my2257 Pricing Released

Proves my point.
This is NOT the client we are looking for.
He can be compliant very easily and has NO use for us.

Many others like him have a simpler task ahead. We are targeting those with Lot?s of content and maybe hundreds of models in those productions. These are the people that will benefit from our product. This is a studio / program management tool. Not just a compliance tool

I can see his point

ok so if its not a compliance tool your a little late on the bandwagon, This would be good back in 1990 when company's turning big, I mean im not trying to bash your program in anyway but any big company with a few hundred models should already have their stuff in order even before this law came in to place, Just because we peddle smut doesnt mean we should run our businesses any less professional than a company that sells bibles globally.

Your original patent was about the old 2257 requirements for LIVE SHOWS as in webcams. I see you filed some more info on May 26th, pretty damn quick of you. A little misleading to tell everyone you saw this coming in 2003 before the new regulations were even drafted eh?

What is claimed is:

1. A method of producing a live performance, the performance being transmitted over a network, the performance being subject to a record-keeping requirement, the method comprising the steps of: (i) providing information pertaining to a live performance in accordance with a record-keeping requirement, (ii) associating the information with the live performance, (iii) providing the associated information to a custodian, and (iv) transmitting the live performance over a network.

2. The method of claim 1 wherein the live performance is transmitted over a computer network to a viewer.

3. The method of claim 2 wherein the viewer is provided with a statement prior to the transmission of the live performance, the statement comprising information pertaining to the live performance in accordance with the record-keeping requirement and a location of the custodian.

4. The method of claim 1 wherein step (iv) is performed only after the completion of step (iii).

5. The method of claim 2 wherein prior to step (iv) the viewer provides to a site that controls transmission of the live performance verification that the viewing of the live performance is legally permissible at the viewer's physical location.

6. The method of claim 5 wherein the viewer provides a credit card account number to the site that controls transmission of the live performance.

7. The method of claim 1 wherein the viewer is charged a premium prior to step (iv).

8. A method of producing a live performance, the performance being transmitted over a network, the method comprising the steps of: (i) providing an identification of a performer of a live performance, (ii) verifying the identification of the performer of the live performance, (iii) providing all names used by the performer of the live performance other than the performer's legal name when the performer has at least name other than the performer's legal name, (iv) providing (a) an identification of the live performance, and (b) a date of the live performance, (v) associating the information provided in steps (i), (iii) and (iv), (vi) providing the information associated in step (v) to a custodian, and (vii) transmitting the live performance over a network.

9. The method of claim 8 wherein the live performance is transmitted over a computer network to a viewer.

10. The method of claim 9 wherein the viewer is provided with a statement prior to the transmission of the live performance, the statement comprising information pertaining to the live performance in accordance with the record-keeping requirement and a location of the custodian.

11. The method of claim 8 wherein the identification of the live performance is a title or an identification number.

12. The method of claim 8 wherein the live performance is performed by a plurality of performers, and wherein steps (i)-(vi) are carried out with respect to each of said plurality of performers.

13. The method of claim 8 wherein step (vii) is performed only after completion of step (vi).

14. A method of producing a live performance, the performance being transmitted over a network, the method comprising the steps of: (i) providing a verified identification of a performer of a live performance, (ii) providing all names used by the performer of the live performance other than the performer's legal name when the performer has at least name other than the performer's legal name, (iii) providing (a) an identification of the live performance, and (b) a date of the live performance, (iv) associating the information provided in steps (i), (ii) and (iii), (v) providing the information associated in step (iv) to a custodian, and (vi) transmitting the live performance over a network.

15. The method of claim 14 wherein the live performance is transmitted over a computer network to a viewer.

16. The method of claim 15 wherein the viewer is provided with a statement prior to the transmission of the live performance, the statement comprising information pertaining to the live performance in accordance with the record-keeping requirement and a location of the custodian.

17. The method of claim 14 wherein the identification of the performance is a title or an identification number.

18. The method of claim 14 wherein the live performance is performed by a plurality of performers, and wherein steps (i)-(v) are carried out with respect to each of said plurality of performers.

