Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronM
Now you are even more incorrect.
"the 2257 debate came about more than 2 years ago...."
That particular round also included what was referred to as a "paperwork reduction act." That made the filing systems MUCH easier and way less bulky than the system you described. Companies may have chosen to do things as you mentioned but according to AVN, most companies were not compliant back then in the first place.
Working for a porn company doesn't mean you know how 2257 really works.
I don't care to discuss the Dodgers either.
|
Hell I know nothing about the Dodgers except they look good in those pants!!!
was hoping you had something cool to say about them
hehe
Yes like I said I may have been wrong but when the 2257, which was already in existence, was reinforced on production companies. This is what they were doing. It may have been designed as a paper reduction ploy but since hardly ANY company was correctly following the 2257 requirements. Here we go....more and more paperwork. I am not trying to debate YOU my friend...the subject was about whether or not Internet sights needed to have 2257s on all the talent even if it is TGP. Since so many companies were not compliant in the first place, wouldnt it make sense just to have these documents correct and compliant so that you don't fall into that pothole?
You don't have to respond if you don't want to...this isn't a debate I am directing at you personally. Especially since we have never met
I don't know everything but I was shown a clause by a production company a looooonnnngggg time ago which basically referred to having a 2257 filed under each assumed name. I saw it written in the law itself...Once again I could be wrong and when I have the time, I will ask that person who showed me this document. They showed it to me because I didn't believe them and basically didn't want to do all that paperwork in the first place