Quote Originally Posted by Lee View Post
So basically, what im gathering from the last few inspections is that while the FSC promised everyone who joined by a certain date they would be exempt from inspections...

The reality of it is, just like many of us said, they were talking shit at the time just to get webmasters to part with their money.
I don't think that's the case. The injunction was granted and is still in effect regarding all of the issues related to the 6/23/05 2257 regs. However, the new regs, tacked onto the Adam Walsh Child Protection Act (now who is going to vote against THAT?) effectively gutted the secondary producer injunction by creating a new law that resolved the ambiguity created by Sundance vs Reno, which was the case that struck down the secondary producer requirement.

At the same time, there has been no news of the FSC going back to the judge who granted the TRO and asking for it to be enforced, in fact, from what i gather, there has been no news at all in respect of the FSC and the 2257 issue for a good few months now.
This I completely agree with. I really have no idea why nobody's done anything about 4472, or followed up on enforcement of the TRO. I know they've had a staff turnover, and I've always had the impression that the attorneys working for FSC treat it as just another paying client... which to me is a bit of a money grab. Perhaps I'm wrong and they are heavily discounting their rates, but I've never seen any indication of that.

I don't think the FSC is a very effective organization in its present form, but, sad to say, it's the closest thing we have at the moment to an industry trade association. And if ever an industry *needed* a trade association, it's ours. Perhaps new leadership there will make a difference, or perhaps people will start up a new group. But in part, I think it's the self-centeredness and short-term thinking of many of the players in the industry that prevent a large, well funded, effective trade group from coming into being.