19. The method of claim 14 wherein step (vi) is performed only after completion of step (v).

20. A method of producing a live performance, the performance being transmitted over a computer network to a viewer, the method comprising the steps of: (i) providing to a custodian prior to commencement of a live performance (a) a verified identification of a performer of the live performance, (b) all names used by the performer of the live performance other than the performer's legal name when the performer has at least name other than the performer's legal name, (c) an identification of the live performance, and (b) a date of the live performance, (ii) providing a statement to a viewer over a computer network prior to the commencement of the live performance, the statement comprising the identification of the live performance, the date of the live performance, and a location of the custodian, and (iii) transmitting the live performance to the viewer over the computer network.

21. A method of providing a recorded performance to a viewer over a network, the recorded performance being subject to a record-keeping requirement, the method comprising the steps of: (i) providing to a custodian information pertaining to a recorded performance in accordance with a record-keeping requirement, (ii) providing a statement to a viewer over a network prior to the transmission of the recorded performance to the viewer, the statement comprising information pertaining to the recorded performance and to the custodian in accordance with the record-keeping requirement, and (iii) transmitting the recorded performance to the viewer over the network.

22. A method of providing a recorded performance to a viewer over a network, the method comprising the steps of: (i) providing to a custodian (a) a verified identification of a performer of a recorded performance, (b) all names used by the performer of the live performance other than the performer's legal name when the performer has at least name other than the performer's legal name, (c) an identification of the recorded performance, and (b) a date of the recorded performance, (ii) providing a statement to a viewer over a network prior to the transmission of the recorded performance to the viewer, the statement comprising the identification the recorded performance, the date of the recorded performance, and a location of the custodian, and (iii) transmitting the recorded performance to the viewer over the network.

23. A method of transmitting a live performance to a viewer over a network, the performance being subject to a record-keeping requirement, the method comprising the steps of: (i) providing information pertaining to a live performance in response to a request from a viewer for a transmission of the live performance over a network, the information being provided in accordance with a record-keeping requirement, (ii) associating the information with the live performance, (iii) providing the associated information to a custodian, and (iv) transmitting the live performance to the viewer over the network.

24. A method of producing record of a performance, the performance being transmitted over a network, the performance being subject to a record-keeping requirement, the method comprising the steps of: (i) providing information pertaining to a performance in accordance with a record-keeping requirement, (ii) associating the information with the performance, (iii) providing the associated information to a custodian, and (iv) providing means enabling a viewer to access information pertaining to the performance and to the custodian over the network.

25. A system for producing a record of a live performance, the live performance transmitted over a network, the live performance being subject to a record-keeping requirement, the system comprising: (i) means for entering into a database information pertaining to a live performance in accordance with a record-keeping requirement, (ii) means for associating the information with a live performance, (iii) means for providing the associated information to a custodian, (iv) means for providing a viewer with information pertaining to the live performance in accordance with the record-keeping requirement, and (v) means for providing a viewer with access to a transmission of the live performance after receipt by the viewer of information pertaining to the live performance in accordance with the record-keeping requirement.

It would appear you're trying to patent the way live webcams are carried over the internet, billed, etc. on top of your record keeping stuff. You going to sue Ifriends and the likes when they ignorantly grant you this patent?

Live shows are in this regulation too!
We started a full face lift of the product in July of 2004 once the proposed regulations were released.

As you can see the Patent Application has been published and we had our subsequent filings what are called "continuation-in-part applications" (or "CIP's" for short) ready to go once we knew the final release version of the regulations.

In my opinion you m2257 guys are nothing more than bloodsucking leeches expoliting people who are trying to deal with a sucker punch from the DOJ.

Tell your esteemed attorney, Greg Piccionelli, to get off his ass and file an injunction against the new 2257, or take other action to prevent the new 2257 from becoming enforced instead of just trying to make a quick buck from it.

If you folks really cared, you could explain in simple steps what actions people need to take...and it's fairly simple, such as put your 2257 records in manila folders, and then create a cross-index system with an Excel (or other) spreadsheet.

Then you would be helping the industry, instead of preying on the ignorance and fear of some in the industry.

Your system doesn't deal with the privacy issues, TGP issues or other issues that various webmasters have raised in here.



As for your claims about inquiries/orders for your product...pshaww, right! Make a PhotoShop chart - that will convince people (NOT!).

