GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum - View Single Post - SoBeGirl Video Specials 15 dollars a set.

scoreman · 02-10-2003, 09:59 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by SoBeGirl Video
The only problem that I see, and it is a big one, with giving out the model rel forms and the photo IDs is that this makes it very very easy for someone to start selling my content without permission. Once they have those docs there is really NOTHING I can do about it.

Thats illegal conduct. Plain and simple, forging releases and selling them would allow for a cause of action both on the criminal and civil level. This is a lame excuse IMO. If you are a content seller, piracy of your material will exist with or without these documents. Here you are protecting what in the worst case situation boils down to money whereas the content purchasers are protecting threats to their personal liberty. No amount of money can outweigh incarceration.

And, Mr. Scoreman, just because you are a lawyer does not mean you know everything about the law. Isn't it a fact that once you take possession of the model docs, and you claim yourself as "record keeper" for that content you bring upon yourself responsibilities that you may not want.

Never said I knew everything. I was merely responding to your flippant remark about "stuff like that and lawyers". My intent here minus the sarcasm was to say that this is not trivial stuff and even having attorneys on staff here at SCORE does not lessen our commitment to having documentation on the models we publish. We would rather not buy content than to have exposure in this area.

How about this for example? You get records from a content provider but that content provider has forged the records. You are now the record keeper and have to bear the responsibility for those forged docs. The first thing the Feds ask for is a copy of our records. The second thing they always ask for is the name, address and phone number of the party who originally shot these photos. By having the records on our premises we stand the best chance of having our exposure minimalized. If they are in fact forged, the issue will likely center on the forger not us. The case law in this area is very gray but previous historical examples have shown that the Feds look to prosecute those who KNOWINGLY shoot and exploited minors, not those who proceeded in a manner where they acted on good faith and possessed the statutory required documents.

I say Let the content provider remain as the record holder and you can lay the blame on him. What do you say about that Mr. lawyer? And please, if you are going to back up what you say please refer me and all of us to some case law that we can all look up ourselves. You are a lawyer, I am sure you know where it is. Try law.com <br>Relying on a third party to have documentation that WILL BE ASKED FOR in the event the Feds ever get interested in any of the models we publish is not a position i would want to be in. Others may be comfortable in carrying this risk. For me, I am not spending one MINUTE in custody of law enforcement because I decided to let a third party handle documents of this nature. As far as case law, to date there has been only activity in the area of older media, specifically print and movie. There have not been any aggressive moves by the DOJ to more clearly define the term "producer" as it applies to the internet in 2257. The question here is whether you would like to be a test case. We choose not to be and will have our docs in order so that they can bring this issue forward with another company.

Here is something to consider. There are very few laws currently unchallenged that the United States Dept of Justice possesses to criminally prosecute adult companies. Section 2257 and CFR 75 represent one of few methods they have that result in PRISON. First two years and then 2-5 years for repeat offenders specifically. Read the statute, it does not require that you actually have minors but that you do not keep your records in order PERIOD. In fact the statute specifically makes exceptions that say that nothing in these statutes prohibits prosecution for other crimes relating to the lack of complete records. You could in fact be carrying nothing but mature content and still be subject to prosecution under these laws. This is specifically why your statement "Pick out the ones that we have age concerns about and you will provide docs on these" is not applicable and does not address the legal concerns of these two Federal Regs.

Law.com? This is a better choice http://www.lexisnexis.com/

02-10-2003, 09:59 AM
scoreman Confirmed User Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Miami, Florida Posts: 1,491	[QUOTE]Originally posted by SoBeGirl Video The only problem that I see, and it is a big one, with giving out the model rel forms and the photo IDs is that this makes it very very easy for someone to start selling my content without permission. Once they have those docs there is really NOTHING I can do about it. Thats illegal conduct. Plain and simple, forging releases and selling them would allow for a cause of action both on the criminal and civil level. This is a lame excuse IMO. If you are a content seller, piracy of your material will exist with or without these documents. Here you are protecting what in the worst case situation boils down to money whereas the content purchasers are protecting threats to their personal liberty. No amount of money can outweigh incarceration. And, Mr. Scoreman, just because you are a lawyer does not mean you know everything about the law. Isn't it a fact that once you take possession of the model docs, and you claim yourself as "record keeper" for that content you bring upon yourself responsibilities that you may not want. Never said I knew everything. I was merely responding to your flippant remark about "stuff like that and lawyers". My intent here minus the sarcasm was to say that this is not trivial stuff and even having attorneys on staff here at SCORE does not lessen our commitment to having documentation on the models we publish. We would rather not buy content than to have exposure in this area. How about this for example? You get records from a content provider but that content provider has forged the records. You are now the record keeper and have to bear the responsibility for those forged docs. The first thing the Feds ask for is a copy of our records. The second thing they always ask for is the name, address and phone number of the party who originally shot these photos. By having the records on our premises we stand the best chance of having our exposure minimalized. If they are in fact forged, the issue will likely center on the forger not us. The case law in this area is very gray but previous historical examples have shown that the Feds look to prosecute those who KNOWINGLY shoot and exploited minors, not those who proceeded in a manner where they acted on good faith and possessed the statutory required documents. I say Let the content provider remain as the record holder and you can lay the blame on him. What do you say about that Mr. lawyer? And please, if you are going to back up what you say please refer me and all of us to some case law that we can all look up ourselves. You are a lawyer, I am sure you know where it is. Try law.com <br>Relying on a third party to have documentation that WILL BE ASKED FOR in the event the Feds ever get interested in any of the models we publish is not a position i would want to be in. Others may be comfortable in carrying this risk. For me, I am not spending one MINUTE in custody of law enforcement because I decided to let a third party handle documents of this nature. As far as case law, to date there has been only activity in the area of older media, specifically print and movie. There have not been any aggressive moves by the DOJ to more clearly define the term "producer" as it applies to the internet in 2257. The question here is whether you would like to be a test case. We choose not to be and will have our docs in order so that they can bring this issue forward with another company. Here is something to consider. There are very few laws currently unchallenged that the United States Dept of Justice possesses to criminally prosecute adult companies. Section 2257 and CFR 75 represent one of few methods they have that result in PRISON. First two years and then 2-5 years for repeat offenders specifically. Read the statute, it does not require that you actually have minors but that you do not keep your records in order PERIOD. In fact the statute specifically makes exceptions that say that nothing in these statutes prohibits prosecution for other crimes relating to the lack of complete records. You could in fact be carrying nothing but mature content and still be subject to prosecution under these laws. This is specifically why your statement "Pick out the ones that we have age concerns about and you will provide docs on these" is not applicable and does not address the legal concerns of these two Federal Regs. Law.com? This is a better choice http://www.lexisnexis.com/ __________________ Last edited by scoreman; 02-10-2003 at 10:15 AM..