while rogue webmasters will continue to do nothing and remain untouched.
I'm going to put my thinking cap on (as opposed to the usual tin-foil hat) and try to come up with viable ways of dealing with this (likely inevitable) change.
JD - Great to see you here! *waves wildly*