ADG Webmaster

I ... Love.. You.. Thank you for putting it in simple words

Of course live shows are in the regulations. So here's a straightforward question for you. Since it is the opinion of some lawyers that EVERY webcam show broadcast must be recorded and stored for 7 years, is your system set up for this as well and will your hard drives hold 2 or 3 terrabytes of recorded shows as well?

I LOVE YOUR HUMOR!
Thank you - I needed that!

you love that its the truth?

All I can say is when the DOJ is standing there asking you where this and that are you'll be wishing you had a system like this. Is $3K and $200/mo worth it? If you are more than part time I can see it being worth it. After the initial purchase whats $200/mo. if you are making the $10K/mo. that you all claim to be.

All it will take is a few major sponsors to pick this up and it will become the industry standard. If you have it and the sponsor you want to promote it has it your life just became a lot easier.

Truth in you opinion and your welcome to publish it.

I understand that this software may not fit your needs or be more than you need, but that does not mean that it won't assist others.
If it really upsets you this much move on to another thread and be done with it.

Where can I get the software?

Gimme a fucking break.

First and foremost, Picionelli IS spending his time at a significantly reduced rate to fight this....know that.

Secondly, how are they leeches? They are offering a product that fills a need. Nobody is putting a gun to your head to purchase their product. I am sure there will be many other products that fill the need as well. Some may be higher priced, some lower. The consumer is the one that will put the ultimate value on this, or any other product.

The overwhelming percentage of consumer products were invented to fill a need. Are their inventors all leeches as well? Of course not.

A KIA will get you to work in the morning, so based on your theory, why buy a Jaguar?

Grow up people, this is business.

Pick up a copy of Office 2003 at the local office supply store and run excel and get to it!

Thank You.
A major program is using the product and has been aiding us in BETA testing and development from a programs point of view. They have been extremely valuable to the project as they look at it in a different light then we did.

ummm yea and all the possible things that that could have meant, you just happened to know they would fuck with 2257..

Interesting thread.

Congrats on your new software - it's always an accomplishment when a development project is actually completed (whatever it is) - I'm assuming you are able to deliver today and not pushing vapourware to secure your foot in the door.

It's unfortunate though, that part of our industry (you) is already defecting (to the right) and banking on the failure of what is about to be a richeous and historic rebuttal by FSC (on our behalf and all those whose freedom of expression is at risk) to what is clearly wrong legislation (and unAmerican - says this Canadian neighbour who can't believe what's going on down there).

Even if an injunction is not achieved, the 'new improved 2257' must be challenged and contested with dedication and tenacity much in the way that Mr. Flint literally took a bullet (from the right) for us.

I don't question the fiscal efficacy of your preparedness and introduction and hoping that FSC will fail to protect our rights - you have to be in market ahead of time, but I do question whether you are really a peer of our industry or more akin to a personal injury lawyer or undertaker hovering in the hospital waiting/hoping for the patient to die.

-Dino

Look Common since prevails!
Thank you for stating it so simply
Your 100% right - we are not looking for everyone?s business.
JUST those who see a need for what we offer.
So far 41 have requested additional info from the site since 5:31PM PST

If it can handle live videos, that that is kinda phat and would be worth the price.

Live videos are coming soon.
We have more continuation-in-part applications to file pertaining to live video.
Again - until the regulations were published we did not know what the final regulations would require.

Dino...

I will be contacting you in the morning.

I plan to take full advantage of all of the services you offer.

I have a need and it seems you have a solution to fill that need. A perfect match.

Can I assume that there will be no charge for your services? I mean, you aren't a leech are you?

Main Entry: 1leech
Pronunciation: 'lEch
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English leche, from Old English l[AE]ce; akin to Old High German lAhhi physician
1 archaic : PHYSICIAN, SURGEON
2 [from its former use by physicians for bleeding patients] : any of numerous carnivorous or bloodsucking usually freshwater annelid worms (class Hirudinea) that have typically a flattened lanceolate segmented body with a sucker at each end
3 : a hanger-on who seeks advantage or gain
synonym see PARASITE
- leech·like /-"lIk/ adjective

LEECH

Main Entry: medicinal leech
Function: noun
: a large European freshwater leech (Hirudo medicinalis) formerly used by physicians for bleeding patients

Hummmm
Used by Doctors to save lifes

Not such a bad thing in my book

I try to offer fair value for dollar, but I don't work to undermine or build projects which are counting on harm coming to my peers.

I wasn't questioning whether the posturing of this product was good business move or not (I stated that clearly). I remember the days when we all loved MS. They made a lot of 'smart' moves (and money) but that has its consequences.

Thanks, but don't bother calling me in the morning - your sense of industry loyalty I can do without.

-Dino

I am a producer and I filled out an interest form prior to reading this post. The product seems like great software. But it has a lot of extra non-2257 related features that I do not need. Plus it's really expensive and I don't need an ongoing service and expenses except for occasional update of the software itself. And I don't need a new pc specifically to keep records. Good luck with it, but I think I will have to see what other software solutions become available soon.

JMM??
You and I have been in this industry since what 1997?
Worked together many times over the years.

Wonder how many others have been around since 1997??

And what exactly makes you think that the price for this product is NOT fair value?

There is immediate need for a product like this. Immediate. They chose to spend their time and resources to create one. Because you and some others think it's too expensive, they are branded as leeches. When would you prefer they release their product? June 28th perhaps?

This is not my product and I have nothing to do with it. I just feel that the comments in this post towards my2257 are both absurd and uncalled for.

Funny thing, I have been planning on calling you for a few days, and I still will. Message boards are message boards, business is business.

Finally, my sense of industry loyalty? The problem with message boards is that it is sometimes difficult to know who you are talking to. I own one of the companies that chose to stand up and fight Acacia rather than cave. The ultimate result, hopefully, will provide you, and everyone else in this industry the right and opportunity to stream video without having to turn over 5% of your money to Acacia. I am quite proud of my industry loyalty.

Question: What have you done for the industry? No need to answer that, it is a rhetorical question.

Looking forward to talking with you.

True dat..and Im still waiting for something from you David!!! hint hint hint

Capitalism is alive and well at GFY! God bless America!

BTW, I have made a determination that any product priced at more than $399 is the result of scum sucking leeches trying to take advantage of their fellow webmaster. If you come across any 2257 products priced higher than that, make sure you let them know that their momma's are ashamed of them.

double you tee ehf? Now your saying 399$ is a rip off but you support a program selling people a computer for a little bit of software for over 3k?

lol, I think JMM was being sarcastic.

No, that is not what I said.

This is the second time in this thread alone, how come you have such a tough time with MY posts specifically?

I said any product priced HIGHER than $399. So, for example, $399= ok, $399.50= NOT OK!

And before you move the mouse up and to the right...it's a JOKE!

I DO NOT SUPPORT a program selling people a computer for a little bit of software for over 3k. What I DO support is their right to create such a program and to sell it for whatever they feel it is worth. Again, the consumer will be the ultimate judge of the value of my2257's product. After I have had an opportunity to fully evaluate what my2257 is offering, only then will I be able to support it, or not support it, whatever the case may be.

and people wonder why lawyers are so hated...thanks again piconelli

jeez....I could do the database design in a day and it will run on mysql on whatever server yer currently using...no need for a bundled system.

If I do the DB design who would code it?

Mike... I just heard you were in town!!! Should of gave me a holler, I would rolled up to the bukkake if I knew.

Slaughter?

I reviewed both your patent applications:

10/644,635 - filed on 08-19-2003

and

60/404,737 - filed way back on 08-20-2002!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that I was mistakenly assuming that you were 'one of us' with a common vested interest in our success as an adult industry with a heathy set of rights.

Your patent applications suggest that this (my2257) is the invention of a group of lawyers who recognized the incredible opportunity 2257 offered back in 2002 - especially if a conservative executive decided (in future) to tighten the screws by enforcing and/or increasing the restrictions.

It does NOT take 2 years to develop a network synchronized DB application (I've been developing commercial software since since 1979). I suspect that you have been squatting on the patent and *hoping* that 2257 would become the nightmare it has for your own personal gains. Your (inventor) resume suggests that you have specialty expertise in Internet Law for adult industry, and as council for other webmasters (visa vi your legal seminars/workshops) you certainly would have had the forsight to recognize that some day 2257 could be a goldmine for you - regardless of how bad the legislation is and how much harm it may cause. But instead of using your skills to address the problem, you chose to posture for profit from the problem.

By applying for the patent, instead of contributing and facilitating a multi-faceted technical effort (visa vi open source, shareware to HELP webmasters deal with this) for developing any recordkeeping applications should they be required (if FSC fails in its attempts), you locked the door and, as per some of your 'warnings' to competitors (earlier in this thread) indicated, that there is a toll to pay now and you are the toll keeper.

I think I hit the nail on the head when I compared your 'contribution' to that of a personal injury lawyer - vital service, but someone has to get hurt for you to make a buck.

So here we are, again, as usual, with lawyers working on one side (the great team working with FSC to defend our rights) and another bunch hoping for blood.

Some things truly are constant.

-Dino

Am I close?

So my2257 is ran by a group of lawyers? I thought a lawyer just filed the patent when i did a google on the name of the person that filed the patent, Would make since for a lawyer to make money on the misfortune of the industry

I'm just interpretting the information in the patent application.

It seems that a lawyer (attorney) is listed as the Inventor.

And the first application was made in 2002.

That's what I read from it.

Last time I looked I owned a studio and produced content

Are you the Inventor first listed in the patent?

Are you a laywer and/or attorney?

This whole debate seems silly...

Look the guy created a program that may be of interest to some people. If thats the case, great BUY IT. If not DONT BUY IT. Make your spreadsheets and file your docs your own way. Simple as that.

He has stated repeatedly that its not for everyone. If someone else comes out with something better/cheaper then he can flush his investment down the drain or adapt. Either way the market will decide as it always does.

On a side note (and perhaps a little of a flame), i do feel that from a marketing standpoint all the "patent pending" shit is gonna rub this group the wrong way. We've all been there and done that....

Well stated and noted.
Thank you for the advice

so what, that's what lawyers do.

and i do not fault anyone for trying to make a buck.

but my point is if someone is really trying to make a buck here they need to understand some very basic FACTS:

1. probably 85% of USA adult webmasters will have to comply due to what sort of content they handle.

2. how many are there?, i don't know, 40,000, 60,000, 100,000---someone pick a number---it is a BIG number.

3. the ONLY way anyone is going to sell a 2257 compliance kit in big numbers is IF it is affordable, works on the guy's own hardware, and actually does what is needed to facilitate compliance---because that is what is needed, not a lot of extraneous bullshit.

this is a huge market worth millions.

and someone is going to make some big sugar if he understands this market.

Dino...

You really need a playbill. The lawyers on the FSC side, and the one on the my2257, are one in the same.

Again, looking forward to speaking with you soon.

Why would I not use a Lawyer that is big in the industry and has worked for years to defend our rights?

I'm sure Lawyer Greg and you don't care about the money, and you're both just doing this out of benevolence, LOL.

If so, then P.T. Barnum was right:



Perhaps I should offer a $500,000 program, that guarantees people they will not be busted if they have models fill-in simple forms, and provide pics of them with their IDs, and then file it and cross-index it.

Since I'm charging more, it should be even more worth it right?

But wait...why should such a program cost $500,000, or even $2,500 (plus $2,000+ annually), when it is not expensive or difficult for people to figure out (or for you to explain) how to do it for themselves (btw, if you had a conscious, this is where you should start feeling guilty)?

Again, I'm not hearing any solutions to the more complex issues here.

This isn't rocket surgery!!!



Also, you never answered the question about what company is providing the free images for anyone willing to pay my2257's exorbinant fee to get the ID's/personal info of the models (many of whom may never have imagined that you would sell out their personal info - as if you care about that)?

ADG Webmaster

Seriously?

Where I'm from, that's called a conflict of interest. If there is a vested financial interest in 2257 law forcing webmasters to have to software up (to a patented solution) just to keep track of details which in other countries are protected by privacy laws, how much defense are we really going to get in trying to have that law put in its place?

Are you *really* saying that the lawyer behind the patent app for my2257 is also working on the case with FSC?

Now I've heard it all.

Good luck guys!